Twist Endings

[triceretops]

Most of us appreciate a good twist--a face slapper, both in book or movie. There are certain techniques used to employ
a good wrenching twist. Some writers lay hints and clues
like mines, others are camouflaged, and others are woven deep into the text. Sometimes the whole plot is used to distract from the true resolution. This technique of literary smoke and mirrors is always an added bonus (if done properly) in a book or movie. Kinda like a double payoff. Give us an example of a movie (screenplay) or book in where the twist ending absolutely clobbered you, no matter how clever or perceptive you thought you were.

My all time doozie was, M. Night Shyamalan's THE SIXTH SENSE. I admit, I never, never saw that coming!

Triceratops

[rtilryarms]

Sixth Sense is my number one choice for surprise endings too.

My favorite movie with continuous twists was Deathtrap with Christopher Reeves and Michael Cain early '80's. That movie never bored me.

rt

[katdad]

But since this section is about novels, which surprise endings in novels have grabbed you?

For me, mainstream ---
"Something Happened" by Joseph Heller
"Foucault's Pendulum" by Umberto Eco

For me, genre (mystery) ---
"Day of Wrath" by Jonathan Valin *


* which also contains one of the most disturbing and scary murder sequences I've ever read, early in the book. And this jumps out at you when you don't expect it.

[Writing Again]

The king of twist endings was O'Henry -- Yet it was a by product of his over commitment than his mastery of surprise endings. O'Henry was always promising more stories than he had the time to write. In order to meet his deadlines he had to come up with endings -- and quickly.

While you may like Sixth Sense as a viewer you should know as a writer that it has met a lot of flack. People have said the viewer was mislead and deceived; the writer did not play fair with the viewer; it is a cliche.

If you feel these arguments (and others) are valid they need to be addressed when you try to write a twist ending.

If you feel these arguments are not valid, then you need to be prepared to deal with unfair attacks against your own work.

Either way trick endings are not easy and there are more cliched twist endings than any other kind.

[drgnlvrljh]

People have said the viewer was mislead and deceived; the writer did not play fair with the viewer; it is a cliche.

Really? Wow, I thought it was foreshadowed rather well, so that the ending was appropriate to the story as a whole.

And IMO, that's what makes a good twist ending, the foreshadowing. So when you reach that end, you're surprised, but it's not like it came out of nowhere. But I agree, a twist ending is pretty tough to do. I've done a couple in shorts, but at the time I wrote them, I didn't see them as twists. The endings just seemed to be the logical progression to the story.

[maestrowork]

If you foreshadow and drop enough hints, I think the twist ending would be very rewarding. However, if you overdo it, it will come out as manipulative.

[dblteam]

This isn't a twist ending per se, but how about the mid-story twist in _The Matrix_? The fact that the "real" world was the illusion was a definite whopper the first time I saw that one.

The interesting thing there was that, though any number of events made it clear to the audience that Something Strange was going on (Trinity's gravity-defying leap, the mouthless dream/interrogation sequence, etc), the sheer magnitude of the Strangeness still took me completely by surprise.

In regards to written works... "We Can Remember it for you Wholesale" by Philip K. Dick had a pretty good twist to it as well. I can't think of any full-length works I've read, though, that I would characterize as having twist endings.

Valerie

[Jamesaritchie]

I thought Sixth Sense was completely fair to the viewer. The clues were there, many of them, obvious ones, and once the ending surprised me, I realized I should have seen it coming all along.

It certainly didn't strike me as a cliche, or unfair. It was the best job of planting clues I've seen in a long, long time.

[maestrowork]

The Sixth Sense definitely worked. However, personally I can't say the same about Signs.

With The Sixth Sense, there's a central story about a boy and a man. The clues are sprinkled all over the place, but they're not intrusive. And the ending, while surprising, makes perfect sense and it's icing on the cake. If you take away that ending, the story still stands.

With Signs, at least in my opinion, I feel like the whole story hinges on surprising you and hammering you with the concept of "faith." If you take away the ending, there is no story (not to mention a major whopper about "water"). Thus I feel manipulated.

[reph]

I haven't seen The Matrix or The Sixth Sense. I saw A Beautiful Mind, and its "middle twist" worked for me as a viewer. In hindsight, I have to say the twist was foreshadowed: some events before it were close to implausible.

[drgnlvrljh]

Oh! I loved "A Beautiful Mind", and yes, since I did not know who it was about (didn't know it was based on a real person), I greatly enjoyed the "twist". Of course, about halfway through the movie, my Fiance suddenly realized who it was about, but that's another twist, entirely.

[mr mistook]

Another good mid-story twist was in "Fight Club". The story was weird enough, but then we find out that Brad Pitt is just an alter ego. I don't know if you'd call the ending exactly a "twist" but I loved it anyway.

[Marley Sinclair]

For books that end with a twist, you can't beat Lightning, by Dean Koontz. I loved the ending of that book!

And yes, he did foreshadow, but like The Six Sense, you have a tendency to overlook the clues.

[HollyB]

Dennis Lehane's Shutter Island has a great twist ending -- I never saw it coming. (It's a great read, BTW.)

[vstrauss]

Agree on Shutter Island--I really didn't see it coming. That's a twist that really works.

The Sixth Sense didn't work for me because although the clues are there, the logic of the twist contradicts the logic of the movie. If the little boy is so overwhemingly terrified of the dead people he sees, why isn't he equally terrified of the Bruce Willis character? In the movie theater, my mouth was hanging open right with everyone else's, but after a few minutes' reflection the whole thing fell apart.

I thought Memento had a good twist at the end.

- Victoria

[darbyj]

My favorite movie twist endings are Sixth Sense and No Way Out. I didn't feel the Sixth Sense bamboozled me. I didn't feel cheated. I was mad at myself for not putting the pieces together, but that was what made the twist so...well...twisty- that I didn't see it and all the clues were there. I came out of that movie thinking, "I wish I had written that!"

James Patterson's Along Came a Spider shocked me. I really liked the female character and was so floored by the end, I found myself flipping through the book to prove James Patterson had "cheated" me. He hadn't. He was a master.

Lisa

[maestrowork]

If the little boy is so overwhemingly terrified of the dead people he sees, why isn't he equally terrified of the Bruce Willis character?

But the boy is initially "afraid" of Bruce Willis... he runs away from him and hides in a church, before Bruce Willis goes in and finds him. Also, Bruce's character shows no signs of grotesque wounds or half-opened skull etc. so it's not as scary as the other "dead people." Also, perhaps the boy didn't know since Bruce looks so "normal."

To me, that makes sense.

[Dhewco]

Well, for one thing, there was nothing horrible about the way Bruce Willis's character looked.

But you're right, even that leads to the question about why he wasn't disfigured the way the other dead people were. He wasn't pale and there wasn't a whole in his chest.

That's why the ending was so surprising, there wasn't any indication of him being dead. No physical indications on him personally.

After you slapped yourself for not catching the clues, you slapped yourself again for the first slap. The clues covered up the inconsistencies in the way Willis's ghost was different than the other ones.

David

That's just my two cents.

[drgnlvrljh]

But you're right, even that leads to the question about why he wasn't disfigured the way the other dead people were. He wasn't pale and there wasn't a whole in his chest.

Actually, IIRC, the movie was mostly from Bruce Willis' POV, any scenes from the boy's perspective, did not have Willis in them. If you don't realize you're dead, then you're not going to see yourself wounded, neh? It's distinctly possible that the boy -saw- the wounds. We were just not privy to that.

[maestrowork]

Actually, Willis does have a wound in his lower abdomen, hidden by his clothes. That's why we couldn't see it -- most of the time he's wearing a trench coat... it's in part of the "cleverness" of the filmmaker to disguise that fact. At the same time, it makes sense. Some people would ask, why didn't Bruce Willis notice it... well... that's the point the director wanted to make (and you have to suspend your disbelief somehow) that dead people don't know they're dead (from their POV). From the boy's POV they may have a big hole in their head, but from their POV they can't see it. It's only when Willis "realizes" that he's dead when he starts to notice things, such as the wound in his abdomen.

[reph]

So he's dead, huh? Would a person who knows the trick have other reasons to see the film?

[detante]

Would a person who knows the trick have other reasons to see the film?

I've seen it several times. I think it is more than a one trick pony. It has an interesting story and the characters are well done.

I don't think the same story with the same clues would have been as effective in print. Visual clues that are subtle on screen would have been jarringly obvious in print. It's a good example of the differences between books and movies.

[maestrowork]

Reph, yes... sorry to spoil it for you, though. But it's a good movie, even if you know the trick. I saw it the second time, after I know the trick ending, and still enjoyed it very much (of course, the second time around I tried to get all the clues).

[drgnlvrljh]

So he's dead, huh? Would a person who knows the trick have other reasons to see the film?

My most sincerest apologies, reph! I didn't think about the possibility that someone might not have seen it, yet. But yes, the movie is very good, even if you know the spoilers.


*looks ashamed* :o

[Ivonia]

What about Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, in that one scene at the end when Darth Vader reveals to Luke a shocking secret (and if you don't know what I'm talking about, go watch the original Trilogy or watch that one Simpsons episode when Homer ruins it for a lot of fans hehe)? Did any of you guys see that coming or no? I can honestly say that I didn't expect it at all, and was pretty "shocked" myself when I realized it.

On a sorta related note, I've noticed that many movies try to copy that too now, although they're usually just joking about it (most obvious ones I can think of atm is Austin Powers: The Spy who shagged me, and one of those Jak 3 commercials), but as a result it's really cliched now.

[reph]

drgn... wrote: "My most sincerest apologies, reph! I didn't think about the possibility that someone might not have seen it, yet."

Ahem. From page 1 of this thread: "I haven't seen The Matrix or The Sixth Sense."

It's all right, folks. Really. I probably wouldn't have gone to see it anyway.

[mr mistook]

What about Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, in that one scene at the end when Darth Vader reveals to Luke a shocking secret

I was about nine years old when that movie came out. I was a huge fan - must've seen it twelve times that year, but when Darth revealed the "shocking secret" I didn't believe it. I thought Darth was simply lying. I remember I also didn't like the "mooshy" scenes between Han and Leia.

Anyway, by the time I finally conceded that DArth wasn't lying (lol) the factor of "suprise" was completely gone.

[katdad]

If you foreshadow and drop enough hints, I think the twist ending would be very rewarding. However, if you overdo it, it will come out as manipulative.
Agreed. In Sixth Sense the ending was artfully foreshadowed, maybe the best I've ever seen in a film. When you go back and review the clues, you see it. But their subtle placement is brilliant.

This is contrasted by what I'd call a "fake" ending, where some contrivance is forced on us without any preparation. We've seen this countless times, where the killer is actually a best pal or the cop's partner or his newfound lover or some similar crud. Typical is the "knife during sex" at the end of Basic Instinct.

Thoughtful critics like Ebert rage against this (so do most of us) but the movie people still foist these horrible plot tricks in a cheap ending.

[katdad]

This isn't a twist ending per se, but how about the mid-story twist in _The Matrix_?
I saw that one coming a mile away.

But I'm a lifetime SF reader and the Matrix plot idea of the "real" world being cybernetic has been used for many years in classic SF. I think the first instance was in James Gunn's "The Joy Makers" from about 1962. In fact the Matrix idea seemed to me a total ripoff of his story line.

[katdad]

why isn't he equally terrified of the Bruce Willis character?
Well, he is. He's very apprehensive when Willis first begins to speak to him.

True, he's not running screaming, but Willis' death-appearance isn't too gruesome, while some of the murder and accident victims are. You also need to understand that the kid is fairly inured to this by now. And Willis doesn't threaten him, nor is he violent as some of the other dead people may be.

I'll say this again -- I think the twist ending in Sixth Sense is the best I've ever seen in a film.

[katdad]

So he's dead, huh? Would a person who knows the trick have other reasons to see the film?
Yeah. It's a masterpiece of suspense.

Sorry we spoiled it. When a film is newly released, the "spoiler warning" is usually posted.

I guess you'll be disappointed if I tell you that "Rosebud" is Charles Kane's boyhood sled.

(now I've done it!)

[katdad]

Darth Vader reveals to Luke a shocking secret
It was a surprise but I wouldn't actually call it shocking.

I think there's a disconnect when we read (or see) SF, fantasy, horror, or other non-realistic stories. We tend to cut the writer more slack in the suspension of disbelief.

Star Wars plot lines are indeed quite genuine, and there aren't any nonsensical threads (except maybe little furry forest gnome primitives defeating armed soldiers).

Regardless, having such plot surprises as Vader's revelation don't jar me (jar jar me?) as much as when a stupid and contrived plot twist is dumped in my lap in a realistic story line. By realistic I mean a modern mystery, thriller, mainstream drama, or other story that has no SF/fantasy elements.

[maestrowork]

RE: Star Wars.... no, I didn't see it coming. Perhaps you can say since Vader can feel Luke... etc. and the Jedis are supposed to be all dead (except Obi-Wan), there are foreshadows. However, according to Lucas himself, it wasn't until midway into writing Empire that he had the epiphany about Vader's secret. And that's an important epiphany that shaped the rest of the series. Star Wars was never meant to be such a phenomenon, and when he was making the The New Hope, Vader was just, you know, an evil villain.

[drgnlvrljh]

Ahem. From page 1 of this thread: "I haven't seen The Matrix or The Sixth Sense."

:o Sorry. I've slept since then, and my memory is about as long as my little finger. I consider myself properly chastised.

[vstrauss]

>>But the boy is initially "afraid" of Bruce Willis... he runs away from him and hides in a church, before Bruce Willis goes in and finds him.<<

Yes, but the whole premise of the film is based on him being absolutely debilitatingly terrified of the dead people he sees. He doesn't know why these folks are haunting him; he's afraid they mean him harm, and he just wants them to go away. He's not inured; he can barely cope with his dread and terror. Granted, Bruce isn't disgusting like the other ghosts, but he's still a ghost. Why should Bruce be the exception? Nothing in the movie addresses that issue.

IMO, the movie, while artfully done, is a series of cheats, whose cleverness the filmmaker has ever since been trying with varying degrees of unsuccess to duplicate.

Darth's "shocking secret" didn't strike me as a twist but as a 3:00am brainstorm. It came out of nowhere--wasn't foreshadowed in any way. I'll bet it wasn't planned; someone had a wild idea at some point during the making of the film and decided to tack it on.

- Victoria

[maestrowork]

Another explanation is that the boy DIDN'T know that Bruce Willis was dead. It's possible. There's no overt evidence that the boy knows: 1) Bruce doesn't look "dead"; 2) Bruce never really interacts with anyone except the boy... however, there are scenes that suggest that he might have (e.g. with the mother) but we/the boy never saw it happen; 3) Bruce never touches the boy, not even a hug.

So from the boy's POV, Bruce could just be a weird, lonely social worker...

[vstrauss]

>>So from the boy's POV, Bruce could just be a weird, lonely social worker...<<

Then his sixth sense doesn't work very well. And if he doesn't know Bruce is dead, why does he run away from him initially?

One could go round in circles with this forever. Basically, I think that if you have to explain a premise by making assumptions that aren't presented or supported in the film, the film has a problem.

- Victoria

[triceretops]

I might be off the tack here, but I've always been suspicious of blockbuster movies that are followed by flashback sequels. Sure, we all saw the documentary where George explains that he wrote this massive space epic, and that it was his most important side-project, other than his normal production/director duties at the time. The success of Star
Wars even bowled him over, however, I never saw anything that hooked me into a following episode. And why not write
scripts for such a large space opera in sequential order? Star
Wars seemed to be a complete script in and of itself. I know,
how dare I...
Someone mentioned A Beautiful Mind, and I agree that it worked very well as kind of an "illusionary" twist. In a screen
sense it was done quite artfully, but I didn't read the book, if,
in fact, a book preceded the movie. If so, was this illusionary
twist in the book, and how was it handled? POV switch?
Multiple viewpoint? Or did the book twist at all?

Triceratops

[mr mistook]

Someone mentioned A Beautiful Mind, and I agree that it worked very well as kind of an "illusionary" twist. In a screensense it was done quite artfully, but I didn't read the book, if, in fact, a book preceded the movie. If so, was this illusionary twist in the book, and how was it handled? POV switch? Multiple viewpoint? Or did the book twist at all?


I don't know whether there was a book, but the movie is based on a true story. I think Ron Howard did a brilliant job of showing what it's like to have a delusional schizoid disorder. We are taken in - just as John Nash was - unable to distinguish reality from fantasy. Even when the fantasy begins to seem outrageous, it still seems plausible for a time and then finally we realize he's nuts, but he still doesn't.

By then, you can sympathize with him - having sunken parway into madness along with him. But I think the unsung moment of epiphany in that movie is when he finally realizes that this imaginary daughter of his imaginary friend hasn't aged in years. - armed with that, he has the power once again to distinguish between reality and delusion. Though the imaginary characters "follow" him through life, he is able to ignore them until they finally fade.

[maestrowork]

It was based on a book, but it's a non-fiction. So the story of "A Beautiful Mind" is distorted and fictionalized (not everything, but a lot of things). The whole "mid-story" twist was certainly done in a dramatic/suspense way. They also omitted a lot of things. If you're interested in Nash's life, read the book.

[Writing Again]

I wish I could say I enjoyed Sixth Sense but it took me in because when i first saw it I thought it was a flashback to when he first met the man who killed him.

He was killed by a man he was unable to help. Zap he is trying to help a boy who obviously has the same symptoms.

Later I watched the film to see how it was done. If the initial trick had not worked so well on me I either would have enjoyed the movie more or would have solved it much sooner.


As I hate flashbacks I just coasted on the film talking and hoping it might redeem itself for the money I'd put out to bring the family.

Matrix held no surprises for me. Like Katdad I've been reading SF all my life. However it was an enjoyable movie.

[DarkHaven80]

Not every novel needs a surprise endings, but the more memorable ones have surprises planted in there somewhere. I go for the 'golden three rule'. A surprise to end the beginning, a surprise in the middle of the novel, and a surprise to wrap up the middle -- inciting the ending, each surprise getting worse as its introduced. Surprise endings, when theyre popular, come to be expected, so dont go with cliche ones.

[Kate Nepveu]

One of the classic surprise endings in sf is Iain M. Banks' _Use of Weapons_, which is told much like _Memento_ (the movie) in two strands, one going backward and one going forward.

You're always going to get complaints about being fair to the audience; some people don't pick up on clues well. As long as you don't cheat , and you're scrupulously honest with yourself about whether you're cheating (and the twist serves a *point*), you're fine.

_The Usual Suspects_ makes me want to throw things, because you can't figure out the twist ending from anything in the movie until then.

_UoW_ is out of print in the U.S. but well worth looking for.

[pepperlandgirl]

I just have to say that The Sixth Sense was no more of a twist ending than well, some book that had no twist ending at all.

Look folks he had a whole in his body. You understand what happens when people get shot, yes? Especially in close range? He probably had a hole the size of a mellon in his back, shattering his spine, and spilling great quantities of blood. He was dead. A lot. Through the whole movie, the director was pounding it over your head with hint after hint after hint. How anybody could believe that was a twist ending is beyond me. I realized it ten minutes into the film. Why? Because you don't have your guts and spine shot out of your body and survive! His wife didn't talk to him! The boy's mother never said one word to him! These weren't little hints that you look back on and say "Oh" these were big huge flashing neon signs that said HE"S DEAD! HE'S DEAD! HE'S DEAD!

The revelation at the end of the movie wasn't for the audience's sake because the audience really should have known it. It was for the character's sake, so he could find peace or whatever it is ghosts do.

It was a clever movie, but twist ending? I could rant about how this is the opposite of a twist ending for hours. How can it be a twist ending when you could see the twist after the first five minutes when he dies.

[drgnlvrljh]

First off, congrats that you "got it" so quickly into the movie. Not everyone is nearly as astute as you are.


Why? Because you don't have your guts and spine shot out of your body and survive!

Try telling that to my father, who was shot in 'Nam. He died 6 years ago, but he lived about 30 years after, and believe me, it left a pretty scar all over his abdomen. But he -did- live.

Now that I have your attention. Keep in mind that the story jumped from the time he was shot, to the time he met the boy. It -is- possible, and miracles -have- happened where someone shot like that survived. This could be something that took place a year, or several later. You did -not- see the gaping hole in his belly throughout the movie, nor was there any other -blatant- indication that he was dead. His wife didn't speak to him? Have you ever seen a couple where the wife was angry? Sometimes, instead of making a scene, we clam up. He did sound like he was making some lame excuses to her, IMO. So I could see that reaction there.

I don't think anyone who fell for it, and found the ending to be a twist is stupid. Just those -few- who figured it our right away are more astute. Perhaps experience? I don't normally read mysteries, so I could have been fooled by a who-dunit.

[pepperlandgirl]

But why would anybody make the assumption he lived? Perhaps that would be a safe assumption if The Sixth Sense wasn't a movie about ghosts and death. Death and acceptance was the running theme in the film--so the logical conclusion would be that a man shot at close range survived? And you didn't see the gaping hole, but you did see all the blood spreading out from his body. A great deal of it. Do you always have to see the results of violence to know it's there? You don't see the crazy guy tear the cop's ear off in Resevoir Dogs, but you know that cop is half-deaf.

Miracles could happen, but the audience wasn't privy to any such miracle. The audience who "fell for it" made the assumption with no help from the film maker at all. He didn't indicate it in anyway, not even a brief shot of the hospital. But he gave repeated and numerous indications that dead people don't always realize they're dead--especially since that's what the movie was about.

I find this particularly frustrating because people now except all of M. Night's movies to have twist endings. One of the biggest complaints about The Village (a movie I haven't seen) was that the "twist ending" wasn't twisty at all. Neither was the ending of Unbreakable. Of course not, because like The Sixth Sense, they had logical endings.

[maestrowork]

Why do we assume that the main character is still alive?

1) There's that "One Year Later" between the shooting scene and the scene where Bruce Willis sits and waits in the park. It is possible that he survives. The "One Year After" is extremely important because of the time difference (that a lot could have happened afterwards -- that he recovered, that he and his wife drifted apart, etc. etc.) If it were "One Month After" then it would NOT be believable at all.


2) The kid talks to him, and he goes into the church to find the kid. Most "ghosts" as we know them don't go to church. Also, at that point we have no idea what the kid can or cannot do.

3) Its only 1/3 into the film that we understand the kid can see dead people. By then, many of us already have accepted the fact that Bruce Willis is a living man.


Of course the skeptical or the "acute" audience would guess it. A friend of mine told me he went in "looking" for a twist and immediately thought Willis was dead from the shooting. But for most people, these are the clues that are so subtle that unless you make the assumption that Willis is dead, you won't get it until after you know.

So the scene after the shooting is VERY important in setting up the audience. So when we see him sitting in the park, waiting for the boy, then goes into the church (ingenius plot element, I must say, to nail the audience with the "church" bit) and actually talks to the boy, it's a tremendous set up on the script writer's part to set the audience up to accept that the man survived his ordeal.


Anyway, the filmmaker is shrewd and he does "lie" in a sense (using camera angles, faux pas, etc.) to "mislead" us (or at least cover up the fact that the character might be dead) -- subtle stuff like even when the character is with other characters (the mother, the doctor, etc.) it was never apparent that he actually spoke with them...

On the other hand, I think it's clever. And I still believe the story is about a man and a boy, and not whether Willis is dead or not. I agree, though, that the ending, while it's a twist for the audience, is really a twist for the character. So it works on both levels, and that's why I think he's succeeded.

[pepperlandgirl]

1) There's that "One Year Later" between the shooting scene and the scene where Bruce Willis sits and waits in the park. It is possible that he survives. The "One Year After" is extremely important because of the time difference (that a lot could have happened afterwards -- that he recovered, that he and his wife drifted apart, etc. etc.) If it were "One Month After" then it would NOT be believable at all.


2) The kid talks to him, and he goes into the church to find the kid. Most "ghosts" as we know them don't go to church. Also, at that point we have no idea what the kid can or cannot do.

3) Its only 1/3 into the film that we understand the kid can see dead people. By then, many of us already have accepted the fact that Bruce Willis is a living man.

I understand what you're saying, I do. But on a purely academic level. I can't get behind it because I think the first two assumptions are flawed. "One year later" doesn't tell us anything really--it's what you think it says that informed you. The only thing it told us was that it happened post the shooting, and therefore, the audience knows it's not a flashback or that he's reliving his life before shuffling off the mortal coil.

Two--ghosts don't into churches? That's purely a construct that you've established. Ghosts do whatever the creator of ghost stories say they do. Just like elves do whatever the creater of elf stories say they do, and aliens do whatever the creater of alien stories say they do.

Three--Even if you accepted Willis was alive, shouldn't the revelation that he sees dead people be put together with the first scene in the film? Also, considering the fact that it was obvious that he didn't trust any living soul with this information until much later when he told his mother, shouldn't it have seemed a bit suspicious?

[vstrauss]

>>One of the biggest complaints about The Village (a movie I haven't seen) was that the "twist ending" wasn't twisty at all. Neither was the ending of Unbreakable. Of course not, because like The Sixth Sense, they had logical endings.<<

I have to disagree on Unbreakable. That whole movie was wagged by its ending, which I think absolutely was intended as a "twist", and was far less grounded in the rest of the action than The Sixth Sense. In fact I found it so utterly ridiculous and contrived that I actually said "Bulls**t" out loud in the movie theater.

And don't get me started on Signs. Cheesy War of the Worlds ripoff, with aliens that Ed Wood would have been proud of. Bleah.

Of course, I have seen all these movies, and I'll rent The Village when it comes out on DVD, so I guess I shouldn't get too indignant.

- Victoria

[maestrowork]

I think The Sixth Sense is genuine and the twist makes sense in the midst of a man/boy story. I can't say the same about Unbreakable, Signs or The Village -- I think Shaymalan got carried away by "how clever he can be" and "how he can fool the audience." They just come off as manipulative (it's not to say the Sixth Sense was not manipulative -- but I've already mentioned why I thought it worked).

Pepperland, the point about "One Year Later," "the church," etc. are not to be looked at individually as in "what purpose does it serve?" "One Year Later" by itself doesn't tell us exactly what happened, but together with everything else he created an illusion. They work "together" as a device by Shaymalan to create that "suspense of disbelief" that you're watching a man who is alive and kicking, interacting with a scared little boy, even though your logic might say, wait a minute, is the man dead or not? Your mind fills in the gap and says, "No, he must have survived."

He further sets up the audience by making the boy TERRIFIED of dead people, meanwhile merely apprehensive about Bruce Willis at the beginning. He told Willis "I see dead people" and not "I see you, and you're dead." So Shaymalan is creating a subsconscious-level illusion for us that we're watching a man who is still alive, and not dead.

If you could see through the smoke and mirror and see the wizard, congratulations. But I still think he's masterful in creating that suspense of disbelief using all the tricks he knows -- and it worked. It fooled millions of people, many of whom (including me) are not "stupid."

[dannyne330]

I'd just like to jump in and recommend the film The Sting, starring Robert Redford and Paul Newman.

It won seven Oscars in 1973, including best screenplay and best picture.

In my opinion, it is the greatest twist ending of any film ever made. I also think it's very fair to the viewers... it doesn't 'cheat' you.

Now by saying that, if you do go out and watch it, you'll probably be looking/thinking about what the twist could be. So you might figure it out beforehand and think it's nothing special.

But at the time, it truly was, especially considering it was made by the same team that made Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid just a few years earlier. (IF you've seen both films and remember their endings, you understand my point)

Anyway, if you do watch it, or have already seen it, I'd love to hear a discussion on it.
Great movie.

Cheers.

[STORMTURNER]

M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" had an interesting twist, as well. I thought those bastards were quakers in the early 1900s the entire movie, until the very end when I realized it was actually present day and they'd recreated their lives due to their tragic pasts.

[maestrowork]

Storm, now you did it. Why do you have to post the spoiler? Some people have not seen that movie. ;)

You could simply say Night M. Shyamalan's films ALL have a twist ending...

[anatole ghio]

In regards to whether the young boy knew if Bruce Willis was a ghost or not, he quite plainly says early in the film, "You aren't like the rest." The viewer gets fooled because it is assumed that he is referring to other aide workers, when he is referring to the other ghosts.

As far as the opening scene, it establishes the question of how Bruce Willis character was effected by being shot. Again, the viewer assumes that the effect in some way damaged the marriage over the intervening time period... however, it is a common trick in mystery novels to bury the most important clue in a seemingly unimportant scene at the beginning of the story... so whenever a random event happens at the beginning of a movie, I am in the habit of keeping it in mind throught the entire film, often I can catch suprise endings as a result.

I almost caught the twist of the Sixth Sense, but I got tripped up by a scene near the end and assumed that I must be wrong in my guess.

As far as twist endings in novels, can anyone else name someone other than Philip K. Dick or O'Henry who used them well... I want to learn how to do this and would like to know how I should be studying.

- Anatole

[Fillanzea]

Lawrence Block has said that twists very often feel cheap in novels, and I agree there. When you've invested a great deal--300 pages or so--into a certain interpretation of the story, having the rug pulled out from under you often isn't a very pleasant experience.

Another danger is that the twist becomes the point of the story. This is true of O.Henry, but it's bearable because the stories are short; it's much, much harder to get your audience to wade through 280 pages that turn out to be utterly pointless. And some of your audience is always going to be clever enough to guess the twist ending. You want the novel to be worthwhile reading for them, too.

That's not to say that novels should be predictable. ;) But I don't think that the "twists" like in O. Henry, M. Night Shyamalan, et al., would work that well in a longer format. (We think of movies as being like novels, but they're closer to novellas or even short stories in structure--generally...)

[arkady]

"Darth's "shocking secret" didn't strike me as a twist but as a 3:00am brainstorm. It came out of nowhere--wasn't foreshadowed in any way. I'll bet it wasn't planned; someone had a wild idea at some point during the making of the film and decided to tack it on."

About ten years ago, I recall reading an article about the Star Wars series as it then stood. George Lucas had originally planned the series as a nonology, but began to get cold feet after Empire Strikes Back. Thus -- so the article claimed -- when Yoda mutters "There is another" to the ghost of Obi-Wan, it was because in the original plotline, Luke Skywalker failed to overthrow Darth Vader and the Empire, and a new character was going to be brought in to do the job.

Then Lucas decided that he didn't want to do more than three Star Wars films, and a major -- and rather awkward -- hack job had to be done on the story arc. Thus between Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, the "other" of whom Yoda spoke suddenly became Leia (even though she does absolutely nothing with her presumed Jedi powers), and Leia, in a lame plot device lifted from the Victorian stage, found herself Luke's sister. Small universe, eh?

Of course, not wishing to shock his audience with any suggestions of incestuous yearnings, it was now necessary to bury Star Wars' clear implications of a growing romantic rivalry for Leia's hand (and the rest of her, too) between Han and Luke. So Leia quickly (and literally) fell into Han Solo's arms, and Return of the Jedi has her claiming with a straight face that she had somehow mystically "known" that Luke was her brother all along.

I can't remember where I read the article, and couldn't vouch for its veracity even if I could, so I don't claim this is all Holy Writ. But it explains a lot of otherwise inexplicable dead-end storylines, as well as providing a rationale for why Return of the Jedi tried so hard and so unconvincingly to tie up the saga in one fell swoop.

If it's true -- and I tend to think that it is -- the consequences of meddling so heavy-handedly with the original story are still haunting Lucas today, as the out-of-sequence "prequel" trilogy's main purpose is to validate the ill-advised derailing of the Star Wars story as it was originally planned.

I suppose there's a lesson here for us all, but if George Lucas loses any sleep over it, he probably soothes his artistic conscience by counting royalty checks.

[vstrauss]

Given how bad the two prequels suck, I doubt George Lucas has any artistic conscience at all.

- Victoria

[triceretops]

Arkady,

You brought up the exact suspicions I had from the start regarding the Star Wars epic/s. It was certainly a hack tack-on to the plot.
I think a flash back on screen means: "damn", says the screenwriter. "I forgot to set this sucker up."
In a book it means: "I can disguise info dump, and hook the reader all in one!"
Twist ending means: "Damn my bloody eyes, I didn't read/see that coming! Now I'm going to read/see it again!"

[anatole ghio]

"Lawrence Block has said that twists very often feel cheap in novels, and I agree there. When you've invested a great deal--300 pages or so--into a certain interpretation of the story, having the rug pulled out from under you often isn't a very pleasant experience".

I think they feel cheap if they come off as incongruent to the rest of the tone of the novel. If they seem to be a part of the whole, if the readers expectation has been that there will probably be a twist at the end, then they are neither good nor bad, but simply a tool reliant upon the strength of the writer to be seamless with the rest of the novel.

To mention Philip K. Dick again, he learned from A. E. Van Vogt that the suspense of a novel could be increased by using a twist in the plot about every 800 words (A. E. Van Vogt's measure). Philip K. Dick wasn't quite so extravagant as to do one every 800 words and his twist often became part of the underlying metaphysic of his writing... but the main consequence of this was that when he did include a twist at the end of the novel (Ubik comes immediately to mind), it didn't seem cheap, since it was already part of the style.

Another writer for many plot twists was the pulp detective writer, Harry Stephen Keeler... a writer both described as the ultimate master of plot, and one of the worst prose stylists who ever lived! I have only read one novel of his, "When Thief Meets Thief", but I remember there were plot twists every chapter... so I pulled my copy off the shelf to see if there was one at the end, and indeed there was. The novel concerns a safe cracker who has a dream of marrying his college sweet heart, only fate conspires to keep them apart until the end of the novel, when he is reunited with her, but penniless after all his fortune gained from crime.

She reassures him that she does have a fortune from the family business... safe manufacturing!

On another note, I am thinking about reading Agatha Christie to learn how to write tightly constructed plots... and I have the feeling that she has the elements of plot twists incorporated into the structure of the mystery novel, with the reveal at the end being considered the twist... would she be worth while, and where is the best place to start?

- Anatole

[triceretops]

Anatole:

You bring up some very good points. Way back when, I happened to correspond with Lawrence Bloch, and, believe me, anything advice he graciously bestowed upon me, I gladly absorbed and cataloged. His logic and no-frills approach to the craft spared me a lot unnecessary flair and verbiage.

Generally, the character plot, "boy meets girl--boy loses girl--boy find/gets girl," at the end, would not be considered an internal twist, in my opinion, and I see this as an industry standard that goes way back in the classics realm. Snow White, and Cinderella come to mind. And I see this used ad nausea.

Also, how many times do we see the "she was a princess after all" or the "he was rich but played homeless to test her"
type of plot scenario? I'm not surprised or impressed by these character reversals--the movie industry can't seem to leave them alone, believing that they're safe and good ending-payoffs. Books deal better with them, if they're done right.

You have good taste with Agatha Christie. I think that would be a fine source of tightly woven plot structure.

Tri

[maestrowork]

It's all about payoff. If the twist ending works with the overall story and the readers get a satisfied payoff, albeit shocking one, you've succeeded. If it comes out of the left field and leaves the readers going "huh? What? Did you take me for a fool?" or any type of bad feelings, then you've failed.

[Jules Hall]

I think twists that work on film don't work so well in a book. I've just finished reading one of Grisham's latest books which has what was obviously intended to be a twist in it, after which even the title takes on a different meaning to the one you'd initially expect when you start reading it. But instead of seeing it on screen over the course of 2 hours, I read it on paper over 2 days. I guessed what was going to happen about fifty pages before it even started happening, let alone the revelation of it a few pages before the end of the book.

But, on film, I think it'd work really well. Guess we'll be seeing it soon.

[Weren Cole]

I believe that one of the best twist endings in recent memory is the very end of Stephen King's Dark Tower series, where Roland finally gets to the Tower, climbs to the top and at the highest level opens the door into. . . if you haven't read it I would not like to ruin it, because if there are fans of the Dark Tower who have not read the final installment. . . well, we've all been waiting so long, haven't we?

If others wish to bring up this particular ending and what they think about it, I will be happy to discuss, but I don't care to be the one to burst the bubble on those who may be waiting for the paperback version. . .

Cole

[Kate Nepveu]

Or, if you must, please label the post very clearly indeed. I haven't had time to get to books 5, 6, or 7 yet, but I'm afraid that I've already been spoiled for the ending in part, and I really don't want to be further spoiled.

Thanks.