The Syllabus, Part I: What Is Visual Literacy?

Visual literacy has a denotative and connotative meaning, not unlike any other unfamiliar word you might come across in a novel.  The way I see it, in the context of film, the difference between the two is the study in film is, and what it does. To best organize and unpack this information, let us first discuss its definition, of what visual literacy is.

To be literate (and this is a loose, broad definition) is to be able to read and write. I might argue that base level literacy does not even require one to read or write well. Yet to me, at least, the term scratches at more than one's ability. (Does anyone else feel this way?) It assumes a level of proficiency as well; to be well versed in the subject.

A literate student of the English language, for example, is asked to see, anticipate, and analyze a text for its meaning. Do you recall high school English class, the quizzes where a blank sheet of paper made eyes with you as you tried to describe what Huckleberry Finn's raft was a symbol for? Being able to think in this way is a skill, and it is unique because it requires of a person to be trained both in and out of the classroom.

Now take a closer at the word 'see.' See? As readers, we are dependent on the author to see the action unfold in our minds. And for this, we tend to (or, at least, we should) share high regards for good writers. You read a book, you see the words, and if the writing is any good it transports your brain into the headspace of a character or whisks you away to new or familiar places.

I have taken this moment to talk about writing because, after I say what I am about to say, I will never regard reading as a lower or lesser medium of communication and entertainment.

What I will say is this: the filmic medium skips the middle man, so to speak. The moment between watching a film and creating meaning in its visuals is delivered to us like two-day shipping, instantaneous, and at a running of 24 frames-per-second (not always the case, in frame rate, but you get the point). Film is also rather extraordinary because it does not strip its audience of said imagination. It reinforces it, enhances it.

Visual literacy, after all this jabber about basic literacy means, is the art (And I absolutely believe it is!) of understanding a motion picture as an expression of time, place, character - life, as we know it. It asks us to interpret imagery through a special collection of vocabulary and grammar, and reads, without words, an idea or feeling to challenge and affirm our beliefs. As Martin Scorsese says it best, visual literacy is "how ideas and emotions are expressed through a visual form." (A clip of Scorsese's thoughts, stated far more clearly than mine, can be found below.)

How do you practice visual literacy, I hear you ask? Well, for those who don't like to be boxed in with one answer, I have great news for you: really any way you can. Film analysis, in my experience, is dependent on the person. At least, what you look for in film can be rather subjective. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone tends to be driven by the performances and, most, the big-picture of the film (directing, writing, entertainment value). Michael Phillips, critic for The Chicago Tribune, extracts one detail he notices and lets his review and opinion blossom from there.

One way I prefer to categorize the way I see a picture is by the Academy system, meaning I look at every category offered at the annual Oscars (from screenplay to art direction to sound editing) and determine what applies to the film and how effective it was. Sample, rudimentary questions I ask myself in the theater might include:

- How does the director handle the tone of this scene? Is there any sensibility, or is it at all awkward? Is it believable?

- Does the choice of music compliment the tone of the scene? Or does it unnecessarily guide the feelings?

- How does the sound mixing team capture the protagonist's headspace? Are the explosions the only thing I should be hearing?

- Are the sets and costumes meant to evoke the correct period? Do they help define character? Or is it all just eye candy?

(Now, I wouldn’t say this is the best way; the Academy categories are merely an organizational method. I could go on with other textual meanings...and I will, in the next post.)

Perhaps these ideas strike a fancy with you. If so, I encourage you to read on with my next posting, which will lay the groundwork as to why visual literacy is important in our time. If anything, give a listen to Scorsese; the man knows best, and transitions nicely into what I'd like to share with you all next.

- Rory

Welcome to Film as Literature

Dear reader, 

As a student of English Language and Literature, I am regretful to share (and uniquely delighted, as well) that I read little in college.

Well, that's not exactly true.

I read books in order to finish them. Classes have deadlines, as they should, ones that cannot be avoided. I could see the words, I could pronounce them, I could generally understand their dictionary definitions.

I wish more people took on a degree in English. It really isn't just a reading and writing proficiency; it is a wonderful communications degree. That said, reading so much under importunate pressure was like firing blanks at bottles of Bud. It sounds fun, satisfying even, but it just doesn't quite work.

This is one reason I took to film. I had been positively infatuated since I was five or six. The possibilities brought by the magic of the Star Wars and the wonder of Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson franchise taught me of the power of movie magic, and the humanity to be found in it. But what I had really been searching for was that reason of why I was so enveloped.

Along came Kurosawa, Fellini, Truffaut, Jarmusch - grandiose visionaries who challenged everything I know of the movies and about life. I wanted more to read, to write, because of all these new perspectives in filmmaking.

So when I did read, I read the likes of A.O. Scott, Michael Phillips, Matt Zoller-Seitz, Gene Siskel, and - more than anyone else - the late, great Roger Ebert. And I wrote as well, the speed and vivacity I was writing at hardly gave me time to notice that I was writing out my passion.

In my final years of college here in Oregon, two initially uncomfortable instances came about: first, that I was watching and thinking about FAR more films than I was ever about novels for class; and second, that what I was writing about and daydreaming about were the literary principles in film. Film has a plot, characters, conflict (most of the time), themes, motifs...the list goes on. 

So when you read this blog, it is my pleasure and my goal to be an entertainer and an educator. By viewing film as a piece of literature, we can discover a furthered appreciation for the art, and maybe better understand one another in our unique experiences and stories. I lean into films because of what they can show, not by what they can tell. And it compliments literature so, so well.

But more on that later.

I am a writer, avid filmgoer, forever student and hopeful teacher of...who knows what, yet. I also dabble greatly in film awards season mania (Oscars, Golden Globes, etc.), so be on the lookout. My name is Rory, and I would like to warmly welcome you to my blog, A Thousand Words A Frame. And to better, further welcome you, here is my favorite introduction from one of my all-time favorite films.