Do you believe its okay for a performance to be eccentric or surrealistic, or do you believe that the only way a performance can be "true" is if it is realistic (done in a way that closely reflects how people act in real life)? I was having a debate about this with someone today, and I just wanted to know what your thoughts were.

Do you believe performances should always be realistic?

No

No
I don't think I could have said it better myself, Clive. ;) For some strange reason, the person I was debating about this didn't agree. He believes that films are only for telling stories, and that even for fantasy films - the performances should be realistic. I have no idea why he would believe this. Maybe he has some kind of a strange prejudice toward experimental cinema and art in general. I’m not entirely sure. I say if you want total realism, go rent a documentary. :lol:

do you believe that the only way a performance can be "true" is if it is realistic?
No

I concur.

I concur.
Bah! I liked your last response better. ;)

I feel kind of foolish even bringing this topic up for discussion. To us, its a common sense kind of thing. Realism is good for some stories, but we should never limit ourselves to realism. Why some people can't understand this is beyond me.

hahaah.. I changed it coz I realised I like some films that are total reality.. & somebody would point me out for that.. so I went the safe way.

hahaha.. but I really would off myself is there was only realism.. we'd never see anything with jim carrey in it.. & I couldn't have that..

hahaah.. I changed it coz I realised I like some films that are total reality.. & somebody would point me out for that.. so I went the safe way.
:D

hahaha.. but I really would off myself is there was only realism.. we'd never see anything with jim carrey in it.. & I couldn't have that..
Have you seen Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events? I've only seen previews, but from what I could see in those previews - it looks as if Carrey gives an amazing series of performances. That guy is becoming a great character actor. Johnny Depp also has this quality.

Lemony snickett was amazing..I'd definatly recommend it.

& Johnny depp has always made such interesting choices.. which reminds me.. if everything was realism.. What would happen to Tim Burton?

Lemony snickett was amazing..I'd definatly recommend it. & Johnny depp has always made such interesting choices.
Johnny Depp needs to be nominated for an Academy Award already! What he does isn’t easy, and should be commended. I’m starting to loose my faith in the Academy anyhow. After Titanic won for best picture, and after Amelie was passed up for best foreign film, I don’t know about those guys.

if everything was realism.. What would happen to Tim Burton?
His argument was that a movie can be fantasy as long as the performances are realistic, but I think we've just debunked that 100 times over in this thread with just a few replies. :lol: Oh well. He just didn't know any better. At one time we all didn't know better.

May this thread educate and spread Truth! :yes:

Well I mean.. think about it.. if such a rule did exist..most of the greatest works of film that the world has ever known wouldn't have happened..& that's just scary.

Well I mean.. think about it.. if such a rule did exist..most of the greatest works of film that the world has ever known wouldn't have happened..& that's just scary.
Not to mention there would be no Kill Bill. :no: The acting and visual style of that movie was surrealistic. Same goes for Natural Born Killers, another movie I enjoyed.

(done in a way that closely reflects how people act in real life)?

Actually, most of the people I know "in real life" are pretty surreal. :lol:

Realism is good for some stories, but we should never limit ourselves to realism.

There it is, right there :)


Just wanted to comment, speaking of Johhny Depp, Edward Scissorhands were pretty surreal, but I found him a lot more "real" than hhis recent role as J. M. Barrie, which might be said to be a more "realistic" performance.

Also, wanted to mention Cate Blanchett's performance as Katherine Hepburn in Aviator, where she starts off kind of surreal in her first scene (in part, because this is how Hughes sees her) and then turns into a real person. I like that kind of stuff.

Brent
("animaguSURREAL")

Hi Guys, I had wanted to say more this morning when I posted, but I was getting ready for meetings with the banks about the new production company.

My take on this is that realism in film and within performance isn't really what people are aiming for in any production, otherwise we'd just turn cameras on and transmit hours of people sitting in cafes eating sandwiches and talking nonsense (Dear God, I've just invented reality TV, Oh the horror).

This means that every performance is stylised in some way, even one purporting to be aiming for realism. As a director knowing this is valuable because it means I can concentrate on creating stories that are emotionally true, believable and interesting rather than getting bogged down in chasing the impossible.

I think that one of the mistakes that many screenwriters make when writing dialogue is aiming for realism, instead of aiming for interesting. What makes characters interesting for me is the way drama magnifies reality, putting people in extreme circumstances and seeing the effect it has them.

So, the upshot is this posting is realism and the previous "No" is good dialogue. ;)

cinematography: Ask your friend how realistic he thinks Yoda is/was.. or Chewy for that matter!

The performance has to fit the story. Although that's not a written in stone rule, because having a "realistic" human character amidst a bunch of surreal characters can work too... think, Labyrinth (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091369), The Wizard of Oz, or Alice in Wonderland. Ultimately though I would have to say that the story dictates the performance, but a performance that is played differently than what the story calls for can work too. I guess it's personal preference, but like Clive said, in a word.... "No"

cinematography: Ask your friend how realistic he thinks Yoda is/was.. or Chewy for that matter!
I sent him a link to this thread. Hopefully he'll read it and see the error in his thinking. I'm pretty sure he will. We all make mistakes in judgment sometimes.

I sent him a link to this thread. Hopefully he'll read it and see the error in his thinking. I'm pretty sure he will. We all make mistakes in judgment sometimes.

I'm the friend that cinematography is talking about...

Lol, I read it, and agree with most of it - my buddy either misunderstood or misrepresented my point of view, me thinks...

I have no issue with "eccentric or surrealistic" performances at all. But I do claim that the acting which is most true to the human condition is the best, within whatever context the movie gives it. And I also claimed, to my friend, that Stanley Kubrick had his actors act like real people would in those given situations. "Eyes Wide Shut" is a great example. The reason I liked the film so much is because the people acted like people really do, IMO. People really do think about sex often, really do piss in front of each other, etc., etc.

As for Lemonie Snickets - within the context of that movie, the acting was dead on for Jim Carrey. Take the Dwarf from LOTR - within the context that the film setup, his acting was dead on, as were the little folk (I forget what they were, exactly) in Time Bandits.

I have no issues at all with non-realism. I love Fantasy and Sci-fi most of all. What I dislike is when people are made to act as real people would NOT in a given context. That's where my use of the world "real" was confused with "eccentric and surrealistic". As someone above said, people are strange and often behave that way - especially me, as my friend can vouch for ;)

Take the, "lets all hug, make babies, and add each other to our holiday greeting card lists" BS in Independence Day, to give just a quick example. In the context given (the real world), warring nation states and their leaders would not act that way - I call this "non-realistic". "The Arrival" was another movie, equally fantastic, that I often compare ID4 too. A much better movie, IMO. Not nearly as grand as blowing up the white house, but no explosion can make up for the fake-emotion/acting in ID4...

My DP, in a discussion about our next project (which I will not be helming :() last night made the comment that Lighting that looks normal is the hardest to do. I'd add that it's usually not aestheticaly pleasing.

I think the same thing holds true for acting. If an actor is shooting for a realistic portrayal of a person, the result is usually too difficult for the actor to pull off and it's more often than not boring.

Poke

Reality is boring, if it weren't there wouldn't be an entertainment industry.

Unless of course you are one of the people that truely believe there's anything REAL about "reality TV" then maybe YOUR reality isn't so boring, but for the rest of us, we need an entertaining escape from the dullness of our real lives. ;)

I think you misunderstand my view about "real". Dr. Who was as unrealistic as it gets, and I loved the show. The Doctor certainly didn't act "normal" in some sense. For example, he would be captured by his enemies and would smile and offer them a jelly-baby (a British candy similar to a jelly-bean)...

However difficult, his (Tom Baker, probablly the best loved of the many actors taking that role) acting seemed "real". He seems like an eccentric chap that I might actually meet (aside from the fact that he's a Time Lord, not human, has two hearts, 7 lifespans, etc., etc of course).

Bill Pullman's acting and/or his role in ID4 wasn't "real". In the universe which that movie takes place in, people like Bill do not exist - certainly not as American presidents. If that's the type of escape I'm seeking, I can watch kid's shows like Barney. the fake "niceness" of the kids on Barney is just a bit more tolerable than Jar-Jar Binks and Pullman in ID4, IMO.

Warf on Star Trek abides by a set of conservative values from an alien race which does not exist, yet his acting is more "real" than Pullman's, IMO. And no, I do not mean "better". The man who plays Warf is not actually a terrific actor, IMO...

I also loved, "My Neighbor Totorro", from the genius that made, "Spirited Away". There is certainly nothing "real" about a very small kid that runs away, sneaks into a hole in a tree and falls asleep on the belly of a large beast. This movie without a plot, I think, would bore most American viewers, but I always watch it with my kids - it beats "Barney kids" acting by a mile...

I'm the friend that cinematography is talking about...
*hiss* I hate you more than canned ham! :tongue:

And I also claimed, to my friend, that Stanley Kubrick had his actors act like real people would in those given situations. "Eyes Wide Shut" is a great example. The reason I liked the film so much is because the people acted like people really do, IMO.
Not necessarily. Take the pot smoking scene. What couple do you know of starts talking about human evolution while smoking weed? That movie was very unnatural, which is why I enjoyed it so much, and made it such a standout. Eyes Wide Shut is a perfect example that goes directly against your argument.

What I dislike is when people are made to act as real people would NOT in a given context.
Art should not be confined by too many restrictions, Davros-chan.

Take the, "lets all hug, make babies, and add each other to our holiday greeting card lists" BS in Independence Day, to give just a quick example. In the context given (the real world), warring nation states and their leaders would not act that way - I call this "non-realistic".
LOL! Well... You do have a point there. :D

Well, I don't smoke weed, but if I did, me and my girlfriend would talk about evolution. Since you know me, I think you would agree ;)

That movie had extremely accurate emotional responses - maybe that's why so many people found it boring and thought it sucked?

As for art having reservations - I wasn't arguing that it should have limits. But not all art is equal, and most of it sucks, to be honest, especially movies. Once we accept that not all art is equal, we then need a way to determine which is good and which is bad, and for me, bad is Jar Jar and Pullman.

Robot Stories is a movie (set of movies?) which I found to be extremely accurate in terms of human responses - good scifi, and on the cheap. I bet lots of people would be bored stiff - I found it refreshing. When the mother loses her son, she doesn't go around screaming and crying, or, try to hold it in and then release and pound the walls yelling, "why, WHY!?"...but she does act like a real woman would.

Oh, and about "reality tv" - since the participants know that they are being filmed, with many trying to line up and milk their 15 minutes after whatever show they are on ends, it's hardly what I would call "real" emotional responses that are being filmed.

Well, I don't smoke weed, but if I did, me and my girlfriend would talk about evolution. Since you know me, I think you would agree
Because you’re an alien. Normal people wouldn’t start rambling on about evolution after smoking a joint. The “surreality” and unnaturalness of Eyes Wide Shut is what made it such a fascinating film. The repetition in the way they talked through out that film was also unnatural.

Once we accept that not all art is equal, we then need a way to determine which is good and which is bad, and for me, bad is Jar Jar and Pullman.
I’ll agree with you on that point.

When the mother loses her son, she doesn't go around screaming and crying, or, try to hold it in and then release and pound the walls yelling, "why, WHY!?"...but she does act like a real woman would.
What if she didn’t act like a real woman? Why would there be anything wrong with that? What if the filmmakers wanted to switch gears and experiment a little?

Oh, and about "reality tv" - since the participants know that they are being filmed, with many trying to line up and milk their 15 minutes after whatever show they are on ends, it's hardly what I would call "real" emotional responses that are being filmed.
Not necessarily. In many cases they do forget that they are being filmed.

Well, I don't smoke weed, but if I did, me and my girlfriend would talk about evolution. Since you know me, I think you would agree ;)

If you girlfriend was Nicole Kidman and she was smoking weed with you in her underwear, would you then speak on evolution?

That movie had extremely accurate emotional responses - maybe that's why so many people found it boring and thought it sucked?

That's subjective. I do not act like those characters in real life, and many folks I know do not. For instance, in the aforementioned weed smoking scene, I would be all over my wife. In the famous orgy scene, I would not be walking through the room with a blank expression on my face, I'd more than likely be scared to even go into that room. To me, the acting was unrealistic in so many ways, but it didn't ruin the movie for me.

But not all art is equal, and most of it sucks, to be honest, especially movies.

Again, it's subjective, you even said so yourself:

... for me, bad is Jar Jar and Pullman.

Just because you don't feel a character reacts "real" in a situation, doesn't mean they don't.

Take Jar Jar, how exactly does a Gungan act when he is excited about going home? Since, I have no knowledge of Gungans other than what was provided to me from Lucas's mind, I would guess he says, "Weesa Goin' Home!!!"

You mention Pullman, is his speech in ID any different than W's "Let's Roll" statement? Is it any different than FDR's "Infamy" speech? Or JFK's "Ask not ..." question? My point is that leaders in crisis situations tend to make corny statements and sayings no different than Pullman did as Faux Prez in that movie. so it's realistic right? Well, it is if Aliens blow up half our planet.

When the mother loses her son, she doesn't go around screaming and crying, or, try to hold it in and then release and pound the walls yelling, "why, WHY!?"...but she does act like a real woman would.

I have seen a mother lose her son and "go around screaming and crying." It was real. I saw it with my eyes. Your entire argument is based on what you have seen, and you can't make broad statements comprised primarily on your own solitary experiences. At least you shouldn't anyway.

Oh, and about "reality tv" - since the participants know that they are being filmed, with many trying to line up and milk their 15 minutes after whatever show they are on ends, it's hardly what I would call "real" emotional responses that are being filmed.

I have said many times before that if we just stopped calling it "Reality TV," and instead called them Game Shows (which is what they are), then no one would have a problem with them.

But with that said, if you stick a person on an island with other people they either do or don't like, I don't care how aware of the cameras they are they will react with realism. That is until the immunity challenge, then they might fake it a bit.

Poke

Cin:

Sure normal people would talk about evolution while high. Especially educated folks, which the main characters are cast as. Certainly Carl Sagan, an avid pot smoker, might talk about evolution, lol I can't speak for pot personally, but when drunk, "normal" people often talk about deep or complex issues. In my personal opinion, I doubt Kubrick would have included it in his movie if "normal" people wouldn't do it, since he seems to aim for emotional realism.

Well, filmmakers in general are free to do whatever they want, having women act like non-women, etc., but the argument was Kubrick specifically, and my opinion is that he aims for emotional realism for his characters.

And I completely disagree about reality shows - how can people forget that they are being followed and watched by a film crew and cameras? I myself act completely different if I know I'm being watched, and this isn't merely my subjective opinion. Many variables and designs in psych experiments are all about solving this problem. You simply cannot get a natural reaction when people know they are being watched in order to get a "natural reaction".

poke:

So what are you saying - you find Kidman hot, lol? I've been with my girlfriend for seven years, I see her naked all the time - seeing her in her undies isn't enough to make me jump her anymore, lol. Sure this may be subjective, but I think it's rather common. How long have you been with your girlfriend? Ever lived with her or any girl? We have kids, for all practical purposes we are married. She comes into the bathroom while I'm taking a shit, etc., etc. That movie was extremely realistic in how it protrayed this aspect of normal American life. Maybe weed makes you horny? I know folks who smoke it - hornyness isn't something they report about the experience - being talketive is, however, and I've seen this first-hand.

As for the orgy room, I have no idea how I would act. However, the way Tom acted seemed natural enough to me. More natural, given the tone, the lighting, the "mood", then say, if he had walked in and shouted, "hey, what a nice collection of tits!" Within the context of that bit, it seemed very natural to me and consistant with other Kubrick movies that I've seen.

As for Jar-Jar, consider this. Lucas seems to paint the idea that gravity works as expected, right? The "bugs bunny cartoon flip" that Jar-Jar made is my cue that this is a silly, non-serious character added for comic relief. The switch from serious fantasy/scifi to "Naked Gun" and back again ruined the movie for me. It was not "real" within it's own context. As cin might say, "so what - the director is free to do this" - I never argued that point. I merely argue that Kubrick does not do this and that movies which employ this kind of manuever do not work for me. See, it isn't the knowledge of Gungans that we need, it's the context of the movie. Like I said above in my Klingon example - you don't need to understand Klingon politics to understand the context that Warf often finds himself in.

As for Pullman - lol, the comparison to Bush is a valid point, I'll give you that much ;) However, just about everything else in that movie is completely fake and out of context, given the context which I assume the movie took place in - the real world. That pile of a movie is nothing but a sack of old scifi cliches. Not even the scifi is believable (no, that's not a typo or an oxymoron). And the acting is "fake" in almost all cases. The kids on Barney literally act more "real" Alien's attacking Earth wouldn't make people act like caricatures in kids tv shows.

As for reality tv shows - they act real in the sense that they will eat, and bathe when possible, etc. But otherwise, no, I do not believe for a second that they act real at all. If they reach a point where they are totally comfy with the cameras, then they have become "good actors", there is nothing real about those shows. Jerry Springer approaches reality more so than any reality show I know of, and even then I suspect they act in certain ways because they think it's expected of them, given the context of the show and episodes they've seen, etc.

As for subjective arguments, well, isn't that obvious? Sometimes, the sky is blue, lol. Aren't we all just voicing subjective arguments here? It's not as if any of us can actually prove any of our opinions, though Ebert is a critic that I find myself agreeing with often. His opinions about Jar-jar and ID4 are similar to my own.
:D

I forgot to address the "crying women" bit. Yeah, I've seen that too - the screaming bit. I guess it depends on how you hear about the death and the cicumstances. Based on what I've seen in hospitals when I worked in them, and based on my own family, Robot Stories is dead on. But again, as with Tom in "Eyes...", the specific reaction isn't the issue, it's, "do I believe that that actor acted as someone actually might in that situation given the context" and the answer in both cases to me is "yes". Have you seen Robot Stories? I'd wager you'd consider the acting "real". Consider that if we always knew just how people would react it would be a really boring world.

Sure normal people would talk about evolution while high.
You know what’s funny? I brought that scene up because even Nicole Kidman herself thought that scene was unrealistic. Watch the extras on the DVD.

The movie was an abstract look at sexual fantasy. Take the way they talked through out the film; the way they would say the same things over and over but only in different ways. Listen and watch closely next time you watch Eyes Wide Shut. It’s not as realistic as you think, and for this reason – it is a standout.

And I completely disagree about reality shows - how can people forget that they are being followed and watched by a film crew and cameras?
Easily. As Poke just explained, “if you stick a person on an island with other people they either do or don't like, I don't care how aware of the cameras they are they will react with realism.”

So what are you saying - you find Kidman hot, lol? I've been with my girlfriend for seven years, I see her naked all the time - seeing her in her undies isn't enough to make me jump her anymore, lol.
That’s just you, I think. I don’t think I could ever get tired of seeing Nicole Kidman, even if she were walking around wearing a big paper bag.

As for Jar-Jar, consider this. Lucas seems to paint the idea that gravity works as expected, right? The "bugs bunny cartoon flip" that Jar-Jar made is my cue that this is a silly, non-serious character added for comic relief.
Star Wars isn’t as realistic as you think either. The last I checked, sound can not be heard in outer space. We hear the sound of spaceships whooshing and things blowing up all the time in those movies. :)

I wasn't really arguing that Jar Jar and Bill Pullman were completely realistic ...

So what are you saying - you find Kidman hot, lol? I've been with my girlfriend for seven years, I see her naked all the time - seeing her in her undies isn't enough to make me jump her anymore, lol. Sure this may be subjective, but I think it's rather common. How long have you been with your girlfriend? Ever lived with her or any girl? We have kids, for all practical purposes we are married. She comes into the bathroom while I'm taking a shit, etc., etc. That movie was extremely realistic in how it protrayed this aspect of normal American life. Maybe weed makes you horny? I know folks who smoke it - hornyness isn't something they report about the experience - being talketive is, however, and I've seen this first-hand.

...or that a couple smoking pot would never talk about evolution but would always tickle the soft spots.

I've been with my wife for 5 years (three married) and no, every time I see her naked doesn't end up with us making love, but it doesn't end up with us talking about how or monkey ancestors made love either.

I don't smoke pot, but I have buddies that do and they tell me (in fact one just told me right this minute) that one benefit of pot is loss of inhibition and horniness.

I was merely pointing out that your argument is overtly subjective and it's not valid for that very reason. Sure all arguments are subjective (This is something I love to point out when my wife utters the hated phrase, "You always think your way is the right way." I say of course I do, so do you.), but while reading your posts I felt that you wetre automatically rejecting everything everyone else had to say about realism simply because it wasn't real to you. I may be wrong about that, but it is how it came off to me.

Oh and this:

She comes into the bathroom while I'm taking a shit...

Waaaaaaayyyyy too much info.

Poke

What couple do you know of starts talking about human evolution while smoking weed?

There have been many many times where my friends and I talked about evolution and a hell of a lot more while high. :haha: You either no not what you speak, or are just a young padawon learner.


I also know people, mainly girls, that got extremely horney when they smoked pot. :cool: good times!


I agree with the Jar-Jar flippidy-do-dah thingy into the water in EP1. TOTALLY unrealistic, IMO. That entire character was put there in place of C3-PO. You notice that in EP2 he is not that way because C3-PO is back.

Cin:

To me, that movie was a very real look at sexual fantasy. We are going to have to agree to disagree, since I don't accept your position and you don't accept mine, lol. I stand by my original argument that Kubrick strives for realism in terms of acting and emotional responses.

I also simply disagree with poke and you about reality tv, and I don't think is opinion either. I dare say it's sort of a known fact that folks act differently when they are watched, be it on an island or in a lab. Yes, people will eat, bathe and defecate, lol, but their interactions and their little private monologues with the camera, lol, is something else...

As for finding Kidman horney, I dare say this is a fact too. It really doesn't matter how hot someone is - eventually, after a while the, "we just met lets have sex 7 times a day" deal wears off. That doesn't mean you can't have good sex on a regular basis, but trust me, it does change with time, supermodel/superstar or not.

Finally, cin, lol, I never said Star Wars was realistic. I often get accused of generalizing - don't generalize ;) LOTR also isn't "real" in that sense of the word. I started off this thread defending this view, because I knew, based on how you represented me, lol, that people would get the idea that I'm "one of those people", with no imagination. LOTR was more "real" than Star Wars. I think by now I've given a rather detailed view of what I mean by "real", if not, scroll up and re-read. I gravitate to movies/books which aren't "real".

To make this analogous to Jar-Jar would entail a situation where all of the spaceships made sound, except one very obvious ship - which would be extremely quiet, lets say, but had people sanding on "deck" with "space wind" blowing their hair around.

poke:

That's funny, I felt as if my arguments were automatically rejected ;) My position is difficult to explain. I spend many words, like I said in response to cin, re-representing myself. I'm a scifi and fantasy dork - I'm far from someone who likes only movies about the "real world", for example.

Take Farscape - sci-fantasy - not "real", but, wonderful, because the acting is real, the emotions are believable, etc. Even the puppets in Farscape act "real". I would also venture another generalization - movies/tv shows considered "good" by critics are those which generally have the kind of "real" that I'm talking about. Firefly is another example...

cootdog:

I agree. Even if we surveyed everyone who smokes pot, and discovered that, wow, in fact, most people who are high do not talk about weighty issues, the sort of common perception out there is that this is in fact not so. Even the 80s Revenge of the Nerds series featured them talking about weighty issues while under the influence from something. I take this behavior of "high folk" to be common knowledge, or at least, common-myth.

To me, that movie was a very real look at sexual fantasy.
Okay. Well... to me, Poke, Nicole Kidman, Roger Ebert, and probably even Stanley Kubrick - it wasn’t.

“Stanley Kubrick's 'Eyes Wide Shut'' is like an erotic daydream about chances missed and opportunities avoided. --- He makes a deliberate choice, I think, not to roll them together into an ongoing story, but to make each one a destination--to give each encounter the intensity of a dream in which this moment is clear but it's hard to remember where we've come from or guess what comes next.”
--- Roger Ebert

“a pleasant visionary usually wishful creation of the imagination”
--- Dictionary definition for ‘daydream’


"Art consists of reshaping life but it does not create life, nor cause life."
--- Stanley Kubrick

“to give a new form or orientation to”
--- Dictionary definition for “reshaping”


Life is reality. Kubrick’s philosophy on film was about taking this reality and reshaping it so that it could become art, or something more interesting.

I also simply disagree with poke and you about reality tv, and I don't think is opinion either. I dare say it's sort of a known fact that folks act differently when they are watched, be it on an island or in a lab.
Have you ever been on a “reality television show”? Have you ever watched an entire season of any of the reality TV shows? I bet if someone started filming me everyday for a few months, I would eventually forget about or barely notice the cameras, and start acting as I normally would if I weren’t being filmed.

Take Farscape - sci-fantasy - not "real", but, wonderful, because the acting is real, the emotions are believable, etc.
So movies that don’t have “realistic” acting or emotions are garbage? Surrealism is complete crap to you?

Okay. Well... to me, Poke, Nicole Kidman, Roger Ebert, and probably even Stanley Kubrick - it wasn’t.

“Stanley Kubrick's 'Eyes Wide Shut'' is like an erotic daydream about chances missed and opportunities avoided. --- He makes a deliberate choice, I think, not to roll them together into an ongoing story, but to make each one a destination--to give each encounter the intensity of a dream in which this moment is clear but it's hard to remember where we've come from or guess what comes next.”
--- Roger Ebert

“a pleasant visionary usually wishful creation of the imagination”
--- Dictionary definition for ‘daydream’


"Art consists of reshaping life but it does not create life, nor cause life."
--- Stanley Kubrick

“to give a new form or orientation to”
--- Dictionary definition for “reshaping”


Life is reality. Kubrick’s philosophy on film was about taking this reality and reshaping it so that it could become art, or something more interesting.


Have you ever been on a “reality television show”? Have you ever watched an entire season of any of the reality TV shows? I bet if someone started filming me everyday for a few months, I would eventually forget about or barely notice the cameras, and start acting as I normally would if I weren’t being filmed.


So movies that don’t have “realistic” acting or emotions are garbage? Surrealism is complete crap to you?

Those are all interesting quotes, you art robot, lol, but you didn't really show how Ebert felt about the acting in the movie. Farscape is certainly much more fantasy than you claim Eyes Wide Shut to be, and I have no issue with the acting in that series. You need to realize what I mean by "real" - how about changing it to "believable"? Within the context of a movie, I need the actors to act in a beliebvable manner. NOT predictably, not anything else except to be believable. Your final Kubrick statement indicates to me that you still think what I mean by "real" is what I've spent paragraph after paragraph trying to explain...*sigh* lol

I read his entire review and found nothing that really backs up your point on the matter:

http://www.indietalk.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=19526

As for what you think Kubrick thought in general in relation to your point - lol, well, isn't that crux of our disagreement? I think that Kubrick makes his characters fit the frames he paints around them like a glove - they are pieces, true to the whole. They are realistic (believable).

What exactly did Kidman say, anyway? Did she say, "I thought the way my character reacted to those situations was totally unrealistic/unbelievable"? If so, I disagree with her.

As for reality tv, lol, all I can say is what I've already said - people act differently when they are being watched. You do, I do, and certainly, they do as well. No, I've never watched a whole season of "reality tv". As far as "art" goes, I cast that into the "shait" category (shait being Irish for shit). But would someone act real, knowing they are being watched, even after months, when they are then asked to give monologues to the camera??

I prefer media that features folks with emotional responses I can accept, within the context of the media that they are in. Warf needs to act like the Klingon he really is, for example. If surrealism means Pullman and Jar-jar type characters, then yes, I guess I do consider it complete crap :D

Those are all interesting quotes, you art robot, lol, but you didn't really show how Ebert felt about the acting in the movie.
I’m sure you’re smart enough to extrapolate Ebert's point and see how he felt about the acting. Ebert likened the movie to a dream, and people, typically, don’t act realistic in dreams.

You need to realize what I mean by "real" - how about changing it to "believable"?
The words ‘realistic’ and ‘believable’ are synonymous with each other. The acting in Eyes Wide Shut wasn’t necessarily believable either. Unique is more interesting than believable. Many of the greatest filmmakers ever understood this.

I think that Kubrick makes his characters fit the frames he paints around them like a glove
True.

- they are pieces, true to the whole. They are realistic (believable).
Compared to what?

What exactly did Kidman say, anyway? Did she say, "I thought the way my character reacted to those situations was totally unrealistic/unbelievable"? If so, I disagree with her.
That’s almost exactly what she said about that weed smoking scene.

As for reality tv, lol, all I can say is what I've already said - people act differently when they are being watched.
Not all people.

But would someone act real, knowing they are being watched, even after months, when they are then asked to give monologues to the camera?
Probably. I’m not totally sure because I’ve never been on one of those shows. I do know that some actors have claimed to have completely forgotten about the cameras while immersing themselves into the scene or their character.

I’m sure you’re smart enough to extrapolate Ebert's point and see how he felt about the acting. Ebert likened the movie to a dream, and people, typically, don’t act realistic in dreams.


The words ‘realistic’ and ‘believable’ are synonymous with each other. The acting in Eyes Wide Shut wasn’t necessarily believable either. Unique is more interesting than believable. Many of the greatest filmmakers ever understood this.


True.


Compared to what?


That’s almost exactly what she said about that weed smoking scene.


Not all people.


Probably. I’m not totally sure because I’ve never been on one of those shows. I do know that some actors have claimed to have completely forgotten about the cameras while immersing themselves into the scene or their character.

No, Ebert likened the movie to a daydream - the way you conciously let your mind wander, not the way your sleeping mind randomly shoots data to your processing center, which tries, often in vain, to make sense out of it...

In any case, I find no extrapolation which supports your position.

The acting was believable. Kubrick made it seem as if, in that world, they acted as they should. As the humans they seemed to be, they were believable.

What do you mean, "compared to what?"? Compared to human nature and expectation, I suppose. That's true even for Klingons :D

If Kidman said this about the weed scene, then I disagree with her, as I said I would, lol. I think we've reached the end of that sub-point. People do talk about weighty issues when they are under some kind of influence.

Maybe not "all" people act differently when they are being watched - just such an extreme majority of them that this fact is taken into consideration during experiments :cool:

I'm quite sure that for brief moments, the actors forget they are being filmed...but then the "game show" aspect comes back, when someone needs to participate in a contest or get voted off, or when they monolouge for the camera, for example, lol, I bet the realization of an audience comes back REAL fast...

No, Ebert likened the movie to a daydream - the way you conciously let your mind wander, not the way your sleeping mind randomly shoots data to your processing center, which tries, often in vain, to make sense out of it..
Neither daydreams nor nightdreams are embedded in rigid realism.

In any case, I find no extrapolation which supports your position.
Because you’re not looking for one, and you’re only open to your own opinions.

Kubrick made it seem as if, in that world, they acted as they should.
Yeah, so much that he even fooled you into thinking their performances were believable. I don’t think anyone normal would talk with the repetition they did in that movie either.

If Kidman said this about the weed scene, then I disagree with her
She said what she said. And I’m pretty sure she would have a better inclination on what was real and not real for a performance also, considering she's an Academy Award winning actress and all. :rolleyes:

Maybe not "all" people act differently when they are being watched - just such an extreme majority of them that this fact is taken into consideration during experiments
That doesn’t mean they’re not acting as they would if they were not being filmed.

I'm quite sure that for brief moments, the actors forget they are being filmed...but then the "game show" aspect comes back, when someone needs to participate in a contest or get voted off, or when they monolouge for the camera, for example, lol, I bet the realization of an audience comes back REAL fast...
For you, maybe. Not everyone acts or responds the same.

Neither daydreams nor nightdreams are embedded in rigid realism.


Because you’re not looking for one, and you’re only open to your own opinions.


Yeah, so much that he even fooled you into thinking their performances were believable. I don’t think anyone normal would talk with the repetition they did in that movie either.


She said what she said. And I’m pretty sure she would have a better inclination on what was real and not real for a performance also, considering she's an Academy Award winning actress and all. :rolleyes:


That doesn’t mean they’re not acting as they would if they were not being filmed.


For you, maybe. Not everyone acts or responds the same.

You do love to argue, don't you, lol?

Daydreams and dreams are extremely different, and that difference is key - while neither are "real", a daydream is a concious excercise. Besides, what do you mean by "rigid/real"? Certainly, Farscape, Star Trek, etc., do not fit into a "rigid/real" category. You cast your net too wide. It would be a much easier debate if I were one of those unimaginitive bafoons, I know...

Your response to Ebert is amusing, lol. Let me get this straight - we have differing opinions, you cite a third party which doesn't particularly agree with you, and you expect me, knowing I have a differing opinion, to "extrapolate" what this third party said, and do so in your favor? And, when I don't, I somehow am not open to opinion? *rubs chin*

If Kubrick fooled me into believing their performances were believable, then my point is proven. That, literally, is what I pay him to do.

As for Kidman, the fact that she's won awards for acting really doesn't lend expert-status to pot smoking. Is she an avid pot smoker? Does an actor who is cast as an astronaut become an expert on the space program? Maybe, depending on how much research and education he/she got, but not by default. I think how folks act under the influence, or, rather, how most folks think that other folks act when under the influence, is rather common knowledge (or common myth, as I said, since 'common knowledge' is often wrong).

As for reality tv, enough people act differently enough when they are being watched that steps are introduced to avoid it when a realistic reaction is required, such as an experiment. My point in showing the "game show" aspect was to imply an audience, and a break from the notion of being seperated from civilization, in the case of those stranded-island-reality-shows. In other words, it's a given that folks act different when being watched, and if you are of the opinion that they can forget or get used to being watched, and somehow revert to their natural, private selves, then monolouges and other "game show" shait removes that illusion of privacy, etc.

Daydreams and dreams are extremely different
Dreams are not reality.

you cite a third party which doesn't particularly agree with you
Would you like more quotes?

“What one immediately perceives is that Kubrick has brilliantly created am almost surreal dream state for Bill and Alice, where the dialogue is subtly skewed and temptation and menace cohabit.”
--- JA Hanson

“The movie begins and ends in a familiar New York, but, in between, the director uses all of the tools at his disposal to warp our accustomed world into something bizarre and surreal.”
--- James Berardinelli

“The storyline follows the surreal, possibly imagined, sexual adventures and misadventures of Bill Harford (Cruise), who is in shock after his wife, Alice, (Kidman) reveals that she has considered an affair”
--- Wikipedia

“Yes, Eyes Wide Shut is unrealistic, perhaps ridiculously so. As in other movies, Kubrick doesn’t make much of a distinction between the real and the surreal, freely mixing both into his narrative. In his explorations of psychological truths, Kubrick has rarely seen the need to limit himself to what can be considered “realistic.”
--- Carlo Cavagna

“A scene where a woman overdoses on a Speedball (Cocaine and Heroin mixture) looks more like she has a slight headache, there is not even a hair out of place, let alone the quantities of vomit, snot, sweat, dribble and blood that should be there- at least Pulp Fiction was considerably more lifelike….. similarly there is a very unrealistic discussion between Kidman and Cruise where they are supposed to be stoned on cannabis.”
--- Francis Breakspear

The movie is even based off a book by Arthur Schnitzler titled Traumnovelle, which means “Dream Story” in English.

The only person who agrees with you is you.

As for Kidman, the fact that she's won awards for acting really doesn't lend expert-status to pot smoking.
No, and neither was Kubrick.

In other words, it's a given that folks act different when being watched
That doesn’t mean they’re not acting realistic, or acting like themselves.

Dreams are not reality.


Would you like more quotes?

“What one immediately perceives is that Kubrick has brilliantly created am almost surreal dream state for Bill and Alice, where the dialogue is subtly skewed and temptation and menace cohabit.”
--- JA Hanson

“The movie begins and ends in a familiar New York, but, in between, the director uses all of the tools at his disposal to warp our accustomed world into something bizarre and surreal.”
--- James Berardinelli

“The storyline follows the surreal, possibly imagined, sexual adventures and misadventures of Bill Harford (Cruise), who is in shock after his wife, Alice, (Kidman) reveals that she has considered an affair”
--- Wikipedia

“Yes, Eyes Wide Shut is unrealistic, perhaps ridiculously so. As in other movies, Kubrick doesn’t make much of a distinction between the real and the surreal, freely mixing both into his narrative. In his explorations of psychological truths, Kubrick has rarely seen the need to limit himself to what can be considered “realistic.”
--- Carlo Cavagna

“A scene where a woman overdoses on a Speedball (Cocaine and Heroin mixture) looks more like she has a slight headache, there is not even a hair out of place, let alone the quantities of vomit, snot, sweat, dribble and blood that should be there- at least Pulp Fiction was considerably more lifelike….. similarly there is a very unrealistic discussion between Kidman and Cruise where they are supposed to be stoned on cannabis.”
--- Francis Breakspear

The movie is even based off a book by Arthur Schnitzler titled Traumnovelle, which means “Dream Story” in English.

The only person who agrees with you is you.


No, and neither was Kubrick.


That doesn’t mean they’re not acting realistic, or acting like themselves.

Daydreaming is quite a different act from dreaming, that distinction is very important, however, Farscape and Star Trek are not reality either, so I'm not sure what your point might be, except that you are casting a wide net and using your, and not my, definiton of "real/reality" ;)

Those carefully selected quotes do disagree with my sense that the movie is realistic in general, yes, however, as I've said time and time again, Farscape is unrealistic - that type of un-realism that does not bother me in the least, as I've bent over backwards to explain.

Next, the suggestion that their discussions of how folks act when high is in fact realistic, if you like I can find quotes from pot smokers to back this up, lol, - perhaps you aren't yet worldly enough to realize it...

You seem fundamentally unable to distinquish between your idea of my use of the word real, and my use of the word real. This statement precisely backs up my position about Kubrick:

In his explorations of psychological truths, Kubrick has rarely seen the need to limit himself to what can be considered “realistic.”

Do you see how they used "realistic"? Farscape is also not realistic in that sense of the word, but it also explores physhcological truths. The characters act in real, honest, and believable ways, within the context of the movie. Therefore, Farscape is very realistic in a very unrealistic way, get it?

Now do you understand, lol? And my original argument that Kubrick does this with his characters is in fact confirmed in that quote. In a most basic way, his characters are real - even HAL9000 is real.

About reality tv - so, you agree that people act different, but still, real? What definition of the word real is this, lol? This is so far off base to our main discussion anyway, but I'm happy to keep addressing it, as you know ;) If the way a person acts when not filmed is different than how they act when they are filmed, as is the case, as you now seem to agree with, what then, praytell, do you mean, lol?

Those carefully selected quotes do disagree with my sense that the movie is realistic in general
Carefully selected? I just did a search and started grabbing stuff. Here is my favorite:

“The source is an Arthur Schnitzler novella titled Traumnovelle (or "Dream Story"), and it's a moot question how much of Eyes Wide Shut itself is dream, from the blue shadows frosting the Harfords' bedroom to the backstage replica of New York's Greenwich Village that Kubrick built in England. Its major movement is an imaginative night-journey (even the daylight parts of it) taken by a man reeling from his wife's teasing confession of fantasized infidelity, and toward the end there is a token gesture of the couple waking to reality and, perhaps, a new, chastened maturity. Yet on some level--visually, psychologically, logically--every scene shimmers with unreality.”
--- Amazon.com

Next, the suggestion that their discussions of how folks act when high is in fact realistic, if you like I can find quotes from pot smokers to back this up, lol, - perhaps you aren't yet worldly enough to realize it...
Unlike you, I’ve smoked pot before. When I was high all I could think about was chillin’. :cool: LOL.

About reality tv - so, you agree that people act different, but still, real?
Acting unreal would be trying to act like someone else. From what I’ve seen so far, this isn’t the case with the people in many of the reality shows I’ve seen.

Carefully selected? I just did a search and started grabbing stuff. Here is my favorite:

“The source is an Arthur Schnitzler novella titled Traumnovelle (or "Dream Story"), and it's a moot question how much of Eyes Wide Shut itself is dream, from the blue shadows frosting the Harfords' bedroom to the backstage replica of New York's Greenwich Village that Kubrick built in England. Its major movement is an imaginative night-journey (even the daylight parts of it) taken by a man reeling from his wife's teasing confession of fantasized infidelity, and toward the end there is a token gesture of the couple waking to reality and, perhaps, a new, chastened maturity. Yet on some level--visually, psychologically, logically--every scene shimmers with unreality.”
--- Amazon.com


Unlike you, I’ve smoked pot before. When I was high all I could think about was chillin’. :cool: LOL.


Acting unreal would be trying to act like someone else. From what I’ve seen so far, this isn’t the case with the people in many of the reality shows I’ve seen.

I found the story itself possible in the real world, and not fantastical in that sense – the quotes you've given seem to contradict this, however, so be it. I concede that point – apparently many consider it total fiction. However, as I've tried to explain again and again, this was not my main point, nor our original disagreement, which lead to this thread, lol, but if it makes you happy, I concede that many consider the story more fantastical than I (minus the pot scene, I do not concede this point, for what it's worth).

Now that we have that out of the way – I have no problem at all with fantastical stories, (scroll up for numerous examples). Further, the folks acted “real” in their given situations, and with the frame that Kubrick painted around them (real or not), they acted in an honest and believable (psychological true, if you like your own quote better), manner.

I have some selected quotes about Kubrick in this regard:

Interviewer: When you shoot these scenes which you find theatrical, you do it in a way that emphasizes their ordinariness. The scenes with Ullman or the visit of the doctor in The Shining, like the conference with the astronauts in 2001, are characterized by their social conventions, their mechanical aspect.

Stanley: Well, as I've said, in fantasy you want things to have the appearance of being as realistic as possible. People should behave in the mundane way they normally do. You have to be especially careful about this in the scenes which deal with the bizarre or fantastic details of the story.
...
Interviewer: And when the film has finished? What then?

Stanley: I hope the audience has had a good fright, has believed the film while they were watching it, and retains some sense of it. The ballroom photograph at the very end suggests the reincarnation of Jack.

As I said, that's what I pay Kubrick for – fantastical story or no, they are real and believable – emotionally (psychologically) true. Kubrick does this as a rule rather than the exception, and this, my friend, was my original point, as you well know :)

Further, the folks acted “real” in their given situations, and with the frame that Kubrick painted around them (real or not), they acted in an honest and believable (psychological true, if you like your own quote better), manner.
The abstract can also convey believable emotions. This is something, I think, you don’t understand completely.

Stanley: Well, as I've said, in fantasy you want things to have the appearance of being as realistic as possible. People should behave in the mundane way they normally do. You have to be especially careful about this in the scenes which deal with the bizarre or fantastic details of the story.
Let me guess. This interview was done about 20 years ago when he made 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining, right? A person’s way of thinking can evolve greatly within that time span. I personally thought the performances in 2001 were very realistic. As Kubrick grew older, he became more experimental, and chose not to confine himself too much to the rigidness of realism.

has believed the film while they were watching it
The abstract is also believable. An added bonus is that it is also open to interpretation, like Eyes Wide Shut is in every way - from the story to the performances. The woman who ODd on the speedball is another good example.

"A scene where a woman overdoses on a Speedball (Cocaine and Heroin mixture) looks more like she has a slight headache, there is not even a hair out of place, let alone the quantities of vomit, snot, sweat, dribble and blood that should be there- at least Pulp Fiction was considerably more lifelike..."

--- Francis Breakspear

The abstract can also convey believable emotions. This is something, I think, you don’t understand completely.


Let me guess. This interview was done about 20 years ago when he made 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining, right? A person’s way of thinking can evolve greatly within that time span. I personally thought the performances in 2001 were very realistic. As Kubrick grew older, he became more experimental, and chose not to confine himself too much to the rigidness of realism.


The abstract is also believable. An added bonus is that it is also open to interpretation, like Eyes Wide Shut is in every way - from the story to the performances. The woman who ODd on the speedball is another good example.

"A scene where a woman overdoses on a Speedball (Cocaine and Heroin mixture) looks more like she has a slight headache, there is not even a hair out of place, let alone the quantities of vomit, snot, sweat, dribble and blood that should be there- at least Pulp Fiction was considerably more lifelike..."

--- Francis Breakspear

I never said the abstract cannot convey emotions, that wasn't in our little debate one way or the other, so I won't venture an opinion in that direction...I did say that the movies which I like are the ones that have people act realisticaly (mainly emotionaly) given the context of their situation, and they always do in Kubrick movies.

His screenplay for Napolean was the last thing talked about in that interview, so my guess is that it's older, yes. As for how he changed over the years - well, I don't know, IMO he hasn't in this particular way...but that's just my view based on his movies - all we have to go by are opinions and the man's own words - I call that mighty good evidence - he basically said exactly what I've been arguing in his own words. The very least you can say is that I was right during the period of some of his best work...

In any case, he never embraced "rigid realism" - you are casting a wide net again, trying to lump everything under the banner of anti-surrealism, lol. 2001, as he mentions in the interview, had many anti-real, fantastic elements. The actors as well didn't act like you would expect most people to act, nevertheless, they were real and believable given their world. He did strive to make other aspects of that movie extremely realistic, true, but this isn't the type of realism I mean, and by now, everyone reading this should know that, lol.

He always strives to make his characters real and believable in their given context. He's basically said so in his own words, lol, and the level of fantasy that exists or doesn't exist in Eyes Wide Shut doesn't change this little fact. I was wrong about how fantastical Eyes Wide Shut is percieved to be by many people (even though I still disagree with Kidman about pot), but like I said, this doesn't change the crux of the argument or my point.

As for how he changed over the years - well, I don't know, IMO he hasn't in this particular way
So you don’t believe people learn anything at all as they grow older?

The very least you can say is that I was right during the period of some of his best work...
I think Eyes Wide Shut is just as solid as 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Anyhow. I’m getting tired of talking about this. Let’s try to wrap this up now.

Just agree to disagree. The thing is most of this argument is over one movie that can honestly be seen through both opinions. People can look at Eyes Wide Shut and see realsim in the performances, while others only see surrealism. Let's just attribute that to the fact that we don't have Kubrik here to tell us what he was striving for.

Poke

Of course people learn as they grow older, but you can't deny that during the time of some of his best known and loved work, he did seem to support my view of realistic acting...

But, agreed, we've talked it to death, lol. Tony, when you reach heaven, you can ask him yourself. :D

Tony, when you reach heaven, you can ask him yourself. :D

Does this suggest that you won't be going to Heaven?

Poke

Just agree to disagree.
We did. Pointless debates such as these are good exercise for the brain. :)

but you can't deny that during the time of some of his best known and loved work, he did seem to support my view of realistic acting...
Anyways! :tongue:

WOW, you kids have been having fun whilst I was away :lol: