I actuall have to defend realism in theatre because I think TV does it badly - so corrupted by layers of bureaucrats who want to leave examination or psychology.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The cinema that interests me departs from realism.
People don't really want reality. They want theater, and that's different.
I didn't want to get into acting just to play bystanders. I feel a bystander enough in my own life. And I do think that theatre can contribute to a certain analysis and commentary on our own world.
I believe realism is nothing but an analysis of reality. Film scripts have a synthetical constitution.
I've kind of come to the conclusion that what passes for realism in movies has nothing to do with reality and that my stuff is more realistic than that.
A lot of people think theatre must be much harder work than film, but anything histrionic or superfluous gets seen on camera so you have to work to distil it into a complete sense of what's true.
If you think there is anything in theater that objectively exists without your point of view attached, you are wrong.
I don't want to be one of those 'hour' guys who is all bitter about reality TV. It's as viable as any other genre - when it's great, it's great. However! Reality does a certain thing. It burns quickly, brightly, and then it burns out. You can't repeat them.
Realism hasn't fallen out of favor with most people, who are interested in people's lives rather than gymnastics of style or literary trends. It's a certain kind of academic who undervalues realism, largely because it is not amenable to endless exegesis.
I don't believe in the deplorable notion of realism in the cinema: you can over-reach it, and it becomes as false as convention.