Let’s go to the terminal end of the continuum.
“‘Sleep’ is a 1963
American film by Andy Warhol consisting of long take footage of John Giorno,
his close friend at the time, sleeping for five hours and 20 minutes.”
Now that’s real.
Deliberately created as an “anti-film” eschewing all visual
and narrative contrivance, Sleep was
understandably not popular. Of the nine
people who attended the premiere, two of them left during the first hour.
Really? They stayed for
close to an hour!?
What about the other seven?
Imaginably, a number of them fell
asleep. There were probably also close
friends and family members invited, and, you know, you are kind of obligated to
stick it out because they got in there for free. Perhaps one
audience member needed a ride home and Warhol was the only one with a car.
I wonder if even he
stayed up to watch the whole movie?
A.W.: “It gets better with every viewing.”
Not venturing into “Art Criticism” – where, if there were an
available “Artist’s Hat”, as in, “Putting on my ‘Artist’s Hat’”, there’d be a
poster with my picture on it saying, “Not him.”
– Andy Warhol, who famously painted a literal replica of a Campbell’s Soup can, was shooting for absolute “real” – his inusual
movie, a (snoozing) clamoring statement against the pitfalling pretentiousness
of cinematic “contrivance.”
I totally “get” Warhol’s intention. (Even if I’m wrong. Leaving me, “I totally ‘get’ my own interpretation of Warhol’s intention. And why wouldn’t
I?)
Hearkening back to yesterday’s post, during my early
apprenticeship in sitcom writing, the inescapable mantra was “real situations”,
“real jokes” and “real characters.” (The
conflicting exception being those interminable rewrite nights, when the
standards of inclusion were, mercifully, relaxed. The definitive line about that being, a joke
is pitched, the show runner rejects it, explaining, “Too broad” or “Too ‘out of
character’”, at which point Rewrite Man extraordinaire Bob Ellison points
remindingly to his watch and says, “Two-thirty.”)
We – as an unbendable rule until we bent it – were instructed to “Write real.”
The thing is, it was never sufficiently clarified,
“How real?”
And being a congenital “Good Boy”, I inferred, without
confirmation,
“Totally real.”
“Totally real” made literal sense to me. I mean, if you are driving west to Los
Angeles, do you suddenly hit the brakes at Pomona? (Not quite
Los Angeles, but close.) No. You go all the way to L.A.
(Personal Example:
In one of my series, Family Man,
hewing assiduously to “Keeping It Real”, the premise of every episode story was
an experience that had happened to me.)
The logical conclusion, however, if “One hundred percent real”
is your unalterable standard,
is a sleeping man in a movie
for five-and-a-half hours. (Including
the previews, which may include a heart-stopping “Teaser” from Empire – eight hours, looking at the
Empire State Building. By the way, Family Man lasted only seven
episodes. Imaginably, in large part, for
a similar reason. The recipe was overly
seasoned with “Verisimilitude.”)
Yesterday, I criticized sitcoms in which capable actors
played Senior Citizens as buffoons. (I
cannot get enough of that word.
“Buffoon.” “What see ye, matey?” “Buffoon at ‘Twelve O’clock’, Cap’n.” I see a Macy’s Day Parade float, looming ominously on the horizon.)
How would I want
them to portray old people on television?
As they actually are? Sorry. As we actually are?
“Television viewers love
seeing themselves on the screen.”
Not us. At least not totally accurately. A half-hour program of what the recently
departed (at 98) genius comedy writer Bob Schiller painfully described as,
“Deteriorating on schedule”? I don’t
need targeted programming. Just give me
something persuasively credible. And,
barring soap opera components, you have got my televisual business.
You cannot do “all-out” real. In anything. A man sleeping for five hours? Throw in some sporadic “Restless Leg
Syndrome.” Dub in “Aberrant Snoring.”
Something to temper the monotony. Not ”He sits bolt upright in bed and
sings, ‘I Love A Parade.’” But something.
Do not stick me with unadulterated “real.” We are not there for “Surveillance Videos.”
We are looking to be entertained.
You know, at least one
reason – though I am not sure it’s the most salient reason – for this blog’s,
how shall I put this, “under the radar” popularity, is that, unlike blogs people
visit in voluminous numbers because they offer “Valuable Tips For A Flaky Pie Crust”, and other helpful “How-To” advisories, I
am substantially a “Generalist”, and, more to the point, often, instead of
“Print this and tape it to your refrigerator” answers, I leave the reader with open, imponderable questions.
Like this one.
In art – by which I mean all
forms of creative communication –
Where, specifically, is “The Line”?
How real is too
real?
And how real is not real enough?
Or is the actual answer
to that question the one my then-young stepdaughter Rachel once gave me when I
berated a comedy she was watching as “Not real.”
“So what if it’s
not real?” she responded. “It’s funny!”
I really hated that answer.
But I have remembered it for thirty-five years.
1 comment:
The BUFFOON in the WH has lessened the impact of the word. Like the NFL, BUFFOON has been over-saturated.
Post a Comment