posted
The wedding analogy got me thinking on this line anyway, and I apologize if it hits a nerve (you don't have to respond if you don't want to, kat). I was sobbing like a baby at my wedding ceremony, and there was absolutely nothing about it that was sad.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Kate: OK. I know what you're saying. I'm not sexy enough. Jean-Luc: No, I did not say anything. Kate: I'm supposed to be this pouty girl who says "yes" when she means "no" and "no" for "yes" and I cannot do it, OK? Happy - smile. Sad - frown. Use the corresponding face for the corresponding emotion.
OK, you caught me. When I cried at the end of Toy Story, it was all a scam. I was hoping the person next to me would feel sorry for me and buy me lunch at the food court.
And it would have worked, but everyone in the theater seemed to have come up with the exact same scam at the exact same moment. What are the odds? Oh, well. I'm going to try it again next week when I see Hot Tub Time Machine.Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: Kat, have you or has anyone around you ever cried at the temple? Or during a hymn? Or while bearing their testimony?
Are these things sad? I'd argue that they are not.
Around me? Yes. Have I? Never. Not even close. I well know those feelings that people say makes them cry, and it's never come close to pushing me to tears. It pushes me to display emotion in other ways.
---
Tom, I am not defending myself. Against what? I am not remotely threatened and nothing about me is in question.
-----
Clearly, lots of people do it. Lots of people do lots of things I find utterly mystifying.
But the church stuff reminded me of an anology. There are large swaths of the earth's population that express joy and feeling the Spirit through dancing in the aisles and speaking in tongues. Crying on happy occasions is exactly like that.
posted
Honestly, I really did think kat clarified her position pretty well on the last page and I don't understand why this argument still going on.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, I am not defending myself. Against what?
I didn't say you were defending yourself. You were defending the concept. I didn't mean what I said as an attack, but rather as an expression of amused horror that you'd compare yourself to a Meg Ryan character. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:the premise being that all Meg Ryan characters are inherently worthless as a reference
I submit that they are, taken as a set, perhaps not the best examples of healthy emotional behavior, yeah. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom didn't say Meg Ryan characters are inherently worthless. You said that. He was commenting on it being funny to cite a romantic comedy heroine's humorous opinion on emotions as strong evidence of it being "weird" to cry at happy moments.
Also, in that scene, Kate is clearly and openly talking about French women being sly and emotionally dishonest in their romantic relationships -- while flirting, specifically. The statement is colored by Kate's own frustration at not feeling attractive enough to keep her original fiance and/or attract Luc. It's a pretty specific reference, and really not a good example of what you were trying to prove.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is approximately as sensical as me feeling bad about the toys I've left in my closet for the past 3 years.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
But have you seen her sad face? With those big, upturned puppy-dog eyes and the way her lower lip (pre-surgery) just sort of wobbles a bit until, fighting off tears, she catches it between her teeth? If left unchecked, I'm afraid she'll hurl herself face-first into a pillow and kick her legs up and down, and no one wants that.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm almost certain that would lead to a scenario in which I'd have to run through a rainstorm just to apologize, so I'm reluctant to consider that option.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Catharsis does not = sad. It can mean overwhelming sadness, but often it is the release of strong emotion, involuntary, and may even be just as mystifying to the person crying.
I felt the emotions swelling at that final scene but while it was touching and I certainly felt the impact, it wasn't the Woody tug-of-war that did it for me. It was when Andy started telling the girl about each toy, praising each one in turn.
That, to me, was an incredibly emotional time for the toys who (aside from Woody, and even he may have had his doubts) had spent most of the movie convinced that Andy no longer cared for them. Here was validation, total and loving, given just at the moment he was leaving. I was smiling broadly and crying the whole time. It was sad that he was leaving, it was wonderful that they knew at the end how much he loved them, it was both uplifting and depressing that he was moving on, it was great that they had a new home and a new child.
A similar feeling to the end of the last Harry Potter book. [SPOILERS, but I'm assuming if you like the series you've certainly read it and if you don't, you don't care] His defeat of Voldemort was kinda blah, to me. The battle was stirring, but the final faceoff was more like a Murder She Wrote ending that largely relied on who did what in what order and not in, say, strength or courage or determination. Harry won, woo hoo.
Then he walked into Dumbledore's office, and the portraits cheered, and I was overcome. It was a triumphant moment, again complete validation for someone we've seen persecuted and dismissed for his entire life, and I cried for it.
Some people don't. No worries. Some people do. No worries. But while some may find it mystifying, it's important to recognize that it happens so you'll have a better idea of how to deal with people around you if it comes up.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, in that scene, Kate is clearly and openly talking about French women being sly and emotionally dishonest in their romantic relationships -- while flirting, specifically. The statement is colored by Kate's own frustration at not feeling attractive enough to keep her original fiance and/or attract Luc. It's a pretty specific reference, and really not a good example of what you were trying to prove.
Good criminy, it was a JOKE. And a funny one.
Now THAT makes me wonder if people are having inappropriate emotional responses. You took the reference much, much too seriously.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Good criminy, it was a JOKE. And a funny one.
I can't understand anyone laughing at a Meg Ryan line, and I refuse to validate that sort of deviant behavior.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You took the reference much, much too seriously.
I don't think I took the reference seriously at all. Your subsequent posts, (indeed, the bulk of your posts on this thread) and your response to Tom, were what I took seriously. You have a strange habit of saying things and then pretending you never meant them, or, even more bizarre, that you never said them. Considering that we've met in person, I think your snide tone and patronizing "small text" reference could have been worded differently. On second thought, that really is irrelevant -- nothing I said warranted that kind of snottiness.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're taking all of it unnecessarily seriously. There was no need for you to inject yourself and your scolds in the conversation. You shouldn't be surprised it didn't go as you might have hoped.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think you're taking all of it unnecessarily seriously. There was no need for you to inject yourself and your scolds in the conversation. You shouldn't be surprised it didn't go as you might have hoped.
some people have buttons other people can press.
you're like 99% button by surface volume these days.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could be that by the shot showing Andy, the audience is meant to identify with Woody as we are seeing what he is seeing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a reply to happymann (and I guess kmbboots, who seems to have the same idea I did, replying here to avoid spoilers). This is about the Andy/Woody shot and what the Director intended the audience to be thinking at the time. I stated that I'm willing to bet $50 that the Director is intending the shot to be focused on Andy, and we are meant to have more than half of our empathy/concern directed at Andy at the time.
(This is the shot where the girl reaches for Woody, and Andy jerks away in response).
If we're going to break the statement into full legal-ese, so that there is no question of who won the bet, I am specifically believe and am willing to bet on the following:
• The Director believes Andy, as a character, should be important to the audience, for reasons that do not depend upon Woody being sentient. • While the Director is certainly aware that not everyone is going to react the same way to the same moment, he intentionally used camera work, animation and dialogue to shift the focus to Andy at that particular moment. • I DO think the Director would be a little baffled that we cared enough to ask him whether Woody or Andy was more important in that shot. They are both certainly important throughout the whole scene and the fact that we came to him with a $50 bet on the subject is a little silly, and it is possible he might deliberately try to give a non-answer to prove how silly the bet was... • BUT, assuming he did appear to be answering honestly, I would take answer of "I believe Woody and Andy are equally important in that shot" or "I deliberately left that shot ambiguous, open to interpretation" to mean I was wrong. I would take an answer of "Woody IS still important in that shot, but it's mostly about Andy's decision" to mean I was right.
There is a shot a little bit later in which cuts between Andy and Woody (where Woody is waving), where Woody is STILL inanimate, Andy is still the one "taking action," but the way it's framed makes Woody much more important. There's also the shot much earlier in the movie where Andy is holding Buzz and Woody, deciding whether to take them to college. THOSE are shots that are much more ambiguous, probably deliberately so.
@kmmboots: I'd agree that's possible, EXCEPT that Woody wasn't even in the scene up till that point. The scene begins with Andy driving up, talking to the neighbors. He interacts with the girl (can't remember her name). He pulls out the toys one by one. All this time, he is the one making decisions, he is the one the camera is focused on, his face is the one we're seeing expressions of happiness, embarrassment and doubt.
Woody and Co will certainly be at the back of our minds the whole time, but I firmly believe that at that particular moment, we are intended to thinking (and more importantly, feeling) about Andy.
I actually am rewatching it on youtube now and am considering putting up a more in depth commentary on various shots, just for fun.
posted
Okay, looking back at the earlier thread, I don't think anyone officially clarified which shot we are talking about. If you're using the youtube link I provided, my bet ONLY applies to the shots between 2:44 and 3:00.
My take on the rest of the shots, many of which are far more ambiguous.
2:30 - Andy is talking about the toys meaning a lot to him, and the camera is focusing on the toys who are all staring (kinda creepily) into the camera. We're hearing Andy's voice, but looking at the toys' eyes, and it's clear we're supposed to be thinking about the fact that the toys are listening to Andy talking about them. This, by the way, is where the tears start to build up for me.
3:08 - Andy's talking about Woody specifically now, and the camera is intercutting back and forth between Andy talking, Woody staring, and the girl listening. I think Woody and Andy are equally important there but I wouldn't be surprised to learn the Director was intending to focus on one or the other.
4:00 - Andy and the girl begin playing, and they're talking... but their talking is muted. The audio is mostly the bittersweet music, the visuals are mostly on the toys. Andy is now clearly in the background and I think the animators are trying as hard as they can to have us empathize with the toys while they're being played with, to communicate how important this last moment with Andy is to them.
4:30 - Girl is holding Andy, she waves at Andy, then waves Woody's hand at Andy. Andy gasps, then says "thanks guys," and cuts back to Woody. Woody and Andy are equally important here. (Buzz is arguably also important, although I think the handwaving makes Woody more much emphasized).
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Listening to the song...is that what you meant to convey? The whole song sounded terribly sad to me.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
