Village Idiot: The Case Against M. Night Shyamalan

Slate ^ | July 30, 2004 | Michael Agger

[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.

[70times7]

Thanks Sis; probably did take you too seriously, but you didn't exactly temper your comments. Next time use a multiple choice test when you appoint yourself.

I enjoy movies for various reasons. Sometimes it's a guilty pleasure (action films, video comic books and the like) and sometimes it is an exploration of the human (fallen) condition. Even when it comes to the "comics" sometimes I am pleasantly surprised (Spiderman 1) and sometimes disgusted (Daredevil).

The village is so worthy of discussion because of the depth it has that was so badly mishandled in order to get that trademark MNS twist. The rich symbolism, the internal conflicts, the tension of the elders trying desperately to strike a balance between what is best for the group vs. the individual, etc. These were all traded away for the non-"surprise" at the end. To me it was a sad trade. I'll likely rent it for my younger son to see when it's on video, maybe it will improve with my attention redirected (but then that was one of my criticisms of the film).

All in all it is now very difficult to find a film that includes our world view. Most of the time the best I can accomplish w/ my kids is to use a film (after checking reviews @ Christian spotlight on the movies) as a springboard to discussions about key areas they will be dealing w/ as they grow to adults. Signs was so so as a film, but the faith message was amazing (although rather heavy handed); we talked quite a bit after that one. If you know of any good rentals drop me a note.

[TeleStraightShooter]

Logic fault #2: The preserve is a restricted airspace. That is supposed to assure us as to why we never see any airplanes or helicopters. C'mon! You mean that none of the kids in the 1890's village ever saw jet trails at dusk or the twinkling lights of aircraft at night?

Good Point, it would be impossible to not notice them, even with a million acre preserve.
The largest "restricted air space" in the USA is the southwest 1/10 of Nevada just north of Las Vegas - popularly known as "Area 51". One can clearly see across the restricted air space when flying @ 30,000ft next to it. Therefore airplanes and their contrails would be a daily if not hourly sight in Pennsylvania. And yes, childern would instictivly know other humans are flying them;

I suppose the elders could successfully mislead the children into believing that the satellites they see passing overhead @ night {@ 80 to 140 miles up} are "mysterious moving stars" - for the children would certainly see them, because living a 1870's lifestyle would include stargazing as a activity sans electric light/ communications/ entertainment.

[TeleStraightShooter]

Logic fault #2: The preserve is a restricted airspace. That is supposed to assure us as to why we never see any airplanes or helicopters. C'mon! You mean that none of the kids in the 1890's village ever saw jet trails at dusk or the twinkling lights of aircraft at night?

Good Point, it would be impossible to not notice them, even with a million acre preserve.
The largest "restricted air space" in the USA is the southwest 1/10 of Nevada just north of Las Vegas - popularly known as "Area 51". One can clearly see across the restricted air space when flying @ 30,000ft next to it. Therefore airplanes and their contrails would be a daily if not hourly sight in Pennsylvania. And yes, childern would instictivly know other humans are flying them;

I suppose the elders could successfully mislead the children into believing that the satellites they see passing overhead @ night {@ 80 to 140 miles up} are "mysterious moving stars" - for the children would certainly see them, because living a 1870's lifestyle would include stargazing as a activity sans electric light/ communications/ entertainment.

[TeleStraightShooter]

IMHO symbolic labels {Walker/ Red} in a movie like this are not randomly chosen by the screen writers.

To you and me symbolic labels as such and the corollary to the Village elders and Bush are silly and dismissed out of hand, but to those who want to believe wacked-out leftist conspiracy theories spun by Micheal Moore and the $100 million paid to view his lunacy, it does have a little traction.

[TeleStraightShooter]

20+ years of absolute isolation and the clothes have no holes?
Where do they get the supplies for.... EVERYTHING?
Forget the simple penicillin, they can grow that in a petrie dish.

[7.62 x 51mm]

Never heard of him.

[thathamiltonwoman]

Only in Hollywood would a man be attacked for actually wanting to go home to his own wife at the end of the day. This reviewer seems to have a beef with Night for reasons that don't have anything to do with the movie.

[70times7]

20+ years of absolute isolation and the clothes have no holes?

They would have made cloth, primarily with wool, but your overall point is quite valid; clothing is the least of their worries. For example, even if there was a blacksmith the materials would have to come from somewhere. I doubt they had mine shafts. Do we suppose they stored glass for the occasional broken window or was there a beach nearby? The area they had carved out simply did not appear extensive enough to support a group of that size.

[new cruelty]

LOL. Funny point. But its a movie. So, maybe they packed a WHOLELOTTA clothes and supplies before they went into seclusion. Or maybe the movie cameras left out the silk worm farms and underground cotton mines! Maybe the guy that founded the village was so rich that he was able to fund the development of some super high-tech clothing that never fades or rips and practically cleans itself. It could happen. :)

[new cruelty]

Hmm. Seeing how they promoted the deception that they lived in fear of the creatures in the woods, would they actually dare to chop down the trees required to build their homes?

[AxelPaulsenJr]

I see Democrats. Voting from the grave.

And we have a winner.............

[Dr. Frank fan]

it would be impossible to not notice them, even with a million acre preserve.

So maybe the Villagers did indeed "notice" a jet trail from time to time.

From this they conclude not that they are just strange, faraway, inherently incomprehensible clouds (like all clouds), but that mankind has developed flying machines, and thus somehow conclude from *that* that their Elders have constructed an elaborate ruse. Um, right?

Otherwise, what exactly is the point of this criticism?

The largest "restricted air space" in the USA is the southwest 1/10 of Nevada just north of Las Vegas - popularly known as "Area 51".

The movie is fiction. The universe portrayed in the movie is thus fictional. So perhaps the restricted air space above the Village (in the fictional universe) is actually the largest in the country and "Area 51" (if such a thing exists in the fictional universe) is the second largest.

You also, like many, seem to be assuming that the "restricted air space" which the Walker estate has arranged with the government, when projected down to the ground coincides precisely with the size of the preserve (which we know to be not so large given that Ivy walked its radius in a day or so). This need not be the case. At all.

But whatever, let's stipulate that someone in the Village at some time or another both saw a contrail and surmised the existence of flying machines. You think that means....what?

I think any such people would have thought "wow, those wicked Villagers and their contraptions". Perhaps been a bit fascinated/intrigued. Asked a few questions, sure. "Yes I've heard tale that Chinamen have built such a device" (or whatever), says an Elder offhand, if the questions become to common. A few words are said about the wickedness of China's society and it is left there.

Remember, there are monsters in the woods surrounding the Village.

What's your point?

Therefore airplanes and their contrails would be a daily if not hourly sight in Pennsylvania.

Again, expository dialogue in the film made it clear that the Walker estate has in one way or another arranged for this not to be the case. You resist believing this for some reason. That's your prerogative, although it seems kind of silly and out of proportion with the implausibility distribution in the film. Like watching a Superman movie and criticizing the price printed on the front of the Daily Planet as being insufficient to support the newspaper, or something.

You, like others, really seek reasons to dislike the film. Is that not so? Yes, the movie is inherently implausible, near-fantastical. That is intrinsic to the nature of the story! If you are not willing to suspend disbelief about the basics of the story then it's no wonder you are not willing to suspend disbelief about these ancillary aspects. Your loss IMHO.

But who are you self appointed "debunkers" trying to impress exactly?

[70times7]

Seeing how they promoted the deception that they lived in fear of the creatures in the woods, would they actually dare to chop down the trees required to build their homes?

Heck, it's more basic than that. They could explain away existing structures easily enough. New buildings would be a big problem, but we don't necessarily know that there were any. The bigger problem is how the heck they heated the buildings in the winter. The trees and the look of the place is roughly consistent with a PA latitude, but even at MD or VA latitudes heat would be needed in the winter, and they were not further south than that. Where does the wood come from for heat?

Perhaps it is all part of "Those Logic Problems We Do Not Speak Of".

[MHT]

It's easy to remember the names of the great actors, directors, and titles of their movies. I can't remember the names of any "great" critics. Critics don't carry their legacies into the future in spite of the way they can sway people in the present.

[70times7]

You, like others, really seek reasons to dislike the film. Is that not so? Yes, the movie is inherently implausible, near-fantastical. That is intrinsic to the nature of the story! If you are not willing to suspend disbelief about the basics of the story then it's no wonder you are not willing to suspend disbelief about these ancillary aspects. Your loss IMHO.

But who are you self appointed "debunkers" trying to impress exactly?

I guess that makes you a self appointed "bunker".

It's a discussion, ok? I'm not trying to impress anyone, but I have learned of some interesting aspects of the film that I wouldn't have considered without these exchanges.

I didn't go looking for reasons to dislike the film, I came out of the theater with most of them already handed to me by MNS. Other reasons to dislike/disbelieve came after consideration of the film, AHEM, just like many of the reasons you like it. Frankly, I would have preferred to like the film - I don't like to waste money. But like a few other films I have come from feeling like I wasted my $ (Daredevil comes strongly to mind), even with a mental attitude toward suspension of reason the film goes too far and violates the boundary. There is also good reason to blame MNS for this since, to a great extent, the boundary is set by the context of the story.

[Dr. Frank fan]

That would be all well and good if you & others here were talking about the actually important aspects of the story. But the actual story of The Village was not about the practicalities of setting up an insulated village any more than the actual story of Signs was about what kind of planet certain kinds of aliens would choose to invade. Frankly, Signs wasn't really about aliens at all, and similarly, The Village isn't a Village-feasibility study. And don't get me wrong I don't even think The Village was a great movie. My objection here is just the myopia involved in turning the film into a silly "could this be done?" exercise. It's just so not the point. People tend to do this with most MNS movies, though, it seems to be the nature of the kind of stories he chooses to write that a certain fraction of the audience will get the mistaken idea that his stories are science fiction of the type nerds like to analyze and debunk, rather than psychological thrillers (which is what they are). Hence all the Comic-Book-Guy-from-Simpsons-esque "that was SO unrealistic / logically doesn't hold water" criticisms; all I'm saying is that such criticisms completely miss the point in the first place. I don't know, to me it all just sounds like criticizing Indiana Jones for getting the history & actions & unit structures of the Nazis wrong. Maybe that's just MHO though... with MNS certain people seem to really enjoy "debunking" of this kind so hey, have fun.

[TeleStraightShooter]

Your right about Pa, I jumped to the conclusion of a Pa site because the alpha male was UofP prof, and the film was shot within driving range of Shyamalan's home.

I asked those questions because I get a kick out of movie mistakes; I find moviemistakes.com as a mildly interesting site.

The logic gaps in the flick is not what left me with the biggest impression, that would be my post #184; and my utter disgust for what the village elders have done to their children; this is America after all, no the USSR -were everything is "taken care of for you" {wink wink}.
Which bring me back to post #184 ...

[BattleFlag]

Coincidently, I saw The Sixth Sense last night for the first time.

While I find the suspense and horror genres entertaining as a rule (if well done), to have a plot made crystal clear at the end and have that understanding turn out to be 180 degree from what I thought, is to me as entertaining as any film can get.

It transcends "effects" and all of the many overused devices by which film makers seek to entertain.

I'm probably doing a bad job of articulating it but to be "fooled" not for it's own sake but as part of revealing a deeper message or more absolute truth is something I enjoy.

Part of why I liked Signs were the "site gags", i.e. Mel Gibson walking in his son's room and both children are wearing foil hats, and then later on,Gibson walks into the family room and both children and Joaquin are sitting on the sofa wearing tin foil hats as though the adult finally caught on. Also the one liners like "There's a monster outside of my window, can I have a drink of water?", "They should be playing furry, furry rabbit or tea party or something right?" and "It felt wrong not to swing.".

Yeah, I know, I'm easily entertained. :o)

But I really like these two movies and I will most certainly see The Village.

[70times7]

My objection here is just the myopia involved in turning the film into a silly "could this be done?" exercise. It's just so not the point.

Neither has that been the foundation of my criticism of the film. I have consistently stated my opinion that the movie was improperly constructed and squandered great potential in order to support a weak MNS trademark twist. Prior to this discussion I had not known "signs" was his, and had not seen "Unbreakable". I didn't know "the twist at the end" is the way he works, but in this film it presented itself readily as a possibility, at least to me.

People tend to do this with most MNS movies, though, it seems to be the nature of the kind of stories he chooses to write that a certain fraction of the audience will get the mistaken idea that his stories are science fiction of the type nerds like to analyze and debunk, rather than psychological thrillers (which is what they are). Hence all the Comic-Book-Guy-from-Simpsons-esque "that was SO unrealistic / logically doesn't hold water" criticisms; all I'm saying is that such criticisms completely miss the point in the first place.

Since this is my first discussion of an MNS film I didn't know that "people tend to do this" but that causes me to wonder about why you are here; perhaps people like you tend to show up and "bunk", I don't know. I'm here to discuss the film and have certainly learned things that have increased my opinion of it - but not nearly enough for me to recommend spending any money to see it.

I don't know, to me it all just sounds like criticizing Indiana Jones for getting the history & actions & unit structures of the Nazis wrong. Maybe that's just MHO though... with MNS certain people seem to really enjoy "debunking" of this kind so hey, have fun.

I reiterate that that the film maker dictates the movie context and unlike "Raiders", MNS violated the context he created. If it worked for you that's fine - congrats. What can I say? Millhouse probably would have liked the film too.

In any case I'm about ready to quit. The thread seems to have deteriorated to the "did-not... did-too..." point anyway. If you want to you can always go back through my posts and tell me what important aspects of the story I have missed that invalidate my primary criticism of the film. Good luck.

[new cruelty]

I was just having a little fun earlier. I didn't get caught up in all the problems with the movie's logic. A person can run on end about the illogical aspects of this movie or many other movies for that matter. I chose to see this movie as I saw his other movies- as an allegory. The dilema facing the characters in this film was not where they were going to find wood for heat or how they were going to patch their clothing. Their struggle was with protecting or sacrificing a perceived innocence they sought to create. Signs was a fable about restoring faith, Unbreakable was about balance. Sixth Sense was just about a boy that saw dead people all the time (and maybe a little about justice).

I haven't read many of your other posts, so maybe I'm missing something you meant to point out. Know that I am not trying to convince you to like the movie. I'm just expressing my point of view.