To me, from the heart vs from the mind is emotional vs rational, universal vs individual, objective vs subjective. It is genuine. It is giving without condition or censorship. There is an undeniable truth in the heart. It is very much different from "sentimental" which has a connotation of self-pity and neediness and which possibly comes from ego (?). Like there are some people in your life with whom you can be entirely yourself - no holding back, no mask - give your story entirely - no holding back, no shyness, no "but others normally do it that other way" because you are not others. If it is true to you, do it. That's often when and why it works. It is refreshing honesty.

William Martell has a quote by Frank Capra on his website: "I thought drama was when actors cried. But drama is when the audience cries." I've always liked that quote. I would say "emotional connection" is a good way of putting it. If you're including Clarice Starling's nightmares in this I would hesitate to use the word "heart." To me "heart" suggests good feelings, whereas "emotional connection" can be any type of emotion as long as we feel something, be it joy, anger, frustration or whatever it is that moves us. I'm going to see The Descendants tonight and I know I will be "moved" somehow. Sideways resonated with me on a personal level, but a Twilight Tween would probably not have the same connection as I did with that movie or other movies dealing with "adult" content, and vice versa. I guess that means I'm an adult, huh. Good grief. I also think that when we talk about things that come from the heart, we mean that it has some sort of truth to it. Something universal that rings true with many people. Something relatable that may not be explained with logic, perhaps. Was it logical that Joel and Clementine would give it another shot at the end of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? Maybe not. But it rang true. I think you nailed it with the word "manipulative." I believe most of us have a built-in BS detector when it comes to honesty. That's why you could easily yell out "Drip!" when your classmates crossed that line.

Obviously, there is a fine line between melodrama and honesty. I think that line can be subjective from one person to another. I've heard Saving Private Ryan called manipulative and melodramatic when it comes to the end. When I heard someone say they hated the movie (a producer/friend of mine) I was shocked. They cited the best war movie as The Thin Red Line. I was confused by my friend. How was SPR more manipulative than TRL? I think it comes down to how a story sets itself up. You have to look at the sentimentality of the whole film. Saving Private Ryan has a "handing of the torch," which can be seen as melodramatic. It forces the audience to take the flag and "earn it." The Thin Red Line sets the tone immediately and forces the audience into the mindset of the war. We are feeling the gradual spirituality of this war and it makes the characters and the audience feel the tone. I love both of these movies and I think they both resonate with me. However, I can understand how people could hate them for being too manipulative and melodramatic. I think our job as storytellers is to use manipulation and melodrama lightly, because they are tools we have to engage our audience. The biggest point is to use these tools to hit the largest mark; the zeitgeist. Some stories are overly dramatic for me and perfect for someone else, and vice versa. It just depends on the story you want to tell.

I suspect heart, in story and in characters, involves some manner of engendered trust, and a consistency of details suggesting coherence underneath. You know how readers know within a few pages if they can trust the writer? With figure drawings, we respond viscerally to well proportioned ones, can feel them standing, their weight on the ground. The good ones are by artists who know anatomy. (For getting all the details wrong in a drawing, including anatomy, Rob Liefeld, renowned for pouches and an abhorence of feet, with added bonus, the awesome and influential John Byrne.) Agreed on the universal, Teddy. Fear of monsters in the dark a primal universal, great place to start a story. Monsters Inc, favorite Mike moment, both true to character and totally unexpected, hugely endearing, touches our hearts, he's excited about magazine cover and so are we, for him, then we're devastated, but he's... oblivious (surely the most entertaining flaw to have to learn to embrace in a friend). So maybe heart involves universal gussied up in specificity with convincing anatomy beneath, or something like that. I am looking so, so forward to a Pixar immersion soon.

Melodrama begins to deteriorate when characters have depth; Depth meaning dark secrets that blur the lines of good and evil. The film The Insider is a great example of this. EVERYONE in the film has good characteristics in addition to bad tendencies. It forces the audience to not just watch a film but become emotionally invested in the film because we realize we are similar. A human consists of likeable and despicable traits. But when a film such as Changeling (Clint Eastwood) comes around and attempts to create a white angel who the world has decided to torture an audience watches and it’s a sad situation but also a emotionally one-sided journey. I’d categorize this film although finely acted and shot as melodrama.

"Up in the Air" is a great example of a film with heart that's not overly sentimental.

Considering "how best to write that so the emotions and sentiments are honest, clean and human, not dishonest, syrupy and manipulative," I came across a true story that accomplishes this, can it illuminate something: //"There is a bunch of city housing. Subsidized, rent-controlled. There's a lack of services, lights are out in the hallways, the housing feels like jails, like prisons. I walked around, and put up signs in there offering money to rent out an apartment for a few hours. I didn't say much more. I received surprisingly few calls, and most of them seemed not quite fully there. But then I got one call from a sane person Her name was Denise Vega. She lived on the 16th floor. Single, working mom, mother of three. I spoke with her on the phone, and a few days later went over and met her. I told her what I wanted to do, and she was enthused. The more I described, the more excited she got. Her parting words were, "let's do this." She wouldn't take my money."// I cried at that last line. Twice. (Second time when I read story to someone minutes later, I'm a sap.) Something sharp and true there. What's the mechanism. (1) It's someone we can relate to, sane; three kids and sane (that's extra sane); and in terribly challenging circumstances, extra sane times two required. (2) And then she takes an action clearly against her own self-interest. Which makes her motivation and heart entirely clear in that instant. So maybe a character we can relate to and action so clear words aren't required is one way to get honest moment. Story here.

Absolutely love Up in the Air as it hits just the right balance on every tonal front. Great characters. I have to believe Billy Wilder would have approved!