OT: "Identity," "Memento" and the Writer/Audience Covenant

[rkmsuf]

Actually saw Identity over the weekend. If not for the twisting ending the movie would have sucked royally. With the twist it was a gigantic ah ha that made the otherwise formulamatic, drivel somewhat entertaining...

[QuikSand]

Reading this thread has brought to mind two of the movies from the last several years that I enjoyed most. Memento, of course, but also Adaptation. I haven't seen Identity, but your discussion of it (which I've ony perused) leaves me with distinct impressions of Donald Kaufman's script for The 3 in that film, and more particularly Charlie's criticisms of everything about it (and then, paradoxically, its ultimate success).

I loved Adaptation, even though it was yet another movie that, in a certain way (different than the others here) went beyond the traditional "narative trust" concept (which I would still vigorously defend, by the way).

[corbes]

I'd submit The Sting and Matchstick Men as two movies that manage to "con" the viewer, but retain a sense of generosity and "narrative trust".

I think the key to narrative trust is "generosity". That is, the writer should NEVER consciously hold anything back from the reader that would affect their understanding of the reality. Facts can be interpreted in different ways by perception, but the writer should NEVER deliberately mislead an audience. He might, though, allow them to mislead themselves...

[Abe Sargent]

This sort of stuff has been argued about since Guy de Maupassant. The simple issue is that some people like twists, and some don't. Twists at the end of horror short stories are legendary, and I my literature expertise lies there. There is definitely an art to the twist, a good twist makes a good story better, a bad twists usually caps off a bad story.

For example, (SPOLIERS OF LOVECRAFTIAN TALES AND MYTHOS TALES BELOW)

In The Shadow over Innsmouth, a grad student is investigating his family tree in Providence, RI, when he decides to take a detour through a small, quaint fishing village, Innsmouth, en route to another area one of his relatives lives. While there, he uncovers amazing and detailed horrors, too many to go into now, you think the story is over but there is one and a half page left.

After he returns home, he does a little more digging and finds out that one of his relatives that he thought came from one area actually came from Innsmouth. And that he has the gene in him that transforms the Innsmouth folk into Deep Ones, large fishy humanoids. And he breaks into an asylum, frees his older brother, and they both excape into the ocean.

Good twist. A good story becomes a classic.

Bad Twist? There a story in the Cthulhu mythos that I forget right now, some guy summoned a winged monstrosity, and when he goes to the roof to escape it, the winged thing spirits him away, and satisfied, he leaves this dimension behind. When the narrator arrives at the roof, here is the twist, ready for it? He can only identify the blood and fleshy bits remaining as his friend due to the pez niece glasses left behind!

Bad twist.

I think that moves are the same way. A good twist, like that of Maverick, makes the movie more enjoyable and makes you want to see it again. But the movie was already fun by that point. On the other hand, a bad twist can either dominate the entire movie or be done poorly, so that the movie is diminished by it.

There are also three sorts of twists. One in which the movie gives you additional information that you never had (Maverick), one that tells you that something the movie initially claimed was false (The Usual Suspects) or one that investigates some assumption that you made and penetrates it (Memento). I think that the best twists are those that play off of your own assumptions as an audience.


-Anxiety

[QuikSand]

While I agree that there are good twists and bad twists in practically all media...

Originally Posted by Anxiety

The simple issue is that some people like twists, and some don't.

...here, I would disagree. I think there is plenty more to this issue (what some here have called the "narrative trust") than personal preference. Some, in this thread, would essentially argue that there exists no degree of responsibility to the audience -- that completely misleading or abiitrary plot elements are on a completely even footing with logical or even clever ones, and that the audience member is entitled only to enjoy the work or not, "which shouldn't be the primary concern of any good artist."

I'd argue that enjoyment aside, there is a fundamental matter of the relationship between the creator and the audience. When the creator decides to take advantage of the audience's trust in the narration or presentation itself to advance an unexpected or unforeseeable plot twist, then I think there's a violation of something. It doesn't necessarily render the work as valueless (As I indicated, I still enjoyed The Mousetrap, like millions of others, despite what i'd consider to be a flagrant abuse of this sort) but it does cross over a "line" of sorts.

Because of the one scene (maybe others) in Memento, I think that movie is worth discussing in these terms -- since nearly everything in the movie fits very well with the overall underlying story (as best I understand it), it's disconcerting at least to see at least one scene which clearly is serving only as some sort of reverie... for which no workable connection to reality is established. The movie challenges you to understand the many levels on which it has been built, but then delibarately includes at least one element which doesn't connect in any such way, other than (as some have suggested) trying to make a point about the inherent unreliability of the things that we see and experience in the movie.

Yes, it's a sort of meta-experience for the moviegoer, and it's possible that this is all the moviemaker intended. But that seems, in my mind, to give complete catre blanche to any filmmaker or writer to add any kind of plot twist desired... like the "dream" season from the TV show Dallas. At some point, you simply cross over a line in your betrayal of the basic principles of conventional, representational media. (A wholly different notion that some other forms of expression, which are by their nature open to being non-representational, or deliberately non-linear) That is the narrative trust, and to deny that it exists (even in the name of embracing creativity) I think belies the underlying nature of the accepted relationship between creator and audience.

[NoMyths]

Quik, the error I believe you're making is that you are arguing that an artist has some sort of responsibility to an audience (real or imagined); I, on the other hand, believe that an artist makes what s/he makes, and if an audience comes along to view it, so be it. Now, many artists create with an audience in mind, but an awful lot of us--and I speak from experience--only write with ourselves in mind. As long as we're satisfying ourselves that the work is successful, it doesn't matter whether anyone else does or not. We make what we make.

There is no such thing as "betray[ing] basic principles of conventional, representational media," in part because there is no such thing. There is no "accepted relationship between creator and audience." What there are, on the other hand, are creators and folks who view the work that is created. Some will like it and some won't. Artists do have carte blanche to create anything they want...whether anyone finds the creation to be successful or not is beside the point.

[QuikSand]

NoMyths, were we having a more general conversation about art of all varieties, then I'd absolutely agree with you -- that the artist has no particular responsibility to the audience, and that the ultimate receipt of the art by its audience is immaterial. I'd embrace that statement very rigidly, as you are here.

In fact, I'm not even saying that the moviemaker or writer who "violates the narrative trust" is invalidating his own work in any way. I've said a few times that doing so does not necessarily make the work less enjoyable (though in some cases, I do think that is the result).

All I'm saying is that there is a connection between, in this case, a filmmaker and the viewer. This context is part of the creative experience, and for the filmmaker to take advantage of the limitations of that framework is (for lack of a better word) a departure... not necessarily an evil departure, but a departure of sorts. It does betray a principle. It might be creatiev to do so, it might be clever, or it might be a cheap way out of a stupid plot line. But there is a line... a filmmaker is free to cross it, but the audience is correct to identify that as being something different than a simple turn in the story.

[NoMyths]

I'm glad to see we agree on the general principle...although I'd argue that it applies to film as well as less audience-based forms of art.

Here's the thing: you can point to a film like Memento and say that yes, it departs from the principle of chronologically linear filmmaking. However, that isn't a "betrayal" of that principle, esp. if you don't view the methods at work as being a negation of specific principles (e.g. Memento as a negation of linear storytelling, Identity as a negation of the 'non-plot twist' story). The terms--betrayal, trust--connote a relationship that simply doesn't exist, in part because the only way for them to exist would be for the audience to have as much information about the work in question as the creator. Without that information, the audience is forced to come to terms with the work from their (limited) perspective. The reason this is important is because if a person has never seen a film before, a movie like Memento wouldn't seem to be a departure of any kind...there is no prior understanding of film that is negated. Merely because a person has seen a lot of one kind of film doesn't make a film that departs from that type a "betrayal"--it merely is a different kind of film.

In other words, the language that you use in this most recent post is language that is much more accurate--filmic departures certainly occur, but they occur in the absence of any larger contract that would need to exist for a betrayal to occur. However, there isn't a single "line"--rather, one could discuss the conventions of specific genres, and then the differences of certain films from those genres, rather than feel betrayed because the latest drama didn't make them laugh.

[Bubba Wheels]

Best 'twist' that ever got me was the one involving James Wood's character in Once Upon A Time In America (uncut version). Great the way they subtley slipped it by, maybe I just was not looking for it. Sixth Sense, another that got me, though I had heard there was the big 'twist'. Last one that got me, though I should have expected it, was 'Jacob's Ladder." Most movies today are just pure crap, "Last Samuria" seems like I can almost mentally fill in all the blanks by just watching the commercial clips of it on TV. Maybe I'm wrong on that one?

[QuikSand]

I find your argument very compelling, NoMyths, as I essentially agree with most everything you're saying. I feel that I have failed to properly articulate what have meant by all this.

Yes, there are any numbers of films that are "different" in that they don't follow the many underlying onventions of filmmaking - the lead character dies (that's weird), they use light or sound unusually, and so forth-- any number of strange or different things that the filmmaker might do that are simply unexpected.

In my mind, we understand the fact that the film medium requires a certain compression of events, and involves the filmmaker essentialy "selecting" what information we receive to represent what is happening as the plot unfolds. To take advantage of that necessary compression or scene selection as a device to introduce some unforeseeable twist to a film seems, to me, a different sort of decision than just "doing something different." Andin that sense, I do think that words like "trust" and"betrayal" are appropriate to describe the relationship that does exist. That's not to say that a filmmaker ought not be allowed to use this device... just that it's a different sort of thing, and one that a critical viewer may recognize as being untoward.

And once agai, I am not trying to necessarily point to this as an indication of quality or merit. I'd go back to The Moustrap, a work I thoroughly enjoyed, as a prime example -- in my judgment, Christie absolutely crossed over the line and betrayed the narrative trust... and to very good and popular effect. it didn't invalidate the art, but it goes in a separate class for me than something like, say, The Sixth Sense, where the big twist was pretty well founded in the film, and was just something that many viewers did not properly see coming. In my mind, they are two very different things. (And, as it turns out, I personaly liked the former much more than the latter)

[WSUCougar]

For those of you taking a stance against the so-deemed "betrayal" of the filmmaker, how would you then ask them to portray the characters' mental states that you find so bothersome as a plot twist? At least two of the films being prominently mentioned are not simply plot twists in the sense that the filmmaker is pulling a creative fast one on the audience. They are dependent upon the character (and with them, not coincidently, the audience) being unaware of their condition, the manner in which the plot is unfolding, etc.

[spoilers coming]

I'm referring to both The Sixth Sense, which I thoroughly enjoyed, and Identity, which IMO salvaged itself at the end. These stories are told from a very distinct perspective. As mentioned previously, Identity is just another B-grade murder mystery until you are clued into the fact, either by deduction or plot device, that the main characters are multiple personalities being killed off. If you cannot wreath the movie in the psychological maze that is multiple personality disorder, do you just not tell this story? Would you tell The Sixth Sense as a straight story without Willis as a ghost?

[sabotai]

Without having read most of the thread (I'm somewhat busy at the moment and will read it in total later), I like movies to provide different kinds of entertainment.

If I want to just sit and watch a movie and not have to think, I'll watch Mallrats, Snatch, Young Frankenstein, Rounders, etc. Movies that follow a clear and linear plotline.

And then sometimes I do liek a movie with some twists, like Momento and Identy. Movies that entertain on one level during the first viewing, and on another level during the second viewing. Somethign I like to do is watch a movie like those and try to catch things I didn't catch the first time that are clues as to what was going on.

...and if there are no clues, then I'll agree that it's pretty poorly done. It has to all come together or it is just writers being lazy.

[Anthony]

i generally don't mind movies that make me think, although i'm not one for artsy films that leave it up to me to decide what it was trying to say or what it all meant.

i don't believe in the trust arguement. the artist (and when i say artist, i mean whosever vision is responsible for the movie) should be allowed to create his work without worry from public scrutiny.

however....

i do believe in the artist needing to provide me with the necessary tools to fully piece together the puzzle and to come at the intended "conclusion" that the storyteller wanted me to.

it's their story - not mine. tell the story, and make sure the reader (obviously, in this case "viewer") understands whatever is needed to be understood. case in point - the Matrix sequels. they left a bad taste in my mouth. Matrix Reloaded was very aloof and vague, but that's ok, we said, there is a 3rd movie coming up so anything that needs an answer will be cleared up in the next movie. new plots and characters were introduced that didn't receive their proper "closure" in Revolutions. there are a ton of symbols and references to various religions, theories, philiosophies, etc. in Reloaded, that a lot didn't make any sense, and still weren't clarified in Revolutions.

the storyteller must make sure everything is clarified, give all the fact up front, so that the viewer can say "based on all the information i have, the killer is....", or "this is what is going to happen...", and that the only thing needed at that point is to have our beliefs confirmed by the story or denied.

but to give us facts and such and completely disregard them for the sake of "oops! got ya, here's the twist"...no, i don't go for that.

i also believe that the storyteller should also tell his story so that the moviegoer understands the moral of the story. i hate these movies where the storyteller basically gives up and says "it's up to you to decide what i was trying to tell you, nevermind that i was paid millions of dollars to tell you a story".

give me a movie with many layers and tell the story so that subsequent viewings reveal additional clues that might have been missed or have characters that are deeper than they seem, but make sure i know what it is that you're trying to say.

[Anthony]

also, don't confuse actual plots "twists" with facts that are conveniently delayed till the end of the movie.

for The Sixth Sense and Identity, those aren't twists. at no point in time were we ever to assume that Bruce Willis' character was dead, just because we find out at the end of the movie doesn't mean it's a twist. the movie is actually very bland without the twist.

a plot twist is "oh my God, Joe Smith is actually working for the bad guys!", that sort of thing.

and example of great plot twists is "Wild Things", with Matt Dillon, Kevin Bacon and Neve Campbell. those are plot twists.

not finding out until the end of Identity that all the characters in the hotel are different personalities of the same guy is not a twist, that's cheating.

a twist should never be "now that you have a preconceived notion of what's what, here is a little fact that we took the liberty of not telling you ahead of time".

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

also, don't confuse actual plots "twists" with facts that are conveniently delayed till the end of the movie.

for The Sixth Sense and Identity, those aren't twists. at no point in time were we ever to assume that Bruce Willis' character was dead, just because we find out at the end of the movie doesn't mean it's a twist. the movie is actually very bland without the twist.

a plot twist is "oh my God, Joe Smith is actually working for the bad guys!", that sort of thing.

and example of great plot twists is "Wild Things", with Matt Dillon, Kevin Bacon and Neve Campbell. those are plot twists.

not finding out until the end of Identity that all the characters in the hotel are different personalities of the same guy is not a twist, that's cheating.

a twist should never be "now that you have a preconceived notion of what's what, here is a little fact that we took the liberty of not telling you ahead of time".

Following is like Identity.. you don't find something out until the end, but I still liked it more than Identity's identity thing...

[Crim]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

also, don't confuse actual plots "twists" with facts that are conveniently delayed till the end of the movie.

for The Sixth Sense and Identity, those aren't twists. at no point in time were we ever to assume that Bruce Willis' character was dead, just because we find out at the end of the movie doesn't mean it's a twist. the movie is actually very bland without the twist.

a plot twist is "oh my God, Joe Smith is actually working for the bad guys!", that sort of thing.

and example of great plot twists is "Wild Things", with Matt Dillon, Kevin Bacon and Neve Campbell. those are plot twists.

not finding out until the end of Identity that all the characters in the hotel are different personalities of the same guy is not a twist, that's cheating.

a twist should never be "now that you have a preconceived notion of what's what, here is a little fact that we took the liberty of not telling you ahead of time".

First, let me say that Wild Things was a self serving suck job, relying on the promise of girl-on-girl tonguing (tongueing? Idunno) to sell it.

Second, as pointed out by someone earlier (MUCH too lazy to go back and see who), among the criteria for a good twist is if the movie holds up for a second viewing, knowing the "twist" ahead of time... in my opinion, Sixth Sense definitely did. Bruce Willis was gut-shot in the first scene, for Pete's (who the hell is Pete, I've always wondered) sake.

A second (and third, etc.) look at Sixth Sense reveals plenty of opportunities to have figured it out ahead of time, so it's not cheating.

A second viewing of Vanilla Sky would cause me to gouge out my eyes with a drinking straw. bleh.



Crim

[sabotai]

First, let me say that Wild Things was a self serving suck job, relying on the promise of girl-on-girl tonguing (tongueing? Idunno) to sell it.

....and...?

knowing the "twist" ahead of time... in my opinion, Sixth Sense definitely did.

Actually, I thought Bruce Willis' character and the boys mom actually said something to each other (he asked a question and she answered, I think...). Impossible if he was dead.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by sabotai

If I want to just sit and watch a movie and not have to think, I'll watch Mallrats, Snatch, Young Frankenstein, Rounders, etc. Movies that follow a clear and linear plotline.

Man, you just mentioned 3 of my top 20 movies of all time... and no, Young Frankenstein isn't up there.

Dammit, now I have to watch Rounders... til next time Point Break.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Actually, I thought Bruce Willis' character and the boys mom actually said something to each other (he asked a question and she answered, I think...). Impossible if he was dead.

Not true, sab. There is a scene that suggests that they were talking (sitting in the living room when Cole comes home from school), but no words are spoken.

[Bubba Wheels]

Spoiler Alert!!!

[Bubba Wheels]

Saw an interview with the director of 6th sense. He said he thought the game was over during the hospital scene with Willis and Osmond. Director said when Osmond utters his famous phrase "I see dead people", the camera is on Willis' face and not Osmonds. Director thought this was a dead givaway about what the secret was.

[PunkyQB]

Originally Posted by Crim

A second (and third, etc.) look at Sixth Sense reveals plenty of opportunities to have figured it out ahead of time, so it's not cheating.

A second viewing of Vanilla Sky would cause me to gouge out my eyes with a drinking straw. bleh.

Crim

I always feel my heart being ripped from my chest when I so often see people comparing Vanilla Sky to the Sixth Sense. I consider the Sixth Sense to be entertainment, and I consider Vanilla Sky and the original "Abre los Ojos" to be brilliance (and so is declared my bias if you read on).

If you grade movies like Vanilla Sky on the standards you apply to plot-twist movies like Sixth Sense, in my mind you are doing something akin to saying that you judge Braveheart as inferior to Hot Shots because you laughed more watching Hot Shots. Sure, both movies employ humor ... but one movie uses humor to bring its character-drama to life, and the other movie uses humor for its own sake. Only one movie is really suited to a critique of its humor.

I just think that the vogue of "great twist endings" and how much fun they can be has done a bit of disservice to the art of cinema. Vanilla Sky/Abre los Ojos is, at the very least, a portrait of the the delusion in pleasure and regret. The Sixth Sense, on the other hand, struck me as a game of cat and mouse between director/screenwriter and the audience (and an enjoyable one). Vanilla Sky uses disorientation to bring its psychological portrait to life, whereas movies like Sixth Sense build themselves around a surprise for the sake of the surprise. There is not much else to experience in Sixth Sense other than the “Woah!” that you feel if the surprise pulls the rug out from under you. Vanilla Sky is, in my mind, a 20 times more ambitious movie. If it doesn't work for everyone, that's a different matter ... but it seems to have been written off generally because its surprise would have been too lame for the "great twist movie" vogue. The "twist" is not the point of the movie, and is not the source of the merits of the movie.

I wonder, in the context of this thread, how people feel about portraits of madness or highly symbolized reality in film generally. Anyone here enjoy David Lynch’s Twin Peaks series?



P.S. Vanilla Sky in particular (more than its predecessor film) really gives you many opportunities to grasp what is happening. The director's commentary points out most of the opportunities, but there are some pretty huge give aways, arguably bigger than in any of the "twist movies" of vogue. Nevertheless, if you watch the movie looking for the twist-evidence, you are likely to find it but miss the merits of the movie altogether in the process.

Just my fraction of a cent on the matter (I'm very partial to some movies)


Edited - Trying to use better terms in a couple of spots.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by PunkyQB

Vanilla Sky uses disorientation to bring its psychological portrait to life, whereas movies like Sixth Sense build themselves around a surprise for the sake of the surprise. There is not much else to experience in Sixth Sense other than the “Woah!” that you feel if the surprise pulls the rug out from under you.

Interesting comments, Punky, but I disagree with your statement above. As I mentioned previously (and no one responded ), it's important to note that in The Sixth Sense the twist is not just a gotcha on the audience, it's the audience experiencing the gotcha on the character himself. Looking back from the end on the movie's plot, it's the character's experiential path from death to comprehension and redemption. Otherwise, it's just a rather spooky story about a kid who sees dead people.

I cannot speak toward Vanilla Sky since I haven't seen it, but I think you are giving The Sixth Sense rather short shrift.

[PunkyQB]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Interesting comments, Punky, but I disagree with your statement above. As I mentioned previously (and no one responded ), it's important to note that in The Sixth Sense the twist is not just a gotcha on the audience, it's the audience experiencing the gotcha on the character himself. Looking back from the end on the movie's plot, it's the character's experiential path from death to comprehension and redemption. Otherwise, it's just a rather spooky story about a kid who sees dead people.

I cannot speak toward Vanilla Sky since I haven't seen it, but I think you are giving The Sixth Sense rather short shrift.

You know what, I think you're absolutely right. I did give Sixth Sense short shrift. I got a little eager and caught up in sticking up for Vanilla Sky against a movie I saw as being somewhat uncontestedly popular. There are some other, less richly thought out movies, I could probably plug into my post in the place of Sixth Sense ... but instead of trying to pick one, I'll just say that I think you are right to call me on giving Sixth Sense too little credit.

I stand by the general idea I was trying to express though.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Crim

Second, as pointed out by someone earlier (MUCH too lazy to go back and see who), among the criteria for a good twist is if the movie holds up for a second viewing, knowing the "twist" ahead of time... in my opinion, Sixth Sense definitely did. Bruce Willis was gut-shot in the first scene, for Pete's sake.

I think i was the one who mentioned the second viewing test. And I agree, Sixth Sense passes with flying colors. The trick to Sixth Sense is not that the twist is a surprise -- anyone can do that. It's that you can't believe you didn't see it coming all along. The movie does everything short of flash the secret on screen in big letters, but many people never see it coming until it's too late. Really well done.

As far as Hell Atlantic's point about wanting to have all the pieces to figure out the story... HA, don't see Mulholland Drive. Trust me.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

As far as Hell Atlantic's point about wanting to have all the pieces to figure out the story... HA, don't see Mulholland Drive. Trust me.

I was just about to raise the Mulholland Drive question as I think it goes to the core of the various arguments more directly. Not only is it a "twist" movie, but the director gives the audience only limited tools to restore coherence. Quite possibily, coherence is impossible to achieve. There is a famous slate.com interpretation of the movie that is utter crap (IMO). It is full of contradictions and nonsense. I have two theories I've developed over time that are more complete, but I'm really only satisfied with one of them. Overall, though, I think that the split on a movie like Mulholland Drive is more telling - it twists, but doesn't provide a neat package and understanding. I find it brilliant and exciting while others (like HA) would be pissed and frustrated.

BTW, I unfortunately figured out Sixth Sense as soon as they said his name - "Crow" - the bird that flies between the worlds of the living in dead. Combined with the "I see dead people" commercial, I knew the rest. Of course, I pay more attention to name symbolism than most. And I enjoyed the movie anyway.

[PunkyQB]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Overall, though, I think that the split on a movie like Mulholland Drive is more telling - it twists, but doesn't provide a neat package and understanding. I find it brilliant and exciting ...

I am definitely in your camp on this point, although I am actually more interested in your possibly satisfactory take on Mulholland Dr. I'm an avid fan of David Lynch's work, and yet I've never fully satisfied my questions about Mulholland Dr.

In some respects, I feel the same way about Lynch's Lost Highway (which is almost an homage to discontinuity ... watching that movie might well be fatal to someone investing trust in the storytelling perspective )

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I was just about to raise the Mulholland Drive question as I think it goes to the core of the various arguments more directly. Not only is it a "twist" movie, but the director gives the audience only limited tools to restore coherence. Quite possibily, coherence is impossible to achieve. There is a famous slate.com interpretation of the movie that is utter crap (IMO). It is full of contradictions and nonsense. I have two theories I've developed over time that are more complete, but I'm really only satisfied with one of them. Overall, though, I think that the split on a movie like Mulholland Drive is more telling - it twists, but doesn't provide a neat package and understanding. I find it brilliant and exciting while others (like HA) would be pissed and frustrated.

BTW, I unfortunately figured out Sixth Sense as soon as they said his name - "Crow" - the bird that flies between the worlds of the living in dead. Combined with the "I see dead people" commercial, I knew the rest. Of course, I pay more attention to name symbolism than most. And I enjoyed the movie anyway.

I gave Mulholland Drive and honest shot, it was just total crap. I think it's very important to know the "movie" was originally a TV pilot. When it wasn't picked up, some independent financer talked Lynch into "finishing it" and making it a movie.

What would have been the show had promise (girl trying to figure out who she is, and a fantasticly annoying Naomi Watts) but the end result is just pure bullshit. There is no logical way to analyze the story, and my guess is that was precisecly Lynch's goal. In my opinion, that just isn't fair.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by PunkyQB

You know what, I think you're absolutely right. I did give Sixth Sense short shrift. I got a little eager and caught up in sticking up for Vanilla Sky against a movie I saw as being somewhat uncontestedly popular. There are some other, less richly thought out movies, I could probably plug into my post in the place of Sixth Sense ... but instead of trying to pick one, I'll just say that I think you are right to call me on giving Sixth Sense too little credit.

I stand by the general idea I was trying to express though.

I loved Vanilla Sky, but have found it to be perhaps the most divisive movie I've seen.. My girlfriend absolutely hated it. My father said it was one of the best movies he had ever seen. Most my friends felt strongly one way or another.

I don't feel the movie cheated me at any point either.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

What would have been the show had promise (girl trying to figure out who she is, and a fantasticly annoying Naomi Watts) but the end result is just pure bullshit. There is no logical way to analyze the story, and my guess is that was precisecly Lynch's goal. In my opinion, that just isn't fair.

Lynch has given "ten clues" as to what's really going on in the film, but he's never really explained it as far as I know. I'm with you, I think he doesn't know any more than we do.

I enjoyed the movie, don't get me wrong. But as far as understanding it, I don't think it's possible.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Lynch has given "ten clues" as to what's really going on in the film, but he's never really explained it as far as I know. I'm with you, I think he doesn't know any more than we do.

I enjoyed the movie, don't get me wrong. But as far as understanding it, I don't think it's possible.

I wouldn't mind discussing it more, but i think it would definitely take a (painful) re-viewing to do so. My girlfriend and I tried to break it down for about 1-2 hours immediately after watching. I believe we came to the conclusion that some events were inconsistent and/or both appeared to precede the other - making them logically impossible. And don't even get me started on the old people...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Lynch has given "ten clues" as to what's really going on in the film, but he's never really explained it as far as I know. I'm with you, I think he doesn't know any more than we do.

I enjoyed the movie, don't get me wrong. But as far as understanding it, I don't think it's possible.

I think the 10 clues are mostly useless and I'm not terribly interested in what Lynch wanted to say. I'm a stong proponent of the idea that the director/screenwriter intent is totally irrelevant (likewise with the idea that it was a TV pilot). As for understanding it, I think there are different things that can be inferred from that. Do you mean understand the plot in a linear fashion after reassembling it? Do you mean understand the themes and subtext of the film? Do you mean understand the character development (given that the characters are switching)? Or do you mean all of the above (or something else)? I think it is definitely harder to understand certain things about the movie, but I do think it is possible to understand quite a bit.

As for my theory, maybe I'll watch the film again in the next couple weeks and post my ideas. That would be fun.

[NoMyths]

Mulholland Drive is one of my favorite films. It is certainly possible to come to a logical understanding of the film--I'm quite satisfied with my conclusions about what happens in it. While it is a very challenging film, and not one that provides an awful lot in the way of standard storytelling techniques that leads to an expected resolution, I find it to be a fascinating one.

The first time I saw the film I didn't really know what to make of it--I just knew that it both troubled and fascinated me. I've probably watched it somewhere around 10-15 times since then, and while there are still aspects of it that don't fit into the main story very well, the larger arc is a compelling one. Were Lynch to redo the film I'm sure there would be alterations, but the good stuff about the film is extremely good.

[sabotai]

The first time I saw the film I didn't really know what to make of it--I just knew that it both troubled and fascinated me.

I think i can figure out what part of the film "fascinated" you.

[Bubba Wheels]

Twin Peaks was quirky and bizaar, but in the end totally unsatisfying for me because I think Lynch was just being that way to get reaction, not really to advance plot or story.

[PunkyQB]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Twin Peaks was quirky and bizaar, but in the end totally unsatisfying for me because I think Lynch was just being that way to get reaction, not really to advance plot or story.

Oh man, I'm sorry you feel that way. Some of my best memories (ok, not my BEST memories) from college are of watching the entire Twin Peaks series in a couple sittings with a bunch of my friends, and analyzing the hell out of it. It was just so incredibly rich of themes and symbolism to grab ahold of, and I wasn't watching it with some super-dedicated collection of film-scholars either ... I really thought Twin Peaks was more accessible than other Lynch works.

I have to drop my last Lynch reference here, since I'll probably never have another excuse. Eraserhead ... now that is a bizarre flick!

[korme]

Gotta bump this, as I just watched Memento for the first time in about a year and really got to thinking.
---

So we learn that Teddy really is a dirty cop; wasn't Leonard's wife's murderer, but that he has been using Lenny to kill the scum of the world and let Leonard feel he has avenged his wife's murderer for the 15 minutes or so that he will remember.

We learn this when Teddy has his outburst with Leonard in the final scene, telling him he has mixed Sammy's story with his own, how he injected insulin into his wife many times leading to her death because she had survived the night of the presumable raping.

But if what Teddy is telling Leonard is true, why does Leonard, with conviction, say his wife didn't have diabetes? If Leonard can remember everything perfectly before his injury, why wouldn't he remember this? Is Teddy lying?

For Leonard to be the one to kill his wife with insulin, and then transferring that reality onto the legend of Sammy Jenkis, he'd have to remember an event after his injury had happened. Yea, it shows him injecting his wife, but that scene is played many times only instead of injecting her, he is pinching her. Is this merely, as he talks about in the first few scenes of the movie, just memory being distorted?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

But if what Teddy is telling Leonard is true, why does Leonard, with conviction, say his wife didn't have diabetes? If Leonard can remember everything perfectly before his injury, why wouldn't he remember this? Is Teddy lying?

For Leonard to be the one to kill his wife with insulin, and then transferring that reality onto the legend of Sammy Jenkis, he'd have to remember an event after his injury had happened. Yea, it shows him injecting his wife, but that scene is played many times only instead of injecting her, he is pinching her. Is this merely, as he talks about in the first few scenes of the movie, just memory being distorted?

I'm not sure there's a "right" answer, but remember that one theme of the movie is that we can fool ourselves by editing our own memories. That would fit with what Lenny tells Teddy.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I think i was the one who mentioned the second viewing test. And I agree, Sixth Sense passes with flying colors. The trick to Sixth Sense is not that the twist is a surprise -- anyone can do that. It's that you can't believe you didn't see it coming all along. The movie does everything short of flash the secret on screen in big letters, but many people never see it coming until it's too late. Really well done.

As far as Hell Atlantic's point about wanting to have all the pieces to figure out the story... HA, don't see Mulholland Drive. Trust me.

Nothing like someone bringing up an old threat to prompt a new comment ...

The success of "twist" films to me is based on two parts: the ability of the twist to surprise you and -- as in any film -- the quality of the storytelling. For example, I was apparently one of the few people who saw through the twist in The Sixth Sense. As a result, the film had no re-watchability for me due to the fact that I caught the clues the first time and I thought the storytelling was quite poor.

Also opposite of Sean, I am quite fond of The Usual Suspects because the first time I saw it I was stunned by the twist and I find it re-watchable because the storytelling is top-notch. Whereas in a film like the The Sixth Sense the "clues" are relatively straight forward and can be easily identified with a second watching, I find The Usual Suspects enjoyable on multiple viewings in analyzing what you think is true and what is not since it is not clear cut.

By and large, I think gimmick films are "cheap" -- rather than trying to appeal to viewers by building complex stories, characters and themes, these films hang their entire success on a single moment in the film. I find them highly manipulative, treating the viewer as an adversary who must be tricked rather than treating the viewer as a partner in the story. For that reason, I think "trick" films are a nice way to make money, but I don't find them particularly artful unless they have some intrinsic value in the storytelling.

[Qwikshot]

To all the moviephiles here, I recommend to pick up "Below" which is a submarine horror flick. I simply am curious to whether or not the FOFC'ers here would consider it's plot as a gimmick, twist, or just a good old fashioned ghost story. (This one is probably going into my halloween collection.)

[Qwikshot]

Dola

I liked the twist in the "Usual Suspects", it was unexpected. I think I was engrossed in the tale and not so much as to whom "Keyser Soze" was. He seemed more of a boogey man than anything, something supernatural. I think Spacey was rewarded his Oscar because of such. I mean, you don't see it coming, you just want to see how the guys make out of the situation.

The Sixth Sense did blow me away. I wasn't again expecting the twist to be like that. I was more taken aback by the whole ghost story...basically the kid, Osment, learns to adjust to his "gift". In a far better way than that Shining kid did anyway. But the thing is, now that I've seen Sixth, I know the formula for all of M. Night's work. There are obvious clues.

I've stopped watching him basically, I knew the story of the Village, before I bothered to see it. Unbreakable was not hard (there was no real twist) but there is a good discussion of whether the chicken comes before the egg. I mean it follows the formulatic comic book creation of a hero right, the bad guy forces the good guy to be just that. Nothing shocking.

Signs with it's built it "God is with us" demeanor was a little weaker. If you didn't notice all the stars about, and if you didn't notice that the water was going to be significant, than you needed to be hit by that bat that Joaquin was swinging. Not a great movie, I own, I watch once in a while, but just no real reason to go back and see it like a true classic.

But we talk about twists, let's talk about Hitchcock then...wasn't the end of Psycho the first true twist. I mean, who didn't see that one coming...critics mainly point out the killing of a star in the first half of the movie, but I think that the ending is far more significant (if not for the bad sequels afterwards). And Hitchcock has done it before, I guess suspense is a better term. I mean a cropduster going after Cary Grant in the middle of nowhere, only Hitchcock could make the outside, in broad daylight, so forebodding, in a wide open space (not like Jason hunting kids in the woods).

I like movies that sometimes are completely vacuous of thought, "Airplane" comes to mind. Then you can have a comedy which doesn't throw everything but the kitchen sink like "Young Frankenstein".

Did I laugh when I watched "Dude Where is my car", yes...but I also wondered, how the hell movies like that get made...but even Dude was cinematically superior to "Freddy Got Fingered".

[Godzilla Blitz]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Mulholland Drive is one of my favorite films. It is certainly possible to come to a logical understanding of the film--I'm quite satisfied with my conclusions about what happens in it. While it is a very challenging film, and not one that provides an awful lot in the way of standard storytelling techniques that leads to an expected resolution, I find it to be a fascinating one.

The first time I saw the film I didn't really know what to make of it--I just knew that it both troubled and fascinated me. I've probably watched it somewhere around 10-15 times since then, and while there are still aspects of it that don't fit into the main story very well, the larger arc is a compelling one. Were Lynch to redo the film I'm sure there would be alterations, but the good stuff about the film is extremely good.

I'd have to second this. It took three viewings and at least 15 hours of discussions on the movie, but by the end, I felt comfortable with my conclusions about the movie, and felt that things were tightly wrapped, at least in terms of the main story line. I'd be interested in hearing where people feel there are illogical or inconsistent pieces in the movie, although I'd want to rent the movie again to refresh my memory a bit. It's been a while since I watched it.

I thought Twin Peaks was wonderful until the last few episodes and the final movie, where it seemed like all the expanding story lines had to all be wrapped up in an impossible two or three hours. Interestingly, the new television series Lost is the only thing that has ever reminded me of the altered, uncertain reality that was Twin Peaks.

And just to through some other candidates out there...

Anyone like the 1984 movie Brazil?

[QuikSand]

I was looking for a place to post something about the recent film Arrival, and stumbled onto this old classic. Sadly, it actually was picking up from an older "Sideline" thread that is lost to cyberdust...

[QuikSand]

Re: Arrival

Really provocative review from James Gleick on that movie and the novella that preceded it, but then also into the provocative issues that it raises.

When They Came from AnotherÂ*World | by James Gleick | The New York Review of Books

Not exactly a "narrative trust" or "crazy twist" movie, but I feel like some of the same elements and contemplating applies here.

Oh, and - like this whole thread - spoiler city.

[Drake]

Damn it. Not reading that article until I see the movie.

Just tell me that Amy Adams is fabulous. I mean, she always is, but I like to hear it.

[QuikSand]

Quite.