Can film be 'realistic'?
I've finally got my copy of David Pirie's revised version of 'A New Heritage of Horror: The English Gothic Cinema'. It's not a book I've read before, but its original edition (published 1973, though the publishers of the new edition omit this detail) has been much cited - not least by Jonathan Rigby in his excellent 'English Gothic: A Century of Horror Cinema'.
So I've started reading it, and realised a few things: a) Pirie's book is mostly focused on Hammer films; i.e. b) it's far from a comprehensive guide; c) despite those limitations, it's one of the most thought-provoking books on the subject I've come across. One subject that's got me thinking is Pirie's contention that the British critical establishment reveres realism as opposed to fantasy, which is why - he claims - they destroyed Michael Powell when he filmed 'Peeping Tom'. Surely that's misleading: Powell's earlier, widely celebrated films such as 'Red Shoes' and 'A Matter of Life and Death' are definitely fantasy rather than 'realist' films, while 'Peeping Tom' is more in the real of 'realism'.
But how can one justify the label 'realism' in film anyway? Even the documentaries we see are, in the main, interpretations and distortions of reality. It's difficult to set up a camera without affecting the behaviour of people before it; then there's the way the film is edited - what is cut out, how it is juxtaposed with other footage etc. The only reason I make this point is that I get the impression that Pirie would like to dismiss 'realist' cinema, when surely it has just as much right to exist as 'fantastic' cinema. To write off works like 'Kes' and 'Secrets and Lies' for being in a particular 'realist' genre seems to me as absurd as writing off 'Wicker Man' or 'The Abominable Dr Phibes' for belonging to 'fantasy'.
p.s. I realise that I slightly misunderstood Pirie as I've read more of his book. I don't think he, in fact, goes so far as to dismiss 'realist' film (though he does rather gleefully suggest many of the genre's creators have disappeared from public consciousness).
So I've started reading it, and realised a few things: a) Pirie's book is mostly focused on Hammer films; i.e. b) it's far from a comprehensive guide; c) despite those limitations, it's one of the most thought-provoking books on the subject I've come across. One subject that's got me thinking is Pirie's contention that the British critical establishment reveres realism as opposed to fantasy, which is why - he claims - they destroyed Michael Powell when he filmed 'Peeping Tom'. Surely that's misleading: Powell's earlier, widely celebrated films such as 'Red Shoes' and 'A Matter of Life and Death' are definitely fantasy rather than 'realist' films, while 'Peeping Tom' is more in the real of 'realism'.
But how can one justify the label 'realism' in film anyway? Even the documentaries we see are, in the main, interpretations and distortions of reality. It's difficult to set up a camera without affecting the behaviour of people before it; then there's the way the film is edited - what is cut out, how it is juxtaposed with other footage etc. The only reason I make this point is that I get the impression that Pirie would like to dismiss 'realist' cinema, when surely it has just as much right to exist as 'fantastic' cinema. To write off works like 'Kes' and 'Secrets and Lies' for being in a particular 'realist' genre seems to me as absurd as writing off 'Wicker Man' or 'The Abominable Dr Phibes' for belonging to 'fantasy'.
p.s. I realise that I slightly misunderstood Pirie as I've read more of his book. I don't think he, in fact, goes so far as to dismiss 'realist' film (though he does rather gleefully suggest many of the genre's creators have disappeared from public consciousness).
posted by Pierre at 12:00 PM
0 comments
