I suppose manipulate is the pejorative of evoke; one would only use the term if their reaction to a film is negative, but it's kind of the same thing.
Yes, true, they're kind of the same, but the negative connotation of the one and not the other is significant, I think. Would anyone really ever say, "I love art because of the way it manipulates me"? That seems a little masochistic, doesn't it? I don't know; I guess I'm wondering why the discussion about Tarantino has seemed so intent on neutralizing the negative implications of the word "manipulate" and also why people don't generally describe art as primarily something that "manipulates" the viewer?
BTW: Is "manipulate" really the word we want to use with art? Isn't something like "all artists want to evoke a response" better? Kieslowski evokes a definite response in me that I know he intends, but I don't feel manipulated (toyed with?) by him as I do with Tarantino. With Tarantino, it feels like a cat and mouse kind of thing to me, a cat playing with its prey because its got all the power and can. Someone like Kieslowski has a great deal of power, but he just doesn't seem to personally luxuriate in it as I feel that Tarantino does.
What side of this does Hitchcock fall on?
Heh, excellent question. I'm not sure. I
should definitely ask myself whether I feel like Hitchcock is luxuriating in the way he's manipulating me . . . I haven't felt that way, I don't think. I wonder if it's because Hitchcock's films feel like they're "about" something more than just the experience of being manipulated? I think with Tarantino, I feel like the manipulation is an end in itself and the films, ultimately, just feel very self-reflexive, being about nothing more than themselves, if that makes any sense. I don't take away from them anything that makes my life deeper - something that I guess I want art to do, especially art that is asking me to go to a dark place. Although some films
are just entertainment - they're not really about anything except the ride - and I can definitely enjoy those films . . . Eh, I don't know - I'm talking in circles a bit - I haven't, obviously, clearly thought this out very well.
I feel "safe" going where Kieslowski wants me to go; I don't feel safe with Tarantino. And it could very well be the subject matter that plays into my feelings about safety, but there's an attitude there with the filmmaker that makes my feeling related to more than just the subject matter.
I'm curious about this. I get it in the sense of violence on screen and feeling uneasy about what you might be exposed to, but do you mean something more when you mean you feel "safe" with Kieslowski and not with Tarantino?
Yes, I'm not sure exactly how to describe what I mean. I think it has to do, again, with what seems like Tarantino's goal - to manipulate me into feeling something, to push me into an experience just to see how I'll respond (and then, I feel, he expects to respond with applause for him as a filmmaker). I feel like with filmmakers like Kieslowski, he's going for something much deeper - an idea, a truth about life, something that he himself feels very deeply and wants me to somehow feel or know, too. In that sense, I feel that Kieslowski is "in it with me," so to speak - it's a kind of humility that comes through somehow. He's sharing a film with me rather than shoving it at me maybe. And yeah, I don't really know if I can defend these feelings at this point - I need to query them further, too.