clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

OMD's Pop-culture corner: How do you watch film?

New, comments

The first in a likely failed experiment?

Waxin'
Waxin'
Stuart C. Wilson/Getty Images

In the midst of falling down an hours-long YouTube black hole with a friend in from out of town, we watched a bunch of this series from the YouTuber Every Frame a Painting. Virtually everything that Tony Zhou has done at his YouTube page borders on must-see if you fancy yourself a film buff. The videos aren't impossibly long, but they are surprising in their effectiveness at making a relatively sophisticated point strongly but succinctly. But don't take my word for it.

Both of these videos (and the others--really you should check them out and probably subscribe to the feed) are so deft in their identification and articulation of thoughts and feelings that I'd been unable to adquately put into words, let alone a slick video pulling from multiple films and editing them together, something entirely outside of my wheelhouse.

While everyone can reasonably espouse opinions based on a film's narrative elements (some better than others, but we're inarguably all familiar with how to tell a story on a basic level), being able to analyze one based on its visual and elements--framing, editing, lighting, set design, etc.--is something that many filmgoers seem disinclined to do.

Based on the anti-reviewer comments in the Rumblings comments thread and the general inclination of the Royals Review readership to delve deeper into things in the hopes of gaining a better understanding of such an insignificant thing as baseball, how does the means by which you follow baseball relate to the means by which you experience a film or television show?