What is acceptable in film?

[EP2005]

I'm becoming ever fasinated with cinema verite. I see a lot of recent movies using this technique, seems to be that this is the next movement within film. Im also fascinated by themes of real life, real life situations, under-exaggerated acting, and cinematography that captures the moment, not make the moment.

Recently, a friend and I were discussing the scripts im working on, and he told me something along the lines of "No one wants to spend 2 hours of their life to watch something they can experience themselves". Definatly something that has struck a chord with me... so heres my questions...


Does "real-life" have a place in "popular" filmmaking or will people only be intrigued by works of fiction and by worlds and places they've never experienced?


and


Are there any other "movements" that we as filmmakers are seeing in film that influence how we want to create?

 

[dougspice]

I think you're seeing a simple reaction to Hollywood mass. As the big Hollywood movies get even bigger and more outlandish, there is more market for the opposite alternatives. Nothing about verite is NEW, of course, it just becomes refreshing in the light of everything else out there.

Of course, technology is creating a pluralistic media. More people are making whatever they want, at lower and lower prices, and somehow or another getting it seen. But looked at from a larger perspective, it all ends up the same. How many dozens of people do you know who just want to do Sin City duplicates? And that's just a small subset of the thousands who are deadset on some Tarantino rip-off or another. Cheaper, more accessible tools mean more variety, but not at the basic level of statistics.

I have mixed feelings about verite, personally. I like deeply personal movies. I like slow pacing, to the extent that it serves a story. But on the other hand I suffered through a French movie called "Cache" yesterday, which is pretty much the epitomy of verite, and essentially a wasteland of wasted ideas, in my opinion. Give me a thousand honest, straightforward movies like "Paradise Now", like "Primer", yes please. Don't make me sit through a thousand hours of ONE plodding exercise in the limits of tedium.

 

[Blaine]

A Good Story. A good story will always find an audience. People want to feel. A good movie will stir SOME kind of emotion in the audience. If it doesn't the viewer will perceive it as being bad. Not everyone is moved by the same thing. When a person is emotionally touched by a movie, he/she can't understand the person who isn't and vice versa.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

What definition of Cinema Verite are we going to latch onto?

No one wants to spend 2 hours of their life to watch something they can experience themselves

Your friend is'nt too in touch with filmmaking is he? Popcorn escapist films dominate the Box Office reciepts but there is plenty of room for the true-to-life dramas.

Think of all of the great films inspired by true stories. Cinderella Man, Black Hawk Down, Almost Famous, Lawrence of Arabia, Schindler's List, Jarhead, Ed Wood, The Amityville Horror (okay, so they say), Catch Me if you Can, Apollo 13, The Right Stuff, Band of Brothers, Monster, Men of Honor, Seabiscuit, We Were Soldiers, Braveheart, Titanic (okay; surely someone was in love on that ship), Thirteen Day's........................

Are these not real life (even with poetic license?) All inspired or told as true stories. Did they happen to us personally? No. But I bet we all have some interesting tales to tell.

The only movement I find worth looking into is one in which we can tell a good story and entertain our audience. I don't care if it's a western, thriller, noir, sci-fi, horror, court-room drama, fantasy or cop crime caper. If the journey is good, then we have succeded.

I call it the 'Tell a good ****ing story" Movement.

 

[Rick Meyer]

The only movement I find worth looking into is one in which we can tell a good story and entertain our audience. I don't care if it's a western, thriller, noir, sci-fi, horror, court-room drama, fantasy or cop crime caper. If the journey is good, then we have succeded.

I call it the 'Tell a good poo pooing story" Movement.

Here here.

 

[seejay1031]

John-
I think his friend was refering to more banal real life expieriance, than the films you listed off. Think of some really bad screenplays you've read. A boy meets girl, ect. type plot. Normal, average characters, who do very little other than wallow in there own self interest. I.E How many of us live our day to day existence. You listed off "true story" films with fantastic settings, events characters, historical context, ect, which is far from what the average viewer can expierance in his or her day to day life. I think his friend was talking about the type of screenplay that wouldn't be a "true story" because the story is far to generic (probably in a bad attempt to tell a "universal" story).

My dad (who is far from a analytical film viewer) once told me, that if his response to a film was directly related to the simple question, "did the film take me away?" If he could expiereiance something which removed him from his day to day real life for 2 hours, he would like the film. This question has nothing to do with wether or not the story is true. This is what I believe the posters friend's thought is refering to. After all, truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[surf]

several of my friends watch a film in order to be frightened )) or they want to see something new. but there other people who want to feel some emtions during a film, and not just starring a huge brutal bloody zombie scene.

 

[EP2005]

john, those are all good movies, and like you said, they are all "true stories"...but they were also written to entertain, they were written for the big screen, made dramatic so a wide audience can relate. But i garentee none of those stories actually happened and looked as beautiful like they did on the screen.

Im talking about the cinema verite that makes us wonder if what we are watching is really happening when its being shot, the events UNDER-dramatized, the dialogue close to something we'd say in the real world (I'm king of the world! ha)

seejay, you're gettin warm. Not neccessarly a story that's too generic to be a "true story" but a true story that isnt the most action packed, visually stunning, but has characters that go through situations and act like you or I would.

Best examples that hopefully everyone has seen are films by Larry Clark and Gus Van Sant. While the story in some of their films are sub-par (if that), its the cinematography and the way those stories are told that im wondering about.

While most professional filmmakers spend minutes to hours setting up lighting and trying to get that "perfect" camera movement, its that very same lighting and camera movement that takes us away and puts the viewer into a different world. We know its fake because everything seems perfect.

which is where im stuck, and back to my question...

Is there a place for these "realism" films? Are these gus van sants and larry clarks onto something or just a quick fad? do people want to see depressing films about people searching for truth and understanding, when the audience is most likely searching themselves? When does "real" get too real for films?