Re: Mission To Mars (not really...)

><< There is a difference. In one case, there is (I think) little
pretense of
> setting a true scene. We accept from the outset that a board with some
toys
> is not trying to convey verisimilitude and we don't necessarily
suspend
> disbelief, we just play a game. Or we realize all the work will go on
in our
> imagination, as far as making it visual and real. Whereas with a
movie, the
> nature of the visual media conveys the message that the Director and
his
> cast will attempt to take us to this place (wherever), and make it
seem
> real >>
>
>No - it never makes that claim - except in cinema verite or
documentary.
>

Um, I think you give too much credit to some (many) of today's
filmmakers.
Mature filmmakers realise that they are creating a fantasy even if their
film is about "real life".  Many filmmakers seem to forget this and
believe
their own press - and take themselves too seriously.

Tom's point about the filmmaker attempting to make his place seem real
is
mostly correct, but needs to be expanded upon a bit (Tom - pardon me for
presuming... :)  Now what I think (he says switching to Pontificating
mode)
is that the "reality" Tom is referring to isn't OUR "real" world, but
really that the world as depicted in the film is real to the characters
in
the film.  Internal consistancy is THE mark of successful speculative
fiction, whether it be in a film or in a book, as far as I'm concerned.
The fantastical details, whether they be close to our reality or truely
whacked out, don't really matter as long as they make coherent sense
within
their own context.  

Characters in a film have to make us believe that THEY believe what is
going on.  They don't have to make us believe that their reality is, to
use
an awful phrase, really real.  This is an important distinction.  Give
you
an example - Starship Troopers, the movie, was drek.  The
book-versus-movie
debate aside (we're busy with that one elsewhere), I think it wasn't a
good
film NOT because of the issues most people complain about, but because
Verhoven completely failed to convince me that his characters believed
what
was going on.  There was far too much winking-and-aren't-we-clever, but
nothing else.  Verhoven was trying to capture an attitude that "we're
all
in on the joke", but all it turned into was the joke, and it wasn't
really
very funny.  This is NOT to say that a film has to be serious to be
good.
There are plenty of great non-serious films.  The Matrix, for example,
was
an infinitely better film, not because it was any more believable - the
basic premise of The Matrix was patently silly.  But the characters in
that
film completely believed what was going on, within their own context,
and
that totally sucked me in.  Their world held together within itself, and
they obviously believed it.  SST was one long gag with the actors
winking
at the camera, and playing with guns.  It was amusing when I saw it,
because it had some cool scenes and neat special effects.  But it
certainly
wasn't a good movie.  

Anyway, I'll switch off the pontificating mode, and get back to letting
Tom
argue his own points ;-)

Adrian.

Adrian Johnson
adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca