Cliffhangers Versus Closure

How Dragons And Tulpas Do It

by Paul Grimsley

It is interesting to see how two of the biggest shows on TV operate in terms of tensions created by delivery of what is desired versus delay of same. In terms of closure, Game Of Thrones is a much more traditional narrative, and when it telegraphs a possible way forward it tends to do so by presenting several options or red herrings which build speculation and anticipation around the next episode.

Twin Peaks is something completely different — in fact it is fair to say that it operates like nothing else on TV. As a show it does possess an internal logic, and it does lend itself to cliffhangers, but whereas with Game Of Thrones you feel that closure is part and parcel of the story, with Twin Peaks you’re never quite sure you’re going to get that answer. A great example of this is the constant tease through the currently aired 16 episodes, that the situation of Agent Cooper will be resolved, and the construct personality that is Dougie will evaporate. It isn’t often that a phrase as short as Damn Fine Coffee is so weighted, but you knew when you heard it that Cooper was closer to the surface.

Game Of Thrones is rare in mainstream TV in the freedom it takes with bumping off characters that you have been rooting for the whole way along. And sometimes they have played with the expectation that a character can’t possibly keep on surviving, but they do. Redemption isn’t guaranteed; being honorable doesn’t necessarily pay off; and sometimes a possible forward direction can be dispatched as quickly as a White Walker with Dragon Glass.

It’s interesting that both shows play with the tropes of soap opera — Game Of Thrones has that feel of an endless rotating cast of characters where the turmoil and intrigue might go on forever. Twin Peaks uses the trappings of soap more like that thin layer of sod that serves as a metaphor for suburbia covering the dark things buried which has served Lynch so well from Eraserhead onwards.

The tensions these two approaches create are amazingly effective at keeping your interest. The mystery is maintained throughout, with a hint at where you the audience are being taken, but constantly soliciting you to walk a little further into the woods, with the promise that it will all be all right in the end. Will it though? The thing is, even if both worlds burn down to the ground, which would not be so strange for either story, people will still keep watching.

You are promised something, and you are denied it and offered something else, and the game generates enough interest that people start to invite others in, so they too can learn the rules, and start to travel the same roads.

Cliffhangers promise denial. Closure will bring the story end you want. Striking the balance between the two really is key to creating a compelling story, and eventually creating a believable conclusion