The "Art" Of The Twist by Eric Cohen

We all have that creative project we keep going back to, tweaking it and re-tweaking it over many years. When I was a senior in college I wrote a screenplay which I attempted to and almost got optioned (I think. There was interest from an independent producer. Long and short of it: we discussed the project, he made suggested changes, I complied. He even asked me if I had anything else, etc. And then, the correspondence ended. Haven't heard from him since). Since then I have written a few more screenplays and plays. And during the course of these times, Ive been a part of many projects either as an actor, producer or director on the stage, on video, you name it. But I would always return that first script. The one I wrote during my last semester at Ithaca College. Five years after graduation, inspired by my experiences in the theater, I decided to adapt it as a play. The result was liberating as it went from a straight forward narrative to something more postmodern. By becoming a stage piece, I was allowed to ignore the rules of screen writing.

Now the purpose of the previous paragraph lies in the topic of this posting, especially on why I decided to take a THIRD stab at the script. A conversation ensued between myself and like-minded, film enthusiasts. Specifically on the nuances of dropping cleverly placed twists either halfway through or towards the end of the flick. Now I am a huge mystery fan. I am also fascinated by the art of slight of hand and deception. I also find great solace in puzzles and the solving thereof. So my two cents to the discussion was about how I had seen them all. Was aware of all the precedents. Knew all the twists, all the surprise tricks and, therefore, expressed how hard it is to fool me. One of the films discussed -- appropriate in lieu of the convo's context -- was Bryan Singer's THE USUAL SUSPECTS. While my friends praised it ("you'll never see that ending coming!") I sighed and responded with "you know? As I sat through that flick, all I could think of was if Keyser Soze turns out to be who I think he is, I'll be pissed off." And I was right.

Pissed off not because I had problems with the structure or the reveal. Pissed off because I figured it out and thus was denied the fun of feeling surprised.

Having said that, I was challenged to come up with something on my own. Something that could surprise even me. So I thought back to that original script and the play that was inspired from it and decided that may be a good place to start.

Like I said, the original draft was pretty straight forward. It was a dark, slightly comedic thriller: a study group of college students are challenged to resolve a premise -- a puzzle if you will. They will be graded based on the creativity of their response. Each student represented a specific personality not unlike the kind of kids we see in John Hughes films. The difference here is that as they attempted to work on this assignment together, it becomes evident that some in the group have other things in mind. Even murder perhaps. So this was my "Breakfast Club meets Sleuth."

When it became a play I developed a theme regarding the subjectivity of that which is considered to be good story telling. So these students meet. Discuss what they have to do. Then tensions arise due to the differences in their personalities. Then something happens. From that point on the fourth wall is broken as different characters express their point of views, each one contradicting the last. Not only that, but they repeat themselves and, depending on whom they communicate to and how, their story can veer from incredibly entertaining to downright lame, even though the exact same story is being told.

Paralleling this is the initial premise they've been assigned to resolve and how that relates to their situation. So in effect it went from "Breakfast Club meets Sleuth" to "Rules Of Attraction meets Adaptation meets Sleuth."

With me so far? Are you asleep yet? Eh, I wouldn't blame you if you tuned out by now. BUT MY POINT... the basic gist of what this post is all about is how I learned TONS about effective plotting. Especially from the kind of flicks that are heavy with the twists n' turns. There are both pros and cons attached to how you go about this and I'll attempt to illustrate my thoughts with these examples:

1. Mystery Thrillers (films like SLEUTH, DEATHTRAP, PSYCHO, Hammer Films' awesome SCREAM OF FEAR, DIABOLIQUE). Oftentimes these films veer awfully close into the Horror genre.

2. Con Artists/Hustler/Flim-Flam Men Flicks (MATCHSTICK MEN, THE STING, BIG HAND FOR THE LITTLE LADY, HOUSE OF GAMES, THE USUAL SUSPECTS)

3. Somewhat Twilight Zone Inspired (where the main protagonist turns out to be the antagonist. Or most likely dead the entire time: JACOB'S LADDER, OPEN YOUR EYES, it's remake VANILLA SKY, THE OTHERS, ANGEL HEART and almost anything by M. Night Shyamalan)

Let us first give due to Agatha Christie. She was famous for her surprise endings and since she wrote well over twenty novels I can imagine she worked pretty hard to compete against herself. As far as I know, nobody structured plots like Agatha before she was around. Two of her novels are arguably her most influential: THE MURDER OF ROGER AKROYD and TEN LITTLE INDIANS. AKROYD is not only the book that introduced Belgian detective Hercule Poirot to the world, its surprise was quite revolutionary. And simple. Basically Christie took the conceit of the unreliable narrator one step further and. Spoiler, spoiler, spoiler!.... made him the perpetrator of the crime. Imagine the impact at the time. It was not unlike reading a Sherlock Holmes story and finding out at the end that Watson did it. This set the precedent that begat a film like USUAL SUSPECTS.

TEN LITTLE INDIANS (Which was originally, infamously titled TEN LITTLE N--ERS) was the progenitor of the Horror Thriller that would show its genes in product as varied as LES DIABOLIQUES and FRIDAY THE 13th (believe it or not). And as a novel, it's pretty grim. Again, the influential twist rests not only in whodunit (rather, who keeps doing it) but how. But in adapting her novel into the play AND THEN THERE WERE NONE, Christie added one more surprise that didn't exist in the original form. Which I personally think is an improvement. And it's this version that wound up being adapted more than three times for the big screen. Basically it introduced the technique of not only offering one twist yet ANOTHER twist after the first one.

As for the Con Artist flick, I would say the initial influencer is also probably the least known: Fielder Cook's BIG HAND FOR THE LITTLE LADY. You see this film you see THE STING, CONFIDENCE, SPANISH PRISONER, you name it. I would call this a "cute" film in that it's set in the late 1800s, has a vague Western feel to it and has that folksy humor thing going on that was popular in period comedies of the 1950s/early 60s. It deals with a card game that results in a huge payoff for the winner. Enter a simple family headed by Henry Fonda and Joanne Woodward. Fonda, being a nave but good man also has a gambling problem and is tricked into joining this game. And thats all I'll say about that. Hell, after a history of this kind of film, you'd probably figured out the twist based on that description alone. But you gotta' remember this was the first flick to do it.

Now the thing I've learned by studying all of these films is that one or two mistakes can be easily made. For one thing, if you're writing a flick about con artistry, then you'd better come up with a pretty good con because your audience will expect that somebody is conning somebody anyway. Ergo youll be competing with yourself to come up with an effective enough surprise. Unfortunately, some people mistake confusing for clever. Take CONFIDENCE as an example. One reveal after another only serves to annoy rather than entertain and the result is ineffective because, well, its just stupid. Or sometimes a good twist is not enough to tell a good tale. Take LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN. I honestly did not see the surprise coming. But there was really nothing there before or after the twist. Or sometimes the twist is so out there it renders everything preceding it kinda useless like the terrible IDENTITY.

Granted, IDENTITY falls into the Horror-Thriller category but it best represents the single worst mistake any writer makes attempting to create an effective twist. And that is, do not think of the twist before you write your story. Because then your story will be all about that twist and you'll have to work very hard to earn it. This usually results in gross illogic where a serious suspension of disbelief is required to accept events that's supposed to support that twist. To be honest, THE classic of all time is somewhat guilty of doing this. In Henri-Georges Clouzot's LES DIABOLIQUES, the surprise is really clever but, if you think about it, it's totally reliant on the idea that one character would be willing to subject himself to all sorts of discomforts in order to pull off the trick. Indeed, the success of the film rests in its direction. It really is a spooky movie. This is what also saves SCREAM OF FEAR (aka TASTE OF FEAR) which I feel is the best out of many attempts by Hammer Films to do their take on not only Clouzot's classic but Hitchcock as well. Again, the first twist is followed by another one and each are really fun and clever. But logically, they dont make sense in the real world. They require a serious suspension of disbelief. But Seth Holt's direction is effectively creepy. And truly suspenseful. It is really one of the unsung thrillers of the 60s. You really need to check this out.

Now compare that to another Hammer flick called CRESCENDO and the contrast is striking in how unimaginative direction does not help a script of this kind. Granted, while not that surprising, it does deliver a very original twist (that and the rare opportunity to see Stephanie Powers' ta-tas). And it is something that would prefigure the denouement of Brian DePalma's RAISING CAIN (you know what I mean. After PSYCHO, so many films attempted to surprise viewers with their "HA! It was never two or three people it was ALWAYS ONE PERSON" twist ending. Well both CRESCENDO and CAIN subvert that expectation by revealing that, no, there actually ARE TWO PEOPLE! Did I spoil it for you? Good, now you don't have to see em).

Now I'm going to list my favorite movies with decent enough twists. Hopefully you, the jaded viewer, will enjoy them as much as I did. So here we go:

SCREAM OF FEAR (aka TASTE OF FEAR) dir. Seth Holt

LES DIABOLIQUES (and not the useless remake) dir. Georges-Henri Clouzot

FIGHT CLUB (theres a lot of debate as to whether what happens in the film actually supports its final surprise. I think it does) dir. David Fincher

THE STING (the best con movie ever. Nothing has come close since) dir. George Roy Hill

MOON (yep. Although its twist appears early into the film) dir. Duncan Jones

PSYCHO (because it's so influential. You gotta' realize, nobody saw that Norman Bates thing coming at the time) dir. Alfred Hitchcock

SLEUTH (the original. Although, its second twist is dated and kind of easy to see through due to a terrible make up appliance. Watch the film and you'll know what I mean) dir. Joseph L. Mankiewicz

GAMES (an unabashed homage to DIABOLIQUE) dir. Curtis Harrington

AND THEN THERE WERE NONE (the first version of TEN LITTLE INDIANS and still the best. Although there's supposed to be a pretty good Russian version thats more faithful to the original novel) dir. Rene Claire

HOUSE OF GAMES (not really surprising but a real good comeuppance at the end) dir. David Mamet

SE7EN (well stretching it a bit here. But that final reveal works sooooo well) dir. David Fincher.

JACOB'S LADDER (for its time. Been copied verbatim. However, its surprise wasnt actually original either in that it was likely inspired by CARNIVAL OF SOULS) dir. Alan Parker

DEMENTIA 13 (only because of what happens at the half point of the film. Absolutely brilliant bit of bait and switch. Unfortunately the rest of the film ain't as good. It feels like the whole shebang was conceived around this moment and they didn't know where to go after this) dir. Francis Ford Coppola

MACABRE (Stephen King has mentioned this as one of his favorite movies as a child. And you know what? It's pretty good. And has a really good twist ending, one that has been reused many times. I think this is William Castle's best flick) dir. William Castle

Here are other films that employ twists or are inspired by other flicks of this ilk. I dont hate them but don't love em either. Some I actually like a lot but their twists didn't work for me or left me underwhelmed. Check them out and tell me what you think:

DEATHTRAP (actually pretty clever. But veers on camp) dir. Sidney Lumet

HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL (More like DIABOLIQUES than the supernatural horror movie that was the remake) dir. William Castle

PARANOIAC (another Hammer entry. Starring the late, great Oliver Reed) dir. Freddie Francis

USUAL SUSPECTS (I think this is overrated. But feel free to disagree) dir. Bryan Singer

MEMENTO (okay I actually think this is a really good film with a confusing ending. This is why its not on my favorite list in terms of good twists. But it took me a couple of viewings to get it) dir. Christopher Nolan

THE PRESTIGE (again, well made film, but it took me a couple of viewings to get the ending. Or maybe Im just dense) dir. Christopher Nolan

LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN (a too precious-for-its-own-good kind of flick. Too enamored of the Tarantino, postmodern style cinema. However, I gotta say, its twist is pretty good) dir. Paul McGuigan

THE OTHERS (decently atmospheric. But I saw the twist coming the moment the movie started) dir. Alejandro Amenbar

ANGEL HEART dir. Alan Parker

THE GAME (I think this is awful) dir. David Fincher

IDENTITY (I think this is REALLY awful) dir. James Mangold

SIXTH SENSE (I wanted to smack every person who was surprised by its ending. Seriously? Cmon!) dir. M. Night Shyamalan

OPEN YOUR EYES/VANILLA SKY (one is the American remake of the Spanish version) dir. Alejandro Amenbar and Cameron Crowe.

BIG HAND FOR THE LITTLE LADY (see it for the precedent it set) dir. Fielder Cook

RAISING CAIN, DRESSED TO KILL (I actually like DRESSED but it so shamelessly rip offs PSYCHO) dir Brian DePalma

HAUTE TENSION (what should have been a great horror film is ruined by a god awful twist that makes less sense the more you think about it) dir. Alexandre Aja

UNBREAKABLE (I actually like this film. And I will go on record to say I think its this director's best movie) dir. M. Night Shyamalan

NINE QUEENS and CRIMINAL (one is a remake of the other, Argentine film. Its a con film. Ending didn't surprise me but both films are pretty well acted) dir. Fabin Bielinsky and dir. Gregory Jacobs

MATCHSTICK MEN dir. Ridley Scott

And the award for the loopiest, most insane twist movie ever goes to:

William Castle's HOMICIDAL!!

Man is this flick off the charts! Its a total rip off of PSYCHO. But Castle tries to subvert the concept by having a WOMAN play a MAN who thinks hes a WOMAN! So the basic idea is this, Castle thought he'd trump Hitchcock by having the fake woman (the other personality of the duo personality psycho) be played by an ACTUAL woman even though she is really playing a man who thinks he (or she) is a woman. Got that? And its AWFUL!! But oh, so entertaining. Because the actress, whomever she is, makes a really piss poor man. I mean when she is in male mode, she's horribly dubbed with this masculine voice that just doesn't match the look, you know what I mean? See this if you want a good laugh.

Anyway.

Im sure Ive forgotten something. And please inform me of whatever Ive left out or recommend a flick I might not have seen. Im a huge fan of this kind of thing and am always looking to be surprised.

Now you may not be wondering where MY script fits into all this. But I'll tell you anyway. Is it as good as the favs or as out there as HOMICIDAL? Let's say it falls squarely into the Agatha Christie tradition. You think someone is setting up someone else for murder but it turns out that someone else was setting up that someone for murder all the time. Although it turns out he may not have actually murdered that someone. Even though that someone may be dead. Or not. Its just, well, theres that OTHER someone who may have actually done it. Or not.

Yeah, I think I need to go back and re-tweak the damn thing.