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 >

Lady In the Water (Spoilers/post release thread)

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Keith, like a scientist
05:42 / 22.07.06
M. Night's new movie. Quite a curious move for him. There has been a lot going around about MNS's titantic ego, due in no small part to a book he has published recently. I've yet to read it, and I've never really understood the huge criticism of his personality. Maybe I haven't been paying attention.

However, I quite like this movie a lot. There are some cheesy moments, which I think are entirely intentional. There is much that is thoroughly unique about it. Paul Giamatti is utterly fantastic.

The central conceit of it being a fairy tale is essential, and something I felt right at home with, being a fan of that type of story in the first place. I think if the detractors look at this movie like A Princess Bride, maybe they'll get it a little more?

Much as been said about how it's impossible to separate MNS from this films at this point. Perhaps I'm one of the lucky ones, cause he was just an actor to me in this. I didn't see his character has saying something too ego-centric about himself IRL.

So, please, heave-to with the discussion. Make with the yak yak.
 
 
Spaniel
14:39 / 22.07.06
Have you read Moriarty's review? He fucking hated it, and, frankly, he makes a pretty good case.

I've never really understood the huge criticism of his personality

Really? I'll explain, it's pretty simple:

An M Night Shyamalan Film

Produced by M Night Shyamalan
Written by M Night Shyamalan
Directed by M Night Shyamalan
Starring M Night Shyamalan

And then there's the documentaries where he goes on about himself, and his vision.

Basically he, like his films, comes across as portentous and self important.

(This post reads more snarkily than I priginally intended, so don't take it the wrong way, Keith. Shyamalan and his films just piss me off, and I can't help getting a bit carried away)
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
17:20 / 22.07.06
An M Night Shyamalan Film

Produced by M Night Shyamalan
Written by M Night Shyamalan
Directed by M Night Shyamalan
Starring M Night Shyamalan

How is this different from Woody Allen, someone basically every film lover respects? I don't think that his all encompassing presence is enough to criticize the quality of his movies...which I tend to think is high overall. I still adore Sixth Sense, have a fondness for much of Unbreakable, and think The Village was incredible. Didn't like Signs much, though.

Aside from that, I can understand the aggravation to be had from his self important interviews and such (although, that documentary was a hoax, right?). But it just begs the question, why can't detractors separate his persona from his films anymore? Perhaps I just don't follow his non-film presence enough. But, yes, nearly every review I've read, especially almost all of the AICN ones, go on and on about him first, and then eventually get to the movie. I think Harry was the only one that liked it.
 
 
The Falcon
17:33 / 22.07.06
How is this different from Woody Allen, someone basically every film lover respects?

I'd caution against taking that as read, Keith.
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
18:15 / 22.07.06
It's a generalization, of course. I don't personally love him, but he is quite respected on the whole as a director/writer/producer/actor. My point is that it's the same overarching presence in a film. That all encompassing "this is a _____ _______ film." But it doesn't automatically elicit the kind of criticism that Shyamalan gets. Is it because Allen is self-deprecating?
 
 
Spatula Clarke
18:39 / 22.07.06
Very probably, yeah. A litle humility gets you a long way.
 
 
matthew.
21:28 / 22.07.06
I was interested in it. Until I read the reviews. Every review I've read remarks on how misleading the trailers are.

Moderate Spoilers that don't reveal anything too dramatic:




The water-nympth is called a Narf and the evil dangerous creature searching for her is called a Scrunt. What the fuck? How laughable is that? Most reviews I've read have used that word repeatedly... "Laughable"

On the other hand, Howard's character is named "Story". The director's character is a struggling writer. The characters living in the hotel are archetypes who slowly begin to realize their... fictionality. This isn't explicit; it's all subtext. But it's there.

According to the reviews. I'll go see this next week and see if this post jives with the experience.
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
22:16 / 22.07.06
The water-nympth is called a Narf and the evil dangerous creature searching for her is called a Scrunt. What the fuck? How laughable is that? Most reviews I've read have used that word repeatedly... "Laughable"

f. a. i. r. y. t. a. l. e.
 
 
The Falcon
23:31 / 22.07.06
Hmm, I'd spell it s-h-i-t-e, m'self. But I thought The Village was precisely that, laughable. I laughed heartily at the shite twist.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
00:49 / 23.07.06
And the pretentious director "commentary" cameo I hope.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
06:26 / 23.07.06
I must say that I haven't bothered with anything this guy does since Unbreakable, the AICN review pretty much guarentees I won't be seeing this either.

But, to wander OT slightly, from that review: watching foreign governments step in to stifle film criticism for the good of the economy. What's this about then?
 
 
matthew.
12:18 / 23.07.06
f. a. i. r. y. t. a. l. e.

Fair enough. But how am I going to keep a straight face during the scary chase scenes or the fight between a Narf and a Scrunt?

The names seem to come from a Roald Dahl story, and those were never scary.
 
 
Kali, Queen of Kitteh
14:03 / 23.07.06
Me and the Favorite Scientologist are off to see this this afternoon. I have been promised that if it sucks then he will make it up to me by seeing Clerks II.

I do not have high hopes for this film.

I am sure a laughably disbelieving post will be placed on here either today or tomorrow.
 
 
Kali, Queen of Kitteh
15:30 / 24.07.06
Here is my review of the Moist Tart.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:55 / 24.07.06
How is this different from Woody Allen, someone basically every film lover respects?

It's a small thing, but Woody Allen doesn't produce. Which means, apart from anything else, that there is somebody else controlling logistics and budget, who has their own say in how the movie is made.

Also, Woody Allen has made more good films than Shyamalan has made films, but he's had more time to do it in.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
16:46 / 24.07.06
I remember how well the "But it is whimsical, see it through a childs eyes" line worked for Lucas on Barbelith, I would not expect many converts by spelling things out, Keith.

After the horrible sci fi channel documentary (it was staged? REALLY? There isn't a group of skater-goths who do rituals outside MNS' house in order to commune with whatever dark spirits he talks to in order to make his films?) which seemed to be MNS stroking his ego for 2 TV hours, after advertising it as a biography, I was done with his movies.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
17:32 / 24.07.06
I thought it was a very good movie. Certainly, I also don't consider Shyamalan to be a mainstream director and I think it's quite odd that he has been such a huge success and that critics expect him to make more accessible films.
 
 
Kali, Queen of Kitteh
17:40 / 24.07.06
As I said in my review, it wasn't anywhere near as bad as I thought it was going to be, but I still think he overreached himself.
 
 
This Sunday
17:52 / 24.07.06
For me, Shyamalan's catch is his reveals - that's supposedly where his genius lies... and yet, the one film of his I actually enjoyed watching ('The Sixth Sense') I had the fact there was a reveal hyped to me beforehand, and then, left the theatre assuming I had missed it.

'Unbreakable' was just insulting. All the bits I did enjoy, turns out Sam Jackson kinda put those in on his own.

Woody Allen or Robert Rodriguez may do a whole lot of work on their movies, wearing different hats and under all sorts of titles, but y'know, the movies are usually good. And they can surprise me. They can surprise me on re-watch, which no Shyamalan thing ever has.

And, they know when something's not working. Look at 'Annie Hall'... murder mystery's going nowhere? Cut it down, win an Oscar.

I can stand any level of ego in an artist of any type, if their work is pleasurable on its own. David Mamet doesn't get in the way of the plays or films, for me. And even when the artist is suffused into the material... I can separate Woody Allen, Masamune Shirow or Vladimir Nabokov out and just focus on the works as fictions. As suggestions.

That's what these ought to be: suggestions. They suggest an angle, or a perception, but Shyamalan seems stuck on making his fictions the only perception, or the serious one. And being 'serious' is the death knell, innit?

Using 'fairytale' for weak storytelling or a noninteresting, non-gripping story, is cheap. Lots of things are fairytales or utilize that method and are attractive, gripping, and relevant. 'Princess Bride', 'In the Company of Wolves', 'Adolescence Apocalypse' and even 'Wayne's World' ride on the waves called fairytale, but I'll watch any one of them six times before I'll watch another Shyamalan film, and that's not for trying, either... I just enjoy them more.

Wasn't 'the power of myth' - which, is very close on the excuse scale, to 'it's a fairytale' - one of the things Lucas tried to use to defend the new 'Star Wars' movies? The initial ones, yeah, I'll give you, they're a fairytale, straight up, but the new ones? They're using the fairytale - in a way I'm already suspecting 'Lady in the Water' to be - as a crutch. Or a mask.

Look at the bar/club scenes in old and new Star Wars and ask yourself which is the more effective use of fairytale: the dank, miserable, confusing Mos Eisly... or the deathsticks dealer?

To jump further, 'They Live' has to be a fairytale because it's raw propaganda, it's an education story, but what's the education in 'Lady in the Water'?

Is it possibly, not a fairytale, but a 'go to bed now' exhaustion story?
 
 
Kali, Queen of Kitteh
18:04 / 24.07.06
It seems like Caitlin Kiernan saw a completely different movie than the rest of us. Scroll down to her journal entry of July 22 and read her review.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
18:12 / 24.07.06
Actually, I found this story to hold together much better than SIGNS or THE VILLAGE. You had a group of people gathered together who felt that something was missing from their lives. The "rules" of the fairy tale (which felt more like a Dungeons and Dragons campaign) were set out fairly early and the story was essentially the characters making the wrong assumptions and learning from their mistakes.

The magic of the scenes felt like the rituals that children at play make up in the middle of an improvised game and I think, thematically, it is very up front about the need to regress to a childlike state so that wonders and miracles are possible.
 
 
Spaniel
18:41 / 24.07.06
Woody's films also don't invariably end on a black screen onto which the words "A Woody Allen Film" fade solemnly into view, and the next four similarly presented credits aren't usually given over to Woody's ego (written by, etc...).

Also, I can't seperate Shy from his films because he clearly exerts a disproportionate amount of power over them (which makes the credit situation *even worse*). For the record, I can't seperate Woody from his either, I just happen to think that Woody's influence often turns out for the best, and Shy's doesn't.
 
 
Kali, Queen of Kitteh
18:44 / 24.07.06
I think the one thing that truly annoyed me about this film was the fact he played The Vessel. He, the director, played the guy whose book will be read and will influence the future leader of America.

Now THAT'S hubris.
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
19:02 / 24.07.06

The names seem to come from a Roald Dahl story, and those were never scary.

Ahem.


WHAT?!
 
 
Spaniel
19:15 / 24.07.06
DOUBLE WHAT!!??

(missed that comment)
 
 
Kali, Queen of Kitteh
19:39 / 24.07.06
I gotta third that.

WHAT?????
 
 
Spaniel
19:41 / 24.07.06
I'm sure we can get a fourth
 
 
This Sunday
20:41 / 24.07.06
Thinks about 'Man from the South' and a few others... and decides to fourth it.

Can we get a fifth, preferably neat?

Though, really, wouldn't it be great and disturbing if she was called a 'mugwump' instead? There's a do-yer-head-in nametheft and reapplication.
 
 
matthew.
04:18 / 25.07.06
I should qualify...

Dahl's children's stories. Like the one with the giant peach or the one with the great glass elevator, with the knids. As if anybody found the fucking knids scary.
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
08:41 / 25.07.06
What, the giant peach one where the peach crushes the aunts to death (are all parental figures crushed to death in James and the Giant Peach?) and the child and its insect cohorts are nearly smashed to bits by the deranged snow-people that live in the clouds? Or, you know, the supermuscular shapeshifting aliens that like to crush people in their coils or hurl astronauts into the vacuum of space?
I'd tentatively suggest that if you have difficulty seeing the menace in any of Dahl's work*, especially his children's stories, then non-realistic forms of fiction may not be "your bag".



*"processing metaphor"?
 
 
Shrug
21:47 / 25.07.06
There isn't a Roald Dahl thread in books... I'm just saying.... maybe it's time someone should... you know... *ahem*

Oh go on.
 
 
matthew.
13:36 / 26.07.06
This is going to be my last comment on Dahl before utterly destroying this thread.

I never never never never found Dahl's stories scary. I always held a perverse glee in the mayhem and gore within his books. Never never scary.

Are you people telling me that you found the death of the aunts by giant peach to be scary? Or did you cheer for James' freedom.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
19:07 / 26.07.06
That is a good point. I was rarely scared by a bedtime story as a child either. Then I would not go to sleep, right?

I don't consider LADY IN THE WATER to be a scary movie, anyway. The scrunt wasn't that scary, but I did care about whether or not Story made it home. It was an effective antagonist.
 
 
Kali, Queen of Kitteh
20:07 / 26.07.06
I dunno, that part where she tells him to use a mirror to look over his shoulder so he can see the scrunt and then walk backwards towards it was pretty shivery.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
22:16 / 26.07.06
Okay. Yeah, that was scary and had a nice pay-off.

However, I felt about "Room 13B"(Farber's) demise about the same as I felt about the Aunts' demise at the end of James and the Giant Peach.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply