>>After that I used to watch movies and try to think like an
>>editor or director would. Which camera angles worked best?
>
>how would you know from the finished product?
>

I had somewhat of a photographic memory back then. So, if I saw an action movie, I could half-remember an amazing set piece. At least some of the beats and camera moves. If I was watching an action sequence I would watch the movie and then in my mind compare the action sequence of the movie being viewed to the image in my mind.

Or in a drama, I would watch the framing of a scene and contrast that to a scene which brought out the most emotion.


>
>>In college a friend of mine invited me to audit a film
>studies
>>course. The class watched a couple of classic movies (North
>by
>>Northwest was one I remember). But I didn't enjoy the
>>pretentious of the class. I was more into popcorn movies at
>>the time and valued movies that had artistic integrity but
>>weren't self-indulgent like many of the films the teacher
>>seemed to revere.
>


>i understand this viewpoint less as i increasingly "become
>literate in cinema". these WERE the popcorn movies at the
>time. they show the fundamentals of film. i'm with you on
>people who would pay to take a film studies course being
>pretentious as shit though.
>

I did enjoy most of the movies. We saw North by Northwest and The Third Man, both are amazing films to me. I assumed that the movies being shown weren't hits at the time of their release but that's mostly out of ignorance.

My rub with the course was that the instructor seemed to favor the director's liberty to stay true to their vision rather than serve the audience. That's not to say that filmmakers shouldn't have a unique style or voice. Filmmakers who have a unique voice but blend their style into a palatable form for audiences stand out more than iconoclasts who have a strong vision.

That being said, Malick is one of my favorite directors, so...