View image Mark Wahlberg attempts to teach his Film 101 students how to craft a major motion picture.
The first sentence of "horror scholar" Kim Newman's stirring Guardian film blog defense of M. Night Shyamalan's "The Happening" is: "Here's the thing: 'The Happening' is not that bad."
After noting that the film opened to "near-universal derision in America and Britain," and acknowledging that Shyamalan's "scripts are sometimes mawkish, sometimes pretentious," Newman defends the writer-director's "knack for genuine 'jump' moments and whispered, intense conversations that raise a chill." Newman concludes: "Can it be a kind of racism that the Indian-born, Philadelphia-raised auteur is hammered for his apparent character (or funny name) rather more than, say, Quentin Tarantino or Spike Lee?"
Wow, so the best the "horror scholar" can muster on behalf of "The Happening" is that it's "not that bad" -- and the hostile reaction to Shyamalan must have to do with the filmmaker's "funny name" or his race? That's insulting. What about his Philadelphianism? Maybe that explains it.
Newman is dead wrong about at least one thing: "The Happening" is that bad. It's just not consistently that bad. Fleetingly, it's even pretty good. An effectively creepy image or sequence will be followed by long stretches so ineptly staged, shot and cut together that you want to throw up (your arms) in frustration. I did, anyway.
It sets its tone quickly and efficiently. Two women are sitting on a bench at the edge of Central Park. They're both reading. It's one of those slightly hazy, light gray days, and you sense something ominous in the very ordinariness of it. One of the women says she forgot where she was -- ostensibly referring to her book. The other explains the spot in the story where the other woman had just been reading. There's something uncanny about this, because even if they were both reading the same book, how would the one know which part the other was reading? The important thing is that the woman who asked the question is disoriented. She's experienced a little hiccup in the flow of reality.
A scream pierces the white noise of the traffic and the wind. A long shot of a playground stays on the screen just long enough for you to scan it and not find anything amiss. Maybe it the shriek came from children playing? We know damn well it didn't, but we're allowed to have that moment in which we instinctively grasp for an ordinary explanation.... and don't get one. Enough, then, about this opening set piece -- which, let's just say, gets more disturbing as it goes along.
Next, we're at a construction site a few blocks away. This section also contains some shivery imagery (featured in the trailer and TV spots), but a key element is missing: Something that gives us a sense of scale to connect what's going on at ground level with what's going on above in a single, unbroken image -- no matter how brief. A hand-held "glance" up or down the side of the building for perspective would have been been sufficient. The movie -- not for the last time -- doesn't provide it. So, the scene feels choppy -- "cheated," as Buster Keaton might have put it -- rather than chilling.
Then things really start going wrong. In a classroom (which turns out to be not in New York but Philadelphia, though I'm not sure how or when that information is revealed -- maybe I missed a time/place title or something), science teacher Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg) engages in Socratic dialog with his students. He really tries to engage them, walking into the rows between their desks. But his longest exchange is with a kid who is inexplicably isolated in single shots, in some part of the classroom that seems to exist on a different physical plane. Why is this?
My first thought was that the kid was initially "singled out" because he wasn't paying attention, and therefore may as well have been in another room. But, you know, if you have to stop in the middle of the movie and wonder why something is being shot in an odd way, it's probably not working. It reminded me of the awkward staging of the living room conversation between Bruce Willis and Toni Collette in "The Sixth Sense" -- where you notice the peculiar, stilted quality and you are unsettled by the eeriness of how it's been staged and shot. In that movie, there was a very good reason. In this one... well, maybe they had to do reshoots and Shyamalan couldn't get Wahlberg and the extras back to do them? Your guess is as good as mine.
Again, it's a minor detail, but those kinds of things add up in a hurry. I defy anyone to depict a school evacuation more flatly and perfunctorily than Shyamalan does here. Maybe it was shot and chopped down to practically nothing? What remains offers no suspense, no aura of mystery or excitement or drama or impending doom as the school day is disrupted. That's a big deal, but nobody acknowledges it. I still remember the butterflies in my stomach -- dread mixed with excitement -- when we'd have emergency evacuation drills in preparation for the arrival of Russian nuclear missiles. Why aren't those just-below-the-surface feelings of foreboding evoked, or allowed, here? Shyamalan suggests post-9/11 paranoia, but doesn't take the time to develop it.
It's a botched opportunity, one of many. The best Shymalan can do to whip up a little portentousness is to inexplicably have the vice principal personally notify the teachers of a spontaneous faculty meeting in an empty auditorium while classes are in mid-session -- leaving all classrooms unsupervised in the meantime -- so that the principal to tell them that Something Weird Is Happening in Central Park (in New York City, that is) and that all the kids are to be sent home for the day.
Shyamalan's previous debacle, "The Lady in the Water," exhibited all the same problems as "The Happening," especially on the level of Filmmaking 101: knowing how to "cover" a scene, how to set up a shot, when to cut to the next one and what it should be. WATch ing; thismovieiS a B I T L LLL L i Kk e Re-LiKe-ADING -thisSENTence. It's random, erratic, and and the errors distract from the feeling and the sense of what it's trying to convey.
Shyamalan seems to have devoted all his talent and skill to bringing off five or six images/effects in the entire film. The rest of the time, he either doesn't know or doesn't care what he's doing, though whether it's due to laziness or lack of interest is unclear. The compact between movie and audience known as "suspension of disbelief" has nothing to do in this instance with the film's otherworldly (or all-too-worldly) apocalyptic premise. We are ready, willing and able to believe that something in the air is mysteriously causing people to lose the will to survive. "The Happening" has more fundamental problems. It doesn't know how to make you believe that people are getting off a train, or standing in a field, or sharing a meal at a kitchen table -- commonplace scenes that should require no suspension of disbelief but are so badly bungled here it's... unbelievable. (Show me an Uwe Boll scene that's more incompetently conceived than the pool party in "Lady in the Water" or the porch scene in "The Happening." How bad can this Boll guy really be?)
"The Happening" plays like an exceptionally sloppy first assembly, and if the screenplay is anything but a first draft then Shyamalan should really be ashamed. (Let him come up with ideas that other writers and directors can execute.) Plot points are detonated like landmines in deafening explosions of expository dialog, just so they can be repeated (yes, we heard him say that the first time) to reinforce again something we've just had shoved in our faces, too. I'm beginning to think much of the hostility toward Shyamalan may have to do with -- dare I say it? -- his filmmaking. I detect in his films an outright hostility -- contempt, lack of respect -- for his audience, and perhaps viewers and critics are returning it in kind. On the other hand, I know a number of people who find his pictures fun and rather charming, but sometimes there's a patronizing attitude beneath their fondness; they tend to speak of Shyamalan's abilities as if he were a clever child who'd just presented them with a crayon drawing.
As the ads incessantly remind us, "The Happening" is at least an R-rated fable. You can argue about the need for a certain gruesome lawnmower incident midway through the picture, but Shyamalan has the sense to shoot it from afar, as Elliot watches in helpless horror from a grassy rise. The distance, the telephoto flatness of the image, enhances the horror of the event (even if it's stretched out just a little too long).
Yet what are we supposed to make of, say, a pointless scene in which a group of people come upon a truck abandoned in a field near a large house? Elliot tells the others to wait and approaches the vehicle in search of a map. (Don't ask.) The door is open and the radio is on, tuned to some wacko call-in show -- maybe on Sirius, because it's not local. He turns off the radio. He grabs the local map conveniently located between the front seats. Then he returns to the group (and the previous long shot). Hey, there's a house over there, he says to the people who might have been incapable of noticing it had he not pointed it out. Let's go to that house now. They do. "The Happening" is said to be 91 minutes long. Why is it not at least one minute shorter?
Soon, Elliot's posse is delighted to come upon a functioning emergency radio hanging from a fence. The recorded voice on the radio is saying that people should head for a certain location. There is some static. Elliot shakes and rattles the radio in frustration. This does not help matters. What does Elliot want from the radio? The entire emergency message is clearly heard, to the point where it starts repeating. Their hopes dashed, the hapless group moves on. Surely 89 minutes would not have been so bad.
A train stops in Filbert, PA, because of a lack of contact with... anything. All the passengers are told to disembark. This is the end of the line. Elliot alone questions what's happening. No one else behaves like a human being (something the movie absolutely relies upon) who has just been stranded in Filbert, PA. Suddenly, everyone is hungry, crowded into a diner. The place is packed -- with stranded train-riders, I assumed. An announcement about a threat in the local area is made on the TV. The power goes out. Everyone hops into cars and speeds away to outrun whatever's coming. The place empties out in seconds. Only Elliot, his wife, their friend and his daughter are left behind, without transportation. A couple appears out of nowhere to offer them a ride. Elliot calls to their friend, who, it turns out, is talking to some other people in a jeep at the next intersection that has also appeared out of nowhere.
What follows is a drawn-out separation/negotiation scene that turns into a logistical nightmare for Shyamalan. The idling jeep remains visible behind the friend's head. Time, which had accelerated to blazing speeds as everyone evacuated the diner, has now -- only seconds later -- screeched to a standstill. Moments ago, people were fleeing in mad panic in all directions, but now these two clusters of laggards have aaaaaalllllll the time in the world. With every shot in which Shyamalan reminds us that the jeep is still there, waiting impatiently in the background, the situation becomes more ridiculous. It's supposed to be touching -- I think. Finally the friend wraps up his pointless explanatory rambling and the obligatory character-defining mathematics references (he's a math teacher). He starts running toward the patience-of-a-saint jeep. Then, and only then, does it begin to slowly drive away -- so he has to yell at the jeepers to wait up. He jumps in, there's a reverse shot from his POV, and now Elliot and wife are walking away from their own ride, toward the departing jeep. What is wrong with these people -- and this director? It's hard to imagine a more inept and clumsily paced handling of such a simple scene.
And poor Mark Wahlberg. He does his damndest to hold the movie together, but he's undercut at every turn. David Edelstein mentions "big, furrowed-brow close-ups that would kill the career of a lesser actor." To single out just one of them: There's a "joke," in which Elliot teases his wife (OK, she's played by Zooey Deschanel in what could very well be a career-killing performance) in an enormous, sustained close-up that smothers any possibility of humor -- yet Wahlberg probably comes as close as humanly possible under the circumstances.
Again, my mind began grabbing at straws, searching for answers: Why in the world would you choose to shoot this moment in such a tight close-up? Was this the only usable take? Why does the movie keep distracting me with choices that feel so unnatural and unwieldy that I can't concentrate on what's going on in the movie?
I guess it's just one of those inexplicable phenomena for which there is no rational explanation.
When I saw "The Happening", it was more out of curiosity than anything. I knew the critical reviews were unflattering, but I needed to know why these people were falling off the building. Sad rationale, but my rationale nonetheless.
You could not have hit the nail on the head any more than you did when referring to Shyamalan's insistence on explaing what just happened. At the end, during the prolonged expository television scene, Shyamalan was basically saying, "Hey, this is my point. This is why I made the movie. Get it?" Thanks for looping me in.
All that said, there were some genuinely creepy scenes (i.e., is this secluded lady crazy) that are sadly masked my some of the worst acting I have ever seen. I spent the entire movie wondering when Zooey would fall out of her trance. She was so awkward and uncomfortable that Shyamalan should have added a twist just to explain her behavior throughout the film.
I haven't seen The Happening yet, but the "something seems to be off" feeling you're mentioning was already popping up in my head while watching some advance clips online of the train scene.
It had something to do with the delivery, the timing, and even the framing of the shots. I don't know exactly why, but I felt disturbed by the images which should have been engaging, or interesting. It just made me want to switch it off.
This is even more surprising considering that I always thought Shyamalan's strengths were mostly visual (apart from his ... knack for twists). I remember plenty of great shots from Signs, Unbreakable and The Sixth Sense. However, I remember that I also hated the look of The Village (I never bothered with Lady in the Water).
There's surely something that's changed between his 3 first highly competent movies and The Village and what I've seen from The Happening. How has he lost it?
I liked M. Night Shyamalan when he was good which includes films such as "The Sixth Sense","Unbreakable" and "Signs" but I agree that his bag of tricks ran out after his film "The Village" which has a howler of an ending that killed the whole movie and after that I decided to skip Lady in the Water.
As for The Happening,I haven't seen it yet but Emerson seems to have problems with Shyamalan's style and maybe it is a style where you are either irritated to hell with or that you find it brilliant and it all could be a matter of taste.So maybe Shyamalan is giving you strange camera, angles and slow pace to build suspense and create intrigue.
It could be that Shyamalan is becoming one of those eccentric filmakers(like The Coen Bros.and Jim Jarmusch whose work irritates me to death) where you either love him for being weird or hate him for being weird.It also seemed to me that in this post Emerson in his hatred for Shyamalan's films takes somewhat amusing potshots as a way of making fun of people who love or like his work by saying "I know a number of people who find his pictures fun and rather charming, but sometimes there's a patronizing attitude beneath their fondness; they tend to speak of Shyamalan's abilities as if he were a clever child who'd presented them with a crayon drawing".Also if Emerson hates Shyamalan's films so much then why did he choose to see "The Happening"?,I mean he didn't have to because he's not a critic anymore, he's a blogger and he now has the freedom to not see every movie that comes out.
"Can it be a kind of racism that the Indian-born, Philadelphia-raised auteur is hammered for his apparent character (or funny name) rather more than, say, Quentin Tarantino or Spike Lee?"
Well one thing's for sure: He isn't being "hammered" for his funny name. "M. Night Shyamalan" is one of the coolest, most apt names for a director of horror/suspense movies in the history of film. That name of his is what keeps making me give him another chance but so far, after The Sixth Sense he hasn't grabbed me. Keep reaching Kim.
A minor defense, because I won't/can't read the rest of this until I see the movie myself:
I have never NOT heard Shyamalan's name made fun of any and every time he's brought up in non-professional contexts (and more than once in ostensibly professional ones.) It's a cheap joke to make, and a lazy person's way to dismiss the man outright without actually addressing his material. Newman's not talking out of his/her ass there.
Also, why the scare quotes around "horror scholar"?
Beware : possible spoilers.
Interesting take, in fact I find here a lot of my impressions on the film. However, I have to admit, The Happening worked for me in spite of itself, during, the first hour or so.
Yes it is not objectively a "good" movie, but as you have yourself remarked, it is not always bad, and this is probably the key to why I've enjoyed part of it. True, the transition between the Central Park and Philadelphia is awkward, and the movie never decides whether it's gonna be full camp or serious fantastic thriller and ends up trying to be both most notably in the awful (I mean AWFUL) porch scene.
(Someone should do a shot for shot analysis of this one : so one moment Whalberg is singing, and then inexpicably, two characters gets snuffed out for no other apparent reason than Shyamalan needing to get rid of them (and the direction in this sequence is so hacky it's not believable for one second). The scene outside the diner is just to long, that scene on the porch is simply inexcusable.)
Likewise, the acting is all over the map. Whalberg does a good job with an unplayable role (he almost pulls it off; maybe it would have worked better if he'd drummed his fingers and rolled his eyes Dwayne Johnson-style...), but while Zooey Deschanel has simply one note, other performers like Betty Buckley go way over the top.
Yet somehow, the rythm is fast enough to make it work on a Twilight Zonesque level, and to forget that much of the plot is supremely dumb. Besides, MNS is no Uwe Boll however : Shyamalan has some talent, Boll is simply hopeless (he doesn't know how to frame, edit or simply shoot a movie; he doesn't have the technique). He succeeds in creating some really neat and chilling scenes (the New York scenes, the lawnmower, the car crash)... Wilonsky of the Village Voice said it was "effective nonsense". Well, that's pretty much my opinion. But when during the last twenty minutes or so the pace slows down, the whole thing collapses and dies of terminal stupidity.
I still think that it's a lot less boring than the Village, and I think we will agree that it's nowhere as irritating as the pseudo-mytho-fairy tale crap of Lady In The Water.
There seem to be two or three movies categorized as drama every year that, to my sensibility at least, seem so inept, so utterly ridiculous that I being to wonder "Is this a parody?" About 1/4 into The Happening when I realized that, yes, this is what is was going to be like and, no, there wasn't anything else coming, I couldn't help but think that there was no way in hell this was meant to be taken seriously. Or could be taken seriously. By anyone. Both audience and filmmakers. It's not just a matter of it being bad, but it seems like an actual mistake. Jim's terminology above makes sense to me ("rough assembly" and so on).
It is a film for which I have no explanation. I don't understand how any vaguely intelligent, serious filmmaker (which Shyamalan certainly is) could make this film... unless it was as a parody. But a parody of what? I have no answer for that.
I believe the film's only future is as a drinking game. Hey it's the construction site scene, everybody start singing "It's raining men. Hallelujah, it's raining men!"
I don't enjoy ragging on Shyamalan. I liked Sixth Sense and loved Unbreakable. And even as awful as the script for "Lady" was, I still think he found several interesting moments of character interaction. Here... nothing. Not one redeeming facet. I can't even agree with Jim about Wahlberg - he seemed like he was doing cold line readings, but that beat the heck out of Leguizamo's utterly bored and unconvincing role.
Just... I have no answer. And I'm not talking about the plot. I have no answer as to why the movie even exists.
The answer is that the director doesn't want you thinking about his movie, he wants you thinking about him.
Right on the money, Jim. It's the filmmaking that's truly bad; any other theory or explanation for Shyamalan's ongoing slump is mere distraction from the obvious. I didn't think it was possible for Shyamalan to make a worse film than "Lady in the Water," but somehow he pulled it off with "The Happening". It is virtually guaranteed that there will be at least a half-dozen straight-to-DVD releases in 2008 that will be far better, yet far more obscure, than this dull, flat, incompetent film. Perhaps there's some kind of domino effect happening here: The worse his films get (resulting in critical derision that's earned, not unfair), the more Shyamalan seems to lose whatever skill and competence he previously possessed. We can only speculate on the personal (and personality) issues that may be the cause of Shyamalan's creative bankruptcy, but what's on the screen leaves no doubt that his talent appears to have abandoned him almost completely. "The Happening" script doesn't even qualify as a first draft; it barely qualifies as a rough TREATMENT of a first draft. There appears to have been no vetting process, from director, producer or studio, that would've exposed all of the problems on the page. It's a sketch, thinly drawn, that somehow got greenlit for production, with no apparent effort to improve or emebellish the premise. The result is almost laughably inept, and we can't blame the actors (although Zooey Deschanel really does look supremely silly and lost; was she directed at all?) when you consider what little they've been given to work with. I'm so astonished by the sheer amateurism of "The Happening" that I'm actually more interested in Shyamalan than ever before, at least in terms of understanding the hazards of success. His last two films leave us with a sad, sympathetic sense of morbid curiosity: Just what are the factors involved that resulted in the sucking void where Shyamalan's talent used to be? Whatever the reasons may be, I still remain hopeful that Shymalan may learn from his mistakes and find his footing again. But it's beginning to look more and more like "The Sixth Sense" was a fluke; I surely hope Shyamalan's career will endure and revive, but the latest evidence suggests that Night has truly fallen. I feel a certain degree of sympathy for Shyamalan, but seriously, is there anything or anyone else who can credibly be blamed?
Hey Ken and I have exact opposite responses to the name thing and our comments are back to back.
Just thought I'd mention that. It's a routine Ken and I have been honing for years. You should hear how he pronounces "tomato."
I agree with all of this. I was thoroughly upset with this entire film, because I have vehemently defended "Lady In The Water" to anybody who'd listen, and I was hoping I would be vindicated. Instead, I left wondering just what the hell happened to the director who gave us "Unbreakable."
As far as poorly-shot sequences, I'd like to also bring your attention to the entire awkward sequence at the end in the old woman's house. Given that the plot crutch of the entire film surrounds Wahlberg and Deschanel trying to protect the little girl, why was there no discussion at all of trying to leave when the woman starts hitting the girl at dinner? Also, I found this scene to be the most glaring example of dialogue existing only for the sake of exposition in a film full of such instances.
Wahlberg says something to the old woman along the lines of "There is an event happening." (This is about the nineteenth time he says that very line in the film, but I digress.) She responds with "I don't want to hear about it." There is then an awkward silence, of about eight to ten seconds, and then she grudgingly invites him in for dinner.
Frankly, half the scripts I read in the "Intro to Screenwriting" class I took last year in college were less clumsy than this one. I honestly think Shyamalan put all his energy into the gruesome kills, and made everything else an afterthought. I didn't think I would say this at any point over the rest of 2008, but I may have actually found a film worse than "Funny Games." That alone upsets me more than anything else about this film.
I completely agree with Sam above. M. Night Shyamalan is a rocking name. If critics are unfair to his movies, it's because he's had a great deal of success based on what may be perceived as gimmicky filmmaking. But to seek a race-based explanation is ridiculous.
I am one of the few people who consider "The Village" to be not only Shyamalan's best film, but a film that, like "Vertigo", will be looked back on as a great genre film in about twenty or thirty years (I'm not saying that "The Village" is anywhere near as "Vertigo"...not even close!). Meanwhile, I've always been underwhelmed by "The Sixth Sense", and find moments within it as hackish as anything that Shyamalan has done since (the confrontation scene between the father of a deceased girl and the girl's mother is laughable). I recently caught "Unbreakable" again, and while the ending is stupidly rushed and forced, it has a leisurely style to its storytelling that I very much appreciated. "Lady in the Water" was fairly indefensible, but I did enjoy the encompassing nature of Shyamalan's view of the apartment complex.
I am weary of criticizing a filmmaker's choice of staging by saying that it "calls attention to itself" or doesn't follow standard rules of continuity, etc. The bathroom conversation in "The Shining" breaks rules, also (it violates the 180 degree-rule by switching to an opposite perspective midway through Jack's conversation with...himself). I haven't seen "The Happening", but maybe Shyamalan is working out new ways of telling a story, and even if the result is a complete disaster, I still value him as a filmmaker because he's one of the few mainstream filmmakers whose style is distinct and unique.
I think what were seeing with M. Night is fairly common in the creative realm. It seems pretty apparent that his first two or three features had a lifetime to germinate. For many writers this is a highly interior process. There is a labor of thought involved, an endless honing and fashioning of material. I don't think his last few pictures were privy to this process. So to me, what were seeing of late from M. Night are ideas that have not been sufficiently conceptualized, scrutinized and worked through. And it shows.
Brad
Alot fo you say the movie is bad, I diagree, I have seen all of Shayamalan's movies and usually he reveals something we least expect at the end or gives you goosebumps. I must say there was nothing revealing at the end of this movie just my confusion when I left the theatre. This can only lead me to believe that Shyamalan has not finished this film, as much has I like all Shyamalan's movies I too will probably dissapointed if that really was the end, but I think he has more to reveal with this film and I wont be surprised if he makes a sequeal, or already has just is waiting to rlease it. He did leave everything open for plenty of ideas and possibilites.
Do you really think Wahlberg's a good actor? Are you implying that he has great talents that were wasted or ruined by this movie? I've always thought he was downright awful, although I haven't seen this latest film.
Ken: I've heard people mispronounce his name as "Shama-lama-ding-dong," too, but it's really not a funny name at all. It's pronounced "SHA-ma-lan." Pretty simple, and if people are making a big deal out of it, they're just displaying their own ignorance. The quotes around "horror scholar" are there because that's the way the Guardian introduces Newman at the top of the piece. It's just a direct quote.
Sam: Please focus on the movie, not on speculation about why I went to see it. I went because, like other people, I saw the trailer and was intrigued. I liked "The Sixth Sense," was interested in Shyamalan's subsequent films, but thought "Lady in the Water" was a disaster. I wanted to see what he'd do next.
Eric: Yes, I think Wahlberg has been very good -- in "Basketball Diaries," "Boogie Nights," "The Departed," "I Heart Huckabees," "Three Kings"... He's capable of really fine work, and I felt he was totally committed to this movie, even as it was falling apart all around him.
I have not seen The Happening yet, but I do have a theory concerning its operation. Shyamalan's films consistently deal with the theme of narrative itself. In Signs, for instance, the characters suddenly realize at the end of the film that they are in a film where "God" (the director M. Night Shyamalan) has planned out the plot points to help said characters succeed. Shyamalan himself even plays the character who caused Mel Gibson's character to question his faith in God (as film director) in the first place.
Unbreakable reveals that "real life" in the film has taken the form of a comic book, Lady in the Water has a character named "Story" who thrusts the narrative forward, and The Village demonstrates that all period pieces actually occur (that is to say, are performed and filmed) in the present day (the theatrical release date even appears in a newspaper toward the end of the film).
Anyway, the point is that Shyamalan consistently tinkers with this sort of thing, and I'm guessing that The Happening is baffling audiences because the title actually refers to something akin to the OED's second definition of the word:
Happening: "a partly improvised or spontaneous piece of theatrical or other artistic performance, typically involving audience participation."
Maybe we should have this in mind when viewing and critiquing the film.
Falling apart? I really don't see how you could think it was that bad. I agree with you and other critics that Ms. Deschanel's performance is crippling to the movie. The backstory between her and Elliot is poorly conceived, as well as the porch scene.
But the movie is not as bad as you say it is. Other than a few brief moments of goofiness, the movie really jars. I loved the shot of Elliot and the other passengers on the train. The camera remains steady with Wahlberg slighly off center, and it observes the train coming to an unexpected stop. Right before it stops, however, it lurches to a halt, and all the passengers shift a bit. For me, the tension created from this was very unnerving. The closeups worked as well, including Elliot's joke with his wife. Why does the jeep rolling away bother you? To me, that seemed like a brief moment where humanity replaced panic. If you want to talk about a terrible shot, let's talk about the video on the cell phone.
I'm sorry jim I was wrong because you seemed as if you hated his films based on what you said in your post.I didn't seem intrigued by the trailer and I began to lose faith in Shyamalan's film after seeing "The Village" and it seemed in the ads like a mediocre suspense film but I might still see it based on what you said.
Jim:You said I needed to focus on the movie in my post but how could I because I haven't seen the film and in my post(I said this in my post) I just felt compelled to come to Shyamalan defense like Kim Newman did and disagree with what you said about Shyamalan as a director(I later found out that you did like his earlier films so it turns out you don't hate his films).
To Chris O
I agree Shyamalan is a talented director without a doubt and he has great potential
I've read a few comments after reading JE's blog. I have seen The Happening. Personally, I liked it. Roger Ebert's review kind of sums it up for me I guess. This is not a perfect film. Then again I've only seen a few perfect films in my life. Some people like Pepsi, some like Coke. Some people can give you long, drawn out explanations and reasons why they like Pepsi or Coke, and tell you why you shouldn't like Pepsi or Coke. Bottom line is, you like what you like. M. Night movies don't work for you? Then fine. If they do, great. Why did I like the movie? The same reason I like any film. I enjoyed the story, liked the visual style and found the acting pretty much spot on. I found myself a little inpatient in the middle act, but the 3rd act brought me back in. The 1st act though, wow! It was good enough that I forgave the 2nd act. M. Night had something to say with this movie, and by the way, with Lady In The Water as well. I can see he did his best to tell the story in the most interesting way possibly. And in my humble opinion, he's a great filmmaker and I can't wait until his next film! I appreciate all the comments I’ve read so far, for and against the movie. Each to their own!
Thank you Jim, for summing it up so perfectly. I loved M Night's first four films, didn't like Lady but found alot to like in it, and just sat watching The Happening with a steadily mounting sense of awe, wondering how such an excruciatingly awful film made it into theaters. I think the concept of the film is sound, and there are a couple sequences that work in that good old fashined Shyamalan way (the suicides, a couple scenes toward the end), but when you can barely pull off basic filmmaking techniques, can't utilize Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel, and have a movie where CHARACTERS RUN AWAY FROM WIND, you have problems. I hope Night can recover, but I'm increasingly skeptical with each passing film.
Brian: You're right -- I don't intend (or desire) to CHANGE anybody's mind about this movie or Shyamalan's career; just to describe as precisely as I can how "The Happening" is put together. (Similar to what I did with my recent "Speed Racer" post.) I acknowledge what I think works, and explain what I think doesn't, by examining how the shots play out in certain sequences.
Alex: I didn't say anything about the 180-degree-rule; I just described the effect of certain choices the movie makes and why they undercut the drama of the situation. If you want to see the movie and can address the sequences I described, and explain why they are shot the way they are, we could have a fruitful discussion. I just want to make sure it's about the movie, and not about rumors regarding Shyamalan's personality or career.
In the old lady's house near the end, he is explicitly invoking scenes from Hitchcock's "The Birds" and "Psycho." Compare the way Hitchock composes the scenes with how Shyamalan does it, and ask yourself what differnces those changes make in how the scenes play out. For example: Elliot cautiously enters an old lady's bedroom. As he opens the door he sees a pair of short, skinny legs on the bed. Reverse shot to Elliot coming into the room. Now he's fulliy inside the room and can see who or what is on the bed, but we can't. He continues moving toward the camera, looking puzzled. Finally we get the reveal from his POV: It's an antique doll. Throughout the film we are given the same information as the characters have, but in this scene information is withheld from us long after Elliot can see what's being hidden from us. Why? Hitchcock would have revealed the body on the bed to the audience and the character at the same time. Shyamalan shows us a long reaction shot as Elliot enters the room and walks closer to the bed, so the focus of the scene becomes not "what's in the bed?" but "How much longer will he stare at it before we get to see it, too?" We know his emotional reaction to whatever he sees long before we see it ourselves, and that drains the scene of suspense. If you want to make an argument that Shyamalan wasn't going for suspense in this scene, then let's hear an explanation for why he shot and assembled it the way he did.
It is not sufficient to say a filmmaker is "doing something new" or "trying a new approach" or "breaking conventional rules" if you can't describe which ones are being broken, and what the new strategy achieves instead....
I am from germany, where the movie was only shown in a version, where every single violoent shot has been cut out, but even so it`s one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen.
First of all, I was realy suprised, that nearly nobody can see that this is a movie which forces it`s audience to dive deep into the mind of one serios nutty mind. If you want compare it to other movies, then CLEAN, SHAVEN or Noe`s masterfull SEUL CONTRE TOUS came to mind. But I think what Shymalan brilliantly achieved here with THE HAPPENING is to go even one step further then Noe by not just placing you in the strange worldview of Wahlberg`s passive-agressive Wacko or his even more deranged girlfriend.
In THE HAPPENING the audience is forced in the role of the helpless child of two truly shizophrenic parents. Like the little girl in the film, we have to follow this strange couple and became part of there truly paranoic worldview. Are forced to see and accept everthing like they see it. Totaly out of touch with reality.
That this is intended becomes clear from shot one, with the two girls sitting in the park. It`s a dialog of two madwomen we have to listen here, totally out of everything real. It`s a world were everony has gone mad, paralysed, sedated, out of touch with one another.
I can`t remember a bolder picture than THE HAPPENING showing the madness of todays society on such a large and unpleasant scale.
Every single scene is in a way out of place, there is no escaping in getting comfortable by pretend this is scifi-escapdism. Belive me, it truly fucked me up for good. What a brilliant masterpiece.
The quote Netflix picks from Jim's review for "Lady in the Water" pretty much sums up Shyamalan in my eyes:
"Who am I to knock the work of the man who, in his own film, casts himself as a writer whose ideas will inspire a future leader who will save the world -- an artist whose work will not be fully understood in his own time, but only many years later?"
The level of Shyamalan's self-importance makes me want to puke.
Jim,
don't forget, at the end of the antique-doll-in-bedroom scene you just mentioned, we suddenly get a BIG SCARE CUT and BIG MUSIC STING to Old Lady suddenly jumping into frame from right to left with finger pointed accusingly at Wahlberg - the Old Lady clearly IN THE ROOM with him, as she is not seen through the doorway. Where was she all the time Wahlberg was staring at the doll?
Despite your generous bows to other people's opinions here, Jim, I think you've done a fine job of explaining how, objectively, this film is an incredibly poor piece of filmmaking - and it's all the more surprising because Shyamalan has demonstrated some very impressive formal and tonal control in the past. "Each to their own" doesn't quite cut it in this case...
Jim - Yes, apologies for my somewhat vague post before...of course I can't contribute to this discussion nor refute what you say about Shyamalan's stylistic choices in "The Happening" before actually SEEING the film. It happened (no pun intended) that I came upon your post late at night, after several hours of reading one trashing after another of the film, many of which were not as well-considered as your piece and were more smugly dismissive of Shyamalan. That's why I wrote my somewhat defensive counterargument recapping his career.
You are absolutely right that "trying something new" is not a sufficient argument. To go back to my "Shining" example, if Kubrick had simply employed the shot/reverse shot strategy he does in the bathroom sequence throughout the WHOLE movie, then it may have been rightfully derided as distancing and amateurish. But because he breaks the 180-degree rule only in the bathroom sequence, one begins to wonder why (could it be because there is something deeply off-kilter in this scene, and in Jack's mind?)
What I was trying to articulate, I think, is that I value filmmakers who don't feel the need to make their style "invisible", because discussion of the technique they bring to the forefront is valuable in understanding how films work (or in this case, DON'T work). The problem with Shyamalan's style in "The Happening" is, according to your description, not that he's trying new techniques of telling a story, but that he's using old techniques in places where they don't apply! I will be seeing "The Happening" tomorrow (perhaps along with "The Strangers" for a truly disturbing double-bill), and hope to be able to add something constructive to this discussion.
P.S. One thing I do take exception to, and this time regarding a film I have actually SEEN, is your description of the pool party scene in "Lady in the Water" as incompetently conceived. Maybe I was not paying close enough attention to the film when I saw it, but as you know, I usually watch films quite carefully, and I actually rather enjoyed the pool party scene and certainly didn't notice anything incompetently done about it. Further elaboration?
I recently watched an interview with Shyamalan where he described how 1992 was the year he, Tarantino, Rodriguez, and Luhrman all made their first movies. He concluded that this was a wave of new filmmakers making original movies. The inflection in his voice made it clear that he 1.) thinks his first film "Praying With Anger" is as widely seen and influentail as "Reservoir Dogs," "El Mariachi" and "Strictly Ballroom" and 2.) simply cannot hide his egoism any longer.
It is possible that Jim might grow to like Shyamalan's films and it just takes understanding them because their was a time when Roger Ebert hated David Lynch's films because he panned Dune and hated Blue Velvet and was against Wild at Heart winning the Golden Palm at Cannes but once he began to give rave reviews to films such as The Straight Story and Mullholland Drive he began to warm up to him as a filmaker.So the same thing could happen with Jim Emerson's feelings toward Shyamalan's work.
Thanks, Andrew. I am trying to focus on exactly how Shyamalan is constructing certain sequences, and I would hope people could put "like" and "dislike" aside for at least as long as it takes to see what the movie is doing and how.
Sam: I think you're misreading (or not reading) what I've written about "The Happening" and what Roger Ebert has written about Lynch's films over the years. You make some broad and unsupported generalizations and I don't know what you're basing them on. From what I wrote about specific scenes in "The Happening," can you tell me which Shyamalan films I like and which ones I don't -- and what I'm basing those opinions on? What, specifically, do you think I'm "misunderstanding" about his work from what I've written? If I saw a movie that was written and directed in the ways I have described, do you think I would "like" it more if somebody else's name were on it?
Roger Ebert doesn't just hate a movie or rave about a movie. He explains his reasons. He didn't just wake up one day, have an epiphany, and say: "Eureka! From this moment on I shall like David Lynch movies!" He had specific objections to "Blue Velvet" and "Wild at Heart" (which he wrote about), and he thought "The Straight Story" and "Mulholland Dr." were more successful at doing what they were doing. His opinions about the earlier movies -- including "The Elephant Man" -- have not changed. (BTW, Ebert gave four stars to "Signs," three to "Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable" and one to "The Village." From that can you tell what he had to say about each of those films -- or that he "likes" or "dislikes" Shyamalan? Those terms are irrelevant unless you've read what he has to say about each individual film.)
Alex: Thanks for clarifying -- I was just trying to get across my point that I'm not objecting to something "new" just because it's "new." I like "new." But I don't think Shyamalan is trying to do anything new in "The Happening" -- he's just recycling Hitchcock ("The Birds" and "Psycho" in particular at the old lady's house) and doing it sloppily, without respect (or understanding?) for why such scenes work. (See my comment above about the bedroom scene -- and Andrew Tracy's further commentary.) Suspense requires precision in framing and cutting and mise en scene in order to work. I'm trying to describe how these scenes were constructed, and why they were not as effective as they might have been. It's all right there in the film. But I'm not saying these things because I don't like the movie, or because I hold some pre-existing opinion of Shyamalan. The evidence comes first, and any critical verdict is derived from that. Otherwise it's like saying you disapprove of murder because you don't like killers.
As for the big pool scene climax in "Lady in the Water": Look at it again and tell me if you can determine the important spatial relationships between the people in the apartment, the people by the pool, and the bushes out back -- and who is where, when. Great counter-example: The climactic motel scene in son-of-a-surgeon Brian DePalma's "Raising Cain," where every image fits perfectly to create a kind of Rube Goldberg suspense machine. That's how it's done.
I know that I am WAY in the minority here, and for the most part can't even disagree with a lot of the issues discussed here. But I found that "The Happening" wasn't trying to be what is was marketed for and a bizarrely fascinating (and very good) movie. I have to say some of the scenes were totally inept and maybe I was just trying to be too kind because it seems like Shymalan has become a whipping boy for critics (myself included...I HATED HATED HATED HATED "Signs", "The Village" and "Lady in the Water" so I am no rabid defender of Shymalan's work as an 'auteur') Nevertheless, I found this some kind of kooky fun and tried to defend my position here:
http://out1.blogspot.com/2008/06/invisible-monsters.html
I'm not just trying to promote my own criticism here, but maybe it will offer something to those interested. Even in my odd fascination and enjoyment of "The Happening", despite its horribly staged scenes and numerous issues brought up that I won't try defending, the discussion of the negative aspects and this post are very helpful. Still, as boring and lame as I have found most Shymalan's earlier films, "The Happening" offers something different enough that I found some kind of visible change in intention. Maybe thats what I clinging to here, and just hoping that something will keep changing for the better on down the line, if there is an "on down the line" for Shymalan.
First off, let me say, Jim, I think you generally have pretty good taste in movies.
But second... I have to say that it pains me to see someone nit pick a movie for not following film 101. We do not need to be spoon fed a shot of a building's height to know that when people are jumping off it they're coming far enough to die. As far as his odd editing/setup methods, I often find them at least interesting, and I do think he has pretty sharp directing chomps. The classroom scene didn't bother me in the least (other than it was poorly written, very poorly).
I actually gave The Happening very very mild half reccomendation (rent it, I say) despite it clearly being flawed. The writing and the dialogue are heavy and expositional. You see this in basically all of Shyamalan's films. It gives the film a big time ding.
I agree entirely with your assessment of being spoon fed things in the film with out of place voiceovers and tacked on tv spots. Its annoying, and it nearly ruined the film for me.
Jim,I don't understand what you are getting either you accuse me of giving unsupported generalizations when all I'm doing is just posting comments I'm not a lawyer, I'm not presenting a case or giving an analysis of something. so why do want supported generalizations from me I'm just an eighteen year old person.Also I'm not saying that Roger Ebert decided to hate Lynch's films(but Blue Velvet did show up in his I hated this movie book) and I agree that he did have reasoning for disliking his earlier films(I agree with Ebert that having that have a cheap joke after something disturbing and shocking just happened is wrong and disgraceful ) It just seemed to me that he started out as Lynch detractor (like Pauline Kael was of Kubrick) and as just took him time to more appreciate him as a director when he saw Straight Story and Mullholland Dr.(I'm sure Ebert still stands by his original reviews of Lynch's earlier work) and I'm sure he loved Inland Empire and I never said in my post that Roger Ebert h ever hated Shyamalan's films.I knew he liked them just fine.I agree already that you like Shyamalan's movies.I was just using what Ebert felt about Lynch's films as an example that the next Shyamalan film you see might be his Straight Story,Inland Empire or Mullholland Dr. where you realize that his films are becoming more successful(as Roger felt about these films).All I was doing was giving an example and you freaked and you took it the wrong way.Finally as I said before it doesn't seem fair to me that you accuse me of not giving unsupported generalizations when all I'm doing is post a comment I'm not launching a campaign or presenting a case or a giving critique where supported generalizations are required.I'm just telling you what I think and my opinion I never said you had to agree with it.Do you think I'm Stephen Metcalf where I don't make critisms at all and just give potshots and make fun of people who don't share my beliefs because that's not me.Also do you think I'm stupid person? ,I definitely read Ebert's explanations as to why he does or does not like a film it fact for me that's what makes his writing arresting for me.
P.S.Speaking of Stephen Metcalf after reading what you wrote in response to Metcalf's dissmissal of "The Searchers"I decided to see the movie and decide for myself if the film is good or not and I can now officially announce that this film is now on my ten greatest and although we might keep misinterpreting each other on this post. I do have you to thank for introducing me to this truly great film,so thank you very much.
(Disregard my last post)
I recently watched an interview with Shyamalan where he described how 1992 was the year he, Tarantino, Rodriguez, and Luhrman all made their first movies. He concluded that this was a wave of new filmmakers making original movies. The inflection in his voice made it clear that he 1.) thinks his first film "Praying With Anger" is as widely seen and influentail as "Reservoir Dogs," "El Mariachi" and "Strictly Ballroom" and 2.) simply cannot hide his egoism any longer.
I've always been a staunch supporter of Shyamalan because, despite what used to be elusive cockniness, his best films express big ideas in a confined setting. With "The Happening," Shyamalan is going for the same effect, but he scatters his dull characters all over the Northeast so sloppily that when the film's idea unfolds, it seems awfully myopic. Especially considering the sheer amount of dread Shyamalan builds (with certain success) in the first act.
And certainly, "The Happening" showcases Shyamalan's total disregard for film coherence. You're so very right, Jim. Shyamalan seems to hold his audience in contempt. A filmmaker should at least care for his film. If Shyamalan cared about "The Happening," there's no evidence of it.
Do you think this all stems from the studio battle Shyamalan was in after "The Village" opened? And do you think he'll ever make...a comeback?
Sam: Didn't mean to "accuse" you, just trying to put the emphasis on specifics in the movie and not the "like" or "dislike." When you say I just don't "understand" Shyamalan, I've simply asked you to explain what you think -- from what I've written -- that's in the movies that I'm misunderstanding.
In writing about specific shots, sequences and scenes I'm critiquing how they function. Sometimes, as I say, a peculiar staging can be done for good reasons (using the living room conversation from "The Sixth Sense" as an example). I try to explain why some passages in the film worked for me and some didn't.
Jim.....I haven't seen the Happening (don't plan to), but I am a fan of his earlier works, "Unbreakable" in particular....here's the thing, I am actually a big enough "Unbreakable" fan to have watched the bonus features on the later DVD version, and on that DVD there is a long discussion about M Night's directing technique, and unless he's changed it, this bit of info might clue you in to why "The Happening" is so incompetently shot....the guy doesn't shoot coverage. I know that sounds unbelievable, but according the the claims in that featurette, it's true. He apparently storyboards everything and shoots EXACTLY what he wants to go onscreen. No coverage, no extra shots of anything around the action, just shots of exactly what he's storyboarded. He shoots scenes that might not make the film, but he doesn't shoot anything for safely. Every scene is "pre-edited" during the planning stage. This method seems to explain why he can be so good at little suspenseful set pieces (cause as a writer he often thinks in term of moment by moment suspense), but it also leaves him no margin for error or for corrected miscalculations in the editing room. Somebody should figure out how to transform this into a lesson for film students. Being a control freak might not be so wise. Sometime differing to conventional practice can be a fine way to go.
Well, I liked this a lot. I think that the trailer and the ad campaign (also, perhaps, Shyamalan's own early films and subsequent audience expectations) work against this. It's clearly a personal film and will touch the minority and needs to be seen in a quiet theatre or at home. I saw it in a packed cinema on opening night. Mistake. I'd side with Roger Ebert's review of this. Sorry.
Ah, OK Jim...I thought you were describing the beginning of the pool party, not the climactic sequences near the end of the pool scene, when there is a showdown between the tenants, those wolf thingies, and whatever those other things are supposed to be. I agree that that scene is pretty poorly shot in terms of spatial relationships.
Lay off Jim Jarmusch, Sam.
>>>a key element is missing: Something that gives us a sense of scale to connect what's going on at ground level with what's going on above in a single, unbroken image -- no matter how brief.
OK, this is going to sound strange: Why is it a key element? Alright, I know that as a rule of thumb movies are supposed to let you know what's going on in a scene as accurately or flawlessly as possible. But just consider: I don't think this is your regular Roland Emmerich apocalyptic kind of film. We've seen that, been there. It's not a movie about an ecological catastrophe involving toxins: It's a movie about Man, who is so blind not to see that the problem lies elsewhere. It's a movie about a ring, isn't it? People in this movie think it's all about "something in the air", but it isn't. Well, unless you think "Signs" was a movie about crop circles and aliens. It's more Dreyer than Emmerich, come to think about it. At least, that's how I see it. Shyamalan, I think, is more interested in having you look at the construction worker experiencing the dread of seeing his fellow workers fly off the building without knowing why they're doing it, than letting you see the building and the flying workers in one single shot. I guess that can also help to explain why you don't see your regular school evacuation sequence: Do we really need it? Do we need to see what happens to the students, when we have two main characters -- a teacher and his wife -- whose story is clearly at the center of the film?
Film student and enjoyer of almost all of Shyamalan's films, including SIXTH SENSE, UNBREAKABLE and SIGNS. I liked THE VILLAGE a bit less and couldn't quite recommend LADY IN THE WATER, though I almost felt like I got what Night was going for there...
THE HAPPENING looks creepy and silly, intriguing and open to attack. I'm willing to see it at first opportunity just to see what all the fuss is about. May return upon seeing it to give my opinion.
As someone who saw all of those other films, I can see what a previous post mentioned about UNBREAKABLE and Shyamalan's directing "style": no coverage. He likes to shoot things in very specific shots with no "normal" framing involved. Look at the first shot on the train at the beginning of UNBREAKABLE where the camera pans back and forth between Bruce Willis and a random passenger next to him. The camera is looking between the two chairs in front of the couple and panning back and forth between the crack, so the framing is odd and unnerving. It creates an indelible opening tone for a creepy and unsettling superhero story. All of Shyamalan's films have unusual shots and strange editing decisions, but if he plans them out that way, that's how he does it. Whether he should become less idiosyncratic in his framing/editing style or not is up to him and those who are willing to finance his work to decide. But notice that no matter how much people don't like his films, they are willing to see him. Like Michael Bay.
I won't get into the back and forth on the quality of the film but I will comment on two of the scenes you felt were superfluous. Some minor minor possible spoilers.
The scene with the abandoned truck may hold a key clue to part of the vegetation's abilities in the film. Wahlberg's character turns on the radio and catches a snippet of a talk show in which a speaker attributes the crisis to some form of accident related to nuclear power and suggests this explains the grouping of incidents on the east coast. This also ties in to the earlier scene at the plant nursery in which the cooling towers of a nuclear plant are a key backdrop. Perhaps it's a clue as to how they're focusing their attacks or more interesting, a suggestion that radiation allowed plant life to mutate sufficiently to begin its attack.
The other scene with Wahlberg banging the radio may represent another theme in the film: the loss of human contact. Shyamalan keeps shrinking contact with the outside world, at least for our main characters, in much the same way he shrank physical space in the second act of Signs. As the film begins, everyone is keeping track of events on their cell phones, and then collectively watching news on television sets, and then are reduced to a malfunctioning radio. This trend continues they come upon the old recluse who has no connection to the outside world and even further to Wahlberg's character being separated from the others and communicating through a tube. I think Wahlberg hitting the radio is less about trying to discern the repeating message than frustration of not being able to maintain that sense of connection... even is just of a looped message... with the outside world.
The answer may be easier than you think. According to IMDB, this movie was shot completely in sequence. Maybe Night just kept shooting and never looked back, embracing his inner Ed Wood, that every shot was perfect and there was no need to go back and fix it.
How to square that with Sixth Sense and the better parts of Signs, I could not tell you.
Jim,
I kind of completely agree that there is no logical reason for this movie to have been made like this.
Because I also agree that he's attempting things that other filmmakers would not and in ways they probably would not approach it. The idea of the film alone would have been scoffed at by most people. It's almost an experiment unto itself and took true cahones to even attempt to pull off. That doesn't mean Shyamalan does pull it off. Or that he successfully pulls off his attempts to stage things differently.
For instance, I don't think these suicide scenes you describe are supposed to have an emotional pull to them. The one you talk about with people jumping off the building lacking that one shot to truly make it disturbing. I think what Shyamalan is going for is far more casual. These are casual suicides we're witnessing. And I think that in his mind it's supposed to make it more unsettling to witness. There's no additional dramatic tension necessary - a close up of a person or wide shot showing the distance to the ground would have added a dramatic layer that from the way he consistently shoots scenes in the film - I pull notice to the word consistently - would have defeated his purpose. The long shot of the mower rolling over the man is so casually laid out, you cringe long before it happens because you see it coming. And in turn that casual feeling is supposed to make the audience feel more unsettled than afraid. That feeling that something is amiss is supposed to add, not distract. This is all speculation of course, but again I draw this argument back to the word consistently, he's not shooting these sequences like this by accident. He's not making these decisions without reason. Does his vision make you feel the way he wants you too? Or does it make the movie great? I say, not horrible, but not great. And to say he doesn't know what he's doing is just as speculative as saying he does know what he's doing, but it still doesn't work (these are two very different things.) I still don't think it works, in fact I find it ignorantly corny.
He's always tried to visually stage scenes in a way a person doesn't expect - the scene in "Unbreakable" when Bruce Willis is hitting on the lady in the train is seen from the perspective of a child looking back and forth, for instance.
He's also always tried to write dialogue in a somewhat stilted manner to convey characters not being able to communicate what they want. In "Signs" this style of dialogue worked pretty well.
But here though...he attempts to use many of those same tools...but you're right, something is just off. And it doesn't make sense (and maybe that's what he was going for...something is just off in this film, nobody in the film knows what it is, no body in the audience knows what it is, does that mean it works?) Nothing in the film really connects, logic is used and then discarded when he wants it to be (the definition of the word happening is interesting)...I've never seen a movie in which the mise en scene of the film was the antagonist!!! Look out everyone, the atmosphere is attacking us!!! Or in which a radio appears on a fence post when needed or a house miraculously appears behind a group of people...
The only time that that weird uncertain confusing feeling went away and I felt a hint of terror was with the old lady in the house. You talk about the scene with the doll and the scene at the dinner table. These to me were the most unsettling scenes in the film, because of how they were visually constructed, and the strangeness in which the dialogue was approached. This isn't just another scene in another movie in which people are having dinner, so why should it be constructed so? Just as in "Rosemary's Baby" when they are enjoying a snack with their elderly neighbors and the old man is in a single shot separated from the group, half covered in shadows, it draws attention to itself, rightfully so and meaningfully so. You want him to stand up and go sit down next to someone else. Or when you want to peer around the corner of the room to see what she's saying on the phone. It draws attention to itself without distracting. It's supposed to be off putting. There is something off in this dinner scene, with this old lady. Just as with the doll. Freaked the hell out of me!
The problem with these sequences --- they had nothing...absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the movie!!! And the style in which they were shot was so far removed from everything else it's no wonder that you were put off by them Jim. I sat there afraid for my life around this old woman and at the same time strangely befuddled. And then before you can try to make any connection to the rest of the movie Shyamalan picks up his pencil and moves on to the rest of the story we were following before. There's nothing logical about it the inclusion of this lady and then deletion of her from the story doesn't sit. And I don't know if that is supposed to make it better or just makes it worse...I DON'T KNOW! I'm so frustrated by this film and what it's attempting to do. If the whole film had taken place in this house, with this old woman, so they feared what was happening on the outside and couldn't control what was happening on the inside...a movie in which everyone has to control the level of their emotions or be killed off by the mise en scene, no the wind is blowing, run away (ha!)...I think I've just come up with an idea for my next film (minus the attacking mise en scene)! A room full of Hulks!
"The Happening" is a great premise looking for a way in which to be told. I think that's why I'm so frustrated by the film. Mark Twain I think talks about the importance of finding the right way to tell a story - Shyamalan needs to listen and take some script notes. He's a fine director, but has to polish, polish, polish and then completely rewrite from the ground up if needs be. You can only get lucky as a demigod writer so many times.
I've written my reactions at my blog but I find this film to lie somewhere between a joke Shyamalan is pulling on everyone (how could it not be, right?) and someone tripping in a field where there's nothing to trip on.
Saw M. Night Shyamalan's THE HAPPENING yesterday afternoon after first reading this blog and re-reading Roger Ebert's 3-star review. I now feel I can understand what you are referring to, and can comment on my own feelings/thoughts about it. This is a strange, confounding, and enjoyable -yes I agree with Ebert - GOOD film!
I'd like to go point by point in response to your blog article:
For one thing, I for one am not - what's the word? - naive (?) enough to agree with "horror scholar" Kim Newman in believing that Shyamalan's films are becoming more and more derided due to his "funny name," due to a "kind of racism." I was, however, astonished when I first saw the trailer for this latest film at a midnight screening of IRON MAN earlier in the summer and a few in the audience laughed at the trailer alone! Then, there are those who simply refuse to give Shyamalan the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his actual films, though I suppose seeing them at all (even if you expect them to be bad) is, in a sense, giving the director some level of confidence on the audience's part (even if it is filled with apprehension and doubt).
Jim, you say THE HAPPENING is "that bad. It's just not consistently that bad. Fleetingly, it's even pretty good." You go on to say that an effectively creepy image or sequence "will be followed by long stretches so ineptly staged, shot and cut together that you want to throw up your arms in frustration."
I disagree. I felt it was "even pretty good" about 80-85% of the time, and is only fleetingly (and not even quite fully at any given time) "that bad." From the eerie, opening scene in Central Park with the girls on the bench and the hair pin, to the tracking shot following a policeman's revolver through several different hands as well as various positions on the pavement, this was an effectively creepy little film throughout - though with intermittent bits of frustrating goofiness which I'll come back to momentarily.
I noticed what you meant about the "key element" missing from the scaffold suicide sequence: a sense of scale to connect from the roof to the ground. I felt this was an effective and disturbing way to shoot this portion of the film's opening, as we see merely a body here or there after a loud thud. We then see the living construction worker look up and a POV of his buddies falling (at quite the odd angle, might I add) directly toward the camera. This is eerie and effective in the way it disorients the character and the audience.
Next comes the classroom scene (and yes, you did miss the information that this was in Philadelphia and not New York - there's a title card here, I looked for/saw it). Indeed, more odd framing as we get Wahlberg's jokey exchange with the "handsome" young student across the room. Why is he "singled out"? So he won't blend in with the students Wahlberg ISN'T talking to? So it will be easier to focus on his dialogue? I do not have an answer.
Let's see... There's the "incompetent" staging of such scenes as the school "evacuation" and the discovery of the map in the truck and the malfunctioning radio, etc. I thought the off-kilter framing (did you notice in some shots, Wahlberg or Deschanel would be framed just at the bottom of the frame, their head partially cut off in one direction or another?) was to add to the mounting sense of dread and portent in the film.
As for the close-ups (uncomfortable, at times, indeed as they were), Tak Fujimoto (often a cinematographer for Jonathan Demme in such films as THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE and THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS) seems to favor uncomfortable shots of people's faces (claustrophobic, even).
As for that "joke" Wahlberg tells Zooey Deschanel, the audience did laugh because of how extraordinarily lame and bizarre it was - a bad attempt to get back at his wife's threat of infidelity and/or lying.
Let me just say this: I loved the IDEA of this movie, and most of the execution (no pun intended), and felt it was an overall effective little chiller from a once hugely promising director (he's still promising, just getting further from his intended targets).
Also: Somebody mentioned the "stilted" performance of Zooey Deschanel (thought it was you, Jim - now I'm not so sure) and I wanted to say that I felt her odd acting choices were right on with the film. She even got a couple funny looks in as response to the "hot dog botanist."
I'm writing a full review right now for my own blog and may come back to link to it when it is up and available. Till then...
I saw The Happening with low expectations. I thought it would be "not good" in the same way something like Ghost Ship or Virus are not good. Harmless, good for a few jump scenes and creepy moments, but a fun diversion to eat popcorn by.
Was I ever wrong. It's not good with vengeful ineptness. I agree with Jim's evaluation, except there are so many MORE things that can be said. I kept feeling like M. Night was grabbing me by the scruff of the neck and pushing my face into the screen, while saying "See? See what I am trying to show you? Get it?"
It was so full of painfully obvious moments, so ineptly handled that I felt insulted. The audience should not have to question whether they missed something every 15 minutes simply because the story is badly told. Nor should we have to just throw up our hands and keep excusing the ineptness. (The train has to stop in the middle of nowhere, because they lost communication? Whatever. All those people in the diner are suddenly NOT stranded train passengers, but are locals with their own cars? Or they all got rental cars? Fine, fine, ok, whatever, just get on with it. The driver is ejected from the Jeep, but not Leguizamo, even though his seat belt is seen dangling, unbuckled, behind him only seconds earlier? Yeah, fine.)
It's hard to not take it personally when a director treats his audience this way, because there is no way those things were not noticed at some point in the film making process, viewing the scenes over and over. Surely someone saw what we saw in only one viewing. But somehow, they decided it was good enough for us to watch. Either we are considered too stupid to notice, or too apathetic to care.
I laughed out loud when Betty Buckley so thoughtfully told the audience - I mean told her unexpected guests - that there was a speakin' tube connecting the main house and the building out back. She may as well have said "If'n yer ever find yerselfs trapped in the two separate buildin's, feel free to use mah speakin' tube for dramatic effect!"
I loved The Sixth Sense. Unbreakable, Signs, and The Village each had a few scenes I had to just accept and move on with. But The Happening is so inept that it's hard to believe it was released in its final form. It's great that M. Night believes in fairy tales enough to want to put them on film; but now I think he believes the wrong fairy tale: that The Happening is a good movie.
And Jim,
I ask you this. If someone is going to dare break the rules of film technique and create a new cinematic language, where else to start but Film 101?
Altman succeeded with "Nashville". Shyamalan didn't succeed with "The Happening", but that doesn't mean he wasn't trying.
It seems to me that Shyamalan has definitely got to be the most hated director in the world. I have seen most of his films except the last two, and think that it's quite unfair. Compared to most of the thrash produced in Hollywood nowadays by so called great directors like Spielberg, most of Shyamalan's films are much better. I am not saying that he makes perfect films. Just that he has an unique style of Direction and most of his films are quite thought provoking, though a wee bit pretentious.
A couple of points - one pedantic, the other merely a thought.
1) "The awkward staging of the living room conversation between Bruce Willis and Toni Collette in The Sixth Sense." Um, actually ...
2) To everyone who was galled at Shyamalan casting himself as a writer on the verge of messaniac fame in Lady in the Water: given that the film itself is an unapologetic parody of both film-making and film theory, don't you think Shyamalan chose to cast himself in that role, not out of self-aggrandizement, but as a knowing send-up that he himself is just one of a long line of directors beholden to the auteur theory. Lighten up, guys: Shyamalan was joking!
Why does Mr. Emerson feel the need to dissect every little scene? Perhaps he should start directing films since he knows all the right moves that seemed to escape an Oscar-nominated director.
Here are a few of the scenes from the movie that I had problems with and that took me right out of the film:
1)at both the beginning and end of the film, there is one character who is unaffected by the toxin (there is no explanation, logical or otherwise, given for why this is so).
2)When the train stops in the middle of Nowhere, Pennsylvania, Mark Wahlberg's character is the ONLY one who goes up to the train conductors and asks them what the hell is going on? (in real life, the train employees would be swarmed by passengers complaining).
3)In the field, when Mark Wahlberg tells everyone with him to run for their lives to escape the wind coming from behind them, people CARRY THEIR BAGS WITH THEM as they run for their lives. If it were me or anyone else in that situation, I would DROP MY CRAP and run faster than I've ever run in my life.
This is why I don't like Shymalan as a screenwriter (he has no sense for how human beings talk to one another - his dialogue is always so stilted and artificial -or behave in everyday situations or in crises). Right now, he's also repeating himself as a writer (there were numerous times in the film where I said to myself, "Oh, there's something he did in Signs or the Sixth Sense.") It's kind of sad to see his decline because I like him as a director but I think he should focus on directing other people's material (it would benefit him greatly).
Jim Emerson is possibly the worst film critic that I've read. It is currently popular to criticize M. Night Shyamalan, and such an activity is acceptable is valid points are raised, but Emerson's extreme scrutinizing of Shyamalan's storytelling abilities reveals his own ignorance of film's storytelling techniques. Shyamalan is one of the most gifted storytellers in movie history, possessing an uncanny sense of how to use the camera, what to reveal to the audience, how to reveal it, and when, in order to conjure up the most potent emotional reaction in his audience. This ability is proven in his achievement of earning box office records with essentially slow, simple, almost "storyless" movies that if made by a less gifted director, would not resonate with audiences so deeply. This ability has often earned Shyamalan comparisons with Alfred Hitchcock and Steven Spielberg, film's two greatest storytellers. While I personally did not enjoy "The Happening," it had nothing to do with Shyamalan's visual storytelling ability, which is, without question, phenomenal. For Emerson to scrutinize Shyamalan's storytelling to the degree that he does above reveals his own severe lack of understanding of film's basic principles. To put it more bluntly, this man is an utter fool when it comes to movies and how he ever came to write about films is astonishing. He should be banned from film criticism.
A quotation from Stanley Kubrick defines Jim Emerson: "I think the enemy of the filmmaker is not the intellectual or the member of the mass public, but the kind of middlebrow who has neither the intellectual apparatus to analyze and clearly define what is meant nor the honest emotional reaction of the mass film audience member. And, unfortunately, I think a great many of these people in the middle are occupied in writing about films."
JE: In other words, you have no response to my particular criticisms except beyond generalizations (supported with vague superlatives and characterizations of box-office results?), ad hominem attacks, an out-of-context quotation, and an assertion that Shyamalan's films should not be subject to critical scrutiny. Let me add the rest of Kubrick's quote (from 1960, by the way) and see how it might apply in this situation. He continues: "I think that it is a monumental presumption on the part of film reviewers to summarize in one terse, witty, clever Time Magazine-style paragraph what the intention of the film is. That kind of review is usually very superficial, unless it is a truly bad film, and extremely unfair."
What makes M. Night's recent awfulness so fascinating is how sudden it was. It took Mel Brooks twenty years to become seriously not funny. It's easy to speculate how fame and fortune, in Mel's case, can take a filmmaker with crass, man-of-the-streets edginess and turn him into something totally out of step. But with M. Night, geez, it happened so fast.
Mr. Emerson: Your commentary on Shyamalan's film technique seems informed and discerning. You seem fairly certain that "The Happening" is bad, and have good reasons why you may think so.
Why, then, do you start this column with what is clearly a straw-man argument- attacking someone so intent on defending the movie that she cites Shyamalan's race as a possible reason for the reception of his film by educated, enlightened, and demographically liberal critics? It may be an effective method of inciting eye-rolling and guffaws from the people who already agree with you, but from a pure rhetorical perspective it's poor technique. When the only voice you allow to rise in defense of the movie is one as misguided as Kim Newman's, people you may have won over with your exhaustive technical discussion will be less likely to listen, feeling as though you have marginalized their opinions, and are therefore not worth listening to. In attacking an easy target, you marginalize yourself.
Doug: The reason I started this post with the idiotic example of someone suggesting people don't like Shyamalan movies because of the director's race was to focus the argument on particulars from one movie: "The Happening." Attackers AND defenders of Shyamalan are all too eager to make blanket statements about the man rather than cite individual moments from his movies. As I said, it's just as ridiculous to blame the reception of his movies on the director's Philadelphianism.
It should be clear from what I wrote that I don't consider "The Happening" "bad" (whatever that means) or "good," but a mixture of moments that I have argued are effective and... misconceived. As far as my opinion of the movie goes -- it's mixed. I like the effective parts and I don't much like the misconceived ones. While I appreciate your argument, I don't think what I wrote is so black-and-white. That was the whole reason for writing it -- to avoid that kind of discussion and focus on what works or what doesn't work in the movie, and why.
Mr. Emerson, I couldn't agree more with almost every word of your review.
Most movies go wrong with sequences or scenes- some minutes work, some don't. This is a movie that works in SPOTS.
Like you said, the classroom scenes are very badly done (Marky Mark is a good actor but he's absolutely horrible here and among the least convincing movie teachers I've ever seen), the evacuation of the school is badly done (having been a middle schooler during the 9/11 attacks, I can tell you that's NOT what chaos and confusion in a school feels like. Not how kids behave, not how adults behave. And, like you said, it totally doesn't capture how real people stranded during a national emergency behave. Take it from someone who has.) and the scenes of mass suicides almost all completely don't work.
It's so sloppily done, I didn't even realize that the setting after the first two scenes switches to Philadelphia! I thought the action stayed in NYC and the whole group was travelling from NYC *to* Philly.
Also, the acting is universally bad here. Zooey Deschanel has been good in other roles but she's flat out terrible here. Same for all the other actors, except for the hermit woman who shows up for about 10 minutes.
The Happening is one of the better films I have seen all year. the film is much deeper than eye level. some truly chilling moments. another Shyamalan masterpiece. yes i loved the village and lady in the water.
Why does everyone automatically hate oliver stone/stanley kramer moralizing. At least he comes out with what he's trying to say so we can debate it as opposed to hinting at it obliquely like syriana does.
THANK YOU for finally nailing MNS's problem for me: he's intensely interested in the parts of his movies he's interested in, and absolutely indifferent to everything else--unfortunately most of the movie--and equally indifferent, almost to the point of hostility, to his audience. I gave up on the man with "Unbreakable" where he put the movie's entire 3rd act into a paragraph of epilogue. What an insult. Who keeps giving this guy money?
"JE: In other words, you have no response to my particular criticisms except beyond generalizations (supported with vague superlatives and characterizations of box-office results?), ad hominem attacks, an out-of-context quotation, and an assertion that Shyamalan's films should not be subject to critical scrutiny."
Ah, I didn't know that you actually read these posts. I thought that I was writing a message for your readers to think about after they read your opinions. Now that I know that you read the messages personally, let me say I'm sorry for using such harsh terms. It's not my goal to be a mean-spirited person and try to make you feel badly about yourself. I do, however, strongly disagree with you about M. Night Shyamalan's storytelling ability, so I'm going to try to be as civil as possible while still disagreeing with you.
You wrote:
"Shyamalan's previous debacle, "The Lady in the Water," exhibited all the same problems as "The Happening," especially on the level of Filmmaking 101: knowing how to "cover" a scene, how to set up a shot, when to cut to the next one and what it should be. WATch ing; thismovieiS a B I T L LLL L i Kk e Re-LiKe-ADING -thisSENTence. It's random, erratic, and the errors distract from the feeling and the sense of what it's trying to convey."
Shyamalan's filmmaking is the OPPOSITE of what you claim. Shyamalan is the best in history at knowing PRECISELY when to cut and what to show and how to show it. He is a master of rhythm, timing, and manipulation (the foundations of conventional filmmaking). Since you asked for concrete examples rather than "vague superlatives," let me give you some.
The simplest example is the scene at the beginning of Signs in which Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) first discovers a crop sign in his field. Graham rushes to his son in the field because he, along with us the audience, don't know what's happening. Shyamalan shoots a tight 2-shot of Graham kneeling with his son, who is looking forward, while Graham looks at the boy. The boy says, "I think God did it," and Graham responds, "Did what?" and the boy reaches with his hand and turns Graham's face forward and the expression on Graham's face tells us that he sees something. Rather than cutting directly to what Graham sees, Shyamalan cuts backward to a wider shot, still facing Graham as he tentatively stands up and walks toward the camera and stops (in a close-up) and stares with an expression of confusion. There's a beat and we still don't know what he sees. By not immediately showing what Graham sees, Shyamalan is controlling our emotions like a puppetmaster, knowing that we want to see what Graham sees and allowing our anticipation to build. Shyamalan then cuts to Graham's feet and we still don't see anything, but Graham takes a step forward and the camera dollies back and we see that a few stalks in the foreground of the frame have been bent, but we only see a few stalks in close-up, only giving us a tease of what has happened, revealing it piece by piece. Then Shyamalan finally cuts to a wide panoramic shot from the other side of crop sign facing Graham (who's small in the distance) with all the stalks in the entire wide frame bent over. This is the big reveal and we the audience are satisfied. We now know what Graham saw and are as intrigued as he is. But just when we think the scene is over and there is no more to reveal, Shyamalan cuts to a helicopter shot high off the ground, showing Graham standing in the large circle. The shot begins moving higher and higher revealing that the circle is only a small dot within a massive crop sign that spans the entire field. Shyamalan has now turned our satisfaction of simply knowing what Graham saw at ground level into a joyous wonderment at the sheer scope of the event, conjuring up a "Wow!" from the audience. Now *that* is filmmaking 101! Shyamalan knows exactly what the audience's thoughts and feelings are going to be at every precise moment in the scene and tailors his shots and cuts to use the audience's emotion and build upon it, masterfully controlling our experience of his film, making the film become more and more enjoyable at each passing moment.
This example is by far not even Shyamalan's best moment. A more impressive example is a scene in The Village, a single shot in particular. In the scene when the creatures first breach the border between village and woods and enter the town, Ivy Walker (Bryce Dallas Howard, blind in the film) stands in her open doorway and holds out her hand, waiting for Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix) to come to her, believing that he will help her. She holds out her quivering hand, knowing that the creatures are roaming the village, and waits for Luc