As a digital media student, I am studying narrative film theory, specifically Todorov's narrative theory and how that relates to audience gratification.
What I am trying to figure out is if audience gratification can only be solved through a happy ending?
Check out the ending of any number of horror movies. Usually, they are not exactly feel good finales and people keep coming back for more.
Vertigo provides the best anti-climax. 2001 provides more questions. These examples do not provide any kind of happiness. An ending must be true to the story arc. Does the character express their worth at the beginning and do they change. Audiences react; require satisfaction that their empathy is rewarded. Can they understand the transformation?
Write two endings, happy and sad. Plenty of movies shoot two versions and use a test audience before a wide release. I heard there’s a happy ending of “Thelma and Louise” .
I see it more as audience fulfillment over the run of the entire work. Film snobs sneer at crowd-pleasers and happy endings, but it’s not necessary to wrap everything in a tidy bow at the end.
1 person likes this
I think a satisfactory ending comes through catharsis. Sometimes that isn't always something positive/happy, and it's not always what the character thinks they need/want either, but it's something that needs to happen to bring a story full circle. It provides some form of closure, some form of justice for us as an audience.
Breaking Bad? There Will Be Blood? Fargo?
2 people like this
Fair enough, maybe I didn't use the best word(s). What am I? A writer?!
;-)
We watch films to feel something. What I mean is, there needs to be some kind of release at the end of a film, some kind of emotion felt by the audience. It doesn't have to be positive/happy to make it successful. As pointed out in your examples.
2 people like this
It's about satisfying at least one of the brain sides. Both aren't responsible for happiness.
A.S , I would have to agree with you. Audience gratification is not necessarily based on happy endings and positive emotions as pointed out in your examples.
1 person likes this
Maria Docherty IMHO no. Satisfaction and/or gratification can be in sad endings through things like "closure" or "resolution" or simple "answers" and many other things. Romeo and Juliet doesn't have a happy ending. My Best Friend's Wedding doesn't have a happy ending. Breaking Bad doesn't have a happy ending either as a TV show. Resolution, Answers, bookends, fulfillment, etc. can all be causes of satisfaction. I've left plenty of movies that had happy endings and wasn't gratified or satisfied because the movie sucked.
If the intent is to leave your audience gratified, a happy ending is a popular way to do so, but it's not the only way IMHO and there are others.
"Witness" (Harrison Ford) won Academy Award for Best Script, yet doesn't have a particularly gratifying ending.
3 people like this
It boils down to the promise of the premise. Does it deliver? Is it a satisfying story experience with a fitting, logical, and effective ending? 'Cause... contrivance is problematic. You want stories, especially fictional ones, to feel authentic and not artificial. Witness absolutely has a gratifying ending. It very much fits the world and story realities of the characters and who they are as people. Whether someone (an audience member) finds a film to be cathartic or not is more a personal consideration to me. When crafting a story, if creating a sense of emotional truth and believability then that's good storytelling. You want your work to resonate—happy or sad or whatever it may be. ;)
1 person likes this
"Memento", "Crash" and "Jacob's Ladder" didn't have endings of rainbows and roses either. "American History X" had a heartbreaking ending. And yet they worked. Gratification falls into the realm of what Gary Marshall said about film making. It's not about whether a story is true, but whether the audience wants to BELIEVE it's true. If I want to believe that the world doesn't always give me good feelings at the end of a film, I'm ok with that.
Kramer vs. Kramer. Not a happy show or ending really either.
You oughta go speak to the Marketing Department. Up endings, down endings and endings that trail off begging for a sequel all have their place. Personally I like the ambiguous ending (i.e. Castaway...).
1 person likes this
I'll say this: If you're in the dark edgy horror sci-fi neck of the woods, happy endings are often not your friend.
I think is very hard to summarized what gives the audience a sense of gratification. First, how we defined "audience"? I say that, because we have different genres attracting different viewers with different expectations (The Notebook and A Quite Place completely different movies but both successful). Perhaps how the narrative connects with the viewers and presents something that "if the audience were in the movie" they would relate with the narrative. Director John Avildsen accomplished that with Rocky and The Karate Kid. These two movies deal with the concept of the underdog winning despite all the odds. Both movies connected very well with a large audience (worldwide) because people can relate to that narrative. Also, what defines "happy ending"? Generally, it deals with the protagonist winning and the antagonist losing, but obviously there is more to that concept. In Lethal Weapon, Mel Gibson won an inside battle as a cop dealing with suicidal thoughts and depression, the power of friendship with Danny Glover was extremely relevant to the narrative. That was a happy ending more substantial than arresting (or killing) bad guys at the end of the movie.
What Erik Jacobsen said. Equilibrium is essentially the establishment of a "new normal" - that doesn't mean "happy" necessarily. But as Laura Scheiner said, it needs to be emotionally satisfying. And what is or is not "emotionally satisfying" depends on the specific genre. A mystery that doesn't find the killer isn't satisfying. A "romance" where the hero dies or the couple otherwise don't get together isn't emotionally satisfying(and no, romeo and juliet is not a romance; it's a tragedy ... and in that context, it is emotionally satisfying.).
1 person likes this
Oh no! Not another theory to worry about! I'd squeeze Todorov in my toolbox but Syd Field and Joe Campbell might get testy.
One person's miserable ending is another's happy ending.
An example to me is "A walk on the moon" with Viggo Mortensen & Diane Lane.
Indiscretion, cheating and lying to a spouse was the theme to some.
Finding sexual satisfaction, a moment of carefree-happiness was the theme to others.
It's pretty hard to get a definition "happily ever after" anymore. Things don't really work that way these days.
I would argue that the more important issue is the ending has to stay true to the script. And the script has to connect with the audience - whomever that may be... Men, women, children, those that want to be happy, sad, frightened.... There's a movie for everyone.
http://www.movieoutline.com/articles/how-filmmakers-connect-with-audienc...