In Part 2, we explored how audiences don’t like it when movies remind them that they are fake.

In Part 3, we examined how audiences react when either the acting style or the character depictions fall too far outside of the norm.

Now, in Part 4, we look at how non-realistic characters and situations can actually be enjoyable.

Certainly the most notorious and jaw-dropping John Waters film is Pink Flamingos.  The plot revolves around a group of people actively competing to be the “filthiest people alive.” One of my favorite moments in the film is when Babs (Divine) and her son Crackers break into the Marble’s house (where the Marbles are hiding a black market, lesbian, baby-making service in their basement) to filth-ify it.  Their method?  They lick everything in the house: the sofa, the knick-knacks on the coffee table, the banisters, everything.  Then, when Connie (Mink Stole) and her husband come home, they slip and fall down when they come into contact with any of their foes’ saliva: they slip off the couch, they fall down the stairs, their drinks slide off the coffee table.  Take a look:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Now is this realistic?  No.  Not in the least.  It’s absurd, but, more than that, it’s also incredibly pleasurable, in part, because it allows the audience to be co-conspirators – we all know that a normal person’s saliva would dry in just a few seconds. However, if you accept the idea that these people are filthy, so filthy that their saliva has achieved the consistency of swamp slime that multiplies and spreads its dirty slickness all on its own, then the actions take on a much larger meaning.  I’ve never encountered anything so sublime in a film like Revolutionary Road or Knocked Up.

I would argue that a lot of Godard falls into this category as well.  For one, many of his films are not about reality: they’re about movies or ideas.  There is a playful aspect to many of his characters and their interactions that is similar to the characters in John Water’s films.  Of course, in Godard the characters are more playful and childlike than crass.  In some films, it’s almost as if the characters are giant children as exemplified in the book insult scene from A Woman is a Woman:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Another filmmaker who delights in playful expressionism is Guy Maddin.  This, of course, is obvious as soon as you start watching his films.  Because he’s embraced the film tropes and styles of early expressionist cinema, there is no pretense that he is going to deliver characters or scenes that are in any way realistic.  Even in his biographical film My Winnipeg, Maddin’s sense of whimsy and play is in no way diminished by the use of archival video or photographs.  In fact, Maddin’s ability to blur the distinction between reality and fantasy only enhances the imagination, allowing the audience the freedom to reimagine their own lives and to ponder the relationship between their own mythical histories and their concepts of self and history.  This is particularly poignant in the Horse Story scene:

Click here to view the embedded video.

In the next, and final, installment, we will explore editing styles and our ability to be patient in film.

In Part 2, we explored how audiences don’t like it when movies remind them that they are fake.

Now, in Part 3, we examine how audiences react when either the acting style or the character depictions fall too far outside of the norm.

In the same way that movie goers reject visual artifice, such as unnatural lighting, awkward angles, or over-the-top mise-en-scene, they also reject both character behavior and styles of acting (and, hence, styles of directing) that fall outside of what is considered “normal.”

Before we go on, we want to be very clear that we are in no way defending bad acting or directing.  Our focus for this exploration is on what is considered normal and acceptable as dictated by most Hollywood films and Hollywood-style realism.

For an extreme example, take the actors in John Waters films. We love John Waters, and one thing is undeniable: when you watch his movies, you can see his actors acting. Some might call this bad acting, but we ask you to consider this: they were probably just doing exactly what they were told (and the consistency of how people behave across the Water’s oeuvre supports this).  They’re not trying to replicate regular ways of talking or behaving. They’re interacting in an entirely unique world that can’t be found outside of the theater (or the home entertainment center).  This makes people uncomfortable.

Yet, it’s not simply because the characters themselves are strange or out of the ordinary.  It has a lot to do with how the actors and actresses present themselves, how they act.

Think about movies that depict completely fictional communities (talking animals, aliens). Now think about how those characters interact with each other and the worlds they live in.  Do they talk to one another?  Yes.  Do they usually have a goal similar to a goal you might have? Yes.  Do they use social niceties? Yes.  Are there blow-ups and reconciliations that need to be resolved by the end of the movie?  Yes.  All interactions in these movies, no matter how “out there” the movie’s world seems, start and end in ways that would be recognizable in the real world.

In John Water’s movies, though, the characters do things that “normal” people don’t do.  And, as a result, the actors act in ways that “normal” actors don’t act.  They talk funny. They hump chickens. They talk in strange voices. They use weird gestures and crude language.  (Remember in Female Trouble when Dawn Davenport, angry because her parents didn’t get her cha-cha heels for Christmas, knocks a tree onto her mother and screeches, “Get off me you ugly witch!  I hate you!  I hate this house!  And I hate Christmas!”)  The actors aren’t trying to fool you into thinking that they’re your next door neighbor or your long lost love (though John Waters would like you to believe they are); they’re highlighting strangeness, uniqueness, and quirky (often over-stated) individuality.  To audiences used to sleek, relatable Hollywood characters, this strangeness is uncomfortable to watch and, subsequently, rejected.

But how could anyone want to reject this stunning, hideous family?

Click here to view the embedded video.

While John Waters has actors portray outrageous characters in outrageous ways, David Lynch comes at it from a different angle. He sometimes takes characters we know and love (the girl next door, for example) and has his actresses portay them in slightly off ways.  Thinks about Laura Dern in Blue Velvet.  Sheryl Lee in Twin Peaks.  Naomi Watts in the first half of Mullholland Drive.  They’re just as beautiful as other versions of the character.  Just as optimistic.  Just as perky and bubbly.  But all three characters are played just left of normal. There’s something slightly off, slightly awkward about these characters.  Something familiar is suddenly unfamiliar, and this scares people.  The audience becomes uncomfortable and some run for the door.

And when they’re running for the door, they’re really missing out.  We’ll explore that further in the next installment.  In the meantime, Naomi Watts in Mulholland Drive anyone?

Click here to view the embedded video.