BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

M. Night Shyamalans' The Village

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Spaniel
21:41 / 11.08.04
I've just seen the shy guy compare directing with writing.

What a brave, interesting, idea.

Auteur theory!
 
 
nihraguk
13:23 / 12.08.04
I've heard of and spoken to a number of people who felt cheated by the way the show ended and especially by the twist - which they think of as 'cheap' and lame.

I think Shyamalan went a step further in this movie; because unlike his other movies where the twist was the punchline of the movie... in this movie the twist is a plot element, a thematic element to the notions of blindness and sight - even the poststructuralist ideas about language being a internally coherent system of signs.

The village itself is contained, insulated from everything else - and generates its own meanings, its own values and significances. The elders ensure that the signs they introduce are coherent with one another - when we hear that the village fool has been trespassing beyond the border, the elders arrange for an appropriate 'response' by the 'monsters' so that there is a consistent predictability that validates the myth of the monsters and the reason why people should not venture out of the border.

The blind girl, the fool and the fearless joaquin cannot participate and partake in this multi-sensory, fictive experience generated by the elders because of their handicaps. This, then, is part of the reason that leads to the eventual breakdown of the system introduced by the elders - fitting in again with poststructuralist notions about how every system contains the seeds to its own deconstruction within itself.

Going one step further - the fact that the monsters aren't called "hedghogs" or "dragons", but that they are *without* sign, beyond language, suggest a number of possible interpretations: one being that they represent that which a structuralist society like ours abhors - they represent an element alien to our system of signs/words/languages. because they cannot be contained or expressed within language - because they are values without referents, they are ungraspable, and therefore to be feared. taking this interpretation, the film critiques the parochial nature of our reliance upon language and signs, representing us as a society of little-village-people huddling within what is known and signified, fearing that-which-cannot-be-named. the book "House of Leaves" by Mark Z. Danielwski is another piece of literature that explores this theme.

I'm gonna stop here because otherwise I'd just go on rambling - but suffice it to say that I thought it was a well-executed piece of work on Shyamalan's part that had powerful moments and motifs, and while I hate "Signs" and found sixth sense rather mediocre, this movie restores my faith in his talent.
 
 
Mr Tricks
21:05 / 17.08.04
I liked it....

much better than signs, we'll acted by actors I was surprised to see.

I thought the language as appropiate especially when the dilect began to break down with the conversation of the "crime" and the IVY's proposed solution.
 
 
Rawk'n'Roll
19:09 / 18.08.04
Spoilers in case you didn't know already


"actually, as a whole, im sort of confused about what the twist WAS, because the only twist i saw came in the middle, not the end; that being the creatures were manufactured. which i was satisfyingly surprised by, and thought was reasonably clever/entertaining/cool. this was disappointing or obvious to everyone?"

The obvious twist is revealing that the village exists in the present day as opposed to just after the Civil War.

The key twist is the protagonist change halfway through. You watch a film about Joaquin and suddenly he's out of the picture and his blind girlfriend steps in.

Mostly the film is punctuated with moments, Shyamalan admitted that he writes a bit to episodically and he tried to give mini-cliffhangers as it were to each episode.
So you get:
Joaquin saving Ivy
Joaquin asking Ivy to marry him
Joaquin being stabbed
Ivy killing the "beast"
Ivy returning to the village

I feel that whilst the "era" twist was unecessary it was still edited as The Twist in the film. As though this was where all the pieces fell into place but despite that you should ignore it as such. It doesn't do the film much credit to hang on that plot point as it's main feature.
There's so much more of worth throughout the film that gets overshadowed by the heavy handedness of that moment.
 
 
Mystery Gypt
20:32 / 18.08.04
i guess its just that the era thing was so obvious from the first minute of the film that it didn't feel like a surprise twist. everything else is just a plot point, every movie has those. i liked the movie a lot, night would just be a whole lot better off if he stopped relying on the "twist" concept to motivate his movies.
 
 
Rawk'n'Roll
07:33 / 19.08.04
He did mention that he considered starting the film on the roadside by the enclosure. Which I would have preferred to be honest.
I kept thinking how lame it would be if the twist was that it was really present day. And Lo, it was.
But the q+a session changed my mind when he took the importance off of that twist and onto the protagonist change. Shame the editing doesn't really reflect that though.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:17 / 20.08.04
Bollocks. I really wanted this to be The Taking of Pelham 123 with elves. It turns out it is Executive Decision with hippies.
 
 
ibis the being
23:56 / 20.08.04
You know what I always wonder? Why do people who don't like Shymalan films go see Shymalan films? I mean, really. You know what it's basically going to be like. I don't need to go see I, Robot to confirm my scorn for Will Smith.
 
 
Benny the Ball
15:55 / 25.08.04
just saw it. Thought it was a waste of good actors. Also don't get the point of the date thing, that is only for the audience surely, as the people raised in the village wouldn't have a frame of reference anyway? Unless the elders are just role playing fanatics...
 
 
Squirmelia
09:36 / 27.08.04
After seeing the trailers, I had thought the film would be horror, but actually it seemed more like an Anne of Green Gables kind of romance. Ivy and Lucious got together a bit too quickly for my liking (they should have slightly disguised their intentions for a little longer, Anne and Gilbert style!), but I liked their characters and was glad that they had. I thought the ending was a bit abrupt in that I wanted a more obvious scene of happy ever after. I very much liked the use of colour, and the mention of not doing what we want, so others do not know that we want to do them.
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
12:47 / 27.08.04
for the people who think the whole "it's really present day" angle was so obvious...how did you figure this out? were there clues that led you down this path? did something tangible tip you off that you can point to say "hey, this is a clue, did you catch that?"

or...and i'm not trying to be an ass...did you guess?

Guessing is not really Figuring It Out, which is what makes me curious. The thought crossed my mind that that would be an obvious twist...but there doesn't seem to be any actual clues to this anywhere in the movie. And I acknowledge that I was thinking about possible twists because this was a MNS movie.

If this was a Martin Scorsese movie and not a MNS (the TWIST!!! director), would it still have been obvious, or would you have simply thought you were watching a period movie?

I remember when The Sixth Sense came out, and people told me they "figured it out," the best line of reasoning that they could come up with is "It's obvious!" with nothing else to back that up...

I'm just really interested in clues that I might have missed. I like this movie a lot. Beautifully directed, beautifully acted, and I enjoyed the slow methodical structuring of the story. The protagonist switch is fairly unique, I think, and makes for a very exciting climax (to me, at least). The "present day" part...I think it adds to it. Not that it's because "Wow! Look at this TWIST!!," but I think it adds to the overall story, and demonstrates a very simple point that I've always thought true: simple doesn't mean good. Bad things happen to everyone no matter how complicated their lives are. I always wonder when I hear people say "All this technology is ruining the human condition, if only things could be simpler like in the old days, then good would prevail and evil would not exist."

Sorry to be so negative...this movie just really intrigued me, it says something fairly unique in Hollywood cinema, but is getting dismissed a by the book MNS twist movie.
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
14:33 / 27.08.04
Yeah, I'm inclined to think anybody who says they "figured it out" is just lying.

Care to point out the clues?
 
 
Benny the Ball
07:54 / 28.08.04
With Villiage I hadn't a clue what the twist would be, in fact I kind of thought that there wouldn't be, then I thought that maybe it would be a post apocolyptic world thing because of the permanent winter feel. I just didn't like it. Didn't like the heavy handed "plane flight" explaination at the end, didn't get why dates were neccassary, it seemed clumsy of the elders to even have to establish a world out side of the villiage when they wanted to save their offspring from what was past the woods. Surely they would know that future generations would get curious, the myth would pass into folk law about the creatures once there was no one around to continue it, etc.

As for Sixth Sense, there was a single moment that it dawned on me that Bruce hadn't spoken with anyone else nor had we the audience seen him open a door (I think it was more the door thing) when little Joely Osmand comes home and his mum and Bruce are sitting facing each other but not talking. It just me thinking why, and then I thought that maybe he was a ghost and didn't need to open doors.

there are more pointers in Sixth Sense, but the film is more than the sum of the twist, it is a great horror film where you are never sure if the boy is in danger.

The Villiage's twist is a bit unneccassary as there are no indications at any point, so there is not that process once it happens that you can trace yourself back and go, oh yeah, of course x becomes y becomes z, it just felt hammered on.
 
 
Liger Null
21:48 / 28.08.04

Care to point out the clues?

I suppose the first things that clued me in were the Black Boxes. All the elders had one. Joachim notices them and starts referring to everyone's "secrets". What could the boxes contain that would need to be kept secret?

Whenever someone mentions going out of the village, the elders speak not of the danger posed by the creatures, but instead tell of crimes committed against loved ones in the outside world. The elders don't seem all that concerned about the monsters, but fear the towns with a vengeance. Why?

I guess the clincher was after the stabbing, when William Hurt asks the doctor fellow if there was anything to be done about the infection that had set in if there were "no restrictions" As far as I know, antibiotics are a relatively recent discovery (I could be wrong-is there a doctor in the house?)
 
 
■
10:48 / 03.09.04
I think the biggest clue of all is that it's a Shalayman film. There isn't that much in the film itself, but even before I saw it, I had a good deal of it worked out. What would the twist be in a film about an Amish-style village threatened by monsters? One, the monsters aren't real, which must mean someone is faking it. Two, it's not really an Amish-style village. Two is too obvious, so the REAL twist has to be that it IS, but not in the way you think.
OK, the nature preserve was a bit of a surprise, I'll admit.
The good thing about the film I felt was that it didn't RELY on the twists. The acting was pretty good, and no matter how heavy-handed you might initially think the premiss is, I think there is enough in there for repeated viewings. It succeeds because the twists are (for once) not all the film has to offer.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:41 / 03.09.04
(I could be wrong-is there a doctor in the house?)

What are they teaching people these days?

Alexander Fleming discovered that penicillium mold killed staphyloccus aureus cultures in 1928, but penicillin was not mass-produced until the second world war. I believe the French maintain that they discovered the antibiotic power of penicillium notatum in the late 19th century, but then they would.

Antibiotic agents were employed before that, but not knowingly - most obviously mercury against the syph and quinine against Malaria, but Chinese and Native American uses of molds to treat boils and fungal infections are recorded. If the inhabitants of the Willage are stopped in the late 19th century, they might have Pasteurisation and cowpox vaccination... but the treatment of infected *wounds* with antibiotics... yeah, you're talking mid-20th century.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
04:08 / 07.09.04
I haven't watched it and a friend has told me the superclevah twist ending of Mr. Shyamawriterproducerdirectorlan's great movie. saved me the wasted hours and money.

after SIGNS I vowed to never spend a cent again to watch his work. I know cable isn't free but you get my point. I like a lot of visual aspect about his work - most of which some of you have pointed out - and even SIGNS has a lot of great atmosphere. I love twist endings, but a director can't build a career solely on this gimmick.

even though THE SIXTH SENSE was rather obvious if you payed attention to the trailer it was a good movie. he started losing me on STRONG SPECTRE VERSUS GLASSMAN [I almost forgot the name of that, it's UNBREAKABLE] because the twist was oh, he may be a comic hero but we already stabilished that a while ago...

SIGNS was not obly a stupid stupid movie with an even more stupid twist ending [oh, so "signs" were those cryptic words his dying wife pronounced before being chopped in half so Mel would use a combo hit to fight the water-fearing-aliens-that-invade-planet-composed of-water with his lover/brother and recover his lost faith? ok...], but was also one of the most unfortunate movies of the pro-Busheney era.

is MNSwriterproducergeniusdirector afraid of being deported somehow? I wonder...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:15 / 02.09.05
Okay, so, a year late, I'll admit. Hmm. Quite enjoyed it; didn't expect the stabbing, twist ending a bit poo. LOVED the first hour or so... it was like The Company Of Wolves. Aesthetically, anyway.

My BIG question is, and I'm totally prepared to believe I could be missing something here... why, in setting up this "Amish-lite" community, bring the whole "red is the BAD colour" thing into it? Surely the threat of monsters if you leave is good enough, without getting weird about it? Yes, yes, I know, red is the colour of blood and all that... do these simple-living folk never cut themselves? Or menstruate? Or, indeed, have lips? Or tired eyes after a night of insomnia? Other than clever cinematography (which this movie can not be faulted for- it was gorgeous, really) was there a point to that?

I'm really missing something obvious here, aren't I?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:17 / 02.09.05
And I'm deeply dubious about any bunch of people, no matter WHAT traumas they've suffered, who decide to set up an all-white commune...
 
 
Triplets
00:32 / 03.09.05
Stoatie: The more bizarro rituals you program into a group of people the more control you have over them.

See: Catholicism
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
06:07 / 03.09.05
I kind of figured that, but it just seemed so impractical. Of all the bizarro rituals to choose, one which has a very large chance of fucking everything up seems an odd choice.
 
 
eddie thirteen
11:41 / 03.09.05
I'm with Stoatie on this -- I guess a racially-integrated community could have given the "twist" (which I guessed *from the fucking trailer!* Is he even trying anymore?) away in the first five minutes, although I think it could have been presented in some interesting way that could have kept the audience wondering...Neeson could have given some speech about the superior enlightenment of the village vs. the rest of the world without directly touching the notion of race, for instance. Thematically, it does tie in, and the anachronistic (or at least unlikely) nature of a color-blind quasi-Amish community at the turn of the last century might have provided an honest-to-God clue as to the village's true nature (I'm not sure there really were any, other than the director's name over the title). As it stands, The Village kinda left me with the skeeved-out feeling that the elders' vision of utopia was distinctly caucasian.
 
 
Billuccho!
01:43 / 04.09.05
See, when I watched the movie, I simply assumed all along that it was the present day and they were all Amish or something. I must have missed the plot point that was supposed to tell us "this was set in the past."

But hey, we all knew M. Night Etc. had to make a cameo in it, so they had to leave the all-white commune eventually, y'know?

And I liked Signs, dammit. It's the only Shyamalan movie I really like. The Village was pretty poo. Though Bryce Howard is a pretty decent enough actress.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply