What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Read a Film: Movies, Media, Multimedia
First published in 1977, this popular book has become the source on film and media. Now, James Monaco offers a revised and rewritten third edition incorporating every major aspect of this dynamic medium right up to the present.
Looking at film from many vantage points, How to Read a Film: Movies, Media, Multimedia explores the medium as both art and craft, sensibility and science, tradition and technology. After examining film's close relation to such other narrative media as the novel, painting, photography, television, and even music, Monaco discusses those elements necessary to understand how films convey meaning and, more importantly, how we can best discern all that a film is attempting to communicate.
In a key departure from the book's previous editions, the new and still-evolving digital context of film is now emphasized throughout How to Read a Film. A new chapter on multimedia brings media criticism into the twenty-first century with a thorough discussion of topics like virtual reality, cyberspace, and the proximity of both to film. Monaco has likewise doubled the size and scope of his Film and Media: A Chronology appendix. The book also features a new introduction, an expanded bibliography, and hundreds of illustrative black-and-white film stills and diagrams. It is a must for all film students, media buffs, and movie fans.
Looking at film from many vantage points, How to Read a Film: Movies, Media, Multimedia explores the medium as both art and craft, sensibility and science, tradition and technology. After examining film's close relation to such other narrative media as the novel, painting, photography, television, and even music, Monaco discusses those elements necessary to understand how films convey meaning and, more importantly, how we can best discern all that a film is attempting to communicate.
In a key departure from the book's previous editions, the new and still-evolving digital context of film is now emphasized throughout How to Read a Film. A new chapter on multimedia brings media criticism into the twenty-first century with a thorough discussion of topics like virtual reality, cyberspace, and the proximity of both to film. Monaco has likewise doubled the size and scope of his Film and Media: A Chronology appendix. The book also features a new introduction, an expanded bibliography, and hundreds of illustrative black-and-white film stills and diagrams. It is a must for all film students, media buffs, and movie fans.
672 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
361 people are currently reading
4162 people want to read
About the author
James Monaco
29books22followersJames Monaco is a writer and publisher based in Sag Harbor, NY. For more information please see JamesMonaco.com.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews
October 22, 2012
This book touches upon pretty much every topic within cinema, as we get history, technique, film theory and whatnot. It's something that probably makes this the must-read book that it is, but it's also what's stopping this from being the kind of insightful book I'd hoped to get.
It's incredibly harsh - cause we're looking at one heavy read otherwise - but everything is pretty much quickly touched upon rather than actually examined. There's also the matter of it actually lacking quite a bit in the "How to Read a Film" part compared to, say, the history of cinema. Obviously, the two are interconnected, but I really felt like some analysis was lacking. How exactly have these directors changed cinema by using that or that angle and lighting? How can different waves give us different views?
And most importantly, what can the viewer do to get a better insight into a film? I don't feel like I've changed much in that regard, which is why this felt just a bit disappointing.
It's incredibly harsh - cause we're looking at one heavy read otherwise - but everything is pretty much quickly touched upon rather than actually examined. There's also the matter of it actually lacking quite a bit in the "How to Read a Film" part compared to, say, the history of cinema. Obviously, the two are interconnected, but I really felt like some analysis was lacking. How exactly have these directors changed cinema by using that or that angle and lighting? How can different waves give us different views?
And most importantly, what can the viewer do to get a better insight into a film? I don't feel like I've changed much in that regard, which is why this felt just a bit disappointing.
January 4, 2020
کتاب جامع و خوبیه.
هر چیزی که مرتبط با سینماست رو تقریبا گفته، منتهی خیلی خلاصه و جمع و جور. از تکنیک و تاریخ سینما بگیر تا نظریه و رسانه و تلویزیون.
توی این مدل کتاب‌ها� همچنان کتاب 《هن� سینما� بوردول بهترین کتابه، هرچند رویکرد متفاوتی داره
هر چیزی که مرتبط با سینماست رو تقریبا گفته، منتهی خیلی خلاصه و جمع و جور. از تکنیک و تاریخ سینما بگیر تا نظریه و رسانه و تلویزیون.
توی این مدل کتاب‌ها� همچنان کتاب 《هن� سینما� بوردول بهترین کتابه، هرچند رویکرد متفاوتی داره
May 25, 2021
Just took this from my shelves, and it's officially falling apart - that's how often I used it to look something up or to solidify an analytical framework. Monaco just does a great job structuring the study of moving images, and the engaging writing (for a scientific intro) and the many pictures are supremely helpful. Sure, if you want to go into detail, this 600+-pages tome will still not be comprehensive, but as a broad overview, this is great stuff.
May 13, 2009
Big qualification: I only read two chapters from this book. My chapter of interest was on semiotics ("The Language of Film: Signs and Syntax") since I used "How to Read a Film" as a reference for a paper I was writing on semiotics and motion design. In fact, Monaco's description of how semiotics can be investigated in film is astute and served as my primary reference. Monaco describes signifiers and signifieds, the trope, indexes, metonymy, and the gap that semiotic inquiry is trying to bridge between literature and film.
There are 6 chapters dealing with various aspects of film such as art, history, media, technical, etc. which is the way I personally prefer a multidisciplinary topic tackled.
Monaco's writing style is descriptive and compelling, and it's no surprise that it's a seminal book in the study of film and film history. Particularly captivating is Monaco's ability to connect different ideas and transition between them in a loose manner.
If you're simply a casual viewer interested in historical or artistic aspect of film, or an art history buff looking to expand your knowledge base onto moving image, this is a book to check out.
There is a freely available pdf somewhere on the web but all images are stripped from it, and is thus of limited use.
There are 6 chapters dealing with various aspects of film such as art, history, media, technical, etc. which is the way I personally prefer a multidisciplinary topic tackled.
Monaco's writing style is descriptive and compelling, and it's no surprise that it's a seminal book in the study of film and film history. Particularly captivating is Monaco's ability to connect different ideas and transition between them in a loose manner.
If you're simply a casual viewer interested in historical or artistic aspect of film, or an art history buff looking to expand your knowledge base onto moving image, this is a book to check out.
There is a freely available pdf somewhere on the web but all images are stripped from it, and is thus of limited use.
September 21, 2016
Quite an exhaustive book on film theory. Worth reading and rereading for the aficionado and the student.
November 14, 2020
ترجمه افتضاح . سر درد میگیره ادم
February 28, 2021
یکی از کتابای خوب در این زمینه و برای شروع که تا حدود 1977 سینما رو پوشش میده
November 21, 2023
exhaustingly exhaustive LOL i don’t know why i put myself through this� like it’s a super useful book but just not to me right now. it put me to sleep a few times sorry mr monaco
January 28, 2021
I’m back! Happy first book review of 2021! If only I were reviewing a better season opener for you all.
How to Read a Film is a pretty definitive exploration of the development of the art form. Which is nice, I always derive pleasure from reading about movies and their evolution. There are so many factors that play into what makes a popular film, and they are constantly changing from one decade to the next. Even now we are seeing it, with the increased distribution provided by streaming services and the increase of more diverse stories and storytellers creating movies and tv shows. The history of film, continuing into this, its second century of existence, will always be fascinating to me, no matter how often I read about it.
But, the title of this book was how to “read� a film, so I was surprised when the chapter regarding film theory was considerably shorter than the chapter dedicated to the history of film. James Monaco does make some interesting claims, but his tone is so patronizing, I was irked by the theories he presented, no matter how plausible they were. It also gave me much more pleasure when I found embarrassing typos, like when he wrote about George Orwell’s lesser known novel 198, as opposed to 1984.
And you would be hard pressed to find a more melodramatic narrator. He claims that he doesn’t want to condemn the advancement of media, but when he laments the “signs of the times� or ends a chapter with “that’s just the way it is...�, it’s hard not to picture a wistful author, with tears streaming down his face as he remembers the days gone by, and it would probably be the last straw if he heard that when I read these passages, I rolled my eyes.
There was also a feeling of misogyny that lay right beneath the surface, particularly when Monaco was talking about the lack of notable actresses since the 1960s, while listing off a number of the remarkable actors he could think of in the 1990s. That left an unpleasant nagging in the back of my mind for the rest of the reading, and I was scouring each page for continued evidence of this unsettling phenomenon.
Film history and film production will always be amazing topics of exploration, but I would recommend a better tour guide than the author of this book.
How to Read a Film is a pretty definitive exploration of the development of the art form. Which is nice, I always derive pleasure from reading about movies and their evolution. There are so many factors that play into what makes a popular film, and they are constantly changing from one decade to the next. Even now we are seeing it, with the increased distribution provided by streaming services and the increase of more diverse stories and storytellers creating movies and tv shows. The history of film, continuing into this, its second century of existence, will always be fascinating to me, no matter how often I read about it.
But, the title of this book was how to “read� a film, so I was surprised when the chapter regarding film theory was considerably shorter than the chapter dedicated to the history of film. James Monaco does make some interesting claims, but his tone is so patronizing, I was irked by the theories he presented, no matter how plausible they were. It also gave me much more pleasure when I found embarrassing typos, like when he wrote about George Orwell’s lesser known novel 198, as opposed to 1984.
And you would be hard pressed to find a more melodramatic narrator. He claims that he doesn’t want to condemn the advancement of media, but when he laments the “signs of the times� or ends a chapter with “that’s just the way it is...�, it’s hard not to picture a wistful author, with tears streaming down his face as he remembers the days gone by, and it would probably be the last straw if he heard that when I read these passages, I rolled my eyes.
There was also a feeling of misogyny that lay right beneath the surface, particularly when Monaco was talking about the lack of notable actresses since the 1960s, while listing off a number of the remarkable actors he could think of in the 1990s. That left an unpleasant nagging in the back of my mind for the rest of the reading, and I was scouring each page for continued evidence of this unsettling phenomenon.
Film history and film production will always be amazing topics of exploration, but I would recommend a better tour guide than the author of this book.
July 25, 2011
Published in The Sacramento Book Review (
Since the publication of its first edition in 1977, this book has been applauded-and rightly so. Monaco magically mingles art history, critical theory, and opinion on so many varieties of media (all within the focus of the single notion of “film�) that what looks like a text book in fact stands as a delightful read in itself. In delving into each facet of film study, it results in catering for all aspects of film interest, all of which are nicely separated into clear chapters and sections.
Of course, even though this book is likely the greatest of its kind out there, it obviously cannot capture everything (where is David Lynch?). For any one interested in expanding their notion of what a film is and learning how to appreciate it for more than a Friday night out, then there is probably no better place to start. Even if you aren’t interested in the bulk of critical theory, the list of movie titles in itself is worth a read: from Lumière to Chaplin, from Eisenstein to Bergman, and from Godard and the French New Wave to Altman . . . this is film, captured in a book.
Reviewed by Dylan Popowicz
Since the publication of its first edition in 1977, this book has been applauded-and rightly so. Monaco magically mingles art history, critical theory, and opinion on so many varieties of media (all within the focus of the single notion of “film�) that what looks like a text book in fact stands as a delightful read in itself. In delving into each facet of film study, it results in catering for all aspects of film interest, all of which are nicely separated into clear chapters and sections.
Of course, even though this book is likely the greatest of its kind out there, it obviously cannot capture everything (where is David Lynch?). For any one interested in expanding their notion of what a film is and learning how to appreciate it for more than a Friday night out, then there is probably no better place to start. Even if you aren’t interested in the bulk of critical theory, the list of movie titles in itself is worth a read: from Lumière to Chaplin, from Eisenstein to Bergman, and from Godard and the French New Wave to Altman . . . this is film, captured in a book.
Reviewed by Dylan Popowicz
Read
May 16, 2016Incredibly researched and theory presented expertly while technology and theory behind was elucidated and then illustrated with informative graphics. As someone studying film for the next three years I'm definitely going to be read it 3-5 more times as it has such as wealth of information that one has to revise and reprocess on a second or third reading as i often skimmed paragraphs, through this is a book that grabs your interest and those provide answers for your studies. To anyone studying a film degree and even to the fringes a media degree I absolutely recommend Monaco's How To Read Film as a fundamental introduction to students and amateur cinephiles like my self.
July 10, 2020
لم أجد في الكتاب ذو الألف صفحة ماكنت أتوقعه. وهو كيف أتعايش مع الفلم السينمائي بشكل أوسع.
الكتاب للمتخصصين والدارسين للسينما. وليس لعامة القراء مثل حالتي.
العديد من الأسماء والتواريخ والازمنة الغريبة عنا كقراء عرب.
يتناول تاريخ التصوير من القرن التاسع عشر حتى ثمانينات القرن الحالي. الكثير من التفاصيل التي ضعت وتهت فيها.
الكتاب للمتخصصين والدارسين للسينما. وليس لعامة القراء مثل حالتي.
العديد من الأسماء والتواريخ والازمنة الغريبة عنا كقراء عرب.
يتناول تاريخ التصوير من القرن التاسع عشر حتى ثمانينات القرن الحالي. الكثير من التفاصيل التي ضعت وتهت فيها.
August 7, 2007
Level 1 Bible for all students of Cinema.
Even for those who want to decipher hidden visual metaphors.
Can lull one into believing they know all about Cinema having read this book.
But, as the first line says... LEVEL 1.
Even for those who want to decipher hidden visual metaphors.
Can lull one into believing they know all about Cinema having read this book.
But, as the first line says... LEVEL 1.
January 4, 2011
If you are a beginner in the studies of film it is a great overview with many references that can point you on the way to further study. By the way I am a beginner.
August 21, 2022
Great summary and understandable tone about all you need to know when it comes to the film and media. It covers both artistic and technical departaments.
Useful book for film students.
Useful book for film students.
May 14, 2016
My rating for this work needs clarification. If you think this book will deal with the more popular appreciation of film (i.e. dealing with film stars, glitz and glamour, etc,) then one could rate this book one star only (i.e. you’ll be very much disappointed!). If, on the other hand, one were to duly note the sub-title of this fourth (completely revised and expanded) edition of a classic work (“Movies, Media and Beyond. Art, Technology, Language, History, Theory�) then you have in your hands a superb introduction to the examination of the role of movies in the larger context of media usage and development in the 21st century, which would deserve a rating of 5 stars.
Thus, what we have here is a rather hefty tome (over 700 pages) split into seven chapter headings each of which can stand on its own. It’s like having the texts and images covering seven ‘lectures� on the media (the cumulative value of which I will comment on later in this review). As such, it is a most useful addition to one’s reference library regarding Media Studies. For most people, however, the value may reside not in the whole work, but only in certain chapters of particular interest; and as such can be considered as a valuable introduction to one of the extensive topics encompassed by the Media in general. From this perspective, one might simply rate this work as a three star affair�
Potential aquirers of this work might like a preview of each of these chapters:
1. The Art of Film � in which film is considered within the main streams of traditional art forms which have both fed into, nourished and enriched film, and which in turn have been reformed into something else again�
2. An introduction to the technology behind the images and sounds found on film � an exploration of the problems associated with the medium, and how ‘solutions� were found for them. Other technologies are covered in chapter 6 (for TV and Video) and chapter 7 (for the Digital era).
3. The ‘language� of film (signs and syntax) � an introduction to some of the basic semiotic ideas applicable to the film image, and the allocation of ‘meaning� to these images.
4. What Monaco calls the ‘shape� of film history � he splits the ‘movies� subject into three aspects: economics (‘movies�); politics (‘film�); and cinema (‘aesthetics�) � and attempts to interconnect the subjects of film into a number of historically developing and overlapping concepts such as Genre, Realism, Expressionism, Auteur theory, Neorealism, Entertainment, Communication, Postmodernism, the end of Cinema, Metafiction, and Metareality.
5. An examination of Film Theory, and the role of critics � which among other things introduces the major film theories and theorists: Lindsay, Munsterberg, Arnheim, Kracauer, Pudovkin, Eisenstein, Balász, Bazin, Godard and Metz.
6. Introduces us to the area of general technologies regarding recordings of various types, and covers Radio, Television and Video, and their impact on Art, Business, and social matters such as virtual families.
7. Explains the difference between Analogue and Digital technologies and their impact � Multimedia, Virtual Reality and Cyberspace, all of which Monaco labels ‘myths�, followed by an analysis of the Mediasphere.
The book ends with an extensive Chronology of film and Media; an equally extensive bibliography covering each of the seven subjects; and three Indexes, one each on Topics, People, and (film) Titles.
All the above might seem like rather heady reading, but Monaco is genuinely concerned to impart real knowledge, and because of his generous and sympathetic tone, it is actually easy to read overall. But whether all of this will actually help a person to learn to ‘read� a film may be another question entirely. When this book was first published in 1977 it was at a time when the study of film had become dominant as a special course in University curricula, and the discipline of Lingusitics was adopted and adapted as applicable for such a task. It did not take long before the limitations of this approach began to surface, but the damage had been done, and people still refer to films as ‘texts� of a ‘language� which one needed to learn to ‘read�, and it appears that we are stuck with the terminology. Too often, still, enough people are heard talking or writing in what is essentially their own personally developed gibberish to non-understanding listeners or readers� But even Monaco now more often refers to film as being like a language � a different concept indeed� Personally, I don’t think I have ever heard of people needing to be taught how to ‘read� a film � how to interpret a film, perhaps, or how to appreciate it, certainly, but ‘reading�? not really.
I mentioned earlier that there is a cumulative effect to this work as it now stands in this fourth edition, and that is that it seems to overwhelm film with such a multiplicity of options and potentials that it tends to lose out as a special Art form in its own right (which I still believe it is and can always be � and which I believe needs a return to the concept of the Author (nowadays everyone talks of ‘collaboration� which is fine in itself, but which in my opinion does not necessarily help when it comes to Art)), and film is now merely reduced to being only one of the many forms of ‘communication� available especially to the digitalised, multimedia world of today. When everything is ‘meaningful� then that is as useful as saying nothing is meaningful, and the tendency is to produce masses of mediocre and otherwise useless ‘works� appears to be the result.
The way forward is anyone’s guess � and Monaco appreciates this: in his final section on the Mediasphere he ends his work with three alternative endings which he encourages the reader to choose from � but note that each of these three optional endings starts with the same sentence: “And most important, we need to remember that there is still a vestige of reality beyond film, beyond media, and beyond multimedia.� It seems he is most concerned that the domination of preferential fictional ‘realities� will dominate and overwhelm us, and unless we are very careful, they might actually destroy us utterly. We must never forget about the real reality all around us, and of which we are a part, and from which all communication and understanding and Art derive. It is to this real reality that all our communications and understandings and Art forms must ultimately return us, safe and sound, but humbler and all the wiser as a result.
Thus, what we have here is a rather hefty tome (over 700 pages) split into seven chapter headings each of which can stand on its own. It’s like having the texts and images covering seven ‘lectures� on the media (the cumulative value of which I will comment on later in this review). As such, it is a most useful addition to one’s reference library regarding Media Studies. For most people, however, the value may reside not in the whole work, but only in certain chapters of particular interest; and as such can be considered as a valuable introduction to one of the extensive topics encompassed by the Media in general. From this perspective, one might simply rate this work as a three star affair�
Potential aquirers of this work might like a preview of each of these chapters:
1. The Art of Film � in which film is considered within the main streams of traditional art forms which have both fed into, nourished and enriched film, and which in turn have been reformed into something else again�
2. An introduction to the technology behind the images and sounds found on film � an exploration of the problems associated with the medium, and how ‘solutions� were found for them. Other technologies are covered in chapter 6 (for TV and Video) and chapter 7 (for the Digital era).
3. The ‘language� of film (signs and syntax) � an introduction to some of the basic semiotic ideas applicable to the film image, and the allocation of ‘meaning� to these images.
4. What Monaco calls the ‘shape� of film history � he splits the ‘movies� subject into three aspects: economics (‘movies�); politics (‘film�); and cinema (‘aesthetics�) � and attempts to interconnect the subjects of film into a number of historically developing and overlapping concepts such as Genre, Realism, Expressionism, Auteur theory, Neorealism, Entertainment, Communication, Postmodernism, the end of Cinema, Metafiction, and Metareality.
5. An examination of Film Theory, and the role of critics � which among other things introduces the major film theories and theorists: Lindsay, Munsterberg, Arnheim, Kracauer, Pudovkin, Eisenstein, Balász, Bazin, Godard and Metz.
6. Introduces us to the area of general technologies regarding recordings of various types, and covers Radio, Television and Video, and their impact on Art, Business, and social matters such as virtual families.
7. Explains the difference between Analogue and Digital technologies and their impact � Multimedia, Virtual Reality and Cyberspace, all of which Monaco labels ‘myths�, followed by an analysis of the Mediasphere.
The book ends with an extensive Chronology of film and Media; an equally extensive bibliography covering each of the seven subjects; and three Indexes, one each on Topics, People, and (film) Titles.
All the above might seem like rather heady reading, but Monaco is genuinely concerned to impart real knowledge, and because of his generous and sympathetic tone, it is actually easy to read overall. But whether all of this will actually help a person to learn to ‘read� a film may be another question entirely. When this book was first published in 1977 it was at a time when the study of film had become dominant as a special course in University curricula, and the discipline of Lingusitics was adopted and adapted as applicable for such a task. It did not take long before the limitations of this approach began to surface, but the damage had been done, and people still refer to films as ‘texts� of a ‘language� which one needed to learn to ‘read�, and it appears that we are stuck with the terminology. Too often, still, enough people are heard talking or writing in what is essentially their own personally developed gibberish to non-understanding listeners or readers� But even Monaco now more often refers to film as being like a language � a different concept indeed� Personally, I don’t think I have ever heard of people needing to be taught how to ‘read� a film � how to interpret a film, perhaps, or how to appreciate it, certainly, but ‘reading�? not really.
I mentioned earlier that there is a cumulative effect to this work as it now stands in this fourth edition, and that is that it seems to overwhelm film with such a multiplicity of options and potentials that it tends to lose out as a special Art form in its own right (which I still believe it is and can always be � and which I believe needs a return to the concept of the Author (nowadays everyone talks of ‘collaboration� which is fine in itself, but which in my opinion does not necessarily help when it comes to Art)), and film is now merely reduced to being only one of the many forms of ‘communication� available especially to the digitalised, multimedia world of today. When everything is ‘meaningful� then that is as useful as saying nothing is meaningful, and the tendency is to produce masses of mediocre and otherwise useless ‘works� appears to be the result.
The way forward is anyone’s guess � and Monaco appreciates this: in his final section on the Mediasphere he ends his work with three alternative endings which he encourages the reader to choose from � but note that each of these three optional endings starts with the same sentence: “And most important, we need to remember that there is still a vestige of reality beyond film, beyond media, and beyond multimedia.� It seems he is most concerned that the domination of preferential fictional ‘realities� will dominate and overwhelm us, and unless we are very careful, they might actually destroy us utterly. We must never forget about the real reality all around us, and of which we are a part, and from which all communication and understanding and Art derive. It is to this real reality that all our communications and understandings and Art forms must ultimately return us, safe and sound, but humbler and all the wiser as a result.
July 9, 2023
I actually DNF at 75%. But I’m counting it as a win because I made it through as much as I did. I got this book from a friend who saw me looking at it on her bookshelves and told me i could have it. I was surprised at the time that she’d just give it to me, but not anymore. I thought I would be interesting to learn more about film. Parts of it were interesting. To me, the most interesting parts were about the basic components of filmmaking and its history - how the technology was developed and how it worked. Then, it was internet to learn about historical trends in filmmaking around the world (although the author has an annoying tendency to refer to films as if everyone has seen them and knows what he’s talking about when he uses them as an example of some trend in film history, which I in most cases certainly hadn’t and didn’t). The chapter on film theory was horrible. And the last couple of chapters (which I just couldn’t force myself to finish) went back to talking about the technology behind “media� in general - radio, television, and, presumably, the computer and internet, though I didn’t make it that far. It seemed off the point, and not what I picked up the book for. It was also extremely dated. Mostly, though, this book was bad not because it’s content was bad, but because the author’s writing style was simply terrible. If he could make something more arcane, more confusing, and more wordy, he certainly would. If he could ensure that anyone who is not already familiar with a vast library of obscure art films couldn’t possibly know what he was talking about, he did. I’m giving it 3 stars because I did manage to glean some interesting info from some of it, but overall, it was pretty bad.
Read
January 8, 2024nenvadim fuj hrozny
February 4, 2024
Interessante Leküre, wenn auch ziemlich technisch...
February 6, 2017
You know what you getting? You getting a textbook. But dang, a pretty sweet textbook, a pretty wise exam of some theoretical subject, or I should say theory for simplicity's sake, but "theory" will lock us in to some aesthetic, semiotic, semantic beeswax, so I'll leave it at subject. There's some charmless drudgery at the outset, clarifying some devices for understanding the power of whatnot (and charmless, I say, despite warnings that the drudgery is just various methodologies, opinions, skippable, but I chose not to skip and still insist on 'drudgery'), though we move very soon into more fertile questions. Semiotics into other things!
Sure, groan at how "Rap or Hip Hop" is unwisely capitalized even as it's dismissed, oughts is misspelled with an O rather than A, YouTube is desperately over-elevated, or other awkward mistakes of future-looking instructional text; but still, so much of it is on point. I giggled a little when I read on page 247 Ingmar Bergman's name misspelled Bargeman -- he was a Swede who worked on a barge? and not a cinema master? -- but the very tiny, sometimes-painlessly-excruciating minutia of different elements doesn't offer many giggles.
You already are a master, you declare, as everyone is a master (familiar with not the specifics of each and every 'thing' but with the grand shape!), so saddling yourself with a specific review is very unnecessary and might be suspicious? Well, thank "you": "I" appreciate "you" calling "me" a master, as you just did, but I must say I disagree: being a master already may be fine enough, but it definitely requires some renewal sometimes.
The whole century of cinema condensed to just a long prose list = ok, for the most part, and I'd agree a huge challenge to organize; but I'd take issue with many pieces, including a focus on box office gross that can be a little pathetic/wrong sometimes. And condensing Africa to just a single name, or examining South America with just a few titles I haven't heard before, seems a bit problematic and maybe insensitive. I don't know! To say before everything you say "Ok, this might seem a little controversial, but I assure you it's very hard and we're ok and you can go elsewhere if you need, so I'm just gonna say" might not always be the greatest way to say what you say. Mentioning Marvel's rise this early might be more common than I realize, but it's still a little impressive, to me at least.
And theory! Though we enjoy reviewing the strains of prescriptive vs. descriptive, Münsterberg vs. Lindsay, Eisenstein, Euro vs. American, Expressionist vs. Realist, and all, it often seems to tend toward a "reader-response" time waste. Definitely the more abstruse elements solidified in '40s and '50 France -- Cahiers du cinéma, montage vs. mise-en-scène, the filmmakers Truffaut, Godard, Chabrol, Rohmer and theorists Bazin and Astruc -- sink even further. We all delight that authorship soon found its place, but the historicity could be a bit sharper.
After that, we move into other media. I appreciate at the outset that "audience engagement" is dialed back, and we get a far more inquisitive picture of whole trends. Radio and television are spent as most of Monaco's analysis, in shade after well-drawn shade. But then we move into the "multimedia" that might cripple and confuse the analysis too much. It's a very confusing system of confusion itself, but there might be less tired ways to draw us through! "Do we dare leave all the editing to Google?" it asks at the almost-end, and you can answer 'SEO?' which can begin a new screamingly-insane adventure.
Sure, groan at how "Rap or Hip Hop" is unwisely capitalized even as it's dismissed, oughts is misspelled with an O rather than A, YouTube is desperately over-elevated, or other awkward mistakes of future-looking instructional text; but still, so much of it is on point. I giggled a little when I read on page 247 Ingmar Bergman's name misspelled Bargeman -- he was a Swede who worked on a barge? and not a cinema master? -- but the very tiny, sometimes-painlessly-excruciating minutia of different elements doesn't offer many giggles.
You already are a master, you declare, as everyone is a master (familiar with not the specifics of each and every 'thing' but with the grand shape!), so saddling yourself with a specific review is very unnecessary and might be suspicious? Well, thank "you": "I" appreciate "you" calling "me" a master, as you just did, but I must say I disagree: being a master already may be fine enough, but it definitely requires some renewal sometimes.
The whole century of cinema condensed to just a long prose list = ok, for the most part, and I'd agree a huge challenge to organize; but I'd take issue with many pieces, including a focus on box office gross that can be a little pathetic/wrong sometimes. And condensing Africa to just a single name, or examining South America with just a few titles I haven't heard before, seems a bit problematic and maybe insensitive. I don't know! To say before everything you say "Ok, this might seem a little controversial, but I assure you it's very hard and we're ok and you can go elsewhere if you need, so I'm just gonna say" might not always be the greatest way to say what you say. Mentioning Marvel's rise this early might be more common than I realize, but it's still a little impressive, to me at least.
And theory! Though we enjoy reviewing the strains of prescriptive vs. descriptive, Münsterberg vs. Lindsay, Eisenstein, Euro vs. American, Expressionist vs. Realist, and all, it often seems to tend toward a "reader-response" time waste. Definitely the more abstruse elements solidified in '40s and '50 France -- Cahiers du cinéma, montage vs. mise-en-scène, the filmmakers Truffaut, Godard, Chabrol, Rohmer and theorists Bazin and Astruc -- sink even further. We all delight that authorship soon found its place, but the historicity could be a bit sharper.
After that, we move into other media. I appreciate at the outset that "audience engagement" is dialed back, and we get a far more inquisitive picture of whole trends. Radio and television are spent as most of Monaco's analysis, in shade after well-drawn shade. But then we move into the "multimedia" that might cripple and confuse the analysis too much. It's a very confusing system of confusion itself, but there might be less tired ways to draw us through! "Do we dare leave all the editing to Google?" it asks at the almost-end, and you can answer 'SEO?' which can begin a new screamingly-insane adventure.
June 21, 2022
Learned a lot from this book because it's my first text on film studies, but I don't think it works very well as an introduction to the topic. Will be supplementing with Film Art by Bordwell.
Although informative diagrams support the chapters on theory, the text itself can be somewhat confusingly organized and would benefit from additional subheadings to better signpost changes in topic. History chapters tend to devolve into long lists of films and directors interrupted by an occasional hazy remark. Forgive the paraphrase here because I do not have the book at hand, but a statement like "DirectorM in FilmX captures the poetry of daily rhythms with warmth and wit" does little to illuminate the decisions of the director or directions of analysis for the viewer. It is as if one has to have already seen and parsed the film in order to understand that comment, which undermines the introductory intent of this text; perhaps it is better suited to a classroom context where an instructor can fill in the gaps.
The last couple of sections on multimedia/new media are mostly old news, delivered sometimes in a breathlessly earnest manner.
Additionally, some of the information seems questionable, e.g. the explanation of how additive colour works, the discredited theory of persistence of vision, etc.
Although informative diagrams support the chapters on theory, the text itself can be somewhat confusingly organized and would benefit from additional subheadings to better signpost changes in topic. History chapters tend to devolve into long lists of films and directors interrupted by an occasional hazy remark. Forgive the paraphrase here because I do not have the book at hand, but a statement like "DirectorM in FilmX captures the poetry of daily rhythms with warmth and wit" does little to illuminate the decisions of the director or directions of analysis for the viewer. It is as if one has to have already seen and parsed the film in order to understand that comment, which undermines the introductory intent of this text; perhaps it is better suited to a classroom context where an instructor can fill in the gaps.
The last couple of sections on multimedia/new media are mostly old news, delivered sometimes in a breathlessly earnest manner.
Additionally, some of the information seems questionable, e.g. the explanation of how additive colour works, the discredited theory of persistence of vision, etc.
March 1, 2025
James Monaco’s (fourth edition) How To Read a Film is a monumental and necessary read for anyone interested in understanding the art of film. It does get fairly technical, and the later chapters lean heavily into the functional details of the form, but it is framed by some incredible theory and often profound thematic insights, all of which help postion film within the larger history of storytelling traditions methods. Film might be unique in the broader scope of history, but it is not an island.
As the book repeats over and over, when storytelling methods emerge they gain a coded language. The uniqueness of film in this regard is not only found in its particular nature (capturing as it does the moving image in time and space), but in its indebtedness as an artform to technology. It is the technological aspect that sheds light on the ensuing relationship that develops between art, artist and viewer, leading the art of film to become a fluid and captive entity in ways that set it apart from other forms. On top of this, not only does there emerge a coded langauge necessary for reading a film, there is also a coded langauge for making a film. As such, the artform contains a kind of dynamism that ebbs and flows within it’s own advancements.
If film has shaped humanity’s story over the last 120 years, holding in its grip economic geo/socio-political and social evolutions, the nature of film has always straddled this line between the direction of its technological pursuits and its cultural applications. Near the end of the book the author talks about how we’ve spent most of those last 120 years learning what it means to read a film, and now we must learn how to see a film. Which becomes a kind of precarious endeavor since we find ourselves at a cultural moment where the technology is no longer about how we can push boundaries, but about how the technology is shaping us.
In one sense film is still anchored in its hisotirical presence, but the older our auteurs get, the more this history threatens to disappear into the ever increasing presence of the future, leaving emergent filmmakers with decisions to make regarding where they stand in that long line of storytellers and what and how we might preseve it, if at all. This is especially true given the ever changing economic landscape. In many ways film has morphed into something largely unrecognizable, collapsed as it is into the barrage of different social media expressions. And yet, for the time being, it still stands as stubborn resistance to the sometimes- or often times- shortsighted nature of progress.
Of course, with this future oriented progression comes the loss of coded language. Without a shared language film cannot funcion. And yet, one of the more compelling thematic threads that runs through this book is the question of whether the developed language of film has the capacity to hold these shifting tides in both tension and cohesion. If it does, this can only come from our ability to submit the technological form to the universal and etermal power of story and storytelling. This is, and must remain, its essential anchor. There must be a universal langauge behind the art that is able to navigate the changing tides of technology and culture. Meaning, no matter the form, and no matter the present state of the form, the truth of art, and the truth that art looks to reveal, remains its guiding light.
Without this, film, and it wouldn’t by hyperbolic to say humanity, stands to simply gets lost in the weeds of progress, without aim and direction and without that necessary sense of the meaning of things that inform the more scientific elements of form and function. It is easier for art forms like literature and painting to remember this. It’s much harder with an artform where the base level relationship between form and function is far more complex and allusive and fleeting. An artform tied to the very tehcnology that is presently lighting the way.
In some sense, and this is also something the author examines, film has grown from a once bastion of human creation and accomplishment into a godlike entity in and of itself. This is especially true where the loss of common setting and shared tradition are concerned (the role of the theatrical, the task of the filmmaker). As has been stated, the lines have been blurred between the artist creating art in the image of the world, and the technological creation now re-creating the world in its own image.
The final word of this book is one that I found to be rather powerful. It is a call to remember what art is- imitation. It imitates reality in order to illuminate the truths within. Thus it is always necessary to remember its aim- to equip and call us to reenter reality with fresh perspective and revelation. That’s every bit as integral to the process of reading a film as seeing a film.
Perhaps even more astutely, in some ways, in the present moment that we occupy, it’s even increasingly becoming about recovering reality.
I found myself contemplating these things as I finished the final words of this 800 page behemoth. As someone with a deep love of film, and who’s roots for this passion are founded in a love of literature, how do I become a better “viewer�. If this book has equipped me to be a better reader of film, how do I learn how to see more clearly? It just might be that the question of seeing a film is better framed as learning how to see the world. How to see reality. Even further though, and perhaps the much more difficult endeavor, is learning how to allow my engaging of film to push me to greater engagement with reality. To participate in the world rather than escape it. To find in the imitaiton something more true, something more real awaiting those final credits.
As the book repeats over and over, when storytelling methods emerge they gain a coded language. The uniqueness of film in this regard is not only found in its particular nature (capturing as it does the moving image in time and space), but in its indebtedness as an artform to technology. It is the technological aspect that sheds light on the ensuing relationship that develops between art, artist and viewer, leading the art of film to become a fluid and captive entity in ways that set it apart from other forms. On top of this, not only does there emerge a coded langauge necessary for reading a film, there is also a coded langauge for making a film. As such, the artform contains a kind of dynamism that ebbs and flows within it’s own advancements.
If film has shaped humanity’s story over the last 120 years, holding in its grip economic geo/socio-political and social evolutions, the nature of film has always straddled this line between the direction of its technological pursuits and its cultural applications. Near the end of the book the author talks about how we’ve spent most of those last 120 years learning what it means to read a film, and now we must learn how to see a film. Which becomes a kind of precarious endeavor since we find ourselves at a cultural moment where the technology is no longer about how we can push boundaries, but about how the technology is shaping us.
In one sense film is still anchored in its hisotirical presence, but the older our auteurs get, the more this history threatens to disappear into the ever increasing presence of the future, leaving emergent filmmakers with decisions to make regarding where they stand in that long line of storytellers and what and how we might preseve it, if at all. This is especially true given the ever changing economic landscape. In many ways film has morphed into something largely unrecognizable, collapsed as it is into the barrage of different social media expressions. And yet, for the time being, it still stands as stubborn resistance to the sometimes- or often times- shortsighted nature of progress.
Of course, with this future oriented progression comes the loss of coded language. Without a shared language film cannot funcion. And yet, one of the more compelling thematic threads that runs through this book is the question of whether the developed language of film has the capacity to hold these shifting tides in both tension and cohesion. If it does, this can only come from our ability to submit the technological form to the universal and etermal power of story and storytelling. This is, and must remain, its essential anchor. There must be a universal langauge behind the art that is able to navigate the changing tides of technology and culture. Meaning, no matter the form, and no matter the present state of the form, the truth of art, and the truth that art looks to reveal, remains its guiding light.
Without this, film, and it wouldn’t by hyperbolic to say humanity, stands to simply gets lost in the weeds of progress, without aim and direction and without that necessary sense of the meaning of things that inform the more scientific elements of form and function. It is easier for art forms like literature and painting to remember this. It’s much harder with an artform where the base level relationship between form and function is far more complex and allusive and fleeting. An artform tied to the very tehcnology that is presently lighting the way.
In some sense, and this is also something the author examines, film has grown from a once bastion of human creation and accomplishment into a godlike entity in and of itself. This is especially true where the loss of common setting and shared tradition are concerned (the role of the theatrical, the task of the filmmaker). As has been stated, the lines have been blurred between the artist creating art in the image of the world, and the technological creation now re-creating the world in its own image.
The final word of this book is one that I found to be rather powerful. It is a call to remember what art is- imitation. It imitates reality in order to illuminate the truths within. Thus it is always necessary to remember its aim- to equip and call us to reenter reality with fresh perspective and revelation. That’s every bit as integral to the process of reading a film as seeing a film.
Perhaps even more astutely, in some ways, in the present moment that we occupy, it’s even increasingly becoming about recovering reality.
I found myself contemplating these things as I finished the final words of this 800 page behemoth. As someone with a deep love of film, and who’s roots for this passion are founded in a love of literature, how do I become a better “viewer�. If this book has equipped me to be a better reader of film, how do I learn how to see more clearly? It just might be that the question of seeing a film is better framed as learning how to see the world. How to see reality. Even further though, and perhaps the much more difficult endeavor, is learning how to allow my engaging of film to push me to greater engagement with reality. To participate in the world rather than escape it. To find in the imitaiton something more true, something more real awaiting those final credits.
November 28, 2019
Wasn't quite what I was looking for. I was hoping for something that would go more into analyzing a movie. But that's what I get for judging a book by it's cover title alone. This is more about an overview of film and media in general with an explanation to how it all works and how it affects the final product. This is a good guide on the technical side of things, but offers no more than a crash course in everything. The age of this edition is beginning to wear on it as there is pretty much no mention of streaming as a platform. There were a few times I was scratching my head at the metaphors being used. Still a good source for what it is.
March 10, 2010
An excellent introduction to film and film theory. Monaco starts with both a brief history of film in the US and with a clear introduction to how film technically works. His application of critical theory is lucid and accessible. (Note: this book was my first introduction to many of the ideas in contemporary theory, long ago in my Lost Youth, and I remember the expositions fondly) Very much recommended for anyone beginning a study of how film works and how it works on its audience.
June 26, 2008
This book has so much information about film. The chapters are very long though, and its a bit hard to read. The author jumps from ideas to ideas and not always in chronological order. Many of its films of reference are French or older films from the 40's and 50's. It made me want to go see more older films. I had to read this book for my English class. I don't think I am going to sell it.
August 17, 2012
I own a Dutch copy of this book but an older edition from 1984. It's a pretty good book for film students but when compared to Bordwell's books Film History and Film Art, How to Read a Film doesn't quite match up.... But it's quite a good read anyway.
October 27, 2012
I would recommend this book to all cinema enthusiasts and wants to take their part in this sector to read and study on this book, carefully.
November 11, 2018
Nuda a arogance. Bordwell s Thompsonovou jsou tisíckrát čtivější, zárověn srozumitelní a věcní. Monaco je narcis.
November 26, 2021
mind-numbingly boring and pretentious
August 6, 2020
"A film is difficult to explain because it is easy to understand." - Christian Metz
At its best, a dizzyingly brilliant dissection of the democratisation of the moving image and modes of discourse which underpin that idea of 'how to read a film', particularly within a rather Scientific/Mathematical Formalist critical approach. For example, elements which could be referred to include:
The quasi-grammar of film language-systems, the mise-en-scene - its balance/shape/form/growth/space/light/colour/movement/tension/expression, the methodology of the camera eye - focal length/linear distortion/distortion of depth perspective/angle of view/focus/aperture/depth of field/exposure/time, the metonymy/syntax/synecdoche of semiotics, the simplified denotation/connotation principle, the role of technology, the multiple interpretations of montage, the role of private virtual realities in the public sphere, the metaphysical allusions in cinematic representation, the diaphragm of the lens, the manipulation of sight and sound, the role of realism, the spectacle, the alienation, the colour palettes and aesthetics, the dolby effect, glass shots, matte shots, rear projections, front projections, projectors, narrowcasting, icon/index/symbol, verisimilitude, the tropes, the open form/closed form principle, three planes of composition, conventions of depth perception, illusions through image manipulation, key lights and fill lights, lighting combinations, highlighting, the diachronic shot, shot composition, the moving camera, tracking versus zooming, Metz's Five Channels of Information - the visual image/print and other graphics/speech/music/noise/sound effects, types of montage - contrast/parallelism/symbolism, simultaneity/leitmotif, syntagmas and paradigms etc.
However, at its worst, the book becomes nebulous in its attempt to bring as much in as possible. The format becomes at times unwieldy. Chapter 4's 'The Shape of Film History' is compiled with greater merit in David Bordwell's 'Film History: An Introduction'. Chapter 6's 'Media: In The Middle of Things' is rendered with greater insight in books like Briggs/Burke's 'A Social History of the Media'. Chapter 7's 'Multimedia" The Digital Revolution' has already dated somewhat, this being the Fourth Edition published in 2009 (the first back in 1977).
It is indispensable in parts, which is why a 3 star rating may be a tad harsh. And also, one must not forget that its application of Metz's theories back in 1977 were cogent and brought to life in a way that is accessible and academically rigorous.
After all this study though, I'm going to need to head into a deep and profligate slumber.
At its best, a dizzyingly brilliant dissection of the democratisation of the moving image and modes of discourse which underpin that idea of 'how to read a film', particularly within a rather Scientific/Mathematical Formalist critical approach. For example, elements which could be referred to include:
The quasi-grammar of film language-systems, the mise-en-scene - its balance/shape/form/growth/space/light/colour/movement/tension/expression, the methodology of the camera eye - focal length/linear distortion/distortion of depth perspective/angle of view/focus/aperture/depth of field/exposure/time, the metonymy/syntax/synecdoche of semiotics, the simplified denotation/connotation principle, the role of technology, the multiple interpretations of montage, the role of private virtual realities in the public sphere, the metaphysical allusions in cinematic representation, the diaphragm of the lens, the manipulation of sight and sound, the role of realism, the spectacle, the alienation, the colour palettes and aesthetics, the dolby effect, glass shots, matte shots, rear projections, front projections, projectors, narrowcasting, icon/index/symbol, verisimilitude, the tropes, the open form/closed form principle, three planes of composition, conventions of depth perception, illusions through image manipulation, key lights and fill lights, lighting combinations, highlighting, the diachronic shot, shot composition, the moving camera, tracking versus zooming, Metz's Five Channels of Information - the visual image/print and other graphics/speech/music/noise/sound effects, types of montage - contrast/parallelism/symbolism, simultaneity/leitmotif, syntagmas and paradigms etc.
However, at its worst, the book becomes nebulous in its attempt to bring as much in as possible. The format becomes at times unwieldy. Chapter 4's 'The Shape of Film History' is compiled with greater merit in David Bordwell's 'Film History: An Introduction'. Chapter 6's 'Media: In The Middle of Things' is rendered with greater insight in books like Briggs/Burke's 'A Social History of the Media'. Chapter 7's 'Multimedia" The Digital Revolution' has already dated somewhat, this being the Fourth Edition published in 2009 (the first back in 1977).
It is indispensable in parts, which is why a 3 star rating may be a tad harsh. And also, one must not forget that its application of Metz's theories back in 1977 were cogent and brought to life in a way that is accessible and academically rigorous.
After all this study though, I'm going to need to head into a deep and profligate slumber.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.