Oh, you are KIDDING me, right?
Nope.
One of Scott's most obvious strengths as a director is that he is "clean" -- he typically doesn't over-indulge in emotionality. (my emphasis)
Reread what I said: "Ridley Scott... knows
just how to pull at the emotional heartstrings."
There's a big difference between "overindulging in emotionality", and "knowing just how to pull at the emotional heartstrings".
In fact, I used Ridley Scott as an example here precisely because he
doesn't overindulge in emotionality, but indulges in it
in just the perfect amount (at least for me).
(Just think about what a movie like Thelma and Louise might have been like in the hands of a more emotive/manipulative director.)
Haven't seen Thelma and Louise since I was about eight or nine, but I remember having a very strong emotional reaction to it -- per what I said before, if Nolan had directed it, my emotional response probably would have been flat.
I think Gladiator was the most where I've ever seen him go for emotive... but even then it was mainly through shoving us into Maximus' eyes and showing us the love he had for his family, coupled with the score.
Gladiator also struck a deep emotional chord in me. In fact, it was the primary film I was thinking of, when I referenced Scott.
I'm not sure how "shoving us into Maximus' eyes", "showing us the love he had for his family", "the score", or any of the numerous other reasons why I found it emotionally moving, don't count as knowing "just how to pull at the emotional heart strings."
He typically prefers to show, not tell...
And how does this disqualify him from knowing "just how to pull at the emotional heart strings"?
Is there something about showing -- not telling -- that precludes properly performed pathos appeals?
...and he tends to shy away from musical scores that would manipulate the audience... at least until the last few years (I haven't watched his most recent movies).
Interesting you say that, cuz some of the more memorable scores I remember are from Ridley Scott films: Blade Runner, Gladiator, Blackhawk Down...
He reminds me a lot of Michael Mann, although Mann is even more severe -- he lets the characters/actors tell the story and doesn't tell you how you're supposed to feel.
I agree with the comparison, although Mann, is, as you said, "more severe".
He seems to
intentionally create bleak, emotionless, amoral, uncaring worlds in his films (with The Last of the Mohicans as an exception).
Scott seems to make no such effort.
In Scott's films, there tends to be a moral, karma-like character to the universe.
Scott's films are also noticeably better than Mann's.
Personally, I think they are both ST's.
This very well could be the case.
I don't know.
I guess that's the difference between those who actually make movie and those who critique them on obscure Internet forums... Opinions from us are a dime a dozen, but those guys are doing the work.
Look, I'm not generally one of those annoying film snobs who complains about each and every little subjective opinion I have about every film I see...
That just ain't my steez...
But in his last three films (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Inception) Christopher Nolan has revealed to me that he's got some serious flaws in his game, one of them being the inability to create an emotionally engaging film.
Dare I ask which Batman movies you actually thought were better? (Even the first one by Burton was at best marginal by conventional standards; and the quality certainly did not improve as time passed.)
I loved the first one.
Haven't seen it in its entirety for ages, but I did see a few clips from it some months back, and I thought they were phenomenal.
Even the second one was alright (although, admittedly, not necessarily better than Nolan's two).
The real masterpiece in the whole non-comic-medium Batman universe, ironically enough, is Batman: The Animated Series, from the early 90s (not the later 90s version, which was still decent, but not as good).
Batman Beyond wasn't half bad, either.
***
Yes, I'm a child...