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.

Manipulative storytaking always strikes me as very cynical. All fiction is attempting emotional manipulation; you're tricked into caring about stuff that isn't true. But when I feel like unnecessary elements have been imposed on the story solely to provoke an emotional reaction, it seems to signal that someone involved either doesn't trust the story or doesn't trust the audience.

The "unnecessary" part is key, to me. Is there a reason for the scene? Does the audience learn something, do the characters learn something, does someone or something change as a result? Or could you remove it without anyone even noticing? I think all of the Batman movies refer to or show the death of Bruce Wayne's parents. Doing that may make the audience feel sad, but it keeps coming up because it's kinda essential to the character. Whereas I don't even know how many movies and TV shows have done some version of this: "Oh no, our beloved dog is dead! Poor old Bingo. Wah!" [Pause just long enough for the audience to start sniffling.] [Bingo starts wagging his tail and whines quietly.] "He's alive! Good old Bingo!" Scenes like that don't usually add anything, or develop anything. They don't affect the characters or the story, and aren't supposed to; they're thrown into the last five minutes so that the audience will get a little rush of sympathy.

Horror movies are extremely calculating in their manipulations, but they're supposed to be. They're full of things that are only there to make you jump or scream, and you know that going in. ("Omigod, Bingo's a Zombie Dog! Aaaaa!") I think Spielberg is great at that kind of stuff in Duel and Jaws, but it's like he applies that same style to everything he does. So I don't see his movies anymore. (Although I, too, liked Empire of the Sun. And I, too, have a hard time crediting that to Spielberg.)

"Bingo and the Zombie Dogs" would be an excellent band name.

Manipulative storytaking always strikes me as very cynical. All fiction is attempting emotional manipulation; you're tricked into caring about stuff that isn't true. But when I feel like unnecessary elements have been imposed on the story solely to provoke an emotional reaction, it seems to signal that someone involved either doesn't trust the story or doesn't trust the audience.

I wouldn't even phrase it this way. John Gardner's book on writing fiction makes the distinction between "sentiment" (which writing should evoke) and "sentimental" (which is cheap).

Having an emotional response is (generally - Brecht aside) desirable, and I don't think it's manipulative as long as the writer/filmmaker treats the audience with some respect.

It's just a matter of earning the big moment instead of falsely inflating it. The emotion should happen because you're invested in the characters and the drama, not because you have an outside-the-movie soft spot for puppies or babies or swelling string sections.

"Bingo and the Zombie Dogs"

See, my thought was that there could be a sequel to Old Yeller.

Lilo & Stitch had me crying like a baby

Wrod. We had to sit in the theater for a few minutes after the credits as I was still too misty to be seen in public.

It's just a matter of earning the big moment instead of falsely inflating it. The emotion should happen because you're invested in the characters and the drama, not because you have an outside-the-movie soft spot for puppies or babies or swelling string sections

Righty-ro, and also what's Jessica's been saying. The fiction has to be "true" or authentic, even when it's clearly not. Then I love having my emotions given a shiatsu massage. When it's just somebody hitting the pressure points because they can, I don't enjoy it...or think it's art, really. Craft, maybe.

And "stylized" is almost the opposite reason to make a piece of art. The stylized parts of Suspiria are not the emotionally resonant or horror parts, for me, and the parts that either had me jumping backwards in my seat or feeling sympathy for the alone-ness of the protagonist were not the stylized parts.

I'm probably not explaining this well. So I'll just point at Hec and Jessica and others in that corner.