My Belated Reflection on The Village
When I first saw The Village in a theater, I walked out feeling empty, and disappointed. To me, it was Shyamalan’s first movie to fall under the bar which he set so high. Even short of Signs, which had the ridiculous notion that H2O-vulnerable Aliens would try to invade a water-logged planet. Part of it for me was that he built the tension so high up to a point that, it felt like a bomb would go off, but instead, the fuse fizzled out. With that, I’m not saying the movie was horrible, because he did a fantastic job of building up the tension. However, the wound runs deeper.
I hadn’t seen The Village again until quite some time after it had been on DVD. In fact, I believe it was early this year. I even came to dislike The Village, and couldn’t fully understand why. It couldn’t just be that the ending had little payoff for me. C’mon, the villagers actually living in modern times wasn’t exactly something to fall out of your seat over. At least, not for me. So, with much time to cool down and reopen the mind, I rented it, trying to have no expectations. Additionally, I felt that knowing the ending, I could catch the finer points of the movie. That turned out to be the opposite.
What I discovered with my second viewing of The Village, outright offended me. And that, was Manoj’s cold, outright manipulation of his audience to get his surprise. This time it wasn’t the means of a genius screenplay. It could’ve been, but Night seemed to fear he would give away too much. So much so, that he resorted to manipulation in the worst of ways. And I say, shame on you Shyamalan!
The first manipulation was in the opening scene. The camera focuses in, quite poignantly, on a tombstone dating in the late 1800s. I couldn’t help but feel that was a cheap-shot. In abscense of story to draw our attention away, he outright misleads. Sure, the villagers want to live in a more simple time, but what does the date matter? I’m sure they would say that it helps take their minds off the time they’re hiding from. But really, does it make much difference?
Quite ridiculous, but necessary in order to keep the story afloat from the ending, is their manner of speech. Really, would one go through so much trouble to make up dialect, or attempt dialect of another era? However, if they spoke like we do today, it would give the ending away. With that in mind, it was wise of him to have the characters speak in a way they thought it would have been.
Another low-blow was Manoj’s use of sound, in particular, that of the creatures. No human in a creature suit could make such a loud, fearsome noise. Some might say it was the interpretation of what the frightened villagers heard. I don’t care how scared I was, I couldn’t imagine that. Go ahead, pop in the DVD and listen to what I’m talking about.
One thing that blew my mind the most, was that Night cut a scene from the version that showed in theaters. It was completely missing from the DVD, even from the deleted scenes. It was a scene between Ivy Walker (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Mrs. Clack (Cherry Jones). Mrs. Clack was relating her negative experience from the outside towns, something that happened in an alley. Ivy then quipped “What’s an alley?” It was the scene that tipped me to the ending, and perhaps enough people that Shyamalan felt it was too revealing (after the fact) and removed it for the DVD release. It’s not the first time further editing has been done for a DVD release, but the fact that he didn’t even mention it in his deleted scenes portion, showed prideful arrogance to me. It was as if he didn’t want to admit to a mistake, yet, it wasn’t a mistake, it was just a clue that more people caught onto than he wanted.
He was at the point where he should have made a movie that didn’t need a surprise ending. It felt as if he worried too much about hiding his “surprise ending” that he had to force it…force it with lies! That was a little extreme, but he should’ve tried to write outside his bubble, or direct something that someone else wrote. Unfortunately, trying to write outside his bubble produced Lady in the Water, a jarring mess.
To end on a positive note, I loved everything else about The Village – the setting, the cinematography, the mood, the tension, the acting (except his). All other aspects were there. That is why he needs to direct something where he doesn’t have himself all wrapped around the story, because he has the raw talent.
2 comments:
Wow, that's a lot on the flick. I think you're right too. M. Night did manipulate the viewer several times throughout the Village. Some have argued that his entire style is based upon manipulation and that film in itself is a psychological manipulation. I disagree. Film is directing, not manipulating. And in his previous works, he directed the viewer in one area of the film, despite the fact that the truth of the story was happening before their very eyes.
But, like you said, he stooped to manipulation in The Village. That's unfortunate, because what makes his other films unique is that they can be watched again and seen from the alternate direction. You begin to understand that there was no cover-up involved, no manipulation. In fact, it's like the films take on an entirely different level.
The Village, minus the surprise ending, is a good film. I like the characters, the screen-direction is superb and the cinematography is Deakins...what more could you ask for? But you're totally right. He needs to take on another project, something he hasn't written, and direct it. He's a fantastic stylistic presence, but I fear that he's burned out his writing talent...in fact, I now wonder if he had talent, or if it was merely that he had 2-3 unique ideas.
Lies. You're right to put it that way. Instead of a nicely-laid trail of breadcrumbs, it was a pack of lies.
To really succeed within the story, the dramatic tension would have to be about the younger villagers finding out about the rouse.
I did enjoy the rest, the directing, phototography, and the love story.
Post a Comment