Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Comments powered by
Site Meter Web Counter
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Oct 12, 2004 11:30 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Oct 12, 2004 11:30 PM
The Village
Contrary to seemingly everyone else, I liked it.
The rest of my review will be filled with spoilers, so stop here it you don't
want to know things.
So, The
Village. This movie has kind of been
ripped to shreds by most critics (and, incidentally, by Rick, who said he'd give
it 2 stars). I liked it though, and the more I think about it, the more I like
it.
First, I think that Shyamalan is getting a bad rap, but it's partly his own fault. He has become the king of the twist, and he only hypes the fact that there is going to be a twist in his movies. The twists, by virtue of the fact that everyone is looking for the twists, have become increasingly less effective...or at least less surprising. However, I would argue that the twists have become less and less important in some ways, at least in Signs and this film. I liked Signs, and I thought that the film was much more about faith and family than about aliens and "fate." This film is about much more than the twists, as indicated by some comments I have read from him that this film is really a love story, which in many ways it is. That core triangle--between Howard, Phoenix, and Brody--is remarkably well-acted. It is too bad many are going to shy away from the film and miss Howard and Phoenix's performances because they are really good.
So, to the twists. I got the first twist a few minutes before we really know about it. As many critics have noted, it's not altogether unexpected. It is this twist which I think is the most important one, even though it is the less surprising one (at least to me). By making the creature a figment of the elders' imagination, meant to keep the others from the outside, I think that Shyamalan is making many interesting points. First, I think that he demonstrates just how powerful fear is, particularly when it comes to logic. That is, he shows us how fear can make us believe everything, even in the face of logical, contradictory evidence. He also shows us just how easy it is to sustain fear, and pass fear down from generation to generation. I don't know when he started writing the screenplay, but these themes are obviously pertinent in today's political and cultural climate. We are prone to giving into our fears, and attempting to do anything to protect ourselves from real and imagined enemies. It is hard for us to see past that fear--to see beyond the forest--and to trust that our "elders" are not inventing fear to seemingly protect us.
Now for the second twist. Rick pointed out that Ebert's review kind of gave it away for him, and that the pointed display of the boy's tombstone with his dates of birth and death at the beginning of the film also was a bit to deliberate. Placing the community in the present day, hidden from the outside world in a wildlife sanctuary, was clever, but problematic in some ways. First, by sending the blind Ivy into the real world, the elders ensured that she would bring back only the medicine and not the truth of their situation--sure someone could have mentioned the real year, but that's probably not going to happen. This twist changes the nature of the fear of which Shyamalan wants to focus in a way, and in some ways, not in a good way. The fear of the elders stems from real loss--violent crime in most cases--and their departure becomes somewhat understandable, though also more likely to doubt their sanity a bit more. I guess he wants us to see the degree to which grief can cause madness or at least irrationality in those who are left behind. That being said, because all of those who leave are white, I think that this film could in some ways be read as a parable for "white flight"--that these people are just creating their own gated community with conservative (racist?) values. This reading is undercut a bit by Shyamalan playing the part of the preserve's warden. I think he knows what is in the forest (unlike his helpful but clueless underling), and therefore he becomes a person of color who is guarding those inside--both keeping people out, but also keeping them in. It's an interesting arrangement, because one questions whether it is more important to keep things out or to keep things in.
Now, I feel like Shyamalan did not do enough to explain the need for the elders to turn back time. In some ways, I think it is too easy or even lazy to just say, "well, they wanted to return to a simpler time." Turning back time needed to have been given a more substantial explanation: the 1890s were chosen because....I think of the Amish who hold onto the past but still recognize that it is 2004; why wasn't that good enough for these people? It's problematic because without a logical reason that is clearly stated then the time twist becomes a twist for twist's sake, rather than a twist that is integral to the plot. The time twist also becomes an excuse in some ways for the obviously stilted language and acting of some: looking back, it makes a ton more sense that the younger people "talk the talk" better than the elders, because it's an act of the latter, natural for the former (though that doesn't really completely explain Hurt's acting...what happened to him?). I still wish there was more of an internal logic for the twist.
So, all in all, I think that The Village is an interesting and some ways important film for our time of great fear and fear-mongering. I think it is also intriguing that it opened the same days as The Manchurian Candidate, which has (I hear) many of the same themes.
First, I think that Shyamalan is getting a bad rap, but it's partly his own fault. He has become the king of the twist, and he only hypes the fact that there is going to be a twist in his movies. The twists, by virtue of the fact that everyone is looking for the twists, have become increasingly less effective...or at least less surprising. However, I would argue that the twists have become less and less important in some ways, at least in Signs and this film. I liked Signs, and I thought that the film was much more about faith and family than about aliens and "fate." This film is about much more than the twists, as indicated by some comments I have read from him that this film is really a love story, which in many ways it is. That core triangle--between Howard, Phoenix, and Brody--is remarkably well-acted. It is too bad many are going to shy away from the film and miss Howard and Phoenix's performances because they are really good.
So, to the twists. I got the first twist a few minutes before we really know about it. As many critics have noted, it's not altogether unexpected. It is this twist which I think is the most important one, even though it is the less surprising one (at least to me). By making the creature a figment of the elders' imagination, meant to keep the others from the outside, I think that Shyamalan is making many interesting points. First, I think that he demonstrates just how powerful fear is, particularly when it comes to logic. That is, he shows us how fear can make us believe everything, even in the face of logical, contradictory evidence. He also shows us just how easy it is to sustain fear, and pass fear down from generation to generation. I don't know when he started writing the screenplay, but these themes are obviously pertinent in today's political and cultural climate. We are prone to giving into our fears, and attempting to do anything to protect ourselves from real and imagined enemies. It is hard for us to see past that fear--to see beyond the forest--and to trust that our "elders" are not inventing fear to seemingly protect us.
Now for the second twist. Rick pointed out that Ebert's review kind of gave it away for him, and that the pointed display of the boy's tombstone with his dates of birth and death at the beginning of the film also was a bit to deliberate. Placing the community in the present day, hidden from the outside world in a wildlife sanctuary, was clever, but problematic in some ways. First, by sending the blind Ivy into the real world, the elders ensured that she would bring back only the medicine and not the truth of their situation--sure someone could have mentioned the real year, but that's probably not going to happen. This twist changes the nature of the fear of which Shyamalan wants to focus in a way, and in some ways, not in a good way. The fear of the elders stems from real loss--violent crime in most cases--and their departure becomes somewhat understandable, though also more likely to doubt their sanity a bit more. I guess he wants us to see the degree to which grief can cause madness or at least irrationality in those who are left behind. That being said, because all of those who leave are white, I think that this film could in some ways be read as a parable for "white flight"--that these people are just creating their own gated community with conservative (racist?) values. This reading is undercut a bit by Shyamalan playing the part of the preserve's warden. I think he knows what is in the forest (unlike his helpful but clueless underling), and therefore he becomes a person of color who is guarding those inside--both keeping people out, but also keeping them in. It's an interesting arrangement, because one questions whether it is more important to keep things out or to keep things in.
Now, I feel like Shyamalan did not do enough to explain the need for the elders to turn back time. In some ways, I think it is too easy or even lazy to just say, "well, they wanted to return to a simpler time." Turning back time needed to have been given a more substantial explanation: the 1890s were chosen because....I think of the Amish who hold onto the past but still recognize that it is 2004; why wasn't that good enough for these people? It's problematic because without a logical reason that is clearly stated then the time twist becomes a twist for twist's sake, rather than a twist that is integral to the plot. The time twist also becomes an excuse in some ways for the obviously stilted language and acting of some: looking back, it makes a ton more sense that the younger people "talk the talk" better than the elders, because it's an act of the latter, natural for the former (though that doesn't really completely explain Hurt's acting...what happened to him?). I still wish there was more of an internal logic for the twist.
So, all in all, I think that The Village is an interesting and some ways important film for our time of great fear and fear-mongering. I think it is also intriguing that it opened the same days as The Manchurian Candidate, which has (I hear) many of the same themes.
Posted: Mon - August 2, 2004 at 12:54 PM |