Realism in cinema today: a question
Darko Lisak
Recently, I was reading a book on film theories that devoted a
chapter on Andre Bazin's theories on realism and film. Now I'm not a
film student or anything, and although I am a film buff, I don't
consider myself an expert on film and its theories so my comments here
may seem a bit naive. From what I gathered in reading about the
realist theory, is that there is no place for montage and there should
be no abstract ideas presented to the audience in making a film. The
best realist film would be one which contains several long takes with
natural images and little, if any, symbolism.
Given this description then, are there any filmmakers today, other
than those that make documentaries, that make films that abide by the
realist film theory? I guess the realist movement was in its heyday
when Truffaut, Chabrol, etc. were making lots of films. But this type
of film, it seems, has faded in the past few years. I can only think
of a couple that could be considered a realist film, like Mira Nair's
"Salaam Bombay", and maybe Eric Rohmer's "Boyfriends and Girlfriends".
More and more films follow the formalist ideas. I have heard that
even Cahiers du Cinema now writes about formalist cinema. M. Bazin
must be rolling in his grave.
Another question I have is about how followers of realist cinema
react to films made using formalism. For example, how would a cinema
realist evaluate, say, "Barton Fink"? Would they write it off
completely and say there's too much symbol- ism, etc? Or would they
try to extract as much realism from it as possible? Or would they say
"Aw, it's those Coen Brothers again. Too many freaky shots."
Personally, I enjoy either type of film, realist or formalist. I'm
just wondering if realist cinema is restricted to foreign soil and it
rarely reaches North America. Or is it because realist cinema
doesn't, dare I say it, make enough money. I hope this wasn't a
worthless posting to r.a.c. I'd like to see what other people think.
DL
[Moderator's Note: By no means is this a "worthless posting"! This
topic is well-suited to the purpose of rec.arts.cinema, which is to
create a forum for serious discussion of cinema in all its forms.
-- MKT]
Andrew Chia-Tso Ku
In article <1992Feb1.0...@zerkalo.harvard.edu> lis...@bnr.ca
(Darko Lisak) writes:
[brief description of attributes of realist films]
> Given this description then, are there any filmmakers today, other
>than those that make documentaries, that make films that abide by the
>realist film theory? I guess the realist movement was in its heyday
>when Truffaut, Chabrol, etc. were making lots of films. But this
>type of film, it seems, has faded in the past few years. I can only
>think of a couple that could be considered a realist film, like Mira
>Nair's "Salaam Bombay", and maybe Eric Rohmer's "Boyfriends and
>Girlfriends".
At the risk of turning this into a list, I'd include Agnes Varda's
"Vagabond" and most of Eric Rohmer's work, but both of these directors
are hold-overs from the French New Wave. As a Canadian, are you
familiar with the work of Quebecois filmaker Jean-Pierre Lefebvre.
His "Les Fleurs Sauvages", the only movie of his I've seen, would
definitely fit into this category. I'm not a film academic either so
I may be way off base, but I'd offer Jim Jarmusch's comedies "Stranger
Than Paradise", perhaps "Down By Law" and by extension - this may be
stretching it - movies by the Kaurismaki brothers as further examples.
Jarmusch's films, often described as deadpan, have static setups,
naturalistic settings, and lack of symbolism. I wonder, though, if
Jarmusch uses such qualities as just another cinematic "style" in
order to achieve a "hipper than cool" attitude (akin, say, to wearing
black :-)).
> Another question I have is about how followers of realist cinema
>react to films made using formalism. For example, how would a cinema
>realist evaluate, say, "Barton Fink"? Would they write it off
>completely and say there's too much symbol- ism, etc? Or would they
>try to extract as much realism from it as possible? Or would they
>say "Aw, it's those Coen Brothers again. Too many freaky shots."
I wonder if the US's film school tradition is training new generations
of technique-obsessed directors who are visually oriented and/or need
to be the "star" of their own movies. (Having said this, I'd like to
state that I think the Coen Brothers, well-known graduates of NYU's
film school, have received a bad rap from many people who only notice
their Sam Raimi-inspired pyrotechnics and all but ignore their well-
crafted writing.) Of course, our television-saturated society in NA,
where we are bombarded with ever-accelerating images, certainly
doesn't breed an appetite (or the patience) for realist cinema.
Perhaps in Europe, with its more ingrained tradition of theatre and
literature and where television has taken hold more slowly (although
Europeans are fast catching up), there is a greater interest in making
and watching such movies.
Andrew
Chris Brougham
In article <1992Feb1.0...@zerkalo.harvard.edu>, lis...@bnr.ca
(Darko Lisak) wrote:
> Recently, I was reading a book on film theories that devoted a
>chapter on Andre Bazin's theories on realism and film. Now I'm not a
>film student or anything, and although I am a film buff, I don't
>consider myself an expert on film and its theories so my comments
>here may seem a bit naive. From what I gathered in reading about the
>realist theory, is that there is no place for montage and there
>should be no abstract ideas presented to the audience in making a
>film. The best realist film would be one which contains several long
>takes with natural images and little, if any, symbolism.
While Bazin thought montage was problematic it wasn't really for the
reasons you've mentioned. Bazin believed that the audience member
should be free to explore the cinematic image in such a way that the
he or she could come to an individual interpretation of the meaning of
that image. Montage, Bazin believed, unnecessarily configured
cinematic meaning. The idea of realism, for Bazin, was to explore
reality in a mode that would highlight the fundamentally ambiguous
nature of reality, its indetermiancy etc, and the use of montage
worked against this. I think the following passage best sums up
Bazin's notion of realism:
But it is most of all Stroheim who rejects
photographic expressionism and the tricks of
montage. In his films reality lays itself bare like
a suspect confessing under the relentless
examination of the comissioner of police. He has one
simple rule for direction. Take a close look at the
world, keep on doing so, and in the end it will lay
bare for you all its cruelty and its ugliness.
(Bazin: "What is Cinema" pg 27.)
Abstract ideas are not necessarily a feature of montage (or anything
else for that matter :-) ). There are aesthetic types of montage too.
Abstract ideas, and I'm thinking of that phrase in its most broad terms,
are indeed a part of Bazin's film theory. In fact, they are critical to
that theory. Bazin, of course, wants to develop an ontology of cinema.
For him it is realism. Now I don't want to get into a big debate about
realism, suffice it to say that Bazin's realism is sort of a *special*
kind of realism, but if you consider the cinema of Rossellini and de
Sica and Welles (to a certain extent) that's the kind of realism he
talks about. Indeed, Vagabond (which another person mentioned) is to my
mind the best modern example of the cinema Bazin would like.
Taking Vagabond as an example, I want to try an illustate very briefly
that abstract ideas are possible here. Vagabond clearly explores the
notion of one's "being-in-the-world" and the existential lonliness that
sometimes is made manifest to our conscoiousness. These are abstract
ideas and the film, through realism, explores them. There are lots of
visual and acoustic ways this is done and I leave it as an excercise
(:-) ) for you to find the stylistic techniques (and narrative
techniques too) that make manifest the idea of loneliness.
I would like to digress for a moment and bring up something that's been
bugging me. This is a technical point.
Now all this talk about symbolism. In the words of E.H. Carr I'd "like
to clear up all this muddle." Symbolism is a meaningful term, yes. But
it is often used in cinema discussions in problematic ways i.e. what is
the symbolism of such and such a shot. To be quite frank, there is *no*
symbloism involved in cinema as such. Symbols are specific
meaning-structures that are involved in narrative, such as the symbolism
of good and evil, and these too are involved in cinema. Of course. But
to speak of symbolism per se, is too imprecise. I think what a lot of
folks want to say is that such and such a shot or camera angle or
whatnot evokes a specific meaning-structure. For example, I think if we
reflect on the sound track in "2001: A space Odyssey" we might be
inclined to speak of the symbolism of Bowman's cosmic metaphorses
through the justaposition with Also Spracht Zarathustra. What symbolism
do we mean? Rather, why not ask what meaning-structure is evoked
through the sound-image relationship, rather than symbolism. This is
not a quibble. A meaning-structure has the advantage of not implying a
*specific* reading of the film...symbols are usually quite precise.
All in all, I wish r.a.c would have more posts like this. I think you
can appreciate cinema without knowing any theory (of course you can!),
but it's very difficult to write about it if you haven't read any
theory. The next installment of my FAQ will include some comments about
symbolism and montage and realism. Also there will be an expanded APA
style reference section which should serve as a usefull bibliography to
all you budding film theorists.
tom mckean
> Given this description then, are there any filmmakers today, other
> than those that make documentaries, that make films that abide by
> the realist film theory?
I don't have a wide knowledge of film, though I would assume that my
knowledge is greater than that of the general layman; however, I would
say Jim Jarmusch's films reside in the land of realism, especially
_Stranger than Paradise_. Temporally long shots, abnormally (by
Hollywood standards) static camera pervade his films. (I believe he
was initially trained as a photographer; this seems evident; if it's
not true, it should be!) Dialogue is often sparse, commonplace.
Characters NEVER give long, drawn out speeches. The viewer (at least
this one) never gets to know the soul of the characters, which,
paradoxically, breathes life into them. Think: how well do you
generally get to know someone over the space of two hours? I would
argue, not very. One barely scratches the surface; people are quite
complex creatures. Jarmusch seems to realize this; he creates
characters one could run into on the street.
Jarmusch seems to be getting more complex as he makes more films;
_Mystery Train_ is his least realist film (still more realist than the
vast majority of American films), and I am quite interested to see
just how his new film will turn out. (I believe it's set in taxicabs
all around the world).
Other directors use realist constructs to the benefit of their
generally formalist films; Scorsese comes to mind (esp. _Mean Streets_
and, to a lesser extent, _Taxi Driver_).
I'm trying to think of other films; _84 Charlie MoPic_, though I
haven't seen it, seems like it would be an exercise in realism.
I'm not extremely well read on film theory, esp. relating to realism -
I'm delving into my past classes of four or five years ago, so i hope
this post is not too far off the mark.
-tOM
"Clever!" said Eeyore scornfully, putting a foot heavily on his
three sticks. "Education!" said Eeyore bittrly, jumping on his six
sticks. "What _is_ learning?" asked Eeyore as he kicked his twelve
sticks into the air. "A thing _Rabbit_ knows! HA!"
Paul Gallagher
> Given this description then, are there any filmmakers today, other
>than those that make documentaries, that make films that abide by the
>realist film theory? I guess the realist movement was in its heyday
>when Truffaut, Chabrol, etc. were making lots of films. But this
>type of film, it seems, has faded in the past few years. I can only
>think of a couple that could be considered a realist film, like Mira
>Nair's "Salaam Bombay", and maybe Eric Rohmer's "Boyfriends and
>Girlfriends". More and more films follow the formalist ideas. I
>have heard that even Cahiers du Cinema now writes about formalist
>cinema. M. Bazin must be rolling in his grave.
Cahiers du Cinema wasn't really dominated by Bazin. In the 5O's "la
politique des auteurs" might be considered the dominant point of view:
establishing a canon of great directors, especially previously ignored
American directors, and describing the personal style evident in their
films. "La politique" is indebted to Bazin. The essential idea is
that mise en scene is the most important tool of the director for
conveying information and expressing meaning. But Bazin often
disagreed with the younger critics, including the future New Wave
directors, about particular films and directors, and the younger
critics didn't really use his philosophical ideas much. Godard did
write a well-known article in the 5O's attempting to reconcile Bazin
and Eisenstein, describing montage and mise-en-scene as complementary
methods for conveying information.
By the 196O's and especially around 1968, Cahiers critics took a
strong interest in Eisenstein's, Vertov's, and Brecht's writings. Up
till mid-7O's Cahiers' put particular emphasis on montage theory.
> Another question I have is about how followers of realist cinema
>react to films made using formalism. For example, how would a cinema
>realist evaluate, say, "Barton Fink"? Would they write it off
>completely and say there's too much symbol- ism, etc? Or would they
>try to extract as much realism from it as possible? Or would they
>say "Aw, it's those Coen Brothers again. Too many freaky shots."
Bazin included films of the imagination (for example, Cocteau's Beauty
and the Beast, Orpheus, etc.) within his realist aesthetic. What I
think Bazin would object to most is MTV, because of its use of rapid
cutting for expressive effect. The use of editing to inspire emotions
could be traced to D.W. Griffith and Pudovkin, in particular. Bazin
objected to editing as violating the truth of reality.
> Personally, I enjoy either type of film, realist or formalist.
>I'm just wondering if realist cinema is restricted to foreign soil
>and it rarely reaches North America.
Key works for Bazin were not only Italian Neo-Realists works but
American films such as Wuthering Heights, The Best Years of Our Lives,
and Citizen Kane.
You might classify films formally in this way:
Primitive film, with one or few shots per scene and a stationary
camera (Melies, Lumiere, etc.)
Classical film, or "canned theater," where cutting, mise-en-scene,
etc. are used invisibly; the visual style doesn't call attention to
itself (Hollywood in the 193O's, television programs)
Cinema of mise-en-scene: long takes and camera movement (Ophuls,
Mizoguchi, Rossellini, Renoir, Dreyer, Hitchcock, etc.)
"Baroque" cinema: classical film or mise-en-scene style film, where
the visual style calls attention to itself, usually with lots of
camera movement (Sternberg, Welles, Ophuls, Nicholas Ray, Robert
Aldrich, Martin Scorcese, Hollywood auteurs of the 195O's ).
Cinema of montage I: montage is here used as an intellectual device
and, in particular, to break up or manipulate the illusion film tends
to create of continuous space and time (Eisenstein, early Bergman,
Kurosawa, Resnais, early Mizoguchi).
Cinema of montage II: editing is here used mostly for expressive
purposes (many early Soviet films, many avant-garde films, music
videos).
Martin Scorcese, Stanley Kubrick, and Francis Ford Coppola use long
takes and lots of camera movement; they might squeak through Bazin's
definition. Since Martin Scorcese was a devoted auteurist, I suspect
he'd have strong opinions about Bazin.
Paul
p...@panix.com
"I admit it. I'm way off script. I've got no idea what I'm doing."
-Crow, MST 3OOO