At what age did you begin to analyze movies?

I think that's much more accurate. The art of analysis develops as we get older, enhanced by education, especially when we study English literature and poetry at high school. Even then, we often don't have the life experiences to truly understand a lot of literature. But once we've experienced real life - finding work, finding a place to live, the ups and downs of relationships and friendships, fighting the injustices and problems that come our way - then literature and films make much more sense because we can relate to the experiences of the characters.

You misunderstood the entire point of this thread - because it asks this question, "at what age did you begin to analyze movies?", rather than "at what age did you begin to relate to movies?", which of course is a different discussion altogether.

Because if that were true, we couldn't have schools and educational institutions imparting upon us to develop analytical skills from an early age.

And clearly, teenagers can't have life experience because, well, they aren't adults yet. But seeds are quickly planted, and what people call maturity is also self awareness of events, dilemmas, emotions, philosophies, so there are variegated levels of this self awareness.

And experience is nothing if you don't apply or integrate so that it might be wisdom. Objectively speaking, that's why stupid people exist.

Some genius, mate.
 
It was Pulp Fiction for me. Saw it the first week it came out in the theaters, was 17 at the time. This was before the Pulp Fiction mania began, so I had no idea what was about to happen.
 
You misunderstood the entire point of this thread - because it asks this question, "at what age did you begin to analyze movies?", rather than "at what age did you begin to relate to movies?", which of course is a different discussion altogether.

Because if that were true, we couldn't have schools and educational institutions imparting upon us to develop analytical skills from an early age.

And clearly, teenagers can't have life experience because, well, they aren't adults yet. But seeds are quickly planted, and what people call maturity is also self awareness of events, dilemmas, emotions, philosophies, so there are variegated levels of this self awareness.

And experience is nothing if you don't apply or integrate so that it might be wisdom. Objectively speaking, that's why stupid people exist.

Some genius, mate.

:up:
 
I think I was about 8 or 9, when my father showed me Star Wars I was somewhat opened up to what movies have the potential to be, what it is that makes a good movie and the power they have.
 
You misunderstood the entire point of this thread - because it asks this question, "at what age did you begin to analyze movies?", rather than "at what age did you begin to relate to movies?", which of course is a different discussion altogether.

Because if that were true, we couldn't have schools and educational institutions imparting upon us to develop analytical skills from an early age.

And clearly, teenagers can't have life experience because, well, they aren't adults yet. But seeds are quickly planted, and what people call maturity is also self awareness of events, dilemmas, emotions, philosophies, so there are variegated levels of this self awareness.

And experience is nothing if you don't apply or integrate so that it might be wisdom. Objectively speaking, that's why stupid people exist.

Some genius, mate.

I still don't agree that children can begin to analyse movies at the ages claimed in this thread. As you relate more to stories, you can understand them more and analyse them more. But I am not convinced that children of most of the ages mentioned in this thread are sitting there analysing movies they have seen.

Young children do not view movies in that way. They see the 'good' and 'bad' characters and they get upset when bad things happen to the good characters and happy when bad things happen to the bad characters. They may ask some questions but they are not really analysing the movie's directing, cinematography, storytelling, dialogue, editing, etc and are not sitting there analysing subtexts, themes, metaphors, etc.

There are, of course, lessons/morals in stories told to children but kids don't analyse them. Hopefully they have developed some understanding of 'good' and 'bad' but no child starts thinking about Red Riding Hood's various mythic interpretations and possible meanings regarding elemental/seasonal cycles, sexual awakening, prostitution, menstruation, and so on. About the only obvious meaning to a child is not to stray off the path (of goodness). But I don't think kids truly analyse the story. I'm going to try to ask people in my office about this; many of them have children. I shall also ask my sister, who has three children of varying ages, including my niece who is 16.
 
I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm classified 'gifted/talented.'

Good for you. I hope you do something great with it - although talent per se does not necessarily succeed, unfortunately.

Okay. What's your point, here? I had "King Lear" read to me as a baby. So?

The point was that I am responding from an intelligent standpoint, as someone who's been reading stories for a long time.

Well, obviously not. Your stance here seems to be essentially the same as, "if you want to be a good director, you need to go to film school," which is, to borrow one of your own colloquialisms, "definitely bullcrap."

Well, going to film school has to be a good way of gaining the technical knowledge needed to be a good director. If you want a career in something, it's usual to study it.

We never said we did, but your dismissal of everyone else's claims on here rings of pretension. Then again, reading your posts here, in this thread, and in the "10,000 BC" thread, this is hardly surprising.

You don't understand me at all. I am very much against pretentiousness, which is the reason for a lot of my posts. I like to play devil's advocate, I often want to add another, hopefully well-argued, standpoint, to encourage people to think in another way, to search for the underlying truth and explanation. There is a lot of nonsense on the internet, partly because its anonymity allows people to claim to be something they are not. I like to swim against that current.
 
I still don't agree that children can begin to analyse movies at the ages claimed in this thread. As you relate more to stories, you can understand them more and analyse them more. But I am not convinced that children of most of the ages mentioned in this thread are sitting there analysing movies they have seen.

Young children do not view movies in that way. They see the 'good' and 'bad' characters and they get upset when bad things happen to the good characters and happy when bad things happen to the bad characters. They may ask some questions but they are not really analysing the movie's directing, cinematography, storytelling, dialogue, editing, etc and are not sitting there analysing subtexts, themes, metaphors, etc.

There are, of course, lessons/morals in stories told to children but kids don't analyse them. Hopefully they have developed some understanding of 'good' and 'bad' but no child starts thinking about Red Riding Hood's various mythic interpretations and possible meanings regarding elemental/seasonal cycles, sexual awakening, prostitution, menstruation, and so on. About the only obvious meaning to a child is not to stray off the path (of goodness). But I don't think kids truly analyse the story. I'm going to try to ask people in my office about this; many of them have children. I shall also ask my sister, who has three children of varying ages, including my niece who is 16.

But once they become something more than colorful pictures on a television screen, they start seeing things that weren't as apparent before and find different meanings. It all starts somewhere.
 

Closer to 11 than 13. That was when I started composing lists of all the movies I had ever seen and ranking them 1-100.

Around 13 I got into some brief amateur filmmaking.

Then, at 17, I saw 'Resevoir Dogs.' With not much knowledge of who Quentin Tarantino, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth, Harvey Keitel, or Michael Madsen were, I saw this move and thought it was phenomenal. I was SO delighted when 'Pulp Fiction' came out and hit big with the mainstream media. I then took much pride in being able to say 'I knew before you did - neh neh neh neh neh neh!:oldrazz: '

At 18, I was in a bookstore and I picked up a copy of a
'Pulp Fiction' screenplay. In the fall, I went off to college. All new doors were opened and I decided to get into screenwriting. That caused me to watch films in an entirely new way.
 
I was SO delighted when 'Pulp Fiction' came out and hit big with the mainstream media. I then took much pride in being able to say 'I knew before you did - neh neh neh neh neh neh!:oldrazz: '

That's one neh too many. :word:

At 18, I was in a bookstore and I picked up a copy of a 'Pulp Fiction' screenplay. In the fall, I went off to college. All new doors were opened and I decided to get into screenwriting. That caused me to watch films in an entirely new way.

Where has the screenwriting taken you? Have you had successes?
 
Actually, I try NOT to analyze movies. I watch movies for escapism and enjoyment...not to learn something about life or an underlying message hidden in the film.
 
Where has the screenwriting taken you? Have you had successes?

No. I haven't completed anything in almost 10 years. I have completed one about 8 years ago but I can't remember.
 
Good for you. I hope you do something great with it - although talent per se does not necessarily succeed, unfortunately.

Hmm.



The point was that I am responding from an intelligent standpoint, as someone who's been reading stories for a long time.

Yes, but there was no real reason to bring that into the argument, though.





Well, going to film school has to be a good way of gaining the technical knowledge needed to be a good director. If you want a career in something, it's usual to study it.

It certainly is, and what you've said is true. But, you've missed my point again. Yes, a lot of great directors come from film-school. I'm hopin' to go myself, if ever I get the chance. It isn't a detriment, but at the same time, to say it's the only way is asinine.


You don't understand me at all. I am very much against pretentiousness, which is the reason for a lot of my posts. I like to play devil's advocate, I often want to add another, hopefully well-argued, standpoint, to encourage people to think in another way, to search for the underlying truth and explanation. There is a lot of nonsense on the internet, partly because its anonymity allows people to claim to be something they are not. I like to swim against that current.

Well, no. Not really. From your posts in the 10,000 BC thread:

Let's face it, the dumb American public isn't ready for anything but the recognisable twang of a US accent.

Even British movies have to have subtitles when released in the US. Such as The Full Monty, for instance.

This is, I assume, why in space series such as Star Trek, all the aliens speak in American English complete with accents.

I think you were expecting a bit much for dumb America to cope with a made-up prehistoric language if they can't even cope with British English.

:dry:
 
Well, no. Not really. From your posts in the 10,000 BC thread::dry:

Controversial? Yes! Pretentious? I'd argue it wasn't. I'm just trying to cut through the crap and get to the point. :oldrazz:
 
Controversial? Yes! Pretentious? I'd argue it wasn't. I'm just trying to cut through the crap and get to the point. :oldrazz:


No, it was pretty pretentious. It wasn't especially controversial, 'cause I don't think anybody cared all that much except for movies205.
 
No, it was pretty pretentious. It wasn't especially controversial, 'cause I don't think anybody cared all that much except for movies205.

I'd still argue it wasn't. I say things like that all the time, I have no time for silly nonsense. I'm not pretending to be anything, that's me, therefore I don't believe it to be pretentious. If people were offended, they had right of reply.

The internet is full of fools and nonsense. I like to cleave a path through all that.
 
I still don't agree that children can begin to analyse movies at the ages claimed in this thread. As you relate more to stories, you can understand them more and analyse them more. But I am not convinced that children of most of the ages mentioned in this thread are sitting there analysing movies they have seen.

Young children do not view movies in that way. They see the 'good' and 'bad' characters and they get upset when bad things happen to the good characters and happy when bad things happen to the bad characters. They may ask some questions but they are not really analysing the movie's directing, cinematography, storytelling, dialogue, editing, etc and are not sitting there analysing subtexts, themes, metaphors, etc.

There are, of course, lessons/morals in stories told to children but kids don't analyse them. Hopefully they have developed some understanding of 'good' and 'bad' but no child starts thinking about Red Riding Hood's various mythic interpretations and possible meanings regarding elemental/seasonal cycles, sexual awakening, prostitution, menstruation, and so on. About the only obvious meaning to a child is not to stray off the path (of goodness). But I don't think kids truly analyse the story. I'm going to try to ask people in my office about this; many of them have children. I shall also ask my sister, who has three children of varying ages, including my niece who is 16.

You're trying to link your idea of relating to movies, to analysing movies?

I thought at this point that they were particularly distinct.

Nevertheless, at what age do you think children begin to 'relate to'/analyse movies? Because this is what people have been telling you.
 
I have no idea...probably around 13...I cant remember.
 
Guess it depends on what you mean by analyze. Caring about why certain scenes are there? Looking into the meaning of a symbol? Stuff like that? Probably still don't...

But I did start caring about understanding every plot detail at maybe 15.
 
I would say around 12, because thats when I really got into watching Siskel & Ebert.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,505
Messages
21,742,312
Members
45,570
Latest member
monke77
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"