A good film form does two things:

1. Adds layers of storytelling in a scene (via staging, lighting, sound design, etc)

*and*

2. Does so in a matter that is consistent with the world of the movie.

Point #2 is crucial; without it, Point #1 loses much of its shine.

A fine point that Screenshot Film Twitter misses. It's not enough that a scene is well-shot; what's much more important and valuable is *how* (and *why*) that scene advances the story and deserves to be in the film at that particular moment.

But the members of Screenshot Film Twitter are primarily not interested in that. They're mostly interested in flaunting their 'knowledge' of, and 'taste' in, cinema. It's akin to how some critics use references in their reviews. Spotting a reference doesn't make you a good...

... critic; what's much important is discussing why that reference makes sense, and how it *adds* to our understanding of the movie. If you're not doing that, then you're an equivalent of a front-bencher trying to impress a teacher.

When Raat Akeli Hai released, for instance, I saw a bunch of screenshot praising the 'framing' of the film. And yet, that appreciation was laughably absurd, because those examples, even though intelligently framed in isolation, didn't serve the overall film's theme or story.

A good film form is much more than a 'good photograph'. It's great that you want to discuss films in these terms, but do it in a manner that makes sense, and not in a way that tells me that you only want to hear, "Maan gaye - aapki parkhi nazar aur Nirma Super, donon ko."

So, the next time you want to show your appreciation for a scene, it's important to ask "why" and not merely "what" (which is where Screenshot Twitter is largely stuck). Remember this, all good film form boils down to one thing: motivation.

I've refrained from ranting on Twitter, but I've seen people misinterpret that reticence/awkwardness as being a pushover. So, I'll rant from time to time, because some people need education.

(Tweet #1: *does so in a manner)