2008 Woodie Awards
Reality not found in darkness
Kevin Scahill
Issue date: 4/2/08 Section: Perspectives
I have noticed the obvious difference between "high-brow" or "modern" criticisms on books and movies, and popular criticisms, and it seems to me that the high-brows/moderns just don't realize how much their own criticism really conforms to the conventional (and dare I say fashionable) taste of our age.
The conventional high-brow loves "dark" stories. It's hard to say how this happened originally. Perhaps through some confused jumble of associations the first high-brow prototype noticed that "light" is antonymous to dark and it's also antonymous with "heavy" which, of course, equates to "gravitas" in Latin and, in turn, connotes an idea of worth that, through reverse association, came to be associated with dark stories.
As Kate Winslet's character dryly noted in an episode of "Extras," holocaust movies always seem to be Oscar candidates. This is obviously an exaggeration, but I have often gotten the impression from many intelligent people that "serious" movies are inherently better than others.
Like many things, it reminds me of a G.K. Chesterton quote that I'll paraphrase: The opposite of "funny" isn't "serious"; the opposite of "funny" is "not funny."
I think we all know people who, at least deep down inside, feel that a truly good movie shouldn't be very funny and definitely shouldn't have a happy ending. It has to be dark and tragic and disappointing, like "real life."
John Gardner has claimed that the best fiction deals with truth, and the idea that some works require you to suspend your disbelief more than others is a critical commonplace. I hear things being praised all the time for being like real life or telling it how it is, but when I hear what is supposed to be like real life I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
I'm told, for instance, that "Requiem for a Dream" and "Rules of Attraction" are very much like real life. Real life, if I understand it correctly, has a lot to do with drugs and sex and occasionally a talking refrigerator. Those stories that portray life the most brutally tend to be considered the most realistic.
The conventional high-brow loves "dark" stories. It's hard to say how this happened originally. Perhaps through some confused jumble of associations the first high-brow prototype noticed that "light" is antonymous to dark and it's also antonymous with "heavy" which, of course, equates to "gravitas" in Latin and, in turn, connotes an idea of worth that, through reverse association, came to be associated with dark stories.
As Kate Winslet's character dryly noted in an episode of "Extras," holocaust movies always seem to be Oscar candidates. This is obviously an exaggeration, but I have often gotten the impression from many intelligent people that "serious" movies are inherently better than others.
Like many things, it reminds me of a G.K. Chesterton quote that I'll paraphrase: The opposite of "funny" isn't "serious"; the opposite of "funny" is "not funny."
I think we all know people who, at least deep down inside, feel that a truly good movie shouldn't be very funny and definitely shouldn't have a happy ending. It has to be dark and tragic and disappointing, like "real life."
John Gardner has claimed that the best fiction deals with truth, and the idea that some works require you to suspend your disbelief more than others is a critical commonplace. I hear things being praised all the time for being like real life or telling it how it is, but when I hear what is supposed to be like real life I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
I'm told, for instance, that "Requiem for a Dream" and "Rules of Attraction" are very much like real life. Real life, if I understand it correctly, has a lot to do with drugs and sex and occasionally a talking refrigerator. Those stories that portray life the most brutally tend to be considered the most realistic.
Be the first to comment on this story