HDC Weekly Debate: Is realism a part of entertainment through films?

[_____V_____]

Aren't we, as the willing and paying public, consciously promoting escapist entertainment for a couple hours in the films we watch? Or does a part of us, unknowingly or unwillingly, look for realism in the silver screen?

The thought stuck in my head all day and when I came home, I looked through some sites but still can't find a satisfying answer for this question. Maybe some of you might be more helping/illuminating than the countless references Google keeps throwing up.

What is cinema exactly?

Escapist entertainment? Stark realism?

Aren't we paying to watch something for one and half hours to escape reality and feel lighter? Better? More cheerful? Forgetting the hassles of day-to-day life? Don't we cheer for Schwarzenegger when he pulls out a gun and plenty of outlandish one-liners to dispose off the bad guys?

Or realism in cinema is more engrossing? Does it make people more depressed because they can relate to what's happening on the screen? A Truffaut or Bunuel makes us contemplative? Stuff like The Wrestler or Gran Torino or Million Dollar Baby, even Schindler's List...is that cinema?

Which side of the scale is more heavier - entertainment, or realism?

No poll for this one. I just need to find an answer.

[newb]

I think it depends on ones mood.

[neverending]

There is no definitive answer. Your quest is defeated. Some prefer to escape, some prefer to engage.

No film is realistic, though, despite how naturalistic it may appear. Film telescopes time or condenses it, through editing and shot selection. A characters gets in a car and drives away from the house. Cut to the next shot and they're pulling up to the office. Or, as in the climax of The Good, the Bad & the Ugly, we see an instant played out in all three men's faces.

Film is magic, but it's not real.

[_____V_____]

Originally Posted by newb

I think it depends on ones mood.

True. And that takes the debate to an entirely new direction, with entertainment and realism being two sides of the same cinematic coin. And that is not what I am after.

Originally Posted by neverending

There is no definitive answer. Your quest is defeated. Some prefer to escape, some prefer to engage.

No film is realistic, though, despite how naturalistic it may appear. Film telescopes time or condenses it, through editing and shot selection. A characters gets in a car and drives away from the house. Cut to the next shot and they're pulling up to the office. Or, as in the climax of The Good, the Bad & the Ugly, we see an instant played out in all three men's faces.

Film is magic, but it's not real.

Very true, but not the answer I am after.

Does realism in cinema provide some sort of entertainment? Or, does entertainment become more enjoyable when its rooted in realism?

What do we exactly pay for - escapist stuff, or realism-driven/dipped stuff?

Or both, like Newb pointed out?

Isn't the definition of cinema synonymous with entertainment?


...maybe I am contradicting myself or not explaining myself well enough.

[neverending]

When you ask a question you don't always get the answer you want.

I don't agree with the definitions. There is no such thing as realism in cinema. It doesn't exist.

And I gave pretty much the same answer as newb- I said we pay for both, though I separeted the two not by mood, but by personality type.

[_____V_____]

Originally Posted by neverending

I don't agree with the definitions. There is no such thing as realism in cinema. It doesn't exist.

It doesn't? I say it does.

And I hope someone else agrees with me on this.

[neverending]

The only way to get realism in a film would be to set up a camera, start filming people who don't know they're being filmed, never make any cuts or shot changes- just one long take. That would be realistic. Anything else is something different.

[Straker]

I think, primarily, we are investing our time and money into film because we want to engage with it and be stimulated or challenged, on some level, by it. What we enage with or enjoy about a film might be represented through the desire for escapism or the honesty realism attempts to provide. Either way though, they are a means to and ends, we just want to enjoy what we watch, how you find that enjoyment is, for the most part, subjective and intangible.

[milktoaste]

Originally Posted by neverending

The only way to get realism in a film would be to set up a camera, start filming people who don't know they're being filmed, never make any cuts or shot changes- just one long take. That would be realistic. Anything else is something different.

What you would have just filmed was reality, but realism is vitally important to certain roles, as an audience, we would never beable to connect with the stories and characters without some form of realism behind them.

I go to movies for the experience, to have done one thing rather than another. I could make that choice to be engaged or to just go along for a fantastic ride. Depends on what entertains me- like what newb was saying.

[Caenxavier]

Yeah, I think Newb nailed it. But if I want 100% realism I'll watch a documentary, but even then you have to watch your facts.