An interesting read, but I find myself unconvinced by Ebert's assertion that right vs. left objectively has meaning. I can concur that, for a given filmmaker, or director, or even genre, the...
An interesting read, but I find myself unconvinced by Ebert's assertion that right vs. left objectively has meaning. I can concur that, for a given filmmaker, or director, or even genre, the statistics/data may corroborate the statements. However, I'm as yet unconvinced that this is some intrinsic, hard-wired, universal aspect of human psychology which spans all generations and cultures. Anyway, in fairness, Ebert repeatedly disclaims that he's not talking in absolute terms.
Ebert seems to reproduce an outdated view according to which film worked like a language and therefore had a more or less regular grammar. This view is not prevalent anymore. That's a very...
Ebert seems to reproduce an outdated view according to which film worked like a language and therefore had a more or less regular grammar. This view is not prevalent anymore.
It’s not outdated. Visual grammar is still something that is taught in film schools, and having a basic understanding of it is still important in order to make or analyze films. The rules tend to...
It’s not outdated. Visual grammar is still something that is taught in film schools, and having a basic understanding of it is still important in order to make or analyze films.
The rules tend to be broken with experimental films, but it’s still commonplace in most mainstream films (including most indie movies).
In film school film grammar was not a required subject. It's history, basically. We know it exists. Aesthetics was required. And cinematography of course. Grammar also wasn't present in any of the...
In film school film grammar was not a required subject. It's history, basically. We know it exists. Aesthetics was required. And cinematography of course. Grammar also wasn't present in any of the required texts for film analysis. It also wasn't required for the film analysis grad school research group I was a part of in another institution. And we were very much neo formalists. The only reason I know more about it was because of a senile professor I thought was cool, and even he only used it sporadically.
I have also been to multiple events to present papers and such. The lack of film grammar was never an issue. There are better ways to study film.
You mean in all of your classes you were never told that certain shots had certain meanings? Camera movements or lack of camera movements had emotional connotations to them? It’s not that it’s a...
You mean in all of your classes you were never told that certain shots had certain meanings? Camera movements or lack of camera movements had emotional connotations to them? It’s not that it’s a separate class or anything, I’m suggesting this is taught in numerous classes, especially 101 classes where a large chunk of the students are only taking that class for an elective. It’s used to set a foundation for them.
The same could be said about writing. You don’t have to follow the general guidelines of grammar and sentence structure, in fact certain authors break those rules for dramatic effect. But there’s...
The same could be said about writing. You don’t have to follow the general guidelines of grammar and sentence structure, in fact certain authors break those rules for dramatic effect. But there’s still a baseline of how a paragraph is constructed or how a novel is structured. It’s the same with film, there’s a baseline of how a scene is constructed visually. You learn the rules of grammar in writing in order to learn how ideas are expressed, and, again, it’s the same in film. I know you said that Ebert was going for an old-school form of thought, and therefore you’re gonna say the same about Martin Scorsese. But here’s Martin Scrosese.
In my experience when earlier theorists talk about film language/grammar they usually mean something akin to a universal vocabulary. There are of course recurrent patterns that you can associate...
In my experience when earlier theorists talk about film language/grammar they usually mean something akin to a universal vocabulary. There are of course recurrent patterns that you can associate with certain periods, genres, filmmakers, and even particular films. But I wouldn't that call that a grammar, that's all.
My beloved professor was a notorius alcoholic and showed signs of dementia (or something to that effect). AFAIK Scorsese is a sharp fellow, why would I call him senile?
I didn’t bring up senile or your professor I was talking about you saying Ebert had an outdated view. Either way, it seems like your issue is more with using the word grammar than any of the...
I didn’t bring up senile or your professor I was talking about you saying Ebert had an outdated view.
Either way, it seems like your issue is more with using the word grammar than any of the actual points brought up when people talk about visual grammar.
An interesting read, but I find myself unconvinced by Ebert's assertion that right vs. left objectively has meaning. I can concur that, for a given filmmaker, or director, or even genre, the statistics/data may corroborate the statements. However, I'm as yet unconvinced that this is some intrinsic, hard-wired, universal aspect of human psychology which spans all generations and cultures. Anyway, in fairness, Ebert repeatedly disclaims that he's not talking in absolute terms.
Ebert seems to reproduce an outdated view according to which film worked like a language and therefore had a more or less regular grammar. This view is not prevalent anymore.
That's a very influential text nevertheless.
It’s not outdated. Visual grammar is still something that is taught in film schools, and having a basic understanding of it is still important in order to make or analyze films.
The rules tend to be broken with experimental films, but it’s still commonplace in most mainstream films (including most indie movies).
In film school film grammar was not a required subject. It's history, basically. We know it exists. Aesthetics was required. And cinematography of course. Grammar also wasn't present in any of the required texts for film analysis. It also wasn't required for the film analysis grad school research group I was a part of in another institution. And we were very much neo formalists. The only reason I know more about it was because of a senile professor I thought was cool, and even he only used it sporadically.
I have also been to multiple events to present papers and such. The lack of film grammar was never an issue. There are better ways to study film.
You mean in all of your classes you were never told that certain shots had certain meanings? Camera movements or lack of camera movements had emotional connotations to them? It’s not that it’s a separate class or anything, I’m suggesting this is taught in numerous classes, especially 101 classes where a large chunk of the students are only taking that class for an elective. It’s used to set a foundation for them.
Of course shots have meaning, but they don't obey a regular grammar.
The same could be said about writing. You don’t have to follow the general guidelines of grammar and sentence structure, in fact certain authors break those rules for dramatic effect. But there’s still a baseline of how a paragraph is constructed or how a novel is structured. It’s the same with film, there’s a baseline of how a scene is constructed visually. You learn the rules of grammar in writing in order to learn how ideas are expressed, and, again, it’s the same in film. I know you said that Ebert was going for an old-school form of thought, and therefore you’re gonna say the same about Martin Scorsese. But here’s Martin Scrosese.
In my experience when earlier theorists talk about film language/grammar they usually mean something akin to a universal vocabulary. There are of course recurrent patterns that you can associate with certain periods, genres, filmmakers, and even particular films. But I wouldn't that call that a grammar, that's all.
My beloved professor was a notorius alcoholic and showed signs of dementia (or something to that effect). AFAIK Scorsese is a sharp fellow, why would I call him senile?
I didn’t bring up senile or your professor I was talking about you saying Ebert had an outdated view.
Either way, it seems like your issue is more with using the word grammar than any of the actual points brought up when people talk about visual grammar.
Okay, my bad. In any case, there's no use for me in discrediting either Ebert or Scorsese. I admire both very much.