Plot Cheats and Other Annoyances

[Senator Jack]

Far too often there's a film or book that I like but am left feeling cheated. For example, while Anthony Burgess is one of my favorite writers, I find he too often used 'the coincidental meeting' in his works. 'The Right to an Answer' is a brilliantly written novel (novel in its truest sense) and leaves the reader with some interesting questions, but in it, there's a minor but important character that the protagonist first meets in a British pub and then again toward the end of the novel. This second accidental meeting takes place on the other side of the world in an Asian airport. And again, In A Clockwork Orange, after Alex gets beaten up by Officer Dim, he stumbles to, of all places, the home of the woman he killed. Yes, Some very big coincidences, but I forgive Burgess for two reasons: Diagnosed with a brain tumor and given a year to live, he wrote five novels in that time (including Right and Orange) so he had to cheat a bit. Plus, both novels are otherwise unflawed.

So what films/novels do you really like but feel cheated on? And let's leave out the imbecilities of Cannonball Run II.


Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Have to think; but another of Burgess's accidental meetings is in Abba Abba: John Keats, dying in rome, in a chance meeting with the vulgar Roman (in that he spoke and wrote in the "vulgar" Roman dialect) poet Giuseppi Gioacchino Belli.

didn't leave me let down though . . . a lovely book.

bk

 

[Feraud]

Ah yes, plot cheats and annoyances. This is why I read more non-fiction than fiction.

In The Good German when Ilsa oh I mean Lena, sorry I was thinking about Casablanca.
When Lena suddenly Clooney & Co. at the airport with a few words I thought, "is that it??"
Talk about an annoying way to end a film...:eusa_doh:

 

[JazzBaby]

Far too often there's a film or book that I like but am left feeling cheated. For example, while Anthony Burgess is one of my favorite writers, I find he too often used 'the coincidental meeting' in his works. 'The Right to an Answer' is a brilliantly written novel (novel in its truest sense) and leaves the reader with some interesting questions, but in it, there's a minor but important character that the protagonist first meets in a British pub and then again toward the end of the novel. This second accidental meeting takes place on the other side of the world in an Asian airport. And again, In A Clockwork Orange, after Alex gets beaten up by Officer Dim, he stumbles to, of all places, the home of the woman he killed. Yes, Some very big coincidences, but I forgive Burgess for two reasons: Diagnosed with a brain tumor and given a year to live, he wrote five novels in that time (including Right and Orange) so he had to cheat a bit. Plus, both novels are otherwise unflawed.

So what films/novels do you really like but feel cheated on? And let's leave out the imbecilities of Cannonball Run II.


Regards,

Senator Jack

I think the one in Clockwork is done for symmetry, something about it being structured to resemble a sonata or symphony or some kind of musical work... Do I have English Lit student written all over me

It is annoying though, as is a deux ex machina, when everyones problems are solved in one convienient swoop.

Lazy writing is what is is grrrr....:rage:

 

[reetpleat]

I think the one in Clockwork is done for symmetry, something about it being structured to resemble a sonata or symphony or some kind of musical work... Do I have English Lit student written all over me

It is annoying though, as is a deux ex machina, when everyones problems are solved in one convienient swoop.

Lazy writing is what is is grrrr....:rage:

Doesn't bother me at all if used well. In the case of Clockwork orange, it seems to work. Often in comedies, such as Seinfeld, or A Confederacy of Dunces, all the stories come together and blow up into a comic ending.

I look at it this way. If in A Clockwork Orange, he hadn't ended up at that house, you would have no story. Or not a very interesting one. Every story is going to be estra ordinary, or why would you tell it. If the coincidences get too much the story won't work. BUt in ACO, I did not feel it was so hard to believe that it made the story not work.

I do hate movies where the ending seems like a cop out. My all time example of that was is Brian DePalma's Femme Fatale. Towards the end, when you are wondering how she will ever get out of this fix, it turns out it was all a dream. Works when done right, but in this one it seems like he had just worked himself into a corner and could not figure out how to get out. No noticable foreshadowing or other set up. It just does not work according to me and a lot of other reviews I found on line (I was wondering if it was just me) It was a pretty good film up till then too.

One example I did like, but a lot of people on line did not seem to was in The Man of THe Century, (discussed on another thread) The ending is a blow off involving a Marx Brothersesque finale in which every character for some reason or other comes into the room as the criminal is revealed. BUt that one was not very plot driven and I never expected much of an ending to the plot. I thought it worked perfectly.

At any rate, I have run into someone I know on the other side of the world, then run into someone we both know the next day. If I put that in a book you would never believe it.

 

[farnham54]

Well said, Reet.

In a similar vein, the Shanghai Noon/Knights had several token historical characters--Aurther Conan Doyle, Wyatt Earp, Charlie Chaplin, etc.--but it was done in such a way that you went "aw cool!" rather then "uhhhhh thats weak"--It fit with the movie.*

Tom Clancy uses a LOT of coincidental meetings--but thats what his novels are good at, Action Movies in print. The chance meetings are key to the plots and the pacing, so they are there without delving too far into it.

Cheers
Craig

*Groaning or saying cool is entirely based upon whether you like that style of film/those particular films.

 

[Senator Jack]

I think the one in Clockwork is done for symmetry, something about it being structured to resemble a sonata or symphony or some kind of musical work... Do I have English Lit student written all over me

He did go whole hog for Napoleon Symphony; supposedly, the prose is just dropped on top of Beethoven's Eroica. It was a good novel, but I didn't see how he was trying to make it work. Certainly, the man would think me an idjit.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Baron Kurtz]

One of his books (might be JoySpeak?) has an intro by him where he goes off on one about how very few people get what he's trying to do with lyricism and musical parallels and suggests they should try harder. He seemed to be awfully pretentious. I liked him . . .

bk

 

[Senator Jack]

Unless one is paid to be a literary, how much time can one invest in dissecting Joyce? I recall one of the 50s bebop composers (name, please?) saying the same thing about his music. The audience should have to 'work' to enjoy it. Sorry, bub, I already got a job.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Nahh, that was Cecil Taylor, a 60s Free-jazzer (not bad, once you see where he's going with it). Self obsession really is a problem amongst some of these artists.

bk

 

[JazzBaby]

Personally, knowing that Burgess had structured his novel after a symphony didn't make me enjoy it any more or less. I love the book, and finding out all these little analysis details afterwards doesn't make a difference to me.

But sadly I have essays to write in which 'I thought it was a good book' just won't suffice

As for what comes to mind when reading Joyce:[huh]

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Aye, that's right now i remember the book Burgess wrote about Finnegan's Wake was called JoySprick, not JoySpeak. And i'm certain that's the one in which he rambles on about people not fully understanding his (Burgess's)use of language . . .

bk

 

[reetpleat]

For a rea lnew perspective on this book, one should note that the English version of the book had 21 chapters (symbolic number) and the last one was removed for American publication. The last chapter has Alex discover that you can create as well as destroy to affect the world, as his favorite composers do. It suggests a coming turn around.

Very different. I can see the appeal of the nihilist ending ofthe american version.

BUt I can see the appeal and importance of the last chapter.

Or am I the victim of a hoax perpetrated by Rolling Stone (I think that was the magazine)

NOpe, not a hoax. http://www.geocities.com/malcolmtribute/aco/21stchapter.html

Similar to when Reese goes to Burning Man in a Malcolm in the Middle episode. He gets excited about creating cool destructive works of art.

 

[JazzBaby]

That chapter is there and it's one of the best. I'll never understand why it was cut.

 

[reetpleat]

That chapter is there and it's one of the best. I'll never understand why it was cut.

I can understand the resistance. I like to be a positive person, so I like the reaffirming ending. But I can see the appeal of the nihilist ending in which we have to accept this disgusting character's freedom of choice because that is what makes us human and capable of doing right, our freedom to do wrong. It is about free will. It works and we are forced to appalaud his freedom from forced goodness.

I can appreciate the ending, but if I read it without and later was forced to accept the positive ending, it might seem like a goody goody moralistic ending added to get it by the censors. Of course it wasn't, but it might have seemed that way to many.

 

[Senator Jack]

I have to side with Burgess on this. There's no catharsis in the U.S. version, and while I think it works cinematically (Kubrick's ending is rather powerful) I don't believe it works literarily.

Is Orange Burgess' best work? It's certainly his most original work, that can't be denied, but perhaps it's because I read some of his other novels before getting around to Orange that I can't say it's his magnum opus. For the preface of Kingsley Amis' Anti-Death League he wrote that the comic novel is the hardest genre to write, and two of his novels, Honey for the Bears and The Doctor is Sick, are probably in the top ten of that genre. A great achievement. (How The Doctor is Sick was never filmed, I could never figure.)

More on this later.

Senator Jack

 

[MrBern]

For a rea lnew perspective on this book, one should note that the English version of the book had 21 chapters (symbolic number) and the last one was removed for American publication. The last chapter has Alex discover that you can create as well as destroy to affect the world, as his favorite composers do. It suggests a coming turn around.

Very different. I can see the appeal of the nihilist ending ofthe american version.

BUt I can see the appeal and importance of the last chapter.

Or am I the victim of a hoax perpetrated by Rolling Stone (I think that was the magazine)

NOpe, not a hoax. http://www.geocities.com/malcolmtribute/aco/21stchapter.html

Similar to when Reese goes to Burning Man in a Malcolm in the Middle episode. He gets excited about creating cool destructive works of art.

I recall reading about this many years ago in the Sunday NYTbookreview. I beleive it was an anniversary for the book so there was a new edition out w/ the 21st chapter. It was basically Alex beign lonely w/o his old droogies & running across an old friend who was married & happy. Alex realizing he could be happy too.
Burgess described the american editor as favoring a more 'Nixon' ending than the optimistic 'Kennedy' ending.
Also for the article, he wrote an interview w/ Alex 20 years down the line.
One of the funny things Alex commented on was how he and his friends knew how to dress but everywhere now, kids where jeans & Tshirts.
But of course he said it in that russified speak.

I dont mind Alex becoming victim to his past, its fiction, its part of the balance of the story.
Its more annoying when this sort of contrivance is introduced into nonfiction stories to dumb it down for the masses.

 

[reetpleat]

I dont mind Alex becoming victim to his past, its fiction, its part of the balance of the story.
Its more annoying when this sort of contrivance is introduced into nonfiction stories to dumb it down for the masses.[/QUOTE]


I think the bottom line is if the writer or director makes itwork or not. If you say "No way could that happen." then it didn't work, at least for you. If you don't give it too much though, or notice it, then the writer did his job well and makde it work.

 

[TheKitschGoth]

For a rea lnew perspective on this book, one should note that the English version of the book had 21 chapters (symbolic number) and the last one was removed for American publication. The last chapter has Alex discover that you can create as well as destroy to affect the world, as his favorite composers do. It suggests a coming turn around.

Very different. I can see the appeal of the nihilist ending ofthe american version.

BUt I can see the appeal and importance of the last chapter.

Oooh.. now I finally understand why that was never in the fiilm! I hated the film, it didn't feel right without the last chapter. Maybe if I'd never known that the last chapter existed I'd have liked the film. I really loved the book, but the first time I saw the film I ended up yelling at the TV lol

 

[Senator Jack]

If you say "No way could that happen." then it didn't work, at least for you. If you don't give it too much though, or notice it, then the writer did his job well and makde it work.

True. The coincidences in Orange didn't bother me as much as THE BIG COINCIDENCE in Right To an Answer. When I read Right, I thought, 'well, it could happen. Yes, a novel has to be extraordinary, but that's different from The Cheat.

In comparison, I read Greene's Travels With My Aunt (another of the great comic novels) some years after reading Right, and I found where Burgess got his okay for the cheat. Henry Pullin, meets a young woman on The Orient Express, and then, by chance, meets her father a year later on a ship in South America. Again, not impossible, only improbable.

As for the Pelegian vs. Augustinian endings of Orange, IICR from his autobiography, Burgess was a follower of the former doctine: man is basically good and has the free will to be good or evil. He tackles this issue in both Orange and The Wanting Seed and I recall his being upset about the U.S./Kubrick version of Orange because we're left with Augustinian view of mankind: that we're basically evil and need God's intervention and guidance to be good.

At any rate, and interesting man, who, unfortunately, most people know from only one novel. I'm getting the urge to read the Malaysian Trilogy again.

Regards,

Senator Jack