# [spoilers request]  Who is "Keyser Soze"?



## Heretic Apostate (Dec 23, 2003)

I've seen parts of "The Usual Suspects" again, and yet again, I missed out on the part where they tell you who Keyser Soze really is.  Argh!  It's not fair!  I've even done a google search, but all the sites I found (first two pages) were either plot summaries, people who took Keyser Soze as their user name, or in a foreign language.



So, c'mon, spoil me!


----------



## stevelabny (Dec 23, 2003)

um..he's kevin spacey's character. the limp was fake.
it was one of the most OBVIOUS swerves of all time.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 23, 2003)

Actually, quite a few of us were blindsided by it, thanks.


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Dec 23, 2003)

So it wasn't the crooked cop?  I saw the part where the cops were trying to convince Spacey's character that the crooked cop was Keyser Soze...

Dang, that was something I totally missed.  But then again, I caught only snippets of the movie.


----------



## ASH (Dec 23, 2003)

I will not say that its obvious. It's a great movie...
But I did happen to figure it out before it was revealed. I have a knack at figureing out plot twists....

I figured out the entire plot of the movie "Identity" before the movie was  a quarter over...

Not to sound arrogant... 

*bangs head on table for sounding arrogant*


----------



## Dispater (Dec 23, 2003)

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.


----------



## KidCthulhu (Dec 23, 2003)

I loved that film, and I'm very proud of the fact that [GLOAT] I had Keyser Soze pegged from ten minutes into the movie (and I was right).  I read a lot of mysteries, and one of the cardinal rules of mysteries (ever since _The Murder of Roger Ackroyd_) is NEVER TRUST THE NARRATOR.

Also, there's a big clue in the first few minutes in the way Keyser Soze holds a cigarette.  It's very idiosyncratic.  I turned to PirateCat and said, "Watch those fingers. Someone's going to hold a cigarette that way later in the movie.  That'll be the man."

I don't get to be clever that often, but I had Usual Suspects nailed.  [/GLOAT]


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 23, 2003)

My god, I feel pity for you "ending-guessers."
You truly seem to extract less enjoyment out of those 'surprise' kind of movies than other people.

You want to know a secret?
Most everyone else does NOT watch those movies with all their antennae up to try and glean every scrap of information they can for the sole purpose of mulling it over and trying to guess the ending before the ending is revealed.

Most people simply watch the film and enjoy it unfolding at the creator's intended pace. This way they experience the movie the way it's intended, not short-circuit it with meta-gaming (never trust the narrator, etc).

Why would people take pride in spoiling movies? I'd hide the fact that I suck the fun out of movies, myself...

Oh - and here's another sure-fire way to take some fun out of a movie : 
Whenever you watch a romantic comedy, conclude early on that the couple will get together and fall in love.
Whenever you watch a heroic story, conclude early that the hero will win.

Don't bother watching the movie and going thru the ups and downs of the characters - just cut right to the chase and spoil the ending - that way, you're 'better' than everyone else. Props to your massive brains!


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 23, 2003)

Oh, for crying out...  My friend, as someone mentioned in Meta, they make _decaffeinated_ beverages now, too. Look into them.  

Seriously, it's not really good form to condemn a whole lot of people just because their movie-watching habits don't conform with yours. It's even worse form to do so this insultingly. If you really want to rant and ridicule others at the same time, please don't do it here.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Dec 23, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Oh, for crying out...  As someone mentioned in Meta, they make _decaffeinated_ beverages now, too. Look into them.




hehehe..."Frankie says RELAX!", "Serenity now!", or so many other catchphrases...

Some people figure the things out...others don't.  Big deal.  Enjoy the movie...don't enjoy it.  No need to get so fiesty.

Personally, I loved The Usual Suspects.  It just takes you for a ride, drops you off in the middle of nowhere, and says, "Good luck getting home!"

edit---It's also one of the few decent movies featuring a Baldwin...


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 23, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> You want to know a secret?
> Most everyone else does NOT watch those movies with all their antennae up to try and glean every scrap of information they can for the sole purpose of mulling it over and trying to guess the ending before the ending is revealed.



Hey reap, want to know a secret? Most everyone else does NOT undergo a prefrontal lobotomy before they enter a movie theatre. Writers need to keep that in mind.

If I guess the ending of a story before I reach the ending, it's not MY fault -- it's the WRITER's fault. It's called, "Being a poor writer." Part of being a good story-teller is keeping the audience in the dark just the right amount, and revealing information just at the right moment. Something the writer of, say, _Identity_, was not very good at.

A little less undeserving condescension, please, sir. First, prove your superiority. _Then _flaunt it.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 23, 2003)

You bring up an excellent point. I love good screenwriters, such as the guy who wrote and directed Memento (who is also directing Batman 5); now _there_ was a movie that kept me guessing and made me think. If I go see a "suspense" flick and get sloppy plotting, it's just going to really irritate me.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 23, 2003)

Yeah, I came out of _Momento_ going, "Now, did that ACTUALLY make sense? And if it did, was it ACTUALLY clever?" and then realised that just by making me have that thought, he'd pulled it off. Curse him.


----------



## Berandor (Dec 23, 2003)

I figured out Identity's ending before I even saw the movie (and I haven't yet) 
As soon as the reviews talked about the surprising ending, I thought, "What would be the most suprising and audience-cheating ending possible?", got the answer, and was sure, "Yeah, that's it."
So when a friend of mine went into the movie, and came out telling me about the great ending, I simply asked, 



Spoiler



"It's all in the mind of one person?"


And when I later saw adaptation, it all made sense... 

Usual Suspects is a good enought film that it kept me partly guessing and partly not wanting to guess, so it worked.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Dec 24, 2003)

Part of the problem with films like these is that you'll read reviews, or hear people say things like, "You'll never figure out the ending of this one!"  I remember phrases like this going in to movies and will often try to figure out what's what.  It turns into a challenge.

Because someone had told me it was impossible to figure out who Keyser Soze was I went into *The Usual Suspects * already thinking to myself, "Okay, now which one of these guys could it be?"  Likewise, I was able to figure out who Tyler Durden was before he was even introduced in *Fight Club * because of the tagline "Who is Tyler Durden" that was played in all of the *Fight Club* commercials.  

I went to see *The Sixth Sense * opening night and had heard nothing about it beforehand.  The end of that movie surprised me, which was a lot of fun.  

When you already know that there's a twist, or a surprise ending it tends to actually strip the twist or surprise from the movie.  A movie that can truly blindside me and give me a surprise is a real pleasure.


----------



## kingpaul (Dec 24, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Actually, quite a few of us were blindsided by it, thanks.



Count me in this group...I didn't see it coming and was floored when it ended.  Great movie.  My tapes getting worn out, will probably have to buy it on DVD.


----------



## kingpaul (Dec 24, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Don't bother watching the movie and going thru the ups and downs of the characters - just cut right to the chase and spoil the ending - that way, you're 'better' than everyone else. Props to your massive brains!



*chuckle*  This is actually one of the reasons my dad, at least by what he says, didn't watch _Titanic_...the boat sinks, end of story.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Dec 24, 2003)

_The Usual Suspects_ twist I did not see.  The _Sixth Sense_ twist I did see coming. Why? Because I had read reviews and heard friends talk about a surprise ending they didn't see coming.  Thus, when I looked at the film, my observational skills were on high power and I quickly picked up what the twist ended up being.

Still, I in no way felt as if I enjoyed the movie any less.  Both of the above films are really well done and feature vastly superior writing than most films that come out.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Dec 24, 2003)

Ha!  I'm more pathetic than any of you.  I figured out Sixth Sense's surprise ending without ever having seen the movie.  I haven't even seen anything more than the trailer.  



Spoiler



It just screams "Jacob's Ladder"


----------



## ASH (Dec 24, 2003)

Nope I pretty much figure out the ending to a movie before the end..I can not say that I did for fight club, but that was because a freind told me the ending before I ever saw the movie... 
The Cigarette was a big clue to me as well...


It actually makes the movie better for me. I usually only consiously try to do it at movies that would be considered to be Thrillers, or suspence flicks.
 I have an overactive imagination and if I am not trying to give the movie some logic, well, it will scare the hell out of me.  I dont like slasher, or horror flicks if there is no logic, or mystery involved for me to focus on.

 I have opted to not see a lot of them for that very reason.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 24, 2003)

*re*

Personally, I didn't figure out _Fight Club_,_The Sixth Sense_, or _The Usual Suspects_. I don't try the first time. I like to watch a movie with a surprise ending once without trying to figure out what's going to happen.

Then I watch the movie again to see what clues the writer left for me to figure out the ending prior to seeing it. In every movie, the clues were all present and easy to see. I thought all three movies were well-written because they kept you guessing if you weren't looking and yet laid it out on the table if you were. Whether or not you knew the ending, they still made the ride to the end enjoyable.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 24, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> If I guess the ending of a story before I reach the ending, it's not MY fault -- it's the WRITER's fault. It's called, "Being a poor writer." Part of being a good story-teller is keeping the audience in the dark just the right amount, and revealing information just at the right moment. Something the writer of, say, _Identity_, was not very good at.
> 
> A little less undeserving condescension, please, sir. First, prove your superiority. _Then _flaunt it.



So if for some reason you figure stuff out, it's the terrible writer's fault?  That's as big a load of bull as what reaper was preaching.  

Just because you're too clever doesn't mean someone is a terrible writer, or something is a terrible movie.  So don't blame your "problems" (if being good at deductive reasoning is a problem ) on someone else.

You mentioned that not everyone goes into the theater lobotomised.  Well, I hate to break the news to you, but not everyone has good deductive reasoning skills.  You're just going to have to accept that you're good at something that many other people aren't.  In fact, assuming a standard bell curve, a whole 50% of people are below average with regards to deductive reasoning.


----------



## Gnarlo (Dec 24, 2003)

I like strawberry. Vanilla is ok, too.


----------



## Wicht (Dec 24, 2003)

What I hate are not movies where I can figure out the endings or who dunnit or things like that.  I can usually deduce most endings half way through.  What I hate are movies that telegraph to me in large letters what is going to happen in the movie ten to fifteen minutes into the future.  The whole way through.  Suspense movies that I cannot find suspensful because the whole things is so cliche or predictable that I can say, that guy will be shot in a few minutes, or that girl is going to kiss him in about ten minutes after fighting with him.  To me that is poor writing.  Logical clues that allow deductive reasoning of who is the guilty party is good mystery writing.  It would be cheating to write a mystery with no clues.


----------



## TiQuinn (Dec 24, 2003)

I think a couple of different things are at work here.

After hearing twenty times about a surprise twist at the end of "The Usual Suspects", it wasn't difficult to figure out.  I was already prepared for it and couldn't help but look for it too.  "The Sixth Sense", on the other hand, I saw a few days after it opened, and was very surprised by the ending.  However, others who heard over the next several weeks "Wait til you see the ending, there's a big twist", had the same experience that I had with Usual Suspects.

Knowing that there's a twist in the movie can sometimes spoil the surprise.

Also, if I watch a romantic comedy movie, I don't think by any means that I'm being clever when I guess that "boy gets girl" in the end.  It's almost like saying "James Bond is going to sleep with the Bond Girl by movie's end."  Figuring out some movies isn't rocket science.  And if the movie happens to be really bad, then the audience is all too aware of the plot and where it's going.  Again, I don't think anyone's trying to show off their intellectual might in cases like that.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 24, 2003)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> So if for some reason you figure stuff out, it's the terrible writer's fault?  That's as big a load of bull as what reaper was preaching.



If the story fails to entertain me for ANY reason, yes, that's the writer's fault. The writer's JOB is to entertain me.


			
				LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Just because you're too clever doesn't mean someone is a terrible writer, or something is a terrible movie.  So don't blame your "problems" (if being good at deductive reasoning is a problem ) on someone else.



Are you reading the same posts I'm reading? Did I use the word "terrible"? No. Did I claim any amount of cleverness? No. I said that being unable to maintain the proper level of uncertainty in order to keep things tense and exciting for your reader is being a poor writer.

This has nothing to do with my cleverness. No matter how clever I may or may not be, a writer who can keep their story exciting is a better writer than one who cannot. One way to tell an exciting story is to conceal a twist that the audience didn't see coming. If Writer A can do that and Writer B cannot, all other things being equal, Writer A is the better writer.

Liking strawberry is philosophically indefensible. Chocolate is the ultimate flavour.


----------



## Numion (Dec 24, 2003)

According to one course in uni I took, the human mind is actually hardwired to have a certain degree of 'I told you so' thinking in it. People just tend to think that they knew something all along, even though they really didn't. 

I'm not saying that those people who said they guessed movie plots in this threads are just doing it because of that. It's always a factor though - probably a statistical phenomenon. 

Another point: I've noticed that you don't need go to the movies trying to guess the plot in order to guess it. Many movies just tend to follow the pattern that they introduce a seemingly insignificant detail at the beginning, and it's easy to guess that it'll become significant later. No trying involved, you'll just beging to see it automatically.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 25, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> If the story fails to entertain me for ANY reason, yes, that's the writer's fault. The writer's JOB is to entertain me.



No.  The writer's job is to write.  Entertainment is a subjective thing, and guaranteeing it is impossible.  The writer wrote a story, he did his job.  It's not his fault you didn't like it, because he isn't writing a story for you, and he's not psychic, so even if he were he wouldn't know what you were like.



> Are you reading the same posts I'm reading? Did I use the word "terrible"? No. Did I claim any amount of cleverness? No. I said that being unable to maintain the proper level of uncertainty in order to keep things tense and exciting for your reader is being a poor writer.



No, you didn't claim anything.  I assigned cleverness to you, based on the people I know who are also good at figuring out movies.  Deductive reasoning is a skill, you possess it in better than average degree, I would assume.

However, there are a distinct amount of people who _were_ surprised by the ending, and there _was_ uncertainty for them, and therefore he was a successful writer, assuming your definition for the sake of argument, though it is incorrect.



> This has nothing to do with my cleverness. No matter how clever I may or may not be, a writer who can keep their story exciting is a better writer than one who cannot. One way to tell an exciting story is to conceal a twist that the audience didn't see coming. If Writer A can do that and Writer B cannot, all other things being equal, Writer A is the better writer.



It's _all_ about your cleverness, and that of other people with skills similar to yours in deductive reasoning.  _You_ were dismayed by the movie because _you_ figured it out.  You are not "the audience", you are one person.



> Liking strawberry is philosophically indefensible. Chocolate is the ultimate flavour.



I would agree.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 25, 2003)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> The writer's job is to write.  Entertainment is a subjective thing, and guaranteeing it is impossible.  The writer wrote a story, he did his job. It's not his fault you didn't like it, because he isn't writing a story for you, and he's not psychic, so even if he were he wouldn't know what you were like.



I don't even know where to begin to respond to this. So when you see a movie, and it sucks, what's your response to that? Do you congratulate the people who made it for doing their job?

I'm  not asking anyone to be psychic -- I'm just asking them to tell me a good story. If they fail at that, they are failing at their jobs.

Take computer programming. You might say it's a programmer's job to write code, and in a certain sense you'd be right -- but the code has to work. It has to be sufficiently well-designed. It has to not suck. If the programmer types a thousand lines of code that fail to execute any of the required functionality, do you think he's done his job?

Of course not. The "job" of a writer isn't to write. That's nonsense. It's to write _well_. Anybody can put words on a page and be writing. We pay writers for their ability to do it better than we can. And when they fail to do it well enough to entertain us, we are right to say they are failing at their jobs. I mean, if your definition of writer includes "everyone who puts words on a page", then I guess if they write they ARE doing their job -- but can we at least agree that there are degrees of success? That somebody might "do their job" and still suck?

All this is beside the point. My argument actually wasn't that it WAS the writer's fault, it was that it's NOT the audience's. If the audience figures out the ending of the story and thus loses interest in the story, that's not THEIR fault. If it must be somebody's fault, there's pretty much only one fall guy hanging around -- the writer.

Look, I know it's not fair. I'm a writer myself. It sucks. One person watches your film and says, "Oh, well, I figured that out. What a boring movie." and hey! presto! you just failed. Back to the drawing board. But then another person says, "That was awesome. When's the next part coming out?" and boom! pow! you rock. Which of those people was right? Both of them. That's the nature of art -- and if you're serious about your art, you'll spend some time listening to both of them and figuring why they felt how they did, and wondering how to improve your own work.

An artist not prepared to be told they failed has no business putting their work in the public view.


			
				LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> You were dismayed by the movie because you figured it out.  You are not "the audience", you are one person.



What are you talking about? What movie? I never figured out anything. Where are you getting this from?

Are we even having the same conversation?


			
				LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> I would agree.



Well, thank heavens we agree on something.


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 25, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> What are you talking about? What movie? I never figured out anything. Where are you getting this from?



He's getting it from your own words (about Identity):







			
				barsoom said:
			
		

> If I guess the ending of a story before I reach the ending, it's not MY fault -- it's the WRITER's fault. It's called, "Being a poor writer." Part of being a good story-teller is keeping the audience in the dark just the right amount, and revealing information just at the right moment. Something the writer of, say, _Identity_, was not very good at.



I'd love to be able to search these boards for the discussion about Identity - 
in it, the couple people who espoused a similar view to barsoom's were pretty convincingly shown to be incorrect, if memory serves.
A paraphrase I remember:
"Come on, you're telling me that 



Spoiler



you guessed that the action was all happening inside one of the character's MINDS?!?" 



And as much subjective proof as it serves:
The Rotten Tomatoes ratings for Usual Suspects and Identity were 92% and 65%, respectively. Not the sign of a movie that didn't do what it set out to do.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheUsualSuspects-1064751/
and http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Identity-1121977/


----------



## Berandor (Dec 25, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> A paraphrase I remember:
> "Come on, you're telling me that
> 
> 
> ...



Yes. Yes, I did. And I never saw the movie, and I only read two reviews. One commented on the surprise ending, the other said the ending cheated on the audience trying to figure it out. And I knew what the twist was. Happens. But it's a bad twist.


			
				reaper again said:
			
		

> And as much subjective proof as it serves:
> The Rotten Tomatoes ratings for Usual Suspects and Identity were 92% and 65%, respectively. Not the sign of a movie that didn't do what it set out to do.
> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheUsualSuspects-1064751/
> and http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Identity-1121977/



But you also see a real difference between the two films, probably in part because Usual Suspects was a smart mystery that let you figure out the ending if you were so inlcined, while Identity turned the tables and changed the whole movie just to surprise you. One got 6 points of ten, the other 9. 6 is alright, 9 is very good.


----------



## Dispater (Dec 25, 2003)

Please, it annoys me to read that some of you think screenwriting is all about keeping the audience from 'figuring it out'. Being a writer is about creating great and believable characters and stories, not about your ability to create those Hollywoodish twists and turns in a story to may keep people thinking 'wow, I didnt figure it out! what a great film!'

Its also probaby not purely the writer's fault when a movie totally sucks, but more a combination of bad writing/bad directing/bad acting.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 25, 2003)

*re*



			
				Dispater said:
			
		

> Please, it annoys me to read that some of you think screenwriting is all about keeping the audience from 'figuring it out'.




I would hold this requirement to be true only for mystery plots. A good mystery shouldn't be easy to figure out, or at least some aspect of the mystery: like how did the killer do it? or who helped him?.


----------



## ToddSchumacher (Dec 25, 2003)

My 2 cents..

It's not like anyone sets out to make bad movies..."I know, let's make a bad movie". 

One of he pitfalls of film is the fact that it written at _least_ three times 1: by the writers (Not counting re-writes), 2: by the director and actors during shooting, and 3: by the editor choosing from the 'best' takes that make the story work. So blaming the whole thing on the writer is a bit much.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 25, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I don't even know where to begin to respond to this. So when you see a movie, and it sucks, what's your response to that? Do you congratulate the people who made it for doing their job?
> 
> I'm not asking anyone to be psychic -- I'm just asking them to tell me a good story. If they fail at that, they are failing at their jobs.



Well, my response would be not to see anything by the writer. I'll address more below.



> Take computer programming. You might say it's a programmer's job to write code, and in a certain sense you'd be right -- but the code has to work. It has to be sufficiently well-designed. It has to not suck. If the programmer types a thousand lines of code that fail to execute any of the required functionality, do you think he's done his job?



Apples and oranges. Writing produces an intangible benefit - satisfaction. Programming produces something very tangible - a program.



> Of course not. The "job" of a writer isn't to write. That's nonsense. It's to write _well_. Anybody can put words on a page and be writing. We pay writers for their ability to do it better than we can. And when they fail to do it well enough to entertain us, we are right to say they are failing at their jobs. I mean, if your definition of writer includes "everyone who puts words on a page", then I guess if they write they ARE doing their job -- but can we at least agree that there are degrees of success? That somebody might "do their job" and still suck?



Oh, definitely. There are _huge_ degrees of success, and in reality there are even different ways to succeed that are equally valid, if not always equaly moral.



> All this is beside the point. My argument actually wasn't that it WAS the writer's fault, it was that it's NOT the audience's. If the audience figures out the ending of the story and thus loses interest in the story, that's not THEIR fault. If it must be somebody's fault, there's pretty much only one fall guy hanging around -- the writer.



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. Sometimes things just don't work for some people.

A good example would be music. Britney Spears is _hugely_ successful, by almost any definition of the word. I think her music sucks; I think it's boring, predictable, and regurgitated music industry pop-crap. Lots of other people feel very different. Though I'd give my left eye to teach the world how bland and over-used a I-IV-V-I (or VI) progression is. Is that her, or more adequately, her songwriter's fault? No. Is it mine? Definitely not.

The same thing applies to movies - sometimes things just don't work for people. Obviously _The Usual Suspects_ didn't work for you, because you figured it out, and that's fine. But it's not the writer's fault.



> Look, I know it's not fair. I'm a writer myself. It sucks. One person watches your film and says, "Oh, well, I figured that out. What a boring movie." and hey! presto! you just failed. Back to the drawing board. But then another person says, "That was awesome. When's the next part coming out?" and boom! pow! you rock. Which of those people was right? Both of them. That's the nature of art -- and if you're serious about your art, you'll spend some time listening to both of them and figuring why they felt how they did, and wondering how to improve your own work.
> 
> An artist not prepared to be told they failed has no business putting their work in the public view.



I agree with all of this. I like to compose music, though I haven't since I went to the university three years ago. Same boat - sometimes you suck, and all you can do is learn from it.



> Well, thank heavens we agree on something.



Now... dark, milk, or white? 

As an aside... I'm sorry my first two posts came off as a little antagonistic.  

Oh, and Merry X-Mas!!!


----------



## SynapsisSynopsis (Dec 26, 2003)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Just because you're too clever doesn't mean someone is a terrible writer, or something is a terrible movie.  So don't blame your "problems" (if being good at deductive reasoning is a problem ) on someone else.




The other side is that often there aren't really (m)any clues to find; it's simply a matter of imagining the most conventional unconventional ending.  Inevitably, that's the one the writer used.  I wouldn't let my ego get inflated over figuring any of these plots out.  And you definitely don't need Holmesian detective skills to do it.

It especially seems to be a theme with Shyamalan's movies.  The Sixth Sense is easy to spot, there are some big indications, but I was hoping it wouldn't go that direction.  When it was absolutely clear that it was I walked out.  Unbreakable I stayed for, because although the ending was obvious, in my opinion it fit.  Probably his least popular movie, but I think it's his best.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> If the story fails to entertain me for ANY reason, yes, that's the writer's fault. The writer's JOB is to entertain me.




Writer, n.  Not a profession for a passport.

The writer's only job is to write well.  Directors, producers, editors and who knows what other people can destroy a great script.  But even if one could magically sneak through unmutilated, that's a pretty presumptuous statement.  The writer could be an idiot, sure, but then again it could just be the person watching.


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 26, 2003)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Yes. Yes, I did. And I never saw the movie, and I only read two reviews. One commented on the surprise ending, the other said the ending cheated on the audience trying to figure it out. And I knew what the twist was. Happens. But it's a bad twist.



If you go into a movie already knowing that there's a BIG TWIST YOU'LL NEVER GUESS AT THE END OF THE MOVIE!!!, than you have already distanced yourself from being a default (uninfluenced) audience member.


----------



## SynapsisSynopsis (Dec 26, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Of course not. The "job" of a writer isn't to write. That's nonsense. It's to write _well_. Anybody can put words on a page and be writing. We pay writers for their ability to do it better than we can. And when they fail to do it well enough to entertain us, we are right to say they are failing at their jobs. I mean, if your definition of writer includes "everyone who puts words on a page", then I guess if they write they ARE doing their job -- but can we at least agree that there are degrees of success? That somebody might "do their job" and still suck?




Those are still connections no serious critic would make.  Writing well, writing a twist that nobody can guess, and entertaining your audience have nothing necessarily to do with each other.  If you find Oedipos boring because you already know the ending--you see where I'm going with this.. it is well written, whether you or I personally find it entertaining or not, neither of which are functions of its predictability.  Let's face it: when you go to see a Tragedy, whether it's Oedipos or Hamlet or Hedda Gabler or Kill Bill or Mystic River, you sort of know how it's going to end long before you ever get to the theater, whether you've read a review or heard about the ending or not.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> All this is beside the point. My argument actually wasn't that it WAS the writer's fault, it was that it's NOT the audience's. If the audience figures out the ending of the story and thus loses interest in the story, that's not THEIR fault. If it must be somebody's fault, there's pretty much only one fall guy hanging around -- the writer.




Sure it is.  If the audience loses interest simply because they've figured the ending, that's their problem.  What's in an ending?


----------



## Fast Learner (Dec 26, 2003)

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? Do you watch LOTR and think "That's in front of a green screen" when someone is in a fantastic surrounding? When you see, say, Frodo say something, do you think "That's Elijah Woods, I've seen other films he's been in, I wonder what he had for breakfast" every time you see him on screen? When you watch _any_ film do you think "It wasn't filmed in this order, I bet that scene was filmed much later than this one"?

Are you familiar with the concept of "suspension of disbelief"?

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.

(Not giving you a hard time: just suggesting what makes movies so great for me.)


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 26, 2003)

Gnarlo said:
			
		

> I like strawberry. Vanilla is ok, too.





Oh my lord! That's it, close the thread, this statement is simply too outrageous to stand by and let it go.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 26, 2003)

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.


----------



## SynapsisSynopsis (Dec 26, 2003)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Are you familiar with the concept of "suspension of disbelief"?




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.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 30, 2003)

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 -- 



Spoiler



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.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 30, 2003)

did anyone enjoy _No Way Out_ with Kevin Costner?

that one threw me.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 30, 2003)

Hey reaper, you'll need to explain something for me.

Isn't this:


			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I'm surprised noone's mentioned the horrendously obvious stand-ins this go-round.



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?


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 30, 2003)

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?


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 30, 2003)

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...)


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 30, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> did anyone enjoy _No Way Out_ with Kevin Costner?
> 
> that one threw me.




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.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 30, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> 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... 



Spoiler



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. 



Spoiler



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".


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 30, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> 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_, 



Spoiler



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.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 30, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> 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"?





			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> No, I am not



Just to address the "so why did you say that then" question -- I do consider the hypothetical opinion to be a perfectly valid reason for disliking a film. And in fact, there are probably lots of films that fit into that for me -- that is, there are plenty of films whose plots offer little or no surprises, AND whose other qualities are insufficient to provide any entertainment, and so I dislike them. Most _Friday the 13th_-type movies fall into this category. If their plots offered surprising twists I might overlook the other flaws -- likewise if they featured, say, over-the-top action set pieces I might overlook the dull story. Or whatever.

So not those films in particular, but sure, plenty of films in general.


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 31, 2003)

a) Being sympathetic does NOT mean I am being condescending.
That's like saying that because I have sympathy for someone who can't walk means I am being condescending to them.
I truly feel sorry for you that your not-common approach to watching movies gets in the way of your enjoyment of them.

Take that for what you will, but it's not meant as condescending.
Hell, I wish I liked all kinds of food - I don't. I'm somewhat picky (not many vegetables, etc). I don't take offense when someone is enjoying some tasty vegetable and says "You don't know what you're missing."

b) I believe I can prove that your approach to watching movies is problematic at best, flawed and unrealistic at worst:
If the enjoyment of the movie is dependant upon not guessing the ending, than you had better not listen to ANYONE talk about the movie before you've seen it, nor should you ever see trailers, or anything.
Since I have already pointed out how knowing that a movie has A TWIST ENDING!! will change the way you watch the movie (i.e. your antenae will be up for every storytelling and directorial trick, like the afore-mentioned "Never Trust the Narrator" and "watch for the idiosyncratic way he holds the cigarette", etc), than it behooves you to be a complete tabula rasa (blank slate) about every movie you want to see.
This creates problems in today's life. It's difficult to avoid info, and IMO, it enriches a life to be able to talk about films one hasn't happened to see yet (not to mention you can't completely avoid trailers on TV or at movies).

This is a simple equation/proof, something like:
If any knowledge of movie = worsening of movie, then your approach makes it harder to enjoy a movie.

c) If you'd like, we could discuss (as objectively as possible) how you are incorrect in saying that it is EASY to figure out the ending of Identity....
because unless you go in KNOWING that there's a twist, than you would be watching it as a Whodone-it, and based on the film, I would strongly argue that there is almost no way that any normal person would come to the conclusion that 



Spoiler



the whole movie is in the head of another person.



could someone find the old thread about Identity on these boards?  TIA


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 31, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> a) Being sympathetic does NOT mean I am being condescending.



I believe that you do not mean to be, but I assure you I feel condescended towards by somebody who tells me that my way of appreciating art is not as good as theirs.


			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I truly feel sorry for you that your not-common approach to watching movies gets in the way of your enjoyment of them.



Where do you get this notion that my "not-common approach" to gets in the way of my enjoyment? Are you saying that it is not common to watch movies with some semblance of critical judgement? Are you saying that most people never apply rational thought to stories told to them?


			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I believe I can prove that your approach to watching movies is problematic at best, flawed and unrealistic at worst:
> If the enjoyment of the movie is dependant upon not guessing the ending, than you had better not listen to ANYONE talk about the movie before you've seen it, nor should you ever see trailers, or anything.



Did you read my post on _The Sixth Sense_ vs _Fight Club_? I meant to be pretty clear that my enjoyment of the latter was in no way spoiled by the fact that I had a notion what the twist was going to be.


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> In both cases I saw the twist coming, so that's obviously not a key determiner to my enjoyment of the films.



My enjoyment of a movie is NOT dependent on not guessing the ending. Your argument is based on false premises. Indeed, I agree with you, that if your enjoyment of any story is based on not being able to predict the ending, you're cutting yourself out of a lot of very rewarding artistic experience.


			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> based on the film (Identity), I would strongly argue that there is almost no way that any normal person would come to the conclusion



I'm happy to take on the mantle of abnormal if you insist. But look, 



Spoiler



two-thirds of the way into the film we STILL haven't encountered the supposed killer anywhere. He's just not there. So either we're watching a stupid film that's never going to make any sense, or something more than what's obvious is going on. I don't see it as a big leap.



But you're NEVER going to convince me that it's not easy to figure out because it WAS easy to figure out. It took very little effort on my part, and it DIDN'T WRECK THE FILM. Okay? That's not the problem with _Identity_.

Now if you have problems with my _stated_ ideas about the relative value of the different ways of appreciating art (unthinking acceptance vs simultaneous disbelief and critical awareness), I'd be happy to address those. But your post proves nothing about the ideas I put forth.


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 31, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Now if you have problems with my _stated_ ideas about the relative value of the different ways of appreciating art (unthinking acceptance vs simultaneous disbelief and critical awareness), I'd be happy to address those. But your post proves nothing about the ideas I put forth.



And similarly, your painting my stance as "unthinking acceptance" does not adequately convey my stated intent.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 31, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> And similarly, your painting my stance as "unthinking acceptance" does not adequately convey my stated intent.



Does that mean you now understand and agree with my stance?

Let me know how I've mischaracterised your intent. Your words on the subject that got me thinking what I did:


			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Most everyone else does NOT watch those movies with all their antennae up to try and glean every scrap of information they can





			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Most people simply watch the film and enjoy it unfolding at the creator's intended pace.





			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> 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."





			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> an average filmgoer should NOT be attempting to short-cut around the plot using guesses based on Writing Rules.



The consistent message I see here is: "Do not question the story as it is told." Concurrently with that I see no suggestion that using one's logical powers to assess the story as it is told is a good thing.

If you think that SOME kinds of story-questioning are good and others are bad, please be clear. It seems to me from what you have said so far that you think all forms of audience challenge to the story as it is told are bad and lead to reduced enjoyment. I have stated why I think this way of thinking is incorrect.

You provided a rebuttal to a different statement -- one I never made -- and so have not yet provided any sort of counter-argument to my actual position, best represented in these statements:


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 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.





			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 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.



I realise that I may have made statements contradictory to these and subsequently forgotten them (once already!), so please be patient with me and instead of dragging out my embarrassing lapses, address this position, if you would.

If you still think I'm wrong, I welcome your efforts to show how.


----------



## Elric (Jan 10, 2004)

Wow, another war of attrition on the messageboards...

I thought The Usual Suspects was great.  I didn't guess the surprise, but seeing more Kevin Spacey movies would have helped.  Plus, you get the fun of watching the movie again and figuring out everything that you missed the first time.  

Still, there are some times where you don't even have to watch the movie to guess what's going on.  Some actors are just always bad guys, so if you see them in a movie as a good guy, you can guess that they are just bad guys in disguise.


----------



## SynapsisSynopsis (Jan 12, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 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.




If you're going to qualify the protasis you should qualify the apodosis as well: If a film fails _to entertain me_, it is a failure _to entertain me_, i.e. tautologically.  If it fails to entertain you, then yes, it fails to entertain you, but to jump from its failing to entertain you to its failing wholesale is to make the unspoken assertion that it only exists inasmuch as it entertains you.  A film fails if it is a failure, and a film fails to entertain me if it is a failure to entertain me, but you'll have to do a lot more arguing to establish a connection between failing and failing to entertain.

I think you're more guilty of the disjunction between popular and artistic success than LightPhoenix.  Art does not exist for your or my mere entertainment.  It has to be heavier and thicker than that.  Entertainment is popular success; artistic success lies elsewhere.  I'm assuming, for example, that you aren't entertained by _Finnegans Wake_ (I certainly am not), and hope that you can see how shaky that would be as grounds for calling it a failure.  I think I am more disturbed than entertained by great art.  It doesn't give me the giggles or the urge to say 'cool' or make me cry--every angel is terrifying.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 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.




That's a bit troublesome now isn't it?  I mean, with film and its second-rate critical appartus emphasizing things like auteur theory and Lacan, perhaps that's fine, but, at least where books and poems are concerned, the idea of the "teller" has been under intense scrutiny since the mid to late 18th century.  I do not subscribe to your 'entertaining me = success' theorem--it's a bit egocentric for my taste--but supposing someone did, you could just as well attribute artistic failure to the culture that produces artists as to the artists themselves.  It has been some time since anyone has had a clear idea just what an 'author' is.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 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.




Here's where I won't make any friends.  I can't stand LotR.  Movies--have seen them--, books--have read them--, none of it.  In fact I have a general distaste for stock fantasy and stock sci-fi from Forgotten Realms to Dragonlance to Farscape to, well, let's just say a lot of the things that are sacred cows to most of the people on these boards.  Yet there is that thread toward the top of the forum about Tolkien's failings, of which assuredly there are many, (not that he is without his charms), where reapersaurus is continually beaten with 'most read books other than the Bible' and similarly goofy statistics.  I bet if you counted up every person that has ever read Homer in the last 2800 odd years, it would exceed LotR, but that is not my point.

So am I free to proclaim with absolute legitimacy that because LotR fails to entertain me, it's a complete, utter, devastating failure?  I am guessing a big no is on the way.  I have more than once heard someone say LotR are the greatest books _ever_ written, and more than once have burst out laughing; I cringe when people call them great movies.  That's just taste.  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.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 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.




Writing well, writing a twist that nobody can guess, and entertaining your audience have nothing _necessarily_ to do with each other.  I could write a twist that would be impossible for you to guess; that impossibility could as easily be a function of how badly it is written as how well, and anything in-between.  If you insist on a well-told story being an entertaining story you may, but it is not at all clear that what constitutes artistic success has anything to do with telling stories at all, let alone telling them well.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 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.




They've also survived through luck.  Euripides is a more interesting example, since he hardly ever won and was the most lampooned of the great 3.  I understand your point about frame of reference--in hermeneutics the popular term is horizons or horizons of expectation--but to say that the only reason the great works of the past are less popular today than they once were is because they can no longer be properly understood is a bit of a stretch.  Shakespeare is read, seen and appreciated more now than he ever was in his lifetime or probably any period after, and that is not an uncommon scenario by any means.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> We have to learn to appreciate Sophocles. We have to acquire a frame of reference in which the plays become entertaining.




That is one approach, but not the only one.  Some critics would advocate the opposite.  I would think, given your emphasis on subjectivity, that you would incline more toward the 'it is significant only in how it relates to us now' camp.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 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.




Yet ultimately, such horizons are unavailable.  We all know what happens when you go chasing after a horizon: you come to the spot where it had been, only to find that it has since moved on.

Additionally, there are more layers than a simple 'frame of reference' suggests.  It is more like a reel of frames of reference, and really (bad pun?) those frames _are_ the film, and there's no going back from them.  Their meaning is contained entirely in what they are, and the discursive unity, if you believe in such a thing, that made that articulation, reel, frame possible is never again available.  It's something like a language: nothing you can pin down.  Of course one of the first things we often forget when starting down these roads of thought is that there's really no such thing.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 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.




And it's entirely possible for this to be the case when viewing or listening to a work produced in our own time.  Perhaps you are simply misaligned and so cannot appreciate Spears or NSync.

If you want to play the subjectivity card, you should at least accept the consequences, which are, at the least, that you are forbidden from making categorical judgments about anything and so that, essentially, good and bad cease to exist and relations between things take over.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 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.




Movies that generally suck  .  A lot of Shakespeare's stories were already stolen; it isn't the stories, in themselves, that make the writing great.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 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.




If you want to make a living writing, I can certainly sympathize with you having the views you do and taking the approach you do.  But from a critical standpoint I think it is the wrong approach--at the same time, if you are a great writer, it will make no difference.  You will simply write good books that happen to be popular books, too.  There's certainly nothing wrong with being popular, only with using popularity to justify critical judgments.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> But let's take two other famous "twist" films -- _The Sixth Sense_ and _Fight Club_. I disliked the former and loved the latter.




We get along capitally on that one.  I also agree with your assessment of the weak way the twist in _The Sixth Sense_ was wrought, which goes to my previous statement that a twist that cannot be predicted and good writing have nothing necessarily to do with one another.  I've entertained similar thoughts about _Fight Club _ as well.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 12, 2004)

*contemplates SynapsisSynopsis' post*

Whoah. If nothing else, I feel a lot better about my tendency to obsessively go through other people's posts and find every single point I could possibly disagree with. I do worry about the possibility of us ever being in the same room together, though.



That said, it's clear from your post that we're using different meanings for the word "entertain." Let me be more clear (since, frankly, I think I'm the one with the nonstandard usage):

By "entertain" I mean "delight, inspire, thrill and/or provide new and valuable insight into life, the universe and everything." There should be no question of "mere" entertainment.

Homer, Dante, Shakespeare and Goethe are indeed tremendously entertaining. I consider _Finnegan's Wake_ one of the great con-jobs of literary history, so let's leave that aside, shall we?

I'm going to continue to use the word "entertain" on the understanding that I'm using it to mean the above. If you'd prefer I use another term, I'm open to possibilities. Let us avoid tedious arguments about terminology. In favour of tedious arguments about critical theory.

So now for my turn to behave in a frighteningly obsessive/compulsive manner:


			
				SynapsisSynopsis said:
			
		

> If (a film) fails to entertain you, then yes, it fails to entertain you, but to jump from its failing to entertain you to its failing wholesale is to make the unspoken assertion that it only exists inasmuch as it entertains you.



On the one hand, we have the new definition of entertain, which possibly addresses this point for you. On the other, I'm not very happy about the term "failing wholesale". What does that mean?

I'll happily agree that a story may fail me and succeed for others -- there being no end to reasons why that may be (not least of which might be that I'm wrong), but I will not agree that a story must succeed regardless of my opinion, if most other people think it succeeds.

Sometimes everybody else IS wrong. If you're not capable of believing that, you're not capable of original thought.


			
				SynapsisSynopsis said:
			
		

> It has been some time since anyone has had a clear idea just what an 'author' is.



Well, not anyone in the publishing industry, I am compelled to point out.

You seem to be confusing narratorial identity with actual authorship. I'm not aware of any reason to doubt, for example, that Lord Byron wrote _Don Juan_. The question of who's speaking in that work and what that may mean in the arena of interpretation is certainly a complex one, but the question of who John Murray mailed the cheques to is not. When I say the teller of the story has failed, I mean the guy who cashed the cheque. He got paid, so he's on the hook.


			
				SynapsisSynopsis said:
			
		

> You could just as well attribute artistic failure to the culture that produces artists as to the artists themselves.



You'd have to provide some pretty spectacular evidence to convince me on that one. You'd have to demonstrate, for example, that said culture was unable to produce successful artistic works at all -- and I'm not aware of any such culture on this planet.

Well, possibly Edmonton.  

Seriously though, are we going to pretend that, say, the United States is to blame for Jackie Collins? That she emerges from the cultural context in which she writes is obvious, but that doesn't mean that the work was spontaneously generated out of American culture.

Or at any rate, if you want to say that it did, knock yourself out, but in explaining why her books are so much different from, say, Steven Brust's, you're going to need to discuss the elements of their genesis that are distinct -- and the primary one of those is going to have to be Ms. Collins herself.


			
				SynapsisSynopsis said:
			
		

> So am I free to proclaim with absolute legitimacy that because LotR fails to entertain me, it's a complete, utter, devastating failure?  I am guessing a big no is on the way.



Not from me. You're free to say whatever you like. And if you can back it up, I might even be convinced. It's happened before. At any rate, I'll certainly listen to your arguments.


			
				SynapsisSynopsis said:
			
		

> 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.



Of course it isn't true. It never has been and it never will be.

Relativism is a refuge for people who can't formulate opinions but need to view themselves as opinionated.


			
				SynapsisSynopsis said:
			
		

> Writing well, writing a twist that nobody can guess, and entertaining your audience have nothing _necessarily_ to do with each other.



I feel like my meaning got turned inside out in all this -- and I concede that it's probably my fault. Let me try again:

When somebody attempts to create a plot twist, and the audience sees it coming, and the story's impact is lessened thereby, somebody has failed to write as well as they could have. And the audience is less entertained than they otherwise would have been. Had the plot twist been more difficult to see coming, all other things being equal, the success of the work would have been greater.

It's perfectly simple to create a plot twist that nobody can guess -- I can announce at the end of my story that all the characters are in fact sentient cheese wedges and surprise the audience completely. THAT I agree has nothing to do with writing well, or entertaining.

I hope it's clear that under my expanded definition of "entertaining", there is indeed a necessary connection to writing well. A well-told story is an entertaining story -- the terms are synonymous.


			
				SynapsisSynopsis said:
			
		

> If you insist on a well-told story being an entertaining story you may, but it is not at all clear that what constitutes artistic success has anything to do with telling stories at all, let alone telling them well.



I find this a curious statement. There are indeed many forms artistic success can take that have nothing to do with telling stories.

The success of an oil painting, for example, need have nothing to do with telling a good story. Likewise a symphony, or a pop song. Sculpture. Poetry.

But I'm not talking about these things. I'm talking about story-telling. Are you trying to say that the artistic success of a story has nothing to do with telling stories, let alone telling them well? I sort of doubt it, but I'm genuinely confused by this statement of yours.


			
				SynapsisSynopsis said:
			
		

> To say that the only reason the great works of the past are less popular today than they once were is because they can no longer be properly understood is a bit of a stretch.  Shakespeare is read, seen and appreciated more now than he ever was in his lifetime or probably any period after, and that is not an uncommon scenario by any means.



I don't think I said (or once again, didn't intend to say) that great works of the past can no longer be properly understood. I meant to say simply that one reason we are sometimes not entertained by a given work is because its virtues fall outside of our current frame of reference. This may or may not have anything to do with our distance from the work in time. I chose time-related examples only because they were the first to come to mind, but I don't mean to make a statement on the way tastes change over the years.

That Shakespeare is more popular than ever means only that our society's common frame of reference makes it easy for us to appreciate the virtues of his work.


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> We have to acquire a frame of reference in which the plays become entertaining.





			
				SynapsisSynopsis said:
			
		

> That is one approach, but not the only one.  Some critics would advocate the opposite.



The opposite? Some critics would advocate we have to acquire a frame of reference in which the plays become _less_ entertaining?

Let me be more clear. If we wish to enjoy a story that falls outside of our current frame of reference, we must acquire a frame of reference that allows us to appreciate that story's virtues. Acquiring that frame of reference is largely the same process as "learning to appreciate" the story in question.


			
				SynapsisSynopsis said:
			
		

> I would think, given your emphasis on subjectivity, that you would incline more toward the 'it is significant only in how it relates to us now' camp.



I think you're confusing the fact that I think I know better than all the critics in the world with the notion that I'm a subjectivist.

I may be _confident_, but I'm not a subjectivist. I'm serious. I think my opinions are the correct ones -- I do not attempt to pretend that "since they're purely subjective nobody can tell me they're wrong." Or rather, I don't think the fact that they're subjective (as all opinions are) relieves me of the need to defend them or means they can't therefore be wrong.

A friend of mine has a statement about beliefs that I think is applicable, belief and subjective opinion sharing certain qualities:


			
				Some friend of barsoomcore's said:
			
		

> We believe things for one of two reasons: either because we think they're true, or because it makes us happy to do so.



I hold the beliefs I hold about storytelling because I think they're true. Given that, I consider it essential that I constantly challenge and assess them, and improve them when I find them lacking. I am appreciating your assistance in this effort.


			
				SynapsisSynopsis said:
			
		

> Yet ultimately, such horizons are unavailable.  We all know what happens when you go chasing after a horizon: you come to the spot where it had been, only to find that it has since moved on.
> 
> Additionally, there are more layers than a simple 'frame of reference' suggests.  It is more like a reel of frames of reference, and really (bad pun?) those frames _are_ the film, and there's no going back from them.  Their meaning is contained entirely in what they are, and the discursive unity, if you believe in such a thing, that made that articulation, reel, frame possible is never again available.  It's something like a language: nothing you can pin down.  Of course one of the first things we often forget when starting down these roads of thought is that there's really no such thing.



Poetic. But rather beside the point. We aren't chasing after horizons and we aren't trying to recapture some lost understanding. That we can't "go back" is immaterial.

All that matters is can we learn to appreciate stories that operate according to notions of story-telling outside our frame of reference? And the answer to that is of course we can. People do it all the time. It may be a complex process, there may be dozens of layers if you like, but if you're going to say it's impossible to learn how to like stories that fall outside our current frame of reference, well, you're going to need to provide some heavy evidence.


			
				SynapsisSynopsis said:
			
		

> If you want to play the subjectivity card, you should at least accept the consequences, which are, at the least, that you are forbidden from making categorical judgments about anything and so that, essentially, good and bad cease to exist and relations between things take over.



Now that's just downright unfriendly.

Are you saying there _are_ objective standards of artistic success? Please show me them, I'd be very interested. Of course there are not, and there never have been (outside of France, anyway). The appreciation and discussion of art is dependent on the subjective reactions of indivduals to the work.

But that doesn't mean we cannot make categorical judgements. That doesn't mean that good and bad cease to exist. You're getting a trifle melodramatic here, don't you think?

The fact that our opinions about art are subjective does not mean we cannot have meaningful discussion about them. It does not mean that we are barred from making categorical statements about art. It only means that we must keep in mind that all our categorical statements are subject to change, should new ideas and approaches arise.

Rather than trying to force me to accept one position or another, offer me your own. If you think that the discussion of storytelling success can be run on purely objective terms, I'll be surprised, but more than willing to listen. If you think some degree of subjectivity must be allowed, then why are you badgering me about it?

The notion that thought must be completely objective or completely subjective is rather naive. Surely as more or less rational beings it falls upon us to be constantly assessing our conversations, picking out the subjective opinions that are only expressions of our taste and trying to analyze the objective truths we manage to hit upon. It's never all one or the other.

Looking over this whole debate, it seems to me like we're disagreeing on a couple of key points: the meaning of the word "entertainment" (for which I apologize but I hope my new definition helps you to understand what I'm getting at -- and possibly brings us to agreement on the nature of the "responsibility" for artistic success or failure) and the subjectivity of artistic opinions (on which subject I'm not at all sure as to what position you're putting forth, and so remain uncertain as to whether or not we agree). My central point remains: when a story fails to entertain me, I am correct to say that the storyteller has failed. This does not absolve me from any responsibility to examine my own appreciation of the story and make sure that my lack of enjoyment does not result from a missing or inadequate frame of reference, but the job of the storyteller is to entertain me, and should she fail at that, she has failed.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Jan 13, 2004)

ToddSchumacher said:
			
		

> It's not like anyone sets out to make bad movies..."I know, let's make a bad movie".




Tom Green did with _Freddy Got Fingered_.  I'm sure of it.  That guy's got a good punchin' coming to him if I ever meet him..


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 13, 2004)

Sixth Sense-- Got me.

The Usual Suspects-- Got me.

No Way Out-- Got me.

Fight Club-- Got me.

The Crying Game-- Got me.

and recently, The Ring-- Got me. (Not exactly a "whodunnit" twist, but certainly a WHOA! ending)

I recently also watched Miller's Crossing again. That's another good movie with a very well layered plot. In particular, 



Spoiler



the sexual orientation of many of the characters plays a major impact on the unfolding plot.


 I confess that I didn't notice this angle _at all_ the first time I saw the movie, so I got a pretty good shock out of the revelation (it wasn't something I expected in a "gangster movie." But on watching the movie a second time, it wasn't even remotely obfuscated. In fact, several of the characters make reference to it several times throughout the movie (although always in a "polite" way).

I think that what makes these movies so good is that (with the possible exception of The Usual Suspects) they don't set you up to EXPECT a twist. Yeah, if I am expecting a twist, I am as good as anybody at spotting it coming. But 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.

I love watching these movies a second time. The Sixth Sense was great for that-- everything was right there for you the whole time.

Wulf


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 13, 2004)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 13, 2004)

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 (Jan 23, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

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



*here follows vague and unsubstantiated comments on my character*


			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 24, 2004)

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 (Jan 25, 2004)

Dispater said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 25, 2004)

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 (Jan 25, 2004)

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 (Jan 28, 2004)

SynapsisSynopsis said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 28, 2004)

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 (Jan 28, 2004)

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


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 28, 2004)

Wow.  This is one of the most circular discussions I've ever seen.  I'm glad I don't consciously try to think this much when I go to be entertained.

I think I understand why my wife hates it when people feel the need to disect a movie after viewing it, now.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 28, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I think I understand why my wife hates it when people feel the need to disect a movie after viewing it, now.



Interesting that you mention that.  I used to disect films directly after seeing them which was fun for a while.  But I find myself enjoying things more now when I click off and simply experience a movie (no matter how many "holes" it may seem to have), especially when I see it in the theater.  Later on, perhaps after a second viewing is when the discussion of the films merits and flaws can begin.

I find it's better for my entertainment dollar to kinda click off my brain when seeing certain features.  Not because they are dumbed down or anything like that but because I have pretty strong opinions of what should and should not be done in films.  That potentially stains my experience if I let it.  Now, crap is still crap, but if you do a little homework before seeing a movie you can usually avoid the total stinkers.  I thank the net for that.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Jan 28, 2004)

My first two posts were in the "Dune" thread.  I wanted to state the reasons why I thought Dune was a great book (and the other books were great to a much lesser degree, but let's not go into my literary analysis...)

The preceding post was motivated by sheer rage.  Philosophy is a noble topic, but probably only about 0.1% of the philosophers out there (amateurs and professionals alike) have any idea of what they're talking about.  The double-standard expressed by that waste of space-time and protein is absolutely infuriating.  I HATE circular logic!  I HATE IT!

And he used the word "hermeneutics".  I've never seen an intelligent discussion of _anything_ that included that word.

 

May you be condemned to an eternity of repeats of SNL's "Zagat's" skit, you pompous abuser of logic and the English language!


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 28, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I'm glad I don't consciously try to think this much when I go to be entertained.



Well, but what if thinking *IS* entertainment for you? But I fall back to my stated position on all this:

The best stories are stories that engage both our suspension of disbelief and our critical objectivity -- SIMULTANEOUSLY.

When consciously trying to think about it gives as much pleasure as turning your brain off -- THAT'S a great story. When you're both wrapped up the character's predicament and thinking furiously about what's happening -- THAT'S a great story.

Sure it's hard. If it was easy, everyone would do it.


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Jan 28, 2004)

I've always understood "suspension of disbelief" to refer more to the ability to ignore the fact that we're watching light projected onto a screen than the ability to accept whatever we're presented with.

When watching a movie, we should be willing to ignore the unreality of the images we see, but remain capable of critically examining what we're looking at as if it were real.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 28, 2004)

Wrath of the Swarm said:
			
		

> I've always understood "suspension of disbelief" to refer more to the ability to ignore the fact that we're watching light projected onto a screen than the ability to accept whatever we're presented with.
> 
> When watching a movie, we should be willing to ignore the unreality of the images we see, but remain capable of critically examining what we're looking at as if it were real.



I agree with that, but I think you can usefully extend the notion of suspension to include the CONTENT of the story, not just the FORM.

For example, to enjoy an Edgar Rice Burroughs Mars tale, you're going to have to suspend your disbelief enough so that the wild coincidences don't seem too contrived. Which I think is a somewhat different case than ignoring the mechanics of the story presentation.

Steven King definitely uses "suspension of disbelief" in this matter in _Danse Macabre_, and I think he gets a lot of useful thought out of it. I'm happy to adopt any terminology that would cause less confusion, but crucial to my idea on simultaneous engagement is that the audience is both giving the story the benefit of the doubt, emotionally (what I mean with the term "suspension of disbelief"), AND applying critical reasoning to the story.

I may be using the term incorrectly. Superior terminological notions are welcome.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 28, 2004)

I'm the same way:  if I know a movie has a twist ending and people have talked my ear off about how surprising it is, I can't help but try to figure it out.  If I go into it blindly, I don't try.  Frankly, I enjoy either way -- but I prefer to know absolutely nothing about a movie before I go to see it, _especially_ if it's a plot-driven movie.

It makes it hard for me to recommend movies to people, though.  I can't say, "Dude, go see _The End of Albert Finney _-- it's got the most amazingly convoluted plot, and some of the best swordfights I've seen on screen!" because that'd be too much information for me to know going in to a movie.  I tend to just say, "Trust me, you'll like this movie."

People never do.  

Speaking of which, did any of you miscreants go see _Peter Pan _like I told you to?

Thought not.

Daniel


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Jan 30, 2004)

For the record, barsoomcore, you're quite right about the generally accepted meaning of 'suspension of disbelief', although whether that's the correct usage or not is complicated.

The word I'm looking for is 'verisimitude'.  Real life doesn't obey the rules we expect authors to follow (no bizarre coincidences, no saviors swooping down from nowhere, no unexpected dooms), but authors still need to demonstrate a conceptual coherence in their works.  That doesn't mean they can't do things we would never accept as possible...


----------

