'Dirty Girls'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
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.)
I'm trying to think of a movie where my emotions were skillfully manipulated. The Usual Suspects, perhaps. I guess the criteria would be drawing a strong emotional response from me without me going, "Yeah, there are the strings."
Blade Runner sort of did it. Lilo & Stitch.
Lilo & Stitch had me crying like a baby.
Lilty and Stitch would be a fun movie.
What Jesse said, but more. Emotionally manipulative IS the term for per se poorly extracted emotion. It's ex ante pejorative. There's another Latin term I'm trying to think of, but two will have to do. Anyway, If you know John Williams's swelling score is what's making you mist up, you feel kind of dirty. But plain old crying at movies is not necessarily manipulated.
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?
Unless the aim of the movie is to make the audience think about sound design, then the sound design shouldn't call attention to itself. Good stylization isn't distracting in the way I'm talking about. (Unless the audience has been to film school and is unable to turn off that part of their brain. Not that I would know anything about that.)
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?
Unless the aim of the movie is to make the audience think about sound design, then the sound design shouldn't call attention to itself. Good stylization isn't distracting in the way I'm talking about.
"Aaand star wipe... and out!"
There's another Latin term I'm trying to think of, but two will have to do.
De facto? Pro tem? Nolo whatever?
In medias res?
Good stylization isn't distracting in the way I'm talking about.
So, for example, breaking the fourth wall isn't bad in and of itself; it's breaking the fourth wall badly that's bad.
(Unless the audience has been to film school and is unable to turn off that part of their brain. Not that I would know anything about that.)
Heh, or someone who reads WAY to many academic film journals.