Movies are Too Clean!

I think that dirt is generally ignored because it would add complexity for the costuming and makeup departments that would have to ensure a consistent level of griminess both on the costume and on the actor in something that is, more than likely, not filmed in chronological order. Then you have issues with being able to recognize characters - Captain America's costume is very recognizable and the filmmaker probably didn't want it caked in crud even though it has every reason to be.

 

This is why I hate Cameron fanboys so much. How does Cameron expand on it exactly? Because showing MORE beat up technology doesn't actually expand the premise, it just shows more of it. Hell I think Fincher and Jeunet kind of showcase a far grungier and dirtier universe in their Alien movies than Cameron. The dirt is so well realised in Alien 3 it might as well be a character into itself whilst Jeunet (and Marc Caro) made three films which practically revel in muck and grime. 

 

I actually agree with you that dirt and grime are something missing from films. Part of the reason I love Die Hard so much is that you really feel for McClane simply because of how battered and dishevelled he is by the end of the film. The griminess adds a level of versimilitude to the film that makes you really empathise with him, a similar thing is done in The Pianist and it makes you feel every minor victory that Brody has in that film. 

 

 

I agree that the grunginess does add realism to a movie... The Die Hard reference is one I've often thought about and really enjoy.  When there's not dirt and grime it kinda makes me think of Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general who was renowned for his ability to stand stalwart in the midst of a battle and not get touched... but then he was accidentally shot and killed by his own men while returning to camp one night... his invulnerability was a fiction.

You are dead on with Die Hard, McClane name popped in my head while reading the first post. In DH 3 he evens take some time to clean himself at the vault only to being covered in dirt minutes after. Fincher is another good example (as posted above too). Fight Club and Se7en are far from clean.
Another old example, Empire of the Sun, made me think about War of the Worlds. Devin noted the similarities between the dust over Cruise was similar to the 9/11 dust.

 Gotta mention Star Wars in this thread. Even as a kid, I remember being noticing and being impressed that the rebel forces weren't using new/clean equipment. Luke grew up in a dump. And of course, the Millenium Falcon. Shit broke, it was unreliable, and even the ship had history. Pre-prequels, kids speculated about how old R2D2 and C3PO were. This made the whole world of the film just feel lived in and real.

 

I guess Firefly is another good example.

I always liked how grimy Bruce's apartment and flying cab and city are in The Fifth Element too. I has that same lived-in sci fi world feel as Star Wars. In fact just by having Bruce in your film you import a certain amount of grime.

Seeing the cleanliness of Die Hard 4 really made me appreciate the lived-in location shooting of Die Hard 3.  I've found that a lot of older movies have received a bit of a boost from the fact that a lot of movies look too slick these days.  And it's not just about grit and feeling lived-in.  It's also delicious film grain...

The Road captured all the filth I imagined when I read the novel.

 

Strangely, I know what you're talking about Bugsport. The best example I can give, and it's not characters having to put up with being dusty, but with how a film looks is Grindhouse. Rodriguez and Tarantino really wanted their aesthetic to have that degraded look that their favorite movies had. However, Planet Terror's ruined look seemed like it was syntheized; the look obviously made from a computer.

 

Tarantino's Death Proof, on the other hand, seemed a bit more authentic. It really felt like what I was watching was the only print existing, and that it took a lot of hard knocks from getting to theatre to theatre before the showing that I saw. It's funny that I think Death Proof was the lesser movie overall, but it nailed that look down cold.

I know, obligated and all, but, The Crow. Detroit just looks beat all to fuck in that film. To a lesser extent, even the sequel managed to nail the urban hellhole look. And more than just being dirty, despite the villains being fairly one note (aside from David Patrick Kelly and Wincott, Iggy Pop in COA), that landscape just made the whole place just plain feel dangerous. It did more heavy lifting than people give either film much credit for.

 

Yeah, I actually would prefer some stylized gothic hellhole like the Crow movies, over the complete wasteland of current Detroit.

The stylized Crow Detroit isn't as frightening as the Detroit that's in Narc, but it sure is easier on the damn eyes.

This is a big problem I have with Nolan's Batman films. His version/vision of Gotham is just too damn clean to have major crime and corruption! Burton's version on the other hand was so totally bent that I wondered why anyone would live there. They'd be happier somewhere else.

I'm with you on The Dark Knight*, but the Narrows from Batman Begins looked pretty scuzzy.

 

*I think it can be argued that Gotham looks better in TDK because it seems like Batman made significant progress to clean it up. Even in that short amount of time.

 

The (over) use of polarizing filters on lenses also contributes to that "clean" look. Like polaroid sunglasses, certain wavelengths of light are blocked by super-fine lines built into the glass. The filters usually rotate so you can twist until you get the look you want. It takes away reflections in windows and the general reflectivity of certain surfaces (complex scattering etc). The sort of stuff the visual texture of a movie like ALIEN lives and breathes on. They also lose image crispness/sharpness unless you properly account for it with f-stops and other technical stuff. So lower-budget movies also take a hit on that aspect too.

 

You can really see it in John Carpenter's movies after a certain point. I think it's easier to set up the lighting and just shoot under his budget constraints (and the fact he doesn't give a fuck anymore). Even the Phantasm movies lost their appealing/unsettling layer of sleaze when they adopted that cleaned-up look. Some of the surreal desert stuff worked better though in the last one, so it has it's artistic uses. But it's terrible for tactile realism and grit.