I'm good at putting mysteries together in real life. However, I am intentionally bad at putting them together in movies. That's because I do not want to figure it out. I want to be taken for the ride. However, even if I do figure it out, I still tend to enjoy it.
There are some movies that tell the audience a secret about a character before the other characters in the movie know the secret. Those are fun too. For example, I knew it was Amelie who had arranged for the gnome pictures to be sent to her dad. That didn't in any way detract from how cool it was to watch her dad's reaction to the pictures, and him trying to figure out the mystery. I get enjoyment about seeing how people are reacting to someone, when I know more of the context of the senario than all the characters do.
I cannot identify with someone who walks out of a movie just because they figure out a secret that characters in the movie have not figured out. Why would that detract from your enjoyment? Isn't it also fun to watch it play out, even if you know how it will play out? I knew the ship would sink in Titanic. I knew the ring would be destroyed in Lord of the Rings. Both were fine movies, because the CHARACTERS in the movie did not know how it would end (not the audience).
I didn't guess the ending to No Way Out, Fight Club, Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, or Usual Suspects (and I never saw Identity). However, I'm guessing I could have figured out at least one of those, if I had wanted to. But I didn't want to. Just as I don't want the lights on during certain roller coasters...rides are better when you don't know what is coming, even if you could figure out what is coming if you tried. But, I strongly suspect that, if I had figured out the ending of any of those movies, I probably still would have liked them. Because I would have known a secret that not all the characters in the movie knew.
Sure. I've read Coleridge's Biographia. I think you'd be hardpressed to connect that concept with the one being discussed here though. Suspending doubt and predicting the outcome based on being "in the moment" have a pretty tenuous relation.
Fast Learner said:
I understand that when a movie seriously telegraphs what's coming up that it can be difficult so suspend disbelief and just be in the moment, but I promise you that movies are much more fun when you try to simply watch them "in the moment" and just let yourself be absorbed by the experience.
I'm on your side as far as not believing it is better to see an ending coming, that those who do aren't special, but it isn't better not to see it coming either. Being absorbed by the experience is one aesthetic view, but there are other equally valid ones. Sometimes I watch something for no other reason than to discern the subtleties of how the writer gets from point A to point B, for lessons in pure artistry. Like Arthur Miller says, if I show you a man doing something, that is melodrama, but if I show you why he almost didn't do it, that is drama. Other times I can be just as absorbed in the aesthetic experience as you, for the same exact movie, and there are certainly other approaches to viewing, too. One approach isn't really priveleged over the others. I guarantee you that whatever your own interests happen to be, writing music, films, books, stories, painting or whatever, you will get as much out of approaching those works as complex discursive formations as experiences.
Fast Learner said:
I cannot identify with someone who walks out of a movie just because they figure out a secret that characters in the movie have not figured out. Why would that detract from your enjoyment?
I can only speak for me. I didn't walk out on The Sixth Sense because I guessed the ending; I walked out because I didn't like the ending that was coming. I still don't, and so I won't ever be in the position of seeing it again either. So, I didn't in any way walk out because I knew the ending. Like you say and like I've said, that would be silly. If I hadn't guessed it, I would still have walked out, I just would have walked out a lot closer to the end. As I mentioned, I happened to notice Unbreakable coming as well, but I think that was a great ending. Knowing what it was had and has no effect on my enjoyment of it. I think it was done well. So, there is no connection between being able to see where a story is going and its being done badly. Sometimes you can see where it's going precisely because it is being done well.
Whoah, sorry folks. Off on holidays and let all my responsibilities slide. Won't happen again, I assure you.
*rubs hands together*
Now, where to start?
Oh, yeah, welcome back, reaper -- and good catch. I'd entirely forgotten that. So, apologies to you, LightPhoenix, for my insistent denials that I'd ever suggested I figured out a particular movie. Though I can't say that figuring out Identity is a sign of particular cleverness --
I mean, we keep cutting to the insane serial killer who looks nothing like anyone else in the story. A little multiple personality isn't too big jump, I say. I don't even consider THAT the big twist in the film -- the twist is who survives in the end. And that I didn't figure. Still pissed me off, but not because I guessed it.
LightPhoenix said:
If a movie loses the interest of anyone seeing it (a la Gigli, for a modern example), then yes, I would agree it's the writer's fault. However, if it's only one or two people out of an audience, then I don't really think there is a fault, and that's basically the core of my argument.
Okay, we're using different definitions. How do you describe a film that you yourself did not enjoy? I'm using the word "failure" to describe a film that fails to entertain ME. I'm not going to take the fall because a writer isn't smart enough to keep me guessing, or a director isn't good enough to keep me engrossed, or an actor isn't charismatic enough to keep me interested.
A film that fails to entertain me is a failure, and it is on that basis that I say the writer of a film that fails to entertain me, FOR ANY REASON, has failed. Now, you're using "failure" to mean, "Disliked by the majority of people," which means you're talking about popular acceptance, not artistic success. The one can be measured by a polling of audiences, the other cannot.
Actually, this goes beyond film (and indeed, beyond writing) so let's just say the teller of a story that fails to entertain me has failed. "Teller" and "Story" being nice general terms that might apply to all sorts of situations.
Now, they may or may not care. Britney Spears almost certainly does not care about my opinion of her music. But I can still make statements like "Britney Spears is a failure and here's why," and be justified in doing so, no matter how popular she may be.
Arguments like, "Well, she's really popular so she can't be a failure," do not address the reasoning of the statement and so don't demonstrate it's incorrectness.
Failure and success in art will forever be subjective things. In business, not at all, and you can always say, "Well, it was financially successful," but that has NO bearing on its artistic success, which must be determined individually by each audience member. Quoting piles of reviews that agree with your opinion may be nice for your self-image, but don't necessarily have any bearing on any particular position.
SynapsisSynopsis said:
Writing well, writing a twist that nobody can guess, and entertaining your audience have nothing necessarily to do with each other.
I disagree with extreme prejudice. Writing a twist that nobody can guess is a method of entertaining people. One of many. Story-telling well and entertaining your audience are synonyms. A well-told story is one that entertains. At the least -- it may do many things besides, but if it doesn't entertain, it's not well-told.
Now we come to the question of audience frame of reference. Let's take Sophocles. That Sophocles has entertained many people is clear -- the plays have survived because of their ability to entertain audiences through the ages. That reading Sophocles may not entertain casual readers of today is likewise clear -- there is a frame of reference that Sophocles takes for granted that is very different from what most people carry around with them nowadays.
We have to learn to appreciate Sophocles. We have to acquire a frame of reference in which the plays become entertaining.
So sometimes when a story fails to entertain us, we need to consider frame of reference. Often the first time we're exposed to material from an unfamiliar f.o.r., we dislike it or reject it. Only after time do we acquire the background we need to understand the material.
But once we do, we can then once again offer our opinions as to the success or failure of individual works of art -- in our subjective way. And of course sometimes when we think a work has failed, what's really happened is that our frame of reference is sufficiently misaligned with that of the storyteller that we cannot appreciate the work.
It is the mark of truly great storytellers that their material tends to transcend frames of reference and resonate even for people who haven't learnt to appreciate it. Shakespeare springs to mind, here. People who cannot read Shakespeare for pleasure will still flock to movies made from his plays.
If we examine the hypothetical opinion that "Identity is a failure because it's so easy to figure out the ending and once you do the film is boring as all heck," it doesn't look like a problem with frame of reference. It MIGHT be, but it doesn't look like.
Note that I don't think Identity is a failure for that reason. The reasons for the failure of Identity are many and varied, though it was not without rewards (hurrah for John Cusack). But discussing that individual film seems a little limited in the scope of this discussion.
SynapsisSynopsis said:
If the audience loses interest simply because they've figured the ending, that's their problem.
As a storyteller, I can't afford to have that attitude. If my audience loses interest for ANY reason, it behooves me to find out why and figure out if I can improve my story somehow so as not to lose my audience's attention.
FastLearner said:
To those who guess the endings of films, I'm curious: when you're watching a special effects scene do you try to imagine what the wireframe looked like for the beastie, or how many computers it took to render it?
Yes, I do. When the story isn't gripping enough that I forget all that. Which is why I keep saying it's a failure on the part of the storytellers. It's their JOB to keep me so engrossed, so enthralled, that I forget I'm being told a story. If they can't do that, they have failed.
FastLearner said:
I promise you that movies are much more fun when you try to simply watch them "in the moment" and just let yourself be absorbed by the experience.
Sure, and there's such a thing as being a good audience. It's easy to just sit there in cynicism and snideness and poke holes in something. Stories are delicate things and have to be treated with respect.
But you can't just say to people, "Stop poking holes in the story!" They need a REASON to be engaged, they need the story to take them "into the moment." A story that can't do that is failing. And I don't believe that the best response is to simply put one's brain aside and effortlessly suspend one's disbelief. To do so for a story that hasn't earned it is to cheat yourself of intellectual growth. Great stories don't ask us to kid ourselves, and settling uncomplaining for mediocre stories only makes it harder for us to truly appreciate the good stuff.
Exactly what you're accusing other people of doing here:
reapersaurus said:
You want to know a secret?
Most everyone else does NOT watch those movies with all their antennae up.... This way they experience the movie the way it's intended, not short-circuit it...
Or is it the case that when other people do it, they're just selfishly showing off, whereas when YOU do it, you're pointing out real flaws in the film?
Impressive post there, barsoom (edit: 3 posts ago).
One thing jumps out at me, though:
Are YOU of this hypothetical opinion that "Identity is a failure because it's so easy to figure out the ending and once you do the film is boring as all heck"?
Further - if you believe that The Usual Suspects and Identity were failures because their surprise endings were easily guessed, and that once guessed, they were boring or bad stories, than could you point to some movies that DID surprise you and did a good job of that kind of ending?
Good catch, Barsoom, but you obviously missed the gist of my statements.
(he's referring to my post where I pointed out the stand-ins for the hobbits being obvious in RotK.)
There is a huge difference between noticing something and letting it ruin the experience for you.
In addition, you quoted me out of context with the "Most everyone else does NOT watch those movies with all their antennae up...." line.
What I was attempting to get across with the post that was quoted from was that most people don't go into movies with all their senses on alert for story tricks, or Meta-Story elements like "Never trust the Narrator." Most importantly, you and Kid Cthulu have forwarded the opinion that figuring out the movie spoils the experience for you.
Thus, your own words and experiences make clear that an average filmgoer should NOT be attempting to short-cut around the plot using guesses based on Writing Rules.
Hell, the way almost all movies are made nowadays PREDICATES that the audience member is not jumping to coclusions about the story, but is instead watching the scenes play out and enjoying the pretty pictures and sounds parading by. The proof of this statement is to look at the movies that are made: Romantic Comedies, Action movies, now superhero and fantasy movies. You know the guys gonna get the girl and that they good guy's going to win in 95% of the films.
The point of the movie is seeing how it all unfolds.
The point is NOT to guess how it is resolved ahead of time.
I think many people who have responded in this thread have tried to get across our sympathy for you 2 (or so) who can't seem to experience (and enjoy) movies the way the rest of the world does.
(But I'm going out on a limb there...)
It's been a while since I watched it, but I recall that one of the reasons No Way Out threw people was that there were some things shown early in the film that could not have been true given the end "twist" of the movie.
Are YOU of this hypothetical opinion that "Identity is a failure because it's so easy to figure out the ending and once you do the film is boring as all heck"?
No, I am not. In fact, I can't think of a single film I hold that opinion about.
Sometimes I see a twist coming and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I enjoy a film and sometimes I don't.
Identity is a rather flimsy pot-boiler saved from utter tediousness almost entirely by John Cusack's lovely performance.
The Usual Suspects is an over-rated caper flick that again boasts great performances and enough snappy dialog to overcome its own shallowness. And has unfortunately delivered us into the clumsy, self-important hands of Brian Singer. Sigh.
But let's take two other famous "twist" films -- The Sixth Sense and Fight Club. I disliked the former and loved the latter. In both cases I saw the twist coming (it's a funny state watching a film and being aware of where it's going -- I wouldn't say I "figured it out", more like in the back of my head a voice was wondering "maybe THIS is what's going on..." so that when it came I wasn't surprised), so that's obviously not a key determiner to my enjoyment of the films. But on reflection, what DID make a difference was the manner in which the twist was presented.
The Sixth Sense tricks you. Which is no great feat for a director, of course -- all he has to do is NOT show you the character doing anything that will later on be inconsistent with what we learn about them. He doesn't have to be particularly clever to pull this off -- the advantages he possesses as director make it a very straightforward thing to do. Even bad mystery writers generally manage to succeed at this.
But the primary problem of The Sixth Sense isn't the director's trick -- it's the absurd resolution of the child's problem. For the entire film he's being tortured mentally and physically by these spirits and suddenly they get revealed as...
just little kids who happen to possess videotapes of their parents murdering them.
The "wrap-up" is insipid and puts an end to any pretense by the film to deal with any real-life issues of grief and loss.
Fight Club lies to you. The director doesn't trick us -- he outright lies to us. He shows us things that are not true -- and to be sure we understand that we have been lied to, he later shows us scenes we've already seen, but showing us the absurdity of the supposedly "real" sequence of events. The twist in the story tells us we're not seeing any sort of "reality" in this film, and if you follow the chain of logic, the ENTIRE film starts to come apart.
I mean, seriously, are we expected to believe that a bunch of guys came across Edward Norton beating himself and thus formed this massive religious movement? THE WHOLE FILM IS A LIE.
Fight Club only makes sense on the metaphorical level -- the film is about the death of the self as a necessary step on the road to enlightenment. It's the cinematic equivalent of D.H. Lawrence's "The Ship of Death".
Your own words and experiences make clear that an average filmgoer should NOT be attempting to short-cut around the plot using guesses based on Writing Rules.
If you believe that an audience gains the greatest value from their story-attending experience through the unthinking acceptance of the story's telling, then yes, you are inextricably drawn to that conclusion.
My point above was that unthinking acceptance of mediocre art does NOT give us the greatest value from any artistic experience. Greatest value comes from the simultaneous engagement of disbelief and objectivity. Great stories allow both to operate at full capacity. Mediocre stories require us to "slow down" one or the other.
reapersaurus said:
]You know the guys gonna get the girl and that they good guy's going to win in 95% of the films.
Knowing that the good guy is going to win is not at all the same thing as knowing that, in The Sixth Sense,
Bruce Willis is dead.
That fact is part of how it all unfolds. Certainly not something that happens 95% of the time.
reapersaurus said:
I think many people who have responded in this thread have tried to get across our sympathy for you 2 (or so) who can't seem to experience (and enjoy) movies the way the rest of the world does.
Once again, if you wish to display condescension, you will be much more convincing if you demonstrate superiority first. You suggest that your method of enjoying stories is better than mine -- is your best argument that "the rest of the world" uses your method? Sorry, unconvinced.
