Film M. Night Shyamalan is a interesting character. For a start his surname sounds like a book by Tolkein, but reading interviews and watching films he seems to be championing himself as a latter day Hitchcock / Spielberg. And indeed what he is trying to do – apply a style of film making to a number of fantasy genres in turn has some validity. The difficulty I have is that his films only tend to be good for 92% of the time. I’'m able to come to this figure through careful study and making things up. All three of his latter films (ie, not the early one about the dog), are engrossing, scary, look great and make you jump out of your skin many times. They make you think, and the acting and casting is always impeccable. He has great flare with child actors, who often turn in performance better than some of their adult piers have won Oscars for.
8%. His films are always 8% not good. 2% of that covers the fact that he is always in them. In a sharp curve his participation on screen has increased until in his new work ‘Sign’ he plays a character who is central to the plot. I must point out here that I don'’t have problem with directors appearing in films. I’'m a Kevin Smith fan for goodness sake – he doesn'’t just appear in his film, he plays the same character in every one –and everyone loves the fact he is there. Indie film makers are always doing this, look at Tarantino. But at least he knew not to turn up and muck up 'Jackie Brown'. A scene in ‘Signs’ exemplifies what I don’'t like about Silmarillion, sorry, Shyamalan. The entire cast of the film (almost) are sitting in a pizza parlour and they turn to look out of the window. Joaquin Phoenix turns to Mel Gibson and says ‘ Is that him?’ (for reasons which would spoil the good 92% of the film), and Mel says that it is. Cut to our director getting out of a car. Insidiously this is an important moment in the film, when we need to pay attention. Instead, half the audience is thinking ‘Who the hell is that guy?’ whereas the other half are going ‘Ooh look it’'s the director’. Unless you'’re a ‘Night’ fan, in which case you'’re laugh ecstatically at this hilarious in-joke. Or you’'re even sadder and you’re thinking "‘Isn'’t that the guy Bruce Willis frisked for drugs in ‘'Unbreakable’'?" In any case you'’re pulled out of the film and miss something which gives impitous to the rest. Just so that the director can say 'Look at me! I'm in my own film!'
Another 2% is pacing. Or in particular characters inability to hold a competent conversation without having to pause and think about it for while. Most of when we do something as simple as turn on a light, just do it without think. M’s characters look at the switch take a breath, look around, breath deeply, wonder about how important turning on the light might be to improving the universe then turning it on. This happens most annoyingly at the climax were everything happens even more slowly so that people who …… are ….. very ….. slow ….. on . ….. the ….. up…take …. can understand that a twist has happened.
Fittingly, the other 4% is the ending, or more particularly his use of the ‘twist ending’. Now here we have a problem. In order to discuss this I’m going to give away the ending of 'Signs'. So as a service to you I’'ll make the text white (so block to read). Night constructs his entire films around his twist endings. The issue I have with this is that they tend to be related to the underlying theme of the show and have nothing actually to do with the plot. In ‘Signs’ for example, the underlying theme is fate and faith – do things just happen, or do they happen for a reason – something which could have been explored in any number of ways. Night decides to jam it into what is basically a 'Blair Witch' version of 'Independence Day'. In that final scene, it could have been any kind of intruder with a poisonous gas a diabolical serial killer working in the local area for example. The alien is a mcguffin. In the end the thing feels like two different scripts which have been bonded together like badly mixed cement. In a nutshell for non-spoiler readers, his ending don'’t work because they disrespect the audience into thinking they’'ve watched a more intelligent film than they have. Although 'The Sixth Sense' was spoilt for me because I worked out the twist from watching the trailer.
So should you bother seeing 'Signs'? Well 92% isn’'t a bad score. It is engrossing. I did jump several times. Just be ready for the unpleasant taste of disappointment in your mouth when you leave. Or then again like the IMDb reviewer 'Maybe my expectations were too high.'
Buffy Spoiler alert, but too good not to include. As a sideline for fans the current writers of the show have set up a personal website for one of the charactersoftheweek. Exceedingly realistic (it's even at Geocities) it's a treat, whatever it all means. The Whois record is a great detail. But as I said spoiler alert. Give the guest book a wide birth if you haven't seen season six yet (starts halloween on BBC2 by the way). [via Wheadonesque]
