Sounder SIGN UP FOR FREE
Talking Images
Talking Images

Episode 6 · 2 years ago

They Spoil Pictures, Don't They: Do Spoilers Actually Hurt Films?

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

How do you feel about spoilers?

Can they actually hurt your viewing experience?

Does even knowing a film has something "spoilable" about them have the potential to affect you?

What lengths (if any) do you go to in order to avoid spoilers?

Should you even avoid reading up on films before watching them, or can films also be hurt by going into them them "blind"?


In this episode we will cover these topics, and much, much more.


Spoiler Warning:


In this episode we will spoil: The Sixth Sense, Psycho, Scream and Titanic. Many other films will be mentioned in passing, but the spoiler(s) will not be revealed.


We will also end the episode on an indepth, spoiler-ridden discussion of The Crying Game, which 3 of the co-hosts just watched, two for the first time.

You are listening to talking images, the official podcast of ICM Forumcom. In this episode, we will spoil the sixth sense, we will spoil psycho, we will spoil scream and you will even spoil titanic. All the films will dimensioned, but don't worry, we'll be good. The actual spoilers will never be revealed. And with that said, welcome back to everyone. I'm Chris and, as you might have guessed, this episode is all about spoilers. How do we feel about them? The spoilers actually have the power to spoil films. Could even knowing that there is something spoilable in a film? Heard the UNI experience. Is it actually the case, and it's always best to go into a film blind? And to what lengths do I and my cohosts go to avoid spoilers? To talk it all off, we will have an indepth discussion of the crying game, which is, shall we say, quite famous for having a twist. Three of my co hosts have just watched it too, for the very first time, and they will explore the topic of how knowing the spoiler, or just knowing there is a spoiler, can affect how review a film. With me today, are for Wonderful Co hosts, Clem, yes, solosis, Clem from friends. I'm happy to be back and really looking forward to talk about spoilers. We Work Tom. Hi, this is Tom from England. I'm extremely sensitive to spoilers, so I'm looking forward to seeing what my co host have to say on the same topic. Fall I, I'm so from Australia. I watched seven Samurai for the first time today and I'm really interested in discussing today's topic to see if, like with Seven Samurai, will make me change my mind about some movies that maybe I've not seen yet. This so happens all. Finally saw Seven Samurai. There's the fantastic tire from last week episode about fields we haven't actually seen. And also, finally, for the very first time, I'm really happy to welcome Adam. Not to be confused with our producer Adam Problem Scotland. This is a brand new Adam from New York. So take the way, Adam. Introduce yourself then. From New York City. Long time listener, first time participant. I'm very excited to be here and to talk about spoilers and plot twists and many, many movies that may or may not contain both. All right, great to have you on board, Adam. So let's just get straight into it and answer the question. How do you feel about spoiler? And we can start with Klan. My opinion about spoilers have changed a lot over the years. When I first started watching films about eight nine years ago, I was mostly watching them for the stories. So for me, if a film was spoiled, if I knew the ending, if I knew the twist, there were no reason to watch this film anymore. When I started watching more films and as years go by, I realize that film is not only about the story. It's about the visuals, it's about how the film is made. It's a lot of different things combined and the story is only one of them. So I started being a bit less turned off if I knew the story, or if I knew the ending, or if I knew the twist, because I realize that, well, there are other things that we should be looking for in a film than just the storage. Well, for every particular film that made you get older, also the natural evolution. I think it was just a natural evolution. I would say maybe we'll discuss this fam later on, but I was a really big fan of fight club as a teenager, which is a film that, well, let's say, have some kind of twist, and I really watched this film a few times and realize that, well, even though I knew the story, they do well, so I knew what was happening, I still could enjoy you very much. So I realize that, well, even knowing the story and going to twist, there are still a lot of things you can look for in a film to enjoy. So part how do you feel about boilers? I'm quite sensitive when it comes to spoilers. I love nothing more than watching a film with little knowledge of how it's going to pan out and just allowing the director to take my own adventure, surprise me, shock me, and I find that known as little as possible really helps this. So I will...

...try to avoid reading about a film beforehand. I will actively avoid watching trailers when I'm in the cinema about to watch a film. If a trailer comes on for something that I haven't seen but intend to see, have been known to close my eyes look away because, as I said, I like going in there and is as little as possible. I will rarely read reviews films of them interested in before watching them, and I just find it it's better to trust in the in the filmmakers that I know I enjoy and go along with the rides and, as I said, I love being surprised. I think you being of a pretty good point there. Even just watching this trailer can spoil almost entire film in terms of this showing you scenes all throughout the film which context theyre in, where they are even a spoilers of classic films, like most of the modern trailers of starker shown the final scene. It's find of something this in pact is. That's it's pretty ridiculous. That's the trend. You see him almost all the film styles that, if you are a Sensi to spoilers, I think that's a really good move. Without naming the film in question, there is a trailer I watched recently for a film and it's about two people and there's a shot in the film where it was just showing one of the persons on their own pearly shot towards the end of the film, and things like that can just give you an idea of what's going to happen and then you always got it in the back of your mind that something's going to happen to this character. Why aren't they there in that shot of beautifully cryptic time? So going on to solve how do you feel about spoilers? It's quite interesting listening to Clem talk about reading up as little as possible about films before seeing the when he first got into them. I first gone on some movies around eighteen or nineteen years ago. Actually read up quite a bit about them beforehand because I had just such limited knowledge of films were out this or I'd usually read a few reviews along, reviews like Hollywell's type style reviews, short reviews right from Melton's film guide, before actually sat down and watched it. As things have progressed along, though, it's got to the point where I try to gap as little as possible bad a film before watching it. I like Tom's description of it being an adventure and being ready for the filmmaker to shock and surprise you. So I try and read up as little as possible. I really like going in the films blind. Often with big films that come out from acclaim filmmakers, I will not read up anything about I'll just know that it's a good director so I'm going to sit down, I'm going to watch it, just based on the director, or maybe based on the genre. If it's a horror sci fi film, will just going and see it. It is our tricky one, especially if you're going to the cinema and going the simmer for me is usually bit of a social thing, so I can't just close my eyes and put my hands over my ears without, you know, looking a bit strange and a bitard. But trailers sometimes you can't avoid them. They do toy with your expectations. So I try and avoid them as much myself, except if it's something where I don't think I'm going to see it. Sometimes it's actually interesting watching the trailer, like I've still got a large VHS collection. The sometimes running fast forwarding through. They'll be a trailer and just as it's playing I'm not recognizing the film, so I go or maybe that actually will watch this just to see what the film is for. Usually I can work out what the film is for without watching the trailer, but if I can't, sometimes it's interesting. Your trailers aren't great for playing with expectations, unless you get something like Thomas Anderson film, and I remember I don't know how often it's happened, but definitely with phantom thread they will quite a few shots in the trailer for that. That didn't actually make into the final film and I can't remember if PTA did it on purpose or not. It is interesting about the effects that a trailer can play with expectations at yeah, in general, as Thomas had dislike to be able to trust the filmmaker and go in and say the film myself and see what it's like. I have to say, and how I just have this picture of you in a think about it. You has is trying to cover your eyes and ears, sitting or screechings. We don't hear the sound with every other person looking at you. It's a fantastic, fantastic visual yeah, what? That's what I'd like to be able to do, but I know that I socially can't do it, though. The most interesting ones actually when I'm in the car and I trailer comes up on the radio and sometimes try and turn the volume down. That's sort of like white thirty seconds and then put the volume back up. That sounds like something that I would do, Solf, and I'm quite pleased that I'm not the only one who goes to such extreme length for it a film being spoiled. For me, I would also like to mention that I dislike traders very very much. It's actually one of the reason I pump stopped going to cinema because here we have about twenty, twenty five minutes of traders before the actual film starts. And well, most of them are very obviously repetitive and, as I...

...said before, some show or the good parts of film and well, it does to complete opposite, because the trailers should make you want to go and see the film, and well, for some film it looks like that all the good parts can be just resumed in a one minute thirty vid. You. So then, for me, series but pretty much no reason to go and see that film. And it's also because most of the time those films are, you know, very big roadbusters type of films. So we need to show action films, explosions, stuff like that. So, which is something I'm not very interested in. And another problem, I think, with traders that most of the Times they failed to capture the essence of what the film really is about because, well, as I said before, the main goal is to make people want to go see the film, even by by any means possible. So sometimes it include even lying to the spectator by make prooking scenes that are actually not in the final film, as so the mentioned for the phantom thread. I think so. Yeah, I think traders are a very bad thing. It's interesting point mentioned about trials and then being misleading. Good example I can think of from recent terms was I Tonya, which is actually a really good film, but the way I was advertiser kept coming up the good fellas of ice skating movies and all the way that the trials will cut together made me expect this really witty good fellows type of film, which should actually isn't. But I can just jump in for a moment to defend trailers. I have usually in the past really enjoyed them and enjoy them as part of the cinemagoing experience. It completely admit the potential for them to spoil the Mo be and I think there are certainly trailers that basically tell you most of what's going to happen in the movie and often contain a lot of the best scenes, especially when it's a comedy. Sometimes it's not a good comedy, they somehow manage to stuff be or ninety percent of the good jokes into the trailer. But in trailers was essential part of the appeal of going to the cinema throughout most of my life. In recent years I've become very tired of them because you go on forever. Twenty five minutes is about right, and I've often seen the trailer already because now you can get it on the Internet. But I always enjoyed trailers as an art form in itself. Are Their own particular type of short films, and I really enjoy trailers also that do something more than just try to summarize the movie, and there's some classics in this genre. I think of the original trailer for clockwork, orange, the trailer for the Social Network, and oddly enough it's forgotten among most people, but the really mediocre car heist movie gone in sixty seconds. You go back and look at the trailer, was considered quite revolutionary. Being said, yes, it can spoil the movie and no one likes that, and it's like to jump being on the same defensive trailers, which is that some tailors can be absolutely fantastic in their own ride. I mean, I'm not sure if this is embarrassing. Without that made, but I've very often revisit the best alers and trailers because they just highlights so many of the details and why I love those fields and they're just really fun experiences in their own right. There's also some really fantastic trailers that are just genderedly inspired or even just additional material that was never used in the film, such as I'm not sure if you guys have seen real life by other brooks, but the trailer is essentially the same character trying to pretend it's so real that it's in really it is essentially just playing around with really glasses and it looks absolutely terrible. It's not used for a film set him talking about how fantastic the film is in the same obnoxious character and it works so incredibly, incredibly well. I never looked at traders this way, I have to say. So it was interesting. I never actually heard someone talk about how they like traders, so it was interesting hearing you, Adam and Chris Talk, talk about them this way. I was wondering because the films you mentioned, I think I don't mentioned the Co Cork Orange gone sixty seconds. I was wondering if it has something to do with when the film was released. Maybe older traders were well done in a different way, and nowadays trader are gone in a very show it all way, let's say, and all the traders were more, I don't mean maybe better done. They've left more out of it. They didn't really cut together as many things. They would usually focused on some characters and some early scenes or something that was dramatic and often with a really, really frustrating and dull narrate there giving you the idea of why it was those suspensionful or why you had to see it. But that's pretty much bit they were. They would they weren't niting like the ones with you today. Course it depends lived about the wich era we're talking about. To Bill, after turning the Sen of the entire popcast to be all about trailers, they be really fun...

...to finally move on to Adam hearly bit about how he feels about spoilers. I am not a fan of spoilers, not at all. Spoiler ultimately provides the opportunity to destroy the narrative tension in the movie, and there are movies that can survive that. There are some movies that don't hurt by that at all. Some movies where the narrative might be beside the point or maybe not as important. A spoiler might not ruin every movie, but has the potential to ruin a lot of movies. I think a great way of evaluating a spoiler is to sort of talk about history movies. We's based on history that's widely known, or at least known particularly to you. These are movies that I very much enjoy. I'm a big fan of the history movie genre. When I see them, I always joke, you know, I go see a history movie and then I look with my brother about he says to me, if you think of Pearl Harbor and I said, well, I really like it and I kind of felt like I knew it was going to happen the whole time. You know, the whole first of the movie I had this weird suspicion the Japanese were going to attack. I don't know why. That was a joke, but this is something that the history genre sufferers from. The question is, even if you know the outcome of Pearl Harbor, can you enjoy the narrative that's presented with in the movie that leads up to that point? I think some ways, being a spoiler from a movie forces you to confront how interesting, enjoyable or compelling a movie is if the narrative is known. And when the narrative is known, can enjoy the movie because that elements not associate with the narrative. You can enjoy it for the performance, for the dialog, for music, for camera work, so on, so forth. Nevertheless, I think most movies suffer from being spoiled, and certainly if the spoiler goes as far as a plot twist, and it can really detract from the moviegoing experience. I think that's really interesting. Point about the historical film, though. In that case part of the excitement, or part of like the build up, I suppose, is how they will deal with x event or how they will present x historical figure that you may or may not have some impression about. That can be really interesting in its own right. I think maybe even a better example is downfall, the the Bruno guns movie about Hitler's final days, a movie where everyone knows the outcome, but the peel the movie is really Bruno Gonz's performance and his depiction of Hitler in his final days. So I think is an incredible performance. So that's an example of where everyone knows the outcome, but I think the movie really stands up. I reminded of the final scene of black gather as well a black gutter going forward, which I'm not going to spoil for the people haven't seen it death, but it has a fun and somewhat sad pun about what they it is and what they believe is going to happen on this date. And of course we also have some films that gain specifically from real event, like that's seen in the best picture with their cavalcade, where you know they pan to the name of the Bolt and it's titanic, or the opening Dvani Fair where people are having a party and they pan to the sign assessed the Waterloo. So there are a ways to also play off historical events so that you know what is coming and it's part of the story. This. To move on and to include myself in this, I think that I do have some problems with spoilers. The narrative is you should not what is most important for me, but especially if there's a twist, it can get new in the ruin a part of the experience because if you do not know the twist or the spoilering question you will actually be able to have to fundamentally different experiences, at least if it's done well, and you will get the first experience the very first time you see it and you have that ristual reaction to seeing events you have not expected. You see the plot entirely turned on its head and you may, it's done incredibly well, sit there in shock, try to understand how this happened, the logic leading up to it, and then on your second viewing you will actually be able to going in, be able to trace all of the clues that leads up to the reveal, and both of those are essentially first time experiences. So that's what's really last when you boil a film in this way, this is a essentially like what happens in sixty cents, which obviously all spoiled to me. I think every single person in the world knows that Bruce will is what's that entire blood the time and going in that you can see all of the really, really obvious clues and you were wondering when it would be revealed and you were wondering how it would be revealed, and so much looked so obvious and so much felt so flat, and it was actually only done until my rewash off it that I gained...

...more respect for it, because then I had essentially it would be the third viewing in that sense, like I had experience of seeing what would happened for myself, and then I could judge Shit more in terms of how it was made, how it was done, without paying more attention to how the twist will develop. It's interesting that he mentioned the sixth sense, because that's a film that I have actually checked that. I've actually watched it four times now. I found that the more and more we watch it, the worst it actually gets, and the plot actually makes no sense in a number of key scene. And you know that he's dead when you know that nobody else could communicate with him. Yeah, a lot of it doesn't add up and I've kept re watching it, I guess, you know, four times and down twenty years, because Puro kt saying, Oh, you know, go back to give another shot again, but now I just get this falls down further and further my steam. No, I can definitely see that. I think the important times you will see, the more you will start taking about everything in between as well. I think what happens after that one shot ends how of this set up actually largical? That's how much dispersed actually see. And how come he was living with his wife for so many months as a ghost without realizing that she'd never, ever, ever spoke to him? Yeah, let's stuff about how, yeah, Bruce Willis is getting by without realizing as a ghost. There's also some of the stuff which, Holy Joe, Osmond says to him which is just ridiculous. He says things like I've got this seeker or something like this, please don't tell anyone, and yet osmant surely knows that he's a ghost and therefore he's got no ability to tell anyone. So I have that line in there. Then then you know, the set it up to make it more interesting for a first time viewer. And I know what you're saying that the more times you watch a film going to pick on more and more things that aren't work. But then you look at the other best films that are big twists in there, like vertigo or scream, and especially with scream, I can watch that multiple times, I think up to six or more viewings, and knowing the twist, knowing who goes faces, it just gets better and better each times. I see all the different soul kints that we're as crime and is put in it to show us who the killer is up without it being obvious to a first time viewer. I think you're perfectly right there. So that the very best films does get better the more and more time to see it, because you pick up all of the additional details that it didn't see. This is what I mentioned in terms of last year at more about to is that every single time you see it you pick up and new interpretation and you little detail and you little line that means something else and they can change the entire thing. And it's similar in Verd to Goo to in that there's always so many different things to consider and so many more things to take on board. Since so mentioned the ingle of I guess you could call watchability. Specifically with regard to a movie that might have a twist or something really unexpected, I think there are cases where can be a benefit. So the appeals is when you're watching a movie with a twist for the second or third or fourth time, is you can sort of look for clues along the way that hint at it, which is what I think a lot of people done over the past week rewatching the time game. The potential drawback for any rewatching experience, though, is that you also start noticing those plot holes that maybe weren't very obvious they're the first time you saw it. Think I would agree with that and I think it would explain why a lot of films that only rely on the final twist or the ending gets well, gets worse and worse after rewatch because they only have one part of the film that you really really worked on and the rest was just it's sometimes it feels like the rest could just made to to be there, just to pass the time while we get to the final ten fifteen minutes that should, you know, blow everyone's mind. And when you watch a film for the first time, usually you remember mostly beginning and the ending in some parts in the middle, and if the ending blows you away with a twist, for example, it's very easy for you to be like, okay, well, that was actually a great film. But when you rewatch it and start looking at it more carefully, in more in more details, you start noticing. In some cases you start noticing details that doesn't doesn't add up, as was mentioned, into sixth sense, for example, or just sins that are well unneeded or not very interesting. And when you know the final scene and you know what the ending is, some films seem very blend and UN original and very, very average. I think it does describe the entire prayer and I found London. I don't know, I've only seen the sixth sense from him. So, yeah, I don't really know that the rest of this filmography, but I guess the sixth sense was I knew, obviously I knew the ending when I first when I first watched it to still of fun experience.

Well, I think I watched it a few years back when that in the beginning, that's say if my movie watching journey. So I was a little bit more impressed by what I was watching back then. I was less blooded than now. Tastes, let's say. So. Yeah, I don't know about the rest of this filmography, but I kiss for the sixth sense. Yeah, on the first viewing, when you don't know much about films as I did, it was it was a fun experience. You know, it's like a m pirety about night say I'm a last career. Unbreakable is actually getting in the great film, which works, even though in the twist, but obviously, as his career became more and more extreme, it really did start to feel like it was all building up that one big twist and everybody knew it thoroughly on unbreakable being a really good film. It has got a twist in it, but I've seen it two or three times and it really gets me each time. There's really some real strong emotions in there between father and son and yeah, it's very powerful film and yeah, as Shiman went long, I think some of his other films did get to bog down there twist, but he had a really good twist. One recently called the visit, about these children going to visit their grandparents house and their grandparents are acting really strangely. That's unsettling them and you're not quite sure why. First and there is a twist in there. I want to watch them for the second time. I knew the twist going in and I'll still very captivated by it. I thought it was a really a thoroughly compelling film and very surprisingly considering how lame a lot of m night Shay Ellen's films have been over the years. I also like to give a shout out to split which I gave them and the enjoy. It was terribly well done and what we could consider a twist there was actually quite fun. They like split also, I thought there was very well done, really great performance by on your tailor joy in there, and also our glass. They are spin off which actually brings unbreakable and split together. Is a really good film with a really fun Cameo by and night show Malan, which references his cameo appearance in unbreakable. I think there's also an interesting or I think there's also a bit of a conflict or a bit of a difference between knowing spoilers in terms of what happens in the plot and knowing spoilers that are no actual twists. Like if we look at difference between, say, the six sense and tell him and Luise, when every single person more or less knows how tell menuise ends. Well, that just heightens anticipation as opposed one way of journey there what's happens there, but knowing an actual twist, but actually changed entire way you look at the film. It's interesting that you mentioned a sumwhere in Louise There Chris, because for me that's a film where I knew the ending. I've known it for years. It's just one that seems to be discussed mentioned it's quite frequently. So I'd always put off watching it and I actually watched it for the first time maybe two or three months ago. So it's a strange experience when you watch a film and you've already got the idea in the back of you had that knowledge of you know what's going to happen in the end and to me that film didn't really grab me anyway. So it wasn't really a huge disappointment that I knew what happens at the end, but it's it is strange watching a film for the first time when you already know what's going to happen. It kills a lot of the excitement and you're forever reading between the lines because you know how it's going to end. I thought I just mentioned with thelmone Louise, like Tom it's a film that I'd put off saying for a number of years because I knew the ending by actually those really interesting going into an that ending, like Chris said, because just gives that inevitability for their journey, that you know this is going to happen to them, this is going to be the result. Better what happens and I thought I was really interesting playing along, seeing what the end result was going to be and knowing that going in, sort of like the ending two planet of the apes being spoiled by the Simpsons. So anybody's growd watching the simpsons and knows the ending to that, and it was just a really great for me when I watch plan of the apes also for the first time, knowing the ending, being one step ahead of the child insting character, sort of knowing what's going to happen at the end of it before he does. I love planet the ape Sol it's one of my favorite films and I was lucky enough to watch it without knowing the end, so I enjoyed it as it was meant to be and, you know, it blew me away. I just want to point out the spoiler for planet the eight was actually printed on the cover of the film's DVD in a certain version, which I just think is a terrible piece of work that, you know, the people responsible for putting together a DVD cover, it would put the ending of the film on the cover. Yeah, that's pretty hilarious, sort of putting our spoiler on there. But I guess if the film's considered to be that iconic. Maybe there was an assumption that people already...

...knew. I think that's pretty much fit. It speak to this how well known that spoiler is, as into the makers of discovered it is, couldn't be imagined that anyone didn't know the end. Another another good example of everyone knowing the end nowadays, I would be titanic. When you think of Titanic, well, obviously it's based on a true story, so you know what you know what's happening at the end based on the history, but you don't know what happens to the two main characters. I forgot the name on the films that the character paid by doing other dicaprio and Dave Twinston. And well, when you think about the film, one of the scenes you have in mind is towards the end when she is on this wood thing and the gaprio is in the water. So I guess it's would be the same. We all know that. You know he dies to tap, let's say, even though it cone. Science experiments showed later on that you could have easily got on that and they could have both survived what would have been a less romantic ending, obviously, but technically was possible. So yeah, I think it's Tooso shows an interesting thing that some they are spoilers because of the ending and spoiler because of some twist. For example, tell me and Louis, it's not very it's not that much of a twist. It's more knowing the ending on a film like the six cents, for example. It's the important thing is knowing the twist. So I think it's important to make this distinction between the two type of films and spoilers. And of course, the ending there in the largely deployed there is just debated by every single person as well. Is because that drift would clearly have enough room for both of them, leading to debates on this its roles. Just a complete asshole who wants there to die, like why didn't they take terms? Why? Why? Why? And then, just like there's so many videos going into the largic of that, so many parodies it. It's fed as most that's not the one that everybody knows about at this point. All Time I watched titanic, I had this weird thinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. A suppose we all have that thinking feeling, especially divorce. The end talking about films that are just so well known that everybody knows the key spoiler or key twist. I actually have one memory of watching psycho. I already seems this point, that I was watching it in college. She had put it down in our adatorium and every single person was watching it and it was really clear that a lot of the people seeing it didn't actually know the twists. So somehow the two twists, because there are two major twists in that film, or one twist one makes your event. That was really interesting to see and see them and actually enjoy it as if they were watching it in the s and it did get to enjoy it with a film like psycho. If you said there's two twists in there, but if generally disappears in the first half an hour or the first half of the film, You then actually regard that as a twist or not. I think it's an interesting thing to concer. Well, I think it's one of the biggest shocks in cinema history really that you set up a character as the protagonist and then kill her off well before the first half is over, and it's I don't think that was ever really experienced before, especially since it was relatively well known. There's everybody had expectation of what that film was. In fact, it's kind of like your original from dusted down, in that you're watching one film and it turns into something complete eating different. The fact is this is a Shong rub bending moment. We are go from watching what your team is essentially a late film noir or a thriller about a woman who stole money, into a horror film and with the removal of that character, is just such an incredible you need to think to happen. That's a good point. It reminds me of the misdirection also at the beginning of frenzy. Rather think it spalls it too much, but we spent about the first twenty minutes maybe following this one character we expect to be the killer, until Hitchhot pulls the rock from out from under our legs and no, it's actually not him, it's another character that he has been following around. I think it's very important that we bring up a psycho when we discussed in spoilers, because I loved that Alfred Hitchcock himself went out of his way to make sure that Cinemago is experienced his film as intended. Now, before psycho came out, it was quite common practice for people to enter a cinema screen...

...halfway through a film, watch the end of the film and then stay around for the next show in to catch the beginning. Alfred Hitchcock sent out messages to all the cinemas to make sure that people were forbidden from entering the cinema after the film had started. I've got this little marketing clip that he sent out to the cinemas. Just going to read a bit out because I think it's great. He says it is required that you see psycho from the very beginning. Surely you do not have your meat course after your desert at dinner? You will therefore understand why we are so insistent that you enjoy psycho from start to finish, exactly as we intended that it be served. We won't allow you to Cheat Yourself. Every theater manager everywhere has been instructed to admit no one after the start of each performance of psycho. We said no one, not even the manager's brother, the president of the United States or the Queen of England, God bless her. I think it's important to that tactic that hitchcock use, not just though, as an attempt by a director to had his audience see his movie in its complete form rather than as a jointed second half first type experience. is also a publicity tactic, at least that's my historical understanding of that moment. was trying to build up the Mystique of the movie, and it's interesting to note that her Max did the exact same thing more than thirty years later with the crime game. They both hitchcock with psycho and Mirror Max with the crying game, policize to audiences this instruction. Don't spoiled movie, Don't reveal the secret, and I'm sure both parties very much did not want the secret to be spoiled. It was also a publicity campaign to build up a certain mystique around those movies. I've just looked it up and it's actually interesting. With psycho, the original tagline for it was don't give way the ending. It's the only one we have. Or that's actually at a promotional level already. The filmmakers are saying will it is going to be a twist to come. Well, other thing about psycho that's whenesting is it does have these two twists, which means that people may know one of the things that happened in the film, but not the other. I eat the most famous is the murder scene where an unknown assailant, obviously hidden in shadow, tabs the in in the shower and blood circles into the drain. It's iconic. Everybody has that image and of course the simpsons did it. Simpson seems to be like the spoiled films. However, there is, of course, the actual twist, which is bold, disturbing, shocking and, just as any good twist, changes the entire way we perceived the film, or at least perceived the main character of Norman Bates, which is, of course, that his mother is dead and that he is acting out the crimes as her. He believes he is both himself and his mother. Is witches between them and you have that Incredib read the ball tinal scene of him sitting at the police station talking to himself. One voice is own, one voices mother, and it is so unnerving to see and taking me back to the screening at college with probably fifty or so other students, the majority of which had there is in psycho. You could hear them whispering to each other and simply being completely dunned at this ending. I think the ending of psycho is just as effective when you know that it's coming. I recently had the privilege of watching psycho with a year live orchestra and that was a brilliant experience and, as Chris mentioned, with his experience of it, it's great that you can tell those around you who are new to psycho and have managed to avoid finding out how it ends, because you can see the genuine reactions that people have to such a start and experience and watching it on in a theater with light orchestra and has had a lot to the experience, even though you know already know the film and already know the ending. Definitely Clem if I could watch all films with a live orchestra, I would. I've only seen a few like it in my time, but you know, if it's something that is a film find any listeners haven't done. I would highly recommend it, whether it's a film you love or one you've not seen, watching a film of a live orchestray really had two lots the experience, but I get the experience the people who watch psyche over the very first time without knowing at...

...least one of the major boilers later that film and both the all, or almost all, of US talked about at the very beginning about how we try to, or least most of us try to, avoid trailers before going into films we don't know too much about them. Some of us even avoiding reading about films in its entirety and trusting the director so that the film in no way is spoiled, that we can go into it with a completely blank slate and experience it as it was intended. Or is that the way films are actually intended? Are some film set up in such a way that we should have read upon it or should know something about it before going in? What are the pros and calms of going into a film blind? I think most people are going to speak on the pro side of going into a film blind, so I'm just going to take a chance to mention some of the consigns. I think that there are occasions we're going into a film blind can hurt you, and I think especially the first time I saw Mulholland drive, I was in eighteen year old college freshman and I had not seen any David Lynch movie before or and I decided to watch muholland drive actually with a girl I was interested in, which ended up being a mistake for numerous reasons. It didn't help me with her and I had no clue what the movie was all about. I had no idea what you expect from Lynch. I think that was an example of where right had even just, you know, a sure warning of what to expect from Lynch right a review, I might have been better prepared to run maybe not choose this as a movie. I want to see what this girl is interested in. Even if I was going to see it, at least understand what the heck was going on. I think it's interesting question whether we should read about the film before watching it or not. I think Adam mentioned an interesting point by mentioning the drive, because it's a film that's well Lelets, for the sake of the argument, let's cut it, experimental, and I think that for some Pos this type of film, for experimental films in general, it's it could be a good idea to first read about it, to try to understand well not only what the film is about but everything that's surrounding the film. Maybe the understand what the codes of the Genera ours hour, the filmmakers who wanted to make the film, the techniques that are used to make this type of films, because they're films that usually people are not used to see. But quite right clap, which is that a lot of the times and People Watch certain films even this is not even necessarily about going into a film blind in terms of plot, but going into a film blind in terms of what director is known for, what the sanres known for you, what the culture is known for. I mean there are a lot of people who, for instance, will watch Japanese or Iranian films without realize seeing, for instance, that they are protesting or in some way critiquing the society that they are in search, as, for instance, alsue or Narusa, when many of the classic Japanese filmmakers critiqueing women's role in society and many of the modern Iranian filmmakers doing exactly the same and similar in terms of saenre norms that are actually being twarted, you might not actually realize that the film is being incredibly clever if you don't have certain experiences with that genre or with that culture, with that team, with the history before. Yeah, absolutely, I think a lot of filmmakers like to put messages in their films. I think artists in general, as us, I've always tried to good forward ort, equal or societ or messages in their art form, so it's normal that filmmaker does it as well. So yeah, definitely understanding the context in which a film is made, understanding how the society work and trying to understand what what they want to put out could always be young the good I year, or watching films. I think when you've watched so many films, it becomes harder and harder to find films that have the power to start or you surprise you or shocked you in such a way with the twists, and that, for me, is one of the main reasons why I avoid spoilers and reading about films beforehand, because I'm always seeking that reaction from a film. One thing that I love about film festivals is going in blind and just trust in the films are on the slate for a reason, and I love sitting in the cinema having no idea what I'm about to watch, but just going along with a ride because I know it's a genre that our love or by a filmmaker that I love. What, conversely, once I have seen a film, I absolutely love Dalvin back into the reviews that people...

...have written about it. I'll even go as far as to watch the trailers as well. I'm always curious about that, and I love a good reason to check out the year IMDB Trivia section as well, because there's always interesting information in there. And I think my version to spoilers is also greatly influence my writing style when I review films, because I always try to give away as little as possible, but I also enjoy alluding to events without being too obvious. So suppose the ideal goal for me when writing reviews is for whoever reads them to be able to accept the nuances of my subtle hints about plot spoilers once they've seen the film in question, but not to give away any and if they haven't seen the film. I think that's a great point that I tell also try to do more or less the same. In fact, if I write to talk about the film, I tried to involve the kind of feelings it created in your the kind of atmospherence, what's building order, kind of things, because, shee, you've rather and actually talk about specific plot points, because that can obviously in some cases heard experience for some people. It's an interesting question about whether there are some films that we should enter into a completely blind things like mholland drive. You should know it's an other David Lynch films, like forehand perhaps, but that's still narrative cinema. I think you're more on something like Corpus coloss and there was actually the first Michael Snow film that I ever saw. Going into that, other than knowing that was an experimental film, I knew absolutely nothing about it and it was mindline for me because I don't know what to expect with fas who was playing with film form, having different images over other images, other different effects. It was a really interesting experience. So I'd say most films, even on the more experimental side, unless you're taking along for a first date, which you want to be a romantic date, there's just something you're watching for yourself. I think most films better left on sporn and going into completely blind. That's it's a historical film. I thought was some historical films or films that are said a bit in the past. Fire makers assume a little bit of general knowledge which you may may not have. So I've sometimes found was certain films I've needed to stop and look up and discover a bit more about what was going on at the time to fully graphed is actually happening in the story. I thought I might also mentioned with reviews, because I write quite a few reviews, also that like Tom, like Chris, I try and avoid putting plots boilers in there. I do try and also, yeah, allude to things that are going on my general in person I might talk about certain plot turns to come, but I'll try and avoid saying that word twist, because some people, as soon as you say plot twist, they go off your word to sport the film. For me, I think some films it is really good to not go into blind are films that in some subtle way try to show how something happened or how Tom Atmosphere that was around the specific time without openly saying something. But the most obvious case, of course, would be Michael Haneykie's by ribbon. If you don't realize that they are alluding to the rise of Hitler, you will maybe struggle a little bit with that film. There's there's also films that are catering to historical events that maybe certain viewers want know. For instance, there is a really popular, really famous film from Spain called butterflies come, which takes place, I think you're on the airs, one thousand nine hundred thirty five and nineteen thirty six in Spain and knowing those years, you obviously know what's going to happen and what's going to end up. If you don't know Spanish history that well, and I follow this little tea in the round, this peaceful town and to hear some people talk about certain political events, he might have no idea what's going to happen, but obviously knowing what will happen or will have to happen just with in a few months, is essential to really get the full experience out of that film. And there are many other films like that which just set their story in the specific time but then assume that you will know, either because they were made specifically in a time when this was specifically relevant or because it's set in a country where everyone will know their own history. Is Not really necessarily expecting audiences to not be aware of this. Interesting films that have come to mind on the whole idea of knowing history before going into them be e Quentin Tarantino's inglorious bastards and once upon a time in Hollywood, and actually watch the ladder with some people who were not sure exactly what happened to Sharon tight which had some interesting discussions afterwards, as films really benefit if you know the historical contact. Also, something like I'm a dais is really interesting because I've talked to a lot of people who have watched the film and sort of gone reacted like or you know, that's what Mozart was like, as the film's actually...

...the see gaggerated portrait through the mind of a madman. And if you don't sort of know what Mozart was really like, going into Amadius, sort of come away with is a false historical perception of it and also makes the film less dynamic. If you're watching I'm a day is, going all this completely factual rather than going or we're just seeing these delusions here and these exaggerated portrayals in his mind. Really bad point as well, and this also ties in with saenre expectations. There are certain films that will not necessarily tell you exactly what senre conventions they will be playing for exactly which atmosphere they're going for at the very beginning, in which case it might be, say, assessing the first five, ten, fifty minutes wrongly, and this may either be a surprise, in which case it works perfectly, or it may be the case that all the promotional material, trailers, etc. Were expected a set up expectations of the film so well that it didn't have to say it out loud. To give this one additional example of a film that I've noticed that some people had a problem with going into blind, and that is the recent film transit, which it's, I believe, Chris Christian pet soul's latest film. He might have done something for this year, but it was released in two thousand and eighteen and this is not the spoiler. This is something that essentially everyone should know. But if you do not realize that this film is imagining the Nazi occupation of France but set in the present day, you may struggle a bit, especially at the beginning. I think myself and most of the people going in knew that simply from the reviews of what they were saying about the film. But I have no idea how I would have reacted to the early set up if I didn't know that this is what was taking place, and especially if you didn't know the additional information that this is simply a straight to the patient from book set in the first four Tas, but no real alterations except for the clothes, weapons, etc. And it just makes it so much more satisfying knowing these little trees, because you know you're essentially participating in a slow, brooding, taught experience of placing yourself in situation where this is reality today. How would you react today? And it's just such an interesting and beautiful experience knowing that. I mean it's just just be the worst, beautifully vague. It's like a tragic dream and if I had to first realize that this is what they was doing like, I'm not sure how I would have reacted. If you watch a lot of pets on films, he's a director who's incredibly, incredibly good at creating the minimalist thrillers. Is really good at building atmosphere, but the actual plots of them, what is actually communicating, often feels very tin but in this film he combines the Nice, masterful man of the camera and of building atmosphere with them really interesting philosophical daught to experiment that just makes it while in two thousand and eighteen greatest films. And moving on to our final topic in today's podcast, three of my co host have a watch a crying game Tom Knowing the spoiler going in, some simply knowing that there was a twist of some kind, and I'm really excited to hear them talk a little bit about their experiences there. I want to go back to something sault said earlier about how going twist is in a movie can itself be a spoiler, and this is something I strongly, strongly agree with. I saw the crying game back in two thousand and six and I've been warned several people, my mother especially, that there was a surprise in the movie, that there was a twist. Should keep my eyes open for the twist. I like a movie, good movie with a twist, but I was very unsatisfied with the experience. As a result, spent the entire movie waiting for the twist and when it came to the point where twist actually happened, when the ender identity of deal was revealed, didn't recognize I say it was the twist. I was told the twist was included. I was thinking something along the lines of fight club or the usual suspects are. Everything we have seen up to that point is revealed in some sense to be a lie. I didn't think revelation that Dal was a trans woman was a twist. So up until the last moments of the movie I was still watching expecting a twist to happen. was watching this shootout at the end of the IRA...

...thinking is this the twist? I think it truly did. When the movie for me now, I saw this in two thousand and six. Not One was released in nineteen ninety two. Nineteen Ninety two I was seven years old. I think maybe if I'd seen in nineteen ninety two would have been a twist for me, would have been a surprise. I think I probably would have just been slightly confused and I guess that the whole idea of his gender identity, queer identity, was differently accepted in two thousand and six nineteen ninety two. Even then, I'm I'm a little disappointed, I guess, with Nineteen Ninety two audiences doing this as such a shocking moment. TRANSGENDERISM had been a long established trope in American movies and I think it's more a product of that Mirror Max publicity campaign that I mentioned earlier, rather than actual surprise. At the movie's time I saw in two thousand and six so, which point I was twenty two years old, he didn't seem very surprising. Don't want to pretend I'm some this incredibly cosmopolitan person who just knew about transgenderism. I just don't think. In think at that time that that was set up as prizing test at Oh someone we thought was a woman was in fact a trans woman. This big reveal, you know deal has a penis, should not be too shocking. Fifty percent of us do, so that really they're really ruined movie for me, on tender hooks the entire time expecting this twist to occur. It's interesting that Adam mentions that the revelation perhaps shouldn't be shocking for an audience in in one thousand nine hundred and ninety two, and because I was actually watching and interview with some of the cast members in the director yesterday of the crying game and they explain that it was an incredibly difficult film to secure finance for, not just because of the gender implications but also due to the interracial relationship and obviously would like to think that we live in a forward thinking world and society where stories like this, you know, were made quite easily, but there was a lot of difficulties at the time and another concern that the filmmakers had was that the press would divulge the big twist, and that was a great concern when they were going in and when they actually got green that to make the project. This pottles really interesting that Adam didn't know that the twist was that dill was a woman, because that's something that I've known about since yes as long as I'd been into cinema. A Davidson got an Oscar nomination for best supporting act and the people are talked on me. I'll the message board said the Oscar nominations actually ruined the film for them because they knew at that point n male genitalier more Trans I watched the crying game last night. Actually it's still pushing my mind. When we were preparing this episode of few days back we were talking about films we would mention, and I don't remember who told their first about the crying game. I didn't knew at all there was some kind of twist in the crying game. I knew about it. I didn't know. I don't there was a twisting. So it was actually very surprised that I didn't knew because, according to him, it's one of the most famous twists in seeing my true and I started thinking about it because I knew I would watch it for this podcast and I started thinking and be well, since I'm gonna probably defend the point that spoilers are not that important for me, maybe I should just seek out what the twist is, what the ending is, what spoil is and see how my viewing experiment would be changed by knowing that. And what's solid is that he actually wrote the the twist hiding it under spoiler tags in the chat and it was like, well, opened it at your own risk, and I think it took me about for four or five minutes before I just gave up and looked under the spoiled tags. I don't know if it was intentional or not. I think it was, but he wrote it backwards to spoiled backward. He said that instead of saying that, you know, there is a woman that turned out to be a transgender, he said that one of the guy is actually a woman, and so I went into the film thinking that it was actually is a twist, and so I spend my first, maybe forty first minutes of the film thinking that there is a character was actually a woman before. So I started looking for clues and I actually even found some elements that will, according to me, would could inplicate that he was actually a woman. and well, it's later on when he met the girl. And then I started understanding and be like, well, yeah, Bruce Soul probably just missliad me and well told me a wrong, wrong spoiler. That's absolutely hilarious...

...claim. I had rather it backward to him think about it and sells about always close going to other Steven Roy character being a woman. There wasn't intentional you. You really worked it backward without thinking about it. Yeah, you know, I did right back at those. It's funny. So I wonderful. Giving the wrong spoiler also toys one's expectations of a film. Ever, really hilarry story of someone had heard that at the end of I think, and we told what rose but referred to and this person was dead. Really convinced that roles but was the person had killed came and when the hi film expecting this, they would have been a great ending. Actually, if Jane was a truly killed by Rosebud, that would have been an amazing end. Yeah, well, okay, going back on the crying game now. The film itself didn't do much for me, we'd have to say. I think overall, the story is not that original. I think it feels like, you know, we've seen it before, you know, two soldiers talking to each other, one of them passed away and the other one goes to the girlfriend of the dead soldier and start a love relationship. I think the interesting part was obviously, well, political context that the film was made in, which I am not familiar with at all. So I want to talk about that. The film was nicely, nicely shot, and so it was interesting the contrast between the first four minutes of the film with a forest win ticker and Fergus, and the rest of the film. It actually sometimes feel feels like two different film, the first one being more very war film team and the second one being this more romantic film. So I thought it was a though. It was interesting to see that the filmmaker was able to make two films in one let's say that it shows that what he has done and and he's able to do more than one type of film. But yeah, as I said before, knowing the twist didn't really changed my uni expectation. I think that even if they didn't knew, I would have been well surprised when the twist is but I don't think it would have made my viewing experience any better. I sat down for first time last night and watch the crying game knowing the twist. I knew that going into the film. What I was not I was surprised about, was not prepared for, was how early on it's revealed. It's not revealed super early into the movie, but it's revealed out and actually checked in my dvd one hour and one minute into the film. So forty five minutes left to go. Actually think much of the second half of the film was actually about the ramifications of the twist and I thought it actually turned, like Clem said, of Becomes Romance Film. I thought it actually became a really sweet love story. It's about the Stephen re character, fergus or Jimmy, whatever you want to refer him, actually learning to love deal for who deal is is rather than just who he thinks bill is. I thought that was actually really beautiful how it and around like that. And Yeah, it is sort of two stories and one I really like the camarader would begin off with between the forest whittaker character and the Stephen Re Character. Thought that was really great and I really like the way that it and around. I know it's sort of a bit familiar that you know is going to romance the soldier's wife or girlfriend who he knows from before, just a different ways that they are plot evolved along with them around Richardson character coming back and sort of like the IRA past of the Stephen Rey Character is coming back to qunt him and he has to sort of grapple with that past while also grappling with falling in love with deals. So it's reassessing himself and go well, maybe deal doesn't need to have a vagina, maybe I actually see her as a woman and maybe actually really love deal. So it's reassessing who he is, also trying to reassess who he support is in the past. Like he's going to this point going or, you know, I'm not gay or whatever, which is why you have that action when he first sees the our penis and he goes and he vomits, but what's really important during that part of the film is that the camera stays with dial it stays on deal's face while he's vomiting in the background and he rushes out of the room and the camera stays on deal. It doesn't follow our Jimmy or Furgie out of the room as he runs out. So it's all about and get from her point of view and I thought there was really refreshing and really interesting and just the way everything developed too long and became about him reconciling who he is himself and what is nature is. Is One of the important things which forest whittaker tells him towards the beginning and it's in my nature. And the whole course of the film is about the Stephen Rey character reassessing his nature. Is he this IRA, a assassin? Is he this truck or of sorts? is He someone who's able to love a trans woman? And that's why it sort of...

...progresses along and I just love the way the film sort of ends with them in the prison and him recounting the forest whittaker characters story to deal at the end. I thought it was really a beautiful film. Really gave a really strong message in terms of, you know, love transcending what we clenly think it might be. I strongly agree with what cells evaluation of the movie. Someone has already said. There's a lot going on here, but at the heart of the movie I think there are two themes on is it's a love story also to story of Selfdiscovery for Stephen Reese character, and when the movie focuses on those two elements I think it really prospers a lot. I think the the political angle the third act, when the IRA comes back in the stories where things to go a little off the rails and I mentioned to this group earlier that I did not enjoy the movie as much on my re watch yesterday as I did when I originally saw it in two thousand and six. I think maybe because I wasn't sitting around the whole movie expecting a twist, I was better able to evaluate makes the movie good, what our expense and what are its weaknesses. I think the IR, I think, is a little bit of a weakness, just those parts of it, and with the Miranda Richardson character and the other character, I wasn't quite sure how that was going down. They seem to really be interested in getting the Stephen Re character to go out and do that, like hit on that man towards the end and the guy suddenly gets out of his coming wises is not turning up and he goes and shoots the guy himself, which to me seemed a bit out of character, but then we don't really know the II actors that world. That part is a little bit weak, but I think it's really important in the way that the past is catching up to him, much in a way like a history of violence from David Cronenberg, as also about characters from the past coming back and trying to reconcile who you are. I think it's some point. That element is in there. Could have been developed a little bit better, but still thought those incredibly strong film and one that's really stayed in my mind in the twenty four hours since watching it. I really appreciate the craning game for the shift in direction it takes after the first third of the story. As CLEM said, it starts out as one thing and then it completely flips the audience's expectations and I love films that do this. You could kind of compare it to when Chris mentioned from dufftill dawn earlier in the podcast and how he mentioned that it starts one thing and then just goes into a completely different film, and I always appreciate films like that. One other thing that I wanted to mention about it, which I think was quite interesting to hear, was that Time magazine critic Richard Corliss he gave away the film's twist in his review with quite a subtle clue. So when he wrote his review he worked out so the first letter of each paragraph spelled out the phrase she is a he and then at the end of his first paragraph he uses the line. Only the meanest critic would give that away, at least initially. It's also a bit interesting because it is in one way the opposite of all the film is going for, in that by the end of the film, Stephen Race character does actually accept her as the woman. You know, I thoroughly a great Christ. I think it's a really beautiful film and one that I thought, I'm already thinking will maybe other undervaluing what it is, because I know the stuff with the I a terrorists is a bit under develop I think in terms of how much it matters to the plot lie it's probably more important that we actually see that budding romance between the two main characters actually really feel for what they're going through. There's also one thing I'm a little surprised you didn't mentioned previously, which is that there's obviously two secrets in this film, one which is obviously quite extreme, quite terrible, which is on the part of the Stephen Ray Character, and that, going into this Romans originally, we are all attached to what happened with that reveal. It's actually very good point, Chris, because afore I started the podcastle was discussing it with Thomas saying the film reminded a bit of like crimes and misdemeanors. And without spoiling that it's a woody Allen film, the two characters do something very highness and one of them is a crime, one of them is misdemeanor. But are they equally as bad? And the crying game sort of positions us that way and with the our shock reveal, it initially seems at first that what deals doing is the worst thing. However, it's actually not a shocking them. Actual real bad thing about is a secret that are Jimmy or Fergus is keeping by not telling dial that he effectively let deals my friend be killed or through his negligence, he got hit by a truck or a van or a tank. So you've got that real big secret there and really, if we're looking at it, that should be the biggest secret in the plot. That...

...should be the thing that we're most shocked about and then that we should be most repelled about not being revealed, because one of the key piece of the dialog from deal is that thought he knew she actually wasn't keeping any secrets in the first place, just wasn't explicitly staying it, whereas the whole time and tool towards the end they are Steven ree character is keeping some really big, serious secrets. I think it says a lot about film viewers if they're going in going walls, a twist or whatever. She's got a penis, whereas that's actually not the most shocking a thing. The most shocking thing it's that you can this big romance with a person and still be pretty much lying to their face about how they met them and what happened with her boyfriend, for the two of them ever met for the first time. That's such a a point as all, because she believes that these two characters knew each other so well. Wish it's an extended and see believe that of the first with the character had told him everything about her. So the fact that the race character that is so surprised and repulse must come from a must come as an extreme shock for dial as well. You know, it's a very good point and just go back to what I was saying before. I think the film really does want us to sympathize with deal. That said before, we've got those shots where when he's throwing up or whatever, the cameras all undial and focusing it from her point of view, and I think we sort of do after look at the film from her point of view and say that if anyone's the victim here, she is. It's not fergus. He is the one who's being lying and deceptive from the first place, and the film sort of about him putting that part of his nature behind him and sort of realizing his nature that he actually wants to do selfless things like let him self go to Gael at the end, which is in his nature. Going back to that whole Scorpion story, which is still really restententing my mind, just to conclude in the crying game. I think it's interesting film to talk about more in details because it shows two things we discussed in this podcast, the first thing being obviously the twist and the spoiler, and the singing thing was something that us to. We mentioned about learning to contact tense of history surrounding a film before watching it, and I have to confess I didn't do that. But maybe learning a bit more about transgender and the IRA in the s could have maybe influenced the way I watched the film, maybe understand a bit more our society was back then and how tolerant people were, let's say, to work towards transgender people, and also learn a bit more about the Irish conflicted a Diira and everything surrounding it. I think we're there in the end of the podcast now, so maybe the three of you could just really quickly summarize your experience of knowing the twist and how it affected you and if you learned anything from watching I feel almost specifically with this purpose in mind, to conclude this episode. Yeah, I think it was a very interesting at first hearing about traders. As I said, I'm not not a fan of of them, but it was the first time people told me that they enjoyed actually take enjoyment out of them. So it was very interesting hearing the the arguments about traders and white they can be good and we're made in some circumstances. My view on spoilers hasn't really changed after after all this. I still think that I'll try to avoid spoilers whenever I can, but if someone's boil a film for me, I still think that they are a lot of things we can look for you in a film, and the story is an important one, of course, but it's not primodule to go in completely blind. Story once actually really loved watching the crying game, knowing the twist because it was a real so much earlier on than I was expecting. That in itself was, I get a bit of a twist already. What I really liked was being one step ahead of the Furgus or Jimmy character and knowing things that he didn't know himself. And like bartender says to at one point that something you should know about her and then he gets interrupted. So there's all these hints dropped along the way. It was just very interesting watching burgers get in or over his head and I'm sort of going all you know, when he's going to find out? What's it going to be like? But because it took so long him to find out, it actually got to the point where it was able to develop these real, very real romantic feelings for her. Actually didn't think, knowing the twist, spot at all. I think if anything, it enhances the film. That's the same with like any and my favorite films. Like I said before about the screen franchise, and not just the first screen but the sum the sequels also. I really love going into them and watching it...

...and I watched them almost on a yearly basis because I love the fact that as craven drops all these hints of who goes faces so we know pretty said we'll gun spot screen the start of the podcast. So billion stew are the killers in the original scream and rewatching it again and again, I pick up on all these subtle things, the way they look, the way they react to their friends talking. We actually can work all those are the killers. But the most fun thing about me about it, fun thing about the screen films for me, they're trying to work out who committed what murder, because the biggest twist, probably about scream, is that it's not just one killer. There's actually two people who are ghost face, and that's really interesting going back watching anything. Or is that billy? Is doing that murder? Is that stew and? It just makes the film so much more dynamic and I felt the same thing with the crying game. I thought this is a really dynamic film because I'm actually this one step ahead of the character, just like I was one step ahead of child and Heston Im Planet of the apes. Makes it really interesting for me. I'd say. Yeah, I do trymally try and avoid spoilers. I do try and read of as little as possible, but I think with any good film, knowing the twist, knowing everything to come, can only actually make it better appreciated. Chance to Rewatch the crying game this week. I think that being it, while knowing the socalled twist is the fact that deal was a trans woman, helped me to focus on the strength of the movie, which to me is the acting, especially the performances of Jade Davidson, Stephen Ray and Horst whittaker. To me, is the heart of the movie and while the the twist is very important narratively to the movie. I don't think it's very important to enjoying the movie. It's been fascinating to hear everyone's ideas on spoilers and how it makes them approach certain movies if they know information about them before, and I think that after this discussion I'm still going to be as sensitive as ever to spoilers. I still like going in blind, although I thought it was great to hear from claim that knowing a twist in a film isn't everything, because you've also got to appreciate the other elements that's come into play in the makeup of the film, The cinematography, the performances, eccepter. So perhaps when I hear spoilers in the future, although I'm not going to be pleased at hearing them, I'll perhaps be a little more open minded with the fact that there are other things that I can still appreciate from the film. I think that's a beautiful point. I hope our listeners will take that to heart. When we next week will dive into then entiety of Eric Romers comedies and proverb cycle. I'm so excited about this. will discuss each of the six films in great detail, analyze them to the ball and I really hope you'll be there to listen to it. So thank you all for listening and joins against you. You have been listening to talking images, the official postcast of ICM FORUMCOM.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (55)