Interesting Movie Facts and Rumors

[42]

The length of the action sequences was the number one complaint about Spider-man in one of my film classes (about 60 students) when we took a class poll. And a simular poll was taken about FotR in an English class I took. I've also heard the complaint from several family members and friends. We were talking about the willingness of the audience to accept manipulation. If something is too intense, people's psychological defenses kick in and give them the opposite reaction as what the filmmaker or writer want. This why a lot of horror films also include a lot of humor to balance out the intesity so people can make it through the film. The problem is that critics and movie buffs can take a lot more than the average film-goer. They simply have become less sensative to emotional manipulation and have higher tolerance levels. That's why people like Roger Eboert never mention things like that as being problems. The average film-going may hae to watch the film a couple of times to prevent their psychological defenses from kicking in and be able to enjoy the whole thing.

[Kid_Kilowatt]

I would argue that it is not movie critics and movie buffs who are out of touch and desensitized.  Rather, it is the members of conservative, Christian-dominated, definitely non-cosmopolitan communities who are out of touch with what is appropriate in film (e.g. the length of action sequences).  I can imagine that people in your classes and other local friends and acquaintances were astounded by a 10-minute fight scene.  It's probably been several years since any of them has seen a decent action movie because the industry simply hasn't been making good action movies outside the R-rated category in the last five years or so (until this past year).

An action sequence is not necessarily about emotional manipulation on the part of the film-maker.  If it is being perceived as such, this is probably the reaction of an overly-sensitive mind who wants to believe that any portrayal of violence is an attempt by a film-maker to get a rise out of the audience.  It is not.  Violence is a part of life, and it is the natural flip-side to heroic action.  Heroic action without an accurate portrayal of the accompanying violence is manipulation of the viewer, giving the impression of action without consequence.

If the fight scenes in FoTR were too much for local audiences, they'd have the same gripes about Raiders of the Lost Ark and its extended fight- and chase-sequences if it were released in theaters today.  FoTR portrayed its action sequences with optimal timing, and Spiderman came pretty close to doing the same.  Movies are not made for a community like the one that many of us live in (i.e. Utah) where the movie-viewing is highly self-regulated and selective, and complaints about the length of the fight scenes in these two movies would likely be wholly absent outside this specific context.

It's nice to be able to say that an intelligent, insightful expert on a genre like Roger Ebert is out of touch and easily manipulated, but I doubt you'd be able to convince many people of that, while he could probably easily convince people that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to movies.

[Fellfrosch]

Dude, I told you not to throw a rock at the beehive...

[42]

Kid I think you misunderstood. It's not that Roger Ebert is easily manipulated, it's that he's not and therefor it takes more to interest him, but this is too much for people who are easily manipulated. And its not just horror and violence. The same thing happens with humor, sentimentality, cuteness, joy or just about any emotion. People simply get get emotionally tired after awhile.

[EUOL]

I think 42 has a point here, though I'm not sure if it's the point he just reinforced.  Above, he said:

"The problem is that critics and movie buffs can take a lot more than the average film-goer. They simply have become less sensitive to emotional manipulation and have higher tolerance levels. "--42

To which Kid said:
"It's nice to be able to say that an intelligent, insightful expert on a genre like Roger Ebert is out of touch and easily manipulated, but I doubt you'd be able to convince many people of that."--Kid

42 said that Ebert would be LESS sensitive to manipulation.  I think 42 grazed something larger, however.  I think that by seeing so many movies, and becoming so much of an expert on them, you start to enjoy them for different reasons.  This is perhaps the biggest conundrum in criticism.  By becoming a critic, you begin to lose touch with the interests of people not as fluent in the genre as yourself.

In example, I put forward writing books.  Not to tout my abilities--it's rather unaligned with abilities, it simply has to do with time spent--but I have written so much, and looked into the philosophy of fiction writing so much, that I can no longer read and enjoy a fiction novel.  As I read one, I dissect, trying to discover what the author is doing, why he/she is doing it, and how I can learn from it.  I can't just read a book anymore, and I've started liking books for different reasons.

I think the same thing happens with movie experts.  They begin to look for different items than the average, inexperienced person, and so their reviews lose potency.

[Fellfrosch]

Could it also be said, then, that the same thing that happens to critics also happens to directors and producers? That making so many movies has caused them to view them in a different way than the audience does? In that case, then a critic is not out of touch with the movie--he is in fact one of the few people capable of seeing what the director intended him to. It's the audience that gets left out.

[Kid_Kilowatt]

Let me clarify what I was saying.  42 said that people who are not movie experts rebel against a moviemaker's desire for them to react a certain way - after 45 minutes of continuous suspenseful action, the audience member begins to lose the tension and vent it through laughing at the action or in other ways.  Meanwhile, a movie expert (e.g. big fat Roger Ebert) has seen more movies and can maintain the emotion the moviemaker wants him to have for a longer period of time.  It takes greater intensity of action to interest a hardcore movie fan, according to 42, but he can endure the moviemaker's bombardment of emotional directives for a longer period of time.  So while he is less easily manipulated in one way (doesn't cry at the drop of a hat) he is more easily manipulated in another way (he will sit on the edge of his seat for the entirety of the Private Ryan beachhead scene, as the moviemaker would like).  But enough about big fat Roger Ebert...

I think that the lack of connectivity between good critics and their intended audience is largely a fallacy.  A person's reasons for liking a movie are always highly personal - it's not like there is one set of "everyman" reasons to like a movie and then a "fancy-pants" set for experts.  Plenty of people who don't watch many movies have an artistic sense and enjoy good shot-framing and cinematography.  They just have trouble articulating these feelings because they lack familiarity with the study of the medium.  Conversely, plenty of critics enjoy a good fight scene or a witty one-liner or even jokes about flatulance.  It varies from person to person, and learning more about the medium simply allows for the articulation of opinions.  Any change of taste resulting from exposure to a medium is fairly minimal, in my opinion.  The myth of the austere, disconnected critic is ... well, a myth.  When it comes to movies, at least.

I think it's also true of criticism outside of movies to a certain degress, but to a lesser degree depending on the age of the form of criticism.  Criticism of a medium builds a culture of its own over time with its own values and preferences - this is easy to see in the criticism of poetry or sculpture, for instance.  The personal preference of the critic is still there, but it is marginalized more by the pressure to fit the mold.  The weight of history, as it were.  Schools of criticism for mediums like movies or comic books are in their nascent stages and, thus, allow more freedom for personal expression.

p.s.: Roger Ebert is FAT.

[42]

Kid, I so regret that my file on aesthetic experiences is still with one of my professors. Anyways, during the early twentieth century, several people did experiments to see how people react to different art works. And by art I mean all of the arts (dance, drama, visual art, literature, poetry, music, film ect...). They found that there are basicly six reactions that people have. They were trying to discover just what is the best way to enjoy art. Critics actually are one category, which incidentally is not the best way to enjoy a work of art. Anyways, we repeated the experiment in one of my classes and found that it holds true.

Also, in post-modern/contemporary criticism it really unpopular to fit a mold, at least in the visual arts.

[Kid_Kilowatt]

The critic's way of enjoying something is not the best way?  That's got to be the cockamamiest idea I've heard in all my goll-durn days!  I'm usually all for objectifying things as far as possible, but a person's way of enjoying something cannot be ranked as better or worse than someone else's.  How could it be measured - levels of endorphin-release in the brain during enjoyment of art?  You may be able to point to aspects of enjoyment that a traditional critic misses out on, but you cannot say that their intensity of enjoyment is greater or less than someone else's - that is far beyond the limits of objectively measurable criteria.

And as for po-mo/contemporary criticism, it is an arena where the pressure is placed on non-conformity.  Critics feel a pressure not to agree with others and to use an entirely new approach, and this is a conformity not to conform that is as just as virulent and repellent as any other kind of forced conformity.

PS: I enjoy this forum in a better way than any of the rest of you, and I dare you to prove otherwise!  So there.

[Fellfrosch]

Not only do I enjoy this forum in a better way than you do, but I enjoy this whole site in a better way. So don't be talkin' smack, enjoy-boy.

[Lord_of_Me]

be afraid, be very afraid....

Nemesis

Star Trek X

http://nemesis.startrek.com

don't you think the bad guy looks like picard?

[Spriggan]

Well I was on the palladium website looking up info on the new HTH rules, and discovered a post from Kevin Simbieda's wife (Maryinn) that they "are very close" to closeing the deal on the Rifts movie.  and that's all she'd say, of course they've been negotiating for 4 years and how close 'close' is who knows.  But If they do make it, I hope Simbieda watches them very closely so that it dosen't turn into the D&D stinker (which I finaly saw the last 30-40 min).

[Fellfrosch]

Well, that's where you get into some complicated territory. Siembieda is usually very vehement about licensing out his products to other developers and then completely ignoring them--they sink or swim without him ever paying attention. On the other hand, if he does decide to get involved he will likely get way too involved, as is his tendency. And with something as high-profile as a movie, I can't see him not getting involved. I don't know which situation would be better, actually.

[42]

Well, it was announced today that Alfonso Cuaron will direct the third Harry Potter movie. I find it interesting that they chose a Mexican to direct a British film, especially since they were so determined to keep it a British film when they made the first one.  

[Spriggan]

Um 42 Harry Potter is an american film.  The actors may be brittish but the producers and several of the prospective directors have been american, it's also fully funded by american backers.  if you go buy the fact that they film in brittan and use a lot of brittish actors and crews then you'd also have to say the first 4 star wars and all the Indiana jones were brittish as well.