CH: A Realistic Movie Become a, "Classic,"

Basically, have a major cultural classic, like Star Wars, be... realistic.

How realistic? Italian Neo-Realism levels. Make a film like Battle of Algiers as culturally popular as Star Wars, Star Trek, or Casablanca. I consider this an interesting idea because it would be rather... well, different than insanely popular movies.

Additionally, this is really hard, and I'm curious to whether this can actually be accomplished with a post-1900 POD.

Finally though, I'm very curious what impacts this would have on history, and cultural PODs like this I don't think are attempted enough.
 
Easy. Citizen Kane is the life of William Randolph Hearst.

How accurate is the movie though? Besides that, well, it doesn't quite get to Battle of Algiers levels, to say the least, however I'm going to wait for... more judgement from others before passing final judgement of my own.;):p
 

BlondieBC

Banned
How accurate is the movie though? Besides that, well, it doesn't quite get to Battle of Algiers levels, to say the least, however I'm going to wait for... more judgement from others before passing final judgement of my own.;):p

It is fairly accurate, but as with all movies takes liberties to keep the movie flowing. If you want a battle movie, go with Tora, Tora, Tora. It is largely accurate and was popular. Patton largely follows the letters compiled by his wife, so it is accurate based on that perspective. It won major awards. But again, it simplifies details to make the story fit into time allowed. For example, it was TR jr. in command of the battle in North Africa at least when the battle was being decided. Patton guess the wrong valley for the attack and was on his way during the crucial time frame. To accurately make a movie about a single major battle would run into 10's of hours. To do a biography would take weeks. And then back to the movie Patton, he was in overall command and did set the strategy. How much does it really add to the story to show him traveling in a Jeep cut into battle scenes. Then we have to explain who TR Jr. is, and why the XO of a division is commanding the key portions of a corp size engagement. And then we might have to deal with TR losing the XO job, probably at Patton's hand. Not sure which general relieved him of the XO job. Then we have to get into excessive drinking and looting by the division. And does this really add to the story? If you have too many details, you will just lose people in the details and they will miss the main point of the movie.

You seem to be asking for a documentary, and Band of Brothers is the closest one I can think of. And I am pretty sure it takes some shortcuts with the story, at least in omitting details. For example, the show has Easy Company as the best company in the 101 when in fact its number of awards for valor was fairly typical for what happened to the division. And it skips the more important actions of the Battle of Bastone, which was done by other companies. And the book it is based on is done by someone we know made up big sections of his books and did plagurism, so likely things in the BoB miniseries simply never happened.
 
Realism is difficult for war movies in the past because of censorship.

The Dam Busters is a pretty realistic movie only restricted by the special effects of the time. AFAIK there were no factual inaccuracies apart from the fact that they omitted that many of the casualties caused by the 'dam busting' were slave labourers.

That film is regarded by most as a classic and did good box office.

Realistic Sci Fi is difficult to make without it being boring. Kubrick got away with a lot of realism in 2001 but even then many people find the movie unwatchable today because it's too slow paced with little dialogue.

Realism is usually a tool used by film makers to make something look bad or ordinary. Good for the intelligentsia but not good for the average person wanting to see a movie after work.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
The problem with this is that, well, even the most realistic movies we watch so we can have escapism.
 
It is fairly accurate, but as with all movies takes liberties to keep the movie flowing. If you want a battle movie, go with Tora, Tora, Tora. It is largely accurate and was popular. Patton largely follows the letters compiled by his wife, so it is accurate based on that perspective. It won major awards. But again, it simplifies details to make the story fit into time allowed. For example, it was TR jr. in command of the battle in North Africa at least when the battle was being decided. Patton guess the wrong valley for the attack and was on his way during the crucial time frame. To accurately make a movie about a single major battle would run into 10's of hours. To do a biography would take weeks. And then back to the movie Patton, he was in overall command and did set the strategy. How much does it really add to the story to show him traveling in a Jeep cut into battle scenes. Then we have to explain who TR Jr. is, and why the XO of a division is commanding the key portions of a corp size engagement. And then we might have to deal with TR losing the XO job, probably at Patton's hand. Not sure which general relieved him of the XO job. Then we have to get into excessive drinking and looting by the division. And does this really add to the story? If you have too many details, you will just lose people in the details and they will miss the main point of the movie.

You seem to be asking for a documentary, and Band of Brothers is the closest one I can think of. And I am pretty sure it takes some shortcuts with the story, at least in omitting details. For example, the show has Easy Company as the best company in the 101 when in fact its number of awards for valor was fairly typical for what happened to the division. And it skips the more important actions of the Battle of Bastone, which was done by other companies. And the book it is based on is done by someone we know made up big sections of his books and did plagurism, so likely things in the BoB miniseries simply never happened.

The standard I'm using is Battle for Algiers. And using this standard, some of those do live up, others, perhaps, not as much.

But additionally, I think I realize I'm asking for something to become popular partially BECAUSE its realistic, which wasn't the case for Citizen Kane.

Finally, I guess I'm wanting that realism to have more of an impact, by causing films in general, i.e. those which try to reach mass audiences, to be more realistic over all.
 
Crime and film noir genre flicks are popular mainly because of their willingness to embrace the anti-hero aspects of their subjects. Some examples are the Martin Scorsese films of Casino, Goodfellas, and The Godfather. In those films, the brutal nature of crime and its consequences are spelled out along with its implications.... If you are speaking of war, this maybe the model to look towards....

The closest in the war genre would be the Vietnam War flicks like Hamberger Hill, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, wherein the operational logic of missions was completely foreign to the troops on the ground. The problem is that in those films, Americans consumers hate being protrayed in a light that is less than flattering....
 
Heh, this thread is pretty hilarious. I don't want to make fun of anyone but the thread's a great example of how invisible filmic techniques can be to an audience- we often don't even realize how the filmmakers are manipulating us by altering reality.

The closest "film" someone's mentioned to fulfilling the OP's requirements is probably Band of Brothers and it is miles away from realism. One main reason you know it's not realism: time skips around (they're called flashbacks.) The film (or image) itself has been enhanced to mute the green-blue end of the spectrum and make the red-orange-yellows pop (more vivid explosions and blood.) It's a direct manipulation of reality.

You could argue that all film is a direct manipulation of reality, but there is a body of film called Realism that obeys certain strictures.

Getting one to be the most popular? I'll agree with everyone else, so hard to do!

A communist China-dominated world with a POD in the late 1970s might do it. They took a turn to the very realistic.

Some might say the Nazis winning would force everyone to watch Riefenstahl's victory parade, which is arguably documentary.

The Italians have come up but damned if I can think of a POD to make their style dominant. They went for Realism specifically because they were on the mat. I suspect the same is true with many countries. Realism is cheaper.

One more guess: massive religious awakening burns through the Christian world and somebody other than Mel Gibson films The Passion.

But otherwise, some kind of top-down highly oppressive society might be able to force Realism on people. I can't see people choosing it over spectacle with a post-1900 POD, free will being what it is.
 
Yeah, I was thinking of Italian Neo-Realism, but also, that's... interesting.

Perhaps arthouse cinema becomes insanely popular somehow?
 
Top