1. Conceptualized Ideas of Realism in Action
by Alex Mowbray
How have ideas of realism been conceptualized and put into practice by
filmmakers? To find the answer, I’m going to take a step back to find out
what could have ‘sparked off’ that question. Jean Renoir and Karel Reisz are
two directors who have grasped the concept of realism and portrayed it in
their movies in their own way. Who of which I plan to focus on and
discuss how they may have done it. In order to uncover a conclusion, I’m
going to break down the question into two others. Firstly, What is realism?
Secondly, What are each directors view on realism?
The films I aim to investigate on these filmmakers methods are firstly, Jean
Renoir’s, ‘Rules of The Game’ (1939) and Karel Reisz’s, ‘Saturday Night,
Sunday Morning’ (1960). To attempt to pin-point how realism has been
conceptualized.
‘The quarrel over realism in art stems from a misunderstanding, from a
confusion between the aesthetic and the psychological’ (Andre Bazin, 1967).
From what the audience knows to be real, compared to what the audience
perceives to be real on screen, are perhaps what both directors methods
are based on when they created their movies? I’ve always known realism
to be the idea of taking something for what it is. What we know is true
and dealing with the reality of it in whatever way we choose. Emphasizing
Bazin’s point; when it comes to possible realities, I immediately deem it as
plausible, as I imagine a lot of audience members would have done at the
time. Filmmakers such as Renoir and Reisz seem to portray realism;
through different methods, grasping the concept of realism through
aesthetic value and, or psychological viewing. But knowing not to confuse
them like Bazin had mentioned. Ways of getting these methods to work
could be either, getting the audience to relate to a situation or setting, but
in most cases, narratives, maintaining a consistency of mise-en-scene, as
well as creating awareness of the real world.
The directors must have had their own understanding of realism compared
to mine. So what was their understanding of realism, and how did they
show it? “We know that in the history of all arts, the arrival of perfect
realism coincided with perfect decadence”. Jean Renoir believed that with
simple, primitive attempts at art, it became beautiful; like the Beauex
tapestry, it was simply made, with cheap materials, it was a creative work
of art, it required no technology or intelligence, and is one of the most
beautiful works of art ever created. So when something is artificially
created with intelligence and technology, rather than viewing the world for
what it is, he believes it pushes the art towards ugliness and creates
boredom. ‘Imitating nature can only lead to death of an art form’. Hence
why in his film, ‘Rules of The Game’. Trying too hard at something that
may already be beautiful and perfect, may be destroyed with the wrong
mind set, which may ruin the whole thing.

2. He presents how life and death are the alpha and omega to reality in the
scene of the hunt. Rabbits and pheasants are hunted and killed, whilst the
marksmen remain callous to the life they reap. It may not be ‘beautiful’,
but Renoir filmed life as it was, he was truthful and real with each animal
being shot which may have scared audiences and possibly created conflict
on showing real death on screen. But it made them aware that things like
this happened. Just like Rossellini and ‘Rome, Open City’ (1945), death was
shown in multiple scenes that was viewed by audiences, (even though the
deaths of actors were not real) which made them scared, yet aware it was
going on. The scene at the end where the young man was getting tortured
by the Gestapo, and eventually died. Along with the priest being shot in
the back at an execution post before the end credits. Even Italian neo-
realism followed through with the truth and awareness which made itself
and French realism very similar.
But compared to British social realism, “Saturday Night, Sunday Morning”
Was considered to be one of Britains ‘New Wave’ films, where classical
Hollywood realism bends the rules in some scenes. Audiences are usually
‘encouraged to identify or ally themselves with one central protagonist
throughout the course of the narrative’. (Samantha Lay, 2002 page 75) But
an example of the movie breaking this tradition would be when; the
camera is laying an establishing shot of the city. Although it breaks the
rules of what the audience expects; a story of a protagonist in a working
class community, we are still reminded through ideas of realism that the
area is London, due to the cobbled streets, British buses, British actors
drinking tea (not all mentioned in the shot, however the continuity of the
mise-en-scene maintains the realism of the movie). Yet tension between
realism and poetry and art is evident. Arthur is much like the city, which
at various moments he is part of, then suddenly he is consumed by it.
Reisz creates this realism of whoever you are, if you live in the cty, it can
take control and contain you.
There is no trickery of juxtaposing (using set, or completely different
location for certain scenery), so the perception of realism so far is true to
Reisz’s method. Furthermore, referring back to Bazin’s psychological
understanding of Reisz’s method, Arthur (Albert Finney) narrates a
monologue at the beginning of the film, that fits the psychological aspect of
realism by relating to how the workers at the time, might have felt
working in the factory, almost as if they had a voice to tell them what
they want to hear; the truth. If workers at the time could relate to Arthur,
that means that Reisz had conceptualized both visual and psychological
ideas of realism through his movie.
Alex Mowbray

3. Renoirs movie maintained true on its story with realisim towards life and
death, along with other life relatable situations, but considering realism
being ‘practiced’ through film according to the mise-en-scene, I question its
authenticity to its nationality. Could these locations really be shot on
location in their own country, or could it just be a massive juxtaposition to
save cost on the budget? Did audiences need national landmarks to prove
the authenticity of the location? Or did audiences just believe it was
French/ Italian/ British, purely from the director being that nationality?
Renoirs film had French actors/ actresses, but any further inspection of
mise-en-scene in my eyes can easily be passed off as any other nationality,
such as location itself, clothing, and anything else that’s not known to be
French.
From the visual practice of realism conceptualized in each film , it is clear
to see, Renoir does not share the same method of realism which Reisz
practiced with in his film. Jean Renoir does not express nationality as
much as Reisz did in his. In retrospect, I can understand why; Renoirs
main purpose was to create something beautiful and keep things true and
as they were. To ensure the Tapestry is not ruined. Like he said, in
laymen’s terms, you think too much about something, you will ruin it.
Hence why expressing realism through minor details of mise-en-scene, was
not a main priority of his. He takes life and captures the raw realism with
actors who may individually express the realism for themselves. Renoir just
took the core and made in into his own work of art, his own Bayeux
tapestry . Whereas Reisz is the opposite; he maintains mise-en-scene of
nationality to keep authenticity of the nation to a fine detail, so that the
audience might feel any situation in the film could happen to them easier,
if they recognize street corners or café’s etc.
At the same time, Karel Reisz appeals to the audience with the
psychological method of realism as well. He does this right from the start
of the movie with Arthurs monologue of what its like to work in a factory.
The narration goes over what every employee was probably thinking at the
time when they did slave labor, “No use working every minute god sends, I
could get through in half the time if I went like a bull, but they’d only slash
my wages. So they can get stuffed.” It seemed every worker wanted to get
out of there quick, but at the ironic expense of freedom and a good job
done quickly, their pay would decrease. His voice matched the realism of
this situation simply from a fictional characters thoughts, but were seen
and heard as more of a voice of reason and truth. Reisz covered the real
life of workers in factories along with the social classes at the time, for
example, depending on your wage, depended on your form of transport.
Since there were a lot of factory workers at the time, you would hardly
ever see any. You mostly saw cyclists or pedestrians. Reisz portrayed this
at the beginning of the opening credits so the audience could get an idea
of social standing once the scene followed after Arthurs monologue. This
gave the audience both areas of realism.
Renoirs conceptualized idea on the psychological side of realism also
appealed to the audience. His movie may not have been as relatable to the
working class community, however, his movie was made around twenty

4. years earlier, so social standings were slightly different back then. He
expressed the truth about life in general, to relate to his audience through
the psychological use of realism, and relate to his audience that way.
Hunting was considered a sport, so he filmed it, as that’s what some
communities did back then, but he still incorporated life and death in the
situation to maintain a focus on realism and awareness.
So, how have ideas of realism been conceptualized and put into practice by
filmmakers such as Jean Renoir and Karel Reisz? Going on the basis of
Andre Bazin’s theory, Renoir and Reisz have both conceptualized ideas of
realism in their films through either one of two methods; psychological and
aesthetic expression of realism. Both directors have covered both areas,
however I’ve found that in comparison with each other, Reisz presents the
concept of realism through visual use of mise-en-scene, in order to create a
setting and to maintain the reality of whatever the idea of realism is about,
in this case, british social realism. He also covers the psychological method
of appealing to his audience, with the reality of exactly what they went
through, along with other possible common domestic issues and realities,
like love triangles, from which the film is based around.
Renoir definitely covers the psychological side of the realism concept.
Keeping things simple and real for the audience to enjoy, whilst including
harsh truths about life, like Reisz; domestic troubled realities are included
also. He maintained the pleasant rhythm of alpha and omega, along with
beausty and simple effectiveness.
I’ve come to decide that from several quotes and studying their films;
Renoir and Reisz are like both sides of the brain. Renoir wanted his movie
to be pleasant, simple, classical with no overthinking involved. Then there’s
Reisz with the complete opposite, going against Renoirs idea of no
technological or overthought value, Reisz manages to conceptualize,
psychological and visual ideas of realism throughout his film, with the
minor details of mise-en-scene and audience appeal. which possibly
overwrites Renoirs theory to simpleness. However like I said, there was
around twenty years difference for times to change. Renoir may not have
liked technicalities, but just like Eisensteins method on montage. People
began to adapt and montage became revolutionary and more popular to
use.
Much like these filmmakers, when it comes to other directors and films,
Renoir and Reisz are not the only ones to conceptualize ideas of realism
through the psychological and visual practice of their films. Just like
Rossellini’s ‘Rome, Open City’, being similar to Renoirs French realism
theory. Could other filmmakers possess entirely different methods? If so,
what could they be?
Alex Mowbray

5. Bibliography
 Bazin, Andre (1967) ‘The Ontology of the Photographic Image’, What
is cinema? Volume 1, Berkeley: University of California Press, page
12.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKCrOLcDbjE
 Higson, Andrew (1986) ‘Britains Outstanding Contribution to the
Film’: The Documentary –Realist Tradition, All Our Yesterdays: 90
Years of British Cinema, London: BFI, page 81
 Lay, Samantha (2002) ‘1950s and 1960s: Social Problems and
Kitchen Sinks’, British Social Realism: From Documentary to Brit Grit,
London: Wallflower, page 74, 75
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69woK9y8oTQ
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7dXCRM6EOM
Alex Mowbray