{"id":15062,"date":"2011-08-15T11:27:20","date_gmt":"2011-08-15T16:27:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/?p=15062"},"modified":"2021-02-01T07:00:44","modified_gmt":"2021-02-01T13:00:44","slug":"despoiling-the-movies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/2011\/08\/15\/despoiling-the-movies\/","title":{"rendered":"Despoiling the movies"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Denton Record-Chronicle<\/strong> (28 December 1947).<\/em><\/p>\n

DB here:<\/p>\n

The last line of Otto Preminger’s\u00a0Daisy Kenyon<\/em> is \u201cWhen it comes to modern combat tactics, you’re both babies compared to me.\u201d If you haven\u2019t seen the film, does knowing that ruin it for you? Suppose I went further and identified the character who spoke the line, or the immediate circumstances, or the action leading up to it? Would knowing these things ruin your pleasure? Or would it give you a different sort of pleasure?<\/p>\n

Who doesn\u2019t come to Casablanca<\/em> knowing about \u201cHere\u2019s looking at you, kid,\u201d or \u201cPlay it, Sam,\u201d or \u201cRound up the usual suspects\u201d? You likely saw the ending of King Kong<\/em> in compilation films before you saw the whole movie, yet you probably still watch it with enjoyment. I saw Potemkin<\/em>\u2019s Odessa Steps sequence many times, on an 8mm reel I bought as a kid, before I saw the whole movie. I still enjoy Potemkin<\/em>, possibly more than many who see it for the first time.\u00a0Yet people complain about trailers that tell too much, and critics who give plot twists away. Accordingly, it\u2019s been a convention of fan and Net writing that if you’re going to give away major story information, you alert readers with the word \u201cspoiler.\u201d<\/p>\n

Surely people want to know something<\/em> about a film\u2019s story. Viewers clamored for the most basic information about Super 8<\/em>. And evidently many moviegoers would feel less disgruntled about\u00a0The Tree of Life<\/em> if they had known in advance a little bit more about what they would encounter.\u00a0It seems we want to know about the story\u2019s basic situation, but not too much about how things develop. Say: bits from the first half-hour or so, up to the beginning of the Second Act (or what Kristin calls the Complicating Action<\/a>). Beyond that, we want things kept quiet. Above all: Don\u2019t tell the how things turn out in the end.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been driven to think again about spoilers after Jonah Lehrer reported on an experiment<\/a> with literary texts. On the whole, readers in the study reported enjoying a short story somewhat more if they knew the ending in advance. Jim Emerson has provided his characteristically stimulating commentary on this finding<\/a>, and his readers, surely among the most reflective in the online film community, have supplemented his thoughts.<\/p>\n

This discussion overlaps with\u00a0a question I raised a while back<\/a> on this site. How can we feel suspense if we know a story’s outcome? One standard answer, which would apply to spoilers too, is that even with foreknowledge, we’re interested in how<\/em> that turn of events comes about. This possibility is invoked by some of Jim’s readers, and it seems plausible, especially if one is a connoisseur of storytelling. How, we ask, does the narrative engineer this or that twist?<\/p>\n

My further proposal in the blog entry was that our mind’s intake of narratives is modular in some respects. Part of us reacts as if we were encountering the events fresh, without knowledge of what is coming up. The analogy was to standing on a balcony overhanging a precipice. You know that you cannot fall, but\u00a0when you imagine yourself falling, you\u00a0feel a twinge of fear all the same.<\/p>\n

The same might be true of consuming a narrative. One of our mental systems, fast but fairly dumb, reacts to things as they come, while secure knowledge hovers more distantly in the background.\u00a0I suggested as well that the way that something is presented–say, with fast cutting or sweeping music–can override our knowledge and kindle a basic, more visceral response.<\/p>\n

Today\u2019s entry tackles the matter of foreknowledge from a different angle. It’s worth remembering that many people who went to the movies in the 1920s through the 1950s willingly subjected themselves to spoilers.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This is where we came in?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chicago Daily Tribune <\/strong>(4 January 1948).<\/em><\/p>\n

While the American studios developed their storytelling strategies in the 1920s and 1930s, movie exhibition became a big business. In 1935, eighty million Americans went to the movies every week. The historical high point was 1946-1948, when annual attendance hit 4.7 billion. But how did all those people see the movies? More specifically, did they watch them from start to finish?<\/p>\n

We\u2019re so used to showing up at a definite time for a screening that it\u2019s hard to imagine a period when many viewers would simply drop in to what were called \u201ccontinuous admissions\u201d or \u201ccontinuous performances.\u201d In major cities, the film programs, complete with newsreels, cartoons, trailers, other shorts, and even a second feature, would run steadily with only brief intermissions. You could drop in any time.<\/p>\n

When the houses filled up, prospective viewers would have to wait in line outside or in the lobby until someone left. Then an usher would show the next patron to the empty seat. Meyer Levin\u2019s novel The Old Bunch<\/em> describes a group of friends waiting forty-five minutes before just getting into the lobby of a Chicago theatre in the 1920s.<\/p>\n

Some of the viewers would depart during the main or second feature. Naturally, the patrons admitted in medias res<\/em> would see the end of a movie before they caught up with the beginning, perhaps some hours later. Hence the phrase, \u201cThis is where we came in,\u201d meaning, \u201cNow we\u2019ve seen the whole picture and can leave.\u201d<\/p>\n

After Kristin, Janet Staiger, and I wrote The Classical Hollywood Cinema<\/a><\/em>, a few readers asked why we hadn\u2019t talked about continuous admissions. The practice would seem to explain a lot about the redundancy of Hollywood storytelling. Hyperexplicit exposition, the Rule of Three (say everything important thrice), and the habit characters have of reminding us of their relations to each other (\u201cGee! You\u2019re the swellest sister a guy ever had!\u201d)\u2014all this would seem to be aimed at a viewer who might well have come in halfway through and need orienting to basic plot premises.<\/p>\n

We knew about continuous performances, of course, but we didn\u2019t discuss them because we could find no evidence that filmmakers took these conditions into account when designing their stories. In reading Hollywood screenplay manuals, technical journals, and the like, I didn\u2019t find anyone commenting on the exhibition practice. My colleague Lea Jacobs, who has scanned Variety<\/em> very comprehensively for the 1920s and 1930s, can recall no mentions of it affecting production policies.<\/p>\n

When you think about it, screenwriters and directors couldn\u2019t really do much to bring a latecomer up to date. You can\u2019t keep reiterating story premises and recapitulating all that went before, and still move the plot forward. Better to tell the story straightforwardly and assume, as a default, that under ideal circumstances people would see the whole film from scene one onward. The same assumption governs TV writing, despite viewers’ channel surfing and foreplay with the remote.<\/p>\n

Still, during the Golden Age of Hollywood a significant population consumed movies knowing how the story turned out before they saw the beginning.\u00a0Ask people of my generation or older, and you’ll usually hear: “Oh, we went whenever we wanted. We never tried to find the showtimes.”\u00a0My childhood moviegoing memories are dim, but I recall being dropped off at the Elmwood Theatre <\/a>by my parents when they went to town. I\u2019d go in during the movie (I do recall\u00a0The Sad Sack<\/em>, 1957) and watch until my mother or father fetched me out. It’s very likely that adults drifted in at odd times as well.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s harder evidence that some people preferred convenience to coherence. In 1950 Twentieth Century-Fox announced that\u00a0All About Eve<\/em> (1950) would be screened only in \u201cscheduled performances.\u201d No one would be seated after the film began. Premiering at Manhattan\u2019s Roxy Theatre, Eve<\/em> ran for a week under the new policy. It failed. People hadn\u2019t heard about the new rules, showed up late, and weren\u2019t admitted. The results were angry lines outside and empty seats within. The practice was halted and\u00a0Eve s<\/em>creened in continuous performance.\u00a0The Hollywood Reporter<\/em> attributed the failure to \u201cthe public\u2019s deeply ingrained habit of going to a movie show at any desired hour, when most convenient or on impulse.\u201d<\/p>\n

In other words, many people were encountering what we call spoilers all the time, and it didn\u2019t seem to bother them. So you wonder: Is watching a movie straight through, as we mostly do today, a newer, more “disciplined” mode of consumption?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It’s showtime<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Daisy Kenyon.<\/em><\/p>\n

It’s obvious that the custom of just dropping in didn’t guarantee a nonlinear movie experience. With a double-bill house, even if you dropped in arbitrarily, you would see one feature or the other in a single gulp. And assuming a three-hour program and a 90- or 95-minute A picture, your odds of walking in during the shorts or the B film were about fifty-fifty.<\/p>\n

But were people obliged<\/em> to drop in willy-nilly? Could they have seen the movie straight through if they wanted to?<\/p>\n

There’s considerable evidence that parts of the audience did want to see the movies in linear fashion.Consider the early attenders.\u00a0\u00a0And many cinemas filled up quickly just before the show started.\u00a0Coming in when the theatre opened seems a fairly clear indication of wanting a linear experience. True, early attenders would probably have to sit through a newsreel, trailers, and other shorts, but many people enjoyed those too. Further, since\u00a0double-bill houses screened the A picture first, knowing that custom could guide your decision about when to come in.<\/p>\n

Could patrons have gained specific information about when the movies were screening? There’s a widespread belief that theatres didn’t publicize showtimes. But that’s not the case.<\/p>\n

First, the box office almost always posted a schedule breaking down the program. Sometimes cardboard clocks with movable hands indicated showtimes. Patrons might see the schedule when they arrived, or while passing the theatre during the day. Knowing the schedule, you didn’t have to go straight in. If you bought your ticket while the feature was running, you could linger in the lobby. Probably some viewers were reluctant to enter if the feature they wanted to see was just ending.<\/p>\n

Second, there were newspaper advertisements. This evidence is varied and intriguing, full of unexpected quirks. First, I took a look at late 1940s ads for the Elmwood, my hometown venue. These ads are mostly bare-bones. They list the movies, all double features, with three changes a week (films played Friday-Saturday, Sunday-Monday, and Tuesday-Thursday). The theatre doesn\u2019t supply its phone number, probably because many families in our area didn\u2019t have phones until the late 1950s. Showtimes are seldom mentioned.\u00a0Doubtless townfolks knew by local custom what the showtimes were, and there was no need to advertise it in newspapers or handbills (which were still around in the 1950s). One September 1949 item specifies opening and closing hours:<\/p>\n

Matinees Daily 2:00<\/strong><\/p>\n

Evenings 7:00 to 11:30<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sundays and Holidays Continuous 2:00 to 11:30<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Knowing these hours of operation, people who wanted to see the movies straight through could show up at 2:00 or 7:00.<\/p>\n

But some ads in other towns get a little more specific. \u201c2 COMPLETE SHOWS 9:30 & 12 MIDNITE,\u201d blares the Colonia of Norwich, New York in 1947. This indicates the starting times for the newsreel, cartoon, and ads, which all preceded the main feature. But since many theatres began their screening at 6:00, the accompanying ad from the Capitol, of Dunkirk, New York in 1948 seems to be saying that after all the shorts and ads,\u00a0Tycoon<\/em> hits the screen at 6:25. That movie ran a little over two hours, so there was time for filler leading up to the Happy Laugh Hit (presumably a revival). More unequivocal is the ad for Daisy Kenyon<\/em> at the very top of this entry, which specifies when the feature starts. Again, the theatre probably opened at 1:00 and brought in the evening crowd at 7:00. That left fifteen minutes or so for pre-show material, including the color cartoon and “Global News”.<\/p>\n

In short, some newspaper ads tell us only the theatre’s operating hours, while others\u00a0specify showtimes. This sort of variation goes far back. The Olean (New York)\u00a0Evening Herald<\/em> advertised\u00a0the Strand Theatre as \u201cshowing continuously 1 to 11 daily,\u201d with no showtimes mentioned. On the same page we \u00a0find specific starting times listed for a rival theatre’s showings of\u00a0Fairbanks\u2019Mark of Zorro<\/em> (1921).<\/p>\n

For special occasions, the scheduling could be quite exact. If you happened to be in Middletown, New York, on New Year\u2019s Eve of 1947, you could welcome in \u201cKid 1948\u201d at a gala show starting at 7:00 and ending \u201csome time in 1948.\u201d But not just “some time”: The State’s plan has a military precision.<\/p>\n

Daisy Kenyon<\/em> at 7:00 – 9:29 – 12:01<\/strong><\/p>\n

Comedy \u201cSkooper Dooper\u201d at 8:38 \u2013 11:08<\/strong><\/p>\n

Terrytoon Cartoon \u201cSilver Streak\u201d at 9:12 \u2013 11:42<\/strong><\/p>\n

Community Sing at 9:19 \u2013 11:49<\/strong><\/p>\n

Latest Pathe News at 8:56 \u2013 11:26<\/strong><\/p>\n

The ad goes on:<\/p>\n

No seats reserved \u2013 No waiting in line. Come any time from 6:30 until 11:20 and see a complete show\u2014Stay as long as you like! Come in one year\u2014Leave the next!<\/strong><\/p>\n

The rival Goshen Theatre likewise provided a detailed schedule of its New Year\u2019s Eve attractions, an astonishing four features plus cartoons. The show, broken into 9 \u201cunits,\u201d started at 7:00 and ended at 1:00 in the morning, concluding with an \u201cExit March.\u201d Why don\u2019t movie theatres have exit marches any more?<\/p>\n

Apart from ads specifying showtimes, we can glean other hints that at least some viewers preferred to know when to arrive to catch a film from the beginning. Some newspapers published lists of starting times. The New York Evening Post<\/em> printed an extensive \u201cMovie Clock\u201d covering over eighty theatres. A Schenectady paper did the same thing under the rubric \u201cShowing Today. What the Theatres Are Advertising.\u201d You can find a similar feature in papers from Portland and Council Bluffs. Movie houses were often a small-town newspaper’s biggest and most reliable advertising source, so many editors were ready to oblige theatre managers.<\/p>\n

Movie ads also sometimes included the theatre\u2019s phone number, so people could call to check showtimes. Access to telephones was still spotty then; recall that the infamous Gallup Poll of 1948<\/a> misjudged Dewey\u2019s chance for victory, partly by relying on phone surveys. But by 1945 there were about 16 million residential phones for a population of 140 million, so the middle-class people sought by exhibitors, then as now, might well be able to call up the movie house.<\/p>\n

That is, in fact, what Daisy Kenyon does at one point in her movie. Having decided to go out with her girlfriend, she checks the phone number of the theatre she wants to visit and starts to call to check on showtimes. (She’s interrupted by a call from the mysterious Peter Lapham.) The scene seems to model one set of urban filmgoing habits.<\/p>\n

Historian Douglas Gomery reminds us that there were many different sorts of theatres–first-run and subsequent-run, big downtown houses and neighborhood venues, rural ones, art houses, and so on. I’ve tried to capture some of this variety in my exploratory sample, but there are many fine-grained differences.\u00a0Moreover, roadshow pictures often played to strict schedules, selling tickets for specific performances, and people adjusted their schedules to that regime for Gone with the Wind<\/em> and other blockbusters. Perhaps the All About Eve<\/em> fiasco came from people thinking this new film, in black-and-white and offered at regular admission prices, was not an event film like the usual roadshow attraction.<\/p>\n

In all, it’s hard to generalize about viewing patterns. But it seems fair to say that in many circumstances viewers could, if they wanted, avoid seeing a movie’s ending before the beginning.<\/p>\n

Which means that, then as now, we find different viewing styles. Today we have the Planners, who Tivo their cable television offerings, and the Grazers, who hop from channel to channel and watch in medias res<\/em>. (We also have the Gleaners, who sample items at their leisure via the net. But there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent option in classic theatrical film viewing.) Several of Jim Emerson’s cinephile readers point out that they appreciate spoiler alerts in a web review because they want the choice between knowing and not knowing. It seems that in many circumstances movie houses offered 1940s viewers that same option.<\/p>\n

\n

Exhibition history is far from my specialty, so I’d welcome information from researchers who’ve studied this question more systematically. In the meantime, I’m grateful to Kristin, Ben Brewster, Lea Jacobs, Vance Kepley, Betty Kepley, John Huntington, and Virginia Wright Wexman for discussion with me. A special thanks to Douglas Gomery, who shared detailed information in emails and phone conversations.<\/p>\n

For a comprehensive history, see Douglas Gomery,\u00a0Shared Pleasures: A History of Movie Presentation in the United States<\/a><\/em> (University of Wisconsin Press, 1992).\u00a0See also Gregory A. Waller,\u00a0Moviegoing in America: A Sourcebook in the History of Film Exhibition<\/a> <\/em>(Wiley-Blackwell, 2001) and Going to the Movies: Hollywood and the Social Experience of Cinema<\/a><\/em> (University of Exeter Press, 2007), ed. Richard Maltby, Melvyn Stokes, and Robert C. Allen. Allen has mounted a beautiful online archive<\/a> devoted to moviegoing in North Carolina.<\/p>\n

A useful older source, though not focused on the 1940s, is Frank H. Ricketson, Jr.,\u00a0The Management of Motion Picture Theatres <\/em>(McGraw-Hill, 1938). Ricketson\u00a0advocates three hours as a maximum program time.<\/p>\n

The motion picture theatre has a constant drop-in trade, and the patron who catches the feature after it has started does not want to sit through a seemingly endless program to see the part that he has missed. The tendency today is to present shows that are too long <\/strong>(p. 121).<\/p>\n

It’s possible that as an employee of Fox Theatres, Ricketson was pushing the then-common industry view that double features were undesirable. Fewer films on the bill allowed more turnover during the day and favored the higher-profit A pictures.<\/p>\n

Information about All About Eve<\/em>‘s “scheduled performance” policy comes from the American Film Institute Catalog<\/a><\/em>. See also “Business on ‘Eve’ at Roxy Jumps After Scheduled Showings Cut,” Boxoffice<\/em> (28 October 1950), 50, available here<\/a>. Linda Williams argues that Psycho<\/em>‘s exhibition policy helped create the custom of consuming a movie straight through. See her “Discipline and Distraction: Psycho<\/em>, Visual Culture, and Postmodern Cinema,” in “Culture” and the Problem of Disciplines<\/a><\/em>, ed. John Carlos Rowe (Columbia University Press, 1998).<\/p>\n

My analogy to standing on a precipice comes from No\u00ebl Carroll’s The Philosophy of Horror<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

Two final points I couldn’t squeeze in elsewhere. First, to a large extent, spoilers are a function of different sorts of movie talk. In daily conversation, we\u2019re reluctant to tell too much to friends who haven\u2019t yet seen the film. Journalistic film reviewers seek not to reveal the ending, of course, but they’re also obliged to write about many scenes in an oblique way. (\u201cAfter a string of preposterous coincidences\u2026\u201d) Net writers seem to model their comments on conversation and professional reviews, although some rascals delight in telling innocent readers everything that happens. We might call them spoilersports.<\/p>\n

By contrast, academic writing assumes that the reader has seen the film, or is willing to let details be divulged for the sake of some larger point. Occasionally bloggers adhere to this standard. Readers of J. J. Murphy’s blog<\/a> know that he doesn’t refrain from synposizing a plot to give depth to an analysis.\u00a0I\u2019ve done the same thing here on many occasions, but sometimes I feel the need to signal spoilers, particularly for current releases or films that depend on big twists. For some reason, I think that older films are fair game for full-blown discussion, even though many of our readers are less likely to have seen Enchantment<\/a> <\/em>than Source Code<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

Second point, pure digression: In 1947, Richard Hull published\u00a0Last First<\/em>, a mystery novel dedicated “to those who habitually read the last chapter first.” The opening chapter does provide the story’s ending, but as you’d expect there’s a trick. The chapter is written so obliquely that you can’t really tell who is doing what to whom. At least I can’t.<\/p>\n

P. S. 18 May 2012:<\/strong>\u00a0Two more items that I’ve run across relevant to the this-is-where-we-came-in problem. First, this dialogue exchange from Ellery Queen’s serial-killer novel of 1949, Cat of Many Tails<\/em>. The murder victim, one investigator says, “left for a neighborhood movie. Around nine o’clock.” The other asks, “Pretty late?” The reply: “She went just for the main feature.” This suggests that in Manhattan, it wouldn’t be impossible to know when the main feature played for the last time–either from the newspaper, from a phone call, or just from custom.<\/p>\n

It seems that indeed late shows of the A picture were common. A 1939 Variety<\/em> article, “‘Bad’ Scheduling Squawk” (27 December 1939, 5, 47) indicates that often the “No. 1 film” was put on at awkward hours, and viewers objected. “Too often, it is declared, a customer will call the theatre, only to learn the film he or she wants to see goes on at a time that interferes with dinner, or it’s on the last show, so late that getting out would be around midnight or thereabouts. Result, under theory, is that the customer doesn’t go at all.” Again, we find some evidence that the public could find out when a movie played by phoning, and that at least some patrons cared enough to see the picture through from the start. This piece from 1939 suggests that these options were available at least in some towns throughout the 1940s. Presumably, this practice was prominent in theatres not controlled by the studios, since the B picture was a flat-rate rental but the No. 1 feature was a percentage booking. The more tickets you could sell for the B, the bigger the exhibitor’s share of receipts.<\/p>\n

P.S. 21 May 2012:<\/strong> The Wisconsin Project never sleeps. Alert Ph. D. researcher Andrea Comiskey sends me 1939 ads from the Olympia in Portsmouth, New Hampshire and the Fox in Billings, Montana. Both lists start times for both features, A and B, with the Fox including the start times for cartoons and newsreels too. The heading is, bluntly, “When to Come Today.” As per the above addendum, the Fox runs the A picture last, and quite late (around 10 PM).<\/p>\n

P.P.S. 1 February 2021:<\/strong> Ran across this in John O’Hara’s novel Butterfield 8<\/em> (1935):<\/p>\n

“What are we up to this afternoon?”<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Oh, whatever you like,” she said.<\/strong><\/p>\n

“I want to see ‘The Public Enemy.'”<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Oh, divine. James Cagney.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Oh, you like James Cagney?”<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Adore him.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Why?” he said.<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Oh, he’s so attractive. So tough. Why–I just thought of something.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

“What?”<\/strong><\/p>\n

“He’s–I hope you don’t mind this–but he’s a little like you.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Uh. Well, I’ll phone and see what time the main picture goes on.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Why?”<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Well, I’ve seen it and you haven’t, and I don’t want you to see the ending first.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Oh, I don’t mind.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

“I’ll remind you of that after you’ve seen the picture.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Daisy Kenyon<\/strong>. Daisy and her friend, tracked by Peter and watched by a waiter, have apparently gone to a revival house–and one not playing pictures from Fox, the studio behind Daisy<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Denton Record-Chronicle (28 December 1947). DB here: The last line of Otto Preminger’s\u00a0Daisy Kenyon is \u201cWhen it comes to modern combat tactics, you’re both babies compared to me.\u201d If you haven\u2019t seen the film, does knowing that ruin it for you? Suppose I went further and identified the character who spoke the line, or […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[224,156,79,57,40,130],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15062","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-1940s-hollywood","category-actors-fairbanks","category-film-theory-cognitivism","category-hollywood-aesthetic-traditions","category-hollywood-the-business","category-movie-theatres"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15062","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15062"}],"version-history":[{"count":56,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15062\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":46468,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15062\/revisions\/46468"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15062"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15062"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15062"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}