August 02, 2004

• I liked it. Didn't like Sixth Sense that much. Didn't see that other one. I was pretty irritated at the fake-o dialogue until I realized it was set in contemporary time with people faking old-timeyness like they imagined it might have been without bothering to research it. Also pissed me off that they wouldn't shut up about Them As We Shut Up About. I also liked all the whooshes and whumps. And that the red critters looked so fakey, once I figured out they were fakey. I'm glad I didn't know that whatshisface makes cameos, also glad I didn't know anything about the movie ahead of time. I imagine if you're running a village like that it'd be easier to pick a date in history and just not mention anything that happened after that time. So you have a minimum of stuff to make up. And about the costumes being in different places: if you need to get your costume, and there are a bunch of people in your house, you can't go digging up the floorboards, but you can maybe slink off towards a little building away from the lights. Also makes the entry from the woods easier, I bet.
• I admire your forethought, but seriously, you are a Shaylaman geek if you put that much into it before you saw it. I saw 6th Sense, but not Signs, nor Unbreakable. The Village was the best film I'd seen in a long time. The **"TWIST"** gets too much attention. Clever plot devices are neat. But good characterization, well-written dialogue, careful craft, and originality are better. I think it's unfair to call The Village a "plot twist" movie given all its other merits. Why bother faking the date? The children born in the Villiage wouldn't know 2004 from 8712 A good question in many regards. Why not just create a wholly artifical environment in which to carry out the utopia? The answer is in the stage settings. There were bookshelves full of literature in that movie. And while it might be feasible to recreate an 1800s village's buildings and toos, it wouldn't be practicable to write an entire canon of literature to populate the bookshelves, nor to write a phony history to answer all possible questions. For consistency's sake as well as completeness' sake, it's much easier to simply recreate a historical moment, and render it accurately. Pick one you like, as it were, and stick to it. Any inconsistencies will show. I liked the film fine without the twist and thought that, while adding to the meaning, was too predictable I kind of agree with you here. I also predicted it, but only by about 5 minutes. It was a good ending, though, and well carried off. If the film had ended with the guard's jeep driving up to the bling girl, that would have been a gimmick, but the way the characters dealt with that incredibly awkward situation was interesting, and kept my interest going well past the TWIST. All in all, everybody needs to stop jacking off about the twist. There was a lot more to the film than just that, though in itself it was well executed.
• that's "blind girl" :)
• Bling! Bling-bling! *jacks off* I'm also happy I didn't even know there was going to be a twist. Made it enjoyable. Also his yummy camera, good for my tummy.
• I liked it, but here's my question: Were all of the elders supposed to have been in the original counseling group? Because if the elders had only consisted of the people in the photos, they would have to have boffed like bunnies to make...well...the village. Clearly, there must have been some inbreeding...hence Adrien Brody, although I suspect that Adrien Brody would had to have been born in the "outside".
• I liked it fine and didn't guess the ending, but then I didn't read or hear much about this going into it. Considering how perceptive her character is at sensing who people are, and her anger at his stabbing her betrothed, I wondered if Ivy (blind girl) knew it was Noah (idiot boy) in the woods. The look of Those We Don't Speak Of (TWDSO) made me think of the rats of NIMH. If you are playing the allegory game at home and TWDSO=WMD, who be Rumsfeld and who be Powell? Maybe the movie lacks the kind of richness in symbols and developed characters that might make up an extended allegorical interpretation of current events. Or maybe I lack imagination.
• The look of Those We Don't Speak Of (TWDSO) made me think of the rats of NIMH. I thought of the Skeksis.
• Skeksis Me too me too! ps your names sounds totally Skeksy, xerxexrex
• I had the same reasoning for the faked dates as scarabic. Also, I seem to recall that Elder Walker (William Hurt), who started the whole thing, was a professor of (American?) history or somesuch. He probably had some romanticism towards those "simpler times". As for the costumes, I figured different elders hid theirs in their own hiding places. The shed was Walker's hiding place, under the floorboards was someone else's. These and other questions I didn't think of until after I left the movie, and one can think of possible answers, so I think the movie was successful for the most part. The advertising hyped it up a bit much and set up people's expectations, though. I expected an interesting and original story, and I got it, plus good acting, cinematography, and sound design. The twist I enjoyed and predicted, too, though the movie had me second-guessing a couple times whether there were real monsters or not. /skekXerxexrex
• Skeksy btw, great adjective. I'll be using it at every opportunity for a while.
• What I want to know is how they got the no-flyover thing for the whole freaking national park?
• and sound design Thank you thank you thank you. /personalobsessionfilter
• What I want to know is how they got the no-flyover thing for the whole freaking national park? Since it's called Walker Wildlife Preserve, I imagine Elder Walker used his inheritance of, say, billions to arrange it. In fact I don't think it's actually a wildlife preserve at all, but instead a huge ruse set up by Walker--a village preserve, if you will. The guards didn't even really know what they were guarding and were only instructed to keep people out, don't ask questions, etc. Also, for a wildlife preserve, I didn't see all that much wildlife.
• I didn't see all that much wildlife True...
• First off, I loved it. I thought it was a very creative story and that they sewed up most of the loose ends, which is hard to do in a twilight zoner sort of story like this. I saw it with a theater full of high school/college kids, mostly couples. I heard mixed reactions after the movie. I think that the biggest problem the movie has is what sort of a movie is is as opposed to what the marketing leads you to think it is. People that are most disappointed seem to think that it was going to be a total scare/horror movie, when it is much more of a psychological thriller/thinking person's movie. I greatly prefer the latter, so was pleasantly surprised. Regarding the village's population, I think that the Phoenix character is the only one that was born on the outside. Children aren't going to remember much stuff when they are very small. So I think you have to assume that there was some time in the beginning when people were being added to the village (friends & others who were fed up with the world). They would not have had to completely cut off all contact with the outside world on Day One. Yes, there are some holes if you look too closely. Where was all of the industry (even if it would be Amish industry) that one would need to support the continued growth of a village? Where do the boards come from for new buildings without a sawmill, etc? But overall, I think the questions/issues the film raises are the most interesting. If you could pick an ideal time to live, when would it be? Why is sorrow/tragedy an unescapable part of our existence, even in a created utopia? I'm sure there are many others.
• I had hoped that the denouement would NOT have been such, though early script treatments that found their way to the web (back when it was still called "The Woods") revealed the rather obvious plot 'twist.' It is an old, OLD idea (not for nothing did someone mention Chainsaw a little bit earlier, and even more recently such movies as Cabin Fever). This is a Twilight Zone episode writ large (well, largish), and after 6th Sense - what's main strength was to take the ancient Ghost Story and turn it on it's head - this is disappointing. I may catch it on cable. Why, for those who have seen it, the mutilated animals? A test for the Villagers?
• If you could pick an ideal time to live, when would it be? Now! The past was never as idyllic as one imagines it to be. Most of the past was dirty, plague-ridden, and violent. And no utopia stays one for long, for human nature in all its perversities cannot, in the end, be denied.
• Where do the boards come from for new buildings without a sawmill, etc? How about the wheat for their bread? The iron for new stoves? These things, they bothered me. Overheard afterwards: "The twist just didn't seem so, well... twisty." I advise Mr M. N. S. to start doing straight-ahead romantic comedy so people will stop waiting for the old "Shyamalan Twist" in every freaking movie.
• I feel that it was a terrible movie. There are many reasons for this, and I have time for only a little at the moment. For starters, that was the worst "blind" character that I have ever seen in a movie. Yes, we understand that she could see some people's colors. I have no problem with that. But this is a girl who sprinted through a field in a race. Ever try running with your eyes closed? When she was hiding from the monster in the woods, she actually turned to look back at it. If one thinks that she could see Noah's color, she sure as hell did not when he was hiding from her in the closet. Let's not forget to mention that after nearly dying by falling into a deep pit, she freely jumped off of a ten foot wall having absolutely no idea what was at the bottom. Her blindness was used as a convenience by Night. When it was useful to bump into things or be lost, she would be. When it was useful to have magic radar, she did. Noah was the same. This guy had some obvious intelligence issues. However, upon discovering the suit in the floor, he realized that he could fake being the monster, he figured out how to escape detection at a time when the borders must have been watched with unprecedented vigilance, and he pursued someone in the woods having no idea where she was. That was a complicated plan that was somewhat difficult to pull off. Of course, he also disguised himself to attack a blind person. But that was for the viewer, not the characters. And that is the last problem that I will mention. Much of the dialogue and some of the scenes are there for the viewer and not the characters. The dates on the tombstones. The discussion between William Hurt and the Doctor (why not just say, "can he be saved with modern medicine?"). Sigourney Weaver blaming coyotes for the skinning of the animals. Most of the discussions involving the elders. I believe there are more. These things are done to bait the audience for the twist. They are not done to further the story, and they are not consistent with what characters' actions and words would be. The movie had an interesting premise and raised some interesting questions (How much will we give up to feel safe? Are we really safe if we have to place people in mortal fear to make them safe? The execution was awful. I would tell Night to re-write the movie without a twist, a blind person, or a village idiot. I believe it could be a very good movie.
• bernockle -- I assumed that Ivy knew that Noah was in the closet and was just letting him think he had the best of her (which would be in character). I also think that we were to assume that Noah had been the one mutilating the animals. However, I totally agree that there was a lot in the film that was there for the audience, not the logic of the world. I will watch his next film, I just won't pay to see it.
• Don't think she ever said she could see Noah's color. Otherwise, I wondered about a lot of the things bernockle did. Except my disbelief suspenders managed not to snap, I just wondered.
• I didn't see it and I just ruined any possible enjoyment of the twist! Oh well, I had no plans to see it anyway. I think everything he's done since 6th sense sucks. Signs was a heap o' steaming crap and unbreakable was a neat idea poorly executed. I must say, I loved the 6th sense. What happened?
• I saw it, and honestly, I didn't know what to expect... it was brilliant in the sense that it managed to scare the crap out of everyone without the use of special effects...he works with expectation, and I think expectation is a lot more fearsome than visual gore...at least in my case anyway. The other thing that I think is noteworthy, it's his approach to movie making. It's almost cynical. It's almost like he leaves all those lose ends on purpose, just to make sure that the viewer is constantly trying to put it together. And he simply doesn't deliver on that promise. So yeah, you can bash him, but you're still thinking about him much after you've seen ANY of his movies...luck that I'm afraid, many other movies will not have. Also, more importantly are the characters, and their role on the plot: I mean, did you notice that they sent Ivy, the blind girl, to the real world?! SHE WOULDN'T SEE IT!! she wouldn't talk about the car and whatever, cuz, well, she didn't see it! "Walker" national park? WOW! that is sooo sick! they bought off this entire land just that they could raise their children in THEIR idilic world? And what's even MORE amazing, is the lengths to which they were willing to go to prevent the woods from being breached (from sound effects, to fucking with an entire generation'm mind, to costumes, to skinnings)...these are a group of pretty messed up ppl. Finally, i'd like to say, that this film is very much like "The Matrix" in it's social commentary...in my opinion of course. I liked it, and would see it again, if it wasn't for the fact that that pig-rat-hugely-clawed thing makes me fucking squirm.
• Yes, William Hurt's character inexplicably sent a blind girl when he could have gone himself. He would have had no trouble finding his way, and there would have been less of a risk that their secret would get out because he already knew it in the first place. Just another ridiculous plot point.
• Well, I haven't seen it yet, but I read this thread because I hated Signs SO MUCH that I never want to waste that much of my life with his stuff again if it's on that level. I loved Sixth Sense, and Unbreakable was good too -- but Signs made me want to retch in his face. AUUGH! What a bad movie. I guess there's no point in my seeing this one, either now..
• William Hurt's character inexplicably sent a blind girl when he could have gone himself Except that by sending Ivy he gets more bang for his buck. He can use her to feed his contrived mythology much better than if it were himself going. "Only those of pure heart on a dire mission for their true love will be suffered to pass..." or even "Only Ivy is suffered to pass, because she cannot see the monsters" (which I think one character mentioned rather hopefully). Regardless, good points all, bernockle. I had some of the same questions in my mind, too, even during the movie. For example, the Ivy running in the footrace thing. That bothered me for a second as I watched it until I thought, "well, maybe she's lived there so long that she knows roughly the number of running strides to get to the rock." Or maybe she was homing in on Lucius' aura. It still doesn't address how she can run so freely without being able to see, but I guess it was enough to keep the suspenders from breaking, to use PF's words. After the fact, it is a tough one to deal with. Anyway, I could contrive explanations of varying degrees of believability to address many such problems, but even if I did it wouldn't really rebut your points, which I basically agree with. I also enjoyed the movie. Go figure. Maybe it'll be one of those that for me is enjoyable only the first time--before I start thinking about it. On preview: Yeah, if you didn't like Signs there's a very good chance you won't like this one.
• Yes, William Hurt's character inexplicably sent a blind girl when he could have gone himself. He would have had no trouble finding his way, and there would have been less of a risk that their secret would get out because he already knew it in the first place. Just another ridiculous plot point. Kind of a good point, but not really. It's made very clear that he made a pledge, along with all the elders. The kids have the threat of the creatures to keep them inside. The adults have only the pledge. I'm sure there were many times they would have wanted to dash out for a nice chocolate bar or a six-pack of beer, but to keep the group solidarity thing together, it was necessary for them to pledge solemnly never to leave, and as their leader, he has to set the example. Plain and simple. However, when it came to preventing someone else from leaving, someone who hadn't taken that pledge, he didn't feel he had the right to stop her. They all retreated into the preserve to escape the crimes that had destroyed their former lives. He didn't feel he could stop someone from going *out* to save the life of a loved one who was the victim of a crime. I think it's a totally sound plot point. You can throw darts at it, sure, but it completely holds together. As for the bling girl being able to run, blind people make many adjustments to their condition. I think it's a little narrow minded to ask 'can you imagine how hard it would be to run with your eyes closed?' She's adept with her cane, she knows the valley incredibly well, and in several scenes you could see her counting steps between one place and another. I don't think it's implausible that she'd be able to run a footrace to the treestump (or whatever it was). In addition to the compensatory measures all blind people learn to make, she's also just an incredibly smart and resourceful character. If she performs extraoridnary things for a blind person, that's because she's smart and driven. It was a movie, yes. But I didn't have any problem with her blindness. And Noah was crazy, not dumb. There's no issue of how he could be intelligent enough to steal the suit, etc. He clearly had higher functions operating. He was in love with Ivy and he stabbed Lucius for revenge. Not stupid. Just a bit nuts.
• Oh, and the airplane thing was addressed. The security guard played by Shalaman says something about a rumor cocerning government payoffs to re-route air-traffic. Possibly not believeable enough for some folks. But definitely addressed.
• Actually I think it's quite possible that Noah knows the truth about the creatures right from the start of the film. He takes a cavalier attitude toward their cries fromt he forest, and actually seems pleased that "they're coming" during the invasion. Perhaps he discovered the secret and was sworn to keep his mouth shut. Perhaps the truth about the outside world drove him a little over the edge. Perhaps he was even recruited by the elders to help maintain the illusion of the creatures. We know there were secret paths in and out of the village, because the elders would have had to go in and out of the woods to simulate the sounds, etc. So I guess that either Noah just stumbled onto one of these and used it to wander afield, or he stumbled upon the secret itself, and was recruited to perpetuate it. Perhaps he had a naturally-occuring condition, or perhaps it was exacerbated by learning the bizarre truth and having to keep such a big secret.
• the airplane thing was addressed Actually, if it hadn't been addressed, it wouldn't have occurred to me to ask about it. What kind of pull must they have had to arrange that? - was kind of what I was thinking.
• I advise Mr M. N. S. to start doing straight-ahead romantic comedy so people will stop waiting for the old "Shyamalan Twist" in every freaking movie. That's not bad advice. The early morning porch banter scene between Ivy and Lucius made me think that Mr. M. N. S. probably could write a good romantic comedy.
• What kind of pull must they have had to arrange that? I thought about that for a minute too, but perhaps that was one of the criteria by which they chose the site for the village. Choosing an out-of-the-way spot with perhaps only a single airline route over it, combined with some potent lobbying, could easily dispense with the problem. Rather than advising MNS to start making other kinds of films, I'd suggest that audiences stop expecting nothing more than a BIG FAT PLOT TWIST and that reviewers find something else to talk about besides a BIG FAT PLOT TWIST. I guarantee that will enhance everyone's enjoyment of his next film.
• Hear, hear! Plus, troubles are compounded when reviewers themselves do not or cannot account for their own expectations or are unaware of them altogether. This is true for any movie, not just this one. I, for one, stay away from reviews until after I see the movie. I also try to ignore trailers best I can, as most grossly misrepresent what the movie's about (e.g. Hero).
• I have no intention of seeing this movie, which has gotten terrible reviews: "hands down the year’s worst film," "Let not the bad movie be seen. It encourages them... Stay out of the theaters, for this is where the movie waits... Heed the exit signs. For that is the way out.," and my absolute favorite, Roger Ebert's, which ends: "Eventually the secret of Those, etc., is revealed. To call it an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes. It's a crummy secret, about one step up the ladder of narrative originality from It Was All a Dream. It's so witless, in fact, that when we do discover the secret, we want to rewind the film so we don't know the secret anymore. "And then keep on rewinding, and rewinding, until we're back at the beginning, and can get up from our seats and walk backward out of the theater and go down the up escalator and watch the money spring from the cash register into our pockets."
• scarabic -- I believe that William Hurt's pledge would have involved not telling anyone about the secret, too. Or showing them the secret. Or assisting them with going out into the woods. He did all of those things. You did not address the blind leap off of the ten foot wall shortly after almost dying by falling into a pit. While I can certainly respect your opinion regarding her running, I believe that an activity like that is completely unrelated to intelligence. Counting steps and remembering the location of objects are more consistent with memory and thinking than running blindly over non-flat terrain. You make interesting points about Noah. Perhaps he knew more about what was going on. And that initially makes me think that makes it all a bit more interesting. However, I ask again why he disguises himself to attack a blind person. And how was he able to make non-human grunting noises when he was pursuing her?
• The scene involving the ranger or whatever he was existed solely for the audience. Assume that the ranger at the station has no idea what goes on behind the wall: He has just heard that someone has jumped over the wall who claims to live back there. He is being paid good money to do one thing. He is to make sure that no one goes over that wall. It would be a pretty big deal that someone had just hopped over it and wanted to hop back. He might want to look up from his paper. After all, it is the ONE thing that he has been hired to do. And now he actually has a chance to do it. Now assume that he does know what is going on behind the wall (someone does, after all). He should be doing everything he can to get the other ranger out of the picture. He should handle it himself. He should be desperately concerned about what is going on. However, like I said, I believe this scene exists for the audience and the audience only.
• Yeah well I just skim-read this thread and I only picked up that there's this film about a VILLAGE with some mysterious PEOPLE in it. So - is one a cop with a handle bar moustache? 'Cause I really fucking hate disco.
• *handles bar*
• Also from Ebert's review: "Here is a village that desperately needs an East Village."
• bernockle - It's clear that Noah is, for the most part, a gentle person. Skinning little woodland animals for the village's children to find seems out of character, but it's only when he wears the suit that he does these things. Perhaps he receives some sense of empowerment by wearing the suit, and that's why he has to wear it when he attacks Ivy, the woman he loved.
• I feel a similar sense of empowerment when I wear a suit. Mine is pinstripe rather than wolf, however. And the only animals I skin are the foetid corpses of my desicated competitors. Bwahahahahahahahaha!
• I hadn't paid much attention to the film's furniture, but someone else did.

  It isn't clear whether the families who populate The Village are members of a religious or political sect, although from their furniture they appear to be more like Shakers than Harmonists or Amish.

• stepself -- He did not have the suit on when he stabbed the Pheonix character. And I would rank that as the worst thing he does in the movie. In fact, he seemed to prefer a more intelligent, sneak-attack method.
• bernockle - Noah never had any emotional ties to Lucius in any way, I don't think. That Lucius should know that it was Noah stabbing him wouldn't make any difference then. But with Ivy... Noah loved her. Maybe he wore the creature suit not for Ivy's sake, but for his own. So that it could be the creature that killed her, and not himself. I don't know if that makes any sense. If it does, huzzah!
• ha! I have seen the movie (silly delayed opening in the UK - one benefit is a slightly toned down ad campaign though). And now I have Read the Thread. My biggest problem (besting my concern about where all the non-elders came from)is the long-term strategy. I was thinking about what kind of legal precautions Walker would have had to take and I don't see how he could ensure sufficient isolation without a a whole raft of people on the 'outside' knowing. The 'twist' was (I think) fairly clear from relatively early on, but I was still engrossed beyond it, which is more than I can say for Signs. The tip off for me was that women were being treated equally on the Elder council-thingy. As to rom-coms, MNS is doing Life of Pi next, so we can see if he can do things that he hasn't written himself, without Shocking! Twists! I really liked Lucius & Ivy's porch scenes.