• Omer Mozaffar in Chicago
I hope this letter reaches you with the best of health and spirits. I am reaching out to you not only because I loved your movies, but also because we are of the same generation of Desis. We migrated here with our parents during that first huge wave some forty years ago and now we are both (perhaps in self-perception) regular middle-aged guys from big cities experiencing the next phases of our lives. I am sure that many of your childhood experiences paralleled mine, both in school playgrounds and in our private imaginations. In some ways, we are peers; in some ways I admire your work. The fact that I am writing this letter implies that I am concerned about a progression that seems to be taking place in your films.
First, I believe I understand your movies. Deeply. I understand the subtext. I am a theology instructor who studies movies. You are a filmmaker who explores religious ideas. You love exploring these central questions of the human experience, as do I.
In THE SIXTH SENSE, you explore death, loss, and the persistence of the self (in a world unlimited by material life, yet limited by choices). In UNBREAKABLE, you discuss comic books as the last remnant of ancient scriptural revelation, prophesying a world of saviors and devils. In SIGNS, you speak of miracles and purpose, with the idea that everything has meaning, and that - against all despair - the world is still a place of hope. In THE VILLAGE you speak of fears based on artificially constructed boundaries, constructed with the goals of enforcing order, cohesion and bliss. In LADY IN THE WATER you speak of two serious points in religion. On the one hand, you speak of prophecy and intuition. On the other hand you speak of the subjective will manifesting itself in objective reality. In THE HAPPENING you speak of the karmic consequences of our negligences. In THE LAST AIRBENDER, your most overtly mythological film, you have elements of all of the above, while adding the idea of hubris and its destructive appetitive consequences. Religions preach the idea that balance, harmony, happiness come from selflessness and self-less-ness (humility), and consequently imbalance, destruction, and misery come from selfishness and hubris.
But your films are not limited to these intellectual mythological explorations. That you manage to explore them consistently in such big movies is an impressive feat. But, your films also tend to be rather intimate and personal. Most of your movies center on characters who are deeply alienated from their spouses, perhaps have lost them, and yearn for reunion. And even when reunion is not the goal, this idea of alienation permeates your films, showing people disconnected from each other, societies disconnected from societies, and humanity disconnected from nature.Your movies feature characters who long for validation either from their mothers (SIXTH SENSE), their fathers (AIRBENDER), or their older siblings (SIGNS). Your films also feature innocent children and young adults with penetrating insights who seamlessly juggle their childlike personalities with heavy burdens of responsibilities.
Still, you carry your own burden on your shoulders. Your breakthrough film - THE SIXTH SENSE - is applauded not only as your best film, but also lauded as one of the best of American Film. That film is the standard by which all of your other work is judged, that is, until you surpass it. Until you surpass it, you stand in the shadows of your own past accomplishments. You need an APOCALYPSE NOW to your GODFATHER. Until then, all your films after your STAR WARS will be regarded as HOWARD THE DUCK. But, I suspect that you consider the criticisms, but still make the movies you choose to make. That is fine by me.
But, my concern is something different. I agree with the critics that your strongest film was SIXTH SENSE, but there are a few simple reasons why. The main issue through all these points is that the emotional depth of your films has been steadily decreasing.
The first issue is that in each of your films, the subtext began to compete with the text: the mythology began to form the plot, rather than inform it. Perhaps AIRBENDER is not a fair example because it is an adaptation, but it illustrates the problem: emotionally, the film was rather antiseptic, in the same way that THE PHANTOM MENACE was. I was shown wonderful images in these movies, but I did not feel the emotions in them as much as I intellectually accepted them. The huge battle scenes in both films were just that - huge - but nothing compelled me to hope for a victor. What was missing was that emotional core.
In the SIXTH SENSE, however, we had at least four central characters who were bursting with basic human longings, surrounded by a host of secondary characters who were themselves vivid (even when on the screen for just minutes). We had a child who saw visions, was raised by a single mother, was also tormented by his peers. We had a single mother raising a troubled child while longing for her own mother's approval (and how wonderful was that confessional scene in the car!). We had a husband longing to connect with his distant wife, and a widow longing for her deceased husband. And, we had numerous clear characters with clear needs.
I would respectfully assert that one cause for the decreasing emotional depth in your films was the decreasing number of vivid central characters. UNBREAKABLE had four, but almost none else. SIGNS had three, essentially (and the kids were interchangeable). While LADY IN THE WATER centered on one character, both it and THE VILLAGE were peppered with one dimensional ensembles. As artistic choices, nobody can fault you for those, but my concern is that the deep waters of SIXTH SENSE reveal what you are capable of, and you have been at the shallow end of the swimming pool for quite some time.
Another central issue is that the women in your films seemed to lose their own biographical and emotional dimensions. The central women of SIXTH SENSE and UNBREAKABLE (Robin Wright Penn in the latter) were vivid. The central woman of SIGNS was dead. Most of the women in the latter movies did not need to even be women. I am saying that the default gender in your films - consistent with most Hollywood film - became male.
A last concern regards the aesthetics. Specifically, the music. Again, this point itself may be an artistic choice, but the score in SIXTH SENSE, UNBREAKABLE, and SIGNS was largely invisible. Yes, there were flourishes that I often enjoyed. I loved the train station scene in UNBREAKABLE. And, I loved the jump-out-of-your-seat moments in SIXTH SENSE and SIGNS. But, the soundtrack in the latter films seemed more and more to instruct me on the emotions responses I was supposed to have, rather than helping the story compel me to emote. Had I stared at a black screen for these latter films, especially AIRBENDER, listening only to the soundtrack, my emotional responses would have been identical. The soundtrack became prescriptive rather than descriptive.
So, Mr. Shyamalan, I look forward to each of your movies. But, I have to say that while almost all of them stand on their own as good, good movies, I want more greatness from you. That set of three movies from THE SIXTH SENSE through UNBREAKABLE to SIGNS was very good. But, the first of these was the best. And I hope that you will make other emotionally deep films, carrying me through a wonderful exploration from opening to end credits.
There is that moment in SIGNS when Mel Gibson and family are at a pizzeria, and they spot you in the street and quietly stare at you. Even though the meaning of that scene gets later revealed as something entirely different, every child of our generation understood that moment as the "stare" we used to get as youngsters, being South Asian novelties in our environments. My point in all this is that I want you to do well. Your success becomes, in a way, my success.
Be well.
Omer M. Mozaffar
After "6th Sense" and "Signs", Night just failed to impress us anymore. He became erratic and unpredictable with his stories, and sadly, the plot twists. =(
Somewhere in this man is a brilliant story-telling talent.
We hope he can find it again. =) We're definitely rooting for him!
Shyamalan: I concur regarding the religious subtext and I believe in you too. Wow us.
is this a joke? his films are terrible, they contain only clumsy and ham handed attempts are symbolism and subtext, plus he steals liberally from other, better works. the sixth sense is a rip of a stir of echoes. signs rips night of the living dead and various other horror films. the happening is possibly one of the stupidest films i have ever seen and reminiscent of day of the triffids. the village's surprise ending could have been guessed by a small child who was concussed.
you have the nerve to compare his wastes of celluloid to coppola? first, shymalan would have to make something that is the equal of the godfather. trust me, the sixth sense is not (and never will be) the equal of any coppola film, not even peggy sue got married.
seriously, where did you get any of this from?
Omer, this letter is not only exquisite, brilliant and highly intuitive, it is the most divinely loving kick in the butt that I suspect Mr. Shyamalan will ever receive -- and well deserves. I also believe he is capable of greatness, and I look forward to seeing the cinematic fruits that grow from the seeds you planted in his head and heart.
Let's hope that "The Last Airbender" will be the lowest bottom in Shyamalan's career. It is a little sad that he made such a worthless movie like that while the other good movies that could have been directed by him(e.g. "Knowing") came to theaters.
James Newton Howard's collaborations with Shymalan have been constantly received well, and his scores are now sort of saving grace in the movies. Maybe they are prescriptive, but I and many people agree that they are some of his best works. To be frank with you, I also considered to close my eyes while watching "The Last Airbender".
This letter is pathetic. First of all you are putting your hopes and dreams of being a legendary Indian American Hollywood based director on M. Night's shoulders, like a parent living vicariously through their child. The tone is so patronizing, and you write as if the guy should listen to you especially, because your backgrounds are similar, almost identical. Except for the part where he becomes a big time movie director and you become a well...teacher.
Second, your letter is spelling out the man's mainstream movie career and explaining the theme behind every movie. Too much exposition. Anyone reading this knows who M. Night is, and doesn't need a breakdown of every movie. His movies aren't that complicated to understand.
Third. It isn't easy to make GREAT films, and for you to use some kind of ethnic guilt to prod M. Night into doing so, when you haven't made a worldwide mainstream movie to know what it REALLY entails to make a great mainstream flick--takes a special kind of balls.
Four. Maybe he can't make the Great American film. You ever thought of that? Your claim that Sixth Sense is one of those is erroneous. It was a popular film, not AFI top 100 of all time. His movies are just episodes of the Twilight Zone stretched out to two hours, with everything in between the setup and twist ending being filler.
He is no Francis Ford Coppola, not even a Spike Lee. On a scale of 1 to 10, (10 being the best) his stories (hampered by the slow pace) range from 5 to 7. He's been an average filmmaker, who will do what he wants, so leave the guy alone.
But this article is the "M Night's Avatar: The Last Airbender" of articles. I can't believe Ebert suggested it. But then I guess Ebert is doing that thing that white liberals do when they want to manipulate someone of a different race ("I'll get one of his own kind to talk some sense into him...though this article sucks. Well, it's all I can find from a Indian American that feels the way I do about M Night. It'll have to do")
Ebert: Woah! I almost got sucker-punched by your jerking knee. Omer wrote exactly what he wanted to write with no "suggestion" from me.
The buried tone here possibly suggests more than you intended.
I think the advice in the "open letter" is off-base. M. Night was handed an opportunity few people get and he churned out three ridiculous movies in a row.
He should never make another Hollywood picture. Never. Why? Because a studio runs on profit margins. 48% of the revenue earned by a picture today comes from post-theatrical sales, pay-per-view and the like. When a picture returns ZERO at the box office, it takes the profits from five other pictures to make up for it. "The Happening" kept three or four other projects from being made by the studio.
WIKI: ...in a book by Michael Bamberger, ³The Man Who Heard Voices" Mr. Shyamalan accused Ms. Nina Jacobson of not giving his ³Lady in the Water" script "a truthful reading" and said that he thought that it had been rejected because Disney ³no longer valued individualism." Even though the Walt Disney company ultimately agreed to make the film, he had refused the offer because he felt that it no longer had faith in him and took the project to Warner Bros..."
Reply to: In LADY IN THE WATER you speak of... prophecy and intuition... the subjective will manifesting itself in objective reality.
Hmm. You do realize that prophecy is complete nonsense, don't you? Anyone can make a guess about the future. The problem comes when you ask people to believe there's some supernatural mumbo-jumbo behind the guess.
In today's movie system, the most valuable commodity is good judgment. When presented with a project like "American Beauty," Spielberg nabbed it for his new DreamWorks studio. An exec might hear 50 pitches in a month, and he gets to green-light one.
Because "The Sixth Sense" earned money for Disney, they were willing to give M. Night some rope. But he used it to hang himself. "Unbreakable" was ridiculous. Bruce Willis was willing to work with M. Night again, so the new movie requires Willis to play a man who almost drowned in a swimming pool, suffered brain damage, and was never "smart" again. Why waste Willis, who is known for his wit and street smarts, in such a demeaning role?
The subjective will only manifests itself in movies and fiction. Never in reality. Oh, yeah, and in the con games like seances, where the con man suspects the mark is willing to believe nonsense.
Perhaps Mr. Shyamalan should have a viewing of Atom Egoyan's "Exotica", 1994. This displaced Armenian Canadian makes a nice brew of alienation, longing for reunion, and general twisty-ness, with a bunch of religion motifs sprinkled throughout.
Regarding originality, everything has been done before: birth, death, love, loss. If we humans manage not to destroy ourselves, with any luck, these things will keep repeating. What's different and unique is the storyteller.
Well, it definitely sounds like the writer of this particular article is a huge fan. Which is cool. But M Knight's movies really aren't that great. They've always been kinda average at best. And as someone who absolutely adores the real Avatar the Last Airbender, I was pretty disgusted with what he did to it.
So. Yeah, here's hopin' he gets better and remembers how people work. But don't expect much.
Nice piece Omer. I have to admit I stayed away from "Lady in the water" and "Last Airbender" but I don't think Shyamalan other so-called bombs ("The Happening" and "The Village") were completely devoid of interest, what's more, had any of them been made by most any other director, they might not have taken such a beating. It seems to me like Shyamalan he has become some kind of human Jar Jar Binks that some critics and audiences love to despise.
The sum of the parts in "Signs" is not quiet as good as them individually but I do believe "The Sixth Sense" is a bona-fide great film, the best of 1999. The fact that he made his best movie first has probably been a big part of his curse.
Though I'm a stereotypical American white male, I grew up practicing an Eastern religion, so M. Night's filmography deeply resonates with me. I love them, warts and all. Perspective matters, folks. It doesn't all end with gut reactions.
Tim: The Sixth Sense ranks number 89 of AFI's 2007 top 100 movies of all time.
Ah, this would be the sequel to "Omar"'s informed and highly plausible "Dear Mr. Zemeckis" letter...And they say there are no new ideas in Hollywood. ;)
FWIW, Nickelodeon wanted to do an Airbender movie for corporate-brand reasons, but Shyamalan WANTED to write and direct it. Why?--Who knows?
His lil' red choo-choo's gone round Ego Bend these last few years, but think he'd started watching the Nicktoon with his kids...And had gotten that sudden attack of "Inner child" mania that critics get when they hysterically fawn over Pixar films, but want to show how Grownup and Important they are about liking "cartoons", unquote, because they must contain such Deep Subtext.
Which was the problem: He wanted to indulge his inner cartoon/anime fan and he has none to indulge. He has one style--realistically somber/languid creepy paranoia--and it doesn't work for anime action, fake or otherwise.
Mind you, when he does have a chance to do languid creepy paranoia (I actually didn't hate "The Happening, so there), he's in his element, as long as he's not giggling at his own cleverness over a Twist Ending. (The best MNS movies, as with "Unbreakable", are those where you couldn't care less about The Twist, getting there is half the fun--But if it's the whole point, as in "The Village", it's nothing but a 90-minute striptease act.)
But at least give MNS credit for trying to do somebody else's work....Even if he hadn't the faintest clue how to do it.
Interesting piece, I'd like to offer that M Nights best movie was Unbreakable, one of my all time favorites, followed by Signs then The Sixth Sense. Bruce Willis and Sam Jackson are sooo good in Unbreakable, and its maybe the best superhero movie ever made. It also appears on Tarantinos top 20 movies since 1992 list http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OReP7WpbmIo near the end of the video, introduced hilariously as "M Night Shamalamadingdong's Unbreakable"
Good grief, folks. Why do your responses have to be so arrogant and vitriolic? Obviously anything dealing with the way an individual reacts to a film is subjective, and based in opinion. So to write in response to Omer's letter something like, "For your information, Night's movies really aren't that good. You're wrong," is as ludicrous as me saying to you, "You know, even though Pepsi is your favorite soda, it isn't good. Therefore you enjoy a terrible drink."
I get really sick of smug know-it-alls who view themselves as the final arbiters of what is acceptable and what is not. If this is your attitude, please refrain from commenting or otherwise making your existence known to those around you.
Mr. Mozaffar's point is well made, and he has made it with far more grace and courtesy than I could have mustered.
As an instructor of theology and a student of film, I hope his advice is heard by Mr Shyamalan, because if someone whose interests are that well suited for a Shyamalan film is losing hope, then what chance do the rest of us have of ever enjoying another one.
I have no interest in stories about theology or the supernatural. I enjoy stories about people. The Sixth Sense was a human story that happened to have a supernatural twist. Unfortunately, everything that has come since has been a supernatural story that happened to have people in it.
"Perspective matters, folks. It doesn't all end with gut reactions."
Mr. Treakle, I really am sorry to be nit-picky, but I have to point out that perspective and gut reactions are not in opposition, as your comment seems to imply. Whether one's reaction is from the gut or well considered does not separate it from one's perspective.
And I mention this not to be a nag, but because I think perspective is actually at the heart of the Shyamalan phenomenon, that is, the strangeness of a commercial and critical success, one that is still celebrated today, being followed by decades of commercial and critical failures. Sixth Sense was such an interesting movie for most people because it was a ghost story that tapped into a wide range of human emotion. Most ghost stories explore only human fear. And the general public felt we had found a filmmaker who could give us the human connection that we want along with a dash of supernatural suspense. But since then, his films have begun to more closely reflect his perspective, that is, someone interested more in theology than in humanity, and in so doing, have moved farther from the perspective of the general public, who I think doesn't want to mix their theology with their movies (because they care too much about both!). Despite this shift away from human stories, his films continue to be made, and audiences continue to show up (though in increasingly smaller numbers) but we are always left feeling betrayed when we do.
Neat piece. Indeed, theories should abound over Night's career. The further we go, the more it seems to me that The Sixth Sense was a very special kind of accident; he has some merrits as a film-maker, and during the creation of that movie they just happened to be in a lot the right positions. Once he got recognized for it, though, he tried to put them in the right positions, and we got ... ya know: everything else.
I like that a lot of people have point out that, even at his best, Night ain't "brilliant", and it draws to mind the issue that everything that followed Sense seemed to be making efforts in the way of 'art'. Sense had narry a flourish in that vein. Like a lot of Spielberg movies, the fundementals were just so damn solid that everyone really got a lot out of it. That (steps onto soap box) is the real problem with movies today: film makers are either functional no names, or "geniuses". Maybe if Night focussed more on a healthy median, things would turn out better.
While your film references are rather accurate, I would not say that Shyamalan's interpretations of similar (not identical) material was less effective, relevant, or emotionally satisfying. I imagine if any film scholar (like myself) selected a modern filmmaker and observed, analyzed, and deconstructed their body of work, they would find connections as well as aspects of their films inspired by the great filmmakers preceding them. It's inevitable. The same will be argued of the great filmmakers working today in years to come. This is is no reason to discredit masterfully crafted films such as Shyamalan's earlier work ("The Sixth Sense," "Unbreakable," and "Signs).
I agree with the author's analysis of his work. It's rather insightful and intuitive. It's almost mutually agreed that Shymalan's last few films have lacked the emotional depth and brilliant craftmanship of his earlier work. He has been compared to many great filmmakers (including Hitchcock) because his films effectively showcase the cherished qualities of those great artists. In essence, they pay homage to those fallen (and some still living) cinematic legends. Therefore, the author's earnest, compassionate, and respectful "call to action" is of great substance and illustrates a deep concern many fans of Shyamalan's have shared for the last few years. To be a filmmaker is to be influenced and inspired by someone, or else why would any filmmaker ever be encouraged to use the medium for artistic expression at all? Someone had to implant the idea in their mind and heart. Shyamalan doesn't conceal the names of the influences behind his work and his interpretations do in fact bring about new meaning, or at least solidify their timeless relevance.
I for one agree with the author's criticisms and hope that Shymalan will return to the greatness he evoked as his career began. That you weren't able to appreciate his films on their own terms can be reduced down to personal taste. You have that right, but your criticisms are harsh and slightly misguided. You don't seem to understand the motivations behind Shyamalan's films. Many of them are very personal, intimate, and evoke a genuine concern for humanity, depression, the effects of religion and science, and the destruction of our environment. All of which are noble and relevant causes.
The Sixth Sense ranks number 89 of AFI's 2007 top 100 movies of all time, FYI. Also, your assumptions are rather distasteful and disrespectful, both to Roger Ebert and the author of this piece. That you don't care for Shyamalan's work is your right, but throwing out personal jabs to the author and Ebert for expressing an earnest opinion (one in which, you didn't have to read, but felt the need to) and a heartfelt appreciation is aggressively uncalled for. What ground do you have for such a rant? You'd think the author asked him to annihilate the country or something. He was just sharing an artistic concern. Geez! Calm down, boy!
Agreed Kyle. You make a solid point, sir! Many of these comments are not only arrogant, but cruel and distasteful. Why anyone would let one man's opinion about a movie(s) get them so fired up, is beyond me. Plus, the man's opinion is warranted and favorable, not harshly critical, but rather insightful and though-provoking. I for one agree with him, but that's beside the point. It's an a personal belief (opinion) not a certainty (truth). I just wanted to leave you a comment and to let you know that you are the only user who left a meaningful comment. It's much appreciated.
I would like to take issue with the idea that Shyamalan is not a hugely successful director for in fact he is.
Ok, let's break down the numbers, shall we? These numbers only include box office takings (both US and international because that is the true indication of the movie's revenue). The numbers do not include DVD sales, merchandising etc so even these are understated. But any movie studio would be happy to see numbers like these from one of its directors.
Sixth Sense - budget 40MM, Gross revenue 673MM
Signs - budget 72MM, Gross revenue 408MM
Unbreakable - budget 75MM, Gross revenue 250 MM
The Village - budget 60MM, Gross revenue 257MM
The Happening - budget 48MM, gross revenue 163MM
The lady in the water - Ok, I'll give you that one, but actually it still basically broke even.
The Last Airbender has made 320M USD and about 30M USD from US DVD sales so far.
Now, say what you want about Shyamalan (and an opinion is just that, an opinion) but he is an extremely successful director. That is why he keeps getting bankrolled and keeps getting jobs - because, despite what the high-minded critics might say, the people still love him. In the end, that is what really matters.
KILLER-DILLER ABSURD MOVIE MOMENT:
In Shyamalan's "The Happening," Mark Walberg's character is on the run from an airborne virus that turns reg'lar folks into crazed killer zombies. At one point in his travels he approaches a farmhouse, seeking help from any locals who might not yet be infected.
So Marky-Mark's on the front porch, knocking on the door, and the residents are clearly not going to let him in. So, in order to establish some cred with these locals, and to prove he's a regular Joe, he starts belting out a classic rock chestnut from the 70s:
"OH, BLACK WATER...KEEP ON RUNNING
MISSISSIPPI MOON GONNA KEEP ON SHINING ON ME
OH, BLACK WATER...KEEP ON RUNNING
MISSISSIPPI MOON GONNA KEEP ON SHINING ON ME"
He sings it quickly, hurriedly, as if he's reciting the digits in a security code, as if he were a small child desperately needing to be admitted to a bathroom.
The ploy doesn't work. Walberg's "open sesame" fails to assure the locals. But, for me, the real question involves the song choice. Why the Doobie Brothers? Why "Black Water"?
We can assume that Shyamalan was going for something American from the 1970s--a real heartland radio classic. With that in mind, I would like to see alternate takes, with Mark Walberg singing the following:
* "Afternoon Delight" (Starland Vocal Band)
* "Fly Like an Eagle" (Steve Miller Band)
* "Night Moves" (Bob Seger)
* "The Cat's In the Cradle" (Harry Chapin)
and, especially:
* "Sister Christian" (Night Ranger)
Now that would ROCK!
For the record despite it's (well deserved) negative critical reviews, The Last Airbender grossed a Worldwide Box Office of $319,128,933. It was hardly a comemercial failure, he will continue to make movies.
I don't see any greatness from him. There never was, and never will be. His films follow the same format: a lot of suspense building up to a supposedly twisted revelation that is actually not difficult to guess. All of them are crafted from the same blueprint and the first one may have impressed some, but when you get 5 from the same model, things get old.
I never thought the Sixth Sense was brilliant in the first place, I guessed the ending the moment the boy said he could see ghosts. The concept of Signs was just a ripoff of War of the Worlds, Unbreakable had a nice soundtrack and that's about it. Shyamalan has a way of building up suspense for 90% of the film to such height, and then giving an ending/explanation that simply does not live up to it. That feeling of disappointment wipes out any good things you may have thought about the film.
I don't see any greatness from him. There never was, and never will be. His films follow the same format: a lot of suspense building up to a supposedly twisted revelation that is actually not difficult to guess. All of them are crafted from the same blueprint and the first one may have impressed some, but when you get 5 from the same model, things get old.
I never thought the Sixth Sense was brilliant in the first place, I guessed the ending the moment the boy said he could see ghosts. The concept of Signs was just a ripoff of War of the Worlds, Unbreakable had a nice soundtrack and that's about it. Shyamalan has a way of building up suspense for 90% of the film to such height, and then giving an ending/explanation that simply does not live up to it. That feeling of disappointment wipes out any good things you may have thought about the film.
Unbreakable was/is under-rated. What a shame. My wife and I really liked it.
I have to admit, I'm still bitter about Last Airbender. I loved the cartoon growing up, and I found the movie to be just a slap in the face.
It's odd. I always saw at least a tiny bit of Stanley Kubric in M Night's work. If I were him, I'd look into making his own world where is schemes can flow more fluently rather than taking 'what if' senarios and putting them into the real world. I give the village as an example: when I saw it for the first time, the first half of the movie or so was actually pretty good. It later faltered, but that first half is what I think he has the best potential to run with. That's my advice.
good stuff, omer. intelligent analysis. i think you pinpointed the problem: plot coming before characters. not sure why the man evokes so much vitriol, but i'm with you in hoping he rights the train.
Dear Everyone,
Thank you for the wonderful comments. I hope to respond very soon. But, for the time being, I wanted to mention that it's pretty cool that people keep calling me "the author."
Have a nice day.
Omer M
Jim Emerson started some good discussion a while back on the decline of Shyamalan's craft, particularly in "The Happening," in this post:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/06/whats_happening_in_the_happeni.html
It helped me understand how one key problem in his recent movies is not just the lack of emotional depth, but the quality of the visual direction.
I have a really hard time calling "Unbreakable" a great film. I felt that, at least for the first 25 minutes, Night made every shot call attention to itself by how "different" it was than what other directors would do. The opening credits with the camera going back and forth to look through the crack between chairs to see each character speak, and each character having an awkward pause while the camera slowly pans to them before they speak....I didnt find it artistic, I found it annoying.
Almost every shot afterwards being shot with a Coke bottle, stair banister, doorframe blocking 85% of the screen. Hey, I understand FIlm aesthetics, I understand why film shots are composed the way they are...but in Unbreakable, it seemed overdone...It seemed much more to draw attention to the director than the story.
To be truthful, my favorite M Night movie is Signs. To me, that's a much more watchable movie than Unbreakable. I think that is really his best film. He hit rock bottom with me with The Happening. While the typical top notch cinematography was there, that film was so awkward, laughable, and badly directed, it was shocking.
To be truthful, I think people should keep an eye out for Shane Carruth, the writer/director/lead actor from "Primer". He has another sci-fi movie in the works right now. I think he stands a fairly good chance of becoming the next M Night Shyamalan.
While I won't argue with those who say "The Sixth Sense" was Shyamalan's best film, followed by "Unbreakable" and "Signs", my personal favorites are "Lady In The Water" and "The Village". Are those films as "technically" good as Shyamalan's first three films? Heck if I know, so I'll concede to those who say they DO know and their answer is "no". Both "The Village" and "Lady In The Water" held my interest more, "moved me" more, got me "thinking afterwards" more, and, in my humble opinion, were more unique and unpredictable than Shyamalan's first three films. Others will say just the opposite. Why? Heck if I know. Maybe because I watch many, many films, even the "worst" Shyamalan films are "above-average" for me. How many film critics and movie-going critics are yelling,for "No More Predictable, Moronic Rom-Coms, Bromance Coms, Senseless Thrillers, and Torture-Porn Films"? Yes, it's sad that the "worst" Shyamalan film is head and shoulders above the "best" typical Rom-Com, "Thrill(less)er", and "Horror(less) Film".
I'm with Omar on this.As a student of religion, I love Shyamalan's movies. I actually liked Airbender because of it's reverence of Eastern Mysticism, which is lacking in most hollywood movies. I feel that many western critics fail to grasp that. There's a lot love for nudity and the material in the name of art, but hardly any input from a soul that seems to be searching for a higher reality. Thus, while his movies may have their flaws, i will continue to watch them because they speak to me of a world that hollywood does not have the depth to explore.
Interesting article, and for the most part quite accurate. I either disagree or dont understand much of your theological connecting of the dots with plots simply because I feel an artist must earn such analysis and, in my mind, M Night certainly does not.
In saying this, I thought 6th Sense was brilliant. The depth and tension within the characters was tangible throughout the story. For one to fixate on the film*s worth because of it*s twist indicates a viewpoint I, gratefully, cannot relate to.
I do share in the joke re those many *critics* (philistines) who disparage a film because they could *guess the ending* though are apparently either blind and deaf or just fine with the very things you accurately and rightly point out in your criticism - the lack of emotional depth and development of the characters. Those who approach a film as one would a Cracker Jack box - for the surprise promised at the end - speak for themselves.
And yes, by the time the character hopped over the wall and into modernity in The Village, I was long past the point of caring; she could have fallen off a flat earth for all I cared. Same goes for Broken, Signs, The Happening and... that*s about it. And I saw The Happening for the same reasons you keep seeing his films - because of a glimpse once caught, of greatness.
I think your analysis concerning what is missing from his films is quite accurate and insightful. Unfortunately, the attachment of the name of M Night Shyamalan to a film began to create in me a hesitancy - a desire to re-catch the glimpse of greatness I saw in 6th Sense and in - to be fair - patches in the other films I mention is mixed with an ever diminished confidence he is willing to take his characters as seriously. For I do think he is capable. But,similar to my reaction to his characters, I am past the point of caring and so generally, and with increasing effortlessness, tend to avoid his ongoing efforts.
Oh, one more comment -
The fetishizing of children and youth as oracles and wise men and women etc is a cliche of hollywood pulp and astonishingly unoriginal and dull. A reason why certain Japanese directors appeal to me - their willingness and integrity in taking children - their viewpoints and cares - seriously enough to depict them unaltered, as something worth depicting for their own sake.
Directors that use children while ignoring the child and childhood merely cater to a cultural undertone that fetishizes children and are hacks, to be avoided.
About as good of a deconstruction of Shyamalan's films as one could hope for, especially as you show how consistent his vision has been throughout his movies.
What's missing in his later films, as you mention, is not just the characters, but his reliance on the plot or "twist" over reliance on his characters. Bryce Dallas Howard was great in The Village, but then the movie became all about the plot twist, which was--in my subjective opinion--idiotic. Or, to quote Ebert:
Eventually the secret of Those, etc., is revealed. To call it an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes. It's a crummy secret, about one step up the ladder of narrative originality from It Was All a Dream. It's so witless, in fact, that when we do discover the secret, we want to rewind the film so we don't know the secret anymore.
And then keep on rewinding, and rewinding, until we're back at the beginning, and can get up from our seats and walk backward out of the theater and go down the up escalator and watch the money spring from the cash register into our pockets.
I also wonder if Shyamalan got the exact movie he wanted the first time, and so is now stuck telling inferior versions of that story (as good as Unbreakable was, that film was no The Sixth Sense). Or as Faulkner put it, every writer has one story to tell, and keeps repeating it until he gets it right. But while Faulkner followed up The Sound and the Fury with As I Lay Dying, Absalom! Absalom!, and Light in August, Shyamalan has yet to make another great film.
Reply to: I actually liked Airbender because of it's reverence of Eastern Mysticism, which is lacking in most hollywood movies.
Actually. since about the middle of the 19th Century, America and Western Civilization hasn't had much reverence for mysticism. why? it's a scam. Science has replaced it.
Try watching "Jurassic Park." Mysticism and dinosaurs... well, the dinosaurs win, every time.
Reply to: hardly any input from a soul that seems to be searching for a higher reality
I just sat through five Documentary Shorts, all Oscar nominated, that seemed determined to make me understand that backward cultures need to be preserved. And I just don't get it. the United States started when Europeans, unable to tolerate the backward nature of European society, came to the Unites States to start over. But if you're trapped in ... well, an island where you never have to get up to go to work in the morning, or a village next to a pesticide plant, then I can understand why you need to believe there's a "higher reality" out there somewhere. The truth is, the reality is what you see around you is all there is. Make it better if you can.
My special interest was "Killing in the Name" because Roger picked it as his predicted winner. And I think, No. too much "Playing the victim." The concept was, a Muslim would seek out radical groups and try to talk them out of jihad. first, the only groups that allowed him to speak and film their reactions considered themselves "mainstream" (ie, the name Al-Islam painted on the roof) and it was easy to see why his quest was futile. These students had studied Islam for ten years, give or take, and when he pulled out a verse from his pocket, they knew that he didn't understand what the verse meant. The students said, "As long as americans murder Muslims, we have a duty to jihad" and that means suicide bombings in places where Americans hang out, like the wedding. The documentary contained a lot of valuable insight about Islam, but the protagonist was a clueless loser. You can't change Islam unless you change the sacred writing of Islam that describes when jihad is an obligation.
Asking Americans to show reverence for "mysticism"... never. Won't happen. Should never happen. We evolved past that stage almost 200 years ago.
You call it evolution, but is it really? If you look at what has happened to the world on the basis that "this is the only reality, might as well make the best of it" - it is really not good, is it? Colonialism, wars, slavery, the rise of money above all else - it is a form of a hell that people actually do not realize they are living in.
The values of eastern religions and philosophy are far more advanced than the current western viewpoint on the world. They encourage a peaceful, holistic view of the world and a feeling of oneness. The scientific/ "this is reality" view of the world encourages separateness and division. Now, which one makes more sense to you?
If anything, we have devolved from sophisticated societies into marauding evildoers who will no doubt one day have to pay the piper.
A bit more on point, the Razzie awards were announced on the eve of the oscars, celebrating the motion pictures that disappointed us so severely, they could be labeled "the Worst."
'Airbender' snatched five Razzies, including
worst picture,
worst director,
worst screenplay,
worst use of 3-D and
worst supporting actor (Jackson Rathbone).
"Sex and the City 2" came in second with
worst actress (the four main cast),
screen ensemble, and
worst prequel/sequel/remake.
Reply to: you speak of the subjective will manifesting itself in objective reality. In THE LAST AIRBENDER, your most overtly mythological film, you add the idea of hubris and its destructive appetitive consequences. Religions preach the idea that balance, harmony, happiness come from selflessness and self-less-ness (humility), and consequently
*** imbalance, destruction, and misery come from selfishness and hubris.***
I guess "religion" has to sell something, and "misery comes from being selfish" is as good as any. But the opposite viewpoint is "Greed is good" and much of our progress as a society came from rejecting the views of religion and acting in selfish self-interest in order to create the Internet, Ford Motor Company and DuPont.