Reply: Saving Ryan's Privates
Donald Larsson
> > Of course, te existence of such footage still begs the question of how
> > Spielberg uses the device, but at least it's not as anachronistic as it
> > might seem!
>
> I would still argue that this visual device is an anachronism. The mere fact
> that the John Ford film has been unknown about all these years seems to
suggest
> that it was never shown extensively when it was originally made. In the
> interview I read with Spielberg, he clearly implied that "colour newsreels"
> were an established part of exhibition practice and that by attempting to
> emulate the look of certain colour emulsions (I presume, although he never
> stated, that he was referring to the Kodachrome stock used as Technicolor
> monopack), he was appropriating a recognisable visual device.
>
> There is quite a lot of monopack colour footage from the WWII battlefields,
but
> hardly any of it was released in cinemas. And in any case, I don't think
> Spielberg's D-Day reconstruction evokes that kind of stock at all. It's far
> too sharp and with too much depth of field. If he were to use genuine 1940s
> Kodachrome, or something close to it, then the entrails and body parts would
> look fuzzy and unrecognisable. And in that case, there goes the realism.
Your point is well-taken, but whatever the case about the use or
distribution of such color newsreel footage, Spielberg justifies it
(and I don't necessarily mean that in an accusatory way) by reference
to a *perception* of a historical technological fact in place of what
scholarship might actually reveal about that "fact." Similarly, he and
Janusz Kaminski discussed the use of black-and-white stock for
SCHINDLER'S LIST as reflecting the photographs of Jewish village life
in central Europe by Roman Vishniac, even though there are not many
scenes that make a direct connection to the scenes chronicled in A
VANISHED WORLD.
Spielberg's use of such allusions is not at all unusual. There are
many times that directors (or for that matter, artists working in other
media as well!) will justify a particular trope by reference to some
authority or "fact." Griffith supposedly did it by invoking Rembrandt;
Welles and Toland claimed that deep focus cinematography worked in the
same way as human vision, which is far from the case.
No matter what the artist or what the claim, it is useful to be
skeptical!
On the other hand, audience perceptions can work against the grain of a
film's apparent "intention." For example, in discussing the use of
Technicolor in the original 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN, students
often suggest that color was used because it is "realistic," when in
fact the equation of color with "realism" in film did not become firmly
established until after World War II, due to a variety of factors. But
such an equation is so prevalent now that it is difficult to get
students to see how the use of color in this particular film actually
is used to undercut realism and to reinforce the fantasy aspects of the
film as a whole.
Don Larsson
----------------------
Donald Larsson
Minnesota State U, Mankato
lar...@Mail.Mankato.MSUS.EDU
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.
Damian Peter Sutton
the term 'realism'.
Just for once.
Gloves off, no holds barred.
Get it all out in the open, because many seem to be
crossing boundaries, and confusing 'realism' with
'verisimilitude', 'neo-realism', 'cinema verite' etc.
(I find it very confusing when this happens, and I'm sure
the confusion is not intended.)
Which films employ 'realism' or are 'realist'?
Can we question the validity of each desciption?
Etc., etc.
That way, every time a film comes along which brings up the
subject, we all have a common frame of reference.
----------------------
Damian Peter Sutton
dp...@soton.ac.uk
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite
Donald Larsson
> I think that we should discuss and clarify what we mean by
> the term 'realism'.
> Just for once.
> Gloves off, no holds barred.
> Get it all out in the open, because many seem to be
> crossing boundaries, and confusing 'realism' with
> 'verisimilitude', 'neo-realism', 'cinema verite' etc.
> (I find it very confusing when this happens, and I'm sure
> the confusion is not intended.)
> Which films employ 'realism' or are 'realist'?
> Can we question the validity of each desciption?
> Etc., etc.
> That way, every time a film comes along which brings up the
> subject, we all have a common frame of reference.
Since there was no emoticon attached, I wonder if this suggestion is
tongue-in-cheek? Surely there are few more loaded terms than
"realism." Just to start with, there are:
visual realism (i.e., iconic similarity to an object or scene in nature;
with varying degrees of resemblence up to and including the full
range of color, dimension, movement, etc.)
psychological realism (i.e., actions that correspond to the ways
individuals would "normally" act under similar circumstances)
sociological realism (i.e., the circumstances of the individuals reflect
actualities of race, class, gender, etc.)
historical realism (i.e., the film and/or scenes approximate an accurate
reconstruction of the dress, customs, mores, etc. of a
particular time or event, etc.)
perceptual realism (i.e., the image accurately reproduces what the naked
eye would see or have seen)
and so on. I need hardly add that most of these terms are also
ideologically loaded as well!
Perhaps this is Damian's point, since much of the previous discussion
of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN has talked about some or all of these different
types of "realism," often within a single post!
Don Larsson
----------------------
Donald Larsson
Minnesota State U, Mankato
lar...@Mail.Mankato.MSUS.EDU
----
To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail LIST...@UA1VM.UA.EDU and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message. Problems? Contact jbu...@UA1VM.ua.edu