Chapter 2.1
While watching the film “The Royal Tenenbaums” I couldn’t help but notice the rich injection or depiction of common objects, or “stuff”. The word “stuff” here covers not only objects, but settings, those that are particular to a character or narrative thread, unassuming but yet with a presence that eclipses the mere happenstance of its existence. While most good filmmakers take great care to construct a visual scene, this was seemingly made with what I felt was a similar mindset that a realist (figurative) painter might take in deciding how to adapt the real world to his/her uses. Wes Anderson’s (director) construction of the scenes was not dependent on what was present, but took what was present in an almost casual manner, and upped its visual veracity to the point that it became what one could say is presenting ‘reality in the guise of illusion’.
The realist painter must make the decision to render something, and while the framework of the painting might be what exists in actuality (the scene), it’s not what constrains or necessarily what dictates the final image. It is the decision to do something or not to do something that creates the potency of a realist painting… it is the reliance on what is essentially a lie that makes the viewer question. This is why I think that film-making and painting are actually closer in spirit than painting and photography. They both attempt to show reality through the guise of illusion, whereas photography presents illusion in the guise of reality.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
