Hyper-Realism vs. Cartoons

I would like to take a second to discuss artistic aesthetics. I realize that at the end it discusses "good film vs bad film" which is of course pointless since it is an endless debate. However, I am trying to make a point of the critic's tool of realism and its ramifications in a film. If you think this will be a discussion about animation versus live-action, I'm afraid you may want to come back later. Instead, think of this as reality television versus comic book movies. Still a bad analogy, but oh well.

In the world, each medium has its own distinctive artistic flavor. The flavor of each medium is usually a direct reflection of its capabilities. A cartoon tends to use a lot of schtick because it allows for very interesting physical movements and literally stretched characters. Whereas films tend to have rules based on logic and be expansive in sets and locations. Theater on the other hand should be more abstract and very surreal. Some of these tendencies are spurred by monetary considerations, others simply by the nature of the medium. In all cases though, the rules of that medium can be changed and made to imitate or mock other mediums. They can also be manipulated and misused to suit the purposes of the artist. With that being said, certain stories and ideas seem to fit better on certain mediums. Lord of the Rings the 9 hour long play might be cool, but it is also ridiculously expensive. a pain in the ass for the performers and audience members who might have places to be. In other words, a show that would never last long and would be produced rarely. The first and best piece of advice in writing I ever received was, when you write a screenplay, make sure that it is a screenplay and not a play, not a novel, and not a short-story dressed as a screenplay. Many people can't recognize the medium they write in which is why translators and adaptors have good creative jobs.

Film is traditionally known for being realistic. It is a medium in which a great amount of detail is captured and has potential for holding the perfect performance forever and can be distributed far and wide in a short amount of time. A opening performance of a play in 200 theaters in America simultaneously is next to impossible and making sure that all of those productions are of high quality is impossible. Since film was developed as a medium long after theater, there was a natural competition between the mediums for storytelling in which the performance capturing effect of the film was pitted against the live performance with the audiences to decide. History shows that the rise of film and decline of theater audiences over time would show that film won in that regard. While plays tried to recreate Haiti, Cuba, Yonkers, and other locations, film took audiences there. You want to see a real drug deal? Watch some documentaries about drug dealing. Critics have, in the past, lauded the "realistic" assets of a production. Only recently has that concept been critically challenged.

I believe each film can be categorized somewhere along the spectrum between hyper-realism and cartoon. In the past, a "serious" film that might be categorized as a "masterpiece" was always more "realistic" than other films of that year. Whereas comic-booky and cartoonish films were either for children and therefore below the notice of adults or just bad films. While Who Framed Roger Rabbit? was a great movie according to most critics and involved a message of tolerance and cooperation over hatred and bigotry, it was a film categorized as being meant mostly for children. Thankfully, a new generation of critics and filmmakers have entered the arena. A generation that understands the implications and importance of film that is not constantly and boringly realistic. Now, many comic books are getting well-made films, several of which are critically acclaimed. Whereas there are also films that are too "realistic" for the common palate such as Jackass or the movie based on the partyers in Cancun. While many old-fashioned critics may decry these recent changes, here's the truth that they don't want to realize and the secret behind brilliant film work. NO FILM IS TRULY REALISTIC.

What I mean by that is a film is usually based on a story with dramatic elements, or its edited to emphasize pacing, tempo, a certain movement, etc. Perhaps the only realistic film I can think of is the one by Andy Warhol about a man sleeping for six hours. Even films that are accredited with tons of historical accuracy such as Pearl Harbor and Gone With the Wind tend to manipulate dramatic devices and cinematography to their own advantage. How many people can say they have seen a man who was playing with a snow globe right before he passed away during the middle of a rainstorm? Exactly. Film is not about realism, it's about capturing the essence of realism and manipulating that essence to reveal a story that is above the norm. It is meant to delight in the realistic absurd. If I rambled to you for an hour and lied every 3 seconds, you would probably ignore me after 30 seconds. However, a film could take that story and make it seem plausible to a massive audience. Every film creates its own laws which will then govern the movie. If the film is set in space, then no one has gravity and they can float. Ahh, but wait! Maybe they land on a planet that naturally has gravity and aliens that can pick up languages at light speed! Well, that last bit might be a bit harder to swallow, it can still be logically explained away in some other scene or flashback. The recent film Babel is a good example of the absurd of the everyday. The film gives the feeling that everyone is connected and it holds messages that can relate to our reality and political situations. Babel is a great film because it really is a film showing the connections and links of humanity and mankind to others. How those connections are established, damaged, destroyed, and fixed. The story and the "reality", which is supposed to be the world of the audience, are merely vehicles for the director and writer to explore this complex issue of humanity. Children of Men, however, is set in the future and creates its own rules about that future which will let the director and writer explore the meaning of life and the wonder of birth. Now the film feels logical, because the laws on which the film works stem from and are built upon the current reality of the audience of today, making it "our world" in the future. M. Night Shyamalan has a made a living off of creating these absurd ideas into logical ones. The ending of Signs and the reason why the aliens were killed made complete sense, but only in the context of the movie. In reality there are no aliens (yet!) and I highly doubt that preacher's wives often have premonitions of the future of their families right before they die. It is all "willing suspension of disbelief" as they say.

So what makes a good film? A good film is made when not only are the rules and laws of a film understood and made clear to an audience and followed throughout a movie, but when through these laws and world, the film is able to explore something outside of itself, something that might be more immediate or of more importance to the general public than tying your shoes. When a film fails to follow its own rules, then it is called "unrealistic" because it is. It is unable to follow the reality it has given itself. Also, when films are considered bizarre it is usually because those films do not do a good enough job of explaining their reality and the rules in it, so the audience tends to substitute their own rules for the film's laws of reality. Good films walk the line between cartoon and hyper-realism so that they can create their own insulated and perfect world or vision. I give this example because I feel that Alfonso Cuaron is especially good at this type of dramatic device. Cuaron in his new movie has a scene where the only pregnant girl in the world reveals herself to a man in the back of a barn while standing amidst a bunch of cows. This is an inevitable and requisite part of the plot, but the positioning and framing of this shot is perfect. The barn atmosphere with animals brings out the symbol of the coming of Jesus in the child while the use of that particular animal, the cow is brilliant since throughout the movie there have been several shots already of fields of burnt and dead cows, maimed and mutilated. It creates a striking image of hope that without help could be killed like cattle. A hope in danger. All of that, from a pregnant woman showing a man her pregnant belly. It is from visionaries that understand the significance of story and vision that great movies are made. Not whether the film is "realistic" or not and I look forward to the first fully animated adult film that is critically praised as I know it one day will be. Cheers to those who can find the correct placement of realism or cartoon to accurately emphasize and create films worth watching.

(Oh, and one more thing, please don't confuse realism with gritty violence. It hurts me inside)

Wannabe