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.

Where he laments how many more people he could have saved? How many people his pin was worth, his car, etc.?

That's what made me cry.

P-C is me.

Still have little interest in WotW, despite the generally good reviews. I'll probably wait until it's on DVD.

Me 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 love being emotionally manipulated by the arts. I like the feeling of losing control but at the same time knowing that such weakness isn’t going to have dire consequences in my life. What I don’t like, as others have mentioned, is when it becomes “The Emotionally Manipulative Scene – Grab your Kleenex!”. I enjoy the more subtle moments. Music, or the lack of same (see Buffy – The Body, Hush), really adds to the effect if done properly.

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

So, for example, breaking the fourth wall isn't bad in and of itself; it's breaking the fourth wall badly that's bad.

I think it's safe to assume that if X is being complained about, then the complainer thinks that X is being done badly. Done well, the topic wouldn't come up at all.

Not neccesarily, Jessica. It may be true on this board, but my FiL, for example, thinks any movie which makes him have ANY feeling that he finds uncomfortable--which is any feeling beyond humor and suspense-- is "emotional manipulation." That's his phrase and it has everything to do with his limited comfort range of feeling and nothing to do with the film itself. And I have heard that notion from other folks in my life as well.

De facto? Pro tem? Nolo whatever?

I called a philosopher I know. I was thinking of a priori but probably meant ex hypothesi.

I cried like a wee child whose puppy has died at Amistad. Was it a good movie? Couldn't tell you. I'd have loved to tell you it was good, to rave about the nuances and the subtlety and the writing and the glayvin, but quite simply, the director put up scenes that would have made me cry if they'd been done in chalk on a sidewalk.

I don't know how deliberately emotionally manipulative it was, since I have my own flavour of issues, but it's the historical version of "Put Willow in danger! That'll get them!" or "Rape! That shocks everyone! Put a rape up there!"

I didn't feel quite dirty, but I also didn't feel the need to give the movie any props for my reaction. I want to be able to credit the work, but cheap shortcuts will prevent that.

I like being emotionally manipulated. I get a thrill out of being brought to tears, even if it's done badly. I'm a sucker for a decent Lifetime movie, or a higher production-value movie in the same genre. And books I forgive even more.

What I don't like is when I'm clearly being given a scene that's SUPPOSED to manipulate me, and I feel nothing. I never cried in Titanic - it just didn't make me sad. So the death scene pisses me off because unless you're invested, it's just dumb. Same for most of A.I. though there were some moments at the beginning that hit me hard, and if it had just ENDED with him talking to the fairy forever and ever, THAT would have affected me. I like SPR because, cliched or not, the cliches work for me, and I'd probably die in Schindler's List.

The Spielberg I don't like is the big-flashy-scifi Spielberg, and I think what bugs me about it is the way he injects this strange pseudo-spirituality into the movie, a worshipfulness that calls religion into mind more than science fiction. The magic robot/aliens from A.I., the healing abilities of E.T., even the spiritualistic backdrop of the precogs in Minority Report. Jurassic Park is a bit of an exception here, and that's just because it's an action movie/book with a vaguely sci-fi backdrop, not real science fiction.

Of course, that last pretty much holds true for some interpretations of WotW, too. But I have no faith that there won't be some scene where Tom Cruise looks up at an alien spaceship, with his face lit by some blue light or something emitting from it, while John Williams swells in the background. For SOME reason. Bad, bad, bad.

I never cried in Titanic - it just didn't make me sad. So the death scene pisses me off because unless you're invested, it's just dumb.

I cry almost every time at the end when the dead!Rose is walking up the stairs in the Grand Staircase to Jack. It's a reunion of lovers.

One time I cried when Old!Rose said "I have no pictures of him. He only exists in my memory." I bawled at that because I was missing my grandfather who had passed away a few years earlier.

My enemy is obviousness. A subtle hand can win me over, and lose me less, than somebody doing the big magician conjuring swoosh. Actually, speaking of sleight of hand, I think Speilberg could get away with his emotional obviousness if his plotting were tighter/less linear/less predictable. One of the things I've picked up from Atom Egoyan movies is that juxtaposition and unfinished sentences are so evocative as to be a manipulation -- just, a manipulation that the viewer participates in, willingly, rather than something rained down on the viewer's head.