A Question of Realism article

Share

P K Nair explores the relationship between cinema and reality

"This is Life itself "

When Lumieres took their new invention , the Cinematograph camera to the railway station and photographed  the train entering the station  and later projected in a Paris café , the audience shouted " this is life itself ". Film historians have recorded that the first experience was so "realistic", that some members present in the front row, virtually ran out of the café, as they felt the train was coming towards them. Before Cinema came on the scene, mankind had never experienced something similar. So there could be some logic in what the film historians say.

Actuality vs. made up realism  

Right from the inception , there have been two streams of filmmaking : one to take the camera to a  chosen locale  and record whatever happened in front of the camera  from a pre determined spot and the second put together all the minutest details one could think of to  go into the frame and shoot according to a well designed and well thought of  plan . The first is often referred to as the "Actuality "or "Realist film"   or later termed as the documentary school of filmmaking while the latter "the fiction or story film "which forms the basis of the entertainment industry .It's also a fact the bulk of Cinema is geared to the latter as that's where the money flows both in terms of investment and returns. In the first, apart from some vague notion, you have no clue to what exactly will be recorded in the film. In one sense, it'll be as much revelation to the filmmaker as to the viewer.

The spontaneity of the event makes the recording unique and adventurous, while in the latter you are trying to achieve the closest to what you have conceived in your mind. Even though both are using the same technology in terms of imaging, selection, cutting and ordering the final shape of the work, the creative perceptions are different. There is a tendency to believe the former is more realistic than the latter. This need not necessarily be so. Let me explain.

Which is more realistic?

In the Lumiere Programme (1895), the factory workers coming out of the factory after the day shift with varying modes of expressions on their faces and gaits of walking may be a spontaneous event.  Or for that matter ‘˜the train entering the station ". But not so another bit in the same programme - "Watering the gardener ". This could be a pre -

arranged one, as there is an action followed by a reaction and ending up with a resolution, the three basic units of a story film. Both can be termed "realistic but not with the same yardstick. The question of subjectivity is an unavoidable factor even in cases of recording spontaneous events , i.e. the position from where you choose to look at the event and finally  record it or in cinematic  terms where to place the camera . This is the filmmaker's choice. As a discriminating viewer we may disagree with the choice but the author's prerogative cannot be questioned. The same holds good for fixing the order of the images, in what's technically known as editing or cutting. If someone looks thru' the keyhole, an inquisitive viewer would like to see next what he or she is looking at. But if the filmmaker decides not to show it but continue to keep the camera to capture the emotional conflict of the character, it's his creative choice. A serious viewer , instead of going by pre conceived notions will try to go into the logic behind the author's choice and whether it fits into any creative design ,before rejecting it.

A subjective experience

Film by its very nature is a subjective experience both for the author and the viewer. If they don't see eye to eye, either side is going to be disappointed resulting in failures and finding fault with each other. When the ideas of  good, pleasing , healthy entertainment tally with each other's concepts ,the work is termed a success  irrespective of the fact it's realistic or not . Realism is again a subjective term. What may seem realistic to one may not necessarily be the same to another. Every member of the audience sees the film on the basis of their subjective experience of life. Even members of a family watching a TV serial together in their drawing room need not necessarily have the same experience. It may differ from person to person, depending on their world view. However there may be some common areas of likes and dislikes which bind them together, which most filmmakers cater to. A filmmaker who hails from the midst of the common man and having similar likes and dislikes will be better equipped to communicate to them than perhaps an intellectual who thinks and feels different. It's but natural the reach of the latter will comparatively be limited except when they are at the same wavelength.    

Whose realism is it anyway?

When we talk of realism in Cinema, the question that follows is "whose realism" as we know by now; the concept of realism varies from individual to individual. Granting that the subjective element is unavoidable even in the so called "realist non-fiction film" the question boils down to: "Is Cinema a realist medium?" Let us examine a real life experience and the conventional cinematic version of it.

A motorist knocks down a cyclist in a busy street. A pedestrian watches the event. Though three individuals are involved in the event in real life one can experience the event only from one position, namely either of the motorist. or the cyclist, or the pedestrian. You can also read about the accident in the next day's Newspaper, if it happens to be a fatal one. .Let us examine how an ordinary filmmaker translates this event into film . He has to break it down to several individual fragments called "shots", taken from different view points (camera positions) and put them together in some order as the filmmaker thinks best. It could be somewhat like this:

1. The motorist's point of view from the driver's seat of the outside street as the cyclist approaching and about to hit

2. from the fallen cyclist's view of the disturbed motorist at the wheel.

3. from the pedestrian's view of the motorist and cyclist at logger heads accusing each other . And may be

4. from the point of view of a housewife looking at the event from the third floor of her apartment nearby. (A top angle view of the event )

And so on ......While another filmmaker would show the cyclist first followed by the motorist and then the pedestrian's or housewife's point of view. Yet another film maker could start with the pedestrian or housewife hearing a loud sound and looking at the accident scene.

The event being the same, the above three narration would amount to different statements in Cinema.

What the filmmaker does  is  looking at the event from various positions  and putting them together  in a certain order  and thereby create virtually a new event , rather a new experience which is not humanly possible for us to perceive in real life . What should we term this? Realism or fantasy? Picasso and his fellow cubists had followed the same principle

Those who have seen Pather Panchali can never forget the shot of Durga as seen from inside the Matka (earthen pot) as she puts the kitten inside. To get that viewpoint one has to go inside the pot to the position of the kitten which we all know is not humanly possible.

Yet Pather Panchali has been universally hailed as the most realistic film from India.

John Grierson defined the documentary as "creative interpretation of reality". I would extend this definition for the benefit of all those who are wanting to make realistic films. Whether fiction or non fiction, one has to differentiate between duplicating reality and creating a new reality with one's own interpretation.

Lumiere Brother's First Film "Arrival of a Train"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dgLEDdFddk[/youtube]

Workers exiting a factory (1895)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYpKZx090UE[/youtube]