The Art of Criticism 2: Towards a Basic Understanding

My biggest frustration in discussing movies with my non-obsessed friends is their insistence on "reality"  in movies.
e.g. "that isn't how people talk."
"people are just not that beautiful in real life."
"black and white isn't vibrant" or "black and white doesn't represent reality"
This is both my call to action and examination of this, perhaps the most irritating of issues:

I'm sure there is a great deal written about this very problem but I'm going to skip research for this post, in the hopes I can draw some conclusions on my own. This isn't a question that should simply be disregarded, there is a very fundamental question about what to reasonably expect from a movie. There are two aspects that I can see to this question. The first is that of perception; whether someone should see the movies a certain way, and if so how. The second is that of practicality and reality, what are the ways that we see the movies. Both subjects have books written about them so any really in depth analysis can probably better be found somewhere else, but for a cursory examination meant to foster internal dialogue and ultimately understanding... look no further.

I'll start with the question of perception. I understand that telling someone how to perceive anything is a waste of time but it might be useful to look at the bases for those perceptions. Fundamentally, is this the same sort of identity crisis that painting has gone through from its use in times past as essentially a snapshot photo to today's view of high art? Both cinema and painting are at least partly entertainment and partly "high art" (whatever that means). Popular opinion probably skews painting to high art and cinema to entertainment. Is this fair? It's difficult to say. Those who delude themselves by completely avoiding the artistic merits of film are missing something which clearly adds something to the experience, but at the same time those who don't acknowledge the importance of entertainment, if only to finance future films are equally ignorant.


The second question is considerably more interesting. How do we actually watch movies and what does this tell us about our expectations. Film is by its very nature a representation. Its something which has been captured by a piece of machinery (a camera) and then displayed by yet another machine (a projector) after often considerable alterations (editing). Inherently, there is going to be something lacking in this if your expectations are that of reality.  Add to that the limitations (or is it an asset?) that a rectangular screen brings and you have a medium which is very ill-equipped to represent reality.

That doesn't mean that it can't represent life or emotion. I would argue that black and white film noir captures something about life in the 40's that the studio blockbusters of today never could hope to do. A musical can highlight that which usually goes unsaid. The wild enthusiasm which comes with falling in love or creating art. A creative action scene can be like watching ballet, where the camera is more the ballerina than the actors. The cinema is ill-equipped to represent reality but its very well-equipped for expression. Suspension of disbelief is often thrown around as a sort-of catch phrase to justify the view of cinema as reality. Yet, wouldn't everyone be better served by refining their expectations to what makes movies special?

For the angry rant that got me started on this tangent click here.