What Makes a "Real" Movie?

 

    Some time ago, I was asked by a good friend of mine why I had sour feelings toward the film Manchester by the Sea but unrelenting praise for the film Ordinary People. Both are incredibly similar in genre, narrative, quality of performance & execution. This question caused me to take more time to examine and evaluate what made me have this seemingly conflicting opinion about two different yet undeniably similar films. Then, after careful deliberation with myself, I think I finally found the reason for my position regarding these two films: 

    One film takes advantage of the fact that it's a movie; the other does not. 

    What do I mean by that? Both films portray a realistic and human story about loss, guilt, and self-loathing. I admit it is hardly an uplifting subject, but it is worthy of a compelling narrative. Especially if the storytellers have something important to say about it all. While that is the case with both films, one unspoken element sets these two stories apart and renders one of them (at least, in my opinion) a better presentation overall. And it can all be summarized in a single word: style. 

    If I may use an analogy for a moment, consider Russel Crowe's unusual performance in the musical film adaptation of Les Misérables. Many critics and audiences felt his singing was out of place and terrible. I partially disagree with this sentiment, though I understand their origin. The problem wasn't that Russel Crowe couldn't sing; he was using the wrong style. Russel Crowe is trained in rock & folk style, which is subdued and naturalistic. Musical theater, on the other hand, is traditionally grand and heavily stylized. Musical theater typically demands a grandiose and extravagant style that most others don't possess or prefer. While audiences and critics were wrong in proclaiming Russel Crowe to be a terrible singer, they were not wrong about his talents feeling "misplaced." 

    Let's examine Manchester by the Sea from 2016, which earned writer/director Kenneth Lonergan his Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. 

    

    While I am not a fan of this film, I recognize and appreciate much of the quality that went into its conception and production. Technically, the film is beautifully performed and decently crafted. However, what makes it less enjoyable to me personally is its choice of style. The film tries incredibly hard to feel as "real" as possible, relying too heavily on performance and apparent improvisation to capture reality on film. It spends little to no time utilizing its other attributes (camera language and the like) to further sell its illusion. This reliance upon performance is better suited for live theater, where a dose of reality is constantly present and feels more tangible, purely because of the shared presence in the room. In other words, it's not a movie; it's an elaborate video recording of a theater performance. 

    Cinema, by its very nature, is entirely artificial! Even the most naturalistic and realistic looking & feeling scene can't ever be authentic because it's still nothing more than a captured moving image of a subject projected onto a screen. To sell the illusion, making cinema feel completely tangible and honest requires firing on all cylinders. In other words, good performances alone do not make a compelling film; utilizing every element at your disposal does. 

    Now consider the film Ordinary People from 1980, which earned Robert Redford his Oscar for Best Director and won Best Picture. 

    While the performances are one of the film's highlights, it's not the only aspect that succeeds in selling the illusion. Every aspect of the film gives the presentation a sense of life and agency. The lighting draws your eye, the editing creates a sense of motion, and the framing broadcasts the characters' emotional states. Not to mention the sharp and articulate writing, timed and planned precisely to deliver the story's progression and arc. While it may not be an entirely uplifting story, at the very least, it knows how to utilize all aspects of its presentation and does so with astonishing results. 

    Even though others like myself will likely have entirely different justifications for their tastes and preferences, the ultimate truth is that art does not exist in a vacuum. Any conflicting arguments one could have are just as valid as my own. Because art is, and always shall be, subjective. There can never be one correct answer to it all; only the answer that speaks to you the most. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.