> But art is artificial...if *any* actor talked to you
in the street as he
> does on the stage or the screen you would probably
run for cover (or at
> least finger your roscoe thoughtfully and start
whistling a show tune).
Yes, but there are varying coventions as to how much the
actors/director
"want" to help the audience suspend disbelief. I agree with
your premise
that "realistic" acting does not equal real-life behavior.
However, it
seems to me that we, the filmmakers & audience, have
entered into a tacit
agreement that certain types of behavior onscreen will be
generally
understood to convey what really happens offscreen, and those
behaviors
(rather than real life) become the barometer of how realistic
the film is
considered. Same with novels--a regular-joe novel could be
considered
realistic in spite of the fact that the hero has, yet again,
just happened
to walk into a mystery/noir-type situation, or it could be
considered
unrealistic in the details (I enjoyed _The Green Ripper_, but
what are the
"real" odds of McGee carrying out his mission &
living?).
Granted, this doesn't apply to such schools & movements
as kino
pravda/cinema verite [freely insert diacriticals as needed],
but my
understanding is that their whole point was to transcend, or
at least
shock, the conventional in the first place.
Best,
Vicky
(who intends to consult her attorney before admitting to
occasionally
whistling show tunes in real life)
>
#
# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
majordomo@icomm.ca.
# The web pages for the list are at http://www.vex.net/~buff/rara-avis/.