tv Watching TV shows/movies and learning from them...

[Dety]

One of the many ways I am going to grow as a filmmaker is to read and watch what others create. Now that I realize this, I'm going on a netflix binge.

But I can't just blindly sit down and enjoy the show (which is what I've been guilty of doing all along!) I have to pay attention to character, symbolism, cinematography, etc. Right?!


I just don't have the luxury to repeatedly watch hour long episodes anymore. I want to watch so many new shows, but there's so little time, and I can't just mindlessly blow through them.

I guess my question is, what is it about watching movies, reading books even, that makes you a better filmmaker? Do you have to go into a deep analysis every time you watch a show? I read these articles on Breaking Bad and the "Psychology" of Dexter and it just blows me away. Things tend to fly right over my head and I don't want that to happen anymore. How can you train your eye for these things?

 

[sfoster]

There is no shortcut to watching something multiple times, watching it without sound on, watching with directors commentary, watching and breaking down individual scenes instead of a film as a whole, etc

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I read these articles on Breaking Bad and the "Psychology" of Dexter and it just blows me away. Things tend to fly right over my head and I don't want that to happen anymore.

Filmmaking is an extremely complex business, far too complex for any one person to fully understand, let alone for any one person to actually do. That is why the credit list for commercial features and even TV series is so long! Commercial films and TV series are broken down into a number of craft areas, each of which have a department head who professionally specialises in that area and who advise the director on both technical and artistic matters. The director does not need to fully understand all these areas, s/he just needs to develop an overview of how these different crafts can be employed together to best tell the story.

There is no shortcut to watching something multiple times, watching it without sound on ...

For the reason I've given above, I tend to disagree with the advice of watching without sound. Even with cinematography, the shots are planned with a view which includes how the shot will ultimately work with music and sound, and this is even more true of the picture editing. Studying these craft areas individually, in isolation, is much easier but will tend to make one approach filmmaking as a collection of individual film crafts rather than as a combined whole. This is arguably the greatest mistake made by so many serious amateur filmmakers and even by many aspiring professionals with relatively serious budgets. The end result is usually a film which general audiences find boring because the different crafts don't work together to involve the audience in the story and often the crafts end up actually fighting against one another. This is one of the most major differences between all the good and great films/directors and the masses of other films/programs which never quite engage the masses.

How can you train your eye for these things?

IMHO, just asking your question in that way means that ultimately a large part of the art of filmmaking will "fly right over your head" because as I mentioned, the type and duration of a shot/edit is not just about what you see and therefore "training your eye" is only half the story! Also, if you want to hear what the film/TV program makers really intended, rather than a stereo downmix created by your computer/TV, you'll need to get yourself a 5.1 sound system.

G

 

[Dety]

Thanks for the advice.

IMHO, just asking your question in that way means that ultimately a large part of the art of filmmaking will "fly right over your head" because as I mentioned, the type and duration of a shot/edit is not just about what you see and therefore "training your eye" is only half the story! Also, if you want to hear what the film/TV program makers really intended, rather than a stereo downmix created by your computer/TV, you'll need to get yourself a 5.1 sound system.

G

Ok I sort of get what you mean.

I just meant that a filmmaker needs to be able to notice certain things. It's not that I thought "seeing" was the only aspect of film. Just a "know your craft" kind of thing. Just like how a writer trains himself to recognize literary techniques in writing.

I guess I really meant that I want to improve my film analysis haha

 

[Metrostar]

What is it about watching movies, reading books even, that makes you a better filmmaker?

No matter how much tv and movies you watch, and how many books you read, you will only make good films if you have a crew that knows what they are doing, or a crew that will listen to what you ask them to do. Assuming YOU know what you are doing.

You can watch a million TV shows and see how they do it, but it wont count for anything, if you can't get a crew who will replicate what you want.

 

[Jack Lynt]

It's been quite a while. So I can't guarantee it. I saw most of it, I think, when PBS broadcast it some years ago. At least, I think it's the one. Maybe it was actually a different film. If it was, damn, I wish I knew what it was. (Hmmm, it might have been American Cinema - 100 Years of Filmmaking. But I see it now costs a fortune to own.)

Otherwise, it's been on my wish list, A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies, that is.

I'm not suggesting you go off and buy it sight unseen. But if you can rent it, or find it somewhere, I highly recommend it. Though I don't know if he really goes into critiquing the films he discusses in this (if it wasn't what I saw back then). Whatever film I previously saw on PBS, I can say that nothing I've seen/heard so far beats listening to Martin Scorsese critiquing films. Wonderful.

My point is, I'm sure we all can learn from Mr. Scorsese's passion for, intelligent critiquing of, and love for the movies. What I remember seeing in the film PBS aired, he was commenting on framing, composition, and content/dramatic choices for specific films. Really good stuff.

Anyway. Someone has the intro of the one film up on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0yuKp55cuw

I don't really see the harm in watching a film with the sound turned down. On the other hand, I like APE's notion of watching a film as a "whole." When it comes to sound, or at least music, I've always thought of that scene in Return of the Jedi. Remember the sequence when Darth Vader and the Emperor are trying to turn Luke to the dark side?

Spoiler

There's that bit when Luke is hiding and Vader is needling him in the darkness. He reads his thoughts (or feelings) for Leia and puts two and two together, realizing that she is Luke's sister, his daughter. He threatens to go after her, if Luke does not comply. Luke charges Vader in a protective rage.

Listen to the crescendo of the score there. Strong stuff. That wouldn't be anywhere near as dramatic without that amazing score. The point being, like I think APE was getting at, it's all of the elements working together. =)

 

[HaloUnionProductions]

I definitely watch shows and movies as sort of a filmmaker training. It really gets my creative buzz going. That saying, there are a ton of great ways to grow as a filmmaker (reading how-to books, studying film movements of the past, etc.) and I have to be careful i'm doing a little bit of everything as opposed to just staring at my television all of the time.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I just meant that a filmmaker needs to be able to notice certain things.

Yes and no! "No" from the point of view of watching a scene and not noticing/analysing the film itself but analysing your response to it; which parts of the frame during a scene did you find yourself concentrating on, what were you feeling during parts of the scene, did you feel involved/engaged or didn't you really feel anything, did you feel like you were waiting for something interesting to happen and if so, did this make you want to see what was going to happen or did it just bore you, etc.? Once you've analysed your responses, then "Yes", you need to sit down and think from a filmmaking point of view what the director did to make you feel/respond how you did and therefore what you can use in your own filmmaking and what you should avoid. In addition to just individual scenes, you also need to analyse your response to how the scenes combine to create an overall experience. For example, a slow, relatively uninteresting scene might be either boring and therefore the kiss of death as far as an audience is concerned or it might be a perfectly timed respite, depending entirely on the scenes which precede and follow it.

It's not that I thought "seeing" was the only aspect of film. Just a "know your craft" kind of thing. Just like how a writer trains himself to recognize literary techniques in writing.

That depends on exactly which of the crafts you're talking about. If you're talking about the director role, then the craft is in creating an overall vision of how the crafts combine to tell a story and then effectively communicating that to the department heads. In the case of say the role of cinematographer, the craft requires a much deeper technical and artistic understanding of the equipment/environment and the ability to apply that understanding to interpret the director's vision and turn it into a reality. The very best cinematographers are not only able to do this exceedingly well but also have the ability to create footage which plays well in post-production with the other crafts. This is also broadly true of all the other film crafts.

The old adage "Jack of all trades, master of none" certainly applies to filmmaking but in practice is not entirely true of the vast majority of amateur filmmakers. While lack of funds and resources dictates that amateur filmmakers usually need to become a "jack of all trades" what tends to happen in practice is that they focus on those crafts which interest them most at the expense of the other crafts which don't. In other words, they often eventually become very good/knowledgeable (near masters) of some of the crafts but don't reach the level of "jack of a trade" of some of the other crafts. The result, predictably, are films which may be laudable in some respects but always feel uninvolving and boring and/or "amateur" to general audiences. Frequently, the solution in the eyes of these amateur filmmakers, is to improve their skills/equipment even further in those areas where they are most aware of the weaknesses IE., those areas of which they already have the most appreciation and knowledge. This of course isn't a solution, it's a vicious circle which makes the underlying problem of balance of skill/ability across ALL the crafts worse.

All this makes the jump from amateur filmmaker to professional filmmaker a particularly difficult one because in commercial filmmaking no one needs a "jack of all trades (crafts)" or even a "near master at some", what the industry requires is a group of individuals, each of whom are "full masters" in one particular craft. That's why I suggest you start by gaining an overview, of how the crafts combine to make an involving and therefore good film/TV series as that knowledge will greatly benefit both your amateur filmmaking and will still be fundamentally invaluable to whichever craft you maybe tempted to specialise in at a later date.

G

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

I agree with not turning off audio when studying a film. You are missing half the craft of making a film that way. The sound design is as important as the look of the film.


You should pay attention to conventions used for genres of film. That goes for the film titling, costumes, set designs, sound effects, foley, music, and cgi style.

Here again, the title design is important and it has already been pointed out Indie filmmakers have the worst opening animated titles in all of film. So, this is an area that needs improvement.

Just as some people here fast forward pass opening titles, stunt people fast forward pass the acting parts of movies just to watch action scenes only in films. So, let's grow up and watch the whole film. Every part has a purpose.

The guys here who shut out parts of a film remind me of guys I've worked with who pulled out ground wires from machines because they don't understand their purpose in a machine. Then, the machines developed weird intermittent electrical problems. When I went in after them and replaced the missing ground wires, the intermit problems went away.

Details do matter.

 

[Alcove Audio]

As with all creative endeavors - and many others as well - the approach to observation/education is as unique as the individual.

I find it enlightening to watching films without sound (as well as listening without picture). For me this is a case of taking apart the puzzle and putting it back together again - how the individual components combine to make a comprehensive whole. When watching without sound, putting aside that the dialog is missing, I find myself much more aware of the sounds that I "see," meaning I am more cognizant of which visual cues are more prominent and require the Foley or sound effect to be more prominent in the mix. From a practical perspective all I do is watch when I'm doing Foley work.


IMHO if you want to "study" a film you should find one with extensive BTS extras where the crafters discuss their craft. You should also pick films that are highly regarded for their ____________ (pick a craft), and perhaps study one craftsperson in particular.

I am a particular fan of Sound Designer/Re-Recording Mixer Randy Thom, although his gracious inclination to freely share his wisdom and experience with aspiring soundies (and me personally when I was starting out) may have a lot to do with it. So I study films he has worked on, but there are very many interviews, articles, BTS extras, etc. where he talks about how he works, interacting with directors and editors, and the myriad other aspects of doing sound-for-picture. So it is not just a case of watching a film and trying to figure out how it was done, I already have insights into how Mr. Thom approaches his craft.

 

[MiniJamesW]

Otherwise, it's been on my wish list, A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies, that is.

That is a wonderful recommendation! I loved the documentary from beginning to end. It's a great mix of Scorsese's personal connection to the films, historical analysis, and formalist analysis of the films. Yet it's very accessible too (and not in the bad way).

Although this comes from a more academic film criticism background, I think that watching David Bordwell's video essays can give one a lot of insight on cinematic staging, composition, and just the formal construction of film's throughout history. They are pretty long and for people who aren't into film analysis it may feel boring but I was surprised to see how much I could apply as a filmmaker from these videos.
His videos can be found here: http://vimeo.com/user14337401

I always recommend that people watch films from different countries, and old films. I always think it's better to have a broad perspective on cinema before choosing a focus. Besides, at least for me, I just love cinema so I love watching all kinds of films from different places, genres, filmmaking modes, etc.!

Watching tons of films, TV shows, and reading may not immediately make you a better filmmaker but it certainly makes you one that is more culturally aware and better informed of different ways you can make a good film. Exploring music, theater, photography, and art can also be very helpful. I think it is important to know about the arts in order use the medium masterfully or to use the medium to comment on the medium, and I think this is what separates cinematic masters from competent craftsmen.

I think that most of the best filmmakers are either cinephiles or people that deeply admire other art forms (or both).

I'd say that you can watch films with the sound off or listen to the film without the picture, it can be helpful as long as you are aware that the combination of sound and images is what makes the greatest impact.

Still at the end of the day you have to apply everything you have learned and get a good crew that can bring your vision to life in order to succeed. You should also know more or less what kind of films you want to make (which will inform which films you will study). If you want to make genre films you should mostly study genre films but also try to study some art films to give your vision a unique twist on the genre. Learn as much as you can, I would start with broad subjects in cinema and then move on to more specific things you are interested in applying.

I would argue that studying the formal construction of a film is also valuable (not just studying the response) because then you can apply different formal elements to make something completely different. Look at the way the French New Wave (especially Godard) took elements from Hollywood, French cinema, and art films to make something new. Then look at the way someone like Wong Kar-Wai takes Godard's experimental approach and Scorsese's approach to using music to make a completely new elegiac romantic vision that is unique. Remember, Orson Welles said that before making Citizen Kane he watched John Ford's Stagecoach 40 times. Learn from the previous masters but never try to merely imitate them, make something new with what you have learned.

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

I think we should also look at real life as an additional learning tool for making a film. In creating the foley around ADR for my last film, I made audio recordings in the woods of a park in addition to what was on the video just to study sounds in the woods. So, after the new dialogue replaced the old, I had a guide to work with as I selected royalty free sound effects I have to match the wind, breeze blowing through trees, the sounds of birds, owls, and other creatures that came as close as possible to the topography of woods in the film.

I think I did a half way decent job with the foley as a result.

 

[Alcove Audio]

I think we should also look at real life as an additional learning tool for making a film. In creating the foley around ADR for my last film, I made audio recordings in the woods of a park in addition to what was on the video just to study sounds in the woods. So, after the new dialogue replaced the old, I had a guide to work with as I selected royalty free sound effects I have to match the wind, breeze blowing through trees, the sounds of birds, owls, and other creatures that came as close as possible to the topography of woods in the film.

I think I did a half way decent job with the foley as a result.

That's not Foley; Foley are sounds associated with the human body - footsteps, clothing, kissing, slaps/punches, prop Foley (i.e. glasses/tableware), etc. "Birds, owls, and other creatures," vehicles & crashes, weapons & explosions, doors, etc. are sound effects.

And, once again, it's Foley with a capital "F" as it refers to a persons name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Foley_(sound_effects)

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

Thank you, Alcove Audio for the correction.

Getting back to my point, studying real life helps to make a film more believable. It's like an artist has to take life study drawing classes to get the basics of life down and how it looks with light sources, weight, and form.

To recreate sounds to make a believable sound design, studying real life is helpful to know the right sounds.

 

[MissingProductions]

My teacher once told me to watch every movie that has won best editing, cinematography, & picture, and pay attention to the different techniques that are used with camera movement, lighting, stage direction, pacing, etc.

It helps to see and dissect what exactly helped the film win the awards and receive the praise it was given. You may not catch everything at once, but I usually watch a new movie at night before I sleep, or if I decide to pull an all nighter I'll watch two or three.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

... studying real life helps to make a film more believable. It's like an artist has to take life study drawing classes to get the basics of life down and how it looks with light sources, weight, and form. ... To recreate sounds to make a believable sound design, studying real life is helpful to know the right sounds.

While I agree that studying real life, for example spending some time in different environments concentrating on what you're hearing, is a valuable exercise, it comes with a very significant caveat! Using your analogy of fine art painters, sound design is more closely related to the works of say Van Gogh than those of Gustave Courbet. In other words, sound design is more about using the essence (or impression) of reality to manipulate the audience's response than it is about re-creating an actual reality. Just re-creating something is not really "Design" (in the artistic meaning of the term)! At the same time, sound design has to be believable, so the study of real environments provides an essential baseline. In effect, the area between the boundaries of reality and believability is where sound design exists. I cover this in more detail (with a practical example) in The Principles of Sound Design thread, which would probably be worth the OP's time to read.

G

 

[IndiePaul]

I have watched some movies over a dozen times now - trying to gleam as much I can from them for my own filming. Ditto some of my favorite TV shows.

 

[Alcove Audio]

trying to gleam as much I can

I think you mean glean.

glean
verb
1. to gather slowly and laboriously, bit by bit.
2. to gather (grain or the like) after the reapers or regular gatherers.
3. to learn, discover, or find out, usually little by little or slowly.

gleam
noun
1. a flash or beam of light: the gleam of a lantern in the dark.
2. a dim or subdued light.
3. a brief or slight manifestation or occurrence; trace: a gleam of hope.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

For the reason I've given above, I tend to disagree with the advice of watching without sound. Even with cinematography, the shots are planned with a view which includes how the shot will ultimately work with music and sound, and this is even more true of the picture editing. Studying these craft areas individually, in isolation, is much easier but will tend to make one approach filmmaking as a collection of individual film crafts rather than as a combined whole. This is arguably the greatest mistake made by so many serious amateur filmmakers and even by many aspiring professionals with relatively serious budgets. The end result is usually a film which general audiences find boring because the different crafts don't work together to involve the audience in the story and often the crafts end up actually fighting against one another. This is one of the most major differences between all the good and great films/directors and the masses of other films/programs which never quite engage the masses.

I tend to disagree with this answer. Watching a film, then separating the individual elements can help. By only listening or watching you can spot techniques used in each field, either sound or visuals. By doing so, you can then watch the film again with both the audio and the visuals and recognize the components that either sold the illusion with fluidity and cohesion or broke it with lack of unity and sense. The illusion of the film can be broken down and the techniques that are learned by the watcher can be applied to their work. It allows the mind to process each of the scenes, not having to focus on audio or visuals (depending on how you're watching it), instead focusing on one. I once attended a workshop learning about symbolism within film. I believe the films that were watched were Sixth Sense and The Thin Red Line. By turning the sound off, then turning the visuals off, subtle details within the films were revealed, and to be honest, it helped me recognize how to implement small visual details, and it also helped me recognize the significance and importance of audio, something I otherwise would have not had cared as much about. So if you're saying that experiencing a film in other ways aside from the full experience isn't helpful, than I disagree. Sure, there are other ways to recognize the power of audio and symbolism, etc. etc. etc., but each person has a different way of learning.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

So if you're saying that experiencing a film in other ways aside from the full experience isn't helpful, than I disagree.

No, I'm not saying it can never be helpful. There are certain occasions when watching without sound or listening without picture can be helpful. However, IMHO there are many more occasions when listening or watching in isolation not only isn't helpful, it's actually detrimental!

By only listening or watching you can spot techniques used in each field ...
The illusion of the film can be broken down and the techniques that are learned by the watcher can be applied to their work.

Unfortunately, there's some rather large holes in your logic!

1. You assume someone is capable of spotting the techniques. I've been doing audio post for more than 20 years and a lot of the time I don't know what techniques have been used, most of the time I'm just making educated guesses. If with my experience I often don't know exactly what has been done, what is someone with little or no audio knowledge and experience going to spot?
2. Even assuming someone has the knowledge and experience to analyse the techniques, what is it you're actually analysing? Almost certainly you are not analysing the audio mix which was actually created by the Director/Sound Designer/Re-Recording Mixers!
3. Even assuming you have the ability to analyse a sound mix and are in fact actually analysing the original film mix, what then? How are you going to apply those techniques to your own work without the necessary equipment?

Most amateur filmmakers don't have much creative interest in sound, so they tend to gloss over sound design and have very little or no idea what sound design even is, let alone how to apply sound design to their own work. Even those who do appreciate the importance of audio/sound design are hamstrung by at least item 3 above, if not by 1 and 2 as well. So, what's the solution? IMHO, it's not to dive straight into the individual crafts but to first gain an understanding of film itself, of the principles which underpin the crafts which allows them to combine to create something more than the sum of its parts. Let's take the example of listening to a film without the picture:

Providing one has the ability to listen carefully, listening to the sound alone will reveal frequent surprises/inconsistencies, and therein lies the clue. One would logically be tempted to question/analyse these surprises/inconsistencies, to understand their purpose/symbolism and maybe apply them to one's own filmmaking but, this is the wrong question to ask! Instead, the question needs to be turned on it's head: If these audio surprises only reveal themselves without the picture, what is it about listening with the picture which causes them not to be revealed? In other words, how is your perception of what you are hearing being affected by what you are seeing? Combined with it's inverse twin (how is your perception of what you are seeing being affected by what you are hearing?) we are now asking the right questions, questions which go to the very heart of not only sound design but of cinematography, picture editing, the role of the director and the art of filmmaking itself.

G