Is Film Art? Part IV

Is film art if it is a representation of something real? While formalists thought that any further movement on film's part toward reality would lessen the artistic appeal (thus making the early 20's the height of film as art), realist theorists believed that the more "real" the motion picture was, the truer to nature, and thus to art it is. This is not necessarily to say that something like "impressionism" was not considered art to realists. To realists, art (and in this case the film itself) was like a window through which to reveal the natural.

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?