April 6, 2018 at 1:53 p.m.
Entertainment Column

Is it really, really real?


By JAMES BREIG- | Comments: 0 | Leave a comment

The first time I realized that actors were only pretending that they died, I must have been 5 or 6 years old.

I was watching a cowboy show, probably "The Lone Ranger" or Roy Rogers, when one of the bad guys bit the dust. I turned to my father and said, "Won't his family be sad when he doesn't come home for dinner tonight?" I meant the actor, not the villain.

My logic was sound. I knew he was an actor on a TV show and not a real cowboy. But when he rode a horse, he didn't pretend to ride a horse; he actually rode one. Ergo, when he died, he wasn't pretending to die; he must have really succumbed. It seemed like a lousy way to make a buck.

That's when my dad explained how they used blanks to shoot people, how the blood was fake, and how the actor got up, dusted himself off and went home to his little boy.

Actuality

I share this memory because I'm beginning to think that a lot of adults are having trouble separating reality and fiction. My first clue occurred when some people were sitting around a table discussing "Stepmom," a tear-inducing movie they had seen. They shared their deep sadness when one of the main characters got sick and died. They talked at length about how much they had wept when that happened.

That morning's newspaper carried a front-page photo of the corpses of dozens of men who had been slaughtered in Kosovo. "Why not weep for them and their families?" I asked. "This really happened."

The group gave about 15 seconds to the photo and then returned to their animated discussion of the movie, this time arguing about the children in the film and what brats they were. Finally, another listener interjected a note of reality: "You know, it's only a movie."

Miss Lewinsky

A bigger clue to how reality and fiction are mixed, however, is the way in which many people -- including the media -- have approached the past 13 months of President Clinton's life. They see it not as real-life events but as a soap opera to chat about and to argue over but ultimately to dismiss as unimportant.

In their minds, their actual President did not have genuine phone sex with a living woman on a specific day at a specific time and then really lie about it under an authentic oath. Rather, those events occurred in the same unreal and timeless world where movies and TV shows exist.

For proof of that, pay attention to how people have talked about the events of the last year:

* Lots of people gossip about "Monica and Bill," as if they were Ross and Rachel on "Friends." Even news shows refer to "Monica"; I don't remember news in the past referring to people by their first names. ("Adolf today invaded Poland"?)

* Many people deny that the scandal has had any effect on them, just as they would say that last week's episode of "The Practice" or "The King of Queens" had nothing to do with them. How could they when the events in them aren't really real?

* According to polls, the vast majority of Americans think their President is a sexual creep, serial liar and moral cretin, but they don't want him removed from office. It's the same sort of distinction they make about TV villains through the expression "he's the man we love to hate" or "she's awful, but I've got to see what she does next."

The confusion of reality and fiction by a five-year-old is understandable. In adults who have to make decisions about real life, it's a cause for profound worry.

(Serious students of religion and/or film might like to get a copy of "Images of the Passion: The Sacramental Mode in Film" by Peter Fraser. It's an in-depth look at how several movies have used religious and spiritual imagery. Among the films discussed are "On the Waterfront," "The Mission," "Black Robe" and some foreign movies. The book is for readers who know what "non-diegetic" means, so scholars might find it appealing. It costs $22.95. To order, call 800-225-5800.)

(02-11-99)



[[In-content Ad]]


Comments:

You must login to comment.