thinking

Movies are very different from reality. In a lot of ways, this is good. However, at other points, I really feel that we are stuck in a creative rut (“we” being the collective movie-producing society that we are) and need a little introspection on what a movie can really do. Without further ado, The Movies vs. Reality table:

Key:

Have you ever watched an old movie and thought how cheesy is this? The farther back in time you go, the more theatrical they seem. We can see the evolution as the players mold their stage techniques to the big screen. It’s a natural transition, really, since those involved in entertainment have to learn how to best adapt to their medium as it changes.

I think that we still have yet to fully realize the potential of film as an artistic narrative medium. Directors, actors and actresses, and producers et al. are inevitably tainted in their image of the typical moving picture by the formative visions of the past. Lately there has been certainly been growing interest in a “reality” movement, but I feel as if this impetus has been misdirected. Do we gain the most reality by watching unrehearsed nonplayers? I think not.

What I would most like to enjoy as a movie-goer is a sense of profound truth, or at least credibility. This is not the same as watching untrained actors/actresses. Hence the above table, which professes to draw a more consciously-drawn line between those distinguishing elements tween film and real. In some cases, such as the “artististry,” I think we would be mistaken to alter a film in favor of a more “realistic” feel. Others less so.

I cannot conclude this post without mentioning Andrew Bujalski’s Funny Ha Ha, which is not so much a great film as it is a triumph of what I would consider a misguided set of reality features. It does an excellent job of capturing everyday dialogue (a good thing!) and an equally impressive job of seeming completely mundane (not as good!) Watching this movie while thinking about how it pushes the envelope can really open your eyes to the different means one may choose toward credibility, and how much they can change the way you feel about a film.

I will not have => I’ll’nt’ve

In attempting to think of an example usage, I’m realizing that “have” in a conjunction is not arbitrarily the same as direct use of the word “have”. (Btw I’m aware that that last period “should have” been within the quotes, but I consciously rebel against that particular illogic grammatical gristle.) Without a conjunction, I could easily say “I have to eat some pizza”, but the phrase “I’ve to eat some pizza” somehow just doesn’t sound right. Then again the very phrase “have to” (or even “used to”) sounds a bit funny to my auricular palate. It is tempting to conclude that a “helping” form of a word may not be conjunctivized, but certainly we may do so with the word “not”: He couldn’t see very far with those zucchini slices on his eyeballs. We could even push the envelope with: She couldn’t've eaten the entire pizza had she not covered his eyes with zucchini slices. My guess is simply that “have to” cannot be “split” by a conjunctionation.

Without further ado, the example:

I’ll’nt’ve any pizza until thou remove these blasted slices zucchini whence mine squash-obstructed eyeballs.