“Suspending disbelief” with actors and actresses

[Brian63]

As I have gotten older and more into adulthood (currently in my mid 30s), I have learned that one area of life that has actually gotten much more difficult for me is in being able to suspend my disbelief whenever I watch a fictional movie or T.V. show. As a result, I am not able to enjoy them as much either, unfortunately. It always remains in the back of my mind that what I am watching are not real events with real people, but rather are people pretending to be someone they are not, and pretending to be experiencing things that are not really happening, and oftentimes are even getting paid millions of dollars to do so. In real life, they are very different from the characters they are pretending to be in front of a camera. Numerous other people are also taking part in the pretense, such as directors, producers, camera operators, script writers, etc. that we just cannot see, but are very much there. I do not at all mean to imply that they have any kind of sinister motives of course; just explaining that being aware of the facade can make it more difficult to enjoy the experience, because to do that requires a bit of a “suspension of disbelief” temporarily in your own mind.

It becomes more difficult especially when I watch various celebrity filmmakers who also appear as their real selves and give interviews on talk shows, news programs, etc. Then I see them as they truly are and their real personalities, and so later watching them pretend to be some other person in a film or show is even more challenging. (Partly) as a result of all this, I do watch less movies and T.V. shows than I had when I was younger.

Has anyone else ever had any similar experiences, and if so were you able to find any tricks to beating the habit? Have you found it easier or more difficult with particular filmmakers? Not just asking who you think is a good or bad actor/actress. Sometimes a very good filmmaker can still be very difficult to suspend disbelief on, for various other reasons (personal scandals, particularly notable real-life personalities, etc.)

I would like to be able to enjoy watching entertaining films of various kinds moreso than I currently do, but I just find it difficult to consciously “suspend disbelief” in my own mind for that purpose. How do others manage to do so?

Thanks,

Brian

 

[Bronzeage]

It's good to keep in mind that what we see in a movie are not real events or real people. If this interferes with your enjoyment, you might want to find some other form of entertainment.

Suspension of belief is a critical human social skill. This is what allows us to reassign priorities and act as if something is very important, when it's not really important at all. The Championship game of the Final Four is made up of real players, playing real basketball, but compared to the refugee crisis in Syria, it's hardly worth noting. No one will starve or be blown up by a landmine, no matter who wins. However, if the players can't imagine that winning the game is important, and the viewers go along with it, there's no point to doing it, an no one will enjoy any of it.

Without an effective suspension of belief, no one would ever promise to love, cherish and honor, till death do us part.

 

[Underseer]

I mostly don't have a problem with it, except it flares up when I least expect it over science matters. For instance, Signs came out shortly after the media told us how crop circles are really made, so I never bothered to even see the film because I knew what my reaction would be if I did.

 

[dockeen]

Some actors do a much better job of being the character, rather than themselves. For me, Gene Hackman is on the good side, Tom Cruise on the bad. That may just be me.

I think having turned into an old fart, I find it easier to say "what the hell, let's see where this goes". I have more problem, ironically, with stories that change classic "canon" of known stories that those that mangle science.

 

[Unbeatable]

The issue for me, when it comes to suspension of disbelief, is writing/directing/etc, not the actors and actresses. And it's not just the scientific mistakes; it's the storytelling tropes. It's my understanding of why they chose to have a character say/do one thing instead of another; why the camera is focusing on what it's focusing on; what that change in the background music is meant to telegraph; I'm often aware of the reactions they're trying to evoke from me. Similarly, commercials, billboards, and other sorts of advertisements just bore, irritate, or confuse me. My attention will be drawn to the bad grammar, the illogical or outright false slogans, the choice of music or font, the pose that the mascot is standing in, etc. I know every detail is there either by accident or on purpose, in order to manipulate my thoughts and feelings in some way. My mind is mostly in rational analytical mode.

We've been discussing suspension of disbelief in the FRDB thread on bad science. I'm not optimistic about the prospect of reversing the loss of suspension of disbelief. I'm even less optimistic about the prospect of gaining any insight on the issue from the FRDB/talkfreethought community. We're too small a group and there are vanishingly few of us with any interest in psychology.

 

[Underseer]

Some actors do a much better job of being the character, rather than themselves. For me, Gene Hackman is on the good side, Tom Cruise on the bad. That may just be me.

I think having turned into an old fart, I find it easier to say "what the hell, let's see where this goes". I have more problem, ironically, with stories that change classic "canon" of known stories that those that mangle science.

Lord of the Rings changed my view on that. Sometimes big changes are necessary when moving to a different medium. Perhaps the best example would be the changed ending in Watchmen. Let's face it: the giant space squid would have been even sillier on the big screen than it was in the comic books.

On the other hand, what I can't stand are changes that remove, nullify, or negate a major theme of the story.

X2 was a decent movie, but as a retelling of God Loves, Man Kills, it completely removed the primary theme, which is that people often use religion to justify things that are completely unjustifiable. The movie version stripped the whole point of the story out.

Blade Runner was an excellent movie on its own, but an utter failure as a retelling of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The story was inspired by German civilians who complained about the noise and the smell coming from those Nazi death camps. The author couldn't believe that ordinary humans could be so evil and be so banal about it, so he wrote a story about monsters living among us that could pass for human. The movie flipped the primary theme completely around and turned the monsters into sympathetic victims.

Of course, when a bad movie removes, negates or reverses one of the major themes of a story... that's when I start yelling and throwing things at the TV.

 

[rousseau]

When it comes to watching film a big part of my enjoyment comes from the fact that the whole thing is a facade and a work of art. I don't get as lost in the story, but at the same time I'm judging the directing, the storyline, the acting, the dialogue... etc, which adds a whole new dynamic to the experience, and which is why I generally don't watch crap films.

And that said, I can still enjoy the storyline in a film as a piece of art and fiction. The fact that it's acted out doesn't make the dialogue or story worse. You could make a pretty good analogy with a fictive book. The events in a work of fiction aren't real, does that make you enjoy them less? A fictive movie is the same thing except it's visual, there's nothing wrong with being aware of that, it likely just means you're a self aware person.

 

[aeebee50]

I need a break from the real world and art helps.

 

[Brian63]

And that said, I can still enjoy the storyline in a film as a piece of art and fiction. The fact that it's acted out doesn't make the dialogue or story worse.

Oh I definitely agree that it does not make it worse at all. What I am saying is just that being conscious of the acting, writing, directing, editing, etc. behind it, can make it harder to relate to the characters on screen and have any kind of feelings about them.

You could make a pretty good analogy with a fictive book. The events in a work of fiction aren't real, does that make you enjoy them less? A fictive movie is the same thing except it's visual, there's nothing wrong with being aware of that, it likely just means you're a self aware person.

Your point about the fictive book I think is a fair one. I just happen to not read fiction, just as a matter of personal taste (though I probably should give it another shot at some point).



Also, I do agree with the point made in this thread that if you did *not* suspend disbelief when watching some fictional movie or show, and you thought that what you are watching is real, that in itself could ruin the experience and enjoyment of it. So in a sense it is better to not be able to entirely suspend disbelief. It is good that there will always be a part of you that realizes what you are watching is fake. As I have gotten older, seen more films & shows, seen more "behind-the-scenes" documentaries, seen more celebrities giving interviews and such, it is just that the realizations that the films are fake has become a bigger component of my mentality, while watching the films. When I was a little kid, it was a smaller part (though still there) and I was able to get more enjoyment out of the film. Not so much at later points in life though. It is not an "all-or-nothing" issue of being consciously aware of it, but rather is one of degrees. To get the most enjoyment out of a film, it is good to be consciously aware of its fictional nature to some extent, but not beyond that extent. How much? That will vary from person to person as well, to some degree.

Brian

 

[dockeen]

Lord of the Rings changed my view on that. Sometimes big changes are necessary when moving to a different medium. Perhaps the best example would be the changed ending in Watchmen. Let's face it: the giant space squid would have been even sillier on the big screen than it was in the comic books.

On the other hand, what I can't stand are changes that remove, nullify, or negate a major theme of the story.

X2 was a decent movie, but as a retelling of God Loves, Man Kills, it completely removed the primary theme, which is that people often use religion to justify things that are completely unjustifiable. The movie version stripped the whole point of the story out.

Blade Runner was an excellent movie on its own, but an utter failure as a retelling of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The story was inspired by German civilians who complained about the noise and the smell coming from those Nazi death camps. The author couldn't believe that ordinary humans could be so evil and be so banal about it, so he wrote a story about monsters living among us that could pass for human. The movie flipped the primary theme completely around and turned the monsters into sympathetic victims.

Of course, when a bad movie removes, negates or reverses one of the major themes of a story... that's when I start yelling and throwing things at the TV.

You give me too much credit. I was referring to really mundane changes, like Spiderman's web shooters becoming part of him. Really dumb stuff bothers me. The comic books do it too, for many years, the Vision was a rebuild of the original human torch, now the story is weirder.

 

[steve_bnk]

There are actors and there are character actors,

Clooney is a character actor, whatever the movie is about what you get is George Clooney.

The great actors and actresses are the ones who can draw you in in spite of yourself.

The lead male and female roles in Silence Of The Lambs. Anthony Hopkins.

 

[dockeen]

There are actors and there are character actors,

Clooney is a character actor, whatever the movie is about what you get is George Clooney.

The great actors and actresses are the ones who can draw you in in spite of yourself.

The lead male and female roles in Silence Of The Lambs. Anthony Hopkins.

Sean Connery as he has aged becomes better and better at making me see the character, not him.

 

[aeebee50]

It is great to have another avenue of escape.

 

[dockeen]

It is great to have another avenue of escape.

Good point. I seldom watch dramas, I have enough in my life as it is.
SciFi, Action, Comedy, Sports get me away from troubles.

My wife can sit through 10 hours straight or Revolution, or Vikings.
I can not binge watch.