The Silver Screen Oasis

Stevie, I'm kind of surprised that this age group would be so against them. They were born in that time. Must be bad memories.

This puzzles me too, but I see it as well. I'm over fifty, and I know very few people my age who appreciate the classics. They like the famous ones. The stirring romantic dramas, the Christmas stories. GWTW, of course. But they don't watch with any regularity. They care nothing for low budget noir, screwball comedy, unheralded westerns. If it's black and white, it's not worth watching!

I even knew a gentleman much older than myself. He'd be about 80 now. He once said, "Movies are better than they used to be." I almost fell out of my chair! His reasoning was, they're more realistic. The dialogue more natural. Yeah. Natural and bad!

Not to put too fine a point on it.... WHO WANTS NATURAL?

Most of my friends who do claim to love watching "old movies" don't actually mean it when the opportunity comes and I suggest it. So, I tend to watch while I work out (I have an elliptical in the TV room), by myself.

Not to put too fine a point on it.... WHO WANTS NATURAL?

Exactly. Since when were drama and reality the same thing?

JackFavell wrote:Not to put too fine a point on it.... WHO WANTS NATURAL?

I'm confused - WHO WANTS NATURAL? ... Can you educate me on this Jack?

We were discussing how some people think it's better if a movie is more like real life... you know, natural. The more natural or realistic a film is for these people, the better the movie. I was saying I don't always want natural when I see a movie. In fact, sometimes, the further from reality, the better for me, generally speaking.

An example:

Would I rather watch The Descendants with George Clooney (a movie in which a father wanders aimlessly around Hawaii trying to figure out what to do after his wife has fallen into a coma)

OR

La Belle et la Bete (a fairy tale in rich high-contrast black and white with ingenious sets, gorgeous costumes and a man changed into a beast and back again)?

I would rather see La Belle et la Bete. Every time. How someone can actually make Hawaii seem boring and ugly is beyond me.

However, this does bring up something that has bothered me since watching The Story of Film.... namely, that neo-realism was trying to be a more realistic version of life, that it brought those moments of boredom, of hunger, of wandering, of slow death to the forefront and told us they were worthy of contemplation as well. I do agree, and find some of the neo-realistic films beautiful and interesting to watch. But are they realistic? I'm not too sure. When I look at them closely, I find them not so much realistic, but maybe more selectively realistic. They use real life timing and random drama to make a point, and yet the films I've seen from that time are all tremendously beautiful in their cinematography and lighting. And they DO make a point, they use that selective realism to show how grinding poverty takes it's toll, or how people in a stale marriage have to fight for meaning in a boring life... So to me, these are not realistic exactly.... they just aren't Hollywood, they lack glamour in their stars.

In the end, I guess it depends on the artist(s) making the film and the film itself - Fat City is a wonderful, artistic, beautiful-in-its-ugliness film, with loads of realism, made in Hollywood, by a big time Hollywood director with the chops to make a realistic film that is also interesting. It's when every film comes off the line in Hollywood with dull plot structure and ugly cinematography that I get frustrated.

Points Received ... Loud and Clear - Thanks for explanation Wendy!

In the end, I guess it depends on the artist(s) making the film and the film itself - Fat City is a wonderful, artistic, beautiful-in-its-ugliness film, with loads of realism, made in Hollywood, by a big time Hollywood director with the chops to make a realistic film that is also interesting.

Which reminds me: At some point in my Domestic Melodrama class, as was to be expected, someone raised the issue of Realism. The character is over-the top. The dialogue isn't realistic. Blah, blah, blah.

After the mandatory reminder that Melodrama is Melodrama in large part because of the heightened emotions it depicts and elicits, and that -- for lack of a better word -- caricatures of people and dialogue are mechanisms for doing that, came the hyperbole that I sometimes (or, most of the time) lapse into: We don't want Realism. Realism is banal. We don't speak in snappy retorts. Our lives are boring. Want Realism? Surrealism is the real Realism.

From the back of the room came the voice of a friend who knows my film preferences well: But, Professor, what about Cassavetes?

I sent him to the Dean's office.

P.S. FAT CITY is my favorite Huston movie. It's so real it's surreal.

But, Professor, what about Cassavetes?

Fresh mouth.

FAT CITY is my favorite Huston movie. It's so real it's surreal.

Exactly!

ChiO, now that my brother has come back from Chicago I think you are the only reason I'd come now. This would be a perfect situation to audit your class with a live feed on the net.

At least that way I could pass notes to Wendy.

I LOVE that idea!