![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Alex and I were talking about films and other things on the way home last night and I think I might finally have figured something out. I didn't like The Village and I think that's because it gave me too much time to think and not enough to think about.
Some films I like are utterly absorbing. They bring me into their world and as the story progresses I feel my way along with it mentally. I don't start looking outside the film until afterwards. Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter & Spring Again was like this. So was The Return. So was Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Films of this type, I can generally watch and enjoy many times.
Some films I like are just fun for the ride. The keep me engaged by not really stopping for breath and it's not until I come out of the cinema that I start to analyse the plot or context and pick holes, a process which in itself can be pretty enjoyable. I, Robot was a film like this. Spiderman 2 just about managed it. Minority Report, X-men, Charlie's Angels. I would say that films of this type are much more likely to suffer a law of diminishing returns as the more often I watch them the less carried along I am by the thrill ride and the more things about the plot intrude on the film itself.
This is a pretty crude analysis and there are some films I like which can't really be explained in these terms (I'm not sure how Clueless fits in, although I suppose you could just about describe it as a film of the first type). There's also plenty of blending to be had; there's a spectrum of films I like which provide a mix of both - enough pace that the plot doesn't distract without relying only on pace or vice versa (damn it! All the way through writing that sentence I had an example in mind but now it escapes me). But yeah. I think it does explain something about my tastes.
Writing this post has reminded me (a) that I want to write something in response to Geneva's thing about reading positions and (b) I owe Geneva a fanzine article about organising small cons. My mind works in mysterious ways.
Some films I like are utterly absorbing. They bring me into their world and as the story progresses I feel my way along with it mentally. I don't start looking outside the film until afterwards. Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter & Spring Again was like this. So was The Return. So was Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Films of this type, I can generally watch and enjoy many times.
Some films I like are just fun for the ride. The keep me engaged by not really stopping for breath and it's not until I come out of the cinema that I start to analyse the plot or context and pick holes, a process which in itself can be pretty enjoyable. I, Robot was a film like this. Spiderman 2 just about managed it. Minority Report, X-men, Charlie's Angels. I would say that films of this type are much more likely to suffer a law of diminishing returns as the more often I watch them the less carried along I am by the thrill ride and the more things about the plot intrude on the film itself.
This is a pretty crude analysis and there are some films I like which can't really be explained in these terms (I'm not sure how Clueless fits in, although I suppose you could just about describe it as a film of the first type). There's also plenty of blending to be had; there's a spectrum of films I like which provide a mix of both - enough pace that the plot doesn't distract without relying only on pace or vice versa (damn it! All the way through writing that sentence I had an example in mind but now it escapes me). But yeah. I think it does explain something about my tastes.
Writing this post has reminded me (a) that I want to write something in response to Geneva's thing about reading positions and (b) I owe Geneva a fanzine article about organising small cons. My mind works in mysterious ways.
