When Learning Cinema History: Forwards or Backwards?

[Alexandro]

I personally would start of with the very first films, how it all began, when art and technology met. I would probably then hop to the five national cinema types, which are british, soviet, indian, german, and american. How they have evolved etc...
And then do the different genres in the ages.

I think that's ok if you're already a film enthusiast, but it would be great if people had some film education as part of their NORMAL formation. I mean as literatury class on elementary school or high school, not like some sort of hobby, specially in the United States where films are such an important aspect of the nation's culture. But it's hard to follow a silent film if your attention span only knows of Die Hard. Slowly, you go through contemporary movies and then creating a comparison with the old ones, after the person learns to watch movies, as people has to learn to read certain things. I think one of the reasons a lot of people don't read at all has to do with bad experiences as kids...but sometimes is completely insane...I was 11 years old and they gave me Hamlet to read and asked me to write an essay on it, and previous to that I've only read comic books, so it's hard for the kid, the inmediate reaction is that of boredom or simply no interest.

In films it happens the same. I studied Communications and I like films, but not everyone in that career see films as an art form, and is hard to make them understand this. The teacher comes and on the first class shows them The Great Train Robbery and talks about editing and all that stuff, but no one cares. We see Citizen Kane, no one cares, there's no frame of reference. Now if we had started watching, maybe, Pulp Fiction, it woul dbe easy to go "backwards" in a sense, showing older films, showing how things begun, at least to make them understand the artform...maybe a few will fall in love with the medium like myself...

[***beady***]

What? No one cares about Citizen kane? Are they mad?

[Find Your Magali]

In a perfect teaching world, you could just tell the students to sit back and enjoy the movie the first time they watch "Citizen Kane."

Because it is a damn entertaining flick.

THEN, after they've seen it, talk about how it was created. How it was revolutionary. Talk about Toland. Talk about deep focus. Talk about the famous tracking shots.

And then show it again, so they can appreciate those filmmaking techniques.

If you go into a film being told to pay attention to the editing and the tracking shots and the camera angles, then you're going to focus on all of that stuff and never appreciate the movie as a movie.

[***beady***]

Deep focus shots are great. I like a particluar one in Citizen Kane, of the attempted suicide of Susanne Alexander. That ones cool.

[Alexandro]

What? No one cares about Citizen kane? Are they mad?

Belive me, no one cared...but that's the point i'm trying to tell, I'm talking about normal people, not film freaks like us. Normal people who go to the movies and see maybe Just Married and think is funny. This is not because they are idiots, is because that's the culture we're living. There's no real film appreciation. It is not a perfect film teaching world, it's a world where most people don¿t see movies as an art form, they're just something to do on weekends...What I'm saying is that it would be great if as a part of your normal education, you had some appreciation to the aesthetics of film, or for that matter any art form...

like someone wiser said: aesthetics of today are the ethics of tomorrow

[Ravi]

I think that's ok if you're already a film enthusiast, but it would be great if people had some film education as part of their NORMAL formation. I mean as literatury class on elementary school or high school, not like some sort of hobby, specially in the United States where films are such an important aspect of the nation's culture.

Film isn't highly regarded like sculpture, painting, literature, and music.  We learn about Mozart and Picasso in school, but not about Kurosawa.  This is probably because film is only a little over 100 years old.

But it's hard to follow a silent film if your attention span only knows of Die Hard.

Sure, if you show Birth of a Nation as someone's first silent film.  Silent comedy is easy to enjoy, especially since dialogue-free comedy sometimes occurs in today's sitcoms and movies.

A good idea would be to compare a popular teen film like Ferris Bueller's Day Off to Mr. Hulot's Holiday.  Drawing comparisons to classics will show them that film didn't begin with Spielberg and Tarantino (not a knock at either of these directors).

[The Silver Bullet]

I've been doing a self-run sort of course, choosing what I want, when I want, and just watching it.

Usually I do it director by director, two directors at a time [usually linked by a common theme or story, for example, Orson Welles and Akira Kurosawa tied together by Macbeth], either watching the films in chronological order of their work, or in any other order I see fit.

It's a weird system, jumping all over the shot, but it works.

[ProgWRX]

we watched the greater part of birth of a nation... it wasnt that hard to watch honestly..

and for its time, i have to say, DW Griffith OWN3D!
 

[Vile5]

Now if we had started watching, maybe, Pulp Fiction, it woul dbe easy to go "backwards" in a sense, showing older films, showing how things begun, at least to make them understand the artform...maybe a few will fall in love with the medium like myself...

exactly! is really hard to get the attetion of a kid who felt falling in love with films as Boogie Nights or Traffic and then tell him that he must to love Metropolis or The Kid by Chaplin because are good films and bla bla bla...well some people would get it but not everyone, i think Alexandro is right...

and Cinephile: a very good topic!!!

[Jeremy Blackman]

I would probably then hop to the five national cinema types, which are british, soviet, indian, german, and american. How they have evolved etc...

And especially how early German films influenced American art films. Huge influence there that's not talked about enough.

[***beady***]

No, it isn't actually talked about much at all. I really like german films. One of my faves is 'The Tin Drum'. (Volker Schlondorff). 1979. That film holds a lot.

[soixante]

It's always best to start at the beginning.  For example, one can better understand the Renaissance if you understand the Greeks.

A really excellent one-volume book about film that I think is esssential is Katz's Film Encyclopedia.  This might be the most essential book of all, in my opinion.  I've learned more from this one book than from any other book.

[luctruff]

I always loved the quote by Godard saying cinema is a mystery...i believe that's what he said...so i believe you should simply jump around, watching films from periods of the silent era to modern cinema and deciphering the history as it pleases you...don't go in a straight line...watch what intrigues you along the lines....the history of film is important, but i think it's best to visit those early films when you see fit to do so...when you are ready to enter into those earlier films, do so....it's best to allow film to be sort of a puzzle and not a temple being built from earlier makers....i'm sorry if that sounded incredibly idiotic, but i think it's best to learn cinema how you'd like to learn it...jump around and edit your own perception of film history...find your own influences and movements.., etc., etc....
p.s.--i am aware of the irony of my post....