The Desire-Frustration Theory of Suspense
Aaron Smuts · Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism · 2008
In his 1962 interview with François Truffaut, Alfred Hitchcock reveals the secret of his success at creating suspense. According to Hitchcock, the key to the most effective method of arousing suspense is to give the audience some crucial information that the characters lack. This certainly is not the only technique for creating suspense, but it is an extremely effective one. We find it in most of Hitchcock's films and in almost every movie in the suspense genre. For instance, in Rear Window (1954) Lisa (Grace Kelly) breaks into the apartment across the way in search of evidence to incriminate a suspected murderer. Hitchcock allows the audience to see the killer enter his apartment, unbeknown to Lisa, who is hunting through the bedroom. The scene is one of the most suspenseful moments in cinema. But, we must ask, why should merely knowing more than a character create suspense? Each of us knows lots of things that other people do not but might want to know; a mere epistemic difference does not create suspense. So what is it that makes Hitchcock's technique successful? In this article, I develop a theory of suspense that explains the mechanism behind Hitchcock's technique. I argue for a theory called the “desire‐frustration theory of suspense,” which holds that the frustration of a strong desire to affect the outcome of an imminent event is necessary and sufficient for suspense. Not only can this theory explain Hitchcock's technique, it also accounts for these three curious facts about suspense: It is widely thought that suspense requires uncertainty, but we often feel suspense in response to narratives when we know their outcomes (“the paradox of suspense”). Although we frequently feel suspense intensely in response to narrative artworks, we seldom feel it in our daily lives (“narrative imbalance”). Typically, the amount of suspense we feel diminishes on repeated encounters with a narrative (“diminishing returns”).1 It is not my goal to offer a detailed description of the various aspects of the emotional state of suspense; rather, I will attempt to offer a theory of its causes. Most controversially, and perhaps most significantly, I argue that uncertainty is not necessary for suspense. I begin by describing the standard account of suspense and show how it leads to a paradox. I then develop the desire‐frustration theory and show how it avoids the problems facing the standard account. Finally, I consider several objections to the desire‐frustration theory and attempt to clearly differentiate it from another theory of suspense. Psychologists Andrew Ortony, Gerald L. Clore, and Allan Collins put forth a useful theory of suspense that we might call the “standard account.” The standard account holds that suspense is composed of three things: fear, hope, and the “cognitive state of uncertainty.”2 Ortony, Clore, and Collins define ‘fear’ as a feeling of displeasure about the prospect of an undesirable event, and ‘hope’ as a feeling of pleasure about the prospect of a desirable event. On the standard account, people feel suspense when they fear a bad outcome, hope for a good outcome, and are uncertain about which outcome will come to pass. For example, we might feel suspense when walking through a dangerous neighborhood at night; we fear that we might be mugged, hope that we will be safe, and are uncertain what the outcome will be. Ortony, Clore, and Collins argue that fear and hope are “prospect emotions”—emotions that depend on the desirability and likelihood of the yet to be determined (prospective) outcome of an event. For example, fear is amplified as the degree of danger increases. If I am fearful of being attacked, I am more fearful if the prospective attack is more undesirable: Given equal likelihood, I would be more afraid of being stabbed in the gut with a knife or beaten about the torso with a pillowcase full of oranges than merely punched repeatedly. Similarly, the more likely I believe an undesirable outcome to be, the more fearful I would be. The converse is true regarding hope: The more desirable and likely an outcome seems, the more hopeful we may feel. The intensity of our feelings of suspense seems to rely on two features of an event's outcome: its uncertainty and the significance of what is at stake. The standard view suggests that the greatest suspense is felt in cases where the outcome is very uncertain and the stakes are very high. You can have suspense with low stakes if there is great uncertainty or with low uncertainty if there are high stakes, but, on the standard view, if there is no uncertainty, there can be no suspense. Similarly, if nothing is at stake, there can be no desirable or undesirable outcome, hence no fear or hope, and consequently no suspense. This account of suspense sounds plausible, but by overemphasizing the role of uncertainty, the standard view runs straight into a problem known as the paradox of suspense.3 The paradox of suspense is revealed by asking the following question: If uncertainty is integral to the creation of suspense, then how is it that some films can still be suspenseful on repeated viewings? When we have already seen a movie, and we remember it well, then we are certain how it will end. Although we may not feel suspense as intensely as we did upon first viewing, it is undeniable that we do often feel some suspense upon repeated encounters with the same movie. However, if uncertainty is necessary for suspense, such suspense is impossible. The paradox of suspense can be stated more formally as follows: Suspense requires uncertainty. Knowledge of a story's outcome precludes uncertainty. We feel suspense in response to some narratives when we have knowledge of the outcome. Although in isolation none of these claims is objectionable, together they are incompatible. I propose that we reject the first claim of the paradox, that uncertainty is necessary for suspense. But before explaining why I reject the uncertainty condition, it will pay to ask whether it is less plausible than the others. Indeed, it is fairly easy to show that the second and third claims are strong by briefly looking at two failed solutions to the paradox: Richard Gerrig's “moment by moment forgetting” theory and Robert Yanal's “emotional misidentification” view. Gerrig denies the second premise of the paradox—that knowing the outcome of a narrative precludes uncertainty. Roughly, that not with the to known outcomes to repeated there are no repeated in can feel suspense, they are in the of a they are of the outcome. In this Gerrig narrative can be uncertain for if they know the We not about the of account. to his view, or to that from to in a is that it is to find on of a movie that are only we know the outcome. For instance, consider Hitchcock's of a in the aspects of on first viewing, might evidence of his on repeated This requires the same of that Gerrig as in to feel suspense. If there as Gerrig of to knowledge as the narrative then our when by knowledge of the narrative outcome to upon a is theory that that I feel suspense on a of of a and the same should be for the to on repeated us to believe the second claim of the paradox—that knowledge of the outcome of a narrative precludes uncertainty. Gerrig at the second claim of the paradox, the can feel suspense when they know the the first two claims of the paradox, that suspense requires uncertainty and that it is that do know the outcome to they have already on the of these two that must be their are the feeling of fear with what they to be suspense. In one may that it is no less that fear is uncertainty than it is that suspense is uncertainty. can one fear the outcome of an event that one knows will If fear is as a prospect then the state of uncertainty would be necessary for one to feel Indeed, some that uncertainty is one of the for But consider If have seen the or know the then know that nothing bad will to the it is still to feel fear upon repeated this is that can feel fear at an outcome that know will for the it is no less that feeling fear at the outcome of an event requires uncertainty than feeling suspense. Yanal's of one argue that when fear at the prospect of a bad outcome, when they know how it will they must be their emotional But this is Although we may not be we but that when people their state as fear, it is The same for suspense. In an a that fear or suspense requires uncertainty is not sufficient to the of emotional the third claim of the paradox would us to in emotional have good to believe this the second and third claims of the paradox of suspense are very I propose that we reject the of the standard claim that suspense requires uncertainty. Although it may that feel suspense uncertainty, I will argue that this is In a of suspenseful narratives this premise in of known are on outcomes are known to the that one knows the outcome, one can still feel suspense. If suspense requires uncertainty and one knows that a will be or a one would not be to feel suspense when such But one In one may argue that in most cases there are other the suspense. For instance, the that the suspense in may not be the outcome of the but whether or some of the characters will come However, this is not the the a about a the the us to the two characters who to the their account the narrative we are from the very that none of the we know the outcome of every to several moments in the are it is true that we may not know how the from one to the but we are that the do to from The outcome the characters is known at the of the the It to that uncertainty the of how the from one to the is not the of the suspense. Although we are of the we are certain of the If one seen the one knows that their with the movie is that that of a This can be by the a it suspenseful on repeated If suspense requires uncertainty, then this is impossible. is in for the by Yanal's that it is that uncertainty is for suspense. suspenseful narratives and one can feel suspense if they a is on of suspense, such as together their of suspense and This to of suspense as to for which uncertainty is may be one why people suspense requires the Although the two are often in the same and the prospect of a can be the of some suspense, the is clearly not in or most cases of suspense. For instance, there is no to the scene in Rear than the that we can feel suspense the we should reject the that suspense requires uncertainty, and with it the standard account by Ortony, Clore, and the standard account of suspense runs into a paradox and the on uncertainty to be we a I reject the most widely premise of the that suspense requires is necessary to an account of what is for suspense. In the I explain the desire‐frustration theory of suspense and show how it can explain Hitchcock's technique and the three curious features of suspense in the the aspects of this is a of the who are in the the by one in the of a is and on the his a to if makes the first and the If the the is if can the then the will into the a to It that would suspense in the moments before the but the is not with a to and it is to whether the will with the or into on the may feel and but as is the and it it seems that would feel suspense. However, the is may feel suspense, with the as the the The difference and at the moment of the is to that a in a and a mere For instance, the of a into and with its is from the of of the way and a The suspense, but the The to is that when the stakes are if we are the of a outcome, suspense is However, what we find in suspenseful narratives and in suspenseful in are that our by our to the of a Suspense only when our to a difference is are where we want to affect an where we desire to have a our desire is The desire‐frustration theory of suspense holds that the frustration of a strong desire to affect the outcome of an imminent event is necessary and sufficient for suspense. In to feel suspense, one must about an one must have a strong desire to it the way one desire will not a certain of the of a desire can the for suspense. In to a strong the event one about must be Although one can feel suspense in response to outcomes are one feel suspense in response to that have already one can feel suspense when an event in a is of but this is only the the event is still it is still If one a strong desire to a outcome from an imminent event, suspense when to a difference is When one that desire to a difference is one suspense. the way to explain the desire‐frustration theory of suspense is to show how it can account for narrative that we seldom suspense in but frequently feel it intensely in response to According to the desire‐frustration narratives are extremely effective at creating suspense where we can the of a we are The narratives are effective at creating suspense is the same why is it with the very of to affect narratives is often we are that of suspense frequently We have in a and to or have it for a frustration to suspense, that the to a character know that danger the one of the most suspenseful in Hitchcock's Rear Window (1954) is when Lisa breaks into the apartment across the way in a search for evidence of the suspected enter the apartment as Lisa is hunting in the bedroom. that of the We are to Lisa of the and of our knowledge to affect the outcome. in when the is the apartment the from an apartment across the are other of this technique, the narrative the audience information that they can do nothing In a into a in to a that for the of In the of known and a of for way and to call the In a the the in the of the as the killer from behind in the The scene is our to our desire to the is of the most suspenseful in a is the only in an who is not by a of an to to a where his is When the a the knows to be a our that the is one of the a In of these the to of information that affect the outcome of a narrative is Not only are these effective on the first viewing, they suspenseful on knowing more than a character does not create suspense, but when we know that a character that we about and we are to the we feel suspense. desire to of the information is we want to but there is nothing we can Hitchcock the of the audience as one of us a suspense The is the and the knows they have seen the it The is that the is to at one and there is a in the The can see that it is a to one. In these this same the is in the The audience is to the characters on the be about such a and about to The of narratives precludes the of our desire to a of to and every The most why these are suspenseful is that they are effective at the to its desire to a outcome. Although not of our to affect the outcome of imminent are in our daily narratives are However, the with narratives is narrative does not narratives are seldom perhaps less often than daily Typically, the of is no more suspenseful than or a Although are frequently for moments of suspense, one seldom as If one at the moments when are to suspense, one that the is often of the is to and But why would this be the The desire‐frustration theory an The why narratives are effective at creating suspense, why put in to create suspense, and why is not very suspenseful is that the frustration of our to our is necessary to the creation of suspense. The desire‐frustration theory of suspense is not only a good for narrative it can also explain frustration is a of and this is why suspenseful to be this about the of we should not be to find that suspense diminishes in cases where know the outcome or where feel only of a outcome, we are in a to on the that our desire will be and if we are we may feel less suspense. However, we are often not and when our to our desire for a outcome is suspense is the are in our such as to the outcome or to the to a by the are by such as the desire to see the outcome this be by knowledge of the outcome. there are strong for an imminent outcome and the are not in an we have the for the desire‐frustration theory does not propose uncertainty as a necessary of suspense, it avoids the paradox of suspense. It can a for how suspense is in of about the outcome of an event. For instance, in the of the in the we desire to see to their various are put in their the our desire to see the to and our desire to to the feel suspense on of a movie not they remember how the will but their have not this On a account, what it to desire is to want to be the it is are and are we the to our but we our to the The outcome not yet when the is still there is still to desire if know how the will be may know the outcome of a as do with the but still want to see it see the to want to in of can and of the same on Typically, as the most effective way to us desire to see an outcome is to us for the and it is fairly to us want as as knowledge of the to the when we already know it from a or of the that to are not suspenseful they to narrative suspense, a must create and then audience But to suspenseful on repeated or a narrative must a more It must be to audience we might that suspense is most often a of the narrative to us and suspense is most often our to what we want from the narrative when we want are a of attack one might the desire‐frustration theory of suspense. one may to the claim that uncertainty is not a necessary of suspense, there to be cases where uncertainty is For instance, the a would have in the of with the of a It is to a feeling suspense, but who holds a might be thought to feel suspense as the are The difference the a and a is in knowledge of the outcome: The does not feel suspense knows with that will not the does not know the outcome. the there are some cases where suspense requires uncertainty. For the of that the difference the a and the is of the outcome, and that in this uncertainty is This no on the claim that uncertainty is not necessary for cases of suspense, that one can feel suspense on some uncertainty. this is not a problem for my of the paradox of suspense, the does not of repeated suspenseful It is to that a or would feel suspense the of the if they already the outcome. Similarly, where the suspense it is is merely on the of the do not of suspense. this it Hitchcock as to that suspense on But that they one knows the outcome there is not to desire from a It is less uncertainty than that suspense in Not knowing a about a event the or the do is from the of uncertainty thought to be necessary for about how a event will more to the is The difference the of a and a is one of not uncertainty. In the the event is merely a The is on of but there is nothing to desire if one knows the outcome: Most one desire what one already to know if one the if one holds the the desire is not that one to the if it it is to to a that one is not may have some of desire to come into a or to a of some but they do not have a desire to find if they have the to and certainly do not have a desire to affect the outcome of some imminent On a of one may that the desire‐frustration theory of suspense account for cases of suspense where we do not to desire at a where do not know or a where are not a of The we often feel suspense in response to such an I would we do not feel suspense in response to an event if we do not about the outcome. If we do not about the outcome, the will us But when we in a there might be several of at desire to see their and fear that they will a a can in the It is not to for the in a one might develop the desire to know who will as in the than fear, hope, and uncertainty, the desire‐frustration theory holds that suspense from the frustration of a strong desire to affect the outcome of an imminent event. Most narrative that strong will also an to the desire‐frustration one may argue that such in uncertainty We can see how this might be the by that the standard account is If fear and hope are prospect as Ortony, Clore, and Collins then the uncertainty is fear and hope have uncertainty a known outcome is not a it is a than develop a theory of fear, I by that fear is not on uncertainty, are the of suspenseful that are by see why is not necessary for fear, consider an that is not an movie or a movie The is an of a narrative outcome is in some but the movie, and of we are to know that the will come to a end. in the movie, by an about a who a that then In the the the to the and that it is a dangerous in the movie, is to have of the of his the of a the and In another in of his and holds his the of his into will do is in a and that an across the is an a the to some to a When his to the makes it that will The in fear for to the and to be by the When the into his and his on a the are not at the that only at the fear did not from uncertainty, the We feel fear and suspense the of The we know that will to can to show that fear does not uncertainty. The first one Hitchcock's one may feel fear for as with in the with the an of but have no to that in the of will a knife in as On a second viewing, one a great more fear and suspense the seems on repeated to see to of On a of one might to that my account of suspense and my to the paradox is from that if we know that a will in a certain we can still that it will that merely that an event's outcome is uncertain is to create suspense, the first claim of the is necessary for suspense. my account does not to uncertainty and I that uncertainty in is necessary for suspense, I see it would be to explain why I do not to the view. with the uncertainty view is on what one might by it seems to that what allows narratives such as the to be suspenseful is that they to the story's outcome as an a of what it to the uncertainty of an narrative is certainly are not such of their knowledge of the outcome. The of is If the thought that the outcome is uncertain is the same as following a then this seems to a as an I am not that the uncertainty view is a It does a and extremely account of what are to when they are following a they are that the of merely is sufficient to emotional and that by the by an are the uncertainty of the outcome of the is often sufficient to create suspense when are about a narrative outcome. However, there is good to that the on uncertainty is If a narrative outcome as uncertain to a then narrative outcomes are not the outcomes for which we are are most of the in our daily lives are but almost none are in to explain how we feel suspense of the uncertainty theory requires with a theory of suspense. The uncertainty theory us that merely to the narrative outcomes as which a of as the This does not explain why narrative is more likely to suspense than in our daily in our lives stakes for us than merely in a does it explain why suspense diminishes on repeated encounters with a than the uncertainty view with a theory of suspense, I propose a But none of this an to the theory of I reject the uncertainty theory as and The than uncertainty can often a narrative more The why the scene in is more suspenseful on be that are that the outcome is as uncertain as it on their first rather, it is more suspenseful they know with that will be they do not want it to and they do about The desire‐frustration theory of suspense holds that suspense when desire to affect the outcome of an imminent event is than fear, hope, and uncertainty, the desire‐frustration theory holds that suspense from the frustration of a strong desire to affect the outcome of an imminent event. This theory explains the three curious facts about suspense that I in the On the desire‐frustration there is no paradox of suspense, it does not propose uncertainty as a necessary for suspense. of our knowledge of the outcome, we can be in our to affect the outcome of a narrative event. is by to the that in our daily lives we can the of we are When this is frustration can The desire‐frustration theory can also explain suspense: some are by one for less on encounters with a one often less for what one Not only does the desire‐frustration theory account for these three facts about suspense, it also an of the mechanism behind Hitchcock's technique. We feel suspense not we know that the of a but no how we desire to we do with our The of Suspense the the desire‐frustration theory explains why it