What is "real" anyway?

I'm sort of bouncing off the previous posts since they somewhat relate to my initial thoughts about this week's readings/film.

Rashomon presented a story from several different angles, all of which failed to corroborate the previous versions. In the end, we discover that none of these accounts were real...and as the viewers we walk away feeling skewed. Each telling of the story was so convincing, so real, so full of detail...and the teller seemed utterly convinced that version was indeed the true version. This makes me think back to a cultural studies class I took as an undergrad about the nature of "real." Real is only what we say it is...at that moment, in that story, to that listener. And the "real" of this moment may absolutely contradict the "real" of the next. When surrounded by military men (I'm in the army), I'm tough, independent, fierce...no wallflower here, boys. But when I'm with girls, I'm polished, fashionable, and feminine. Both are the real me...and I might not admit the other in the wrong company. So each one is the real me for then.

This is particularly noticeable when I meet new people. The overly upbeat, eagerly friendly conversation begins...where are you from, what do you do, oh wow, that's interesting. Each person is essentially selling themselves to the other person...please like me, I'm interesting. But how does the other person, as the listener, know if what they're being told is "real?" It could be just a total fabrication. But then who are we if not just a sum of the stories we tell about ourselves, our lives, our ideas? Some of life is bred from experiences, but a lot is just a rehashing of what details we remember, plus whatever embellishments suit the mood. But this is just the nature of things...the only real way to put ourselves out there for new bonds to form. We have to establish ourselves as something, and who wants to mention all the not-so-pretty (but equally true) things about themselves?? So, we accept that the person is glazing over the bad stuff and focusing on (or completely falsifying) the attractive stuff. I think Rashomon did an excellent job of pointing out the idea that even though somewhere deep inside we know it may not be totally true, if it's interesting, then it's worthwhile...like people.

I found the readings to be equally as thought-provoking. As someone who delves into video production during my downtime, I was excited by the clever decriptions of camera angles and movement effects in the second article. It was interesting how they create 3D (I totally get the red and green glasses now) and how looking away from a moving object can often reverse the movement on static objects. The key thought was that film could not be merely a replication of what is visably there...but rather includes distortions and human interpretation. It's a key argument for film as art (vice real) since it allows for the creator or consumer to encode/decipher the elements - whether in tandem or in opposite directions.

I was also moved by the piece about how the film transfers emotions. The excerpt explained the idea like when an actress looks at her departing lover with crushing anguish, we the viewers actually feel her pain. Because the camera acts as his eyes, she looks right at us...and it's as if we are him. This definitely explains why I cry at so many movies...