Formalism vs. Realism vs. Surrealism

With a lot of discussion surrounding Inland Empire recently in this forum, both people who do and do not like it, I was wondering what criteria people look for in a film in the area of Formalism vs. Realism vs. Surrealism. Because it seems to be that Lynch would fall under the category of Surrealism, with some Formalism in the interpretation, and I was wondering if the people who tended not to like it was well prefer films to be predominantly under the category of realism.

Personally I would have to say that formalism is where I find films most interesting. I appreciate it when a film has a solid narrative line, but I enjoy the interpretation of the elements in the film after the fact, therefore a formalist film where elements don't always mean a purely one to one ratio, for exmple in the TV show Dead Like Me, there is a frog, and in a one to one ratio an image of a frog would signify a frog, however, in Dead Like Me it also signifies death

__________________
"As I was walking up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away."
-From Identity

Wow Gnat, interesting and confusing topic at the same time. Nice job!

I wanna say I'm with you on this Gnat. Formalism is good, but I tend to like realism in my movies, too.

I agree with the points you make in regards to formalism, and I understand when I'm watching something that is more formalistic than the other two. However, sometimes I can find myself thinking, while I'm watching a movie, how the surrealistic nature of the film tends to be overdone and that dose of realism is lacking. I'm not talking about your average science fiction or fairytale, I'm talking about plain ole movies that have a somewhat easy plotline, but yet the director has the urge to spice it up with really peculiar things and then the film goes in an entirely different direction and throws expects you to catch a knock into deep left field and you're still on 1st base.

I understand that some of the more well-known directors (ie., Lynch) have that touch where they can pull it off, but some directors, just can't, but they try anyway, leaving the audience puzzled.

So, in closing...I would have to say that I really don't lean towards one more than the other two, I'm more partial to all three, if done well.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

*head explodes*

The reason i hate lots of surreal movies is they just don't make any sense. Science of Sleep however i really enjoyed because i could relate with lots of the scenes and it just made a lot of sense as it went.

Inland Empire however made absoultly no sense , and instead of the fun and imaginative way Science of Sleep was - inland empire was a mystery with no plot or story.

__________________

To be fair, shouldn't 'surrealism' be considered a subset of formalist cinema? There's no way to clearly demarcate a distinction between realist and formalist cinema anyway: most great directors inject formalist elements into their realistic cinema, and the reverse as well.

That is true, however, typically a film is primarily one type, such as in a realist film where, while it has formalist elements, it is clear that it is predominantly a formalist film, or same case with surrealism.

I actually am looking these up so I can better understand the differences between them, let's go in order... Formalism,

1. strict adherence to, or observance of, prescribed or traditional forms, as in music, poetry, and art.

I guess to me this means that this is what a lot of Hollywood movies are following today and quite possibly the reason that I don't enjoy so many of them in the process. Simple plots good guys always win happy endings, etc, etc.

Realism

1. interest in or concern for the actual or real, as distinguished from the abstract, speculative, etc.
2. the tendency to view or represent things as they really are.
If I was rating these this would probably be #2 on the list because I have always enjoyed a true story even when taken apart and re-assembled in movie form. I have also seen a great deal of films that have a lot of realism in them and have been a total work of fiction.

Surrealism.

A 20th-century literary and artistic movement that attempts to express the workings of the subconscious and is characterized by fantastic imagery and incongruous juxtaposition of subject matter.

Obviously for me this is where we get to the good stuff, and David Lynch is a perfect example of this meaning don't you think? I mean Love him or Hate him most of his films will give you room to pause and consider what you just saw and that's part of his brilliance if you ask me.

Also this is where a lot of my so called "popcorn movies" come in. High on visual art such as car crashes and explosions, lighting and special effects and perhaps not a lot of dialog. Now I suppose it could be said that in a lot of ways this is also a form of Formalism but i would say it just depends on the film, director and producers.

So in short I would have to say Surrealism in a lot of ways is the main reason I continue to watch movies and probably will never stop.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

While formalism is more concrete and often less challenging, it often hits harder as a result of its straightforward approach. With the use of surrealism, there is plenty of room for interpretation, and often the clarity in the message is somewhat lacking as a result.

Personally, realism is probably my favorite artistic standpoint. I find that the study of the human condition, and of reality itself, is where art's biggest potential power lies. Films with heavy dose of realism are Taxi Driver, To Kill a Mockingbird, Lost in Translation, and even The Fountain.

The interesting thing about Darren Aronofsky's script for The Fountain is its combination of sensibilities. While there is certainly a load of realism in terms of man's struggle with death, the impending inevitability of mortality and the hopeless fight to prevent it, there is an immense amount of surrealism as well. The third segment of the film (the more obscure, futuristic side of the story) is surreal to the core; very abstract and completely debatable in its meaning.

Since The Fountain is my favorite film, I would argue that a combination of surrealism, formalism and realism is very possible, and potentially quite effective.

__________________

I wouldn't call Science of Sleep a work of surrealism, it's more of a film that's quite surreal. I mean, Un Chien Andalou is surrealism, Meshes of the Afternoon is surrealism, and some of the works of Man Ray, Dulac and Clair...I think The Science of Sleep is just a quirky indepedent film more than anything else, perhaps one with surrealistic influences. Compared to Dali, it's almost conventional.


Formalism for me.

Just to clarify, formalism is Hollywood/simple? Realism is like the Italian Neo-Realism or more Dogme?

Surrealism is probably the one i have most respect for, think the subconscious is such a deep place and to explore it through film is always going to enjoyable to watch, even if it is used as a critique of, say, the bourguise.

__________________

Surrealism for me, although I enjoy the other schools of though , as well.

__________________

We have in general 3 cinema styles which are:
1.Realism
2.Classisicm
3.Formalism
and each cinema Style has it's own pure movie type:
1.Documentary
2.Fiction
3.Avant-Garde

so almost all movies are something between these types. For example a fiction film based on true story is sth between 1 and 2. The most important thing about Formalism is the role of the director. In classicism the director is just a storyteller. But in Formalist cinema the director tends to be the autor.

I love realism, and I also love a realism with a script that is more economical, yet, still says a lot..