What's wrong with sentimentalism?

Minority or not, I have seen these criticisms come up a decent number of times for me to think there is a decent group of people with this mindset, which is why I started this thread. I suspect it's larger than I think you may suspect. Heck, I can even out myself and say that I use to uphold this view several years ago. I also once knew a person who marked down any movie with sentimentality on principle (he gave The Shawshank Redemption a 0/5 solely because it had emotional scenes in it; some of his descriptions of the film were also completely inaccurate as I recall).

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Is this "ratio of sincerity to sarcasm" something that's mainly just an impression, or is there actual data that shows what the ratio has been in each decade in Hollywood?

Because of it's based mostly on superhero movies, well there's hundreds of new movies every year and only 3-5 superhero movies among those.

It's pretty common to see people criticize a movie for peddling in sentimentality. And for a lot of them, it seems that any kind of sentimentality is a non-starter. I think some people just see it as inherently cheap, to the point that they don't even bother to distinguish whether or not it was well done, or if the emotions it plays on are well earned. For these people, if it's sentimental, they just don't like it. And while I don't think this is the majority of people, and it might not be the most popular sentiment, I don't think these people are remotely rare.

Yeah, I think you said it better than my gargled attempts throughout this thread.

It's sort of like the "I don't like horror films" crowd. I don't think these people are a majority, but there are a decent number of people who dismiss them or react negatively on principle of them being horror films. Genre films have a stigma attached to them more than other genres, in fact. I think the same applies to sentimentality.

It's an empirical question, so there is an empirical answer. Alas, without empirical social science research into the question regarding the norm regulating this particular word-usage in this particular context, we will only have dueling intuitions and anecdotes.

We appear to have a difference of opinion about the regularity of usage. That's fine. Without the definitive evidence, we can only ask the clarifying question when someone makes the accusation. And when we complain about the complain, it will be important to note variances of usage in this context.

We appear to be in agreement about the proper disposition to the objection assuming it has been disambiguated. I agree with you that the categorical objection is a bit silly. The broader objection has legitimate instances, which (as you say) means case-by-case consideration is the way to go.

Yup, absolutely:

So, again, we're talking about big action/fantasy films, of which superhero movies are a subgroup.

While I don't have some Harvard Review study about sarcasm ratios in such films, I have noticed the significant increase in tagging a snarky or ironic remark onto almost every serious conversation in such films. The airport brawl (cited in the YouTube video) was one of the moments that I realized I was seriously losing interest in the Marvel universe films.

Ok, but noticing a 'significant increase' in something also kind of depends on the sample size, right?

I've been watching pretty close to everything that gets a theatrical release for about 35 years now. I don't think the trend towards more snark is as big as some people believe it is, at least not if you're looking at all of the films released every year.

But again, that just depends on the sample size one is considering, so maybe with a smaller sample size, the increase may seem more significant? Because there are still dozens of more serious films, mostly indie films and movies from other countries, where this usually isn't happening.

So I think it depends on the number of movies each person sees, and also the ratio of American mainstream movies to everything else.

I think if I watched a lot less movies a year, maybe my point of view would be a lot closer to yours.

We are talking about blockbuster/tentpole action/fantasy films, not all the films released every year.

Which the guy discusses in the YouTube video.

Really? I mean, most of the movies I watch (whether older or from the current decade) are not snark fests. But I think it's become painfully present in the big-budget action stuff.

I want to add to my earlier post b/c something very interesting (and annoying) happened to me with the last movie I watched in the theater.

So, at a matinee showing of On Becoming a Guinea Fowl, there were a group of 3 people in one of the row behind me who spent at least half an hour laughing hysterically at every other thing in the movie, as if though they were watching a sitcom. They were the only ones in the theater laughing like that.

The movie is kind of a dramedy and does have some darkly humorous scenes, but nothing I would consider laugh-out-loud funny. It mostly deals with some very serious subjects, such as incest and rape.

So after maybe 30 or 40 minutes, they finally started behaving more like normal people and didn't laugh so inappropriately and I think they got the idea that this wasn't some kind of silly comedy. But, truth be told, that had already been pretty much enough to kind of ruin the movie for some of us.

It seems clear that some moviegoers are now accustomed to treating everything like it's a big joke and it's just being shown for some easy laughs.

I can be ok with the snarky and wink-wink kind of humor of many American mainstream movies, but fortunately that remains a relatively small part of my movie diet.

I will take another look at the video when I get a chance, because honestly right now I don't remember very well his whole take on the whole situation.

However, if we look at the situation from the bigger perspective, and not just limiting things to what the YouTube dude is talking about, I still don't think that increase is as significant as that, even if you are looking at mostly the big-budget stuff. There were an awful lot of movies in the 90s in that genre that I distinctly remember being just like that, if not more.

>It seems clear that some moviegoers are now accustomed to treating everything like it's a big joke and it's just being shown for some easy laughs.

Maybe it's me but I'd have to see what they were laughing at before I can judge. I believe you can laugh at anything and a clever director can make a lot of subject matter humorous or filmed in a humorous way. Now we can discuss whether the humor matches a movie's tone but I would never say someone "shouldn't laugh" at something. That's taking the judgementalism to a different level. Some people think the world as a whole is quite silly and these people are not the enemy.

>But I think it's become painfully present in the big-budget action stuff.

Most big-budget action stuff is supposed to be light fun. Why can't it also try to be silly? This seems like a direct commentary on the MCU more than anything else.

Comedy is the enemy of tragedy. Tragedy is the enemy of comedy. When epic fantasy action adventure wears the mask of comedy, we will find tragedians cannot abide the buffoonery.

Anything that works will be worked to death. There's nothing new under the sun. We have to wait for some visionary to rearrange the furniture in a way that somehow feels "fresh" and then that will be beaten to death for a decade.

Support the kinds of movies you want to see more of.

Originally Posted by SpelingError

So many people throw around the word "sentimental" as if it's some kind of an innate flaw, but I've never understood why sentimentalism is universally loathed by some people. To be fair, I'm sure there are numerous instances where a film dips into schmaltziness due to how thick the sentimentalism is layered on, in addition to instances where sentimentality doesn't suit the tone of a film or scene. As a whole though, I think sentimentalism is one of the many tools in a filmmaker's tool kit. It's neither innately good nor bad. It should instead be judged on a case-by-case basis. I often see people compare sentimentalism to dramatic realism to provide an unflattering comparison, but I honestly think these are just two sides of the stylistic coin and arguing between highs and lows here is a wormhole of a discussion. Like, does sentimentalism manipulate your emotions? Sure, but the same can be said for any comedy whose goal is to make you laugh, any horror film whose goal is to scare you, any tragedy whose goal is to depress you, or any other film whose goal is to elicit any other type of emotion. Films which elicit other emotions don't get the same backlash, so why is sentimentalism singled out?

Earned sentimentalism in a movie brings me to tears. Unearned sentimentalism in a movie makes me gag.

I love sentimental films. Most notably coming of age type films. Nothing wrong with it at all. Most of the times when sentimentality is bad it's because the writing is bad.

See the film 'Life Itself' (2018) as an example of bad sentimentalism

Sentiment vs sentimentality.

Sentimentality is unearned and an artiface; a lie that spits in the face of truth and reality in a way that highly performative and manipulative which undercuts good storytelling or characters by cheap tricks. It's also an insult to the complexity of both the good and the evil of human beings.

Sentimentality has also ruined some great films such as the horrible ending to It's A Wonderful Life where George is bailed out which contradicts the entire message of Clarence convincing him that life IS worth living despite its cruelty and the apathy of a majority of human beings.

It's why I will never consider filmmakers like Capra and Spielberg to be truly great because they often don't speak truth to the chaos and cruelty of simply existing.

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

Like all of these definitions of sentimentality, it depends on what hits your particular nerve. Same thing with "fightin' words".

A few very general thoughts, most of which seem to have been expressed already:

1) I think some people say 'sentimentalism' with an implied 'excessive' before it. IE: the mere fact that it's being mentioned as a criticism suggests there is too much of the thing, even if the literal meaning seems binary. I don't have a strong opinion on how often this is the case, though, just that this is a natural form of shorthand where the context provides the modifiers.

2) I think drama in general is pretty brittle. If you don't buy-in, the artifice is really evident and the whole thing feels silly. Drama and sentiment you're invested in are almost as riveting as the real thing. Drama and sentiment you're not invested in feels like a clumsy grade school play, where you're constantly aware of the fact that everyone's pretending.

3) I think some people watch films constantly aware it's a film, never really getting sucked in, but also can't or don't put themselves in the headspace of the characters. I make this distinction because I feel like I never really forget I'm watching the film, but I do feel like I can sort of inhabit the characters anyway. But I think there are some people who don't or can't do either, and that they enjoy certain types of stories more or less as a result.

I like to forget I’m watching a movie & I do feel like I’m inhabiting a favorite character & totally losing myself. Thelma & Louise is a good example. My favorite theme of a woman’s journey & what would I do in the several situations in which they found themselves.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.