Are all movies inherently cosmetic and sugar coated?

Posted by Troy (A) on January 16, 2004 at 09:16:17

Patrick and I are having a discussion about this in the Lost in Translation thread. It's seems to be such a fundamental thing that we both think maybe it deserves more of a round table discussion.

Yes, I think that all movies ARE inherently cosmetic and sugar coated. Patrick says no.

Lets take "cosmetic" first. Cosmetic means "Something superficial that is used to cover a deficiency or defect". And that's what film is really about about, creating an artificial, controlled world from the real one. It's the medium that makes this happen. A good film maker controls everything in the frame from lighting or lack of lighting, to branches that stick into the corner, to the tilt of an extra's hat, to film stock. Does the camera see the edge of the table or the top? Is the actor's napkin on the table or in his lap? Why? Everything about the process depends of thoughtful consideration of all elements. Sure, a director with a more documentary style is going to let things fall where they may, leave things ugly and poorly composed, but again, it's a conscious decision done to develop a specific feeling and mood in the viewer.

Now, on to "sugar coated". Traditionally, film has an idealized, pleasing look. From the soft boxes developed in the 20s to light beautiful starlets to the spectacular art deco inspired sets of the recent Star Wars movies, movies have had always tended towards a glorification of esthetically pleasing things, much more pleasing than real life. This also applies to scripts. Think the "good guy" will win? Even the most gritty scripts have built in counterpoint. Most writers and film makers understand that you have to balance hot with cold, light with dark. Even the darkest, most sinister films, if they are good, use this artificial counterpoint by adding sweetness, romance or comedy in small doses. Being able to catch your breath for a moment makes the dark parts that much darker. Now we all know that life isn't really like that. If it's really bad in real life, you're not going to cut to a flashback love scene or have a secondary character be inserted for comic relief. Virtually ALL films are sugar coated in this way.

Take the movie "Taxi Driver". I think everybody has seen that and we all think of it as great film. I think we can also all agree that it is quite uncompromisingly dark, gritty and downright ugly. But think about how poetic the streets look at night with the rain and moving lights, there's a definite beauty there. Cosmetic. Think about the comic relief that albert Brooks provides. Think about the tender scene with Jody Foster and her pimp, Harvey Keitel. Yeah, it could be taken as grotesque and depressing, but it's tone lulls the viewer. Sugar coated? Not by itself, but the inclusion of the scene as a plot device to develop pathos for both the girl and the pimp compared to reality that no one but them would really know that scene happened can only be thought of as sugar coated artificiality.

Neither "cosmetic and sugar coated" is 100% true for all film. There are always exceptions to the rule, but in most cases, it's what the movies are all about.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Topic - Are all movies inherently cosmetic and sugar coated? - Troy 09:16:17 01/16/04 (29)

Film (American)is in the realm of a toss between PIN BALL AMUSEMENT and PRO WRESTLING! - j.l.guillebeau@att.net 09:41:59 01/22/04 (0)

Would Pink Flamingos qualify as an exception? - J 22:24:52 01/19/04 (6)

Not really - Troy 07:35:46 01/20/04 (4)

You can't have it both ways - J 13:17:29 01/20/04 (3)

I'm not having it both ways - Troy 08:08:18 01/21/04 (2)

There are probably websites where you can do that sort of thing - J 12:12:16 01/21/04 (1)

I enjoy debating with you. - Troy 12:42:42 01/21/04 (0)

The Problem With Pink Flamingos Is . . . - Bob K 03:34:43 01/20/04 (0)

Well, Troy, - tinear 17:46:28 01/17/04 (3)

You misunderstand my position - Troy 09:46:06 01/18/04 (2)

Well, at this point of watering down your position, couldn't you say - tinear 07:54:43 01/19/04 (1)

I don't think I watered it down at all! - Troy 09:00:15 01/19/04 (0)

I think your confusing - mvwine 07:59:42 01/17/04 (4)

Re: I think the whole thing is confusing - Troy 09:54:39 01/18/04 (0)

Re: I think your confusing - patrickU 09:38:30 01/17/04 (2)

Yes, the whole international trend is discouraging - mvwine 19:10:09 01/18/04 (1)

Re: Yes, the whole international trend is discouraging - patrickU 02:07:04 01/19/04 (0)

No... - Victor Khomenko 14:16:28 01/16/04 (5)

Yes - Troy 09:23:01 01/18/04 (0)

Re: No... - patrickU 07:45:51 01/17/04 (3)

Re: No... - Victor Khomenko 10:08:32 01/17/04 (2)

Maybe . . . - Troy 09:28:41 01/18/04 (0)

Re: No... - patrickU 10:19:57 01/17/04 (0)

Have a look at "Kids" (1995), and then come back here and talk about sugarcoating... - orejones 12:28:23 01/16/04 (1)

That was a "rough" film to watch for sure! Didn't do NYC any favors. -n - albee33 18:13:56 01/16/04 (0)

Maybe not "cosmetic and sugar coated", but... - vocalion 09:55:21 01/16/04 (3)

Yes... that is far more like it - Victor Khomenko 10:39:40 01/16/04 (1)

Re: Lumiere and Co. - rico 05:14:12 01/18/04 (0)

Re: Maybe not "cosmetic and sugar coated", but... - patrickU 10:30:05 01/16/04 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.