Below are a few examples/anecdotes about some interesting spoilers. All of these are fairly or very old...so they are HEAVILY spoiler laden. I'm guessing anyone reading this post has seen them all...or at least know the twists. In order to give you a chance to avoid the below spoilers...before you get to these spoilers, I will be embedding a kick butt photo of Star Wars Kittens.
But before we get to that, I wanted to point out that this post is in response to listening to the Echo Base podcast on ForceCast.net (hosted by Erik Blythe, Eric Geller, Louis Secki and Justin Bolger. One or two of these fellow geeks (I'm sorry...I can't remember which ones) reported that they got more enjoyment of their first viewing of the movie Revenge of the Sith (May 2005) because they had already read the novelization of Revenge of the Sith (April 2005) before watching the movie. One said, "I was spoiled up the wazoo and I loved it." (Awesome quote!)
Anyways...their contention was that this was not a "spoiler" because they still got to experience the narrative flow as intended. They got their surprises during their reading of the book instead of during their watching of the movie. This is even less of a potential spoiler, in this case, because so much of the events after Episode III get revealed just by watching Episodes IV, V and VI. (Please see my thoughts on the "correct" viewing order at: http://rosie-verses.blogspot.com/p/the-definitive-okaythe-highly.html. Hint: It's 451236...mostly.)
Here is the link to the full podcast episode to listen for yourself: Echo Base #2: Knowing Too Much.
I have to say that I found that to be a fascinating idea! I had read both Jurassic Park and The Lord of the Rings prior to seeing the films, and they greatly added to the experience. And I agree that this is very different than knowing a big twist from the beginning. However, my short response is that if a film needs a novel to complete the narrative, then it has failed in the medium of filmmaking as a complete piece. But that's okay. It doesn't mean it is bad or is without any merit at all. There was LOTS that I truly enjoyed about Ep. III, but, sadly, the bottom line is that I contend it was not a complete film. (I'll do my best to explain why below.)
But before I go on...let's discuss spoilers, in general.
I will start with a premise. The premise is that what truly stays with us in our experiences is not the details of an event, but the memory of how the event made us feel.
In a narrative, the satisfaction of a dramatic climax is the result of following the following basic sequential steps:
If this formula is not followed in this order, then there is no tension...no excitement...no emotional connection. There is some flexibility in Steps 1 and 2. You can start the story by presenting the danger, then introducing the characters & setting. But the resolution of the conflict must be in the final act.
The most difficult story to present (and my favorite) is one with unpredictable surprises. A predictable plot gives way to mistakenly presenting Part 3 (Resolve Danger) too soon. Once the ending is determined, however engaging the journey is, the tension is diffused and the fun is lost. So, the adherence to pacing and presentation of the climax is the difference between an entertaining story and a boring slog.
More than any other medium, when a movie begins there is an anxious feeling loss of control when you begin a journey with no turning back. It is similar to the feeling one gets when you are locked into a roller coaster. The chain slowly pulls the riders up, up and up to the top of that first hill. There is an excitement and anticipation of the thrills to come...but there is also the sinking knowledge that it is too late to go back...the thrills are coming and there is no way to avoid them. You need your body and mind need to be ready for the ups and downs of the story. There needs to be time to build up the adventure so that a resolution is desired and when achieved ultimately seems worthwhile.
Now...there are some examples where advanced knowledge may be unavoidable or even advantageous. When a popular piece of literature becomes adapted as a film, the experience alters from the surprises of the story to the enjoyment of the presentation of the stories. But that narrative can never be re-captured.
I know there are scored more, but here are a few examples adaptations of beloved novels that were released as films with the audience's full knowledge of the story.
In the case of Jurassic Park...I had read the wonderful Michael Crichton book before the movie came out in 1994 during a time when it was not even anticipated that it would be a movie. But I think that having read it prior to seeing the movie made the movie much better. I think once the adrenaline had worn off, I really would have been disappointed with the film if I had not read the book.
There was so much detail presented on the fictional technology that allowed for the development of modern dinosaurs in the story and into the background of all of the key characters in the book, that a film would not have been able to truly capture the foundation that made such a wild premise plausible. The movie basically condensed the narrative first act of introducing the characters and setting and skipped right to the danger and resolution. This shortcut made for a fantastic film...but part of why it WAS so fantastic is that I, as a reader, already had all of the information from that first (boring) act out of the way by the time the lights turned down in the theatre. I got to jump right in and just experience the adventure that was presented by the filmmakers.
It is difficult to imagine how different of an experience for audiences who never read the books above before seeing the film. But, I for one, never read The Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind, or Jaws before having seen the film versions. They were all fantastic pieces of film on their own. I have since read The Wizard of Oz to my children, and the film is so different from the book that I do not feel I would have lost much from having seen the film first.
A large part of the magic of movies is the experience itself. In a darkened theatre, the audience member feels alone...just the viewer and the projected screen. The sounds of the movie give an added depth and texture that immerses the viewer into the story. The laughter, cheers and gasps of the audience provide the only grounding to reality that the audience gets at The Movies. But that allowable intrusion is a necessary and welcome reminder that we are not alone on this strange journey. That magic is lost, wasted or diminished if the movie is not allowed the opportunity to evolve as the filmmaker intended.
It is out of respect for and trust of the filmmakers that it is so important to go into a movie fresh and unspoiled. They are artists and crafters. Their skill is to create a symphony that takes the viewer on a shared journey. And while there are endless ways to create this medium, be it live action, CGI, animation or any combination of these or other methods, these artists really only have two tools to work with. Sight and sound. There is no touch...there is no smell (besides popcorn)...and there is no taste (please refer back to smell). Just sight and sound. And from those simple elements, the heart and mind of the audience can be anything and go anywhere.
So, how does this relate to Star Wars? Would my experience seeing Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005) have been improved if I had read the book first? Probably. Oh, I enjoyed the film for what it was. I've seen it many times. But if reading the book in advance is needed to give the film the foundation it needs, then the filmmaker has failed in his job to make a complete piece of art.
But would that have really been a spoiler? From an overall narrative, I'd so no. But with respect to the goals of the filmmaker, I'd say absolutely!
Star Wars: Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980):
I will start with a premise. The premise is that what truly stays with us in our experiences is not the details of an event, but the memory of how the event made us feel.
In a narrative, the satisfaction of a dramatic climax is the result of following the following basic sequential steps:
- Introduce Characters and Setting.
- Put Characters in Danger.
- Resolve Danger.
If this formula is not followed in this order, then there is no tension...no excitement...no emotional connection. There is some flexibility in Steps 1 and 2. You can start the story by presenting the danger, then introducing the characters & setting. But the resolution of the conflict must be in the final act.
The most difficult story to present (and my favorite) is one with unpredictable surprises. A predictable plot gives way to mistakenly presenting Part 3 (Resolve Danger) too soon. Once the ending is determined, however engaging the journey is, the tension is diffused and the fun is lost. So, the adherence to pacing and presentation of the climax is the difference between an entertaining story and a boring slog.
More than any other medium, when a movie begins there is an anxious feeling loss of control when you begin a journey with no turning back. It is similar to the feeling one gets when you are locked into a roller coaster. The chain slowly pulls the riders up, up and up to the top of that first hill. There is an excitement and anticipation of the thrills to come...but there is also the sinking knowledge that it is too late to go back...the thrills are coming and there is no way to avoid them. You need your body and mind need to be ready for the ups and downs of the story. There needs to be time to build up the adventure so that a resolution is desired and when achieved ultimately seems worthwhile.
Now...there are some examples where advanced knowledge may be unavoidable or even advantageous. When a popular piece of literature becomes adapted as a film, the experience alters from the surprises of the story to the enjoyment of the presentation of the stories. But that narrative can never be re-captured.
As mentioned above...spoilers in this article begin here at the sight of the Star Wars kittens. At first it'll just be the names of some movies, but later I'll dig into some big plot twists...but none that I expect you not to know. (You have been warned.)
I know there are scored more, but here are a few examples adaptations of beloved novels that were released as films with the audience's full knowledge of the story.
- Dracula (1931)
- Frankenstein (also 1931)
- The Wizard of Oz (1939)
- Gone With the Wind (1939)
- To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)
- Winnie the Pooh (1966)
- Jaws (1975)
- Jurassic Park (1993) (We'll talk about this below)
- Interview With The Vampire (1994)
- The Harry Potter films (starting in 2001)
- The Lord of the Rings films (also starting in 2001)
In the case of Jurassic Park...I had read the wonderful Michael Crichton book before the movie came out in 1994 during a time when it was not even anticipated that it would be a movie. But I think that having read it prior to seeing the movie made the movie much better. I think once the adrenaline had worn off, I really would have been disappointed with the film if I had not read the book.
There was so much detail presented on the fictional technology that allowed for the development of modern dinosaurs in the story and into the background of all of the key characters in the book, that a film would not have been able to truly capture the foundation that made such a wild premise plausible. The movie basically condensed the narrative first act of introducing the characters and setting and skipped right to the danger and resolution. This shortcut made for a fantastic film...but part of why it WAS so fantastic is that I, as a reader, already had all of the information from that first (boring) act out of the way by the time the lights turned down in the theatre. I got to jump right in and just experience the adventure that was presented by the filmmakers.
It is difficult to imagine how different of an experience for audiences who never read the books above before seeing the film. But, I for one, never read The Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind, or Jaws before having seen the film versions. They were all fantastic pieces of film on their own. I have since read The Wizard of Oz to my children, and the film is so different from the book that I do not feel I would have lost much from having seen the film first.
A large part of the magic of movies is the experience itself. In a darkened theatre, the audience member feels alone...just the viewer and the projected screen. The sounds of the movie give an added depth and texture that immerses the viewer into the story. The laughter, cheers and gasps of the audience provide the only grounding to reality that the audience gets at The Movies. But that allowable intrusion is a necessary and welcome reminder that we are not alone on this strange journey. That magic is lost, wasted or diminished if the movie is not allowed the opportunity to evolve as the filmmaker intended.
It is out of respect for and trust of the filmmakers that it is so important to go into a movie fresh and unspoiled. They are artists and crafters. Their skill is to create a symphony that takes the viewer on a shared journey. And while there are endless ways to create this medium, be it live action, CGI, animation or any combination of these or other methods, these artists really only have two tools to work with. Sight and sound. There is no touch...there is no smell (besides popcorn)...and there is no taste (please refer back to smell). Just sight and sound. And from those simple elements, the heart and mind of the audience can be anything and go anywhere.
So, how does this relate to Star Wars? Would my experience seeing Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005) have been improved if I had read the book first? Probably. Oh, I enjoyed the film for what it was. I've seen it many times. But if reading the book in advance is needed to give the film the foundation it needs, then the filmmaker has failed in his job to make a complete piece of art.
But would that have really been a spoiler? From an overall narrative, I'd so no. But with respect to the goals of the filmmaker, I'd say absolutely!
There are three kinds of knowledge that a viewer can have when entering a movie. One kind of precognition are due to knowledge from previously completely published work. The fact that Jurassic Park did not hold up on it's own as a complete piece of art is a flaw. Still a great film...but the fact that it needed the book to complete the experience can not be ignored.
A second type of precognition is rumours and leaks. I enjoy a small amount of this kind of pre-knowledge, but try to avoid it as much as I can. I was bummed that I, sort of, knew that Benedict Cumberbatch was playing Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), but I still, overall enjoyed the film. That fact made the parts prior to the reveal a little confusing, but not so distracting that it was annoying.
Finally, there are the deliberate reveals made by the filmmakers about their own work. This, too, can be a little tricky, but when done right...this slow introduction to the setting can build anticipation that can whip an audience into a frenzy from the moment the theatre goes dark.
I remember back in the 80's and 90's watching Star Trek on television. I would not miss an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation or Star Trek: Deep Space 9. But I would rarely, if ever, watch the previews for the next week's episode. Their marketing department, too often, would give away the surprises in the show, and I learned that I did not want to know too much. I already knew I would be tuning in the following week, so I never needed to be convinced to tune-in-next-time. I knew that I would be watching anyways, so I wanted to wait and enjoy the show as the production team intended.
The opposite has been true with the Star Wars saga. Here are the amazing marketing teasers and trailers for the entire Star Wars saga: http://rosie-verses.blogspot.com/2013/10/coming-attractions.html (If you haven't watched these trailers in a while...I'd highly recommend it...they are a great walk down memory lane.) They all give just the right amount of information to get the audience excited about the movie without giving away so much that there are no surprises.
So far, the information being slowly released from Disney about Rebels and Episode VII have been perfect. There has been just enough information to really demonstrate the quality and care that has been and will be going into these new productions, but, as far as I can tell, not so much that any of the real thrills will be ruined. (Time will tell in this regard.)
So, what about some specifics?
Here are some examples of the power of spoilers and how they can change the feeling that you will leave with at the end of the film.
I was shocked to learn that Darth Vader was Luke's Father. I shared Luke's horror and disgust. In fact, I was in such shock that I didn't even believe it until Yoda confirmed it in 1983. To this day, when I rewatch the scene it affects me. But without the emotional memory of how I felt that first time I saw it, it would not continue to resonate as it does.
Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan (1982) and Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock (1984):
I was a bit too young to see Wrath of Khan in the theaters...but when my parents got home, I learned that Spock died. I was still a bit too young to see Star Trek 3 in the theaters...but the title of the advertised film was the Search for Spock...so I knew that they would search for Spock...and when my parents got home, I learned that Spock was not quite dead. (He was just resting or pining for the fyords). The first Star Trek movie I saw in the theatres was Number 4...the one with the whales. It begins with the crew on a Klingon Bird of Pray on Vulcan with a newly alive Spock. So, when I finally saw Wrath of Khan later, I already knew that Spock would die. Still cried like a baby. I still cry every time I watch the scene.
Terminator 2 (1991):
Terminator 2 (1991):
In what could have been one of the best twists in cinematic history, it was revealed in the second trailer that Arnold's character, the T-800, would be the good guy. The first film presented the T-800 as one of many copies of interchangeable devices. The first trailer (the teaser) continued this theme showing the manufacturer of many copies of the killing machine. The idea of Arnold returning to the same evil role (even though the T-800 in the original had been destroyed) was perfectly plausible, at least in terms of the setting of the story.
Even the movie poster gave nothing away:
The entire first act of the movie was filmed in such a way that up until the moment the T-800 saved John in the hallway at the mall, Arnold's character would appear to have been the villain. This reveal would have been spectacular!
But before we saw the movie...we saw this full trailer...including the freakin' scene in the hallway! They completely gave away the whole twist! Had they been able to keep their patience and trust in the audience to come in droves (which was pretty much guaranteed at the time for any film starring Schwarzenegger), the final tagline could have been a misleading con that looking back would have been loved: "This time he's back...for good." Don't get me wrong. I'd still put the film in my top 10...but just imagine even how much more of an impact it would have been if we hadn't seen this (otherwise spectacular) preview:
Fight Club (1999) and The Sixth Sense (1999):
Check it out, if you don't remember it.
Even the movie poster gave nothing away:
The entire first act of the movie was filmed in such a way that up until the moment the T-800 saved John in the hallway at the mall, Arnold's character would appear to have been the villain. This reveal would have been spectacular!
But before we saw the movie...we saw this full trailer...including the freakin' scene in the hallway! They completely gave away the whole twist! Had they been able to keep their patience and trust in the audience to come in droves (which was pretty much guaranteed at the time for any film starring Schwarzenegger), the final tagline could have been a misleading con that looking back would have been loved: "This time he's back...for good." Don't get me wrong. I'd still put the film in my top 10...but just imagine even how much more of an impact it would have been if we hadn't seen this (otherwise spectacular) preview:
Fight Club (1999) and The Sixth Sense (1999):
When I saw Fight Club, I was blown away. And it was even better the second time watching it again once I knew the secret. BUT....it came out the same summer as Sixth Sense. I had not seen The Sixth Sense yet. As I was leaving Fight Club, someone walking out said that it reminded him of the twist in The Sixth Sense. I didn't know what that meant...until I later saw The Sixth Sense. Based on the comment I heard leaving Fight Club, it wasn't too difficult to figure out that Bruce Willis was killed at the beginning. So, I got to spend the next hour rolling my eyes at how clever M. Night Shaymalan was trying to be by fooling the audience into not noticing that his character was dead the whole time. Perhaps if I had not know there was a huge twist or hadn't gotten the clue as to the similarity to Fight Club it would not have been so obvious. But that comment pretty much ruined the experience of seeing The Sixth Sense. (Ok...not completely ruined...but I did not get to experience the jaw drop of what would have been a really inventive and unpredictable surprise.)
Side note: I LOVED the surprise at the end of Unbreakable (2000). Completely turned an already quite good film into one of my all time favorites.
Side note: I LOVED the surprise at the end of Unbreakable (2000). Completely turned an already quite good film into one of my all time favorites.
LOST (2004):
Twists and turns jaw dropping reveals were the hallmarks of the groundbreaking saga that was LOST. I used to call the final twist at the end of each episode the "Thud Moment" after the sound as the screen went blank.
You can say what you will about the ending of the series or any loose threads, but overall the series was a fantastic ride with some amazing, epic moments. Although there were many (including the Snake in the Mailbox scene aka the Season 3 finale, Through the Looking Glass, which revealed the significant shift of flashBACKS to flashFORWARDS), one earlier moment jumps to mind that I feel is worth mentioning.
It is the ending of Season 1: Episode 3 "Walkabout". I remember the sense of shock learning that before he was on The Island, John Locke was in a wheelchair. The episode quickly replayed the moment from the Pilot when Locke was walking on the beach with the other survivors and it was noted that the person in the wheelchair would no longer need it. The perception of the meaning of this scene in the "Pilot" implied that since no one on the beach from the plane was a paraplegic, the person who had previously owned that chair must not have survived. But at the completion of the episode "Walkabout" it was made clear that the very same scene had an entirely different meaning than the audience was led to believe. In fact, every scene up until that moment took on a new meaning, based on how the information was presented.
And this type of revelatory storytelling with the amazing twists presented a narrative that allowed for unpredictable surprises. Knowing that the conclusion of any particular problem would likely come from somewhere completely unexpected kept the narrative entertaining and exciting.
***********************************************************
If you want to look at it another way...think of a dramatic narrative as an analogy to sex. Despite the protests of El Guapo (see The Three Amigos, 1986), foreplay is critical to sex. The build-up of anticipation and tension increases the power of the climax. You can go right for the finish...but the experience is better for everyone if the entire experience has been given the proper foundation to build to a magnificent and happy ending. If the climax happens too early in the performance, then the remainder of the production will inevitably leave the audience...unsatisfied. Excuse me a moment...I need cigarette. (Kids...don't smoke. Unless you want to look cool.)
It is the ending of Season 1: Episode 3 "Walkabout". I remember the sense of shock learning that before he was on The Island, John Locke was in a wheelchair. The episode quickly replayed the moment from the Pilot when Locke was walking on the beach with the other survivors and it was noted that the person in the wheelchair would no longer need it. The perception of the meaning of this scene in the "Pilot" implied that since no one on the beach from the plane was a paraplegic, the person who had previously owned that chair must not have survived. But at the completion of the episode "Walkabout" it was made clear that the very same scene had an entirely different meaning than the audience was led to believe. In fact, every scene up until that moment took on a new meaning, based on how the information was presented.
And this type of revelatory storytelling with the amazing twists presented a narrative that allowed for unpredictable surprises. Knowing that the conclusion of any particular problem would likely come from somewhere completely unexpected kept the narrative entertaining and exciting.
***********************************************************
If you want to look at it another way...think of a dramatic narrative as an analogy to sex. Despite the protests of El Guapo (see The Three Amigos, 1986), foreplay is critical to sex. The build-up of anticipation and tension increases the power of the climax. You can go right for the finish...but the experience is better for everyone if the entire experience has been given the proper foundation to build to a magnificent and happy ending. If the climax happens too early in the performance, then the remainder of the production will inevitably leave the audience...unsatisfied. Excuse me a moment...I need cigarette. (Kids...don't smoke. Unless you want to look cool.)
No comments:
Post a Comment