Monday was a class on Neo Realism. In fact the whole week has been Realist themed. I never considered myself a fan of realism, seeing them as largely dull, slow moving, and above all utterly depressing. But when Andy was telling us how even Avatar has been influenced by Realism, I began to understand what an impact the movement has had. We do look for believability in films, even in fantasy films. One of the key things I like in Lord of the Rings is their attempt to create a "real" fantasy world. The Art Direction is, in that sense, very "realist". Certainly in comparison to Ray Harryhausen pictures I can see the development in the fantasy genre. The same applies with special effects. We are looking for something that looks real, not something that merely is a symbol for the thing represented. That is why the stop-motion animation monsters of the aforementioned Harryhausen flicks look so underwhelming, and why people complain about the poor SFX in a film if they are anything but state-of-the-art. It also goes partly towards explaining the ubiquitous aversion to over-use of CGI.
Tuesday was looking at documentaries, and how they are every bit as much of a construct as a drama. They need a beginning, a middle and an end. In this sense, they are very close to realism, and ultimately they are a "lie for the greater understanding of truth". I'm not sure I'm very happy with that use of the word "lie". It reminds me of once hearing a panel of respectable gentlemen telling their audience that fiction is dangerous to read. It is, they claimed, all lies. Well, it is only lies if someone is deceived into thinking it is truth. The novel is not a lie for the writer and the reader both make the assumption right at the beginning that the work is a fiction. There is no deceit involved if the novel is approached as a novel. It is when a novel claims to be factual (e.g. Da Vinci Code) or when a film claims to be found footage (e.g. Paranormal Activity) that they have entered murky territory. Personally I don't understand how people can be stupid enough to think that a novel is a factual book, or that a feature film has been recovered from a police vault, but apparently people are more stupid than I imagine!
Anyway - I've gone off on another rant, and not sure I've come to any definite conclusions. Suffice to say, I don't think documentary will ever be my "thing". It sounds vastly difficult to accomplish and I've rarely enjoyed factual programmes. The exceptions would be wildlife documentaries, the odd scientific investigation and I also enjoyed the one episode of "Stephen Fry in America" that I watched. Had it been a different host I probably wouldn't have liked it.
Wednesday was a full day. Our Wednesday morning of self-directed study / sleeping was gone, but the class was intriguing enough that I wasn't upset to have lost out on the extra couple of hours in bed. Directing class with Zam. We finished the work we had done before Christmas on action films by storyboarding an action sequence. Storyboarding is probably a very useful tool for would-be directors. It is like making the movie, but without all the production hassle! I wish I could draw a bit better!
From this, we quickly moved onto Social Realism, my least favourite genre after Rom-Coms. Looking at everything from Bicycle Thieves to Kes, the most intriguing in my opinion was "F is for Fake", being semi-documentary in style. Probably worth a watch. We were looking at the directing methods for realist films. It seems to rely largely on holding information about the scene back from actors, to make their reactions as natural as possible. It also relies on using non-professionals as actors, preferably natural "performers" who can just "be" rather than "act". The importance of casting was emphasised. In the past I have tended to cast with whoever was available, rather than having a wide range of options open to me. I suppose more and more options become available with more money.
Thursday was a screening of two episodes of The Street, followed by the handing out of a rather ambiguous essay question from Ray. The Street I found to be one of the most depressing things I have ever seen. I had been a bit depressed before arriving, having had far too little sleep the night before, but watching these characters making bad decision after bad decision for an hour until they were utterly ruined and broken was emotional torture. If I had had any control over what I was watching I would have turned it off 20 times over. The fact that it was perfectly acted and engagingly shot only made it all the more horrific. Such a bleak view of life is, as far as I am concerned, as far removed from reality as the glossiest Hollywood movie. These things happen occasionally, but not often. Admittedly more often than people bursting into song in the style of Singing in the Rain, but the point still stand. The vast majority of people experience ups and downs, good years and bad years, times of joy, sorrow and contentment. I do not think there is anything "worthy" in telling people life is worse than it actually is. It is not realism, it is pessimism. It is probably a more accurate depiction of the unregenerate human soul than the naive idea that we are "all good people deep down", but there has to be some balance. I can't understand why anyone would watch this show.
Friday was a screening of Saturday Night and Sunday Morning. Another realist film, coupled with a watch of Ae Fond Kiss in my flat on Thursday night. Time for a Hollywood fantasy, I think!
No comments:
Post a Comment