The Films of M. Night Shymalamadingdong

[innerSpaceman]

Lady in the Water opened tonight, and I was one of the first to see it (in fact, sitting in the front row of the Cinerama Dome meant that, of that audience, the light from the screen hit my eyes first ... and I saw the movie milliseconds before anyone else there!)


This is not your typical M. Night film. It's not very scary (though the sprinklers may make you wet yourself with fright), it doesn't have a twist (the bizarreness is given away at the begining) and M. Night does not have a cameo appearance (he has a full-on role in the film).

I knew nothing about this movie going in. I like M. Night's films so much that I wanted zero spoilers. This is the film of the season that, when the trailer came on screen, I would leave the auditorium. (Jeez, one night it was playing so loud at Grauman's Chinese that leaving the auditorium and heading downstairs to the restroom was not enough ... I had to turn on ALL the waterfaucets to literally drown out the sound.)

And so, I didn't know that this movie was derived from a bedtime story M. Night told his daughters. It's a surprisingly sweet film, a surprisingly funny film. I enjoyed it very much, but I'm not sure if I loved it the way I love most of his others. It surely left me with lots to think about. And I like the fact that it's not "typical" M. Night, whatever that is.

It's not getting good reviews, and I think most audiences expecting the twists and the frights of Mr. M. Night's will be sorely disappointed. People who thought The Village failed because it wasn't scary enough or because its twist was not a big deal with likely loathe this movie.


But it's a fairy tale. And just because it was made by M. Night Shyamalan is no reason not to let it charm you.

[scaeagles]

I'm encouraged by that positive review.

I didn't dislike The Village because of a lack of twists or scariness....I disliked it because I thought it was obvious and predictable and the only acting I enjoyed it in was Bryce Howard.

I've liked his films because I thought they were good stories. I'm glad this is a good story.

[Chernabog]

*yawn* sorry, not seeing this one. It's in my "I'm sort of thinking of putting it on my netflix, but not really" category. ;)

I sort of liked Sixth Sense. Then I saw Unbreakable, which was horrible. Signs was worse (though it would have been worlds better if not for the talentless Mel Gibson). The Village.... do we really need to talk about that?

I am done with M. Night Shyamalan, unless he put out a movie that got overwhelmingly positive reviews on the good ol tomatometer.

[Gemini Cricket]

"Narf!"

[scaeagles]

I enjoyed the first three immensely. The Village didn't do it for me. I'll probably see the new one.

Talentless Mel Gibson? Interesting.....

[Gemini Cricket]

Talentless Mel Gibson?
I second that. I've always felt that way. Pre-'Passion', Pre-'Braveheart'...

His last good film was 'Gallipoli'.

[Freaky Tiki]

I actually want to see Lady in the Water as I'm a Paul Giamatti fan.

However M. Night has never really impressed me. In my opinion, Signs was horrible. I was bored out of my mind. Village was ok as was Sixth Sense, but nothing has really hit it out of the park.

Hopefully this one's different.

[innerSpaceman]

Heheh, I think non-M. Night fans have a shot at liking this one.





Eh, maybe not. It's really got some serious problems. But since it's really difficult for me to comprehend the tastes of people who dislike Unbreakable or Signs, I can't even fathom how such folks would react to Shy's latest ... or any film, for that matter.


It's getting a critical drubbing, that's for sure. And I really can't disagree with most of the criticism.

[Alex]

I was going to go see Lady in the Water last night but Lani is waffling about whether she wants to see it and until she decides definitely no, I can't go see it.

Though what I can't comprehend is how you can watch a movie from the front row (unless the front row at Cinerama Dome is much farther back than your typical theater).

And just to be physics geeky, for a person behind you to see it a millisecond later they would have to be sitting about 186 miles behind you.

[flippyshark]

My response to the films of MNS have so far been a study in mixed emotions.

The Sixth Sense - Great performances, a nice chilly atmosphere, but, I was able to guess the big secret from the 30 second TV spot. (Of course, I wasn't SURE I knew until about five minutes into the movie, and then, I sighed to myself and thought, "damn, I was right.") I'd watch it again, thanks to the excellent acting, especially from Toni Colette, and some really nice scary moments.

Unbreakable - Actually, this is the one I've enjoyed most on first viewing, though its deliberate pace may prevent me from re-watching very often. But, really, this may be my favorite of his films thus far.

Signs - I would need to write a really long post to describe how much I was out of sympathy with Signs. I didn't think it was a bad film, I just disagree with its worldview. It felt preachy, and the way in which all the story elements came together at the end seemed to me ridiculously contrived, not life or faith affirming. Still, I liked the cinematography, I had no problem with Mel's performance, and I thought the birthday party video sequence was great.

The Village - There was so much discussion of the secret behind this one that there was no way I could avoid knowing about it, short of taking the steps iSm mentioned above. I thought the whole thing incredibly silly, especially in hindsight, and yet, I can't say I didn't like it. I found myself caught up in a goofy sort of way, and I really liked Bryce Dallas Howard. I would watch it again, but I would have a hard time defending it.

So, I guess that means I like M. Night's style, I'm unimpressed with the gimmicky twists, and Night and I would probably have very different views on life, the universe and everything. I'll probably go see Lady In The Water in a week or two when the seats are cheap and there's no one else around.

[innerSpaceman]

Just FYI, the Cinerama Dome's front row is about half a mile from the screen ... and is thus the only theater currently in existence where the front row is not only comfortable and in focus, but is awesome.



The old Graumann's Egyptian was also one where the front row worked well.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I've seen three of his movies and really enjoyed two of them (The Village, 6th Sense). I wasn't as impressed with Signs, although I've only seen it once. Maybe I'll give it another whirl. I do want to see Unbreakable.

[scaeagles]

In The Village, I so desperately wanted the monster that Howard encountered in the forest to be real, and that the twist would be that the fictional creatures they had created had somehow come into reality.

In The 6th Sense, I was so flippin surprised by the ending I had to watch it again immediately and all I did was watch to verify that Willis hadn't actually communicated with anyone except the boy. This is the only movie I have have ever immediately rewatched.

I thought Signs was brilliant in terms of building suspense and fear without ever actually showing us much. A finger under the door....a foot disappearing into the corn field....a thud on the roof or a swinging swing....then when the video of the birthday party came, it scared the hell out of me.

And Unbreakable was just a great story.

[Alex]

With both The Sixth Sense and The Village had the benefit of minimal chatter about the movies before seeing them. We saw The Sixth Sense on opening night before it really impacted and become a cultural phenomenon. I don't recall the advertising campaign and we didn't have a TV then so I probably wouldn't have seen much of it. We went because of a recommendation of a friend in the industry who simply said "you want to see this movie on opening night." (A similar tip had me watching The Matrix similarly unspoiled on opening day before anybody knew why you'd want to). I had no idea what it was about or that there was a twist ending that people were avoiding revealing. Therefore I wasn't looking for it and the surface story was solid enough that I didn't have any reason for my mind to wander and start considering such things. The great thing about The Sixth Sense is that even if you lop of the final reveal it is still a decent movie and storie. This isn't true of The Village.

By the time of The Village was doing MousePlanet's movie reviews so I saw it with the press the night before (pretty much every review published in newspapers on Friday had been written overnight after 8:00 p.m. screenings for the press). Obviously, since when we walked in we were handed a piece of paper saying something like "we strongly request that you not reveal the ending of the movie in your reviews" it was hard not to start the movie looking for clues about what was really going on. I just found the whole idea stupid and the surface story doesn't work without the second layer so it simply didn't work for me.

I wouldn't be so quick to ascribe the worldview of Signs to Shyamalan himself. If nothing else he is cogent in discussing his films and says they aren't really any kind of reflection of his psyche or beliefs. Just ideas that he finds interesting.

[innerSpaceman]

Hmmm, and I think the story of The Village works fine, in fact better, if you don't bother considering the "twist" to be a twist. It's still a great allegory about a peaceful, yet fearful and purposefully isolated society. When it's revealed that the isolation is from today's world rather than yesterday's, it simply brings into focus that it's an allegory about US -- and not some great trickster revelation about how the audience has been fooled up till then.

Even more than Lady in the Water, The Village is presented as a story, with a structure and many distinct elements that telegraph "a tale is being told." Plus, with the story set artificially in the past, M. Night allows his anachronistic dialogue to be pure poetry throughout the film ... contributing much - imo - the storyish feel of the film.

In fact, I'm sure that I prefer the stylistic "this is a story" of The Village to the overt "This Is A Story" of Lady in the Water. However, since the new film has NO TWIST, the lack of one won't be a distraction for all the twistaholics out there.

[flippyshark]

That's an interesting way to think about The Village, iSm. I've been considering adding a used copy to my collection, so you've probably given me the shove I needed.

[Alex]

Saw it this evening. I could have done without the meta stuff, but otherwise I loved it.

I agree with what you say about the form of The Village. I just feel it to be a stupid story.

[innerSpaceman]

Hehe, and I think I'm thinking that way about Lady in the Water.

But with no 'lousy twist' elements to complain of, I'm hearing/reading a lot of complaints about the "lack of realism" displayed by having every character instantly accepting of the sea-nymph tale without hesitation or doubt.

Most people, imo, just don't comprehend tone and style, and can't properly interpret what's shown to them. Given two things presented .... 1) an apartment building full of people; and 2) a bunch of people who instantly believe in fairy tales ... why assume that item 1 means the film takes place in our common reality rather than item 2 meaning the film takes place in a twilight zone world?

The assumption seems to be that item 2 is an "error" rather than the exact thing the filmmaker is aiming to convey.


I still don't think the story of Lady in the Water is very good ... but dimwitted audiences are not going to make its success any more likely.

[Alex]

Especially since the fairy tale explicitly says that the people will find themselves drawn to the vessel, so it seems fair to accept that they'd also be inclined to accept the reality of it when revealed.

But yeah, the first thing you have to do is accept that this is not a story based in realism. If you hold onto that then there's no way you can like the movie. In addition to being a fairy tale, the story structure very much reminds me of the formula for epic fantasy.

The rules of magic are always weird, convoluted, and don't really make any sense. A ragtag group is always brought together to fill standard roles. They always too easily accept their role in the larger picture.

One thing I've seen a lot of criticism is the brief animatio sequence at the beginning that establishes the basics of the mythology involved. The Fellowship of the Ring starts exactly the same way.

For me the movie was very much an epic fantasy story set in something approximately the modern world and told with enough restraint so as not to span 11 novels.

[innerSpaceman]

Alas, though, the fantasy story being told just never grabbed me ... though I did find it passingly charming.

I was most disappointed with Bryce Howard's performance. She was so scintillating in The Village ... stole the movie, in fact. Here, she was so wan and underplayed. Neither her character nor her character's plight ever bit me. She had to be the most boring sea-nymph in motion picture history.

But I did like her Ariel tribute, undersea grotto.