I have a question about the resistance to emotional manipulation.
My problem is when you can see a big, neon sign that says, "Emotionally Manipulative Scene" blinking on and off in the upper left hand corner of the screen. I'm fine with movies drawing an emotional response when it seems to be an organic part of the movie, but most Spielberg movies I've seen (the first Raiders is sort of an exception) don't feel organic. They feel like the director is poking at my emotional response centers via the film, and while I'm crying I'm also hating him for making me cry.
Jessica said what I was about to say, but with more words and more sense.
she will rip Tom Cruise's head off with her bare hands.
Tom does this scene without CGI or a stunt-double.
He got it in one take, too.
I have a question about the resistance to emotional manipulation. I don't quite get it. I have no problem with it, as long as it's good. Go ahead, fuck with me, is my motto with the arts. I love Dickens' novels and that's what he was all about. I don't mind intellectual manipulation, emotional manipulation, pop songs making me get up and dance--go ahead, make me think, make me feel, why not? Of course, if the film or book is bad, I don't like it, manipulation or no.
I agree with Sean that film is a manipulative medium, but Speilberg tends to anvilicious about it. It was the girl in the pink coat that did it for me. The first time I saw her, I knew what was coming and I just got mad for having to sit through another Speilberg schlockfest. He got points for having Ralph Fiennes play a Nazi that was so evil and so hot at the same time. It was confusing.
I love
Minority Report.
Logical fallacy, cop-out ending, emotional manipulation, The Cruise--I acknowledge its faults, but the sheer coolness of the visuals and some of the plot twists (like when they
kill off Colin Farrell's character. Dude!)
win me over every time. Plus Samantha Morton is fucking incandenscent in that flick.
I think
Schindler's List
is a great film, but Spielberg nearly lost me in the breakdown scene because the string-pulling was so blatant. I cried anyway, but then it left a bitter taste in my mouth afterward, marring the experience significantly.
Tom does this scene without CGI or a stunt-double.
And why not? A flesh wound! Nothing some Flintstones chewables and a treadmill can't fix!
Just having Tom Cruise in Very Dramatic Movie was the signal that he would buy it
I think you meant Tom Hanks, Nutty, but I'd say that's a meta reason (to use an already overused word) for knowing he buys it. The "I'm a school teacher" moment is when the picture officially telegraphs Hanks' impending doom.
I have a question about the resistance to emotional manipulation. I don't quite get it. I have no problem with it, as long as it's good.
This is what I'm saying, Robin. I hear "emotionally manipulative" too often as a criticism for film (or, as you say, art in general). Like Jess, I only care if it's done badly.
Same as editing, sound design, or any other element intrinsic to the medium. If it's good, it shouldn't call attention to itself.
So you don't think this depends on the aim of the movie? I mean, what about when such elements are incredibly stylized by design? I'm thinking of films along the lines of TOUCH OF EVIL or VERTIGO or even (especially?) SUSPIRIA, or the incredibly complicated editing schemes that Nicholas Roeg's best films employ.
There's a difference between emotional and emotionally manipulative, though. I don't mind crying at a sad story, but when the preview for a crappy movie makes me mist up, I'm annoyed. (The musician I was seeing said it was something particular about the chords in the background music.)
