True Lies, Realism in cinema
I just watched an interview where a real soldier gives his views on the realism of the action genre. He goes on to say that none of the movies that come up in the discussion, Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down to name few, make the mark in accurately depicting the real soldier or actual combat.
I've heard people compare movies and one of the criteria that defines a good-must-watch movie is how well the movie blurs the line between reel and real. The more realistic the situation, the emotions, the science, the whathaveyou, the better the movie is rated.
To take this belief, that realistic movie = good movie, to its logical conclusion we would have to say that if people were actually getting hurt and killed the movie would be a 10-star blockbuster and sweep the Oscars.
What concerns me is the philosophical dimensions of such a belief about cinema. Do people actually want to see real pain, murder, death, etc. or is it that people want to have genuine thoughts and emotions by getting as close to the real as possible but holding themselves back at the point when fiction/fantasy becomes true/real?
Any and all comments are welcome...
I've heard people compare movies and one of the criteria that defines a good-must-watch movie is how well the movie blurs the line between reel and real. The more realistic the situation, the emotions, the science, the whathaveyou, the better the movie is rated.
To take this belief, that realistic movie = good movie, to its logical conclusion we would have to say that if people were actually getting hurt and killed the movie would be a 10-star blockbuster and sweep the Oscars.
What concerns me is the philosophical dimensions of such a belief about cinema. Do people actually want to see real pain, murder, death, etc. or is it that people want to have genuine thoughts and emotions by getting as close to the real as possible but holding themselves back at the point when fiction/fantasy becomes true/real?
Any and all comments are welcome...
Comments (13)
The realism fetish has become more prominent in the last couple decades.
I'm a fan of fiction, of fantasy in its broadest sense. I want to see what people can imagine. If I want realism I can just walk outside and observe.
The video about the soldier was supposed to just provide a starting point, a context. Besides I think people appreciate actors on their ability to portray the character well, costume designers who accurately replicate the clothes of a period and how the script reflected the linguistic characteristics of a period among other things.
You really won't appreciate a movie in which the physics looks abnormal - when a man falls there's a certain way physics controls it and when something else happens the viewer doesn't like it.
Quoting Coben
Have you seen Samurai cop 1991? It's acquired a cult following, the reason being it's a bad movie with everything about it being unrealistic.
Okay.
The answer to your question is solidarity. People want realism due to solidarity.
In an attempt to relate to the portrayed, people will ask for accuracy - in the same way a psychologist would.
It's the reason why superheroes are also portrayed leading regular lives.
Dang, perfect. I have been saying this for years. How many grey area real life anti-heroes do I have to put up with?
I am not sure anyone has ever agreed with me. Good to know there are a few others out there (any top grossing movie list suggests we are not alone, but the oscars and emmys sure do disagree).
:up:
"Relateable" is the right word here. Correct me if I'm wrong. Very very few will watch or like a movie about the life of number but the movie "A beautiful mind" about a mathematician did well I believe.
In a sense there's an innate drive to want the real truth even in fiction which is quite odd. For example even in complete imaginary worlds of science fiction the physics has to be correct.
It's a good thing people want realism in art. It means they actually want truth and feel better that the portrayed image is realistic enough to make a connection but actually false, there being no real harm/injury.
What say you?
I think people are bored with reality or just aren't happy with the chunk of reality they live in. A little mix-and-match of things that are real give people excitement and pleasure. An odd circumstance, that unbelievable coincidence, etc., all real but improbable gets the juices flowing.
As for fantasy here's what I can tell you from experience. A friend of mine and I went to see Star Wars and while I, a sci-fan, enjoyed it very much, he said "Where the hell are the people? There were just too many robots in the movie and he gave it a thumbs down.
Anything to say on this?
I think that the implication of realism in fantasy is more or less a necessary step. You're just not going to climb up the staircase in a single step and the larger your steps, the more you strain yourself. So it's the good requisite smooth transition.
And I suppose 'relatable' would be the word.
Imagine Transformers, but without the humans or voiceacting. It would be like watching a Dubstep mix.
Or a nature documentary without sound - it turns in to a screensaver. It goes from smooth to really damn sharp.
Most war movies aren’t made for the soldiers to relive their experience, but for those of us who didn’t fight to relate to their experience. It doesn’t need to be an accurate portrayal, so long as it gives us a deeper understanding or sense of what the experience would have been like, given that we’ve not experienced anything remotely like it ourselves. I dare say the reality would be too far removed from our own experiences to be conveyed in a two hour film in a way that accurately portrays the full physical, emotional and mental impact of the experience.
I’m reminded of Yan Martel’s ‘Beatrice and Virgil’ - a bizarre novel that takes the reader on an absurd journey to gain a deeper perspective of the holocaust.