Enjoy I guess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discuss the concept of narrative closure in relation to TWO of the essential film or television texts. How does closure-or a lack of closure-affect the viewer’s reading of the texts?
Narrative storytelling has been the dominant storytelling format in popular cinema since the advent of linear editing at the dawn of the 20th century. Since then, the subject of narrative closure has been a significant point of artistic discussion and debate within the cinematic community. In this essay I will be looking at a tentpole release from the golden age of Hollywood narrative film, The Wizard of Oz (1939, Victor Flemming) and an independent post-modern film from the late 1990’s, The Usual Suspects (1995, Bryan Singer).
When looking at the nature of narrative cinema in American cinema the historical context is worth noting. At the time of Oz’s release Hollywood has a very rigid and tightly controlled storytelling structure that was obeyed by almost filmmaker working within the studio system. Every mainstream release had to have a happy ending, and simple narrative conventions were strictly abided to. Therefore, the very neatly resolved closed ending of Oz is typical of the period it was made and released in.
Conversely, Suspects was released during something of a small boom in American independent cinema (following the rise of filmmakers such as Quentin Tarantino) and following the birth of an artistic movement known as postmodernism. This movement revolved around the reexamination and subversion of previously established tropes and cliches, in this case narrative tropes and cliches. As such, the far wilder and less conclusive ending of Suspects would have been impossible at the time of Oz’s release.
Due to the more restrictive nature of the time Oz was given a very conclusive closed ending. This brings the film in line with the traditional three act narrative structure that popular cinema was slave to at the time. Rather ironically however, the conclusive nature of this ending is something that has become a source of criticism towards the film from it’s own fans. Many view this ending as being untrue to the true message of the film, one of freedom and individuality. Furthermore, the idea that Oz was little more than a dream (as this ending claims that it was) is seen as a contrived way to wrap up the narrative without addressing the core themes of the film properly.
The Wizard of Oz is a film that has been adopted and treasured by many minority groups, such as immigrants and homosexuals. For these oppressed groups, the films messages of freedom, escape and bravery are taken very much to heart. Dorothy herself, a lonely but strong willed child exploring a bright and mysterious new world, has become an iconic figure in such groups. The ending however sticks sourly in the throats of many of these fans, as it instead backs away from the films bold and inflammatory ideals in favour of a highly conservative ‘There’s no place like home’ message that doesn’t seem to blend properly.
Oz has often been cited as one of the most important films of the Hollywood golden age, and along with several minority groups, has been a source of inspiration for filmmakers since its release. One of the reasons for this is the structure of its narrative, which takes the episodic structure of the source novel and transforms it into an impeccably tight three act structure. It has been posed by many that this structure is an excellent example of the benefits of this structure, and the film has become one of the fundamental models for the fantasy genre. The narrative is clear, easy to follow and conclusive in all ways, and this extends to the ending.
Despite the many grievances that fans and critics alike have about this ending, it is still as influential as any other aspect of the film. The idea of ending a story with and it was all just a dream, has become a constantly repeating cliche, particularly in family-friendly fantasy films. This type of ending is popular for several reasons; firstly it is simple and conclusive, wrapping up all loose ends as tightly as possible. Secondly it is very easy to pull of, and does not require a lot of time to come up with. And finally, it is a fairly comforting ending for kids, validating ideas such as imagination and dreams. However dream endings have been vastly parodied and criticised for all the same reasons. They are seen as lazy, a way for writers to end their stories without consequences or any kind of depth, and are the epitome of audience passivity. All of these criticisms have been labeled towards Oz and are an extension of the criticism given to many closed ended narratives. Furthermore, quickly ending a story with a character waking up from a dream does a disservice to dreams as a thematic device. The television series Cowboy Bebop (Hajime Yatate, 1998-1999) uses themes of dreams to mysterious and unconventional effect, and actually uses dreams to end on a highly inconclusive and ambiguous note.
Overall, despite the simple and narratively satisfying nature of the film’s ending, in Oz’s case a more open and ambiguous ending would probably have done more to complete the film’s themes and ideas. This ending, as are sadly many of the time, an example of the studio hegemony favouring the safer and more traditional style of narrative over what actually serves the film better. A very reductive and conservative outlook towards a very adventurous and progressively minded film.
When creating Suspects, director Bryan Singer did not have to worry about these narrative restrictions. The film was made at the height of the post-modernist movement in American independent cinema, spearheaded by directors such as Quentin Tarantino and Jim Jarmusch. As such he was able to construct a film entirely around a non-conclusive cliffhanger of an ending.
The final scene of Suspects does not answer many of the questions raised in the preceding narrative. In fact it raises several new questions and throws out a lot of what the audience was made to believe was fact. Inconclusive and open endings have existed for a long time, however this was one of the first major examples of a film untethering all we have seen before from reality and bringing the entire plot into question. What was real? Who can we trust? These answers are not only not given, they are made basically impossible to answer.
This ending also goes against many of the conventions of the crime and mystery genres, in many ways an example of a genre which frequently misleads and engages with the audience. In any kind of mystery or crime film, the viewer is asked to keep track of things themselves and figure mysteries before the narrative reveals the answer, the concept of a whodunit is fairly popular in cinema. Suspects goes one step further however, it’s narrative never reveals the answer. So the viewer is kept in an eternal state of anticipation and confusion. Classic crime-noirs such as Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, 1944) will happily mislead and misdirect the viewer, however these films always ended mostly conclusively, with the motives of the characters fully figured out and justice being served. This is not the case with Suspects, a film that only compounds upon its own mysteries in the final scene.
The effect that an ending such as Suspect’s can have upon the audience cannot be overstated. The film has become something of a pop-culture touchstone precisely due to the impact that this ending had upon viewers. In the case of this film, the ending gives the narrative extreme longevity, as fans return time and time again to try and decipher the film’s complicated knot of a plot and pick up on the clues that lead to the bombshell of an ending. There are several other examples of popular films that have become iconic due to their inconclusive twist endings, including Seven (David Fincher, 1995) and The Sixth Sense (1999, M. Night Shyamalan). To put it simply, filmgoers love to enjoy a puzzle that they cannot solve, a mystery that the can pour over without ever getting a complete answer. I do not think that there is much of a coincidence that the two films I just mentioned stand alongside Suspects as some of the most popular and beloved American films of the 1990’s. A powerful enigmatic ending is one of the best ways a film can remain relevant in pop culture years after its release, and this tactic continues to be used to this day with films such as Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010) continually being dissected and discussed due to the nature of its ending.
Despite its gigantic amount of critical acclaim and it’s huge fanbase, Suspects does have a large number of critics. Roger Ebert himself was quite vocal on his tepid feelings of the film. When writing about the film’s ending on his website, Ebert wrote.
‘To the degree that you will want to see this movie, it will be because of the surprise, and so I will say no more, except to say that the "solution," when it comes, solves little - unless there is really little to solve, which is also a possibility.’
Here, Ebert seems to view the ending as little more than a gimmick meant to increase long term interest in a film that doesn’t really have much to say on its own. That the inconclusive nature of the ending is more a symptom of Singer’s inability to properly end the narrative rather than a genuine artistic decision. A flaw rather than a feature. This is a fairly common view that many viewers have towards open ended films, and it is a consequence of ending a film in such a way. In some cases, a cliffhanger can feel more like storytelling impotence rather than storytelling mastery.
Conclusive endings have the benefit of putting the entire audience on a level playing field. With more ambiguous endings, the audience's enjoyment of the film’s narrative hinges on their ability (or interest) in piercing the narrative together. Closed endings removes this issue, the entire audience is told the story at the same level and understand what happens identically. However this can lead to the issue of audience passivity, where the audience is not asked to engage their brain and so become disinterested in what they are watching. This is a complaint that has been aimed towards major Hollywood productions for decades, and the push against audience passivity was one of the motivating factors of the postmodernist film movement in the first place.
In conclusion, the ending of a film decides what the viewer will feel the moment the credits begin. Not only does the ending close the narrative, it also acts as the final thing the audience sees. By ending conclusively, a film can leave an audience feeling satisfied and complete, leaving them knowing that they have spent their money well. This works best in certain kinds of films, such as blockbusters and family films, which are highly competitive from a market perspective and need a satisfying conclusion to keep a broad group of viewers happy.
However, a conclusive ending will rarely keep the audience thinking. The more themes and plot threads that are kept in the air, the more likely the audience is to think about the film later down the line. The viewer becomes a part of the film, the narrative does not function without them, they have to engage with the text. Although an audience member may not feel as immediately satisfied with an open ended narrative, they may thank the filmmakers later on for giving them something to think about. Basically, it is a question of immediate gratification versus long term engagement, and this question exists entirely due to the nature of a film’s ending.
By Jack D. Phillips
No comments:
Post a Comment