Raise your hand if this sounds familiar - a filmmaker gives an interview discussing his upcoming big budget adaptation or reboot. When asked to describe what the film will be like he explains…
"We're taking a grounded, more realistic approach".
There seems to be two constants in Hollywood - found footage and "realistic" films. Okay, there are a lot more constants than that but these two are up there. It's as if the "realistic" approach has become the go-to answer for today's filmmakers. Here's a fairly recent excerpt.
"I've always been interested in Godzilla and the ideas around him. I really wanted to see another Godzilla film and jumped at the opportunity. My main idea was to imagine 'If this really happened, what would it be like?' I want to take a grounded, realistic approach to a Godzilla film." Garth Edwards - director, Godzilla (2014)
Here's another.
"For me, it was such a unique twist to do a grounded realistic version of the story, and, as Dwayne said, I think it’s very difficult because it’s a story that everybody knows, everyone is familiar with it, so how do we make it modern and contemporary and special?" Brett Ratner - director, Hercules (2014)
And let's not forget…
“Christopher Nolan and I have been trying to bring the naturalism of the Batman trilogy. Our approach has always been naturalist, realistic; we always try to imagine these stories as if they could happen in the same world in which we live." David S. Goyer - writer, Man of Steel (2013)
And there are more out there, like these, with producers, directors and writers all seemingly reading from the same script. But here's the kicker - it's all lip service. This "realism" thing is just a label. More on that later. First, let's go back to where, arguably, this craze began.
In 2005 directer/co-writer Christopher Nolan was tasked with resurrecting Warner Bros.' Batman franchise. And resurrect it he did. Nolan and co-writer David S. Goyer did away with the camp, Bat-credit card and florescent pallet Joel Schumacher left in his wake. Batman Begins gave the Caped Crusader his dignity back.
But it was The Dark Knight that shocked all of Hollywood, grossing, a then record, $158M opening weekend, on its way to becoming the first comic book movie ever to gross $1 billion worldwide.
Suddenly, studios, filmmakers and fans took notice of Nolan's approach to the material. He had expressed a desire to "ground" his Batman and Gotham in "a reality". One could argue Nolan made the "grounded, realistic" approach popular.
Just as the NFL is said to be a copycat league, the same could be said for Hollywood. Only it's not a league. And there's no championship trophy at the end of the year. But it's absolutely a copycat industry. If a film or formula strikes gold other studios are quick to try and get in on the action.
"Nolan did the Dark Knight this way and that made over a billion. Well, we're gonna do it that way, too!"
Cut to today and not only are the filmmakers boasting over "realism" in their films but some fans are, as well. Just look at the Marvel vs DC debates on message boards. Ever hear this…
"Marvel does action comedies/kids films but DC movies are more realistic".
So, a number of people have bought into this phenomenon. But, as I mentioned, it's just lip service. Filmmakers tag their films with the "grounded, realistic" label so audiences will take them seriously. The film doesn't have to actually meet the criteria, the director can just mention it in an interview and BOOM! their film is considered "realistic".
Which begs the question…
WHAT MAKES A FILM REALISTIC?
The answer to that is character.
If a writer creates rich, compelling characters with depth and motivations, their actions will drive the course of the story. The choices they make in response to these actions, (for better or worse), determine "realism". Audiences can relate because "that's what they would do" or they understand why these choices are made.
But that's not what these filmmakers or most fans mean when they bring up "realism". Listen to what most of them are saying and you get the impression they're talking about something else entirely. At which point, I say...
"My main idea was to imagine 'If this really happened, what would it be like?"
This seems to be the main belief behind making a film feel "real". The thing is, that's what Hollywood is built on. Movies are multimillion dollar "what if this happened" stories. It's been so for decades. This isn't some new, innovative idea.
War of the Worlds and Invasion of the Body Snatchers showed us different takes on the "what if an alien invasion really happened" idea back in 1953 and 1956 respectfully.
I guess you could include the "real world setting" idea in this, too. Because, unless we're being whisked away to Middle Earth, Tatooine or Sin City, the story taking place in the real world is a given.
The filmmakers quoted above and any others doing the same song and dance aren't offering anything new. Nothing Hollywood hasn't already been doing.
THEY SAY REALISTIC BUT THEY MEAN…
Brace yourself, it's Marvel vs Warner Bros. time. Not so much, one is greater than the other. This is about the "DC films are more realistic" argument. My assumption is the ones saying this are talking about the Dark Knight trilogy and Man of Steel. That being the case, WB's DC films aren't more realistic than Marvel's, they're more serious.
A common criticism with Marvel releases is the humor. "Cracking jokes every five minutes". Or something like that. The MCU is primarily family films. So, in actuality, it all comes down to an issue of tone. People say "grounded, more realistic" but, aware of it or not, they're talking about a more serious tone.
There's really only one film in WB's DCCU, Man of Steel, with a follow up in 2016. Snyder and Goyer call there's a modernized, "realistic take" on the character. MoS isn't a realistic take on the character, it's a pessimistic take. And pessimism is not more realistic than optimism. Neither is a serious tone more than a lighter one.
Batman Begins is no more realistic than Iron Man. Speaking of which:
We have Iron Man, about a billionaire weapons designer who creates a suit of armor to defeat terrorists and a weapons manufacturer. The film takes place in real-life locations (Malibu, Afghanistan) and features heavy US military involvement. While the armors are science fiction, they aren't completely out of the realm of possibility. The film explores themes such as terrorism, weapons manufacturing, big business, and propaganda.
In Batman Begins we’re introduced to the fictional Gotham City. A city literally so bad, The League of Shadows, a brotherhood of assassins responsible for the fall of major societies in history, including Rome, become obsessed with destroying it. Here, we’re given the idea that a city is so corrupt and evil it's beyond saving. A compelling idea but fairly fictitious in today’s society of what we perceive to be a city in the United States. The idea of an Illuminati-esque organization in the League isn't unbelievable but is highly unlikely. Technology wise, Begins can considered sci-fi as well, just not as fantastic as Iron Man.
Food for thought.
IN CLOSING
I thought the best way to close would be with the words of
Christopher Nolan himself since many believe he pioneered the "realistic movie" movement. But mostly because, while so many are trying to emulate his approach, they're completely missing what he set out to do. He said this w
hile speaking at the Film Society of Lincoln Center in New York in 2012…
“You try and get the audience to invest in cinematic reality,” he said about his Dark Knight trilogy. “When I talk about reality in these films, it’s often misconstrued as a direct reality, but it’s really about a cinematic reality.”
He went on to say…
"The term 'realism' is often confusing and used sort of arbitrarily. I suppose 'relatable' is the word I would use. I wanted a world that was realistically portrayed, in that even though outlandish events may be taking place, and this extraordinary figure may be walking around these streets, the streets would have the same weight and validity of the streets in any other action movie. So they’d be relatable in that way."
How do you feel about the "grounded, realistic approach" phenomenon? Let's hear your thoughts below and, as always, thanks for reading.