How To Analyze Movies – Film Studies 101

i love this human so much

Another great essay from Patrick 👍

What I find to be most disturbing is that many, if not most films that I can truly enjoy and believe that are made well, score around 3.5-4 on Letterbox, and around 7-8 or less on IMDB. That means the general public views most movies to be okay or average movies at best.

It is rare to see a classic film especially rated above 3.8 because it wasn’t meant for today’s viewers. It was made at a time when special effects weren’t created at the rate that everyone apparently with “ADHD” needs. Some movies moved faster but the plot and storytelling was a lot more romantic in a way that is not lost, but far less appreciated.

I enjoy most movies I watch. I’m not too picky and would say most classic movies I’ve seen belong in the 4+ and 8/10+ category. Heck, not even classics.

Letterboxd, while I enjoy the format, has some of the most pretentious, unappreciative, and absurdly high standards for a “good movie” out of anyone because they believe they are a cinephile. Home Alone is rated 3.8, the first Harry Potter is 3.7, the second is 3.6, Gone with the Wind is 3.8, the Wizard of Oz is only a 4.0, and even Ben Hur can only scrape by with a 4.0!

Some of the best shot movies with excellent tecqniques are laughed at and called boring probably because there weren’t enough explosions.

The fact that you can appreciate the filmmaking and artistry done by Chris Columbus is much appreciated.

❤

OH MY GOD AWESOME!

How to analyze movies: If you like it it is a good movie

This is a terrific presentation. Myself, I did not really understand film until I started watching and listening to smart people talking about bad movies. It is fun to take real knowledge of film and use it to analyze less successful efforts, because this makes things very memorable for me. For example, I have learned that a hallmark of budget cinema - at least, in older films - is a lack of camera movement. Now I can't help but notice when a camera is stuck to a tripod. Anyway, I know I will enjoy applying concepts in this nice presentation to both bad and good movies.

Fantastically informative video, thanks

I’m starting to think this gentleman likes the movie “Home Alone”

It would be interesting to take "Home Alone" and change its visual and audio qualities without changing anything else. For example: desaturate everything, or give it a "horror lighting" and exchange sound effects and score with strictly creepy/horror tropes. It IS about a psychopath torturing two idiot criminals after all!

This can of course be done with any movie, assuming you ignore copyright questions and all that...

such a great watch. I have loved watching films and also watching other people's essays and critics about them. Never have I thought all this time though, that I might be able to try analysing movies myself. after watching this I might actually try It out. exciting! thank you very much.

This video is amazing. Really informative, detailed and great cinematography 👍

I loved the video...but I do have a question about Climax. Especially which is common with Romantic stories....a grand gesture....or in Horror movies where the Ghost is finally exorcised away or in Super hero movies where there is the final blow, the final action that determines who won the battle. Is that not considered a part if film making ? or it it more a part of story telling or stories in general hence not taken into consideration here ?

It's hard to find a fulfilling video which surprises more than the thumbnails! This is one such gem❤️👌
Amazing video... Patrick's way of putting things together deserves respect.... Thank you Patrick...🙏

Auteur theory isn't just about attributing the significance of a movie to an old white man, here in this example, it can be 3 different old white men at the same time!

i’m a better analyst than you and i didn’t need some college degree to feel valid

One important factor in dissecting a film is recognizing the ethnicity of the film industry: Ashkenazi Jewish. You'll find many themes and self inserts that'll explain much of the attitudes expressed in films.

I came across something today that I need some other brains on besides my own.

I was watching a little bit of Signs this evening, the scene where Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix are talking to the sheriff after chasing the alien. And Patrick suggests that we ask ourselves what is happening in the film, and why.

During this scene, Shayamalan uses a lot of pans between the characters, instead of having them all in frame as pairs or groups. But I don't know why.

I know why a camera might push in or zoom to remove other characters from a frame and isolate the subject. I know why they would shoot closeups of Clarice to look like she is behind the bars rather than Hannibal. I know why they might use soft focus, or a dolly zoom. But I can't think of why Shayamalan chose these pans.

I might hazard a guess that the first pan from the sheriff to Merrill and back again, is to show him as distant and isolated from civilization and/or authority. But then the scene shifts into a/b coverage of the interview, but on the boys' side, there are multiple instances where the camera is a solo close-up of Merrill, then pans to Graham. But why? It's not isolation, the two of them are at the table presently, and live together in the abstract. It's not an isolation of ideas or power, because they agree on the principles and the principals.

I can't draw a conclusion. What is Shayamalan saying with his pans in that scene?

I was wondering if you happen to have a transcription of this episode that I may use for reference in an academic paper? I will of course credit you and your work in APA citations.

alternatively trying being intelligent (not your choice) rather than using someones critical thought structure

I'm going to be the insufferable, pretentious person at a party who tells everyone what video games are really about (the actual most popular artform in the world since the late 1990s, as the numbers will clearly show). And then, I'll be the insufferable, pretentious person at a party who tells everyone how movies influence video games every goddamn fucking day.

Very bad sorry you are crap😮

I do think there are some class issues. The opening shot of the house would look pretty big to someone living in an apartment. Family values loom large as well. The theme of Trains, Planes, and Automobiles is picked up by depicting how hard it is to buy a plane ticket at the last minute.

I was thrown off by the red color, because there is also a lot of green. Red and green, hmmm, this is really a Christmas movie. Still the lighting is warm, so that’s correct, it’s just that the palette represents Christmas.

If Home Alone is a movie with the aspect of a parent missing their child and doing anything to get home, then Home Alone inspired Inception. This was the main take away I had from this video so far.

I just finished my first quarter in film school, which means I just took the final for my first film class and....yupp this about sums it up lmao

You should do an in-depth video on aspect ratio. Especially considering that vertical aspect ratios are now becoming a thing.

I started doing vertical YT/TikTok shorts by cropping out the sides of the frame and it taught me such a different approach to framing. I never used wide angle lenses so much. I started to get the idea of making these shorts an ongoing story and later release a widescreen version of all the episodes. Since everything is framed in the middle I do two versions of a lot of shots, but when I can make a shot work for both versions it usually turns out to be a lot more interesting than if I just had widescreen framing in mind when initially approaching it.

It almost brought a tear to my eye to think about some of this. Like the use of lenses on the old man or the use of warm colors on the mom while everything around her is cold, when I think about how I felt about this film as a kid and then look at these moments with this in mind the emotional impact hits me harder and it's just so sentimental and endearing.

Alternative Title: Proving Home alone is the Greatest Movie Ever 😊

but the director is a god

Lyndsay Ellis is snooty. Don't like her

A very nice video that is wrong about meaning and authorial intention — and in error because it confuses “meaning” with “effect” or “quality.” Without maintaining that distinction, the idea of asking “Why” doesn’t make sense.

Youre like a Vsauce of film

This is dope! Thanx a lot for creating and sharing this!

saving this so i can watch it later

My dog is smarter than you

this is an all-in-one video.

Brilliant

Yes. Fine. But what about Kevin's motivation? What about the clip of "It's a Wonderful Life" in French? Is John Hughes commenting on Capra, Goddard & Truffaut in one shot? Yes. Yes he is.

The endless amount of meanings of something is equal to zero meaning, because at the end it’s your own egocentric view of the world.

Thank you very much Patrick for this beautiful video... thank you thank you thank you......

Explain.e TENET!)))))

I think a good thing to keepnin mimd that movies, and works of art in general, are affected by the culture they were created in and of their creators. Every aspect of that culture will leave its imprint on it. Even if the creator never consciously made a decision to write something into that art their cultural assumptions and baselines will seep into it.

Movies were made prior to 1970. What about D. W. Griffith's "Broken Blossoms"?

You’re a natural teacher.