Movies look nothing like reality
While at Austin, I caught a screening of Susannah Grant’s new movie CATCH AND RELEASE. Since I sorta-know and definitely admire half the people in it (Jennifer Garner, Tim Olyphant, Kevin Smith), not to mention producer Jenno Topping, I’m hardly an unbiased viewer. So I’ll leave the reviews to more neutral eyes.
But what I do feel justified discussing is the movie’s setting: Boulder, Colorado. My home town.
My very first script was set in Boulder, so I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how it would look on film. Watching CATCH AND RELEASE, I saw many of my chosen locations (The Hill, the Pearl Street Mall, various Flatirons) yet felt almost no recognition that this was actually Boulder.
It’s not the film’s fault. It’s just that movies look nothing like reality.
For instance, a scene set at the Pearl Street Mall is shot in mostly mediums and close-ups. Without a big wide establishing shot, you don’t get a sense of a street that’s been converted to a pedestrian mall. Of course, the movie doesn’t need the wide shot. The scene would probably be worse for its inclusion. It’s only Boulderites who miss the sense of geography.
If it sounds like I’m complaining, I’m not. The movie is a postcard and valentine for Boulder, and its brand of earnest happiness and liberal optimism. Characters attend the opening of a “peace garden” without a trace of snarkiness to be found — and this in a movie featuring Kevin Smith.
Yes, much of the movie was shot on soundstages and locations far from Boulder. But it wasn’t the geographic differences that hurt the verisimilitude; it was the movie magic. In real life, the sun doesn’t dapple, clutter isn’t charming, and a wall painted “Tampax blue” wouldn’t merit discussion.
I have first-hand experience with the disorienting effects of movie magic, since a portion of The Movie I just directed was shot at my own house. For the last four months, I’ve been staring at footage of my kitchen, yet I barely connect it as being the same place I eat breakfast every morning.
Light, film and lenses change the colors and geometry of the room. The camera watches from places a human wouldn’t, constant and undistracted.
After a friends-and-family of The Movie, I got word back from a friend who lamented that her own house seemed less grown-up after seeing mine on film. She’s overlooking the fact we packed up all the baby toys, the dog beds, the stacks of unread mail, and the dishes in the sink. My house looks grown-up the same way houses in magazine shoots look: perfect, because no one has to live there.
In every scene, in every shot, there are lights and flags and twenty crew members just off the edge of frame, all working really hard to make it look nothing like reality.
Articles
October 26th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
I love that about movies. Reality is often quite boring, so I really enjoy that movies show stylized, more interesting versions of reality.
Movies like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Big Fish feel like wonderful dreams and that’s why I like them so much.
October 26th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
I know what you’re saying. I recently shot a short film, with a few scenes in and outside my house, but it doesn’t seem like my house when I watch it. It’s weird.
October 26th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
John -
That leads me to a question I have. One of my criticisms of Hollywood is that movies are so often very far removed from reality. While that can help some stories to be told more fancifully, it often interferes with telling a heartfelt, relatable story in a way that doesn’t alienate the audience. I’m not much of an escapist, and I often enjoy movies that make me feel for the characters, if I can imagine that the people portrayed could be real. Any thoughts on how to write and/or shoot for realism? I’m currently working on writing a feature-length script and am working hard to keep it real.
Thanks…
October 26th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
They probably had to film it on sound stages, because I’m sure the movie crew would cause too much light pollution. (Did you move away before they passed that law? You can’t have porch lights on, and restrictions on wattage? Light pollution!) It’s really too bad because Boulder has such a distinct film. We Denverites used to refer to it as “15 square miles surrounded by reality”. If I shoot a short in my kitchen, does that mean I get to hire a maid as a tax write-off? Reminds of an observation by Peggy Archer (Totally Unauthorized blog), that set designers ALWAYS put sconces on every wall, yet she has hardly ever been in a house with sconces. Movies are not reality, they are the illusion of reality.
October 26th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
John Landis filmed the first chase sequence for The Blues Brothers movie in my Chicago-area ‘hood. John, you’re right - nothing looks the same — of course we didn’t go around our neighborhood as kids hanging from a 90 foot high cranes. Well, not all of us…
October 26th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
I saw a rough cut of this movie in LA late last year and it was a bit of a mess, in the Q & A afterwards it was pulled to pieces. I think it had the chance to be a good film and I hope that they made some of the changes suggested that night to make the grief more believable and the characters more sympathetic. I will watch it again when it is realeased to compare. I have never been to Boulder but watching this film made me want to get on the next plane. It really did look like a terrific place to live. Love the blog.
October 26th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
The town I grew up in never looks like itself on film, either, but a lot of that is because the filmmakers often don’t bother to actually come to the town. They just use the name of the town and shoot in a place that looks nothing like it.
October 26th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Except when it’s filmed in Toronto, I don’t think I’ve ever felt that New York didn’t look like New York on film. But it’s such an iconic city that filmmakers tend to go out of their way to make sure you know it’s New York.
But I think the best New York movies, or any movie where the location is a character, are the ones that show the grit and go off the beaten path. The French Connection is a great example, and I’m sure if the fog of sleepiness wasn’t bearing down on me, I’d think of a movie that wasn’t over 30 years old.
October 26th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
I’ll take this a step further. Last thing I shot was a TV pilot on a beach. There were waves crashing, planes flying overhead, kids screaming, you name it. It became next to impossible to get a quiet location.
My sound man exclaimed that “there are noises in real life, Adam. Lawnmowers, leafblowers, backing up trucks and airplanes”.
I replied: “So what. It’s not real life. Go make that kid shut up”
October 26th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
A great many films are shot in my hometown of Vancouver…and I know what you’re saying. Even when I recognize a specific place it somehow doesn’t seem real. The only exception to this has been the movie “Cousins” (with Isabella Rossellini and Ted Danson). With that film I recalled the ‘feeling’ of being in these places. The experience.
October 27th, 2006 at 2:36 am
You’re right. No one can deal with reality, least of all the industry itself!
October 27th, 2006 at 3:48 am
A guy I know once shot a scene taking place on a train station in the waiting room of a local medical centre. True story. They just added various train-y sounds in the background.
Ah, the magic of filmmaking…
October 27th, 2006 at 7:29 am
sorry but i read the topic and thought maybe i was at the onion
October 27th, 2006 at 8:42 am
I felt the same way about “Snow Day” - it was filmed right outside my grandmother’s house. My first thoughts of the movie were: “There were NEVER that many children in my nana’s neighbourhood!”
What’s even funnier is when someone doesn’t shoot on location, and just labels it as a place, and of course it is not portrayed as anything remotely resembling the actual place. I giggle everytime I watch the scene in “X-Men” that takes place in “Northern Alberta”. Why yes, we’re all hicks who perform sweaty free-for-all fight matches in bars!
October 27th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Feel the same way John. I will see the movie and secretly want Boulder to be up front and center.
I was just there end of September and it was just beautiful. Fairview…Abo’s on the Hill…Pearl Street…Flagstaff…and the Aspens changing color…And a lot of happy people were there, I noticed.
Hmm. Why did I leave?
Mark
October 27th, 2006 at 10:21 am
I was living in Swansea (Wales) when Twin Town was being filmed. Not only did I struggle to recognise familiar locations in the movie; but just when I thought I’d got my bearings, the characters would walk round the corner and magically appear on the other side of town.
Not only does reality look different, but apparently geography changes too.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Oh, and in an aside to S. A. Petrich’s post: part of an episode of the BBC sitcom ‘Coupling’ was set on a train. They didn’t want to use a mock up with blue screen bushes rushing by, so they blew most of their budget on getting a real train.
Only to discover it was too noisy to film whilst the train was moving. What finally appeared on screen is a long sequence set on a stationary train.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Sorry to say it, John, but I’ve gotta disagree with you on this. I’ve recently become obsessed with THE WIRE and have been amazed with how well it captures Baltimore [full disclosure: I grew up in DC, but have spent a lot of time in Baltimore]. What I’ve noticed is, it’s not the landmarks (Camden Yards, The Inner Harbor, Fells Point) that capture the feel of the city, but the details that exist in the margins. Characters snacking on Utz Crab Chips, the cold pale afternoon sun that a trained eye knows couldn’t have been reproduced anywhere else, and a myriad of other details that don’t scream “Baltimore” quite as loudly as the neon light on the Domino’s Sugar Plant, but very effectively convey the city’s rythem and texture.
I think the operative word you used in describing Catch and Release was postcard, which is probably apt (I’m going off your assesment here, having not seen the film myself). But postcards by nature are sanitized representations of a place (often bordering on kitsch) and aren’t designed to convey the reality of the place being photographed.
When you shot in your house, you chose to make it look perfect in order to tell the audience something about the characters living there. Characters who, for whatever reason, feel the need to live as though they’re expecting a magazine photo shoot to break out at any minute. It was your decisions that made your house look nothing like (your) reality on film, not merely the act of film being exposed to light.
Had your goal been to convey John August’s house realistically, you would have left out the stacks of mail, baby toys, and dirty dishes and probably come pretty close to doing just that.
October 27th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
I have to say my favorite representation of my alma mater (and your home town) was in J.J. Abrams’ JOY RIDE (Mini review: better than you think).
I forget the plot point, but our heros had to pick up Leelee Sobieski from the University of Colorado in Boulder. The anticipation built up as I was getting excited to see a shot of the not-quite majestic Norton Library or possibly the UMC… only when they did pull in, it was in front of the USC quad.
Just curious, have you ever had a chance to chat with the South Park team about living in Boulder?
Cheers, Dave
October 29th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
I met Trey Parker pre-Southpark here in Los Angeles. We talked a bit about Colorado, but I haven’t seen him since.
October 30th, 2006 at 3:50 am
We could use some movie magic here in Stockholm at the moment. Grey skies, cold winds, rain. Now it’s allright to indulge in the obligatory clinical autumn depression. Or start an art-film project: a 2,5 hour drama about a ditch in Slovenia.
October 30th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Look bitch, you know what time it is !!
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Actually, I’m gonna have to disagree with your whole premise on this one John, for a peculiar personal reason. I am a Vancouverite (the real Canadian Vancouver, not that odd little town further down the coast) living in exile in Rio de Janeiro. It’s a self-imposed exile, and I actually love Rio for many of the same reasons I loved Vancouver - mountains crashing down into the ocean, beautiful light, supply mostly naked bodies stretched out on the sand. OK scratch that last one. Anyway, I miss my home town, but fortunately it reappears at regular intervals on the truly awful series that get re-sold onto Brazilian television. For reasons strictly of nostalgia, I find myself watching dreck I would never tolerate if I actually still lived in BC. Stuff like Highlander, Dead like Me, The Collector, Battlestar Gallactica (which I actually quite like, but it’s the exception). Horrible writing, indifferent acting, cheesy effects, but I suffer it all for the regular and recognizebale glimpses of Howe Sound or the North Shore Mountains or that oddly gritty look found only in the city’s Downtown Eastside. I’ve gotten so good at spotting my city that when I saw a preview for Psych, I could tell it was Vancouver immediately by the slick sheen of rain on the pavement of the dumpster strewn alleyway down which the lead character was being chased. Am I sick? Maybe a little. But I can say with authority that cities do so show their nature on television. Or maybe only Canadian stand in cities do.
November 4th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
I was at the same premiere in Austin, and I had an issue with setting the film in Boulder for a different reason. The passage of time was fairly important in the script, as the main character undergoes an emotional change, and there was Boulder looking lovely in the spring. The short shooting schedule was rather obvious. I was left not buying in to the main character’s arc, and it was all because of Boulder’s leafy spring.