chris kilby
Posts: 1189
Joined: 31/3/2010
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cerebusboy 'Realism', even assuming it is necessarily contrary to genre fiction, is a recent innovation, a literary cul-de-sac. To posit it as the only mechanism for serious themes is demonstrable nonsense. Precisely my argument against Jimmy McGovern's criticism of the likes of Doctor Who. Actually, it's Clive Barker's argument: if you lazily dismiss all non-realistic, non-naturalistic fiction, you're invalidating a lot of the literary canon - Shakespeare, Dickens, all the ancient myths and legends which have inspired so much art, literature and movies in their own right, not least The Bible. He's also insulting a lot of his TV drama predecessors. Notably the defiantly non-naturalistic Dennis Potter. Maybe McGovern's never seen Pennies From Heaven or The Singing Detective. Or what I still consider THE Greatest TV Drama of All Time, Troy Kennedy Martin's Edge of Darkness, which beneath the contemporary nuclear thriller surface has some very funny, mystical ideas indeed. I admire McGovern's work as well (even if it can be annoyingly didactic and on-the-nose), but he's talking out his realistic arse when he says silly things like that. What is "realism," anyway? All drama is life with the boring bits left out. Soap operas, on the other hand, are life with extra boring bits added. In fact, the more drama aspires to "realism" the more it exposes how unreal it is. And I'm not just talking about bat-themed masked vigilantes - how come no-one in Eastenders watches TV, talks about the news, commutes to work or owns a washing machine...?
< Message edited by chris kilby -- 25/8/2012 2:11:08 PM >
|