Roger Ebert's Journal

According to imdb, his name was originally Richard Jay Potash.

Don't know if this will help.

P.S. I'm a big fan.

I am a huge fan of Mamet and can't wait to see REDBELT.

I love the term "twister" for this type of genre-bending film. The Spanish Prisoner was a more straight-forward con-game movie but I might be inclined to lump it into your "twister" category. Films such as From Dusk Till Dawn, Boarding Gate, and The Host all could be considered "twisters" as well.

Oh thank God. After seeing the title of this entry, I was afraid you were going to suggest some kind of new genre based on the movie "Twister," which I guess would be movies where we are asked to believe that there are evil meteoroligists in the world.

Can you suggest other movies that would or would not qualify as Twisters? Having not seen RedBelt nor House of Game, I'm having trouble coming up with examples. The Spanish Prisoner maybe? Whereas Sixth Sense and Fight Club are not Twisters, because they just have the one big twist at the end.

I guess this leads to a natural question: How many Twists must a Twister have?

Interesting analysis of a new sub-genre, I like it. I think we need another new piece of terminology, though, and you're clearly the person to provide it: I think we need a distinction between the type of "plot twist" that is impossible to see coming and simply retroactively redefines our experiences through a film (i.e., the identity of Keyser Söze) and the kind of "plot twist" that simultaneously explains and changes our experiences, generally having been preceded by clues and/or foreshadowing (i.e., the secret of Alfred Borden's magic trick in The Prestige). The latter serve an very different, often superior, function to the former, and any discussion of "plot twists" the fails to mention this distinction can be confusing.

I agree. It felt like Mamet was attempting to stray away from his own genre and move into something else, only he couldn't quite pull it off. The con game became secondary in "Redbelt" and I think I liked it a little bit more for that. Mike Terry was a modern day samurai- he had a code, he stuck to the code and the manipulation of him was less the conventions of the Twister plot, but more a cynical reaction that the business had on someone who still believed in purity. This was a small step away from what Mamet usually does, but I think he still didn't want to venture too far. But that's what makes him David Mamet... I wouldn't have it any other way.

I do have to applaud you for not going the easy route and using M. Night Shyamalan films as an example of Twisters. It's getting so I don't know where the twist ends and the movie begins with that one.

Redbelt I did see, however. Excellent picture.

Any examples outside of Mamet?

Also, how does one pronounce 'Mametian'? You are very sly, Mr. Ebert.

Ebert responds: Ma-met-shun, I think.

Mr. Ebert, you're right that this sub-genre needs a name. But I'm not sold on "twister" as its title, mostly because I associate bad weather and a silly children's game with that word.

So, instead, I'd suggest that this type of movie be classified as a "subpar noir." Subpar, because it has all the cheap plot devices but sadly none of the atmosphere of a great thriller.

Another example of this new genre that I've thought of is Wild Things.

A good, and very bad, example of this subgenre would be Harold Becker's MALICE, where Aaron Sorkin keeps twisting and changing the plot to the point of absolute incoherence.

I have a fundamental problem with the term "twister" also, because part of the fun of a twister is not knowing that twists will come; to classify the film creates an instant spoiler. Perhaps "puzzler" would be better, because a rapid series of changes in a character's (and the audience's) understanding would create a situation where one must assemble things on their own.

What also separates Mamet from his imitators and puts him in the pantheon of Hitchcock is that he is never so much interested in the twist as he is the aftermath of the twist. Just as Hitchcock dropped his biggest surprises in the middle instead of the end, forcing everyone to deal with them before the story's resolution, the fun of THE SPANISH PRISONER is seeing how the con must change when the mark alters course or does something unanticipated.

A movie that fits perfectly with this title is David Finchers "The Game". Was there any point to that movie other then twisting things on Michael Douglas so many times that he didn't know what the heck was happening?

Muh-may-she-an, maybe? As a dilettante linguist, I'd be inclined to drop the final t for flow.

Twister - now there is an interesting genre. I am afraid that people might confuse it all too easily with films with twist endings, mind - and this is a point that Steve makes earlier in the comments section, too. Is Vertigo a twister? Is Wild Things? I'd say yes to the former, for sure, but no to the latter which forfeits drama for a sequence of twist endings that masquerade as individual scenes. Those are just two off the top of my head. What about Haneke's Caché? No Country for Old Men? The Conversation? All films that toy around with not just the audience's expectations, but the characters' aspirations, and apparent motivations, too.

I'd like to add Vanilla Sky to that list. Never have I been so dumbfounded by the first 3/4ths of a movie, only to have it redeemed by its final revelation. But it's not just a "special twist" at the end that makes it a twister, but what the twist forces us to question during the rest of the film.

A subgenre of the Twister movie, as described in my Movie Glossary Entry: The Brains in Vats movie. IN this genre, some aspect of the movie was not actually reality, but some form of brain prodding that made the individual think it was reality, as in The Matrix, Open Your Eyes, Identity, Jacob's Ladder, etc. Unfortunately, these can be used as arbitrarily as the 'It Was All a Dream' saw, and the script does not have to deal with setting up the con intelligently a la Mamet. Like Annie Wilkes in Stephen King's Misery says: "Have you all got amnesia? They just cheated us! This isn't fair! HE DID'NT GET OUT OF THE COCK - A - DOODIE CAR!"

I like this idea, and would like to add the most accesible version of this to the list for consideration: TV's LOST. Twists stack up like cord-wood, and until the producers announced that they had an end-date, it was generally feared that the program would collapse into itself under the weight of them.

I found the heading for this blog entry to be a little confusing. While I understand after reading it that by 'new genre' you are referring to a new recognized new genre, my immediate thought was how could this be a new genre? Wouldn't Charade or Sleuth have fallen into this genre?

Sam - Fair point. But I am reminded of Stephen Fry's line in Tristram Shandy about the eponymous book. ''This is a postmodern novel before there was any modernism to be post about.''

Interesting name, "Twister", as "the twister" has become a Brazilian jiu-jitsu term (albeit unofficially), coined by BJJ practitioner/innovator Eddie Bravo.

You criticize the exposition scene in Redbelt because Terry bluntly asks Mantegna and Mantegna bluntly answers, but let me ask you, wouldn't that be what Terry would ask first, in that situation? It might not be brilliant, clever filmmaking, but it didn't seem awkward to me just because that is probably exactly how that confrontation would go. I thought you underrated Redbelt a little, I think it was successful as a martial arts movie as well as a "twister."

I think Redbelt is great. The exposition scene works well because it sets up the decision Terry then must make. I've seen a lot of people criticize the end fight scene as well. I believe upon further review they'll realize how ingenious the fight really is. Redbelt, by nature of the title, promises the audience a fight. It delivers, just not in the way we expect. It's Great.

P.S. My only concern with logic is who would want to watch an equally matched fight where one guy has an arm tied behind his back!

I like your notion of the "twister" and I admit I find these types of movies to be quite entertaining. classic twister: Hitchcock's "Psycho"

It's not so much how the plot twists for this style of movie to work. It's more about how those machinations impact the alliances between the characters. Virginia Woolf comes to mind, as does No Exit.

The real twist for me in Redbelt (spoiler alert!) was that I was unprepared for my own cynicism when the movie ended. During the last scene I kept waiting for that final sell-out that would show that Mike was just as venal as the rest of the characters. Then the credits rolled. I got left with an absolutely fine ending, totally appropriate for the movie and very uplifting--except I hadn't allowed myself to go with it, and had instead stood back and waited in some superior way, second-guessing the material and the writing and trying to outsmart the plot. I felt cheated, and I had done it to myself.

I don't like Mamet. I like this movie, though. Too bad I felt so old and ashamed of myself when it was over. Sort of a reverse catharsis, when you carry more emotional baggage away from a work of art than you bring to it. There's your twist!

In a slightly peripheral but mostly unrelated thought, I love that film is an art young enough to allow for constant redefinition, and the Twister genre is one definitely worth its salt. True, Mamet's a master, though he's honed his craft through great practice (I recall shuddering more than a few times during 'Heist').

Another new genre I've grown especially fond of is something I've dubbed the 'Toron-Com,' my name for the large bodies of comedies mostly taking place in unnamed suburbs. These incorporate a great number of features starring SNL alumni, but is not exclusive to the bunch. Naturally the name comes from the city of Toronto, which has, thanks to its distinct indistinctness, doubled just about any American suburb you can imagine.

Dibs! I claim authorship!

(As a further note, I don't think it's fair to say that Toron-Coms can only be shot in Toronto. Where was 'Superbad' shot? Culver City, CA, but outside of California grocery stores, what denotes it as such? Perfect example of the Toron-Com.)

The first example of a Twister that came to mind as I was reading was not a film, but a television episode: "The Amazing Maleeni", of The X-Files. Which featured, as the aformentioned amazing Maleeni... Ricky Jay.

One of the all-time great Twisters: Ted Flicker's THE PRESIDENT'S ANALYST. I happened to see it again not too long ago, and reminded myself how lucky I was to have not read your original review before seeing it the first time - you remember, the one where you gave the big twist away in the first frickin' sentence of the review. Fortunately, you learned better - and I did ultimately forgive you. Still, your publisher should have put a spoiler warning in the 4-Star collection; not everyone has seen everything, after all.

I have gradually realized over the last couple of years that David Mamet is one of my favorite writers. I only recently took the time to look up a list of his works other than 'Glengarry Glen Ross,' which was my introduction to him and still blows me away every time I see it. I don't want to sound too gushing, but we are very fortunate to have such an author working in our time, in his prime really. He not only carries on the traditions of Hemingway and Mailer, Mamet builds from and enhances them. I think it's fair to say that nobody, past or present, can write dialogue the way David Mamet can.

Dialogue is definately what gives value to him as a writer. I read his work "Three uses of the knife: the nature and purpose of drama." which is an insightful book in many ways but I am not sure structure is a strength of his. Certainly he puts thought into it but the results are often cramped and somehow oppressive. "The edge" worked better than some of his films because all the empty space and graceful acting by Hopkins gave you room to breathe. You don't think about Mamet or dialogue much during that film and that is a victory.

And there was a bear.

Redbelt hasn't been released here but from the descriptions it doesn't sound particularly appealing, more an experiment in his weaknesses than a broadening of his talent. My favourite of his work are the exchanges between Hoffman and Mamet's wife, Rebecca Pidgeon, in "State and main". The rest of the film was too laboured to be funny but those moments captured the charming and slightly oddball language and expression that small town people have. I live in a small town and I have encountered people like this and understand Mamet's joy in them. "You know what you've got there? That's a fish hook in your finger!" and "Everyone makes their own fun, if you don't make your own fun it's not fun it's entertainment. See what I mean?"

Awake was a Twister.

Another classic twister, at least in my books, is Wild Things.
Many of my friends balked at the improbabilities, but I just watched in giddy delight.