Realistic Movie - Oxymoron?
Dark_Valkyrie
realistic adj 1: aware or expressing awareness of things as they really are; "a realistic description"; "a realistic view of the possibilities"; "a realistic appraisal of our chances"; "the actors tried to create a realistic portrayal of the Africans" [ant: unrealistic] 2: representing what is real; not abstract or ideal; "realistic portraiture"; "a realistic novel"; "in naturalistic colors"; "the school of naturalistic writers" [syn: naturalistic] 3: of or relating to the philosophical doctrine of realism; "a realistic system of thought
Jeff McCloud
nim...@go-c.com (Nimrod``) wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:43:30 -0400, "Dark_Valkyrie"
> <Dark_V...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > OK, in a thread later in this news group, someone had the
comment, a realistic movie is an oxymoron.
> >I think this is ridiculous, because a movie can be based on truth,
and other movies are factual accounts
> >in the form of a documentary. So, a movie about such real events,
> >based solely on the premise that a "movie" can't have "realism", is
preposterous.
>
> you don't see it there---I'll paste the explanation here as well.
>
> Why, as Kevin so wisely includes in his sig, is "realistic movie" an
> oxymoron?
>
> Because the very act of pointing a camera at a subject and committing
> it to film stylizes that subject or action. It's that simple. Film
> is stylization.
>
> Ironically, the films hailed as "realistic" by the uninitiated---those
> who don't really understand film as a medium---are far from realistic;
> and the ways in which they are not realistic can range from editing,
> to manipulation of the film stock, to the fact that people subtly
> alter their demeanors and interactions when they know a camera is
> pointed at them, to countless other ways in which films veer from
> reality and always do. But filmed subjects don't even have to know
> they are being photographed for an action or a chunk of scenery or a
> still life to be stylized. The very act of photographing a real,
> tangible object, individual, or physical action, then rendering it
> back for human consumption in a series of thousands of variously
> shaded film grains or digital pixels is an act of stylization which
> removes that captured image from reality. Even the process of human
> beings viewing that captured image and "re-experiencing" it further
> stylizes the experience, removing it even further from reality.
>
> This is not a new perception with me, by the way, nor did it originate
> with me. It is age old. Ask any major filmmaker since the inception
> of cinema. It's a phenomenon great filmmakers who truly work with and
> understand the medium have had full grasp of all along. Movies are
> not realistic. Not even documentaries or surveillance footage. Some
> can strive to create the ILLUSION of reality, but they cannot be truly
> realistic.
>
> Now, is this where I'm supposed to think I can safely say that "this
> shows your complete lack of intelligence, or at least common sense?"
>
> Nimrod``
>
> (By the way, you're even more nuts if you think a book or a computer
> game is realistic....)
I know that I am jumping into the frying pan here, but I just wanted to
point out that the terms being bandied about are "realism" and in other
cases "realist" or "realistic." Photographing something and showing it
indeed removes it from "reality," but that does not make it not
"realistic." I take realistic to mean that which is represented with a
concern for the real or actual as distinguished from the abstract,
speculative, etc. (props to Random House). Realism is a mode of
expression concerned with coming close to reality, creating an
"ILLUSION of reality," as you pointed out. Granted I am arguing
semantics. So are you. I just want to point out that "realism"
doesn't by nature claim to be real.
As for "stylization," hell I walk by Neiman Marcus everyday around
lunch time, and it is a real place, but it is highly stylized. People,
who are real, can be as highly "stylized" as a film, whether in their
attire, hair style, etc..
I just don't like the reaction against a term like "realism" that has a
valuable role in the study and enjoyment of film. Notions of realism
consistently change and film history is full of examples of what people
have considered to be realism. To dismiss the term outright is silly.
Rather, it is far more interesting to wonder why people view a
relatively sappy actor like Tom Hanks as realistic while viewing
someone like Marlene Dietrech as completely stylized. Obviously
neither one of them is being "real" but our perceptions of their, yes,
style defines what is considered "realism" not what is "real."
--
"Jeff"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dark_Valkyrie
can't be realistic? A music has style. Hair has style. What the hell does
stylization have to do with not being realistic? Did you even read the
definition of realistic? I think you are confusing taking footage or
imagination, composing a film, and then displaying this reel to thousands of
people, and saying, that which they spent months on creating, or duplicating
for the act of giving some semblance to people of what "may take place",
with what you consider "fantasy" on the screen. we are dealing with 2
separate issues here.
1) A movie, in and of itself is real. You can touch it, it has real actors,
for the most part, it has music, it has all the things that compose a real
drama. Just because it hasn't happened, or because you can't touch the
experiences from the actors point of view, because you weren't there,
doesn't mean it doesn't have a value, in a real sense, to someone. That
moviemaker, or producer, or director, or writer.. as you delicately put it,
have a very real value on that movie. Why don't *you* ask *them* if they
think its real or not, because I have. They will laugh at you, and tell you
its very real. The *CONTENT* on the other hand, may not be based on real
experiences, or real events, or real people, but its realistic, because they
*could* happen, they actually *may* happen. So what if the actors are not
perfect in making an exact reenactment... We are all actors everyday. Does
that mean you don't realistically enjoy your work? We cant' enjoy our jobs
100% of the time, EVERY SINGLE DAY. That's unrealistic. And you are not
even on camera.. or maybe you are.
2) Depictions in a movie are often times loosely based on a dream or
something that a writer sees. He may not accurately describe the events,
because he can't remember, but he takes what he experiences in a dream (a
realistic experience), and thus transform it on screen. That is only
fiction, and its a story for nothing more than just to give his impression
or convey his message. What one person sees as momentous or scary may just
be blasé to another. We have that luxury to scrutinize film, because its
not happening real time.
Those people in Columbine, what if those killers saw a movie, and they
used the events in the movie to "act out" what they saw? What then? Are
you going to tell those people that were shot, that was only a dream, or
surreal experience, because, as you said, a movie is stylization, and it
doesn't serve any purpose other than to separate one type of movie from
another. Oh yeah, well, after you get dirty looks from those people, and
they scream at you for being an idiot, because that "movie" just killed
their family, you would probably be shunned. What if in another sense,
since that event did happen, in few years, someone makes a movie from that
disaster, are you going to say that if they completely follow step by step,
every single eyewitness account, and just display factual information, and
no embellishment, you are going to ask those people to watch it, and they
don't "relive" the experience all over again? What are you smoking man?
Did you do drugs as a youngster, because I could swear you need detox. I
don't give a flying rats a**, what other people think of photography,
because films are much more than a "captured image" on a plastic canvass,
its real motion, real people, and real work. Lets take art. Art is life.
Art for many years, in the form of paintings, is all people had to remember
or "show" to others because they didn't have the technology we have.
Paintings during the caveman days, are drawings, and imagery from times
past, and sometimes its all historians have to recreate the past. And you
still believe, they are not realistic? You hide behind this shroud of
"filmmakers" like you want to be a part of their society, but I happen to
know a few filmmakers, and they totally disagree that films are not
realistic. They may not be about real things that happen to real people,
but they most certainly take on a very real affect on people when they are
presented at a real theater, with real speakers. You have to pay real
money. So, this brings up a question, why the hell are you on this
newsgroup? If movies are not realistic, then why are we discussing movies?
Its someone else's idea, someone else's work, someone else's money to
produce it. If movies are NOT realistic, then what are they? You failed to
mention that part, except "illusion" of reality. If that illusion, even if
it just a dream, or book, or computer game, causes someone else to kill
someone as a DIRECT result, you don't call that real?
I say again, your arguments are weak, and unfounded, because as I said,
I know artists, writers, filmmakers (whoopee for me) and none of them are
under the impression that their work is not real(istic). What are they
doing this for then? Just to see themselves or write to themselves? No,
its to give something, even if just an intrinsic value of their experience.
You have not convinced me that movies are not realistic. Maybe you would do
yourself some good, if you use your imagination sometime, and experience a
movie, rather than going to a theater, and just sitting there watching
grains of pixels dancing on white screen, combining to form an illusion of
sound or people. You have a hard time having fun, don't you? I bet you sit
at a bar and just drink to drown whatever it is you are seeking to avoid,
and then drive home. You just haven't managed to kill anyone ... *YET*.
Maybe, they will make a movie about you, then I can say, yeah, that was an
illusion of a drunk, killing an illusionary family of four. Its sad, but
the families those lives are gone from, all they have is home movies,
pictures, and dreams past of the times they REALLY shared. You are
pathetic. Maybe you need to stylize your keyboard or find a hobby, because
you have no imagination.
James Margaris
>On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:43:30 -0400, "Dark_Valkyrie"
><Dark_V...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>I posted this in response to you in the other thread, but---in case
>you don't see it there---I'll paste the explanation here as well.
>
>Why, as Kevin so wisely includes in his sig, is "realistic movie" an
>oxymoron?
>
>Because the very act of pointing a camera at a subject and committing
>it to film stylizes that subject or action. It's that simple. Film
>is stylization.
So, what then IS realistic, other than first hand real life events?
Hmm...?
James M
Kevin
>OK, in a thread later in this news group, someone had the comment, a =
>realistic movie is an oxymoron.
That someone is me. Nimrod has already done an excellent job of explaining the
idea. Let me expand on it.
>I think this is ridiculous, because a =
>movie can be based on truth, and other movies are factual accounts in =
>the form of a documentary. So, a movie about such real events, based =
>solely on the premise that a "movie" can't have "realism", is =
>preposterous.
You're confusing terms. We never said a film "can't have realism." We said
movies aren't realistic, which is a slight but important difference. "Realism"
is a style, which often changes over the years. Acting that looked "real" 50
years ago can look incredibly stylized and "unreal" today. Undoubtedly,
someone will look at "Raging Bull" in 30 years and think that DeNiro's
performance is stagey and unconvincing. "Realism" is a convention, and it
changes with popular tastes.
Filmmakers who want their films to appear to be "real" will use stylistic
approaches that are conventionally accepted to convey "realism." But, being
movies, the results are by definition unrealistic.
>I subscribe to you, that if movie can make you live the =
>events, real or imagined, then its done its job.
Without a doubt. But "effective" and "realistic" are not the same things.
>I don't understand how =
>we can all discuss movies, and talk about how the events in the movie =
>have a lasting effect, and yet, the "realistic" is not viable when =
>describing a movie.
Well, let's look at an example. "Schindler's List" is a movie that for many
had a "lasting effect," as you put it. It certainly was effective for me: I
cried several times in the theater when I was watching it.
But would you describe "Schindler's List" as realistic? In my view,
"Schindler's List" is an incredibly unrealistic movie. Why?
1. It's in black and white. Real life is in color.
2. Almost everyone talks in English, which is inaccurate.
3. There's music in the background. Real life doesn't have a soundtrack that
suddenly swells up during significant moments.
4. The movie lasts only a couple hours. The war lasted years. If the movie
was to be realistic, it would certainly have to show everything that happened,
and not edit out the mundane.
5. Oskar Schindler looks a lot like Liam Neeson, a famous actor. If the movie
were absolutely realistic, Oskar Schindler should be portrayed by Oskar
Schindler.
and so on... (you could list many more unrealistic elements)
I hope you get my point. It's a movie, so it can't really be realistic, though
it can use "realism" as a style to make it effective.
>Why do they have disclaimers at the end of a movie =
>... "... the events and characters in this movie are not real. Any =
>similarity to actual events and characters is purely coincidental." I =
>may not have it exactly correct, but you know what I am referring to. I =
>know that some movies are just fantasy, or movies are entertainment, but =
>during the feature presentation we are enthralled and immersed in this =
>film, and during a typical good movie, we get caught up in the action, =
>drama, passion, suspense, mystery, and comedy, and you are going to tell =
>me, that we can't call that realistic?
You should call that effective, not realistic.
>We jump when they accurately =
>setup a scene, that takes you totally by surprise, and there is a loud =
>noise or something moves across our vision in such a manner to jolt the =
>senses. You are going to tell me that is not realistic?
Yes, entirely unrealistic. But once again, it's effective.
>Movies take us =
>on a journey for 1 to 2 hours, in most cases, and we believe this =
>journey (whether its real or not) for this amount of time.
Yes. And believable is certainly not the same thing as realistic. Thousands
of movies are believable (like, say, "Goodfellas") that are not realistic.
>At the end =
>of the movie, when we have to decide if what we saw was truth, or =
>fiction, that's when we decide how much the movie had impact.
No. No, no, no. I say again, no. As John Harkness says, "all films are
fiction films."
That doesn't mean that some films don't get at certain "truths," but that
doesn't make them realistic. There's not a realistic moment in a movie like
"The Sixth Sense," but that doesn't mean it doesn't explore certain truths of
human existence, like accepting death.
>If we can =
>describe, decipher, speculate, and scrutinize a movie that isn't real, =
>but yet some others can believe that through the wonders of technology, =
>and the conveyance of genuine acting ability, it was real to them, how =
>does that make a movie, that isn't real, any less than "realistic"?
If a movie is "real to them," what does that mean? Doesn't it mean that is was
effective? Or maybe that it successfully employed the conventions of
"realism," like hand held cameras and naturalistic dialogue?
>Blair Witch, is a good example. Its not even a real movie
Uh, it was recorded on film/tape, edited, and shown to an audience. That makes
it 100% a "real" movie, in your delightfully oxymoronic expression.
>, yet, whether =
>you want to believe it or not, since we are talking about this movie so =
>much, its a real movie, but the story is NOT real. The characters are =
>real, the forest was real... where is the lack of realism?
BWP does use the style of realism much more than other films you'll see at the
cineplex. That doesn't make it realistic. The characters are not real.
Heather was on Leno. If her character is "real," she should be dead. She
keeps filming up until the end, instead of dropping her camera and running.
Completely unrealistic, but neccessary for the film to exist. The forest we
see in the film is not "real" in the sense that it's not actually that remote.
While making the film, the actors came across roads, joggers, houses, etc.
That "realistic" stuff was ignored or edited out to make the film more
effetive.
I hope this makes sense. I didn't make any of these ideas up, by the way. I'm
just passing them along.
--Kevin
Kevin
>I know that I am jumping into the frying pan here,
Jump!
>but I just wanted to
>point out that the terms being bandied about are "realism" and in other
>cases "realist" or "realistic." Photographing something and showing it
>indeed removes it from "reality," but that does not make it not
>"realistic." I take realistic to mean that which is represented with a
>concern for the real or actual as distinguished from the abstract,
>speculative, etc. (props to Random House).
But projecting a 2-dimensional film on a huge screen or small TV creates rather
unreal images. I know Jerry Seinfeld is not really six inches tall, and that
Sean Connery isn't really 20 feet tall. But that's the way I usually see them.
Not a bit realistic, but we've been culturally conditioned to accept these
things. Bond films and "Seinfeld" are completely unrealistic, as are ALL films
and TV shows. Where's the fourth wall of Jerry's apartment? Isn't it a rather
abstract idea that we can watch people lives unseen?
>Realism is a mode of
>expression concerned with coming close to reality, creating an
>"ILLUSION of reality," as you [Nimrod] pointed out. Granted I am arguing
>semantics. So are you. I just want to point out that "realism"
>doesn't by nature claim to be real.
Agreed, I think. As I've mentioned elsewhere, "realism" is just one of the
styles available to filmmakers. Just because a film uses that style, doesn't
make the film any more realistic, because all films _by definition_ are
unrealistic.
>As for "stylization," hell I walk by Neiman Marcus everyday around
>lunch time, and it is a real place, but it is highly stylized. People,
>who are real, can be as highly "stylized" as a film, whether in their
>attire, hair style, etc..
Well, doesn't that hold true for anyplace? Walk into any high school, any
mall, any restaurant, any office building, even any Amish farm, and you'll see
people adhering to a style. That's society.
But when you see crooks and cops in a Michael Mann film wearing expensive
Armani suits that they could never afford in real life, that's stylization.
It's unreal. And that's one reason I like directors like Mann or Tarantino.
Style baby. And not a moment of realism.
>I just don't like the reaction against a term like "realism" that has a
>valuable role in the study and enjoyment of film.
Well, I have no problem with the term "realism." I just think it's important
to understand the distinction between "realism," which many films employ, and
"realistic," which no film is.
>Notions of realism
>consistently change and film history is full of examples of what people
>have considered to be realism. To dismiss the term outright is silly.
Yes. Fortunately, I don't think anyone has ("realism," that is).
>Rather, it is far more interesting to wonder why people view a
>relatively sappy actor like Tom Hanks as realistic while viewing
>someone like Marlene Dietrech as completely stylized. Obviously
>neither one of them is being "real" but our perceptions of their, yes,
>style defines what is considered "realism" not what is "real."
Agreed. I've said as much elsewhere. Show me a "realistic" actor, and I'll
show you someone who will be considered "stylized" in time.
--Kevin
"Plot is for pussies."
--from Filmnutboy's Movie Maxims
Dark_Valkyrie
already expressed my piece. I like your comments earlier :) Especially
about the hair thing, I didn't think about Neiman Marcus, but that is an
excellent point.
James Margaris <js...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:7qa4fa$1...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
Dark_Valkyrie
>
>
> You're confusing terms. We never said a film "can't have realism." We said
> movies aren't realistic, which is a slight but important difference. "Realism"
> is a style, which often changes over the years. Acting that looked "real" 50
> years ago can look incredibly stylized and "unreal" today. Undoubtedly,
> someone will look at "Raging Bull" in 30 years and think that DeNiro's
> performance is stagey and unconvincing. "Realism" is a convention, and it
> changes with popular tastes.
2.The representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form.
3.Philosophy. a. The scholastic doctrine, opposed to nominalism, that universals exist independently of their being thought. b. The modern philosophical doctrine, opposed to idealism, that physical objects exist independently of their being perceived.
> Filmmakers who want their films to appear to be "real" will use stylistic
> approaches that are conventionally accepted to convey "realism." But, being
> movies, the results are by definition unrealistic.
>
> >I subscribe to you, that if movie can make you live the =
> >events, real or imagined, then its done its job.
>
> Without a doubt. But "effective" and "realistic" are not the same things.
>
> >I don't understand how =
> >we can all discuss movies, and talk about how the events in the movie =
> >have a lasting effect, and yet, the "realistic" is not viable when =
> >describing a movie.
>
> Well, let's look at an example. "Schindler's List" is a movie that for many
> had a "lasting effect," as you put it. It certainly was effective for me: I
> cried several times in the theater when I was watching it.
>
> But would you describe "Schindler's List" as realistic? In my view,
> "Schindler's List" is an incredibly unrealistic movie. Why?
>
> 1. It's in black and white. Real life is in color.
> 2. Almost everyone talks in English, which is inaccurate.
> 3. There's music in the background. Real life doesn't have a soundtrack that
> suddenly swells up during significant moments.
> 4. The movie lasts only a couple hours. The war lasted years. If the movie
> was to be realistic, it would certainly have to show everything that happened,
> and not edit out the mundane.
> were absolutely realistic, Oskar Schindler should be portrayed by Oskar
> Schindler.
>
> and so on... (you could list many more unrealistic elements)
>
> I hope you get my point. It's a movie, so it can't really be realistic, though
> it can use "realism" as a style to make it effective.
>
> >Why do they have disclaimers at the end of a movie =
> >... "... the events and characters in this movie are not real. Any =
> >similarity to actual events and characters is purely coincidental." I =
> >may not have it exactly correct, but you know what I am referring to. I =
> >know that some movies are just fantasy, or movies are entertainment, but =
> >during the feature presentation we are enthralled and immersed in this =
> >film, and during a typical good movie, we get caught up in the action, =
> >drama, passion, suspense, mystery, and comedy, and you are going to tell =
> >me, that we can't call that realistic?
>
> You should call that effective, not realistic.
>
> >We jump when they accurately =
> >setup a scene, that takes you totally by surprise, and there is a loud =
> >noise or something moves across our vision in such a manner to jolt the =
> >senses. You are going to tell me that is not realistic?
>
> Yes, entirely unrealistic. But once again, it's effective.
>
> >Movies take us =
> >on a journey for 1 to 2 hours, in most cases, and we believe this =
> >journey (whether its real or not) for this amount of time.
>
> Yes. And believable is certainly not the same thing as realistic. Thousands
> of movies are believable (like, say, "Goodfellas") that are not realistic.
>
> >At the end =
> >of the movie, when we have to decide if what we saw was truth, or =
> >fiction, that's when we decide how much the movie had impact.
>
> No. No, no, no. I say again, no. As John Harkness says, "all films are
> fiction films."
>
> That doesn't mean that some films don't get at certain "truths," but that
> doesn't make them realistic. There's not a realistic moment in a movie like
> "The Sixth Sense," but that doesn't mean it doesn't explore certain truths of
> human existence, like accepting death.
>
> >If we can =
> >describe, decipher, speculate, and scrutinize a movie that isn't real, =
> >but yet some others can believe that through the wonders of technology, =
> >and the conveyance of genuine acting ability, it was real to them, how =
> >does that make a movie, that isn't real, any less than "realistic"?
>
> If a movie is "real to them," what does that mean? Doesn't it mean that is was
> effective? Or maybe that it successfully employed the conventions of
> "realism," like hand held cameras and naturalistic dialogue?
>
> >Blair Witch, is a good example. Its not even a real movie
>
> Uh, it was recorded on film/tape, edited, and shown to an audience. That makes
> it 100% a "real" movie, in your delightfully oxymoronic expression.
>
> >, yet, whether =
> >you want to believe it or not, since we are talking about this movie so =
> >much, its a real movie, but the story is NOT real. The characters are =
> >real, the forest was real... where is the lack of realism?
>
> BWP does use the style of realism much more than other films you'll see at the
> cineplex. That doesn't make it realistic. The characters are not real.
> Heather was on Leno. If her character is "real," she should be dead. She
> keeps filming up until the end, instead of dropping her camera and running.
> Completely unrealistic, but neccessary for the film to exist. The forest we
> see in the film is not "real" in the sense that it's not actually that remote.
> While making the film, the actors came across roads, joggers, houses, etc.
> That "realistic" stuff was ignored or edited out to make the film more
> effetive.
>
> I hope this makes sense. I didn't make any of these ideas up, by the way. I'm
> just passing them along.
>
> --Kevin
>
Jeff McCloud
> Jeff McCloud jeff_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
> But projecting a 2-dimensional film on a huge screen or small TV
creates rather
> unreal images. I know Jerry Seinfeld is not really six inches tall,
and that
> Sean Connery isn't really 20 feet tall. But that's the way I usually
see them.
> Not a bit realistic, but we've been culturally conditioned to accept
these
> things. Bond films and "Seinfeld" are completely unrealistic, as are
ALL films
> and TV shows. Where's the fourth wall of Jerry's apartment? Isn't
it a rather
> abstract idea that we can watch people lives unseen?
I don't think we are disagreeing on much. I guess it is only in the
use of the word "realistic" that problems rear their head. I am happy
to say you got your definition and I got mine. Mine, if you missed,
would be that that which is realistic is tha which resembles or
simulates real life. It is far from real, hell if it was real it would
be called real and not realistic. That's all.
> >Realism is a mode of
> >expression concerned with coming close to reality, creating an
> >"ILLUSION of reality," as you [Nimrod] pointed out. Granted I am
arguing
> >semantics. So are you. I just want to point out that "realism"
> >doesn't by nature claim to be real.
>
> Agreed, I think. As I've mentioned elsewhere, "realism" is just one
of the
> styles available to filmmakers. Just because a film uses that style,
doesn't
> make the film any more realistic, because all films _by definition_
are
> unrealistic.
See here is a perfect example. Everywhere you use the word realistic
or unrealistic, I would simply use real or unreal.
> But when you see crooks and cops in a Michael Mann film wearing
expensive
> Armani suits that they could never afford in real life, that's
stylization.
> It's unreal. And that's one reason I like directors like Mann or
Tarantino.
> Style baby. And not a moment of realism.
I would never claim these two cats as purveyors of a realist aesthetic
any more than Tim Burton or Joe Dante. But if I think about a stylized
film like LATE AUGUST, EARLY SEPTEMBER to bring up a recent film, I
would have to say that this film at moments is very realistic in its
treatment of actors and observational impulses.
Plus now that I have seen THE MATRIX and eXisTenZ, I don't even know if
I am real, but I sure as fuck hope that when folks see me I am
realistic.
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>styles available to filmmakers. Just because a film uses that style, doesn't
>make the film any more realistic, because all films _by definition_ are
>unrealistic.
These meaningless semantic arguments drive me crazy. I should not get
involved. But I do.
I have to agree with the many people who have stated that this argument
doesn't make sense. Other people have pointed this out, and it seems like you
and Nimrod don't address it - films by definition are *not real*. But realistic
does not mean that they are real. It means that they create the illusion of
being real, and since we don't watch Seinfeld thinking of him as a six foot
tall 2 dimensional man trapped in a box, the possibility of creating that
illusion is there.
Even if you don't agree with this definition, don't you realize that it is
the definition of "realistic" that everyone else uses when they say that a film
is "realistic"? You realize, don't you, that they don't mean that Seinfeld is
6" tall? So why do you object to what they're saying?
Also, many people have asked - if a movie that seems real is not "realistic",
then what *is* realistic? Please give us some examples so we know what the hell
you guys are talking about.
It seems to me like you're trying to argue that nothing is realistic, in
which case I'd like to know why they made up the word.
--Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
"I would like to thank all the rappers I influenced and helped out on their
albums by giving them the inspiration to use my concepts." --Kool Keith, Black
Elvis liner notes
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>The fact that I realize it is a
>stylized art form, just like a rendered painting or a piece of music,
>does not in any way deprive me of enjoying it; which I've been doing
>quite extensively----I daresay more extensively than you---for many
>years now, utilizing an imagination
<snip>
What I don't understand is why you think that there's anyone who doesn't
realize that movies are stylized and not real. I mean, I guess I wouldn't put
it past Steve Carras, but other than that...
It seems to me like you're stating the obvious (movies are not real life) and
then pretending that people like Dark Valkyrie here don't agree with you, and
using it as a badge of honor. The disagreement here is on the meaning of
"realistic", in which case I think I have to agree with Dark Valkyrie, despite
his incredibly corny screen name.
Dark_Valkyrie
>
> suggest you go read the more extensive responses to your point in the
> original thread you made them---the "Movies To Judge People By"
> thread.
No, I don't need to read the responses, I know what I said. Its you
that doesn't know what the fuck you are talking about. I still say, you
have done nothing to convince me that movies are not realistic. Again, you
still avoid the question. I guess you don't have any arguments, except to
lean on your boyfriend, Kevin.
>
> See below...
>
> >Maybe you would do
> >yourself some good, if you use your imagination sometime, and experience
a
> >movie, rather than going to a theater, and just sitting there watching
> >grains of pixels dancing on white screen, combining to form an illusion
of
> >sound or people. You have a hard time having fun, don't you? I bet you
sit
> >at a bar and just drink to drown whatever it is you are seeking to avoid,
> >and then drive home. You just haven't managed to kill anyone ... *YET*.
> >Maybe, they will make a movie about you, then I can say, yeah, that was
an
> >illusion of a drunk, killing an illusionary family of four. Its sad, but
> >the families those lives are gone from, all they have is home movies,
> >pictures, and dreams past of the times they REALLY shared. You are
> >pathetic. Maybe you need to stylize your keyboard or find a hobby,
because
> >you have no imagination.
>
>
> You're just making an ass out of yourself when you make these
> statements. You don't know me and you don't have any grasp of my
> immense love for the film experience. The fact that I realize it is a
> stylized art form, just like a rendered painting or a piece of music,
> does not in any way deprive me of enjoying it; which I've been doing
> quite extensively----I daresay more extensively than you---for many
> years now, utilizing an imagination that is quite healthy, thank you
> very much, both for viewing film and my own creative works.
I don't have to, you are an idiot. That's all I need to know, and
that's all I want to know. I just want to be sure, that next time I seen
any or your posts, I know to consider the source.
>
> Just for the record, I have over 14,000 movie titles in my private
> collection, and I bet I experience and enter into the world of more
> movies in one month than you do in a year.
Hmm, you tell me, I don't know you, yet you make an assumption (and you
know what they say about making an assumption, you make an ass out of you
and umption) that you profess to experience more in a month, than what I do
in a year? Ha! I doubt that, little man. I may not have the same (for
lack of a better word) tastes (if that's what you call someone like you,
that may have some sort of interest in movies) as you, but don't *ever* make
a general statement like that, without knowing who you are dealing with.
You preach the gospel, but yet, you just stick your big, dumb ass foot in
your mouth with that statement, buddy boy. Nice work, hope you like sole .
. .
Someone who distances
> themselves from the movie experience and only experiences it as film
> grains or digital pixels would hardly have spent years amassing such a
> collection our of sheer love for these films and their power.
Power, yet no realism, so why collect them? So you can gloat about your
extensively large collection of grains and digital pixels? whoopie.. I am
glad you have so many movies. Just proves my point, over the years you have
become jaded. That's all. They are nothing but a collection, and probably
collect dust. Something to showoff as some center piece to when you are
entertaining your piers, that's wonderful.
>
> You're the one that's pathetic and unimaginative; first of all for
> leaping to such neanderthal assumptions, and second for lacking the
> imagination or intellectual flexibility to grasp the underlying
> stylization which any reproduction of an image on film lends to its
> subject.
I have an imagination, just like the rest of the people in this
newsgroup, that's why we watch movies for what they are, and don't
scrutinize them like Ebert. I have the interest in movies for what they
are, art on screen. Imagination and realistic impressions of a writer.
They are entertainment, evidently you have some limited mind that can't let
yourself grasp that concept. I will tell you the same thing, I said to the
other freak, learn the difference in definitions between, real, realism, and
realistic. A likeness to a real events, that's all realistic means. Every
movie has realistic intentions, that's why they are so dramatic.
>
> Truth be known, the reason people really love movies is BECAUSE they
> are unreal, because they create an illusion and render situations that
> appear to be realistic and lifelike in stylized, better-than-reality
> tones.
NOPE, you are aboslutely wrong. People didn't watch movies like Titanic
because they are a fable, sometimes they watch movies like that, because
they want to know what may have really happened. Oh, and so now you are an
authority and what everyone loves? Get the fuck out of here. We don't
always attend a movie, just for pure fantasy, you dipshit.
Dark_Valkyrie
Nimrod`` <nim...@go-c.com> wrote in message
news:37fb560c....@news2.usenetserver.com...
> On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 11:06:18 -0400, "Dark_Valkyrie"
> <Dark_V...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Really? Are you sure about that?
> It's also sad to see that this Valkyrie is another one of those little
> boys too dumb and immature to know the true meaning of my name; maybe
> he should try looking it up the centuries-old definition in his
> beloved dictionary sometime instead of relying upon childish slang
> usage of recent years.
I did. And, while I don't care about the true meaning of the word, I
was referring to the slang terminology. So he started Babel, I think you
are more befitting of the slang word, a dimwitted, dumb ass. Because you
are certainly no "great one of the earth."
Dark_Valkyrie
> Indeed, you are, Kevin. And very well, I might add. I particularly
> like your reference to certain folks'...ahem..."oxymoronic
> expression".
Awww, how sweet, they compliment each other in public. Yes, well, birds
of a feather... Are you guys pumping each other? I think you two should be
married. You have the same lack of intellect, and probably have the same
taste in stylistic clothes..
>
> Yes, as John said, all films are fiction films....
Oh, so are documentaries fiction too? Well, I am sure the society of
motion pictures would be glad to know that non-fiction biographies and
documentaries are fiction as well. Oh wait, you will probably next tell me
that documentaries are not film, they are just some other type of stylistic,
illusion on the silver screen.
Dark_Valkyrie
I also like how you conveniently extracted the phrase that totally
agrees with your side, but yet just dismissed the rest of what John said..
that's very interesting. Maybe when you learn to understand human language
better, you will be more apt to take the whole idea, and not the parts that
just agree with you.
peacel
> It's also sad to see that this Valkyrie is another one of those
> little boys too dumb and immature to know the true meaning of
> my name; maybe he should try looking it up the centuries-old
> definition in his beloved dictionary sometime instead of relying
> upon childish slang usage of recent years.
Nimrod, you have to admit that you bring much of this on yourself. If I
was named John Jackass, and I went around Usenet posting things that
often times made it seem like I was going out of my way to piss people
off, and I signed them all "Jackass", or "J.", I think I'd be prepared
to hear from a few people telling me that, "Boy, you got that right -
you *are* a jackass."
--
Dickheaded Asshole (also my real name)
Regina Alexandra Robbins
film CONTENT and film STYLE in this thread?
That is, there are two levels on which one might judge a film to be
"realistic" or not. For example, SCHINDLER'S LIST, as has been brought up
before, has a realistic story (even though certain events have been
changed for dramamtic purposes, that merely makes the film "fiction," not
"unrealistic." Nothing happens in it that would be literally impossible).
It also has, in terms of form, a realistic shooting style -- that is, it
conforms to the classic narrative rule of keeping the viewer from becoming
aware of the film craft. Its one deviation from this rule is in its
black and white photography, which while unrealistic (ie life is in
color), is used to evoke a period of time which is often seen in cinema
itself in b&w. Spielberg used this bit of stylization, ironically, to
make a historical event more tangible, if not more real, for the audience.
Then there is ET, a film with a highly unrealistic story. However, its
style is even more realistic than SL's, in that the photography is color.
Even though it uses effects to make its unrealistic story BELIEVABLE (eg
flying bikes), that does not make the form we see on screen unrealistic.
Nobody, it seems, has brought up films which are not even narrative. The
films of Brakhage, Baille, Dulac, Deren, and those brave people. Are
these films realistic or unrealistic in terms of content? How about form?
Or does the argument become irrelevant when narrative (fiction or non)
leaves the picture?
RAR.
_________________________________________________
"As Chubsy Ubsy of OUR GANG used to say, What ho!
Bring on the dancing girls!" -- Michael Atkinson
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
>reading this, or just skimming over the parts you don't want to read, =
>ALL want to create a realistic experience, which will have an affect on =
>people experiencing it.
ALL artists strive for a realistic experience? Really?
Are you saying that you find Pablo Picasso's paintings to be especially
realistic? If so, you really need to have a thorough eye examination and a
CAT-scan.
Picasso was quite certainly not aiming for realism - if anything, cubism
emphasizes the inherently unrealistic effect of viewing a painting. The very
style reminds the viewer that the painting is merely a two-dimensional
rendering of a three-dimensional object.
>I suggest you show me on the =
>internet, where you see any filmmaker, writer, producer, or artist, that =
>doesn't ever refer to their work as being anything other than trying to =
>portray "realistic" appearances or events.
I suggest you go to any encyclopedia (on-line or otherwise) and look up the
word "surrealism." The very aim of surrealism was to create an unrealistic
effect.
>I didn't see it, NEXT! But, you don't call that effect the movie =
>had on you, real? Either you are lying about the fact that you shed a =
>tear or two, or you were caught up in the mood of the theater, and you =
>just went along with everyone else.
Yes, the effect was real. The movie had a very real effect on the viewer. But
the movie in and of itself is not "realistic."
>Yes, but back in the 50's movies were shot in black on white.
>That's because they didn't want the entire movie in subtitles, you =
>moron.
Yes, there are reasons why it's not realistic. But the fact that there are
reasons why doesn't make it any more realistic.
>Oh yes it can. A movie that is not realistic, doesn't have a such a =
>dramatic affect on people. PERIOD.
Oh, I don't know...Luis Buñuel's "Un Chien Andalou" (about as far from a
"realistic" movie as you can possibly get) seems to have a very dramatic effect
on those who watch it.
> You should try reading the dictionary sometime, you have no idea =
>what effective, realistic, realism, and real means. Go away, and come =
>back, when you learn the difference.
>
Uh, what's that phrase about the pot and the kettle?
>Nimrod (which is a good name for you as well)
As I'm sure you'll learn, that wasn't an especially bright thing to say...
>but they were done in a realistic manner
"Done in a realistic manner" and "realistic" are two very, very different
things. By the way, pointless vulgarity is an especially effective method of
getting your point across - it makes you look real, like, you know, smart and
stuff.
-Gordon Stokes
Other notable Gordons include: Flash Gordon, Commissioner Gordon, Gordon Jump,
Gordon Lightfoot, Gordon "Gordie" Howe, G. Gordon Liddy, Artemus Gordon, Gale
Gordon, General "Chinese" Gordon and "Gordon" by Barenaked Ladies.
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
>
> Oh, so are documentaries fiction too? Well, I am sure the society of
>motion pictures would be glad to know that non-fiction biographies and
>documentaries are fiction as well. Oh wait, you will probably next tell me
>that documentaries are not film, they are just some other type of stylistic,
>illusion on the silver screen.
The quote that set you off may (or may not) be something of an exaggeration,
but it's essentially true.
A documentary is always a filtered view of the film's subject. The
documentarian makes choices about what material is presented, how it is
presented, and so on. The makers of "Hoop Dreams" edited the film in such a
way that it had as much narrative as any film written by a screenwriter (and
more narrative than films written by many writers). They made many, many
stylistic choices from beginning to end of the project, from who their subjects
were, how they set up their various shots, who they interviewed, which footage
made the final cut of the film, the music, and many, many other things.
Documentaries may not be "fiction," in the way we normally think of the word,
but they are also not actual, real life.
As far as "non-fiction biographies" go...I assume you're talking about films
like "Patton," "Malcolm X" or "The People vs. Larry Flynt." There are quite
certainly not non-fiction. These are works of fiction based on actual people
and events.
James Margaris
>On 29 Aug 1999 20:37:38 GMT, frank...@aol.com (Mr. Bryan
>Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
[clip]
Gaah! WHAT IS REALISTIC BUT NOT REAL? Give a freaking example! "Realistic"
does NOT mean real, if it did we wouldn't need the word. It means "like real,"
obviously not like in every way but like in many ways.
Schindler's List: More realistic than most movies, in terms of events,
characters, motivations, etc, but I could see this not being too realistic
really. However...
Security camera tape: This is as realistic as things get without actually
being there yourself. If instead of the camera you used your eyes and were
present you would see almost EXACTLY the same thing.
You haven't come up with any example of something that is realistic but not
real. Until that happens you have no argument. If your argument turns out to
be "only real things are realistic" then you need some serious english
language comprehension skills.
One can argue that realistic is a relative term. So, compared to many movies
Shindler's List might be realistic; if you are clever you might argue that it
is relative to the best possbile scenario, so that anything stylized at all is
not very realistic. Even if we accept this (which is dangerously close to
realistic = real) please point out how a security tape could be made more
realistic.
If your argument is that "realistic" cannot be applied to books, movies, etc,
because of their very nature, then what pray tell do we apply the word
"realistic" to? "Boy, me eating that steak sure seemed realistic!"
Answer direct questions or get out of town.
James M
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
>that documentaries are not film, they are just some other type of stylistic,
>illusion on the silver screen.
By the way...
Film, or more accurately "motion pictures" is by its very nature a "stylistic
illusion on the silver screen." You see motion because you are being tricked
into seeing motion.
Yet another reason that no film is truly "realistic."
Reagen Sulewski
wrote:
Agreed, it puzzles me that -everyone- is suppossed to recognize a
reference to a word that has changed meaning 50 years ago, and
probably wasn't well recognized even at the time. Norse mythology
being so prevalent in American society as it is.
Reagen Sulewski
>On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:52:39 GMT, rsul...@home.com (Reagen Sulewski)
>wrote:
>It's not from Norse mythology; it's a Hebrew name from the Bible and
>the meaning didn't change 50 years ago; the slang usage came into
>being during the Seventies because---as Stephen Thompson so eloquently
>explained in this ng not long ago---kids watching Bugs Bunny cartoons
>where Elmer Fudd used the term ironically in reference to Elmer Fudd
>because Fudd was a pitiful hunter and Nimrod was a great hunter were
>too dumb or naive to get the joke and mistook it for a negative term.
Ah, I misread your explanation, I only got interested about the time
someone said Bugs Bunny. :) Somehow I brought Norse mythology (What's
Opera, Doc?) into it. Still my point stands, just how many people know
Hebrew? This sort of thing came up earlier with you, the "What does a
tooth look like" discussion in regards to Blair Witch. I don't think
it was that common knowledge.
>
>The irony being that people using the term that way were the dumb
>ones...
Seems pretty obscure to me. I don't think 'dumb' is neccesarily the
right term here. Though D-K may or may not be dumb, not knowing this
particular factoid doesn't really bear any relevance to me on this
matter. I consider myself fairly bright, upper percentaile in HS and
all that. I'd never heard of the historical context of the meaning of
the word until it was brought up in this NG. Doesn't make me dumb. I
think you're placing too much importance on the knowledge of this as a
litmus test for brightness. It's all your background. I could use some
test of Canadian PM's as my test and get the same results. Now whether
I'd have used Nimrod as an insult in the first place, you might have a
point there, but then that's just not my style.
>
>And obviously the meaning of the name was well recognized in the
>Forties and Fifties when those Warner Brothers cartoons were made,
>otherwise the ironic reference to Fudd as "Nimrod" wouldn't have made
>sense to them then.
I miss the occasional reference to NY locations in Seinfeld, as I'm
sure would most people who don't get to NY that often. Doesn't mean
that it wouldn't be funny to people from NY or wouldn't have been put
in there.
>
>But the true meaning of the name Nimrod has not changed at all; you
>won't even find the slang usage in the dictionary.
There's a lot of words in the dictionary I've never heard of.
schrodinger's damon
Nimrod`` wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:43:30 -0400, "Dark_Valkyrie"
> <Dark_V...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > OK, in a thread later in this news group, someone had the comment, a realistic movie is an oxymoron.
> >I think this is ridiculous, because a movie can be based on truth, and other movies are factual accounts
> >in the form of a documentary. So, a movie about such real events,
> >based solely on the premise that a "movie" can't have "realism", is preposterous.
>
> I posted this in response to you in the other thread, but---in case
> you don't see it there---I'll paste the explanation here as well.
>
> Why, as Kevin so wisely includes in his sig, is "realistic movie" an
> oxymoron?
>
why, for the same reason 'realistic painting' is!
because paintings can never ever look realistic!
and for the same reason 'realistic photograph' is!
because photographs can never be realistic.
in fact, those doctored phots that have an escalator over a river
are just as real as my photos of the zoo!
and neither is more realistic, because photos can;'t BE realistic!
in fact, ONLY real things can be realistic!
--
It seems that some people think a white man running for mayor
in the majority black city of Baltimore is a racist act.
schrodinger's damon
Kevin wrote:
> Well, I have no problem with the term "realism." I just think it's important
> to understand the distinction between "realism," which many films employ, and
> "realistic," which no film is.
>
to make this perfectly clear:
you are using the term 'realistic' when you should be using the term 'real'.
to make an anology, no movie is interminable, or goes on forever.
no movie is a piece of trash [when you see it]
no movie is made with actors 'who can't act'.
etc etc.
schrodinger's damon
Kevin wrote:
> ...Filmmakers who want their films to appear to be "real" will use stylistic
> approaches that are conventionally accepted to convey "realism." But, being
> movies, the results are by definition unrealistic.
>
you are using terms inccorrectly.
the movies are unreal.
the movies Can be realistic.
> BWP does use the style of realism much more than other films you'll see at the
> cineplex. That doesn't make it realistic. The characters are not real.
> Heather was on Leno. If her character is "real," she should be dead.
incorrect.
if the PLOT were real, she would be dead.
the character could be real.
i say this merely because your entire post
is semantical niggling, and if you're going to be pedantic, then use terms
correctly.
> She
> keeps filming up until the end, instead of dropping her camera and running.
> Completely unrealistic, but neccessary for the film to exist.
why is it unrealistic?
she had valid 'real' reasons for filming up until
the very moment she starts running down the stairs,
and then she oculd juist as well forget she's carrying the thing.
schrodinger's damon
Nimrod`` wrote:
> On 29 Aug 1999 20:37:38 GMT, frank...@aol.com (Mr. Bryan
> Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
>
> >>Agreed, I think. As I've mentioned elsewhere, "realism" is just one of the
> >>styles available to filmmakers. Just because a film uses that style, doesn't
> >>make the film any more realistic, because all films _by definition_ are
> >>unrealistic.
> >
> > These meaningless semantic arguments drive me crazy. I should not get
> >involved. But I do.
> > I have to agree with the many people who have stated that this argument
> >doesn't make sense. Other people have pointed this out, and it seems like you
> >and Nimrod don't address it - films by definition are *not real*.
>
> A film is a real thing. A tangible, celluloid object which can be run
> through a projector. One's personal experience watching a movie is
> real. But a film's imagery and evocations are not realistic; little
> is outside of life itself, especially not movies. "Realistic" is one
> of the most abused terms in the English language, right up there with
> "great" and "genius".
>
so not only do you redefine the term to meet your own personal
pedantic glory, you then accuse anyone using correctly
of abusing it.
you are dumber than regina.
>
> Yes, Brian, "realistic" is indeed an adjective. But the point is best
> exemplified by Kevin's observations about SCHINDLER'S LIST, a film
> often called "realistic" by folks who think realism to be something to
> aspire to in film---when film stylizes by its very nature, the
> opposite of realism. But how can a film like SCHINDLER'S LIST be
> truly realistic when it portrays a black and white world (with a
> little girl passing through occasionally with her red-tinted coat)
> with music constantly rising and swelling in the background while most
> everybody speaks English to each other in Germany, Oskar Schindler now
> looks and speaks just like the actor Liam Neeson, while the actual
> events have not only been changed and altered, composite characters
> created, but these events that transpired over several years manage to
> be compressed and unfold within three hours and five minutes?
>
and how , how HOW, can a movie ever EVER be termed "long" when
the universe has existed for billions of years???
schrodinger's damon
Nimrod`` wrote:
there's a lot of nimrodish shit i clipped, because i don't care to respond to
every bit
of braggadasio or
hyperbole or inaccuracy of his.
but this gets to the crux:
> Truth be known, the reason people really love movies is BECAUSE they
> are unreal,
unreal/= the opposite of realistic.
easy:
real-unreal
realistic-unrealistic.
until you can separate real from realistic, you are not going to understand
english well, no matter how many movies you have.
schrodinger's damon
Nimrod`` wrote:
>
>
> Indeed, you are, Kevin. And very well, I might add. I particularly
> like your reference to certain folks'...ahem..."oxymoronic
> expression".
>
a man who thinks himself intellignet, and yet decides
that it's a good diea to post an entire huge message and then
tack this itty bit on the end of it.
schrodinger's damon
"Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia" wrote:
> >Oh wait, you will probably next tell me
> >that documentaries are not film, they are just some other type of stylistic,
> >illusion on the silver screen.
>
> By the way...
>
> Film, or more accurately "motion pictures" is by its very nature a "stylistic
> illusion on the silver screen." You see motion because you are being tricked
> into seeing motion.
>
> Yet another reason that no film is truly "realistic."
please use words in their correct definitions when correcting people.
Kevin
>You really should learn to compose sentences better, and not try to be a
>writer, you keep contradicting yourself.
Isn't this great? Everyone _except_ "Dark Valkyrie" probably enjoys the irony
of his awkward and ungrammatical sentences.
Hint for DV: you should really have a semi-colon after "writer," or insert
"since" after the second comma. When you go back to school next week, pay more
attention in English class.
--Kevin
"Realistic movie" is an oxymoron.
peacel
> Explain to me, please, how "I was going out of my way to piss people
> off" by making a one line compliment to Kevin about the "'Realistic
> movie' is an oxymoron" quote in his sig?
I wasn't referring to this thread, but all the threads you've posted in
in which people pulled out the nimrod insult. I've noticed that heated
arguments bordering on flame wars tend to follow you around -- mostly,
I suspect, because of your debate style -- and so it seems odd that you
would then choose not to post under your full name or a fictional name,
but under a fragment of your real name that is essentially just bait
for insults.
Or, to quote Mr. Thom Yorke: You do it to yourself. Just you. You and
no one else.
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
"Something that has always bugged me is how, at the end, ... Chunk
tells Sloth that he's going to live with him now. But I always ask
myself, why didn't Chunk ask Mom and Dad first? Would they really
want a gigantic Sloth creature living in their house? I see this as
a serious flaw in an otherwise perfect film."
-cole...@my-deja.com on THE GOONIES
Kevin
>I love it. Dark Valkyrie is so confused in his cranium that he's
>answering his own questions and comments from his own previous post
>and doesn't even realize it.....
Yes, it is amusing. But my own cranium is starting to hurt, because I feel
like I've been debating Forrest Gump. How can one present a rational argument
to the irrational?
I never wanted to be a teacher--didn't have the patience. But now I understand
how grade school teachers must feel, especially those kind souls teaching
"special needs" children.
Kevin
>>"Realistic movie" is an oxymoron.
>> --from Filmnutboy's Movie Maxims
>Boy, has that ever turned out to be a pesky quote.
You can say that again. But it sparked an interesting debate, IMO, which is
what I think newsgroups are all about.
In a way, I'm grateful for "Dark Valkyrie" for initiating this debate over my
little quote.
But it was a big disappointment to find out that he's just an immature
schoolboy who can't discuss ideas without name calling.
Oh well. I guess we should send him back to the kids' table until he
demonstrates the ability to act like a grownup.
Kevin
>1) A movie, in and of itself is real. You can touch it, it has real actors,
>for the most part, it has music, it has all the things that compose a real
>drama.
Do you simply type the first thing that comes into your head without thinking?
Seems that way. Gordon and Nimrod have already pointed out some of the
absurdity of your statements, but let me expand.
You CANNOT touch a movie. You can touch a screen, you can touch a piece of
plastic that the film is recorded on, you can touch an actor or a prop, and you
can put your hand in the light from a projector. But you can't touch a movie.
Real life doesn't have a music soundtrack playing on an unseen stereo system.
Yet you seem to think that music is one of the things that makes movies a "real
drama." (Another delighful oxymoron.) You're like Yogi Berra--you don't know
what you're saying, but it's funny to everyone else.
>Just because it hasn't happened, or because you can't touch the
>experiences from the actors point of view, because you weren't there,
>doesn't mean it doesn't have a value, in a real sense, to someone.
Uh, we've been saying that all along, Einstein.
>2) Depictions in a movie are often times loosely based on a dream or
>something that a writer sees. He may not accurately describe the events,
>because he can't remember, but he takes what he experiences in a dream (a
>realistic experience), and thus transform it on screen.
Dreams are "a realistic experience"? You may need some therapy.
(snipping irrelevent stuff)
> I
>don't give a flying rats a**, what other people think of photography,
>because films are much more than a "captured image" on a plastic canvass,
>its real motion, real people, and real work.
It's probably news to you that there is no actual motion on the movie screen.
Movies are simply a series of still photographs, projected rapidly. Any
movement is an illusion. But for you, illusion=real, so I'm sure this fact is
of no consequence to you.
>Paintings during the caveman days, are drawings, and imagery from times
>past, and sometimes its all historians have to recreate the past. And you
>still believe, they are not realistic?
Yes, if you've ever seen any cave drawings, which I seriously doubt, you'd
realize they're not in the least realistic. That doens't mean they're not
beautiful, or historically valuable.
>You hide behind this shroud of
>"filmmakers" like you want to be a part of their society, but I happen to
>know a few filmmakers...
I have no idea what you're referring to here. When did I (or Nimrod, if you
mean him) hide behind filmmakers?
By the way, I've written and directed 3 short films. This limited experience
doesn't make me an expert on anything, however. There are many people reading
this who know much more about film than I do. You're not one of them, however.
> and they totally disagree that films are not
>realistic.
And these filmmakers are? (high school boys with camcorders don't count).
So, do you think that guys like David Lynch or Luis Bunuel (who? I can hear you
say) set out to make realistic films?
>So, this brings up a question, why the hell are you on this
>newsgroup? If movies are not realistic, then why are we discussing movies?
Because being "realistic" has nothing whatsoever with the entertainment or
artistic value of a film. You should really crack open a art theory or film
theory book sometime, when your reading comprehension level improves a bit. I
reccommend "Understanding Movies" by Louis Giannetti as a good primer.
>If movies are NOT realistic, then what are they?
Movies.
Kevin
> No, I don't need to read the responses, I know what I said. Its you
>that doesn't know what the fuck you are talking about.
"Logic 101" time. DV says he doen't read our responses, and yet he knows that
we don't know what we're talking about. The scary part is, I'm sure this makes
sense to him!
> I guess you [Nimrod] don't have any arguments, except to
>lean on your boyfriend, Kevin.
Nimrod is not my boyfriend. We've already established in another thread that I
have no interest in him in that regard unless he looks like Jennifer Lopez.
In the short time that I've been hanging out in Usenet, Nimrod and I don't
always agree. When we don't, we may debate. That is, we present arguments and
counter arguments, without calling each other names. This is how grownups
exchange ideas. Look into it.
> I will tell you the same thing, I said to the
>other freak, learn the difference in definitions between, real, realism, and
>realistic.
Uh, we've offered different definitions for these word and how they are used by
those who study film. You just assume they all mean the same thing.
>Every
>movie has realistic intentions, that's why they are so dramatic.
Yogi Berra is at it again.
>People didn't watch movies like Titanic
>because they are a fable, sometimes they watch movies like that, because
>they want to know what may have really happened.
Bullshit. If this was true, a special on the Discovery channel would be as
popular as Cameron's film. Every educated person already knew what happened on
the Titanic. The movie made millions in part because many enjoyed the
melodramatic love story (between two fictional characters).
> Oh, and so now you are an
>authority and [sic] what everyone loves?
No. But you claim to be.
Kevin
>> Artists, game creators, and writers ALL, are you =
>>reading this, or just skimming over the parts you don't want to read, =
>>ALL want to create a realistic experience, which will have an affect on =
>>people experiencing it.
>ALL artists strive for a realistic experience? Really?
>Are you saying that you find Pablo Picasso's paintings to be especially
>realistic? If so, you really need to have a thorough eye examination and a
>CAT-scan.
Gordon, you're making the assumption that Dark Valkyrie has actually seen a
Picasso painting. He obviously has not, based on his comments.
>Picasso was quite certainly not aiming for realism
Well then, by DV's criteria, his paintings have no value.
>>I didn't see it, NEXT! But, you don't call that effect the movie =
>>had on you, real? Either you are lying about the fact that you shed a =
>>tear or two, or you were caught up in the mood of the theater, and you =
>>just went along with everyone else.
>Yes, the effect was real. The movie had a very real effect on the viewer.
>But
>the movie in and of itself is not "realistic."
We can keep trying, but he can't get this distinction through his head.
>>Oh yes it can. A movie that is not realistic, doesn't have a such a =
>>dramatic affect on people. PERIOD.
>Oh, I don't know...Luis Buñuel's "Un Chien Andalou" (about as far from a
>"realistic" movie as you can possibly get) seems to have a very dramatic
>effect
>on those who watch it.
Of course, DV's never heard of Buñuel. Personally, I was wincing for _several
days_ after seeing UN CHIEN (the eyeball scene, of course).
Kevin
>> Indeed, you are, Kevin. And very well, I might add. I particularly
>> like your reference to certain folks'...ahem..."oxymoronic
>> expression".
> Awww, how sweet, they compliment each other in public. Yes, well, birds
>of a feather... Are you guys pumping each other? I think you two should be
>married. You have the same lack of intellect, and probably have the same
>taste in stylistic clothes..
Well, I've never seen Nimrod, but he probably wears too much spandex for my
tastes. :-)
> Oh, so are documentaries fiction too? Well, I am sure the society of
>motion pictures would be glad to know that non-fiction biographies and
>documentaries are fiction as well. Oh wait, you will probably next tell me
>that documentaries are not film, they are just some other type of stylistic,
>illusion on the silver screen.
Funny you mention that. I know a guy who often says, "There is no such thing
as a documentary."
Must be an idiot, huh?
Actually, he's a film professor. And he teaches the documentary class. In
fact, the _point_ of the class, in which you see many of the great
documentaries in film history, is to demonstrate that there is no such thing as
a documentary. (Once again, this is much like Harkness's saying that "All
films are fiction films.") Many of you reading this know what this means. DV,
I'm sure, is not one of them.
Kevin
posts where you've already said it. What's a guy to do?
drzai...@aol.comWAFFLES (Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia) wrote:
>>Oh wait, you will probably next tell me
>>that documentaries are not film, they are just some other type of stylistic,
>>illusion on the silver screen.
>
>By the way...
>
>Film, or more accurately "motion pictures" is by its very nature a "stylistic
>illusion on the silver screen." You see motion because you are being tricked
>into seeing motion.
>
>Yet another reason that no film is truly "realistic."
>
--Kevin
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
you address anyone else's posts. Did you ever answer the much-asked question,
"If movies cannot be realistic, what can be realistic?" By your definition of
realistic, it seems that there is nothing that the word can ever be applied to.
I'm also wondering why you and Nimrod think this is such an important issue.
You know that when someone says that Secrets and Lies is realistic they don't
mean that it is reality, but that it reminds them of reality.
Do you see a real importance to this issue, or are you just being
preposterously literal in order to infuriate people?
--Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
mp3s from Buckethead's upcoming album: www.cyberoctave.com
new design coming soon: www.bucketheadland.com
Kevin
> Kevin, you've had a lot of fun with Dark Valkyrie, but I haven't ever seen
>you address anyone else's posts.
Actually, I've addressed posts from Gordon and McCloud. I haven't, until now,
addressed your posts (or James M.) because I've been thinking about the issues
you guys have raised. Unlike DV, I actually like to think about things before
posting them!
>Did you ever answer the much-asked question,
>"If movies cannot be realistic, what can be realistic?" By your definition of
>realistic, it seems that there is nothing that the word can ever be applied
>to.
That's an excellent point that you and James have made. Here's a short example
which illustrates my position:
Have you ever seen plastic fruit? You know, the stuff people sometimes put in
bowls on their table (why, I don't know). Sometimes, that stuff can look so
real that people actually reach for it, thinking that they're picking up, say,
a real apple. But it's not real, of course. They were fooled because, at a
glance, it looked realistic, and was sitting in a place where real apples
sometimes sit.
Plastic apples can be realistic. (I think Satre said that first). So we don't
need to throw the word "realistic" out. But I don't think there are films that
can be realistic. Since we _know_ it's a film, we already know the apple is
plastic, so to speak.
Now, we could do a direct comparison, though I doubt you'd be satisfied with
this: Have you ever saw an apple on TV or on a movie screen that you thought
was so real, you almost reached for it? Of course not. The nature of
film/tape (and the social rituals involved with viewing them) is such that
you're never actually fooled. That's because filmed apples aren't really
realistic. They are a 2-dimensional, imprecise representation of apples
created with stuff like light, plastic, and chemicals. In fact, everything you
see on a movie screen is this kind of image.
> I'm also wondering why you and Nimrod think this is such an important
>issue.
I can't speak for Nimrod, but here's my reason. I love movies (thus my screen
name), and I like to talk intelligently with intelligent people about movies.
But, in relationship to films, "realistic" is such a problematic adjective
that, in order to avoid confusion, it should not be applied to films in
intelligent conversation (unless certain ground rules are understood by all,
i.e. that "realism" is a style and can as artificial as Expressionism).
Have you ever heard someone call a film like "Schindler's List" realistic? I
previously listed about a half dozen elements of the film which were utterly
unrealistic. So how could we call the film realistic? Now, if someone said
the film contained "elements of realism," or "realistic elements," don't you
see how that is a very different thing than saying the _film_ is realistic?
Now, James mentioned the surveillance film as an example. Now, if I ever went
to the theater saw a two hour movie that was only surveillance footage--no
plot, no soundtrack, no actors--nothing but unedited footage--I'd be the first
kid on the block to say, "that's the most fucking realistic film I've ever
seen. In fact, it's the ONLY realistic film I've ever seen." But would we
want to call that a movie?
>You know that when someone says that Secrets and Lies is realistic they don't
>mean that it is reality, but that it reminds them of reality.
Yes.
But if they were genuinely interested in discussing film in detail, I would
want to point out to them the many ways in which the film, and all films by
their very nature, differ from reality so much that it seems almost absurd to
call any film "realistic."
> Do you see a real importance to this issue, or are you just being
>preposterously literal in order to infuriate people?
I never want to infuriate anybody. I don't have the time to deal with that.
But many people who don't think very deeply about film have never actually
considered how artificial movies are. If they _want_ to think about it, I'm
happy to point out some new ideas they've yet to consider.
As Nimrod has pointed out, just because one recognizes the artificiality of
movies on some level, does not mean that one cannot enjoy them. Just the
opposite is true. We enjoy a painting because it causes us to either escape
from the real world, or perhaps to understand it better. We never believe the
painting is real, and maybe not even particularly realistic, but yet it still
enriches our lives.
It's the same with films.
Siva
"Dark_Valkyrie" <Dark_V...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip excessive ranting>
First off, let's take the dictionary (Webster's if you must know)
definition of "real" - 2a: not artificial, fraudulent or apparent...
right there movies lose it. A film, even one based on actual events, is
artificial by nature ("artificial" - 1: humanly contrived, often on a
natural model... 4a: lacking in natural or spontaneous quality.),
therefore it can never be real (or realistic). Movies are scripted,
scenes are blocked, actors are representing actual characters, there are
crew members all around with lights and mics and everything else in the
world... I don't know about you, but I don't generally have that much
going on in my everday life! Most everything in a movie is carefully
plotted and planned, down to the last detail, therefore losing any
natural quality.
Now a movie can very well be based upon real events to a great degree.
The course of the film can follow these events nearly word for word,
step by step occasionally. It can make you feel like the events are
actually happening (though they are, in reality, not happening at that
given moment). Here's where I think the confusion is ocurring; the
emotions that you experience as a result of viewing the film are very
real, but the film (by it's very nature) is not. It seems to me that
both factions of this arguement are right in their own ways (how's that
for fence straddling?).
However, I don't understand the need on some people's part to degenerate
to name calling and "fuck you's". Things like that only serve to make
the poster look infantile and irrational, which is not going to help
people see your point any more clearly.
Siva
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
"You know what mom? You know what I'm gonna get you next Christmas?
A big wooden cross, so every time you feel unappreciated for all your
sacrifices you can climb up and nail yourself to it." The Ref
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Siva
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca wrote:
<snip>
> Or, to quote Mr. Thom Yorke: You do it to yourself. Just you. You and
> no one else.
I must commend you here... if you feel the need to quote, Thom Yorke is
one of your better sources. Excellent choice!
Siva
"Dark_Valkyrie" <Dark_V...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "All films are fiction"
>
> I also like how you conveniently extracted the phrase that totally
> agrees with your side, but yet just dismissed the rest of what John
said..
> that's very interesting. Maybe when you learn to understand human
language
> better, you will be more apt to take the whole idea, and not the parts
that
> just agree with you.
All of this time I was under the mistaken impression that there were
many human languages as opposed to just one simple human language.
Damned public schools!
I really hate it when people nitpick. :)
Siva
schrodinger's damon <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
>
>
> Kevin wrote:
>
> > ...Filmmakers who want their films to appear to be "real" will use
stylistic
> > approaches that are conventionally accepted to convey "realism."
But, being
> > movies, the results are by definition unrealistic.
> >
>
> you are using terms inccorrectly.
> the movies are unreal.
> the movies Can be realistic.
Hint: If you are going to be overly critical of people's usage of
terms, it would be wise on your part to spellcheck your posts
beforehand. Most people are not going to take English lessons from
someone who can't properly spell "incorrectly".
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
>posts where you've already said it. What's a guy to do?
Sorry...just too quick on the draw, I guess...In fact, they used to call me
"The Waco Kid."
Stephen Thompson
>It's a movie, so it can't really be realistic, though it can use "realism"
>as a style to make it effective.
What is the correct adjective to describe a film that effectively uses realism
as a style? I think it's "realistic", and my dictionary seems to support this
view.
You said: "Plastic apples can be realistic. ... So we don't need to throw the
word 'realistic' out. But I don't think there are films that can be
realistic. Since we _know_ it's a film, we already know the apple is plastic,
so to speak."
That implies that for something to be realistic, it must be able to fool
people into believing that it's actually real. Is that what you meant? If so,
I don't think that's ever been a requirement for "realistic" to apply.
Plastic apples are only "realistic" if we apply filters to our perception of
them. Specifically, we must ignore everything but what it looks like. (Okay,
and what it sounds like, as long as they're just sitting there.) Similarly,
films can be realistic if we filter out certain elements, many of which you
and others have mentioned. You seem to be saying that films cannot be
realistic *because* we must filter out those elements, but if so than we can't
say a plastic apple can ever be realistic, either. In both cases, we must
ignore all evidence of their unreality.
That leaves the basic question still unanswered: What is there that's
realistic, but isn't real? Or, put another way, of what possible use is the
term "realistic" if we limit it as you've suggested?
You mentioned a film professor who says: "There is no such thing as a
documentary." While we can grasp the concept he's expressing, there's
obviously no reason we shouldn't use the term "documentary" to distinguish
HOOP DREAMS from SPACE JAM.
Similarly, we all know that Liam Neeson isn't really Schindler, and that the
language wasn't English, and that real life isn't black and white, and so on.
None of that means we shouldn't use "realistic" to distinguish SCHINDLER'S
LIST from, say, HOGAN'S HEROES. (I know, it isn't a movie. Give it time.)
There doesn't seem to be much disagreement about anything fundamental here.
Everyone agrees that the people on TV aren't six inches tall. Everyone agrees
that movies aren't reality. Everyone agrees that even footage of real events
is distanced from reality by selection and framing, etcetera. Everyone agrees
that "realistic" does not necessarily mean quality. Everyone agrees that Dark
Valkyrie is, at most, eleven years old.
As others have mentioned, the only dispute here seems semantic: whether
"realistic" is a reasonable word to describe films that portray the important
aspects of the real world about as well as a film can portray them.
When people apply the word to a work of fiction, it comes with a lot of
understood caveats. Basically, people mean: Similar to reality in very
significant ways, although certainly not reality due to the limitations of the
medium and some inevitable but relatively minor deviations specific to the
work. All that's a bit cumbersome, so people just say "realistic" and let
shared understanding fill in the rest.
In other words, all of those pesky details y'all have mentioned are already
allowed for in our understanding of the word, when used in the context of
fiction. So, those details don't contradict the intended idea, or prevent the
word from effectively communicating it. And, to end up back where I started,
what other term communicates this idea better?
============================================================================
1999 so far... 1. Rushmore 2. Go 3. The Sixth Sense 4. Mystery Men 5. Austin
Powers II 6. Eyes Wide Shut 7. The Matrix 8. Phantom Menace 9. Blair Witch
Project 10. South Park 11. Summer of Sam 12. 8MM 13. Bowfinger 14. Payback 15.
Deep Blue Sea 16. The Mummy 17. Tarzan 18. Mod Squad 19. Thomas Crown Affair
20. General's Daughter 21. True Crime 22. Entrapment 23. The Rage: Carrie 2
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
Thanks for your response, Kevin. I still have to disagree, though. I think
generally when people say that a movie is realistic, you know contextually
which aspect of the movie they're describing. To use peacel's example again, if
someone says that Secrets and Lies is realistic, you know that they're saying
that the dialogue and the way its delivered is closer to the way we talk in
real life than the way people usually talk in movies. You know that they're not
saying that there is scoring or editing in real life. You'd have to be kind of
weird to get confused about it.
When someone says that Schindler's List is realistic, you can say, "Except
they were speaking in English." And they'll say, "True, but what I meant
was..." and then they will explain themselves.
Again, not all that confusing or inconvenient. In fact, I think these threads
are a pretty good illustration of how things get more confused when you start
denying that the term "realistic" can be applied to movies.
As for the plastic apple analogy, I don't really agree with that either. I
can't think of any reason why "realistic" has to mean one could conceivably be
fooled by it. You could see an animatronic Abe Lincoln and Disneyland and you
might want to call it realistic, but you would have no chance of thinking it
was the real Abe Lincoln. You could also say that the space ships in 2001 look
realistic, and everyone would know that you meant that to you they didn't look
like models, they looked like what you imagine they would look like in real
life. And despite what Nimrod has argued, this would not mean that you are
ignorant of film technique. It would mean that you think the spaceship looked
realistic.
(And incidentally, I have thought something looked so real in a movie I
reached out and tried to touch it. But it was that little fuzzy flying guy in
Captain EO.)
>But, in relationship to films, "realistic" is such a problematic adjective
>that, in order to avoid confusion, it should not be applied to films in
>intelligent conversation (unless certain ground rules are understood by all,
>i.e. that "realism" is a style and can as artificial as Expressionism).
--Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
James Margaris
>In article <uP6k3Aj8#GA.266@cpmsnbbsa03>,
> "Dark_Valkyrie" <Dark_V...@hotmail.com> wrote:
><snip excessive ranting>
>
>First off, let's take the dictionary (Webster's if you must know)
>definition of "real" - 2a: not artificial, fraudulent or apparent...
>right there movies lose it. A film, even one based on actual events, is
>artificial by nature ("artificial" - 1: humanly contrived, often on a
>natural model... 4a: lacking in natural or spontaneous quality.),
>therefore it can never be real (or realistic).
Real IS NOT THE SAME as realistic. Why would we need 2 words that mean
exactly the same thing. Realistic = like real. How strongly like real is an
issue up for debate, but still "LIKE real."
Movies are scripted,
>scenes are blocked, actors are representing actual characters, there are
>crew members all around with lights and mics and everything else in the
>world... I don't know about you, but I don't generally have that much
>going on in my everday life! Most everything in a movie is carefully
>plotted and planned, down to the last detail, therefore losing any
>natural quality.
Security camera tape.
James M
James Margaris
>frank...@aol.com (Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
>
>That's an excellent point that you and James have made. Here's a short example
>which illustrates my position:
>
>Have you ever seen plastic fruit? You know, the stuff people sometimes put in
>bowls on their table (why, I don't know). Sometimes, that stuff can look so
>real that people actually reach for it, thinking that they're picking up, say,
>a real apple. But it's not real, of course. They were fooled because, at a
>glance, it looked realistic, and was sitting in a place where real apples
>sometimes sit.
So, for something to be "realistic" it must be able to trick you into
thinking it is real? I appreciate your attempt but this definition of
"realistic" is waaay too narrow. Despite what dictionaries say the English
language is defined by how people use it, (language is our slave, not the
other way around) and 99% of people use "realistic" in a much looser sense. In
a way I hate to say "the majority must be right" because that is almost never
true, but in language usage it really is. Language is not stirctly defined,
nor is it a rock or stick or something that actually exists. If tomorrow
everyone decided that "good" means "bad" (or that "phat" means "good") then
that is exactly what it would mean. It is possible (obviously) to use a word
incorrectly but when it has been used incorrectly often enough by enough
people it stops being incorrect.
The simple fact is that we call movies, books, paintings, etc
realistic. If you want you can view this as relative, so that Shindler's List
was not REALLY very realistic but much more realistic than Godzilla, and just
assume that when people say "realistic" they mean relative to much less
realistic things.
If we can't use realistic in this way what word should we use. I would say
that Schindler's List is more "realistic" than mars attacks. If I can't say
that then what should I say? That it was more like real life? (But THAT is
what realistic means...) WHat do e call a painting that has "realistic"
anatomy and lighting, as opposed to a flat shaded egyptian hyrogliph? WHat
word do we use? It's not just "more detailed," in fact it could be less
detailed. More "accurate?" Accurate to real life, hence more "realistic."
If you want you can operate under two definitions:
1) Seemingly real but not real
2) More real seeming than other similar things
You seem to be saying that 1) is the only definition you acknowledge.
>Plastic apples can be realistic. (I think Satre said that first). So we don't
>need to throw the word "realistic" out. But I don't think there are films that
>can be realistic. Since we _know_ it's a film, we already know the apple is
>plastic, so to speak.
>
>Now, we could do a direct comparison, though I doubt you'd be satisfied with
>this: Have you ever saw an apple on TV or on a movie screen that you thought
>was so real, you almost reached for it? Of course not. The nature of
>film/tape (and the social rituals involved with viewing them) is such that
>you're never actually fooled.
But when we use "realistic" for movies we implicitly use a looser
meaning. For example, if you give me something that is supposedly real cotton
I would not consider it "realistic" unless it looked and felt alsmot exactly
like real cotton. If you showed me an action sequence an film I might call it
realistic even though it is on a screen, 2-dimensional, etc. We do not
consider the limitations of the genre. We implicitly acknowlege that universal
limitations of a medium are just that, universal, and it is silly to hold them
against anything in particular. (In essence we scale everything by throwing
out the common factor).
Silly math example:
We might say that, among positive natural numbers, 3 is small and
10,00000000000 is big. Ok. Now, what if we take postive natural numbers bigger
than 10,000000000. In this case 10,000000000 is very small and
10,00000000000..... is very big. WE wouldn't say "but, really 10,00000000000
is still a really big number!" Yes, it is, but it is limited by the set
(medium) it exists in. Given the nature of those restrictions it is clearly
very small.
So, you can't hold the nature of film (projection, 2-d) against it. If you
want to be very critical and say that Shindler's List was unrealistic because
it had music, B&W, etc, ok, but for a security tape? Given the limitation of
the genre a security tape is as real as you are going to get.
[clip]
>But, in relationship to films, "realistic" is such a problematic adjective
>that, in order to avoid confusion, it should not be applied to films in
>intelligent conversation (unless certain ground rules are understood by all,
>i.e. that "realism" is a style and can as artificial as Expressionism).
But there is no confusion. Everyone knows that you can't actually
reach out and touch the events in the movie. We understand exactly what people
mean when they say a movie is realistic.
>Have you ever heard someone call a film like "Schindler's List" realistic? I
>previously listed about a half dozen elements of the film which were utterly
>unrealistic. So how could we call the film realistic? Now, if someone said
>the film contained "elements of realism," or "realistic elements," don't you
>see how that is a very different thing than saying the _film_ is realistic?
But it is realistic compared to 99% of other films.
>Now, James mentioned the surveillance film as an example. Now, if I ever went
>to the theater saw a two hour movie that was only surveillance footage--no
>plot, no soundtrack, no actors--nothing but unedited footage--I'd be the first
>kid on the block to say, "that's the most fucking realistic film I've ever
>seen. In fact, it's the ONLY realistic film I've ever seen." But would we
>want to call that a movie?
Well, then I will not argue with you on this one, but you don't seem
to agree with Nimrod. It was his position that the very NATURE of film made
ALL film unrealistic. I would say that you simply believe that we use
"realistic" far too loosely and grant "realistic" status to things that really
aren't very realistic. I would say that we all understand what the person is
saying (implying that it is just MORE realistic than most) but your point has
some validity. But, for Nimrod to say that the very NATURE of film, print,
painting, sculpture etc makes it unrealistic basically denies the most common
use of the word, a usage that everyone understands perfectly well.
James M
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>I nor Kevin made a big issue out of this---it was Dark Valkyrie who
>did, after I paid a passing compliment to Kevin's sig. Nothing more.
>
>
>The big issue and frenzy was created when Dark Valkyrie, displaying
>very troll-like tendencies, came along days later making personal
>attacks on the subject in long venom and vulgarity-filled screeds.
I agree that Dark Valkyrie has made an ass of himself, but I saw this debate
going on before he even showed up. I suppose I'll have to go back and check to
get the actual statistics here, but I saw plenty of posts on the subject from
both of you before you complimented Kevin and before the Dark One showed up and
started making everyone else on his side look bad.
James Margaris
>filmn...@aol.comKILLME (Kevin) wrote:
>
[clip]
Some excellent points made here. Plastic apples might seem realistic, but only
if we ignore the diffuse and specular light reflection levels, weight, taste,
etc. Now you may say that plastic apples just "look realistic" in some light
levels and some conditions. I suppose, but then again if you close your eyes
and stand far away a movie might SOUND very realistic. Every heard the radio
or TV and thought it was real people talking? Voila, 100% realism! Of course,
if we look hard enough we can see the flaws, and we do have to look a bit
harder in plastic apples than in movies, but we still find them.
Now, you might say that movies are *meant* to be watched, so just *hearing*
them isn't enough. Well, I would say that apples are *meant* to be eaten :)
Experiment: I tell you that in my hand I am holding a pen. Being on another
computer you cannot see the pen, smell the pen, etc. The pen in my hand is
100% realistic! (I have no pen) Ok, now say the pen (if it is a pen) is in
fornt of you but your eyes are closed...still 100% realistic. Now the pen is a
pencil and you can feel it (with your eyes still closed) but your hands are
numb from the cold a bit...still 100% realistic. Now your eyes are open but
the pen "ink" is actually a solid filling. You don't write with the pen, still
100% realistic.
In all the above cases you are fooled into beleiving the pen is real, but upon
closer inspection it would not be. Nothing (or almost nothing) "realistic"
would fool you if you looked hard enough.
>You said: "Plastic apples can be realistic. ... So we don't need to throw the
>word 'realistic' out. But I don't think there are films that can be
>realistic. Since we _know_ it's a film, we already know the apple is plastic,
>so to speak."
>
Or, take believability. We grant that a movie with a fasntasy or sci-fi
setting is "believable" if the characters, motivations, dialog and plot make
sense, even though there may be robots and aliens. Clearly we KNOW that
fiction *by definition* is NOT believable really, but we can still use the
term, because we are implying many things not explicitly stated. Literally
speaking no fiction is more or less believable (we disbelieve them all 100%)
but English luckily is more nuanced than that.
A super-literal world would be an ugly place.
Joe: "Boy, that painting looks more like a representation of real life than
that other one, though clearly it is not at all real."
Bill: :"That movie seemed like a good representation of real life actions and
characters, if I ginore the fact that it was presented on a flat screen, had
music, had some aliens, etc."
>In other words, all of those pesky details y'all have mentioned are already
>allowed for in our understanding of the word, when used in the context of
>fiction. So, those details don't contradict the intended idea, or prevent the
>word from effectively communicating it. And, to end up back where I started,
>what other term communicates this idea better?
My God! It REALLY IS in the context this time! In the context of movies
"realistic" is diffferent than the context of fabric or bagels! Say it ain't
so!
I suggest, to be more clear, we come up with a DIFFERENT word for each
context. For example, we can use "reelistic" (heh) to refer to a film that we
might previously have called "realistic," with the definition of "realistic
given the limitations of movies." Similarly, for paintings we can have
"lookistic" and for books "readistic." Boy, that book sure was readistic!
James M
peacel
> From what I can tell, it seems this is because I have strong opinions
> I don't equivocate about which don't always jibe with popular opinion.
> I won't apologize for that.
I'm not asking you to apologize for it, I'm just making an observation.
Four or five times now I've popped into a thread after noticing that
it's been going on for a ridiculously long time, only to find that it's
turned into a big flame war over some small point, and a lot of people
are attacking you and calling you names and you're doing the whole, "it
looks like you're too dumb or too unimaginative to understand the full
meaning of my (real) name" thing.
Now, I agree that Dark Valkyrie is being childish and overly defensive,
and I agree that endless name-calling is a waste of everyone's time,
but even still, I can't deny that this phenomena exists: whatever the
reason, you, Nimrod, are an anger magnet.
> Is it really that odd to use one's first name in an ng, but not one's
> last name for a variety of good reasons?
I think it is when your name is "Nimrod", and you're sick and tired of
people making fun of you for it. Look, I feel for your dilemma - you
haven't even been here for a year and already I groan when I see
someone pull out the nimrod thing - but even still: it doesn't make
that much sense for you to be deliberately obtuse about your name. It's
almost as if you *want* people to attack you on this issue so that you
can swoop in and correct them.
> So, because so many flamers
> have limited grasps of the English language or imagination and choose
> to make fun of my real name, I should use a fictional name instead?
But you're practically using a fictional name *now*. If you were going
with your full name I could understand not wanting to back down, but
you've already conceded anonymity, so why not go all the way? Why use a
fragment of your real name that you must've known in advance would lead
to insults?
> You sound like the type of individual, peacel, who tells homosexuals
> that they should just stay in the closet and pretend to be straight,
> because it just causes trouble with the rednecks if they don't---and
> those silly gay people have only got themselves to blame if they get
> bashed.
Well, I'm not. Sorry to disappoint.
(And by the way, I'm not asking you to pick a new name - you went with
Nimrod, just Nimrod, and now you're stuck with it, good or bad. I am,
however, pointing out the curiousity of your behaviour: You don't want
people mocking your name, so you put yourself in a position that makes
it especially easy for people to do so.)
peacel
> It is possible (obviously) to use a word incorrectly but when it
> has been used incorrectly often enough by enough people it stops
> being incorrect.
I'm not sure where this idea that the commonly accepted definition of
"realistic" is incorrect is coming from. In my dictionary, underneath
"realism", I find the following:
realism (n.): artistic representation intended as an
unidealized portrayal of objective reality. -realist
(n.) -realistic (adj.) -realistically (adv.)
The word "realistic" is listed under "realism", and not under "real".
So, in other words, if you wanted to say that something was real, you
would say that it was real, and not that it was "realistic". And if
you felt that a work of art was a relatively accurate representation of
reality, conceding the stylizations inherent to the film medium, you
would say that it was "realistic".
The way I see it, our take on the word "realistic" *is* the officially
accepted one.
Reagen Sulewski
Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
>>I wish Bryan would realize and acknowledge (for a change) that neither
>>I nor Kevin made a big issue out of this---it was Dark Valkyrie who
>>did, after I paid a passing compliment to Kevin's sig. Nothing more.
>>
>>
>>The big issue and frenzy was created when Dark Valkyrie, displaying
>>very troll-like tendencies, came along days later making personal
>>attacks on the subject in long venom and vulgarity-filled screeds.
>
> I agree that Dark Valkyrie has made an ass of himself, but I saw this debate
>going on before he even showed up. I suppose I'll have to go back and check to
>get the actual statistics here, but I saw plenty of posts on the subject from
>both of you before you complimented Kevin and before the Dark One showed up and
>started making everyone else on his side look bad.
Wasn't there pretyy much the same arguement in regards to "surreal"
vs. "surrealistic"?
Stephen Thompson
>filmn...@aol.comKILLME (Kevin) wrote:
>>Have you ever seen plastic fruit? ... Sometimes, that stuff can look so
>>real that people actually reach for it, thinking that they're picking up,
>>say, a real apple. ... They were fooled because, at a glance, it looked
>>realistic, and was sitting in a place where real apples sometimes sit.
> So, for something to be "realistic" it must be able to trick you
>into thinking it is real? I appreciate your attempt but this definition of
>"realistic" is waaay too narrow. Despite what dictionaries say the English
>language is defined by how people use it, ... and 99% of people use
>"realistic" in a much looser sense.
In this case, we don't even need to argue against the dictionary, because
nothing in the dictionary definition requires the ability to fool an observer.
>Language is not stirctly defined, nor is it a rock or stick or something
>that actually exists.
Hmm. Does that mean that language isn't realistic? :)
Kevin
>filmn...@aol.comKILLME (Kevin) wrote:
>>It's a movie, so it can't really be realistic, though it can use "realism"
>>as a style to make it effective.
>What is the correct adjective to describe a film that effectively uses
>realism
>as a style? I think it's "realistic", and my dictionary seems to support this
>view.
I have implied that I agree with this. Let me be more specific. Here is the
definition of "realism" from Louis Giannetti's "Understanding Movies" (6th ed.,
p. 487):
realism: A style of filmmaking that attempts
to duplicate the look of objective reality
as it's commonly perceived, with emphasis
on authentic locations and details,
long shots, lenghty takes, and a minimum
of distorting techniques.
Yes, we can call a film "realistic" if it employs the style of filmmaking known
as "realism." But this is a very specific, technical usage of the word, and
_not_ what is meant in everday conversation about movies.
That's because, as Giannetti's book points out, "realism" is a style. But, and
here's the important (but difficult) part, there's nothing inherently
"realistic" (in the conventional sense of the word) about the style known as
"realism." It's a style meant to convey a sort of authentic feeling, but it's
still a style.
And styles change over time. Here's an example. The first act of SAVING
PRIVATE RYAN has been hailed for it's realistic portrayal of combat. Look at
Giannetti's definition of realism again. Does SPR fit this description? Not
really. Everything fits until you get to this part: "long shots, lenthy
takes, and a minimum of distorting techniques." SPR features many quick cuts
and closeups, IIRC. Most importantly, it prominently features distorting
techniques. The filmstock is oddly washed out, and the shutter in the camera
makes everything seem jumpy. (I'm not sure of the technical details of how
this was done.) Sometimes the sound becomes muffled and distant.
Speilberg brilliantly used all of these decidedly unrealistic elements to
convey a sense of realism. And that's the crux of this whole issue. Since
realism is a style that only has a tangential relationship to reality as we
know it, Speilberg had to alter reality to make the combat seem more "real" to
today's audiences.
So why doesn't SPR fit Giannetti's description of "realism"? The first edition
of his book came out in 1972. I've quoted from the 5th edition, which came out
in 1993. Perhaps audiences now have different opinions on what techniques
should be used to make "realistic" films. Maybe to a post-SPR, post-MTV
viewer, a film like SECRETS AND LIES, which barely moves the camera at all, may
seem artificial and stagey, although it actually fits Giannetti's description
better.
All of this is because the conventions of "realism" in filmmaking change with
time. But the nature of reality itself does not change. This suggests to me
that "realistic" films, i.e. films that employ "realism," aren't actually very
realistic (in the everyday usage of that word). SPR may use what is currently
considered to be "realism," and so you could say, in this very specific sense,
that it's "realistic." But the cinematography in the first act of SPR was very
stylized, and the images look almost nothing like real life (film images rarely
do, and this film heightened the effect). But it was very gut wrenching and
difficult to watch.
>You said: "Plastic apples can be realistic. ... So we don't need to throw the
>word 'realistic' out. But I don't think there are films that can be
>realistic. Since we _know_ it's a film, we already know the apple is plastic,
>so to speak."
>That implies that for something to be realistic, it must be able to fool
>people into believing that it's actually real. Is that what you meant? If so,
>I don't think that's ever been a requirement for "realistic" to apply.
That's not what I meant. Admittedly, my "plastic apples" analogy ain't the
greatest, but I'll stick with it until someone offers something better, or
until you guys beat me up.
What I meant was: if something is termed "realistic" in everday conversation,
this thing does not need to be "the real thing," but it should be reasonably
convincing as being "the real thing." You don't have to be fooled by the
plastic apple. You can simply look at it and say, "yep, that looks a lot like
a real apple."
But things on a movie screen almost never look like "the real thing." To
paraphrase Nimrod, it's just a bunch of pixels. A 2-dimensional, inherently
unrealistic image.
>Plastic apples are only "realistic" if we apply filters to our perception of
>them. Specifically, we must ignore everything but what it looks like. (Okay,
>and what it sounds like, as long as they're just sitting there.) Similarly,
>films can be realistic if we filter out certain elements, many of which you
>and others have mentioned. You seem to be saying that films cannot be
>realistic *because* we must filter out those elements, but if so than we
>can't
>say a plastic apple can ever be realistic, either. In both cases, we must
>ignore all evidence of their unreality.
Okay, what evidence must you filter out to determine that a plastic apple is
not real? It looks realistic. Now, if you pick it up, it sounds, tastes,
feels, and smells unrealistic, and the illusion is gone.
Film is a visual and aural medium, of course. We can't touch, taste, feel, or
smell any of the things that are on the screen. All we have are our eyes and
ears (and brain, for most of us). So we actually have much less evidence to
determine if a movie is realistic. It doesn't _look_ realistic (2-D pixels and
all that). I'll grant that it may sound realistic (although most films do not,
and any film with a non-diegetic soundtrack does not). If something doesn't
look, feel, taste, sound, or smell realistic, can we say that it is realistic?
>That leaves the basic question still unanswered: What is there that's
>realistic, but isn't real?
Um, plastic apples, as long as you don't touch 'em. But not movies. :-)
>Or, put another way, of what possible use is the
>term "realistic" if we limit it as you've suggested?
A very limited use, when it comes to discussing films. And we'd all be better
off for it.
--Kevin
"I hate plastic fruit."
Filmnutboy's diary entry, 8/30/99
peacel
> Now what does that tell us? I don't have any kind of problem with
> it at all in my day to day life offline.
Exactly, because in real life you're not going around as just Nimrod -
if you did, you'd probably get plenty of strange looks every time you
signed a check or dumped off a resume. And, if you had done the same
with the Internet - if you had posted under Nimrod Doe, or whatever -
you most likely wouldn't have received nearly as many name-based
attacks as you have. But by dumping your surname you've deleted the
very thing that lets a reader place your name *as* a name. Given that,
I find it odd that you're so consistently surprised and angered
whenever someone assumes that the word "nimrod" is referring to the
common insult.
I don't think any of the above has anything at all to do with racism,
sexism, or homophobia.
Kevin
>Some excellent points made here. Plastic apples might seem realistic, but
>only
>if we ignore the diffuse and specular light reflection levels, weight, taste,
>etc.
Yes, but see my reply to Stephen. Movies could only seem realistic if we
ignored how they look, feel, taste, smell, and often, how they sound.
>Now you may say that plastic apples just "look realistic" in some light
>levels and some conditions. I suppose, but then again if you close your eyes
>and stand far away a movie might SOUND very realistic. Every heard the radio
>or TV and thought it was real people talking?
Yep.
>Voila, 100% realism!
No, not 100% realism. But a realistic sound, yes.
>if we look hard enough we can see the flaws, and we do have to look a bit
>harder in plastic apples than in movies, but we still find them.
Yep.
>Now, you might say that movies are *meant* to be watched, so just *hearing*
>them isn't enough. Well, I would say that apples are *meant* to be eaten :)
Yes. But not plastic apples. They're meant to be looked at.
By the way, I'm starting to hate plastic apples.
>Experiment: I tell you that in my hand I am holding a pen. Being on another
>computer you cannot see the pen, smell the pen, etc. The pen in my hand is
>100% realistic! (I have no pen)
Nope, not 100% realistic. In fact, not at all realistic. Strictly imaginary.
Now, you could have given me a 100% realistic description of this mythical pen.
But the description would be realistic, not the pen.
Ok, now say the pen (if it is a pen) is in
>fornt of you but your eyes are closed...still 100% realistic.
Still no. But your description could be realistic.
>Now the pen is a
>pencil and you can feel it (with your eyes still closed) but your hands are
>numb from the cold a bit...still 100% realistic.
No, not 100% realistic. It would feel realistically like a pencil, under the
circumstances. But unless I looked at it, I would be foolish to say it was
100% realistic, unless I'm a psychic.
>Now your eyes are open but
>the pen "ink" is actually a solid filling. You don't write with the pen,
>still
>100% realistic.
Yes, it's a 100% realistic pen with a solid filling. But it's not a functional
pen.
>In all the above cases you are fooled into beleiving the pen is real,
> but upon
>closer inspection it would not be.
Nope, in none of them. I had evidence that the pen was real in each case, but
I wouldn't jump to such a conclusion until I could see the damn thing, or at
least had a good description of it from someone.
> but upon
>closer inspection it would not be. Nothing (or almost nothing) "realistic"
>would fool you if you looked hard enough.
We agree there.
(snippage)
>>As others have mentioned, the only dispute here seems semantic: whether
>>"realistic" is a reasonable word to describe films that portray the
>important
>>aspects of the real world about as well as a film can portray them.
>>
>>When people apply the word to a work of fiction, it comes with a lot of
>>understood caveats. Basically, people mean: Similar to reality in very
>>significant ways, although certainly not reality due to the limitations of
>the
>>medium and some inevitable but relatively minor deviations specific to the
>>work. All that's a bit cumbersome, so people just say "realistic" and let
>>shared understanding fill in the rest.
>Or, take believability. We grant that a movie with a fasntasy or sci-fi
>setting is "believable" if the characters, motivations, dialog and plot make
>sense, even though there may be robots and aliens. Clearly we KNOW that
>fiction *by definition* is NOT believable really, but we can still use the
>term, because we are implying many things not explicitly stated. Literally
>speaking no fiction is more or less believable (we disbelieve them all 100%)
>but English luckily is more nuanced than that.
We agree here. I have no problem with anyone using the word "believable" to
describe a film, as I've said previously.
But there is an important difference in these two statements:
1. "That movie was believable."
2. "That movie was realistic."
In English, we generally consider "believe" to be a personal statement. If you
say "I believe him," it doesn't mean he is absolutely telling the truth. It
means that personally you think he is.
But "real" or "realistic" is different. It's not subjective like "believe."
If you say "that's real," you're stating something that can be proved or
disproved through investigation.
We cannot prove or disprove statement #1, but we can disprove statement #2.
Which is why when someone says "that movie is realistic," they are not standing
on solid ground.
>A super-literal world would be an ugly place.
>Joe: "Boy, that painting looks more like a representation of real life than
>that other one, though clearly it is not at all real."
>Bill: :"That movie seemed like a good representation of real life actions and
>characters, if I ginore the fact that it was presented on a flat screen, had
>music, had some aliens, etc."
Yeah, it'd be an ugly place. But I'm not one of those guys. If I saw that
movie with Bill, I'd say, "that movie was good." Now, if our buddy Fred said,
"yeah, cause it's so realistic," we'd have a little talk, if he was interested
in talking about films. If he just watched them to pass a little time, I
wouldn't bother.
>I suggest, to be more clear, we come up with a DIFFERENT word for each
>context. For example, we can use "reelistic" (heh) to refer to a film that we
>
>might previously have called "realistic," with the definition of "realistic
>given the limitations of movies." Similarly, for paintings we can have
>"lookistic" and for books "readistic." Boy, that book sure was readistic!
That's great! But don't you dare call SCHINDLER'S LIST "reelistic," cause it
weren't "realistic" in the first dern place! ;-)
Kevin
> Thanks for your response, Kevin. I still have to disagree, though. I think
>generally when people say that a movie is realistic, you know contextually
>which aspect of the movie they're describing.
Yes, but they probably don't fully understand the implications of the word
"realistic," or how cinema is inherently unrealistic. If they don't care about
such things, I wouldn't even bring it up. But those who love talking about
films in depth should have a better understanding of the word, don't you think?
>To use peacel's example again,
>if
>someone says that Secrets and Lies is realistic, you know that they're saying
>that the dialogue and the way its delivered is closer to the way we talk in
>real life than the way people usually talk in movies. You know that they're
>not
>saying that there is scoring or editing in real life. You'd have to be kind
>of
>weird to get confused about it.
I should have chosen a better word than "confusion." I would never be confused
by the S&L example. The person saying that it's "realistic" is simply choosing
their words poorly.
> When someone says that Schindler's List is realistic, you can say, "Except
>they were speaking in English." And they'll say, "True, but what I meant
>was..." and then they will explain themselves.
> Again, not all that confusing or inconvenient.
Exactly. And what would that conversation be? Enlightening, probably to both
participants. Is that a bad thing? I love intelligent conversation. I think
Thoreau said something along the lines that he'd walk a great distance in order
to talk to an intelligent person.
>In fact, I think these threads
>are a pretty good illustration of how things get more confused when you start
>denying that the term "realistic" can be applied to movies.
Are things getting more confused? This thread has made things much clearer for
me, since it's prompted me to think everything through and reexamine my
assumptions. Am I the only one who feels this way?
> As for the plastic apple analogy, I don't really agree with that either. I
>can't think of any reason why "realistic" has to mean one could conceivably
>be
>fooled by it.
Yes, my analogy wasn't the greatest. I've addressed that elsewhere.
>You could see an animatronic Abe Lincoln and Disneyland and you
>might want to call it realistic, but you would have no chance of thinking it
>was the real Abe Lincoln.
Correct. But if it was realistic, you might think it was a _real_ person
portraying Abe. Big difference. If it wasn't realistic, you'd know
immediately that it's a robot.
>You could also say that the space ships in 2001
>look
>realistic, and everyone would know that you meant that to you they didn't
>look
>like models, they looked like what you imagine they would look like in real
>life.
Yep. I think the models look pretty realistic, compared to the STAR TREK
series. That doesn't mean 2001 is a "realistic movie," does it? So, to avoid,
um, confusion, I'd say the models look "convincing."
>And despite what Nimrod has argued, this would not mean that you are
>ignorant of film technique. It would mean that you think the spaceship looked
>realistic.
Or convincing, as far as spaceships in movies go.
> (And incidentally, I have thought something looked so real in a movie I
>reached out and tried to touch it. But it was that little fuzzy flying guy in
>Captain EO.)
Did you catch him?
Kevin
>js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:
>>filmn...@aol.comKILLME (Kevin) wrote:
(a bunch of stuff about plastic apples)
>> So, for something to be "realistic" it must be able to trick you
>>into thinking it is real? I appreciate your attempt but this definition of
>>"realistic" is waaay too narrow. Despite what dictionaries say the English
>>language is defined by how people use it, ... and 99% of people use
>>"realistic" in a much looser sense.
>In this case, we don't even need to argue against the dictionary, because
>nothing in the dictionary definition requires the ability to fool an
>observer.
Yep. And so I've modified my little analogy in other posts.
>>Language is not stirctly defined, nor is it a rock or stick or something
>>that actually exists.
>Hmm. Does that mean that language isn't realistic? :)
That's it. My head just exploded. But like a chicken without a head, I'm
still doing my thing for a few more seconds.
>1999 so far... 1. Rushmore 2. Go 3. The Sixth Sense 4. Mystery Men 5. Austin
>Powers II 6. Eyes Wide Shut 7. The Matrix 8. Phantom Menace 9. Blair Witch
>Project 10. South Park 11. Summer of Sam 12. 8MM 13. Bowfinger 14. Payback
>15.
>Deep Blue Sea 16. The Mummy 17. Tarzan 18. Mod Squad 19. Thomas Crown Affair
>20. General's Daughter 21. True Crime 22. Entrapment 23. The Rage: Carrie 2
I take it you haven't seen "Election" yet. It should probably be in your top
3, especially if you liked "Rushmore."
I loved "Election" because I have this desire to touch Reese Witherspoon in an
improper fashion.
I also loved it because it was so damn realistic. ;-)
outl...@my-deja.com
just tellin it like it is
--vern
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>else had discussed this at all before Dark Valkyrie showed up and
>attacked me for complimenting Kevin's sig with an offhand passing
>comment. Cross my heart, hope to die....
>
>You won't find any discussion of this issue before this loverly post
>of Dark Valkyrie's in the Movie List To Judge People By thread on
>August 28:
>
>>From: "Dark_Valkyrie" <Dark_V...@hotmail.com>
>>Subject: Re: Movie List to judge people by!
>>Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:14:51 -0400
>
>>>>Kevin wrote:
>
>>> >"Realistic movie" is an oxymoron.
>>> > --from Filmnutboy's Movie Maxims
>>
>
>>> I agree wholeheartedly with this statement; it's one I subscribe to and
>>> have argued on many an occasion.
>
>
>>Well, I think I can safely say then, that this shows your complete lack
>>of intelligence, or at least common sense. How the hell does Realism
>>contradict a movie? (...etc....etc......ad nauseum.....)
>
>It pretty well degenerated from there. But Dark Valkyrie was the one
>who made a big deal out of it---his initial responses to Kevin and
>meself got real nasty and vicious and over-the-top immediately after
>we answered his initial questions.
>
>The rest is history...
>
>N.
Must be my newsreader then. I saw that message after both of you had been
debating it for a day or two. It did seem odd - I thought you were both arguing
the point seperately before buddying up.
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>>reached out and tried to touch it. But it was that little fuzzy flying guy
>in
>>Captain EO.)
>
>Did you catch him?
The bastard got away. And I was gonna eat 'im, too.
MasonBarge
>ignored how they look, feel, taste, smell, and often, how they sound
"Realism" implies, by its very existence, that it isn't real. It distinguishes
a type of art from other schools, such as "impressionistic" and "cubist"(in
graphic art) or "fantasy" (in dramatic art). Calling a film "realistic"
doesn't mean that you're fooled into thinking that there are real people on the
screen! It just means that its depiction intends or accomplishes or sets as a
rule a closer parallel to the real world than other classifications or schools
of film.
Obviously, realism as a school and "realistic" as an adjective differ in ways,
but both are characterized by a differentiation from other types of films, in
that they have settings that require less imagination to involve the audience.
- Mason Barge
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee." -- Abraham Lincoln
Siva
js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:
> In article <7qedoh$vt4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Siva <kiw...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >In article <uP6k3Aj8#GA.266@cpmsnbbsa03>,
> > "Dark_Valkyrie" <Dark_V...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ><snip excessive ranting>
> >
> >First off, let's take the dictionary (Webster's if you must know)
> >definition of "real" - 2a: not artificial, fraudulent or apparent...
> >right there movies lose it. A film, even one based on actual events,
is
> >artificial by nature ("artificial" - 1: humanly contrived, often on a
> >natural model... 4a: lacking in natural or spontaneous quality.),
> >therefore it can never be real (or realistic).
>
> Real IS NOT THE SAME as realistic. Why would we need 2 words
that mean
> exactly the same thing. Realistic = like real. How strongly like real
is an
> issue up for debate, but still "LIKE real."
I apologize for throwing real and realistic together as if they were the
same, exact word… real and realistic are NOT exactly the same thing, but
unfortunately they are linked, especially in most people's daily speech
(right, wrong or indifferent this is completely true). Realistic is
derived from Realism, which is fidelity to nature or to REAL life;
representation without idealization and making no appeal to the
imagination; adherence to the actual fact. Because of this definition,
I would say that most motion pictures are not realistic in the
dictionary sense because of the artifice involved in making one. The
experience in the theater may be SEEM very realistic to the viewer… they
may feel as if some of the characters, situations and interactions in
the movie resemble things in their personal lives. This is a matter of
personal perception. But by strict definition, I can't imagine a movie
that is completely faithful to nature or real life with no idealization
or appeal to the imagination involved.
>
> Movies are scripted,
> >scenes are blocked, actors are representing actual characters, there
are
> >crew members all around with lights and mics and everything else in
the
> >world... I don't know about you, but I don't generally have that much
> >going on in my everday life! Most everything in a movie is carefully
> >plotted and planned, down to the last detail, therefore losing any
> >natural quality.
>
> Security camera tape.
As for the security camera tape, what does that have to do with my
argument about movies? Do they make security camera tape into films
now? Do they hand out scripts to each customer in a store and go over
their movements and motivations before they begin to shop? No one has
ever done that to me and I think that I'd hurry out of any place that
tried! There's no pretense involved in security camera filming as many
people are not even aware of when the camera is actually filming them.
As several people have already said, it seems to come down to what
everyone considers to be the true meaning of realistic… and as this
seems to vary from person to person I don't think that we are ever going
to come to a consensus. Not that this will stop anyone from discussing
this of course. :)
Siva
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
"You know what mom? You know what I'm gonna get you next Christmas?
A big wooden cross, so every time you feel unappreciated for all your
sacrifices you can climb up and nail yourself to it." The Ref
peacel
> >Yes, but they probably don't fully understand the implications of
> >the word "realistic," or how cinema is inherently unrealistic.
>
> That's why I think your choice of the word "convincing" is a more
> appropriate one for what most people mean when they say
> "realistic"....
The problem is that a word like "convincing" doesn't convey everything
that you may be referring to. It would be fair to say that the models in
2001 looked convincing, but what about, say, the performances in KIDS?
If I wanted to refer to that film's heightened realism - its
naturalistic acting - then I would choose the word "realistic" over the
word "convincing", if for no other reason than I've seen plenty of
clearly stylized, unrealistic performances that I still found utterly
convincing (e.g., William H. Macy in FARGO).
Everybody knows that movies aren't, and can never be, entirely realistic
because of their inherent stylization. That's a given. There's no need
for anyone to parade that little factoid around as if it were some kind
of enlightened revelation. Thus, I see no problem in using the word
"realistic" to describe movies, or aspects of movies, that you consider
a close approximation of reality *despite* those things that we all know
about that make it inherently unrealistic. You and Kevin talk about how
this type of thinking will lead to confusion, but I see it the other way
around: discussions are going to lead to confusion when you hold onto an
obscure, as-of-yet undefined definition of realistic that assumes a
total lack of common sense and intelligence on the part of the other
person.
Reagen Sulewski
>On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:12:15 GMT, outl...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>i think the only "oxymoron" here is you!
>>
>>just tellin it like it is
>
>No, you're not telling it like it is. You're only telling us your
>feeble opinion---nothing more.
>
>(And you don't sound like you know what "oxymoron" means either, whiz
>kid....)
Oh come on, haven't you seen "Oscar"?
"He's right, you -are- an ox and a moron!"
Mike D'Angelo
stance): How do you feel about the word "naturalistic"? Is it fair to
say, for instance, that Ken Loach's oeuvre tends as a rule to be more
naturalistic than Guy Maddin's? If so, does "naturalistic" have a
different meaning for you than "realistic" does?
The flip side of the question, for Peace and Bryan (and anybody in
agreement with *their* stance): does "naturalistic" perhaps more
accurately convey the sense of what you mean when you say "realistic"?
Mike "sympathetic to both sides" D'Angelo
-The Man Who Viewed Too Much-
http://www.panix.com/~dangelo
Regina Alexandra Robbins
The actual meaning of the term "naturalistic" in drama (which applies
here, since for the most part everyone is talking about narrative
filmmaking) is not synonymous with "realism." Naturalism, as an artistic
movement, used to imply a conscious attmempt on the artists' part to
emphasize the scientific over the mystical and the significance of the
characters' environment on their lives and stories. Example: Ibsen's
GHOSTS is realism; Strindberg's MISS JULIE is naturalism (and a damn fine
play to boot).
Of course, no one uses the term naturalism in that precise sense anymore,
but the problem with that is that semantic debates arise as to its
meaning, when no one really knows its meaning. I'm not sure whether
"naturalistic" *has* any meaning in this particular debate. To learn more
about modern drama and its genres, you can buy THE CAMBRIDGE GUIDE TO
THEATRE, Martin Banham, ed. (I know better than to get on this group
without sources from now on!)
RA "still waiting for someone to distinguish btwn content & form" R.
_________________________________________________
"As Chubsy Ubsy of OUR GANG used to say, What ho!
Bring on the dancing girls!" -- Michael Atkinson
Jeffrey Davis
>
> Of course, no one uses the term naturalism in that precise sense anymore...
There are naturalistic movies being made, however. They are, of course,
usually about men trapped in their environment. The first time I noticed
a heavy Dreiserian naturalism was in The Onion Field, but I've seen it a
lot since then. You can't imagine film noir w/o naturalism, for example.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
Thank you, Madam, the agony is somewhat abated.
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
>that Schindler's List is more "realistic" than mars attacks. If I can't say
>that then what should I say? That it was more like real life? (But THAT is
>what realistic means...) WHat do e call a painting that has "realistic"
>anatomy and lighting, as opposed to a flat shaded egyptian hyrogliph? WHat
>word do we use? It's not just "more detailed," in fact it could be less
>detailed. More "accurate?" Accurate to real life, hence more "realistic."
>
I'm not against calling a movie "realistic," in that it is often the best word
for what people have in mind when describing a movie. My only real objection
is to the idea that "realism" is somehow a criteria that should be used to
determine the quality of the movie.
It can be a quality in a movie that is admirable. To use the by-now hoary old
example, many people admire what they percieve as the realism of the opening
scenes of "Saving Private Ryan" very much, and that was at the root of many of
the positive reviews of the film.
But therein lies the problem - realism is always percieved and almost never
absolute.
Another example, Kevin's example of the wax fruit: Me and my friend could walk
into a room where a bowl of wax fruit sits on a table. It is entirely possible
that my friend might think he was looking at a real apple, while I might
realize I was looking at a fake. That is the nature of perception.
What any of us percieve as "realistic" in a movie may not be percieved in the
same way by others. Therefore, it is all but impossible to truly apply
"realistic" as a standard to any movie.
-Gordon Stokes
Other notable Gordons include: Flash Gordon, Commissioner Gordon, Gordon Jump,
Gordon Lightfoot, Gordon "Gordie" Howe, G. Gordon Liddy, Artemus Gordon, Gale
Gordon, General "Chinese" Gordon and "Gordon" by Barenaked Ladies.
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
>
>Then everybody else piled on.
>
Woo-hoo! Dogpile on Dark Valkyrie!
Dark_Valkyrie
"stylistic". If people are going to, as you say "nitpick", then they should
learn to stick with the subject and use the exact nature of the language
from which they speak. That way, we are all in agreement, on where we
stand. Otherwise, what is our frame of reference. And, just what in your
opinion, constitutes another human language. We all speak the same language
on here, so where am I a "nitpick"?
Siva <kiw...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7qeg5r$1rn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <#TovPVm8#GA.248@cpmsnbbsa03>,
> "Dark_Valkyrie" <Dark_V...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> "All films are fiction"
> >
> > I also like how you conveniently extracted the phrase that totally
> > agrees with your side, but yet just dismissed the rest of what John
> said..
> > that's very interesting. Maybe when you learn to understand human
> language
> > better, you will be more apt to take the whole idea, and not the parts
> that
> > just agree with you.
>
> All of this time I was under the mistaken impression that there were
> many human languages as opposed to just one simple human language.
> Damned public schools!
>
> I really hate it when people nitpick. :)
Dark_Valkyrie
people to understand a "likeness" to the "real" thing? That's all I wanted
someone to point out. A movie can have a very strong resemblance, or
likeness to real events. Why do people make it so difficult? "realistic"
means just that, a likeness... Damn this was like pulling teeth....
schrodinger's damon <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote in message
news:37CA119E...@mdo.net...
>
>
> Kevin wrote:
>
> > ...Filmmakers who want their films to appear to be "real" will use
stylistic
> > approaches that are conventionally accepted to convey "realism." But,
being
> > movies, the results are by definition unrealistic.
> >
>
> you are using terms inccorrectly.
> the movies are unreal.
> the movies Can be realistic.
>
> > BWP does use the style of realism much more than other films you'll see
at the
> > cineplex. That doesn't make it realistic. The characters are not real.
> > Heather was on Leno. If her character is "real," she should be dead.
>
> incorrect.
> if the PLOT were real, she would be dead.
> the character could be real.
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
>must be certain ground rules. And our common language is the first
>rule of order toward our understanding each other clearly.
>
Indeed. In fact, in competitive debate, the first thing that the affirmative
side (which is generally the first to speak) does is provide definitions for
the important terms that will be used in the debate.
Dark_Valkyrie
> Yes, we can call a film "realistic" if it employs the style of filmmaking
known
> as "realism." But this is a very specific, technical usage of the word,
and
> _not_ what is meant in everday conversation about movies.
>
> That's because, as Giannetti's book points out, "realism" is a style.
But, and
Exactly, my point from earlier. "realism" and "realistic" are two
different things. You are still comparing, pardon the pun, apples and
oranges.. stick the "realistic" not "realism"
> here's the important (but difficult) part, there's nothing inherently
> "realistic" (in the conventional sense of the word) about the style known
as
> "realism." It's a style meant to convey a sort of authentic feeling, but
it's
> still a style.
>
> Speilberg brilliantly used all of these decidedly unrealistic elements to
> convey a sense of realism. And that's the crux of this whole issue.
Since
> realism is a style that only has a tangential relationship to reality as
we
> know it, Speilberg had to alter reality to make the combat seem more
"real" to
> today's audiences.
>
> >You said: "Plastic apples can be realistic. ... So we don't need to throw
the
> >word 'realistic' out. But I don't think there are films that can be
> >realistic. Since we _know_ it's a film, we already know the apple is
plastic,
> >so to speak."
>
> >That implies that for something to be realistic, it must be able to fool
> >people into believing that it's actually real. Is that what you meant? If
so,
> >I don't think that's ever been a requirement for "realistic" to apply.
>
> That's not what I meant. Admittedly, my "plastic apples" analogy ain't
the
> greatest, but I'll stick with it until someone offers something better, or
> until you guys beat me up.
>
> What I meant was: if something is termed "realistic" in everday
conversation,
> this thing does not need to be "the real thing," but it should be
reasonably
> convincing as being "the real thing." You don't have to be fooled by the
> plastic apple. You can simply look at it and say, "yep, that looks a lot
like
> a real apple."
Yes, so why can't we look at the movie screen, and say, yup that LOOKS
real, but we know in our hearts of hearts, its NOT. Now, we can further
simply this "appearing" or illusion of some semblance to "real" to mean, it
bears a strong likeness, or hey, "realistic" appearance? Why can't we agree
to just use the websters, or basically any dictionary definition, that
"realistic" means a strong likeness. You want us to accept your view of
"inference" yet, we can't infer that movies can appear to be "real" or
"realistic" but without deconstructing the movie with technical details,
just agree it can be "realistic." That has what spawned this entire debate.
Evidently other people agree with me, even though, as you can tell it struck
a nerve and I was an ASSHOLE (yes Nimrod and Kevin, you saw me say it, I am
an ASSHOLE) for inviting emotion into what could just be a simple
conversation, but I have a very strong opinion on this.. Opinions are like
assholes, every newsgroup has one. :)
>
> But things on a movie screen almost never look like "the real thing." To
> paraphrase Nimrod, it's just a bunch of pixels. A 2-dimensional,
inherently
> unrealistic image.
OK, fine I agree with that statement. That's wonderful. But they can
be a likeness to "the real thing". Can we just say that? you are looking
at like a computer would, but other of us use our imagination to "fill in
the blanks" and the let movie engulf us, even for just a little while...
>
> >Plastic apples are only "realistic" if we apply filters to our perception
of
> >them. Specifically, we must ignore everything but what it looks like.
(Okay,
> >and what it sounds like, as long as they're just sitting there.)
Similarly,
> >films can be realistic if we filter out certain elements, many of which
you
> >and others have mentioned. You seem to be saying that films cannot be
> >realistic *because* we must filter out those elements, but if so than we
> >can't
> >say a plastic apple can ever be realistic, either. In both cases, we must
> >ignore all evidence of their unreality.
>
> Okay, what evidence must you filter out to determine that a plastic apple
is
> not real? It looks realistic. Now, if you pick it up, it sounds, tastes,
> feels, and smells unrealistic, and the illusion is gone.
That's correct, but using your own argument, a movie, you can't actually
touch the movie, or each and every item in a movie, so therefore, the
illusion or "realistic" is never dispelled, becase we can't touch it. :)
That's all I have been saying from the start, if you wade through my
emotional outbursts... it "looks" realistic.. Thank you, sheesh! If you
would have said this in the first place, I would have let it go.
>
> Film is a visual and aural medium, of course. We can't touch, taste,
feel, or
> smell any of the things that are on the screen. All we have are our eyes
and
> ears (and brain, for most of us). So we actually have much less evidence
to
> determine if a movie is realistic. It doesn't _look_ realistic (2-D
pixels and
> all that). I'll grant that it may sound realistic (although most films do
not,
> and any film with a non-diegetic soundtrack does not). If something
doesn't
> look, feel, taste, sound, or smell realistic, can we say that it is
realistic?
All that is true. But, the human mind can "seem" to conjure images
because of the techology and our imaginations to "create a state of
illusion" such that the characters can have the ability to "appear
realistic". If its plastic or lousy sound, I will grant you its difficult
to bridge the gap between realistic and not. But, I will also grant you,
that's the selling point of large screen tv, surround sound, 5.1 dolby
digital, DVD, and that put together to make the movie experience "more
realistic".
>
> >That leaves the basic question still unanswered: What is there that's
> >realistic, but isn't real?
>
> Um, plastic apples, as long as you don't touch 'em. But not movies. :-)
Well why not movies?
>
> >Or, put another way, of what possible use is the
> >term "realistic" if we limit it as you've suggested?
>
Its not necessarily limited, its just we have to agree on a word that
describes the events in this stylized, illusion movie. That word, we can
agree (I hope) is termed: REALISTIC. The dictionary, also seems to use this
to mean that as well. I am not arguing that movies have a certain unreal
setting, because actors have to glorify the parts they are playing for
drama, and the set has to be more colorful (or black and white) to create
the affect the director is after. There is a such thing as purposeful
imagery, isn't there? The arena that a game designer, writer, or director,
is that of imagination, so that you see what they want you to see.. if that
in turn leads to what many people perceive as "realistic" then so be it.
Why, oh why, is it so hard to just accept "realistic" as a simplistic
layman's term for what they believe is as you said, believable or real.
That's just simple terminology for the avg person to understand... I have
question for you. Harmon Kardon and PSB speakers both have adds that refer
to their music reproduction as "realistic". I only bring this up because
you mentioned the sound in a theater.. Does that mean, they can't grasp the
audience they are after by using a non-purists example? For the purists, we
can read between the lines.. and realize what they mean, can't we? Another
example.. Football.. (oh God the DV is starting another damn thread...)
Time Outs is completely false. Ask an English teacher, and they will tell
you, its Time(S) Out. but, over the years we have just accepted the term,
without giving it another thought.. such is the term: realistic. I know you
have more knowledge of movies than probably anyone else on this newsgroup,
and have a more refined background. Even though I was a dick to your
earlier, I read your more technical information, and I know where you are
coming from.. but, all I am trying to illustrate is we need a common ground
to refer what we see on movie screen as likeness to real life. We could all
go around saying "stylized representations of an illusion which is portrayed
as pixels via a computer conduit, and thus projected to give the impression
of what appears to be characters based on real people, and using a sound to
add to an experience that makes the movie more believable." Can we please,
just use a more simple explanation? REALISTIC? We know its not.. but for
lack of a better word, how would you explain your technical explanation to a
complete idiot? How about a child? What if they had no clue what a
projector is, or any of those things.. Many movies are made with the idea to
make it seem believable and appear "real" as possible. So, "realistic" is a
very basic term to describe just that.
peacel
> The flip side of the question, for Peace and Bryan (and anybody
> in agreement with *their* stance): does "naturalistic" perhaps
> more accurately convey the sense of what you mean when you say
> "realistic"?
In certain instances, I think the words are interchangeable (the acting
in KIDS, for example). However, if I felt that the opening battle scene
in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was especially realistic, I don't think it would
make sense for me to say that it was "naturalistic". Naturalism tends
to imply a total lack of stylization - or, more accurately, a
stylization that is almost invisible - but the battle scenes in SPR are
very clearly stylized strips of celluloid. So, if I feel that Spielberg
was able to use style to create a heightened sense of reality (and I do
think such a thing is possible), then "realistic" is definitely the way
to go.
Now, can anyone tell me the difference between "morals" and "ethics"?
Dark_Valkyrie
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia <drzai...@aol.comWAFFLES> wrote in message
news:19990831192745...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
> >DV came roaring back at us, not nicely at all.
> >
> >Then everybody else piled on.
> >
>
> Woo-hoo! Dogpile on Dark Valkyrie!
>
>
Mike D'Angelo
: The actual meaning of the term "naturalistic" in drama (which applies
: here, since for the most part everyone is talking about narrative
: filmmaking) is not synonymous with "realism." Naturalism, as an
: artistic movement, used to imply a conscious attmempt on the artists'
: part to emphasize the scientific over the mystical and the significance
: of the characters' environment on their lives and stories.
I think the key words in the above paragraph are "used to." Even if this
usage is still current (I still find it in Merriam-Webster 10), it's not
germane to this discussion; what *is* germane is MW-10's definition 3:
"realism in art or literature" (for "naturalism"; "naturalistic,"
predictably, is defined simply as "of, characterized by, or according
to" same).
So let me refer you (and Nimrod) back to my original question.
Mike "try not to duck it this time" D'Angelo
James Margaris
>Mike D'Angelo wrote:
>
[clip]
>Now, can anyone tell me the difference between "morals" and "ethics"?
Morals are basic rights sorts of things that apply to everyone and thing.
Ethics are usually defined by a given set of people to define what is or is
not professional conduct. All ethics (theoretically) stem from morals, but not
all morals are ethics.
Ethics are the implications of morals applied to a specific field. We would
not say it is "unethical" for a lawyer to punch someone, because that has
nothing to do with their profession. However we would say that it is unethical
for the lawyer to betray her client's confidentiality.
Well, that is my try anyway.
James M
Matthew Butcher
>A question for Nimrod and Kevin (and anybody in agreement with their
>stance): How do you feel about the word "naturalistic"? Is it fair to
>say, for instance, that Ken Loach's oeuvre tends as a rule to be more
>naturalistic than Guy Maddin's? If so, does "naturalistic" have a
>different meaning for you than "realistic" does?
>The flip side of the question, for Peace and Bryan (and anybody in
>agreement with *their* stance): does "naturalistic" perhaps more
>accurately convey the sense of what you mean when you say "realistic"?
I don't think I'd ever call a set or a plot device "naturalistic," but
I wouldn't shy away from using "realistic" with either. With stuff
like performances and dialogue, both seem to work, without having
exactly the same connotations. "Naturalistic" carries overtones of
method acting, and speeches with lots of ums and ahs; "realistic" means
something closer to "plausible." "Naturalistic" has an earthier feel
to me. There's nothing obviously *wrong* with a phrase like, "a
naturalistic portrayal of a cold, emotionless killer," but it still
seems a little odd.
This is entirely subjective, of course, based on how I've seen the
words used in print and in conversation -- but that's as things should
be. "Realistic" isn't a bit of technical jargon; it's just an
ordinary English word, and we should feel free to use it wherever it
seems to work.
Kevin gave a quote earlier from Giannetti's "Understanding Movies," in
which "realism" is described as a style characterised by long takes,
etc. That's out of synch with my own experience. I see phrases like
"Italian neorealism," "kitchen sink realism," and so on, but I don't
see realism itself described as a style -- rather as something that
many different styles, in their various ways, try to aspire *to*.
That's the everyday usage of the word, and also the one used by the
couple of reference books I've bothered to check. (Ira Konigsberg's
"The Complete Film Dictionary" is a fair example.)
Here's something I turned up after a couple of minutes with Pauline
Kael's "For Keeps" -- it's in her review of "Pixote" -- "Babenco's
imagery is realistic, but his point of view is shockingly lyrical."
I'm sure I could easily find dozens of similar examples in Farber,
Sarris, or Rosenbaum. Is Kael a fool for not realising that hey,
that's not Brazil, it's just light projected on a screen? And how
about those book critics who routinely call novels realistic when,
Jesus Christ, it's just frigging symbols on a *page*?
There may be other academics out there who use Kevin's specialised
definition of "realistic." And certainly, I don't mind his sig; it's
a cute paradox, and the point behind it needs to be considered
whenever we look at folks like Cassavetes or Robert Flaherty. But
exiling the useful, everyday meaning of the word is a silly
overcompensation. Luckily, it'll never catch on.
--
Matthew Butcher | We were having a party, but we weren't invited.
but...@math.ubc.ca | -- Peter Laughner
Kevin
>"Dark_Valkyrie"
><Dark_V...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Evidently other people agree with me, even though, as you can tell it struck
>>a nerve and I was an ASSHOLE (yes Nimrod and Kevin, you saw me say it, I am
>>an ASSHOLE) for inviting emotion into what could just be a simple
>>conversation, but I have a very strong opinion on this.. Opinions are like
>>assholes, every newsgroup has one. :)
>To DV:
>Some have agreed with you; some have disagreed. But almost all seem
>to agree with your admission that you acted like an ASSHOLE about it
>(with the possible exception of your recent compadre "damon", who is a
>dubious allie indeed).
Well, it certainly is nice to welcome a contrite DV back to the adult table.
(No, he didn't actually say "I'm sorry," but close enough.) It's enough that
he's trying to discuss things in a civil manner.
I have "damon" in my killfile, not because I don't care about his opinion, but
because I don't have time to read every message, and don't want to waste time
with those "one sentence snide remark" guys. Should I read his stuff?
>To Kevin:
>Kevin, don't you dare change a word of your sig!
Thanks for the support. I still stand by my Maxim. I think it has served its
purpose well, which is to spark debate on a important issue regarding
terminology. I learned things, and I hope others have as well. But when this
thread has run its course, which is probably very soon, maybe I'll pick a new
Maxim, and hope it leads to fruitful debate. (No one took issue with my "Plot
is for pussies" Maxim, so maybe I'll drop or reword that one.)
How seriously do I take these Maxims? Well, DV's favorite book (Webster's)
defines a maxim as a "sententious" expression of a principle, which is why I
chose the word "maxim" instead of something like "undeniable truth."
--Kevin
Kevin
> It would be fair to say that the models in
>2001 looked convincing, but what about, say, the performances in KIDS?
>If I wanted to refer to that film's heightened realism - its
>naturalistic acting - then I would choose the word "realistic" over the
>word "convincing", if for no other reason than I've seen plenty of
>clearly stylized, unrealistic performances that I still found utterly
>convincing (e.g., William H. Macy in FARGO).
You make a good point. But have I said that performances cannot be called
"realistic"? I've been saying that "realistic," in the everyday usage of the
word, is too strong or problematic an adjective to describe an entire film.
But is "realistic" a useful word to describe the performances in KIDS? I think
so. Elements of a film can be realistic. But taken as a whole, the entire
film should not be called realistic, because there are so many unreal or
stylized elements involved. (Nimrod may not agree with this.)
>Everybody knows that movies aren't, and can never be, entirely realistic
>because of their inherent stylization. That's a given.
Somebody around here has a sig that says something like, "any statement that
begins with 'everybody knows' is probably incorrect." I think that applies
here. Can you say that DV, in his earlier posts, realized this? You and I may
know it, but certainly not everyone.
>There's no need
>for anyone to parade that little factoid around as if it were some kind
>of enlightened revelation.
Hm, "enlightened revelation." I like the sound of that. But heck, I've said
all along that I'm just passing along information contained in standard film
textbooks. I'm just a reporter, not a prophet.
>Thus, I see no problem in using the word
>"realistic" to describe movies, or aspects of movies, that you consider
>a close approximation of reality *despite* those things that we all know
>about that make it inherently unrealistic.
We agree 50% (on the "aspects" part). That's not bad.
>You and Kevin talk about how
>this type of thinking will lead to confusion,
I've already retracted my ill-advised use of the word "confusion" in a previous
post.
>but I see it the other way
>around: discussions are going to lead to confusion when you hold onto an
>obscure, as-of-yet undefined definition of realistic that assumes a
>total lack of common sense and intelligence on the part of the other
>person.
As-of-yet undefined? I've typed about 5,000 words defining it!
And I've never assumed anyone has a lack of common sense or intelligence. I
prefer to let them prove or disprove this themselves.
Kevin
>Mike D'Angelo wrote:
>> A question for Nimrod and Kevin (and anybody in agreement with their
>> stance): How do you feel about the word "naturalistic"? Is it fair to
>> say, for instance, that Ken Loach's oeuvre tends as a rule to be more
>> naturalistic than Guy Maddin's? If so, does "naturalistic" have a
>> different meaning for you than "realistic" does?
>> The flip side of the question, for Peace and Bryan (and anybody in
>> agreement with *their* stance): does "naturalistic" perhaps more
>> accurately convey the sense of what you mean when you say "realistic"?
>> Mike "sympathetic to both sides" D'Angelo
>The actual meaning of the term "naturalistic" in drama (which applies
>here, since for the most part everyone is talking about narrative
>filmmaking) is not synonymous with "realism." Naturalism, as an artistic
>movement, used to imply a conscious attmempt on the artists' part to
>emphasize the scientific over the mystical and the significance of the
>characters' environment on their lives and stories. Example: Ibsen's
>GHOSTS is realism; Strindberg's MISS JULIE is naturalism (and a damn fine
>play to boot).
>
>Of course, no one uses the term naturalism in that precise sense anymore,
>but the problem with that is that semantic debates arise as to its
>meaning, when no one really knows its meaning. I'm not sure whether
>"naturalistic" *has* any meaning in this particular debate. To learn more
>about modern drama and its genres, you can buy THE CAMBRIDGE GUIDE TO
>THEATRE, Martin Banham, ed. (I know better than to get on this group
>without sources from now on!)
I was going to jump in and say to Mike, "Yeah, let's use 'naturalistic' instead
of 'realistic.'" In fact, I think I've previously described the acting in
something as "naturalistic." (As did Peacel in KIDS).
But then Regina and Jeffrey had to spoil my fun by pointing out the
historically correct usage of the term. But I still prefer "naturalistic" to
"realistic" to describe certain aspects of films, as it seems less problematic
than "realistic." (Unless you're well versed in 19th century drama.)
>RA "still waiting for someone to distinguish btwn content & form"
I still thinking on that one, and hoping someone besides me will jump into the
fray along those lines.
Kevin
>Regina Alexandra Robbins <ra...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>: The actual meaning of the term "naturalistic" in drama (which applies
>: here, since for the most part everyone is talking about narrative
>: filmmaking) is not synonymous with "realism." Naturalism, as an
>: artistic movement, used to imply a conscious attmempt on the artists'
>: part to emphasize the scientific over the mystical and the significance
>: of the characters' environment on their lives and stories.
>I think the key words in the above paragraph are "used to." Even if this
>usage is still current (I still find it in Merriam-Webster 10), it's not
>germane to this discussion; what *is* germane is MW-10's definition 3:
>"realism in art or literature" (for "naturalism"; "naturalistic,"
>predictably, is defined simply as "of, characterized by, or according
>to" same).
Someday I'm really going to learn to read all of the posts in a thread before
typing my replies. Thanks Mike for that second definition of "naturalistic,"
which suggests that it is in fact an accepted synonym for "realistic."
So here's my answer to your question: "How do you feel about the word
"naturalistic"? When people use the word "realistic" to describe some aspect
of a film that seems true to life, I would be happier if they used the word
"naturalistic." (Though I know this will never happen.) "Realistic" just has
too many other connotations, such as a description for a film that adheres to
the style of "Realism," which may contain many elements that are not
neccessarily "true to life."
You also asked, "Is it fair to say, for instance, that Ken Loach's oeuvre tends
as a rule to be more naturalistic than Guy Maddin's?"
My answer is, "I don't know enough about these guys to answer." DV seems to
think I'm some sort of an expert. Far from it. If I knew it all, I wouldn't
be reading newsgroups, unless I was just in love with the idea of expressing my
opinion. That, to me, could get boring.
Kevin
>Mike D'Angelo wrote:
>> The flip side of the question, for Peace and Bryan (and anybody
>> in agreement with *their* stance): does "naturalistic" perhaps
>> more accurately convey the sense of what you mean when you say
>> "realistic"?
>In certain instances, I think the words are interchangeable (the acting
>in KIDS, for example). However, if I felt that the opening battle scene
>in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was especially realistic, I don't think it would
>make sense for me to say that it was "naturalistic". Naturalism tends
>to imply a total lack of stylization - or, more accurately, a
>stylization that is almost invisible - but the battle scenes in SPR are
>very clearly stylized strips of celluloid. So, if I feel that Spielberg
>was able to use style to create a heightened sense of reality (and I do
>think such a thing is possible), then "realistic" is definitely the way
>to go.
By God, I think we're coming close to an agreement here.
Many folks think that something like SPR is "realistic" without realizing (or
acknowledging) that SPR is in fact very stylized and not actually true to life
in its use of this style. (Which is exactly why I have problems with the word
"realistic.") But you are using the word "realistic" to describe the style
known as Realism. I have no problems with that, as I've said earlier. But
that's not how I hear the word used 90% of the time. My Maxim should say,
"Realistic movie is an oxymoron 90% of the time that the phrase is used." But
that's not very catchy. It's ungainly, and not as likely to induce interesting
debates.
You indicate that a film like SPR creates a realistic effect by using, shall we
say, unnatural elements. That's what I've been saying all along. I think we
basically agree, but we started out at different ends of the arena.
>Now, can anyone tell me the difference between "morals" and "ethics"?
Do you want the long answer or the short answer? ;-)
schrodinger's damon
Siva wrote:
> In article <37CA119E...@mdo.net>,
> schrodinger's damon <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Kevin wrote:
> >
> > > ...Filmmakers who want their films to appear to be "real" will use
> stylistic
> > > approaches that are conventionally accepted to convey "realism."
> But, being
> > > movies, the results are by definition unrealistic.
> > >
> >
> > you are using terms inccorrectly.
> > the movies are unreal.
> > the movies Can be realistic.
>
> Hint: If you are going to be overly critical of people's usage of
> terms, it would be wise on your part to spellcheck your posts
> beforehand.
why?
i'm not critical of other people's spelling.
> Most people are not going to take English lessons from
> someone who can't properly spell "incorrectly".
>
yeah, funny that.
style over substance and all.
--
It seems that some people think a white man running for mayor
in the majority black city of Baltimore is a racist act.
schrodinger's damon
Kevin wrote:
> frank...@aol.com (Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
>
>
> >Did you ever answer the much-asked question,
> >"If movies cannot be realistic, what can be realistic?" By your definition of
> >realistic, it seems that there is nothing that the word can ever be applied
> >to.
>
> That's an excellent point that you and James have made. Here's a short example
> which illustrates my position:
>
> Have you ever seen plastic fruit? You know, the stuff people sometimes put in
> bowls on their table (why, I don't know). Sometimes, that stuff can look so
> real that people actually reach for it, thinking that they're picking up, say,
> a real apple. But it's not real, of course. They were fooled because, at a
> glance, it looked realistic, and was sitting in a place where real apples
> sometimes sit.
>
> Plastic apples can be realistic. (I think Satre said that first). So we don't
> need to throw the word "realistic" out. But I don't think there are films that
> can be realistic. Since we _know_ it's a film, we already know the apple is
> plastic, so to speak.
>
sigh.
so if we know an apple is plastic, trhen we can't say it looks realistic?
i think you'd better think a little more before you post.
>
> Now, we could do a direct comparison, though I doubt you'd be satisfied with
> this: Have you ever saw an apple on TV or on a movie screen that you thought
> was so real, you almost reached for it? Of course not. The nature of
> film/tape (and the social rituals involved with viewing them) is such that
> you're never actually fooled. That's because filmed apples aren't really
> realistic. They are a 2-dimensional, imprecise representation of apples
> created with stuff like light, plastic, and chemicals. In fact, everything you
> see on a movie screen is this kind of image.
>
hence, no movies are long.
>
> > I'm also wondering why you and Nimrod think this is such an important
> >issue.
>
> I can't speak for Nimrod, but here's my reason. I love movies (thus my screen
> name), and I like to talk intelligently with intelligent people about movies.
>
> But, in relationship to films, "realistic" is such a problematic adjective
> that, in order to avoid confusion, it should not be applied to films in
> intelligent conversation (unless certain ground rules are understood by all,
> i.e. that "realism" is a style and can as artificial as Expressionism).
>
now, that's one of teh dumber things i've seen from you.
before i just thought you had been duped by some teacher or
book you'd read.
>You know that when someone says that Secrets and Lies is realistic they don't
> >mean that it is reality, but that it reminds them of reality.
>
> Yes.
>
> But if they were genuinely interested in discussing film in detail, I would
> want to point out to them the many ways in which the film, and all films by
> their very nature, differ from reality so much that it seems almost absurd to
> call any film "realistic."
>
you have weird and scary desires.
>
> > Do you see a real importance to this issue, or are you just being
> >preposterously literal in order to infuriate people?
>
he's not being literal. if he were he'd be arguing using the correct definitions
of words.
schrodinger's damon
peacel wrote:
> Nimrod`` wrote:
>
> > From what I can tell, it seems this is because I have strong opinions
> > I don't equivocate about which don't always jibe with popular opinion.
> > I won't apologize for that.
>
> I'm not asking you to apologize for it, I'm just making an observation.
> Four or five times now I've popped into a thread after noticing that
> it's been going on for a ridiculously long time, only to find that it's
> turned into a big flame war over some small point, and a lot of people
> are attacking you and calling you names and you're doing the whole, "it
> looks like you're too dumb or too unimaginative to understand the full
> meaning of my (real) name" thing.
>
if you were my friend, i'd explain this to you.
>
> Now, I agree that Dark Valkyrie is being childish and overly defensive,
> and I agree that endless name-calling is a waste of everyone's time,
> but even still, I can't deny that this phenomena exists: whatever the
> reason, you, Nimrod, are an anger magnet.
>
it has to do with the....
see above.
schrodinger's damon
Kevin wrote:
> js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:
>
>
>
> >Or, take believability. We grant that a movie with a fasntasy or sci-fi
> >setting is "believable" if the characters, motivations, dialog and plot make
> >sense, even though there may be robots and aliens. Clearly we KNOW that
> >fiction *by definition* is NOT believable really, but we can still use the
> >term, because we are implying many things not explicitly stated. Literally
> >speaking no fiction is more or less believable (we disbelieve them all 100%)
> >but English luckily is more nuanced than that.
>
> We agree here. I have no problem with anyone using the word "believable" to
> describe a film, as I've said previously.
>
> But there is an important difference in these two statements:
> 1. "That movie was believable."
> 2. "That movie was realistic."
>
> In English, we generally consider "believe" to be a personal statement. If you
> say "I believe him," it doesn't mean he is absolutely telling the truth. It
> means that personally you think he is.
>
> But "real" or "realistic" is different. It's not subjective like "believe."
> If you say "that's real," you're stating something that can be proved or
> disproved through investigation.
>
sigh.
i was gonna let this one go until this.
realistic is subjective.
that's where your argument falls apart.
>
> We cannot prove or disprove statement #1, but we can disprove statement #2.
> Which is why when someone says "that movie is realistic," they are not standing
> on solid ground.
>
neither are yu right now.
you are likely sitting on a chair on a floor.
schrodinger's damon
Nimrod`` wrote:
> If people disagree with me---even if they vehemently disagree---and
> choose to express it in a civil manner, that's fine. But to be blunt
> about it, peacel, you're being terribly mediocre in blaming me for the
> childish and abusive behavior of others. I can only hope you never
> become a rape counselor or spousal abuse therapist---it seems you'd
> tell them that they must have been asking for it. (Those silly,
> uppity Negroes---if they'd just stayed at the back of the bus, kept
> their mouths shut and behaved, those rednecks wouldn't be kicking hell
> out them right now and calling them bad names. It's their own fault.)
>
> N.
if you weren't such an idiotic asshole, then people wouldn't
be on your case so much.
schrodinger's damon
Nimrod`` wrote:
> On 31 Aug 1999 08:24:31 GMT, filmn...@aol.comKILLME (Kevin) wrote:
>
> >frank...@aol.com (Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for your response, Kevin. I still have to disagree, though. I think
> >>generally when people say that a movie is realistic, you know contextually
> >>which aspect of the movie they're describing.
> >
> >Yes, but they probably don't fully understand the implications of the word
> >"realistic," or how cinema is inherently unrealistic. If they don't care about
> >such things, I wouldn't even bring it up. But those who love talking about
> >films in depth should have a better understanding of the word, don't you think?
>
> That's why I think your choice of the word "convincing" is a more
> appropriate one for what most people mean when they say
> "realistic"....
>
some people around here were less convinced by the more realistic
aspects of the blair witch project.
>
>
> As in any human exchange, for it to be both civil and productive there
> must be certain ground rules. And our common language is the first
> rule of order toward our understanding each other clearly.
>
> That's why, when it's all said and done, there's nothing new or wrong
> about periodic debates over semantics---despite the tedium they can
> produce when carried on at length. But it's simply part of the
> centuries-old tug-of-war and evolution of language which has persisted
> out of necessity since human beings began to speak to each other.
>
>
well, so far we've won and you've lost.
schrodinger's damon
Siva wrote:
>
>
> I apologize for throwing real and realistic together as if they were the
> same, exact word… real and realistic are NOT exactly the same thing, but
> unfortunately they are linked, especially in most people's daily speech
> (right, wrong or indifferent this is completely true). Realistic is
> derived from Realism, which is fidelity to nature or to REAL life;
> representation without idealization and making no appeal to the
> imagination; adherence to the actual fact. Because of this definition,
> I would say that most motion pictures are not realistic in the
> dictionary sense because of the artifice involved in making one.
there is artifice involved in making anything fake.
your distinction is meaningless.
> The
> experience in the theater may be SEEM very realistic to the viewer… they
> may feel as if some of the characters, situations and interactions in
> the movie resemble things in their personal lives. This is a matter of
> personal perception. But by strict definition, I can't imagine a movie
> that is completely faithful to nature or real life with no idealization
> or appeal to the imagination involved.
the dictionary didn't say the fidelity had to be COMPLETE.
>
>
> As several people have already said, it seems to come down to what
> everyone considers to be the true meaning of realistic… and as this
> seems to vary from person to person I don't think that we are ever going
> to come to a consensus. Not that this will stop anyone from discussing
> this of course. :)
well, the people who we're arguing against are the ones redefining the word.
schrodinger's damon
Nimrod`` wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:10:51 -0400, "Dark_Valkyrie"
> <Dark_V...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Evidently other people agree with me, even though, as you can tell it struck
> >a nerve and I was an ASSHOLE (yes Nimrod and Kevin, you saw me say it, I am
> >an ASSHOLE) for inviting emotion into what could just be a simple
> >conversation, but I have a very strong opinion on this.. Opinions are like
> >assholes, every newsgroup has one. :)
> >
>
> To DV:
>
> Some have agreed with you; some have disagreed. But almost all seem
> to agree with your admission that you acted like an ASSHOLE about it
> (with the possible exception of your recent compadre "damon", who is a
> dubious allie indeed).
neat!
a couple of points.
[1] how would nimrod know that i have or have not agreed with dv's calling
himself an asshole since n. has me killfiled?
answer: he doesn't, so this is just another excuse for him to snipe at me.
right backatcha!
[2] i'm 'dubious' now, neat!
and a 'compadre'!
see, peacel, you Had your chance.
it seems i have a new bestest friend.
schrodinger's damon
see, they all killfiled me a long time ago.
Dark_Valkyrie wrote:
> Cool, finally a voice that speaks truth. Why has it been so hard for
> people to understand a "likeness" to the "real" thing? That's all I wanted
> someone to point out. A movie can have a very strong resemblance, or
> likeness to real events. Why do people make it so difficult? "realistic"
> means just that, a likeness... Damn this was like pulling teeth....
>
> schrodinger's damon <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote in message
> news:37CA119E...@mdo.net...
> >
> >
> > Kevin wrote:
> >
> > > ...Filmmakers who want their films to appear to be "real" will use
> stylistic
> > > approaches that are conventionally accepted to convey "realism." But,
> being
> > > movies, the results are by definition unrealistic.
> > >
> >
> > you are using terms inccorrectly.
> > the movies are unreal.
> > the movies Can be realistic.
> >
> > > BWP does use the style of realism much more than other films you'll see
> at the
> > > cineplex. That doesn't make it realistic. The characters are not real.
> > > Heather was on Leno. If her character is "real," she should be dead.
> >
> > incorrect.
> > if the PLOT were real, she would be dead.
> > the character could be real.
--
schrodinger's damon
oxymoron?
Because the very act showing a movie means that you will go and see at most a few
hours'
worth of film. It's that simple. Film
is short.
Ironically, the films hailed as "long" by the uninitiated---those
who don't really understand film as a medium---are far from long;
and the way in which they are not long is due to the inherent nature of film.
The very act of photographing a real,
tangible object, individual, or physical action, then rendering it
back for human consumption in a series of thousands of variously
shaded film grains or digital pixels is an act of brevity which
removes that captured image from length. Even the process of human
beings viewing that captured image and "re-experiencing" it further
shortens the experience, removing it even further from length.
This is not a new perception with me, by the way, nor did it originate
with me. It is age old. Ask any major filmmaker since the inception
of cinema. It's a phenomenon great filmmakers who truly work with and
understand the medium have had full grasp of all along. Movies are
not long. Not even documentaries or surveillance footage. Some
can strive to create the ILLUSION of length, but they cannot be truly
lengthy.
Kevin
>I don't think I'd ever call a set or a plot device "naturalistic," but
>I wouldn't shy away from using "realistic" with either. With stuff
>like performances and dialogue, both seem to work, without having
>exactly the same connotations. "Naturalistic" carries overtones of
>method acting, and speeches with lots of ums and ahs; "realistic" means
>something closer to "plausible." "Naturalistic" has an earthier feel
>to me. There's nothing obviously *wrong* with a phrase like, "a
>naturalistic portrayal of a cold, emotionless killer," but it still
>seems a little odd.
I agree with all of the above. I've never said that certain elements of films
cannot be called "realistic." I've said that films as a whole should not be
labeled as such. In your last sentence, replace "naturalistic" with
"believeable," and that seems like a good phrase.
>This is entirely subjective, of course, based on how I've seen the
>words used in print and in conversation -- but that's as things should
>be. "Realistic" isn't a bit of technical jargon; it's just an
>ordinary English word, and we should feel free to use it wherever it
>seems to work.
But it just doesn't "seem to work" when describing movies in general, as
several of us have often mentioned.
And "realism" is indeed a bit of technical jargon, in addition to being a word
in common usage. That's not unheard of. And just because we know what
somebody means, doesn't mean that their word choices are correct. If someone
said, "Civil War soldiers had bayonets attached to their rifles," we would know
what they meant. But we also might want to point out that their usage of the
word "rifle" is incorrect.
>Kevin gave a quote earlier from Giannetti's "Understanding Movies," in
>which "realism" is described as a style characterised by long takes,
>etc. That's out of synch with my own experience.
I think that "long take" stuff comes from Andre Bazin's theories, especially as
used by guys like Renoir. As I suggested, this particular version of "realism"
is probably out of date.
>I see phrases like
>"Italian neorealism," "kitchen sink realism," and so on, but I don't
>see realism itself described as a style -- rather as something that
>many different styles, in their various ways, try to aspire *to*.
>That's the everyday usage of the word, and also the one used by the
>couple of reference books I've bothered to check. (Ira Konigsberg's
>"The Complete Film Dictionary" is a fair example.)
Haven't seen that. I'll borrow it from the library.
>Here's something I turned up after a couple of minutes with Pauline
>Kael's "For Keeps" -- it's in her review of "Pixote" -- "Babenco's
>imagery is realistic, but his point of view is shockingly lyrical."
>I'm sure I could easily find dozens of similar examples in Farber,
>Sarris, or Rosenbaum. Is Kael a fool for not realising that hey,
>that's not Brazil, it's just light projected on a screen?
Of course not. She didn't say the movie was realistic. She said the imagery
was. No problems as far as I can see.
But I'm not really a fan of Kael's writing on a technical level. She often
makes sweeping statements without citing evidence (like this one.)
>And how
>about those book critics who routinely call novels realistic when,
>Jesus Christ, it's just frigging symbols on a *page*?
I don't know anything about literary criticism. I'm sure experts in that field
have their own specialized terminology. I'm talking about movies, about which
I know something (but not nearly everthing).
>There may be other academics out there who use Kevin's specialised
>definition of "realistic." And certainly, I don't mind his sig; it's
>a cute paradox,
Thanks!
>and the point behind it needs to be considered
>whenever we look at folks like Cassavetes or Robert Flaherty.
And many others, I think.
>But exiling the useful, everyday meaning of the word is
>a silly overcompensation.
I don't want to exile it. Just restrict its use to where it fully appropriate.
>Luckily, it'll never catch on.
Of that I am certain. But a boy can dream.
vjmorton
"I wasn't referring to this thread, but all the threads you've posted in
in which people pulled out the nimrod insult. I've noticed that heated
arguments bordering on flame wars tend to follow you around -- mostly, I
suspect, because of your debate style -- and so it seems odd that you
would then choose not to post under your full name or a fictional name,
but under a fragment of your real name that is essentially just bait for
insults.
Or, to quote Mr. Thom Yorke: You do it to yourself. Just you. You and no
one else."
To which Nimrod responded in one post to (IMHO) the most civil poster in
the group:
"You sound like the type of individual, peacel, who tells homosexuals
that they should just stay in the closet and pretend to be straight,
because it just causes trouble with the rednecks if they don't---and
those silly gay people have only got themselves to blame if they get
bashed."
And in another:
"But to be blunt about it, peacel, you're being terribly mediocre in
blaming me for the childish and abusive behavior of others. I can only
hope you never become a rape counselor or spousal abuse therapist---it
seems you'd tell them that they must have been asking for it. (Those
silly, uppity Negroes---if they'd just stayed at the back of the bus,
kept their mouths shut and behaved, those rednecks wouldn't be kicking
hell out them right now and calling them bad names. It's their own
fault.)"
Game, set and match ... peace electric
Victor
Kevin
>> Yes, we can call a film "realistic" if it employs the style of filmmaking
>known
>> as "realism." But this is a very specific, technical usage of the word,
>and
>> _not_ what is meant in everday conversation about movies.
>>
>> That's because, as Giannetti's book points out, "realism" is a style.
>But, and
> Exactly, my point from earlier. "realism" and "realistic" are two
>different things. You are still comparing, pardon the pun, apples and
>oranges.. stick the "realistic" not "realism"
If that was your point, I didn't get it. I must admit I have a problem
following some of your thinking. Maybe it's just me.
> Yes, so why can't we look at the movie screen, and say, yup that LOOKS
>real,
But my point is that it doesn't look real. It may look artsy, entertaining,
convincing, etc. But I would never say a filmed image looks real.
>but we know in our hearts of hearts, its NOT.
Of course, it's not just in our heart of hearts that we know that. It's in the
front of our brain. Unless, of course, we're begin to think that the folks on
the screen can step down into the theater, a la SHERLOCK JR.
>Now, we can further
>simply this "appearing" or illusion of some semblance to "real" to mean, it
>bears a strong likeness, or hey, "realistic" appearance? Why can't we agree
>to just use the websters, or basically any dictionary definition, that
>"realistic" means a strong likeness. You want us to accept your view of
>"inference" yet, we can't infer that movies can appear to be "real" or
>"realistic" but without deconstructing the movie with technical details,
I am here to deconstruct movies with technical details, among other things. I
go to the theater to watch them.
>just agree it can be "realistic." That has what spawned this entire debate.
I've conceded something in this debate, and that is that certain elements of a
film can be called realistic without any problems from me. But not the film as
a whole.
>Evidently other people agree with me, even though, as you can tell it struck
>a nerve and I was an ASSHOLE (yes Nimrod and Kevin, you saw me say it, I am
>an ASSHOLE) for inviting emotion into what could just be a simple
>conversation, but I have a very strong opinion on this.. Opinions are like
>assholes, every newsgroup has one. :)
Yep. But to get bent out of shape over small matters is immature, don't you
think? Save your emotion for the big stuff, or you'll wind up at McDonalds
with an uzi.
>> Okay, what evidence must you filter out to determine that a plastic apple
>is
>> not real? It looks realistic. Now, if you pick it up, it sounds, tastes,
>> feels, and smells unrealistic, and the illusion is gone.
> That's correct, but using your own argument, a movie, you can't actually
>touch the movie, or each and every item in a movie, so therefore, the
>illusion or "realistic" is never dispelled, becase we can't touch it. :)
>That's all I have been saying from the start, if you wade through my
>emotional outbursts... it "looks" realistic.. Thank you, sheesh! If you
>would have said this in the first place, I would have let it go.
You have an interesting point. I really hate my apple analogy.
> Its not necessarily limited, its just we have to agree on a word that
>describes the events in this stylized, illusion movie. That word, we can
>agree (I hope) is termed: REALISTIC. The dictionary, also seems to use this
>to mean that as well. I am not arguing that movies have a certain unreal
>setting, because actors have to glorify the parts they are playing for
>drama, and the set has to be more colorful (or black and white) to create
>the affect the director is after. There is a such thing as purposeful
>imagery, isn't there? The arena that a game designer, writer, or director,
>is that of imagination, so that you see what they want you to see.. if that
>in turn leads to what many people perceive as "realistic" then so be it.
>Why, oh why, is it so hard to just accept "realistic" as a simplistic
>layman's term for what they believe is as you said, believable or real.
>That's just simple terminology for the avg person to understand.
Yes, but I'm not really talking about simple terminology for the average
person. I'm talking about specialized terms for people who like to talk about
film in depth. I don't care if Joe Sixpack thinks "Armageddon" is realistic.
He and I aren't gonna be talking movies.
>I have
>question for you. Harmon Kardon and PSB speakers both have adds that refer
>to their music reproduction as "realistic". I only bring this up because
>you mentioned the sound in a theater.. Does that mean, they can't grasp the
>audience they are after by using a non-purists example? For the purists, we
>can read between the lines.. and realize what they mean, can't we? Another
>example.. Football.. (oh God the DV is starting another damn thread...)
>Time Outs is completely false. Ask an English teacher, and they will tell
>you, its Time(S) Out. but, over the years we have just accepted the term,
>without giving it another thought.. such is the term: realistic.
I don't think your second example is applicable. The term "time outs" is not
"realistic." (If it was, what is the real thing that it represents?) It's
simply an incorrect usage that has gained acceptance. No correlation to our
topic.
As to your first example, remember, I'm talking about how "realistic" applies
to film. It's a common word, but it can have a specialized meaning in this
context.
>I know you
>have more knowledge of movies than probably anyone else on this newsgroup,
>and have a more refined background.
Thanks for the compliment. But it's simply not true. I could make a list of
folks in this newsgroup who know lots of stuff about movies that I don't know.
I don't really have a refined background either. I've just taken a couple of
classes, and watched a lot of movies, like lots of other folks. And my
filmmaking experience is so limited to be almost negligible.
>Even though I was a dick to your
>earlier, I read your more technical information, and I know where you are
>coming from.. but, all I am trying to illustrate is we need a common ground
>to refer what we see on movie screen as likeness to real life. We could all
>go around saying "stylized representations of an illusion which is portrayed
>as pixels via a computer conduit, and thus projected to give the impression
>of what appears to be characters based on real people, and using a sound to
>add to an experience that makes the movie more believable." Can we please,
>just use a more simple explanation?
That's actually what I'm aiming at in the long run.
>REALISTIC? We know its not..
That's a very interesting admission.
>but for
>lack of a better word, how would you explain your technical explanation to a
>complete idiot?
I wouldn't try.
>How about a child?
When they're older.
>What if they had no clue what a
>projector is, or any of those things..
Then they're not ready to discuss technical terms.
>Many movies are made with the idea to
>make it seem believable and appear "real" as possible.
Yes. And many others aren't.
>So, "realistic" is a
>very basic term to describe just that.
Yes. But it's a problematic word for those who ponder such things.