Richard Brody argues that spoiler anxiety has two sources: studios turn secrecy into an incentive to buy tickets immediately, while increasingly intricate films make narrative structure itself a surprise. The dilemma isn’t just whether to reveal an ending; even explaining how a movie works can breach its publicity perimeter.
- Secrecy sells urgency: withholding information widens the gap between hearing about a film and experiencing it, making ignorance a marketing asset.
- Complexity isn’t depth: elaborate timelines and framing devices can coexist with thin characterization or conventional images.
- Whose experience gets withheld? In Fjord, Brody argues that preserving ambiguity sidelines the children whose welfare supposedly drives the story.
- Institutions matter more than twists: his criticism of Primetime is that it dramatizes sensationalism without adequately examining how a network approved the original television show.
The useful distinction is between protecting a viewer’s discovery and protecting a film from scrutiny. Brody respects the first, but his examples show how the same machinery of concealment can obstruct discussion of politics, power, and artistic choices.
This isn’t an argument that every twist should be disclosed. It’s a reminder that surprise is one pleasure of cinema—not a substitute for people, images, or an account of the world. The original essay contains substantial plot revelations; this summary keeps the major twists out.