Film, Illusion & Spectatorship, Part 1: Tie It Up With a Bow, Please.
Because I teach film in a high school setting, I have access to audiences – young, raw audiences. Every time we watch a film together, I get to monitor the reactions of about 150 people whose tastes have been primarily shaped by slick Hollywood standards.
When they watch a movie, they want a blockbuster: they want guns; they want explosions; and most of all, they want slickness. If anything interrupts or calls attention to the illusion of cinema, they become enraged. They particularly hate it when movies end – no matter what happens at the end, they yell, “That’s the end?!” and then they pout while we shift from illusion to reality.
Slick Hollywood movies share an illusion with the audience…but only for the length of the movie. Their endings are clean, obvious, and satisfying. “The bad guy got caught.” “The lovers got married.” “ET found his way home.” Nice. Neat. No thinking required. Next movie.
So what happens when we encounter movies of another sort, ones that leave the fate of the characters to the imagination of the audience? Examples include The Graduate, The Birds, Blade Runner, 2001, No Country for Old Men, and Before Sunset.
Some people like these movies. They take the illusion home with them and explore it via discussion with friends or private contemplation. They ponder different options, consider different forks in the road. In essence, they have to think in order to finish their experience with the movie. And this requires work. Other movie-goers leave these movies crying, “Then what?” They’re distraught. They’re disappointed. They feel cheated of their easy, entertaining movie escape. And they’re very vocal about it. “That movie was stupid.” “That movie didn’t make sense.” “That movie felt unfinished.” Well, maybe it did…but that’s because you have to finish it.
“Then what,” indeed.
Consider the open-endedness of two recent indie films vs. a recent Hollywood franchise: Chop Shop and Ballast vs. Michael Bays’ Transformers. The indie films end with simple, mundane activities that emphasize the importance of the protagonists’ newfound closeness with family: a brother and sister scare pigeons and watch them fly; a boy sleeps in the backseat in a car containing his new family. In Transformers, the good guys beat the bad guys. The end. One might argue that Transformers ended with a little ambiguity (were all of the bad guys eliminated?) but that person would also have to admit that’s for the sake of sequel generation rather than thought provocation. Very few sequels actually develop and deepen a storyline. Transformers 2 is just Transformers 1 revisited, with better special effects.
So, what’s the final word on movies with open endings? Think about them. Talk about them with your friends. Decide for yourself what happened. And don’t be turned off by the fact that this requires thinking (ugh), consideration of the artist’s statement (boring), and, maybe, reflection on our own lives (no, thank you.)
Now…are you ready for Part 2?
The comment about breaking the illusion is key to me. We strived with Self Helpless to create a separation from reality. We didn’t want the movie to look real or gritty. We wanted people to be enveloped by the story. I think that this is the main difficulty faced by no-budget filmmakers. Anyone can pull out a video camera and start shooting. It is VERY difficult to create a film, of any length, that achieves the necessary separation from reality for people to accept it as a movie. Frame rate plays a huge part in this. I have seen too many low budget films with god writing, and passable acting, that were shot on a decent camera, but were unwatchable because they looked like a home video. I don’t have any great answers, I guess I just wanted to point out this important technical hurdle that us no-budget folk face.
I couldn’t agree more. That’s actually why I’m writing about this. This is the first in a series of about 6 short essays on how we look at movies and why. As a filmmaker and film teacher I am constantly struck by what audiences will accept vs. what I, and other independent filmmakers, can make.
I think this essay and the dialogue it inspires is essential to the core of what movies are and what they mean to us. I find your article enlightening from the perspective of the young audience whose raw reactions seem to spell doom for the independent filmmaker. It’s a central conflict film has had since it’s invention — On one hand a beautiful art medium on the other a industrial corporate monster.
I’ve often heard it said if people didn’t pay to see movies like transformers 2 then they wouldn’t get made, resulting in better films. Perhaps an oversimplification as the same could be said for many avenues of social consumption. Specifically, independent film has a special role as both record of our history and agent of social change. It’s the medium that leads the upstream battle against the mainstream. The filmmaker and moviegoer have an active responsibility in this too. Staying curious about the world and engaging in dialogue helps us understand how to change people’s minds and turn them on to new things.
The student’s reactions are often disheartening. However, they can be taught to see in different ways. By the end of the school year, a majority of my students are able to appreciate films that fall outside of the mainstream. The key is exposure. I think more people would watch independent or foreign films if they had more access to them, if they had more information about them, and most importantly, if they knew HOW to watch them. That’s usually the biggest barrier with my students – teaching them to be patient, to interpret, to engage with a film rather than to simply passively accept it.
I am a big fan of films with open endings. The story itself is what dictates the ending.
As a filmmaker, I love engaging my audience and challenging them to think about the story I have told. There are always those who hate me for it. Yet I love to have my audience contemplating what they have seen as the credits roll. Ideally those thoughts will continue and evolve into conversation once they leave the theater.
Enjoyed this write up and look forward to reading more. Please send more to Twitter (@FilmCourage)
You sound like our kind of filmmaker, David Branin. Can’t wait to see how you put these concepts into action in Night Before the Wedding!
There is no doubt that appreciation can be facilitated. Plato was nonsense to me until I had a high school english teacher who helped me dissect it and really appreciate how it applied to me. Teaching kids how to analyze heavy films, or at least that this is something they can do, is a great thing.
The other side to that coin is the one that applies to us as filmmakers. We need to make stuff that people want to watch. You can make the most gritty, most independent film in history. Shot for under $5, esoteric story line, meaningful lack of an ending… but if you and your crew are the only people who appreciate it then what was the point in sending it to Sundance? I am all for artistic expression. I look at it from the perspective of a former DJ.
I hated playing mainstream top 40 nonsense. That broke my underground hip hop loving heart. But I had to do it, or I wouldn’t get any gigs. My solution was to get really good at slipping some quality underground tracks into the mix throughout the night. I would have people dancing to songs they had never heard before, and they didn’t even know it. I think that this is how we have to look at low/no budget filmmaking. We can’t expect our audience to give us some handicap points based on our budget. We need to make movies that are watchable first, and then layer in the artistic stuff where it fits.
No matter how good a book may be, I won’t continue reading it if there are five typos on the first page.
As an addendum…
Your analysis of Transformers 2 was off. It was not a movie. It was the largest, most expensive practical joke in history. The only way to explain the glaring errors in editing and presentation that occurred with this behemoth pile of gorilla-shit, is the realization that this was Michael Bay’s $250 million dollar practical joke. He wanted to prove to the world that he could do anything he wanted (talentless acting, laughably boring story development, straight up inconsistencies) and it would still make money. It is almost palatable in that light… almost.
Open or ambiguous endings are the spice of good movies. The first time I saw Michelangelo Antonioni’s ‘Blow Up’ I was on the edge of my seat, not because it was action packed but because it spoke to me in a philosophical way. Life is open ended and you may think for a moment you have all the answers but a minute later something will come up that will prove you wrong. The endings to most movies are lame because they try to tie it all up and put a bow on it and force feed you the theme(if there even is one). Life is too complex. Try and look further, you will see the irony.
MIKE MERELL
http://desertvows.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Desert-Vows-the-movie/105229409018?ref=ts
http://www.flickr.com/photos/desert_vows_the_movie/
http://twitter.com/DesertVows
I have no preference for an open ending or one with a nice bow. I like endings that work, plain and simple. Open or closed have nothing to do with it in my book – to me, the best endings are the ones that make me say, “there’s no other way this film could have ended,” and leave a lasting impression. There’s nothing I loathe more than a bad ending – one either unnecessarily ambiguous, or hastily wrapped up. A great film leaves an impression, and leaves me thinking about it long after it’s over, be it open, or wrapped up (with a little peek of what’s underneath).
As the wonderful Orson Welles said, ““If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story.””
Good point.
What’s interesting is that an open-ended ending, if dictated by the story, can actually provide complete closure to the film while provoking further thought for the audience. That, to me, is a sign of a well-done ending of any kind (to acknowledge Tyler’s point). A film needs to feel finished in terms of the story that’s been told, but not necessarily in terms of the ideas being explored.
I was thinking about this blog post and I realized that The Graduate and Let the Right One In had the same ambiguous ending. Hand in hand, towards an uncertain future…that might be my favorite ending of all. It’s romantic without having a fake-happy ending tacked on, and it achieves what you’re describing: a satisfying conclusion that still gives you something to think and wonder about. Snow Bunny had that too, by the way.
When I was teaching elementary school, the students would watch terribly bad movies in the cafeteria. I remember wondering why they would all laugh hysterically at the same time, even when the jokes weren’t remotely funny or surprising. I suspect they had just become conditioned to respond to certain signifiers of humor–the crotch shot, the fart noise, the spit take. Do you think that your students respond to certain things in movies out of habit, rather than because they are really enthusiastic about them? Or even really paying attention? And how much of their response do you think is just what they think their peers want to hear?
Hi Leontine! There are definitely things that my kids laugh hysterically at out of habit. Those things are: swearing at people and beating people. Many of my students love to see characters “treat” other characters, this can be done through yelling, slapping, or beating. Basically any action that shows one person exerting power over another. An interesting exception occurred last year during my independent film unit. One of the films we watched was Waitress. During the scene where Earl slaps Kerri Russell, there was no laughing or inappropriate glee. They were genuinely mortified. This happened for one or two reasons. For one, I spent a lot of time last year talking about how weird I think it is that they love nothing better than to see a good beating/slapping. I also think that the movie Waitress makes the main female character extremely likable and empathetic — they don’t see a lot of movies that do that.
I think I’m with Tyler on this one. I can’t say I prefer one type of ending to another. However, looking back, some of my favorite movies have an open ending. Now don’t get me wrong, there have been times when I have said, “that’s it, are you kidding me!” But I may have to argue that that ending didn’t work then. ; ) There are time when I like being led through the movie and there are other times when I LOVE having to figure my way through it. One of my favorite examples of this being Primer. You really have to keep up with the story as it progresses and then you are left with one hell of an open ending.
What a great topic and comments! I can’t wait to read more. I thought I should comment before I went on to the next one.
Thanks for the comments Phil. We’re going to have to see this Primer film very soon.
Like mentioned before, I have no preference for one type of ending over another as long it fits the movie. What’s a shame is that an appreciation for thought provoking film is being bred out of future movie goers. Because of that we have studios less willing to take chances and filmmakers willing to experiment not getting the budgets they deserve.
One example that always comes to mind is Aronofsky’s “The Fountain”.
Everyone keeps saying the premise of this film is man’s search for immortality, but I felt that it was instead a love letter written with unrestrained emotion and naked honesty. Slick Hollywood was nowhere to be seen. Hell, linear story telling was also out the window. Logic was stretched and weaving three narrative threads (spanish conquistador, present day husband, future spaceman) with no definition of “reality” made this a tough pill to swallow for most audience members.
But I loved it. I was absolutely engrossed by it. Analyzing every movement, word, sound, trying to decipher the achingly beautiful puzzle that was playing before my eyes. My respect for Jackman’s acting ability increase a thousandfold (and I already loved him in “The Prestige”). The entire film was meant as an experience to be processed and contemplated. When I was done watching the film (and my brain and heart stopped short circuiting), I flew to the Internet to see what others thought. I wanted to discuss, dissect and share this incredible experience.
An audience raised on “pretty bow” endings and soundtrack driven emotional cues will never learn the ability to enjoy “The Fountain”. They had a tough time with “Memento” and even the concept of two movies back-to-back (“Grindhouse”) was more than most could handle.
I applaud you for working hard to expand the new generation’s horizons. It gives me a sliver of hope. Outside of film students (or movie nuts) it’s very hard to discuss tone, theme, structure or any of the juicy parts of a movie with those spoon fed explosions, bullets and boobs.
Call me selfish, but I not only want thought provoking cinema to continue, I would also like those I can talk to about it.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment, Gabriel. The puzzle film might deserve a post all to itself. Films like The Fountain, Memento, Mulholland Drive, Inland Empire, In the Mood for Love, etc. ask audiences to think from beginning to end. One thing that is interesting about puzzle films is when they manage to both engage the intellect and the emotions. Sometimes they are just intellectual exercises, but as you pointed out with The Fountain, some are able to operate address both the mind and the body (in a sense). I feel that way about Mulholland Drive and In the Mood for Love as well.