Social Surrealism
A general question before I get on to the meat of today's postings.
I am not a fan of British social realism - Ken Loach, Mike Leigh, etc. I'm glad that these films are still around in the current play-it-safe atmosphere of the British film industry, and I've always suspected Loach would be a great chap to hang around with, but his films don't do anything for me personally.
By contrast, social realist cinema from the far East and the Middle East excites me greatly. I think these are some of the most exciting films being made right now. Why is that? What separates the work of Tsai Ming-Liang, Abbas Kiarostami and Samira Makhmalbaf from Loach, Leigh and their disciples? Is it just the fact that they document a social reality different from my own? If so, why am I so enthusiastic about depictions of Britain in films by Shane Meadows and Mike Hodges? What, in short, is it that makes general Eastern social realism more compelling and interesting than its Western equivalent?
I am not a fan of British social realism - Ken Loach, Mike Leigh, etc. I'm glad that these films are still around in the current play-it-safe atmosphere of the British film industry, and I've always suspected Loach would be a great chap to hang around with, but his films don't do anything for me personally.
By contrast, social realist cinema from the far East and the Middle East excites me greatly. I think these are some of the most exciting films being made right now. Why is that? What separates the work of Tsai Ming-Liang, Abbas Kiarostami and Samira Makhmalbaf from Loach, Leigh and their disciples? Is it just the fact that they document a social reality different from my own? If so, why am I so enthusiastic about depictions of Britain in films by Shane Meadows and Mike Hodges? What, in short, is it that makes general Eastern social realism more compelling and interesting than its Western equivalent?