> how contemporary film equipment worked, what its limitations were, how the director dealt with those limitations, etc.
Non-film buffs, i.e. most viewers, don't care about this.
Non-film buffs, i.e. most viewers, don't care about this.
For example Tenet. Cool story, poor audio mix. (I don’t buy the explanation that Nolan had any reason other than expediency for this.) If we use “AI” to fix the audio after the fact, that’s a win in my book.
I’m not a film buff or a purist though. I watch movies with subtitles which is certainly not what the director had in mind, but that’s ok.
... consciously ...
Assuming competent cinematography, it will have an effect on the viewer whether they can analyze it or not.
Good storytelling (and probably blunt spectacle) is the only thing common to all viewers that can win them over. For mainstream media everything else is gloss that may have no effect.
Most people don't even have their sound/brightness/contrast well-adjusted. Some free-to-view services regularly air content with the wrong ratio (and I've seen people happily sit watching the wrong ratio seemingly oblivious to it).
Yes, media nuances can have an effect on the unwitting, but I suspect much doesn't even have opportunity to.
You're going too low level, I'm thinking of lighting and colour and intentional blur via adjusting focus.
> Good storytelling (and probably blunt spectacle) is the only thing common to all viewers that can win them over. For mainstream media everything else is gloss that may have no effect.
You really need to reverse spectacle and storytelling in this statement. How else can the box office be dominated by superhero movies that personally I ... just ... can't ... tell ... apart?
See new Netflix show Ripley.
All shot in B&W, beautifully shot.