Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Concrete examples of Naturalistic Art

Rate this topic


softwareNerd

Recommended Posts

In "The Romantic Manifesto", Ayn Rand uses the terms "Naturalistic" and "Romantic" to describe works of art. I suppose some art could be mixed as well. I want to make the concept of "naturalism" more concrete for myself.

To that end, I am looking for examples of naturalistic movies, plays or books. Ideally, the examples would be fairly well-known and would not be repetitions of some that Rand herself mentioned.

Ideally, the examples would be well-executed: in other words I'm not so interested in examples of sloppy art. I'd like to know about examples of well-executed naturalistic art. I think that will make it easier to focus on the single attribute of how naturalistic it is.

For any example, I'd also appreciate a brief explanation of why it was naturalistic.

Ideally, I'd like any discussion about examples to focus on whether not the term naturalism applies, not to whether the art is good or bad, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sinclair Lewis wrote a book that is very mixed, in terms of Romanticism and Naturalism, called It Can't Happen Here. Naturalistic elements include the mentioning of many political figures and journalists of Lewis's day (who are relatively obscure now) and the fact that his characters are not essentialized at all, and seem like cardboard cut-outs.

Romantic elements include the condemnation of fascism throughout the book and the free will of the protagonist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The movie "Four Weddings and a Funeral" is an example of good naturalistic art. It's naturalistic because the action is driven by accidental circumstances, not the free will of the characters. Basically, life "just happens" to the characters.

Mark Peters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would actually say that "cardboard" characters describes romantic fiction better than naturalistic. For instance, look at characters like John Galt or Howard Roark. The fact that they are written as to emphasize one element alone makes them "cardboardish" after a fashion as they are so transparent and uncomplicated.

Contrast this with the characters in many naturalistic works, where the characters, having no need of being representative or essentialized, can have lots of internal conflict, mixed motives, personality quirks, etc. This is one reason why Ayn Rand's villains are in many ways more interesting than her heroes,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would actually say that "cardboard" characters describes romantic fiction better than naturalistic. For instance, look at characters like John Galt or Howard Roark. The fact that they are written as to emphasize one element alone makes them "cardboardish" after a fashion as they are so transparent and uncomplicated.

Contrast this with the characters in many naturalistic works, where the characters, having no need of being representative or essentialized, can have lots of internal conflict, mixed motives, personality quirks, etc. This is one reason why Ayn Rand's villains are in many ways more interesting than her heroes,

Wow! I totally disagree. First of all, a lot of Ayn Rand's characters have internal conflict, such as Gail Wynand, Robert Stadler, and even Dagny Taggart (though she does not in the moral sense). Which naturalistic books have you read where the characters have internal conflict or mixed motives or any but the most superficial of motives at all? In addition, many many Ayn Rand characters have personality quirks; these quirks, are (unlike in naturalistic novels) integrated with the person's entire character.

I also disagree that romantic heroes are "transparent and uncomplicated." Have you read The Man Who Laughs or Crime and Punishment? I don't think that by any stretch one could call the characters in those novels "transparent and uncomplicated." Likewise, I disagree with that characterization applied to Ayn Rand's heroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, all, for the replies.

Like, "LaszloWalrus", I too immediately thought of "Crime and Punishment" as an example where the reader is led into the mind of a conflicted protagonist. One finds the same thing is Dostoevsky's "Gambler". My question would be this, though: Why are these Dostoevsky books not examples of naturalism? (It has been many years since I read those two.) Aren't the protagonists "driven" by some seemingly insurmountable "fatal flaw" toward actions that they seem unable to prevent?

Regarding the book "It Can't happen Here" (I have not read it), I understand the free-will of the protagonist being a Romantic element. However, why would "the condemnation of fascism" be a romantic element?

Finally, is there any example of recent, popular movie that has strong naturalistic elements? For instance, here is a list of top-10 box-office hits from 2005. Does any of these movies have a strong naturalistic element?

1 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

2 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

3 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

4 War of the Worlds

5 King Kong

6 Wedding Crashers

7 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

8 Batman Begins

9 Madagascar

10 Mr. & Mrs. Smith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, all, for the replies.

Like, "LaszloWalrus", I too immediately thought of "Crime and Punishment" as an example where the

1 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

2 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

3 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

4 War of the Worlds

5 King Kong

6 Wedding Crashers

7 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

8 Batman Begins

9 Madagascar

10 Mr. & Mrs. Smith

I've only seen 1,2,5, and 8 and did not find them to be very naturalistic. Of course those all have a good deal of fantasy inherent in them.

The movie that always comes to mind for me as an example of naturalism is 'Forest Gump'. The protagonist(I hesitate to call him hero) achieves many great things through no fault of his own. The movie, while funny and well done, seems to imply that your choices have no bearing on your accomplishments. That deterministic element is what I essentialize naturalism as.

With this elimination of cause and effect, your decisions are disconnected from the consequences. Leaves no oppurtunity for heroism since heroes must face adversity and succeed due to their virtue. Without freewill virtue doesnt exist. Without virtue and it's rewards being inherent in a film I have difficulty thinking that the art is a presentation of the world as it 'could and ought to be'. I can't relate to Gump because I know how hard you have to fight for achievement. That 'luck' is the result of effort. That in reality when he ran back into the forrest 12 times to rescue friends, he would have rescued 3 and then collected the medal of honor posthumously, or if he took a boat out into a hurricane with no knowledge of sailing he would have drowned, or if he let someone else 'handle' his money for him, it'd be gone in 6 months rather then turn into billions.

edit:spelling

Edited by aequalsa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! I totally disagree. First of all, a lot of Ayn Rand's characters have internal conflict, such as Gail Wynand, Robert Stadler, and even Dagny Taggart (though she does not in the moral sense). Which naturalistic books have you read where the characters have internal conflict or mixed motives or any but the most superficial of motives at all? In addition, many many Ayn Rand characters have personality quirks; these quirks, are (unlike in naturalistic novels) integrated with the person's entire character.

Wynand and Stadler are not main protagonists in Rand's novels, they aren't really protagonists at all. And as you say, Dagny has no real internal conflict. Her mistake is more akin to one of mathematical calculation, rather than of fundemental moral conflict. Rand's ideal hero, such as Galt is a person of complete moral and physical integration and perfection. Galt has no internal conflict and no real flaws. Thus while interesting in the respect of being a depiction of the "ideal man" he is not interesting in the respect of being an interesting fictional character. The perfect may sometimes also be the boring.

The movie that always comes to mind for me as an example of naturalism is 'Forest Gump'. The protagonist(I hesitate to call him hero) achieves many great things through no fault of his own. The movie, while funny and well done, seems to imply that your choices have no bearing on your accomplishments. That deterministic element is what I essentialize naturalism as.

I don't think this was the message or point of the movie at all. The point was how Gump, though mentally slow, was moral and virtuous person whose almost childlike innocence carried him through situations in which more mentally skilled people failed. Whether what Gump does could actually happen in real life is irrelevant to the story, in the same way that the science behind Galt's motor is irrelevant to Atlas Shrugged. The essential point of Forrest Gump is how Forrest reacts to the people around him, not whether his fishing boat should have sunk in the storm or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this was the message or point of the movie at all. The point was how Gump, though mentally slow, was moral and virtuous person whose almost childlike innocence carried him through situations in which more mentally skilled people failed. Whether what Gump does could actually happen in real life is irrelevant to the story, in the same way that the science behind Galt's motor is irrelevant to Atlas Shrugged. The essential point of Forrest Gump is how Forrest reacts to the people around him, not whether his fishing boat should have sunk in the storm or not.

In what way do you believe he was moral and virtous? The only things close to virtue that I see is some haphazard altruism and a mindless ability to dedicate himself to a simple task because one thing is as good as another. And in those cases where his actions appear moral it is only because he lacks almost any values; except his attraction to jenny, who is little more then a gutter tramp. He doesn't care about money, meeting the president, whether or not he get's shot, medals of honor, pingpong championships, dishonest endorsements, the actual virtues that the people he likes possess,(I could go on). So when he appears to be acting morally to some people, he is actually just acting without values or direction.

Childlike innocence does not build multibillion dollar fishing empires. This is a serious shortcoming and not at all analogous to the details of galt's motor. The premise in this case is that great values can be gained by having no values of your own and letting life jostle you about like a feather on the wind. If you remember the feather floating at the beggining and end of the movie, you will see that it is obviously the representation of the theme. The science behind galt's motor does not impact the morality or theme of the story in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, all, for the replies.

Like, "LaszloWalrus", I too immediately thought of "Crime and Punishment" as an example where the reader is led into the mind of a conflicted protagonist. One finds the same thing is Dostoevsky's "Gambler". My question would be this, though: Why are these Dostoevsky books not examples of naturalism? (It has been many years since I read those two.) Aren't the protagonists "driven" by some seemingly insurmountable "fatal flaw" toward actions that they seem unable to prevent?

Regarding the book "It Can't happen Here" (I have not read it), I understand the free-will of the protagonist being a Romantic element. However, why would "the condemnation of fascism" be a romantic element?

Finally, is there any example of recent, popular movie that has strong naturalistic elements? For instance, here is a list of top-10 box-office hits from 2005. Does any of these movies have a strong naturalistic element?

1 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

2 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

3 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

4 War of the Worlds

5 King Kong

6 Wedding Crashers

7 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

8 Batman Begins

9 Madagascar

10 Mr. & Mrs. Smith

I have not read The Gambler, but in Crime and Punishment Dostoevsky does not present Raskolnikov as having some innate character flaw; rather, he presents Raskolnikov's sins and downfall as the result of the bad ideas he accepts and the contradictions he holds (much as Rand presents Wynand).

The condemnation of fascism in It Can't Happen Hear involves a serious value judgement integrated with the plot of the novel, a hallmark of Romanticism in Rand's view.

Of the movies I've seen on the list (1, 2, 3, 5, and 7) I would say that King Kong has the strongest naturalistic elements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what way do you believe he was moral and virtous? The only things close to virtue that I see is some haphazard altruism and a mindless ability to dedicate himself to a simple task because one thing is as good as another. And in those cases where his actions appear moral it is only because he lacks almost any values; except his attraction to jenny, who is little more then a gutter tramp. He doesn't care about money, meeting the president, whether or not he get's shot, medals of honor, pingpong championships, dishonest endorsements, the actual virtues that the people he likes possess,(I could go on). So when he appears to be acting morally to some people, he is actually just acting without values or direction.

First of all, Gump obviously has a mental handicap. So any assessment of his morality or virtue has to be tempered by that fact. Still, look at his actions and values. What does he value? He values doing what he enjoys, his family, and his friends. These are all rational values.

What does he not value? Awards, meeting celebrities, monetary wealth, etc. People whose only goals are that sort of things are not likely to be very moral anyway.

Gump doesn't act with malice or with duplicity. In fact, this in some ways hurts him because it is hard for him to see that other people DO routinely treat people that way.

Childlike innocence does not build multibillion dollar fishing empires. This is a serious shortcoming and not at all analogous to the details of galt's motor. The premise in this case is that great values can be gained by having no values of your own and letting life jostle you about like a feather on the wind. If you remember the feather floating at the beggining and end of the movie, you will see that it is obviously the representation of the theme. The science behind galt's motor does not impact the morality or theme of the story in any way.

Forrest Gump is in large part, a comedy, although there certainly are strong dramatic elements to the story. Too, I think you have the premise of the movie wrong. It isn't that great values can be gained by having no values of your own. If it were, Gump would be living happily with his still-living mother, Bubba, Jenny and their son. Those are the things Forrest Gump values. The shrimp company, celebrity, medal of honor, etc. he doesn't see as values. That is one of the main humorous things about the movie, that this man has all these things many other men strive towards (money, fame, etc) but he doesn't care about them at all.

As for the shrimp company, I think the movie is quite clear that the running of the business enterprises, investments, etc is pretty much run by Lt. Dan. Forrest Gump basically just gets checks in the mail by the end of the movie.

All in all, I just think that you are being overcritical of this movie instead of looking at the positive message and the humor it contains.

Edited by Vladimir Berkov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All in all, I just think that you are being overcritical of this movie instead of looking at the positive message and the humor it contains.

I'm not clear. Are you arguing that forest gump is an example of romanticism, or just that you like it? Because I agree it has entertaining parts. In my original post, I called it funny and well done. Just not romantic for the reasons I have explainied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In "The Romantic Manifesto", Ayn Rand uses the terms "Naturalistic" and "Romantic" to describe works of art. I suppose some art could be mixed as well. I want to make the concept of "naturalism" more concrete for myself.

To that end, I am looking for examples of naturalistic movies, plays or books. Ideally, the examples would be fairly well-known and would not be repetitions of some that Rand herself mentioned.

Ideally, the examples would be well-executed: in other words I'm not so interested in examples of sloppy art. I'd like to know about examples of well-executed naturalistic art. I think that will make it easier to focus on the single attribute of how naturalistic it is.

For any example, I'd also appreciate a brief explanation of why it was naturalistic.

Ideally, I'd like any discussion about examples to focus on whether not the term naturalism applies, not to whether the art is good or bad, etc.

But I think most of the best examples of good naturalistic art were mentioned by Ayn Rand in TRM and also in The Art of Fiction (probably more in depth analysis in the latter). Tolstoy and Shakespeare come to mind as among the most vivid examples. The problem is, one would probably have to pick examples since the time of Ayn Rands death in order to identify something that is well known and well done that she wouldn't have mentioned. But the amount of art that is well done since then is pretty sparse. Most of it is naturalistic, though, I'd say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not clear. Are you arguing that forest gump is an example of romanticism, or just that you like it? Because I agree it has entertaining parts. In my original post, I called it funny and well done. Just not romantic for the reasons I have explainied.

I never intended to argue it is a work of romantic fiction, simply that the work isn't malevolent. I am personally a fan of what most here would call "naturalistic" fiction, and think many of Rand's comments on it are unfounded, but that is not the purpose of this thread. My purpose was simply to defend Forrest Gump as a (relatively) good work of fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the movies ...I would say that King Kong has the strongest naturalistic elements.
Could you elaborate? What aspect of "King Kong" was naturalistic?

...the best examples of good naturalistic art were mentioned by Ayn Rand ... Tolstoy and Shakespeare ...
I have not read Tolstoy. In Shakespeare, I'm familiar with "Julius Caesar", "Macbeth" and "Othello". I need to re-read what Ayn Rand said about Shakespeare, because -- in those three plays -- I cannot see what elements are naturalistic. I know that commentators say that the protagonists in each have a so-called "fatal flaw", but --as a casual viewer -- I don't read fatalism and inevitability in those plays. Would I, if I studied them closely? Or is the naturalism in some other aspect? or, in some other plays?

... the amount of art that is well done since then is pretty sparse. Most of it is naturalistic, though, I'd say.
Good! That's why I listed the top 10 movies from 2005, hoping that some of them would be naturalistic and would provide good concretes to chew on.

I never intended to argue [Forest Gump] is a work of romantic fiction, simply that the work isn't malevolent.
Was it an example of naturalism though?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, is there any example of recent, popular movie that has strong naturalistic elements? For instance, here is a list of top-10 box-office hits from 2005. Does any of these movies have a strong naturalistic element?

1 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

2 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

3 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

4 War of the Worlds

5 King Kong

6 Wedding Crashers

7 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

8 Batman Begins

9 Madagascar

10 Mr. & Mrs. Smith

1,3,8, and 10 while all being mixed, I think had some romantic elements in them. But as previously mentioned these all have strong fantasy elements in them.

I think this is a fallout of the naturalist school however. If a Naturalist wants to show a character who is virtuous, and who deals with essentials in life, and actually acheives values through their own effort, then

a. this character will either be: a child, or a super-human. Adult human beings must inherently be flawed enough to make them "interesting".

b. or it will be in the setting of an "action story".

I think most of today's "art films" and "serious drama" is incredibly naturalistic.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is one of the main humorous things about the movie, that this man has all these things many other men strive towards (money, fame, etc) but he doesn't care about them at all.

I don't (and didn't) see the humor in this. There are a lot of funny things in Gump, but this isn't one of them. This is certainly a key theme in Gump, but not part of the humor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went through the last 5 or 6 years of Academy Award winners for some ideas. Here are some I think are particularly naturalistic, in theme and/or production. Note, I've seen these so there may be others I haven't.

Traffic

Erin Brokovich

Cast Away

I am Sam

A Beautiful Mind

The Hours

The Pianist

Lost in Translation

Mystic River

Million Dollar Baby (ugh)

Crash

The Aviator

Thirteen

Leaving Las Vegas (big ugh)

My favorite for decidedly romantic (albeit mixed) in the past few years: Master and Commander

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went through the last 5 or 6 years of Academy Award winners for some ideas. Here are some I think are particularly naturalistic, in theme and/or production. Note, I've seen these so there may be others I haven't.

Traffic

Erin Brokovich

Cast Away

I am Sam

A Beautiful Mind

The Hours

The Pianist

Lost in Translation

Mystic River

Million Dollar Baby (ugh)

Crash

The Aviator

Thirteen

Leaving Las Vegas (big ugh)

My favorite for decidedly romantic (albeit mixed) in the past few years: Master and Commander

"

I agree with most of your list, but take issue with "the aviator", "million dollar baby" and "cast away".

I thought all 3 of these while not romantic outright had fairly strong romantic tendencies. Namely, that they had individuals who accomplished things they set out to do which were predominantely good goals. I would consider them mixed but with 51% going to romanticism.

"Lost in translation" and "Leaving los vegas" are great examples of naturalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does any of these movies have a strong naturalistic element?

1 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

2 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

3 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

4 War of the Worlds

5 King Kong

6 Wedding Crashers

7 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

8 Batman Begins

9 Madagascar

10 Mr. & Mrs. Smith

Ah, well, since I don't like most new movies, I don't see a lot of them. Out of all of the one's listed here, I've only seen King Kong, Wedding Crashers, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and Batman Begins.

Out of these four, I would rate Wedding Crashers and Batman Begins as the most romantic. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was what I'd classify as badly re-written Umpa Loompa songs that were much better in the original version.

King Kong is naturalism. The woman is apparently drawn to the beast by an irresistible animal instinct she has. Everything reasonable in the movie suggests that she should go for the HUMAN BEING who loves her. But she can't do it until destiny and greed bring the Kong to his grizzly death. I don't know if I'd call it especially well done, but it was naturalism for sure.

I think Anna Karenina, by Leo Tolstoy, is worth reading (even though it's kind of long). It's a really well written example of naturalism. The message is pretty obnoxious though! Still, I think it's an important insight into the mentality of people who have the belief that Tolstoy had, that social conformity is a critically important goal for a moral person (more than happiness).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[edit: Warning, sort of an Atlas Shrugged SPOILER in this, I guess.]

I would actually say that "cardboard" characters describes romantic fiction better than naturalistic. For instance, look at characters like John Galt or Howard Roark. The fact that they are written as to emphasize one element alone makes them "cardboardish" after a fashion as they are so transparent and uncomplicated.

I totally disagree with this. Howard Roark is more "real" to me than any other character that I've ever read in fiction. I can see every facial expression he makes. I can feel every emotion he feels. I don't believe that he was transparent or uncomplicated... uncomplicated?? Come on! How much more complicated can you get? By uncomplicated, do you mean merely consistent? If so, I'm not sure why someone would equate the two.. I don't get the connection. John Galt is a good character too, but he's absent for half of the book, so IMO he's not really developed as well as Roark, Toohey, or Dagny.

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Shakespeare, I'm familiar with "Julius Caesar", "Macbeth" and "Othello". I need to re-read what Ayn Rand said about Shakespeare, because -- in those three plays -- I cannot see what elements are naturalistic. I know that commentators say that the protagonists in each have a so-called "fatal flaw", but --as a casual viewer -- I don't read fatalism and inevitability in those plays. Would I, if I studied them closely? Or is the naturalism in some other aspect? or, in some other plays?

I think one of the aspects of naturalism is that, beyond being determined, the actions of the characters are usually kind of pointless. They're not motivated by the struggle to obtain goals, usually-- they're just motivated by some inexplicable trait that they possess.

Why was Othello so jealous? That's just how he was. Here's one that always gets people (me anyway): Why were all of Shakespeare's villains so ruthlessly, viciously evil? There's never any reasons given. No premises or mistaken beliefs that are explained that led them to act that way. They were just naturalistic descriptions of how evil people behave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of your list, but take issue with "the aviator", "million dollar baby" and "cast away".

I thought all 3 of these while not romantic outright had fairly strong romantic tendencies. Namely, that they had individuals who accomplished things they set out to do which were predominantely good goals. I would consider them mixed but with 51% going to romanticism.

"Lost in translation" and "Leaving los vegas" are great examples of naturalism.

Well, I don't think that having a character that accomplishes primarily good goals is enough to get out of the Naturalist genre. The question becomes, what does the author do with such a character. In the case of MDB and the Aviator, the author defeats them, by misfortune. Not by a character flaw, but by chance. I think it is the essence of Naturalism to take the heroic and defeat it by chance. I loved MDB up until she was injured, and then the whole movie repulsed me. They wrote that great character just so they could put her in a coma?

Castaway we can debate. I thought Hanks was brilliant, and portions of the film were good. Once again, I thought for the triumph that his survival was, the hero was used poorly in the ending.

I think one of the aspects of naturalism is that, beyond being determined, the actions of the characters are usually kind of pointless. They're not motivated by the struggle to obtain goals, usually-- they're just motivated by some inexplicable trait that they possess.

I think that and also when value pursuing characters are depicted, their flaws (or misfortune) overwhelm their heroism. That's still naturalism.

I totally disagree with this. Howard Roark is more "real" to me than any other character that I've ever read in fiction. I can see every facial expression he makes. I can feel every emotion he feels. I don't believe that he was transparent or uncomplicated... uncomplicated?? Come on! How much more complicated can you get? By uncomplicated, do you mean merely consistent? If so, I'm not sure why someone would equate the two.. I don't get the connection. John Galt is a good character too, but he's absent for half of the book, so IMO he's not really developed as well as Roark, Toohey, or Dagny.

Second that.

I always think that those who call John Galt or other such characters "cardboard" (and I hear this type of thing a lot) really mean they need them to be conflicted. Man is a set of opposing drives that are only interesting the more opposed to each other they are. That's naturalism. Complexity and internally confliced do not equate.

My first reading of The Fountainhead, I thought Roark was 1 dimensional, until I read it a few more times and realized that he is very complex. He is not omnicient and doesn't really discover the nature of the forces opposing him until late in the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think that having a character that accomplishes primarily good goals is enough to get out of the Naturalist genre. The question becomes, what does the author do with such a character. In the case of MDB and the Aviator, the author defeats them, by misfortune. Not by a character flaw, but by chance. I think it is the essence of Naturalism to take the heroic and defeat it by chance. I loved MDB up until she was injured, and then the whole movie repulsed me. They wrote that great character just so they could put her in a coma?

Castaway we can debate. I thought Hanks was brilliant, and portions of the film were good. Once again, I thought for the triumph that his survival was, the hero was used poorly in the ending.

I think that and also when value pursuing characters are depicted, their flaws (or misfortune) overwhelm their heroism. That's still naturalism.

I don't disagree that there is naturalism in these films, just that they are wholly naturalistic. The very fact that they had heroes in them at all puts them well ahead of "leaving las vegas" in the romantic direction. The endings could have been better in all three of them without a doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...