• ✅ Technical and creative solutions for your film.
    ✅ Screenplay formatting help, plot and story guidance.
    ✅ A respectful community of professionals and newbies.
    ✅ Network with composers, editors, cast, crew, and more!
    🎬 IndieTalk - Filmmaking and Screenwriting help site and community.
    By filmmakers, for filmmakers since 2003
  • Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

'Duping the viewer'

I read about something called 'Duping the viewer'...It mentioned how films such as 'The Village' and 'Perfect Stranger' the films ending failed due to the Audience having no idea that the twist was coming i.e. Perfect Stranger the Protagonist is revealed as the killer, when there is no indication she could be

Question, should you always leave clues for the mystery to be solved, and is it never ok, to completely through your audience off???
 
Question, should you always leave clues for the mystery to be solved, and is it never ok, to completely through your audience off???

I guess it depends on who you ask. Of course it's OK, but your audience might not like it. The allure of a mystery is that the audience wants to be involved in solving it. Take that away and they may feel cheated out of their experience.
 
Question, should you always leave clues for the mystery to be solved, and is it never ok, to completely through your audience off???
I don't like it. I would rather get to the end and realize I had
all the clues but missed them. That makes me want to see
the movie again. When the "surprise" comes out of nowhere
I'm lose interest.
 
I guess it depends on who you ask. Of course it's OK, but your audience might not like it. The allure of a mystery is that the audience wants to be involved in solving it. Take that away and they may feel cheated out of their experience.

I don't like it. I would rather get to the end and realize I had
all the clues but missed them. That makes me want to see
the movie again. When the "surprise" comes out of nowhere
I'm lose interest.

wonder if this varies...if you write a film, and leave clues during the film to, let's say 'whodunnit'...do you have to explain the clues at the end, or give a hint, so the viewer will most likely at the end, either try and remember all the small clues, or go back and watch it???
 
I don't like it. I would rather get to the end and realize I had
all the clues but missed them. That makes me want to see
the movie again. When the "surprise" comes out of nowhere
I'm lose interest.

The Scooby-Doo Effect.

wonder if this varies...if you write a film, and leave clues during the film to, let's say 'whodunnit'...do you have to explain the clues at the end, or give a hint, so the viewer will most likely at the end, either try and remember all the small clues, or go back and watch it???

Oh this is a great thought. Ummm I'm trying to remember movies that do it, but the first thing that comes to my mind is Leverage (the Canadian ION TV show) where at the end of the episode they go back and show you the things that happen but weren't originally shown, like extended versions of the scenes we saw originally.

As well.. was it Sherlock Holmes (Downey Jr) that explains all his clues out to the villains at the ending that lead to their demise? I feel like it was some detectivey movie that does that... I seriously can't remember.

But I love going back and seeing those clues again and wondering how I over looked it, which most likely is because of movies doing the Scooby-Doo Effect and also making fake clues super obvious to put us off the track the first time around.
 
If you KNOW there's a twist, then it isn't special.

No-one quite expected the ending to The Sixth Sense at first, but the clues are all there and you really only catch them on a second viewing
 
If you KNOW there's a twist, then it isn't special.

No-one quite expected the ending to The Sixth Sense at first, but the clues are all there and you really only catch them on a second viewing

I wouldn't always agree with that...Usual Suspects, myself and other people I've spoke to, knew that there was a twist as you were expecting Keyser Soze was still to be unveiled...although when he was, it was a massive twist

Maybe the trick is, like Usual Suspects, give the viewers enough to make them try and guess the twist, but when it's unveiled, leave the viewers wondering how the missed that.
 
The Scooby-Doo Effect.



Oh this is a great thought. Ummm I'm trying to remember movies that do it, but the first thing that comes to my mind is Leverage (the Canadian ION TV show) where at the end of the episode they go back and show you the things that happen but weren't originally shown, like extended versions of the scenes we saw originally.

As well.. was it Sherlock Holmes (Downey Jr) that explains all his clues out to the villains at the ending that lead to their demise? I feel like it was some detectivey movie that does that... I seriously can't remember.

But I love going back and seeing those clues again and wondering how I over looked it, which most likely is because of movies doing the Scooby-Doo Effect and also making fake clues super obvious to put us off the track the first time around.

what I loved most about Fight Club, was the fact I had to watch it over again, and again to catch all the clues I had missed....I think, out right explaining all the clues, would take away the ending...probably best try and leave a clue at the end, that there were other clues during the rest of the film (if that makes sense)
 
Question, should you always ....

There are relatively few cases in film where something should/must ALWAYS be done a certain way. As a general rule, for a twist to be effective it needs to be set-up in some way, for there to be clues that there will be a twist, even if the details of exactly what the twist will be is obscure. Indeed, in most cases the audience expectation of the twist is the basic tension/suspense element upon which the whole film is based. However, a "general" rule is not the same as an "absolute" rule!

what I loved most about Fight Club, was the fact I had to watch it over again, and again to catch all the clues I had missed....

I agree that this type of film can be highly effective. However, there's a very big "but" here ... it's a very advanced filmmaking tactic because it's extremely difficult to achieve in practice! It's a very fine balance of holding enough back while still creating an engrossing enough film on first viewing to entice an audience to watch a film a second time. Particularly at the lower budget/experience levels, films designed to require two or more viewings to get the full picture almost without exception fail in this respect and most commonly fail to generate enough interest to even achieve a single favourable viewing, let alone two (or more)!

The difficulty here is "objectivity"! As a filmmaker your job for months (or years) has been to develop an intimate understanding of the whole story and work out your intentions of how to present it. Come post-production, you need to be able to completely forget your intentions and the fact that you already know the entire story (intimately) and look at what is being edited together as an audience would. IE. Seeing it for the first time, not knowing the filmmakers' intentions, only knowing the story up to the point they've seen so far and even then, probably only picking up some of story details (and connections) which you as the filmmaker are taking for granted. If this sounds easy to do, it's not! Even if it sounds difficult, the chances are it's even more difficult than it sounds! Pretty much without exception, a huge amount of time in post is spent considering which details/connections we need to help the audience appreciate, where we need to confuse/mislead them, what (with our help) they already know or think they know and then, how achieve all these aims with the filmmaking tools at our disposal.

G
 
Last edited:
There are relatively few cases in film where something should/must ALWAYS be done a certain way. As a general rule, for a twist to be effective it needs to be set-up in some way, for there to be clues that there will be a twist, even if the details of exactly what the twist will be is obscure. Indeed, in most cases the audience expectation of the twist is the basic tension/suspense element upon which the whole film is based. However, a "general" rule is not the same as an "absolute" rule!



I agree that this type of film can be highly effective. However, there's a very big "but" here ... it's a very advanced filmmaking tactic because it's extremely difficult to achieve in practice! It's a very fine balance of holding enough back while still creating an engrossing enough film on first viewing to entice an audience to watch a film a second time. Particularly at the lower budget/experience levels, films designed to require two or more viewings to get the full picture almost without exception fail in this respect and most commonly fail to generate enough interest to even achieve a single favourable viewing, let alone two (or more)!

The difficulty here is "objectivity"! As a filmmaker your job for months (or years) has been to develop an intimate understanding of the whole story and work out your intentions of how to present it. Come post-production, you need to be able to completely forget your intentions and the fact that you already know the entire story (intimately) and look at what is being edited together as an audience would. IE. Seeing it for the first time, not knowing the filmmakers' intentions, only knowing the story up to the point they've seen so far and even then, probably only picking up some of story details (and connections) which you as the filmmaker are taking for granted. If this sounds easy to do, it's not! Even if it sounds difficult, the chances are it's even more difficult than it sounds! Pretty much without exception, a huge amount of time in post is spent considering which details/connections we need to help the audience appreciate, where we need to confuse/mislead them, what (with our help) they already know or think they know and then, how achieve all these aims with the filmmaking tools at our disposal.

G

great answers...great way to look at it, when editing the film, look at it, as if your a viewer...will remember that...Thanks
 
The "cliché" response is to study "The Sixth Sense." It was a real kick in the head when you found out what was actually going on. (Shyamalan and his editor were constantly concerned that they were giving too much away too soon.) The flip side is a film like "The Usual Suspects" where everyone is duped.

As a reader I never enjoyed Sherlock Holmes stories. When Holmes would expound on the "clues" and how they led him to the solution of the crime all it did was convince me that, though he was very intelligent, he was nothing but a smart-ass for not sharing what was going on with Watson (and the rest of us).

I much preferred Ellery Queen novels. Every clue needed to solve the crime was provided to the reader. It got to the point where I would read an Ellery Queen story with a pad and pencil to play detective myself. (Hey, when you're on the road you've got lots of time.) Even then I couldn't figure most of them out. The key, though, is that all of the information was there; it was up to me to "connect the dots" and come up with the solution.
 
The "cliché" response is to study "The Sixth Sense." It was a real kick in the head when you found out what was actually going on. (Shyamalan and his editor were constantly concerned that they were giving too much away too soon.) The flip side is a film like "The Usual Suspects" where everyone is duped.

As a reader I never enjoyed Sherlock Holmes stories. When Holmes would expound on the "clues" and how they led him to the solution of the crime all it did was convince me that, though he was very intelligent, he was nothing but a smart-ass for not sharing what was going on with Watson (and the rest of us).

I much preferred Ellery Queen novels. Every clue needed to solve the crime was provided to the reader. It got to the point where I would read an Ellery Queen story with a pad and pencil to play detective myself. (Hey, when you're on the road you've got lots of time.) Even then I couldn't figure most of them out. The key, though, is that all of the information was there; it was up to me to "connect the dots" and come up with the solution.

so are you saying the 6th Sense wasn't a satisfying ending, but the Usual Suspects was? Or they both were, both in different ways?
 
In "Sixth Sense" all the clues are there, but they don't register, so for me it was a cool surprise ending.

In "The Usual Suspects" I was completely gulled by the story Verbal told, as was the detective. So, since he completely conned a detective who ought to know better, I did't feel bad about being faked out as well.
 
Just coming back to 'The Village', I have to defend the film (as I have to many of my friends), as most people miss the actual twist. They seem to forget that the monsters aren't real. The ending twist, which is, granted, massively flawed, isn't so much a twist as it is a lie. The characters have no idea that the live in 2005 (or whenever) because everybody has been lying about it. That's the real on I did feel 'duped' bu it.

I know the distinction between a lie and a twist doesn't really exist, but if that makes any sense, take from it what you will....
 
Back
Top