Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: I thought it was a pretentious POS

Posted by Analog Scott on September 30, 2008 at 18:36:58:
> Are the terms 'gimmicky' and 'conventions' not mutually exclusive?>

Convention: an established technique, practice, or device (as in literature or the theater)

Gimmick: unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use.

I can see how one could see these as mutually exclusive but I think it is fair to say this about cinematic techniques. Gimicks can be subsets of conventions. An example. I would say that the specific techniques used to give the watcher a first person perspective of the protagonist in The Diving bell and the Butterfly is a gimick in that it is a quirky and unique special feature and *I* would take it so far as to say IMO it was indeed of little relevance other than to try to tell us the film maker is really creative and unconventional. OTOH in the broader sense it is a subset of a convention of film making in which film makers understand the camera is the eye of the veiwer and they can through any number of techniques put the viewer in the shoes of the protagonist. So that is one example a gimmicky convention. And I would say this one was specifically "heavy handed, obvious, pretentious, poorly crafted and sometimes physically nausiating."
Perhaps it would not have been quite so heavy handed, obvious, pretentious and nausiating were it better crafted and not so heavily featured. It's an old theater trick for an actor to use a gimmick to help develop a character. but the idea is to eventually let go of the gimmick as it does it's job. In practical terms this could mean using a shtick as a cruch in developing a performance but as the performance develops and that actor finds the deeper truth in his or her character one uses the schtik fewer times until it is all but eliminated or used so seldom that it will never be seen as heavy handed and obvious. IMO Schnabel being an inexperienced and undiciplinded film maker lacked the skills to do this. so we are left with gimmicks in the place of artistic truth. This often happens when one jumps ship and tries a new art form.