Even The Arrival is ‘inauthentic’ in the sense that it doesn’t show you ALL of the people, or the WHOLE station, or the people outside the station, or what happened before, or after. All film is elision, and the camera, by having a limited field of view, is lying by omission. There are things present on the scene that we do not see.
Goddard was famously quoted “Every edit is a lie.” That’s true. Time is continuous. Yet film cuts skip time, skip distance, skip PERSPECTIVE. What a film shows us is only the merest fragment of reality, and usually not even that.
Neither have I but I have worked in two businesses which are frequent subjects of movies and TV shows and have worked at a firm that was the focus of films and I can tell you that they have only the faintest resemblance to reality. I have a friend who is a former army Blackhawk pilot who was in Somalia at the time of the Blackhawk Down movie. Not his unit but he knew the people and there was again only a passing resemblance to the real events.
When the debate about The Hurt Locker came out, I do know that online vets (understanding of course that any one can claim the honor anonymously) would sometimes refer to Jarhead as a realistic portrayal of war, but I’ve never seen it.
So are “realistic” and “authentic” interchangeable to you, and what constitutes “realistic” or “authentic” in film beyond war as a subject? What qualities in a film produces those effects for you?
The use of colour in the earliest days of cinema was fraught as it was deemed too much of a spectacle, which is, of course, interesting to consider in light of how we perceive the world versus tactics for recording reality.
And you’re right, small h: all of the choices in film are choices made.
And early films were often tinted or painted, so there was from the outset the existence of color films. Just not color film.
The argument that color films are more naturalistic because “we see in color” always strikes me as a little silly. We also see in 3D, and from only one vantage point at a time. But you don’t hear too many complaints that mixing closeups with long shots is “unrealistic.”
I am simply recounting the opinion of others regarding film.
As far as movies in general, fiction is art. So my standards for art are the following: it must be a man-made recreation of life in order to tell us something important that we didn’t already. I am unconcerned with the depiction of reality in fiction as long as emotionally, intellectually, and physically (the three ways life manifests itself) it provides a profound experience.
I realize this is just your standard, but by this definition, Stan Brakhage (and every other artist, film or otherwise, who works in abstraction) is not an artist.
for those interested in this topic, i had a chance to browse through (and then buy) this new book which discusses on a mostly technical level how colour palettes, or lack thereof influences the finished product.
excerpt from the review: " Colors of Film has the ability to make you appreciate works that you already loved, which is a gift. And it’s also remarkably detailed in terms of the history of the process. In fact, some might find it a bit too technically dense at times, but Bramesco wants readers to understand how the use of color developed in film as much as the artistic choices made as it did so." the book spans Georges Melies’ “A Trip to the Moon” in 1902 and ends over a century later with Steve McQueen’s “Lovers Rock.”
I don’t know why you say this. But perhaps I wasn’t clear. Abstraction can very much show a recreation of life. Jackson Pollock can with his splatter patterns. Rothko can with his windows.
Of course it CAN. But it need not. Pierre Soulages says it better than I could: “Neither figures nor figuration of movements, nor feeling states, painting does not have to represent anything else than itself.”
Art for Arts sake. Most classical music is non-representational. Yes, that is part of life as well. However, if there is no emotion or intellect or physicality, then it might be painting, but I am not convinced it is Art.
Yes, but clearly I don’t mean a baby has to pop out. That would be quite the strict standard. I explain that life manifests itself in three ways: the emotional, intellectual, and the physical. According to my definition, a work of art must show originality and import in all three. But it is a representation, not actual life nor a realistic depiction.
Clearly, you were not at all clear. You’re of course entitled to whatever definition of art you care to use. I find it too narrow, but no one’s forcing me to adopt it.
You’re “simple” recounting a take up language that belie strong sensibilities of what is authentic, what is realistic, and what is the norm in film.
I am trying to understand better those assumptions that underlie many of your declarations and maybe to get you to reflect on those things.
If it’s any comfort, I’m not looking to you to be an expert since I know based on those articulations and impressions that you’re not one, nor even an amateur. It just so happens that this discussion veers strongly into my field so i get curious.
