Films are an essential part of our life. We watch different films for different purposes. There are a lot of factors which influence our taste and according to this, we form our point of view whether we like it or not. Different people use different criteria in evaluating films and the points of view about films always appear to be different. There are some films that are recognized to be perfect by all, and these films are recognized as masterpieces of cinematography and nobody wants to oppose this point of view.
While watching the film we use different criteria in evaluating the film quality. Some people watch on the cast and the number of special effects, flashes or others point which they think are very important. We tend to think that watching films is a passive activity. Let me disagree with this. When we watch films we “catch clues and cues, anticipate events, react to characters and notice things and meanings” (Murray and Moore, 2003, p. 160).
As for me, my points of view about evaluating film quality have changed. Now I watch not only on the cast and special effects, which are also important, but I watch on technical achievement, personality cult, auteur, humanistic genre, political gender, psychoanalytical, and eclectic. It is going to be explained how these different approaches can influence our opinion about the film.
People who are lucky to understand the technical side of the film can evaluate it deeper. The modern world has come into the phase of technological achievements and these achievements have touched the film industry. People began to notice how the film was made and these technical characteristics influence our opinion about film greatly.
The cast is also a very important part of the film. Knowing who is in the film we may say whether this film is worth seeing or not, especially if our primary interest is in the actors (Boggs and Petrie, 2006). People usually use personality cult in evaluating film quality as the main, as actors who soot in the films give their salt in film.
“An auteur is a complete filmmaker” (Boggs and Petrie, 2006). The idea of the film, the script, and the concept in the film are the main factors that make the film a masterpiece. Considering the auteur approach people “focus on the style, technique, and philosophy of the film’s dominant creative personality of the director” (Boggs and Petrie, 2006). The humanistic approach is closely related to the auteur approach. The film is the creation of the person so the human factor is predominant there. The Director’s views, opinions, and visions of life are seen in the film and it is not a surprise it must be so. When we know the director of the film we understand the direction in which the film is shot.
The modern world pays much attention to politics and in many films, we may see the symbols of political features. The political topics in the film may be very important for other people but not for me. Political gender is not the main in my evaluation of the film. The psychoanalytical approach is very important in film evaluation. According to the approach the attention is paid to the mind, to the expression of feelings and emotions. (Boggs and Petrie, 2006) This is what should be taken for the basis while film consideration.
To consider the film from an electrical point of view means “to analyze every film from the narrow critical framework” (Boggs and Petrie, 2006, p. 383). While watching the film some actions, aspects are noticed and considered very attentive and in detail.
So, my evaluating of film quality has changed greatly after this course. Now, my attention is paid not only to cast but also to technical achievement, personality cult, auteur, humanistic genre, psychoanalytical and eclectic approaches.
Reference List
Boggs, J.M. & Petrie, D.W. (2006). The Art of Watching Films. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Murray, M.D. & Moore R.L. (2003). Mass communication education. Wiley-Blackwell.