Exploring Movie Construction & Production: What’s so exciting about movies?
open education open educational resources OER open publishing open textbooks open textbook library equity higher education
John Reich
Exploring Movie Construction &amp; Production contains eight chapters of the major areas of film construction and production. The discussion covers theme, genre, narrative structure, character portrayal, story, plot, directing style, cinematography, and editing. Important terminology is defined and types of analysis are discussed and demonstrated. An extended example of how a movie description reflects the setting, narrative structure, or directing style is used throughout the book to illustrate building blocks of each theme. This approach to film instruction and analysis has proved beneficial to increasing students&#39; learning, while enhancing the creativity and critical thinking of the student.
/assets/common/favicon/favicon-dd4434478a769c5d63f6eee103ce37a995aaff6bd119c86faa3ffb982634eec0.ico
Open Textbook Library
Reviewed by RJ Miller, Director of Music Technology, Instructor of Scoring for Film & TV, Metropolitan State University of Denver on 11/27/21

Comprehensiveness rating: 2 see less

This text is not a college/university-level text and is by no means comprehensive. It lacks depth, contains multiple inaccuracies, and appears to be assembled mostly from Internet sources, predominantly Wikipedia. In fact, over half of the references listed in the bibliography are Wikipedia references. There are no professional/industry sources cited, no professional interviews (or excerpts thereof) included, and the text contains no index.

While the writing style is unsophisticated, it is accessible and would likely appeal to students just embarking upon their college experience. The first part of the text (Part I: Construction) could certainly serve for an entry-level introduction to film class, assuming some corrections, modifications, and expansions were made.

Part II: Production is fraught with inaccuracies and missed opportunities. In chapter 8 (What is Sound?) the author states, “Music is a very important element for a movie.” He then dedicates five very brief paragraphs to the subject, none of which actually address the process of creating music for film or the post-production process. In the four brief paragraphs on sound effects the author mentions a character (Al) playing piano which is the perfect opportunity for a discussion of diegetic and non-diegetic music. Neither term is mentioned in the text. The only reference to Foley in the text is a link to a YouTube video entitled, “Introduction to Foley and Sound Effects for Film.” The author addresses ambient “noise” inaccurately. He discusses dialogue without the mention of ADR – automated dialogue replacement. The lack of depth and understanding in Part II of the text is profound.

Content Accuracy rating: 2

Part I of the text, for the most part, is fairly accurate. Part II is not. There are also places that are subjective instead of objective. The author includes a list of films considered to be the “number one film” in their respective genres without data or references to support such assertions. There’s likely a subjective list somewhere on the Internet that includes these references. However, if these listings are the author’s choices, they should be stated as such.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 2

Using three “evergreen” films as primary references is a safe way to start. These are fine films and excellent examples of their respective genres. But, they are only a start. There’s so much more to the history of cinema than provided in Part I of this text. The films and genres encompassed will definitely stand the test of time, however there is so much more to consider.

Longevity will be an issue as no contemporary issues are addressed. There are no female directors or female composers represented. There are no people of color represented in creative or production positions. No LGBTQ+ representation and the use of the “Jack and Suzie” characters for examples place this text firmly in the past.

Clarity rating: 2

The writing is fairly clear, simplistic, and brief to a fault. It lacks the sophistication expected in a college-level text. There is so much more that could be added to virtually every aspect of this text that would provide a more in-depth and well-round approach to the subject.

Consistency rating: 2

There is consistency of tone within Part I of text. While there is also a consistency of tone within Part II, it is vastly different from the tone imparted in Part I.

Modularity rating: 3

The overall construct would lend itself to modularity. The chapters proceed in a fairly logical manner and each chapter is divided smaller sub-sections. The instructor could pick-and-choose the elements to be included in each module and expand, correct, or delineate as needed.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

The premise of the organization is fairly logical. A few of the chapters and subsections should be re-ordered to improve the flow.

Interface rating: 3

I used a downloaded PDF to access this text. I was able to access all the referenced YouTube videos without difficulty.

Grammatical Errors rating: 3

The text is acceptable grammatically. Sentence structure occasionally presents conflicting or confusing ideas. There are some typo/punctuation issues.

Cultural Relevance rating: 2

While nothing is presented in an offensive or insensitive way, it would seem that little, if any thought was given to cultural diversity in this text. It’s simply avoided.

Comments

As someone who spent 30+ years in the post-production side of film, television, and recording (as a composer, orchestrator, arranger, conductor & producer) and who now has the good fortunate to instruct scoring for film and television at the university level, I was appalled by Part II of this text. It was blatantly obvious that the author had no professional background in film production. This suspicion was confirmed when I accessed the author’s curriculum vitae on the Buffalo State College website.

Reviewed by Ian Nolte, Instructor, Marshall University on 3/6/20

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

I was attracted to this text because of its comprehensive table of contents. With its focus on production, it covers the major areas of areas of film form I cover in my film-as-literature courses. It also has chapters covering concerns of story as they relate to film production. On the whole it, discusses all of the major topics I am concerned with when trying to get students to think critically about film stories as texts. The chapters provide a good broad overview of each subject and I feel meet their stated purpose of serving students without an extensive background in film. However, I do feel the chapters were brief and lacking in depth. Most discussions are brief and to-the-point. While certainly not overwhelming for students new to the study of film, I feel most chapters would need to be supplemented in some form or fashion.

Content Accuracy rating: 3

This book has accurate information about film stories and film production. However, the discussion on film history and genre are very general with no real specific details. I believe this is due to the philosophy of trying not to overwhelm students with references to movies they may have never seen.

I found the chapters in Part II: Production to be particularly useful for providing useful and accurate definitions and examples of the principles of film form. The embedded videos, photos, and diagrams are useful for illustrating those concepts. However, the discussion of key concepts is brief. For example, the illustration of three-point-lighting is excellent, but the discussion of effects that can be generated with that light set up is a few brief sentences.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

I think building the examples in this text around three films available on YouTube is very useful. Having three readily accessible example films that anyone with the text can quickly and easily view is very useful. I can imagine that updates will be easy to implement as replacing an example film and editing relevant segments does not seem too daunting.

Clarity rating: 3

The beginning chapters on film stories (Part I: Construction) rely heavily on hypothetical examples to discuss film genre and film history. The introduction states that is to avoid alienating students who may not have an extensive knowledge of film history (for example, they cannot understand a discussion of crime films if they have not seen many crime films). Perhaps it is more useful than an example-heavy overview of these topics as the author claims. However, I found discussing film history and genre in this way to be a little vague.

This text does provide a useful overview of key terms and terminology related to technical aspects of film production. The easy to follow visual examples in the "What is Cinematography?" chapter are very clear and easy to understand. Pictures, diagrams, and embedded videos help cover the content.

Consistency rating: 5

This text is internally consistent. Each chapter connects logically to the next, and the similar formatting of each chapter aids the reader in making sense of the content. It is easy to view and understand the layout of each chapter, and it is easy to engage with.

Modularity rating: 5

This text seems to be designed with modularity in mind. I can easily imagine how each section could be used separately as part of a unit in a variety of courses. Is your course more focused on responding to films as stories? Any of the chapters in Part I could be useful. Are you more interested in exploring film production? The chapters in Part II split up nicely for units related to those subjects.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

This books logical organization is a strength. While asking us to think critically about film stories, the text book works us through the stages of film production in sequence. Readers move through "big picture" story concerns like theme and genre through constructing plots and characters. Then readers work through the stages of production from directing the story and designing the mise-en-scene through shooting and editing the picture and sound elements. It is a useful framework for thinking through the creation of film texts.

Interface rating: 5

This text is easy to navigate. I felt oriented during the reading, and navigating from chapter to chapter was clear and logical. All embedded elements functioned well and did not disrupt the reading experience. Images and diagrams were clear and worked well in the text. (I interacted with this book in Google Chrome.)

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

I encountered no grammatical issues that impeded my understanding.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

I did not find this text culturally insensitive in any way. Its list of suggested viewings in each chapters "Further Viewings" does not present a particularly diverse roster of directors, but that is a small feature of the text. There did not appear to be a meaningful inclusion of a variety of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.

Reviewed by Michael Meindl, Assistant Professor/Co-Director, Radford University on 1/24/20

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

This book broadly covers appropriate subject areas/topics. However, sometimes the book fails to go deep enough. For example, there is no discussion of diegetic vs. nondiegetic sound in the audio chapter, which prevents students from using some standard vocabulary. The discussion of mise-en-scene could be developed a lot more. I really would like to see this book go at least one more level deeper into the material. I also somewhat disagree with the author in their claim that the hypothetical situations are better than specific film examples (I think there is value in both, but I think a film textbook needs a bit more grounding in actual films than this one provides). No index is provided.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

For the most part, the book is accurate. I do disagree with the author's description of how a film comes together (that is, a producer starts with a theme and then goes from there). Also, at the end of the book, the author describes a number of films as "being considered the number one" film within a particular genre and the choices are definitely debatable. I also do not always think the "equations" the author uses to define some material are useful/accurate. Sometimes the definitions the author uses from Wikipedia and Dictionary.com confuse rather than clarify.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The book pretty much avoids specific technology and the concepts the author talks about are ones that don't necessarily go out of fashion.

Clarity rating: 4

The writing is clear and tends to present things in a straight-forward way. Though, as mentioned elsewhere, the "equations" are not always helpful and I found the use of Wikipedia and Dictionary.com quotes/definitions confusing and distracting.

Consistency rating: 5

The book has a predictable structure throughout the book.

Modularity rating: 5

While I think sometimes the author provides too many of their hypothetical situations or examples within different genres, an instructor could easily tell students which they should read. The individual chapters can be rearranged as needed.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The topics are presented in a logical manor.

Interface rating: 5

Free of interface issues.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

No grammar issues.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

Though the author includes women's rights in some of their hypothetical situations, they fail to connect with some other social/cultural events/topics. The pictures the author does include does not show any real diversity. Lots of missed opportunities to be inclusive here.

Comments

As anyone who teaches film studies knows, film textbooks are often not cheap. I think this book could be used as an alternative, but I would see it more as something to be used as a jumping-off point and that instructors would have to provide additional terms/concepts for a well-rounded intro to film course.

Reviewed by Stephen Rust, Film Studies Instructor, Linn-Benton Community College on 1/14/20

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

Any reader of this book, should come away with a good sense of how movies are constructed and produced. The title of the book is rather misleading because rather than focusing solely on film production, what we have is an introductory level film studies textbook intended for first-year college students or high school students. Like any other textbook on the market, there are chapters on theme, genre, and narrative along with chapter on cinematography, editing, and sound. Many introductory level film studies textbooks reference so many old films that only the writer has seen or shown in their own classes that students get very confused. This book avoids direct references to famous or current films and instead the author writes out short examples that could come from any movie of the time. For example the chapter on theme that starts the book features two characters named Jack and Suzie that are used to provide examples of different themes that might have emerged over various decades of US history. This approach may help students who have very little sense of film history understand the concepts; however, readers of this book will learn far less about film history than a reader of most other textbooks of this type.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

While certainly accurate in the use of film terminology - the author's own students are clearly receiving an outstanding education - the author has a nagging tendency to make generalizations about film producers, film audiences, and film history. For example, in the opening chapter on theme, the author claims, "The theme is the heart of the movie. The movie is regulated by the theme. The theme is why people go to the movies. It is not because of the characters, story, plot, cinematography, or genre. All of these elements are regulated by the theme." Now anyone, who's spent time around people who watch movies or makes movies knows that theme is by no means the driving focus of all productions or viewers expectations. Did people across the world flock to see AVATAR ($2.9 billion in global ticket sales) in 2009 because of the movie's theme or because of it's pioneering use of 3-D cinematography? Did fans of TRANSFORMERS really care more about the theme than the special effects, let's be real here.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

Since the author avoids references to many movies this makes sure there is not a sense that things are going out of date. However, more information on digital cinematography needs to be added to that chapter. Video tutorials embedded in some chapters are great additions.

Clarity rating: 5

Very easy, clear read. Well-suited to a first year audience.

Consistency rating: 5

Very consistent organization. I strongly suggest folks read the book online as that format works very well for this book.

Modularity rating: 5

Great organization of modules; particularly the online pressbook version. The book is well edited so avoids any needless repetition. The discussion/homework activities at the end of each chapter would work well in class.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Topics are presented in logical, clear fashion. Chapters/modules of the book would work well for a 10-week course with one chapter each week. Organization covers basic elements of understanding movies as a viewer in part one (theme, genre, narrative, and characters) and covers basic elements of film production in part two (directing, cinematography, editing, sound).

Interface rating: 4

Fun to read in the pressbooks format, easy to navigate, embedded videos add to interest level; more images would be great

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

Very well edited

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

Needs more overt discussion of culturally sensitive issues in film

Reviewed by Stacy Barton, Assistant Profeessor, Metropolitan State University of Denver on 10/24/19

Comprehensiveness rating: 2 see less

The introduction to the textbook makes clear its intention, and I think that for a community college film appreciation course this resource could suffice. Having taught that very class at the community college level myself and comparing my own curriculum to the content within, the scope of this text I find too narrow where it counts. That said, if common film themes and genre are the major focus of course design, this is a good resource since the longest chapter by far focuses solely on film genres. Dramatic structure and character are also given sufficient treatment here.

Where the text falls short for me is in its discussion of production, spending on average less than 5 pages each on directing, cinematography, editing, and sound. In my experience, these production concepts and the scope of the work itself are far are more alien to most students than film genre, where we Americans are pretty versed through pop-culture in what differentiates a crime film from a sci-fi from a horror, etc. In becoming an informed viewer and learning to talk about film meaning, production concepts are where students need expanded explanation and example. Here, the pages are dominated by some concepts I don’t feel need labored over to comprehend.

Content Accuracy rating: 2

The textbook is in some places inaccurate I'm sorry to say, particularly with terminology in the production section. One example that stuck with me was the repeated use of the term 'ambient noise' to describe the ambience track that defines a location. While this is terminology often used by the greater public, it's fundamentally inaccurate in audio production since 'noise' describes undesired sound that an audio crew would avoid recording, or alternately the term 'noise' refers to the presence of all audible frequencies such as that makes up 'white noise'. The chapter on sound is titled 'What is Sound?', but the accurate question to ask is instead, 'What is a Soundtrack?' in my opinion, the term for all mixed sound in a movie. While there are many factual assertions contained within, there are a few too many inaccuracies for me to recommend using this in its current form. Perhaps the shortcomings here stem from the fact that 54% of the bibliography cites Wikipedia.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

In writing this text, which like all film studies books uses movie examples to clarify the points it makes, the author focuses on three diverse films in film history to reference. In fact, the book's introduction explains that the resource was specifically created to counter the standard practice in film textbooks of referencing too many films as examples, new and old, most of which students haven't seen. Since time has still not rendered these particular three examples irrelevant many years later, I think the author made a great choice that benefits students and makes comprehension easier and less time consuming. In fact, I can see this text maintaining its relevance for a good while.

Clarity rating: 4

I found this text to be approachable and a fairly pleasant read, there is plenty of information to glean and I can see students easily grasping the material. The language is clear, and concepts are defined, often by dictionary definition. Two confusing elements that I feel should be revised for clarity's sake are the use of the term 'expanded hypothetical examples' which is unnecessarily convoluted, and the various formulas presented as "easy to remember", which I didn't find to be the case.

Consistency rating: 3

The author writes in a consistent tone and as a whole the chapters integrate well together, with the exception of chapter length, which varies greatly. The first section titled 'Construction' covers writing concepts and is weighted much heavier, and the second section titled 'Production' feels rushed. As stated in 'Comprehensiveness', the production section warrants more content and discussion, with perhaps less explanation offered in some areas of the first section. Additionally, imagery content is inconsistent, with very little in the first half and most of it near the end of the book.

Modularity rating: 5

Even the longer chapters here are divided into smaller sections by topic, making for easy assigned reading. I could see working through each genre individually, or each time period in American film history, and thus making the two longer chapters more digestible and spread-out. Beyond that, most chapters are short and to the point, logically dividing the material up for distribution among the multiple weeks that make up a college semester.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Overall the book is logically organized, and I like how it ends with two big assignments, one related to writing and one to production. While a book modeled after my own course design would separate some concepts into their own chapter that are presented together here, it does make a lot of sense to start with writing concepts like theme, genre, dramatic structure, and character when approaching film literacy. It is, after all, story and character that appeal to viewers, and thus their entry point to movie meaning. It also makes sense to end with production, since as I mentioned I find these to be the hardest concepts for students to comprehend.

Interface rating: 5

The book text and graphical elements are laid out logically and uniformly, there are no formatting issues. All display features including bibliography navigate as expected.

Grammatical Errors rating: 3

The text is fine grammatically but not perfect, particularly in the area of sentence structure, where sometimes the order of ideas confuses sentence meaning. At times, language incorporates off-putting universals, attributing various aspects, elements, and filmic situations definitively to a specific circumstance or position. In multiple scenarios presented throughout the book as definitive, I was able to disprove with well-known examples and/or using experiential knowledge from working on film sets. In this era of multiplicity and unconventionality, in art and media especially, it’s no longer realistic to apply one old rule to all modern films and filmmakers.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The three film examples utilized in the book do span cultures and lifestyles, and the few images contained within do visualize diversity. The text itself doesn't talk much about broader culture, focusing on literary concepts, specific movies, and film writing/production techniques, but I didn't find the hypothetical examples to be tilted to one demographic or another and as such the book appeals to a wide and diverse target audience.

Comments

Overall the author has innovative ideas, a fresh perspective on how best to teach film appreciation through limiting the number of film examples discussed and is clear on his target audience. I really like how he incorporates his students' quotes in the introduction. The book has a strong authorial voice and point of view and I see this is a great supplement to this professor's course, but to incorporate it into my own course would take some expansion and language modification. I'm glad it's out there and part of the larger body of film education literature.

Reviewed by Kevin Smith, Instructor, Chemeketa Community College on 5/16/19

Comprehensiveness rating: 2 see less

The basics are here, but in what is a running theme throughout the text, that's about it. One example would be the chapter on cinematography (Chapter 6), which give the reader a decent overview. Having said that, there are few illustrations in this chapter (but, to be fair, there's a decent assignment at the end of the book asking students to discuss the topic that does include images), factual inaccuracies (you don't need a tripod to pan or tilt a camera, you can't "zoom" by walking close to the subject), and omissions (lens focal lengths and their effects, depth-of-field, etc.). Unless, there's more than enough detail (such as the discussion of the various sub- and hybrid-genres of comedy which occupy almost 1/5 of the book). This section is extensive, but it leads one to wonder why the author, who seems to be heavily invested in the topic, didn't just focus his energies on a solid book on comedy rather than this flyover of film. Industrial issues are left almost entirely unmentioned (more on this below); film is an industry based on specialized technology...how can this not be included? No discussion of iconography in the genre chapter?

Content Accuracy rating: 2

Again, some of this is just not correct: the above-mentioned issues in the cinematography chapter are just a few examples, but also probably the most egregious. The whole "films can be categorized by the decade they were made in" thesis has been thoroughly debunked by now, so why perpetuate it here? The 1960s are both part of the 50s and the 70s? So does that mean they don't constitute a coherent decade as is stated? Is there bias? I can't say for sure, but one unusual observation I made was that in the discussion of how social context is the most important determiner of movie themes, the section on the 1960s makes no mention of the civil rights movement, but it does point out the dangers of "corporate management." Huh.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

It's hard to find fault with this book by saying it doesn't discuss recent developments in digital technologies because it doesn't really discuss technology much at all (I think "computer advances" are mentioned once as part of the social context of the 21st century. In its own basic outline style, it can't lose its relevancy because it never establishes it. Production techniques have changed a lot since the dawn of cinema, but the coming of sound, widescreen and widespread use of color are glossed over.

Clarity rating: 1

The story-plot distinction (in Chapter 3), which, for example, discussions of genre (Chapter 2), character (Chapter 4) and theme (Chapter 1) are predicated on, comes too late. Why not define these key terms (especially when they're included prominently in bold-type 'formulas' for various aspects of film) at the beginning so that readers can scaffold as they go rather than read this in a non-linear manner? I'm unclear about how the author intended to describe these two terms as being different (stating that they both have a beginning and an end isn't particularly helpful). I wrote a dissertation on narrative film theory, and I'm still confused about how and why these terms are being deployed here. Never mind that the author seems to ignore the standard literary and film theory definitions of the terms that have been inherited from Russian Formalism. The formulas also seem inconsistent and are tossed aside when they don't fit (as with the discussion of editing in Chapter 7, which include a series of less-than signs that are different from the book's previous arithmetic).

Consistency rating: 1

Again, the formulas are used inconsistently, there doesn't seem to be a clear rationale for the use or neglect of images (which a book about film should include plenty of, imho). The central conceit of themes coming from sociohistorial context seems to be tossed out in the second half of the book, which deals with the technical or stylistic aspects of film (e.g. editing and sound). The two parts of the book could probably be used separately and no one would notice.

Modularity rating: 1

One must read this book in order, at least in Part I, but as I indicated above, these chapters seems to have been presented in a manner that doesn't follow logically. The fact that the text is so short (80 pages of reading for an entire semester) would seem to indicate that nothing would be taken out. The too-brief discussions of mise-en-scene could be expanded and added to Part II in order to improve the modularity of that portion.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 1

Other than the sections on theme, 'narrative,' genre, and character (Part I) being separated from the standard stylistic categories in Part II. I lost track of how may references (but not explanations) there were to important concepts in Chapter 3 contained in Chapters 1 and 2. The brief and inaccurate section on film history seems out of place in Chapter 1, as the unsupported generalization that movies are always products of their social context (unless, as the author follows up with, they're not) doesn't necessarily help explain why "theme" is crucial to this text and one's ability to understand and enjoy movies.

Interface rating: 3

More images would be helpful. The author seems to have found royalty-free images for some of the sections and the cinematography assignment at the end (which is perhaps the best part of the book), so why not include more? Again, this is a book about a visual medium (which the author points out), but we're given few visuals. The 180-degree rule and lighting diagrams are appreciated, but the use of publicity stills instead of screengrabs is unfortunate, as we all know my now that the studio photographers usually staged these under different set conditions and don't accurately represent what the movie actually looks like.

Grammatical Errors rating: 2

Overall, it's solid, but there are some typos (mostly punctuation issues with quotation marks and commas) and grammar issues with sentence structure (unnecessary commas prove to be a stumbling block in terms of arranging clauses and phrases accurately).

Cultural Relevance rating: 2

There's hardly any mention of diversity. The author should be given credit for making some notable examples of discussing women working in the film industry and assuming more prominent roles within films as social norms changed. The civil rights thing still bugs me. There's also a pattern throughout the book where "Jack" and "Suzie" are the main characters in the imaginary film scenarios. It seems a little heteronormative to me.

Comments

I might use some of this in my own community college film courses because of the nature of the Creative Commons license (i.e. I could make a derivative work that adds what I feel is missing and excludes what I feel is inaccurate), but it seems more appropriate for a high school audience. The author has his own ideas about film, but there's scant evidence to support most of them and many non-sequiturs. I did appreciate the acknowledgement that, and brief discussion about how, films are products that are made by people and not just artworks sprung fully formed from Zeus' forehead and ready for critical theory to be applied to. I realize this review probably seems harsh at times, but there are some gems in here, that, polished up and collected together with a few more from other OER sources, could make for a decent Intro to Film textbook. The alternatives are expensive, so it's high time somebody does so. I give John Reich a D overall, but a B for sincerity and effort. Someone please write the second version of this textbook: it's desperately needed in film studies programs at community colleges where students can't pay $150 for a textbook, nor will I ask them to no matter how brilliant Bordwell/Thompson or Stephen Prince are.

Reviewed by Andrea Wood, Associate Professor, Winona State University on 8/2/18

Comprehensiveness rating: 2 see less

The provides a fairly general introduction into the study of film that would be accessible to community college learners but a bit too simplistic for students taking a film class at a four year college or university. While the book covers some key terms in film studies, as well as genres and narrative structure in film, it offers relatively scant historical context and little to no engagement with key figures and movements within film history (i.e. the Lumiere Brothers, Georges Melies, Soviet Montage, French New Wave, Italian Neorealism, etc.). Similarly, film examples used in the book are largely American or Western European. Diverse and important film cultures from places like Japan, India, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe are largely absent, which is problematic. While there is some discussion of film terminology, I found much of this pretty limited (apart from narrative and genre terminology). More emphasis on and analysis of mise-en-scene, editing, cinematography, sound design, and acting would be needed for this to be a useful Intro to Film textbook for undergraduate students. Finally, as far as I could tell, there was no glossary for terms.

Content Accuracy rating: 3

The book has adequate accuracy, but relies quite heavily on online sources that are not always backed up by scholarly materials. There are occasional errors (i.e. saying the Musical is not a genre—many film scholars would disagree with that!) in the book but none that are so deeply problematic as to make the book unusable. I think the bigger issues is what is missing in the book in places. This affects the bigger historical accuracy of the picture the author is painting of film history and the evolution of cinema.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 2

The book includes some helpful, embedded videos on Youtube to orient the reader. Some of these, especially a few of the tutorials, are quite useful (I’ve used some of them in my own film classes before). However, the book tries to focus most of its analysis on only three films (there are embedded Youtube videos for them) and I find this strategy, and the film choices, problematic. First, three films cannot remotely reflect the long and diverse history of cinema. None of the films are from the silent era, so that seemingly gets bypassed despite its significance. All of the films feature white casts and are made by straight, white men. Women directors are not represented. People of color are not represented. These selections provide a view of cinema that reinforces problematic inequalities within the industry that in our current #MeToo moment is not an effective teaching strategy in my opinion. I think this would also be fairly off-putting to contemporary, diverse student populations who might be excited in new developments taking place in the film industry (i.e. more women directors making high profile films, films made by and for people of color like the recent Black Panther film, etc) but end up disappointed that the class erases difference via its central three film examples. These are some of the biggest reasons why I would not use an open source book like this in my class.

Clarity rating: 4

On the whole, the author writes clearly and concisely with an aim of being accessible to an average reading audience. Some students might find the writing style to be too simplistic and/or repetitive in places.

Consistency rating: 4

The book is generally consistent in its terminology and framework, the latter of which is set up in the Introduction.

Modularity rating: 2

I did not find the chapters would be easy to break up into segments for reading (and I certainly wouldn’t assign the book to be read in a linear fashion). While the structure might work for some instructors, I found it incompatible with how I typically teach my Intro to Film classes.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

The book is broken up into a number of chapters, some of which work better in terms of structure and organization than others. A few of the chapters have a lot of written text with no visual imagery to break it up or illustrate ideas. These would be less accessible and engaging to students. In contrast, the chapters that incorporate more visual images or embedded videos achieved a better structural balance. I still feel like the book is missing some necessary chapters to make it a comprehensive textbook for an Intro to Film class at the undergraduate level.

Interface rating: 4

There were no real problems with the interface, and as mentioned before, an advantage of an open source electronic textbook like this is the ability to include embedded streaming videos to illustrate ideas and information presented in the chapters.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

The book has a few noticeable typos and some awkward, choppy sentences but is otherwise decently edited to ensure grammatical accuracy and consistency.

Cultural Relevance rating: 1

As I mentioned in a previous comment, engagement with cultural diversity is far too limited in this book. The three main films the book revolves around feature white casts and are made by straight, white men. Women directors are not represented. People of color are not represented. These selections provide a view of cinema that reinforces problematic inequalities within the industry that in our current #MeToo moment is not an effective teaching strategy in my opinion. I think this would also be fairly off-putting to contemporary, diverse student populations who might be excited in new developments taking place in the film industry (i.e. more women directors making high profile films, films made by and for people of color like the recent Black Panther film, etc) but end up disappointed that the class erases difference via its central three film examples. These are some of the biggest reasons why I would not use an open source book like this in my class. Similarly, other tangential film examples used in the book are largely American or Western European. Diverse and important film cultures from places like Japan, India, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe are largely absent, which is problematic. Finally, I had problems with the author’s recurring use of hypothetical genre and narrative scenarios involving a fictional “Jack” and “Suzie”. The author consistently refers to these two characters in gender essentializing and heterosexual terms. This erases the possibility for LGBTQ+ identities in cinema and reinforces heterosexuality as an expected dominant status quo. This framework would not be culturally relevant to or supporting of a diverse student population.

Comments

So far this is the only available open textbook on film available in the library. It’s not yet up to a standard that would be appropriate to replace the current textbook that I use but I hope the library will get some other open textbooks on film in the future that might be a better fit for me and my students.

Reviewed by Annie Berke, Assistant Professor, Hollins University on 5/21/18

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

The book explains at the start that it is an “aid to anyone who does not have a good background” in film and is most useful in a film appreciation course. While I see why this book is focused on students’ personal interests and reasons for watching film, I think that using hypothetical film plots with characters Jack and Suzie – rather than using real film examples – is a misstep. Film appreciation courses seem like an opportunity to introduce students to films major and minor and to invite them into the discipline. That won’t happen with hypothetical examples. Why make up a slapstick plot when you can just summarize one of the great moments from Marx Bros, Chaplin, or something? I am happiest reading about the actual films, like the massively underrated example Detour or the story breakdown of The Front Page, which the author includes as two of the three main examples. I appreciate the “Further Viewing” section as well.

I also think the historical notes about the Production Code, Great Depression, and Paramount Decision are all apt, but the film studies vocabulary comes from Merriam-Webster and Urban Dictionary. Why not use accessible definitions from film scholars?

Content Accuracy rating: 2

Some of the analysis of the historical periods is a bit simplistic – for example, there were plenty of surprising and challenging female characters in the 1920s, not to mention some more conservative or traditional gender roles later. For more on this topic, see “Cultural Relevance.”

I was also struck by some of the generalizations that the author makes, be they the reason people go to the moves (what about experimental film?) or that all comedy is either slapstick or satire, period. I understand that this is a product of trying to make the material accessible for students. That said, these kinds of simplistic distinctions can cause two kinds of problems: first, students might bring in counter-examples with films of their choice, or, second, students will cling to these strict definitions and refuse to entertain more complex or intellectually challenging counter-examples.

The second section of the book on Production provides a litany of terms that are mostly defined clearly and properly. (That said, is a sequence a string of scenes? I never heard that before. Counterpoint: I like the author’s definition of continuity editing very much.) The average score is a 3, if this section is a 4 out of 5 and the previous one a 2.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

This seems very easy to update in terms of its chronological history of film at the beginning. This is also an example of how the hypothetical film examples (with Jack and Suzie) prevents the book from becoming dated. The film examples the author has chosen have withstood the test of time as “important films.”

Clarity rating: 4

The language is clear and easy to understand. If anything, it can be too simple, such that any sophistication or nuance between something like genre gets lost. I particularly admire the discussion of how story is built: this seems particularly useful for aspiring screenwriters (see “Consistency”).

Consistency rating: 4

I think this book belongs in a film appreciation class, but the discussion of story and theme makes me wonder if this even better suited to a screenwriting class (or, at least, the first section is). My concern, as I have addressed above, however, would be that future screenwriters should be looking at classic film examples, not hypotheticals. The second section of the book focuses on Production and asks students to imagine themselves as different professionals. I appreciate how, in this unit, terminology like cinematography and mise-en-scene are introduced to the student.

That said, while a screenwriter and a filmmaker have complementary skills and work, this attention to "theme" is not sufficiently medium specific for my tastes. It seems more useful for a screenwriter, not a film studies student.

Modularity rating: 5

This seems very easily divisible. I can also see professors assigning parts, but not all of, this text. For example, I am intrigued by the section about jobs in film (Production) but would want to use existing film studies scholarship to introduce my students to historical trends using real film examples.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

I think the flow is logical, but I think “Construction” here really means Screenwriting, Production meaning Making. This is more than an appreciation textbook: this is for majors who are primarily interested in filmmaking. Otherwise the trajectory is clear and appropriate.

Interface rating: 5

I downloaded it as a PDF and had no problems with navigation or graphics. I like how the author refers the reader to YouTube videos, in addition to providing images and illustrations of conceptual and cinematographic concepts.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

I might like to add a few commas where there aren’t any, but this reads as clean and clear.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

While race comes up in the chapter about character, it is missing from the capsule history of film, which focuses overwhelmingly on gender. The lack of real-world film examples means that are minimal representations of diversity. The gender angle is very productive and present here, but let’s get some intersectionality in here! The focus here is exclusively American cinema, no world cinemas.

Reviewed by Karen Wenz, Adjunct Instructor, St Cloud Technical and Community College on 2/1/18

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

The book is not a comprehensive text about film, but then it does not claim to be. The focus is limited in scope and depth. It first offers a simple overview of basic elements of film and story and then discusses elements of production.

Content Accuracy rating: 3

Historical references are sometimes simplistic and lack depth, particularly in the decades section, where more detail could be provided about the political and social aspects that defined each decade. Some statements had the tone of opinion rather than scholarly research. The text overall treats film as entertainment rather than a serious art form.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The topics in the book will retain their relevance as much of it draws on genres and basic storytellling. The three films included for viewing are older, but are classics that will always be appropriate in any discussion or study of film.

Clarity rating: 3

The writing style is not at the expected level of sophistication for a college course. It does not succeed in challenging the reader to promote analysis and understanding, but if offered as a textbook in a face-to-face classroom setting, the teacher could draw out more from students with the questions and prompts provided. For a course that is exclusively online, the text alone may not engage students adequately.

Consistency rating: 5

The writing throughout is consistent and maintains a steady voice that does not distract the reader.

Modularity rating: 5

The topics are organized in such a way that easily lends itself to focusing on a specific topic or idea and is laid out nicely for building upon those ideas and tying them together.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The book is nicely organized with a natural flow of ideas that makes it easy to follow.

Interface rating: 5

Reading via ePub demonstrated a flawless interface.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

Grammar was accurate throughout.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

There was not a great deal of variety as far as cultural references, but there was nothing that stood out as insensitive or offensive.

Comments

The book was written in a rather simple style that did not seem in line with college/university teaching. While it provides basic information about some aspects of film, it does not lead the reader to a depth of analysis expected at the college level. For a fundamental overview of film genres and story structure, it meets the mark. It did not address film as an art form, but treated it more as a form of entertainment. The use of the hypothetical Jack and Suzie was not as effective as providing examples of character interaction and motivation from real films that the reader could watch, but there were relevant lists of related films after some sections. It was disconcerting to see Wikipedia as a source in the bibliography.

Reviewed by Daniele Fioretti, Lecturer, Miami University on 2/1/18

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

Teaching Cinema classes myself, my expectation is a textbook that covers all the main areas of moviemaking, both thematically and technically.

Speaking about themes, the section dedicated to film genres should be expanded: it gives very little space to documentaries; it does not mention docudramas or biopics. It also does not include a key genre in American cinema, the social problem film. Finally, there is no mention about the fact that many art films made by directors like Fellini, Wenders, Kurosawa, Welles and others, cannot be categorized in a genre.

From the point of view of moviemaking, Part II (Production) examines more technical aspects like Cinematography, Editing, and Sound. It is good that the text is supported by effective images, and that every section ends with a practical assignment; although, this section lacks many important technical elements. The part related to Cinematography is short and generic, and does not provide specific examples – with pictures – of use of different shots and angles; furthermore, describing close-ups and extreme close-ups the author makes reference only to faces, while there are countless examples in cinema of close-ups and extreme close-ups of objects, details, or other parts of the human body, especially hands. Movement, as well as Mise-en-scene, are included in Cinematography, without distinguishing three very different aspects of movement: the movement of the actors in the scene, the movement of the camera, and the apparent movement of the movie camera caused by zoom lenses. The author does not mention the distinction between black and white and color: therefore, he does not make any reference to the artistic use of black and white in the age of color films (for example, Woody Allen’s Manhattan), nor more complicated cases of presence of color in black and white movies (Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List) or movies that make use of both color and black and white for specific artistic purposes (Wim Wenders’ Der himmel über Berlin - Wings of Desire). The section about Editing is clear and includes nice explicative pictures, but it mentions only the classical style of narrative editing. Another element that is very important in Film Studies is Acting, but there is no section dedicated to this topic.

Index and glossary are good, but the Bibliography needs to be re-made from scratch; in fact, it does not make reference to actual manuals and texts of Cinema theory: it is mainly made of Wikipedia entries and definitions from Dictionary.com. If this text is aimed to college students it should also provide essential tools to help students to understand the basics of academic research. High School students are required not to quote from Wikipedia in their assignments, so it should be very confusing for a first year student to be assigned a text that relies almost entirely on these kind of sources. This is probably the most serious flaw of the entire project, and it explain its vagueness

Content Accuracy rating: 4

The content is accurate but sometimes a little vague (please refer to the previous section).

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The text is sufficiently up to date, but I still think it needs to be reviewed according to suggestions I made.

Clarity rating: 5

The text is clear and comprehensible, easy to access even for people who have never taken a film class before. I like the way the Introduction is focused first and foremost on the pleasure and the excitement to watch a movie. “Do you love a movie but when asked why, you can’t explain it?”, is one of the questions contained in the introduction. The focus of the author, is to give to the readers the tools to understand a little better how a movie works, and how this pleasure is generated. In this sense the introduction is effective in addressing students who have never taken a cinema class before. It is also positive that the author quotes former students; it makes the introduction friendly and mindful of the students’ opinions.

Consistency rating: 4

The text is consistent but needs improvements.

Modularity rating: 5

The book is very well divided into sections that could be assigned at different times. A positive aspect is the size of the book, which is short and concise, probably rather inexpensive even in its printed form. The book is structured in an introduction, two big chapters or parts dedicated to two key aspects of moviemaking: Construction and Production, followed by a Conclusion that mainly contains two assignments, a Production Assignment and a Cinematography Assignment.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The topics are well presented logically and clearly, but several topics are missing (please see the section "comprehensiveness").

Interface rating: 3

I read the book in a printed form, so I cannot comment on the interface.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

Grammar is fine, as it should be expected in a college level textbook.

Cultural Relevance rating: 2

The book is not insensitive nor offensive, but it is focused only on American cinema. In particular, all the references to themes are connected only to American historical events, like The Great Depression, World War II, social changes in the 1970s, etc. Given the big difference between American, European, African, and Asian cinema, if the aim of the author was to make a textbook focused only on American cinema, this circumstance should be mentioned in the title. European, African, and Asian cinema should be at least mentioned; even better, there should be a section that takes into account the cultural differences between different cinematographies.

Reviewed by Thomas Castillo, Assistant Professor, Bowling Green State University on 2/1/18

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

The book at some level is probably more conceptually ambitious than it should be. As suggested by the title, the book covers both Construction and Production elements. Either of these topics on their own could and probably should make for a full, lengthy textbook. What's important to grasp about this textbook is that it is based in a formal framework that is more literary or theatrical rather than filmic and it really is only engaging with Classical Hollywood cinema and the according cinematic practices. Within that framework, the textbook does engage with key points reasonably well.

Content Accuracy rating: 3

I think one of the main weaknesses of the text is the lack of citations, specifically in relation to film scholarship. Philosophically, I do grasp the importance of open-source and accessible material for students, however I think the book suffers from a generic, rather than a specific, discussion of theme and story elements. The "Jack and Suzie" device used throughout the text has value as a mental or workshop exercise, however the text leans far too much on what are hypothetical examples than examples from actual films (which would perhaps be the duty of teaching professional to locate and screen during class). The text does utilize fair definitions (even if the author does not fully acknowledge counter-arguments) but would be bolstered by supporting statements and more variety in points of view on topics such as genre.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

The text itself is based in a framework that could be easily updated to identify or include more recent examples.

Clarity rating: 4

The book is reasonably clear throughout from a writing standpoint, though it veers a touch too far into the broad rather than the specific. For example, the discussion of theme by decade reads as way too broad and missing the specific examples that would be necessary to construct a strong argument. The text fails to acknowledge the history of the industry, the consent decree, the development of television, corporate mergers, and other industrial realities that have influenced what kinds of films are made.

Consistency rating: 4

The book is reasonably consistent and establishes a framework, though it's not a framework that I've seen in the majority of other textbooks. I think the book would be stronger if it identified more broadly as a narrative analysis handbook and cut out the production discussion, or went into more detail about how production elements connect to narrative construction.

Modularity rating: 4

The book appears to be easily broken into small parts to provide definitional foundations for novice students engaging with the academic study of film for the first time.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

I think where the text suffers is in the two-part structure. Again, each could be its own textbook. Where this is a problem conceptually is that the book doesn't fully consider not just the technical aspects as technical, but also as important to filmic theme and film grammar. How does production influence construction? Does film start with the image or with the written word? I think there is more argument to be had than the text suggests.

Interface rating: 5

I did not notice any distracting elements in the interface. Images and text elements were very clear. I downloaded and read the text as a PDF.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

I did not notice significant grammatical errors in the text.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

Here, the text must be understood as really only emphasizing one slice if cinematic practice. Within that slice (culturally Western, Hollywood films), the text makes a fair introduction to basic film and storytelling elements.The book elides issues of cultural diversity and takes a firmly non-critical approach to the influences of Capitalism and cultural assumptions in Hollywood film.

Comments

This book has some value for introductory film studies courses and perhaps comparative literature courses. Specific segments of the text provide very clear, easily communicated definitions for the student who is just beginning to approach film from an analytical perspective. The exercises are easily manageable and offer good starting points for assignments or classroom discussion. I would be unlikely to structure an entire course in the way that the text is organized, but it does provide some strong sections that could be incorporated into a course.

Reviewed by Lucas Ostrowski, Assistant Professor, Bowling Green State University on 2/1/18

Comprehensiveness rating: 2 see less

The writer covers broad aspects of the movie making process but paints each concept in very broad strokes. Although many different ideas are covered, it seems to be missing a great deal of information. For instance, there is no discussion regarding "film form" or "what makes a film," instead the information is often times presented as opinion first with "facts" to back up the idea. It seems that this is the start of a good entry level text but there has to be more visual content and examples to back up concepts/claims.

Content Accuracy rating: 2

Although the content had a good general idea about the construction of films, it seems that the text was very biased toward the writers opinion. For instance, he states that an audiences enjoyment of a film is solely based on its "theme" as opposed to to a variety of other elements. I found this comment to not be factual and instead was of the author's opinion regarding the audience's film experience, ultimately leading the reader to view it as fact. There were other moments that his opinion created very reductive concepts regarding much deeper and conceptual elements (i.e. narrative, characters, direction, genre, etc.) I also found these concepts were not on par with other available texts that cover similar material.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

The books use of available, copyright free, and public domain material was rather interesting and I appreciate its use, however one of the bonuses of taking a film studies class is watching a variety of movies from different eras, cultures, and content. Using mostly films from the first half of cinema's history worked (and stuck with the open source idea) but a better variety of required films would help the author better develop the content and explain concepts/ideas better. He did offer additional (optional) films to view but ultimately these were not required and had only a limited description with the author's biased opinion on its content. Perhaps not limiting the films could broaden the text's appeal and relevance.

Clarity rating: 3

The concepts were fairly clear to me as a reader, but some of that could be prior understanding of the content. For a first time reader, some ideas could be incorporated better. For example, he often used fake (unproduced) film narratives to explain particular terms and concepts but as a reader this made it much more confusing. Ultimately, this got in the way of the text informing the reader about the idea, and instead focused on an illusion of a non-existent film that did not clearly explain the concept. Oftentimes, these explanations were so wordy that the text became difficult (and at times dull) to read.

Consistency rating: 3

The author defined many of the terms consistently but the explanations became a bit muddy. He would often use a perceived equation to better explain some concepts but these were never fully realized and made the text more confusing as opposed to simplify the idea. Also, these equations appeared to be formulated by the author's personal opinion as opposed to more commonly understood views of each concept. Possibly explaining why this equation was being used could help its incorporation.

Modularity rating: 3

Overall, each section was divided appropriately but many times there were large, uninterrupted chunks of text. Since film is a visual medium, a few sample photos/stills/frames could help the reader better understand the ideas presented. This is a perfect example of how a picture could be worth a thousand words.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The strength of the text is how its structure follows a narrative film's production process (pre-production followed by production and ending with post production.) The author even hints at this near the end but the text could stand a few more edits to better incorporate and streamline the material.

Interface rating: 4

The interface was clear and one page easily followed the other. The main issue revolves around the incorporation of images that appear to be buried at the end of the text and could be better used throughout the content as opposed to an afterthought left at the end of the text.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

The book appeared use appropriate grammar.

Cultural Relevance rating: 2

The use of dated examples did not provide the most diverse or culturally relevant text. As stated in other comments, the use of additional, more modern and diverse examples could better influence and inform the readers regarding new concepts and ideas regarding filmmaking as an art form.

Comments

This text is a good starting point but does need some work. It is a little too subjective and leaving out a definition/explanation of film form keeps the text from moving forward. Finding additional material and not being so reductive could also help the text.

It should be noted that I found the title very odd and misleading, when I think "movie construction" it leads me to believe this is about set building and not film craftsmanship.

Reviewed by Don Diefenbach, Professor, University of North Carolina - Asheville on 8/15/17

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

This book in specifically targeted in its objective and thus it is not a particularly comprehensive treatment for the subject. It does not contain an index or glossary, but each chapter does conclude with a number of helpful resources.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The content of the book is pretty accurate and the book does a good job in addressing its stated objectives.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

The book uses classic film examples and timeless principles of film construction and production. For these reasons, the book is one that will have a good shelf life and can be updated easily.

Clarity rating: 3

I found the writing quality to be a weaker element of the project. The author repeatedly uses the device of citing dictionary definitions of terms, something as the lead to a chapter, and sometimes many times within the same chapter. Sone of the transitions are clunky. Some of the early discussion is anecdotal in nature based on the comments from the author's own school. I really like the premise of this book, but I do think it would be stronger if reworked for style and if more scholarly citations were added.

Consistency rating: 5

Consistency is good. The book utilizes a defined structure and tone and stays with this throughout

Modularity rating: 4

The book is successful in its modularity. It could be generally assigned as stand-alone units by chapter, although there are some references backwards and scaffolding.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

I think the structure and flow of the book are both good the style and content issues already cited above not withstanding

Interface rating: 5

I read this book in iBooks and everything worked great. The coding of the text and links seems very good. Text boxes were set aside in shading as they should be and images looked good.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The grammar is pretty good but the style could be raised a notch.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

The book is centered on three classic films that are widely available from the earlier days of cinema. The films are relatively homogenous, but the principles explored in the text are quite universal.

Comments

I think this book operates from an effective premise and is a valuable resource. The author uses three classic films available for free on YouTube and a hypothetical project to take the reader through the stages of film construction and production. Leading the chapters with questions is effective. I like the formulas that illustrate the various stages of the process. The discussion of character is very good and thought-provoking. The chapters on the technical elements of production are pretty comprehensive and will give introductory students a good basis for understanding how movies are made. The "Further Viewing" recommendations at the end of each chapter present a range of very good suggestions. The concluding section bring the whole book together nicely. The book contains a few assignments at the end that can help students apply what they've learned. While this work lacks some of the depth and scholarly citations of other works on this topic, it does provide a great deal of useful information and a valuable structure for students and instructors in an open access format.