-
26th November 2010, 01:34 PM
#21
Senior Member
Diamond Hubber
Originally Posted by
P_R
Originally Posted by
[url=http://www.imdb.com/user/ur22480757/comments
kid_glove[/url]]A film theorist once said films are moving pictures with accompanying sound. The story and themes are excuses to entice & indulge the audience.
yaar andha theorist ?
Anon. :P
Honestly, I was reading a lot at the time. I suppose it's a paraphrase of paraphrase from some obscure film journal.
-
26th November 2010 01:34 PM
# ADS
Circuit advertisement
-
26th November 2010, 01:38 PM
#22
Senior Member
Diamond Hubber
Originally Posted by
P_R
I see the links about how it is physically possible for such a phenomenon.
That is not the point. To portray an abnormal event on screen and say 'wierd stuff happens you know' is quite unacceptable.
But it superbly subverts and plays around the notion of 'what is real or unreal', 'what could happen and not happen'. And especially so in case of movies as it has that sense of urgency and immediacy. People want realistic stories. But what is drama? Lack of dull moments. Not realism per se. To me, it could be as operatic and opulent given the theme of the film. I felt it was all intimately tied together.
-
26th November 2010, 02:39 PM
#23
Moderator
Platinum Hubber
Originally Posted by
kid_glove
People want realistic stories. But what is drama? Lack of dull moments. Not realism per se.
That is exactly the challenge. A challenge that IMO is not overcome even in the best of films. There is perhaps not a single film (or book) where there is not even one place that feels unreal and convenient. The best storytellers mask it really really well. Make it feel as if it is a vignette from reality and yet manage to be engaging.
As such it just cannot be engaging. (Kaufman's 'nothing happens in life' with McKee) You can joke about it, get-meta and all. But you can't try to have your audience take your story 'seriously' and still try to pull off these kind of things. I am aware this kind of thing would work eminently in a comedy. To push some armchair psychology I'd speculate this may be because there is a inherently a distance between the viewer and material in the comedy/farce.
Originally Posted by
kid-glove
But it superbly subverts and plays around the notion of 'what is real or unreal', 'what could happen and not happen'.
I kinda get what he was trying to do (I'd believe it if it happened in the movies - line). But this sort of thing does not work for me.
மூவா? முதல்வா! இனியெம்மைச் சோரேலே
-
26th November 2010, 04:16 PM
#24
Senior Member
Diamond Hubber
Agree on farce/comedy.
Btw the moment the camera is placed somewhere, reality is altered forever. Even in 'documentaries' where the camera is supposedly hidden.
Recently I came across old behindwoods interview of Mysskin which echoes some of my thoughts on this matter..
-
26th November 2010, 05:31 PM
#25
Moderator
Platinum Hubber
Originally Posted by
kid-glove
Btw the moment the camera is placed somewhere, reality is altered forever. Even in 'documentaries' where the camera is supposedly hidden.
Theoretically true. But that's about it, no?
These "if you come to think about it...." statements, are no doubt interesting but do not fundamentally alter how we perceive something.
மூவா? முதல்வா! இனியெம்மைச் சோரேலே
-
26th November 2010, 07:03 PM
#26
Senior Member
Diamond Hubber
But the point is that it's much much more potent in case of non-documentary films, no?
And also it depends on the genre. What kind of universe the (imaginary) characters would/should/could dwell in.
Even if what he states is obvious, check the part on realism. It is refreshing to hear (from one of those supposedly 'realistic' filmmakers acc. to our fublic and press)
http://www.behindwoods.com/features/...ysskin-01.html
-
26th November 2010, 07:14 PM
#27
Senior Member
Seasoned Hubber
Excellent! அதான்... அதே தான்!
-
26th November 2010, 07:24 PM
#28
Moderator
Platinum Hubber
Yeah k_g, pretty obvious. pudhusaa oNNum sollalai. The MGR example is very "eh?"
Originally Posted by
equanimus
What kind of universe the (imaginary) characters would/should/could dwell in.
and that's pretty sacred. If the 'effect' of the creation is going to come from messing with that - well what's interesting about that? (rhetorical question, don't answer )
Here is something by Jeyamohan which I quoted in his thread in the Tamil lit section
கதை என்பது ஒரு நிகரனுபவம். உண்மையான வாழ்க்கையை வாசகன் கற்பனையில் வாழச்செய்வதென்பது அதன் அடிப்படை இலக்கு. வாசகன் பெறும் கவித்துவமும் தரிசனமும் எல்லாமே அவ்வனுபவம் மூலம் அவன் அடைபவை. . புனைவென்பதே அந்த அனுபவத்தை புனைந்துருவாக்குவதே. அவற்றை அளிக்காமல் புனைவிலக்கியம் நிகழமுடியாது.
I largely share this opinion.
நிகரனுபவம்...whatay word.
மூவா? முதல்வா! இனியெம்மைச் சோரேலே
-
26th November 2010, 07:34 PM
#29
Senior Member
Seasoned Hubber
PR,
The MGR example is old and readily understandable to everyone, but he's clearly (and even abruptly) universalizing the idea to all kinds of films. "So, in a similar situation in real life I may not beat bad men but will at least raise my voice against bad people. This is what is cinema." This is a bold statement to make in today's times where almost every filmmaker considered serious by the audience is using the word "realistic" almost interchangeably with "good."
-
26th November 2010, 07:42 PM
#30
Moderator
Platinum Hubber
That was is portrayed is by a meta-defintion not 'real' does not mean one can stop attempting to be as real as possible.
I guess I understand what PTA was trying to do, teasing our notions, messing around with expectations etc. But neither did I find it profound, nor could I see the funny side of it.
மூவா? முதல்வா! இனியெம்மைச் சோரேலே
Bookmarks