Deceptive Retrospective Narrative Strategy and Synchronistic Prerequisite: Case Study on The Design of Impossible Puzzles

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/cinej.2023.475

Keywords:

Bi Gan, cinema narrative, impossible puzzle films, Jungianism, Long Day’s Journey into Night, mind-game films, meaning-making, narrative prerequisites, retrospectivity, synchronicity

Abstract

The deceptive clues in the impossible puzzle film confirm the viewer’s internal expectations and allow retrospective attributing. In the film, a transcendental object negates an internal expectation, causing a retrospective blockage. Retrospectivity does not stop there; the transcendental object reinterpreting deceptive clues in the associative area leads to repeated attribution. This article consists of three parts. First, it discusses impossible puzzle films in the context of complex narrative classification. The following section introduces the Jungian concept of synchronicity and illustrates how it works. The article concludes with a case study of Long Day’s Journey into Night (2018), which contains more complicated puzzles and explains how mind-game narrative techniques create deceptive clues and induce deceptive retrospective attribution.

Author Biography

Yu Yang, University of Lisbon

Yu Yang earned a Bachelor of Arts in art design from Jiangnan University in China (2010), a Master of Arts in visual arts from the Accademia di Belle Arti di Venezia in Italy (2018), and a PhD in performative arts and moving image at the University of Lisbon's Faculty of Fine Arts (2023). His areas of interest in research include poetic cinema, Chinese cinema, cinematic narrative, and cinematic architecture.

References

Azcona, M. M. (2010). The multi-protagonist film. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Berg, C. R. (2006). A Taxonomy of alternative plots in recent films: Classifying the “Tarantino Effect.” Film Criticism, 31(1/2), 5–61. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44019213

Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the fiction film. The University of Wisconsin Press.

Bordwell, D. (2002). Film futures. SubStance, 31(1), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1353/sub.2002.0004

Bordwell, D. (2006). The way Hollywood tells it: story and style in modern movies. University of California Press.

Bordwell, D. (2007). Poetics of cinema. Routledge.

Bordwell, D., Staiger, J., and Thompson, K. (2005). The classical Hollywood cinema: Film style & mode of production to 1960 (E-Library ed.). Routledge.

Bettinson, G. (2020). Chinese censorship, genre mediation, and the puzzle films of Leste Chen. In F. Lin & J. Aston (Eds.), Renegotiating film genres in East Asian cinemas and beyond (pp. 137–162). Palgrave Macmillan.

Bould, M. (2005). Film noir: From Fritz Lang to Fight Club. Columbia University Press.

Branigan, E. (2014). Butterfly effects upon a spectator. In W. Buckland (Ed.), Hollywood puzzle films (pp. 233–264). Routledge.

Cameron, A. (2008). Modular narratives in contemporary cinema. Palgrave Macmillan.

Carse, J. P. (1986). Finite and infinite games. The Free Press.

Elsaesser, T. (2009). The mind-game film. In W. Buckland (Ed.), Puzzle films: Complex storytelling in contemporary cinema (pp. 13–41). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Elsaesser, T. (2021). Contingency, causality, complexity: Distributed agency in the mind-game film. In T. Elsaesser (Ed.), The mind-game film: Distributed agency, time travel, and productive pathology (pp. 260–296). Routledge.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Jensen, J. (2017, May 03). How ‘Twin Peaks’ inspired ‘Lost’ and ‘The Leftovers’: Damon Lindelof tells EW why ‘The Leftovers’ would not be possible without David Lynch’s classic series. Entertainment. https://ew.com/tv/2017/05/03/twin-peaks-podcast-lost-leftovers-damon-lindelof/

Jung, C. G. (2010). Synchronicity: An acausal connecting principle (R. F. C. Hull Trans.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published in 1952)

Kerr, L. K. (2014). Synchronicity, overview. In T. Teo (ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 1905–1907). Springer.

Kinder, M. (2002). Hot spots, avatars, and narrative fields forever: Buññuel's legacy for new digital media and interactive database narrative. Film Quarterly, 55(4), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1525/fq.2002.55.4.2

Kiss, M. & Willemsen, S. (2017). Impossible puzzle films: A cognitive approach to contemporary complex cinema. Edinburgh University Press.

Mittell, J. (2006). Narrative complexity in contemporary American television. The Velvet Light Trap, 58, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1353/vlt.2006.0032

Panek, E. (2006). The poet and the detective: Defining the psychological puzzle film. Film Criticism, 31(1/2), 62–88. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44019214

Parshall, P. F. (2012). Altman and after: Multiple narratives in film. The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Peat, F. D. (1987). Synchronicity: The bridge between matter and mind. Bantam.

Polan, D. (2000). Pulp Fiction. British Film Institute.

Ros, V. & Kiss, M. (2018). Disrupted PECMA flows: A cognitive approach to the experience of narrative complexity in film. Projections: The Journal for Movies and Mind, 12(1), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.3167/proj.2018.120106

Sacco, R. G. (2019). The predictability of synchronicity experience: Results from a survey of Jungian analysts. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 11(3), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v11n3p46

Singh, G. (2009). Film after Jung: Post-Jungian approaches to film theory. Routledge.

Sternberg, M. (1978). Expositional modes and temporal ordering in fiction. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Thompson, K. (1999). Storytelling in the New Hollywood: Understanding classical narrative technique. Harvard University Press.

Downloads

Published

2023-10-19

How to Cite

Yang, Y. (2023). Deceptive Retrospective Narrative Strategy and Synchronistic Prerequisite: Case Study on The Design of Impossible Puzzles. CINEJ Cinema Journal, 11(1), 258–288. https://doi.org/10.5195/cinej.2023.475

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 1 (2023): Fall 2023

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Yu Yang

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.