In 2017, the musical La La Land received 14 nominations at the Academy Awards and won six of them, including Best Actress in a Leading Role. Emma Stone chose to perform all of her dance scenes herself rather than rely on body doubles, and the sequence for the song A Lovely Night was filmed during an actual sunset, with a real location and choreography captured in a continuous shot. These are only two examples of moments when filmmakers avoided shortcuts, something that clearly resonated with audiences, as demonstrated by the film’s strong results at major cinema awards.
The truth is that in recent years filmmakers have relied somewhat too heavily on technology, and many recently released films have lost some of the authenticity that films from the 1990s seemed to convey. This is not about whether a story is based on real events, but rather about how real the setting appears and how believable the characters feel.
According to a 2023 survey by YouGov, 68% of viewers reported feeling more engaged during scenes that use tangible effects compared with sequences created entirely with CGI (computer-generated imagery). Much of this can be explained by basic neuroscience: when actors interact with physical objects, the brain processes signals related to weight, texture, and spatial presence. The sweat on the forehead of Sigourney Weaver while confronting the massive suit in Alien is not merely acting; it is a genuine “fight-or-flight” response triggered by a real and imposing threat.
But what exactly makes the difference in how audiences perceive cinematic realism?
Realistic representation of space
Older films often used deep focus, meaning that background objects remained clear and sharp, allowing viewers to feel more immersed in the action. Being able to clearly see what lies in the background of a scene allows the eyes to explore the frame and creates a genuine sense of space, much like how we perceive the world in everyday life. By contrast, many contemporary films place the objects in the foreground in sharp focus while leaving the background blurred, which differs significantly from how we normally see things in reality.
“Deep focus and long takes invite the audience to scan the frame in search of meaning, in a way that more closely resembles how we perceive events in real life. These films appeared more realistic because they resembled our ordinary experience of seeing the world,” according to Noël Carroll, an American philosopher and film theorist.
“The Cinematic Look”
The differences between Jurassic Park Rebirth and the first film in the franchise strongly highlight the importance of realistic environments. In the original film, the dinosaurs seemed believable because they existed in a realistic environment, close to the real world. In Rebirth, the dinosaurs appear in an overly cinematic, digitally exaggerated version of Earth, which takes us out of the feeling of immersion.
Digital manipulation also allows directors to return to shots in the editing room, so they often do not fully commit to an idea, whether it is the position of the camera, lighting, or the background on the day of filming. Then, in post production, they use digital tools to change backgrounds, modify performances, or create camera movements that did not exist on set.
Haptic visualization (feeling with the eyes)
Writer Laura Marks argues that when we watch a film, we do not experience it only with our eyes and ears, but with our whole body. She calls this phenomenon “haptic visuality”.
Haptic perception, according to psychologists, represents a combination of the different ways in which we sense touch. Classical films allow the viewer to “feel” texture: humidity, dust, grass, sweat, or dirt on the skin. In modern films, everything looks too clean and too smooth for the tactile senses to be stimulated.
Therefore, the tactile and sensory impact of practical effects cannot be completely faked. When a latex monster hand smashes a door, the breaking wood, the dust, and the inertia convince our eyes and our brain that something truly important is happening, which makes the scene seem authentic to the viewer.
In the films of Andrey Tarkovsky, for example, we can observe how the camera slowly glides over richly detailed sets, offering the viewer a deeper experience than if it moved more quickly.
Last year, at the second edition of the Quo Vadis International Film Festival, we organized an evening dedicated to Andrei Tarkovsky, where the filmmaker’s son also participated, sharing details with the audience about the life and work of his father.
This year, at the third edition of the festival, we aim to bring other distinctive films with which the audience can resonate and from which they can leave enriched. Follow our pages to stay up to date with the latest news!
