View image The guy in the black suit is really the millionaire playboy Bruce Wayne who became a caped crusader after his parents were killed. And he's played by Christian Bale, just like in the previous movie, "Batman Begins." Ooops. Is that giving too much away?
Note: There are no "Dark Knight" spoilers in this post. None whatsoever.
There, I said it. Really, what's so difficult about adding a spoiler warning to a review? Ken Tucker, "critic at large" for Entertainment Weekly, is just indignant about the whole idea:
Whether I'm writing a review or reading one, I don't want any held-back information to prevent that review from being the most interesting, thought-provoking one possible.OK, remember we're talking about a deadline-driven review here -- something relatively brief (usually more than seven words and considerably less than 1,000 words in EW) shortly before or after a movie or TV show first becomes publicly available in one or more US cities. Not a longer critical essay targeted at a reader who has already seen the work in question. (See David Bordwell's recent piece about the differences here.)If that means a movie critic reveals a crucial plot point in order to lay out an argument for a film's greatness or its hideousness, so be it.
I feel there are two kinds of ideal readers for release-date-dependent reviews:
1) those who will read a review (or maybe just a few paragraphs), decide to experience the work for themselves, and then return to the review afterwards for further consideration; and 2) those who've already seen it and are interested in someone else's take on it. A review ought to give you some idea if you might be interested in what's being reviewed -- whether the critic likes it or not. After all, you were interested enough to read the review, right?
Tucker observes that TV episodes (and movies) are sometimes accompanied by a studio or network request "that the final plot development not be revealed." (That's right, sometimes they actually have to ask.) Tucker says:
... I'll abide by that if keeping mum doesn't prevent me from doing my job, which is providing the most engaging argument I can to you readers. Still, the very fact that a plot twist becomes the most sacred bit of information, the key to enjoyment, doesn't speak well for audiences' appreciation of the performances, the direction, and other elements that make a show worth pondering.Tucker appears to harbor a warped, and perhaps inflated, view of his job. Let's look at it this way: Imagine that you're out with friends and you're making an "engaging argument" about a movie... that only one of you has seen. That would be you. How engaging is your argument going to be? When you recount a sequence of images so as to reveal a major story development, will that significantly improve the quality of your discussion? How greatly will your friends appreciate your appreciation of the performances, the direction, and other elements -- when you describe the movie they haven't yet seen and deprive them of discovering the film for themselves, assuming the trailer and TV spots and posters and print ads haven't already done that for them?
There doesn't have to be a huge plot twist involved. And if there is, probably the very worst thing you can do is to reveal that there is a Big Twist in the first place. That's already giving away too much. I remember going to an early screening of "The Crying Game" knowing nothing more than it was a Neil Jordan movie (that's enough for me), and right there on the press kit that they gave me at the door was a plea not to reveal the big twist. That was when Jordan himself was sure nobody would see his movie, anyway. The Weinstein Miramax made the "surprise" part of the astonishingly successful marketing campaign. But that set up people to look for something, to expect something. Any surprises should ideally have come as a surprise. Still, I can understand describing a movie as being full of twists, or containing something that causes you to re-evaluate everything you've seen up to that point. That's significant, as long as you're not too specific about it. Fortunately, I was still sufficiently surprised about a third of the way into "The Crying Game" when... well, something unexpected happened involving Forest Whitaker's character.
When I write reviews, I try to avoid plot as much as I possibly can. A simple statement of the premise, and descriptions of the characters (personalities, physical attributes, etc.) will do. You can always tell a reviewer is on auto-pilot, just trying to fill space, when more than a paragraph is given over to a flat recital of story points that probably came from the studio's synopsis. If the story can be that easily separated from the way it's shot, directed and performed, it's probably not much of a movie -- or the writer isn't much of a critic.
Nevertheless, I'm sometimes accused of giving away too much ("Iron Man," "There Will Be Blood") -- mostly by people who have already discovered so much about the movie from advertising or web-scouring (or Ken Tucker reviews) that they think I'm referring to a spoiler they already think they know about; or people who have seen the movie and, in retrospect, understand a reference that people who haven't seen it yet would not.
The challenge is to write in such a way that somebody who's experienced the work (movie, TV show, play, piece of music...) will see what you're saying about it, but that someone who hasn't will get the gist, but still be able to discover it for themselves when they witness the thing themselves. Virgins may at first fear that you've given away a plot twist -- until they see the movie and realize that you've described something that happens in the first five minutes and is only the set-up for the film's various narrative, thematic and/or aesthetic developments.
Nevertheless, I did get one e-mail -- one -- recently from somebody who was outraged that I had said, in my "Iron Man" review that the main character is an arms dealer who articulates the Bush Doctrine (there's an explicit -- and very funny -- reference to "Halliburton") and then has second thoughts. If he sees the movie (and I might have had more respect for his argument if he had), he will recognize within the first three minutes that the character is being set up for a fall. It's like when you first meet Mr. Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol." Or, say, Cary Grant's character in "Bringing Up Baby." You recognize the archetype immediately, and a great deal of the pleasure comes from watching him go through the inevitable changes.
It is not tough to describe, in great detail, even the endings of movies without revealing everything about them. You can discuss the meaning of Chinatown in "Chinatown," or of Rosebud in "Citizen Kane," or the process and thematic resonance of the final shot in Anonioni's "The Passenger" without revealing the fate of the characters or offering plot-level resolutions to any mysteries that may have tantalized viewers as they're watching the picture. If you can't do that, you have no business writing reviews. But if you just can't find a way around it, what does it hurt to add a two-word "spoiler warning" as a courtesy to your readers who might not want to have the entire experience predigested for them?
Take "Citizen Kane." Everybody knows that "Rosebud" is the nickname of Jed Leland's typewriter at the The Inquirer. (No, it isn't.) But you can discuss Thompson's final speech ("Maybe it's something he lost..."), and the last few shots, across the Xanadu warehouse, and the incinerator, and the smoke, and the windows and fences and the series of shots that reverse the film's opening sequence... and you'd be engaging with the film on a specific and profound level without depriving anyone of discovering what happens -- or, more important, of experiencing the feeling of what happens. They'll get the idea, but can still discover it themselves; they'll apprehend your reading of it, but still have room to develop their own.
"As a TV critic," Tucker says,
I am going to tell you who got killed on, say, last night's "24," because an event like that immediately becomes part of the pop culture conversation — you bouncing your opinion off mine, critic and reader relishing the opportunity to speculate together on what this means for a show we care about.Note that he says "last night's" episode, not "next week's" or "next month's." Nothing wrong with addressing something important that's already out there in the world (like, say, the ending of "The Sopranos" on the day after) -- as long as you're up-front with your readers about the subject you're going to address.
Of course, one never knows when one's issue of Entertainment Weekly will arrive in one's mailbox, but given that it is a weekly, are we to assume that the "pop culture conversation" will be over and forgotten next week. If so, how vital was the conversation to begin with. (Perhaps Tucker is talking about the magazine's web site. Does he respond to reader comments there? I don't see much in the way of back-and-forth "discussion" in the pages of the magazine itself.)
Tucker concludes:
Knowing the way something turns out shouldn't ruin anyone's pleasure. Hey, it's a 24/7 media world. The best way to kill spoiler culture, if you don't like it, is to say one thing to both spoilers and spoiler ''victims'': Grow up.Reviewer, heed thyself. Decreeing what "should or should not" ruin anyone's pleasure isn't a blanket decision that you can hand down from your lofty perch. Any reviewer has to make judgment calls, but that's what they get paid to do (especially if they're employees of Time-Warner).
52 Comments
I hate spoilers, and critics who somehow feel the need to divulge everything about a given film in the review. I'm pretty good at skimming a review to discover the critic's overall opinion without stumbling across any major plot points (even with Anthony Lane! -- and often I can't tell whether he liked a movie after I read his entire review).
But the problem is that my girlfriend is definitely not adept that skimming reviews. So I'll say, "Let's go see Roman de Gare. I hear it's good."
"What's it about?"
"I dunno."
"Well, let me look it up."
"Noooo!"
What a cry-baby Ken Tucker is! A spoiler warning is good movie manners 101. I wish I had a time machine and could go back to 1980 and tell him that Chewbacca is really Luke's father
There is a further aspect to this whole thing, and that is international audiences. I agree that the way media has transformed over the past decade means pretty much everything becomes a part of the zeitgeist the moment they take place – but that doesn’t mean people should go out of their way and spoil others. Case in point would be the Lost Season 4 finale: I still haven’t seen it, and I am avoiding all sorts of websites like the plague lest I be spoiled. I realise however that I can run into information regarding the show on a completely unrelated website: that would be unlucky. But going out of one’s way to spoil stuff, and then not even provide a warning, on, say, a pop-culture blog, would be out of order for international audiences. Whereas we are blessed with the information thanks to the internet, the product reaches us much later.
In fact, this whole thing leads to a genuine ethical dilemma about piracy (a subject I wrote about on my blog during the awards season), but I shan’t get into it here.
Please don’t anyone tell me what happens in the Lost season 4 finale, by the way.
All of this is fine, but I think that idea of that two word courtesy (spoileris)This is a big reason I find Ebert so valuable. Normally, I know what films I'd like to see before his reviews are published (like for you, a director is enough), but often he'll suprise me with a positive review of a film I'd not had interest in, or never heard of in the first place. Beyond the star ratings, I can read a paragraph or two of Ebert's review, get a sense of the movie, and make a decision based on that without it ruining the film for me, and then read his review after I've seen the film. In Ebert's absense I went through dozens of critics for this very thing and so few do it well. Even the trusty trio of reviewers over The New York Times are occasionally a bit brazen in their revealing of things that are best left to be suprises in their introductory paragraphs. Unlike Ebert, they also don't have a clear rating device, so it often takes me a bit into the review until I get any sense of their opinion, and by that point I've read things I cannot unread.
All of this is fine, but I think that idea of that two word courtesy (spoilers ahead) gives the readers fair warning.
An excellent point about "The Crying Game". Sometimes the mere knowledge that there are spoilers can be the biggest spoiler of all. I knew twenty minutes into "The Sixth Sense" what the ending twist was, and if I hadn't known that there was one, it probably would've surprised me. Oh well.
The biggest spoiler I've seen this year wasn't in a review, it's the cover of the "Mister Lonely" soundtrack CD. Would have appreciated a warning on that...
Jim: Good thoughts. Two things on Tucker:
1) The simple solution is for him to go ahead and write whatever damn review he wants but put a bold spoiler warning at the beginning of his review (or where necessary). Doing so doesn't limit his review and it protects the reader. Everybody wins.
2) If he's so sure that knowing what will happen is so far removed from the pleasure of watching something, I hope that means he'd volunteer to have all plot points/events described for him before he watched a show for the first time. To think that he gets the right to go into something clean and that others don't is obnoxious.
I think that it if a critic who gives short-length capsule reviews(Leonard Maltin,for example),will probably never reveal crucial plot developments because the reviews are so short that there is no need but I can understand why a critic in a full-length review might feel they have to reveal crucial plot developments in order to show why they did or didn't like it.I remember reading on Ebert's site that when Michael Medved revealed the everything about Million Dollar Baby he got upset and he wrote an article on "Why Critics have no right to play spoiler" but at the same time Ebert has played spoiler himself(take for example his review of Dead Poets Society) in some of his reviews but Ebert said that those movies were so bad that he felt it was necessary to reveal everything but it causes me to ask,well What about the people who might like that movie even if you don't? Who are you to spoil it for them?. Overall I think if it is necessary they can reveal some important plot points but they shouldn't reveal central story twists or huge story changes.Finally I agree with Nick that it hard to get a sense of what the NY times critics think or feel about a movie because they are full length reviews with no star ratings but I think if you read their reviews deep enough you can understand their opinions and their is a way that that you can tell whether or not they liked or loved a movie and that is if it shows up on their ten best list.
Well said, Jim. There's nothing I hate more than skimming through a review just to find out whether a film sounds interesting, and accidentally stumbling across something I wouldn't want to know. You're right that even seemingly innocuous info -- there's a big twist coming! -- can mar the first viewing experience because it will inevitably change the experience of the film.
Jim,
There's definitely a need for the reviewer to make a judgment call, though I will say that I personally have an active enough imagination that simple "ambiguous" descriptions as you wrote of Citizen Kane's ending can get my mind going, and I'll be able to deduce a whole lot about the film, whether it's before I see it or midway through the picture.
But at the same time, if you took everyone and everything into account and tried not to step on any toes, writing a decent review would be extremely difficult.
Ken Tucker: "Still, the very fact that a plot twist becomes the most sacred bit of information, the key to enjoyment, doesn't speak well for audiences' appreciation of the performances, the direction, and other elements that make a show worth pondering."
For most audiences, performances, direction, cinematography, etc. are means to an end. They are the tools of the filmmaker to create a meaningful experience for the audience. I totally agree with you that there should be a difference between the pre-release review, whose purpose is to help the filmgoer decide whether or not it's a movie worth seeing, and the essay, which can spawn debate on such topics as HOW the filmmaker used the tools of the trade to get the desired emotional effect. Doesn't Tucker get that spoiling a crucial plot twist is undercutting the (quality) filmmaker's master plan to send the audience on an emotional ride? Clearly not.
I'd like to see Tucker and M. Night Shyamalan debate.
"Of course, one never knows when one's issue of Entertainment Weekly will arrive in one's mailbox, but given that it is a weekly, are we to assume that the "pop culture conversation" will be over and forgotten next week. If so, how vital was the conversation to begin with."
Jim -- I was thinking that same thing as I read Tucker's quote, and then voila, there it was in your post. This is such a funny and all-too-true comment about how the Entertainment Weekly publication is irrelevant because it always seems to be one week behind.
Simply rehashing the plot for the sake of explaining the movie away is the laziest form of writing.
It's a basic writing device I tell students in my high school English class: don't give me a play-by-play of the novels narrative.
The same goes for film, which is why I appreciate your reviews and Ebert's reviews so much. I see a lot of "consider the scene..." and then an explanation for why that scene is relevant to the overall themes of the film. So even though there is an element of explaining things, it is never done in order to spoil the uncoiling of the films narrative.
I find it extremely arrogant to just "assume" that everyone has seen the the most recent episode of a TV show, or knows the critical plot point of a film barely a week after its release. I live in Canada, where the new seasons of "The Sopranos" would not air for several months after the HBO airings. I remember opening a copy of (I believe it was) "Esquire" to discover a shot of one of the main character's severed head. This, only one week after it aired. It's one thing to avoid reading a spoiler and another to print a large, unavoidable photo. Some of us like to wait for the DVDs of a show or movie, so it would be great to have a moratorium on all spoilers. Period.
Even classic films could stand to have more fair treatment in this regard. Case in point: the first DVD cover for the original "Planet of the Apes" had the final shot of that famous statue - which I won't spoil - as if to say "we all know the ending anyways, so here you go, fanboy." What about all the people who want to discover the film for the first time? What next? A picture of Rosebud on the cover of "Citizen Kane?"
What a limited understanding Ken Tucker has of movies and the criticism thereof.
I grew up in the Roger Ebert school of criticism so, as noted by Nick, I've never seen a compelling reason to lay out plot points to illustrate how I feel about a movie.
to me, it's always been pretty simple. The review should: 1) further illuminate or provide interesting 'hooks' for those who have already seen it, 2) give some sense of what the movie IS (not what it's ABOUT) to those who have not seen it and are interested, and 3) provide some damn entertainment. My early love for Ebert's work was predicated largely on this last point, where I felt like I ALWAYS walked away from ANY review having learned something new, be it a bit of movie trivia or just a new way to look at certain genre tropes.
If Tucker needs to show us what's behind the curtain to explain why the things in front of the curtain work, then, to quote a famous internetism, UR DOIN IT WRONG.
I wonder: does Tucker also thing a magician's audience is stupid for wanting things to unfold naturally, without front-loading spoilers on how it's all done?
I read movie reviews after I see the movie. I like to read about someone else's interpretation of the film. Spoilers are welcomed. It's annoying when movie reviewers don't talk about the important parts of the film, to protect the spoiler-sensitive crowd.
Tucker is an uneven film critic and his posting was surprisingly pompous. His talking points on "the pop culture conversation" has elements of truth but feels a little pretentious to me. He's basically saying that hey, if you're not immediately on top of your pop culture game, then screw you.
As a film critic, it's your job to talk about the elements that make a movie good, not recite the story. Tucker points out that sometimes you need to reveal a lot, or a major twist, to discuss a film's greatness. That's false. Take a popular film like "The Sixth Sense." By now, the film has made history for its major plot twist, which was sort of innovative at the time, and has inspired copycats. But a movie isn't great because of ONE twist --- you have to discuss the acting, the storytelling, the MOVEMENT of the film's narrative, not simply the resolution. And of course you go over the technical credits.
Certainly there are multiple ways to review, but I think Tucker is missing the boat. He comes off as very self-satisfied and smug, just like most of EW.
Hey Jim, you can go ahead and edit my comment (just leave everything after (Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)).
The site was doing weird things when I commented.
One thing I've noticed about Ebert, and I love the hell out of the guy, is that he's good about not revealing spoilers, but absolutely terrible about quoting the funniest lines of dialogue. I've heard it said that stand up comics loathe to see Robin Williams in their audience because their best lines may be coopted into his improv banter on the talk show circuit.
Between this and Chris Nashawaty's Superhero piece has EW completely lost it? (as if they ever had it)
I had what's maybe a unique twist on having Sixth Sense spoiled for me -- a friend who'd seen it had made much of the fact that Haley Joel Osment's character was dead the entire movie. Needless to say, the ACTUAL twist took me by surprise, but not until I'd spent a good 90 minutes or so confused and irritated at the twist that I thought was coming, which naturally made no sense.
My biggest pet peeve, and one of the easiest measures I think you can use to distinguish between a critic worth reading and a critic worth dismissing, is the degree to which he/she feels compelled to pass off of a simple (or complicated) regurgitation of plot and call it a review. I used to see this a lot in newspaper pieces when I was growing up-- no wonder Pauline Kael stuck out like a sore thumb when I finally discovered her-- but it's not a phenomenon that has exactly gone away.
Part of the challenge of writing a good piece on any movie, for me, is how much of the experience of the film I can evoke without not just giving precious plot points away, but also without getting ensnared in the idea of ticking off plot points as a way of taking up space. I'm with you-- I try to boil down the relating of the plot to two or three sentences, being as vague as I can be while still actually saying something. (Sometimes I do ramble on, but hopefully it's not just with stuff I could have pulled straight out of a press kit synopsis.) But beyond that, I see my job as trying to use the evidence of the film itself-- how it is composed, how the elements of the film work together (or don't), and an attempt at getting at what it all might mean-- to give my sense of what the movie is. That's the fun for me as a writer, and that's the enjoyment for me as a reader-- following films down the various roads we can take them as observant translators of the experience. It's what I enjoy about your writing, Jim, and the writing of my other favorite critics-- the ability to communicate the essence of the film itself, your ability to make me feel as if I've seen it again through fresh eyes, or make me want to see it for the first time without stealing away or otherwise adversely coloring in the experience for me.
Just who is this Ken Tucker anyway?
Lynn, was that the twist to Sixth Sense that the commercials gave away or the other one? I figured the other one out after about 20 minutes too, but it didn't ruin the movie for me. That movie had two good secrets, and would have been even better had neither been revealed by the ads.
Jim - even the non-spoiler "makes you rethink everything you thought you knew about the character, plot, etc." pretty much gives away the fact that there are twists or surprises.
And if merely rehashing the plot doesn't count as criticism,Stephen Holden would be out of a job. I think he takes the word "review" a little too literally.
I love the way the English movie magazine Empire (www.empireonline.co.uk) provides their reviews. There's always a small spoiler free mini-review and a link to check out the full review below it. Same in the magazine... mini-review on top before the review if you just want to get a feel for the film before watching it, which personally, I do.
I wonder what ever happened to Stephen Holden and Elvis Mitchell
If the end of a movie has to be discussed in detail in order for the critic to articulate his or her problem (of a critic spoils the ending it's almost always because he has a problem with it), then the obvious solution would be to split the review into two parts, one to be read after you've seen the movie. Not only will the ending not be spoiled, but the reader will have greater appreciation of the critic's points. Chris Orr of The New Republic did that for his reviews of Hero and There Will Be Blood.
On the other hand, it's probably frustrating to not be able to use spoilers for movies like The Village, where a reviewer has to lie to the reader in even the most basic plot description to avoid giving the con job away.
I liked the comment about "The Crying Game". Recently I checked out "The Advocate", another Miramax film from the early 90's, from the library. I put the movie in my DVD player and started it up. The first thing that I see is a plea for people to not reveal anything of the big surprise in this movie. They explicitly referenced how helpful it was for people to have kept quiet about "The Crying Game", and that they would like the same experience here. Well, I watched the movie, which I thought was a little stupid, and found that there wasn't anything terribly shocking at all - at least nothing like "The Crying Game". I guess it just proves that sometimes it's just better not to say anything at all. Like you, knowing the director, or actors, or maybe even something of the plot is usually enough for me.
Who are we to meddle with Ken Tucker's grand, uncompromising writing abilities?
EW has indeed been going down the tubes lately. About the only thing worth reading anymore is Stephen King's column, and that only appears once every four issues or so.
Also, I wouldn't take anything Ken Tucker has to say very seriously. In his book "Kissing Bill O'Reilly, Roasting Miss Piggy" (and yes, that's the actual title), he smugly begins a pan of "The Twilight Zone" with the sentence "Like the novels of P.G. Wodehouse and the films of David Fincher, The Twilight Zone is something best forgetten about when one becomes an adult" (or something to that effect. I don't have the exact phrasing right). In addition to being a snob, he's also a notorious flip-flopper. In the same book, he devotes several paragraphs to trashing "The Shield", yet he give the exact same show's sixth season an A rating in the magazine. Inconsistent much, Mr. Tucker?
Excellent write-up, but I am kind of curious -- exactly what did Batman, in particular, have to do with this? :P Other than to provide a greatly appreciated warning not to read Ken Tucker's review of "The Dark Knight", that is.
I am curious about one contentious aspect of spoiler warnings: Every sane and decent person agrees they should be used, but what's the statute of limitations? How much time has to pass before you can safely discuss spoilers without worrying about actually spoiling anything for anyone?
Look at it this way: Talking around certain twists to, say, "Chinatown" and "Citizen Kane" made perfect sense here, because your subject was the very act of spoiling plot developments. But let's say you were discussing something completely unrelated, and decided that specifically mentioning the significance of "Rosebud" in "Kane" would support your point -- would you have provided a helpful spoiler warning for the legion of new movie fans who may not have gotten around to it yet, or would you have stated it without a thought?
Should a blanket "X number of years have passed" rule due? Is it a case-by-case basis, depending on the significance of the spoiler, the quality of the movie, how old it is, etc? Thoughts, anyone?
Meinert -
Even classic films could stand to have more fair treatment in this regard. Case in point: the first DVD cover for the original "Planet of the Apes" had the final shot of that famous statue - which I won't spoil - as if to say "we all know the ending anyways, so here you go, fanboy." What about all the people who want to discover the film for the first time? What next? A picture of Rosebud on the cover of "Citizen Kane?"
Similarly, I hate DVD menus that show key moments from the film. I've already bought or rented the damn thing, I don't require any further enticing. It's just stupid for the product itself to spoil things. I could have avoided trailers, reviews, everything, and then the menu starts rolling a frickin' highlights reel. Ugh.
Almost as bad are reviewers who technically avoid spoilers but give overly obvious little "wink wink" hints. The Crying Game is the perfect example. I had read many non-spoiler reviews before I saw it in the theatre in early '93. I knew there was going to be a big twist, because every review said so. Unfortunately, every review also pointed out that the big twist was related to Jaye Davidson's character. Strangely, gender-specific pronouns were often avoided. Between these reviews, as well as Davidson's ambiguous first name and newcomer status, I had a pretty good idea going in what the reveal would be. The second I saw Davidson on screen, I knew EXACTLY what it would be.
I'm of two minds about spoilers. As a writer, I try to avoid even modest ones just out of courtesy for people who use a review to decide whether or not to see a movie.
I also agree with what a few of those above me have said about plot summaries being largely filler and the shorter the better.
On the other hand, when I stumble across spoilers as a reader, I feel it's my own fault. I can't hold anyone responsible for spoiler avoidance but me.
A recent example for me was the new Indiana Jones movie. I didn't see it right away, but succumbed to the temptation of sampling reviews. My impatience was rewarded with significant, unwarned spoilers. I can cry all I want about the writer, but in the end it was my own fault.
As for Mr. Tucker, luckily there is zero chance I'll be reading one of his reviews unless I'm using the bathroom and someone has left a copy of EW next to the toilet.
So what I've gathered from all this is that I shouldn't be reading EW or Ken Tucker. Easy, done!
Seriously though, the easiest way to avoid spoilers is not to read the reviews and avoid entertainment-oriented sites that LOVE to spoil stuff for you. I'd list them all, but it'd be a significant list.
If you don't like spoilers, you have to tread the internet lightly at your own peril. It sucks that so many journalists love to use spoilers as a hook into an article and that so many commentors on blogs like to openly spoil stuff, but that's the way of the world.
To read or not to read, that is the question. To expect everyone to exhibit good manners is a wonderful notion, but that's not the way of the world. There's enough rude, thoughtless, selfish people out there to always ruin it for the rest of us.
I remember an episode of Cheers where Frasier goes on a rant, revealing three or four historic spoilers, including the "Citizen Kane" one. I had just recently seen it ("CK") for the first time, and so laughed extra loud. When I saw the episode rerun, though, I sort of shuddered thinking how close I had come to having the movie's impact diminished. Would it have wrecked the movie, which I find to be the greatest ever? Of course not, but to Tucker's point (that I *sort* of agree with) that "Still, the very fact that a plot twist becomes the most sacred bit of information, the key to enjoyment, doesn't speak well for audiences' appreciation of the performances, the direction, and other elements that make a show worth pondering" I would answer this: If you don't find the spoiler to be such "sacred" information, then it's less understandable that you can't avoid giving it away in your review, just out of an iota of respect for those of differing "religions".
I'm in complete agreement with you, Jim ... well said!
Also, I wouldn't take anything Ken Tucker has to say very seriously. In his book "Kissing Bill O'Reilly, Roasting Miss Piggy" (and yes, that's the actual title), he smugly begins a pan of "The Twilight Zone" with the sentence "Like the novels of P.G. Wodehouse and the films of David Fincher, The Twilight Zone is something best forgetten about when one becomes an adult"
Wodehouse? Fincher? Twilight Zone? Really? What is wrong with these three?
Citizen Kane is an interesting example, because I personally don't feel the Rosebud revelation is all that important. (Although this is coming as someone who had the surprise spoiled for me before seeing the film.) In fact, I disagree with the idea of it being a "twist" - a term that I think is thrown around too much.
To be honest, the quest for Rosebud isn't actually all that important. It's just a device to structure the film around, the film goes for huge lengths of time without ever referring to Rosebud, and the final revelation is actually pretty anti-climactic. The focus of the film is on the character of Charles Foster Kane, and the Rosebud revelation, while important in the way it reflects Kane's state of mind as he faced death and reflected on his life, isn't really a groundbreaking "It ruined the film for me" revelation.
On the other hand, when they announced key casting in Fight Club (so, long before they started filming), I read something on the internet where someone revealed a surprising plot development. Watching the film with that knowledge was an interesting experience - I still loved the film, but would have preferred to not know about it.
WARNING:THIS POST DOES CONTAIN SPOILERS!!!
As I said before I just think that a critic should reveal central plots and shocker endings like Darth Vader being Luke's father or that Dil is actually a man.
LUCY: What are you watching?
LINUS: Citizen Kane. This is the first time I've ever seen it.
LUCY: spoiler deleted
LINUS: AAAAUGH!
There's a new TV spot for The Incredible Hulk which spoils the crap out of one rumoured - and, admittedly, major - cameo. Nice.
"Still, the very fact that a plot twist becomes the most sacred bit of information, the key to enjoyment, doesn't speak well for audiences' appreciation of the performances, the direction, and other elements that make a show worth pondering."
Then Ken, why do you feel so obligated to recite those same plot points in your review? Why can't you limit yourself to "the performances, the direction, and other elements that make a show worth pondering"??? Either plot points are important, which is why you discuss them, but also why people would prefer to have a spoiler warning--at least--or they aren't important, in which case you could leave them out.
I can't believe he tries to argue that the plot twists are fundamentally important for his lousy EW review, but any interest in those same plot points on the part of his readers reflects poorly on them.
What a hypocritical a$shole.
Personally, if isn't obvious, I can't stand spoilers. I think Ebert does way too much plot recitation, but at least he's consistent, and I can always read the first paragraph and the last two paragraphs without fear.
I've noticed a double standards with these type of things regarding horror movies (or "graphic" movies, period). Most critics seem to have no qualms about detailing exactly what and when happens, often as a "warning" to the viewer (which is B.S. in and of itself... if you're walking into "Saw 8" you know what you're getting). I didn't care for Funny Games at all, but I know I would've enjoyed it more if all the critics didn't detail everuthing in it. Certain acts of violence are so particular that you can figure out a lot from the reviews, but critics think it's OK since this stuff is trash anyway.
"Knowing the way something turns out shouldn't ruin anyone's pleasure."
That is perhaps the single least intelligent thing I can remember a film critic saying. Does he not understand that there are entire genre's of film, mystery/ thriller/ suspense wherein the ENTIRE point of the film is that the audience doesn't know how something will end?!?!?
If I were his editor I'd have fired him on the spot for turning in such an article.
Further ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY is far more concerned with celebrity and box office than it is with craft and art. So generally I only would ever consult sucht a souce on a film that I was debating whether or not I should go to a fun pop-corn (light fare) film. If it's a serious movie and I want to either learn more about it, or read a valid opinoion I always find another source
The funniest thing: Tucker sez people suck if they watch a movie because they care about the story, but claims he can't fully express himself critically in one-three paragraphs without detailing exactly what happens in the plot.
--You enjoy the plot, you're a Philistine, but me, I'm an artiste, I cannot express myself without recapping every detail of the plot.--
It's a power trip, the international perspective makes that most acute, but as you and Film Art and endless others have shown (in this context) there are other forums for serious criticism, outside (p)reviews that come out before the release of a movie.
The biggest issue is, claiming what is actually a total cop-out, resorting to summary, as some high-art privilege he cannot forgo without hurting his soul. If I can be critical...well, belated spoiler alert, I will/was.
Mr. Turner makes the point that Plot is only one part of a movie experience. Style, Theme, Composition, Cinematography, Characterization, Performance, etc., are all valid parts of what makes a movie and valid reasons to enjoy (or deride) that movie. All of this is true, and I can agree with him to this point.
I think that Mr. Turner, if I can parse his attitude properly, sees Plot as the least of these factors, and so the least important to "spoil". Not having read any of his reviews, it would be interesting to see if he "spoils" Theme, or Performance or any of the other factors.
However, he is being snobbish. I keep quoting Asimov in any discussion like this: "Sophistication is a minority exercise." Most movie goers want to see something entertaining, and plot is the most easily accessible matter of a film. One can argue about the quality of the performances, the cinematography, the direction, etc. But the simple recitation of what happens in the story is unarguable. What it means is another matter...
Sophistication morphs into snobbishness when someone like Mr. Turner goes from considering Plot to be the least of the elements of a good film, to considering Plot to be an actual detriment to a good film. This is the kind of snobbishness that likes character studies above all else, that wants movies that have no plot (because plot too often involves shooting people or blowing things up), and feels contempt for those who consider the plot to be important. I am phrasing this simplistically, I realize; I'm intentionally painting the ends of the spectrum.
Maybe I'm not sophisticated, but I like stories with a strong plot - and I abhor the classic "plotless" character study. I find character studies of characters I don't know boring - the auteur has to make me care about the character while at the same time exploring the character, and I haven't found many instances where that has worked for me.
So where would that leave me with respect to Mr. Turner's reviews? I'd probably get irritated with him after a while and stop reading him. I'd probably stick with Mr. Ebert and Mr. Emerson, who seem to have more respect for the broad swath of their readers. As one poster remarked, not putting "Spoilers ahead" is just rude.
As for the famous twists of some movies - I read nothing about Sixth Sense, and was consequently pleasantly surprised at the end. Ditto with The Matrix - I spent the first 30 minutes or so exchanging looks with my wife and asking, "What is going on?"
Would knowing these plot twists in advance have ruined the movies for me? It might perhaps have robbed some of the reaction of its force; but then again maybe not - maybe given more of an opportunity to appreciate the set up, I would have appreciated the "Reveal" more deeply. Who knows?
But by not putting "Spoiler warnings", Mr. Turner is robbing anyone who reads his review of the ability to choose - to read the spoiler or not.
Late to the party so I'm sure no one but Jim will read this comment, but just thought I'd agree with the above posters who mentioned Stephen Holden. After a reading a few of his reviews that pretty much revealed the entire (ENTIRE) plot of a movie I was considering watching I pretty much ignore everything he writes now. Horrible.
Personal anecdote (SPOILER WARNING!):
A few years ago my old roommate asked me if I'd ever seen Dead Poets Society. I told him I'd seen part of it, but never got a chance to watch the entire thing. He responds, "Oh it's stupid. The kid kills himself." Uh, thanks buddy.
END SPOILER
2nd personal anecdote (no spoilers). I'm watching TV with my girlfriend and trying to avoid seeing the score of a football game I'm recording at home. I comment that I don't want to see the score of the A&M game. She replies, "Why, because they lost?" Thanks sweetie. She felt really bad about it. On the plus side, she saved me from watching a game I wasn't going to enjoy.
I'd like for a reviewer to be able to do that without telling me everything that happens. Unfortunately there are reviewers like Holden who are unable to do that. Thank goodness Roger is writing again.
I never understood why people were surprised by the big twist in "The Crying Game." It was telegraphed.
Not to be a spoiler myself, but Roger hasn't always been so good at warning of spoilers in his reviews. If you've seen the movie, look at his review for Dirty Harry. He summarizes the entire movie in order to discuss whether it is fascist or not (and concludes that it is). I know Roger doesn't believe in revising his old reviews, but maybe that one is due an editor's note near the byline--if only to protect those buying the new box set who haven't seen the movie yet.
I am all in all searching to checkout the Apple iPad, and I'm excited to determine what sorts of gamez and applications will probably be developed for it. I just do not get the idea some on the nitpicky criticisms in this site. Size in the bezel?? Damn!
Avatar was a great movie, I just watched it a few day ago. I don't usually go to the theather because I get nervious around a lot people but I think I'll give this one a shot because people are saying that it's even better on the big screen, I think it might be in 3D. You can watch it at my new website.
I tend not to comment on articles, but your article called on me to commend your blog. Thank you for the read, I'll make sure to bookmark your site and come back occasionally. Happy blogging.
hey, who's forcing people to read reviews? if you want to enjoy the movie, don't read the reviews. experience and judge it for yourself.
My 'exam began as soon as we arrived at the Vancouver airport. If you can fulfill these cues, they will feel loved and wanted. The same thing recurs on weekends during lunches and dinners.
Leave a comment