hankoler

Does anyone remember a british war movie called " The long and the short and the tall",this film had a sad ending in which noe of the men in the patrol survived.It starred Richard todd and i think lawrence Harvey, not sure of the others.

Joenoir

Yield to the Night? In Cold Blood?

Start every day with a smile and get it over with.

batman

Tale of Two Cities ... the end with Carton and the Seamstress is very moving. Not so the end of The Man on the Eiffel Tower with Charles Laughton as Maigret. I was pleased to see Franchot Tone get his.

Bats.

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"

smudge

Life isn't neatly packaged, so why should representations of life be neatly packaged ?

To some extent films like A TASTE OF HONEY must mirror life because, even in their fundamental unreality, they must reflect some sort of realism for us to engage with the characters. If they didn't we'd soon tire of the whole thing, I'm sure.

Characters can 'live' within that artificial environment that is a film - it's just that the 'suspension of disbelief' factor that we exercise when viewing 'fantasy' films changes - it inverts to become a question of identity. If we can identify and/or empathise with particular characters, we soon become drawn into the story and fully involved with it. The mark of a good film IMHO.

I would challenge the premise that people in movies are not real people ; all writing is born of the author's experience to some degree. 'Whole' real people they might not be, but they will undoubtedly be sketched from life to some extent.

In its proper context A TASTE OF HONEY was a contemporary film looking at a social phenomenon of the time - the newly emerging 'multiculturalism' in Britain which had grown exponetially from the mids 50s onwards, so (in respect of this particular film) I would similarly argue against the statement that film is not life.

I have personal knowledge of people who lived with situations similar to Rita Tushingham's character at around that time...

Smudge

Welcome to my house. Enter freely, and of your own will...

Aaryk Noctivagus

You completely misunderstand me, Smudge.

I am speaking from the perspective of a writer and somebody who has gone about specifically studying the art of screen writing.

For instance if a character in a movie was to speak like a real person, then the result would be boring, confused, disjointed, full of erms and ahs, poorly performed... etc. Dialogue is stylized speech, rather than real.

Characters in plays and movies are stylized characters and not real people. For instance, in 'The Great Escape' (and every movie dealing with real events) in order to dramatise the story into an acceptable structure, often several real people and their actions are reduced into one character styled fit for the purpose of communicating they're united efforts and abilities. Hence a stylized character rather than a real person.

After all, actors interpret roles and perform them, rather than simply impersonate real people. Some impersonation may be involved (if an action or voice is particularly well known), but it is mainly interpretation.

Yes, writers use aspects of themselves and people they meet etc... but that does NOT result in the creation of real people on the screen or stage. It simply results in an informed, but no less stylized character. For instance the lead character in my most recent screenplay has roots firmly in my own self, my pains and my hangups (without being biographical)... even instances of my own past behaviour are mirrored in the character. However, that character is NOT a real person, but a character designed to carry the story, theme and message over to the reader/audience.

Many aspiring writers fail, simply because they do not understand this fundamental truth about the nature of characters in stories. Some succeed regardless of consciously understanding it, but that makes it by no means less true... or by no means less useful to understand.

Aaryk Noctivagus

PS... And I have never said otherwise. Realism, within the universe set up in any story is a necessary part of the character styled to convey it. The character is not a real person though. Realism is not the same as reality.

You yourself spoke with the word 'mirror' - so to some extent or another you are aware of what I say, even if you have misunderstood me.

A reflection in a mirror is NOT the person looking into that mirror but a resemblance in light reflected back. A representation... if the mirror is tinted or the image adjusted in some way, then a stylized representation.

A character in a story (or even biography) is a stylized representation... not a real person, or even what people are like in reality.

christoph404

but doesn't "life imitate art" or is it "art imitates life" ? cinema reflects life as does life reflect cinema, and as the old bard said, "the world is a stage and we are all but actors on it" how does one define reality? is it possible? Im not so sure if it is! I suspect one persons reality can be another persons fantasy......

Joenoir

Just look what you've started, Carmel!

Start every day with a smile and get it over with.

kelp

Ok, lets see......The last episode of "THE PRISONER". I know it's TV , but it is British. I have read so many differing excuses (oops,) I mean explanaitions as to what it was all about, non of them making sense.
I do know that Patrick was ready with bags packed as he shot the last frame!

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR...YOU MAY GET IT!

716Jones

I do remember this film, although it's many years since I saw it. If I remember rightly, not all the patrol were killed, though. Wasn't the David McCallum character captured by the Japanese, who then started to treat him the way the patrol had treated their Japanese prisoner, i.e. treating him as a figure of fun and mocking him? Could be wrong about this, but I'm sure I remember it that way.

christoph404

this could be a question for mr Moor Larkin our resident Patrick McGoohan expert. I think there were supposed to be more episodes but ITC and Lew Grade pulled the plug on finances and MCGoohan and Leo Mckern ended up hastily writing the last episode in their dressing rooms as they were filming it. I think it would have been better not to have an ending, I think McGoohan felt the same but Lew Grade demanded that the viewing public be given some kind of conclusion to the series. Im a huge fan of "The Prisoner", its one of the best things to emerge from British TV but I have to admit I hated the way it ended and I never bother to watch the last two part episode, the ending is so obviously out of keeping with the rest of the series and you can tell it was all a bit of a desperate afterthought (in my humble opinion) People wanted to know the answer to the question, "who is number 1" whoever he was it was going to be a disapointment to reveal him, so much better not to but the ending we are presented with is severely compromised as Im sure McGoohan didn't intend it to end that way......over to you Mr Larkin......

Carmel

Im not getting involved

Moor Larkin

I don't think there is any answer to that one......

You pays your money, you takes your choice.

Personally speaking I just felt Mr. McGoohan sought inspiration from his theatre experiences and tried to utilise the indirectness and poetic licence of that medium. But I'm not really any expert on theatre either.

So far as ending it is concerned, I think the funniest story was the one attributed to Alexis Kanner in an interview with Ian Rakoff, for Mr. Rakoff's book.

Ian Rakoff wrote:
Kanner was taken aback when he saw the final script. "Patrick," he declared, "there's every indication here that we blow the place up, and he said, 'That's right.' And I said, 'Pat, isn't this a pacifist programme?' He said, "Fuck it. Do you want to keep coming back here month after month?'"

I've no idea if it's true, but it appeals to my sense of poetry.....

[code]http://www.flickr.com/photos/29487363@N02/sets/72157606700675506/code]

smudge

I fully appreciate your thoughts AN - I think we're just coming at things from different angles, yours being strictly 'real' by the literal definition and my arguments being that, somewhere along the line, there must be a grounding in reality for all creations.

I did in fact acknowledge your thoughts implicity by using terms such as 'fundamental unreality' and 'not whole real people'. One has to accept the concepts of compositing and dramatic licence here, but there must be (in most cases) a 'real' root.

As you say, strictly real (in terms of dialogue) would be stultifying ; we oonly have to think of our own conversations with all the umms and ahhs and pauses (etc.) Indeed, it would be eminently preferable if someone was pre-writing our speech sometimes

Smudge

(I'm sure there's also a whole debate about how we perceive characters in fiction here, only slightly below the surface...)

Welcome to my house. Enter freely, and of your own will...

Aaryk Noctivagus

A large part of this misunderstanding is probably down to the fact most people do not consider the differences between the words 'realism' and 'reality'. I am talking about the mechanics of writing and the mechanics of story-telling and the place of individual characters, their nature and their use within those mechanics.

I repeat... I am not talking here as a member of the public talks, but I am talking about the art story-telling.

I am talking about the nature and use of characters within stories. I am not talking about the impression those characters give to the casual reader/viewer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its quite funny really... there was recent complaint about me and others being too jokey and not serious enough on the forum. I get the distinct feeling that I am now getting too serious for the forum - lol.

This is all down to understanding how story-telling works.