My partner, who had not seen very many movies before she met me and had never thought critically about them, taught me something I hadnโt consciously considered much about in this context: there is a vocabulary and an entire language of film, and that if you donโt speak that language and have a reference to that entire vocabulary, then when you watch a film you have no real idea whatโs going on or why.
When I was in China and watching Chinese movies, I underwent a similar experience myself as the cinematic wellsprings there are so different. Even when the film was subtitled, I often had little idea what was occurring or why. The vocabulary and founding mythologies and cultural assumptions were just that different.
Casey Johnstonโs shallow, facile and completely off-base interpretation of Ex Machina that I wrote about below was what got me pondering this, but sheโs pretty typical of the average viewer so I donโt mean to pick on her in particular โ if you only glance at the surface of a movie (particularly a movie like Ex Machina, but true of all film) you will see very little indeed and often be completely wrong about what you think you have seen.
When my partner and I began watching movies together, I was often completely flummoxed by the questions she asked. Not annoyed, but just wondering if she was even looking at the film.
It gradually occurred to me that literally having seen 1/1000 of the movies Iโd viewed, she had just no language of film in her head. She could barely watch the surface of movies, much less take anything deeper from them. Often sheโd have no idea of why even the simplest character actions were occurring because a narrative actually involves so many shortcuts, elisions and obfuscations that it was only after watching films with her was I able to see fully the assumptions I was carrying in to the work myself.
It wasnโt until then, ever after my experience in China where I quickly caught on, that I truly grasped that I had an entire lifetime of filmic language and accrued knowledge in my head that she completely lacked.
Now when we watch films, my partner doesnโt ask as many questions (and not because Iโve asked her to stop, or want her to). She has most of the correct lingo โ and can speak the cant โ now in her brain since weโve probably watched 200+ movies together.
These days, I need to add very little to most films; mostly just pointing out the odd reference or sly wink to an older film, or explaining some convention or idea that is little-used these days but was formerly common.
Iโm actually a better and deeper film viewer and critic thanks to her โ watching films through her intelligence but inexperience allowed me to interrogate many of my presuppositions and ideas and view films in a much deeper and more nuanced way.
I go out of my way to watch series and movies that aren’t American (or anglophone) and often find myself wondering what just happened and why… (that’s probably one of the reasons I enjoy them).
I also like trying to figure out how much is cultural differences in how people are supposed to behave vshow stories are told vs cultural references vs cultural differences in the specifics of the language of film.
I’m reminded that one movie I’d love to watch (I’d probably hate watching it) is Le Camion
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075799/
It violates the conventions of movie story telling in a subversive way. The director once spoke of her intent to murder cinema. I remember reading Pauline Kael’s review where she wrote it was maybe the only time she saw a movie audience that was driven to fury for completely aesthetic reasons.
I’ve not seen Le Camion. Looks interesting.
I need to find more non-American works to watch. It’s harder to do that when reading more complicated books as I’m tending to do lately. My brain has only so much processing power.