Response to Class on 10/14

No matter now many times I have been taught about Expressionism and Realism, the concepts, for some reason, just don't stick to me. I dont know why, since the concepts truly are simple. So when we attacked this as our topic today, i was cautiously optimistic that it would stick this time.

As we started out with simple definitions, they were stated as such:

Realism - celebrating the raw material. Film as a recording art. Dealing with mise-en-scene.

Expressionism - manipulate the raw material. Film as a recording art. Dealing with montage.

* as a side note it is about "expressing" our own perception of reality.

Throw in formalism, and you take me from one unknown topic to complete confusion. In comparing expressionism and formalism we see that expressionism is more about using film as anexpressive force, using film to lead emotion, and feeling that the content involved in the film is more important than the form.

Formalism deals with assembling of the film elements and it forming a new reality that is created in the minds of the audience. The audience becomes an active participant in the creation of art.

We went on to view clips from several movies, focusing on The Godfather and how this ties in to these concepts.

One of the topics discussed in class was the concept that there is no such real thing as a true realist film. Even in documentaries there are elements that have expressionistic overtones that sway the eventual outcome and how it will be viewed by the audience. Bringing up the example of one of the very first documentaries, unfortunately I forgot its name, about Alaskan natives survival. The scene we watched was about a man who is fishing through a hole in the ice and he catches something. It is big. Just as you think he is gaining ground to pull it to the surface, whatever it is, it drags him back to the hole. The man desperately tried to get the attention of his fellow hunters, and as he struggles with his catch, he waits, being dragged over and over, until help arrives. Eagerly waiting to see what the man has caught, it emerges, and it is a seal. A large seal. Upon viewing it, the scene seems raw and real. Then we are notified the person who did the documentary asked the tribe to hunt like their parent did. Not the way they did. Although the hunt and scene is real, it is not the way these people truly live. It was a tainted documentary. Professor Voytilla also brought up the example of the hit documentary "March of the Penguins." Another heart wrenching tale of beaten animal, aided with the sounds of music. That did not occur in nature. It sets mood and tone to the documentary.

In this concept, and as voiced by Professor Voytilla, there truly is no such thing as a truly realist film or documentary. It can not happen. There is always going to be some aspect of it that changes the reality of the situation.

So with this mind set, can it be safe to say that no reality has ever been truly captured on film?

Based on these facts, I have no reason to go against this thought. The camera angle, the surrounding noise, the lighting, everything as an expressionistic overtone to it that in some way or another will sway the audience's view of the subject being captured on film. Now I dont mean for this to be a negative aspect to filming, or to negate those who consider themselves "realist" in their film making strategies, but there is always going to be an element of production that hinders the true form in with the subject really is.

I had never even considered this thought before and it is something that I have really taken a grasp to. I will always remember this concept, and while I will continue to enjoy documentaries, like Planet Earth, I will always have an understanding of the elements that are in the way of how I am viewing the "reality."