The Star Wars Saga: Realistic or Formalistic?

I say formalistic...if anyone is familiar with these terms.

 

It is realistic in some of the struggles and motifs. That good can be corrupted into evil and the general ethos of the prequels especially could be considered realistic. The political manipulations, the corruption of innocence.

In it is formalistic in some of the more vague mythological themes and motifs. The struggle between good and evil and the black and white of that struggle, which lacks gray shades in some areas.

I think it is a bit of both and depends on which part of the story you're discussing.

-Seldon

 

Not story wise...

The way it is filmed.

Realistic filmakers don't want you to realize there is a camera there.

Formalistic filmakers constantly remind you of it.

 

Sorry there are multiple meanings for formalistic and realistic filming when applied to movies.
Camera wise, George doesn't want it to be perfect. The shots are not perfect and the frames are not always the best. In particular there is a scene in Menace where Jar Jar is cheering for the return to Naboo, and the camera slowly moves away from him. George says on the DVD that this was done on purpose, the camera work is not supposed to be perfect.

Formalistic in the fact that the camera work can be shaky and similar to the old serials in some ways.


-Seldon

 

The obvious nods to previous movies (both general ones, like "old serials" or "Westerns", and specific ones like direct shot lifts from "Triumph of the Will" or "Lawrence of Arabia") are enough alone to have me come down on the 'formalistic' side of this question.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

"I say formalistic...if anyone is familiar with these terms."


Not to be a weiner, but I think the term you're looking for is formulaic.



for·mu·la ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôrmy-l)
n. pl. for·mu·las or for·mu·lae (-l)

An established form of words or symbols for use in a ceremony or procedure.
An utterance of conventional notions or beliefs; a hackneyed expression.
A method of doing or treating something that relies on an established, uncontroversial model or approach: a new situation comedy that simply uses an old formula.
Chemistry.
A symbolic representation of the composition or of the composition and structure of a compound.
The compound so represented.

A prescription of ingredients in fixed proportion; a recipe.
A liquid food for infants, containing most of the nutrients in human milk.
Mathematics. A statement, especially an equation, of a fact, rule, principle, or other logical relation.
Formula Sports. A set of specifications, including engine displacement, fuel capacity, and weight, that determine a class of racing car.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin frmula, diminutive of frma, form.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
formu·laic (-lk) adj.
formu·lai·cal·ly adv.

formulaic

adj : characterized by or in accordance with some formula

 

I would say both. Lucas combines documentary style shots (intentional unintentional)(jarjar framing /\) with very much stylized shots, very intentional. (some shots have perfect symmetry for instance.)

 

Realistic filmakers don't want you to realize there is a camera there.

Formalistic filmakers constantly remind you of it.

What about the way Lucas chose to have Sy Snootles and the Yuzzum come right up to the camera and scream at it in RotJ:SE? Or have Boba Fett all but wave to the fans in ANH:SE? These examples constantly remind me that the camera is there and take me out of the movie.

 

Not to be a weiner, but I think the term you're looking for is formulaic.

No, Formalistic is the correct word I am positive of that.

 

Sorry I haven't expanded on this more...

In realism, the filmaker tries to emulate reality. Shots are all eye level, the lighting is natural, the the image is unmanipulated.

In formalism, the image is manipulated. Camera angles are not eye level, lighting is artificial, ect. ect. You are constantly reminded the camera is there and it takes you outside of the film.

Of course, these are absolutes and nothing in film is absolute...it's all a hybrid of some kind but it slants either one way or the other.

I feel Star Wars is more formalistic than realistic.

But I thought this would be an interesting discussion, since I just learned about all this in my film class.

 

In general, the Star Wars saga very much fits into the classic Hollywood style of old. In other words, realistic. Sticks to the classic formula of long shot introduction, mid-shot introducing characters, close-ups of characters, interactions shown in intercutting mid and close shots, close with long shot. Generally, the cuts and camera work are very smooth. The only things that really break this style are some of the techniques used in battle scenes and some of wipes, which sometimes are smooth but sometimes draw attention to themselves.

 

Watching ROTJ, I actually got the impression that it was more formalistic than realistic. There are A LOT of high angle shots, low angle shots, and even some bird eye view shots. The lighting is generally high-contrast or low-key.

 

It really is a combination of both. And if you ask me, it is one of the reasons why SW is so succesfull. Because of this combination GL creates a picture which whe can relate to in a realistic sense, but at the same time offers very fantastical framing etc, which gives it a distinct, unrealistic feel, which can gives us a sense of wonder, because you try to make these larger than life shots fit within the context of the other shots, which have a more down to earth feel to them.

 

i think it's obvious that the star wars saga is most likely fomalistic.

 

I saw a video lecture on this very topic recently that explained things fairly well at the (serious) undergraduate level. The professor of this class, Irving Singer. has written at length on the subject, most notably in his 1998 work Reality Transformed: Film as Meaning and Technique. The analogy he gives in this video excerpt is a good one. He says to imagine two violin players, performing the same piece of music. They both have the technical skills necessary for the piece--they are both masters of form--but one is able to convey feeling and meaning beyond that which is literally in the score, and thereby achieve realism. In other words, the basis of this whole discussion is somewhat misguided. It's not really a question of formalism or realism, but rather formalism and realism. To what degree does the artist use form-for-form's-sake, and to what degree does he use form to convey meaning?

A lot of the critics of the PT blatantly refuse to look beyond the form, or, rather, to see what the form is telling us. They see and recognize classical film elements, and think that's where Lucas has stopped. They would read Webster's definition of formalism in which there is "concern or excessive concern with form and technique rather than content in artistic creation"--and laughingly suggest the definition be appended, "see also Lucas, George". However, I strongly disagree, and think this is precisely where Lucas proves his movies are not formalistic. Far from choosing form over substance, the style informs and deepens the content. This is why multiple viewings are so rewarding. As you become more familiar with the works, you see he isn't just playing the notes a certain way because that's what's "supposed" to be done; he's doing it to bring us closer to the deeper realities he seeks to convey.

To be sure, his work is "symbolic", and to the degree that formalism means, as one alternate defiition in Webster's asserts, "a symbolic and stylized manner of production", I'd go along with calling STAR WARS "formalistic". But as the dominant view of "formalism" includes some belief that it stresses form over substance, I have to cry "foul". The form of STAR WARS is a storytelling technique, a way of getting to the substance (chiefly by allowing the audience to make up their own minds about what they saw)--not a smoke-and-mirrors act meant to distract the viewer from the apparent insubstance of the scripts. To my mind, it is considerably more "real" for taking this approach, rather than explicitly connecting the dots through dialogue, or trickin' us out through avant-garde camera work, because it forces you to "work" for the meaning--something we have to do in the everyday "scenes" that comprise our own lives.

 

Formalistic in the fact that the camera work can be shaky

During the battle on Geonosis, the camera was intentionally made to look shaky as if someone is filming on the battle ground. Except for certain action scenes, George Lucas is a realistic filmaker, especially in dramatic speaking scenes.

 

It was Lucas' original intent to be done in a documenatry style, but in the scope and grandeur of the movie it became more stylised. Which in veiwing George liked. (paraphrasing interview in Starlog #7)

 

Lucas also explained that he used a documentary style for American Grafitti.

As a director, he has been very consistent with the filmaking style of his stories he created.