Rash of surreal films
Kaleem Witcher
In this week's Slate (www.slate.com), Daniel Menaker discusses the rash
of surreal films like The Truman Show, The Matrix, The Game and
Pleasantville as Hollywood reflects back to us that our culture is
growing less sure about the distinction between appearance and reality.
http://www.slate.com/Code/Culturebox/Culturebox.asp Menaker says the
plot of The Truman Show, Bulworth and The Game can be summed up like
this: "A man breaks through the artifice of his political and personal
lives and finds, however briefly and tragically, a real existence."
Norman Wilner
It's a valid argument, if you replace "surreal" with "subversive". None of
the films listed above is particularly surreal.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Fabutab
<xnwi...@xhome.xcom> wrote:
Methinks it's a phase - like how TV shows became very surreal in the '60s.
My Mother The Car
I Dream Of Jeannie
The Munsters
And so on...
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
>>>discusses the rash of surreal films like The Truman Show,
>>>The Matrix, The Game and Pleasantville as Hollywood
>>>reflects back to us that our culture is growing less sure
>>>about the distinction between appearance and reality.
>>>http://www.slate.com/Code/Culturebox/Culturebox.asp
>>>Menaker says the plot of The Truman Show, Bulworth
>>>and The Game can be summed up like this: "A man
>>>breaks through the artifice of his political and personal
>>>lives and finds, however briefly and tragically, a real
>>>existence."
>>
>>It's a valid argument, if you replace "surreal" with "subversive". None of
>>the films listed above is particularly surreal.
>>
>>Norm Wilner
>>Starweek Magazine
>
>Methinks it's a phase - like how TV shows became very surreal in the '60s.
>My Mother The Car
>I Dream Of Jeannie
>The Munsters
>And so on...
Once again, none of these TV shows really qualify as "surreal."
Surrealism was a style of art popular in the early 20th century, based on
Freudian psychology, which emphasized the expression of unconscious thought,
which often led to apparently nonsensical images.
Surrealism is best-known through the paintings of Salvador Dalí and René
Magritte, but there were surrealists working in all forms of art. The most
famous surrealist filmmaker was Luis Buñuel, who frequently collaborated with
Dalí.
A TV executive saying, "What if we have Larry Hagman as an astronaut, and he
finds a genie in a bottle on a beach?" is most certainly *not* surrealism. A
good example of surrealism would be Buñuel and Dalí's short film "Un chien
andalou." It contains eyeball slicing, dead donkeys, severed hands, ants
emerging from a hole in a man's palm...all kinds of fun 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.
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>
>Surrealism was a style of art popular in the early 20th century, based on
>Freudian psychology, which emphasized the expression of unconscious thought,
>which often led to apparently nonsensical images.
>
>Surrealism is best-known through the paintings of Salvador Dalí and René
>Magritte, but there were surrealists working in all forms of art. The most
>famous surrealist filmmaker was Luis Buñuel, who frequently collaborated with
>Dalí.
>
>A TV executive saying, "What if we have Larry Hagman as an astronaut, and he
>finds a genie in a bottle on a beach?" is most certainly *not* surrealism. A
>good example of surrealism would be Buñuel and Dalí's short film "Un chien
>andalou." It contains eyeball slicing, dead donkeys, severed hands, ants
>emerging from a hole in a man's palm...all kinds of fun stuff.
>
>
>-Gordon Stokes
I agree that "surreal" and it's various forms are often misused, but you know
what they mean when they so those TV shows are "surreal". Saying that they are
"surrealist" or "surrealistic" would be incorrect since they are not a part of
the surrealism movement or philosophy, but saying that they are "surreal" is
just saying that they are dreamlike, which is more subjective.
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
http://www.bucketheadland.com/visitorcenter/
"[They] throw bullshit and stupid-ass lyrics on top of it and think they're,
like, all that because they're selling and making money. I feel sorry for the
motherfuckers."
MYSTARAUTO
than anything else. Surrealism in films is not that obvious. For instance, the
Salvador Dali - inspired dream sequences in Hitchcock's Spellbound are an
example of commercial surrealism. The real stuff may be found in Chris Marker's
or Alejandro Jodorowsky's work. Even Samuel Fuller's Shock Corridor
incorporates those elements of the absurd and the warped, which constitute the
universe of the surreal. Maybe one day the theory of everything, aka string
theory, will accomodate all of the dimensions of the surreal.
Nobody
DAMIAN ALLEN
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss wrote in message
<19990701231813...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
>>
>>A TV executive saying, "What if we have Larry Hagman as an astronaut, and
he
>>finds a genie in a bottle on a beach?" is most certainly *not* surrealism.
A
>>good example of surrealism would be Buñuel and Dalí's short film "Un chien
>>andalou." It contains eyeball slicing, dead donkeys, severed hands, ants
>>emerging from a hole in a man's palm...all kinds of fun stuff.
>>
>>
>>-Gordon Stokes
>
> I agree that "surreal" and it's various forms are often misused, but you
know
>what they mean when they so those TV shows are "surreal". Saying that they
are
>"surrealist" or "surrealistic" would be incorrect since they are not a part
of
>the surrealism movement or philosophy, but saying that they are "surreal"
is
>just saying that they are dreamlike, which is more subjective.
>
>Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>
Actually I think those TV shows are more fantasy oriented than
surreal,or dreamlike for that matter.If they qualified as surreal then you
might as well say that shows like Sabrina the Teenage Witch are
surreal.
For surreal TV I'd look at shows like The Prisoner and maybe
Green Acres.
I don't think I've seen a surreal movie in ages,though there have been
many with surreal elements.
Damian
---------------
HungrySoul
old, so more philosophical, and maybe even spiritual in their decisions.
Fabutab wrote:
>
> In article <kswe3.21213$o6.3...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>, "Norman Wilner"
> <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> wrote:
>
> >Kaleem Witcher wrote in message <377A89A6.F1852A95@nospam_yahoo.com>...
> >>Take A Look:
> >>
n(m)
frank...@aol.com (Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
>
> I agree that "surreal" and it's various forms are often misused, but you know
>what they mean when they so those TV shows are "surreal". Saying that they are
>"surrealist" or "surrealistic" would be incorrect since they are not a part of
>the surrealism movement or philosophy, but saying that they are "surreal" is
>just saying that they are dreamlike, which is more subjective.
I know what "surreal" means and when I see "surreal" in a subject line I
start reading the thread thinking that it may be about some surreal movies
(such as those of Jan Svankmajor, Bros. Quay, or Luis Bunuel). I do
think there is a lot of misuse of the term but it is not true that I "know
what they mean" when the term is used. I have seen it used to denote
movies that emphasize the interface between reality & fantasy, I have seen
the term used to denote movies that have a fantasy element in the midst of
an otherwise reallistic setting. I have seen the term used to denote
movies that have a quirky sense of humor coupled with fantasy elements. I
have seen the term used to denote movies that have psychadelic colors
predominant in the sets. I have seen the term used to denote movies that
have very visually creative sets.
Bottom line: unless "surreal" is being used by someone who knows what the
term means, there is no telling what the person using the term actually
means.
I should stop bitching though, because I think that nothing is going to
stop the word "surreal" from steadily becoming more and more meaningless.
ralph
--
n(m)
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind.
Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful.
How true that is."
--Dan Quayle
s...@v.com
wrote:
>I heard one theory that a lot of the hollywood executives are getting
>old, so more philosophical, and maybe even spiritual in their decisions.
Bah HAH AHA HAHAHAHAHAHA
yeah, right.
to call these movies thought provoking is such a sad comment on the
crap that's coming out of hollywood. It's like trying to find
something thought provoking out of rap music. Sure, you might find
something- something might be there, but you can't compare it to
something like a Mahler symphony. Why have our values and judgements
of what is good and bad dropped to such an incredibly low level?
The sad thing is that we are so inundated with this stuff that we lose
sight of things.
It would be very refreshing for somebody to step back and say. "wait a
minute. This stuff is crap... all of it. Just because something is
less crappy then something else doesn't make it good. It's still crap"
Surreal is unfortunately a word that gets used when the word CRAP
should be used.
"oh that painting is surreal" - It's crap. The artist couldn't draw a
circle with a compass.
"Oh that movie was surreal"- It's crap. The script never knew where
the heck it was going. It's a silly "high concept" idea that is only
about a ten minute movie.
Somebody mentioned Bunuel.- Yes, there is true surreal filmmaking by
somebody that knew what he was doing. Watch "Discreet Charm of the
Bourgeoisie" and then go back to Truman show. It will be like going
back to third grade after having been to college.
Lance A Visser
+>Take A Look:
+>In this week's Slate (www.slate.com), Daniel Menaker discusses the rash
+>of surreal films like The Truman Show, The Matrix, The Game and
+>Pleasantville as Hollywood reflects back to us that our culture is
+>growing less sure about the distinction between appearance and reality.
None of those films are surreal. What most of those films
show is a television culture that is falling in on itself. Pleasentville
and the truman show are inward-directed movies about television images.
Making movies about the world as presented in old TV shows.
What those two films show, more than anything, is a growing population
that seems to feel "cheated" that the throwaway view of life put out by network
telvision wasn't real.
The matrix and 13th floor are films for people disappointed that video
games are not real. They are not surreal, they are empty and hollow.
"The game" is the oddest entry on that list in that it presents an
implausable worldview as "reality".
+>http://www.slate.com/Code/Culturebox/Culturebox.asp Menaker says the
+>plot of The Truman Show, Bulworth and The Game can be summed up like
+>this: "A man breaks through the artifice of his political and personal
+>lives and finds, however briefly and tragically, a real existence."
None of these films present anything like a real existance for
the characters. The truman show misfires on the tragedy of the ending....
....that truman's world in the dome is just as artificial as that of
any sitcom star outside the dome. Bulworth is about the rich white
liberal slumming in the "ghetto" with the properly colorful minority
stereotypes to find himself. The game was worst of all because it
was strictly escapest fantasy.
HungrySoul
I agree with you most of American movies is still a lesser kind of the
same junk. and i like your anology of a college grad going back to the
3rd grade.
I am not defending hollywood. I am just saying lately, it's gone from
3rd grade to 4th. And I try to enjoy it for what it's worth.
There's a difference between lowering one's expectations to enjoy a
film, and going into a film, trying to enjoy it for what it is.
HungrySoul
'surreal' loosely, and as a synonym for 'alter reality' for such films
he mentioned along with "The Matrix", "eXistenZ", etc.
it's a shame tho, hollywood, with all that budget, and the special
effects of today... imagine what a true surrealist director could do
with all those wonderful toys.
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
>what they mean when they so those TV shows are "surreal". Saying that they
>are
>"surrealist" or "surrealistic" would be incorrect since they are not a part
>of
>the surrealism movement or philosophy, but saying that they are "surreal" is
>just saying that they are dreamlike, which is more subjective.
I do indeed know what they mean...I simply object to the total misuse of the
word "surreal." It wouldn't bother me if someone had a peculiar experience and
described it as "surreal," which can indeed be used to describe something as
"dreamlike." However, when discussing a work of art (and no, I won't get into
whether or not "My Mother the Car" is art or not), surreal is a very specific
word describing not only the work itself, but also the artist's personal goals
and ideals when creating that work. To say that a television show from the
60's (or a movie from the 90's) is surreal would be like describing a painting
by Magritte as dadaism. There may be surface similarities, but the description
is still dead wrong.
Fabutab
>>Methinks it's a phase - like how TV shows became very surreal in the '60s.
>>My Mother The Car
>>I Dream Of Jeannie
>>The Munsters
>>And so on...
>
>
>Surrealism was a style of art popular in the early 20th century, based on
>Freudian psychology, which emphasized the expression of unconscious thought,
>which often led to apparently nonsensical images.
>
>Surrealism is best-known through the paintings of Salvador Dalí and René
>Magritte, but there were surrealists working in all forms of art. The most
>famous surrealist filmmaker was Luis Buñuel, who frequently collaborated with
>Dalí.
>
>finds a genie in a bottle on a beach?" is most certainly *not* surrealism. A
>good example of surrealism would be Buñuel and Dalí's short film "Un chien
>andalou." It contains eyeball slicing, dead donkeys, severed hands, ants
>emerging from a hole in a man's palm...all kinds of fun stuff.
>
>
>-Gordon Stokes
>
rover
>On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 07:41:56 GMT, HungrySoul <Hungr...@home.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I heard one theory that a lot of the hollywood executives are getting
>>old, so more philosophical, and maybe even spiritual in their decisions.
>
>
>Bah HAH AHA HAHAHAHAHAHA
>
>yeah, right.
>
>
>to call these movies thought provoking is such a sad comment on the
>crap that's coming out of hollywood. It's like trying to find
>something thought provoking out of rap music.
I agree that there is nothing especially philosophical or spiritual coming
out of hollywood but your statement about rap music indicates that you
have incredibly high standards for the phrase "thought provoking" or else
you haven't really listened to much rap. Know something before you slam
it.
ralphus
------------------------------------
to e-mail me, omit the "OMIT.THIS" from my posted e-mail address
rover
frank...@aol.com (Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
> I agree that "surreal" and it's various forms are often misused, but you know
>what they mean when they so those TV shows are "surreal". Saying that they are
>"surrealist" or "surrealistic" would be incorrect since they are not a part of
>the surrealism movement or philosophy, but saying that they are "surreal" is
>just saying that they are dreamlike, which is more subjective.
This makes no sense. Surreal is a synonym for surrealistic (I think) so
substituting one for the other shouldn't change the truthfulness of a
statement. Given A=B
If Matrix, Truman show = B is false
then
Matrix, Truman Show = A is also false.
Calling these movies surrealistic is the same as calling them surreal.
The only difference I can see is 5 key strokes.
A surrealist (a noun) is a person who creates surreal art. Therefore it
doesn't make any sense at all to call a movie surrealist.
Lon Ponschock
>It would be very refreshing for somebody to step back and say. "wait a
>minute. This stuff is crap... all of it. Just because something is
>less crappy then something else doesn't make it good. It's still crap"
>Somebody mentioned Bunuel.- Yes, there is true surreal filmmaking by
>somebody that knew what he was doing. Watch "Discreet Charm of the
>Bourgeoisie" and then go back to Truman show. It will be like going
>back to third grade after having been to college.
I enjoyed reading this a lot and it needed to be said.
Now about some other things that are crap: Net Reviews.
It seems that there has been a surfeit of net writer garbage
with plot summaries disguised as critical comment.
And since I have felt that I-net reviews were the last place
available to get a perspective not held by print
"journalists" (as if opinionated old farts with a
handful of stars or thumbs to throw around knew anything
about writing _news_,) I am saddened that even here
the writers in the reviews division of rec.arts.*
have become as myopic as the mainstream press.
What this does is give _validity_ to something which
deserves no such recognition.
Ok, that said, some wise ass can call call me a _troll_
for expressing a legitimate opinion: not my two cents,
the whole dollar.
bye for now,
lon in Appleton
--
signature test
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>substituting one for the other shouldn't change the truthfulness of a
>statement.
Well, I may be wrong, but I believe the "ism" in "surrealism" and the "istic"
in "surrealistic" are important. "Surreal" means dreamlike, "surrealistic"
means a part of the surreal_ism_ movement.
Even if I'm wrong, there is no reason why surreal could only apply to the
surrealism movement. This would be like saying that Britney Spears is not pop
music, because she is not a part of the pop art movement.
catch damon too
s...@v.com wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 07:41:56 GMT, HungrySoul <Hungr...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I heard one theory that a lot of the hollywood executives are getting
> >old, so more philosophical, and maybe even spiritual in their decisions.
>
> Bah HAH AHA HAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> yeah, right.
>
> to call these movies thought provoking is such a sad comment on the
> crap that's coming out of hollywood. It's like trying to find
> something thought provoking out of rap music. Sure, you might find
> something- something might be there, but you can't compare it to
> something like a Mahler symphony.
silly.
> Why have our values and judgements
> of what is good and bad dropped to such an incredibly low level?
>
they haven't.
>
> The sad thing is that we are so inundated with this stuff that we lose
> sight of things.
>
not at all.
>
> It would be very refreshing for somebody to step back and say. "wait a
> minute. This stuff is crap... all of it. Just because something is
> less crappy then something else doesn't make it good. It's still crap"
>
> Surreal is unfortunately a word that gets used when the word CRAP
> should be used.
> "oh that painting is surreal" - It's crap. The artist couldn't draw a
> circle with a compass.
>
> "Oh that movie was surreal"- It's crap. The script never knew where
> the heck it was going. It's a silly "high concept" idea that is only
> about a ten minute movie.
>
>
you quite mr. happy aren't you?
--
Once again, Republicans wish to trample all over the First Ammendment
with the government advocating religion and banning political
protest, while deifying the Second Ammendment. Shame on you for
voting for them.
catch damon too
HungrySoul wrote:
> the original poster probably never heard of Bunuel and had used the term
> 'surreal' loosely, and as a synonym for 'alter reality' for such films
> he mentioned along with "The Matrix", "eXistenZ", etc.
>
> it's a shame tho, hollywood, with all that budget, and the special
> effects of today... imagine what a true surrealist director could do
> with all those wonderful toys.
>
david lynch.
the last really surreal film i saw, which was lost highways, pretty much
sucked.
rover
<d...@maxinter.net> wrote:
>HungrySoul wrote:
>
>> the original poster probably never heard of Bunuel and had used the term
>> 'surreal' loosely, and as a synonym for 'alter reality' for such films
>> he mentioned along with "The Matrix", "eXistenZ", etc.
>>
>> it's a shame tho, hollywood, with all that budget, and the special
>> effects of today... imagine what a true surrealist director could do
>> with all those wonderful toys.
>>
>
>david lynch.
I have seen some Lynch films (Blue Velvet, Lost Highway) and don't recall
them being surreal. Was I missing something or is this a fuzzy use of the
term "surreal."
David Homerick
rover wrote:
>
> In article <19990701231813...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
> frank...@aol.com (Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
>
> > I agree that "surreal" and it's various forms are often misused, but you know
> >what they mean when they so those TV shows are "surreal". Saying that they are
> >"surrealist" or "surrealistic" would be incorrect since they are not a part of
> >the surrealism movement or philosophy, but saying that they are "surreal" is
> >just saying that they are dreamlike, which is more subjective.
>
> This makes no sense. Surreal is a synonym for surrealistic (I think) so
> substituting one for the other shouldn't change the truthfulness of a
> statement.
The words have different connotations. "Surreal" is very loose, and has
little precise meaning beyond "very strange." "Surrealistic" is much
more precise, and more closely tied to the surrealist movement.
> Given A=B
A does not equal B.
> If Matrix, Truman show = B is false
> then
> Matrix, Truman Show = A is also false.
>
> Calling these movies surrealistic is the same as calling them surreal.
> The only difference I can see is 5 key strokes.
> A surrealist (a noun) is a person who creates surreal art. Therefore it
> doesn't make any sense at all to call a movie surrealist.
"Surrealist" is a noun and an adjective. A surrealist creates
surrealist art. Most people would describe surrealist art as being
surreal, but they would also describe many other things as being
surreal, such as a drug trip, a boojum tree, and *The Jerry Springer
Show.*
-- David
h...@ha.com
"Silly
they haven't
not at all " etc.
pretty much speak for themselves. You have proven the statement of a
undiscerning, idiotic audience quite well, haven't you?
but you can't compare it to
>> something like a Mahler symphony.
>
>silly.
>
>> Why have our values and judgements
>> of what is good and bad dropped to such an incredibly low level?
>>
>
>they haven't.
>
>>
>> The sad thing is that we are so inundated with this stuff that we lose
>> sight of things.
>>
>
>not at all.
>
>>
>>
>> "Oh that movie was surreal"- It's crap. The script never knew where
>> the heck it was going. It's a silly "high concept" idea that is only
>> about a ten minute movie.
>>
>>
>
>you quite mr. happy aren't you?
>
>
catch damon too
rover wrote:
> In article <377EDDC1...@maxinter.net>, catch damon too
> <d...@maxinter.net> wrote:
>
> >HungrySoul wrote:
> >
> >> the original poster probably never heard of Bunuel and had used the term
> >> 'surreal' loosely, and as a synonym for 'alter reality' for such films
> >> he mentioned along with "The Matrix", "eXistenZ", etc.
> >>
> >> it's a shame tho, hollywood, with all that budget, and the special
> >> effects of today... imagine what a true surrealist director could do
> >> with all those wonderful toys.
> >>
> >
> >david lynch.
>
> I have seen some Lynch films (Blue Velvet, Lost Highway) and don't recall
> them being surreal. Was I missing something or is this a fuzzy use of the
> term "surreal."
>
>
lost highway was surreal to me.
reality changed inexplicably for no rhyme nor reason several times,
and the characters just took it in stride.
there was no real plot, just mood.
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
>> >> effects of today... imagine what a true surrealist director could do
>> >> with all those wonderful toys.
>> >>
>> >
>> >david lynch.
>>
>> I have seen some Lynch films (Blue Velvet, Lost Highway) and don't recall
>> them being surreal. Was I missing something or is this a fuzzy use of the
>> term "surreal."
>>
>>
>
>lost highway was surreal to me.
>reality changed inexplicably for no rhyme nor reason several times,
>and the characters just took it in stride.
>
>there was no real plot, just mood.
"Lost Highway" certainly has elements that could be considered surreal --
certainly if one is going by the definition meaning "dreamlike." I would
hesitate, however, to call Lynch a surrealist.
timew...@my-deja.com
>
> "Lost Highway" certainly has elements that could be considered surreal
--
> certainly if one is going by the definition meaning "dreamlike." I
would
> hesitate, however, to call Lynch a surrealist.
How about Cronenberg? I saw eXistenZ a month or two ago and there were
some definite surreal aspects to the movie.
---
H. Thomas Leonard III
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
catch damon too
"Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia" wrote:
> >> >> it's a shame tho, hollywood, with all that budget, and the special
> >> >> effects of today... imagine what a true surrealist director could do
> >> >> with all those wonderful toys.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >david lynch.
> >>
> >> I have seen some Lynch films (Blue Velvet, Lost Highway) and don't recall
> >> them being surreal. Was I missing something or is this a fuzzy use of the
> >> term "surreal."
> >>
> >>
> >
> >lost highway was surreal to me.
> >reality changed inexplicably for no rhyme nor reason several times,
> >and the characters just took it in stride.
> >
> >there was no real plot, just mood.
>
> "Lost Highway" certainly has elements that could be considered surreal --
> certainly if one is going by the definition meaning "dreamlike." I would
> hesitate, however, to call Lynch a surrealist.
mmm.
i wouldn't.
before lost highway, he also did fire walk with me.
anothe rmovie all modd and no ploot with odd
elements.
and before that was that nic cage flick, which had some surreal elements.
i don't kow about the new movie coming out, but the past few films
have shown a definate progression into what i would
call surrealism.
and twin peaks was goody too-
remember ten minutes of the final show was a dwarf dancing backwards?
rather, remember 90% of the final show was the fbi agent
walking around the red rooms with all sorts of weird stuff?
--
Once again, Republicans wish to trample all over the First Amendment
with the government advocating religion and banning political
protest, while deifying the Second Amendment. Shame on you for
voting for them.