The Village: Whats wrong with it?

So you figured he was always one of them anyways that was wearing it? I'm sure it was only that time and by mistake at that.

"So you figured he was always one of them anyways that was wearing it? I'm sure it was only that time and by mistake at that."

I did not "figure" Noah was always one of them wearing the suit. I clearly stated what I "thought" towards this film.

I do not know if Noah wore the suit on more than one occasion.

They did find that he skinned and killed the animals. He may have did that before he was locked away. The elders were confused of who could be doing it, because they know, they were not the ones skinning their animals.

Noah may have gotten a suit from the shed or another place in the village. When he was locked away, he found the suit under the floor boards. Towards the end, this is where we find that the creature chasing Ivy, is Noah.

I did not say or think he was the only one wearing the creature suit. I did not say or think he was the creature throughout the film. I did say, he may have been responsible for the acts that the elders did not commit.

If you pay attention to the words of the elders near the end of the film, they justify their confusion of why these acts are happening without them knowing.

Yes, corrupting minors is at the top of my list of things to do.

I think it would've been the fourth or even fifth time I watched the film to think of it in the terms that you have. That was very well thought out.

kyrsten

Thanks for the compliment.....fear is a concept I'm very familiar with. I teach martial arts and from our standpoint, you can never get rid of fear, but you can learn to prevent it from getting in your way and crossing the boundaries of the known into the unknown.

For instance, fear usually accompanies all change. Starting out a positive relationship with someone still starts out with some initial fears. Moving to another city may end up being the best choice you ever made, but in the beginning, there is always some trepidation.

It is just a matter of letting the fear be the size of a 20 foot scrunt that paralyzes your forward motion or letting the fear be the size of an ant that you simply step around, over, or whatever.

Like in the Village, despite all their attempts to prevent the young ones from experiencing the ills of the outside world, their role, of elders, was to constantly protect the boundary by keeping up the ruse of the story and their fear is that it is found out, so they still live in a state of fear and paralysis in many ways.

M. Night is awesome.....

The reason I adopted that tone was that I was tired of people bashing critics as though they had no right to express a negative opinion about Shyamalan. It would seem to me, that users on this forum would tend to be naturally biased toward Night's work. There's nothing wrong with that, however what I disagree with is the idea that everyone must adhere to this bias, or their opinion is wrong. What really got to me though, was when when someone said something to the effect of: If 15 year olds can understand the message of this film, then why can't you and the critics? To me, that was an irritating and ignorant statement. It implied that an admirable message made a film brilliant regardless of its level of quality in other aspects. My issue was not with the theme which was respectable, but rather what I thought was poor execution in the script. I may come off as uptight but I'm ok with that. I feel that the script that Shyamalan produced needed a lot more editing before it reached a level anywhere near what a professional should be releasing with a large budget behind him, especially when I've seen how capable he is of quality writing in his previous films.

__________________
"Like all dreamers, Steven mistook disenchantment for truth."

Strummer, I was wondering what specifically you thought was poor execution in the script? I would like to have a better understanding of your point.

Thanks

Strummer, I don't think I could agree with you anymore. If you read my review of Lady in the Water, you will notice some of the things I personally found wrong about this film.

The initial idea of this story was genius. The teaser trailer of this film was what I thought this film would be like. A mysterious, fantasy-like, fairy tale.

Because of the professionalism of his other stories, I was surprised when this film, failed to retain that same amount of professionalism.

As Yoda said, when you're given that much talent and ability, mixed with creativity, it can sometimes overflow if it is not handled correctly or in the boundries for it's own safety.

His other stories were so beautifully written with parts I have never seen any other storyteller come up with. I could never have created the things he has. But in this story, it seems like he has temporarily lost his edge. He was so excited to get this story out that he forgot to stay on the track. When their is no track to follow, the train veers off and crashes.(just a metaphor )

I think this story is what I call "half-baked". It was a wonderful idea and the message was ingenious, but if it's not presented correctly, it won't be taken seriously by some.

Even though, It may lack certain structure, I still recieved the message clear and found it to be inspiring. One of the many things I admire about Kyrsten, is that she appreciates the inner meaning of films no matter how it's presented and that alone, makes everything come together.

I couldn't agree with her more about these films, and in my opinion, I don't think Night failed in anyway. Unless, he makes a film from someone else's idea, I don't think he could make a film that disapoints me. He is a master storyteller and an amazing person. His fans, will always recognize that.

Warped,

I'm going to ask you the same thing I asked Strummer, what was it specifically that you found faulty with the writing?

I know I need to see it again to understand the nuances because he really threw a lot out at us. An immediate example I can think of teaching one of my beginning Kung Fu students a black sash move. There is too much detail that the beginner student isn't trained to see....yet....after time, a deeper understanding evolves.

It's like learning a new sport. At first, we're working on the fundamentals and trying to understand the new context. Once that is established, then the details can be focused on and improved.

I thought he did an excellent job for the goal he was trying to achieve which was very lofty.

More on that later....time to go home from work

Personally, I found some things wrong with the story. I wrote some of them in my review.

In many interviews with Night, he states that he was intentionally creating a fairy tale. A fairy tale's structure is made up of many things like, mystery, passion, mystical moments, and many others.

Even when they are far-fetched, they still keep a consistant structure. Lady in the Water failed to capture the "mysterious" vibe throughout the film. The first teaser trailer of this film captured that feeling.

In a book reading with Night, he reads us the children's book of L.I.T.W.

In the book, a visitor comes to a friends house. They look out the window from the home. They look out to the pool in the backyard. They see a women for a short moment. They think their eyes are playing a trick on them. When they take a another look, the lady is gone. They might never know if they saw that lady or if she exists. This feels like a fairytale. It's mysterious, it's mystical. It feels like magic.

In the film, we were introduced to the lady in the first 10-15 minutes. It is almost like she was just a regular person at the cove. The mysterious feeling is lost.

The story came with great intention, but it was so jumbled along irrelevant paths that it became confusing.

A lady is brought to our world, and is put in grave danger, to inspire a person to write his story, that will help humankind. It's a wonderful idea. But not grand. Something of this magnitude and importance, should be expressed in a more compelling way.

The story seemed to want to prove a point in an argument about critics or how people judge stories. It began to steal us away from the story. A film shouldn't be used to get back at someone and try to establish a compelling story at the same time. It does not work.

Prove the critics wrong with an amazing and well-structured story. You don't need to flat out say it or show the critic get attacked. Showing us how wrong those critics are is more impacting than anything else.

I have no problem with backstory expressed in dialogue more than action or subtext. Sometimes you have to, but when we are told this fairytale, rather than letting us discover it, then are imagination and passion is taken away. We should be guided through a story at times, not have to be a strict follower of it. Showing us that this is this and that is that leaves no room for imagination. Let us figure out what's happening.

The ending of the film and the deliverance of the message was inspiring and magical, but if it wasn't released off of a powerful platform(the story) then how can we appreciate that message and magical feeling to it's best. For what it has to offer.

As much as I loved this film, I believe it could have been structured a little more professionally. We may never know how good this story could have been, because this is how it was presented to us. If it was done differently, in the style of Night's previous films, you would think of it differently and see why I am saying this.

Their is some logical errors with this film. The first time Story tries to return home, The Scrunt attacks her. When Mr. Heep finds her, the Scrunt attacks again. Breaking through the class window by the door she hid by.

Then towards the end of the film, the Scrunt wants to exit through the door to attack Story by the pool. The Scrunt wants to get her before the Great Eatlon gets to her. The scrunt begins to struggle with the door, when a larger window than before lays right in front of it.

The only reason I can think for the Scrunt not to break through the glass window, is so it would not be heard and it could attack silently. But I can't imagine how mauling at a wood door and breaking it open would be much quieter.

I can see why people would come to the opinion of the story not being written as well as Night's previous stories.

Even if certain parts lack, the idea and message is still captured. Still recieved. That's what truly matters. A few mistakes aren't going to change it or alter perception. The only thing these mistakes accomplish, is making the film less believable.

But since when do stories have to be as close to reality as possible? Films weren't meant to be as close as possible to life. Movies give us a chance to imagine something we can't in real life. It would be boring if we saw a film about something we experience everyday in our normal lives. You can't capture life perfectly in a film unless it's a live recording. Movies are meant to tell a story. Not emulate life.

This was a story, no matter how it was told, it was a magnificent story that not only entertained me, but I learned something from. This film will change something in the lives of the people who listen and appreciate it for what it has to offer. Kyrsten sees it. Sifusco sees it. Sandy sees it. Strummer sees it. And many others see it. Regardless of how well the story was presented to us, we all learned something we will never forget.

Night did that for us.

Strummer, the problem I have with the tone of some of your posts is that they come across as just plain nasty. (I previously used the word "uptight" to be politic.) I think if you read the responses you've generated in the past, you'll find that I'm not the only one with that opinion.

Is it your intention to irritate people so that they ignore you or tune out what you have to say? Or is it your intention to engage in conversation with others and pursuade them that you point of view has merit? I think you've done a lot of the former and not enough of the latter, because you make writing choices that push people away.

In the post above, for instance, you use the word "ignorant." That's a pretty loaded word. It says very plainly that you consider yourself more intelligent than those who disagree with you. Even if the person *was* ignorant, your use of the word doesn't suggest you're the more intelligent person. (I had to make that assumption myself, by reading past the word "ignorant." But how many readers did you lose with that one word?) You can use whatever words you want, of course, but if you don't achieve your goal, what's the point?

The average person at this point may think, "Oh, well, if they can't handle my word choices, then they're just being wussies who can't take criticism." I don't think you're average. As one of your friends pointed out, you're a minor. Knowing that now, and having been an English teacher--(the lowest form of life on the planet, I know)--I can only assume that you haven't completely reached the point where persuasion or victory or communication is more important to you than being able to say anything you want in any way that you choose.

To be honest, the only reason I'm writing this is that you seem to have very passionate and specific opinions that deserve to be treated with value. I just wish you'd consistently present them in a way that that didn't turn off your audience, leaving your message unheard.

And, yeah, I know I'm running the risk of coming across as an obnoxious, condescending, toady old English teacher, but *sigh* it's very possible that I am. *Still, I hope you've read this far, because my intent genuinely was to communicate with you (in this post, at least), not to make fun of you.

And now that I know you're a minor, no margaritas for you, fella! (That's a joke.)

Darn!!!!

Warped, I replied to you and it got lost........

It was fairly long so I'll write a shorter version later.....

Thanks for your post, though.

I wrote about it in the thread called "post your reviews of Lady in the Water" or something to that effect. In response to Sandy's post: you make a fair point. I guess I became overly defensive in the face of all that hatred of critics (I guess I kinda idolize a few of 'em). Either that or I had somekind of subconsious agenda. Maybe I was just having a bad day. In any event, I acknowledge my failure to communicate civilly. I'm usually more tactful. I guess my disappointment in the film spilled over into my interaction with other forum-users. I felt that if I found it to be of subpar quality, then why should others praise it so highly. But then, if others don't have a right to their opinons than what right have I to mine. My previous posts were more those of an angry, ranting internet persona than who I really am as a person. Hopefully my future posts will reflect that.

I feel the movie is like a moving puzzle. All the pieces are in place from the beginning, from the introduction of all the characters, but as more information is figured out, through trial and failure, new alignments of the puzzle pieces need to be performed.

As far as the gradual telling of the entire bedtime story, I think it comes down to the fact that most people don't know what to ask or that there is more information that is needed. It's like starting a new job, does anyone really know how to ask questions about something they don't have any experience over? Another example is choosing a major. One may choose accounting, for example, but they do not know all that is really involved, except maybe what classes are required.

Cleveland didn't know what to ask because it wouldn't have made sense. Only after trial and failure did he realize he needed more information and the mother didn't tell the entire story because she was answering the questions he was asking.

I run into this situation all the time where I'm asked questions but I can't give the full story because there is no context for understanding.

I believe this whole movie is about building context to understand an incredibly complex concept that is out of the mainstreams experience. Most people don't understand or think of Purpose as a force that actually guides people and any initial exposure is not telling at all.

I personally feel MNS did a great job of introducing a concept that the characters needed to integrate before the next piece could even be understand so the total integration could be donne to get her home. In other words, they had to go through the gradual learning process, that we all do, to get to the end result.

That, of course, is my take on it.

You make a good point, and that may provide justification for what I felt were pointless red herrings. On the other hand, they were one extra factor that decreased the fluidity of the story.

I found that it's a common problem around here. Losing posts before they are posted. It's happend to me many times. As I mentioned in another thread, I suggest highlighting your post, right clicking on it, and copying it BEFORE you officially post it.

I do that for all my posts now.

Okey dokey. Now I feel safe enough to ask you: what is that little picture next to your name? It reminds me of "The Outer Limits." ....Oh, doy. I just got it. Hadn't recognized Jimmy Stewart's weirded out little face there. It's Vertigo! [smacks foreheard] ...Uh, never mind.

Btw, I have some favorite critics, too. I did a small amount of movie reviewing myself, years ago. (Indiana Jones era.) These days, I do only book reviews. (non-fiction; currently tackling 'LBJ.' God help me. It's a long one.)

It works for me.

crap *forehead*