KDude
New member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2010
- Messages
- 8,243
Well, I don't need logical consistency in horror. For me, horror is about aesthetics and atmosphere and fun over everything else. Horror is its own "bubble" as you said.
I also don't need factual accuracy if a movie is extremely cool in cinematography and soundtrack, like Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette. So I tend to sacrifice fact and realism if I can get aesthetic rewards in return, so to speak.
However, if a show or movie is supposed to be 'realistic' but the characters do really unbelievable things, then I get annoyed. I'm not even explaining this well, but it's something that has happened to me repeatedly, the thought of "oh yeah right" and totally losing interest.
I haven't seen Marie Antoinette.. I'll check it out.
I like period pieces or realism too, but I can't say I have much preference for it.
And it isn't aesthetics that win me over on things, to be honest. It's usually some fundamental premise or symbolism.. or just good storywriting (which I guess can be associated with aesthetics). This is definitely one thing where I feel like less of an SP. I never like art for it's own sake. Some things may be highly stylized, but I can still be somewhat disappointed. Since you mentioned Coppola, I thought Lost in Translation was a lot of style over substance. The whole film is beautiful, but it feels like it's meandering.. inconclusive. I'm not sure what the point is. Which is more like real life, I guess. People don't live out "stories", but just experiences. It's just not my thing exactly. The same need can be translated into horror, where I prefer a clever, underlying plot or some symbolism before I can enjoy the individual scenes, gags, and shocking elements. Some horror films pull off both though.. Dawn of the Dead (both versions) is both clever and done well, aesthetically speaking. Dracula isn't scary, but it's badass on multiple levels too.