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?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Well, Troy, - tinear 17:46:28 01/17/04 (3)
- You misunderstand my position - Troy 09:46:06 01/18/04 (2)
- Well, at this point of watering down your position, couldn't you say - tinear 07:54:43 01/19/04 (1)
- I don't think I watered it down at all! - Troy 09:00:15 01/19/04 (0)