Wait isn't daisy bell just a cute little song sung by an old computer? I don't see the scariness in that in fact i think it's pretty wholesome

⁠@@imaricyeah12fr

Cooke S4 lenses!

Same i was afraid but not anymore

Thanks for commenting. I know this topic can be very counter-intuitive, which is one of things that drove me to make this essay a number of years ago. First: keep in mind that The Five C's of Cinematography was published in 1965 and contains a ton of great insight, but the way it describes visual language has fallen a bit out of date with the way we commonly use it now in film criticism and shot design. Everyone uses these terms a little bit differently and idiosyncratically but I would say that the way I describe it here is still how I most commonly see objective and subjective terms being utilized (in my own work and in the work of my peers). These days, subjectivity is more of a descriptor of the way the visual language of the film is "aligning us" to a character rather than a description specifically of our vantage point. I think, in terms of analysis, you're best off asking a few questions about a scene or shot: What are the visuals trying to tell me about the emotions of the characters in the scene? Who (which character) controls this scene/shot? Where is the visual language directing me to "feel?" (For whom? Which character?) What level of distance exists between myself as the viewer and the characters? If the answer to any or all of these questions feels clearly dominated by a single character, we can understand the scene to be a subjective one inflected with the perspective of that character's emotions. If, instead, we feel as if the scene is more observational and neutral (more "from the sidelines" to use the language of Five C's of Cinematography) then yes, it is indeed more objective. I hope that helps to clarify what you're investigating! Since I'm commenting on the subject here, now, I would just add as an update for any curious inquirers into this topic that the deeper I have gone into my film watching life in the six years since making this video essay the more I have become convinced that some of the greatest directorial work lives inside the objective space rather than the subjective one. As I've dug into Tarkovsky, Tarr, Ozu, Ostlund, Akerman, Hou Hsiao-hsien, and others, I've found richly crafted landscapes of uniquely cinematic staging within this objective character perspective. So, that is to say: an objective character perspective can still yield deeply rich performance and character ideas. I think, when I was younger, I was more enamored by the "showiness" of the subjective perspective, and while I still favor it a great deal in my own directorial craft, I'm more convinced now than ever before that the more mature and enduring work might live inside of crafting scenes that utilize the more objective perspective in service of the story where appropriate. The great myth you'll see in other folks video essays today about character perspective is that the objective perspective is somehow a holdover from theatrical staging. This can be true, but it often is not. Great directors have been utilizing this mode of scenic design to wondrous effect all across the history of cinema, and contemporary work is often being created that uses the objective perspective heavily. When done effectively it is a uniquely cinematic mode of storytelling, distinct from a theatrical legacy.

@@travisleeratcliff Since I started to get interested in making little cinematic videos, I thought about learning about cinema and therefore I read the book. Now I try to analyse the movies I watch and want to understand what kind of shot I am seeing. Objective or subjective. But sometimes it is just a guessing game, because there is no one that can give me the actual answer. But with your given questions to ask it might help. Thank you very much for your answer.

@@travisleeratcliff I have so much more respect for the people making movies. It is so much work and thought put into every shot and most viewers will never think about this. It is also very unfortunate that some beautiful shots with much work are shown for maybe 30 seconds and than it's over. Currently I am more interested in the visual aspect of movies because I think this will help me for the beginning more. But maybe I will do some shortfilms in the future and then it comes to storytelling/ writing and boom an entire new gigantic topic to learn about.

Get a grip

Shakespeare was a playwright though. He wasn't an actor or acting teacher. The Moscow Art Theatre actually performed different shakespeare plays.

@@seenasoltani1808 but the style of acting that developed there is based on the voice not method.