Academic exercise or invaluable filmmaking resource?

From DISTANT VOICES, STILL LIVES (1988). Writer-Director Terence Davies, Cinematographers William Diver, Patrick Duval.

In my thesis presentation classes at AFI Conservatory a few years ago, with their screenplay close to the shooting script stage, I would have the director describe the “journey of the audience” through each scene of their movie. Its wants, its fears, what it knew, what it didn’t, what it understood, what it deduced, what it suspected, what it anticipated, what their flow of its emotions might be, what questions it was asking — of the story, of the characters, of the world.

Over the course of many years, as this exercise became increasingly refined, these encapsulations grew longer and more granular, invariably becoming longer than the relevant scene itself.

It became, to put no finer point on it, an articulation of a viewer’s stream of consciousness.

Because our minds work so rapidly, many of the responses anticipated were fleeting, subliminal, and perhaps barely afforded conscious realization in the mind of this putative viewer. But the directors intended that their film should give rise to them, not that they had started out with any such purpose, but that they had found it coming about in the course of developing their story and the means of its telling.

To be clear, these chronicles could never, of course, have been definitive. Moments may prompt different responses from the different viewers who make up the audience. Besides, emotions, visceral reactions too, can’t always be put into words — and can be all the more powerful for that. Often, the filmmakers themselves would be uncertain of the response they might be prompting. So, not only were expletives and buzzwords of the day encouraged, but a 'WTF!' was a perfectly legitimate expression of those moments in a movie that for some of us mark our most intense engagement — those instances we cannot define or explain, even to ourselves. The directors accepted this, even encouraged it. If we could nail every nanosecond of our experience in watching a movie, that movie would surely be dead in the water.

Some might nevertheless object that it is not for the director to manipulate the experience of the audience in any way, but that it should be free to engage actively with the movie it watches. The filmmaker as dictator, what’s more, they might justifiably add, robs the viewer of their agency in interpreting the film and taking from it what their individual sensibility and mindset prompts.

That might be true if the director were seeking to render their audience a purely passive entity. When cinema becomes merely consumerist, such can be the case. That was not the purpose of this exercise though. There was no all-knowing imperative demanded of the young filmmakers.

I think it was Syd Field who said the writer should know everything about the character. Abbas Kiarostami, to the contrary, said there should be something “impenetrable” about a character. I go with the Iranian master. Unanswerable questions, ambiguity, irreconcilable opposites, the mystery of the human soul—this is the stuff of story and cinema, not the arid certainty of what can be safely defined and detailed.

But there is, or I believe there should be, a shared experience for an audience watching a movie. The director designs that response, prompting, often indeed manipulating, but never entirely micromanaging the journey the audience makes.

In giving my “Deep Screenplay” course recently, based on my book The Director Meets Their Screenplay, I was reminded by the attendees of the significance of this concept of “The Journey of the Audience.” It wasn’t anything they had come across before. They saw it for what it is — an essential resource for the director in the formulation and making of a movie.

Others might agree:

When I make a movie, I’m the audience. — Martin Scorsese.

The film doesn’t exist without a viewer. And the viewer is most important. — Krźystof Kieslowśki.

Always make the audience suffer as much as possible. — Alfred Hitchcock (my fellow screwed-up Londoner exiled, like myself, in LA.)

Francis Ford Coppola remarked that a film is nothing but shadows on a screen and that the real drama, the real emotion takes place in the hearts and minds of the audience.

When I ask students what they think is a movie’s final destination, they usually reply that it’s the movie theater or the streaming service, as though its existence as an artifact alone suffices. They are wrong. The final place for a film is in the soul of the viewer.

We tend to think of a movie as the capturing of a fiction, of the events of a story. The director stages the action, the actors perform, the camera points at the action, or some part of it, or at something else while events take place offscreen, the results are cut together, and along with sound, a vital partner to image, we have the film.

But there’s another vector…

Wittgenstein asked whether a language spoken by one person and understood by nobody else could really be described as a language. That might prompt the question: could a film seen by no one ever be a film?

The film doesn’t only look inwards into its world, it looks outwards, speaking to its audience. Storytelling isn’t only about story, it’s about the telling of that story too, about its showing, about its revealing, about the fulfillment of these tasks and its intentions in doing so.

Forget “grammar”, forget “coverage”, think, feel, see, and hear as though you were the viewer of your film as you make your film, as you block, lens, light, place and move your camera, as you make the cut or do not make the cut, as you layer your soundscape, your score and source music, as you hone the texture of your image…

You look into the fictional world, and you look out to the viewer as they watch, hear, and experience that world. Your screen is the conduit between the two, the route to the viewer’s heart.

The “journey of the audience” is not some meta concept to be confined to the classroom, I believe that its recognition is central to the act of making a film.

Peter Markham

October 2025

The “Duck Mantra” and how it plays out

From PERFECT DAYS. 2023. Director: Wim Wenders. Screenwriters: Wenders, Takuma Takasaki. Cinematography: Franz Lustig.

Initial disclaimer: Like most of us, I can find screen action (i.e. violence) gripping, even intoxicating. Kurosawa’s samurai assaults, Spielberg’s D-Day landings, the antics of Kubrick’s clockwork droogs, and more recently Aster’s studiously articulated decapitations and “western” shoot-outs leave me breathless at every shot, angle, framing, and cut.

However, when I came across a comment from Michael Caine on advice that he received as a boy from his mother, it prompted me to reflect on opposite manifestations of what drama is:

Be like a duck, she said, Remain calm on the surface and paddle like hell underneath.

Quite apart from the relevance of this tenet to Caine’s acting and its understated nuances of expression in the most turbulent of moments, this “Duck Mantra” — as I like to call it — might further be applied to the simmer of what on the surface might appear a model of controlled character interaction but in its subterranean arteries roils with uncertainty and emotional turmoil.

It seems to me that this dichotomy can work in the following contexts (and surely there are others):

A seemingly quiet moment or scene in a narrative of gathering histrionics.

A scene that begins quietly but, as the audience knows, will culminate in pandemonium.

A quiet scene among many others in a seemingly “quiet” narrative.

In my book The Art of the Filmmaker, I break down the dinner scene in Hereditary, a largely static episode of almost unbearable tension. The guilt that both mother and son feel after the violent death of her daughter/his sister ricochets across the table as each attempts to project their own pain onto the other.

When Annie’s volcanic rage finally erupts, it settles for only the briefest hiatus before Peter, the son, takes a vicious verbal revenge on his mother who, beside herself with her consequent fury, storms out of the room to leave the movie’s 2:1 frame ringing with the gut-wrenching reverberations of the family tragedy and the conflict it has precipitated.

Ari Aster (once my student and as such also my teacher!) told me about how at a screening of The Irishman at the New York Film Festival, Martin Scorsese, in the Q&A began — to his disbelief and humility — to talk about this particular scene in his own film, praising the intensity of an episode in which, for so much of the time, the characters do little but eat supper, and not even that — pick absently at their meals as they trade barbs.

The viewer has already witnessed the visceral horror of daughter Charlie’s demise, a sequence so dynamically transfixing that it lives on in one’s mind throughout subsequent scenes, lacing them with dread. No need to pick up the fateful rumpus until later then. Meanwhile, this episode serves to — as Hitchcock once put it — make the audience suffer as much as possible.

It’s a while now since I watched The Godfather, but among movie scenes that start quietly but the audience knows will end in violence, the episode from The Godfather in which Michael Corleone meets with drug baron Solozzo and corrupt cop McCluskey with the intention of shooting both with a handgun hidden in the restaurant’s restroom, surely stands out.

The young Corleine ultimately carries out the plan with dispassionate precision but the excruciating anticipation latent in the deceptive stillness of the preliminaries to the double assassination comes back to me whenever I think of the film.

The greatest suspense demands inaction, perhaps. Or at least, little action, or everyday action, because when something extraordinarily dramatic happens it is often at its most powerful when it follows something ordinary.

Then there’s the apparently ordinary that follows the apparently ordinary…

The cinema of Yazujirō Ozu has had a profound effect on so many great filmmakers, Wim Wenders, with Perfect Days (2024) among them. Daily public toilet cleaning, hidden family tensions and severances, rudderless adolescent confusions, and cassette tapes and their value constitute the dramatic terrain of this movie. And yet… here is a film as deeply felt as any, a humanist film, a film that reveals the human soul in circumstances of the characters’ dailiness.

Someone commented to me that this was the worse film they had ever seen because “nothing happens.” For me, everything happens. It’s just that when it does, it isn’t in plain sight.

Charlotte Wells’ 2022 Aftersun is another movie that eschews the sensational. As a daughter and estranged father vacation with fellow Brits in a resort in Turkey, the film aches with humanity. Sophie’s need to connect with and understand Calum is set against his pain, powerfully evoked at one point as, with back to camera, he sobs his heart out. (A moment in a performance of masterly shading from Paul Mescal.) Blur, Chumbawambameanwhile, ring out over the holiday makers’ activities, lending a telling poignancy to this harrowing drama.

Andrew Haigh’s 2015 45 Years springs to mind too, its provincial inaction heartrending (despite the improbable contrivance of its English cross-class marriage). Pedro Almodóvar’s 2024 The Room Next Door also embodies a stealthy inaction that takes us to its snow falling faintly… upon all the living and the dead epiphany from James Joyce’s short story The Dead.

This is the cinema of the soul.

Action is in the mind once commented John Huston, adept at capturing both the shocking mafia hits of his Prizzi’s Honor and — coming back to that Joyce short story — the dramatic stillness of his adaptation of the author’s The Dead.

Action is in the heart too. And when it is, when it resonates there as we watch inaction on the screen, a film comes to life within us. While we may not be observers of “the ride” violent spectacle offers, we are rendered the participants in the under the surface paddling like hell drama of what, for so many of us, it is to be alive.

Peter Markham

August 2025

Key factors to consider in cinematic storytelling

From Anora (2024). Writer-Director Sean Baker. Cinematography Drew Daniels. (Main characters centre frame, in sharp focus, mid-deep.)

I used to give my directing students at AFI Conservatory an exercise. I would take the pages of a scene with two or three characters. I’d task each of two or three students to shoot and cut this same scene from the narrative POV of one or other of the characters. (Not in one subjective “POV” shot but through the connective tissue of shot selection, camera placement, angle, and editing.)

Finally, we would watch the two or three versions, noting the contrasts. (I could have asked for a change in the narrative POV from one character to another, which would have led to further permutations.)

One of the students, formidably talented, commented that she’d never realized there was no single correct way to shoot a scene and that there might be many different possibilities. For her at that moment, and for the class, the notion of correct grammar as the foundation of a filmmaker’s approach went out the window. And the very concept of directing a scene in some definitive, proper way went out with it.

It’s not about grammar, it’s about language — the communication of emotion, of information (or its concealment) directly or obliquely, and of visceral and neural sensation.

Great! I thought, reacting to my student’s epiphany. Now, she can start to reflect on other considerations there might be, apart from the articulation of narrative POV, to bring to bear on the shooting and cutting of a scene.

Let’s consider a few of these criteria…

First things first: INTUITION.

I recently came across this:

I make all my decisions on intuition. But I must know why I made that decision. I throw a spear into the darkness. That is intuition. Then I must send in an army into the darkness to find the spear. That is intellect.

Ingmar Bergman. Ingmar Bergman Confides in Students. New York Times, May 7, 1981.

No matter their method, without the director’s intuition, the conscious factors they make use of as they formulate their decisions would result in little but clinical work-throughs.

Different filmmakers will have their own intuition that might at times come close, but might more often be distinct from others. Try watching the movie versions of the appearance of Banquo’s ghost in Shakespeare’s Macbeth by Kurosawa (Throne of Blood. 1955), Polanski (Macbeth. 1971), Joel Coen (The Tragedy of Macbeth. 2021). Each one, by each master, is completely different.

In contrast to intuition, and what is largely unknowable about it, are the practical constraints filmmakers face. Time, budget, location and what that latter reality offers in terms of space and light (not to mention accessibility and distance from other locations and the effect this might have on the time available to shoot) — all play a part in the construction of a scene.

Here, the director’s practical abilities and their experience come into play. What might have worked in pre-vis they come to realize may need tweaking or even radical reformulation when its comes to the shoot. That might not always be to the detriment of a scene, not always a compromise, indeed the nature of a location might suggest options the director has failed to consider, which might prove superior to their original intentions.

Available (and affordable) equipment will obviously play a part in how a scene might be shot, as will the level of the skill of the crew, the DP, operator, AC, grip, and steadicam operator.

The cast’s degree of experience and their abilities might also be taken into account. Non-actors or newbies might not be so adept at hitting their marks or following precise timing and staging as their professional counterparts. And actors may come up with options that haven’t struck the director, who might then incorporate them into their approach.

Even a filmmaker as rigorous and masterly as Stanley Kubrick acknowledged the benefits gained by working in rehearsal and on set with his actors:

I find that no matter how good it ever looks on paper, the minute you start in the actual set, with the actors, you’re terribly aware of not taking the fullest advantage of what’s possible if you actually stick to what you wrote.

Stanley Kubrick

Let’s return to other creative considerations:

No scene is an island entirely of itself. Just as shots within a scene relate to each other, so do shots within an act (what I call a movement), and indeed, within the whole movie, need to connect with each other.

Every shot should relate to every other shot.

Abbas Kiarostami. Lessons with Kiarostami. Sticking Place Books, May 29, 2020.

The filmmaker needs to consider the visual architecture and connective tissue of their complete film rather than approaching each scene piecemeal.When, at moments in the movie, might the protagonist be on the left of the frame, when on the right? When might they be closest to the camera? When furthest away? Which scenes could work from detail to context, which from context to detail? What does the viewer need to see and what is better not shown and perhaps just heard, or even implied?

Which scenes punctuate structure, perhaps providing breath, a pause in rhythm, and how might that be shown? Through a moment of rest, of emptiness? A new image? A vista? Some new place?

Which scenes are best working by montage and which as “oners”? And how does this play into the modulation of rhythm throughout the movie?

There’s genre to consider also. In an action movie, an explosion might be covered by multiple cameras, each capturing some dynamic composition, so that several shots are available to the editor who can subtly expand the duration of what in reality would be an event over in a split second, thus rendering it visually thrilling.

In a more intimate drama, for example, in which emotion within a character is more important than hyper action without, such an event might play out in a wide shot, far from camera or be heard rather than shown.

(I learned this from writer-director Anthony Minghella when I was directing the 2nd unit on The English Patient. At one point in the film, a jeep runs over a landmine. I wanted to shoot the instant up close, from several angles. Minghella said “No! It’s not that kind of a movie.” He went on to shoot it from the point of view of Juliette Binoche’s Hana, in a truck a couple of hundred yards away. Hana loses her close friend in that moment so the drama is not physical but emotional. Thus the camera placement. Lesson learned! And a proviso to my argument. This was the correct way to shoot the event! Although it depended on context.)

Another consideration. Classical comedy might invite a predominantly third person narrative point of view, and third person objective at that — as can be seen in much of silent cinema:

Comedy is merely tragedy happening to someone else. — W C Fields

Adopting a less formal approach, the comedic director might by contrast opt for what I call promiscuous NPOV — going opportunistically to wherever and whoever’s POV best serves the gag.

Can any general instruction, out of context, on “How to shoot a scene” be helpful then? What scene? What “how”? Surely there’s no one-size-fits-all. A scene is not a baseball cap — best worn on a director’s head rather than being imposed on their staging, shooting, and cutting.

Sorry! No easy answers here.

You’re on your own — and all the better for it…

Peter Markham

July 2025

Screen and audience. A director’s practicality. A master’s diligence.

Alan Bates in John Schlesinger’s “An Englishman Abroad” (1983). Screenplay: Alan Bennett | Production company: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)

John Schlesinger (1926–2003) was a British director of movies such as Midnight Cowboy (1969) (one of Francis Ford Coppola’s ten favorite films), for which he won an Academy Award, The Day of the Locust (1975), Marathon Man (1976), and many others, including his earlier works made as a leading light of the British New Wave.

I was fortunate enough to work with Schlesinger in a position called at the “Beeb” an “assistant floor manager” on his BBC film An Englishman Abroad (1983).

After a couple of weeks of rehearsal at the BBC Rehearsal Rooms in North Action, for which I marked out the sets, managed the props, and was “on the book” — following the dialogue in the screenplay as Schlesinger blocked each scene with his cast, Alan Bates and Coral Browne among them — the team left the Television Centre in White City for physical production on location.

My tasks were legion during the shoot — booking the extras, supervising the action props on the set, working with the 1st AD orchestrating the background action on the day, giving the actors their calls each evening, driving star Coral Browne from hotel to location, stopping passers-by from walking into shot, holding up traffic, plus various other menial tasks I’ve happily forgotten.

A ludicrous general factotum of a position that made no sense as regards responsible filmmaking, but taught me valuable insights into the complexity of physical production.

What I learned from John Schlesinger, though, was of a higher order altogether…

Lesson 1

The Scene: 1955. Moscow. Brit defector Guy Burgess walks across a footbridge over the Moskva river.

Location: 1983. The Clyde footbridge. Glasgow, Scotland, Alan Bates plays Burgess.

Problem: The teeming Glasgow rush hour traffic, crossing the Clyde road bridge further upriver, sluices across the back of shot behind Bates.

So… despite collective admiration for our distinguished director, we all throw up our hands in horror. He can’t shoot that! This is supposed to be Moscow! Supposed to be 1955! That’s when the events depicted took place. This gives the game away.

To which, our revered filmmaker, with laconic amusement, replies: SWK!

What? We cry, baffled.

SWK! Schlesinger repeats his sardonic response.

What’s SWK when it’s at home? We ask.

He casts a cursory glance around us, his assembled, clueless team.

Sillies won’t know! The master explains.

A brief hiatus, then we get it. The viewer is watching Alan Bates. It’s Burgess they care about, his story they are following. The background traffic, in soft focus, forms nothing but a blur of movement, a subliminal energy in the frame. No one is going to notice it for what it is. (Even sad individuals like myself, who might watch a movie fifty times will in all probability miss it — until the 51st perhaps.)

Lesson learned:

Sillies won’t know.

The director determines what the viewer looks at. Storytelling, character, eye trace, lensing inform the screen’s address to the viewer. The screen is no neutral canvas but a filmmaker’s designed utterance. The purposeful conduit between story and audience.

Lesson 2

The Scene: 1955, Moscow. A couple of KGB goons sit in their lumbering black car waiting for Burgess to emerge from the building opposite. Once he appears, they are to creep along behind in this cumbrous vehicle.

Location. 1983. Dundee. Scotland.

Problem: The car, a Soviet Zil, adapted for British roads, is no longer left- but now right-hand drive.

Appropriately annoyed, if not quite red-faced, Schlesinger ponders, searching for some unlikely solution. How is he to remedy this? Cancel the day’s shoot? No. Too expensive, and anyway, what’s the likelihood of a left-hand drive Zil being found readily available in Scotland, or anywhere else in the UK for the matter?

Rewrite the script, penned by the great Alan Bennett? And remove the offending tank of a thing so the secret police have to loiter on the sidewalk? Conspicuous for all to see?

No. The leviathan has to remain in the scene.

Schlesinger sighs, deliberates, and in the space of a few negligible minutes, comes up with the practical solution evident to none of the rest of us lesser mortals.

He sends the props buyer off to find another steering wheel. Which they do.

He has the new, dummy steering wheel mounted on the dashboard where it would it be on a right-hand drive vehicle.

He has me provide the man on the side of the functioning steering wheel with a copy of Pravda.

The man drapes the newspaper over the real steering wheel as if he’s reading it.

When the Zil pulls away, the man with the Pravda carefully steers the car with the wheel under his newspaper while the guy with the false wheel mimes the action of turning it.

Brilliant!

Lesson learned:

The director, an artist responsible for the creative aspects of a movie and blamed if they go wrong, must also be eminently practical, capable of thinking on their feet, in the spur of the moment, under pressure of budget and time, with no one to turn to, and with no additional resources on hand. The director must be a problem solver on an immediate, fundamentally practical level.

Lesson 3

When John Schlesinger asks the production manager Who runs rehearsals? The answer is Peter.

When he asks Who supervises the action props? The answer is Peter.

Who gives the daily calls to the actors? Answer: Peter.

Who will bring the leading lady to the set each morning? Answer: Peter.

Who books the extras? Answer: Peter.

Who polices the location? Answer: Peter.

Who stops the traffic from driving through shot? Answer: Peter.

(This last task I recall well, having once, in Troubles-torn Belfast, been told to halt a British army troop carrier, bristling with assault rifles and heading for the back of shot. Needless to say, I declined — and live to this day.)

With each of my additional duties, the seasoned Schlesinger grows increasingly bemused. Madness! He’s obviously thinking.

Lesson learned:

Yes, it was madness. The BBC gentleman-amateur attitude. (Where had it come from? Some bizarre colonialist mindset?) Filmmaking needs to be safe, responsible, and professional. The value of individual crew members and their jobs should be recognized. Props masters need to be competent. (I’ve always been intimidated by inanimate objects and was consequently hopeless at handling props.)

Wandering out into the middle of the road to stop traffic is downright dangerous. Proper policing is mandatory. Driving the star needs to be left to a driver, not any old AD. (I was, in effect, a combination of 2nd and 3rd AD, in addition to multiple other functions.)

More than this, what I should have been asking was why was I doing it all? It frustrated me. It involved no artistic or intellectual dimension whatsoever. Once the madness was over, though, I realized the actual lesson I had learned:

Being privileged to watch so closely a master director at work over many weeks, from pre-production when I was in the office with him, to rehearsal, to the shoot, and witnessing his inexhaustible engagement, commitment, and laser focus both on every detail and on the organic connectivity of all elements of a film was, in and of itself, one of the best film schools you could ever hope to attend.

Plus, Coral Browne presented me with a box of chocolates at the wrap.

Peter Markham

May 2025

The articulation of the mutable screen

From AFTERSUN 2022, Writer-Director Charlotte Wells, Cinematographer Gregory Oke.

In Walter Murch’s seminal In the Blink of an Eye, he posits six criteria for making the cut, the fourth of which is Eye Trace — the journey of the viewer’s eyes over the screen, from one side to the other, up to down, locked on one spot, transferring to somewhere else…

There is then not only the story a movie tells but also the story of its viewer’s eye trace or eye path, as their attention is drawn to particular places within the frame. Meanwhile, what goes on in other parts can be subliminal, perhaps not taken in at all.

But this is only one example of the constantly changing relationship between the audience and the fluid dynamics of the screen’s canvas.

The movie screen itself, of course, generally remains the same — unless the film employs changing aspect ratios (an effective example of this being Interstellar). Even so, when the filmmaker uses a frame within the frame, the section they define becomes, in effect, its own new aspect ratio. A wide screen is changed to academy ratio, perhaps to something more narrow — maybe to that of a smartphone, as other areas are blocked out by foreground obstructions or taken up by areas of “negative” space.

The director might at times compose several frames within the frame. Windows, doorways, hatches, mirrors, TV screens might contain individual images that contribute to one composite image. Changes of movement or light, the racking of focus, a new emphasis achieved by the orchestration of color or depth, or by shifts of context afforded by dialogue, may switch the viewer’s attention from one segment to another. In these ways, a static frame can be rendered dynamic to the viewer.

A strong instance of this can be seen in Charlotte Wells’ Aftersun, in a scene set in a hotel room. Here, the filmmaker defies the limitations of a restricted location — the room and its adjoining balcony — by using a mirror and a character-operated DV cam that pans, settles, pans wildly again, its images displayed on a TV screen. By adding a pile of books, relevant to one of the two main characters, (one volume is boldly anachronistic and another nicely pertinent to the director’s inspiration), and by using the distorted, faint reflection of action in the room on the TV screen once the DV cam has been switched off, Wells creates a composite frame of interconnected images.

The effect of this is to make the viewer have to work to follow the story. Given that one of the characters relates a recollection from his boyhood, there are other images evoked too — in the viewer’s imagination, on the screen of their mind.

Frames within the frame in AFTERSUN

At one point, Calum, played by Paul Mescal, can be seen in crisp focus in a sliver of space to the extreme left of the frame. With the viewer’s attention firmly fixed on him as he talks, the film’s aspect ratio becomes to the viewer — at least subliminally — narrower than that of a smartphone. Wells thus transforms a peripheral area of the screen into the central one in this moment.

(For all of my formalist preoccupations, let’s not forget the miraculous evocation of emotion in this astonishing debut feature — evidence, should it be needed, of the unity of substance and style in the best work.)

The variability of the canvas the screen offers the viewer does not always require frames within frames of course. Varying shot sizes are in themselves a simple means of visual modulation. From extreme close-ups to breathtaking vistas, from a microscopic cell to entire galaxies, this fluctuating universe of visual language offers the director the choice of the range of shot sizes appropriate to the cinematic idiom of their particular movie.

The oscillation of distance from and proximity to subject matter, meanwhile, adjusts the changing nature of the viewer’s connection to characters and objects. When they see them and when they don’t, how they see them, from the front, from behind, obscured or unobscured, alone or in a populated frame — these permutations also constantly quicken the connection of viewer and screen.

This scale and scope and the contrasts presented apply both to montage and to fluidity within the individual shot. A famous example in the sense of changing shot size, of the contrast between distance and proximity is the crane shot in Hitchcock’s Notorious, in which the camera descends from above a high landing, panning to reveal a wide framing of the party scene in the lobby below, then continues to plunge until the shot focuses on the back of Alicia Huberman, played by Ingrid Bergman, then pushes in further to settle on her closed fist, holding the frame as she opens her hand to reveal the key clutched secretly in her palm.

What this classic shot also reveals is the mutability of the nature of space on the screen. From deep to flat, through mid, variations of space energize the filmmaker’s canvas, concentrating, perhaps restricting, or to the contrary opening up the vision of the viewer — rendered at one moment cavernous, at the next claustrophobic, or vice versa.

Related to this, the axis of the drama and its tension might be lateral, vertical, or deep (x-, y-, z- axes), shifting cut by cut or within a camera move. Characters interact across the frame at one moment, then from foreground to mid- or background at another.

Contrasting compositions also serve to stimulate the viewer’s visual experience — line, shape, proportion are mutable with the filmmaker’s different choices of angle. What might be manifest from the camera placed at eye height, for example, might change radically to a new geometry revealed by one placed overhead.

Movies lacking this cinematic agility, shot for example in endless medium close-ups throughout, interspersed only by wide “establishing” shots, often prove visually dull. Amelie, at least for me, for all its merits posed such an endurance test, its screen increasingly monotonous to behold. (Many loved it, however.) It has to be said though that scenes and sequences in themselves may be intentionally made visually monotonous as the filmmaker traps the viewer in their engagement just as characters in the movie may be trapped in their situation. Same shot sizes, same angles, over and over and there’s no escape — either within the story or for the uncomfortable audience. Effective for a stretch but tough to take and worse, boring, for an entire film.

On the other hand, films with little or no organic visual strategy whatsoever but a random opportunism of form, to me at least, can prove equally alienating.

The viewer’s “visual palate”, as I like to think of it, benefits from refreshment. Like a change or reversal in narrative direction, an oscillation of tone, a shift of place or time, variations in the nature of the screen and the elements within it serve to reinvigorate and maintain the viewer’s commitment.

Peter Markham

March 2025

Cinema: Technical Flaws Reconstrued as Style

Anamorphic lens flare in MOONLIGHT, 2016, Writer-Director Barry Jenkins, Cinematography James Laxton.

Years ago, too many you might say, while doing the BBC Director’s Course in London, I was told to read the BBC manual for the director. This well-intended handbook might well have been the worst, most damaging tome of filmmaking instruction ever printed.

You can’t cut from a moving shot to a still shot, it proclaimed.

Wrong!

You can’t cut from a wide shot to a close up, it instructed.

Wrong!

Camera movement must always be motivated.

Wrong again!

You can’t this, can’t do that…

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

The premise behind all of the nonsense presented year after year in that guidebook of erroneous diktats was that the task of the filmmaker constitutes the strict observation of some form of tyrannical decorum.

It does not. There is no decorum, only the cinematic language the filmmaker chooses as they formulate the visual approach to their movie. The task of the director is to tell the story, engage the audience, conjure emotion and, hopefully, reveal something of the human soul, its paradoxes, mystery, and universality by whatever means they might render effective, by what works. It is not to obey bogus sets of rules and win marks for good behavior.

Martin Scorsese says There is no manual. If he’s right—and I believe he is—then filmmakers should be wary of any such proscriptive vade mecum that comes along, imposter as it’s most likely to turn out to be.

One of the most telling rejoinders to the good behavior and correct grammar mindset of that BBC pedagogy is the evolutionary nature of cinematic aesthetics throughout the decades—and in particular, the way by which technical error or flaw can be the source of fresh visual tropes. Such evolution—from fault to utility—defies any notion of technique set in stone.

An unsteady camera, for example, usually handheld, was long regarded as anathema. Later, it was understood as an invaluable resource for the documentarian, then a means of showing unsteady or violent action in a fictional context. After this, it became an element of style in itself, conveying perhaps a sensibility, perhaps a world free from set form, social, cultural, in which the filmmaker is free to explore, speak, think, feel.

A handheld camera, when not stable, can be a powerful means of expressing a subjective POV, although in this respect it isn’t essential. (I recall the aforesaid Martin Scorsese asking me to shoot an insert — a subjective POV shot to be cut into a scene of high drama — with absolute rock steadiness and not with the panicky shake I had anticipated.)

The handheld camera has indeed for some time been seen not as faulty, as lazy, not as a compromise down to budget or time but as a valid resource, maybe for a scene or sequence, even in the making of an entire movie. With increasingly portable cameras, it has become currency rather than heresy.

This is not to suggest that filmmakers are obliged to employ handheld camera work or that those who do not are somehow missing out or somehow retrogressive. Recently, for example, Pedro Almodóvar’s The Room Next Door demonstrates fastidious precision in its framing and camera movement. To me, it’s sublime. RaMell Ross’s Nickel Boys by contrast, also a current favorite of mine (for what that’s worth), makes use of a highly unstable camera in its adept articulation of subjective POVs.

Documentary, the French New Wave, and the growing imperative to make a movie by whatever means possible have proved instrumental in the acceptance and later mainstream embrace of the unstable perceiver, the unsteadycam.

Soft focus is another manifestation of the slip-up-made legitimate stylistic feature. In a scene I use as a teaching tool, a character, seen in medium close-up, leans forward, and as he does, the focus on him is lost for a split second. Students used to question that. It seemed to them a mistake, something the filmmakers should have corrected on a subsequent take.

No one comments on it these days. They accept it without question. Actually, it never was a mistake, even if it happened without forethought. The movie in question is based on factual characters and events so its style incorporates this element of documentary footage to good effect. The imperfection lends both the staged material and the celebrity star playing one of its main characters the authenticity of a documentary’s captured reality.

This works on the viewer subliminally. They don’t give it a second, even a first thought. Style creates substance. What was once acceptable in documentary — and even there it was once seen as unacceptable—has long since spread to fiction. Or been stolen by it. The inevitable compromises accepted in the former have enriched the designed visual terrain of the latter.

A failure in technique has morphed into a visual device to convince the audience that:

What you see is real. The focus-puller’s blip confirms it!

Before long, this glitch spread to most genres, to fantasy, to horror.

The validation of the error. The endorsement of the blemish.

Look at how lens flares have been similarly accepted into the lexicon. Once the bane of the cutting room, an effulgent smudge or blazing flash can prove gold to the cinematic stylist. Look at the instances in Barry Jenkins’ Moonlight for example. A frame obliterated by the ectoplasm of an errant flare. A shot severed in two by the luminous blue streak afforded by an anamorphic lens. (See the screenshot above.)

Consummate work! A real movie! Nobody can argue with this! So the assumptions go.

(Disclaimer: I love it!)

Anamorphic lenses—there's more to consider in this respect.

The distortion of horizontals and verticals to the edges of the frame with these, for example, such as the subtle nuances seen in Anora. (And let’s not forget wide angle, even fish eye spherical lenses and the caricatured geometry they contort into shape. The Favorite, anyone?)

The bokeh of the anamorphic lens comes to mind too: the rendering of spots of light as oval-shaped—this is particularly effective given the reduced depth of field these lenses create. Not an error as such but a distinctive feature now absorbed into the discourse of the movie screen.

The “breathing” inherent in the anamorphic racking of focus—the vertical shift of objects along the deep axis that it causes—has also become familiar. Look at how this insidious spasm animates the frame when the viewer’s attention is drawn from one object or character to another as they subtly adjust along the vertical axis.

There’s yet a further phenomenon in our category of misfit manifestations, again once rejected in the cutting room. Over-exposed frames, the culprits from an unshielded lens, have long been integral to cinema’s ever expanding patois, adding the dynamism of blinding light to the list of the screen’s now respectable transgressions.

The shaky camera, soft focus, the lens flare, lens distortion, anamorphic bokeh and “breathing”, over-exposed frames. It’s not decorum, not set method, but in these instances, it’s error that yields the key to fresh style.

Because when something goes wrong, that something can later go right.

Peter Markham

February 2025

From my February newsletter

My two books for the fiimmaker

Every so often I like to stand back and reiterate what I offer in filmmaking education, how I believe it differs from much of what else is out there and why it yields benefits to directors and other filmmakers from around the world, whatever their sensibility, approach, or genre leanings.

Here is some of what I make every effort to provide:

• Human interaction. Online sessions are LIVE—but recorded so you can watch later as well. 

• One-on-one consultations, thoroughly prepped.

• Questions, exploration, discovery.

• Support in finding your filmmaking self. No one-size-fits-all instruction. “THERE IS NO MANUAL.” (Martin Scorsese).

• Exploring the nature of story, storytelling, the language of the screen.

• No conflation of creative filmmaking with careers advice, industry talk, production procedures.

• No AI.

• Specific examples, forensically analyzed, to illustrate concepts vital to the filmmaker.

• Topics not covered elsewhere.

• References to the arts and philosophy but…

• Emphasis on the filmmaker’s imperative of practicality.

• Centrality of: Mischief. Magic. Mystery.

• Centrality of: Intuition. Instinct.

• Belief in, passion for, devotion to Cinema. 

Above all, I am receptive to your questions, comments, thoughts, and contributing insights.

Please email me if you’d like further clarification.

Peter Markham

February 2025

Is there a difference?

From “In the Mood for Love” (2000) | Writer-Director-Producer Wong Kar-wai. Cinematography Christopher Doyle, Ping Bin Lee.

Awhile back, I attended a memorial for a dear colleague, a writer and educator with a decades long record of achievement in film and TV. No one could have been more generous or encouraging to their students or collaborative with other teachers than this exemplary educator.

One of this sadly lost man’s friends, apparently among his closest, in giving his eulogy, came out with something to the effect that when the writer has written the screenplay and the director goes on to f… it up…

If the roar of applause from the assembled scribes immediately drowned out any possibility for reflection on what had just been said, the import was clear enough without it — film is all about screenplay. The job of the director is to ensure that the screenplay plays out on the screen. Faithfully. Obediently. Rigidly…

In this blunt view, the director is little more than a copyist. Dutiful, loyal, unquestioning as they point the camera at whatever the writer describes. They’re not even some kind of translator, taking language on the page and translating it into the language of the screen, since in the assumed process of the eulogist that evening, the language of the screen, were it ever so much as acknowledged, can play no part.

The screen, we were to believe, is merely a subservient vehicle for the story’s telling, which to all intents and purposes has already been done on the page.

The art of cinema for the director, if we are to believe this, is thus comprised of two elements: casting and the directing of the actors. Otherwise, there are only the processes of production, logistical, professional, while production design, cinematography, costume design, editing, sound design, and score/source music serve only as slaves to the screenplay.

Extremist stuff from just one person of course, although judging from the reaction that evening, it appears not only widely accepted among many screenwriters but passionately endorsed.

Before going further, I want to make it clear that I see screenwriting as an intensely challenging form of writing—maybe the most difficult of any since it involves writing in one medium for another. Screenwriters, meanwhile, are casually and habitually disrespected. And some directors, it has to be said, do indeed damage the writer’s work…

Perhaps they fail to grasp the complex connective tissue the writer has built into their script, proclaiming they are “making the film their own.” (A film surely should be made the film’s own, not the director’s, nor the writer’s.)

They might be utilizing shots and angles striking in themselves but unrelated to the narrative — a purely pictorial approach lacking dramaturgical authenticity. A director might employ a tone contrary to the writer’s intended attitude to their material, leading to confusing results. A director might, to the detriment of the movie, ignore the sense of rhythm and energy the best screenwriters can convey on the page. A director might not have even read a screenplay with sufficient diligence and so fall short in their efforts.

Yes, there is plenty that can go wrong on the director’s side.

Next consideration though — say two directors could each direct the same screenplay and with the same cast, team, sets and locations, would this result in two identical movies? Of course not. Performance, shot selection, angle, framing, sound, editing, rhythm and its manifestation, tonal modulation, articulation of narrative POV — there’s a wealth of factors that depend on a director’s creative decisions. Screenplay alone cannot determine all of these aspects.

There again, could a director ever make a good movie from a mediocre screenplay? Perhaps not, but could they make a good movie with noscreenplay? Yes, they could and they have.

Wang Kar Wei did this with In the Mood for Love, a classic of the new millennium. Mike Leigh’s movies used to involve weeks of improvisation that resulted in his story and characters coming to fruition. Co-Writer-Director of the animated Flow Gints Zilbalodis has commented on social media that once it had been completed, he never again looked at the film’s screenplay when he went on to make his movie.

Surely, a screenplay is a blueprint rather than a hard and fast template? Even Writer-Directors consistently discover this as the concept and articulation of the film they have set down in screenplay form evolves through the practical and developmental aspects of its making, through the collaboration of the creative team, and as the film itself speaks to its filmmaker with increasing clarity of what it needs and what it is.

We might say that the director should be faithful not to the script on a surface level but to its depth and spirit, those products of the writer’s creative subconscious, not to mention the interweaving of its narrative and thematic threads.

The director’s voice is then not a betrayal of the writer’s screenplay but the vehicle for the realization that transforms it into cinematic life.

The seed is not the bloom. The bloom is the bloom.

Peter Markham

February 2025

Which is the true language of film?

Sergei Eisenstein (1898–1948). Andrei Tarkovsky (1932–1986) | Images: Wikipedia, Philosophical Film Festival.

Pioneering filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein asserted that cinema works through the cut:

Eisenstein felt the “collision” of shots could be used to manipulate the emotions of the audience and create film metaphors. He believed that an idea should be derived from the juxtaposition of two independent shots, bringing an element of collage into film.

Another Russian director, Andrei Tarkovsky, in his monumental book Sculpting in Time, later maintained that film’s essence lies not in the cut but in the passage of time within the shot. Here, a camera holds the shot as events, the world, or simply time itself, pass before our eyes.

Robert Bresson, it would seem, disagreed with Tarkovsky. Like Eisenstein, he proposed that the essence of cinema lies in the cut. Unlike his counterpart though, he was not for any collision of shots but — in accordance with his aesthetic of the uninflected image — stated that the poetry is in the joins and not to be found within each of what he thought should at best be neutrally presented frames.

I’ve heard it posited that the long take reflects our perception of the world.We look one way, look another, at one thing then something else but we don’t cut in between. Instead, we experience an uninterrupted flow. A notable actor once told me that estimable filmmaker Gus Van Sant, with whom he’d just worked, incorporates this insight in his approach to shooting.

Does the contention bear scrutiny through? I’m an enthusiastic admirer of much of Van Sant’s movies and am fortunate to have met the man when he generously visited one of my classes but I seem to recall that editing master Walter Murch, in his book In the Blink of an Eye thinks quite the opposite. That when we look one way, then another, we reflexively blink as our eyes pan.

The cut, he suggests, is intrinsic to human perception.

Perhaps it’s true at deeper levels also, true of our inner “seeing” even? I’m sure I dream in cuts. (Although there’s one camera move I conjure in my sleep that dollies around some dark corner and leads me — with no cut I’m aware of along the way — to encounter whatever terror might be concealed, in menacing wait for me.)

Talking of the subconscious, in the days after major surgery several years ago, while awash in oceans of painkillers, I was jump-cutting from my inner world to the outer, from an interior, weird, self-concocted version of Chinatown to my attending surgeon, nurses, and hospital staff.

Polar opposites: noir on the inside, healthcare on the outside.

Perhaps those jarring transitions from imagination to the witnessing of what was actually happening around me constituted an extreme manifestation of our constant daily switching from thought to vision, from imagined image to perceived event, on and on, on and on? Perhaps, I find myself wondering, the cut is fundamental to consciousness itself?

Even if this were to be the case though— and perhaps it’s a fanciful notion on my part — need the language of film be restricted to the mimesis of our mind’s processes? Shouldn’t the filmmaker be free instead to form and utilize a cinematic language most appropriate to their movie and their sensibility? To expand consciousness rather than merely adhere to it. Why shouldn’t filmmakers invent, innovate, explore, and subvert?

If a visual language functions, if it communicates, creates wonder in us, horror, astonishment, and above all emotion, if the poetry of its imagery shines (or shadows), if it simply tells a story, surely its validity is authentic?

Entire movies may consist of a single shot — or what appears to be one. From Hitchcock’s Rope, to Russian Ark, to Irréversible, to the more recent Birdmanand 1917 (nothing there in the list by Tarkovsky, oddly) the canon continues to expand along with the capabilities of the editing technology that enables this aesthetic. It’s become easier to move the camera too. To begin with, Steadicam appeared, then cameras themselves became much more portable so that individual takes can be achieved with an ease denied to directors of previous eras, saddled as they were with weighty 35 mm Mitchell’s, Arriflexes, and Panavisions.

Yet, montage remains as potent as ever.

Let’s take a look at two scenes from masters of film that illustrate the contrast between the opposing maxims:

Firstly, some opening moments from Bresson’s 1959 Pickpocket:

From Bresson’s Pickpocket, Cinematography Léonce-Henri Burel

Starting with the arrival of protagonist Michel at the racetrack, where he stands behind the woman he’s about to rob… (Not a word of dialogue is spoken throughout.)

1 — Over Michel’s shoulder as he arrives behind the woman. She turns, looks at him.

CUT

2 — 3-shot. Woman. Michel. Man. Woman turns from Michel to the front. Michel looks from her to the front. (Hold shot.) Man looking through binoculars. Michel glances down (to woman’s purse), up, then down again.

CUT

3 — Purse. Michel’s fingers edge toward, feel and loosen catch, edge back.

CUT

4 — Repeat 3-shot, Michel looking to the front. Hold shot.

CUT

5 — Repeat purse shot. Michel’s fingers pop catch of purse open.

CUT

6 — Repeat 3-shot. Michel blinks, looks to the front, glances down then up, looks to the front, again glances down then up.

CUT

7 — Repeat purse shot. Michel’s fingers enter purse.

CUT

8 — Repeat 3-shot, Michel looking to the front. Everyone’s looks from frame right to frame left as they follow the horse race. Man lowers binoculars.

CUT

9 — Repeat purse shot. Michel’s fingers take out a bundle of bills from purse, transferring them to his jacket pocket.

CUT

10 — The scene moves on, everyone heading for the exit.

You could write this in a paragraph as a series of sentences, each describing new steps in the action. Bresson stated:

To set up a film is to bind persons to each other and to objects by looks.

See my article “Cinema’s Currency of Looks.”

For Robert Bresson, the cut consummates the binding, not as Eisenstein’s clash but as connective tissue. Michel, the woman, her purse form an integral triangulated drama. Hard to see how any fluid camera could capture this as well. Even moving rapidly, it couldn’t arrive at each image in time.

In addition, this sequence of shots forms a purely cinematic universe. The physical world here is an impossibility. The relationship between hand and purse is designed for those individual frames. From where Michel stands, the movement of his hand in those shots would not be possible. The actions could not be shot in single take because they couldn’t exist in the real world in the precise configuration shown.

Another virtue of montage then: cinematic precision.

(The use of sound is also vital. Listen to the thunder of the horses’ hooves and where this comes in the scene.)

Next, an example of the converse: the long opening take from Max Ophuls 1953 Earrings of Madame de…

From Ophuls’ Earrings of Madame de… Cinematography Christian Matras.

Here, the extended take could be thought of as the equivalent of onesentence, although the shot is far more elegant than any lines on the page might be. Watch the clip to see how immeasurably superior the shot is to my attempt to describe it in a single sentence (here taken from my first book):

The shot begins with the image of jewels in an open drawer as a woman’s gloved hand points at, and hovers over a pair of earrings before opening an adjacent case of jewelry and effects, again hovering, then reaching to open a closet opposite — in the mirror of which the audience does not see the woman herself — to reveal more drawers, closed but with an extrusion of ostrich feathers, after which — the camera pulling back to show the woman’s shadow — she moves on to open a second mirrored door that like the first fails to reveal her reflection, disclosing a row of dresses and a top shelf of bric-a-brac before she continues to a third mirrored door that once again permits the audience no view of her, inside of which are fur coats on hangers, one of which she takes down, fondles, then replaces before returning to the previous closet — the audience catching a fleeting glimpse of her partial profile now, and also of her other, ungloved hand — to reach for a hat on the top shelf, knocking over in the process a bible, which she retrieves (as again the audience catches sight of her profile) before taking the hat and returning to the dressing table — evidently where she was first situated — and in looking at herself in an ornately bedecked mirror provides the audience with its first view of her face, tries on the hat, lowers its veil, takes up and poses with a jeweled necklace, which she rejects in favor of a crucifix that in turn she discards for the earrings she originally hesitated over, tries them on, slips them into a pouch, rises, and pushing shut one of the closet doors she passes, heads for a bed from which she picks up a handkerchief before crossing to the door of the room and exiting.

End of shot!

How effortless is Ophuls’ mise-en-scène and camera and what they create on the screen compared to my cumbersome prose? (We experience the shot but read the sentence.) Despite shooting the scene with a heavy 35 mm camera, or perhaps because of it, there is a precision in this work that in its own way parallels that of Bresson.

(And I haven’t mentioned the complex use of sound and how that informs image…)

Here’s what this single take achieves: 1. The introduction of the earrings of the film’s title 2. The introduction of Madame de, searching… 3. The camera has the audience follow and accompany her in that search. 4. The audience wants Madame de to achieve her goal even before it knows what this is. 5. The revelation, through her belongings and wardrobe, of her tastes and lifestyle. 6. The misdirection of the audience, who will later come to understand she is far from affluent and has financial problems. 7. The teasing of the audience by the withholding of the character’s face. 8. The introduction of the notion of moral transgression, implied when she knocks the bible from the shelf. 9. The revelation of her sensuality as she strokes the fur of a coat. 10. The eventual introduction of the protagonist as she looks at herself in the mirror, a moment when the audience shares and invests in herbecause it’s been made to wait to see her face. This brings the audience into her Narrative POV. 11. The showing of the environment of her bedroom and its decor — further insight into her world. 12. By not cutting but “editing” with a fluid camera and so utilizing real time, the director places the audience in Madame de’s temporal experience and compels it to follow her.

A couple of consummate examples of each approach then: montage and long take.

Some consideration of rhythm, whether fast or slow, is also central to any discussion of the two cinematic philosophies. With cuts, rhythm can be readily modulated. With a long take, the filmmaker has to be sure they have it right on the day. If they haven’t, they’re going to need to insert cuts anyway. So an inordinate amount of shooting time might well have been take up to achieve an ambitious shot that never makes the movie in its unbroken form.

The notion of rhythm itself deserves exploration. Are we talking about the rhythm of the screen or the rhythm of life? The cinema of Eisenstein and perhaps Bresson, or that of Tarkovsky? Are the two equally valid? Are they mutually exclusive? Is the rhythm of a Tarkovsky slow, long take somehow more “authentic” than the screen tempo of an Eisenstein montage? Why would that be? Because there’s no manipulation of the passage of time, as there will often be in a montage? And so on and so forth… So much to think about.

I’ve also tended to skate over the use of fluid and static cameras, although either can be used for both approaches. With a long take, a fluid camera generally facilitates editing in camera whereas with static camera in such a take, it is the unfolding of the action itself which must offer increments of information.

With montages meanwhile, cuts on the move, particularly when planned, offer a versatility of orientation and energy flow harder to execute in a long take.

In conclusion, I’m not personally prepared to forgo either the Eisenstein/Bresson or the Tarkovsky concept and enthusiastically settle for both. Indeed, most filmmakers adopt whichever method a scene requires, although they may have chosen one particular aesthetic over another in their formulation of the style of their film. There are those, meanwhile, who will go for the long take solely to show off prowess or make innovative use of new technology purely for the sake of it — opportunism which can easily undermine the authority of a film’s visual language. That doesn’t however undermine those examples of the method’s best articulation.

The purists and the visionaries, for that was what the three filmmakers earlier quoted were, reveal to us fundamentals and essence of cinema. The collision or the poetry in the cut. The passing of time in the shot.

Perhaps though, it is in the irreconcilable contradiction of these concepts that the ultimately inexpressible genius of cinema lies…

Peter Markham

November 2024

Three movies day and night

The Electric Cinema, Portobello Road, Notting Hill, London. Est. 1911. (In better nick than during my days there) | Photo by Ewan Munro on Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 2.0)

I wasn’t born into a home with a TV. I saw a film on the big screen before I ever watched one on its smaller counterpart. And what a film it was!

Not long ago, in an interview about his relationship with his father, Robert Downey Jr. looked down at fathers who took their sons to Fantasia as their first film, his own dad having taken him to an X-rated movie as his starter flick. Well, it was Fantasia that my own father, whom I loved, took me to as my first film, so this dismissive comment hurt quite a bit.

I’ve since reflected though, that given Downey Jr.’s barely disguised anger as he spoke, the subtext of his throwaway comment could have been that he secretly wished he’d have been taken to something less odd for a kid than porn — such as Fantasia perhaps.

Dad had left school at 14, was an autodidact, an unsophisticated twenty-five year old, and from a very different, culturally more modest world, than writer Downey Sr. Seeing that film with him when I was three years of age in a cinema in Battersea, South London, and sitting mesmerized in the front row of the balcony, the dark abyss of the stalls below, couldn’t have been more terrifying, more overwhelming, or more consequential…

That was the afternoon I was born. Everything before had been a pre-existence. When Thor threw down his thunderbolts when the brooms danced to The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, my wonder, terror, astonishment exploded.

London was blitzed still, bombed out and grey, its architecture stained with black grime — the taint of its black deeds the world over. The whining of Nazi V1 drones and the screams of the V2 scud missiles echoed on, long after the demise of the Reich.

The gas mask in the coal cellar stared through cobwebbed dust with hollow menace. Shadows lurked in every recess of the family flat’s dank hallway, waiting to pounce… and do what? I dreaded to think. The bathrobe hanging on the back of the bedroom door awaited its sudden moment. Fridge-less milk soured in the kitchen sink, place of ablution for dishes, and the three generations of us resident there. Candles sputtered without conviction in the outside loo…

I’m a boomer? There was no boom in fifties’ London. Families, smaller than those of previous generations, knew only ration books, tasteless meat and two veg, blanketing cloud, glottal-stopped cheer, monochrome dreariness. The single car in the street, a sit-up-and-beg, never moved.

No boom was discernible until Thor rained down those fiery projectiles.

Then, for me, cinema arrived… and Cinderella and Gulliver’s Travels soon followed.

England transitioned into the brighter sixties and there came visits to the Odeons, the Granadas to see Tom Thumb, Darby O’Gill and the Little People, Jason and the Argonauts, HMS Defiant.

Next, Lawrence of Arabia twice, the first week of release — terror, moral confusion, spellbinding wonder for this ten-year old. (Dad and O’Toole the spitting image.) White savior-ism before the term, although not of course before the phenomenon.

From London to Hampshire’s New Forest for grammar school. TV brought the next steps. Wilder’s Double Indemnity. (Could this be the Fred MacMurray of The Absent-Minded Professor?) Mum’s love of 40’s Hollywood and her naming of every actor in the shot.

Friday nights, BBC 2 and Polanski’s Repulsion. Rossellini’s Rome Open City. Hammer Horror on ITV. Peter Watkins traumatizing with Culloden. Psycho practically mummifying this terrified youth. Quatermass and the Pit at the local “picture house”. Nightmare upon nightmare — we English don’t dream. Dreaming is for optimists. Easy Rider in seaside Bournemouth, universes away from Fonda’s redneck USA.

The seventies. Drama degree at University up in Hull. Resnais’ Last Year at Marienbad. Lang’s You Only Live Once. Franju’s The Blood of Beasts. A Clockwork Orange in Leicester Square, twice in its first week on a class trip to London. Pretty much left to one’s own devices to assess and understand. Still assessing, understanding, feeling…

Back to London post degree. British Film Institute mail room. Watching from the projection box. Bresson. Cassavetes. Boorman. Borowczyk. Pontecorvo. Wenders’ Alice in the Cities. Salo at the London Film Festival. Writing b-movie reviews for the Monthly Film Bulletin.

Onwards and three screenings a day when not set PA-ing at BBC TV, White City. The Gate Cinema (double bills starting 10 pm). The Coronet next door. The Academy in Oxford Street. That place off Tottenham Court Road near Charlotte Street (forget the name). The National Film Theatre on the South Bank. The ICA on The Mall. The Electric Cinema, Portobello Road (see above) — fleapit of Mum’s North Kensington childhood now screening silents accompanied by arbitrary Beethoven, Chopin piano round and round, round and round. Random score — try it!

Racing, breathless, between venues. On foot, bus, tube — Central Line, Piccadilly, Bakerloo, Northern Lines. Mizoguchi’s Ugetsu, The Life of Oharu, Sansho the Bailiff, The Crucified Lovers, Last Tales of the Taira Clan, Capra, Sirk, Fassbinder, Peckinpah, Altman, Chabrol, Siegel, Rosi at the Gate. Von Stroheim, Renoir, Bellochio, Lang at the Electric. Rivette, Dreyer at the NFT. Ophul’s Reckless Moment at that place off Tottenham Court Road (forget the name), plus Oshima’s Ceremony, The Boy, Ichikawa’s An Actor’s Revenge. Angelopoulos, Bertolucci at The Academy. Tarkovsky, Ferreri at The ICA.

New releases. One year alone, 1976: Taxi Driver, The Tenant, All the President’s Men, The Missouri Breaks, 1900, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Illustrious Corpses, In the Realm of the Senses. All this after Barry Lyndon in ’75.

1976 marked the beginning of VHS. Then followed DVD, BluRay and on to streaming. The Criterion Channel. More and more accessible content. More cinema in amongst it.

But could I ever learn as much as I did from those years of dedicated filmgoing around London? From barely catching a breath between one glory and another?

With so much amazing new work, I think I can. The pace of discovery may be less frenetic these days but cinema never ceases to reveal its possibilities. There for each new generation, it’s the gift that keeps on giving — for as long as we have it.

Returning to Robert Downey Jr., I saw Oppenheimer three times after seeing that interview, and there he was, commanding the screen, scene after scene, working with cast, camera, and director and revealing the depths and dimensions of a distinctly reprehensible but all too human character with his unflinching craft...

We may disagree or not on fathers and Fantasia, I reflected, on one movie or another, we may come from very different social and cultural backgrounds, privileged or not, from different countries even, but what film can teach us, whatever our taste and sensibility, is our commonality.

All of which is to say that my self-education in cinema hasn’t only taught me about cinema, it’s taught me about us.

Peter Markham

October 2024