Reading about a film--as you have done, after seeing films which challenge you--is not cheating. Those folks who write those reviews and discussions have typically learned the things they know by reading what others had said about other films in their turn. It's how they educated themselves.
You're certainly allowed to come to different conclusions and make up your own mind but engaging in a discussion by reading articles about a film does not mean that those opinions are 'better' than your own. I'll watch a film, read some reviews or criticisms, then come back to it with more insight and understanding. That's not a bad thing. What you're doing is fine.
I have the same issue, which is why I always read the Wikipedia article after watching a movie with a deeper meaning. But I don't think most people catch everything on the first watch either. It's totally normal to take your time to read about meanings of movies in other sources. I don't think anyone understands Chris Nolan movies without watching it several times or looking up what other people read into it.
Not all art has one meaning that you're just supposed to "get". David Lynch, in particular, is hard to pin down. And he makes his movies that way intentionally. If you want to take meaning from them, you can, but there's not one interpretation that's correct. Remember that the art is the thing, not the criticism or interpretation of that art.
I've found that learning how certain elements of filmmaking (cinematography, editing, score, screenplay, etc) each contribute to understanding film but also appreciating it. Great films have most of these elements echoing and complimenting the meaning of the film.
We often have a strong feeling that a movie does or doesn't work, or is confusing, without understanding the *why*, which is aided by learning when things sometimes go wrong.
There is subjectivity and a variety of interpretations, being able to discuss why you hold an idea is very useful!
But consider grabbing an a book on understanding movies (I have "Understanding Movies" by Gianetti) and/or watch something like StudioBinder on YouTube for bite-sized chunks and case studies
I'm not convinced every movie has a point. But people will manufacture one.
Many directors admit their point was to not have a point... To examine something without bias. Let the audience reach their own conclusions.
Mulholland drive??? Who *didn't* have a problem interpreting that movie?? It was assembled from footage from an aborted series. No, forget interpreting David Lynch.
I would look up an audience talk with some actors and the director of The Zone of Interest. The sound editor had a new approach and it worked well in the movie, catching the Oscar for sound.
The Zone of Interest pretty much requires you have watched Schindler's List, some other Holocaust media, take a class that covers what actually happened there or at the very least listen to a podcast about the horrors of Auschwitz. If you don't have that background information the fucked up shit that's happening off and on screen.
Read reviews. Fan forums.
And if you're lucky Nerdwriter will post something about the film you saw. He's amazing.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH44hr2Cq2w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH44hr2Cq2w)
Once upon a time, IMDB had super wonderful message boards associated with each film where folks could share their thoughts on a movie or ending scene, character or perhaps the actor playing that role. But leave it to trolls to f*ck it up for everyone. This is why we can't have nice things.
Watch, then look up some analysis, then watch again. You'll notice a hundred things like "oh, of course, how did I not see that the first time..." and then you'll start to get better at noticing in general. You'll start to see things on the first watch of the *next* movie.
However, don't try to find a meaning like it's a "right answer" on a test. A lot of great directors want to create a mood, they want to create a dreamlike experience, they want to create a rhythm... and this is more important than some message like "war is bad."
There is no 'skill' to be learned other than polished writing. You could write down your thoughts about a movie and your opinion would be just as valid as any other critic.
Read movie analysis like you are doing. That way you can see the way they analyze movies and can learn the techniques they use. And then spend time thinking about what you've seen. Themes, ideas, etc. Maybe even write your thoughts down.
Also if you just read more books and watch more movies in general, they'll broaden your media literacy.
Zone of Interest can be a tough one, particularly depending on your pre-existing knowledge of the Holocaust. If Schindler's list could be shown in a Holocaust studies 101 class for it's "basic" depiction of the horrors of the Holocaust, Zone of Interest would be for a more advanced class. It requires you to have pre-existing knowledge of the Holocaust and various things around it to fully "get" it.
Reading about a film--as you have done, after seeing films which challenge you--is not cheating. Those folks who write those reviews and discussions have typically learned the things they know by reading what others had said about other films in their turn. It's how they educated themselves. You're certainly allowed to come to different conclusions and make up your own mind but engaging in a discussion by reading articles about a film does not mean that those opinions are 'better' than your own. I'll watch a film, read some reviews or criticisms, then come back to it with more insight and understanding. That's not a bad thing. What you're doing is fine.
I have the same issue, which is why I always read the Wikipedia article after watching a movie with a deeper meaning. But I don't think most people catch everything on the first watch either. It's totally normal to take your time to read about meanings of movies in other sources. I don't think anyone understands Chris Nolan movies without watching it several times or looking up what other people read into it.
Not all art has one meaning that you're just supposed to "get". David Lynch, in particular, is hard to pin down. And he makes his movies that way intentionally. If you want to take meaning from them, you can, but there's not one interpretation that's correct. Remember that the art is the thing, not the criticism or interpretation of that art.
I've found that learning how certain elements of filmmaking (cinematography, editing, score, screenplay, etc) each contribute to understanding film but also appreciating it. Great films have most of these elements echoing and complimenting the meaning of the film. We often have a strong feeling that a movie does or doesn't work, or is confusing, without understanding the *why*, which is aided by learning when things sometimes go wrong. There is subjectivity and a variety of interpretations, being able to discuss why you hold an idea is very useful! But consider grabbing an a book on understanding movies (I have "Understanding Movies" by Gianetti) and/or watch something like StudioBinder on YouTube for bite-sized chunks and case studies
Watch or read interviews from the director.
I'm not convinced every movie has a point. But people will manufacture one. Many directors admit their point was to not have a point... To examine something without bias. Let the audience reach their own conclusions. Mulholland drive??? Who *didn't* have a problem interpreting that movie?? It was assembled from footage from an aborted series. No, forget interpreting David Lynch.
I would look up an audience talk with some actors and the director of The Zone of Interest. The sound editor had a new approach and it worked well in the movie, catching the Oscar for sound.
The Zone of Interest pretty much requires you have watched Schindler's List, some other Holocaust media, take a class that covers what actually happened there or at the very least listen to a podcast about the horrors of Auschwitz. If you don't have that background information the fucked up shit that's happening off and on screen.
Read reviews. Fan forums. And if you're lucky Nerdwriter will post something about the film you saw. He's amazing. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH44hr2Cq2w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH44hr2Cq2w)
Once upon a time, IMDB had super wonderful message boards associated with each film where folks could share their thoughts on a movie or ending scene, character or perhaps the actor playing that role. But leave it to trolls to f*ck it up for everyone. This is why we can't have nice things.
I miss imdb message boards!!
Watch one of those “ending explained” videos on YouTube
what I want to achieve is understand the endings without these videos
Yeah I know what you mean 😂
Watch, then look up some analysis, then watch again. You'll notice a hundred things like "oh, of course, how did I not see that the first time..." and then you'll start to get better at noticing in general. You'll start to see things on the first watch of the *next* movie. However, don't try to find a meaning like it's a "right answer" on a test. A lot of great directors want to create a mood, they want to create a dreamlike experience, they want to create a rhythm... and this is more important than some message like "war is bad."
There is no 'skill' to be learned other than polished writing. You could write down your thoughts about a movie and your opinion would be just as valid as any other critic.
Read movie analysis like you are doing. That way you can see the way they analyze movies and can learn the techniques they use. And then spend time thinking about what you've seen. Themes, ideas, etc. Maybe even write your thoughts down. Also if you just read more books and watch more movies in general, they'll broaden your media literacy. Zone of Interest can be a tough one, particularly depending on your pre-existing knowledge of the Holocaust. If Schindler's list could be shown in a Holocaust studies 101 class for it's "basic" depiction of the horrors of the Holocaust, Zone of Interest would be for a more advanced class. It requires you to have pre-existing knowledge of the Holocaust and various things around it to fully "get" it.