Ruining Film: The Fourth Kind of Spoilers

Posted by Dr. Cole Abaius (cole.abaius@filmschoolrejects.com) on November 10, 2009

spoilers-header

EDITOR’S NOTE: It goes without saying that in discussing the idea of spoilers ruining a particular film, we’ll be throwing out a ton of spoilers, so don’t read this until after you see The Fourth Kind. Or, you know, if you’ve already had it ruined or if you just plain don’t care. Consider yourself spoiler-warned.

I want you to think of your favorite movie. Think about why you love it, the impact it had on you the first time you saw it, the twentieth time you saw it. Let it live in your mind for a second. Play it out on the big screen in your head and fall in love with it all over again.

Now I want you to imagine that someone ruins it for you before you get to see it.

Spoilers are nothing new, but with the release of The Fourth Kind, it seems like a new conversation needs to be had about how the film experience can be ruined. As you probably already know, the real footage from The Fourth Kind is real fake. There is no Abbey Tyler. There are no tapes of her counseling people who are being haunted by a vicious owl-alien beast. There is no reality to be dramatically interpreted by actress Milla Jovovich.

You probably know this because a) you’ve seen the movie and put two and two together* b) you googled it beforehand or c) someone on the internet spoiled it for you.

For a ton of people, it was unavoidable. At a certain point, you could barely round a corner on the internet without being bombarded with a headline spoiling the hell out of the flick. And usually doing it boastfully. As if they’d done a great public service.

Now, for the record, I don’t think that The Fourth Kind is a good movie. I think it’s an interesting experiment that ultimately fails. There are a few good scares, but it’s a frustrating experience. Still, it takes balls to create fake real footage and then go the next step of making fake footage based off that fake real footage to play it side by side. It strikes out, but at least it swings for the fences. Gives us something new.

But none of that matters. You could think the movie is absolute crap, but out there somewhere is someone who is watching it and thinking it’s an incredible flick. Maybe their favorite of all time. Laugh if you want, but that’s the nature of the beast. A film you think is a piece of cheese might be in someone’s all-time top five. Your treasure might be someone else’s trash. We all connect to different things, and even if a film falls flat, we should at least be given the chance to experience it purely.

But for some reason, it’s been open season on spoiling this film. I have no idea why, but leading up to its opening, everything from spoiler-warning-free reviews to errant twitter feeds were shouting from the rooftops about how what the film was purporting to be real was fake. How the entire premise of the film was a sham.

My favorites include titling a review “Not Real, Not Scary,” a major film website calling it a Blair Witch fakeout, and io9 flat out calling the film a hoax in its headline (you know, the things that people can’t avoid while casually browsing) a full day before the movie even had a chance to be met with the eyeballs of an awaiting nation. For even the mild film fan checking out websites, they had no choice but to have it spoiled.

Not to mention the endless twatting about the damned thing.

Essentially, people were running around making it impossible for those encountering their snark to see the film with fresh eyes. For, as you may know, not only is the film being marketed as the dramatic interpretation of true events, but it’s also presented that way. It’s central to the filmic experience, and that central premise was stolen from a ton of people (some of which may have loved the film).

I see this as especially insidious. I understand that The Fourth Kind isn’t Citizen Kane (you know, because Citizen Kane is totally real), but it shouldn’t matter. No film should be spoiled. Which is what baffles me most about the near-universal apathy toward pissing in the punch for this particular sci-fi flick.

I don’t think anyone would argue against the idea that every film deserves a chance to be seen how the filmmaker wants it to be seen, but here’s where I go off the deep end. Feel free to strap on your floaties or let me drown out there all alone. Either way.

Part of me sees this wanton disregard as indicative of two terrible roads that film criticism seems to be headed down. The first, the love of elite status over true film passion. We have become a film culture obsessed with what’s in pre-pre-production and who is almost going to be cast in something. That has led inevitably down a path where some people see it as more important to display their inside knowledge than to keep the reverence for a film in tact. That’s not film love. It’s the love of being on the inside (no matter how fabricated the feeling) and rubbing it in other people’s faces.

The second, a world where film critics forget that opinions aren’t correct. Or incorrect. Because they’re subjective. Earlier in the year Jen Yamato from Rotten Tomatoes spoiled a major impact moment in Antichrist by tweeting about it. Several other film folks, including Vic from Screen Rant (in a move he will never live down until our short term memories lapse) retweeted it verbatim. This personally spoiled the moment for me, and Vic claimed that he saw nothing wrong with spoiling a movie he didn’t care for. Whether you believe that particular move spoiled something big or not, we got to see firsthand a belief that it’s okay to spoil a film directly because of the perceived quality of the movie. It was a situation where his opinion trumped decency – and it’s a similar notion to any film blogger who has a vested interest in how well a film does or how poorly a film flops opening weekend.

And he’s not alone. Especially now.

Which brings me all the way back around. I know that there aren’t going to be a huge number standing up and claiming to be Spartacus for The Fourth Kind. I know that there are many out there who don’t think it’s a good movie. But for those of you answering my rant with, “Who gives a shit? That movie sucks!” I have to hang my head, roll my eyes a little and quietly remind you that somewhere, someone thinks your favorite movie is a piece of shit and might not have thought twice about spoiling it to your face before you got a chance to fall in love with it.

*Yes, it equals four. That’s a little bonus pun free of charge for you.

Flame on.

Related Reading:

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

Peter Hall

I don't think addressing the truth of the claims is a spoiler. A spoiler, to me, is when someone gives you insight into a fact the film reveals itself. The Fourth Kind never, ever, ever reveals that it is fake...so what exactly is ruined or spoiled in acknowledging so? You're discussing (common sense) facts 100% external to the entirety of the film's run time. To point out that it was all staged is no different than to point out it had producers, was paid for by Universal, or to talk about what kind of camera it was shot on.

RobHunter

Insightful, enlightening, and completely wrong. Exactly what we've come to expect from Peter S Hall. Your definition is accurate but it's also too specific. This is a case of the filmmaker's intent being spoiled, not a particular twist or incident that gets revealed within the film, and that intent is for people to go in believing what they're about to see may just be based on a true story. Look at The Strangers... they marketed that film as "based on a true story" and never revealed within that it in fact had zero basis in fact. But the "it could happen to you" angle worked to raise the level of terror that film invoked. No one rushed out to squash the veracity of the producers' claims there though... possibly because it was a better movie?

Peter Hall

The filmmakers intent is not being spoiled, it's being unmasked. Frankly - and I'm sure this play's in to Cole's idea that much of this particular 'spoiler' has to do with elitism - anyone who goes into The Fourth Kind thinking it is not merely based on a true story, or inspired by real events, but purports to contain actual, unimpeachable facts and footage is an idiot.

They're not open minded, they're not suspending disbelief because the filmmaker and the marketing department politely asked that they do; they lack complete common sense.

The problem with The Fourth Kind is that the filmmaker pleaded with everyone to go against the grain, begging film goers to completely abandon whatever film experience, large or small, they've gained in their life time and to go along with something that was unreasonable.

Cole is right in that The Fourth Kind is dealing with a point of contention dissimilar from almost every movie on the market, but that's the movie's fault; not the common sense film goers, not the Tweeters, and not the critics. It asked too much.

Calling out its fantasy is no more a spoiler than Sancho telling Don Quixote he's fighting windmills, not giants.

RobHunter

I won't argue that people who believe aliens come to Earth and abduct humans are morons, but that's not really the point. You're deciding for everybody that the premise is hogwash and you're taking away their right to be an idiot.

The filmmaker wanted folks to believe this could be real. Just like the filmmakers behind The Strangers wanted the audience to believe this young couple was actually terrorized and killed. People aren't going to see it because they believe it actually is real, they're going because it has the potential to be scarier and more entertaining if it just might be. "Real" video footage is inherently more frightening than standard film... look at Paranormal Activity. If those bedroom scenes were filmed in standard movie format they wouldn't have been nearly as terrifying. The format is part of the experience as a whole.

Calling out the truth before the viewer has a chance to experience the film untainted is akin to Willy Wonka telling all of the kids that if they give back the gobstopper they'll win the entire factory. (Damn you and your unmatchable literary references!)

adamcharles

The filmmaker didn't just want people to think it could be real, it was advertised and portrayed as actually being real. If he just wanted viewers to think it possible he wouldn't have filmed Jovovich as herself claiming that the events were reenactments of actual footage, mixed with *actual* footage. He would have just done what the filmmakers of Paranormal did and film something realistically and let people decide for themselves. The filmmaker of The Fourth Kind is telling you that it's real, and is lying. He's not asking you to suspend disbelief, he's telling you to believe.

I don't disagree that it's a spoiler, but I do disagree that it's completely unnecessary to out the movie. It's no different than attacking certain elements of a Michael Moore documentary as being exaggerated, slightly false, or edited to fit the needs of the point he's trying to make.

adamcharles

I disagree, at least in terms of what a spoiler is. To me, a spoiler is to discuss, or point to something within or about the film that could negatively affect the experience of a potential viewer. To talk about whether or not the film was staged isn't the same as pointing out that the film had producers, who it was paid for by, or the camera it was shot on unless it was being sold as not having any producers, was not funded by anyone, or was not shot by a camera at all, and was in fact the manifestation of a dead 10 year old creepy girl w/ long black hair (or something like that). I haven't seen the film so can't say if it is claiming those things, I just hadn't heard that it was.

That being said, while I still consider discussing the reality of the film a spoiler I don't necessarily consider it a disservice to the reader to point out that it's fake. While talking about a film being fake when it's being sold as real spoils the experience I don't see it as any different than saying that James Frey's book "A Million Little Pieces" is fiction. While it may anger some viewers to hear the truth about it, it will be met with thanks by others who were going to pay to see it specifically because they were under the impression that it's real, when it isn't.

Peter Hall

I think that's an important point at the end there. Anyone reading about the movie is doing so because they want to learn more about it. Maybe it's because they want to learn more about the 'real events' behind it, or maybe it's because they want to know whether or not they should waste their time.

When talking about The Fourth Kind, to not address it's claims is to turn a blind eye to something that a lot of people are clearly concerned about.

Cole_Abaius

Normally I would agree with all of that - if it weren't the main narrative structure of the story. The movie is presented in a very different way, and that structure is spoiled by outing the falsity of the flick.

And I don't buy the public service announcement argument since, by your own logic, people shouldn't really need to be told its fake since they'll know it by the time they leave theaters.

Anyone reading about the movie might want to learn more, but that doesn't excuse the mass of headlines that give it all away even for people who didn't want it.

adamcharles

Again I revert to literature, hypothetically speaking if Howard Hughes had died prior to knowing about Clifford Irving's unauthorized autobiography and therefore couldn't come forward to to falsify the claim that Irving was authorized to write a biography on Hughes, would you then say that it would be wrong for others to do their homework and make headlines that out Irving's book as bogus?

It would definitely spoil the enjoyment of the read if you knew it wasn't real, but is it a disservice to inform them outright in big bold letters that what the book claims to be is a lie?

Cole_Abaius

If you were setting the record straight about a real person's life, absolutely.

If you were concerning yourself with a fictional person created solely as a narrative device? The noble gesture, the service, seems to disappear.

Ruining Film: The Fourth Kind of Spoilers

Related Topics:

Related Reading: