Gritty realism in American films

Look, I’m not trying to start some massive academic debate here, but I just want to throw this out there: Would you actually *want* to sit through American movies that are nothing but endless misery porn? You know the type—stories packed with grinding poverty, social wreckage, people living on the absolute fringes of society, and all that gritty, unchecked debauchery involving drugs and sex... just straight-up depressing, heavy, dark, and soul-crushing stuff?
If you say yes, what's the draw?
If you say no, why skip them?

driftingowl27 said:Without getting bogged down in any heavy theoretical debates, I just want to pose a question: Would you actually enjoy watching American films that are nothing but misery porn? You know—stories filled with poverty, social outcasts, people living on the absolute fringes of society, combined with rampant debauchery and drug abuse... just relentlessly bleak, heavy, dark, and emotionally devastating?
If yes, why?
If no, why not?

But isn't that exactly what we watch in American cinema all the time? 😁 😁 😁

I mean, honestly, aren't most movies being made these days exactly like that?

As long as you’ve got your own little definition of raw realism figured out, I guess nothing else really matters, right? 🙂

Are you referring to naturalism, or am I misinterpreting something? I’m not particularly well-versed in that particular subject matter.

Have you checked out any films by Zivojin Pavlovic, Ken Loach, or maybe even that last one from Lukas Moodyson?

Honestly, looking at how much American cinema has been struggling lately, I’ve pretty much lost all interest in watching any US movies...

I haven't actually sat down to watch it yet, but isn't it pretty much in the same vein as *Dead Girl*?

He’s no Steven Spielberg.......😁 🙄 Total surrealist-----

driftingowl27 said:Without getting bogged down in some deep theoretical debate, I just want to ask you guys: Would you actually want to watch American movies that are nothing but misery porn? You know—full of poverty, social outcasts, people from the absolute bottom of society, unchecked sex and drugs... just sad, heavy, dark, and soul-crushing stuff?
If yes, why?
If no, why not?

If it’s actually well-made, then absolutely YES. But if it’s going to be like most of the garbage we've seen so far, then definitely NO. (And don't even try to bring up "Ladybird" to me; even if it's decent, it still feels ages behind what a truly great film looks like.)

Oh, and one more thing... why did you say "movies" plural? I guess there's maybe one good one like that, maybe two at most.

Honestly, as soon as you use the word "movies," my mind immediately jumps to low-budget TV productions, and let's face it, that's usually total trash.

Timothy Campbell2 said:He’s definitely no Wes Anderson.......😁 🙄 Total surrealist vibes-----

Timothy Campbell2, you can't compare surrealism to gritty realism; they aren't even in the same ballpark...

Not really feeling the whole "watching someone else suffer" vibe, honestly. But like Melissa Moore32 said, if a movie about heavy stuff is actually well-made, then sure, why not?

Quick question for driftingowl27. Do you personally see something special—like, better than other topics—in those depressing, heavy, dark, soul-crushing stories? Like, do you think they're somehow more valuable than the happy, light, bright, and... uh... uplifting ones? 😁 topic? (Assuming the filmmaking is just as good for both)

P.S. No wrong answers here, just curious. 😉

So look, my absolute heavy hitters when it comes to directors are Zivojin Pavlovic and Ken Loach—total masters of that raw, gritty realism.

Why though?
Because in a truly visceral, gut-wrenching movie like, say, "When I'm Dead and Gone" or "Ladybird,">> there’s zero room for phony acting or leaning on cheap special effects. Everything has to be sharp, biting, and precise if you want that emotional punch to actually land and wreck the viewer.

One tiny script blunder and the whole thing is basically trash. And the actors? They have to be—there's no way around it—completely believable, otherwise the entire film just falls apart. To wrap it up: raw realism plays directly on those most primal human emotions, and that’s what totally destroys me. When it's done right, it hits you straight in the face and there's no backing down. Nothing hits harder than that.🙂
Anything else you wanna know? 🙂

Blue Eyes said:Timothy Campbell2, surrealism isn't exactly the same thing as gritty realism...

I get it... but do you?😁

Look, Blue Eyes, I'm not an idiot, okay?😛

Regardless of the genre, the core of any movie is the STORY. If there isn’t a narrative, a plot, or some kind of drama—no matter how gritty or stylized the realism is—you might as well just toss it in the trash. Without a story, an actor's performance is basically just a glorified exhibition. That can be fine if you're a hardcore cinephile, sure, but movies are meant for a wider audience, not just for showing off at a film festival.
I know, I know... people are going to start arguing that there are plenty of great films without a traditional plot. But look, a story doesn't have to be as crystal clear as a police procedural. The fundamental job of a narrative is to hook you, to make you wonder, "okay, what happens next?" Even something like > doesn't follow a standard linear path, yet we're still totally gripped. That's the key. And then there's the acting. That's a whole other conversation entirely.

And what, if a movie kicks off with that "Based on a true story" disclaimer, you’re just gonna bolt out of the theater like a fanatic?

"True"? Please. Everything's been rigged...🙄

I wrote that "true story" because that’s exactly how Ladybird kicks off—and honestly, Ladybird is easily one of my top five favorite movies of all time.

So what, if a movie starts with "Based on a true story," are you just going to bolt out of the theater like some kind of zealot?

I think there was a misunderstanding. I was really just sharing my take on the original post—that raw realism tends to make for the best cinema. My point was mostly that, regardless of the genre, the actual story carries way more weight than the category itself.

As for whether a movie is actually good or bad... well, unfortunately, I usually don't figure that out until the credits roll.

Jessica Nguyen85 said:I think we’re talking past each other here. I was just sharing my take on the original post—basically, that gritty realism is what makes for the best movies.

Clearly there’s been a massive misunderstanding, because all I ever said was that those are *my* personal favorites. I wasn't making some grand claim that they're the "best" films objectively speaking; I was just breaking down why I personally love them.

those are actually my favorite kinds of movies

Not really my thing, 🙂

p.s. pointlessness of this whole debate 😉