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 ...
Er, the problem is precisely that a planet two-thirds covered with water can't support such creatures, any more than one two-thirds covered with sulfuric acid could support humans.
Look, Signs used "aliens" as a plot device. Given that, it's going to have a non-believable plot!
I'm not inclined to excuses for incompetence (and, yes, that word is applicable to a writer who creates a "non-believable plot").
The credibility of a fictional plot is based on whether or not the story logic avoids gaping holes once the basic premises of the fictional universe are accepted.
If a galaxy full of various aliens is one of the premises of the fictional universe, then, yes, a story about aliens can have a believable plot.
However, the plot has to make sense given the facts of the fictional universe as they are established in the story. For instance, Star Wars would not have had a "credible plot" if a major plot thread had hinged upon Jabba the Hutt suddenly being a philanthropist after being established as a greedy ruthless SOB.
I trust this clears up the question.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but I plan too. Even though the title said "The Case Against" I read the whole article and failed to see anything "against" M. Night Shyamalan. I liked all his previous movies, even Unbreakable.
Um, why not? What about the remaining one-third? Again, say you have no choice. You see a planet. Two-thirds of it is covered with sulfuric acid; the remaining one-third is usable, arable land (and the atmosphere is fine for your lungs). You see no other planet remotely usable. You don't land there "because it's two-thirds covered with sulfuric acid"?
Heck by your logic humans shouldn't live on earth either. As you say, the earth is two-thirds covered with water. Humans cannot live on water!! Humans can swim for short periods but they cannot breathe underwater and would not be able to subsist were they to spend their whole lives on the water!!
Too much ocean - We better get outta here!!!1
The credibility of a fictional plot is based on whether or not the story logic avoids gaping holes once the basic premises of the fictional universe are accepted
Fair enough but Signs had no such holes, you're obviously bending over backwards looking for them, and doing an illogical job of it. See above.
You didn't answer my question in my Post 159.
rain: Water condensed from atmospheric vapor and falling in drops.
Signs was pretty stupid. Aliens that can be hurt by water landing on a planet that is 70% covered by water?
And they don't have guns, just their little poison gas spitter?
Living on a farm in country and no guns?
If I was worried about a critter in my cornfield, I would call Bubba and Billy Jeff, ask 'em to bring their shotguns and deer rifles and have 'em cover me while I ran the combine through the fields. Doesn't matter which the critter tangles with, he's gonna be a mess.
I know that wasn't the real story, but if you don't craft the background decently, us nitpickers will be all over it.
Overall, on a scale of 1-5, it gets a 2 - marginally watchable, but I regret paying money for it...
Umm, my post was 159. Perhaps you are referring to your post 157 that I replied to with 159. I answered your question, and I did so very specifically.
If you do not plan on having a discussion please, let’s just drop it now.
Fortunately humans have recently developed a technology called "shelter". They have even assembled semi-permanent constructions ("houses", "buildings" and the like) which can effect this "shelter". Perhaps the aliens could make use of them. No of course not - what am I thinking.
You really want to have a "scientific" excuse to dislike that movie, don't you? You don't have enough confidence in your gut/aesthetic reaction to just say "I didn't like it"? You MUST build a case for why the Alien story was scientifically implausible!
Oh brother.
Keep it coming - these are really fascinating (and IMPORTANT) objections to M. Night Shyamalan's film (about faith).
My wife, son and i thought it was a thought-provoking film. Felt like a Robert Frost poem. Can't wait for Shyamalan's next movie.
I loved it. The trademark "twist" was could have been left off, for all I care.
I just heard a couple of weeks ago that she's Ron Howard's daughter!
LOL! I just read your post after I'd posted the same thing!
Oops. Apparently you don't believe in your namesake's meaning 70 x 7! By the way, I still don't believe you, but that's not the same as saying you are lying. I think you just saw the ending and then said, "see I knew that it was it" now that you finally did know the ending. As for going to town for medicines in olden days, man are you weak with history. People in villages away from the cities frequently had to send away to the "towns" for medicines and doctors too!
I thought Wide Awake was a pretty good movie. Rosie doesn't have THAT big a part to play, so I wouldn't avoid it on that account.
I love The 6th Sense, and I thought Unbreakable rocked. Loved both of those movies. I just couldn't suspend my disbelief enough to really enjoy Signs. The whole water thing was just too stupid.
Then came the Village. To make it worse, my 12 year old son GUESSED the movie twist a month before the debut, just by watching the trailers. I of course laughed him off. Did I ever feel stupid when he was right.
Of course I do, but I'm not quite sure why you think it applies here. In some aspects of our exchanges I think you are in error, in others I know you are. I have tried to point those things out in my replies. I have also politely asked that you not substitute attacking me for refuting my points. You have not done so yet; at best you mix the two. I will not hold any grudge, but I will not continue this discussion much longer either. This is the last chance, not because I am angry at all, but simply because it is not profitable.
By the way, I still don't believe you, but that's not the same as saying you are lying. I think you just saw the ending and then said, "see I knew that it was it" now that you finally did know the ending.
Please stop mincing words. For your statement to be true I would either be lying or self deluded. I am neither. I even turned to my son early in the movie and commented to him about it. Believe what you want, but please stop attacking me in order to support weak arguments.
As for going to town for medicines in olden days, man are you weak with history. People in villages away from the cities frequently had to send away to the "towns" for medicines and doctors too!
Yes indeed they did, and white sugar, and windows, and nails, etc. but you conveniently forget that they HAD a doctor there. A doctor of that time period would have had the knowledge to concoct most all of the remedies needed to do what little was possible at the time (unless, of course, they had bigger leaches in town). It was their level of conviction that the "towns" had better medicines that made me suspicious and guess at the possibility they were in the present.
There are plenty of good solid exchanges from people who liked and disliked the movie (and lame posts too). Some posters, like Ichneumon and others, have caused me to reevaluate aspects of the film and consider its depth. They have not changed my overall opinion of the movie, but so be it. Your posts have not been of that quality and I have told you why. Please, either discuss the movie or just go away.
You know I was really interested in hearing your response mainly because of your 70 x 7 name. I was really just messing with you but you handled it pretty well (though I think you take me way too seriously). All in all, I think movies, being art, are very personal.
P.S. I'm a sister in Christ so I don't want any hard feelings on here. Shalom.
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.