4 ms·

> creates some genuinely surprising moments by "cheating" a little I haven't seen the movie yet, but I know this much: you can't cheat. If you do, and you kee

by bambax 4y ago

> creates some genuinely surprising moments by "cheating" a little I haven't seen the movie yet, but I know this much: you can't cheat. If you do, and you keep some fundamental fact hidden until the last minute, or if you use some kind of magic, or if the murderer was a complete outsider, or if the victim died by accident and nobody's guilty, or, God forbid! if it turns out the victim isn't actually dead, or it was all a dream... then the audience gets angry. Sometimes very angry. That may be what happened here. To paraphrase Walter Sobchak, this isn't 'Nam. There are rules to writing detective stories.

drewcoo 4y ago
> you can't cheat Sherlock Holmes always does. Poor Watson, encumbered by reality like the audience, can't see the clues that suddenly appear only to Holmes just in time to announce the "obvious" truth.
smcl 4y ago
I think you should maybe watch the movie before weighing in on whether or not it was "cheating", because it's a bit more subtle than is implied. It sounds like you've already formed your opinion though, which is a shame because it's maybe better to go into a fun movie like this with an open mind and no expectations. The only way I can see people getting angry at the film is if they go into it with a set of checkboxes they want to tick, or want to solve the crime along with (or ahead of!) the main character. But then at that point they're sort of setting themselves up to be angry.
- bambax 4y ago
  I was careful to speak in general terms. I am absolutely not expressing an opinion about that movie at all. I saw and enjoyed the first installment of Knives Out. I don't have a beef with the filmmaker, or the series, or the actors, or the genre. I'm just saying that detective fiction in general should follow a certain formula and if you stray too far away from it, most of the time, it doesn't turn into a wonderful new recipe but simply fails. In general. Is it the case for this film in particular? I have no idea!
the_gipsy 4y ago
So with your typical Agatha Christie flick, you must catch some subtle clue(s), make your bet, and then feel clever about it because some dimwits that didn't pay attention or just aren't as smart didn't figure it out. Spare me the pat on the back. Or oh! the plot twist. That's not what makes a movie, although it certainly can break it.
CaptainZapp 4y ago
> you can't cheat. We may strongly disagree here, but I think "cheating" is an essential part of great movie making. A good movie is all about telling a great story in an immersive way. If the director "cheats" her way through that story, be it for budgetary reasons or even to just move the story forward in a way that grips you, well, more power to her.
matthewdgreen 4y ago
The movie doesn’t “cheat” as far as I can tell. What it does is withhold details from what the camera shows the audience. This could be upsetting if you felt there was some implied promise that the camera PoV was showing you the entire story, but there isn’t.
- sliken 4y ago
  Now showing things is fair, after all it wouldn't be a who done it, if they showed everything. But the movie showed fake video to hide what really happened. Only at the end did they show the real video.
  - cantaloupe 4y ago
    The original scene shows exactly what ended up being important. Only later false memories being recalled show the scene incorrectly.
- Hamuko 4y ago
  And if you watched Knives Out, you probably know that the movie is taking you down the wrong path before it flips the narrative.
- bambax 4y ago
  Again, I haven't seen the movie -- but that does sound a little like cheating to me; the implied assumption is that it should be possible for the audience to come up with a valid theory on their own; if it's not possible because some essential piece of the puzzle is missing, then it is cheating.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    By that criterion, a lot of detective fiction cheats. Someone else mentioned Agatha Christie's Murder of the Orient Express. And Then There Was One/Ten Little Indians probably qualifies too and I'm sure there are many others from Christie and others.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
ageitgey 4y ago
In the 1920s, Ronald Knox came up with a list of "Ten Commandments" of Detective Fiction listing what wasn't fair cheating [1], getting at this exact point. So codifying what is and isn't fair cheating in detective stories is nearly as old as the genre. I'm 100% sure Rian Johnson was aware of these rules as the writer. I'd say Glass Onion technically violates 2 of them, but only for the first hour of the movie. Then you get let in on the cheating before the main climax of the movie. [1] https://agathachristie.fandom.com/wiki/The_%E2%80%9CRules%E2%80%9D_of_Detective_Fiction https://agathachristie.fandom.com/wiki/The_%E2%80%9CRules%E2...

by bambax 4y ago

drewcoo 4y ago

> you can't cheat Sherlock Holmes always does. Poor Watson, encumbered by reality like the audience, can't see the clues that suddenly appear only to Holmes just in time to announce the "obvious" truth.

smcl 4y ago

I think you should maybe watch the movie before weighing in on whether or not it was "cheating", because it's a bit more subtle than is implied. It sounds like you've already formed your opinion though, which is a shame because it's maybe better to go into a fun movie like this with an open mind and no expectations. The only way I can see people getting angry at the film is if they go into it with a set of checkboxes they want to tick, or want to solve the crime along with (or ahead of!) the main character. But then at that point they're sort of setting themselves up to be angry.

bambax 4y ago
I was careful to speak in general terms. I am absolutely not expressing an opinion about that movie at all. I saw and enjoyed the first installment of Knives Out. I don't have a beef with the filmmaker, or the series, or the actors, or the genre. I'm just saying that detective fiction in general should follow a certain formula and if you stray too far away from it, most of the time, it doesn't turn into a wonderful new recipe but simply fails. In general. Is it the case for this film in particular? I have no idea!

the_gipsy 4y ago

So with your typical Agatha Christie flick, you must catch some subtle clue(s), make your bet, and then feel clever about it because some dimwits that didn't pay attention or just aren't as smart didn't figure it out. Spare me the pat on the back. Or oh! the plot twist. That's not what makes a movie, although it certainly can break it.

CaptainZapp 4y ago

> you can't cheat. We may strongly disagree here, but I think "cheating" is an essential part of great movie making. A good movie is all about telling a great story in an immersive way. If the director "cheats" her way through that story, be it for budgetary reasons or even to just move the story forward in a way that grips you, well, more power to her.

matthewdgreen 4y ago

The movie doesn’t “cheat” as far as I can tell. What it does is withhold details from what the camera shows the audience. This could be upsetting if you felt there was some implied promise that the camera PoV was showing you the entire story, but there isn’t.

sliken 4y ago
Now showing things is fair, after all it wouldn't be a who done it, if they showed everything. But the movie showed fake video to hide what really happened. Only at the end did they show the real video.
- cantaloupe 4y ago
  The original scene shows exactly what ended up being important. Only later false memories being recalled show the scene incorrectly.
Hamuko 4y ago
And if you watched Knives Out, you probably know that the movie is taking you down the wrong path before it flips the narrative.
bambax 4y ago
Again, I haven't seen the movie -- but that does sound a little like cheating to me; the implied assumption is that it should be possible for the audience to come up with a valid theory on their own; if it's not possible because some essential piece of the puzzle is missing, then it is cheating.
- ghaff 4y ago
  By that criterion, a lot of detective fiction cheats. Someone else mentioned Agatha Christie's Murder of the Orient Express. And Then There Was One/Ten Little Indians probably qualifies too and I'm sure there are many others from Christie and others.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago

ageitgey 4y ago

In the 1920s, Ronald Knox came up with a list of "Ten Commandments" of Detective Fiction listing what wasn't fair cheating [1], getting at this exact point. So codifying what is and isn't fair cheating in detective stories is nearly as old as the genre. I'm 100% sure Rian Johnson was aware of these rules as the writer. I'd say Glass Onion technically violates 2 of them, but only for the first hour of the movie. Then you get let in on the cheating before the main climax of the movie. [1] https://agathachristie.fandom.com/wiki/The_%E2%80%9CRules%E2%80%9D_of_Detective_Fiction https://agathachristie.fandom.com/wiki/The_%E2%80%9CRules%E2...