Some thoughts on film and emotion

[Will 2,215]

This evening I watched the recent Oscar-nominated movie Lion with my family on Netflix. Like on many other occasions I've seen a film, I felt rather depressed and empty when it ended. I started to think about why this might be. 

 

This movie was basically your typical tear-jerking kind of affair, with a sad beginning and mostly happy (but bittersweet) ending. The level of drama and emotion was heart-pounding, but it's the kind of movie that I know I will forget about within a couple days. 

 

Those who've read the SW prequel threads here will know that I think more highly of the prequels than most, and that one of the reasons I gave for that was that I don't seem to place as high a value on emotional involvement as most do. I tend to have fond memories of fantasy films like Fantastic Beasts and Rogue One, even if I found them rather boring and emotionally un-involving when actually watching them (there was emotion, but you kind of had to "search" for it). Those types of films are the ones that stick in my memory. Why? 

 

The obvious answer is of course that those are films that had scores I really enjoyed. But Lion's score sounded fine in the film too, and I have little urge to listen to it right now. I'd wager that this is due at least in part to my enjoyment of music and film having a fairly strong connection to being able to discuss them here at JWFan. So I think ultimately what I look for in films is their ability to facilitate social connection (even online!) 

 

That's why I love comedies. They're presented in a detached manner that allows you to "step back," laugh, look over at the other people watching the movie with you. But films like Lion leave little room for that. It's like a dream world, and once you get pulled out at the end, you realize none of it mattered (well, I suppose for some people Lion could inspire them to help Indian children, but, I, alas, am too lazy to take action). 

 

Action movies are often criticized as being "mindless," yet, interestingly, it seems to me that there is more time to think during them. It may be dramas that are truly mindless, for, if they are "good," they draw you away from your world and immerse you so fully that you don't have time to think about what you're seeing! I experience the emotions in a raw, visceral sense, but it doesn't stick. Only movies that give me time to think can do that. Only with those films do I usually seek out movie clips or soundtracks. (Also, you know, now that I think about it, speaking of "mindlessness," action films often have more complex plots -- just think about the Dubai scene in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol). 

 

Speaking of dreams... I've noticed several times this summer that I've felt very disappointed and empty when I woke up in the morning. This was because I could vaguely recollect some dream, some feeling, but I knew whatever it was I didn't have it anymore, and I had to refocus on what I had to do in the real world, that day. That's what prompted my "dream world" analogy for emotionally moving films, in the last paragraph. 

 

I also think I've here pinpointed the reason for what I'd say is my growing tendency to appreciate what I'd call pure entertainment (e.g. Mission Impossible and Despicable Me) and pure philosophy (philosophy texts) but not formulaic emotional dramas that take on pretentious "bigger meanings" but ultimately leave you feeling no better off than when you started. There are exceptions, of course: the Star Wars movies and The Tree of Life are films that have, at least in part, stuck with me (the former much more so, of course). But I'd say that perhaps those works could be considered hybrids of my two categories, with the music and design aesthetics (although the design aesthetics mainly just interest me in SW) being pure entertainment and the films being somewhere close to pure philosophy (not really, of course, but there are some major, complex philosophical lessons in there that interest me). Of course, as I've said, social connection can override any of the preferences in this paragraph. For example, I know I'll really treasure The Papers even if it really draws me in emotionally (although I'm not sure it will anyway), because we'll be discussing it here (and also, most importantly, because of the pure entertainment value of Williams' score). It also doesn't hurt that I've read a book on the Pentagon Papers in the past, so I already have some interest in the story. But, let me put it this way, I doubt its political messages will have any long-term effect on me. I think ultimately only aesthetics in films like this can have a long-term effect. I can get my moral philosophy from reading a philosophy book -- something I find far more rewarding than watching or reading a cheap tug at the heartstrings. But I can't get great film music or great CGI work or great lighting from any book. 

 

Anyway, I'm done rambling now. If you did make it this far, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the points I've made here in attempting to distill my personal psychology as it relates to film (of course, I cannot be sure that I have accurately described it - perhaps I made it sound like I hate most emotional dramas, which isn't the case at all; they just don't "stick" - but in any case I hope this is some food for thought). Have you had a similar experience? 

 

P.S. Yes, I delivered the bomb. 

[Simon McBride 113]

Interesting thoughts about the separate nature of philosophy and entertainment. I've found that my favorite films (and other media) are ones that can very successfully blend the two. That's why I like Miyazaki so much as a director. I can be entertained fully during the film, while it still makes me think later on with all of his movies. Take My Neighbor Totoro for example. The film exudes such a fun atmosphere that perfectly captures the wonders of childhood. Yet at the same time, I leave the movie thinking about growing up, and how much I had changed over the course of my childhood. The enjoyable aspect of film combined with the psychological/artistic/deep aspects of film and how they interact has major effects on how I view a film.

 

I loved what you said about comedies too. A personal observation that I've made, is that in general, comedies receive lower ratings than more "serious" films. I feel that many critics try too hard to view all film with the same set of eyeglasses, and totally fail to miss the intent and/or the context of a film.

[Will 2,215]

I should try Miyazaki sometime. A lot of people here seem to really like him. 

[Bespin 8,480]

There's no more movies, there's no more emotion. We are now old and cold, emotionless.

 

Let's drink Champagne!

[Loert 2,511]

So basically, you would prefer to watch a purely entertaining film and then support it with external "philosophy", rather than watch a film which tries to combine the two, because you think the latter makes for a more disappointing movie experience, because it doesn't give you time to think? In other words, you watch movies to be entertained, and want to be able to intellectualize "on top" of the movie (either in the theatre, or online on forums like this etc.), rather than have the meaning shoved down your throat within the movie?

 

But wouldn't you say that some films, especially good films, can have something profoundly "philosophical" to say too, and can make you consider some aspect of living, in a different (and sometimes more entertaining) way than philosophical texts? Isn't Star Wars an example of that? My point is that film can be a source of philosophy too, just as "philosophical texts" can. It looks like you know that, but you treat successful films like this as an exception, which I find slightly confusing.

 

Anyway, here is where I stand. I don't have any problem with a film trying to give a message. All the best films do. My problem is when the filmmaker gets pretentious about it, or they wear their hearts on their sleeves too much and it's obvious. But that to me is just poor film making.

[Will 2,215]

5 hours ago, Loert said:

But wouldn't you say that some films, especially good films, can have something profoundly "philosophical" to say too, and can make you consider some aspect of living, in a different (and sometimes more entertaining) way than philosophical texts? Isn't Star Wars an example of that? My point is that film can be a source of philosophy too, just as "philosophical texts" can. It looks like you know that, but you treat successful films like this as an exception, which I find slightly confusing.

 

I suppose I treated "emotion" and "philosophical message" a bit fluidly in my original post. I would say that Star Wars definitely has a philosophical message, but I've never found it particularly emotionally involving -- or involving, period. There are many films that do a better job at that. On many occasions (although this could be, unsurprisingly, partly because I've watched some multiple times) I find Star Wars boring, frankly. Titanic would be an example of a film that gripped me to a much greater level. Similarly, The Tree of Life is another film I found boring, but still can't forget. While watching, I was almost completely emotionally uninvolved, and, I believe at least partially therefore, generally uninvolved. In both films/film series, there is plenty of emotion to be found, but, at least in my experience, it's often found in a more cerebral, less visceral way. (Take Rogue One: I didn't find it particularly moving on the surface, but if you thought a little bit about it, you were like, "Gee, that's heartbreaking." I originally saw that as a defect, but now I'm not completely sure...) Basically, I treated both SW and Tree as conforming to my groupings because every individual element in them can fit into pure entertainment or pure philosophy. There is little raw emotion to be found in either, imho (not that there aren't some exceptions, but in general when you compare them to really moving, gripping films, I don't think there's a comparison). 

 

You may also have noticed another somewhat confusing thing about this argument: There's a very fine line between being emotionally involved in a film and being gripped simply by the action. I think I've stumbled a bit in trying to differentiate them here. The most I can say is that even action drama that is gripping to me tends to have a strong emotional edge to it (e.g. Titanic). I don't think there's a major distinction, at least for me. I guess the exception would be "horror," like in Jaws, but not that many major films have that for more than a couple minutes at a time. 

 

Here's another "version" of my argument: Emotion clouds your judgement. (We've heard this, of course, in Star Wars!) Whatever we "learn" from a film where we feel very emotionally involved isn't pure. For example, watching a very sad, emotionally involving film where one group oppresses another will likely make you angry at the oppressing group. You may become filled with a sense of moral righteousness, but your opinion may not be very well-informed and rational, if it is created in the midst of anger. So what have you "gained"? You've become sad and angry (not very fun!) and you now have a half-baked but strongly held opinion about some social issue. 

 

I think political opinions and such may be better formed separate from strong emotions like anger and righteousness. This is in addition to my suggestion that watching films is simply more fun when you're not that emotionally involved and can stay in the "real world," particularly if you're watching with friends or other family members. (The exception, of course, is if the "real world" for you isn't that great, but I am lucky enough to generally be in a good mood due to living in fairly good Western circumstances.) 

 

Of course, that is not to say that there is not some value in emotionally involving films in increasing empathy. But for whatever reason, I have trouble thinking of time where I left a film thinking, "I'm so happy I watched this film - it increased my empathy!" I have done that with books, however. 

 

My point wasn't that no film with surface-level emotion could be interesting to me. Rather, my point was that, upon reflection, it seems to me that few of the films that I want anything to do with after watching them draw me in emotionally. In fact, many of them I find to be rather boring to watch, certainly compared to heart-pounding emotional stuff. Now, perhaps this indicates that I have low emotional sensitivity, but I've actually found in the past several months that I seem to have very high levels of empathy, so I doubt this is the case (hope this is not the case ). 

 

Anyway, I just find this line of thought interesting because it can re-contextualize boringness as time for thought. Some cultures (e.g. Taosim) involve meditating for hours at a time, and they see this "boringness" as very important. 

 

Again, I'm not entirely sure if this line of argument is accurately representing my psychology (I came up with it in about half an hour, after all!) but it certainly seems fascinating. 

 

@TheGreyPilgrim, sorry to throw you into this discussion (and you don't have to respond if you don't want to, of course!), but I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on some of this stuff. I know you tend to be a big fan, as best I can tell, of films that I would say lack major surface-level emotion (such as The Tree of Life and Dunkirk), although obviously that's far from exclusively what you like. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I couldn't stand Lion.  Easily the worst movie nominated for Best Picture last year.

 

Oh!  Except for Hacksaw Ridge.  One of my least favorite movies ever made.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Both movies are indeed very hyped. They're more like dramas with a formula and a mandatory message that allows them to be hyped by Hollywood. But there are other outstanding dramas that are independantly developped and therefore they don't catch Oscar's attention. "Silence" or "War Horse" for example. One of them is so consequently redundant and torturing and has no answers to the questions which it poses. The other one is so emotionally based and ignores everything else that it becomes in fact edgy. Both movies go their individual way as a drama and therefore I find them more impressive memorable than any other random Hollywood drama.

 

@WillOf course many people have problems to get into the emotional stuff, when they have no time to calm down and when they're always thinking about their work, their family... but it seems not to be the reason, does it?

 

My favourite movies are mostly film that are entertaining, intellectually challenging, emotional AND demanding, all at the same time.

Once Upon a Time in America

Barton Fink

The Fly

L.A. Confidential

The Wolf of Wall Street

The Mission

Lost Highway

Wild at Heart

Inglourious Basterds

...

you know, stuff like that.

[Will 2,215]

@Brundlefly, I'll admit I haven't seen any of the films on your list. 

[DominicCobb 194]

Cinema's greatest power is in its ability to inspire emotion (of any kind). 

 

If you're asking to what end, sometimes experiencing emotion is an end unto itself - there's a value to catharsis. Beyond that I definitely think empathy is a big part of it, whether that be a large scale empathy for something like slaves in 12 Years a Slave, or small scale empathy like a lonely kid in E.T. The Extra Terrestrial.

 

Whether you find a certain film emotional or not, well that ends up on you. Not to say it's your job to find the emotion, you really shouldn't have to put much effort in looking for it beyond generally engaging with the film closely/paying attention. If you find yourself straining to feel the emotion, either it's just not speaking to you for whatever reason because of who you are, or the filmmakers have failed in some way. The more films you watch the more you'll be able to tell the difference between the two, and the wider variety of films you'll be able to relate to and experience the emotion first hand rather than on second thought.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,511]

12 hours ago, Bespin said:

There's no more movies, there's no more emotion. We are now old and cold, emotionless.

 

Let's drink Champagne!

 

 What have we, here? Let's have some more Champagne... shall we? 

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The entire purpose of film is to immerse you in another world. I don't understand the perspective of approaching it at surface level with no emotion. It's a heightened false reality with unnatural lighting, dialogue, sounds, music, etc. If there's no emotional involvement, there's no point. 

[Will 2,215]

12 hours ago, DominicCobb said:

If you're asking to what end, sometimes experiencing emotion is an end unto itself.

 

 

I guess the ability of a filmmaker to make you feel strong emotions can be seen as a form of beauty, as well, just the same as the imagery, music, etc.

 

I've seen a lot of you guys say that the point of film is emotion (or something to that effect). I wonder, though, whether it might be beauty instead. I never became particularly attached to Rey's character in TFA, yet I'll always remember how beautiful I found her introduction sequence on first viewing, in large part due to Williams' amazing score. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Indeed. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,511]

Will, regarding the "emotion" of a film, perhaps you're asking "why do some films, and not others "move" us, and why do some films "move" us, and not others?

In trying to answer this, I ask myself these questions:

WHAT did I watch?

WHEN did I watch it?

WHO did I watch it with?

HOW did I watch it?

WHERE did I watch it?

WHY did I watch it?

and, most importantly, WHAT WAS going on for me, at the time?

For example: I love STAR TREK V. I don't just like it, I really, really like it! Reason? I leant on the film (and the score) due to the fact that my marriage was on the rocks, at the time. I sought and took solace in the film, and it, somehow, sustained me through our bad patch.

Many people hate ST:V, and that's fine, because, on the surface, it's a cheap, risible film. Somehow, however, ST:V spoke to me, deeply, in a way that I cannot quite explain.

I have know idea what motivates someone to like (or dislike) a film. The best that I can do is to try to get alongside people, whether they be friends, family, work colleagues, or even JWfaners, interpret their vocalising of the cinema-going experience, and feed back what they say in a, hopefully, intelligible, and agreeable manner. Sometimes this leads to good and stimulating talk, and sometimes the conversation is led down an emphatic cul-de-sac. No matter. I still enjoy the debate.

I guess that what I'm trying to say is, what does the film mean to the individual viewer? Answer that, and one has definitely connected with a film, in an emotional, and significant way.

[Will 2,215]

4 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

Beauty is supposed to make you feel emotion. At least that's how most people work: you see something beautiful, you feel something...

 

And I do too. 

 

I suppose I'm pretty narrowly defining the term, but what I meant by emotion was strong, visceral reactions of sadness or fear (which, at least for me, tend to be the only emotions that can completely "take over" during a film). Happiness, wonder, etc. are all emotions too; I just don't think they pull me out of my world in the same way that sadness and fear do, so I consider them to be in a different group, at least for purposes of my discussion here. Somehow, I, presumably like many if not most other humans, am "gripped" more by negative emotions than by positive ones. It's much easier to hold my attention, in the moment, with a war film or Titanic than with The BFG or even Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (some may argue that BFG and M:I-5 aren't as gripping because they're simply inferior, but the reasoning there seems a little circular, since they would be assuming the inferiority of the film in order to prove why it wasn't gripping, even though the fact that it wasn't gripping probably was one of the reasons they thought it was inferior in the first place...) Anyway, my point is that, in terms of "gripping-ness," films that are generally optimistic and don't take themselves too seriously don't stand a chance, for me, and, I would guess, many others. My point in this paragraph was to show how certain emotions can have wildly different effects on the viewing experience. 

 

Now, getting back to your original point, about the connection between beauty and emotion: When I saw Rey's introduction scene in TFA, I was filled with what I can best describe as wonder. Sure, that's an emotion. But it's not one of the emotions I was referring to above in my usage of the term (not that I can blame you for not realizing that, since I don't think I was clear). I think there may be something about it that distinguishes it from other "movie emotions," at least in my mind. It's not as powerful and gripping as sadness or fear, but doesn't pull you out of the film as much as laughter... 

 

4 hours ago, Richard said:

Will, regarding the "emotion" of a film, perhaps you're asking "why do some films, and not others "move" us, and why do some films "move" us, and not others?

 

[...]

 

I guess that what I'm trying to say is, what does the film mean to the individual viewer? Answer that, and one has definitely connected with a film, in an emotional, and significant way.

 

Great post. It's definitely a very complex and individual thing. Perhaps it's best not to analyze it too much. It's certainly far from the only human practice that can be difficult to "justify" in a satisfying way. Sometimes we just want to do certain things, I guess. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

12 minutes ago, Will said:

 

I suppose I'm pretty narrowly defining the term, but what I meant by emotion was strong, visceral reactions of sadness or fear (which, at least for me, tend to be the only emotions that can completely "take over" during a film). Happiness, wonder, etc. are all emotions too; I just don't think they pull me out of my world in the same way that sadness and fear do, so I consider them to be in a different group, at least for purposes of my discussion here. Somehow, I, presumably like many if not most other humans, am "gripped" more by negative emotions than by positive ones.

 

Generally I think I agree with this.  But there are definite exceptions.  The end of It's a Wonderful Life, for example, truly transports me to a place of complete joy.  I lose myself completely in the feeling.  And it still can after seeing it dozens of times!

 

Of course, much of this is because of the very dark places the film had gone to minute before!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Gripping is gripping, regardless of genre or mood. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Yeah. I don't understand what Will is trying to say (the examples being Despicable Me, The BFG and The Papers don't really help!), or if I do, I don't agree with him at all.

 

Emotional involvment is not important when watching a movie? Emotions cloud your judgment of a film and thus don't let you assess it properly? Emotions aren't/shouldn't be the be-all and end-all of a film? Action movies make you think more? Boring films are interesting? "Watching films is simply more fun when you're not that emotionally involved and can stay in the "real world"? I can't really connect to any of those ideas (if it is indeed what Will is trying to convey).

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I agree with BloodBoal 100%!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

8 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

I agree with BloodBoal 100%!

 

Welcome to my signature!

[Loert 2,511]

On 20/08/2017 at 11:51 PM, Will said:

Here's another "version" of my argument: Emotion clouds your judgement. (We've heard this, of course, in Star Wars!) Whatever we "learn" from a film where we feel very emotionally involved isn't pure. For example, watching a very sad, emotionally involving film where one group oppresses another will likely make you angry at the oppressing group. You may become filled with a sense of moral righteousness, but your opinion may not be very well-informed and rational, if it is created in the midst of anger. So what have you "gained"? You've become sad and angry (not very fun!) and you now have a half-baked but strongly held opinion about some social issue. 

 

I think political opinions and such may be better formed separate from strong emotions like anger and righteousness. This is in addition to my suggestion that watching films is simply more fun when you're not that emotionally involved and can stay in the "real world," particularly if you're watching with friends or other family members. (The exception, of course, is if the "real world" for you isn't that great, but I am lucky enough to generally be in a good mood due to living in fairly good Western circumstances.) 

 

So you prefer to keep a cool head, and you don't like being carried away by too much emotion (negative emotion in particular...) as you prefer to stay as rational as possible. But you do understand that people reason through their emotions as well. If you were to see a man run over by a car on the street, you would probably feel shock and disgust which would trigger you to either run towards the scene of the incident (or run away!!!), and/or call for help and/or reach for your phone and dial 911. Your immediate reaction wouldn't be to stand there and think "Hmmm, that car just hit a person on the street. The person shouldn't have been crossing here, though - the next public crossing is about 100 yards down the road from here. So it's kind of his fault, isn't it? Although, on the other hand, the car could've slammed on the brakes earlier, but it is early in the morning so the driver's probably tired..." In fact there was a study taken some time ago of people who had experienced brain damage and had lost their "emotional instinct" part of the brain. In other words, every action they did had to be thought through rationally, before they could carry it out. It turned out that those people couldn't function properly in society...their family relatives didn't know what to do because they kept making strange, unnecessary decisions which didn't help anyone or, worse, hurt other people, even though their thinking wasn't "impaired" in any other way. (I can't remember the name of the study but I'll try and look for it...)

 

So I wouldn't be so worried about getting "carried away" with emotion in films - it's an important and valuable part of your brain. And watching movies/listening to music/looking at a painting and yes, reading books too, are an important way of exercising that. And yes, many filmmakers use emotion to drive through a point they want to make. But that's how movies work. It can certainly be abused (e.g. political propaganda films), and it's down to you ultimately to separate the wheat from the chaff, but there's no reason to shy away from the "emotional" aspect of watching films.

 

I say all this but again, I think you basically know this already. I think you're experiencing a separate issue. Maybe you're just biased against overly-serious movies? Maybe it's just that you're uncomfortable with being taken out from the real world too much? 

 

For the record, I too didn't find Lion that memorable, although I certainly found some moments in it emotional. It was good, but not exceptional IMO. It had a bit of that modern, "serious" style which doesn't always resonate with me, partly because often the filmmaker makes it too obvious.

 

EDIT: The study I was thinking of comes from the book Descartes' Error by António Damásio. Here's a summary of it from Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind:

Quote

 

Damasio had noticed an unusual pattern of symptoms in patients who had suffered brain damage to a specific part of the brain—the ventromedial (i.e., bottom-middle) prefrontal cortex (abbreviated vmPFC; it’s the region just behind and above the bridge of the nose). Their emotionality dropped nearly to zero. They could look at the most joyous or gruesome photographs and feel nothing. They retained full knowledge of what was right and wrong, and they showed no deficits in IQ. They even scored well on Kohlberg’s tests of moral reasoning. Yet when it came to making decisions in their personal lives and at work, they made foolish decisions or no decisions at all. They alienated their families and their employers, and their lives fell apart.

Damasio’s interpretation was that gut feelings and bodily reactions were necessary to think rationally, and that one job of the vmPFC was to integrate those gut feelings into a person’s conscious deliberations. When you weigh the advantages and disadvantages of murdering your parents … you can’t even do it, because feelings of horror come rushing in through the vmPFC.

 

But Damasio’s patients could think about anything, with no filtering or coloring from their emotions. With the vmPFC shut down, every option at every moment felt as good as every other. The only way to make a decision was to examine each option, weighing the pros and cons using conscious, verbal reasoning. If you’ve ever shopped for an appliance about which you have few feelings—say, a washing machine—you know how hard it can be once the number of options exceeds six or seven (which is the capacity of our short-term memory). Just imagine what your life would be like if at every moment, in every social situation, picking the right thing to do or say became like picking the best washing machine among ten options, minute after minute, day after day. You’d make foolish decisions too.

 

Damasio’s findings were as anti-Platonic as could be. Here were people in whom brain damage had essentially shut down communication between the rational soul and the seething passions of the body (which, unbeknownst to Plato, were not based in the heart and stomach but in the emotion areas of the brain). No more of those “dreadful but necessary disturbances,” those “foolish counselors” leading the rational soul astray. Yet the result of the separation was not the liberation of reason from the thrall of the passions. It was the shocking revelation that reasoning requires the passions.

 

 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

7 minutes ago, Loert said:

So you prefer to keep a cool head, and you don't like being carried away by too much emotion (negative emotion in particular...) as you prefer to stay as rational as possible. But you do understand that people reason through their emotions as well. If you were to see a man run over by a car on the street, you would probably feel shock and disgust which would trigger you to either run towards the scene of the incident (or run away!!!), and/or call for help and/or reach for your phone and dial 911. Your immediate reaction wouldn't be to stand there and think "Hmmm, that car just hit a person on the street. The person shouldn't have been crossing here, though - the next public crossing is about 100 yards down the road from here.

 

The normal reaction these days would be to take your phone and film the scene (vertically, of course), and then post it on Youtube!

[Brónach 1,302]

On 21/8/2017 at 8:42 AM, Koray Savas said:

The entire purpose of film is to immerse you in another world. I don't understand the perspective of approaching it at surface level with no emotion. It's a heightened false reality with unnatural lighting, dialogue, sounds, music, etc. If there's no emotional involvement, there's no point. 

 

If I don't feel anything I get bored. It doesn't even have to be a nice feeling.

 

*saw The End of Evangelion yesterday and still feels weird*

[Will 2,215]

4 hours ago, Loert said:

 

So you prefer to keep a cool head, and you don't like being carried away by too much emotion (negative emotion in particular...) as you prefer to stay as rational as possible. But you do understand that people reason through their emotions as well. If you were to see a man run over by a car on the street, you would probably feel shock and disgust which would trigger you to either run towards the scene of the incident (or run away!!!), and/or call for help and/or reach for your phone and dial 911. Your immediate reaction wouldn't be to stand there and think "Hmmm, that car just hit a person on the street. The person shouldn't have been crossing here, though - the next public crossing is about 100 yards down the road from here. So it's kind of his fault, isn't it? Although, on the other hand, the car could've slammed on the brakes earlier, but it is early in the morning so the driver's probably tired..." In fact there was a study taken some time ago of people who had experienced brain damage and had lost their "emotional instinct" part of the brain. In other words, every action they did had to be thought through rationally, before they could carry it out. It turned out that those people couldn't function properly in society...their family relatives didn't know what to do because they kept making strange, unnecessary decisions which didn't help anyone or, worse, hurt other people, even though their thinking wasn't "impaired" in any other way. (I can't remember the name of the study but I'll try and look for it...)

 

So I wouldn't be so worried about getting "carried away" with emotion in films - it's an important and valuable part of your brain. And watching movies/listening to music/looking at a painting and yes, reading books too, are an important way of exercising that. And yes, many filmmakers use emotion to drive through a point they want to make. But that's how movies work. It can certainly be abused (e.g. political propaganda films), and it's down to you ultimately to separate the wheat from the chaff, but there's no reason to shy away from the "emotional" aspect of watching films.

 

I say all this but again, I think you basically know this already. I think you're experiencing a separate issue. Maybe you're just biased against overly-serious movies? Maybe it's just that you're uncomfortable with being taken out from the real world too much? 

 

Interesting study. Makes sense - and I am definitely guilty of over-rationalizing when making purchases, etc.

 

However, it's not that I'm uncomfortable with emotional films per se - it's simply that I've noticed that films that aren't particularly emotional (and here I'm mostly referring to "negative emotions" like sadness and fear) tend to be the ones I'm most likely to watch movie clips of, listen to the music of, etc. I suppose it's possible that I'm finding the wrong correlations here, and that there are other reasons. I certainly don't avoid watching very emotional films - I watch many! This trend is just something I had observed that I found fascinating.