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

[Hands to the Face]

If you haven't seen the eponymous films, you may want to check out of this thread now, since even a vague description of these movies could constitute the dreaded "spoiler."







A while back, I recall a spirited discussion here about the narrative merits of "Memento," specifically, whether it was "fair" for its screenwriter to manipulate the audience by presenting fact and illusion (within the story's context, that is) as indistinguishable, at least at first blush. Only through careful, freeze-frame analysis is it possible to discern a few of the story's crucial details (I'm thinking tattoos here, for those who've seen the flick), and even those that can be gleaned this way are subject to debate.

Over the weekend, I caught a mantinee showing of "Identity," believing that it might not be worth the extortion-level prices the ol' AMC levies once night falls. Through three-fourths of the movie, you get a standard-issue "dark and stormy night" tale, made compelling mostly through its pacing and the performances of Ray Liotta, John Cusak and the divine Amanda Pete (and while we're on the subject, can someone please tell me why she's not more popular?). Chills are meted out at appropriate spots, clues provided, death properly foreshadowed. Everything you'd want in a B-level thriller.

Then, "something" happens (I won't say what) that radically alters the remainder of the narrative. Some call this a "twist." I, on the other hand, believe it's a writer cop-out, a cheap way to wriggle out of a web of plot holes by violating the basic agreement between a writer and his/her audience, The Narrative Trust. If I can't trust that what I'm being told is true, then why watch the movie at all?

What do you think? Is a "twist" that violates this tenet a clever, ironic comment on storytelling, or the hallmark of a lazy, uninspired hack?

[Calis]

Hmm, seeing that this Identity movie is mentioned in the same breath as Memento I'm interested, I didn't read the whole post, as I don't want the spoilers...but was Identity on the level of Memento quality-wise? If so, I'm running out to see it.

[Hands to the Face]

In a word, Calis, no, it isn't. "Identity"provides the latest example of the "violation" I discussed, but I'd have to say that Memento is a far superior experience. Your mileage may vary, of course. . .

[NoMyths]

There's no such thing as "narrative trust."

[Wolfpack]

You wouldn't happen to be accusing the writers of something they did in "Life of Brian" whereby the main character is rescued from a situation that has no possible solution by a convenience of the writer's imagination, would you?

[cthomer5000]

SPOILERS for The Usual Suspects and American Psycho below.. don't read this is you don't want to know about these movies

.
.
.
.

I too sometimes feel betrayed by the movie (really the writers). This is why I didn't really think "the Usual Suspects" was all that great. I just felt really pissed off at the end, not wowed by the twist. Memento, on the other hand was reality (at least the segments in color, the black and white is certainly up for debate), the problem was the story was being narrated by an unstable mind. We had no chocie but to take in the movie through Guy Pearce's character. Another prime example of betrayel of trust is American Psycho.

guess we ultimately should trust anything we watch because there is no point in watching it otherwise. It's be painful to watch a movie while constantly wondering if any of is "really" happening.
I really can't decide where I fall on this issue. At times it just seems like a cop-out, but in other cases I can see how the movie simply couldn't exist without it.

[RonnieDobbs]

Spoiler Alert - Usual Suspects, Memento, Fight Club, American Psycho, The Others







Hey, I like being mind-f***ed. If it's cheaply done, as in they kind of wrote themselves into a corner, I'd agree. But the first time I saw Usual Suspects (I was about 14 and just discovering my taste in good movies) I was just amazed by it. Sure we had been conned, but so had Chazz Palminteri's character.

Similarly, in Memento, the whole narrative structure and the twist ending were in line with the character through whose eyes we watched the movie. Again, I saw it with no knowledge of a trick ending, only the idea of the narrative structure.

Fight Club as well was an example of me loving the fact that the writer put one over on me. Again, it was consistent with the state of mind of the narrator, and thus fits and makes the movie that much more interesting to me.

I'll second the idea of American Psycho doing it poorly. It just felt like the fact that it was all in his mind added nothing to the movie, which to be fair I didn't enjoy much in the first place. The Others, on the other hand, I really liked until the end. I thought the twist was just like a "Ha-ha" on the viewer, and again didn't try to make you look at the movie differently or make you think twice about what you had seen.

[NoMyths]

Don't go into a movie thinking the writer should conform to your understanding of reality.

Or: movies (and films, poems, etc.) are a version of reality. It's that whole "suspension of disbelief" thing that seems to be dying in the era of reality TV. One shouldn't be bitter at a writer for trying to surprise a (jaded) audience...earned surprise is ideally what we're interested in when considering "good" films (such as Memento, an absolute gem of a film). I think The Sixth Sense is a good example--the film's primary concern isn't Bruce Willis being a ghost. The movie pays off for us even if he is merely a live psychiatrist. The surprise, then, is a bonus -- an already emotionally affecting movie resonates within us because it offers us a payoff we weren't looking for (BW is a ghost) with one we were expecting (resolution of the troubled kid's crisis; spooky ghost stuff). Surprise is the stuff of revelation.

Non-surprise is the stuff of Pearl Harbor. Ironically.

[astralhaze]

I go with the first. It is a clever and ironic commentary on storytelling, although that isn't all it is. It is also nothing new. I don't know how many of you have seen "Vertigo", but this movie pulled the rug out from under you about halfway through. Your identifying character in the film is Jimmy Stewart. You follow along with him as he tries to unravel a mystery and you, along with him, then have your reality completely turned upside down. It isn't that you feel that you have been duped, the character has been duped and you now see that and are forced to re-evaluate what you were presented with through the rest of the movie. This is not especially unrealistic, things like this happen all the time in our lives. We believe something and find out later that our perception was wrong and are forced to change it. That is why these movies work. I don't think "Identity" was anywhere near the movie the rest of those mentioned are, but it is definately in that tradition.

[AgPete]

A good movie is a good movie.....period. No writer can put in a catchy twist at the end to save a bad movie.

[rexalllsc]

IMO, Identity was freaking awesome until that "twist"...which pretty much killed my excitement.

As far as Usual Suspects, I don't think it's in the same vein...

[3ric]

I read a discussion on another board where the topic was if the scriptwriters of the "24" show (first season) had pulled a cheap trick by letting the traitor within the agency acting "good" all the time, even when she was alone.

She only began acting suspiciously when her cover was blown. I think this is an example of a writer that tries to be clever, but end up violating the narrative trust.

[NoMyths]

There is no "narrative trust."

The writers might be violating the reality they'd constructed, which is a definite problem, but there's no contract between the (imagined) audience and the 'artist.'

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by NoMyths
There is no "narrative trust."

The writers might be violating the reality they'd constructed, which is a definite problem, but there's no contract between the (imagined) audience and the 'artist.'

Agreed. Arguments like that are stifling to creativity. Did Bob Dylan violate his "narrative trust" when he went electric? The work should be measured only by the quality, not some arbitrary standard.

Memento is actually a great example of this. If any movie violated the "narrative trust", this would have been it. In most movies with huge twists or whatever term you want to use to describe it, a character you trust in the movie is hit with the same realization you are. In Memento, however, you trust the character you have been deceived in to trusting less and less as the movie goes on, until the end and you realize that he was deceiving the himself and, by extension, the audience all along. Does that mean that Chris Nolan somehow cheated? On the contrary, I think it means that Chris Nolan is fucking brilliant. He managed to show just how fragile our reality is, without violating the reality he created. We assumed a reality which was incorrect and bit by bit, he showed us what the actual reality was. The reverse concept was perfect for this. We see the end result, assume certain things from it, and by the end of the movie realize that those assumptions were completely wrong. To call that a violation of the "narrative trust" or whatever, I think is simply a way to feel better about the fact that you (the viewer) were wrong. However, the writer has no responsibility to hand you the reality on a silver platter. On the contrary, most good art is challenging to reality. By showing just how maleable reality is, Memento, Vertigo, or Fight Club challenge us and our assumptions. I say kudos myself.

[QuikSand]

Despite the argument that no such thing exists as a "narrative trust," I think NoMyths actually ended up echoing the same argument by following up with "The writers might be violating the reality they'd constructed, which is a definite problem..." - well, that is, essentially, what is meant by the narrative trust, isn't it?

As an audience member, I feel entitled to some sense of coherence in the reality being presented to me. Yes, I realize that it's increasingly popular to present "reality" through the eyes of someone who is not altogether capable of doing so... but that ought not, in my judgment, be carte blanche for tossing in any sort of plot twist you can conjure up.

When done well, I think these plot twists can make for interesting movies - I really liked Memento, even though I was among those somewhat perturbed by trying to string everything together. If you recall the discussions here, my point (shared by some others, including I think the thread starter here) was not that we were unfairly deceived by the revelation that the protagonist had fooled himself all along. Rather, the problem was with some inconsistencies with tattoos and flashback scenes. As I recall, there were some logical flaws in those, if you took them at face value - and there was nothing elsewhere in the storyline to suggest that you should do otherwise with them. The point there is that in film, you present things to the audience for a purpose. That purpose is either to further the plot itself, to create a proper setting for the plot, or to develop a character or other element. If you choose to include things that are merely red herrings... things that would tend to obfuscate the plot, or otherwise deliberately deceive the audience... you are straying toward a "line" that I think does exist.

I personally didn't like The Sixth Sense at all, but I know that many people did, so it's not my best example. But a film based entirely around a deceptive plot twist is one that, in my mind, is sorely lacking in true backbone. Can it be executed well? Of course... perhaps The Usual Suspects is such a case. But in general, I don't think that a twist is enough to actually carry a movie. And I definitely do not believe that the quality of a plot twist is the degree to which you can keep the audience from seeing it ahead of time... that just invites the sort of juvenile jerking around that the worst of this genre are guilty of.

[Hands to the Face]

I think one measure of a twist's "cheat" quotient is discerning whether the information withheld at the audience's expense would, if revealed sooner and/or at a more logical narrative point, make the film less compelling or effective. In my opinion, "Sixth Sense" offers a sterling example of a story that, robbed of the shock factor registered by withholding a key piece of information about the protagonist until the end, lacks any substantive narrative juice. In fact, all of M. Night's films (except, perhaps, "Wide Awake," which I did not see) rely more on the sizzle of a plot twist than on the steak of a well-told narrative with three-dimensional characters. His hope, it seems, is that the audience will be so abuzz about having the rug pulled out from under it that it will forget that it has just wasted two hours with a storyteller who thought so little of it and his story that he couldn't disclose key information up front and rely on the power of his storytelling alone. This, to me, is a violation of the Writer/Audience Covenant of a different sort than what we've been talking about, but equally unnerving.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I personally didn't like The Sixth Sense at all, but I know that many people did, so it's not my best example. But a film based entirely around a deceptive plot twist is one that, in my mind, is sorely lacking in true backbone. Can it be executed well? Of course... perhaps The Usual Suspects is such a case.

Funny you should mention that, since I was ready to post just the opposite.

I like "twist" movies, although I think it's to the point now where it's been overdone. I think the good ones have more going for them than their twist ending, and I think Sixth Sense was a good example. If they had put a standard Hollywood ending on the movie, it still would have been a good story. Well acted, well shot, etc. By the time I saw it, I knew there was a twist (although I didn't know what it was), but I didn't find myself sitting there for two hours thinking "c'mon, get to the punchline".

I think the test would be "does it hold up on a second viewing". When you see it a second time, do the characters' actions still make sense? Or do you roll your eyes and feel like the whole thing is contrived. In fact, that's half the fun of these types of movies -- going back to see what clues you missed, from the obvious (Sixth Sense) to the most subtle (Fight Club is filled with them).

To my mind, most of the films mentioned here do pass the test. I really enjoyed Sixth Sense, Memento and Fight Club, and I think they both hold up to a second viewing. Identity was worth seeing, and I think I liked Mullholland Drive, even though both of end up going down the "somebody's nuts" road, which is only one step away from "it was all a dream".

To be honest, the worst offender of all was probably The Usual Suspects. As much as I loved that movie, and as much as the ending really was a jaw-on-the-floor shock, the "twist" essentially negates the entire movie. There's no point watching it again to look for clues, because once you know how it ends the rest of the file is pointless.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by NoMyths
There is no "narrative trust."

The writers might be violating the reality they'd constructed, which is a definite problem, but there's no contract between the (imagined) audience and the 'artist.'

Right. Ultimately, a good writer isn't writing for the audience, he or she is writing for themselves. There is no compact of any sort between writer and audience.

Now, of course, a film is going to succeed or fail based on whether the audience believes it plausible and whether or not it is well crafted, but I might point out that a number of movies, and works of literature have succeeded without regard to any semblance of reality.

Though I have not seen Identity, it sounds to me that it hasn't violated a "trust", so much as it is a poorly crafted story using a bit of deus ex machina to dig itself out of a hole. That isn't a violation of trust, that is just bad writing.

[Hands to the Face]

With all due respect, Wuss, I have to disagree with you. The very essense of storytelling is that the writer is writing FOR his/her audience. Writing for one's self is confined to diaries, grocery lists and the like. As soon as a writer, and a screenwriter in particular, promises to tell a story (which, in my mind, is implicit in inviting someone to listen or read by releasing it to the public), a writer is asking someone to trust him/her to listen to it, a trust that carries with it the obligation to follow certain basic storytelling "rules." Chief of these rules is that the world established by the writer will function consistently, unless otherwise established within the narrative's context. In exchage for the listner's time and attention, the storyteller must offer at least this in return, in my opinion. Movies/stories that violate this rule exploit the audience's trust by promsing one thing and delivering another without regard for the rules the storyteller him/herself has established.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by Hands to the Face
With all due respect, Wuss, I have to disagree with you. The very essense of storytelling is that the writer is writing FOR his/her audience.

I'm a writer. While I do hope someday to be commercially successful, I don't write to satisfy an audience. I write to satisfy myself and hope that what I write will resonate with others. Trust me, there's a big difference.

Ultimately, a writer has to please himself/herself, not someone else. Audiences are fickle. Some of the greatest works of art have not resonated with audiences at the time of release.

When Stravinsky's opera, The Firebird, was premiered in Paris in 1914, the audience rioted, and nearly burned down the theater. Now it's considered a masterpiece.

Did you know Van Gogh sold only two of his paintings during his lifetime? Clearly he wasn't painting for an audience.

The point is that audiences are slippery and fickle. If every writer wrote exclusively for the audience, there wouldn't be artistic successes that failed to win an audience.

Writing for one's self is confined to diaries, grocery lists and the like. As soon as a writer, and a screenwriter in particular, promises to tell a story (which, in my mind, is implicit in inviting someone to listen or read by releasing it to the public), a writer is asking someone to trust him/her to listen to it, a trust that carries with it the obligation to follow certain basic storytelling "rules."

At that point, the writer has already told the story. They've set it on paper. The work of art as designed by the screenwriter is done long before an audience gets involved.

There are no storytelling rules. Yes, an author needs to be consistent with their own vision within the story, but that vision can be strange.

Chief of these rules is that the world established by the writer will function consistently, unless otherwise established within the narrative's context. In exchage for the listner's time and attention, the storyteller must offer at least this in return, in my opinion. Movies/stories that violate this rule exploit the audience's trust by promsing one thing and delivering another without regard for the rules the storyteller him/herself has established.

The problem is you are describing a construct that is as artificial or more artificial than a poorly written plot twist.

Since when does real life fit the "well made play" plot of boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl? Perhaps your life is all wine and roses, but mine hardly is a straight line plot. My life has plot twists a plenty on a weekly basis. All of them certainly fit into a consistent reality, because I live them, but there are certainly twists.

The point is that plot twists are not necessarily an artificial device. The fact that somebody in a particular movie writes in a poor twist to disguise the fact that they can't write their way out of a paper bag doesn't automatically mean that all plot twists are artificial or bad. I would hate film as an art form if all I could ever look forward to was films with a straight line plot such as you seem to be describing.

[Hands to the Face]

Wuss, my argument is not that a writer's sole purpose is to be liked and/or accepted by an audience. Whether an audience likes a particular piece is not relevant. My point is that when a writer engages in the act of telling a story, he or she is obligated to honor the audience's trust. It's a tacit pact between writer and audience that's as old as Aristotle's "Poetics," (essential reading for any writer who wishes to write fiction, by the way). Exploiting this trust with a "twist" (and not all "twists" are exploitive--just the ones that violate rules established by the story's own creator) is a violation of this pact and demeans the storytelling process as a whole.

Humans have always wanted someone to "tell them a story," not because it mirrors the chaotic, non-linear nature of everyday life, but because listening to a well-structured, well-told story can imbue everday life with a sense of order and meaning difficult to glean otherwise. That is the very essense of art. Art that merely reflects the random development of everyday events is not art, it's a mirror.

[QuikSand]

After a little more thought, I've come up with, inmy mind, the best example of a high-profile work that truly violated the "narrative trust" concept talked about here. The violator: Agatha Christie, in one of her best-loved works, The Mousetrap.

(Spoilers below, just in case you care)



In The Mousetrap, there is a character who has suffered an accident, and has only one arm. Since this play is performed very widely, including by many hometown theater companies (including mine, the first place I saw the play) there really aren't enough bona fide one-armed actors to go around. To cover for this, the actor folds his left arm up into a special sleeve, and it generally resembles a "stump." Not too beautiful, but it gets by okay.

Anyway, at the end of the story, this one-armed man seems to be among the shadier players in the story (which is a typical Christie whodunit, by the way), and we are frequently led to believe he may be the murderer. In fact, someone else is found to be guilty, and the one-armed man turns out to be a police officer undercover. And in revealing himself in that role, he pulls his arm out of the folding sleeve, and shows his badge. Aha!


Now, is this a clever twist? Of course it is. Christie just pulled a fast one on us, and practically everyone falls for it. But on further inspection, she took advantage of the meta-thinking of the audience. We see the two-armed actor playing a one-armed man on the stage, and naturaly we assume that it's being done for theatrical and practical effect, given real-life constraints. And (I think this is important) nobody on the stage ever says "hey buddy, why do you have your arm folded up in a sleeve like that?" These meta-clues leave us comfortable in believing that we're just working within the real-life limitations of community theater, and rightfully so.

Revealing the man to be, in the context of the play's story, faking the one arm betrays that trust, plain and simple. I'm not saying it wasn't clever to write that (it certainly was) but it's a twist that relies on a form of deception that strains th relationship between author and audience. (Fortunately, it's not as though the entire whodunit revolves around the one arm... there is more to it than that)


In my book - that's clever, but still a betrayal of the trust. It's up to us to decide how much of a negative that sort of thing is for a particular work, be it movie, play, or whatever.

[Easy Mac]

Isn't the covenant of which you all speak really your interpretation on how well you liked the movie? There are movies where I've felt a plot twist sucked, and some where I thought that looking back, it made sense. The ones that make sense are the ones that are enjoyable.

But that doesn't mean they broke a trust, it normally means we missed clues that pointed to the ending (like in Se7en, why else would Gwenyth Paltorw be there other than to die?). To me, all the clues in Memento made sense, it didn't feel like Nolan was lying, but rather that the character was lying. To me there is a difference.

Or else the movie really does suck, and the ending has absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Like say there was a movie on Vietnam, and aliens take the hero away at the end.

[Maple Leafs]

Here's another example of a movie with a "twist" that I think was cheating: Vanilla Sky.

(Warning: if you don't like spoilers, you really shouldn't be reading this thread.)

Now I'll try not to give it away, but let's just say that much like Sixth Sense there is a "twist" in this movie that changes the entire perception of (most of) what's happened. But while I think Sixth Sense plays fair, Vanilla Sky cheats. The "twist" relies on something that we're never told about until right before the twist is revealed.

I think part of what makes a good twist is that you should feel some sense of "I can't believe I didn't see that coming". You don't get that with Vanilla Sky... it comes out of nowhere (OK, it's hinted at, but in a way that leaves out the crucial information). Imagine the ending to Sixth Sense if there were no referencing to the kid seeing dead people in the entire film up until the end, and you have an idea about Vanilla Sky.

And then there's the other type of cheating: pulling out a trick ending that makes no sense, just for the sake of doing it. The remake to Planet of the Apes would be an example.

[QuikSand]

I agree, the "twist" in Vanilla Sky was pathetic, as was most of the movie.

Mac, in Memento, I think the possible trust betrayal was a subtle one... there were a few very specific things that showed up in Leonard's flashbacks that didn't correctly fit with the storyline that we understand from the movie (eventually). And that leaves us with a sense that either these things are simple mistakes... or they are reveries... or they are somehow corrupted visions, but not a function of Leonard's "condition." And that, specifically, is why some of us have a gripe. Not a function of the movies general concept - which I thought was really intriguing. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, but those few small things left me feeling a bit toyed with... back to this issue of "trust."

[Maple Leafs]

Interesting article from a few years ago (before it seemed like every movie had a twist ending):
http://www.robertfulford.com/MovieEndings.html

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Interesting article from a few years ago (before it seemed like every movie had a twist ending):
http://www.robertfulford.com/MovieEndings.html

he's basically denouncing all "twist" endings though, and I'm not sure I'd go that far. some of the movies we've enojyed so much simply couldn't exist without these twists. Or maybe he just has a problem with them coming at the very end of the film, I really can't tell.

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I agree, the "twist" in Vanilla Sky was pathetic, as was most of the movie.

The twist wasn't "pathetic," it was just handled poorly by the screenwriter and/or director. The idea is fine. The execution was botched. That sort of represents the difference between the problems I talked about earlier and this "narrative trust" thing that people seem to be buying into. Artists don't make contracts with their audiences (unless they work on commission ).

Mac, in Memento, I think the possible trust betrayal was a subtle one... there were a few very specific things that showed up in Leonard's flashbacks that didn't correctly fit with the storyline that we understand from the movie (eventually). And that leaves us with a sense that either these things are simple mistakes... or they are reveries... or they are somehow corrupted visions, but not a function of Leonard's "condition." And that, specifically, is why some of us have a gripe. Not a function of the movies general concept - which I thought was really intriguing. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, but those few small things left me feeling a bit toyed with... back to this issue of "trust."

Having just finished teaching Memento in class, I feel qualified to respond to these issues.
The paradoxical flashbacks aren't mistakes or (until the final ones) reveries. They absolutely function as metaphor for Leonard's condition, as well as the movie's main theme: that memory isn't trustworthy. The fact that Leonard's memories alter throughout the film, esp. in the color sequences, illustrates that principle. It also reframes the audience's perceptions and articulations of the film.
I'd be happy to walk point by point through any of the film's paradoxes.

[NoMyths]

dola...

Originally posted by QuikSand
After a little more thought, I've come up with, inmy mind, the best example of a high-profile work that truly violated the "narrative trust" concept talked about here. The violator: Agatha Christie, in one of her best-loved works, The Mousetrap.

(Spoilers below, just in case you care)

In The Mousetrap, there is a character who has suffered an accident, and has only one arm. Since this play is performed very widely, including by many hometown theater companies (including mine, the first place I saw the play) there really aren't enough bona fide one-armed actors to go around. To cover for this, the actor folds his left arm up into a special sleeve, and it generally resembles a "stump." Not too beautiful, but it gets by okay.

Anyway, at the end of the story, this one-armed man seems to be among the shadier players in the story (which is a typical Christie whodunit, by the way), and we are frequently led to believe he may be the murderer. In fact, someone else is found to be guilty, and the one-armed man turns out to be a police officer undercover. And in revealing himself in that role, he pulls his arm out of the folding sleeve, and shows his badge. Aha!
Now, is this a clever twist? Of course it is. Christie just pulled a fast one on us, and practically everyone falls for it. But on further inspection, she took advantage of the meta-thinking of the audience. We see the two-armed actor playing a one-armed man on the stage, and naturaly we assume that it's being done for theatrical and practical effect, given real-life constraints. And (I think this is important) nobody on the stage ever says "hey buddy, why do you have your arm folded up in a sleeve like that?" These meta-clues leave us comfortable in believing that we're just working within the real-life limitations of community theater, and rightfully so.

Revealing the man to be, in the context of the play's story, faking the one arm betrays that trust, plain and simple. I'm not saying it wasn't clever to write that (it certainly was) but it's a twist that relies on a form of deception that strains th relationship between author and audience. (Fortunately, it's not as though the entire whodunit revolves around the one arm... there is more to it than that)


In my book - that's clever, but still a betrayal of the trust. It's up to us to decide how much of a negative that sort of thing is for a particular work, be it movie, play, or whatever.

The reason this isn't a betrayal of any "narrative trust" is because you're not considering the artist's perspective when creating the work. The experience that the filmgoers wanted to give was a meta experience. The fact that you didn't find the film effective doesn't have anything to do with "trust" -- it just has to do with the fact that you, as an individual, didn't find the work successful for reasons that have everything to do with reception, which shouldn't be the primary concern of any good artist.

Edit: dolanote, "filmgoers" error corrected to "filmmakers"

[NoMyths]

dola tres...

I do think you and I agree in our reactions to bad writers jerking around an audience with ineffective shock tactics, Quik.

[QuikSand]

NoMyths, I agree in general that you and I aren't far apart in what we genuinely dislike. The quality of execution is the most important factor, independent of any matters of "trust."

Originally posted by NoMyths
The reason this isn't a betrayal of any "narrative trust" is because you're not considering the artist's perspective when creating the work. The experience that the filmmakers (-ed.) wanted to give was a meta experience. The fact that you didn't find the film effective doesn't have anything to do with "trust" -- it just has to do with the fact that you, as an individual, didn't find the work successful for reasons that have everything to do with reception, which shouldn't be the primary concern of any good artist.

I think I still disagree with you here.

I don't care what the motivations of the writer are... in this case of course Christie was deliberately jerking us around, that's patently obvious. And my opinion is not that it rendered the play ineffective at all - no the contrary, I think it very specifically accomplished its intended mission. We the audience were deceived, and she effectively used our own meta-thinking against us.

At the same time, I recognize this as being, on a certain level, "unfair." I still enjoy the play, knowing this is true. But I recognize that this sort of twist is fundamentally different than just having the storyline go in an unexpected direction.

I don't want to leave the impression that unsupported plot twists are necessarily bad, and properly foreshadowed ones are necessarily good. It's not nearly that clumsy.

I just agree with the general argument that there is a level of appropriate trust between the artist(s) and audience, and that when it is betrayed, that can be an unrewarding experience for the audience, sometimes on a deeper level than just routine artistic disappointment.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by NoMyths
The twist wasn't "pathetic," it was just handled poorly by the screenwriter and/or director. The idea is fine. The execution was botched.

Not sure I agree. The flaw, in my view, was that they didn't give any indication that the twist was even possible until the end. The way I see it, your twist needs to either be plausible (people lie, people have hallucinations, etc.) or be explained in advance (this kid sees and talks to dead people). You can't have an implausible twist, and only get around to mentioning the ground rules right at the end.

But in the case of Vanilla Sky, if they had laid their cards on the table (explained the existence of LE) then there is no twist ending, because we'd all see it coming a mile away. So they had to cheat. To my mind, that's a flaw in the very idea, not just the execution.

[QuikSand]

Incidentally, here is the old Memento thread, from the old board:

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/ubb...c&f=1&t=005302

Several of us had quite a few pokes at this one, including our own "John G" as I recall.

I need to look back and refresh my own recollection, but I recall generally one scene where Leonard has a tattoo across his heart that suggests that he has finally "solved" the crime - but that didn't comport with anything else we put together from the movie. I need to look again...

[Hands to the Face]

In the interest of full disclosure, I appear in the "Memento" thread as ConKrete, an identity whose forgotten password led me to my life under my current handle. . .

[QuikSand]

Heh, funny - I even mentioned Mousetrap in the old thread. I didn't recall mentioning it before... when I thought of it in this context this morning, it hit me like a brand new idea. Oh, damn.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I need to look back and refresh my own recollection, but I recall generally one scene where Leonard has a tattoo across his heart that suggests that he has finally "solved" the crime - but that didn't comport with anything else we put together from the movie. I need to look again...

I was wondering if you were referring to that scene. You're right, it doesn't fit with the rest of the story, but I felt that given the context it was clear that it was meant to be a momentary fantasy of Leonard's (before he opens his eyes and goes back to reality).

[QuikSand]

I confess, I don't remember the context of the scene (what happens immediately before or after the flashed-scene). But in the film, there is at least one clear shot of Leonard sitting on a bed with his wife, and with a tattoo across his heart (indicating that he has avenged his wife's murder). That was the last piece of the puzzle for me... and if the context supports the theory that the scene was just a reverie, then I'm comfortable with the while thing, I suppose. (Or, at least it seemed that way based on what I wrote in the old thread... hell, I don't even know any more...)

[AgPete]

I think both sides are right. Yes, the writer has no obligation to the audience but he does have to ask that eternal question: "Is my film just too deep for everyone or does it not make any sense?" There will always be people that look at a movie like an instruction manual and complain about certain scenes that don't mesh with the "twist" at the end but I think it's more important to figure out if a majority of audiences think that the moment they exit the theater or if it's just a small minority of viewers that nitpick movies and maybe even are more prone to do it after repeated viewings or discussions on the internet.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I confess, I don't remember the context of the scene (what happens immediately before or after the flashed-scene). But in the film, there is at least one clear shot of Leonard sitting on a bed with his wife, and with a tattoo across his heart (indicating that he has avenged his wife's murder).

If I remember right (and I saw a movie once that said memory is a fickle thing), that scene occurs at the very end of the film (i.e. the beginning of the story). Leonard has just set in motion the plan that will lead to the murder that starts the film. He's driving to the tatoo parlor, and has a short monologue about his own sanity. At that point he closes his eyes, we see the flash of him and his wife, he makes a comment about having to believe that when he opens his eyes the world is still there, and then he opens his eyes. Given that context, I think it's hinted at fairly strongly that the flashback was Leonard's fantasy.

I'll sit back and wait now for someone to point out that I have it entirely wrong...

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by AgPete
There will always be people that look at a movie like an instruction manual and complain about certain scenes that don't mesh with the "twist" at the end but I think it's more important to figure out if a majority of audiences think that the moment they exit the theater or if it's just a small minority of viewers that nitpick movies and maybe even are more prone to do it after repeated viewings or discussions on the internet.

And some of us would prefer to shoot at least slightly above the absolute lowest common denominator, and would generally seek the same from films.

Hey, there's always Dude, Where's My Car?

[cincyreds]

there is a 15 yard penalty for hands to the face that will be assessed on the kickoff.

j/k

I need to go and check this movie out.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by QuikSand
And some of us would prefer to shoot at least slightly above the absolute lowest common denominator, and would generally seek the same from films.

Hey, there's always Dude, Where's My Car?

I guess I just look at movies as art. They're not science and they're not reality. When you try to explain the movie's past events like they were reality filmed from a camcorder, you already lose the essence of the film itself. Why are there noises in space? Why do people never use the restroom? Sorry, I just think it's a no-win situation if you attempt to analyze every event in the film looking for flaws. And if you find an error, what does it prove? It was still a good movie if you enjoyed it.

[QuikSand]

I see your point, AgPete. But bear with me - I'm not trying to be combative.

Every single scene that makes it into a movie is there because a series of people agreed it should be there. It was scripted, acted, filmed, edited, and made it through a rigorous assembly process - and was inserted into its exact spot by someone who decided that's where it went. If there's a quick flash of a scene in this film, it's not a blotch of paint that fell off the pallette - it's there because the person or people who ultimately made the film decided that it was important.

You're right - it's certainly possible to enjoy the film without worrying about whether it all makes sense. Were you excited? Surprised? Entertained? All perfectly fine.

This is, however, a movie that deliberately wants you to think. If the moviemaker opens with that, then we're not exceeding our role to do so, and in thinking about the movie, we are following through on our invited role. And if we are invited to think critically about the plotline (which I would suggest this movie definitely does), then I don't think it's unfair to scrutinize the small things - because they are there for a reason, they have to be.

[Easy Mac]

QS,

first off, I like Memento and Dude, Where's My Car... movies don't have to be thought provoking to be good.

Secondly, on the Memento flashback/fantasy:
I think Maple Leafs summed it up nicely. the flashback occurs at the end immediately after Leonard deals with Teddy (i.e. decides he will kill him). At this time, he still has his short term memory going. In order to feel good about what he is about to do, he fantasizes about laying with his wife, and congratulating himself on killing his wife's killer (hence the tattoo). The tattoo doesn't actually exist, but merely a way to make the plan he has set in motion make sense in his head. In his fantasy (or the fake world) he has everything he wants, but then he snaps back into his nightmare of the real world, where he has nothing.

[astralhaze]

Memento wasn't thought-provoking? We must have watched different versions

[cthomer5000]

MEMENTO SPOILERS! (don't know if I need to point this out this deep in the thread, but better safe than sorry)
.
.
.
.


Regarding the "flashback" scene in Memento.

The scene clearly demonstrates one of 2 things

1. It's a fantasy. He can't be sitting in bed with his wife and have avenged her murder.

2. His wife didn't die, and basically his memories are something he has created. There is no killer to chase.

[Poli]

bump. I love this movie. Bought the collector edition dvd before I went on cruise last year. Played with darn near every little menu item I could and found a way to show the movie, "from the beginning to end," instead of the normal way.

Quite interesting.

This was a good read. I'd be interested in hearing No Myths class room instruction on the matter.

I personally absolutely love movies that make me think. I can't stand movies that make me feel like I am a little dumber for watching. The idea for watching television or movies is to sit and "watch". I like to think. I can't just "watch". I also relate the thinking to gaming, which also gets hit a lot for being a waste of time.

At least I'm thinking and reacting. How often do you think and react to a movie/tv show? The most reacting I did in Titanic was get up and get popcorn.

That said, a recent movie Ms. Enthusiast brought me to was Mona Lisa Smile. I tried to think in that one, and I was just about reprimanded for doing so by my wife. I really feel the movie was a poor one, as it had opportunities for other characters to be involved but more or less dropped the ball.

Arlington Road I believe is another good movie; at least it made me think.

I still have questions about Memento today. I'll probably watch it again tonight and try to figure how I feel about some of them.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by ardent enthusiast

Arlington Road I believe is another good movie; at least it made me think.

Excellent movie. Along those lines, I thought The Game was excellent, and somewhat overlooked.

[MikeVic]

*********SPOILERS*********





I just saw Identity, and I can honestly say that I would've been more happy if they left the movie at the "happy" ending.. this has nothing to do with narrative trust, but just something I didn't like about the movie. Has anyone seen The Life of David Gale, and then watched it again? I've seen it once, and it just seems like if I watch it again, I'll find so much about the movie that doesn't make sense, once you know the ending.

Another Christopher Nolan movie, The Following, has a sort of twist like these other movies mentioned so far. I've yet to watch it again, but I love movies that have a twist, and manage to make sense when you watch them again and again.

Wasn't A Beautiful Mind kind of like this too? That was such an awesome movie, and the perception change made absolute sense.

Overall, as I've said above, I like movies with a twist... as long as it holds up when you watch it again. Even if it makes sense to me (as in Identity), sometimes it can leave a bad taste in your mouth. Another thing I didn't like about Identity was the whole "destroying your other identities." How did his lawyer know that exactly 9 other identities were destroyed, leaving only one? When in fact there were two left? There was no indication of the lawyer knowing how many identities were gone... if they tried to show this, then the ending wouldn't make sense...

There's my thoughts on some twist movies..

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I just saw Identity, and I can honestly say that I would've been more happy if they left the movie at the "happy" ending.. this has nothing to do with narrative trust, but just something I didn't like about the movie.

I feel exactly the same way. The twist at the end just seemed completely corny to me. It made a decent thriller type movie just seem stupid. I absolutely hated the ending, and I would say it ruined my enjoyment of the movie entirely.