I have a rule for the movie groups that I lead that they may not read movie reviews prior to seeing a movie. I want them to be able to have a full experience without any preset notions or biases from a reviewer. Do not let yourself be influenced ahead of time either by the critics’ various views of the story line or their interpretations. In 1916, Hugo Münsterberg laid out five processes at work when we view a film perception, attention, memory, imagination, suggestion, and emotion. To openly receive any movie, you must go in with no expectations. Every viewer should judge a film on its own, make their own observations, experience emotions from what they see and hear unaffected by outside forces, and let their own memory, imagination and perception control.
Occasionally a movie critic will discuss the camerawork in a particular scene and even rarer discuss the lighting. That is the extent of their discussing film elements. It is not often that I have seen a reviewer explain how a technique or a film element helped convey the story or the emotion. This difference between most movie critics and the analytical method to which I subscribe was really bought home to me last week. I attended a showing of Dark Places (2015). Following the screening a local movie critic led a discussion. He spent almost the first ten minutes discussing the author and the book and comparing this story to her other books etc. When he finally got around to discussing the movie he pointed out that the main character, Libby, was very removed and kept people away from her. She would not let them get close either emotionally or physically. The critic asked if this disturbed us. I immediately pointed out that although that was the character’s demeanor, the director did not let that happen with the viewer. By the director’s use of close-up head shots we, the viewers, got to see the real emotion in Libby’s face and eyes. We were always up close and not pushed away.
The critic gave me a sharp look. I was not sure if it was one of amazement that I caught this or one of fear that he was not ready to deal with that type of analysis. I believe the latter since although acknowledging my statement, he immediately returned to the story and character development. Every time during the rest of the discussion that I mentioned an element such as the editing or camera work or the music, it was quickly brushed aside with a return to the plot.
I did not think this movie was a top notch film in any manner, but it had some nice artistic touches worthy of examination as one tried to discern the various meanings contained within it.
One misses so much if the sole focus is the story and acting.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.