What is Film Appreciation?
And why we took 12 hours to ‘appreciate’ a 7.5 minute short film
(My blog has now moved to Substack but I continue to post on Medium for a while, please Subscribe on Substack to continue receiving my blog posts on your email)
There is a point in you reading this post only when you can spare at least 10 minutes, 7.5 to watch a short film first and the rest to read what I’ve written under it.
If you have that kind of time available now and are about to start, PLEASE watch the following short film first and then come back and read what’s under it, because this entire post is largely about this film and only then will you be able to appreciate film appreciation fully!
Watched the film first?
God Promise? Okay, that’s taking it too far, let me shut up and begin.
- First, did you like the film? Chances are you would have maybe liked some things about it but not loved it too much, you may be thinking — well, what was the point of it? No story, no plot as such.
The first time I watched it, initially I felt unstimulated and bored. It didn’t feel like the film was heading anywhere, there was a certain ‘slowness’ to it. But gradually the film grew on me and I began appreciating that very slowness as there was a certain hypnotic feel to it. The next feeling that came to me was nostalgia, I was reminded of my childhood and some of the toys I played with. Lastly, I really felt like buying a top. My fidget spinner is a key part of my work-desk and I think better when my awkward hands are occupied!
2. Alright back to you, what do you think the film was about? A stupid question? It was about tops obviously, lots of varied spinning tops, right?
Well, not exactly. What if I told you the film is about the evolution of technology! What if I told you the film also showcases the whole circle of life! What if I told you the film tries to showcase a cross-section of people from different nations across the planet! What if I told you that the film has entire sequences focussed on the female orgasm, children & their innocence, US Politics, death as a concept, hypnosis, God & his subjects and perhaps a lot more! What if I told you that there was very little camera movement across the film and it was ‘designed’ such that each frame is beautiful, symmetric and minimalist even when paused!
What if I tell you the film’s music was scored by legendary Hollywood composer Elmer Bernstein (The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape, Ghostbusters) and the Film was made by Charles & Ray Eames, an American Designer couple who made historical contributions to Architecture, Furniture & Film (Check out their range of work here). What if I told you their work also shaped one of the most fundamental pieces of furniture we take for granted today — the Chair.
I was shown this film as part of Living Bridge’s Online Film Appreciation workshop by Prashant Desai, a 62 year old Film Teacher, connoisseur and maker. He watched this film as a 16 year old student at NID, Ahmedabad and it changed his perspective forever. He deserves the credit for most of the interpretations in this post.
Think about it, an accomplished designer couple decides to make a short film with 123 spinning tops, any filmmaker or film enthusiast would know that if you set out to make such a film, there would have to be a ‘design’, a story to which top would be shown when, how, before what, after what, with what music! It would be immature to assume that all tops were just laid out and filmed without meaning.
In an interview on the MAMI YouTube channel, Zoya Akhtar and Reema Kagti repeatedly mention the importance of subtext and layering. ‘If a character needs to say a dialogue to explain what the film is about, then it’s a shitty film’, they say.
Through GIFs taken from the film (they may take some time to load, especially on phones), let me try and walk you through some of the most noteworthy sequences that appealed to me.
(This post has a lot of visuals and so if you’re reading this on your email, some email clients may crop the post before it ends, if that happens — please click on the ‘Read Entire Message’ button at the bottom of the email)
Sequence: United States of America
At the 3:09 mark, an entire sequence about the US begins. Remember that Directors Charles & Ray Eames were American themselves. We see a top that has the old & new flags of USA and Japan facing each other (perhaps a reference to Pearl Harbour & Hiroshima & Nagasaki?), then an American snack — Cracker Jacks, then matchsticks (or defence?), then coins (or finance?) and then a top spinning inside a plate labelled “Grand Old Party” (the traditional nickname for the Republican Party). Noticed this when you watched it?
Sequence: A female orgasm
Starting exactly at 4:44, a top shaped like a woman comes to life when an instrument is put through her, exactly under her skirt. As sensuous, calming music plays in the background, the makers symbolize sex, the female orgasm (most men may ask what that is but I digress) and out of her consequent ecstasy, she dances!
Sequence: Hypnosis
Starting 4:05, with hypnotic music in the background, the Eames’ choose a top angle for their camera and tops with often circular patterns that make them appear hypnotic, psychedelic, almost making us sleepy.
Sequence: Harmony/coexistence
Starting 5 minutes 24 seconds, preceded by a shot of a top with butterfly wings flattering, we see multiple tops moving in perfect harmony. They are bright and have vibrant colours. They coexist, a feeling highlighted further by the absence of any conflict amongst them or the props around them. Also imagine how tough it would be to spin so many tops, ensure they move as intended AND managing to capture all this on film at that very moment (noted the mention of the “Spinning” team in the opening credits?).
Sequence: God
At the 6:25 mark, for the first time, the camera makes a radical movement which hasn’t been made in this film otherwise. A blurred top approaches the camera slowly at eye-level, then comes into focus and then suddenly the camera jumps to the top angle without a cut. This signifies viewing the same thing from a different, more powerful angle or a subject/a creation from a creator’s angle. The film continues to give a second shot of another top from the same top angle to continue the ‘God PoV’. Interestingly, this sequence is succeeded by one depicting ‘Death’, as illustrated next!
Sequence: Death/The End
6:38 onwards and until the end, for the first time you see tops slowing down, wobbling, coming to a standstill. If the film began with the birth and slow growth of tops and the spinning of tops as an art, then its middle was the blossoming of tops with evolved technology and the film’s end was ‘death’ or the ending of the tops spinning. The Eames’ managed to inject the traditional story structure of a beginning, middle & end into a short film that only shows tops spinning and has no dialogues! My mind was blown once I figured these meanings out.
Do I have your attention so far? If not, this may be a good point to stop reading for then I have failed to engage your sensibilities/maybe this is not your cup of tea. But if I still hold your interest, read on.
Besides the sequences listed above, the following stills will demonstrate some phenomenal, admirable concepts I loved in the film:
Evolution of Technology
Notice how the tops and the objects which aren’t tops but have been spun like tops are shown as gradually evolving in terms of technology all through the film.
Different Countries
Through a combination of the tops, the people spinning the tops, the props in the background and the music that plays, the Eames’ have showcased multiple regions across the planet.
Self-explanatory for Indians!
Africa
Japan. Note the kimono.
Miniature chair, royal setting, court jester — England?
Reminds me of the Whirling Dervishes from Turkey
The Grand Old Party — The US
Royalty
In one deeply profound shot, the movie starts showing the largest top in the entire collection, coloured blue and brown, with elite building miniatures in the background. This top is royal, it is a King/The Queen. As the camera moves downward, you see a massive top and a tiny chair, showcasing power and the relative insignificance of the ruler’s subjects! Brilliant, ain’t it!
Eye of the needle
In what is arguably the most striking visual in the film, this boy inserts a thread into this strange acorn-like top. He is in a sense threading the eye of the needle. Notice where the boy’s eye is when he threads the eye of the needle! Exquisite!
And there you have it! Using 123 tops, in 7.5 minutes, in a film released in 1969 and with no dialogues, Charles and Ray Eames covered messages more profound and more beautiful than several feature films.
If you have the appetite for it, watch the film again (have re-shared it below) and all of a sudden, visuals shall jump off the screen, meanings will be formed, your perspective would have changed and evolved in under 10 minutes. If you don’t wish to, read on.
So what is film appreciation, you may ask? Our workshop mentor Mr. Desai jokingly described it as “Waah se Aha tak!”. Rather symbolic, right! To elaborate, it is to go beyond what is visible to the naked eye, to read the subtext, the layering, to understand the frame of reference of the makers, to want to have a perspective, to truly understand the film!
What tools can be used to appreciate films, you may wonder. I do not think there is a textbook for this, can one be taught to appreciate food or music or books…..or life! But while there may be no textbook, let me share my usual process and maybe it’ll help you:
- Watching process
- By being aware of the concept of film appreciation and practicing it multiple times, this lens has become an inherent part of my film-viewing experience
- In our workshop, the mentor Mr Desai insisted on pausing virtually every frame and trying to interpret what the maker intends to tell us there
- After my first unpaused viewing and a second frame-by-frame viewing, I rewatched the Film a third time. That helped me hone my eye substantially in a very short period of time!
2. Googling
- I googled the makers and read their Wiki page
- I discovered their official website
- I found out that they have made many other short films, one of them being the remarkable ‘The Powers of Ten’ for IBM in 1977, that is like a movie version of Carl Sagan’s famous ‘Speck of Dust’ quote!
- Generally many film enthusiasts also make detailed video analyses of films and post them on YouTube, so searching for a film there also helps. Beware of the clickbait videos though, a sensationalist thumbnail is generally a pointer.
3. Reviews
- I went through the iMDB page of ‘Tops’. I saw its rating, I gave one of my own (8/10). I went through the user reviews of the film, found it has just one so far and liked it.
- If this wasn’t a short film, I would have looked for Rajeev Masand’s and Baradwaj Rangan’s reviews of it (my two favourite Indian film critics). If it had been an English feature film, I would have looked up Roger Ebert’s site for a review of it. Ebert is considered the most acclaimed movie reviewer of all time and although he passed away in 2013, his site continues getting new reviews written by a carefully curated Team.
- Again, if this hadn’t been a short film, I would’ve looked for aggregated ratings and reviews by global critics on Rotten Tomatoes.
- Because of my taste, over time I’ve made certain friends on Facebook whose movie reviews I admire and would generally come across around the time a movie releases.
4. Reading
- Being a film enthusiast, professional screenwriter and aspiring filmmaker, I keep reading books and attending workshops about films. That has also helped hone my eye and learn more about the world of film. I shall write a separate piece on what books helped me the most.
5. Talking
- I would generally discuss the film with a carefully curated group of friends and film enthusiasts and would cherish sharing my perspective and learning from theirs. Sharing this post with all of you is also an attempt at that :-).
And so this, is largely my process, again there’s no textbook but I hope this helps some of you.
Now that I have explained film appreciation as a concept as well as through a detailed example, let me throw some light on a pivotal question — Okay fine, there is all this meaning, this subtext hidden across ‘Tops’ BUT IS IT A GOOD FILM? Does meaning alone make a film good? That too, meaning that had to be explained? ‘Waah se Aha tak’ may be fine but what if it became ‘Blah se Aha tak’? Doesn’t a film need more of a story, more progression, more traditionally engaging content, more easily discoverable meaning? If a Director wants to show a girl happy, he can either show a girl smiling or show a flower blossoming and you may need a film appreciation workshop to interpret the latter but does that make that scene good? Or did it complicate simple things unnecessarily? I don’t think there can be a one-size-fits-all answer to this question. No film is good for everyone, that’s the nature of Art. 1. If you are able to ‘understand’ the intended subtext and 2. If you happen to ‘like’ it, then it becomes a good film to you. At first viewing, I found ‘Tops’ decent at best. I didn’t ‘understand’ it in its entirety, I took it on face value. But through 12 hours of discussing this film with our film appreciation mentor, virtually pausing and discussing each shot, each sequence, the amount of thought and work that went into it, it grew on me, the subtext became more apparent and I ‘liked what I understood’. In 12 hours, a ‘decent’ film became a ‘great’ film to me! What is your opinion? Is it a good film?
Now as a screenwriter and aspiring filmmaker, let me share my fundamental dilemma! It is clear that appreciating such films takes a certain degree of enlightenment and I don’t mean this in a judgmental way. Such films and such interpretations aren’t everyone’s cup of tea (a few participants in our film appreciation workshop left the workshop midway through the analysis of this film). Secondly, such films could be a luxury. 90% of Indian adults earn less than 12,000 Rupees a month, to them the movies may be the single greatest escape from a life of constant trials and tribulations. So here’s my dilemma — As a filmmaker catering to a primarily Indian audience, how nuanced and layered must my films be?
One of my favourite Hindi Director-Writer pairs is that of Shoojit Sircar and Juhi Chaturvedi. In ‘Vicky Donor’ and ‘Piku’, they made two of the finest recent Hindi movies. But then came ‘October’ and most recently came ‘Gulabo Sitabo’, while there were bits to admire in both but overall, neither worked for me. There are many more such makers who undertake a similar trajectory. So I sometimes suspect, if a creative person attains the freedom to make what they want to once they ‘succeed’, are the films they make after they have succeeded more indicative of what they actually wanted to make? Were the films they made initially more like compromises for them? In ‘October’ and ‘Gulabo Sitabo’, the makers thought there was lots of meaning, layering, subtext. In an interview to Film Companion, Juhi Chaturvedi said: “…The starting idea was that a man marries a woman much older than him for the love of her property. He thinks that one day she will die and he will own the house. That’s the basic plot and that’s also what I put down when I registered the script. Everything else that happens is incidental to Mirza’s desperation. This is Mirza and Begum’s story and we didn’t want to reveal it in the trailer because we would have given it away. I started my journey from this marriage. Just imagine an entire lifetime of living this fraud of a relationship. Mirza is such a crooked man that he doesn’t have children just so that the property doesn’t get divided. While writing I knew that Begum must have been aware of what he’s up to. She knows her husband inside out and she’s not meek or submissive. I was sure that her intelligence has to come out and I was working towards it, but I was also ensuring that no one comes to know where this is going. When you reach the end and go back, you realise that the clues were always there.” To me, all this subtext the writer intended didn’t come through. I would prefer subtext where the gap between ‘intent’ and ‘impact’ is as little as possible but I humbly acknowledge that that’s easier said than done.
One last thing, I often sense a certain arrogance and judgement from some film connoisseurs, from some of those who teach at film schools and often those who study at film schools. I have heard statements such as ‘If you haven’t watched and loved Godard or Bresson or Kurosawa or Bergman or Kiarostami or Tarkowsky, then you know nothing about films’. There is also a certain degree of scoffing at ‘masala’ or ‘commercial’ cinema, at those who have grown up on and continued to follow Indian single-screen cinema. But just like to appreciate a film, you need to appreciate the frame of reference of a film’s maker, there is also a frame of reference of a film’s viewer. So many factors such as access, background, baggage, exposure, finances, mental health and so much more influence viewers. While I acknowledge that it can saddening when a poorly made film succeeds a lot more than a profound one, whether a viewer chooses to watch and/or appreciate a film or a certain interpretation of it, is their choice and no one must judge or try to ‘educate’ them. True education, true enlightenment must be to better yourself and provide a platform to those who wish to attain it without judging those who don’t.
For me, this post originated from wanting to share the mesmerising effect a film had on me and most of all, how my perspective on it turned upside down in 12 hours. Thank you for bearing with me for this long. I promise to try to keep my subsequent posts shorter :-).
(My blog has now moved to Substack but I continue to post on Medium for a while, please Subscribe on Substack to continue receiving my blog posts on your email)
