Depends entirely on the context.

It's usually done to be funny / clever and is sadly niether

Entry level technique to keep the mouthbreathers entertained.

What does breaking the fourth wall mean?

most recent i saw was Whatever It Takes

>>5196867
this

I can't even name an instance of this happening in a movie outside of Ferris Beuller's Day Off.

>>5196861
Depends on the movie, and how it is handled.

It's almost never an acceptable technique.

Shakespeare did it a few times though, so it can't be all bad.

Fight Club did an alright job with breaking the fourth wall.

>>5196867
This.

And this one is my favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdTF4w03Vbo&feature=player_profilepage

Goodfellas did it to great effect.

>>5196881
It's when a movie admits IT IS A MOVIE.

>>5196892
>It's almost never an acceptable technique.
Wrong.

Rarely done well. Best example is Blazing Saddles.

It's usually annoying, but it can be okay.

I think it kind of works in Malcolm in the Middle.

>>5196895
True, a narrator talking right into the camera for a lot of the movie.

>>5196905

Name me some instances when it adds to rather than detracts from the performance then, internet tough guy.

>>5196925
Goodfellas

THis is only acceptable when the Mark Brothers do it. Otherwise, it's bullshit.

>>5196899
HOLY SHIT! I have been looking for the name of that movie ever since I saw it on Sundance channel a while back. that movie is was fucking good.

>>5196913

Every Mel Brooks film breaks the 4th wall, and they are all decent.

i find it disturbing, and for this reason i think it works extremely well in Funny Games

>>5196925
>>5196899

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Funny Games

>>5196899
I will not watch that because there is no wall breaking in Memories of Muder.

>>5196946
>>5196941
Funny Games used it fucking horribly, because the director is just a pretentious fuck, putting his shitty message on a pedestal above the films entertainment value.

>>5196925
Already been mentioned, but Fight Club

what the fuck is a fourth wall

>>5196920
That's different. MitM is built AROUND this. It relies on a character narrator. I think what we're talking about is a sporadic moment. I believe someone mentioned Blazing Sadles.

>>5196986
Seriously?

Family Guy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>5196970
>the director is just a pretentious fuck, putting his shitty message on a pedestal above the films entertainment value.

That was the point of the whole movie. It had nothing to do with the 4th wall breaking in particular.

>>5196986
No John, YOU are the fourth wall.

No, litterally. The audience is the place of the invisible wall of a scene (aka, 4th wall). when a character starts speaking to the audience, this is called, breaking the 4th wall rule.

Technically not a rule, but highly unacceptable.

>>5196925
JCVD... Jean-Claude Van Damme in the single best movie of his career.

Ghostbusters

Dudepeel should do it in his upcoming spinoff.

>>5197008
god forbid a director try to say something with a movie

>>5196941
Agreed. The fourth wall breaking in this movie helped portray the killers as...well...as characters in the film who KNEW they were, and it made us question their motives...etc....

>>5196986

When watching a film/tv show, you can usually see 3 of the walls in any given room, right? The fourth wall is invisible, it's the one behind the camera, where the audience is. When breaking the metaphorical fourth wall, that barrier is broken and the audience is acknowledged or addressed.

>>5196970
>ENTERTAINMENT IS THE ONLY REASON MOVIES ARE MADE! STOP TRYING TO MAKE ME THINK, ASSHOLES! DERP!

Fixed.

>>5196925
The Great Dictator.

>>5196948
So at the end of that clip, he's not watching DIRECTLY into the camera/the viewers eyes?

Because the director wanted to look the uncaught murderer in the eye, who's probably still alive today, and he'd probably watch the movie, because it is based on his crimes?

>>5197028
Oh look, another tripfag who thinks they know right.
>HURR HU CARES ABOUT ENTERTAINMENT?

If they do it in a pentagonal room do they call it breaking the fifth wall?

>>5197043
Actually, Funny Games made me think *and* entertained me. Shocking, I know.

when do they do it in fight club? not seen it in ages.

unless you're talking about the narration by nortons character, but that's not the same thing is it?

>>5197060

If they're in an igloo, do they call it breaking the ice?

>>5197079
brad pitt pointing at the cigarette burns, for one

>>5197079
Ah... flashback humor.

>>5197009
oh, I've seen those. Thanks for explaining that shit bro, I've seen that a lot of times. Uhh, I always get that feeling when someone looks directly into the camera for a short time.

>>5197079
flashback humor, cigarette burns, dick at the end

>>5197079
The problem is that the fourth wall can be subjective in places. The realism within a movie, and reality can intertwine, and become unclear - as narration in a film would be. Yes, he's talking to the viewer (beit direct or indirectly), but he's also just narrating his life, he could be talking to anyone or no one.

>>5197079

The part where Norton explains how 'Tyler Durden' splices pornography frames into cinema movies.

>>5197037
He doesn't acknowledge the fact that he is looking at a camera, so the fourth wall is still intact.

What i mean is, in films where the fourth wall is broken it's usually with a sly wink or a smirk, or a speech given directly to the camera itself.

Someone just looking into a camera isn't breaking the fourth wall per se, unless they are actually acknowledging the audience.

"Boy, if life were only like this..."

>>5197037
>he's not watching DIRECTLY into the camera/the viewers eyes?
Yes, exactly. The character facing the camera is not the same as them looking directly at the viewer. Yes, he can be doing that, but there is no wall breaking. For 99.99% he just turns his head, he faces forward.

>>5197079
I would count the narration as fourth wall breaking, because the narrator is talking directly to the audience, thus acknowledging them.

I know scary movie 3 sucks but there's one scene where the girl gets shocked by the sound of a boat from the next scene which is pretty funny.

>>5197079
>>5197110

Y'all forgetting the ending.

When the pornography is spliced right into the movie.

>>5197134

Correct, there is a difference between narration and someone extensively watching the movie with the audience. Shawshank Redemption would be narration.

Fight Club it's almost as if he is watching the film with the audience, telling them to watch this or look out for that and the general tone of Norton's voice throughout the movie interacts with what is going on in the story.

Sort of related, but there is a scene in The Thing where John Carpenter wanted to film an angle in the rec room that required him to place the camera behind the outside wall of the room and remove the wall of the set, such that everything in the room placed up against the wall was still there... it bugged him but the shot worked and it isn't noticeable unless you are looking for it and know it's there.

>>5197149
A flacid dick is not pornography.

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang and JCVD were both acceptable fourth wall breaks. Most of the time it is just annoying though. I don't care if it's done in a comedy, but if it's something that is genuinely trying to tell a story then it needs to keep me the fuck out of that story.

A friend of mine tried to get me to watch The Nanny Diaries, and it was filled with bullshit 4th wall breaks.

>>5197134

Narration doesn't necessarily break the fourth wall.

>>5197165

Wh... what kind of point are you making...