me & the movies, or: my approach to film analysis.
15 years ago, not too long after graduating from college, i went to the movie theater to see INCEPTION (2010), written and directed by christopher nolan, for the first time. then…i saw it again and again and again. four times in fact. it was the first movie i had ever seen multiple times in theaters. i obsessed about the ending. i obsessed over hans zimmer’s original score. the stunt choreography. the cinematography. the WRITING. i couldn’t get enough. i still can’t, to be perfectly honest.
it reminded me of the first time i’d seen FIGHT CLUB – i was a junior in HS on a college trip and the person hosting me had the DVD. she pressed play and my mind was fucking BLOWN. i can still close my eyes and see myself sitting on the floor staring at the tv, mouth agape. astounded for reasons i don’t even think i could vocalize at that age.
or the first time i had seen THE GODFATHER – despite it being one of my parents’ favorite films, i was first introduced to it after reading the novel for an english course at duke, and i remember feeling like someone other than the bard himself had figured out how to craft and perform shakespeare. don’t even get me started on THE GODFATHER PART II.
or falling in love with classical movie music sitting in the theater for FANTASIA 2000.
movies shift something in me. they always have. there’s a particular itch in my brain only film can scratch. that ethereal and satisfying combination of technical and visual, music and narrative. i’ve spoken about movies ad nauseum on twitter and now on bluesky over the past 15+ years, but i’ve never formally detailed what it is that i love about film or how i approach and engage in film analysis.
enter SINNERS. the bolt of lighting that hit me with INCEPTION in 2010 came back for me again a million times stronger in 2025. 26 exhilarating trips to the theater. stopped counting the number of watches after 30. my obsession and awe for the film and my constant analysis and unraveling of its form and text have been pouring out of me since the first time i saw it nearly 3 months ago.
more than ever, i feel compelled to write about film. for real. taking my usual short sentences and fleshing them out into longform pieces. i want to make film and film analysis more fun, more approachable, and more accessible for people. i want to help others uncover the intentional magic they’re seeing on screen. to notice special moments, not necessarily because they drive the plot forward, but because it’s so evident that the director and cinematographer were on the same wavelength to create an incredible shot. or an actor locking in and improvising their lines to elevate an entire scene. to recognize the impact of music within a film, not because of lyrics, but because what you’re hearing reflects a composer’s ability and diligent work to convey the core emotions of the scene and the broader film.
writing about film will mean taking my thoughts and informed analysis more seriously (without taking myself too seriously). and it will mean being brave and moving past my own fears of not being knowledgeable enough to share. it will also mean and already means…research. learning more about film theory and theoretical frameworks to strengthen my analytical skills. up until now, i’ve largely been instinctively analyzing films, learning what i can through the movies themselves, and the general studying, watching, and reading i do in my free time, but never delving into the foundations of film analysis specifically. i’m not a trained film critic (whatever that means) or even someone who makes films. i am someone who reads a lot, writes a lot, watches a lot of movies, and is obsessed with research. there’s no better time than now for me to reverse-engineer a film school curriculum – to start from the bottom and work my way up, even though i’m naturally somewhere in the middle.
and i really am starting from the bottom. film theory.
i’m familiar with the ways i speak about film, and because of that, i sought out to find the terms and theories that align with how i naturally analyze. that research brought to me to three broad film theories (out of many others) – formalist, structuralist, and auteur, and i’m immersing myself in as much information as i can about all three. do you know what formalist film theory is? no? most people don’t. i sure didn’t before i researched it. and it’s through studying, i’ve come to realize i naturally know how to do it. my approach to film analysis is probably closest to formalist film analysis, or analyzing how the form (the technical aspects) of a film conveys its meaning. these technical aspects include editing, cinematography, music and sound, lighting, camera angles, camera shots. in learning more about formalist film analysis, i’ve also learned my personal approach to analysis must include acting performances and plot as well because i’m fascinated by acting and i love stories. once again, it’s the harmony of the technical and visual, the sound and narrative that intrigues me most. the means to the end.
is this collaborative and intentional effort successful at creating a meaningful story? how and why?
these are the main questions i ask about films as i’m sitting in theaters, or sitting at home, or sitting in front of a computer.
and these are the questions i’m going to begin tackling here. with old movies, with new movies, with great movies, with movies that are so bad they’re good. i want to talk about the how and the why and the so what, and the information i’m learning and using to analyze and critique them. to value them for the insane group projects they are. but more than anything, to have more fun with them.
