Speaking of framing...

That hospital tracking shot is still one of my favourites ever, certainly one of the best of the 00's. It's a shame that Shyamalan uses a dissolve before we get to a clean single on Willis' face, which I always found a bit anti-climactic.

I was really suprised that anyone (let alone you) would defend Unbreakable but this montage has given me some insight into what appeals to you. There is indeed a lot of craft here although in my experience, it didn't serve the movie well. The long takes and overall slow pace of the film gave me ample opportunity to question the story.

I'm supposed to believe that this character only becomes aware of his invulnerability at middle age and has to call his mom and ask her if he was ever hurt as a child? I'm supposed to believe that his mom actually has to think about it? I mean think of all the minor scrapes and bruises one encounters throught childhood, not to mention broken bones and childhood illnesses. I'm seriously supposed to believe that this incredibly odd phenomenom was never discussed until now?

I can only assume that since you found the visual language of the film intelectualy stimulating that these questions didn't linger in your mind the way they did mine. Because of your appreciation for its visual language, the film that felt 'stupid' to me actually felt 'smart' to you. At least this montage gave me a chance to actually 'see' what you 'see' in it.

I have to admit that Unbreakable is hardly the first film constructed on a premise that strains credibility. I have forgiven many films that have even more absurd premises than this one. Ultimately, the difference is that those films generally didn't linger on the premise the way Unbreakable does. Shyamalan's film is basically all premise (he himself described it as a three act story where only the first act made it to the screen). Lingering so long on something I just didn't buy made my experience of the film unbearable (pun intended).

This really helps put the framing issue in perspective for me. I really loved this movie and every time I catch in on cable I still get sucked in. I never referred to it as "framing" but always appreciated the way the shots were set up in this movie, particularly the hospital scene with the body in the foreground. I assumed that the shots were inspired by the way that comic books frame their scenes, since they are doing so much with static pictures. But I guess comic books probably get a lot of their framing language from movies, but it could be vice versa as well with the current crop of directors growing up reading comics.

I believe there is a dissolve edit early in The Shining that is similar in tone and pace to the cut in that first clip, with trailing voice-over even. I've always thought the opening sequence to Unbreakable is incredibly effective in a movie that slowly falls apart as it goes along. You can hammer the convoluted aspects of the story for paragraphs. Add to the list that he wouldn't realize he has super strength or Spidey senses until Mr Glass points it out, this being a guy who spent years playing football competitively. Or that Mr Glass's three events designed to ferret him out even work at all. The story is full of logic gaps like these, but Shyamalan absolves himself of it by pinning all of it on "comic book" logic, which is a really cheap out.

But all of Shyamalan's films have been somewhat contrived. I've always felt that Shyamalan is a director who begins each film with three or four sequences well worked out in his head, then fills in all the narrative gaps to make those sequences happen. The individual sequences are always impressive, but the films suffer as a result. I also think Brian DePalma is guilty of the same lapses. He's just a far more talented and resourceful director than Shyamalan.

Love the video essays, Jim. Thanks for reconstituting them for us.

Wow! That's terrific commentary. How have you attained such a high formal consciousness in viewing films? Do you think that you have proclivities as a viewer more concerned about formal aspects of the medium (rather than the narrative---something which is, of course, tied to the form) that others lack because they let the cinema happen to them without trying to be cognizant of the visual rhetoric? What is it in your film viewing practice--which is obviously disciplinary, but at the same time extracurricular, it seems--that allows for a more perceptive and cogent read of the film?

God, Jim, this is inspiring stuff. Sorry if I come off as obsequious but as an aspiring film critic, seeing what you have done with Shamalyan's masterpiece, with only terse (or, more appropriately, succinct) subtitled commentary, is enough to make me envious to a great degree. Reason being: I never read that much into the film but your commentary alone--even with it being so simple--is enough to reveal to me the film's hidden gems and genius. I had no clue the film was so clever. I'm going to have to go and watch "The Village" now to see if it's just as spectacular... Any way, if you could please get back with me apropos of any tips for critically viewing the cinema, well, that would be hugely appreciated.

Thanks,

Cory

"I'm supposed to believe that this character only becomes aware of his invulnerability at middle age and has to call his mom and ask her if he was ever hurt as a child? I'm supposed to believe that his mom actually has to think about it? I mean think of all the minor scrapes and bruises one encounters throught childhood, not to mention broken bones and childhood illnesses. I'm seriously supposed to believe that this incredibly odd phenomenom was never discussed until now?"

Well, no actually. The character has been repressing his knowledge of what he is. There are lots of little moments when he's teasing out the truth where is seems like he's kinda known something was up but he wasn't able to admit it to himself. . .

because the whole thing sounds absurd. Would it be REASONABLE to think, "hey, I'm a pretty tough dude, maybe I'm a superhero?" or would it be reasonable to think "I think I something's different about me, but that's really crazy so I'll hide it."

Remember the flashback where he picks up the car and then fakes an injury? He's been hiding what he can do for most of his life. One of the nice things about really carefully made films like this one is that there are lots of superduper thought out little character bits that wind there way through the film. There are plenty of criticisms you can make about M. Night Shamalan's films, but they aren't sloppy. Crazy sometimes, but he's thought of all the angles.

Certainly it's not a plausible story, but that's kinda the beside the point. Within the world of fate and superpowers that the film establishes, it's totally consistent and it totally plays by the rules. I think M. Night has gone a little off the rails lately, but "Unbreakable" and "The Sixth Sense" are pretty great. The religious message of "Signs" bugged me, but it was full of powerful storytelling and had a few really great scenes. The guy know how to tell a story visually, and he knows how to construct a film. He seems to have grown into a weird megalomaniac, but hopefully he'll come back to us.

Concerns about the plausibility of the character reactions in Unbreakable miss the point. It is not a realistic movie. It is the prototypical super hero origin myth story translated into our prosaic, non-mythologized world. It’s Batman Begins directed by Ken Loach. (Okay, not really, but that’s the general idea.)

I think Signs is a similarly misunderstood film. Someone above said the religious symbolism bugged him. I don’t think the movie is about religion in any conventional sense. It is about doubt and finally about doubting doubt. Gibson’s character is clearly in great pain. He has built a life on religious faith, but the death of his wife has shattered that. Not even her death, precisely. It’s the lack of meaning at her death, the randomness of it, and her apparently gibberish. At the end, the gibberish “seems” to have made sense, but it’s not really over the top. They are more like the coincidences that rock the narrator of Graham Greene’s End of the Affair. They are just enough to persuade Gibson’s character that maybe his faith has a foundation.

I believe he has made three great films in Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs. I believe they succeed on their own terms. (Signs in particular gets derided by the hard core Sci-Fi audience, which persists in the mistaken believe that it is actually about aliens.) He has stumbled since then, of course. I think the Village might have worked if it was more deliberately schlocky, like a Creepy comic. I think Lady in the Water wanted to be a children’s fable but did not go far enough. (Never saw The Happening.) But I fully expect a return to form and more mature work from him at some point.