[spoilers request] Who is "Keyser Soze"?

[WizarDru]

Wow. This is one of the most circular discussions I've ever seen. I'm glad I don't consciously try to think this much when I go to be entertained.

I think I understand why my wife hates it when people feel the need to disect a movie after viewing it, now.

 

[John Crichton]

I think I understand why my wife hates it when people feel the need to disect a movie after viewing it, now.

Interesting that you mention that. I used to disect films directly after seeing them which was fun for a while. But I find myself enjoying things more now when I click off and simply experience a movie (no matter how many "holes" it may seem to have), especially when I see it in the theater. Later on, perhaps after a second viewing is when the discussion of the films merits and flaws can begin.

I find it's better for my entertainment dollar to kinda click off my brain when seeing certain features. Not because they are dumbed down or anything like that but because I have pretty strong opinions of what should and should not be done in films. That potentially stains my experience if I let it. Now, crap is still crap, but if you do a little homework before seeing a movie you can usually avoid the total stinkers. I thank the net for that.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

My first two posts were in the "Dune" thread. I wanted to state the reasons why I thought Dune was a great book (and the other books were great to a much lesser degree, but let's not go into my literary analysis...)

The preceding post was motivated by sheer rage. Philosophy is a noble topic, but probably only about 0.1% of the philosophers out there (amateurs and professionals alike) have any idea of what they're talking about. The double-standard expressed by that waste of space-time and protein is absolutely infuriating. I HATE circular logic! I HATE IT!

And he used the word "hermeneutics". I've never seen an intelligent discussion of anything that included that word.



May you be condemned to an eternity of repeats of SNL's "Zagat's" skit, you pompous abuser of logic and the English language!

 

[barsoomcore]

I'm glad I don't consciously try to think this much when I go to be entertained.

Well, but what if thinking IS entertainment for you? But I fall back to my stated position on all this:

The best stories are stories that engage both our suspension of disbelief and our critical objectivity -- SIMULTANEOUSLY.

When consciously trying to think about it gives as much pleasure as turning your brain off -- THAT'S a great story. When you're both wrapped up the character's predicament and thinking furiously about what's happening -- THAT'S a great story.

Sure it's hard. If it was easy, everyone would do it.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I've always understood "suspension of disbelief" to refer more to the ability to ignore the fact that we're watching light projected onto a screen than the ability to accept whatever we're presented with.

When watching a movie, we should be willing to ignore the unreality of the images we see, but remain capable of critically examining what we're looking at as if it were real.

 

[barsoomcore]

I've always understood "suspension of disbelief" to refer more to the ability to ignore the fact that we're watching light projected onto a screen than the ability to accept whatever we're presented with.

When watching a movie, we should be willing to ignore the unreality of the images we see, but remain capable of critically examining what we're looking at as if it were real.

I agree with that, but I think you can usefully extend the notion of suspension to include the CONTENT of the story, not just the FORM.

For example, to enjoy an Edgar Rice Burroughs Mars tale, you're going to have to suspend your disbelief enough so that the wild coincidences don't seem too contrived. Which I think is a somewhat different case than ignoring the mechanics of the story presentation.

Steven King definitely uses "suspension of disbelief" in this matter in Danse Macabre, and I think he gets a lot of useful thought out of it. I'm happy to adopt any terminology that would cause less confusion, but crucial to my idea on simultaneous engagement is that the audience is both giving the story the benefit of the doubt, emotionally (what I mean with the term "suspension of disbelief"), AND applying critical reasoning to the story.

I may be using the term incorrectly. Superior terminological notions are welcome.

 

[Pielorinho]

I'm the same way: if I know a movie has a twist ending and people have talked my ear off about how surprising it is, I can't help but try to figure it out. If I go into it blindly, I don't try. Frankly, I enjoy either way -- but I prefer to know absolutely nothing about a movie before I go to see it, especially if it's a plot-driven movie.

It makes it hard for me to recommend movies to people, though. I can't say, "Dude, go see The End of Albert Finney -- it's got the most amazingly convoluted plot, and some of the best swordfights I've seen on screen!" because that'd be too much information for me to know going in to a movie. I tend to just say, "Trust me, you'll like this movie."

People never do.

Speaking of which, did any of you miscreants go see Peter Pan like I told you to?

Thought not.

Daniel

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

For the record, barsoomcore, you're quite right about the generally accepted meaning of 'suspension of disbelief', although whether that's the correct usage or not is complicated.

The word I'm looking for is 'verisimitude'. Real life doesn't obey the rules we expect authors to follow (no bizarre coincidences, no saviors swooping down from nowhere, no unexpected dooms), but authors still need to demonstrate a conceptual coherence in their works. That doesn't mean they can't do things we would never accept as possible...