[spoilers request] Who is "Keyser Soze"?

[barsoomcore]

A truly good movie engages me in such a way that I am not able to seperate myself from the story to engage in the "meta" activity of looking for spoilers.

Well said, Wulf. I've been trying to express the opposite of that idea -- that if a film can't prevent me from separating myself and engaging in meta activities, then that's one reason for saying it's not such a good movie.

I think if I'd just said it your way, this thread would have ended long ago.

I'm not sure if I think that's a good thing or not...

 

[reapersaurus]

Ah, but barsoom - from what I gather, not only are you
a) the kind of person (as many are) that actively LOOKS for these kind of meta-things in movies.
and
b) as you've said yourself (I think), someone had told you that The Usual Suspects and Identity were "twist" type of movies before you saw them.

So this goes back to me 2 points:
1) That people who actively search 'behind/past the images' and try to look for the clues onscreen are in effect lessening the likelihood that they will enjoy the movie (i.e. my "proof" that this approach towards moviegoing is inefficient).
and
2) That it behooves anyone who is like this (and considers the movie best when they DON'T guess the twist ahead of time) to AVOID any and all possible spoilers, reviews, or testimonials about any 'twist'-type movie.
(Of course, one never knows ahead of time which movies may BE twist movies, so it behooves them to avoid spoilers etc ENTIRELY)

 

[barsoomcore]

Ah, but barsoom - from what I gather, not only are you

*here follows vague and unsubstantiated comments on my character*

So this goes back to me 2 points:
1) That people who actively search 'behind/past the images' and try to look for the clues onscreen are in effect lessening the likelihood that they will enjoy the movie (i.e. my "proof" that this approach towards moviegoing is inefficient).
and
2) That it behooves anyone who is like this (and considers the movie best when they DON'T guess the twist ahead of time) to AVOID any and all possible spoilers, reviews, or testimonials about any 'twist'-type movie.
(Of course, one never knows ahead of time which movies may BE twist movies, so it behooves them to avoid spoilers etc ENTIRELY)

I thought we were having a conversation on the ways and means of enjoying a story. I thought I gave a pretty clear statement of what I thought your position was, and what my position is. You respond by saying what kind of a person you think I am and then by continuing to attack this strawman position ("I always guess the twists!") you've set up for yourself.

If you won't address my points, I don't see how this conversation will proceed. I direct you to my last post addressed to you, where I state that it seems like your position is that we enjoy a story more if we don't apply our rational minds to it. Is that a correct statement of your position?

You keep referring to "behind the story", "story-telling tricks" and so on. Can you provide a clear distinction between these sorts of objects of rational consideration and ones that you consider acceptable? And why it's okay to look for the one and not the other? Assuming, of course that I'm wrong in my original formulation of your idea and that you do believe one ought to use one's rational mind while enjoying a story.

If I'm correct in that formulation, then I guess you don't agree with my statement that we best appreciate art through the simultaneous engagement of disbelief and critical judgement. If you have a contrary position, I'd be happy to hear it, but I'm getting tired of dealing with "arguments" that aren't addressing my statements.

 

[El Ravager]

Has anyone mentioned the film The Others in this thread yet? I thought it was a good movie and I certainly didn't see the end coming. I didn't see the end coming in Usual Suspects or Fight Club, however I saw both of those movies long after they had come out and anything I may have known about them had passed into obscurity in my mind so I wasn't looking for a great twist ending either time.

The Sixth Sense did get me even though I knew there was a big ending deal.

========
ElRav

 

[S'mon]

Keyser Soze is a purely fictional character Kevin Spacey invents out of the wallpapers and newspapers clips behind the cop's desk if I remember correctly.

That was certainly my impression.

 

[Heretic Apostate]

Okay, got to see a bit more of the film.

If Keyser Soze is fictional, how come the guy who is in the hospital bed knows the name? And how about the guy who was trying to inform on Keyser Soze?

I get the impression that Keyser Soze does exist, that he does have the mysterious air and stuff, but that Spacey's character (Keyser Soze, but pretending to be a dumb, crippled con artist) makes up the rest, feeding off of the police detective's investigation and the stuff in the background.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

That's exactly what happens. He IS Keyser Soze, although what is true and what is fictional about Soze (apart from the fact that he is a dreaded figure with massive resources) is left up in the air.

What's even more ingenious about what "Verbal" does in the office is that, not just does he build an entire character from scratch for Kujan that throws any possible culpability off of himself, but he gets to the root of what Kujan believes about Soze (that he's Gabriel Byrne's character) and subtly reinforces it over the course of the story. Keyser Soze seems to perpetuate himself in the fear he creates in people. Perhaps Soze is nothing more than a bogeyman story that the ruthless and clever can adopt (that's what Kujan seems to believe).

The only thing you're left with ultimately is that you can't trust anything you just saw. It's fiction within fiction.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I concede that we live in an era of relativism, where people are happy to give up arguments of quality in favor of the 'everything is subjective' line, but that doesn't mean it's true. I recall a thread in general some months ago where one poster antagonistically tossed off something like "Oh lord, save us from the moral relativists." Well, I'd like to be saved from the literary relativists as well. There are reasons Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe are so widely read, which have nothing whatever to do with their entertainment value (plenty of people find them boring), at least not in any gut-response sort of way.

You have objective criteria for "literary greatness"? Present them. And once you've done so, explain to me exactly why I should care about the concept you've just defined.

Some works are famous because they altered the entire climate around them. Most of them are tedious, banal, and uninteresting to modern readers, but that's because they had such a tremendous effect that they redefined the baseline, changing the way later works were made.

Some works are famous because they might actually reflect aesthetic preferences common to many different people. That just means that lots of people will tend to find them worthwhile - it says nothing about whether any particular person should find them worthwhile. What means would you use to do so? Average all people across time? Average all people at one moment of time?

And some works are famous for the same reason everyone admired the Emperor's new clothes.

To be perfectly blunt, I am amazed at the quality of intellect in a person who both believes that people need to culture the proper mindset to appreciate certain works AND that artistic quality isn't subjective.

Reality check: for any work, there's going to be a mindset that considers it to be good. Of course you can change your perspective to that certain works you think you *should* like seem interesting to you. That's true of anything out there. The problem is that you've only ever tried it with things you've been told, by authorities you consider valuable, that you should like.

To paraphrase what was said in this thread regarding Fight Club: the death of self is one of the steps necessary for enlightenment. I would add the death of the delusion of good taste to that list.

 

[reapersaurus]

wow.
gotta say, that's a whopper of a post, for being one of your first 3 posts.
What brought you out of lurking?
Nice avatar, BTW.

 

[John Crichton]

That has to be one of the longest *zings* I have ever read. Color me impressed.