The article was written by Emma Louise Howard and was published to MediaMagazine issue 33 in September 2010.  The article explores the use of flash-back and flash-forward and how it is used to exploit and manipulate narratives in different films. This article attempts to answer how a nonlinear narrative can still engage an audience, without following a cause and effect structure. Howard asserts that using flash-backs can be a way to engage an audience, as they can still work out the narrative. By using this device, filmmakers can show the audience that a nonlinear narrative can still depict reality, as everyone thinks back to the past and they don't always focus on the present or the future such as in conventional linear narrative films: "It's not unusual to have a character ponder their past memories to be presented for our viewing pleasure" This is clearly seen in films such as 500 Days Of Summer, that primarily tells the story through a series of mixed-up flash-backs about a heterosexual relationship and the journey from how the relationship started, to where it is in the present day. Throughout the film, the flash-backs are told in what seems to be a random order, jumping from different stages in the relationship, which is made evident to the audience through the use of numbers, 500 being the ending of the relationship and 1 being the beginning. By using this unusual device, the audience see that the narrative is nonlinear, by the film starting with a break-up scene. Initially we are confused, however: "the manipulation of time and alteration of conventional linearity are creative narrative devices; a means to keeping the audience intrigued, and confounding their expectations via the disruption of traditional structures". Even though the narrative has been manipulated to confuse the audience, we are 'intrigued', because our expectations of 'conventional linearity' are confused and we want to watch further to solve out what is happening in the film. This juxtaposes, with the view held in the book 'Film Art' written by David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson: "Our engagement with the story depends on our understanding of the pattern of change and stability, cause and effect, time and space" which isn't always correct. As Howard states: "creatives can manipulate time any way they see fit, and whatever the intended effect upon the viewer", therefore a cause and effect structure is not the only way to keep an audience engaged, just because a nonlinear narrative may confuse the audience, it doesn't mean that they aren't engaged and intrigued by the film. 

Howard then raises the question: "What happens when a TV show or film brings time to the forefront?" which is what we see happening in Marc Webb's 500 Days Of Summer. She then answers this question: "it can be subverted, altering the story and its effect upon the viewer." Yet just because Webb plays with the films narrative, to confuse the audience and make them ask questions, it doesn't mean they aren't engaging with the film. The use of flashbacks arguably make his film more interesting and intriguing, because it challenges expectations and the flashbacks are enigma codes within the film. This would make the audience want to continue watching, for their questions to be answered, even if the film doesn't make complete sense. Also, after watching 500 Days Of Summer in its entirety, it becomes clear to the audience the story that was being told and makes the audience feel satisfied, because their questions are answered by the action codes.