Posted on 08/02/2004 6:04:08 AM PDT by BluegrassScholar
M. Night Shyamalan's new film, The Village, begins with one of the director's trademark spooky conceits: a preindustrial village separated from the world by a forest full of monsters. It's an apt metaphor for Shyamalan's own hermetic universe. He lives outside of Philadelphia with his wife and children and insists on shooting most of his films within a day's drive. His movies have their own internal schemas, their own calling cards, their own signature sound effects. And the oh-so-polished presentation leads to the nagging question: Is M. Night a filmmaker or is he a marketing plan?
To understand the Shyamalan phenomenon, turn to his high-school yearbook. In a photograph doctored to look like the cover of Time magazine, M. Night is wearing a bow-tie, cummerbund, tuxedo top, and sneakers. The headlines above the photo read "Best Director" and "N.Y.U. grad takes Hollywood by storm." Born in India and raised in an affluent Philadelphia suburb, M. Night grew up ensconced in the world of regulated suburban achievement: polo shirts, test prep, and college stickers covering the rear window of the Volvo station wagon. He may have wanted to be Spielberg, but money would be the measure of his success.
Wasting no time, Shyamalan graduated NYU early. At the age of 21, he was writing, directing, and producing his first film, Praying With Anger. He played the lead, an Indian-American college student who discovers the spirituality of India. Released in 1992, the movie grossed a meager $7,000 dollars. He next wrote and directed a movie called Wide Awake (1998) for Miramax. It was the story of a sports-loving nun, played by Rosie O' Donnell, who helps a boy find God after his grandfather dies. The rough cut was too treacly even for Harvey Weinstein (a soft-touch for little kid movies, especially foreign ones), who unleashed a legendary speaker-phone tirade that humiliated Shyamalan and made O'Donnell cry.
M. Night Shyamalan's new film, The Village, begins with one of the director's trademark spooky conceits: a preindustrial village separated from the world by a forest full of monsters. It's an apt metaphor for Shyamalan's own hermetic universe. He lives outside of Philadelphia with his wife and children and insists on shooting most of his films within a day's drive. His movies have their own internal schemas, their own calling cards, their own signature sound effects. And the oh-so-polished presentation leads to the nagging question: Is M. Night a filmmaker or is he a marketing plan?
To understand the Shyamalan phenomenon, turn to his high-school yearbook. In a photograph doctored to look like the cover of Time magazine, M. Night is wearing a bow-tie, cummerbund, tuxedo top, and sneakers. The headlines above the photo read "Best Director" and "N.Y.U. grad takes Hollywood by storm." Born in India and raised in an affluent Philadelphia suburb, M. Night grew up ensconced in the world of regulated suburban achievement: polo shirts, test prep, and college stickers covering the rear window of the Volvo station wagon. He may have wanted to be Spielberg, but money would be the measure of his success.
Wasting no time, Shyamalan graduated NYU early. At the age of 21, he was writing, directing, and producing his first film, Praying With Anger. He played the lead, an Indian-American college student who discovers the spirituality of India. Released in 1992, the movie grossed a meager $7,000 dollars. He next wrote and directed a movie called Wide Awake (1998) for Miramax. It was the story of a sports-loving nun, played by Rosie O' Donnell, who helps a boy find God after his grandfather dies. The rough cut was too treacly even for Harvey Weinstein (a soft-touch for little kid movies, especially foreign ones), who unleashed a legendary speaker-phone tirade that humiliated Shyamalan and made O'Donnell cry.
Shyamalan now had two bombs to his name and supported himself by screenwriting. There was, however, one chance to turn things around—a long shot. M. Night was in pursuit of the screenwriter's holy grail: the perfect script, one so redolent of profit, star-friendly roles, and greenlight power that the studio executives simply could not turn it down.
Not only did Shyamalan write that script-The Sixth Sense (1998)—he also realized that he had written that script. He flew to Los Angeles, rented a suite at the Four Seasons, and gave the final draft to his agents on Sunday, telling them to auction it off on Monday. Disney offered him $3 million and promised him he could shoot the film. On the Philadelphia set, Shyamalan somehow transformed himself into a disciplined director. He made the film very simply, with long, soothing takes. He coaxed a good performance out of Bruce Willis by essentially requiring him not to act, while Haley Joel Osment turned in one of the greatest natural performances by a child actor. The movie wasn't like a Spielberg film, except for the feeling that you should call your mother afterwards. The closest influence was Hitchcock: the point-of-view editing, the emotional close-ups of actors, the fixation on detail, and the eerie score. It also adhered to Hitchcock's definition of terror: "If you want the audience to feel the suspense, show them the bomb underneath the table." We knew the ghosts were coming to chat with Haley Joel, and that's why we were under our seats.
The Sixth Sense became one of top 10 grossing films of all time, and what does M. Night do with his newfound power? He stays put in Philadelphia, refusing to move to L.A. and play ball. He creates a local film industry around his productions. And most importantly, he begins the process of burnishing his legend. When a reporter asks him what he wanted his name to mean in the future, he replied, "Originality." Access to his scripts in progress is extremely limited, lest anyone reveal their secrets.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
So Gibson's character was simply an insane person seeing things? Unless Shyamalan himself said they weren't actually aliens, I have to assume they were.
Thanks. That helps a lot.
And where do you put Unbreakable?
As for being "insane," some might question that characterization of an intensely religious experience. Clearly, the emotional/intellectual theme of the film is Gibson's loss of faith -- it drives his entire motivation. How is that not relevant to what's happening around him?
I loved the way he juxtaposed and juggled with Hebraic, Christian, and Hindu messiah/avatar concepts. The model for the original Superman, for example, was Moses (early extraordinary deliverance, incredible later powers ...). In the end, though, we need a "Shiva, the destroyer" to "bring balance to the force."
"Signs" was the worst movie I have ever seen, bar none.
Literally. I was stunned into a stupor at how bad it was.
It was pointless, and boring. Not to mention it wasted what could have been an interesting subject --- aliens and crop circles.
A colony of Russian "old believers" retreated into the wilderness, interacting with the outside world only long enough to trade furs for fishhooks and sewing needles. They were found (I think in the 1940s) by a Soviet pilot, and forcible integrated into the communist society -- but, Aleksandr Soltzenitsn points out, they had bought for themselves a generation, several decades, of liberty.
I just had to comment to you about your movie critique of "The Village." When Howard's character goes into the town, she is wearing the antiquated 1870's clothing, she is not wearing modern clothing so I have no idea what you are talking about when you say they didn't hide the clothes.
I disagree with everyone on here who does not like the movie. I loved it. I loved everything about it. I always find it interesting when people do not like a movie they say it is "bad." I think it's just better when moviegoers say they either liked or didn't like something and maybe provide a few reasons why they have arrived at that opinion.
Why do you people have to get so tedious with dissecting movies? I'm starting to think modern man has no imagination.
I've come to the conclusion that you have not been in the wilderness (I mean the true wilderness). As a former backpacker, I can tell you that there are areas with millions of acres that you would NOT see a hiker in, unless you were on a marked trail. So, who is to say that this preserve (remember, it was bankrolled by a BILLIONAIRE's estate)isn't in that range. The movie never tells you where it is. So, if the guy had the $ to ensure no flyovers and no one invading the walls, and if the village were truly in the midst of these million acres, it is certainly quite feasible that you would never see anyone. I took a hike into the Rockies back in 1976 on a clearly defined backpacking trail and after three solid days hiking in, I finally ran into two hikers coming down the mountain. If you are a wilderness expert, you will know these things.
I'm glad you made the point about the color red because I was going to say that until I read your post.
The comparison to the hidden villages of Russian Old Believers is an interesting one. A lot of people are criticizing this movie on plausibility but there has indeed been precedent :) Thanks,
For later reading.
I liked Unbreakable, although I understand its box office was so so. I think maybe 8.5 (I liked it a little more than signs, probably because of the SLJ character).
If you follow back through the discussions and multiple comments made you will find many details on why I disliked the movie, and what I had to say about hidden clothing.
It seems as if you disagree with everyone who did not like the movie without having read what was written, nor have you stated what you liked about it. (If you have done this in an earlier post please direct me - I haven't looked but would like to read it - Thanks PP)
I thought the premise was excellent, and there was much depth to ironies that were hinted at but went unexplored. To me the ironies that were explored were insufficient to salvage a poorly executed plot device (one that I guessed at within the first 30 minutes or so). I also readily confess that I went in expecting a scary tale and was disappointed. I am pleased that you did enjoy the film.
I think this film could have been much improved if we had been in on the elders secret, and reasons for it, from near the start. The individual and group tensions could have brought a very different dynamic to the screen. If you have not seen Alfred Hitchcocks film "Rope" rent it and then imagine what the film would be like if you didn't know the truth until the last ten minutes. The tension is huge, and it comes directly from the audience being in on the truth. In essence, this tension is what MNS is trying for, but he substitutes the threat of monsters for the more difficult task of maintaining tension with the truth known. Of course, that is not the only reason for the monsters, but IMO too much potential was sacrificed so that MNS could have his "gotcha" at the end. And to me it was a very weak gotcha.
So basically what I hear you saying is that within 30 minutes of the movie, you knew it was a group of people from the year 2004 who met at a counseling center because they all had had major traumas (murders)in their lives and they established this settlement as a way of "hermetically" sealing themselves off from the rest of civilization????? Honestly, not to hurt your feelings, but I don't buy it. I'd be curious though to see what kind of foreshadowing or clues you saw (that I obviously didn't) that allowed you to leap to this point. I may just be astounded.
Oh and you made a good point about my not expressing my reasons for liking the movie. I will tell you why I liked it. I liked the scenery and the filmmaking in general. I liked the brooding sense of the movie. I also liked that it wasn't scary (e.g. I had to hide my eyes in Sixth Sense) since I'm a little bit of a scaredy cat. I thought the acting was good (Brody, Phoenix and Howard) and I was totally surprised at the twist at the end.
Take care.
"I saw this movie with my son and we were both bored to tears. At one level the movie can be viewed as a metaphor for the USA post 9/11 with the William Hurt character as The President scaring people with 'the aliens' beyond our borders and the safe color business. The only good thing about this movie was Bryce Howard who almost single handedly saved the movie."
Give me a break. Even if William Hurt is supposed to be the President, it's a pretty sympathetic portrayal (i.e. well-intentioned idealist is not really what the left thinks of Bush), not that I buy this over-analytical nonsense.
Oh and you made a good point about my not expressing my reasons for liking the movie. I will tell you why I liked it. I liked the scenery and the filmmaking in general. I liked the brooding sense of the movie. I also liked that it wasn't scary (e.g. I had to hide my eyes in Sixth Sense) since I'm a little bit of a scaredy cat. I thought the acting was good (Brody, Phoenix and Howard) and I was totally surprised at the twist at the end.
Let me address the last part first; some of the things you liked about the movie I did too. In particular I liked Howard's character and her acting. I also Liked the character she was to marry (Luscious?). Unfortunately they were not sufficient to salvage the things that just didn't cut it for me.
You are correct, I didn't guess that it was a group of people from the year 2004 who met at a counseling center because they all had had major traumas (murders)in their lives and they established this settlement as a way of "hermetically" sealing themselves off from the rest of civilization but I did guess that the movie was taking place in the present time. The discussions about going to the towns for "medicines" was my key clue. In the time frame of the village the medicines available to the towns would have been just as available to them. But I got the distinct impression from the early conversations by the elders that they KNEW there was medicine available elsewhere that could help them. An unlikely speculation on their part if their ~21 year time away was in the 1700's but it made much sense if the year was 2004.
You seem unable to marshal a rebuttal to the specific criticisms I have posted. I'm also "guessing", based on your hair splitting, your failure to deal with the specific criticisms and your relatively vague comments about what you did like about the movie, that you "just liked it". That's fine - really. For you it was $ well spent. For me it was not. Just don't tell me (or imply) that I should have liked it, or that I'm a liar. Try debating the issues rather than making personal attacks and I may just be the one who is astounded.
A good rebuttal w/ some excellent points. Paved Paradise, please take note. The movie and some of the comments posted here have had me thinking about those details also. For me, however, those things were not enough to salvage the way MNS warped the movie to get his twist at the end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.