I often hear that this director or that film was genius/groundbreaking/important and upon watching it fail to understand what I was supposed to be looking for. To those of you who are better versed in this sort of thing than I am, how did you come to know what you know?
For example, I had a friend a few weeks back tell me that a particular scene in the movie we were watching was the first time a cinematography technique (whose name, along with the movie in question, I've now forgotten) was used. Knowing the history of it might simply be an exercise in good trivia retention, but understanding the technique and even knowing its name would seem to be something very different. How do you learn that?
I think by just watching some good cinematography and paying close attention to details. Eventually you start seeing patterns and certain techniques used everywhere, then you start noticing movies intentionally trying to be meta and subverting those patterns and techniques, and that’s where the big eye openers start.
A bit less visual, but that’s how it happened to me with music. There was even some guy on reddit who decided to go through the entire history of hip hop and listen to every single influential album chronologically [1]. From what i remember him describing, it was a completely different experience listening to newer hip hop after going through all the earlier works, as a lot of it was built through the same techniques of self-referencing and trying to be meta.
I like reading history, so I sometimes know such details.
I love Lucy was the Star Wars of its era in terms of revolutionizing the industry technologically. It's why you see it so much in reruns: It's the very first show filmed with archival quality materials such that you can watch it over and over.
Before that, two TV shows a day were broadcast live, one for the East Coast and another three hours later for the West Coast. The two time zones in between got a low quality recording.
Lucille Ball was an actress. Her husband, Desi Arnez, was a musician. She was past 40, wanted to have children and their careers were making that impossible.
TV schedules were so grueling, it was less work to revolutionize the industry. Desi had a home office and worked evenings and weekends a lot, but it allowed them to have kids, have dinner with the kids, tuck them in bed, etc.
I love Lucy invented a lot of modern staples of TV, including filming with three cameras and the rerun. They began playing reruns to accommodate Lucy's pregnancy. As an older woman with a first-time pregnancy, she couldn't keep the schedule they set.
It turned out to be a huge benefit to the show because the show was gaining in popularity and it allowed latecomers to see the earlier episodes. It was so successful, it rapidly became a TV staple to just broadcast reruns in the off season, etc.
The show seems campy and the black and white film is boring to most people today, but it was as exciting at the time as the special effects of Star Wars. It was groundbreaking technically and in many other ways.
Its likely that most people watch a movie with an aim towards tracking the plot, so that the movie makes sense. Still, you get a sense for the director or cinematographer's talent/style by watching a film even more broadly. It takes a few examples and then you are sensitized to the idea.
Consider the opening shot from Boogie Nights (1997) which is available here [0]. If you watched it and came back here, would you have noticed that it was done all in one take (without a single cut, until the one right before the end of the video) aka the 'long take' technique. Apart from the fact that it was a crane and a steadicam being used, think of the immense work required to coordinate all the actors and crew so that a minimum of takes were required to achieve this desired outcome. (And, that director Paul Thomas Anderson was about 27 when it was shot.) This is the stylism of the director shining through.
One blog's assessment of the best movies openings is in [1] and might offer some insight as well...
Like any field it takes study. If it's something you care about and is important (because you want to break into the field), you're probably more likely to remember and apply yourself than if it's just a passing interest and something you wish you knew.
Acknowledging that all the elements in a scene aren't accidental and are deliberate is the first step - timing, lighting, framing... People did this. People who have dedicated a whole career to their fields considered all the elements (theme, setting, mood, plot etc) and drew on their experience in applicable techniques (or innovated upon these) to decide where to put the camera, how to move it, how to focus it, what kind of lights to use, makeup, costume, props, words, sound effects, music etc. Things you wouldn't think of in post production like using 10 rapid-fire high-exposure photos in a transition instead of just cutting or fading to the next scene, colour grading, etc.
These days there's a huge amount of techniques and the understanding of how these influence viewers' perceptions of a piece constantly improves. Long gone are the days of straight landscapes for exposition and close-up shots for dialogue.
Really if you want to get into the field, you'll have to fully immerse yourself in it, join forums, ask questions, watch movies with a critical eye, etc. Join local film clubs, take a course, etc.
I think the trick is to watch a film you like that is also critically acclaimed. The elements of a film that don't need any education to be followed are screenplay, dialogues and music. Films like "The Godfather" or "Schindler's List" can be appreciated without much knowledge in film, but learning the technical know-how behind some of the shots can double the level of appreciation.
These are usually elements of cinematography like lighting, composition etc or element of direction (framing a shot, blocking the actors etc). Video essays such as "Every Frame a Painting" usually have comparisons where they pick up the same plot device from two different films, one shot normally and the other using the innovation, and delineate the difference between the two.
I think part of the issue is that we don't necessarily consume media in the same chronological order as it was created.
ie, if you've seen a hundred movies that utilize a specific technique it seems far less consequential when you see film in which that technique was used for the first time.
Yep, this. I was 12 when the original Star Wars came out. The opening sequence blew my mind straight out the to the sidewalk (people invariably watched movies in theaters back then). But nowadays it doesn't look like anything particularly special.
Beyond YouTube, you might start with something like "A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies".
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112120/
There is a lot that goes into a film. Cinematography which includes lighting which is itself a huge subject. Screen writing, acting and directing actors, music, vfx. Everything in post production which is huge. Color alone is a big subject.
Since you're asking about cinematography specifically, this is a great start to understand some techniques and where they originated:
"Cinematography: Theory and Practice: Image Making for Cinematographers and Directors" by Blain Brown.
I'm a newbie exec producer on a film which just completed production, entering a few festivals. Also did the color for the same film. And about to start shooting shorts for fun. Aspiring DP.
I think the answer is "passion". People remember such details in a specific field because they have a passion for it. The same person remembering techniques used in movie making probably know very little metallurgy.
Most people find some topics that just resonate with them and things just "stick" better. It's hard to force it and if you lack that "perfect fit" (or an incredible memory) those details will still be lost once you put the book down. You'll still have the broad strokes which is still very interesting knowledge to have in a conversation.
Near the very end of a decidedly lame duck film Babylon A.D. there is an incredibly beautiful and serene scene. The camera pans through ruins in the middle of still creeping wilderness, and stops in an open room where a deer is drinking water from a pool.
The scene feels so out of place, it's like from another movie.
It is. The sequence is a carefully done adaptation of the deer scene in Tarkovsky's S.T.A.L.K.E.R - itself an absolute masterpiece of slow, visual storytelling.
The guy has impressive storytelling, video editing and narration skills; so he can make you believe in things that are not there. But I usually do see what he is showing and it all seems to be very reasonable (and interesting).
He discuss other subjects, not only movies, but all cool stuff
Besides the great references others have made here, I'll add that you need to have a certain mindset when watching movies that you -choose- to analyze for deeper meaning. Often I'll get there on a 2nd / 3rd watch. More often I'll need a little help from online research. The Leftovers (HBO 3-season series) is a great example. I watched it twice, then sat down and just wrote about it. To myself. Things came out that I didn't expect, then I researched what others were saying online. That introduced new wormhole to explore.
I worked on a student film set for a few weeks, as a favor to a friend. For months afterword I couldn’t stop seeing the decomposition into shots, recognizing dollies, jibs, etc. Just standing on set watching the sequence of events, connecting the image to what the camera is doing (very often moving on some apparatus), seeing the repetition of shots for correctness and multiple camera angles, the laborious dragging around of lights on C stands, etc. provided a great introductory education to film.
Like many things, it's a product of reviewing a lot of materiel and researching what other folks write on a subject.
In some senses, it's all trivia if you're not making movies, but it can be fun.
There are plenty of textbooks out on the subject, and about any college textbook can give you an overview of the technical stuff and the general history.
Personally, I've read a lot about film criticism and made some movies. Both taught me a lot. I was writing a book for a PhD in literature that focused heavily on film as literature, and took a bunch of graduate classes discussing it. I also made a lot of short films and worked on other peoples' films as well.
Both of those paths can teach you a whole lot about film, depending on what you're interested in.
But that's no different than any other thing that people might know about. I know a lot about web-oriented programming tools, because I have to do it every day. It's just the product of reading a lot of books and daily practical application.
Film just has fewer obvious daily practical applications.
It wont apply to everyone. For people who enjoy most movies that come out, for example the superhero series and wizards and warrior series, this wont apply because your taste is easy to meet (the majority of consumers).
However, if you arent satisfied by these films but want something that provides more in terms of story, originality, verisimilitude, revelation, or some other of a lot of possibilities, youll look out at the hige catalog of films that have been produced and find only dozens that are really something you enjoy. Theyre hard to make, and so theres only a few directors who have made them. When you watch eyes wide shut, you know you cant get ot elsewhere.
Its nerd stuff. Most consumers are just happy something shiny happens on the screen, people kiss, stuff blows up, emotions, subverted expectations, crap like that.
It takes nerds to actually look deeper than lens flares and see all the stupid behind it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SHhySoXDcA
For example, I had a friend a few weeks back tell me that a particular scene in the movie we were watching was the first time a cinematography technique (whose name, along with the movie in question, I've now forgotten) was used. Knowing the history of it might simply be an exercise in good trivia retention, but understanding the technique and even knowing its name would seem to be something very different. How do you learn that?