I noticed the symbolism in the title of this video. Notice how it uses the word "shots"? This symbolises the rampant alcohol problem in the movie industry
Mr. Thorax, Symbology? Now that Duffy has relinquished his "King Bonehead" crown, I see we have an heir to the throne! I'm sure the word you were looking for was "symbolism." What is the ssss-himbolism there?
+超粒方 Nah, you just haven't been trained to view something critically. It has nothing to do with your intelligence, but with your training. If you study how to do it, you can do this, too.
+超粒方 When you watch these things you feel something specific that the filmmakers hopefully intended. Most people experience movies this way. The best thing to do is to start asking yourself WHY you feel the things you do. Movies are meant to be experienced. You're not wrong or dumb for doing just that. And it's not scientific or perfect. Notice how much people disagree with the interpretations. How you experience a movie belongs to you whether you can express it perfectly or whether you just laugh or cry at a scene. That's the magic of cinema that sometimes gets lost by overanalysis.
+超粒方 The thing is that when you watch a film for the first time you're watching it casually. You are just going along on the ride. But if you keep watching it over and over again you begin to notice details. You know what is going on happen in the movie so you start focusing on other things like how the film is cut, how the score is used or how the scene is staged. It's not that you are stupid, it's that you have seen the movie for what it is. You can watch for example Mad Max Fury Road for what it is; a crazy over the top action movie with amazing stunts and great effects. But after rewatching a couple of times you start to wonder why the movie works and you begin analyzing the shots. Most people only rewatches a movie a few times (if at all) and because of that they never think about why the movie worked or not and that's fine. You don't need to dissect a film to like it but you can appreciate it even more it you. Sorry for the confusing why I wrote this. I wrote it stream of consciousnessly.
Don't ...I think as we rewatch great films over and over and analyze them over and over we start to find meanings in things that were never thoughtfully intended by the Director. This is certainly not wrong because I believe "art" SHOULD BE open to personal interpretation. Example , Apocalypse Now ...a film we KNOW is loaded with message and meaning and great visual storytelling as well as deeply meaningful dialogue. But having recently watched one of my favorite film guru's two part youtube disection of AN , I had to giggle a little . He found visual and set cues that he put great meaning into and credits the director (who is a genius ) with setting these cues to convey these msgs. What the reviewer lacked is a background on the culture or habits of the US military in Vietnam. These cues or props are there because of technical accuracy not metaphorical intent. However in some cases the military culture of the time displayed certain things or said certain things with metaphorical intent or ironic intent. ..It's all good however in my opinion . the more one can take away from the art of Cinema the better. And just enjoying ,being entertained , and munching on popcorn happily is fine too.
Hey guys, I've been getting some feedback suggesting I try seeing an opening shot from a film I've never seen before, try to infer about the film from the shot, and watch the rest of the film to see if I'm right! Anybody have any suggestions? Preferably something less popular so I may not have seen it.
OblivionFall I hate to Umm actually you, but it is not. The MAJORITY of the film is in one shot, but there are a few short shots at the very beginning and near end. A film that is “all” (with hidden cuts, of course) in one shot would be “Rope” by Alfred Hitchcock.
@@justjalaal1038 "Rope" has many hidden cuts because at the time they could only film 15 minutes of film at a time so Hitchcock had to cleverly hide them.
sometimes i think this is just interpretation. maybe not the intention of the director. i can look at a potato and think, this represents the hard working man, its covered in dirt and is filled with things we need to help us live and move forward. but no, the filmmaker may just be using a potato to show its character is a farmer or something
+EeveeFall Yes, but at the same time, Director/author's intention doesn't matter. The potato will represent that independent of intention from the director. Also, you can never know the director's intention, even if they explicitly say, because our subconscious factors into creating art, as well as our unconcious intentions.
I feel the same way about literary works by famous authors and poets. They can be interpreted as having a deeper, significant meaning or simply just words on a page.
"The way the pizza delivery woman bangs on the door is symbolic of how she is about to be banged by the man in the apartment. You'll notice the first position is the 'missionary' position, as her character is there to help the man reach the next stage in his journey. The fact that he's on top is in reference to the patriarchy, and at the end, when the man ejaculates (or 'busts') in her face, this bookends the film because it goes from 'bang' (knock knock) to 'bust' (skeet skeet), in reference to the economic troubles of late 2008. You can learn so much from the first shot."
Yeah. I'm a huge fan of film, but film analysis, looking for symbolism, makes me sick. There's undoubtedly intentional symbolism in a lot of movies, but in pretentious film circles, most of that attributed symbolism is imagined.
@@charleynewman5057 A lot of symbolism is on purpose, it has to be. But its mostly usually the same theme and matter of fact of things that give you an idea about what's currently going on. And then there is the mind reading that all the video essayist do.
further on the silence of the lambs opening: the audience knows this is a horror film from advertising, etc., and if they're horror fans, seeing a woman alone in the foggy woods will make them expect something bad to happen to her. the music also adds to the tension. there's even an almost jump scare, the sound of birds taking off, which would make a nervous audience jump slightly. because of horror film tropes, we think something is going to come after her, especially since she looks offscreen towards the sound. instead, she is totally fine, and comes to be our main character and hero of the film. this all tells us that this isn't your typical horror movie.
I really love this kind of storytelling in horror films. I like films that- while they don't fall into many of the bad horror tropes themselves, rely on our expectations to build much needed tension throughout the film ,as we constantly feel in danger or uneasy for the character
If you don't see the rope at first, when you glimpse her running you may immediately think she's running _away_ from someone before you realize she's just completing an obstacle course.
I think you may be reading too much symbolism into the Silence of the Lambs opening. You say the other rope not being used means not everyone has made it as far as she has. You continue to say that she's determined to save herself from a figurative rut she's stuck in by training. I think it's more of an introduction to the character of Clarice Starling. She is running an obstacle course on her own, which means she's not doing it at the orders of her superiors. There's no drill sergeant yelling at her to go faster like in Full Metal Jacket. This establishes Starling as a highly-motivated FBI recruit who pushes herself further to be the best or at least prove herself to her peers. She is so dedicated, that she'll work to be the best even when nobody else is doing the same, hence the empty rope and nobody else on the course. And what is this rut she's saving herself from? She is obviously not struggling through FBI training, as she is quickly upjumped into the field by her mentor to interview Lecter a few scenes later. She's someone who is succeeding in training and becoming a capable FBI agent, not someone stuck in a rut.
+Chairman Meow Yeah, the word "rut" was used so many times I'm beginning to think this wasn't the best written video. It was not a 'rut' that she was trying to get herself out of, she was doing well in the FBI. The opening could be seen as simply showing Clarice progressing, or as a metaphor for her putting her childhood behind her, rising out of her social class (referring to Lector's point about her hiding her accent). The birds could be seen as someone ominously watching her, or a metaphor for Clarice's own migration. There is a lot of other metaphor's I am not recognizing such as the score, the mist, the camera positioning, but I've never bothered to look much into the Silence of the Lambs. Guess that is going to have to change.
+Chairman Meow You are so right, and you sound more like someone who tried to understand the movie or scenes instead of someone who want to interpret stuff on a basic "that symbolizes"-level, no matter if it is there or not.
I think the most direct metaphor in that scene was that she was literally ascending the hill, while the film was about her ascension as an FBI agent. She starts off just a small figure in the distance at the bottom, a trainee, but rises to become someone at the "top of the hill", graduating with distinction.
+Chairman Meow Personally I think whatever an audience reads into a film is really there. I subscribe to the belief that meaning is projected onto art by the observer. Basically (imo) = all art is subjective
Little Miss Sunshine's beginning shot stuck with me more then I thought anything would. I was eleven when I first saw it and fell in love with the movie. Then of course Moonrise Kingdom and Rushmore have some of the best opening scenes. You can't forget about Inglorious Bastards or Pulp Fiction obviously. My newest favorite is from the Lobster, just draws you in.
I don't think it's right for you to say that these shots tell us everything about a movie immediately. They may set the stage and impart a certain feeling in us, but if you were watching any of those movies for the first time you couldn't pause it and immediately extrapolate all of that information.
no he's right. A large amount of the time people will make up the meaning after they know the rest of the film. But it's not always symbolic to that degree
Nobody would infer any of his suggestions without watching the films first. Maybe 2001 although I don't even agree with his description of the plot. The others are massive reaches. For example I can think of other films that open with the back of someones head and they are obviously very different characters. There is so much symbolism to explore in movies it is a shame to reach so much for these examples. Should have gone for something more universal like the colour orange in the godfather or black and white in westerns.
Interesting! My favorite film is Spirited Away and in the first shot the main character is looking at a goodbye present from a friend she had to leave behind, that does relate to the end of the movie too! I don't think opening shots are always meant to foreshadow for the audience so directly, but it' a useful tool for the filmmaker to keep in mind so that the ending feels more full circle. Definitely has more effect on the second viewing, it probably contributes to how fun a movie is to see over & over again.
+Beast Mode i know what you mean, but the opening shot was just the massive landscape with the eerie strings. the following 15 mins don't count as the same opening shot
Robert Headley That was probably a good choice. TWBB is very polar when it comes to its audience compared to No Country. You either love it or hate it.
I learned about everything he talked about in this video during school, it would have been a lot shorter and a lot more memorable if they just showed us this. Good editing and interesting video's can like this should be what they display at school. Not google docs with *one* opening of a movie and then explain it below after a live demonstration with the same movie.
I haven't seen silence of the lambs, but I can say in that opening when the birds fly away, she stops, turns her body towards the camera so you can see on her shirt "FBI academy" telling us a lot about her, where she is, and why she is there.
WTF, are there actually people in this world who have NOT seen Silence of the Lambs? How the hell does such a movie just get past you? Now drop whatever it is you're doing and go watch it.
Ehh I got a different vibe from the opening of silence of the lambs....the music gives it an ominous feeling, and the birds flying away suggest that perhaps danger is nearby or that someone is watching her, and her reaction could be interpreted as caution or jittery..ness...That scene specifically I think maybe we're all digging a little too deep into but that's just my .02
Funny, i see it as hightened senses and threat assessment. Hunting the hunter. As a way to squash the scared victim stumbling thru the woods trope usually in horror.
I feel when she climbs the hill first, she gets to the problem, and then for the rest of the scene she is just running with the camera behind her, giving the sense that she is being chased. later we learn that she is running away from her past and the screaming voices of the lambs.
It's one of my all time favourite movies but I don't even really know if I get the opening shot... it's her body in the twilight on the hotelbed if I remember correctly, right?
Filmmaker IQ I think the opening shot of that movie is really accurate in that it portrays the loneliness of the movie especially for the main character. It’s about navigating the character’s loneliness in a new city while she meets someone else going through the same thing and finds a sense of belonging.
He doesn't come close to Every Frame a Painting. He talks so much more and dictates. Tony would ask a question, let the scene speak for itself and ask you "how'd it make you feel?" It was so much more interesting. This guy just tells you how to think.
2:58 ... uhm... really? I mean.. "EXACTLY what the plot will be about" ?! From that shot you know that we have like 3 parts in that movie from apes killing each other with bones to a monolith in space, a crazy robot-mind that controls the ship and tries to kill the passengers and some dude on LSD in space?!
sleepingfoggy6 even if the plot sucked (if u didn't quite understand it you can type 2001 explanation on google and there's a specific site for that) it's not all about that. it's the way kubrick tells a story and the way he makes every shot and dialogue. it's the way he puts all this together that makes it a great movie. bcos he didn't write the plot, arthur c. clarke did.
I googled Dan in Real Life (2007) because I suspected the opening Shot was about him looing at a picture of his dead wife. Crazy how well acted by Steve Carell that is! powerful opening
Honestly that's a lot of Kubrick's style. Even his work with the shinning was very drawn out with long scenes that never end. It worked well for the genre but literally what he does best.
Tom G Had he said "this shot literally showing a dawn", there wouldn't be an issue. Literally should only be used when you mean literally, not metaphorically.
Yep, that's my point, it was a metaphor, not a literalism or figurative flourish. But in fairness I think he meant Kubrick was using a literal dawn to create a metaphor. But hey, it's a quick TH-cam analysis, not a post doc submission.
+Kristian Uhlving I'd add that the only reason he knows that it's the dawn of man is because he watched further into the movie. There's nothing in the graphics of the shot itself to suggest what era it takes place during.
The sudden sound of birds taking flight at the beginning of Silence of the Lambs also suggests a dangerous presence nearby. The second rope also tells us that she is making her journey alone.
There can be many interpretations. Little miss sunshine was quite obvious, we cant say much about this opening. It's nice that you show people that movies are not only to watch but also to READ.
Baby drivers first shot sends chills down my spine every time i see it, the cross between the tinnitus ringing into the brakes of the car, changing the focus from far away to close up immediately draws our focus to it. Baby driver is a goddamn masterpeice, everyone needs to watch that movie.
Hindsight is 20/20. I would like him to see the opening shot of a movie about which he knows nothing, and infer all those kinds of things. Then see if he's right.
This. Let's maybe not act like all these things are completely obvious pieces of information that occur to all of us. In the opening shot of Silence of the Lambs, I learn that the movie is probably about a sweaty healthy woman. Let's settle down about her journey.
I don't blame him for trying to interpret symbolism, but "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", ya know? Also it's pretty ignorant for you to assume that people who disagree with his interpretation "are not good at analysis". Disagreeing with someone doesn't always equal ignorance, but blanket assumptions of groups of people does.
the commentaries are very interesting. They remind me my french literature classes when we studied books and analysed incipits. We were a scientific class, french was not the interest of 90% of the class and some brillant classmates said "this is bullshit, you can say what you want with a text cause one sentence can have several meanings. The author did not think about every metaphor (for example)". I think they were right about the several interpretations for one sentence...but i still think they were wrong about the "you can say what you want with a text" because a text have precise words, constructions, and even if the meaning is open to interpretation, it's not unlimited: maybe 2 or 3 interpretations, not a million. Literature is less precise than science cause it's not about truth, it does not have to be totally clear...so you have to look at the whole text, to analyse and understand. My teachers showed me keys I did not understand in some texts, for example the manipulation of a character by another. But yeah I understand comments, sometimes analyses are too much...especially I remembered an analyse of a Rimbaud poem called "voyelles", the teacher analysed it with sexual interpretations, clearly for me it was too much. The difference between good and bad teachers in literature is about what they want to see, and what you can really see. Interpretation is possible only if the text support it, not only one word. Ok my commentary was very long sorry but i still love analysing text and videos so i don't like when people say this exercice is totally random and useless.
There's no ''definitely''. You might think it means nothing, while another might think it means everything. There's no right or wrong, just different interpretations.
Jordan Severns it would be my pleasure (excuse any bad english). the intro for this video has these epic images and music which are followed by the name of the channel. in my point of view, this would want to show us what is about to come on the channel (epic/amazing conttent)
Imagine a movie starting in a bar, fade in from black, zooming in to a single person sitting at the bar. This person drinks a small alcoholic drink, then looks right into the camera and says: Well, this was the opening shot. Boom, awesome!
I'd be really interested to see your analysis of a movie opening from a movie you HAVEN'T seen. It's really easy to infer a lot of info from the opening shot of a flick if you already know the themes and plot of the movie. I don't think people would draw the same conclusions otherwise. They might though, I'm just not sure. Well-done video either way. I like.
+SeanithanEgan The thing is, the opening sets the tone whether the audience is aware of it, or able to interpret it, or not. It doesn't need to be decipherable - it just needs to be consistent with what's to follow. The effect is largely subconscious, and as others interpret the same openings differently, obviously also somewhat subjective. What's important is that it is meaningful. Whether that meaning is apparent to any given viewer isn't really the point.
4:34 Correction. She doesn't want to be Miss Louisiana because then she will just be the first runner up. This was Miss America 1997 and Miss Kansas-Tara Dawn Holland won here. Listen more closely. "The new Miss America is Miss Kansas, Tara Dawn Holland"
I've never heard of Little Miss Sunshine, but what I inferred that our main character is a curious (wide eyes) girl who's smart (glasses) and is intrigued by the beauty pageant winners. The color palette suggests an older time so I thought her infatuation was about her looking at successful females who can do great things, like she wants to, even if at that time they are mostly judged for superficial things. Tldr: she is enamored by successful females and wants to be one of them
+George Daugherty But what it the director just wanted birds because he likes birds, and not to symbolize anything? Is the meaning we project onto that valid? It's a tough question.
EuroTrasho Productions why would a director laugh their ass off when they see multiple people meticulously analyse their films?... That's one of the biggest compliments any director could get. That's something to be very proud of
Michael Lena mine also. I'd say the birds were put in the scene so that Foster would stop for the audience to take a look at her. The second rope might just be an unintended location detail.
as someone having studied literary studies and actively having written shortsstories as well as scripts (in curses at least) I can tell you that writers indeed think of these things when planning out their stodies... I tend to put in certain phrases at the beginning that will reappear over the story with vried meanings for example, so the first sentence it in no means an accident and people really think about stuff like olours, backgrounds etc to reinforce the meaning of their stories....
Except I don't really think anybody cares about color of the main characters curtains and what they are resembling. I am an artist too, but I hate it when artists tend to make their art as complicated as it possibly could be, overweighting it with meaning that probably no one will even notice ever. Art should be for everyone, not for elitist art experts.
I don't think it is about being elitist or wanting everyone to "get" it but to influence the perception ever so slightly. so in a movie you should have one central theme or message, a point you want to bring across and everything, even the curtains in the background, serve the purpose to bring that message accross. Sure people might not realize the little details but that is not the point, if those details are off and don't fit it would weaken the overall message even if the audience doeesn't realize why. So details, to the observent eye can mean alot but it isn 't a bad thing not to nitoce them since they mainly serve to reinforce the point which you will get (atr least if the movie/ artpiece of any kind) if it's a good piece of work.
This sounds like such over the top analysis and projection. Particularly the scene from Silence Of The Lambs. First of all, people DON'T watch films like that, finding hidden metaphor in absolutely everything. So no we DON'T learn all these things from this scene, you're ascribing them to the scene because you've already seen the film and know that these things apply. While some of the analysis and symbolism you discuss in your videos is very well considered, a lot of it is over-analysing and pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Why can't someone climbing a rope just be someone climbing a fucking rope, why does it have to symbolise the entire plot of the damn film we're about to watch, and at what point do the scenes stop symbolising the rest of the fucking story and just tell the damn story? That's my problem with this analysis. Maybe those things do represent far more than I'm giving them credit, but I think you're reaching. You want everything to be symbolic and you make the idea of watching a film feel like a chore. I shouldn't feel the need to contemplate every scene for 5 mins, that's where film loses what makes it so enjoyable. If you want a slow and meticulous breakdown of each scene, novels are a far better medium for that. Let's not try to force film into making everything represent something else.
it's subconscious, he is basically pointing out what makes the scenes great. you don't have to think of why you enjoy certain movies, this is more for people that want to create their own
I'm not questioning the idea that there's subconscious elements to film that we don't notice, on the surface. I'm questioning what sounds like pseudo-intellectual over analysing bullshit. I don't think there's anything close to that level of symbolism in film, and if there was it'd be wasted, because our brains simple don't absorb that much nuance at a time.
Because mate, people who enjoy film and the film form as an art DO watch movies like that and in some cases, this kinds of analysis is correct and important. Novels and film are similar mediums bc they're a form of art, a medium to be analyzed and understood bc filmmakers create things for reason, they put shots and scenes on the screen for a reason. People like the person making this video and myself and tons of other people enjoy the film form enough TO make these kinds of breakdowns. If you don't, that's fine, but don't ruin it for people who think differently than you by calling it bullshit. Bc it's not.
I was surprised he didn't mention the opening of The Godfather, because it's so iconic, but if you watch it with Francis Ford Coppola's commentary, you hear Coppola give just this kind of a breakdown of that scene, from the monologue about America being reflective of the whole Godfather saga (actually the first two films) and its metaphor for America itself, to the reason for the camera slowly pulling back to gradually reveal the environment.Coppola also states that the scene wasn't in early drafts of the script - the movie was originally to begin with the wedding scene. He decided he needed a scene that better encompassed the meaning of the whole film to open.
TornadoCreator I kind of agree and see where you're coming from. I also did think it was a bit of over analysis. A little bit of overkill. Especially I think with the silence of the lambs part. But he's coming from a good place. He's doing this because he obviously loves movies and loves to think about them deeply which all film lovers should do sometimes. But I don't think all movies need to be deeply analyzed but just watched for the pure entertainment they give. Like people that are not really into the art of filmmaking may not think of all these things and most likely won't. They just want to watch something and be entertained. Let time pass by. But some films I do believe need to be deeply analyzed and some movies are just asking and wanting to be dissected and examined. I do believe some directors and creators do this on purpose. For the viewer to really think about what they just saw. People like myself who have a huge passion for art and absolutely love the filmmaking process will more than likely analyze the shit out of a movie or any visual medium. It's just kind of natural. But for the mainstream audience member, it's just not in them to do that. So yeah I don't believe that every scene has an underlying symbol or metaphor behind them. And I don't think they should! There are definitely scenes that do have these methodical elements in them, which is great too! But I guess maybe what I'm saying is there should be a balance just like everything else in life. Let there be scenes and movies that need deep analyzation to understand the true meaning of them and other scenes and movies to just be fun and entertaining without having to think about them to understand and enjoy the full context of it.
Ok that analysis with Silence of the Lambs was a huge stretch. Nothing against the guy but it felt like he was looking for symbolism where there wasn't any.
For the rest of my life from now on, having seen this video I will be analysing every single opening shot of every movie I ever watch. imagine being so powerful you can make somebody think a certain way forever, well done, thank you for an awesome insight and video.
With regards to the opening of "Silence of the Lambs", it's a fight against nature. She's running through nature, uphill, struggling forwards, through a dark, misty forest. It's a fight against the dark, hidden corners of human nature. Kinda says to me that Hannibal Lecter wasn't some sort of monster. He was human, and humans are capable of such horror.
Everyone in the comments is saying that these observations are overthinking the actual meaning of the shot, or that they're "a bit of a stretch", but directors start a shot from scratch and have to place each element into the scene with care and intention. Rarely will a well directed movie have scenes that are shot in a certain way because it was convenient, or because that's just the way they shot it. Films are like a story told one painting at a time, and every part of that painting has meaning.
There's meaning in opening shots, as they are so important. Sometimes a lot, other times less. But these "observations" are a stretch. For example in the last one, when Clarice looks at the birds, it tells us important info about her: she's attentive (even when exhausted), she's in FBI academy (we can see the text on her shirt, before it was not known why she was running in the woods), she's giving the exercise her all (she's sweaty, huffing), she's tough. It's introducing the character, development. Setting the mood, basis. To blatantly say "in films birds flying symbolize freedom so this is symbolizing her freedom she has achieved by overcoming her difficulties" (before we even know if she has difficulties) is a stretch. I paint. Most of my paintings have meaning, whether it be an idea, a feeling, a story. But it's different to interpret than to say "I see the brush strokes are stronger here, this symbolizes that the character is stronger in her legs, stronger running, than thinking. She is running, escaping and we can see she is escaping into the blue background, that in art symbolizes sadness, she is escaping into her depression!" No, blue was just fitting and the paint was thicker... And now we're on the wrong tracks already. There's interpretation and then there's overthinking. Overthinking most of the time makes us take the wrong turn and misinterpret.
I really like the way the opening shot of Star wars: A New Hope very effectively tells you, even without the on-screen text, that you've just joined in the middle of something that has a galaxy's worth of lead-up to it. You see the starry expanse of space, several small moons, and a very alien world. It's reminiscent of things we've all seen, videos from orbiting spacecraft, but it's so clearly not our planet that we're instantly taken to another galaxy. Then a spaceship flies overhead, engines roaring and bright laser weapons flying, leaving us with no doubt that we've come in right in the middle of some other story's epic climax. And then you see the pursuing ship, and realize as it passes that this isn't just a little skirmish between spaceships. This is big. It's bigger than you think. And just when you thought you knew how big it was, nope, that's only the tip of this thing.
The way you analysis every single convention reminds so much of school where they make up create meaning into everything even if it's very weak evidence to support your argument
Your channel is why I hate this deeper meaning shit and why a lot of people think they're smart because of these bullshit deeper meanings. The only way you can see shit like "Jodie Foster is in the middle of the rope, saying we're in the middle of her journey" is if you've seen the whole film and look really hard for these meanings (Where there probably are none). Another example is 2001, that intro could easily be interpreted as "Oh so this film is set on the moon and we see the moon is in front of and more important than earth and the sun, or that the sun rises over earth showing its importance or some shit. You see now? How these bullshit explanations can be pulled from anywhere of you try hard to seem smart and have seen the whole film. The only way you know if there's a deeper meaning in ANYTHING in a film is if the writer or director says there is
Kevin Deegan not if you've studied symbolism then you will know that the sun rise is symbol of birth, like the dove is a symbol of peace and unity. There are symbols everywhere in movies you can analyse a book by it's cover, there is a good reason the cover looks like it does...
Couldn't disagree more. This kind of negative, anti-intellectual attitude is corrosive. If you think a director needs to spell out everything for you outside of the movie, you clearly don't understand cinematic language or how stories work in general. Symbolism is one of the great tools writers have at their disposal. It's as old as literature itself. With this attitude you're missing out on a lot. Calm down & try to learn something.
Ella Foxworthy I'm not disagreeing with symbolism or hiding things in things... As long as they can be INTERPRETED If you actually read my comment you would see I said I disagree with channels like this because of the symbolisms I pointed out in my comment
Normally in a book you would have a picture in your head of the entire situation, that is completely unique to your mind. Which generally is why i would see books as the better option. But i still pick movies over books since i really like the ways of filming, camera angles, details and music.
I am an artist, musician. That's who I am in life, person, and career. I love film and good storytelling. I have really been enjoying your analysis & discussion on film and such. And this video is so good, and some great examples to cite, they're just rushing into my head. But I will cite one that is one of my favorites, and that is the opening to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Just an awesome opener. How the music swells to an abrupt end...then BOOM...then to the Excelsior blissfully unaware of the danger heading their way. SO great.
Doesn't it say that Miss Louisiana is the runner-up and Miss Kansas is the winner in the Little Miss Sunshine segment? They must be showing the elated face of Miss Kansas (not Miss Louisiana as he states).
Thank you for putting this insightful video together :) I am trying to learn the ways to properly start and introduce a story, and this is extremely useful. Really made me think again about really just how much effort and thought was put into every decision when it came to storytelling. Wonderful work!
[about the 2001] "You know exactly what the plot will be". I watched this movie and all i saw was the moon, the earth and the sun. You must watch the whole movie to interpret that. Seriously. But i liked how you presented it, cause after watching the whole movie you understand what was that about (or the second time you watch it, or the third, or when someone explain to you)
kind of agree. Only his first part is correct, because it is intent on giving you a epic feeling of something being bigger than us,: the moon is smaller, and the sun rises behind earth. It does set a tone and perspective (but it def doesn't tell the plot of a robot turning on it's human lol)
personally, i dont think there is that much symbolism in opening shots to movies. more like trying to grab the watchers attention, make em ask questions/ get em involved, and it sets the scene or characters. "flashy" openings are exciting and hook the watcher the most which is why they are used so much. if you have a short attention span, alot of these movie openings are gonna bore you and you'll watch something else. if its flashy you are immediately involved/entertained.
Hey, I'm really enjoying these video essays as an aspiring filmmaker. This made me put more thought as how my first shot will be in my next short, so thank you. Again, I love all your videos.
Don't worry, it's suppose to be a backwards analysis. Because he knows what the film is about, he's able to make the "right" interpretation choices. So, because he has the context, he can do the proper analysis, without it you can't even decide if its really earth, sun and moon : imagine if it was the opening scene of Star Wars, it could be just any other part of the universe.
5:50 "The birds flying symbolize freedom our hero has achieved by pulling herself out of her rut" Or, you know, the birds just got scared of her approach.... Plus, the connection "birds scared -> birds fly -> flight -> flight is freedom -> main character obtained freedom" is just waaaay too out there. "from the opening shot we learned that our hero is determined to save herself from a figurative rut she's stuck in" How can you infer that much from a person doing physical training? There's literally nothing that would indicate any kind of problem in her life. She could be simply wishing to remain fit. These analyses go way too far sometimes and assume things without reasonable basis. You only know those symbolisms BECAUSE you have watched the movie. I doubt very much you'd have drawn the same conclusions on your first watch.
Great video, man. One of the greatest brazilian writers of all time, Luis Fernando Veríssimo, once wrote about two opening shots that I learned to love: Yojimbo and Rear Window (and I made a video essay about this one). It is just incredible the use of the symbolism and the synthesis in the sequences.
I'm a film reviewer and it drives me nuts when people overanalyse films, picking metaphors out and acting like it's the 'answer' to a film. It's like being back in high school, when your english teacher would tell you what all the symbols meant. Metaphors are just a part of the film, it's your interpretation of it and how it makes you feel that is more important, not what clever connections you can make.
This is such poorly made film essay. Try an exercise: watch a film you haven't seen yet, pause it at the very opening shot and try to deduct the upcoming events from it. Practically impossible to do. At best you're capable of defining some broad aspects of the film, like the style and the tone and such, maybe in some cases you can assume some character traits or something about a possible plot development. But overanalyzing the opening scene in retrospect, what's your point man? Check out the channel Every Frame a Painting and get your act together.
Such film school BS. This is the definition of 'reaching'. i'm sorry to say but you are reading far too much into these shots. In the words of Freud, 'sometimes a cigar is just a cigar'.
+cristoff3 Well a cigar is literally a cigar but it doesn't stop someone from thinking it's a penis. You can't inform people that they're reaching too far when it's clear they want to reach there, there's nothing wrong with that and there's nothing wrong with people not reaching at all. The best compliment a film maker can get is when two people read their work completely different as it gives everyone a unique and rewarding experience.
I'm literally not able to finish most of your essays, because you never take a break in your sentences, and that's a shame, because they are really well written!
Man your videos are great, I wished they were longer though! I would love to see more about what you have to say on each topic without it ending at 'try to find some more yourself' just when I'm getting into it, haha.
Great video (it made me subscribe) thanks for your awesome content. I really learned a lot. Far too often when watching a film I just leave my brain at the door and not pay much attention to detail. Your breakdown really added another layer of complexity to some of my favourite films.
I think your example of The Silence of the Lambs kind of shows you up here. This is Jonathan Demme. And the film is one of complex human minds. I'm not saying your reading of the shot is inaccurate, but I think it is extremely limiting, and does a disservice to the art. For example, the birds in flight did not have the ring of "freedom" to me; more like an omen of trouble or disturbance along Clarice's otherwise straight path. In truth, I feel that both of these symbols are happening at once, playing off each other. To other viewers there may be different, valid feelings being conjured. I credit Demme and his team with the skill to affect that. My point is, sometimes your analyses are too "Symbolism 101" when the films you're looking at are operating on much higher levels.
hey to Now You See It I don't know if you know, but thought it might be worth mentioning. The opening sequence of 2001: A Space Odyssey music is the first chapter of a composition by Romantic composer Richard Strauss. The piece is in itself, a 30 minutes Symphonic Poem (a style developed mainly in the Roantic era, in which composeres try to convey a thought, phillosphy, poems or even just great stories through the means of a symphonic orchestra). Richard Strauss' symphonic poem which is used in this movie and opening sequence is called "Also sprach Zarathustra",which in translation means "Thus spoke Zarathustra". "Also sprach Zarathustra" is based upon Nietze's phillosophy novel with the same name. Nietze's book, as far as I know, is (I might be wrong, I'm basing this on memory) about a man called Zarathustra traveling throught the world and talks and speeches about human's nature, existence etc. From what I've understood (I haven't read the novel), in the first part of the novel, sunrise and prolouge, Zarathustra, after something happens (again, haven't really read the novel), his conclusion about the human kind and God is that we should eventually ascend to become God. As we evolved from something lesser (apes), into something better (humans), we humans are to eventually ascend the position of the superman, the Ubermensch, as it's called in the original translation. Basically, according to some of Zarathustra's prolouge, the legacy of humanity is divided into three parts, in which every parts lead to the other - one in which humans are a lesser kind. The apes, according to Zarathustra have defeated their predators and have made them their prey. Second, in which the humans rose above the apes and become the better kind. Third in which the humans have defeated their predators and made them their prey. By doing so, the humans have become a super-being, an Ubermencsh. The first chapter of the Also sprach Zarathustra by Richard Strauss which is presented many times throughout the film, and in the opening music for the film, is based on the first chapter of the novel by Nietze, which discuss the things above. Thus the film's three parts: The animal ape stage, trying to defend themselves and to beat their predators, the advanced human stage, trying to defend themselves and beat their predators (HAL in this case) and the third, super-galactic baby-super-being, as the third and most obsulete form of the human kind. Know it's long, and if I'm wrong about some details then say, I'm no expert on Nietze's novel, I based most of these things on what I found online about the book's prolouge. But hey, it seems to make hell of a lot sense.
Great video. I've gone to the extremes lately and if a movie doesn't catch my attention in some way in the first minute or so I'll skip on to the next in my list (unless it's got a hard rec)
I really want a director to come out and say "nah, I just thought it looked cool"
Kubrick certainly meant to have the opening mean something. The others are open for debate.
the little miss sunshine analysis is certainly correct as well
Evangelion.
Arai Tasuko Some bits are true, like the Christianity stuff, and some aren’t.
Honestly, the artist has less control of his creation than he'd like to admit. There can be a truth in a work the director was initially unaware of.
I noticed the symbolism in the title of this video.
Notice how it uses the word "shots"?
This symbolises the rampant alcohol problem in the movie industry
+McDucky It's quite easy to infer meaning isnt' it... deceptively so. Too bad not many moviemakers are open with the symbology of their films.
Mr. Thorax, Symbology? Now that Duffy has relinquished his "King Bonehead" crown, I see we have an heir to the throne! I'm sure the word you were looking for was "symbolism." What is the ssss-himbolism there?
r/shittymoviedetails
@@pieterjaspers7539 wumbo. Wumbology? The study of wumbo?
Ok slow it down not everything is a metaphor or symbol
Whenever I look at these analysis I feel like the dumbest person on earth.
+超粒方 Nah, you just haven't been trained to view something critically. It has nothing to do with your intelligence, but with your training. If you study how to do it, you can do this, too.
+超粒方 When you watch these things you feel something specific that the filmmakers hopefully intended. Most people experience movies this way. The best thing to do is to start asking yourself WHY you feel the things you do. Movies are meant to be experienced. You're not wrong or dumb for doing just that. And it's not scientific or perfect. Notice how much people disagree with the interpretations. How you experience a movie belongs to you whether you can express it perfectly or whether you just laugh or cry at a scene. That's the magic of cinema that sometimes gets lost by overanalysis.
+超粒方 The thing is that when you watch a film for the first time you're watching it casually. You are just going along on the ride. But if you keep watching it over and over again you begin to notice details. You know what is going on happen in the movie so you start focusing on other things like how the film is cut, how the score is used or how the scene is staged. It's not that you are stupid, it's that you have seen the movie for what it is.
You can watch for example Mad Max Fury Road for what it is; a crazy over the top action movie with amazing stunts and great effects. But after rewatching a couple of times you start to wonder why the movie works and you begin analyzing the shots.
Most people only rewatches a movie a few times (if at all) and because of that they never think about why the movie worked or not and that's fine. You don't need to dissect a film to like it but you can appreciate it even more it you.
Sorry for the confusing why I wrote this. I wrote it stream of consciousnessly.
Don't ...I think as we rewatch great films over and over and analyze them over and over we start to find meanings in things that were never thoughtfully intended by the Director. This is certainly not wrong because I believe "art" SHOULD BE open to personal interpretation. Example , Apocalypse Now ...a film we KNOW is loaded with message and meaning and great visual storytelling as well as deeply meaningful dialogue. But having recently watched one of my favorite film guru's two part youtube disection of AN , I had to giggle a little . He found visual and set cues that he put great meaning into and credits the director (who is a genius ) with setting these cues to convey these msgs. What the reviewer lacked is a background on the culture or habits of the US military in Vietnam. These cues or props are there because of technical accuracy not metaphorical intent. However in some cases the military culture of the time displayed certain things or said certain things with metaphorical intent or ironic intent. ..It's all good however in my opinion . the more one can take away from the art of Cinema the better. And just enjoying ,being entertained , and munching on popcorn happily is fine too.
+BIasphemer As far as I can tell you're the only one here trying to prove their point of view is superior.
Hey guys, I've been getting some feedback suggesting I try seeing an opening shot from a film I've never seen before, try to infer about the film from the shot, and watch the rest of the film to see if I'm right! Anybody have any suggestions? Preferably something less popular so I may not have seen it.
Now You See It Confessions (2010)
Now You See It Timbuktu (2014)
+Now You See It Stoker!
Now You See It Upstream Color
+Now You See It old boy?
The opening shot of Birdman is the entire movie ;)
OblivionFall I hate to Umm actually you, but it is not. The MAJORITY of the film is in one shot, but there are a few short shots at the very beginning and near end. A film that is “all” (with hidden cuts, of course) in one shot would be “Rope” by Alfred Hitchcock.
@@justjalaal1038 and the movie Victoria which is all one shot without any hidden cuts.
Just Jalaal at about an hour through rope there’s a cut that isn’t hidden at all
@@justjalaal1038 "Rope" has many hidden cuts because at the time they could only film 15 minutes of film at a time so Hitchcock had to cleverly hide them.
@@justjalaal1038 rope does have hidden cuts
sometimes i think this is just interpretation. maybe not the intention of the director. i can look at a potato and think, this represents the hard working man, its covered in dirt and is filled with things we need to help us live and move forward. but no, the filmmaker may just be using a potato to show its character is a farmer or something
+EeveeFall great comment!
+EeveeFall Yes, but at the same time, Director/author's intention doesn't matter. The potato will represent that independent of intention from the director. Also, you can never know the director's intention, even if they explicitly say, because our subconscious factors into creating art, as well as our unconcious intentions.
I feel the same way about literary works by famous authors and poets. They can be interpreted as having a deeper, significant meaning or simply just words on a page.
I agree. However, it doesn't matter what the filmmaker thought either. You can experience a symbol in any way you naturally do.
once the art is created it no longer matters why the filmmaker made the scene. it's art, it's meant to draw different interpretations.
"The way the pizza delivery woman bangs on the door is symbolic of how she is about to be banged by the man in the apartment. You'll notice the first position is the 'missionary' position, as her character is there to help the man reach the next stage in his journey. The fact that he's on top is in reference to the patriarchy, and at the end, when the man ejaculates (or 'busts') in her face, this bookends the film because it goes from 'bang' (knock knock) to 'bust' (skeet skeet), in reference to the economic troubles of late 2008. You can learn so much from the first shot."
Joshua Brooks amen
I’m fucking dead lmao
Yeah. I'm a huge fan of film, but film analysis, looking for symbolism, makes me sick. There's undoubtedly intentional symbolism in a lot of movies, but in pretentious film circles, most of that attributed symbolism is imagined.
@@charleynewman5057 A lot of symbolism is on purpose, it has to be. But its mostly usually the same theme and matter of fact of things that give you an idea about what's currently going on.
And then there is the mind reading that all the video essayist do.
Joshua Brooks dggaushdidjcga
lel
further on the silence of the lambs opening: the audience knows this is a horror film from advertising, etc., and if they're horror fans, seeing a woman alone in the foggy woods will make them expect something bad to happen to her. the music also adds to the tension. there's even an almost jump scare, the sound of birds taking off, which would make a nervous audience jump slightly. because of horror film tropes, we think something is going to come after her, especially since she looks offscreen towards the sound. instead, she is totally fine, and comes to be our main character and hero of the film. this all tells us that this isn't your typical horror movie.
I really love this kind of storytelling in horror films. I like films that- while they don't fall into many of the bad horror tropes themselves, rely on our expectations to build much needed tension throughout the film ,as we constantly feel in danger or uneasy for the character
But it ain’t a fucking horror movie
Disagree. Just being faithful to book. Wasnt this intentional
If you don't see the rope at first, when you glimpse her running you may immediately think she's running _away_ from someone before you realize she's just completing an obstacle course.
I think you may be reading too much symbolism into the Silence of the Lambs opening. You say the other rope not being used means not everyone has made it as far as she has. You continue to say that she's determined to save herself from a figurative rut she's stuck in by training.
I think it's more of an introduction to the character of Clarice Starling. She is running an obstacle course on her own, which means she's not doing it at the orders of her superiors. There's no drill sergeant yelling at her to go faster like in Full Metal Jacket. This establishes Starling as a highly-motivated FBI recruit who pushes herself further to be the best or at least prove herself to her peers. She is so dedicated, that she'll work to be the best even when nobody else is doing the same, hence the empty rope and nobody else on the course.
And what is this rut she's saving herself from? She is obviously not struggling through FBI training, as she is quickly upjumped into the field by her mentor to interview Lecter a few scenes later. She's someone who is succeeding in training and becoming a capable FBI agent, not someone stuck in a rut.
+Chairman Meow Yeah, the word "rut" was used so many times I'm beginning to think this wasn't the best written video. It was not a 'rut' that she was trying to get herself out of, she was doing well in the FBI. The opening could be seen as simply showing Clarice progressing, or as a metaphor for her putting her childhood behind her, rising out of her social class (referring to Lector's point about her hiding her accent). The birds could be seen as someone ominously watching her, or a metaphor for Clarice's own migration.
There is a lot of other metaphor's I am not recognizing such as the score, the mist, the camera positioning, but I've never bothered to look much into the Silence of the Lambs. Guess that is going to have to change.
+Chairman Meow Meow
+Chairman Meow You are so right, and you sound more like someone who tried to understand the movie or scenes instead of someone who want to interpret stuff on a basic "that symbolizes"-level, no matter if it is there or not.
I think the most direct metaphor in that scene was that she was literally ascending the hill, while the film was about her ascension as an FBI agent. She starts off just a small figure in the distance at the bottom, a trainee, but rises to become someone at the "top of the hill", graduating with distinction.
+Chairman Meow Personally I think whatever an audience reads into a film is really there. I subscribe to the belief that meaning is projected onto art by the observer. Basically (imo) = all art is subjective
Little Miss Sunshine's beginning shot stuck with me more then I thought anything would. I was eleven when I first saw it and fell in love with the movie. Then of course Moonrise Kingdom and Rushmore have some of the best opening scenes. You can't forget about Inglorious Bastards or Pulp Fiction obviously. My newest favorite is from the Lobster, just draws you in.
those are all my favorite movies, are we soulmates?
Helen I think we're the same person, you might like heathers
I love the opening in her eyes -Little miss sunshine's
Helen i love little miss sunshine
I don't think it's right for you to say that these shots tell us everything about a movie immediately. They may set the stage and impart a certain feeling in us, but if you were watching any of those movies for the first time you couldn't pause it and immediately extrapolate all of that information.
no he's right. A large amount of the time people will make up the meaning after they know the rest of the film. But it's not always symbolic to that degree
Nobody would infer any of his suggestions without watching the films first. Maybe 2001 although I don't even agree with his description of the plot. The others are massive reaches. For example I can think of other films that open with the back of someones head and they are obviously very different characters.
There is so much symbolism to explore in movies it is a shame to reach so much for these examples. Should have gone for something more universal like the colour orange in the godfather or black and white in westerns.
Alex Stewart I think he meant that it tells us all we need to know
Interesting! My favorite film is Spirited Away and in the first shot the main character is looking at a goodbye present from a friend she had to leave behind, that does relate to the end of the movie too! I don't think opening shots are always meant to foreshadow for the audience so directly, but it' a useful tool for the filmmaker to keep in mind so that the ending feels more full circle. Definitely has more effect on the second viewing, it probably contributes to how fun a movie is to see over & over again.
There Will Be Blood's opening shot contained no dialogue for the first 15 minutes. A must see.
+Beast Mode i know what you mean, but the opening shot was just the massive landscape with the eerie strings. the following 15 mins don't count as the same opening shot
+pukeyourguts These lands will be drained dry.
+Beast Mode Sigh, I never did get around to seeing that. Money was tight, and I think I saw No Country for Old Men instead.
Robert Headley That was probably a good choice. TWBB is very polar when it comes to its audience compared to No Country. You either love it or hate it.
No country was great, but I have no draw to rewatch it like other Cohen brother fair.
This is basically what a GSCE English lesson is.
omg yes
Media*
Good life choice.
I learned about everything he talked about in this video during school, it would have been a lot shorter and a lot more memorable if they just showed us this. Good editing and interesting video's can like this should be what they display at school. Not google docs with *one* opening of a movie and then explain it below after a live demonstration with the same movie.
error2
More than anything else, the opening shot should establish the tone of the movie.
I haven't seen silence of the lambs, but I can say in that opening when the birds fly away, she stops, turns her body towards the camera so you can see on her shirt "FBI academy" telling us a lot about her, where she is, and why she is there.
WTF, are there actually people in this world who have NOT seen Silence of the Lambs? How the hell does such a movie just get past you? Now drop whatever it is you're doing and go watch it.
@@gnualmafuerte I just quit my job to go watch Silence of the Lambs.
@@charleynewman5057 AS YOU SHOULD
Ehh I got a different vibe from the opening of silence of the lambs....the music gives it an ominous feeling, and the birds flying away suggest that perhaps danger is nearby or that someone is watching her, and her reaction could be interpreted as caution or jittery..ness...That scene specifically I think maybe we're all digging a little too deep into but that's just my .02
Funny, i see it as hightened senses and threat assessment. Hunting the hunter. As a way to squash the scared victim stumbling thru the woods trope usually in horror.
I feel when she climbs the hill first, she gets to the problem, and then for the rest of the scene she is just running with the camera behind her, giving the sense that she is being chased. later we learn that she is running away from her past and the screaming voices of the lambs.
that's probably cause you already knew about the film's genre
Make sure to check out the opening shot of "Lost in Translation" ;)
It's one of my all time favourite movies but I don't even really know if I get the opening shot... it's her body in the twilight on the hotelbed if I remember correctly, right?
Scarlett Johansson's ass is quite an opening shot indeed
Filmmaker IQ pale skin booty
Yes! And The Graduate!
Filmmaker IQ I think the opening shot of that movie is really accurate in that it portrays the loneliness of the movie especially for the main character. It’s about navigating the character’s loneliness in a new city while she meets someone else going through the same thing and finds a sense of belonging.
Have you ever gotten into a fistfight with Every Frame A Painting?
He doesn't come close to Every Frame a Painting. He talks so much more and dictates. Tony would ask a question, let the scene speak for itself and ask you "how'd it make you feel?" It was so much more interesting. This guy just tells you how to think.
@@nailersrule make your own videos then
@@gansach No. This can be worse than Every Frame a Painting and is. This is a disappointing essay.
2:58 ... uhm... really? I mean.. "EXACTLY what the plot will be about" ?!
From that shot you know that we have like 3 parts in that movie from apes killing each other with bones to a monolith in space, a crazy robot-mind that controls the ship and tries to kill the passengers and some dude on LSD in space?!
exactly what I thought… you actually don't know…. anything haha :D
he was generally speaking.
the plot sucks by the way. kubrick sucks
2001 isn't about the plot, it's about the themes.
sleepingfoggy6 even if the plot sucked (if u didn't quite understand it you can type 2001 explanation on google and there's a specific site for that) it's not all about that. it's the way kubrick tells a story and the way he makes every shot and dialogue. it's the way he puts all this together that makes it a great movie. bcos he didn't write the plot, arthur c. clarke did.
I googled Dan in Real Life (2007) because I suspected the opening Shot was about him looing at a picture of his dead wife. Crazy how well acted by Steve Carell that is! powerful opening
Now look at the opening shot of Little Miss Sunshine. What do you see? *sees glasses* A NERD!!!
Loving these videos! Keep them coming!
The opening to 2001 also tells you that it will be a long, tedious, drawn out ordeal.
TGGeko well that is true lol
haha yes. that why i skip to the acid trip sequence.
Yeah. Somewhere in there there's an amazing movie. Too bad Kubrick was terrible at pacing and directing actors. Great photography director, though.
Honestly that's a lot of Kubrick's style. Even his work with the shinning was very drawn out with long scenes that never end. It worked well for the genre but literally what he does best.
I disagree. In my opinion, the opening tells you it won't be a movie that will have an explosion and a gun fight within the first ten minutes.
2:07: "This shot literally showing the dawn of man". Figuratively, not literally. How would you even begin to literally show a dawn of man?
+Kristian Uhlving Well corrected - a much over-used term, and incorrectly so
It's literally dawn as the sun is rising, yes it's figuratively a dawn as well. a visual metaphor.
Tom G Had he said "this shot literally showing a dawn", there wouldn't be an issue. Literally should only be used when you mean literally, not metaphorically.
Yep, that's my point, it was a metaphor, not a literalism or figurative flourish. But in fairness I think he meant Kubrick was using a literal dawn to create a metaphor. But hey, it's a quick TH-cam analysis, not a post doc submission.
+Kristian Uhlving I'd add that the only reason he knows that it's the dawn of man is because he watched further into the movie. There's nothing in the graphics of the shot itself to suggest what era it takes place during.
The sudden sound of birds taking flight at the beginning of Silence of the Lambs also suggests a dangerous presence nearby. The second rope also tells us that she is making her journey alone.
True true
There can be many interpretations. Little miss sunshine was quite obvious, we cant say much about this opening. It's nice that you show people that movies are not only to watch but also to READ.
Baby drivers first shot sends chills down my spine every time i see it, the cross between the tinnitus ringing into the brakes of the car, changing the focus from far away to close up immediately draws our focus to it. Baby driver is a goddamn masterpeice, everyone needs to watch that movie.
I think some of your assumptions are a big stretch of the scenes, yes you can translate them like you say but is not really that.
Hindsight is 20/20. I would like him to see the opening shot of a movie about which he knows nothing, and infer all those kinds of things. Then see if he's right.
This. Let's maybe not act like all these things are completely obvious pieces of information that occur to all of us. In the opening shot of Silence of the Lambs, I learn that the movie is probably about a sweaty healthy woman. Let's settle down about her journey.
Yeah I actually saw this video then sought out the comments to see if anyone else thought some of this stuff was kind of a stretch...I was not alone.
I don't blame him for trying to interpret symbolism, but "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", ya know? Also it's pretty ignorant for you to assume that people who disagree with his interpretation "are not good at analysis". Disagreeing with someone doesn't always equal ignorance, but blanket assumptions of groups of people does.
I agree with you on the part about silence of the lambs, but that’s it.
sometimes a shot of the earth is just a shot of the earth man
the commentaries are very interesting. They remind me my french literature classes when we studied books and analysed incipits. We were a scientific class, french was not the interest of 90% of the class and some brillant classmates said "this is bullshit, you can say what you want with a text cause one sentence can have several meanings. The author did not think about every metaphor (for example)". I think they were right about the several interpretations for one sentence...but i still think they were wrong about the "you can say what you want with a text" because a text have precise words, constructions, and even if the meaning is open to interpretation, it's not unlimited: maybe 2 or 3 interpretations, not a million. Literature is less precise than science cause it's not about truth, it does not have to be totally clear...so you have to look at the whole text, to analyse and understand. My teachers showed me keys I did not understand in some texts, for example the manipulation of a character by another.
But yeah I understand comments, sometimes analyses are too much...especially I remembered an analyse of a Rimbaud poem called "voyelles", the teacher analysed it with sexual interpretations, clearly for me it was too much. The difference between good and bad teachers in literature is about what they want to see, and what you can really see. Interpretation is possible only if the text support it, not only one word.
Ok my commentary was very long sorry but i still love analysing text and videos so i don't like when people say this exercice is totally random and useless.
Most opening shots in movies:
Tells something
Killer bean:
FUNK
You are definitely over-analysing on the opening shot of silence of the lambs
There's no ''definitely''. You might think it means nothing, while another might think it means everything. There's no right or wrong, just different interpretations.
@@IVUSER Rut
u dont think 35 secs is a bit much for a youtube intro?
I think it's an example of the video theme
Massa de manobra please elaborate, internet seal
Jordan Severns it would be my pleasure (excuse any bad english).
the intro for this video has these epic images and music which are followed by the name of the channel.
in my point of view, this would want to show us what is about to come on the channel (epic/amazing conttent)
Jordan Severns have you seen beauty gurus these days
TH-cam algorithm likes longer videos it seems.
Actually ms Kansas was the winner
+Manrantson MRA actually it was Ms. Columbia. It says it right here on the card.
+Manrantson MRA It was on the card. Please don't blame the ladies. I will take responsibility for this.
Imagine a movie starting in a bar, fade in from black, zooming in to a single person sitting at the bar. This person drinks a small alcoholic drink, then looks right into the camera and says: Well, this was the opening shot. Boom, awesome!
I'd be really interested to see your analysis of a movie opening from a movie you HAVEN'T seen. It's really easy to infer a lot of info from the opening shot of a flick if you already know the themes and plot of the movie. I don't think people would draw the same conclusions otherwise. They might though, I'm just not sure.
Well-done video either way. I like.
+SeanithanEgan The thing is, the opening sets the tone whether the audience is aware of it, or able to interpret it, or not. It doesn't need to be decipherable - it just needs to be consistent with what's to follow. The effect is largely subconscious, and as others interpret the same openings differently, obviously also somewhat subjective. What's important is that it is meaningful. Whether that meaning is apparent to any given viewer isn't really the point.
4:34 Correction. She doesn't want to be Miss Louisiana because then she will just be the first runner up. This was Miss America 1997 and Miss Kansas-Tara Dawn Holland won here. Listen more closely. "The new Miss America is Miss Kansas, Tara Dawn Holland"
I've never heard of Little Miss Sunshine, but what I inferred that our main character is a curious (wide eyes) girl who's smart (glasses) and is intrigued by the beauty pageant winners. The color palette suggests an older time so I thought her infatuation was about her looking at successful females who can do great things, like she wants to, even if at that time they are mostly judged for superficial things. Tldr: she is enamored by successful females and wants to be one of them
Hey man, I know absolutely nothing about everything you cover in your videos, but I love em.
I've honestly learned so much from this channel. I make youtube sketches and they get better with each video mostly from channels like this.
I've been paying a lot more attention to opening shots now. That and closing shots. Thanks!
Not everything is symbolic
+Boston Walker It's subjective. Some people see things differently. You may not see symbolism, but he did.
+George Daugherty But what it the director just wanted birds because he likes birds, and not to symbolize anything? Is the meaning we project onto that valid? It's a tough question.
+Mr. Thorax
we'd never know
+Boston Walker So true. I'm sure most directors laugh their asses off when they hear pretentious bull like this.
EuroTrasho Productions
why would a director laugh their ass off when they see multiple people meticulously analyse their films?... That's one of the biggest compliments any director could get. That's something to be very proud of
Makes me think of the opening shot of the Sixth Sense. The slow turn on of the light bulb makes a great metaphor for the that final revelation.
I love Little Miss Sunshine. Tells a great story with a fantastic message and unique characters. One of the most underrated movies.
Amazing as always. Your analysis of The Silence of The Lambs opening was my favourite!
silence of the lambs interpretation is a stretch, in my opinion.
Michael Lena mine also. I'd say the birds were put in the scene so that Foster would stop for the audience to take a look at her. The second rope might just be an unintended location detail.
I think most of these theories are stretch, honestly.
as someone having studied literary studies and actively having written shortsstories as well as scripts (in curses at least) I can tell you that writers indeed think of these things when planning out their stodies... I tend to put in certain phrases at the beginning that will reappear over the story with vried meanings for example, so the first sentence it in no means an accident and people really think about stuff like olours, backgrounds etc to reinforce the meaning of their stories....
Except I don't really think anybody cares about color of the main characters curtains and what they are resembling. I am an artist too, but I hate it when artists tend to make their art as complicated as it possibly could be, overweighting it with meaning that probably no one will even notice ever. Art should be for everyone, not for elitist art experts.
I don't think it is about being elitist or wanting everyone to "get" it but to influence the perception ever so slightly. so in a movie you should have one central theme or message, a point you want to bring across and everything, even the curtains in the background, serve the purpose to bring that message accross. Sure people might not realize the little details but that is not the point, if those details are off and don't fit it would weaken the overall message even if the audience doeesn't realize why. So details, to the observent eye can mean alot but it isn
't a bad thing not to nitoce them since they mainly serve to reinforce the point which you will get (atr least if the movie/ artpiece of any kind) if it's a good piece of work.
Very in depth, master yoda!! very artsy!! really enjoyed the 'Silence of the Lambs' bit...Really cool!!
This sounds like such over the top analysis and projection. Particularly the scene from Silence Of The Lambs. First of all, people DON'T watch films like that, finding hidden metaphor in absolutely everything. So no we DON'T learn all these things from this scene, you're ascribing them to the scene because you've already seen the film and know that these things apply. While some of the analysis and symbolism you discuss in your videos is very well considered, a lot of it is over-analysing and pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Why can't someone climbing a rope just be someone climbing a fucking rope, why does it have to symbolise the entire plot of the damn film we're about to watch, and at what point do the scenes stop symbolising the rest of the fucking story and just tell the damn story? That's my problem with this analysis. Maybe those things do represent far more than I'm giving them credit, but I think you're reaching. You want everything to be symbolic and you make the idea of watching a film feel like a chore. I shouldn't feel the need to contemplate every scene for 5 mins, that's where film loses what makes it so enjoyable. If you want a slow and meticulous breakdown of each scene, novels are a far better medium for that. Let's not try to force film into making everything represent something else.
it's subconscious, he is basically pointing out what makes the scenes great. you don't have to think of why you enjoy certain movies, this is more for people that want to create their own
I'm not questioning the idea that there's subconscious elements to film that we don't notice, on the surface. I'm questioning what sounds like pseudo-intellectual over analysing bullshit. I don't think there's anything close to that level of symbolism in film, and if there was it'd be wasted, because our brains simple don't absorb that much nuance at a time.
Because mate, people who enjoy film and the film form as an art DO watch movies like that and in some cases, this kinds of analysis is correct and important. Novels and film are similar mediums bc they're a form of art, a medium to be analyzed and understood bc filmmakers create things for reason, they put shots and scenes on the screen for a reason. People like the person making this video and myself and tons of other people enjoy the film form enough TO make these kinds of breakdowns. If you don't, that's fine, but don't ruin it for people who think differently than you by calling it bullshit. Bc it's not.
I was surprised he didn't mention the opening of The Godfather, because it's so iconic, but if you watch it with Francis Ford Coppola's commentary, you hear Coppola give just this kind of a breakdown of that scene, from the monologue about America being reflective of the whole Godfather saga (actually the first two films) and its metaphor for America itself, to the reason for the camera slowly pulling back to gradually reveal the environment.Coppola also states that the scene wasn't in early drafts of the script - the movie was originally to begin with the wedding scene. He decided he needed a scene that better encompassed the meaning of the whole film to open.
TornadoCreator I kind of agree and see where you're coming from. I also did think it was a bit of over analysis. A little bit of overkill. Especially I think with the silence of the lambs part. But he's coming from a good place. He's doing this because he obviously loves movies and loves to think about them deeply which all film lovers should do sometimes. But I don't think all movies need to be deeply analyzed but just watched for the pure entertainment they give. Like people that are not really into the art of filmmaking may not think of all these things and most likely won't. They just want to watch something and be entertained. Let time pass by. But some films I do believe need to be deeply analyzed and some movies are just asking and wanting to be dissected and examined. I do believe some directors and creators do this on purpose. For the viewer to really think about what they just saw. People like myself who have a huge passion for art and absolutely love the filmmaking process will more than likely analyze the shit out of a movie or any visual medium. It's just kind of natural. But for the mainstream audience member, it's just not in them to do that. So yeah I don't believe that every scene has an underlying symbol or metaphor behind them. And I don't think they should! There are definitely scenes that do have these methodical elements in them, which is great too! But I guess maybe what I'm saying is there should be a balance just like everything else in life. Let there be scenes and movies that need deep analyzation to understand the true meaning of them and other scenes and movies to just be fun and entertaining without having to think about them to understand and enjoy the full context of it.
How this channel doesn't have millions of subs is beyond me
Ok that analysis with Silence of the Lambs was a huge stretch. Nothing against the guy but it felt like he was looking for symbolism where there wasn't any.
Until you find out that Demme was the director, and then you know he was ladling symbolism everywhere.
For the rest of my life from now on, having seen this video I will be analysing every single opening shot of every movie I ever watch. imagine being so powerful you can make somebody think a certain way forever, well done, thank you for an awesome insight and video.
With regards to the opening of "Silence of the Lambs", it's a fight against nature. She's running through nature, uphill, struggling forwards, through a dark, misty forest. It's a fight against the dark, hidden corners of human nature. Kinda says to me that Hannibal Lecter wasn't some sort of monster. He was human, and humans are capable of such horror.
You blew my mind dude, great stuff.
Everyone in the comments is saying that these observations are overthinking the actual meaning of the shot, or that they're "a bit of a stretch", but directors start a shot from scratch and have to place each element into the scene with care and intention. Rarely will a well directed movie have scenes that are shot in a certain way because it was convenient, or because that's just the way they shot it. Films are like a story told one painting at a time, and every part of that painting has meaning.
Exactly!
There's meaning in opening shots, as they are so important. Sometimes a lot, other times less.
But these "observations" are a stretch.
For example in the last one, when Clarice looks at the birds, it tells us important info about her: she's attentive (even when exhausted), she's in FBI academy (we can see the text on her shirt, before it was not known why she was running in the woods), she's giving the exercise her all (she's sweaty, huffing), she's tough. It's introducing the character, development. Setting the mood, basis.
To blatantly say "in films birds flying symbolize freedom so this is symbolizing her freedom she has achieved by overcoming her difficulties" (before we even know if she has difficulties) is a stretch.
I paint. Most of my paintings have meaning, whether it be an idea, a feeling, a story. But it's different to interpret than to say "I see the brush strokes are stronger here, this symbolizes that the character is stronger in her legs, stronger running, than thinking. She is running, escaping and we can see she is escaping into the blue background, that in art symbolizes sadness, she is escaping into her depression!" No, blue was just fitting and the paint was thicker... And now we're on the wrong tracks already. There's interpretation and then there's overthinking. Overthinking most of the time makes us take the wrong turn and misinterpret.
I really like the way the opening shot of Star wars: A New Hope very effectively tells you, even without the on-screen text, that you've just joined in the middle of something that has a galaxy's worth of lead-up to it. You see the starry expanse of space, several small moons, and a very alien world. It's reminiscent of things we've all seen, videos from orbiting spacecraft, but it's so clearly not our planet that we're instantly taken to another galaxy. Then a spaceship flies overhead, engines roaring and bright laser weapons flying, leaving us with no doubt that we've come in right in the middle of some other story's epic climax. And then you see the pursuing ship, and realize as it passes that this isn't just a little skirmish between spaceships. This is big. It's bigger than you think. And just when you thought you knew how big it was, nope, that's only the tip of this thing.
The opening of The Black Swan is one of the most beautiful.
The way you analysis every single convention reminds so much of school where they make up create meaning into everything even if it's very weak evidence to support your argument
Your channel is why I hate this deeper meaning shit and why a lot of people think they're smart because of these bullshit deeper meanings. The only way you can see shit like "Jodie Foster is in the middle of the rope, saying we're in the middle of her journey" is if you've seen the whole film and look really hard for these meanings (Where there probably are none). Another example is 2001, that intro could easily be interpreted as "Oh so this film is set on the moon and we see the moon is in front of and more important than earth and the sun, or that the sun rises over earth showing its importance or some shit. You see now? How these bullshit explanations can be pulled from anywhere of you try hard to seem smart and have seen the whole film. The only way you know if there's a deeper meaning in ANYTHING in a film is if the writer or director says there is
Kevin Deegan not if you've studied symbolism then you will know that the sun rise is symbol of birth, like the dove is a symbol of peace and unity. There are symbols everywhere in movies you can analyse a book by it's cover, there is a good reason the cover looks like it does...
Couldn't disagree more. This kind of negative, anti-intellectual attitude is corrosive. If you think a director needs to spell out everything for you outside of the movie, you clearly don't understand cinematic language or how stories work in general. Symbolism is one of the great tools writers have at their disposal. It's as old as literature itself. With this attitude you're missing out on a lot. Calm down & try to learn something.
Ella Foxworthy I'm not disagreeing with symbolism or hiding things in things...
As long as they can be INTERPRETED
If you actually read my comment you would see I said I disagree with channels like this because of the symbolisms I pointed out in my comment
Normally in a book you would have a picture in your head of the entire situation, that is completely unique to your mind. Which generally is why i would see books as the better option. But i still pick movies over books since i really like the ways of filming, camera angles, details and music.
"oh i dont understand it, then it must be shit!"
I'm glad that "I Hate Everything" mentioned you. This seems like such a great channel.
The opening shot of Memento is another great example. Its actually the ending but sums everything up.
I am an artist, musician. That's who I am in life, person, and career. I love film and good storytelling. I have really been enjoying your analysis & discussion on film and such. And this video is so good, and some great examples to cite, they're just rushing into my head. But I will cite one that is one of my favorites, and that is the opening to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Just an awesome opener. How the music swells to an abrupt end...then BOOM...then to the Excelsior blissfully unaware of the danger heading their way. SO great.
Inglorious Basterds and the French farm house? :D
Quentin Tarantino always has amazing opening scenes. Loved that one in particular.
but that's the first scene not the opening shot its 15 min long
“Now you see it” in a scene where the earths shadow makes it look like an eye.
Genius.
Doesn't it say that Miss Louisiana is the runner-up and Miss Kansas is the winner in the Little Miss Sunshine segment? They must be showing the elated face of Miss Kansas (not Miss Louisiana as he states).
Thank you for putting this insightful video together :) I am trying to learn the ways to properly start and introduce a story, and this is extremely useful. Really made me think again about really just how much effort and thought was put into every decision when it came to storytelling. Wonderful work!
[about the 2001] "You know exactly what the plot will be". I watched this movie and all i saw was the moon, the earth and the sun. You must watch the whole movie to interpret that. Seriously. But i liked how you presented it, cause after watching the whole movie you understand what was that about (or the second time you watch it, or the third, or when someone explain to you)
Mishelle Ch. god dang it was a hard movie to understand explain?
kind of agree. Only his first part is correct, because it is intent on giving you a epic feeling of something being bigger than us,: the moon is smaller, and the sun rises behind earth. It does set a tone and perspective (but it def doesn't tell the plot of a robot turning on it's human lol)
busi magen yes that's true, but it doesn't really add much to this convo
honestly I have no words to thank you!
all your lessons are great!!
personally, i dont think there is that much symbolism in opening shots to movies. more like trying to grab the watchers attention, make em ask questions/ get em involved, and it sets the scene or characters. "flashy" openings are exciting and hook the watcher the most which is why they are used so much. if you have a short attention span, alot of these movie openings are gonna bore you and you'll watch something else. if its flashy you are immediately involved/entertained.
What a great channel!!! So interesting. Pls keep making videos!!!
I love the opening shot in Gone Girl. its amazing.
Hey, I'm really enjoying these video essays as an aspiring filmmaker. This made me put more thought as how my first shot will be in my next short, so thank you. Again, I love all your videos.
I just saw the Moon, Earth and Sun and you got the whole plot of the movie from that? Okay :(
Don't worry, it's suppose to be a backwards analysis. Because he knows what the film is about, he's able to make the "right" interpretation choices. So, because he has the context, he can do the proper analysis, without it you can't even decide if its really earth, sun and moon : imagine if it was the opening scene of Star Wars, it could be just any other part of the universe.
Another great video from you, as always.
5:50 "The birds flying symbolize freedom our hero has achieved by pulling herself out of her rut"
Or, you know, the birds just got scared of her approach.... Plus, the connection "birds scared -> birds fly -> flight -> flight is freedom -> main character obtained freedom" is just waaaay too out there.
"from the opening shot we learned that our hero is determined to save herself from a figurative rut she's stuck in"
How can you infer that much from a person doing physical training? There's literally nothing that would indicate any kind of problem in her life. She could be simply wishing to remain fit.
These analyses go way too far sometimes and assume things without reasonable basis. You only know those symbolisms BECAUSE you have watched the movie. I doubt very much you'd have drawn the same conclusions on your first watch.
Great video, man. One of the greatest brazilian writers of all time, Luis Fernando Veríssimo, once wrote about two opening shots that I learned to love: Yojimbo and Rear Window (and I made a video essay about this one). It is just incredible the use of the symbolism and the synthesis in the sequences.
I'm a film reviewer and it drives me nuts when people overanalyse films, picking metaphors out and acting like it's the 'answer' to a film. It's like being back in high school, when your english teacher would tell you what all the symbols meant. Metaphors are just a part of the film, it's your interpretation of it and how it makes you feel that is more important, not what clever connections you can make.
+roxyqueen2 As a filmmaker, it only makes me laugh. It can induce a few sighs as well, but mostly laughs.
You, Film Riot, and Every Frame a Painting are my "go-to" film channels!
i personally prefer the more technical analysis of films from channels like Every Frame A Painting. The video was great though
Wonderful channel. Glad to have discovered it! Major kudos :)
This is such poorly made film essay. Try an exercise: watch a film you haven't seen yet, pause it at the very opening shot and try to deduct the upcoming events from it. Practically impossible to do. At best you're capable of defining some broad aspects of the film, like the style and the tone and such, maybe in some cases you can assume some character traits or something about a possible plot development. But overanalyzing the opening scene in retrospect, what's your point man? Check out the channel Every Frame a Painting and get your act together.
ajajajjajaja, that last part "get your act together" reminded me the Rick and Morty quote "get your shit Together!"
man, congratz for your work!
Fire Walk With Me? Amazing opening shot
F*CK TELEVISION
the real question is how the hell did they get the shot in Little Miss Sunshine without the reflection of the camera in her glasses
Such film school BS. This is the definition of 'reaching'. i'm sorry to say but you are reading far too much into these shots.
In the words of Freud, 'sometimes a cigar is just a cigar'.
+cristoff3 Well a cigar is literally a cigar but it doesn't stop someone from thinking it's a penis. You can't inform people that they're reaching too far when it's clear they want to reach there, there's nothing wrong with that and there's nothing wrong with people not reaching at all. The best compliment a film maker can get is when two people read their work completely different as it gives everyone a unique and rewarding experience.
Absolute Travis T Extremely well put, and very unique angle.
I'm literally not able to finish most of your essays, because you never take a break in your sentences, and that's a shame, because they are really well written!
I consider Memento´s opening to be another great example
Yeah, but isn't it strange that they put it into the end of the movie?
Good channel, glad I found you.
Jesse Eisenberg's voice
"now you see it ---- i mean me"
Man your videos are great, I wished they were longer though! I would love to see more about what you have to say on each topic without it ending at 'try to find some more yourself' just when I'm getting into it, haha.
No mention of The Shining?
The opening shot(s) sets the whole tone of the movie.
Great video (it made me subscribe) thanks for your awesome content. I really learned a lot. Far too often when watching a film I just leave my brain at the door and not pay much attention to detail. Your breakdown really added another layer of complexity to some of my favourite films.
I think your example of The Silence of the Lambs kind of shows you up here. This is Jonathan Demme. And the film is one of complex human minds. I'm not saying your reading of the shot is inaccurate, but I think it is extremely limiting, and does a disservice to the art. For example, the birds in flight did not have the ring of "freedom" to me; more like an omen of trouble or disturbance along Clarice's otherwise straight path. In truth, I feel that both of these symbols are happening at once, playing off each other. To other viewers there may be different, valid feelings being conjured. I credit Demme and his team with the skill to affect that.
My point is, sometimes your analyses are too "Symbolism 101" when the films you're looking at are operating on much higher levels.
hey to Now You See It
I don't know if you know, but thought it might be worth mentioning.
The opening sequence of 2001: A Space Odyssey music is the first chapter of a composition by Romantic composer Richard Strauss. The piece is in itself, a 30 minutes Symphonic Poem (a style developed mainly in the Roantic era, in which composeres try to convey a thought, phillosphy, poems or even just great stories through the means of a symphonic orchestra). Richard Strauss' symphonic poem which is used in this movie and opening sequence is called "Also sprach Zarathustra",which in translation means "Thus spoke Zarathustra".
"Also sprach Zarathustra" is based upon Nietze's phillosophy novel with the same name. Nietze's book, as far as I know, is (I might be wrong, I'm basing this on memory) about a man called Zarathustra traveling throught the world and talks and speeches about human's nature, existence etc.
From what I've understood (I haven't read the novel), in the first part of the novel, sunrise and prolouge, Zarathustra, after something happens (again, haven't really read the novel), his conclusion about the human kind and God is that we should eventually ascend to become God. As we evolved from something lesser (apes), into something better (humans), we humans are to eventually ascend the position of the superman, the Ubermensch, as it's called in the original translation. Basically, according to some of Zarathustra's prolouge, the legacy of humanity is divided into three parts, in which every parts lead to the other -
one in which humans are a lesser kind. The apes, according to Zarathustra have defeated their predators and have made them their prey.
Second, in which the humans rose above the apes and become the better kind.
Third in which the humans have defeated their predators and made them their prey. By doing so, the humans have become a super-being, an Ubermencsh.
The first chapter of the Also sprach Zarathustra by Richard Strauss which is presented many times throughout the film, and in the opening music for the film, is based on the first chapter of the novel by Nietze, which discuss the things above.
Thus the film's three parts:
The animal ape stage, trying to defend themselves and to beat their predators,
the advanced human stage, trying to defend themselves and beat their predators (HAL in this case)
and the third, super-galactic baby-super-being, as the third and most obsulete form of the human kind.
Know it's long, and if I'm wrong about some details then say, I'm no expert on Nietze's novel, I based most of these things on what I found online about the book's prolouge. But hey, it seems to make hell of a lot sense.
I always liked the opening sequence of Back to the Future :)
The opening shot of this video and its accompanying welcome is pure classic.
Best opening shot to a movie is without a doubt Rear Window.... the whole movie is in the first shot
Great video. I've gone to the extremes lately and if a movie doesn't catch my attention in some way in the first minute or so I'll skip on to the next in my list (unless it's got a hard rec)
But What Does It Tell Us When You Capitalize Every Word In The Titles?
It Tells Us Everything
Launger that's how you title things
I love this video! Great work!