 
|
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 |
In Reply to: Are all movies inherently cosmetic and sugar coated? posted by Troy on January 16, 2004 at 09:16:17:
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?
Follow Ups:
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.
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 ]
