(...Story Continued from Previous Page)
By the time Shyamalan delivered his misbegotten bedtime story "Lady in the
Water," his messiah complex managed to dwarf even the superficial pleasures of
watching someone expertly jerk your chain, and he'd fully descended into
self-parody. (The film features a character who will write something destined to
eventually inspire worldwide peace and happiness. Guess who he cast to play the
part?) And though his latest movie, "The Happening," has yet to screen for the
press, there's every indication that his modus operandi hasn't changed: This
thriller about various unexplained phenomena is rumored to have a twist ending,
natch, and another painfully naïve, finger-wagging lesson at its core. Though
I'd guess we're a long way from the ending of Shyamalan's career, the twist to
my own personal story regarding his work has already come about. I've officially
lost my faith that Shyamalan is anything but a shyster. I want to believe
otherwise, but I just can't.
James Rocchi: I think, David, that a lot of Shyamalan's
films have suffered from our own expectations; I remember initially being
annoyed by the deliberateness of "Unbreakable." I wanted invulnerable
protagonist Bruce Willis to stride unscathed out of a flaming oil rig
within the first reel, not mope and muddle his way to posthuman power. But later
viewings made me see "Unbreakable" not as a failed genre film but as a
thoughtful, dramatic inversion of the superheroic tales we know too well. I've
jokingly called the movie "Scenes From Clark Kent's Marriage," and although it's
hardly the stuff of Bergman, it's nonetheless worth thinking about.
"Signs" and "The Village," too, are about more than their twists; "Signs" was
startlingly modest and funny -- a few cheap jolts, a couple of nice phony
rousing moments. "The Village" was actually one of the most politically
interesting films of 2004, or at least the only recent allegory that actually
had an audience; the film's a perverse skewering of both gated-community
conservatism and smug, affluent liberalism, as well as a bruising reminder of
the consequences of being led through lies.
"Lady in the Water" is an ungodly mess, sure, but a curiously captivating
one; as for "The Happening," I'll gladly see it. Yes, I already know the
"twist," (damn you, Internet!), but I also know that Shyamalan will fill the
film with plenty to enjoy and appreciate beyond that. Shyamalan said he was
hoping to make a film like 1978's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," which means he's
at least aiming high. I remember seeing the infamous Newsweek cover and thinking
"'The next Spielberg?' Probably not. But maybe the next Rod Serling. ..." Like the best work of the "Twilight
Zone" creator, Shyamalan has a knack for spooky campfire tales that combine
unreal terrors with real ones. I agree there's a little sermonizing in the work,
and a few simple answers, but at the very least, Shyamalan knows how to sell us
a little sizzle along with the steak.
David Fear: Oh, James! "Unbreakable" acts like its genre
inversion is something akin to gospel, when in fact, it says precious little
about the notions behind hero worship, the (super)human condition or good versus
evil. "Signs" is a '50s watch-the-skies B movie with a religious subtext that
suggests it's to be read as something more significant. I like your description
of "The Village," which is 30 times more intelligent than the movie itself;
again, the worldview we're being sold here is simplistic to a fault and paraded
before us in the clumsiest of ways.
Shyamalan has repeatedly said he values the art of storytelling and
entertaining the masses, yet those two things have been the great casualties as
his filmography grows. Given their flimsy construction overall, I'll contend
that both "Signs" and "The Village" are as much about the twists as they are
about the painfully obvious message-mongering. You get the sense that he
actually started with the twist and worked backward, so strong is his desire for
declaring, "I am the master of the 'gotcha!' narrative gambit, and whatever
cheap shots I need to take to convince you of that, the better." Who cares if
you're entertained, just so long as you didn't see that one coming, did you?
I was waiting for the Rod Serling reference to come up, because his
reputation was also partially built on pulling the rug out from under
unsuspecting audiences. Serling not only understood how a trick ending could not
only make you rethink everything you'd seen, he also used that device to express
a very keen sense of outrage about where he feared society was headed.
Shyamalan, on the other hand, uses these things because he knows that, if
nothing else, it will attract a certain amount of attention. It's bad enough
being told a Big Mac is a steak, sizzle or not; when you can't even enjoy the
burger as a guilty pleasure, there's no reason to show up whatsoever.
James Rocchi: Dave, I feel like the world's worst defense
attorney here: Your honor, my client stands accused of being a hack, but let the
record show he's a competent hack. But Shyamalan isn't just a hack, and even if
he were, there are so many incompetent hacks out there that it feels like a
relief to run into an assured one. I know it feels like I'm asking you to choose
between being kicked in the groin or punched in the nose, but, tragically,
that's the choice we're being asked to make in entertainment all the time.
Shyamalan works with great cinematographers, presents challenges to talented
actors and, even when the films don't work, there's enough craft and care in
them to present something worth talking about. He's a little guilty of believing
his press, but accusing a writer-director who's made it through the modern
process of big-money moviemaking of being self-assured is like accusing an NBA
player of being tall; in both cases, I think you have to be just to play the
game.
And, yes, voices from "South
Park" to "Ocean's Twelve" have busted on Shyamalan's "Come on baby,
let's do the twist" narrative approach, but, damn it, I still think his movies
have more than just their big moment of revelation. You get a great sense of the
fantastic wedded to the prosaic -- not just the thing that goes bump in the
night but the bill that comes due in the morning -- weighing heavily on our
protagonists.
"Unbreakable" has a creepy, undeniable visual sense to it -- what Stan Lee would dream after a mean, depression-fueled bender.
As for "Signs," as annoying as Shyamalan's huggy humanism may have been, it was
packaged with plenty of jumps and jolts, tricks and treats; Joaquin Phoenix's performance alone in that film is worth
the price of admission. "The Village" has a few other surprises beyond the big
reveal, but more importantly, the movie had a mournful kind of poetry to it. As
for Shyamalan's recurring themes -- believe in yourself, believe in something
bigger than yourself, help other people, it's better to tell the truth than lie
-- after the past 8 years of American life, I'm perhaps more willing to have my
ill-formed idealism appealed to, however clumsily, than I am to have my
well-shaped cynicism confidently confirmed.
And finally, let's cut Shyamalan a millimeter of slack here: He's made seven
films in 10 years -- not resting on his laurels Tarantino-style or churning out "produced by" moneymakers.
Say what you will about the filmography, but it's undeniably his, and it's hard
to see that as anything other than a win for both him and us. Although
Spielberg's first seven films include four classics ("Jaws," "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark"), his later films include other
pieces of vital art and real entertainment.
And I can't help but be enthused about the prospect of what M. Night
Shyamalan's equivalent to "Schindler's List" or "Munich" might look and feel like. His affection
for sudden change-ups may very well be something he leaves behind sooner as
opposed to later -- which leaves the heartening possibility that the biggest,
best twist of his career is yet to come. We know the "Once upon a time" of his
career up to this point; I still think he has the sensibility, skill and spirit
to make that story end happily ever after.
Where do you stand on M. Night Shyamalan: Hack or entertainer? Both?
Write us at heymsn@microsoft.com.
Sound off: Comment on this story | Reader mail | Also: Features archive
David Fear is a film critic for Time Out New York. He has also written
for the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Filter and MovieMaker magazine.
James Rocchi's writings on film have appeared at Cinematical.com,
Netflix.com, SFGate.com and in Mother Jones magazine. He lives in Los Angeles,
where every ending is a twist ending. |
Hotmail
