Emotional Manipulation

Perhaps a better example would be the entirety of 21 Grams.

Steven Spielberg to thread! NOW!

The beauty of movies: they make you feel stuff you didn't know you needed to feel. (That's tongue-in-cheek if you want it to be, and serious if you didn't, because I'm not in the business of making you feel what you don't want to feel.)

Yeah, pretty much everything by that charlatan Spielberg is applicable. The whole premise of the classical Hollywood structure is to manipulate, and directors who hold strongly to these methods become nothing more than magicians and manipulators.

Shots like the above mentioned "Boogie Nights" scene are very applicable (and although I enjoy P.T. Anderson's films a great deal, I think he's very guilty of this kind of thing--maybe a bit less so in "Punch Drunk Love"), but the most manipulative film element of all, in my opinion, is music.

It never ceases to amaze me that people are so trained on a single "classic" narrative style that they never question why music is playing, and seemingly coming from nowhere, during 90% of the movie they are watching? Music creates false rhythms, can immediately evoke an emotion with little visual effort, and has long been used as a propaganda tool, which applies just as well to film as to politics (actually, I really don't see much of a difference).

I've always had a huge respect for artists who are not willing to manipulate their audience through music, whether it be through eliminating sound altogether (brakhage), removing just the music and letting the character's actions and words define the emotional atmosphere (bergman), or creating conflicts and sharp breaks in standard manipulative movie music to make the audience aware of it's presence (godard).

Most of Three Colours Blue, but especially the scene with the car crash near the beginning.

Well -- Jay beat me to it (again) but I will second the Spielberg vote. He is #1 hands down. The man wouldn't know how to conjure up a genuine emotion if he was at gunpoint. So, do the next best thing -- show a child in danger! Yeah..yeah! Everybody will react to that!

Hmmm..just about every Tom Hanks film cranks the manipulation dial to 11.

I disagree, however, about PTA. Nothing in "Magnolia" felt forced to me. Given how long we are with these characters, I personally felt their tragedies, and was really moved by most of the stories.

In other words, any film with a score by John Williams :)

I was just having a conversation about movie scores with my girlfriend the other day while watching that joke called the golden globes. The category for best score came up, and they had their little 5 second samples of each of the nominees & they all sounded nearly identical. It's such a sad state for such an important part of most movies. The last interesting score I can remember is from "Requiem For A Dream".

BabyBuddha--

I agree that between the fine performances in PTA's films (mostly as a result of his direction) could easily carry most scenes, I think he still does rely on the manipulation techniques we've been discussing. I'm a huge fan of his work, don't get me wrong, but I think he could achieve the same powerful scenes without relying on certain cliched techniques (like the one ryan mentioned). And I definitely feel he's moving in that direction (think: long shot of adam sandler trashing the bathroom in Punch Drunk Love). He's still a fairly young director (what, three or four films?) and I can't wait to see what he has in store for the future.

on spielberg--i dont really have the energy to fully defend him on this account at the moment (and i do think the charge is justified to a large extent) so i will just say i think the "child in danger" stuff in his movies is not so much pulling the audience's strings as it is preoccupation of his art.

jay is definetly right that music is often the big culprit here, as well as the obscene proliferation of the dramatic close-up!

Wow, I have Ryan agreeing with me on something & BabyBuddha disagreeing with me on another--I feel like I'm living in Backwards Land today! :)

I think the greatest indicator of manipulation is simply when a filmmaker pulls something from the "bag of tricks"--composing a shot, using a lighting technique, etc. that he knows will garner a certain response. And Spielberg is definitely one of the biggest magicians the cinema has ever known. I don't think there's really any artistry to what Spielberg does, simply because it's so textbook. He knows how to win hearts & win wallets & that's about it. And it shines through so horrifically when he tries to explore something with true emotional/intellectual/philosophical depth. There's a huge difference between a craftsman and an artist, and while there's something respectable in being able to create a huge spectacle, it should not be mistaken for artistry. (the reason i have zero respect for matthew barney, but that's another topic...)

what it really comes down to, i think, is a quote from fred camper's liner notes to the criterion brakhage collection in which he says (i'm paraphrasing) that "brakhage is not so much trying to "make you see" {a d.w. griffith line) but INVITING you to watch. i'm more impressed by directors who challenge you to enter a difficult, uncomfortable environment than pandering & creating a place that conforms to the audience's demands.

"Dancer in the Dark" as a whole, but especially the second half, is nothing but emotional manipulation. Actually, it's so self-indulgent I'd say it's nothing but von Trier's emotional masturbation. It's a shame, the actors were good, and the musical scenes too.

Dogville uses the same trick but Von Trier gets even more confused by his material than he did on Dancer in the Dark or the entirely reprehensible Breaking the waves.

Also... i think that Punch Drunk Love has an excellent score - the whole percussive section in the middle is incredible.

I'm such a mixed bag when it comes to Von Trier, especially when it comes to a film like "Dancer". He does such a good job of taking the audience out of the standard manipulative mode of hollywood production through his hand-held camera, jump cuts, digital video, abrasive soundtracks, improvisational acting, etc. and then he goes and uses the extreme closeups, cliched scenarios, dance sequences, etc. it's like he has some kind of great internal conflict between hollywood and indie, like he's the long-lost love child of john ford and jean-luc godard.

Agree with the Van Trier remarks esp Tuomas re: DiD. However, I really enjoyed Breaking the Waves (could be because of Emily Watson) but found myself disgusteed by the same theme in Dancer in the Dark. The motion sickness from the camera did not help either...

I thought the most manipulative aspect of Dancer in the Dark was the plot itself. Setting up such a sympathetic character and then putting her throught that melodramatic wringer was something you either said "ok, I'm gonna go with this", or just resented. Since I paid my 9 bucks, I decided to go with it and was practically in tears by the end, but realizing all the while the director's hand was controlling me.

isn't that cognitive dissonance kind of the point of the movie?

Well, that's not what critics said about it; they apparently swallowed the von Trier's manipulation hook, line and sinker, and gave the flick 5 stars. Or at least here in Finland they did, don't know about UK or USA critics

By the way, I agree with Anita, that Breaking the Waves, which is very similar film, felt better than Dancer in the Dark. Of course it might do with the thing that I was younger when I saw it, and less critical. Also, the supernatural ending of that flick almost ruined it for me; it seemed like von Trier the catholic dind't want to leave the ending open for interpretation.

I have no problem with emotional manipulation, as long as it works for me. With Breaking The Waves it did, totally. It doesn't matter to me if objectively I can decide that a character doesn't 'deserve' my empathy. With Dancer In The Dark, it didn't work at all - I couldn't care less by the end.

I love the whole tradition of weepies, be they for intellectuals or not. I loved Far From Heaven too.

Just manouevering the thread slightly here, round to films that can be considered broadly as 'comedies':
Chaplin's emotional manipulation can both beguile and repel me.
For instance I was really moved by the scene in "The Gold Rush" where the tramp is left waiting in his cabin for his would-be ladyfriend. Contrastingly, "Modern Times" and its ending, which, while is so beamingly perfect that it is tearjearking. Music is key to how he achieves this, as well as the fine central pairing; Paulette Goddard's spirit and vivacity really helps the romance.
"City Lights" presmably also could be mentioned here...

I'm not sure a tearjerking quality is successfully achieved in any of his later sound films; however much "Limelight" tries, it remains a one-off oddity, and doesn't quite work the old Chaplin 'magic'. Some parts of that film are strangely mesmirisizing, though generally there's an over-abundance of fairly eloquent overstatement, in terms of the dialogue. It brings to the surface questions of the limits of comedy, as his previous 2 films do, and thus is archetypally Post-Tramp Chaplin, and borne possibly of a more *uncertain* world. I almost see pre-echoings of Osborne's "The Entertainer" (lest we forget, same decade) and Griffiths' "Comedians"... though "Limelight" is hardly a genuinely 'dark' work.

Anyway, back on topic. :)
I've not seen enough of the Sirk melodramas, but I really sense I'll like them. How would people compare their emotional effect compared with the British Gainsborough melodramas of the '40s?
It is of course a central tenet of stage and screen melodrama to shamelessly play with the audience's emotions. Clearly other film genres (more 'credible' dramas, certain musicals, comedies, Spielbergian actioners etc.) have utilized some of this effect... it might be productive to consider the basic principles of melodrama and its working of an audience, to highlight how many directors have gone about this.