Rescued by M. Night! Four pieces of Unbreakable...

Why does a man carry a cane made of material that shatters?

You know why, Jim? Because of the kids. They called him Mr. Glass.

I loved this movie. I seem to recall a lot of people being disappointed with the twist ending (including Roger Ebert). But I thought it was just perfect. The origin of the hero is complete (and complemented by/intertwined with) the origin of the arch-villain.

Glad to see you that you were willing to give Shyamalan a chance despite the debacles that were "Lady in the Water" and "The Happening". I think "Unbreakable" gets a little silly toward the end of the film, but it is a beautifully-executed piece-of-work, as you said. It's from a true filmmaker, as is what I believe to be Shyamalan's best film, "The Village", which was as dumped on as his last two but I believe is expertly-paced and a more timely parable than many gave it credit for.

In the shots of Bruce standing part way up the stairs I loved the dark area created by the arch into the other room behind him mimicking his own body shape, as if he's leaving the old self behind in the shadows and trying to move away.

Know what I don't like about M. Night Shyamalan scripts? He takes 90+ pages to write a first act--when all I want is for him to tell freaking story. Aristotlean unities anyone?

There's a clear reason why this film in particular HAD to use mise en scene as opposed to montage: because one of the major themes in the movie is about space and the way it defines us. If there's a single statement of point in the movie (in Shyamalan's entire career, in fact), it's Elijah at the end saying, "Do you know what the scariest thing is? To not know your place in this world, to not know why you're here." You can see this in The Sixth Sense (where not only the twist, but the relationship between the main character and the little boy too, is about his identity as husband, as doctor, as friend/father-figure), in Lady in the Water (as everybody tries to figure out where they fit into the fairy tale), and in The Village (which is in some ways about how a community identity is a forged composite of its population--and their problems are its problems).

But what I find interesting about that quote is that it emphasizes the connection between identity and place. Because now that I think about it, place (or space) is everywhere in Unbreakable.

Character is incredibly defined by the spaces in the story. You've already pointed out the way David and his wife are physically separated by the frames and levels of their house, but there are plenty of other examples. Both David and his wife are defined by their jobs (him as protector, her as healer) and their spaces reflect that, the stadium a place of rigid lines, walls, doors, and rules, and the physical therapy office wide-open, with glass walls and colorful patterns. Look at the moment when David watches the football players scrimmage in the rain, and consider the strangeness of a man who has given up a sport spending his adult life in such close proximity (and notice how that scene takes place in heavy rain, calling to mind David's weakness).

The film frequently uses two adjacent spaces to contrast ideas or goals. Elijah's scenes especially come to mind. There's the contrast between his room as a child (quiet, still, safe, boring) and the park across the street (loud, full of motion and life) which starts him on a road toward self-confidence and integration with the rest of the world. The last scene shows the separation between the art gallery proper (professional, clean, superficial) and the back room (cluttered, revealing, confused), representing the schism in Elijah's mind.

Look at the family dynamic, how scenes with them all together basically only happen in the kitchen (and you can trace them as a barometer of family stability, from the low point of Jonah with the gun to the high point of the harmony at the end).

Look at the way David's journey into the past is precipitated and mirrored by the space he invades: clawing his way up and over the fence, breaking into the building, looking at the twisted remains of the train wreck (caught, in fact, at one moment by the camera through a hole in a broken pane of glass), all of it connecting him back to a different accident.

One final little example: the scene (or shot, I guess) of the killer trying to enter the man's house, with that (lovely) weird dialog:
"I like your house. Can I come in?"
"What? Uh, no. No, you can't come in."
"Are you sure?"
The father's identity is predicated on the (assumed) security of his house. When the killer comes in anyway, the film doesn't bother showing the violence--the invasion of the home is horrific all by itself.

More food for thought on a very, very rich film.

I've always thought this was Shyamalan's best and most interesting film...mostly because of the stylistic reasons you highlight.

Jim: I'm glad to discover that you think highly of this film - it's my favourite Shyamalan, and a movie that somehow seemed to have slipped under the radar, at least in India. (I know many people who thought Signs was his next film after The Sixth Sense.)

I wonder if you've seen the deleted scenes available on the Unbreakable DVD? There was a very striking sequence of the nine-year-old Elijah at an amusement park: he drifts away from his mother, straps himself into one of the rides (after carefully placing a large cushion on either side, as a bulwark), the ride begins and things start to get tense. Shyamalan explained that the reason he left it out of the final cut was because it seemed at odds with the pace of the rest of the film, but I thought it should have been included. Very effective, and it ends with one of those 360-degree movements that run through the movie.

While The Sixth Sense is often trotted out as Night's best film, it's lost a little of its luster after the director has made the twist ending his stock resolution to every story. Ironically, it generates a certain feeling of predictability in his subsequent films, where you've got your eyes peeled for the "twist."

In addition to some reasons you've wonderfully delineated in your post, Unbreakable actually deserves reconsideration as Night's best because of this: he is able to turn the "twist" cliche on its ear by forgoing the use of it in the ending, and instead, incorporating it into the subtext.

The twist in this film is not the revelation that Mr. Glass believes himself to be a megalomaniacal (super)villain. The twist is that the story we've just invested in for 2+ hours is a mature retelling of the archetypal comic book origin myth.

Unbreakable shows that even the comic book hero story can be presented in an adult, and stylistically restrained, manner. This thoughtful rendering instantly elevates the film in Night's oeuvre, and indeed in the ranks of the superhero film genre as well.

It's a great film, and I don't know what happened to that Shyamalan either. I know that the reception "Unbreakable" received at the time of its release was kind of luke-warm, and Shyamalan took that hard, but that hasn't actually caused him to speed up his movies. The real difference, as far as I can see, is the deterioration in his writing more than his directing ("The Happening" has a lot of bad sequences, and is a bad movie, but it still has some nice moments, like Leguizamo's fate). He was writing at his peak with "Unbreakable", and the premise of the movie is pure genius. I can't think of a better in-road to the idea of superheros and supervillains than what Shyamalan came up with here. It even has a great title!

I was on Shyamalan's side from the beginning with his film Wide Awake, but it didn't take long for M. Knight to use up his tiny bag of directorial tricks.

In fact, I remember watching Unbreakable at home on DVD and finding the film so pretentiously dull and brain damaged stupid I hurled a shoe at the TV I was so angry at the baloney put forth as cinematic entertainment.

I popped in the second DVD I rented that afternoon and let me tell you, Dude, Where's My Car? played like Citizen Kane after the congealed offal that was Unbreakable.

SPOILER AHEAD

Aside from the ludicrous premise that Bruce Willis is REALLY a superhero, Shaymalan even films Philadelphia badly.

I take the cinematic image of Philadelphia a lot more seriously than most people. The Manyunk/Roxborough area that was used as a location for Willis's neighborhood initially excited me.

It's an area built on the side of shear cliffs that drop and slope down to the Schuylkill River with streets set at alarming angles and sidewalks comprised of steps. Truly, San Francisco has nothing on Philadelphia in that regard and the fact filmmakers never film in this area has always puzzled me.

But none of that unique character comes through in Unbreakable. It was an opportunity missed. So much for the theory that your decor determines your mise en scene!

By the way Jim, I get the "dead shark" analogy, but have you ever considered that maybe Woody Allen is wrong and that relationships are NOT like sharks?

This is by far Shyamalan's best film. These clips make me want to watch it again (I haven't seen it since it came out). Too bad it was all downhill from here for Shyamalan. Maybe Bruce Willis has a secret superpower of his own, the power to make Shyamalan make good movies.

I've always thought this was Shyamalan's best film. Though it lacks the shock value of 6th Sense, I think it stands up far better to repeat viewings. It's quiet, contemplative, very beautiful to look at, and never deviates once from it's internal logic. Unlike, say, his more recent efforts....

One of the great mysteries of modern cinema is what the hell happened to M. Night Shyamalan. I loved "The Sixth Sense," had a few problems with the story in "Unbreakable" but, like you, was completely absorbed in every scene, and I think "Signs" is Night at his best. Then he made "The Village," and it's as if he got flashed by that "Men in Black" memory-erasing doohicky at some point in between. Each new film I think, "Okay, this has to be the one where he remembers how good he was," and each has been a disappointment. I've just about lost hope...

But yeah, how about "Unbreakable." It's been a while since I've seen it, but a couple more great moments I recall: I loved the scene where Dunn first tests his strength on the weight bench. With every gradual addition of weight, he seems to just be able to manage a clean lift -- a far more interesting and suspenseful way of discovering this superhuman ability than if, say, he just ran outside and lifted a car or something. There's something exciting about it, but also something strangely frightening -- it's obvious to Dunn he shouldn't be humanly capable of doing what he's doing, but he just can't stop until he finds his limit. It's almost as if he'd be reassured if he had one. (And I loved the touch of when the kid walks far away when he attempts the last lift. What, is he afraid his dad will explode or something?)

I also loved what happens right after that windows-with-drapes scene. The home invader comes in and attacks Dunn, who, being unbreakable, can't be phased. But again the camera stays with the fight/struggle in one long take, as we see Dunn strangling the man from behind. No matter what the guy does, no matter how many times he slams Dunn against the wall, Dunn doesn't give. It's an awesome culmination of all the self-discovery Dunn has made throughout the film, and another test of his limitations that once again shows he may just not have any. (Except for water, of course. Superheroes always need that one, inexplicable weakness to keep things interesting.)

If you've never seen "Signs," I recommend checking it out. It's (in my opinion) Night's last great film, and one of the few... uh... well... I guess I shouldn't say what I was about to say just in case you somehow don't know what it's about, but it's one of the few movies of its kind that actually generated a real sense of awe for me.

I agree with you on your assessment of the film and I personally think it's Shyamalan's best. So moody and definitely rewatchable. I also think this movie is gonna build some serious momentum over time, you watch.

I've also heard some refer to it as "slow". Slow would suggest boring, and Unbreakable is anything but that. When are the general movie-going public gonna learn that an explosion or breast shot every five seconds does not a good movie make? Well, I'm sure there are exceptions to that but you know what I mean. Kudos to you and thanks...because now I have to go out and buy this (should have sooner).

After hearing you bemoan everything you find wrong with 'The Dark Knight' for so long, its's refreshing to see you champion many things that are right in analyzing scenes from M. Night's underrated film. When I saw this in the theater on opening day all those years ago, I wasn't conciously picking out all this stuff you've mentioned, but I'm sure it affected me as a viewer subconciously.

I saw the film twice that day, dragging a friend to it that night over some film he wanted to see (which I cannot now recall), but I missed much of the birth scene at the start and the onscreen quotes about comic books that preceeded it. Fortunately, the advertising for the film hadn't point out the comic book nature of the film. Seeing it that way, it took longer for it to dawn on me that what I was watching was actually a comic book origin story, told in a different than usual manner. I think that was probably a better condition under which to see it, like the fans that have taken to showing 'Dark City' to friends for the first time without Kiefer Sutherland's spoiler voice-over track opening, which was apparently the director's original intention.

P.S. 'The Dark Knight' was one of my favorite films of the year with its atypical approach to the Batman universe (including making the hero a supporting character), though I have since then seen 'Let the Right One In', which I consider to be a better film if I were to rank the films of 2008.

JE: "Unbreakable" provides a nice counter-example to "TDK." They're both "comic book movies" ("Unbreakable" even begins with a list of historical stats about comics), but the styles and the scales are worlds apart. "Unbreakable" contains many moments that surprised and delighted me, so that I thought: "THAT's a cool way of presenting this scene!" Or, "I've never seen a similar scene handled in quite THIS way before!" Or, "Nice twist on a familiar set-up!" There were plenty of opportunities for those kinds of moments of pleasure and invention in "TDK," but most of the time the movie didn't take advantage of them to discover unusual or unexpected ways of imagining its world. "Unbreakable" does that again and again. I didn't even mention the opening scene shot between the train seats; or the swimming pool scene; or the fight scene (scored to melancholy, swelling orchestral music) that's all in one slowly rising shot; or...

One of my all time favorite films. The long hospital shot is breathtaking. Maybe he ran out of good stories to shoot. He will eventually find his place directing other writer's scripts instead of his own. Then his talents will be recognized once again.

I heartily agree. "Unbreakable" has long been my favorite of Shyamalan's films. For one thing, the creation of a thrilling superhero movie without the use of any obvious FX work is an achievment which has no precedent that I can immediately think of (whereas his other films are genre riffs with obvious--for better or worse--ancestors). Shyamalan assembles the cliches of superhero movies so subtly and thoroughly that we barely realize until the end of the movie that Bruce Willis' character not only has a superhero's secret identity (David Dunn), but a costume, weakness (water for kryptonite), theme music, and both a major and supporting villain. I have long had to put up with friends and family members telling me that it's too slow, or worse yet, lamenting that Shyamalan has not made the supposed second and third chapters of the "Unbreakable trilogy" (which I have a hard time believing was ever M. Night's intention to do).

Bravo Jim! Thank you for recognizing this forgotten masterpiece. Your video/text commentary concerning composition and technique was entertaining. Would love to see more in the future.

This is certainly my favorite M. Night film if not one of my favorite films of the last 20 years. I'll be watching again later tonight.

What it felt like watching the film was this all pervasive sense of the fantastical happening, actually happening. To me, this delivers most effectively on what the actual appeal of the superhero is to so many fans; infinitely more effective than the grandest and most expensively rendered "real" superheroes in films adapted from their comics. If comics get their claws into the young mind through the power fantasy aspect, leaping tall buildings and deflecting bullets with a flick of the wrist, then their luster will fade with age. But on the other hand, if the idea of man transcending physical limitation, not merely transcending but exceeding beyond all expectation, is what holds the appeal then this is the film that most beautifully and brilliantly captures that for me. Granted this could have been any genre based phantasmagoria, whatever your inclination might be to genre, but since my childhood was wrapped up in comics before being netted inexorably by film, this brought those young and naive sensations roaring back to me.

Another essential agreement, iconography. Once David Dunn dons the security guard poncho he is that hero, his face wrapped in shadow, his form fluid, powerful and yet hesitant and overwhelmed. There is a giddiness to the confrontation near the end of the film that finds its power in the whispered longings of every child who saw themselves on rooftops, soaring through clouds, on an adventure. The stillness gives us this gift of feeling, "this is happening, this is happening, this is actually happening". A long held dream comes true but it does not strike false notes. It is not a crazed final showdown with computer generated creatures hurling bricks and mortar at each other, each punch louder and more thunderous than the last until the penultimate blast of sound and fury farts out of the speakers at the local multiplex and the credits mercifully roll. He's as uncertain as we are, as aware that what he is doing is insane, if he was discovered by anyone other than the kidnapper he would be embarrassed and most likely incarcerated. It is dangerous, it is truly heart pounding, its a sequence that holds us in suspense as successfully as any great suspense sequence does. It succeeds and surpasses as any great film does. And luckily for my youth, forever dancing and laughing just in the back of my brain, it was all about a superhero.

Who the hell are these people that insist on cropping every movie they see? Several movies I would have watched on Netflix Movie Viewer, but they were cropped to 4-by-3. I do not, will not watch cropped movies. Can we please please stop doing this, everyone?

JE: I can't figure out why companies like Starz and Netflix, whose subscribers are particularly interested in movies, would want to alienate their core customer base with inferior presentations like this. Virtually everything is letterboxed these days, whether it's for display on 4x3 or 16x9 screens, and nobody thinks twice. I'm surprised at these lapses back into a 1980s mindset -- even for HD "prints"! I've notified Netflix, in hopes that they'll have a word with their supplier (in the case of "Unbreakable," anyway), which is Starz.

Shyamalan apparently planned this as the first entry in a series of movies - I can only wonder where he would take that concept after enduring his most recent films.

I can still imagine the dread I felt when the son pointed the gun at his father - in the context of the story, the scene was frightening and relevant. Unlike most other movies, the gun was being pointed out of curiousity (and other reasons) rather than defense.

JE: Yes, it makes it all the more terrifying. It's another scene in that "no way out" kitchen, where David's home life seems to have dead-ended. Until near the end, where the kitchen has light and becomes a source of warmth again.

I haven't seen the film recently enough to offer any detailed comments. Maybe I'll get around to it in the next few weeks.

"Shyamalan apparently planned this as the first entry in a series of movies - I can only wonder where he would take that concept after enduring his most recent films."

Which is why I feel if you're going to compare this to other comic book films, you should stick with the origin stories. Shyamalan was reasonably good at handling the modest, slow-burn narratives...upping the ante would've, in all likelihood, run this "series" right off the rails. With him, it seems, the smaller the cast of characters (and scale of the production), the better.

Glad to hear so much enthusiasm for Unbreakable. I'm a big fan of Unbreakable. There are some brief mentions above, but Jim or anyone else out there: Am I the only one who considers The Village to be not just M. Night's best work but a great movie that's worth revisiting? A smart and beautiful parable--not dependent on a twist ending--about what humans need from religion and how the pain of modern life can make living a collective lie more attractive than reality.

Bordwell defends Shyamalan's film sense in Lady in the Water:

So let me point out that Lady in the Water is rather daringly directed. Shyamalan is a genuine filmmaker; he thinks in shots. Unlike the filmmakers who believe in interrupting every shot by another one, Shyamalan tries for a natural curve of interest as the image unfolds to its point of maximal interest. In this film, his characteristic longish takes—on average, twelve seconds—are allied to his most oblique visual design yet. The first dozen minutes are engagingly elliptical, quite unlike anything in normal American cinema. The partial framings, offscreen characters, incomplete shot/ reverse-shots, to-camera address, and teasing layers of focus throughout the film echo late Godard and create a pervasive unease reminiscent of the domestic passages in Unbreakable (for me, the director’s best film). In his commentary on deleted scenes in the DVD version of The Village, Shyamalan explains that a shot that decapitated Bryce Howard was too “aggressive” for the naturalistic tone he wanted, but Lady makes fragmentary framings, often sustained for many seconds, more prominent. Some compositions, especially that showing the Smokers and others split up by the shower curtains in Cleveland’s bathroom, are quite inventive.

As Cleveland Heep, Giamatti carries the principal burden of interest, and his conviction saves a good deal of the film from feyness. Shyamalan’s technique sustains the actor’s portrayal. Full shots acknowledge the tentative moves of this awkward, lumpy body (Giamatti’s performance includes the placement of his feet), cropped mid-shots don’t hide the paunch, and prolonged close-ups carry the climax. “I should’ve been there to protect you,” he murmurs, not just to Story but to his dead wife and children, while the hands of his witnesses clutch his shoulders. Here as elsewhere, Cleveland is in focus while other characters dissolve into blobs of light. In the film’s final image, though, he is similarly decomposed, as he’s seen standing on the pool’s edge, watched from below—the point of view of a submerged narf, but also the image of a man redeemed by water. Who has conversations in the rain? Farber asks. Only characters in movies, he answers. It’s left for Cleveland to suggest that maybe it’s a metaphor for purification.

If Lady in the Water had been made by an obscure East European director, reviewers might have praised it as magical realism and tolerated its fuzzy message of multicultural hope. (The constant playing of TV battle footage from Iraq would doubtless have earned points too.) It was Shyamalan’s misfortune to make a somewhat goofy fantasy at a moment when critics were poised to puncture his reputation. Let’s remember, though, that many respected directors have spawned “personal” projects that come off looking strained, eccentric, even suicidal. Brewster McCloud, New YorkNew York, 1941, and Radioland Murders all come to mind. I hope that once the chatter fades away, people will appreciate the virtues of Bamberger’s book and of Shyamalan’s film.

(the last three grafs of: http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/hearing.php )

JE: OK, now I'm really intrigued, Given that DB feels the same way I do about the choppedy-chop-chop technique in "TDK" and other films, this has got me wanting to see "Lady in the Water" again -- something I would have thought impossible. At this point, all I can remember is how the staging of the climactic pool scene made no sense to me: I couldn't tell where anyone was in relationship to anyone else, and it was important to the dynamics of the scene that you be able to do that.

Easily my favorite Shyamalan film, so I'm happy to see all the enthusiasm for it. We've talked in previous blog entries about the tension that the modern superhero story has between retaining aspects of fantasy (amazing powers, stunning feats, men in tights) while reconciling them with an increasingly naturalistic "reality" (gritty neighborhoods, moral ambiguity, men in suits). Different artists have gone different routes, but Shyamalan's one of the few who's actually made it the subject of the film instead of a background aesthetic concern.

...because the tragedy is that it's a superhero film, which means it has to obey genre conventions. How awesomely metatextual is that? Most twists are plot-based, and here's one that's a commentary on the film you've just watched.

JE: "Unbreakable" also finds a clever way to integrate the good/evil, hero/villain yin-yang dynamic ("You complete me") that's essential to most superhero mythology...

My response to the question that seems to bother everyone (What happened to M. Night Shyamalan?) is that he is currently operating on a level of filmmaking far more advanced than "everyone" can initially comprehend. People don't get dumber as they age. The Happening is just so utterly brilliant in its use of his trademark cameo that the whole thing is elevated to a ridiculously profound masterpiece about the PRECISE influence that a director has on a work. HINT: The word "happening" means "a partly improvised or spontaneous piece of theatrical or other artistic performance, typically involving audience participation." Give his movies some time. He's about as underrated as they come.

What about the ending? After the revelation we get...lines of text saying what happpened. I thought that was really weak. I did enjoy most of the movie, but going out on that note just about ruined it for me.

JE: That text didn't make much of an impression on me. To be honest, I don't even remember what it said. It was the movie's imagery that hooked my imagination. Reportedly "Unbreakable" was originally meant to be the first part of a trilogy with the David Dunn character. Maybe the text was an attempt to set that up?

I really loved this movie when it came out. I remember being disappointed it didn't do better with the general public.

a few years later i was watching it in my dorm room, some friends came in and one of them said something like "i don't care what anyone else says, i really like unbreakable." the other friend agreed.

Since then, i've discovered that literally every one of my friends likes this movie. Almost to the point that i think rather than getting to know someone, it might be easier for me to just ask how they feel about unbreakable.

"I couldn't tell where anyone was in relationship to anyone else, and it was important to the dynamics of the scene that you be able to do that."

I know this was a major pet peeve you had with Dark Knight, Jim, and I totally agree. I would go a little farther, though. I can't imagine scene dynamics in which it would not be important--at least to me. I absolutely could not watch Face/Off because of such a scene early in the movie and, generally, would rather watch a monster in a bad rubber suit then any CGI creation because even the best looking CGI never seems to be on the same plane with whoever is in front of the green screen.

Which brings me to Shyamalan, because I had no problems with the cheesy rubber suits in Signs--I just thought there never should have been aliens at all. I was totally with him through 6th Sense, Unbreakable and the first half or more of Signs and then the spaceman walks across the TV and he's never gotten me back. There seemed to be something much more interesting going on but it turned into a moldy religious allegory, and one of a kind that smacks of major arrogance to me. To wit: Forget the thousands or even millions of dead people, including wife and mother. It's all part of the great plan for MEL and JOAQUIN. And God doesn't give them anything they can't handle. He just gives the wife and the other bodies something THEY can't handle. And then The Village. I haven't seen the last two.

People talk about Shyamalan reacting to bad press but Signs and The Village seem more like reactions to something more personal. I don't think the religion thing was new and Josh did a good job noting the constant theme of finding one's special purpose, but I think Shyamalan's problem isn't about storytelling as much as it's about his desire to go from artistic visionary to some sort of literal Biblical prophet. In which case being mocked probably seems like part of the script.

I'm curious, Jim, if there's another director whose career strikes similarities. Coppola?(not that Shyamalan ever got that high!) Cimino?...Ritchie?(not that he went ego-tripping-- more like he completely lost his ego and wanted to become part of the crowd.)

JE: If your movie is supposed to take place in a three-dimensional universe (and Godard's sometimes quite intentionally aren't -- intended as deconstructions of movie-frame space, not physical reality), and if you're trying to create suspense and a feeling of 3-D momentum (whether it's "TDK," "Slumdog Millionaire," "Lady in the Water," "Speed Racer"), then I think you have to give the viewer a sense of inhabiting that space. If not, it's just flat and static, no matter how many times you cut-cut-cut. I'm sure there have been many other directors who made a big splash relatively early in their careers and who then fell from favor for whatever reasons. None come to mind at this very moment for me, though...

Another key component of the movie is Shyamalan's use of colors. Green for the protagonist; purple for the antagonist. Notice in particular scene #2 in the above reel where the wall behind David is green.. and notice the purple in the room where his wife is, to denote their antagonism. Shyamalan made similar use of colors in THE SIXTH SENSE where the color red is exclusively used to denote the supernatural.

(Josh here.) Signs! I forgot about that one. Signs is totally about a guy who has lost his purpose and finds it again.

Personally, I think the Village is a flawed masterpiece--it works beautifully on an artistic level, but fails on a story level. I think that might be Shyamalan's biggest problem, really--he stopped telling certain stories (ghost story, superhero comic, parable) and started telling fairy tales. And even then, the issue is that he gets too literal about it--the Village has to contort itself into plot complexities in order to justify its fairy-tale scenes (girl meets wolf in forest), and Lady in the Water has its characters arguing over who fits the predetermined unexplained role... Haven't seen the Happening, yet, though.

Of course, the Village wasn't helped by being misleadingly marketed as a horror film, and the critical mass of "Shyamalan formula" expectation leading people to obsess about the obligatory twist ending. I find that people tend to like The Village much better if they give it a second viewing. The direction is fantastic, and a lot of the moment-to-moment writing is excellent. It's the plotting that screws up here.

I think you should do more doubling back to look at older films, Jim. It's just as informative as poking at the new stuff, if not more so, and it certainly feels better when you make your points with positive examples instead of negative ones.

Unbreakable is one of my top 10 movies. (Spoilers)

I found the "crime-fighting" sequence to be especially enthralling. The scene where his son points the gun at him might have been ridiculous out of context, but it really worked in the story. I was so sold on the story and characters that it felt like anything could happen, and he might actually shoot him. Great cinematography and use of color, too. Some good, subtle foreshadowing of the twists. I'm glad to see more insight into it. I'd like it if you'd focus more on praising wonderful, underrated movies like this.

I maintain that the Shyamalan who directed "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable" has an evil twin who is bent on ruining his reputation out of jealousy, and has been directing in his stead since The Village. They collaborated on Signs, though.

What I find most fascinating about M. Night's... decline?... is that although almost everybody agrees that it's happened, and almost everybody agrees that it had happened by Lady in the Water, there are huge differences in opinion over when it started. Some people will tell you The Village, others will say Signs, and plenty of people disliked the pacing of Unbreakable and will tell you The Sixth Sense was the only good one. But everybody agrees that was a good one!

I'm not sure I can think of any other filmmaker, certainly not one with such a small body of work, who has made films everybody agrees are excellent, films everybody agrees are terrible, and films whose evaluations are totally controversial. Can anyone?

/JE: "Unbreakable" also finds a clever way to integrate the good/evil, hero/villain yin-yang dynamic ("You complete me") that's essential to most superhero mythology.../

Why is it that the villains are always the one that need to be completed?

What makes this concept in "Unbreakable" slightly twisted is that you get the impression that Elijah's search for his diametric opposite is fueled by his passion for comics. Other films ("TDK", "Hancock", etc.) remain firmly rooted in the "comics universe" and try to integrate a sense of realism, but it's the other way around in "Unbreakable" - a real world is being invaded by comic mythology. Elijah wants to create this universe, which is something that is clearly off-putting for David. I think a film like "Hancock" extrapolates this idea, although it does so far more extravagantly.

Thanks, again, Jim for reminding me about "Unbreakable" - I might dust it off and watch it this weekend.

JE: "A real world is being invaded by comic mythology" -- Beautifully put! It's all filtered through David's (initially) depressed sensibility, but as he discovers who he is, he is integrated into the "real world...

If me quoting Bordwell has convinced you to rewatch Lady in the Water, let me give you a link to my own review of it to help simmer you down: http://www.flakmag.com/film/lady.html

Like you, it was the story problems that sunk Lady in the Water for me; not because it was silly (which isn't always terminal) but because I found it egregiously misconceived.

JE: Thanks. I'll read that before I do anything rash! I actually watched much of "The Happening" the other night and, while some things didn't bug me as much as I had remembered from my single theatrical viewing, a lot of it is just klutzy filmmaking -- so odd from a director who, as Bordwell notes, has previously been so precise and put so much thought into the compositions of his shots and the construction of sequences. (There are a few well-thought-out shots or passages, separated by sequences that are put together with bewildering amateurishness: the classroom scene; the parking lot "evacuation" outside the Filbert diner...) That was my main problem with "Lady in the Water" -- sure, the shaggy dog story was preposterous (it was based on a fable he improvised for his daughters at bedtime), but the big disappointment was how sloppy his filmmaking had become.

Great movie.

Kyu, not everyone agrees that The Sixth Sense is "excellent" or even "good." Sure, you might argue that there will be dissenting opinions for any given thing, but the critical consensus on The Sixth Sense was far less uniformly ecstatic than you seem to recall. On Metacritic, the score is only 64 (a weighted average from 35 reviews), and on Rotten Tomatoes, the percentage of positive reviews is 85% out of 123 reviews. These are hardly the numbers of a movie that "everyone agrees is excellent." The Sixth Sense was really just more popularly acclaimed than critically acclaimed.

To answer your question, though, yes there are plenty of directors whose individual bodies of work have managed to elicit the full spectrum of critical reactions. They are typically well-established auteurs with long filmographies. Several that immediately come to mind: Fellini, Francis Coppola, Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Eastwood, Spielberg, George Lucas, Ridley Scott. There are countless others.

To Dane Walker:

I just wanted to let you know that there were VERY little uses of 'rubber suit monsters' in "Signs" - just the hand in the basement, and the leg out in the fields. Almost every other shot of the aliens was that 'bad' CGI you mention. Which still stands up to me, after six years.

IM SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HAPPY you mentioned this movie ! I feel like it has been almost completley forgotten and everytime i watch it im left in complete awe.....this was shamylan at his peak filmaking level...

Also thought the pace of this movie was very reminiscent of "there will be blood" ...a film most percieve as slow moving as well...

I much like you loved both films....i just hope this movie can stand the test of time....its up to people like you jim...and roger to keep reminding people just how great a film it is...

...so happy ...

-morgan

Lady in the Water is unquestionably my favorite of M. Night's work, followed by Signs and Unbreakable. As a member of the audience, I speak (or understand) his language. Of course,I try to enjoy any movie. I enjoyed parts of The Happening but Mark Wahlberg didn't cut it for me as any kind of teacher, any kind of authority figure, yet his character (and the story) relies on his knowledge.

Unbreakable is one of the most beautifully shot/acted movies of recent years. Such a use of color and composition,and he gets effective, sympathetic performances from everybody in the cast.

i've always thought unbreakable was an underappreciated film. i generally do NOT like stories that are non-committal, stories that won't take a side and insist that "it's up to each person to decide whether A or B blah blah blah..." however, in this case, i love the idea that it's not 100% certain that david is a real superhero. there are many signs (no pun intended) that he is superhuman, but it's also possible that strange luck and coindidence are resonsible as well. normally, to that, i would say "booo director and/or writer for not picking a side and standing up for it!" in this case, it works, and it was fun too.

my favorite scene is when david is in the basement lifting weights and paint cans and anything else his son can tape to the weight bar. each time the boy adds weight, he also adds distance between him and his father because he's starting to gain respect while also losing his closeness to dear ol' dad.

Love this film. Always have.

In regards to the text at the end of the film, it never bothered me because a) it's a another tie in to the comic world (text over images - just like the opening), and b) it's all epilogue anyway. The climax of the film isn't what happens to David and Elijah after they discover their roles, but the moment of discovering their roles in the first place.

Which brings me to my second point: the "trilogy" is mostly smoke and mirrors. On the DVD special features, which contain video from pre-production to post-production, Shyamalan states quite clearly that he couldn't get the whole story to work, so he ditched the traditional 2nd and 3rd acts and decided to expand the 1st - the origin story. That such was much more interesting and fruitful. He never says anything about sequels because the stories there simply didn't compel him to get invested in them. The idea that this was some grandly planned trilogy of films is bogus. He may have some vague ideas of where he might go, but he only set out to make one film.

It was only several years later, when fans kept asking him about it, that Shyamalan made comments about perhaps doing a follow-up.

If we're going to talk about a director who, at the moment, is not likely to be flatteringly compared to Hitchcock for at least a couple more movies, have you seen Terry Teachout's article in the February Commentary called "The Trouble with Hitchcock"?

JE: No, but I'm curious. The online "Abstract" just recounts Hitchcock's (and "Vertigo"'s) ranking in well-known critical polls. You have to be a subscriber to access the whole article. The blurb in the TOC says, cryptically: "His visual acuity was both his glory and his failing." Don't know where that could lead...

Meanwhile, all I can think of is Woody Allen's line from "Annie Hall" in 1977: "I thought Commentary and Dissent had merged and formed Dysentery."

I saw "Unbreakable" on its opening weekend with a friend and while the friend wasn't impressed it was probably the first film I'd seen in which I'd consciously noticed the visual style. As good as the story and performances were (it reminded me of "Don Quixote", Willis has never been better, and Jackson proves how good he can be given good material) it was the elaborate visual style of having everything from odd angles, long takes, or glass reflections that drew me in. I'm glad I'm not the only person who was impressed by "Unbreakable".

Wow, Jim just wow. This is the last film I would have expected you to defend. 'Unbearable' has always been my joke title for this film and I never bothered with M. Night again after seeing it. Unfortunately, it's been too long since I've seen it to offer a detailed critique of the film and I probably won't watch it again because I made a contract with myself that I wouldn't suffer through it again. But even though I don't really have anything of substance to contribute to this discussion, I still wanted to share my feeling of disbelief.

About that Teachout article. It can be accessed via the General Reference Magazine Index database. Your library may have that database (mine does). Or I could conceivably email it to you (if there aren't any copyright problems in doing so.)

"JE: OK, now I'm really intrigued, Given that DB feels the same way I do about the choppedy-chop-chop technique in "TDK" and other films, this has got me wanting to see "Lady in the Water" again -- something I would have thought impossible. At this point, all I can remember is how the staging of the climactic pool scene made no sense to me: I couldn't tell where anyone was in relationship to anyone else, and it was important to the dynamics of the scene that you be able to do that."

Jim, I'm a film director and I'd like to think that I know what I'm talking about and let me tell you, Bordwell is exactly right about "Lady In The Water." It's one of the most authoritatively directed movies ever made. You should *definitely* give it another chance. There are a number of movies that I haven't liked upon first viewing, but I happen to watch them again and I think "What was I smoking the first time around?" We're all arrogant creatures, but you know, sometimes the problem with a movie lies in *us* not the movie, and if we just have enough humility to watch it again with an open mind, we will be given a wonderful experience. "Lady In The Water" is an absorbing emotional and directorial feat and I honestly hope that you give it another chance.

P.S. I don't know what happened to you during that pool scene--maybe you zoned out for a moment--but I wasn't confused as to spacing in that scene. When that scene comes up the next time around, don't fall asleep :)

I have spent quite a while thinking I was the only person in the world who enjoyed "Unbreakable". (I commented on it in this space during an earlier conversation on "realism" in superhero movies.) Being a diletant, I may have little right to my opinion ;-) but thanks for making me feel a little less lonely.

Now if I could only find someone else who enjoyed Alien3...

"What about the ending? After the revelation we get...lines of text saying what happpened. I thought that was really weak. I did enjoy most of the movie, but going out on that note just about ruined it for me."

I agree with above post about the closing lines of text. I really enjoy the film (my favorite of his films)but the text telling me what happens next lets the air out of the movie for me. I always wish it ends with Super Hero and Super Villian revealed to one another and the rest is left to our imaginations...

JE: I confess that for me it did pretty much end as you describe. I don't remember anything that closing text said, probably because to me it was irrelevant, so I just viewed it as the beginning of the end credits!

Thanks for this, Jim. I initially watched Unbreakable with a certain degree of judgmental hesitation. I had enjoyed The Sixth Sense, but because I had seen it after its first run, I was already aware of its twist ending. I went into Unbreakable having been told that the same sort of thing happened with it, and this anticipation almost ruined the movie for me.

I didn't see another Shyamalan movie until The Village, which I didn't watch until the end of last year. Because of this delay, I already knew the general rundown and pretty much all of the details of the plot. And I actually enjoyed the movie!

I think it's great that you're helping refocus our attention here. The "twists" in each of Shyamalan's films are fairly interesting, true, but they're ultimately nothing but a momentary thrill. I agree with you that the real interest in Shyamalan's films lies in his knack for composition and his faithfullness to the conventions he sets for himself in each movie - especially insofar as he uses these for storytelling purposes. It seems to me that the various commentators who criticize Shyamalan for his reliance on twists are missing the point of his work entirely - it would be like faulting Hitchcock for his "reliance" on the MacGuffin.

As an example, and this is a SPOILER, look at the way the world outside of the village is revealed in that movie. Shyamalan's choice of the blind girl to reveal the deception of the village elders is very deliberate. Not only does her blindness allow Shyamalan to put us in empathy with her at the moment of her first encounter with the outside world, but it also allows him to maintain the sense of strangeness and separation to allow his narrative to play out credibly. He uses the girl's blindness to create so many other interesting moments, as well: the terror of the charging creatures, the small delights and frightening foreshadowing of splashes of colors, and on and on.

It's the way the characters behave that's interesting, not just the twists that permit these worlds to be set up as they are.

So, thanks again, Jim. I'm definitely going to have to rewatch Unbreakable and the two most recent Shyamalan pictures, too.

Great snaps of the movie. The cinematography is awesome. Unfortunately the ending is absolutely stupid.

Thank you for writing about MNS's best film (by far)...Hopefully this will get people who didn't like the movie on their first viewing to watch the film again and give it another chance. It is an absolutely wonderful and riveting film..
I also think 'The Village' (MNS's next best film IMHO) deserves another chance but that is a subject for another day.....Kev

I know I'm way late in the game here, but I just thought I'd drop a line.

"Unbreakable" is a movie that managed to slip me by because I'd stayed up all night (to work on a paper, I think), and then my friend wanted to watch it with me. I fell asleep within 15 minuets. I never returned to it because none of M. Night's other movies made me think it would be worth my time.

So, after you wrote this article I put a hold on it at my library, and finally got the chance to look at it tonight. The plain fact is that your right, and I'm dumbfounded. What is so striking about it is that you could point to almost any scene at random as an example of inventive or daring filmmaking.

Many scenes have already been mentioned, but I don't think the date scene has been talked about here (though I confess I've not read every comment). One single shot that starts out so far back from David and Audry that they're almost just a piece of the scenery. Gradually as the camera pushes slowly closer to them, their conversation becomes more and more personal. By the time we are very close to them it's apparent that this date can't be the fantasy that they may have wished. Audry especially is not willing to keep up the facade of a first date.

It's simple and unobtrusive.