Early film actors were theater actors who had been trained to perform for the people at the back of a large room, big expressions, careful annunciation of every syllable, etc., made lips easy to read and the expressions easy to understand. Film schools weren't a thing in the early days, people learned their job while working the job. As movies became more of their own thing, with lots of close-ups, etc., actors became more subtle and directors came to pride themselves on making things harder to understand because in the mind of film school grads 'complexity = genius' and things that are easy to understand are 'lowest common denominator' and inherently inferior. A lot of the time the chemistry between actors makes or breaks a scene, so many 'romance angles' fall flat because the actors don't like each other and many villains don't work because the actor is just too charismatic and likeable it makes their evil actions funny rather than villainous.
The only difference I experience is that I notice more plotholes and incongruencies in movies than most people. Especially in sequels. Did people who made the third film not see the first film? Why so many inconsistencies? That kind of thing.
I know you said that you are adequately capable of picking up on non verbal cues for the most part, but is there any particular silent film that you've watched in regards to this topic? Also sometimes music can be a context clue to the vibe of a moment. Does that influence your perception in any particular way? Just curious.
I haven't watched that many silent movies...Metropolis, The General, and Nosferatu I clearly remember. For me, these movies are easier to understand because there is nothing subtle about them. When they are angry, scared, or happy it is 100% being reflected in their on screen actions. The more I think about it, silent movies may actually be easier to understand because there isn't any dialog to confuse the interpretation. I know the language of music...minor keys will indicate horror or discomfort...staccato strings are used for suspense(like the Psycho theme)…but the more I think about it, I think I may understand that on more an intellectual level than an emotional one. What throws me off is (in modern movies) a character will say one thing, but I'm supposed to interpret from (what are for me anyways) subtle body language indicating something else. For example, a character will say they don't have feelings for another character, but I'm supposed to pick up on the "longing" look they have which contradicts what they said. I often miss key plot points to movies because of missing these things, and won't realize it until I'm listening to someone review the movies after I've watched it. This is one reason I always listen to reviewers go through a movie afterwards because there are always things I missed. I'm also bad at picking up "obvious" symbolism in movies.
@@killallrobots2001 Thanks for the response. Interesting on understanding music intellectually. I would think the same could be applied to the filmmaking choices (e.g., framing, holding on an actor closeup for emphasis) as a tool to interpret the scene's intention and circumvent the need to rely on the actor's body language.
Early film actors were theater actors who had been trained to perform for the people at the back of a large room, big expressions, careful annunciation of every syllable, etc., made lips easy to read and the expressions easy to understand. Film schools weren't a thing in the early days, people learned their job while working the job. As movies became more of their own thing, with lots of close-ups, etc., actors became more subtle and directors came to pride themselves on making things harder to understand because in the mind of film school grads 'complexity = genius' and things that are easy to understand are 'lowest common denominator' and inherently inferior.
A lot of the time the chemistry between actors makes or breaks a scene, so many 'romance angles' fall flat because the actors don't like each other and many villains don't work because the actor is just too charismatic and likeable it makes their evil actions funny rather than villainous.
The title cards on silent films were called "Intertitles."
You're the second person to tell me...I feel everyone knew but me.
The only difference I experience is that I notice more plotholes and incongruencies in movies than most people. Especially in sequels. Did people who made the third film not see the first film? Why so many inconsistencies? That kind of thing.
Writers and directors of sequels are like Fleetwood Mac...they're going their own way.
Is your microphone a smoke detector?
HAHA....no, but it detects my hot air
1:15 Intertitles.
THANKS!!!
I know you said that you are adequately capable of picking up on non verbal cues for the most part, but is there any particular silent film that you've watched in regards to this topic? Also sometimes music can be a context clue to the vibe of a moment. Does that influence your perception in any particular way? Just curious.
I haven't watched that many silent movies...Metropolis, The General, and Nosferatu I clearly remember. For me, these movies are easier to understand because there is nothing subtle about them. When they are angry, scared, or happy it is 100% being reflected in their on screen actions. The more I think about it, silent movies may actually be easier to understand because there isn't any dialog to confuse the interpretation.
I know the language of music...minor keys will indicate horror or discomfort...staccato strings are used for suspense(like the Psycho theme)…but the more I think about it, I think I may understand that on more an intellectual level than an emotional one.
What throws me off is (in modern movies) a character will say one thing, but I'm supposed to interpret from (what are for me anyways) subtle body language indicating something else. For example, a character will say they don't have feelings for another character, but I'm supposed to pick up on the "longing" look they have which contradicts what they said. I often miss key plot points to movies because of missing these things, and won't realize it until I'm listening to someone review the movies after I've watched it. This is one reason I always listen to reviewers go through a movie afterwards because there are always things I missed. I'm also bad at picking up "obvious" symbolism in movies.
@@killallrobots2001 Thanks for the response. Interesting on understanding music intellectually. I would think the same could be applied to the filmmaking choices (e.g., framing, holding on an actor closeup for emphasis) as a tool to interpret the scene's intention and circumvent the need to rely on the actor's body language.