Emotional response refers to the way that the film spectator is manipulated by the micro and macro features of film; this process of manipulation is often designed to draw an emotional response from the spectator. There are many factors that influence the way in which we respond to popular film, viewing context, emotional tolerance and powerful film making techniques all influence our emotional response to popular film.
Look at the themes of character alignment and emotional response, cognitive theory and audience manipluation, alternative viewing context that are used within the film.
There are many characters within film where we think to ourselves I wonder what would happen if they were the lead. I think this everytime I watch a classic Disney film. Many of the characters backgrounds / life within the films are left out, so we don’t know much about them.
Yzma and Kronk (The Emperors New Groove) need their own spinoff series, or maybe a live action? Both are great characters who work so well together and it would be great make audiences aware of film, The Emperors New Groove. But yeah a lot of possibilities for this topic. – X.Welker4 years ago
When it comes to Disney films, films that target a wide demographic but must always cater to young children, it's sometimes hard to break out of the narrative formula: good wins and bad loses/redeems itself. It is always interesting to see a villain in the lime light if they have clear motivations but also a tinge of fear and regret over the bad things they have done. I would love to see my personal favourite Megera from Hercules get her own spin-off because she is a rare case of the 'princess' character starting off in league with the villain and becoming just as much a hero as the protagonist. Arguably though her development in the existing film is better more fleshed out anyway. – vinelouise4 years ago
Emotional response refers to the way that the film spectator is manipulated by the micro and macro features of film; this process of manipulation is often designed to draw an emotional response from the spectator. There are many factors that influence the way in which we respond to popular film, viewing context, emotional tolerance and powerful film making techniques all influence our emotional response to popular film.
Look specifically at the themes within Whiplash such as: Abuse and Character Alignment, Genre and Emotion Auteur Style and Emotion
– Zahra Arshad4 years ago
I saw at least three YouTube videos that do this extensively. A better question would be why this particular movie triggers emotions so easily. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Look closely at the film of The descent and compare to other British horror films to see whether ladder culture is present or whether they portray another theme of British culture. Compare the films of your choice and see whether they have similar themes or whether they portray something different.
You could do a stand-alone analysis of Eden Lake and offer unique insights in this way. Just a thought. – J.D. Jankowski4 years ago
This is very broad and because there may be a large number of British horror films to choose. Plus, I think it would be very helpful if you make your aim clear - why compare these films? what do you want the audiences to know? – XiaoYang4 years ago
In stories of Greek mythology, Ares is not a god other gods like. Zeus calls Ares (his own son) the god he hates most of all. This is because Ares is out of control, bloodthirsty, and needlessly violent.
Hulk and Ares are parallels in the way they become consumed by rage. But the Hulk usually gets our sympathy, while Ares did not create sympathy. This might show a contemporary hesitation with unequivocally disapproving of raging violence. We could focus on Hulk as just out-of-control and destructive the way Ares was perceived by Zeus and the other gods. But we don't. Could our tendency to sympathize with Hulk show how hardwired we are now to see anything unusual or strange as a victim deserving our compassion?
I think it would be helpful to pose a question, to help narrow the focus. Right now, this is still a little broad. I think that is no real guiding question in the topic itself, and there needs to be more of a focus. – RheaRG4 years ago
The main reason we sympathize with Hulk over Ares, is the fact that originally Ares was portayed as a villian for Thor and Hercules. We weren't given much backstory on why Ares was jealous of Hercules. We only saw the destruction that he caused. While Hulk only appears when he's trying to save his friends or defend himself. This makes Hulk come across as righteous fury. While Ares seems more selfish in nature, since he's endangering others out of jealousy. Not only that, but Hulk usually tries to control his rage while Ares embraces his fully. It is much later in Ares marvel history where he is given a deeper backstory. One that justifies his rage towards Hercules and the other Olympians. How he was pushed aside because people no longer see war as neccessary. Not only that but people seemed to forget all the suffering Hercules caused. Yet he is still favored. I think a better direction to take this topic is focusing on how knowledge of past abuses can allow us to sympathize with characters. As the more developed Ares became the eaiser it becomes to understand why he would take such villianess actions. In a lot of ways Ares mirrors Kratos from God of War more than Hulk. – Blackcat1304 years ago
In almost every 'which is better, book or movie?' debate, the book wins. For a plethora of reasons, from intense detail to unique character-building, books are almost always dubbed better than their adaptations.
But what about the film adaptations that are better than their original book? Offer several examples of adaptations better than their original. Discuss what they do so correctly that allows them to win this battle.
Do they take away the difficult language of a book to make an important story more accessible? Are the characters better rounded and more realistic? Does the film cut out unnecessary details that are included in the book? Is there a changed detail that improves a film — different setting, different main character, different conclusion, perhaps. Is it simply a case of visuals portraying the content better than words can (say, an intense action sequence for example).
There could be ANY number of reasons and ANY number of films to be discussed. This topic does run the risk of coming across as too subjective though, so ensure that sound analysis is offered to justify your claims.
I like this topic, but I would hesitate to characterize any movie or book as "better" than the other adaptation, because that's strictly a matter of opinion. What I would do instead is, focus on how books and films are completely different mediums, as well as how and why certain books lend themselves better to film adaptations. I might start with longer-form books, such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The books are great, but as someone who read them, I'd say they're also a slog. The movies definitely communicate the books' messages more clearly, and leave more room for discussion/exploration. – Stephanie M.4 years ago
I'm so glad you brought up this topic! I don't believe books are always automatically better than their film counterparts. Perhaps it is also a matter of upholding whatever came first. As you mention, there are many films which are based off of an initial written text. What about the case, though far less common, of films where a book was written in conjunction with or second to the film? For example, one of my favorite films is The Third Man. The screenplay was written by Graham Greene, who also developed a novella version. The book does a good job of illustrating certain details one might miss in the film, but the film is a masterpiece when it comes to "underplaying." It only says what it needs to, which makes it so memorable and striking. I also prefer the film adaptation of Breakfast at Tiffany's to Truman Capote's novella, despite the fact that the film departs quite a bit from the source material. One of the reasons is I found Audrey Hepburn's version of Holly Golightly far more vulnerable and sympathetic a character. Truman Capote lingered on the superficiality of his characters, which left me feeling uninterested by comparison. – aprosaicpintofpisces4 years ago
You managed to rehash a contentious issue among art lovers. As has been stated in prior posts, adaptations are analyzed ad infinitum. Yet in terms of this topic, I think you could argue slightly different, for a change of pace. All writing goes through drafting phases and all authors go through periods of productivity and delay or self-doubt. That said, how can we destroy a film adaptation that is merely going through a rough phase, on its merry way to the final version? Doesn't sound fair to the director. As far as adaptation goes, an author that is true to his craft and steadfast to the theme will inevitably produce the elusive masterpiece,followed by an equally acclaimed film adaptation, one may argue. Another incumbent will fumble the narrative by second-guessing the motive and the medium, failing to strike a vital chord with the audience in the process. Nevertheless, it's a valid concern. There is a documentary on The Virgin Suicides that makes the case for inclusion of the writer within the filming process. Of course, Sofia Coppola has the ultimate say over the characterization of the narrative. But the author of that novel, Jeffrey Eugenides, was a vital component behind the dialogue, the mood, and the setting. Also, it is not uncommon for the reverse to occur and achieve rather successfully. For instance, the Star Trek TV episode "All the Yesterdays" made a seamless foray into a series of acclaimed novel tie-ins by A.C. Crispin. The onscreen romance between Spock and Zarabeth translated into two compelling novels on time travel and a supposed offspring between the pair. A compelling factor in this debate is circumstances. The ancient Greeks wrote dramatic recollections of events that moved audiences of the time and to this day in practically every discipline that has emerged since then. But, in those times there were no motion pictures to reclaim those texts. Then, Shakespeare entered the picture with an equal fervor for shining light on the pressing matters of his day. Presently, we submit to the same appetite for literary escape with authors such as J.K. Rowling and Suzanne Collins, probably as eagerly as the Greeks and the British did in the early days of the art. In those times as is today, the stage was the medium for the written script. I venture to guess that audiences had their preferences for certain actors and theatres when reading the written play was not a viable option nor a preference. Perhaps, it may be that reading the plot in the comfort of a familiar setting with pleasant music or refreshment is the reason why some people opt for this method of entertainment. Indeed, the pace of a book or the flash of color and splash of sound in a film is what draws fans to each particular venue. So, an author's style or an actor's appeal may be the reasons why people turn to different sources of entertainment, including the online variety. I suppose radio producers had the same challenges in their respective field that could be incorporated into this topic. – L:Freire4 years ago
I feel like this topic has been discussed over and over again over the past year. I believe there may be an article about this topic on the site over the past year. – Sean Gadus4 years ago
I feel like we have almost moved past the "which is better?" question. Growing up it was always comparing the film to the source text, but as I become older I find myself comparing the media less often. I focus on if the adaptation did the source text justice, and if the changes that were made were justifiable. The film version of Gone Girl, for example, sticks to the novel pretty nicely, but with some detail changes that both enhance and take away from the book. While films like Annihilation and I'm Thinking of Ending Things are different visions from the source texts, and I respect them both for what they are. They almost become separate stories, but so long as the intent of the source text is respected, then I can happily enjoy the film versions. – Benedetto4 years ago
I think this is an awesome topic. I recently took a literature and cinematic adaptations course and it was probably one of the best classes I've ever taken. The plethora of subject choices for this topic leaves the submission possibilities endless. Seeing some of the other comments in regards to the 'what's better' stance, I think having an opinion, as long as you provide your reasoning, makes for great reading/ writing. However, I do think an interesting twist to that line of thought would be s to examine whether or not the written work complements the cinematic version, are they sisters or do they seem to be unrelated whatsoever? Awesome topic! – megantheninja4 years ago
Besides HIV/AIDS, there has been no wide-reaching pandemic since the 1918 Spanish Influenza and, from a movie point of view at least, it's pretty boring to live through. Despite what zombie movies might suggest, viruses are relatively slow moving and the deadlier a virus is, the less transmissible it tends to be. And the vast majority of people remain uninfected. It doesn't make for great storytelling. However, up until now, the majority of people had no firsthand experience of living through an epidemic / pandemic and so could more easily suspend reality while watching these types of movies. But what happens now? Will the genre move away from the thriller type movie towards to personal suffering, either in lock down or the loss of loved ones?
I feel like there's a lot of potential here. For my part, I'm someone who thinks this particular virus has been blown way out of proportion, and that various unscrupulous actors are trying to use it to spread fear for their own gain. So, with that in mind, I think the idea of disease as a tool of social control would be a fascinating plot line that I hope someone tackles at some point. – Debs4 years ago
Debs: So I'm not crazy! Whew! I'm with you...but I am curious as to how COVID-19 will affect creative industries. For instance, I'm a fiction writer, and my fellow writers and I are getting tips like, "Don't come to agents/publishers with pandemic-centered material." It's too soon, apparently. But in a decade or two, who knows? I'd also like to see a comparison/contrast between COVID-19 and, say, the influenza epidemic of 1918. We still don't have much entertainment material about that...I wonder why? – Stephanie M.4 years ago
Stephanie M: I'm currently working on a research assignment regarding the influenza pandemic of 1918 (more pertinent to my research, it didn't reach Australia until 1919). From what I can understand, the pandemic arrived at the conclusion of the First World War and so, amongst that, it was forgotten. Many simply perceived it as the final, deadly battle of the war. That could potentially answer your question regarding why it isn't covered in entertainment media.
But that then raises the question, will today's pandemic be forgotten by the film industry amidst 2020's other significant events - bushfires in Australia, wildfires occurring currently in the U.S., mass protests in the U.S. and other Western countries, etc.? – Samantha Leersen4 years ago
I really like the questions at the end of you post: "But what happens now? Will the genre move away from the thriller type movie towards to personal suffering, either in lock down or the loss of loved ones?" If someone chooses to write on this topic, I hope that person will either avoid making blanket claims about pandemics or will take some time to understand the topic and to support all of the major claims with good sources. We already have all sorts of distortions and misinformation out there; we don't need to add to the pile. I'm really not sure about the truthfulness of this claim in your post, for example: "the deadlier a virus is, the less transmissible it tends to be." There are specific terms found in most any serious, informed discussion of a specific virus: virulence (deadliness), replication rate (or growth rate, which I understand to be ultimately tied to the ease of transmission, the length of the contagious stage, etc.), and so on. At least one credible source says there's no certain connection between a pathogen's deadliness and its potential to spread: "contrary to common assumptions, virulence and replication rates can evolve independently, particularly after the initial spread of host resistance." (https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16927) I'm also a little unsure about this claim: "Besides HIV/AIDS, there has been no wide-reaching pandemic since the 1918 Spanish Influenza." The 1957-1958 H2N2 pandemic probably caused some 1.1 million worldwide and some 116,000 deaths in the United States. – JamesBKelley4 years ago
All of these notes are so dismissive if the disease itself. The 20 and 30 somethings poo-poo the deaths of their grandparents and just not caring. Sounds to me a diseased based tale of Sodom and Gomorrah is what you guys need. How about that? 200,000 dead and those not enough to raise even a glimmer of recognition of man’s humanity by the citizens of Sodom. God gets pissed and destroys the insensitive cretins. The special effects would be WILD .. imagine .. fire, hurricanes, people forced underground where it’s cool enough to survive. Now that would be something to see .. oh wait .. – beaublue4 years ago
With films such as Memento, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Marjorie Prime exploring the concept of memory and how they seemingly define us. I'd like to suggest a further investigation into the use of memory in film as a narrative tool. How have writers/directors effectively used this device to engage viewers. Are there consistencies within the more successful examples? How could we look to utilise memory as a concept in future films, or even other forms of media.
Does ‘Rememory’ fit into your vision of an investigation into the use of memory in film as a narrative tool? It’s a murder mystery, right? Seems to be right in the wheelhouse. – beaublue4 years ago
This is very fascinating and something I often ponder. Memory is fascinating, and for sure a powerful narrative device. That being said, I hate disingenuous memory representation; particularly in the subject of repressed memory and memories interconnectedness with mental health and mental illness. I feel that sometimes memory can be used as a gimmick or to add drama/thriller. Often portrayed unrealistically or not representative of actual experiences. It's a delicate tightrope to walk, but I believe the effectiveness comes from lived experience and rich stories about memories influence on lives. I agree with the examples you've mentioned- very powerful. Two movies came to my mind you didn't mention are Shutter Island and Moonlight. Particularly Moonlight, because it's rather avant-garde in using memory but deeply effective and moving. – JuliaMuntoni4 years ago
