ivyfic | Beautifully Executed Garbage (Reply)

The Village was beautiful, as are all of Shyamalan's films, but the plot is completely moronic. I will not analyze why the plot doesn't work, I will only say that all the justifications for the way things are in the village are based on the film-making, not the characters. Why is red the bad color? So the Shyamalan can play around with color schemes. Why do they think it's 1897? Because he's hoodwinking the audience. Why do they have so many damn lamps with no way to get kerosene? So we have moody evening shots. Why do the children know about guns and money? Well, we'll ignore that.

A few other nitpicks. No fair giving Joaquin less than a page of dialogue and then stabbing him (though that was a beautiful scene - my favorite of the movie). I came to the movie for three things: James Newton Howard (pretty good), M. Night Shyamalan (somebody take his pen away, please) and Joaquin Phoenix. No fair putting the eye-candy in a coma.

I get that Shyamalan is being all Hitchcock-y with the cameos, but his appearance has the effect of a small atomic bomb going off in the film. He's much too damn obvious. He completely throws me out of the story. Hitchcock at least had the sense to be in the background and in the beginning, and he never gave himself lines. In "Signs," when one of the characters points to him and says, "Is that him?" I thought, yeah, that's the director, why is he on camera?

*Slash-notice* When Noah went to see Lucius (Joaquin) and was upset, I thought for a moment it was because he was in love with Lucious, not Ivy. Tell me that wasn't a gay look. Until he pulled six inches of steel out of Joaquin's stomach of course (which I also thought was gay until I saw what his hand was doing down there).

I get the point of this movie. I really do. By running from your fear, you create what you fear. That's why Noah has to be the murderer. He is the epitome of innocence in this village and therefore has to be the vessel for the evil they sought to escape. But this would have been more effective if the film hadn't undermined it. I mean, isn't raising your children in absolute mortal terror kind of bad? Ivy comments that Lucious is the only one unafraid. That means everyone else (who isn't in on it) is scared all the time. That's not exactly preserving innocence.

I still think Shyamalan is fantastic film-maker, but I think he needs to reexamine his formula. The trick ending in "Sixth Sense" was completely pivotal to the movie. It redefined and justified everything. When I first saw it, I was amazed at the sheer artistry - the film told us everything and nothing at the same time. "Unbreakable," since it was about the blurring of fiction and reality, also needed its surprise ending, though many disagree. If I did find the aliens in "Signs" disappointing, at least there was a satisfying click as all the pieces fell into place. Here also the trick ending underlines the central conflict of the movie - faith that there is a plan for our lives.

This? This was crap. Not only did I know it was modern times outside from the start (think about it, what other "surprise" could there be when someone goes outside?) I felt no sense that some great mystery had been revealed to me. And choosing to stay in the Village? That didn't make any sense to me. Especially with Joaquin's heavy breathing over the final moments of the film. Shyamalan should have been satisfied at revealing Noah as the monster. This was the surprise that redefined the film, but he undercut this by showing him attacking Joaquin. I knew it was Noah at the end, it had to be. All in all, the end made the rest of the film non-sensical, when it should make the rest of the film work. As I said before, someone take the pen away from Shyamalan. He needs to try a hand at directing someone else's work.

The Village may have been a disappointment, but I got my seven bucks worth when I saw the Batman trailer. Oh, baby.