Realism
Jason Lapeyre
Coincidentally, I've just submitted an essay proposal dealing
with the very topic of what is "realism". Here are three definitions.
Realism: a representation which presents an appearance of transparency by
effacing the processes of meaning production in their own textual
operations.
- Annette Kuhn
Realism: [it] should have a surface accuracy; it should conform to notions
of what we expect to happen; it should explain itself adequately to us,
the audience; it should conform to particular notions of psychology and
character motivation.
- John Ellis
Realism: what we evoke in the name of "realism" is a system of convention
whose construction we co-operate in.
- Richard Maltby
The ideas in these definitions - "the processes of meaning production",
"conform to notions of what we expect to happen" and "whose construction
we co-operate in" - all these indicate that Realism can be seen as what an
audience perceives to be the real world at the time that a text is
produced.
For example, a film is defined by popular critics as "realistic" if it
shows an audience what they believe to be true about themselves at the
time that they see it. The recent trend in Hollywood cinema of showing
the President of the U.S. as incompetent and ineffective in films like
"Absolute Power", "Primary Colours" and "Armageddon" - this representation
is acceptable to American audiences of the late '90s but probably wouldn't
have washed in the late '50s. Why? I think a simplistic answer would
look at the disillusionment of American culture with big government and
the perception of politicians as cut off from the public. In that sense,
it is "realistic", but bear in mind it's a constantly shifting definition.
E.g.:
The Asphalt Jungle (1950) is a heist film and was considered realistic at
the time of its release.
The Taking of Pelham One, Two, Three (1974) is a heist film and was
considered realistic at the time of its release.
However, the two films are very different. Then what has changed? The
codes of realism. Why have they changed? Because American culture has
changed.
Jason Lapeyre
York University, unofficial motto: "Grades 14-17"
----
To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail LIST...@UA1VM.UA.EDU and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message. Problems? Contact jbu...@UA1VM.ua.edu
Damian Peter Sutton
> all these indicate that Realism can be seen as what an
> audience perceives to be the real world at the time that a text is
> produced.
I'm not so sure, I think true 'psychologogical realism', which I
think is the most important factor here, is when the signifier of the
cinema promotes transcendence of the audience, and this can only be
achieved if the audience susoends their disbelief. If the audience at
any time is reminded of the spectacle process which they are involved
in, this is broken, and true 'realism' is lost. Surely a true realism
in cinema is that which 'tricks' or 'enchants' the audience. I think
that it's less about believable characters or events, such as a
pathetically duplicitous President or a hysterical
robbery-gone-wrong, as audiences are aware that these 'unbelieveable'
things do actually exist. It's more a question of believable
mise-en-scene. Can the mise-en-scene engage the action of memory and
imagination on the part of the spectator enough for them to believe
what they are shown. Perhaps the best example of this is the effect
the horror film since the 70s has had on realism. In this case, the
more realistic the effects used to present the human form in trauma,
the more believeable the effects used to present the supernatural
become. I think the _Hellraiser_ films are a good case in point.
----------------------
Damian Peter Sutton
dp...@soton.ac.uk