TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Downer Endings: Yay or Nay?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Downer Endings: Yay or Nay?
Are humans particularly fond of tragedies?
Landslides are all but rare in my country, and they seem to affect exclusively the poorer regions showing no compassion for those who already struggle to make a living. I'm used to this already: every year, during the rainy season, scores of people die because the hills are treacherous and nature isn't forgiving to those who insist to dwell where the scenery must change. Last year, however, I heard the most heart-breaking story ever reported about a person who died after the landslides. Somewhere in Belo Horizonte, a man and his only son perished during the storm. Hours later, the authorities gave the news to the man's wife: As soon as she learned about the demise of her whole family, she had a heart attack and died as well. So, of all stories ever broadcast, that one stood out as the most miserable history of how a survivor dealt with a catastrophe. And I've never been able to forget it.
It seems sad endings are particularly fascinating to humans, no matter if they're fictional or not... and I imagined everybody loved them, except for valley girls, hippie mums, and valley hippies. Think of Shakespeare's most famous story. Goethe's. Kafka's. Does the first Greek myth that comes to your mind involve incest and patricide? I figured as much.
I know I'm a sucker for drama, and since I mentioned Kafka, let it be known that he once said that if reading a book didn't feel like taking a punch, then it was not worth reading (see next link). And, though not all my favourite films end bad, they involve a good deal of anguish and despair until the end. And I've always taken this obsession for granted... until, that is, a mate told me he liked his books like he enjoys his massages, and I thought that was well weird because the books he reads are usually so bland... but they make him feel good in the end, and are angst-proof. For some reason, I can't take these books seriously, because true art is angsty. Right?
What do you think? Do you like sad stories? Why (not)?
Happy endings are a figment of hollywood's imagination.
I'm all for happy endings as long as we get to see them shag.
the ending should make sense regardless of feeling
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trancypantzzz the ending should make sense regardless of feeling |
I liked the end of Cloverfield cause they all died.
Same with Miracle Mile (which Cloverfield drew lots of inspiration from).
Also any movie where the bad guy wins.... Cause I mean seriously... When the bad guy wins there is going to be an awesome fucking explosion or something usually. Who doesn't want to see that?
I think tragedy is more poignant, and long-lasting.
as humans we encounter more tragedy in our lives than joy, so tragedy becomes immediately more relateable-- most people don't experience joy very often, and most people experience tragedy and mourning fairly often.
even the more meaningful positive stuff wears off pretty quickly. we get the ideological 'positive-side' of everything in most story-telling, so it loses its meaning to an extent..
Its lovely seeing random people being 'happy forever' (even if the story is brilliantly written and realistically achieved), but its just a story that most people will fail to really identify with (even people who are living happily)-- it's not at all universifiable...
compare that to tragedy: Everybody experiences death, horror, pain... etc
bad shit is universal: Everybody comes across it, and everybody is forced to deal with it in their life, the brilliant exploration of this kind of tragedy through media can really change our life, make us think differently about how we act when the bad shit does go down, and because of that, i think it's always more lasting and important for people.
also: People are just fucked up, and like to see other's suffering more than other's pleasure 
even though i love evil to triumph i still liked it when vader and raist sacrificed themselves for the good of others.
Some people, and I am one of them, hate happy ends. We feel cheated. Harm is the norm.
/Nabokov
I don't think humans like sad endings any more than happy endings. Look at the list of highest grossing films of all time or the best selling books and count how many had sad endings.
True art is only angsty because it aspires to more than mere escapism.
Titanic only became a happy ending when the old lady - one of the last survivors! - died at the end. Kind of an interesting twist to the whole sad-vs-happy ending debate, ch'think?
Serious reply maybe coming later, for now let me just say that being angsty is imho just a cheap way to appear artsy.
I want movies to entertain me, not remind me that life is all kinds of fucked up. So i prefer a happy ending...but i do like to see a bad guy win if he the charming charismatic neutral evil type.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Moongoose I want movies to entertain me, not remind me that life is all kinds of fucked up. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lilith Evil wins because good is dumb, its part of script! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lilith Evil wins because good is dumb, its part of script! |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
We must remember that tomorrow comes after the dark.
So You will always be in my heart
with Unconditional love
I don't know if it's just about endings. Most people like works to have at least a slight "edge" to them. Too much cheeriness and you end up with Barney and Friends or something. And who wants to watch that?
Of course, people have different thresholds for tragedy and cheeriness.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number |
YOU AIN'T DELETIN' MEEEEEEEEEEE HEHEHEEEEEEEEEE
Catharsis is good... when it's not happening to you. That has always been the theme of fictional tragedy- that it is distant, yet not so distant it doesn't inspire realizations of our personal inevitability as well. There are sad stories that we do not look forward to per se, but we are certainly not affected by them - no matter their veracity - as much as we would, say, be affected by the death of our own mother. Now you can argue well a mother is the most important person in our upbringing, we know her better than anyone else, etc - which may or may not even be true, but in a reasonable sense, isn't your own mother just like many, many other mothers? Leave your monkey manners behind just for a moment: isn't most every one's mom just a combination of varying emotional responses and forms? It may be cold to reduce something so personally important as such, but considering each and every person in similar ambiance is an unreasonable burden, and one that may be absolutely contrary to our capacity by nature, hence the relevance of Dunbar's Number.
If everyone who was ever worth caring about, and died, affected you on a personal level, life would be absolutely unlivable. It's why we are content to seek escapism from this notion by way of fictionalizing representations of humankind's most sorrowful moments - because it is distant, and safe. It would be very problematic were our society based upon earnest compassion for other humans, especially if its aims were to indeed alleviate the necessary suffering that directs all considerations of "freedom". We simply wouldn't accomplish anything! Humans thrive on adversity and criticism, it forces us to be volatile and calculating at times, but a whirling moral compass tilting upon the axis of empathy is bound to drive us all completely mad with grief, not to mention beyond our capacity to feel anything at all.
As for art as angst; I do hold that all honest works of art stem from a place of true depression, because, as in Cathartic weaves that inspire emotion, humans once more thrive as sentient and transitory beings by way of their most vital signatures, often in the form of any number of representations we can call 'art'. But that is certainly not to say that all art must be angsty or dark or depressing - probably more often, it is quite the opposite, but it is never earnest without the understanding of the artist, as an individual within a species, of what makes it vital. This can manifest in all manner of mechanisms, whether it be to write happy songs or bright, colourful paintings as a way of coping with loss or regret or in irony, but always there persists the idea of a heartfelt extension of its creator as an amalgam of the time, place, and circumstances under which any given piece is created.
With these coordinate facts in mind, it is oft that we are at a loss as to the total factors to comprise any work. We sometimes do not even know the name of the artist for many works of art, much less the specific time it was created in. But that is all part of the communication in this considerable medium- that we need not know the facts or the credits, that is stands as a response to something most every one of us feels at some point or another, that it is without objective save to merely exist, to be there and be an unquestionable statement of absolute proportions.
The transmission of art to persist as a catalyst for emotional communication is likewise absolute, and, like the projection of angst it may very well stem from in the first place, it is wrought with the drummed-up expectations and failings of its solvency with regard to the various other solutions our society has fabricated to address distress on its various scales.
Oh shut up, Hal. 
Fuck you, shitglutton. I'll continue my empty screeds just to get you to keep fucking whining about your views on pseudointellectualism.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.