BenLaw said:
I'm struggling to give you much better of an answer as I don't have as ready a grasp of what 'realism' encompasses as you obviously do.
Generally speaking, "realism" encompasses a range of styles that seek to represent the "real world." There is no single realist aesthetic, though certain techniques are often described as realist.
As you of course know, in post-war Italy, filmmakers such as De Sica, Rossellini, and Visconti consciously used long takes (or minimal editing), location shooting, natural lighting, non-actors, and focused on ordinary or working class characters, with a view toward social critique.
Many of these techniques were replicated in 1950s and '60s British "kitchen sink" dramas, and in very recent European films such as 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, to name a few examples. Each of these examples is highly politicised, and therefore far removed from the objective mode of filmmaking the term "realism" implies.
At the same time, classical Hollywood cinema (or films made during the studio era) had a different realist aesthetic, often described as "classical illusory realism." Here, the objective was to disguise filmmaking's artifice through continuity editing. (The continuity system was more than this, but the goal was nevertheless to create an illusion of reality, or verisimilitude.)
I guess what pulls these "styles" together is the idea that we would recognise the resulting films as representations of the world we inhabit.
Conversely, "formalist" filmmaking is typically more concerned with abstraction and subjectivity. This "realist-formalist" distinction is still pretty crude, not least because we can point to many films that blend realist and formalist styles, but it'll do in terms of broad definition.
BenLaw said:
Trying to set out a cohesive anaylsis of my tastes leaves me open to critique where I struggle with the nomenclature. Nonetheless, I suspect your thought that I may principally be a fan of realist cinema may be a product of the (I now recognise somewhat limited) way in which I try to interpret films.
For what it's worth, I'm not looking to critique anyone's interpretations. Nor would I describe your interpretations as "limited." There are many academics with a far more sophisticated understanding of film style and history than myself. Besides, we all view films through the prism of our own experiences and expectations, and who's to say one reading of a film is more valid than another.
BenLaw said:
The best word I can come up with is probably 'literalist': I ask myself whether I am convinced that a character would say or behave in the manner portrayed and I find my suspension of disbelief is interrupted if I'm answering in the negative. I do try only to ask that question within the rules and style of the film itself, but some posts on this thread have taught me I probably oughtn't to be asking the question at all, or at least that asking it is only one route of possible interpretations of a film. Still, when you're no longer young it's difficult to retrain yourself in ways of consuming culture.
I think the upshot of that is that I struggle with some genres that are heavily 'stylised' as I find this can tip into 'stilted'. (Although Sunset Boulevard for me is a great example of a heavily stylised film but one where I'm quite content that all the characters are behaving as they should within the rules and style of the film.) I also struggle to analyse the more surreal aspects of films, although this doesn't necessarily leave me feeling cold, just a little perplexed. Holy Motors would be a good example of that. I'm also very out of practice in analysing symbolism and metaphor (not since A-Level English Lit), which I know from my sister's academic career is the sort of thing that becomes second nature when you're in practice. Hence my struggles with Mulholland Drive.
I think you're insisting on psychological plausibility (which answers my original question). An insistence on psychological realism doesn't mean you automatically have a preference for "realist" filmmaking. In fact, abstract or formalist techniques can add character depth.
Expressionism, by definition, is about the representation of character psychology, while surrealism is about the unconscious. Both approaches seek to bring character psychology to the fore. In this sense, we can perhaps gain more intimate (albeit subjective) perspectives on character that may not be possible through an exclusively "realist" approach.*
For me, the more conscious I became of realist "styles" (and realism certainly involves stylistic choices), the more interested I became in other filmmaking techniques. Another way of putting this is to observe that, since all films are constructions and no film is "real," abstract methods are no less valid than realist techniques.
To go further, abstract or formalist approaches may represent a purer form of cinematic language than some realist techniques, since they call attention to (rather than seek to disguise) filmmaking's artifice. (This is quite a contentious statement. I'm sure many people would disagree with me on this point.)
* A nice way of looking at this, I think, is to acknowledge that we learn so much more about Diane from her dream than we would from a realist representation of her story. Diane becomes more sympathetic. Though we in no way condone her actions, we gain a far better understanding of her traumatic past, deeply troubled psyche, and motivations through Mulholland Drive's surrealist narrative.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram