Why M. Night Shyamalan's career has died.

Tools    





I think his best work is still The Village, where instead of maintaining the status quo of paranormal happenings in a normal setting, he transcended his own model and ended up making a pretty profound statement about death, grief, and the shaping power of society.
+ rep for writing the most surprising, yet genuine, paragraph I've read all year.

That, or, "I'll take things I never thought I'd hear for a thousand, please Alex."



Employee of the Month
I generally like to talk about movies and not about vain directors. But let`s take a look:
Shymalan seems to be more important than his movies. Who talks about Christopher Nolan, Frank Darabont or Michael Mann? Almost no one outside the movie-biz? Right, because they are doing their ****ing jobs, making really great movies.

The Sixth Sense: Genius. You can only watch it twice, but genius.

Unbreakable: Good. You can only watch it twice, but good.

The Village: The making-of was more entertaining than the whole movie.

Lady in the Water: Great idea, miserable realization.

The Happening: Two-edged sword. Some sequences were horrible great, thrilling, awful good. Cold, freeze-framed pictures as ususal. high concept, very disturbing. But what about the awful quixotic dialogues? The boredom? The deadness of the world around the protagonists? Yes, that`s all typical Shyamalan-style and it works sometimes. But when there is happening something that gruesome, the fleeing crowds should show emotions based on group dynamics, They don`t. Like puppets, they are standing around, moaning a bit. You know why? Because Shymalan don`t know nothing about group dynamics. You can see this in the making-of ("Anatomy of a scene"): He is a perfectionist, he don`t allow the actors to say one word in their own tone. He talks constantly in the scene, while the camera is running. He even tell the actors how to make their steps, which I have never seen before. That explains the irritating strange-dead-style of his movies (a bit). Wahlberg is a good actor. In this movie he looks like an idiot. Talking to plants, WTF? Maybe that was the attempt of a scriptwriter with absolutely no sense of humor, to place a joke. Shyamalan is very talented. And he is in dire need to take some good advice from other talented people. And to give his actors some room, for god`s sake!



In the Beginning...
+ rep for writing the most surprising, yet genuine, paragraph I've read all year.

That, or, "I'll take things I never thought I'd hear for a thousand, please Alex."
Dude, go watch it again. It's so good. It's the one people rarely talk about, but I think that's because it's a little different than his other films. With Shyamalan, generally whatever kind of paranormal phenomena we're told the film is about, that's what it's about. There are twists and turns, and tremendous character development (well, in the first four anyway). But The Sixth Sense is still about ghosts, Signs is still about aliens, and so on.

With The Village, we're told that the film is about mysterious monsters lurking in the forest. But that's not what it's about. The twist isn't just something to make you slap your forehead in amazement, a la The Sixth Sense. Nor is it a parting revelation, as in Unbreakable. The twist in The Village opens up the heart of the story, which isn't monsters at all, but people who sought to make their lives better.

I just think it was a masterstroke: a beautifully subtle way to take something concrete, expected, and use it as a conduit for getting into a deeper tale about tremendous loss, and how we become so desperate to hold onto things in our grief that we forget the inevitability of it all (and do some pretty silly things in the process). Moreover, the concept of crafting an entire society on that basis blows my mind, and had me thinking about what sorts of misguided ideas our societies today are built on. Suffice it to say, I wasn't expecting to be thinking about the film long after it was over. I don't think The Village is perfect, but it's got a very ethereal style, and along with Signs, it's the only time (in my opinion, anyway) that Shyamalan has ever been able to achieve a deeper, more resonant message.



That's an interestng take on it, Sleezy, but I've already sat through it twice and I still think the twist is idiotic. I'd have rather it'd all been a dream than the ending he went with. It's not a terrible film in the way that The Happening is, and that I've also seen twice, but I'd rather watch that again than go another round with The Village.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
That's his problem. He thinks he always needs a twist ending. if the ending doesn't work, then the whole movie is screwed. Hitchcock made a ton of suspense movies, but only Psycho had a twist ending (some of the others had twists before the conclusion).



In the Beginning...
Originally Posted by will.15
He thinks he always needs a twist ending. if the ending doesn't work, then the whole movie is screwed.
I don't know, man. Signs didn't have a twist, and it's one of Shyamalan's best. Lady in the Water didn't have one either, but it didn't work for all kinds of reasons.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
You didn't think that Signs had the water, or was that supposed to be too obvious to be a twist? Not only that, the last scene has the main character's faith completely restored.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



In the Beginning...
I wouldn't call either of those twists, especially considering that The Sixth Sense and The Village have pretty crazy ones. The water and faith things follow pretty logically from the plot, so neither are unexpected.

Now, if the aliens had actually turned out to be... oh, I don't know... Romanian garbage handlers, then that would have been a twist!



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
To Sleezy:

A plot twist doesn't have to be bizarre to be a twist. And as strange as you may think The Sixth Sense revelation is, it is presented in a way possible to figure it out before it's revealed. I didn't figure it, but some people did. The problem for a writer focusing too much on a whammy plot twist is it has to be both surprising and perfectly logical and fitting the story and the characters once it is revealed. The Sixth Sense does that. Psycho does that. A mediocre William Castle movie, poorly directed, called Mr. Sardonicus did it, and the brilliance of the ending almost redeemed the mediocrity of the rest of the picture. But when the twist ending doesn't work, no matter how effective the movie was up to that point, it makes the viewer feel cheated because everything is leading up to the revelation that reveals what the story really was about.



In the Beginning...
To Sleezy:

A plot twist doesn't have to be bizarre to be a twist. And as strange as you may think The Sixth Sense revelation is, it is presented in a way possible to figure it out before it's revealed. I didn't figure it, but some people did. The problem for a writer focusing too much on a whammy plot twist is it has to be both surprising and perfectly logical and fitting the story and the characters once it is revealed. The Sixth Sense does that. Psycho does that. A mediocre William Castle movie, poorly directed, called Mr. Sardonicus did it, and the brilliance of the ending almost redeemed the mediocrity of the rest of the picture. But when the twist ending doesn't work, no matter how effective the movie was up to that point, it makes the viewer feel cheated because everything is leading up to the revelation that reveals what the story really was about.
I think I agree, in principle, but I see movie twists like sleight of hand in magic. You present the audience with one truth, but reveal later that the truth is actually something else. You're right, a twist ending has got to follow logically from what's established, and The Sixth Sense does that...

WARNING: "The Sixth Sense" spoilers below
...since Bruce Willis' character is never seen interacting with anyone other than Cole.


I think the twist in Unbreakable works too, although it's a little odd that...

WARNING: "Unbreakable" spoilers below
...Elijah is able to cause all these horrible tragedies and is never discovered by authorities. These days, that's extremely rare. But hey, every writer uses a convenience now and then.


A good example of twists that don't work are Identity, and similarly, The Ring. Both films work hard to establish everything except what turns out to be the truth, leaving the reveal horribly and unrealistically unfounded.

In The Village, you learn over the course of the film that (a) every senior member of the village has experienced great loss, and (b) they're hiding truths about their past. It's easy to see that these two ideas are somehow connected, and it clears the way for something to be revealed.

Now, that reveal does come somewhat out of left-field, I'll give you that. Realistically, it's very unlikely, but still far more likely than the truth established early on: that monsters roam the forest. And come on, by watching a Shyamalan film, we're already allowing some measure of fantasy anyway.

WARNING: "The Village" spoilers below
I think what's more jarring is that there's an abrupt shift in time period. And I think most people probably liked the more provocative idea of monsters in the woods better. My only complaint is the scene in which Ivy encounters one of them, which by that point you already know that it isn't real (and can surmise that it's Noah in the suit). So the terror of the scene has no teeth.


Either way, I don't think the reveal is terribly unfounded, and it's far more unique and insightful than I thought Shyamalan capable of. I like that the twist isn't intended to be just some cheap shock. It's designed to get at the heart of the story: the psychology of the human condition, and how our own (often damaged) sensibilities are what shape the foundation of our societies.

Maybe it's not the twist you wanted, or the one you thought appropriate to the story. But I'm always looking for something different, engaging, and relatable, and The Village has all of them. It's a fantastical movie, reveal and all, but I don't feel like it ever crosses the line into idiocy. If I did, I'd be crying foul too. But for me, it works.



I'm actually in agreement with both points, sort of. I don't feel The Village's twist is a cheat or anything, but I did find it relatively uninteresting, and a bit of a stretch when one considers all the legwork that would have to go into it. The fact that we had to devote a couple of minutes to pure explanation (from Shyamalan himself, unfortunately) illustrates just why so few people saw the end coming: there were a lot of messy details that had to be explained away for it to work.

The Village is the first Night film wherein the possibly unbelievable thing the characters are grappling with doesn't end up being reality. In The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs (and even Wide Awake), the impossible thing the characters suspect is shown to be possible. It feels strangely depressing to see the opposite; that the incredible possibility dangled in front of us in The Village is an elaborate rouse. It doesn't help that the film is a good deal less optimistic than his other efforts.

There are twists that modify and enrich what have come before them, and just twists that technically seem possible. For me, The Village falls into the latter camp. Technically speaking there were a few hints there, and it's quasi-plausible as an explanation. But I don't feel it improves or enhances what's come before it, and it doesn't give me that lovely "oh, of course! It's so obvious now!" moment that the truly great twists do.

Twist aside, though, it's a beautifully shot film with gorgeous music, and Bryce Dallas Howard's performance and character are both pretty stunning at times.



A system of cells interlinked
Why can you only watch Unbreakable twice? That's a load of horse apples, mister! My favorite Night film, I have watched it at least ten times, and it only gets better after each viewing. The score alone warrants multiple viewings. Such a great, personal film.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



In the Beginning...
For me, The Village falls into the latter camp. Technically speaking there were a few hints there, and it's quasi-plausible as an explanation. But I don't feel it improves or enhances what's come before it, and it doesn't give me that lovely "oh, of course! It's so obvious now!" moment that the truly great twists do.
I guess this is the crux of what I was saying: that although some measure of plausability must be maintained, or at least an effort to follow one's own rules as the writer, believability isn't the only factor. For me, the twist has got to mean something, too.

The Sixth Sense most definitely has an "Aha!" twist, which is exciting because you realize Shyamalan has smartly pulled one over on you. But really, the excitement ends there. I don't find the truth particularly interesting. In The Village, however, the twist concerns some deeper and genuinely engaging ideas, and - degree of believability notwithstanding - I think that gives it quite a bit of value.

I also don't think it really pays to compare The Village to the films that preceded it (not that I'm accusing anyone of that). It's a different kind of film, as you noted, where the truth isn't the fantasy and the finale is less optimistic. The twist, I think, wasn't intended to force the audience to look backward and marvel at the now-obvious clues. It was intended to open up a greater concept, since the truth is almost always more complex than it first appears. I think it's clear Shyamalan intended to do something different with the film, but unfortunately, the successes of his first films guaranteed that our expectations would be the same.

Speaking of The Sixth Sense and believability...

WARNING: "The Sixth Sense" spoilers below
...why doesn't Cole ever divulge to Malcolm that he's a ghost? The answer, obviously, is that it would spoil the surprise. But judging by Cole's reaction to every other spectre that comes along, you'd think that (a) he'd immediately know Malcolm was one of them, and (b) he'd be reticent to converse with him because of that. And as stark realism goes, I have doubts that Malcolm wouldn't have already figured it out, since he'd have trouble taking taxis or getting his morning bagel. But hey, it doesn't pay to be that literal about anything.



big fan here,love the originality,intensity and personal touch/vision.
It hasnt died imo,and if,it would be because of the uber challenge to do as good or better than your best past work...

verry curious how The last airbender will do.

Anyone seenhis first films "Praying with Anger" (1992 starring himself) and his first major feature "Wide Awake" (1998) ? any good?

(only 2 things bother me; the kid getting info("info") by reading cereal boxes in The Lady In The Water,way too far-fetched imho.
And too bad the antagonist in The Happening is an unvisible virus(if I remeber correctly) in the wind...nice try though)



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
I just don't know why he can't get back to something as original and creative as his last good movie Signs. Let's face it, he's had 3 good movies: Unbreakable, Sixth Sense, and Signs. I don't want to write him off but at this point....



Registered User
big fan here,love the originality,intensity and personal touch/vision.
It hasnt died imo,and if,it would be because of the uber challenge to do as good or better than your best past work...

verry curious how The last airbender will do.

Anyone seenhis first films "Praying with Anger" (1992 starring himself) and his first major feature "Wide Awake" (1998) ? any good?

(only 2 things bother me; the kid getting info("info") by reading cereal boxes in The Lady In The Water,way too far-fetched imho.
And too bad the antagonist in The Happening is an unvisible virus(if I remeber correctly) in the wind...nice try though)



I quite agree with you there actually, it will be very interesting to see if The Last Airbender will do well, the previews don't look that bad at all in my opinion. I didn't bother watching "The Lady in the Water" because it looked disappointing already, and I found that "The Happening" was boring, and the script was very dull and didn't make sense...



Employee of the Month
Why can you only watch Unbreakable twice? That's a load of horse apples, mister! My favorite Night film, I have watched it at least ten times, and it only gets better after each viewing. The score alone warrants multiple viewings. Such a great, personal film.
Okay, that`s up to your personal taste. But for most of the people not devoted to the Shyamalan-style, (casual watchers?) itīs just a very exhausting movie with a second-class twist (compared to the one in
Sixth Sense).



I'd have to disagree, SI. I'm no fan of Shyamalan (after Sixth Sense and Unbreakable) but I think Unbreakable holds up to subsequent viewings because it's a really good film, better than Sixth Sense, IMO.