There are only a few great films. Very few movies are worth seeing for more than time-killing, and very few of those are worth seeing more than once. That’s why it’s inspiring to see a film that’s truly a work of art. On the big ya hoida ‘em scale, for my money it’s the Coen brothers, Ridley Scott, Christopher Nolan and about every third Tarantino film. Performances by Daniel Day Lewis, Judy Dench, Gary Oldman, Ed Norton, Emma Thompson.
A great film—say Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds—can be watched in non-chronological segments. You can soak in the film without bothering with the narrative. Film is so much more than narrative. True, I’m too much a lover of the traditional and I have to watch things in single sittings—can’t count the number of times I’ve seen Barton Fink—but good to know that the option exists.
Great film rarely makes any attempt at imitating reality. It’s noteworthy when we see something that reminds us of our own world on film. Great film has to be unreal, that’s why it’s art—but it’s taken for granted as an art form; this is because it presents so much less for the viewer to have to fill in—as media like writing and painting require.
Does fiction suffer the same downfall? Can it never capture reality?
An interest of mine is writing dialogue in fiction. Consider: dialogue is a writer quoting supposed speakers. It’s a lie right off the bat. Is it possible to depict conversation—real conversation with us interrupting each other and talking at the same time and having ten minute conversations that say little and do nothing to advance the plot—without describing what’s happening, to just show it?
Is fiction a different kind of art, allowing for more reality than film, painting or photography? There are supposed “real” forms of all of the above. Documentary films—and I’ve seen some brilliant ones—are still created, because they’re pieced together. Editing is a more important step in creation than the genesis of an idea. Portrait and landscape painting capture an image as the artist sees it. The photographer assumes the viewer will fill in what is around, behind, before and after an image—all created. So, what is “reality” at all? Is it just as much a loaded and useless a term as “normal”?
Does fiction transcend the rules? Is it more capable of presenting reality because it can leave more out? This calls for creativity on the part of the reader, but readers will—usually, I assume—fill in the bits they don’t know with what they know would exist in reality. Which is, again, a form of creativity.
Can art capture reality? Should it? Or is it meant just to reflect features of reality in a cohesive, creative form?