 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Patrick and I are having a discussion about this in the Lost in Translation thread. It's seems to be such a fundamental thing that we both think maybe it deserves more of a round table discussion.Yes, I think that all movies ARE inherently cosmetic and sugar coated. Patrick says no.
Lets take "cosmetic" first. Cosmetic means "Something superficial that is used to cover a deficiency or defect". And that's what film is really about about, creating an artificial, controlled world from the real one. It's the medium that makes this happen. A good film maker controls everything in the frame from lighting or lack of lighting, to branches that stick into the corner, to the tilt of an extra's hat, to film stock. Does the camera see the edge of the table or the top? Is the actor's napkin on the table or in his lap? Why? Everything about the process depends of thoughtful consideration of all elements. Sure, a director with a more documentary style is going to let things fall where they may, leave things ugly and poorly composed, but again, it's a conscious decision done to develop a specific feeling and mood in the viewer.
Now, on to "sugar coated". Traditionally, film has an idealized, pleasing look. From the soft boxes developed in the 20s to light beautiful starlets to the spectacular art deco inspired sets of the recent Star Wars movies, movies have had always tended towards a glorification of esthetically pleasing things, much more pleasing than real life. This also applies to scripts. Think the "good guy" will win? Even the most gritty scripts have built in counterpoint. Most writers and film makers understand that you have to balance hot with cold, light with dark. Even the darkest, most sinister films, if they are good, use this artificial counterpoint by adding sweetness, romance or comedy in small doses. Being able to catch your breath for a moment makes the dark parts that much darker. Now we all know that life isn't really like that. If it's really bad in real life, you're not going to cut to a flashback love scene or have a secondary character be inserted for comic relief. Virtually ALL films are sugar coated in this way.
Take the movie "Taxi Driver". I think everybody has seen that and we all think of it as great film. I think we can also all agree that it is quite uncompromisingly dark, gritty and downright ugly. But think about how poetic the streets look at night with the rain and moving lights, there's a definite beauty there. Cosmetic. Think about the comic relief that albert Brooks provides. Think about the tender scene with Jody Foster and her pimp, Harvey Keitel. Yeah, it could be taken as grotesque and depressing, but it's tone lulls the viewer. Sugar coated? Not by itself, but the inclusion of the scene as a plot device to develop pathos for both the girl and the pimp compared to reality that no one but them would really know that scene happened can only be thought of as sugar coated artificiality.
Neither "cosmetic and sugar coated" is 100% true for all film. There are always exceptions to the rule, but in most cases, it's what the movies are all about.
Follow Ups:
ART it isn't....at least for the last 10 -15 years movies have been made only for the under 20 year old crowd. The plot lines are all a straight line, no peaks or valleys, to keep you on the edge of your seat. And with the new vogue of computer special effects, totally UNBELIEVABLE. So as to your question, I would say redounding YES to sugarcoating! It's like a bad belly ache from too much SUGAR or more like COMSTIPATION from too much ice cream.
Just asking.
Because, like a documentary, it's specifically designed to look raw and uncompromised. It's ugly amateurishness is intentional.The whole point of my original post was to show Patrick that every film's look is intentional, even if it's sloppy squalor. It's what the director wanted it to look like.
> Cosmetic means "Something superficial that is used to cover a deficiency or defect". And that's what film is really about about, creating an artificial, controlled world from the real one.So what deficiency or defect is covered in this film? Artificial, yes. Covering a deficiency or defect, I say no.
> Sure, a director with a more documentary style is going to let things fall where they may, leave things ugly and poorly composed, but again, it's a conscious decision done to develop a specific feeling and mood in the viewer.
This doesn't address deficiencies or defects at all.
> Now, on to "sugar coated". Traditionally, film has an idealized, pleasing look.
I say nay on this also. Pink Flamingos sugar coated? Surely you jest.
> movies have had always tended towards a glorification of esthetically pleasing things, much more pleasing than real life.
Come on.
> This also applies to scripts. Think the "good guy" will win?
Or eat a steaming pile of dog shit?
> If it's really bad in real life, you're not going to cut to a flashback love scene or have a secondary character be inserted for comic relief. Virtually ALL films are sugar coated in this way.
Yeah, like the guy trying to have sex with the chicken or jerking off to impregnate the woman who's been kidnapped & sedated. I say this is one example of an exception to yr rule. If you're going to argue otherwise I'd like to hear a better explanation.
Cosmetic means "Something superficial that is used to cover a deficiency or defect". And that's what film is really about about, creating an artificial, controlled world from the real one.So what deficiency or defect is covered in this film? Artificial, yes. Covering a deficiency or defect, I say no.
Don't be so literal. It can be as simple as not pointing the camera into the sun and putting it on a tripod to avoid movement. Yeah, I know, maybe I'm borderline here. What I really mean to say is that movies create a conscious esthetic, whether pretty or, in this case, ugly, and are therefore inherently cosmetic.
If it's really bad in real life, you're not going to cut to a flashback love scene or have a secondary character be inserted for comic relief. Virtually ALL films are sugar coated in this way.
Yeah, like the guy trying to have sex with the chicken or jerking off to impregnate the woman who's been kidnapped & sedated. I say this is one example of an exception to yr rule. If you're going to argue otherwise I'd like to hear a better explanation.
Well, if you don't see that as comic relief . . . you scare the hell outta me. No, it's not sugar coated in the way a Shirley Temple movie is. But in it's own way, PF's outrageous comedy is offset my Divine's saccharine love of his/her mon, Edie and her son. Sarcasm? Then Waters in consciously making fun of the sugar coating in movies, ergo, it IS sugar coated to the extreme . . . intentionally done to make you roll your eyes.
> Don't be so literal. It can be as simple as not pointing the camera into the sun and putting it on a tripod to avoid movement. Yeah, I know, maybe I'm borderline here. What I really mean to say is that movies create a conscious esthetic, whether pretty or, in this case, ugly, and are therefore inherently cosmetic.You were the one being literal--' all movies are cosmetic & sugar-coated.' I see yr point, but I see PF being an exception to that rule. There are others. They may be few, but there are certainly more. I mean, it's difficult to say that the Deer Hunter is sugar-coated, to me. Arguing that it's cosmetic because there are some nice scenery touches in the mountains in Pennsylvania don't cut it. I'm just not sure I buy that the conscious aesthetic has to be considered cosmetic in & of itself. If the filmmaker is going for quote-unquote 'reality,' using locations & what passes for a realistic plot with realistic dialogue, then I think it can be argued that either or both of these ingredients are not present.
> Well, if you don't see that as comic relief
Not the point.
> you scare the hell outta me
Good.
> No, it's not sugar coated in the way a Shirley Temple movie is. But in it's own way, PF's outrageous comedy is offset my Divine's saccharine love of his/her mon, Edie and her son. Sarcasm? Then Waters in consciously making fun of the sugar coating in movies, ergo, it IS sugar coated to the extreme . . . intentionally done to make you roll your eyes.
I don't know that this is his intent. I think he was & is just as much about highlighting what he saw in the twisted decadence of suburban Baltimore as he was/is into turning the notion of conventional filmmaking upside down. I also think that giving Divine & his supporting cast (Mink Stole, Edith Massey, et al) prominent roles in an effort to make cult-level anti-stars out of them figured into it just as much. I could be wrong; I'm not an expert on Waters. But that's my take, and I think I've seen all of his movies (might've missed one here or there). I think there were a lot of strange ideas that he incorporated into his movies, but that one of them might've been to inject an anti-sugar coating, which places the movie into the rest of the bin that says that all movies are sugar-coated & inherently cosmetic, on the basis that he's using a reverse tactic, just doesn't quite wash with me. It seems to me that you're saying that, by virtue of being anti-cosmetic & anti-sugar coating, that the film is, like all others, cosmetic & sugar-coated. I don't really agree with that. It's denying the possibility that there can be a movie that is neither--and if there is a film that is neither, to me, it's this one.
You were the one being literal--'all movies are cosmetic & sugar-coated.' I see yr point, but I see PF being an exception to that rule. There are others. They may be few, but there are certainly more. I mean, it's difficult to say that the Deer Hunter is sugar-coated, to me. Arguing that it's cosmetic because there are some nice scenery touches in the mountains in Pennsylvania don't cut it. I'm just not sure I buy that the conscious aesthetic has to be considered cosmetic in & of itself. If the filmmaker is going for quote-unquote 'reality,' using locations & what passes for a realistic plot with realistic dialogue, then I think it can be argued that either or both of these ingredients are not present.Please note at the bottom of my original post that I said there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule. We've discussed this on that other board in teh past. But this time I actually even said it!
I'm of the mind that the conscious esthetic has to be considered cosmetic because it's consciously adding thoughts like put the actors in green clothes to tie into the natural surroundings. Put a red scarf on the actress because it matches her eyes. Shoot into the sun because it adds mystery when the actors faces are lost in shadow. Just how self-consciously ugy and bizarre should the Marbles home and clothing look? Virtually every director (or art director or cinematographer etc.) makes 1000 of these decisions every single day of shooting. It's all about using artificial means to create images that don't look like they created using artificial means. Cosmetic.
> Well, if you don't see that as comic relief
Not the point.
Sure it is. Comic relief ties into the sugar coating as I talked about in the original post.
> you scare the hell outta me
Good.
Yeah, but it's a happy scared.
I don't know that this is his intent. I think he was & is just as much about highlighting what he saw in the twisted decadence of suburban Baltimore as he was/is into turning the notion of conventional filmmaking upside down. I also think that giving Divine & his supporting cast (Mink Stole, Edith Massey, et al) prominent roles in an effort to make cult-level anti-stars out of them figured into it just as much. I could be wrong; I'm not an expert on Waters. But that's my take, and I think I've seen all of his movies (might've missed one here or there). I think there were a lot of strange ideas that he incorporated into his movies, but that one of them might've been to inject an anti-sugar coating, which places the movie into the rest of the bin that says that all movies are sugar-coated & inherently cosmetic, on the basis that he's using a reverse tactic, just doesn't quite wash with me. It seems to me that you're saying that, by virtue of being anti-cosmetic & anti-sugar coating, that the film is, like all others, cosmetic & sugar-coated. I don't really agree with that. It's denying the possibility that there can be a movie that is neither--and if there is a film that is neither, to me, it's this one.
Believe me, Waters (and every film maker worth his salt) factored ALL those things into his motivation for making PF. If there's a recurring theme in all his movies, it's the pokes at Hollywood, the Star System and fame in general.
Yeah, I'm saying that there's satirical sugar coating in PF. So I suppose it really isn't, but taken at face value, it is sugar coating. I'll be happy to give in to you that it's not sugar coated, but it definitely has the artifice and cosmetic qualities of 99% of other movies.
the romantic subplot with the Egg Man!
television movies exactly are what you describe. Now, films? I'd have to disagree. But, by your definition of "sugar-coating" and "cosmetic," I think you are expecting a film to be a documentary.
First off, a film is (or attempts to be, at least the ones we're interested in for this conversation) art. That means an "artist" interprets reality, placing his stamp on it. Would you criticize a Puccini aria, sung by Callas' character who has just lost her lover, as unrealistic? After all, no one in recorded history naturally has burst into a lenghty, sad, rhythmic song---spontaneously!
But, to listen to her closely is to feel---for a moment---what that character is feeling.
With only a few hours to make an impact, filmmakers must use...artifice.
The key is whether the characters acting within the "artificial" world created by the director act BELIEVABLY---that is, whether the interior logic holds true.
You seem to feel some movies portray life as unrealistically pleasant: How would you describe "The Bicycle Thief," or "Schindler's List?" "Unforgiven?" "Psycho?"
Too upbeat?
television movies exactly are what you describe. Now, films? I'd have to disagree. But, by your definition of "sugar-coating" and "cosmetic," I think you are expecting a film to be a documentary.No no no! I WANT films to have this artistic quality!
First off, a film is (or attempts to be, at least the ones we're interested in for this conversation) art. That means an "artist" interprets reality, placing his stamp on it. Would you criticize a Puccini aria, sung by Callas' character who has just lost her lover, as unrealistic? After all, no one in recorded history naturally has burst into a lenghty, sad, rhythmic song---spontaneously!
Again, I'm not criticizing, in fact my point is that Patrick was under the impression that film, for it to be good, cannot be "cosmeticized and sugar coated" (his words) and I was pointing out that the existence of the medium alone, causes this artistic artifice. However good her performance is, all opera is completely coated in artifice.
The key is whether the characters acting within the "artificial" world created by the director act BELIEVABLY---that is, whether the interior logic holds true.
Yes, that and if the artifice of the rest of the film-makers art doesn't go too far as well. Too much camera movement, every shot done in magic hour etc. But make no mistake, ALL acting and film making is artifice and is cosmetic and sugar coated by it's very nature.
You seem to feel some movies portray life as unrealistically pleasant: How would you describe "The Bicycle Thief," or "Schindler's List?" "Unforgiven?" "Psycho?"
Again, it's a question of semantics. I can point out individual scenes and shots in all those movies designed as either comic or visually beautiful esthetic relief. Intentional sugar coating designed to make the audience relax and let down their guard for the next big shock. That's what I'm talking about.
the converse, as well, i.e. all films are bile-coated and super-realistic?
By necessity, film must compress time, events. Paradoxically, to make the "story" believable (within its context), it must alter it substantially, i.e. exaggerating some events, diminishing others---and all the while, using sound, light, definition, etc. to create EMOTIONALLY within the viewer a sensation which he must experience second-hand.
Of course, it could be I'm missing the nuances of your point: I'm not the brightest bulb in the set.
It seems that you think I said someting else in my original post.
"Idealizing" with "Sugar Coating". A romantic film (that is, of the romantic school of art, not "romance") will tend to idealize both "good" and "bad" characters to emphasize their moral character. Take the LOTR films for example (Oh God, what have I done?): The evil characters - Orcs, Uruk-Hai, Trolls were all depicted as not only evil but butt-ugly as well. While at the same time, the good guys were for the most part, attractive.
Now this "idealizing" can be done heavy-handedly or subtly. The subtleness is what many American films of this ilk lack. Also many lack originality, or even just an "artistic vision". Personally, I am partial to American films, being an American it is natural I suppose. But it can be seen that American films have , on the whole, gotten steadily worse since the fifties. AND I can recognize that foreign films strive more consistently for artistic impact, rather than gross receipts.
In Vino Veritas
This Idealizing you're talking about is definitely part of my definition of sugar coating. Again, Sugar coating were Patrick's words. Idealization and romanticizing is more accurate.The question between Patrick and I is that not all films have these romantic notions and devices designed to put the audience off balance and purposefully direct them to a certain place and way of seeing. I say they do and was pointing that out to him. You and I agree.
Your comment that the difference is in the subtlty in how these romantic notions are put across to the audience as being the key to what makes a film good or band is one that I should have added at the end of my original post.
While some " foreign " films retains some originality most are copying the big US brother, intelligent films are a dying breed, most people will always choose the " easy way " .
You donīt have to chwe anymore. No risk to threw up. It is all indigest digest.
It i just degenerate to a " cash machine ".
But, being an American, I see a lot more of the American garbage. The non-American films I see tend to be better, overall. Of course I don't usually have the opportunity to see them until they are a little old, and I can have a little more information about them.
In Vino Veritas
The real good films tend to be like wine....Time improves them.....
I am not sure where you are going with this.First, a beautiful photography is neither cosmetics nor sugarcoating, in my view, all by itself.
Second... you tried to define the cosmetics... but your definition is deficient. Consmetics is also used to enhance the beauty, and... to create ugliness too.
As such, I do dislike the word cosmetic here, I would much rather use something along the lines of painting.
And sugar coating? Is your goal simply to find some similarities, however small, in both good and bad films so you could then say they both have it? What is your point here?
I think life will be easier for all of us if we simply point at obvious sugar coating where it is objectionable - say, in Virgin Suicides, where it is dripping with it.
On the other hand to suggest that Wild Strawberries also has it, simply because it is put on film... well, I dunno.
Or maybe I am missing your point entirely.
Looking at your title, I think it sez it all - whether or not all films ARE, depends on your perception. If you are inclined to see it in every film, then perhaps you will find it.
Like the proverbial hammer.
Honestly, i'm not really sure where I was going with it either. Patrick and I were discussing it below and we both thought id deserved more opinions.Second... you tried to define the cosmetics... but your definition is deficient. Consmetics is also used to enhance the beauty, and... to create ugliness too.
Yes, both are right. But what Iwas talking about didn't really concery whether it's beautful or ugly. Cosmetic is manipulation of reality . . . and every movie has it. Patrick says it isn't.
And sugar coating? Is your goal simply to find some similarities, however small, in both good and bad films so you could then say they both have it? What is your point here?
My point is that Patrick says that only bad films are sugar coated and I'm saying that ALL films (with a few exceptions) are. It's inherent with the filmmaking process.
His perception may comes from seeing a too many " sugar coated films "...
But I must thank you Victor for given the appopriate answer an sparing me the pain* to do it!* In a foreign language.
I don't know... I am getting the feeling Troy is not crazy about my answers. Truth is I find it somewhat difficult to communicate with him - I almost have to translate what he is saying - his meaning often doesn't go directly into my brain. I think in this case the perseption barrier is being stronger than language barrier. I feel he sometimes has strong point, but to understand it I need to put on entirely different shoes.
I agree, I find it difficult to communicate with you and Patrick. English is obviously your second language and I think we are having a hard time translating the subtlties of our thoughts.But are our differences in philosophy more different than just language? I'm not so sure . . .
Don't wear shoes. Everybody go barefoot!
That is exactly what I feel, that is why I was happy you took the answer I would have been at pain to elaborate...
It is because he is not a " relative " to our unserstanding.
I feel the same too about his " points " and if I remember well we often agreed on differents things.
But this time he is just under his own level.
That happen to all of us...of course not in such a dramatic way..Or does it?
...that is, if you still feel the same.Regards
BF
n
... anytime you attempt to "frame" the living world you are forced to make some quaint decisions in order to make it fit it a conventional framework. What you are referring to is result of the process of distillation and extraction that goes on in any picture making process. IMO, when the world stands still for a tiny moment (as it does in a picture), a certain nobility is imparted to that "framed" little part of the world. Strangely, this holds true regardless of the picture - no matter if it is of a beautiful face, or a fresh pile of steamin' dogshit. Cheers.
And for a good example - not quite a pile of dogshit, but close - a rotting dog carcas - see Mikhalkov Konchalovsky's segment in the Lumiere and Co - his "framing" of that disgusting thing is art.I was going to say something along these lines when you posted. Framing, or in other words, just pointing, is what the director does. Without that pointing we would miss to look at that seemingly insignificant item in the huge picture of the surrounding world.
However... all that presumes the viewer willing to do this study, once pointed.
The viewer who will not start shifting restlessly when Greenaway concentrates on some rotten apples for five minutes. Someone who is willing to try to understand WHY the things are shown, and willing to appreciate HOW.
And THAT is what largely is missing today.
To the viewer conditioned to see quick draws and perfect unaimed shots, space bugs being blown to pieces with a ray-gun, all in very rapid progression, all that beauty is not simply unimportant - it is irritating.
We all have seen kids being tortured at Hermitage while their parents are admiring another Corot - all their thoughts are at the ice cream stand.
Today most movie audience here simply sees the movies as the video game extension - hence the idiotic talks about the "future" of the film, where some "interactive" thing will start happening.
So every teenager, who can't even tell Van Gogh from Vermeer, will be able to improve the works of Rembrandt with his interactive joystick and 3-D glasses.
THEN we will enter the era of true and limitless sugarcoating.
So.... is all art sugarcoating the reality? Absolutely NO.
Thanks for mentioning this truly great effoert. I hadn't seen it in a while so I dug it out of my collection yesterday and watched it again. It truly represents world cinema and the delight that the 40 directors feel in using the Lumiere camera is contagious. The breadth of creativity and approach is startling.
Your answer is not really is an answer to Troy. Beside that there are so called " Cinema Verite " where you do not control the whole...but letīs forget them.
What you wrote is of course true, but you do not respond to the real questions ( I do not thinks they are, in fact real, but made up..)
You should reread his words.
I will respond tomorrow.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
