Today I’d like to discuss one of the newer, and arguably less weighty, trends in modern cinema: presenting the main title of the film at end rather than the beginning, otherwise known within the industry as ‘Main on Ends.’ While there have no doubt been films who have broken with tradition for as long as there have been films, this is not a case of a singular rogue director making a statement – no, this particular trend has been accepted by the industry and used across the cinematic spectrum. What are the benefits of this practice? The detriments? I think this is an interesting discussion to have, particularly given the great state of upheaval in which the entire media industry now finds itself. So, let’s jump in…
A Caveat
I feel I should preface this entire discussion by stating a fairly obvious, but still important, piece of information: there are no right or wrong answers here. Art in general, and this practice in particular, is subjective. One’s feelings on the matter are only reflective of their own personal tastes and not of some greater truth. Whether or not you approve of or dislike the practice in question has no bearing on the validity of its use. That said, a preponderance of public opinion on the matter (in one direction or the other) may very well sway the frequency of the use of such a practice overall.
Now that that bit of disclaimer is out of the way, let’s continue.
The Traditional Method
While it might already seem clear, I think it prudent to begin any discussion of the ‘Main on Ends’ phenomenon by first examining the current traditional standard for title display. As that description might imply, and as you have no doubt seen for yourself if you have ever watched a movie, the standard way of displaying a film’s title has always been at (or near) the beginning. Much like a book opens with the title prominently displayed on the dust jacket and again within the opening pages, films have also traditionally begun with their own titles first and foremost. This is done both as a matter of custom but also as a service to the audience – a way of letting them know what they are in for.
That said, what constitutes the ‘beginning’ of a film, and thus any cutoff for a title’s inclusion in it, is fluid. In the case of Jurassic Park, the first thing we are shown (outside of studio names and logos) is the film’s title – a clear case of following the traditional ‘rules.’ However, in the 2009 film Friday the 13th, the main title does not appear until after a lengthy opening sequence – around 20 minutes into the runtime. While this at first might seem to be an altogether different location (a mid-movie title?), I would argue that it is not. In that particular film, the opening sequence follows group of characters who are (for the most part) unrelated to the rest of the film. The sequence is used to provide backstory for the main thrust of the rest of the film’s narrative as well as to establish mood and tone. Though certainly pushing the limits of the term ‘opening titles,’ I think that in spirit and use it still follows the precedent.
Main on Ends
Over the past decade, but particularly more frequently in the last 5 years, a new trend has emerged: placing the title of the film at its very end (not including any post-credit scenes) as opposed to the beginning. The primary reason for this seems to be an attempt at de-cluttering the opening of the film by stripping away any distractions that might remove focus from the world being set up. A secondary, though perhaps no less important use, might be to add dramatic or emotional weight to the display of the title. Perhaps it appears as a semi-punchline to a joke or to re-state the film’s core message or values – in either case, there are valid creative reasons why the display of a film’s title at the end of the picture might benefit the work.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that many (though not all) of the films that have adopted this particular style have done so more in an attempt at homogeny with current trends in the marketplace and less as a distinct creative choice (though I’ll also admit that this last bit is far closer to conjecture than empirical fact). The appearance of the title at the end of the film felt to me, in many of these cases, to be more akin to a company logo on the bottom of a coffee mug than an impactful usage to make a statement. Rather than allowing the appearance of the title at the outset to build anticipation for what was to come, it arose at the end to merely label what had already happened. As I said, this is not true in all cases – just in many I have witnessed firsthand.
Arguments For and Against
In an attempt to fairly litigate the use of this practice in current cinema, I will now try and present (to the best of my ability) many of the most compelling arguments both in favor of, and in opposition to, the practice of ‘Main on Ends.’ While perhaps not a complete accounting, I hope to do a fair job of giving each their due.
The Title as Forewarning
Certainly the argument can be made that anyone watching a film, particularly in a theatrical setting, is already aware of what is on screen. Thus, a title’s inclusion at the beginning of a film to forewarn the audience of just what it is they are about to view might, at its face, seem to be unnecessary. While mostly true, that argument holds somewhat less weight in the modern world of films played on television or across streaming services – an area in which media can either be already in progress or started on mere whim (sometimes based on as little as an eye-catching image or still from the film). In these cases it would seem prudent to inform the viewer as to just what they are watching.
The Title as Hype
Many of the best films of all time have managed to use the appearance of the title at (or near) the beginning of their story as a way to excite and engage the audience from the outset. Perhaps the most well-known and beloved example of this usage comes in the form of the grand entrance of the title of Star Wars. Accompanied by the swelling orchestral score, and flying off into the distance, the appearance of this title unequivocally sets the mood and tone of the film while simultaneously hyping the audience for what it is to come. Even the relatively subtler title appearance of the aforementioned Jurassic Park manages to, when again paired with some haunting music, prepare the viewing for the chilling and mysterious adventure ahead.
The Title as Statement
As mentioned above, many of the films that choose to provide their titles at the end of the runtime (as opposed to the beginning) do so in an attempt to sign off with a powerful capper – to use the appearance of the text as a final nail with which to hammer home the point of their film. Assuming a positive reception, an argument can be made that the audience is at their most engaged (and thus receptive) after having just witness the events of the story. It is in this moment, then, that such a display of intent might have the greatest impact. Of course, others would argue that the beginning of a film – when the audience is still trying to gain its bearings and is eagerly awaiting the adventure to come – may hold greater weight. This is perhaps, more than others, a matter of the individual audience member in question as opposed to a blanket statement that can be applied to all viewers.
The Title as Surprise
It may also be that the appearance of the title at the end of a film might be used to surprise the audience or subvert expectations. Perhaps a title which sounds happy is shown to have a darker meaning when viewed after the unfolding of the story or it could be that the ‘hero’ (or main character) of the tale was not whom we had initially thought. Withholding the title of the piece, in these cases, would make a great deal of sense – were it not the reality that the title of the film is hardly ever unknown to the viewer. From the moment they actively choose to watch a particular piece of media (by going to the theater [Ticket and Marquee], buying the disk [Front Cover], changing channels [TV Interface], or selecting the title off of a streaming service [Selection page]) the person watching is never unaware as to what is in front of them. Thus, any potential usage in shocking the audience by withholding such information is rendered moot. That said, this same argument can be used to promote the opposite opinion: after all, if viewer is always aware of what they are watching, then there is no need to inform them up front via a title in the opening.
The Title as Branding
Movies, like literally everything in life, have a name. These names, both proper and broad, are then useful in allowing people to communicate and discuss ideas. For me to pass you the salt, we must first have agreed on the shared name of the item that is known as salt. Likewise, to review a movie like Bambi requires that we can both quickly and easily identify exactly which movie we are speaking of. Promptly and clearly labeling a particular piece of art with a title, prominently displayed for all to see, thus allows us to instantly recognize that which we are experiencing and to effortlessly exchange ideas and opinions on the work in question. Additionally, as there are those individuals who begin watching a film without ever finishing it, it ensures that those viewers are still in no doubt as to what it was they were watching (however briefly). While perhaps not the target audience (they did stop watching before the end, after all), continuing to raise public awareness of a title or brand is still unequivocally important in today’s crowded marketplace.
Middle Ground
So what is the solution? Am I arguing that, merely to appease the standard-bearers of the past and fall in line with tradition, all films should cease the practice of placing their titles at the end and should only be allowed to do so at the outset of a film? No. While I do feel that the placement of a title at or near the beginning of a film is generally the best practice (and the one I personally prefer), I also have no issue with the use of ‘Main on Ends’ when it serves a useful narrative or creative purpose. There are no doubt many cases when the use of this method results in a better film than would otherwise exist if the traditional rules were stringently followed. Look no further than, again, to Star Wars for an example of a film who subverted the traditional cinematic structure (by refraining from having credits of any kind appear until the very end) in a way that benefitted the story being told. The giant wall of text, necessary to be read by the audience to understand the context of the story, may have seen its importance muddled by the appearance of further text on screen (either during or after).
That said, I am very much against the adoption of ‘trend’ techniques (Found Footage, Main on Ends, Meta Humor, Lens Flare, Bullet Time etc.) when used as an attempt to cash in on a current fad rather than for any true dramatic purpose. Not only does such use cheapen the effectiveness of the technique when properly used, but it also both dates and undermines the work in which it resides. While a nifty trick, does anyone really think the “Bullet Time” jump of the facehuggers in AVP (a creature traditionally known and feared for its lightning speed) feels like an original and organic part of the story? Likewise, flagrant use of ‘Main on Ends’ to capitalize on current trends serves only to sort the film in question into the bin of those who feel that they must ape those around them to remain relevant. When the question is “Why did you do it this way?,” the answer given should not simply be “Because others did.”
Still, I would like to end on a note of compromise – a way to have your proverbial cake and eat it too. I submit that in many (though, again, not all) cases in which a film would like to display its title at the end, it could instead do both. In fact, many films have done this – first displaying the title at the outset of the story (thus setting up what is to come) and then showing it again at end (allowing it to still be used to make the same necessary thematic point). This technique of ‘bookending’ the film with a title display would thus would allow it have the best of both worlds while retaining very few of the downsides associated with either on their own. That said, I am aware that such a tact might not work well in all cases – this is merely a suggestion of a possible middle ground in those instances where an end title is desired.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the final decision as to where and how to display the title of a film is best left up to those in creative control. These artists and creators are the ones best positioned to determine the optimal version of their own work. They know their story better than anyone and, while some might disagree with their choices, are the only ones qualified to make the final choice. It is merely my hope that such decisions are made not out of haste or mere bandwagon jumping (in an ill-fated attempt to gain some small bit of additional cultural cache) but as an attempt to arrive at the optimal expression of their art – to best serve the story they are telling. As long as that is the ultimate goal, one can ask for no more and must trust in the artist.
It’s their story after all – we’re just along for the ride.
Chris