The Wave of Creativity in Books/TV/Movies

As I've mentioned before, I've been doing an awful lot of research on creativity and the way it's handled in various forms of entertainment (and, even more specifically, how it can be handled within written works/books).

There are two movies I've seen recently that really caused me to look at the way "twists" are handled within written works: Shutter Island and Cloverfield. I don't mean to give away spoilers, per se, here, but some may inadvertantly come out.

We'll start with Shutter Island, which definitely has a 'twist' (not necessarily a twist ending, but certainly enough of a twist to have kept the audience guessing for a good portion of the movie). Of course, after the movie was first released, there were a number of people that said, "oh, I saw the twist all along." Certainly, watching the movie a second time, while knowing the twist, creates a completely different perception of the movie.

The problem I have is while I can see how effective this works in a film (or TV) setting, it's very hard for me to see how this can be pulled off in a written piece (thankfully, this *can* be discovered -- the movie is based on a novel written by Dennis Lehane).

Cloverfield was an extremely hyped movie produced by JJ Abrams, who also produced the TV series Lost. Lost is almost certainly the single most analyzed television show of all time (and, I could easily spend a full month just recapping that. Cloverfield, on its own, is an average monster movie (in the vein of Godzilla, Mothra, etc.). I watched Cloverfield and it had its share of "jumps" and scares; but overall, it was (by my perception) just an interesting way to tell a story (through a camcorder).

As I've become quite fond of doing, though, I began looking up information about the film online -- it helps that I saw the film two years after its release -- and, I found a wealth of 'secrets': secret logos (that actually trace back to the show Lost) in the movie. Secret single frames of old monster movies spliced into the film; and, of course, the 'secret' that the ending supposedly showed.

And, when you start poking around, you can see how incredible the efforts to create a well-rounded experience were -- from setting up phantom websites and showing the 'history' of the companies involved; suddenly, what was a fairly average 80-minute thrillfest, becomes a fully fleshed out experience - and the movie is just a small blip on the entire timeline.

This, to me, is a sign of the times -- it's so much easier, these days, to set up websites and other multi-media experiences, which allow the most fervent fans to be quasi-detectives, finding their own pieces to the puzzle. And, more than anything, I find myself both drawn to that style of creativity; even if I can't fathom how to pull it off in the written format (same with Lost -- the numerous flashbacks and flashforwards -- how do you pull that off?).

And, for people that think "oh, in a TV series, you can make stuff up as you go along," I'll offer the following (which will only make sense for people who have seen the show): The season 3 finale shows a scene (Kate & Jack at the airport). The season 4 finale shows the same scene, but, continues the scene beyond what was included in season 3. Since, it looks as though it's all part of the same shoot, this meant the creators had to shoot the full shot, then, decide, "ok, let's cut it here, for season 3, and then, hold the full scene for the season finale A FULL YEAR FROM NOW." That takes a lot more planning than, for example, establishing a story arc for a full season of "Two and a Half Men."

Back to Cloverfield -- as a friend of mine said, "it's wag the dog -- when the marketing outweighs the movie, you've lost my attention."

On one Rotten Tomatoes forum, a great exchange took place that seemed to effectively illustrate the mindsets of the two camps.

"I remember when people went to movies to be entertained instead, and didn't have to study a viral marketing campaign to learn half of the plot. Those were good days."

"I remember a day when people didn't always expect everything to be fed to them on a silver platter, because people actually gave things their own thought rather than the mindless drivel we see in theatre's today that we'd all like to call "movies"."

"..So... outlining a story and giving information through storytelling is feeding your audience something on a silver platter? How silly of me! I thought that's what scripting was for. Man. Someone needs to go to those film schools and tell those guys they're going about it all wrong. Who needs scripts when we can spend a few hours on the internet piecing together a puzzle before a cryptic movie with about 10 minutes worth of palatable footage will come out?"

Which camp are you in? Is intricate planning the wave of the future? Or, are we destined to return to TV shows and movies that "are what they are" with no twists and no need to research anything before or after the event itself?