An additional interpretation of that shot from Shawshank: We start with a fairly close-in, constrained view of Andy then, as the camera lifts, we have a sense of his world expanding as more of his surroundings slowly come into view. In addition to the transcendent feel, it feels like he's reconnecting with the larger world.
@@gabrielidusogie9189 Not my line of work but in that case I suggest taking baby steps into analyzing different shots. Like he said, notice the obvious, then consider the context of the narrative we've been given and ultimately applying a deeper meaning with the shots. It may help to look at different critics who focus on looking at camera shots and their inputs.
The movement of the camera is what is important in the Mulholland Drive cafe scene. Lynch wanted a constantly floating camera to give a sense of unease and make the audience feel unanchored so that the border between the 'reality' of the shot and the dream that is being explained becomes blurred. It's subtle but it's there. He discusses it in a behind the scenes video.
Yes, this scene dripped with suspense and wasn't standard at all. The framing even changes subtly with the character at one point in the center of frame with lots of space behind him which is not the standard framing of having the leading space in front of the character.
The static, precise and symmetric nature you mentioned about 2001 are present throughout Kubrick's major works. He gravitated to that way of communication, so the specific meaning you shared is projected. You did, however, hit the nail in the head when you said "It's easy to get carried away with shot analysis and try and apply meaning to absolutely everything when, sometimes, shots are literally composed for practical reasons". In this day and age, when seemingly everyone fancies himself or herself a cinema essayist, analyzing stuff into oblivion, understanding this is of the utmost importance. I'd add to that that the amount of happenstance that informs how good a film ends up being is always disregarded in favor of the celebratory sensationalism of the "vision" of the director, and how deliberately planned and orchestrated everything was.
Agreed - plus another thing I didn’t mention is sometimes, just like photography, shots are composed for aesthetic reasons - they just look pleasing to the eye!
I disagree with the statement that "It's easy to get carried away with shot analysis and try and apply meaning to absolutely everything when, sometimes, shots are literally composed for practical reasons" as shots don't have to be just read as how the director intended. Look at New Criticism or Roland Barthes "death of an Author" which both explore how an authors intentions are irrelevant. Yeah I agree some shots are just shot reverse for the purpose to move the narrative but you can still find meaning in those throwaway shots if you can. also I feel that The Media Insider should of discussed how the 2001 docking scene shows the camera at the dock push out whilst even if the shot is static in the ship the ship still pushes in. This could be interpreted to reveal humanities control of their future as they literally can see it through the shots. Yeah, maybe you think that is a throwaway shot for Kubrick but its still in the film.
This is great! Thank you! I think one of the greatest cinematic scenes in terms of cinematography and camera work to create an atmosphere is the basement scene in Zodiac
I put this video in my "Watch Later" playlist before I happened to buy a new light. I realize this video hits the nail on the head of how I was feeling about it being a "magic bullet". Fantastic video and insight.
I sense an underlying contempt for David Lynch haha! Should have used a marvel movie to show meaningless conversation shots but yeah Lynch is only showing Dialogue in that scene I guess. Though, the use of a steady cam makes it feel a little uneasy and tense I believe.
Kind of lost credibility when using a scene from a lynch film when showing an example of how the camera movement and position doesn't add anything. ironically the camera movement in that over the shoulder scene is one of the most unnatural and impactful in an over the shoulder scene, as the camera movement feels like "floating," and is not just a static shot
hey thanks man .what a great information have u given in the video that explanation from shawshank redemption liliteraally have gone thinking about the shots and angles again thanks for the information u provided.
What do you mean by wobbly freehand ? Do you mean the way the camera is shaking? And why does that confirm this is his point of view ? Thank you for taking the time to answer my question! :))
I mean it is kind of obvious it is his, but let's say for hypothetics, that it wasnt a long shot, & that we just got the wobbly free-hand (if I am right to believe you mean camera shake) right after Clooney looking at her. Is the wobbly freehand some sort of universally-known camera trick used to show the perspective of characters in a film?
@@jeffjeff9251 I don't think the wobbly-free hand is necessarily the universally-known camera trick, but if you try to look at that clip again, Clooney was in the middle of a conversation with another person. I'd view that as, while the woman dominating the camera means she has his full attention at that time, the conversation from the other guy in the background is kind of trying to interfere with that attention she's getting. The camera wobbles to sort of communicate to the audience that Clooney is half-listening and obligated to be in that conversation, while he is obviously focused on the girl.
Have to disagree with the comparison of shots between 2001 and Interstellar: In 2001 mankind is in full control of its technology and extraplanetary endeavors. A perfectly orchestrated, majestic ballet where each motion has become routine through extensive practice. Meanwhile the shots in interstellar are all chaotic, mankind is not in control and at the mercy of space‘s elements. The shots are asymmetrical, light is flickering on the hull of the spaceship and the vessel seems to be falling towards the planet, seemingly not being able to withstand its gravitational pull.
0.49 Close up and extreme close ups are not the same shot. Angle of perspective is also different and highly relevant to the reading of these shots, so it's not really fair to see them as the same. It's these differences that construct the alternate connotations.
Hi! Thanks for watching! That is a separate category called mise en shot - Mise scene is specifically what is filmed. I've just made a video about it you might have seen?
@@TheMediaInsider At least I became mad, coz I am a mad fan of this movie...... Literally got hyped when u used interstellar as a reference...... I was literally waiting while watching this video when would you explain creative cinematography using interstellar as a reference
lol, the lowest degree of cinema analysis! OMG, how about directing as an art, not merely as technical path to psychological influence? Shot analysis NOT explained, completly insufficient, a dot in the wonderful universe that cinema is as an art. This is only communication analysis here, burgh!!!!
You should take the time to make your own vid about this. The host literally said this is a VERY quick video on analysis. But you see really passionate about this medium! you got anything to back up your ideas. Id love to see!
An additional interpretation of that shot from Shawshank: We start with a fairly close-in, constrained view of Andy then, as the camera lifts, we have a sense of his world expanding as more of his surroundings slowly come into view. In addition to the transcendent feel, it feels like he's reconnecting with the larger world.
Ooooo, I like it!!
@@TheMediaInsider when I watch films and I try to analyze a shot, I often feel and get nothing. How do I get better? It’s so frustrating
@@gabrielidusogie9189 Not my line of work but in that case I suggest taking baby steps into analyzing different shots. Like he said, notice the obvious, then consider the context of the narrative we've been given and ultimately applying a deeper meaning with the shots. It may help to look at different critics who focus on looking at camera shots and their inputs.
The movement of the camera is what is important in the Mulholland Drive cafe scene. Lynch wanted a constantly floating camera to give a sense of unease and make the audience feel unanchored so that the border between the 'reality' of the shot and the dream that is being explained becomes blurred. It's subtle but it's there. He discusses it in a behind the scenes video.
Yes, this scene dripped with suspense and wasn't standard at all. The framing even changes subtly with the character at one point in the center of frame with lots of space behind him which is not the standard framing of having the leading space in front of the character.
The static, precise and symmetric nature you mentioned about 2001 are present throughout Kubrick's major works. He gravitated to that way of communication, so the specific meaning you shared is projected. You did, however, hit the nail in the head when you said "It's easy to get carried away with shot analysis and try and apply meaning to absolutely everything when, sometimes, shots are literally composed for practical reasons". In this day and age, when seemingly everyone fancies himself or herself a cinema essayist, analyzing stuff into oblivion, understanding this is of the utmost importance. I'd add to that that the amount of happenstance that informs how good a film ends up being is always disregarded in favor of the celebratory sensationalism of the "vision" of the director, and how deliberately planned and orchestrated everything was.
Agreed - plus another thing I didn’t mention is sometimes, just like photography, shots are composed for aesthetic reasons - they just look pleasing to the eye!
Absolutely.
I disagree with the statement that "It's easy to get carried away with shot analysis and try and apply meaning to absolutely everything when, sometimes, shots are literally composed for practical reasons" as shots don't have to be just read as how the director intended. Look at New Criticism or Roland Barthes "death of an Author" which both explore how an authors intentions are irrelevant. Yeah I agree some shots are just shot reverse for the purpose to move the narrative but you can still find meaning in those throwaway shots if you can.
also I feel that The Media Insider should of discussed how the 2001 docking scene shows the camera at the dock push out whilst even if the shot is static in the ship the ship still pushes in. This could be interpreted to reveal humanities control of their future as they literally can see it through the shots. Yeah, maybe you think that is a throwaway shot for Kubrick but its still in the film.
This is great! Thank you! I think one of the greatest cinematic scenes in terms of cinematography and camera work to create an atmosphere is the basement scene in Zodiac
This was very interesting and very easily explained!
Thank you
This channel is great and deserves a larger audience, well done sir!
I agree! Spread the word!
4:20 Painfully obvious. Boy do I got alot to learn then.
Nice
Sameee
I put this video in my "Watch Later" playlist before I happened to buy a new light. I realize this video hits the nail on the head of how I was feeling about it being a "magic bullet".
Fantastic video and insight.
thank you Gordon Freeman for teaching me film analysis
Hi, your videos are great! just wanted to know if you'll do any videos like this on sound, editing and mise-en-scene?
That's definitely the plan - just got to find the time!
starting 2:28
we actually studied that scene in class and got a lot of meaning from it xD
"interpretation"... yeah...
I sense an underlying contempt for David Lynch haha! Should have used a marvel movie to show meaningless conversation shots but yeah Lynch is only showing Dialogue in that scene I guess. Though, the use of a steady cam makes it feel a little uneasy and tense I believe.
Kind of lost credibility when using a scene from a lynch film when showing an example of how the camera movement and position doesn't add anything. ironically the camera movement in that over the shoulder scene is one of the most unnatural and impactful in an over the shoulder scene, as the camera movement feels like "floating," and is not just a static shot
i hadnt noticed that symmetric framing and its possible meaning in 2001 before . good video
Really interesting channel, thanks for posting. Love the use of “2001” BTW, totally epic film.
It will be very helpful for my scene analysis in my final exam tomorrow..thankyou sir
All the best, hope it went well
The more I learn about film the more I learn that tarkovskys film ideas are not always his own
hey thanks man .what a great information have u given in the video
that explanation from shawshank redemption liliteraally have gone thinking about
the shots and angles again thanks for the information u provided.
Great! I found it like a light switch moment and can't stop analysing stuff now!
Hey can you make a beginner guide cheat sheet for for film critique?
Very in-depth, helpful guide!
who asked
Thank you. Life saving.
Wonderful videos! If I may ask, are you a high school teacher or university teacher?
I have a lot more appriciation for film now
Right on!
Looking for some movie suggestions to learn this art
amazing stuff
Thanks a lot! This was really helpful.
You're welcome!
can u do a video on analysing editing and sound
Will do!
The Media Insider my as is tomorrow lol
And why do we use background music/noise during narration?
Thanks Mr. Good video.
You're welcome, thanks!
What do you mean by wobbly freehand ? Do you mean the way the camera is shaking? And why does that confirm this is his point of view ? Thank you for taking the time to answer my question! :))
I mean it is kind of obvious it is his, but let's say for hypothetics, that it wasnt a long shot, & that we just got the wobbly free-hand (if I am right to believe you mean camera shake) right after Clooney looking at her. Is the wobbly freehand some sort of universally-known camera trick used to show the perspective of characters in a film?
@@jeffjeff9251 I don't think the wobbly-free hand is necessarily the universally-known camera trick, but if you try to look at that clip again, Clooney was in the middle of a conversation with another person.
I'd view that as, while the woman dominating the camera means she has his full attention at that time, the conversation from the other guy in the background is kind of trying to interfere with that attention she's getting. The camera wobbles to sort of communicate to the audience that Clooney is half-listening and obligated to be in that conversation, while he is obviously focused on the girl.
Have to disagree with the comparison of shots between 2001 and Interstellar:
In 2001 mankind is in full control of its technology and extraplanetary endeavors. A perfectly orchestrated, majestic ballet where each motion has become routine through extensive practice. Meanwhile the shots in interstellar are all chaotic, mankind is not in control and at the mercy of space‘s elements. The shots are asymmetrical, light is flickering on the hull of the spaceship and the vessel seems to be falling towards the planet, seemingly not being able to withstand its gravitational pull.
So helpful! Thank you
i bet u failed
THANKS A BUNCH, LOVE IT!
Please can you talk about Dock's sermon in the waterfront
0.49 Close up and extreme close ups are not the same shot. Angle of perspective is also different and highly relevant to the reading of these shots, so it's not really fair to see them as the same. It's these differences that construct the alternate connotations.
Agreed - think I was short of an extreme close up for the intimate example
Hi I’m back and I still feel lost in interpreting cinematography? Care to help?
Interesting!
super video !
Hello! Thank you for the video it was very helpful. I have a question is shot analysis part of mise-en-scene?
Hi! Thanks for watching! That is a separate category called mise en shot - Mise scene is specifically what is filmed. I've just made a video about it you might have seen?
@@TheMediaInsider ight bro
How can I contact with the professor?
Thank you!
No, Ryan - thank YOU!
nah
thank u
ur welcome
I LOVE YOU
haram
5:30?! what movie is that?
That movie is ''12 Years A Slave''.
💘
Drive 😍😍😍
grape
Help
How many people up here became mad when interstellar showed up at 5:10......???
Why?! It's the best film of the 21st century!!!
@@TheMediaInsider At least I became mad, coz I am a mad fan of this movie...... Literally got hyped when u used interstellar as a reference...... I was literally waiting while watching this video when would you explain creative cinematography using interstellar as a reference
do mean streets
Good idea
npcs
What's the meaning of you being ginger and having that sort of beard? Is this meant to mean you're a natural born hipster?
do you know tony worth
Nope
fuck no
That's all so smart. Now go view the stupid, group think-saturated comments on Rings of Power and weep.
Shtyew dents
lol, the lowest degree of cinema analysis! OMG, how about directing as an art, not merely as technical path to psychological influence? Shot analysis NOT explained, completly insufficient, a dot in the wonderful universe that cinema is as an art. This is only communication analysis here, burgh!!!!
You should take the time to make your own vid about this. The host literally said this is a VERY quick video on analysis. But you see really passionate about this medium! you got anything to back up your ideas. Id love to see!
@@averhamilton8823 "medium"? "medium" ??!! You must be twins, you and him. Quick does not have to be WRONG and completely empty.
Okay though you know about camera stuff but your music is annoying.
dont put bg music in ur vids na, difficult to focus on u
The sound levels on my older videos are way off!