 |
I won’t
hide the fact that I’m a great admirer
of the work of M. Night Shyamalan. He is
easily one of the most creative filmmakers
to come out of recent times. When I first
saw “The Sixth Sense” I had
no idea that I was in for one of the best
and most unusual films of 1999. By now we
all know the surprise twist ending (but,
in case you don’t I won’t mention
it here), but that is not entirely what
made the film so great. Start to finish
it was the story and how it was told.
As a writer, Shyamalan created believable
characters in a fantastic situation, without
ever once losing credibility. As a director,
he took the time to tell the story well.
It built slowly, yet never dragged. He left
little clues to the truth behind the story
throughout the film, yet they were so subtle
as to make them unnoticeable, until you
watched it again. Then they were as plain
as day
|
In the underrated film “Unbreakable”,
many critics were quick to say that Shyamalan
failed to make lightning strike twice. However,
they were wrong. “Unbreakable” was
a much better movie than most gave it credit for,
and is by far the most fascinating ‘Superhero’
movie ever made. He went way beyond taking a comic
book hero and bringing him to life; he created
a superhero out of an ordinary man and brought
him into the real world, our world. I believe
what hurt the movie in the eyes of most audiences,
was the expectation of a ‘surprise ending.’
It had one, but many felt it lacked the impact
of his previous work. What makes this an unfair
assessment of “Unbreakable” being
a bad movie is that all the attention was focused
on that final moment. No one took the time to
really watch or critique the rest of the film.
If they had, they would have found a strongly
written, masterly crafted, beautifully photographed
movie. The brilliance of the product as a whole
was lost on the blank stares of the mass audiences.
With the release of “Signs”, Shyamalan
once again produced a film far superior to the
muck and mire that audiences generally have to
wade through. The overall look and tone of “Signs”
was perfect. It was a movie about fear and paranoia,
yet ultimately it was about faith. It moved slowly;
as it should, allowing those appreciative of a
well-made movie to really get into it. Scene after
scene, we were brought into the lives of the characters.
We shared their terror. The world he built was
real, or at least it could be. At the time I almost
considered it his best film, but in retrospect
decided no to compare them as they each stand
on their own merits.
The performances Shyamalan gets from his actors
are phenomenal. He gets some of the biggest stars
in Hollywood to drop the star-quality persona,
and lets them build characters of subtlety. Nothing
is overdone; nothing is ‘too much.’
Understatement is everything. In “Signs,”
just as in “Sixth Sense” and “Unbreakable,”
we are not watching our favorite actors playing
make-believe people. They become real people.
OUR neighbors, OUR friends, OUR family. This is
what draws us in. This is what makes a good film
great.
His last film, “The Village”, despite
what you might have heard upon its initial theatrical
release, is was every bit as good as Shyamalan’s
previous work. The story took place in, as the
title suggested, a small village whose people
lived in fear of the surrounding forest. Well,
not so much the forest as the inhabitants of the
forest. The villagers believed there was an evil
that resided within its trees, and as long as
they stayed away from it, they were safe. For
the type of film that “The Village”
was supposed to be, it was note perfect. The story
as told was quite mysterious and the performances
by the cast were strong. Again, Shyamalan directed
his actors in such a way that even the most subtle
of actions spoke volumes… if you’re
looking. As impressed as I was by actors Joaquin
Phoenix, William Hurt and Sigourney Weaker, I
was very pleasantly surprised by newcomer Bryce
Dallas Howard. As the daughter of Ron Howard,
I guess I should have known that acting would
be in her blood, but admittedly she caught my
eye with an extremely soulful performance.
When I first read of the premise for Shymalan's
newest project, "Lady in the Water,"
I couldn’t wait to see it. Unfortunately
fate intervened and I was unable to get out to
the theatre while it was playing. When I started
reading some of the reviews that came out for
it, I was very disheartened. Critics were trashing
Shyamalan, stating the work was sub-par, boring
and ridiculous. I thought surely they were wrong
and had jumped on some sort of bandwagon meant
to make themselves feel superior. Then a copy
of the film came into my hands in preparation
for the DVD release. And I was right.
"Lady in the Water" is a 'bedtime story'
of sorts, that posits the existence of a race
of people who live in the sea (Narfs), from whom
man separated a millennia ago as they searched
for a more greed-filled lust for violence and
materialism. (As I see the human race….
The story has them pegged so far…) Every
now and again, the Narf sends one of their own
into the world to seek out a chosen person. Upon
seeing each other, the chosen finds within themselves
some renewed sense of what it is they are destined
to do with their life that will bring about a
great change. The Narf then returns to his or
her people by way of a giant eagle. During the
journey, however the Narf must remain wary for
they are hunted by horribly malicious creatures,
bent on their destruction… and all those
who may come to their aid.
I've always loved the art of the storyteller,
and especially so when the stories involve an
old myth. A good storyteller can deliver it with
a rich tapestry of emotion, making the unbelievable…
believable. Shyamalan, no matter what the unenlightened
may say, is a master storyteller. My wife and
I stayed up late the other night to watch "Lady
in the Water" and we were mesmerized by the
telling of the story, which was delivered with
a combination of a great script and some wonderful
performances.
Paul Giamatti, who has been proven to be an extraordinarily
talented actor, stars as the maintenance man in
an apartment complex whose sense of purpose is
changed forever upon the discovery of the existence
of a Narf (Bryce Dallas Howard) living in the
swimming pool. I'd tell you more, but I really
think it would do the film a disservice by giving
away too much of the plot. Suffice to say that
the performances throughout are terrific, even
those tenants of the complex who are a bit on
the eccentric side. We are introduced to them
one by one, and as the film's story comes together
so do the people who inhabit it. Each has a purpose
within this adventure, and often we are as surprised
to find out what it is as they are.
As for the ending, this is a large part of what
I felt spelled trouble for the film. It is the
same thing that hurt “Unbreakable”,
“Signs” and "The Village"
in the minds of the public. People were so focused
on how the movie was going to end, that they missed
the point of the rest of the film. Some people
will like the ending, some may not. And when the
film does end, any small amount of dissatisfaction
felt by some small-minded viewers will immediately
make them label it a ‘bad’ movie.
But to tell you the truth, it really shouldn't
matter. The endings, though always somewhat surprising,
have no greater importance than any other part
of an M. Night Shyamalan film. What does matter
is the craftsmanship of the movie throughout.
Beginning, middle AND end.
And here the craftsmanship is a big part of what
makes the film such a beautiful experience. The
cinematography by Christopher Doyle gives the
film a look wholly grounded in reality, until
the magic begins to happen. He is able to make
the magic a part of the landscape as opposed to
having it change the landscape, which makes the
possibility of the impossible seem even more real.
The closing sequence of the film, enhanced by
the way it was shot, was emotionally fulfilling.
I personally loved the ending and its execution,
as it succeeded in delivering to me what the rest
of the film did… a beautiful fantasy in
the midst of an often ugly and mundane world.
The DVD, out this week from Warner Brothers, does
not have the myriad of extra features that his
earlier films were given, but I did enjoy what
there was. First up is an interview with Shyamalan,
where he talks at length about how the story was
conceived originally as a bedtime story for his
kids which evolved over time. He also reads from
a children's book that he wrote as a companion
to the movie (one I plan on picking up). There
is also a 6 part documentary on the making of
the film, which isn’t really as in-depth
as I would have liked, but there are a lot of
good interviews and a look at the especial effects.
You'll also find a short gag reel and an audition
featurette. The audition featurette really only
showed a little of Freddie Rodriguez, but included
a ton of people who auditioned for 'the guy who
throws up at the party.'
"Lady in the Water", in my opinion is
every bit as good as any other of Shyamalan's
movies. He has a way of allowing me to let my
inner child's imagination bubble to the surface
and see the impossible as possible. A movie like
this gives me that little spark of hope that there
are still some beautiful things left in our increasingly
ugly and cynical world. The fact that so few people
and critics embraced this movie makes me worry
that this kind of innocent imagination is becoming
an endangered species. And once that disappears,
there will be no hope left.
Directed by: M. Night Shyamalan
Starring: Paul Giamatti, Bryce Dallas Howard,
Bob Balaban, Jeffrey Wright, Sarita Chouhury,
Freddy Rodriguez, Bill Irwin, Jared Harris
Extras: Lady in the Water - A Bedtime Story, Reflections
of Lady in the Water, Additional Scenes, Auditions,
Gag Reel, Theatrical Trailers
Specifications: Widescreen, Dolby Digital 5.1
Surround Sound
Studio: Warner Brothers
Release Date: 12/19/2006
Region 1
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (Some Frightening Sequences)
Website
Website
We'll give Lady in the Water an A.
|
