Research method deriving film theory from raw material, not from preset frameworks — patterns emerge from image, edit, sound first. Inductive, not deductive.
You sit before your rushes, without a theoretical framework in mind — just material. Grounded Theory in film means: patterns emerge from the precise observation of the visual material, editing cadence, and sound design itself. You don't first ask, "Which theory fits?", but rather, "What am I actually seeing, hearing, and editing here?" The insights grow from the raw material, not the other way around. This is the radical difference from theory-driven film analysis, which approaches the material with a fixed concept.
In practice, it works like this: You note down what strikes you — recurring image compositions, a specific way of designing transitions, a sound philosophy — without immediately forcing these observations into an existing analytical framework. A DoP analyzing several Fellini films might discover that the depth-of-field strategy has less to do with depth-of-field theory and more with a specific narrative logic of space. The theory follows afterward, not before. This requires patience and very precise observation — no "Ah, this is classic Expressionism" reflex after five minutes.
The practical benefit is that you recognize your own patterns instead of confirming existing ones. In editing or camera setup, you can thus uncover unconscious repetitions and consciously work with them or consciously break them. It's a method against superficial analytical templates — you become a detective of your own or someone else's material instead of a critic with a prefabricated toolbox.
Important: This is not anti-theory. It's about sequence — first observe, then abstract. In contrast to semiotics or narratology, which start with concepts and examine material, you build your concept from the material itself. On set or in the edit, you need this clarity: Am I analyzing according to a plan, or am I letting the material show me what it's doing?