Roger Ebert (1942-2013) was an American film critic in the 1960s up until his death in 2013. As part of his career, he wrote “How to Read a Movie,” a piece detailing advice about how to analyze a movie in a similar vein to how film studies look at movies. American film is extremely important in today’s American society, so much so that should someone, often myself, not have seen the “classic” films on a person’s list, the individual will face extreme reactions. Ebert’s work teaches one how to think about movies critically, and that is why, in this world where film is so important, it is worthwhile to look at Ebert’s writing.
Roger Ebert’s “How to Read a Movie”
Roger Ebert outlines important principles to consider when looking at movies, or, in the case of Digital Storytelling, video stories. In this article, he says that he believes that everything on the screen is worth noticing. He tries to notice as much as he can by looking at specific frames of a film and by watching a lot of films in a group or genre in order to learn more about that group or genre.
There are several techniques that Ebert discusses that have a role in making what he calls “dominant contrast,” the piece of a shot that we as the audience are drawn towards. These are not hard-and-fast rules, but rather general trends.
Subject position on screen
If the subject or object are placed left of the center, they are associated with more negative feelings. If they are in the center, they are objectified. If they are placed right of the center, they are associated with more positive feelings. As well, being placed at the top of the screen is more dominant than being placed at the bottom of the screen.
Foreground and background
Whatever is in the foreground is stronger or more dominant than whatever is in the background.
Movement
Movement is more dominant over stillness, and it draws the eye.
Brightness
Figures in brighter light are more dominant than figures in darkness.
One-Point Perspective
This video, along with the others, are not from Roger Ebert, but it does discuss techniques in video storytelling. One-point perspective is similar to the art technique of the same name. Everything in the image’s perspective draws into or converges on one point. This point is normally in the center of the image, but does not have to be. In the video, I noticed how this perspective draws attention to what is in the path of that central point.
It is also used often in horror films, such as The Shining.
From Below
This video shows how positioning a camera can impact how the shot is portrayed. The camera is placed below the subject looking up at them in this video. This positioning of the camera is similar to color in how it can create emotion in the audience. I noticed that this view makes the audience feel small as well as making the subject look powerful as Ebert says in his article.
Editing Techniques
This video shows and names a variety of editing techniques. Each creates a different effect. Jump cuts, flash cuts, time compression, and tempo can make the pacing faster, while slow motion, thaw frame, and freeze frame makes the pacing slower. The rest, wipe transitions and form cut, makes transitions seamless and natural.
Jump Cut
This cutting technique has the film jump between subjects.
Slow Motion
This technique slows everything down.
Wipe Transition
This cutting technique wipes away the previous frame.
Thaw Frame
This technique keeps a frame still for a moment before letting it move. It is the opposite of a freeze frame.
Form Cut
This cutting technique follows a subject and makes cuts to similar subjects.
Flash Cuts
This cutting technique makes quick cuts.
Time Compression
This technique makes a subject move quickly through time. It speeds up time.
Tempo
This technique makes the visual images follow the tempo of the sounds of the video.
Freeze Frame
This technique stops on one specific frame at the end of a video. It is the opposite of thaw frames.
My Thoughts on These Techniques
Ebert’s thoughts are, overall, great for analyzing narratives, especially multimedia narratives like films. However, I think that there can be instances where his advice can lead someone to overanalyze a film.
I think that most of Ebert’s advice about dominant contrasts are great. His thoughts on movement and brightness are perfect. I know that this can be true even in real life; myself as well as other people in my life can get distracted because people or animals are moving around us. I would say his thoughts on foreground are generally true, but it is not always true because camera focus can change which subject gets attention in a shot.
I think his thoughts on subject positioning on a screen, however, is not necessarily true. His reasoning of associating positive or negative feelings to a position is likely due to an unconscious association of left with the devil or sinisterness. This is why many left-handed people, including my parents, were punished for using their dominant hand. However, that association is not necessarily true nowadays which makes this aspect of dominant contrast not necessarily applicable anymore. I know I do not associate left with negative feelings and vice-versa for right.
Many of Roger Ebert’s thoughts on film hold up today. However, his claim that everything on the screen is worth observing is not true. This same issue can be true for literature, a field that I am well-versed in as an English major. There is a place for close reading, as Ebert says, but reading too closely can be a problem, and it can cause the audience to assign meaning to things that don’t need it. For example, reading how a cutting technique can change the pace of a film is a great thing. As well, reading the use of rain in a scene as being used to evoke sadness or melancholy is great. The problem comes about when people are, for example, reading the use of the color blue in the ocean as having a special meaning. That is a real example that I have heard, and there is not really any harm in doing so, but it is likely unintentionally in the work because blue is simply the color of the ocean.
Those are my thoughts on close reading films, however. Do you agree with me in how Ebert may take things a bit too far? Please let me know in the comments!
Leave a Reply