3.4 ASK A QUESTION - In Lieu of a Quiz

During the zoom office hours with Anna, I asked a question about the slide in the presentation which showed the types of film from Realism to Classicism to Anti-Realism/Formulism. The picture on the slide says it’s a sliding scale and we discussed good examples.

The film House of Sand leans more on the scale toward realism. Donnie Darko leans more toward anti-realism/formalism.  Both are fiction dramatic narrative films but neither go as far to be either a documentary or an abstract animation.

I also asked for examples differentiating Anti-Realism vs Formulism film.
Anti-Realism can be fantasy or sci-fi with more of a plot to it, like Donnie Darko or Godzilla.

Formulism is more like the film Momento in which the flashbacks are so intense that you don’t know the plot until you are at the end. Also, two films from one of my favorite directors David Lynch: Mulholland Drive and Eraserhead are heavy-handed formulism.

My remaining question is if my understanding of the conversation was correct and also if I was wrong in asking to ask to differentiate anti-realism/formulism films. Are they two types lumped together or I think I read anti-realism is the content and formulism the way it is carried out?

Response from Anna: 

Exactly, 

Anti-realism is an approach to content...
the story remains verisimilar, the cinematic language creates an illusion of a world you are willing to become engrossed in,
Whereas formalism often throws the viewer out of that world in order for you to question what you are viewing because they manipulate film form.
  

In the case of a film the films noted Momento, Mulholland Drive and Eraserhead all three are dramatic narrative, yet there are notable differences from what we have come to expect from films in the style of Hollywood Classicism.

They differ in how the story is told, whether it it through the editing and a non-linear storyline, and or through perspective and what information is, or is not given to the audience. The cinematography does mirror the mood, the lighting is motivated yet not what your would expect.

Edited on Sep 16 at 11:03pm

I received 5/5 points

Thank you for your thorough questions and answers. Oh and btw I embedded the chapter 6 video I made in the week 4 module.

Anna Geyer , Sep 19 at 1:35pm (Note from teacher)

Another point on a student project i made

I would say that The Walking Dead is a dramatic fictional narrative television show that slides to the edge of anti-realism. It puts one in a verisimilitude of zombie living through costume and special effects. It is presented with a plot and does not reach the edge of experimentalism to reach the level of formulism. 

Edited by Ida Daroza on Sep 16 at 11:13pm

student:

I am having some trouble understanding the difference between antirealism and verisimilitude. On page 53 (6th ed.), the author talks about Wes Anderson's The Grand Budapest Hotel is more of antirealism and formalism while Guillermo del Toro’s The Shape of Water is more of a film on verisimilitude. The definition of antirealism is subverting realism, and verisimilitude is the appearance of being real of true but it is not real. I could see that both films mentioned could be about antirealism and verisimilitude because they are depicted in a world that is not real, beyond real. So, what is the difference between antirealism and verisimilitude? Can a movie be both? 

my answer which i don't think is correct:

Hi KV, 

I just asked this question during zoom. Anti-realist films are still fictional films with dramatic narrative and a plot. They do have verisimilitude where you believe the world that they bring you into and are usually Science Fiction and Action Hero films. That's what I understood. If I'm wrong, please someone let me know. 

Question from Nichol:
A question that I have in regards to the Chapter 2 section is the concept of Verisimilitude since it is about whether a movie is either realistic or non-realistic. Are there certain types of movies that are both real and unreal as if showing a message/symbolism for the themes of said media? There is a tv show that I've watched before which is called Atlanta which follows on the said titular city and follows various characters that deal with life struggles but also surrealist events that happen in their neighborhood. Is there a film or media that breaks the concept of said Verisimilitude that it becomes Meta? Would movies such as Deadpool count as a "Meta" movie as the character is self-aware of their actions by referring to the audience and such? In the book, it mentions that "Some of the most popular and successful movies of all time convincingly depict imaginative or supernatural worlds and events that have little or nothing in common with our actual experiences" (Pg 58), does this term still apply right now because movies such as Parasite (which was made in Korea and had themes dealing with class and society) became recognized in the more global scale and such?

Answer from Anna:

Nichol,

Verisimilitude is about believability. The creation of a reality. As you and Chelsea note films can, "convincingly depict imaginative or supernatural worlds." Whats important in that sentence is the phrase, "convincingly depict." As long as you are willing to engage because you aren't distracted by the fact you can see the zipper in the kitty costume all is well. Within the parameters of an alien universe if the filmmakers remain in that universe verisimilitude is present. Anti-realist films also use cinematic conventions to create a verisimilar world, one in which you are able to empathize with the characters because you do not question that reality.

Acknowledging the audience is a "distancing technique," presented to throw the audience out of that universe intentionally, to make the audience become aware, or remind them they are watching a film, by doing so the filmmakers are often asking the audience to contemplate and maybe question the content. Bertolt Brecht championed such techniques in  theater and film, Brecht's influence may be noted in early Fassbinder films.

Edited by Anna Geyer on Sep 21 at 8:24pm

Student follow up:
Hi there thank you for your post. I would like to ask. What makes a film META to you? I hear that word thrown around and I don’t know what it means so I am trying to understand. I’d appreciate it if you could shed a tidbit or two to help me understand. 

Reply Anna:

Haunah,

Meta, as I understand it is self aware, self referential. The most obvious example I can think of at the moment is Funny Games by Michael Haneke. I've only seen the 1997 German version, but what I remember is there's a point at which a character says something like, "hey that wasn't supposed to happen. we need to rewind," and picks ups a remote. We see the scene rewind.

Anyone else have examples? Something more people have seen, Deadpool is a good example.

Anna Follow up comment on Parallel Editing: 

Parallel editing may be used in a number of ways and its use is somewhat dependent on genre and overarching style. A crime thriller will use the technique to create suspense and as you note keep the audience guessing. In a romance two characters may be depicted as preparing for a date and the pay off is as they actually meet.  In classical Hollywood Cinema all threads of a story, sometimes represented through parallel editing, are resolved and often joined, by the film's happy ending. In French New Wave and other such movements there may be multiple stories developed, but one thread may not be resolved which can mirror life experience more directly. For instance, in Hiroshima Mon Amour (Alain Resnais written by Marguerite Duras) the love affair is left pretty much unresolved and the male character's story/backstory is not fully developed. The film is not strictly an example of parallel editing, but there is a bit.

Reply by Robert

Sep 15, 2021Sep 15 at 3:42pm

An extreme example of parallel editing is a 3-film series I recently watched by Krzysztof Kieslowski, called Three Colors.  The first is called Blue, the second White and the third is Red.  They all deal with different stories, but in tiny ways incorporate the other films within that singular film.  At the end of the third, we see a 'joining' of the characters from all of them and can thus come up with a theme.  This may not fall into classic parallel editing but at one or two points this is part of it.  By watching the series, the director is calling upon us to find what fits with the other films by recall, so it's not happening within the same film but within a series.

Robert's question on Persistence of Vision:

My question and one that I want clarification on is 'persistence of vision.'  This came from the 37 min video class presentation and not in the book.  I wrote down -- a series of images blended together to create the illusion of motion.  I don't really understand what this means and would love an example of two.

One definition that I love is the non-narrative patterns.  The example used in the teaching video was in Juno where she was confronted with the sight and sound of fingernails.  The idea behind this, using repetition of images or sound to illicit an emotional response from the viewer is used so often in films.  In my mind I see a woman's legs (MCU) wearing heels and she is tapping her foot over and over (thus we get a sense she is either bored or perhaps anxious).  Then we see her her tapping foot stop mid tap (CU).  What does that tell us?  It can be a lot of things.  She is not alone anymore maybe, or she has seen something that is disturbing, or she is about to engage in some good or bad news with another character.  The simple act of the tapping stopping mid-tap causes us (the viewer) to feel something, before we know what it is.

Anna's Reply to Robert:

Earlier editions of the text states,

"Persistence of vision is the process by which the human brain retains an image for a fraction of a second longer than the eye records it. You can observe this phenomenon by quickly switching a light on and then off in a dark room. Doing this, you should see an afterimage of the objects in the room, or at least of whatever you were looking at directly when you switched the light off. Similarly, in the movie theater we see a smooth flow of images and not the darkness between frames. So the persistence of vision gives the illusion of succession, or one image following another without interruption. However, we must also experience the illusion of movement, or figures and objects within the image changing position simultaneously without actually moving. The phi phenomenon is the illusion of movement created by events that succeed each other rapidly, as when two adjacent lights flash on and off alternately and we seem to see a single light shifting back and forth."

So persistence of vision is an eye/brain function that blends the images and the phi phenomenon is the concept coined to refer to the movement perceived within the frame. Persistence of vision used to be the gold standard by which all conversations of how moving images worked began. The 6th edition of the text explains the concept on page 43 without ever using the terminology. It then goes on to state that digital screenings don't have the same kind of shutter and do not have the black "the darkness between the frames" as the shutter opens and closes, and therefore the image is actually continuous.

Personally I love the term and live to apply it to an artist's body of work, but that's just me.

Edited by Anna Geyer on Sep 15 at 6:41pm

Student question about Time and Space manipulation:|
While I think I have a firm grasp on the concept of anti-realism/formalism and realism (the lecture/slides and the image positing that it can be seen through a spectrum was a great visual reference was helpful)! I am still a bit fuzzy around the concept of manipulation of time/space, it being "time is spatialized and space is being temporized". Is there another way of approaching this topic in a digestible way or even a few examples that would capture its essence/element? Even a visual reference to the difference or similarities, even examples of the two keys ideas would sure be helpful for me to understand this concept.

Anna's Reply:
Cinema is the ultimate time-space art because time and space assume properties of the other. Time is spatialized because we can move about it as in space, and space is temporalized by cinema’s dynamic elements (moving camera, slow/fast motion, extreme lenses, etc.).As editing and the long take are both capable of temporalizing space and spatializing time.

In regards to dynamization of space and spatialization of time the text notes the two terms help define the fact that film is unique in that every shot has the ability to redefine how the audience perceives the time and space of the story. These two terms attempt to describe how that redefinition of what we witness is achieved.

Spatialization of time address the fact that one can move from one time period to another via a flashback. I believe the text notes that the audience is able to move through time as if it were space due filmic techniques - editing. In Middle of Nowhere we learn of the arrest through a flashback.

Dynamization of space, means the space itself is not static, it may be continuous but it is not static. It is constantly redefined, The camera allows the audience to move through a space and "temporalized" through the use of moving camera, slow/fast motion, extreme lenses. Another example in which editing plays a role in the dynamization of space is from the examples of photos from the text from the Gold Rush, or any shot sequence really that goes from an establishing exterior shot to an interior. We as the audience are willing to believe that Charlie is inside the cabin depicted in the first shot.

Here is a possible quiz question on the subject...

Which of the following does NOT demonstrate the movie principles of “dynamization of space” and/or “Spatialization of time”?

a. During a movie scene in which two characters meet at a bar, the action suddenly flashes forward to their later rendezvous at an apartment.

b. During a movie scene, the  camera operator zooms to a close-up which focuses the viewer’s attention on one character’s lips.

c. A live, theatrical drama is presented in which scenes play out on a single set meant to depict a city police station.

d. A movie chase sequence is slowed down so that it looks like it is taking place underwater.

e. A movie scene is cut so that the viewer sees the characters interact with each other from multiple angles.

A student question about Transition phase:
I am most interested in this transition phase we are finishing between film and digital.  On page 43 (sixth edition), the authors speak to the movie screen going momentarily dark for at least 24 times each second.  This allows our brains to process each frame individually and create the illusion of movement.  However, they then state "These days, when most movies are shot on high definition digital cameras, and virtually every movie is viewed digitally....the brief moments of black are no longer necessary."  (Professor, you also restate this in your reply to Robert James' post above). But this confuses me.  Since digital movies are edited using computer software (Resolve, Final Cut, Premiere, Avid, etc.) and these programs represent the 'film strip' as individual frames, are they still not projected as individual frames?  I can not seem to wrap my head around the 'how' digital films are projected - and for that matter recorded.  An actual strip of film I can touch and see the individual frames and imagine them going through the projector.  Digital, not so much. Are they still recorded as 24 individual pictures per second?  If so, don't we still need the momentary back during the projection?  What about analogue movies shown on a digital television? My head hurts.....

Student Imara response: 
I think in the modern-day. A lot of films are projected via flash drive or computer. When you rent a movie theater, they have connections for such things. It seems only small theaters still run on film for older movies but most movies remain digital. What you might be thinking of is FPS, which is frames per second. That is the speed at which your camera records. Most films use around 24 frames per second. The only difference between digital and analog is that it's easier to edit digitally because you don't have to physically cut anything. 

Anna's response:

Thank you Imara,

The 24 frames per second in the digital world mirror the speed and frame rate without having a physical frame.

Video cameras are photo-electronic devises which convert light to an electronic signal.

Early video cameras utilized cathode ray tubes and recorded onto tape based analog formats. Frame rate was basically based on motor speed.

CCD (charge-coupled device) and CMOS (complementary metal-oxide semiconductor) both convert light into electrons (voltage) and then employs analog-to-digital converter A->D to convert each pixel's value into a binary digital value (0 or 1) and then record onto a storage medium  previously tape, or presently SD or C-fast cards.

That's probably more than you want to know, but it is what you will learn in production.

The film strip is an interpolation created by the editing software...how much information should be included given the parameters set in-camera.

Edited by Anna Geyer on Sep 22 at 7:35pm

The question was silly, but this student response was good:
To try and answer your question, I feel like a film's historical accuracy depends on the director/screenwriters in charge. Some filmmakers create their films for the purpose of entertaining and enticing their audience, meaning that historical accuracy or primary source accounts have to be modified in order to make the film interesting. Being both true to the historical events or real life stories while also being engaging to the audience is a somewhat difficult rope to balance on.

Anna's answer:

Myren is correct, in most cases with entertainment as the goal, a "real event" will be written to illustrate the dramatic elements of the story. Yes, research is done, for everything in a film in the style of classical Hollywood is planned. 

A very interesting, or at least I find it interesting, film which straddles the line between Realism (documentary) and dramatic narrative is Close-up by the Iranian filmmaker Abbas Kiarostami. It focuses on a man who was arrested for impersonating a famous filmmaker and depicts the actual trial of that individual.

Here's a youtube link in case anyone is interested - Here

For anyone interested in screenwriting Stephen King's book On Writing discusses his process. Many writers find a time and space where they can go and write on a daily basis, because you must give yourself the time to create. 

End - Anna's answer

Student question:

I’m very narrative driven when I write a short film, or anything of the sort. I’m wondering with non-narrative film, I suppose silent films, are what most non-narrative films are referenced. Are there other examples? Because I think non-narrative films are mostly driven by edits, movements, lighting, etc can music videos be a non-narrative because they don’t necessarily have dialogue but lyrics. No one is narrative but still telling a story? Is there a difference. Couldn’t all films become non-narrative?   

Also what is Meta? (This is just an honest question) I hear it a lot but I don’t fully understand what it means. People always say,  “that’s so meta” I’m here with a dumb look on my face. If anyone can shed some light I’d appreciate it. 

Anna's Response:
Any film that tells a story is narrative. Silent (Hollywood) films often tell stories, An example of a non-narrative film is abstract animation, or visual music. Oscar Fischinger, Viking Eggling, and Mary Ellen Bute come to mind. Here you go. Link Here

Student question about Invisibility:
In chapter 1, I am having trouble grasping the concept of 'invisibility'. The first paragraph talks of the fact that films are not typically paused when played on the big screen, as well as being compared to books being able to be bookmarked to 'pause'. Is invisibility just the use of proximity manipulation to cause viewers to miss subtle details? I would really like some elaboration with this one.

 
Anna's Response:

One example in the textbook is the fade-out/fade-in to communicate the passage of time (p. 6). In this case, the passage of time is “invisible,” but we infer it because of our association with the sunset and sunrise. 

In other words invisibility is created by the cinematic techniques/conventions which help us forget we are watching a movie, we don't think about the editing, the lighting we think about the story, the content and how those conventions make us feel.

Student question about Non-narrative patterns:
A question I have, is about how non-narrative patterns. I don't understand patterns within a shot? Can anyone give an example? Is this pattern in techniques or something like a subject thats on film? 
Anna's Reply:
Look up at Robert's post. Non-narrative patterns are elements that repeat that help add depth or meaning to the story. In can be a sound effect, or a piece of music (musical motif). The examples in the text is note from Juno. Another example might be in Jaws every time the shark is about to appear an ominous tune is played.