Any technological advance toward mimicking reality then would be great for a film theorist like Bazin who believed sound (once it was seemingly perfected as a filmic technology) was an amazing boon for film. Other movements toward reality would be color, stereoscopic sound, anamorphic format (widescreen), 3D, surround sound, maybe even CG in certain circumstances. All these advancements allowed film to create this window through which the subject matter is viewed. the difference between realists and other theorists might be akin to the difference between two verbs associated with the art of film, "capture" and "create". Formalists would say that art is "created" more or less, and realists would argue that art is "captured".
But, here is the question: Do you agree? Is a film that is more real closer to (if not fully) art? What are some examples of this?
I personally would say that this goes beyond just "lifelike" acting or any other technical aspect of the production but into the content as well. A good example of this is Italian Neo-Realism. In Italy, after World War II, film was not just seen as an entertainment, but as a representation of the times. An event around which, audiences might find a catharsis for their troubles. Two of my favorite of these films are by the Italian director, Vittorio De Sica: They are The Bicyle Thieves and Umberto D.
What are some of your favorite "realistic" films?
One of film's most unique strengths is its ability to mimic reality more closely than any other art form. But art is a commentary on real life, so the degree of realism is completely independent of the quality of the art piece. Does the film suck you in? Does it hold your attention? Those are the marks of good art.
ReplyDeleteExcellent comment, Mr. Martin. I would agree for the most part on how film is more closely mimicking reality. I might argue that theatre could (if mimicking was the only aspect) beat out film. BUT as to comment about art commenting on real life. I personally agree whole heatedly with that.
ReplyDeleteThat allows film to be unrealistic to a point and still be able to communicate a reality to the viewer. If realism alone was the key factor, documentaries would be the best films (and don't get me wrong, I love docs for the realism they bring.)
I would love for you to comment on the last section more if you could. "Does film suck you in? Does it hold your attention?" I feel those are two very different things. My attention was kept by the Matrix: Reloaded movies, but didn't feel I was sucked into it at all. Do you think there's a difference between those? Is there a hint of "identifiablility" in "suck you in"?
As an example of this, maybe the most unrealistic aspect of current filmmaking is the Happy Ending. And yet, I personally feel connected to many stories with Happy Endings.
ReplyDeleteI thought Blue Valentine was a very realistic film. And it didn't have a happy ending either.
ReplyDeleteAh. ABSOLUTELY. If no one posted something about Blue Valentine, I was going to. You're totally right. It is extremely realistic; it doesn't shy away from sex, or the hardships of marriage and family. And yes. Not a happy ending.
ReplyDeleteYou might even say that this is the American version of an Italian Neo-realist film. In the same way that after world war II, Italy was suffering, America is suffering. Perhaps not from a war torn landscape, but it's an economy with little hope for the poor, currently (hopefully this will get better). Is it maybe a little offensive to portray an average American family under the light of a "Happy Ending"?
For Realists like Bazin in his work on understanding "the evolution of cinema" particularly in language, he centered greatly on the Long take aesthetic. Two people could have a conversation AND have it heard in real time. There was no longer a break in the film where a title card needed to be. The spool of film could run to it's heart's content. Because of this, Welles was seen as the first master of the new species that had evolved from soundless ancestors.
ReplyDeleteTry this. Turn off the sound on you next DVD. Watch the film without the synchronized sound that the film has utilized. It's different. Hardly able, at all to get a plot right?
Now watch Steamboat Bill Jr. Nearly no dialogue at all. and yet a story is carried.
This is why many formalists say that today's film is only a combination of technologies, without which the film itself would contain no plot, or meaning of any kind. Hmmm.... Something to chew on.
This mostly wraps up our comments on film and art (though the conversation will no doubt continue). Please visit the site again very soon for when Filmmaker, Mikel Wisler writes about why we should even pay attention to film. Should be a great discussion.
ReplyDelete