Film: The Seamless Extension of Reality?

When film first hit the scene it was showcased as the new spectacular medium of entertainment. People were in awe of a screen coming to life in front of their very eyes. Once the novelty wore off, the audiences became more interested in the content of film; film appeared to us as a reflection of the real world because the public understood it only through the context of their everyday experiences. We have reached the point where the film world and the real world have become a reciprocal system, each borrowing content and meaning from the other. But the parallel relationship between these two worlds has been questioned by many theorists, such as Michael Roemer in his article entitled “The Surfaces of Reality.” He states that, “There are times in the history of the medium (film) when story, treatment and performance drift so far into a studio never-never land that we cannot help but make a virtue of “pure” reality, as free from interference on the part of the film-maker as possible” (Roemer 15). But he also takes the other side of the argument by acknowledging that film has come closer than any other medium to replicating our experience of life by way of the illusion of motion and uses of diegetic sound. After comparing the opposing viewpoints and what they had to offer, Roemer concludes that the language of film is merely the surface of reality, but it can transform everyday toils into art; apparently his belief that film is beneficial to human existence has won out, but he doesn’t discuss how the glamorizing of reality can highlight the true depravity of our world. Using this correlation between film and reality as a starting point, I intend on searching through a number of scholarly articles to observe how real life perception has been impacted by film and how that affects relationships in society.
From the surrealist perspective, editing continuity and condensation techniques make film much like a dream. Film theorist George W. Linden states that, “Film consists of shadows and the flow of images, the presentation of presence, a perpetual evanescent elsewhere, an imminent beyond” (Linden 45). Cinema offers us the temporary status of omniscience. Therefore, while we view situations and conversations that we believe could very likely be found in the real world, we observe it from an overview position which no person, no matter how powerful, can have outside the theater. So realistically, people don’t watch movies to experience a presentation of reality; they watch to feel that all-seeing power and receive a false sense of inclusion. Linden, however, neglects to make the distinction that we are often incorporated in the action of our dreams. I suppose there are some instances where I have a sort of narrator’s perspective, but normally I’m involved in the dream plot line. Even though dreams are fragments of meaning (some less meaningful than others), they often position us as one of the characters, making the land of slumber a more accurate portrayal of reality.
In an article entitled “Two Exercises on Film Manipulation,” Alice Cross gave a storyboarding assignment to a group of high school students to see how they visualize a written plot via long shots, medium shots, and close-ups. She gave all of the students the same outline; a student is late for class, the teacher confronts the student, and a few students react to the situation by taking some sort of action. Cross noticed a pattern with most of the students’ shot sequence. The majority of the students began with a long shot of the class room, transitioned to a medium shot when the altercation between the teacher and student started, and narrowed down to a close-up of the teacher or student’s face at the height of tension in the argument. It might initially be assumed that a sequence such as this has been ingrained into American youth via the constant interaction with film narrative. But Cross continued her analysis stating, “I asked the students to recreate the way they observed the room when they first entered it that day. Initially, they probably took in the whole room, and as they decided where they would sit, their perception narrowed to a small part of the room, and finally probably concluded as a close-up of the particular desk they chose” (Cross 97). This arrangement of human perspective has obviously had its input on the continuity shooting of film, but we should also realize that shot sequence in film has, in turn, affected the way we organize reality in our minds; this is just an example of the binary trade off.
Stefan Machura stresses the disparity between law practice in the real world and the Hollywood manufactured courtroom scene in his piece entitled “Law in Film: Globalizing the Hollywood Courtroom Drama.” Machura asserts that, “It is beyond dispute that the cinematic portrayal of the American legal system and its personnel is far removed from legal reality” (Machura 118). In films, the courtroom case almost always involves a jury when in reality trial by jury is only a last resort. And since the vast majority of cinematic legal proceedings are criminal cases one would assume that most courtroom litigation involves criminal law, but civil cases are far more common. The dramatic film model of the American courtroom scene eventually impacted the rest of the world due to the international success of American movies; not only did foreigners come to believe that the intensity of gavels, theatrics, and courageous speeches was the standard in a real courtroom, but the actual legal proceedings began to change in some countries in order to mimic the Hollywood courthouse structure. For example, it has been observed by several German lawyers in the past decade that attorneys have been allowed to put on more of a dramatized performance to impress clients. Therefore, the false perception of reality is actually being absorbed by other cultures and prevails in the real world; it is even more legitimate since it emerges in the practice of lawful authority. Machura has very interesting observations, but he misses the chance to expand on his investigation by not inferring that America’s domination of international media has shaped other cultures perception of the US and how they live their everyday lives.
David R. Imig’s article, “The Use of Film in the Measurement of Student Learning,” suggested that the medium of film would be much more conducive to the learning process than the static form of the written word. Imig contends that, “Film is dynamic in time and orientation, presents multiple visual and audio information that can depict a range of interpersonal behaviors beyond that conveyed by printed words or other symbols” (Imig 260). It is crucial to point out that Imig believes the application of knowledge and value judgments demonstrates a higher level of learning than retention and understanding, which are usually the standards for written tests. It seems as though he has hopes of utilizing film as a sort of simulator for real life situations. As a result, film’s resemblance to reality can be used to train the public to analyze human experiences through the dominant scope; having a more complete likeness to the real world (compared to that of print), film more completely controls us. Unfortunately for Imig, his hypothesis that learning through film would yield higher scores was incorrect. He didn’t take into account that the stringent form of standardized testing had already been ingrained on the high school and college participants who have been molded since the cradle.
The film City of Brass was an attempt to mask reality as opposed to trying to mirror it. The director, Hisham M. Bizri, uses a technique that poses a double reality; the conscious mind encounters the real environment of the optical world while the unconscious mind is enraptured by the symbolism of the computer-generated imagery. Bizri describes masking reality as “obscuring or covering up the true state, identity, or character of a thing, but also to altering its appearance and misleading by presenting a different apparent identity” (Bizri 7). Therefore, Bizri still encodes his perception of reality into his film, but it is not easily noticeable on the surface. He challenges his audience to dig into the latent information hidden by computerized technique. If we really digest this method and understand how it applies to real life, his purpose begins to take shape. Since his film disguises the symbolism that reflects reality through digital effects, it insinuates the stance that real world content can be found only beneath the everyday manifest that we encounter, and it is technology that hides the truth from us. In an ironic twist, he uses the tool of computers to express their insignificance in his vision of human existence. I suppose the question he has to ask himself is: How effectively can a movie screen, which is a falsity, convey reality?
Anders Linde-Laursen contributed his two cents about the effects of film by analyzing two Danish films (Denmark 1935 and The King Commanded 1938) and explaining how they shaped Denmark’s national identity in a specific era. For example, The King Commanded is about the abolition of the law of adscription, which insured the availability of army recruits by constraining male peasants to their birthplaces. The resolution involves the protagonist, Jacob, and his sweetheart, Anna, moving out of the community to start their own farm. The moral stressed here is that the situation is resolved by peaceful means, as opposed to some of the extremely violent breaks from oppression occurring in other European countries. The funding for both films was predominantly taken care of by public institutions, unveiling the organized attempt to manipulate the collective attitude of the imagined community. Another early example of the use of film for social change is presented by Alison Murray Levine in her article entitled “Projections of Rural Life: The Agricultural Film Initiative in France, 1919-39.” Levine describes how the French government utilized cinema to inform farmers about new agricultural techniques that could yield better and more plentiful crops; this campaign was an attempt to prevent what was known as the “rural exodus” (leaving the country for the city). These are just two cases of how the big screen directly influences and, more accurately, injects itself into current issues of the social sphere.
It is crucial to note that while governments can use film to force a conformist ideology on the people, the public can also produce a combative counter perspective via the weapon of cinema (as long as it’s available). In Wolfgang Muhl-Benninghaus’s article, “German Film Censorship during World War I,” he contemplates the techniques and legislations used by the German government to minimize the thoughts and behaviors assumedly available to the public. Film censorship was first introduced in Berlin on May 5th 1906, although no action was taken until two years after that. Since cinema appeared to be encroaching on the monopoly of expression and meaning that written culture had over the people, it felt only natural to treat film censorship like that of the press. The censorship board was originally comprised of civil administrators appointed by the government to ensure that public decency is upheld. But with the outbreak of World War I, the censorship office was taken over by the military to rally support. Then when World War II came about, film and film censorship was utilized to permeate Nazi ideologies and stifle defiance. My point here is that whether it be for the purposes of the evil Nazi regime or the betterment of the German Empire, film censorship is a tool to enforce the status quo and, therefore, strong-arm any deviation from the set guidelines into the realm of the perverse.
Seung Hyun Park informs us of the film censorship that was obliged upon South Koreans in his article, “Film Censorship and Political Legitimation in South Korea, 1987-1992.” The prevention of allowing filmmakers to spread ideas that may oppose the government’s political agenda truly legitimized the right wing regime. So control over the medium of film became literal control over the people; the fabricated world of cinema symbolized real world power. Utilizing the movie experience in such a way transforms film into an instrument of rebellion. If the government deprives the people access to the weaponry with which to fire their reels of ammunition, then they are unable to fight. In this sense, we can easily understand the parallel of film and reality. Censoring the actions and thoughts of the characters on the big screen transcribes into the repression of the actual citizens.
Another way film manipulates social ideology is by perpetuating racial stereotypes and, as Jack G. Shaheen calls it, vilifying a people. In Shaheen’s book, “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People,” he discusses how Arabs and Muslims are constantly depicting as brutal murderers, heartless rapists, and religious fanatics. As Shaheen noticed in his research of over 900 films, a common quote that is found in films ranging from the 1930’s to the late 1980’s is “All Arabs look alike to me.” He also makes a very troubling correlation between the way we interpret the hook-nosed Arab/Muslim (the terms are practically interchangeable in much of mainstream cinema) and the way in which Nazi Propaganda characterized the Jew. Despite Shaheen’s riveting content, I believe he could have taken his topic a step further by intertwining this blatant degradation with the aggressive patriotism that many Americans feel is merely a sense of national pride. However, he still brings up a great injustice that is necessary to expose: “cinema’s systematic, pervasive, and unapologetic degradation and dehumanization of a people” (Shaheen 172).
In important film type to dissect when considering projections of reality is, of course, the documentary. In an interview with documentary filmmaker Jill Godmilow, Ann-Louise Shapiro attempts to explore potential of non-fiction film as a representation of history. Godmilow explains how it is impossible to give a completely objective presentation of social problems or historical figures because the medium of film is inherently hinged on an artistic perspective. Everything, from the way the narrator speaks to the editing sequence of shots, portrays a subjective view of the past, not the historical truths of an event. I totally agree with this outlook on documentary film, but I think it’s also important to mention that even first hand experience of reality is biased. Everyone has been shaped by different experiences and receive information through their senses in varying ways. Hence despite the fact that film is a re-creation, our brains compute reality in an indirect, subjective reproduction as well. So accusing a filmmaker of creating something that is “dishonest” is like badgering a person for stating their opinion.
Film is an art of expression; like paintings, music, and literature, it is understood through the lens of current social ideologies. Film is not a mirror or reflection, but an artifact. It is a creation, an interpretation of the world. The correlation between the world on the screen and the world outside comes into play when we consider how this art form can either reinforce certain ways of thinking or present alternate possibilities. Although film is not reality, it has the potential to sway cultural dogma and fuel social movements that can change the condition of the state, the nation, possibly the world.


Works Cited

Bizri, Hisham M. “City of Brass: The Art of Masking.” Leonardo 36.1 (2003): 7-11.
Cross, Alice. "Electronic Media: Two Exercises on Film Manipulation." The English Journal 74.1 (1985): 96-98.
Godmilow, Jill and Ann-Louise Shapiro. “How Real is the Reality in Documentary Film?” History and Theory 36.4 (1997): 80-101.
Imig, David R. “The Use of Film in the Measurement of Student Learning.” Family Relations 30.2 (1981): 259-263.
Levine, Alison M. “Projections of Rural Life: The Agricultural Film Initiative in France, 1919-39.” Cinema Journal 43.4 (2004): 76-95.
Linde-Laursen, Anders. “Taking the National Family to the Movies: Changing Frameworks for the Formation of Danish Identity, 1930-1990.” Anthropological Quarterly 72.1 (1999): 18-33.
Linden, George W. “Film, Fantasy, and the Extension of Reality.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 18.3 (1984): 37-54.
Machura, Stefan, Stefan Ulbrich, Francis M. Nevins, and Nils Behling. "Law in Film: Globalizing the Hollywood Courtroom Drama." Journal of Law and Society 28.1 (2001): 117-32.
Muhl-Benninghaus, Wolfgang. “German Film Censorship during World War I.” Film History 9.1 (1997): 71-94.
Park, Seung Hyun. “Film Censorship and Political Legitimation in South Korea, 1987-1992.” Cinema Journal 42.1 (2002): 120-138.
Roemer, Michael. “The Surfaces of Reality.” Film Quarterly 18.1 (1964): 15-22.
Shaheen, Jack G. “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 588.1 (2003): 171-193.