Customer Reviews

Anatomy of Film

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The strength of this book is that it covers all main bases of film criticism except for film history, which does, however, enjoy a few passing references. Besides the usual chapters on the basic elements of film--the shot, scene, mise-en-scene, lighting, sound, and etc.--there are also chapters on film genres, film subtext, directors, film and literature, film theory, and a chapter of sample analyses of important films. There is an appendix with a couple of sample student essays, but there isn't really any writing instruction. That's left up to your class instructor. About half the size (same thickness, however) of most film introductions, with some but not a lot of black and white photos, this is convenient to read in bed or wherever. The organization seems rather weak in some respects: after a rather scattered introductory chapter, there is a chapter on graphics (credits and subtitles) and sound, which doesn't seem like a very logical start for a film textbook. After that, things fall into place. The field of film textbooks is quite crowded, and there are many other books that give more in-depth coverage of various aspects, but if you want a book that covers all the basics, this does the job.

If you're looking for an "Intro to Film" text that's neither as cluttered nor pricey as several of the leading candidates, this just may fit the bill. No accompanying DVD's, website, glossy photos, test banks or manuals, but it touches on most of the matters relevant to such a course (including just barely enough history), and it not only addresses writing about film but provides some helpful examples. If it were one-third rather than two-thirds the price of its competitors, I'd have no trouble going to it again, especially in a course that emphasizes literature as much as film.

This book is great! The terms that are most important are bolded and the language is very easy to understand for people who aren't movie scholars, like me!

Succinct and well-written, this book will serve well as a textbook for a film studies class or as a casual read for the film buff wantint to know more about the art.

The author's analysis of many film classics can give you an appreciation of the subtleties perhaps overlooked in a cursory viewing. His narrative is largely jargon-free, being aimed at a wide audience. While an experienced film viewer might not agree with all of his remarks, overall, the analysis seems quite reasonable and cogent.

Another reviewer criticised the author's use of "we" as being egotistical. That indicates a misunderstanding on the reviewer's part. The first person plural is conventionally used in many non-fiction texts. In part, to deliberately include and involve the reader. It is commonly preferred to "I", because it is the latter which is seen as more personal.

The product came relatively quickly. However, it was not new as advertised. Despite the slight damage on the cover, I was, overall, satisfied with my purchase.

Having studied Bernard F. Dick's "Anatomy of Film" for my Intro to Film class, I have to feel sorry for anyone who actually takes a film class taught by Prof. Dick. I can't recall the last time I read a book as hubristic, least of all an academic text. "AOF" is nothing more than the subject seen than one man's eyes: one man who thinks himself the infallible master of film. The book contains a mass of unfounded judgments such as "in every narrative worth studying, whether it's a work of fiction or a work of film, there is a subtext". There is an obvious condescension to the audience, words wasted to explain terms like "moving camera". Furthermore, constant use of the pronoun "we" implies that the readers inherently agree with Prof. Dick's bombastic views and gross generalizations. Too much reliance on the "classics" and big names fail under logical scrutiny and keep Dick from making any well-founded and original arugments. Overall, this text lacks any redeeming quality. It is poorly written, too basic and generalized, grossly omissive, and serves no purpose save to bolster Prof. Dick's massive ego. Avoid at all costs.