RE: I thought it was a pretentious POS

Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Posted by Analog Scott (A) on September 30, 2008 at 18:36:58

In Reply to: RE: I thought it was a pretentious POS posted by delboy on September 30, 2008 at 04:12:13:

> 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.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Divingbell and the Butterfly - delboy 04:00:44 09/29/08 (11)

I thought it was a pretentious POS - Analog Scott 15:14:52 09/29/08 (7)

Here's another opinion... - Harmonia 08:31:39 09/30/08 (0)

Kind of like a French, "I am Sam." The genre of the seriously ill - tinear 07:46:13 09/30/08 (0)

RE: I thought it was a pretentious POS - delboy 04:12:13 09/30/08 (4)

RE: I thought it was a pretentious POS - Analog Scott 18:36:58 09/30/08 (2)

RE: I thought it was a pretentious POS - merlinus 19:51:16 09/30/08 (1)

While I would agree with you about his... - Harmonia 21:41:49 09/30/08 (0)

Agreed, and moreover...far from being "gimicky"... - Harmonia 08:10:13 09/30/08 (0)

Actually, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was... - Harmonia 14:27:31 09/29/08 (1)

I like all three of Schnabel's films very much - PhilJ 11:57:30 09/30/08 (0)

I like a movie that can give you an experience - PhilJ 09:31:12 09/29/08 (0)

Follow Ups

RE: I thought it was a pretentious POS - Analog Scott 18:36:58 09/30/08 (2)

RE: I thought it was a pretentious POS - merlinus 19:51:16 09/30/08 (1)

While I would agree with you about his... - Harmonia 21:41:49 09/30/08 (0)

Post a Message!