The Village
(I've got a WORLD of SPOILERS in here concerning The Village, so if you care about such things don't read it. You were warned.)
I rented some Hollywood blockbusters this weekend, Anchorman (which I saw twice in the theatres and loved) and The Village. Anchorman was of course hilarious. The DVD has some extended scenes that were cut apparently for their offensive content. The Village I had heard a lot about, both good and bad, though mostly bad. I like to keep tabs on M. Night Shyamalan, I think he is a significant director. It's not that I necessarily like his movies or think that they are good. Generally speaking, I'm not a fan. However, he reminds me in many ways of a Hitchcock, only without the talent and intellect. I think that he has a lot going for him though, and if his success doesn't get the better of him, he might develop into a stellar director after a few more films. His biggest strength may be the level of independence he seems to have gained from the studio system. Though he's obviously making studio films in the studio system, he's seems to have been afforded complete control over their production. He also tackles odd subject consistently. This blend of a level of talent (which may be wasted), commercial success, producer power, and a preference for odd subject matter, could (in my opinion) make this guy a real power player, kind of a Hitchcock-lite, one day. He can basically do anything he want, with unlimited amounts of money, at this point -- and he has a tendency to direct unconventional genre films in an unconventional, subdued, anti-blockbuster fashion. Very promising.
I didn't like a lot of The Village, but I liked more than I expected I would. I liked how he chose (as he always does) to focus on certain psychological, character aspects of the ludicrous plot. I think a major failing of the critics on this one may be looking at the film as a genre movie devoid of significant social commentary. This return to a semi-Puritan way of life, this notion of an insular community which feels threatened by inhuman outsiders and the world at large, seems to me quite clearly to be a criticism and study of modern, Bush-led, U.S. policy and mass psychology.
Another failing is the constant reference by critics to the "multiple twist" ending. First off, there is NOT a twist ending. It turns out the creatures weren't real? 1) No shit. I figured this out 10 minutes in. 2) This is hardly a "twist ending" occuring as it does about 30-40 minutes before the film's end. People will point to things like the fact that it later seems that the creatures are real, then it turns out they're not, then you discover who's been skinning the dogs, then you discover what's in the boxes, etc. NONE of this has anything to do with a plot twist. It's simply THE PLOT. At no point does it twist away from its obvious revelation (that the creatures aren't real, but a control-through-fear mechanism). These things are simply expansions upon the revelation, supporting material.
I take this lack of a huge "plot twist" ending as a real positive "Sign" (pardon the horrific pun). The Village isn't a work of art, but it has some great stuff in it and is a hell of a lot better than the critics have led you to believe. Maybe this man is finally on his way to making a spate of excellent films. Or maybe not. I guess only time will tell, but things are looking up after The Village, at least.
I rented some Hollywood blockbusters this weekend, Anchorman (which I saw twice in the theatres and loved) and The Village. Anchorman was of course hilarious. The DVD has some extended scenes that were cut apparently for their offensive content. The Village I had heard a lot about, both good and bad, though mostly bad. I like to keep tabs on M. Night Shyamalan, I think he is a significant director. It's not that I necessarily like his movies or think that they are good. Generally speaking, I'm not a fan. However, he reminds me in many ways of a Hitchcock, only without the talent and intellect. I think that he has a lot going for him though, and if his success doesn't get the better of him, he might develop into a stellar director after a few more films. His biggest strength may be the level of independence he seems to have gained from the studio system. Though he's obviously making studio films in the studio system, he's seems to have been afforded complete control over their production. He also tackles odd subject consistently. This blend of a level of talent (which may be wasted), commercial success, producer power, and a preference for odd subject matter, could (in my opinion) make this guy a real power player, kind of a Hitchcock-lite, one day. He can basically do anything he want, with unlimited amounts of money, at this point -- and he has a tendency to direct unconventional genre films in an unconventional, subdued, anti-blockbuster fashion. Very promising.
I didn't like a lot of The Village, but I liked more than I expected I would. I liked how he chose (as he always does) to focus on certain psychological, character aspects of the ludicrous plot. I think a major failing of the critics on this one may be looking at the film as a genre movie devoid of significant social commentary. This return to a semi-Puritan way of life, this notion of an insular community which feels threatened by inhuman outsiders and the world at large, seems to me quite clearly to be a criticism and study of modern, Bush-led, U.S. policy and mass psychology.
Another failing is the constant reference by critics to the "multiple twist" ending. First off, there is NOT a twist ending. It turns out the creatures weren't real? 1) No shit. I figured this out 10 minutes in. 2) This is hardly a "twist ending" occuring as it does about 30-40 minutes before the film's end. People will point to things like the fact that it later seems that the creatures are real, then it turns out they're not, then you discover who's been skinning the dogs, then you discover what's in the boxes, etc. NONE of this has anything to do with a plot twist. It's simply THE PLOT. At no point does it twist away from its obvious revelation (that the creatures aren't real, but a control-through-fear mechanism). These things are simply expansions upon the revelation, supporting material.
I take this lack of a huge "plot twist" ending as a real positive "Sign" (pardon the horrific pun). The Village isn't a work of art, but it has some great stuff in it and is a hell of a lot better than the critics have led you to believe. Maybe this man is finally on his way to making a spate of excellent films. Or maybe not. I guess only time will tell, but things are looking up after The Village, at least.