For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
The idea of reality is mystifying, isn’t it? After delving into first Vernon, Florida & then the essays in the FTC book concerning cinema’s role in reality (& vice versa), it’s hard to know exactly what to believe. Is cinema truly the most – or perhaps only – pure form of art, as it is the only one that can accurately mirror life (with moving images, real sounds, etc.)? Or can cinema only be a reflection of reality, never realizing its full potential because of either societal or technological implications? I feel like several films in cinematic history have crossed this line between art & reality, most of them with very surprising results.
I’ve mentioned Tod Browning’s Freaks before, I know I have – this is the 1931 film in which real sideshow abnormalities were gathered together & used as character actors in a story of tangled love triangles & an underground societal counter-culture. In this day & age, it’s mostly just disturbing to think of the exploitation of the “coneheads” or “human torso” (the most astounding scene in the film involves a man with no arms or legs rolling, lighting, & smoking a cigarette, all with his mouth), but at the same time it’s utterly fascinating. It’s real, but it’s acting. It’s corny at times, but almost always too sad to think about. You don’t want to watch it, but you can’t ever think about not having seen it once it’s over.
I feel like another perfect example of the reality/art paradigm shift is Errol Morris’ own Thin Blue Line, for pretty obvious reasons. The film is a social landmark, inciting change in the most reactionary way & yet at the same time involving actors, purposeful lighting & set changes, & other cinematic touches. Most of the time while yer watching the action unfold, you don’t realize that it’s a true story; you can’t imagine these people being real. Injustice is for the movies, fictional & cliched, not for reality. Morris has proven otherwise.
Not every reality made into film was with positive results, however. I won’t dwell on it for too long, but I feel Cannibal Holocaust should be artistically recognized here. The 1980 Italian cannibal gore faux-veritee film was the precursor for The Blair Witch Project, in that it was about the discovery of film shot by documentarians who find themselves lost in South American jungles, forever running from warring cannibal tribes. The idea of the movie was based on & shot with entirely real features: the natives (only some of which were truly cannibals), the jungle, & the wildlife were all real. This is precisely what got the filmmaker, Ruggero Deodato, in trouble, however. Because he used real animals, the animals that were slaughtered for different purposes (or no purpose at all) on film were really killed. As a fan of gory films, I can easily say that for every disgusting thing I’ve seen in film, nothing has made me feel worse than watching the slow destruction of a giant tortoise, its head cut off, its shell flayed…& all of it real. Cannibal Holocaust is the most banned film in cinematic history (it boasts this claim all over the new DVD reissue, too), & yet for some reason I don’t think it’s for the glamorized mutilation of human beings (which are gritty & shocking by themselves…just not real, of course). Sociologically, the movie is fascinating, but I can’t say I ever want to get that close to reality again. It’s rather uncomfortable.