Put simply, a truly ambitious and successful work of narrative art is spoiler-proof. If a show or movie or book is really, truly great, you can watch it again and again and again, well after you know what's going to happen, and the aesthetic pleasure you derive therefrom will not diminish. It may even increase. This is an essential part of the work's greatness.Back in 2008, Dan Kois suggested statutes of limitation for when it was no longer necessary. Boy, that Don Draper last night, wow ....Consider this: Alfred Hitchcock knew as much about creating suspense as perhaps any narrative artist of the past century; and when he made what is, hands down, his most artistically ambitious movie, Vertigo, he went out of his way to spoil the mystery halfway through. Vertigo is the story of one woman pretending to be another in an effort to deceive a man, and Hitchcock easily could have preserved the mystery of that woman's identity until the end of the film.
But the pleasures and satisfactions of Vertigo don't depend on not knowing a basic aspect of the plot. They derive from the movie's brilliant illustration of love and desire and the ways we idealize and romanticize particular human beings and then become disappointed or even disgusted by their simple, physical humanity. It's the best thing Hitchcock ever did, and knowing who is actually who doesn't change that.
Monday, August 2, 2010
SPOILER ALERT! The Awl's Nate Freeman traces the history of the term to 1982 and offers thoughts on its usage, with David Haglund suggesting no great work of art can be spoiled:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
True. Years ago when Sixth Sense came out, someone spoiled the ending of the movie (on purpose, to be a twit). I still went to see it and actually had an amazing appreciation for it - in particular, because I knew the twist, I was able to see how well-crafted the movie had been.
ReplyDeleteMy oldest brother walked in the house after seeing the Empire Strikes Back opening night (the rest of us were going to go that weekend) and spoiled it. I'm still pissed about that.
ReplyDeletewhat's with the no spoilers in opera? I was not aware of operas having any surprise.
ReplyDeleteIn opera, the following characters die: all of them.
I still remember with guilt that I spoiled the ending of Murder on the Orient Express for my best friend in high school.
ReplyDeleteAnd they die (invariably) of consumption.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I don't get the no opera spoilers thing either... I've been to a few dozen and I can safely say that I have read the libretto or synopsis before the opera started in every single case! There's no other way to watch...
ReplyDelete1. I think people like Haglund are taking the word "spoiler" a little too literally. If a movie is spoiled, that doesn't mean all of it has been wiped out; it just means that the initial viewing isn't what it's supposed to be.
ReplyDelete2. That being said: to the recurring statement that "a truly ambitious and successful work of narrative art is spoiler-proof", I say
2a. Sez you.
2b. You're just restating that you don't care, in some pseudo-objective manner.
2c. Fine. Is it OK if I prefer to consume my non-truly-ambitious-and-successful narrative art in peace, or is this just a matter of "I disapprove of the art you like, so fuck you"?
3. There is, consistenly, a confusion between "spoilers" and "secrets", because a lot of the discussion in the media has to do with when it's rude for the media to spoil. My claim is that the secrets in Empire Strikes Back, Citizen Kane, Psycho, etc, are "spoilers" now and forever; it's just that you can no longer be expected to write around them. (AND YET NOTICE THAT I JUST DID THAT.) The classic example of this confusion is that thing everybody says about how Peanuts spoiled Citizen Kane. I mean, if I haven't seen CK, there's a fair chance that I also haven't seen that Peanuts strip from 50 goddam years ago. It's not like it's the fall of 198X and someone just printed who shot JR.
Perhaps it's true that no great work of art can be spoiled, but I often feel envy for someone reading or watching something I love for the first time, because all of it will be new. That may not rise to the level of possible spoilers, but having a brilliant work tell you its story on its own time is better than being told a list of plot points before you begin.
ReplyDeleteI think Hitchcock is the exception though, he makes a point to give away his secrets early, or he moves the plot so that the original mystery no longer matters. I'll be blasphemous and say that I think Vertigo is one of the most overrated classics of all time, but what power it has isn't about who the woman is, but how it impacts Jimmy Stewart.
(But what do I know, I think The Usual Suspects definitely holds up on repeated watchings...)
I generally tend to think that the claim that a great work of art is not spoiler-proof depends on what you mean. There are plenty of movies (and I agree that the Usual Suspects is one of them) that are enjoyable on multiple viewings even after you know that there is a twist there. They may even be enjoyable on later viewings because you catch onto the clues that maybe you previously missed. That said, when there is a truly well-done plot twist in a movie (or a book), part of the pleasure of that first viewing is experiencing the plot twist. Put another way: part of the work of art is the plot twist.
ReplyDeleteI think Jenn. absolutely nails it above.
ReplyDeleteIt bums me out to no end that my kids already know the key plot point of Empire Strikes Back despite having never seen a single Star Wars film -- their friends at school already blew it for them. They want to discuss the details with me, but my mantra is "You'll have to see the movies first."
Same thing happened to my wife at the time. She was annoyed, but had the same experience watching it (and I've seen it twice since then and it's still very well constructed).
ReplyDeleteSpoillerrrrrs,
ReplyDeleteWhat'd you expect in an opera, Doc? A happy ending?
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Jenn. It's not that a great work of art can't be spoiled - it's about separating the act of viewing into two separate experiences, each with its own rewards. The initial viewing, where one has a visceral reaction to events unfolding in an unexpected way, and any subsequent viewings, where one can both step back and admire the work in its entirety, and engage with it in a different and likely deeper way.
ReplyDeleteSo spoilers don't kill the movie for you, they just take away the first of those two experiences.
I generally don't mind spoilers, but the one time I've really regretted knowing a plot twist was the last act of SEVEN. It's still a fantastic movie, but I can't help but think how much of an insane gut punch the end would have been had I not been expecting it through the whole film.
I have absolutely no self control when it comes to spoilers and being in a time zone which means I can rarely watch things as they are being broadcast in the US means that I spoil myself just by hopping onto the internet.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I read the AV Club's, Alan's and this very blog's reaction to Lost the finale a week before it went to air in Australia. Did it spoil my enjoyment? Possibly, but I gained more pleasure from reading everyone's reactions to the finale in a meaningful time frame.
A recent exception was Inception but it was incredibly difficult to do. However it was novel to experience that film not knowing what everyone's response was to the twists and turns in the plot. In conclusion I think I unconsciously calculate benefits of being spoiled (and participating in pop culture) against benefits of appreciating the art of the work as the artist intended.
Usual Suspects holds up, but it's a different experience from that initial 'non-spolier' viewing.
ReplyDelete