User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 38

  1. #1
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default "Signs" & other works by M. Night Shyamalan

    I try really hard to be fair as a person and as a reviewer, so after our "After Earth" discussion, where we ended up veering into a Shyamalan showcase of sorts and specifically "Signs" and there were some comments offered like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    Hmm, I hear this criticism of Signs a lot, but I'm not sure it's valid. The entire theme of the movie is that coincidences aren't really coincidences and that having faith will make things fall into place. That theme demands a "contrived" ending. If you reject the theme, that's fine, but the movie is internally consistent. That criticism sounds to me like "movie about faith has too much faith in it."
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    Interesting take on it. What do you see as infantile though? You've piqued my curiosity. I feel differently myself. To me it was a movie about how sometimes things are so hugely coincidental that they cannot be simply brushed aside as coincidence. A man lost his faith to regain it through his personal interpretation of his wife's final words. How suddenly everything fit together for him, small became large, even though her words seemed so random and ludicrous. I loved the ending, it was about a choice, an attitude, a belief. If anything, everything about the plot was just a backdrop to that moment. That's what is so great about it, imo. What initially was ludicrous was not what was ludicrous after all.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Ü™ View Post
    Signs gets a lot of unfair criticism. I enjoyed it. I thought that the whole epic premise played at a small scale was effective, although the whole religious angle was over-the-top. Still, I think what people criticize the movie for is unjust, like how the aliens don't like water and yet land on a planet covered with water. Isn't it conceivable that the aliens didn't know what that liquid substance was until they came into contact with it? The aliens' technology is not explained at all, so who the hell knows? I will admit that their inability to open doors was a little bizarre, but I didn't think it was that big of a deal.
    ...I actually watched the movie again.

    It's been ten years since I saw it in the theater, and at this point I only remembered my feelings about the movie, even while many of the movie's details now escaped me.

    @The Ü™, I actually took notes during the movie and wrote down BOTH of the points you mention here. I'll agree that for me they were "minor issues," although give me a few paragraphs here to bitch about what annoys me in regards to them, just to get it out of my system...

    For the latter point, it's really hard to believe they don't have ways to open doors or know how to break them down... considering they actually try to do so, and they're larger than human. These guys can flatten crops, build hyperdrive spaceships, and have developed cloaking devices, but they can't bust down a door or open a door and then push on boards that should have pulled right out of the wall. Let's just agree to call this point what it is: A contrivance of the screenwriter, so that the protagonists can secure the house and drive events to the endgame (the cellar scene + the scene in the living). He changed the rules to accommodate his story. Okay, fine.

    The water thing is a bit more troublesome, and you don't even need to be a real scientist to understand why. Not only is the planet 75% water or more, but water (water vapor, snow, rain, etc.) is pervasive in the very air. In addition, the human bodies that the aliens are seemingly culling are made of water (according to quick web searches, anywhere from 53-60% or so). Even our blood is water with stuff in it, and we are likely to die in a week without water. We can't even touch white phosphorus with our hands without getting burned (it reacts explosively with water and must be stored in oil), because of the water content even in our skin. Not only is it hard to imagine what an alien race would need from the body of humans and other organics that are essentially poison/death to them (let alone coming to earth without being suited up, in an atmosphere full of water vapor -- it's certainly not "dry" there, the corn is able to grow just fine!), but the aliens are designed to be humanoid, look like they have blood, and would seem to operate according to the rules of water-based life; yet apparently water only burns and kills them. What? Wow. This whole plot device is just non-sensible. (To contrast this with another movie, "The Wizard of Oz" gets away with a melting witch that "looks human" because (1) we don't know that she's actually human, she's likely to be unique, and (2) it's a magical world, so we accept the rules can be very different, but this is set in the real world and the real universe, just with the potential for extraterrestrial life. Shyamalan really cheats here IMO.)

    A third minor gripe is where Shyamalan gives himself a crucial role in a film populated by professional actors; Gibson is at the top of his game in an against-type understated role, Phoenix inhabits Merle perfectly, the kids are certainly adequate, and Cherry Jones just pulls off this amazing rural cop role -- she's very believable and sympathetic (and I was also impressed by her in the now-off-the-air "Awake," 2011 or so, as one of the two psychologists treating the main character). Why didn't MNS get a real actor to play this part? It seems like hubris. He's a huge distraction, and the scene loses much of the power it might have had with a better actor involved.

    Okay, I'm done, Let's get on to positives.

    One of Shyamalan's skills is defining characters by the "little things." Whether it was (in TSS) Cole's having his dad's glasses that he took out of a drawer after his missing father forgot them (says a LOT about him) or the way Elijah kicks the guy out of his store (in Unb) for buying an expensive original art for a 4-year-old... or just the scene where David's wife asks him whether he was with anyone during their separation and promises to be fine, then crying in relief uncontrollably when he says, "no," MNS just has a real good way about giving these indirect bits of external info about someone's internal character and personality. Here, Merle is a minor league slugger with both homer records... and strikeout records... which is why he never made the majors. His reasoning: "It just seemed wrong not to swing." It's hard to judge that kind of explanation even if you can understand why he was never picked up by a major team; it just is who Merle is and describes his character. And Gibson is so wonderfully low-key here as Graham, before his public meltdown in the tabloids; I love how he summons the backbone to ask people to not call him "Father" so many times in the movie (since he left the priesthood over an incident that he can't even really talk about, even think about), yet when people seem to ignore that and continue to treat him as a pastor, he complies. He does it because he still cares, and because at heart he's still a priest, but he's just so angry with God that he can't bear the thought of being identified with Him. These aren't the only examples, but they are some of MNS's best work. He just uses little things in the course of the story that reflect on character.

    There are also beautiful parallels between the son's relationship with Graham (the "father" in both senses), and Graham and God the Father. His son is losing faith in Graham, just as Graham has lost faith in God; and yet we have these scenes were ironically Graham is playing the role of God amid his son's discouragements and trauma; the obvious signal is that God is still there with Graham, it's just that Graham can't see it. It looks like the irony is not lost on Merle, based on his own facial expression.

    Finally, getting down to "craft," MNS does an amazing job with the suspense here. He hits all the right beats. He only insinuates the presence of the aliens for a long time (the image on TV doesn't count because it's blurry, out of context, and fleeting). The dog is killed by inference, which is creepy as all-get-out... you just hear what happens and have to imagine the rest. There are noises around the house, shadows through the cracks, the rattling door knob, a hand through the vent. The light is shattered in the basement. I honestly don't think I've seen this kind of show better done; he really pulls it off, it's as creepy as any horror flick. And of course he's been building to this through the whole movie, whether it's with the TV footage of the alien ships or the alien sourcebook being read by the son or all the previous scenes with the dogs and running through the corn and whatnot. (And then, the way that Graham's traumatic experience is only doled out a little portion at a time... but you know it's bad, because he can't even dare to remember it.) in comparison, the last five minutes of the movie kind of are like the magician teaching you how to do his trick right after you're wowed by it -- we get an alien in full view, for a lengthy period of time, not doing much that feels that threatening except swaying on his feet. At LEAST change the camera angle so that we can't see all of the alien ever -- the full body shot seemed to waste all the tension that the movie spent time building.

    But here's what irked the crap out of me about the movie (and the comment from a forum member who insinuated I was just being prejudiced against faith, which is entirely the WRONG conclusion to be drawn); the problem for me is that I value faith TOO much to have it trivialized with a contrived ending especially considering how WELL the question of faith was handled in the movie to that point.

    I still wrestle with faith myself and spent so many years within the church, agonizing over these very kinds of things. The kind of answers presented by the movie really offer nothing, it's the same crazy logic that many people in church confuse and blind themselves with when they can't deal with trauama -- they make up some crazy chain of connection that can explain everything away so that now they have an excuse to believe. And in the process they usually hurt themselevs and the people they love because they can't deal with real trauma or the real effects of trauma or get past it in a way that involves real acceptance and growth.

    MNS of course backed himself into a corner here; he called his movie "signs," and had all of this "sign" imagery throughout the movie, so of course his resolution had to hinge on signs. That's unfortunate. Is there a different way it could have been handled? I don't know, right now.

    But I think it would have been a lot more honest for Graham to realize that the "sign" of God here was exactly the one that I described above -- when his son was badly hurt and couldn't breathe and was panicking, and Graham stepped in and was PRESENT with his boy -- "Feel my breathing. Feel my body. We're the same, we are the same." I teared up during that... THAT is the presence of God, and if Graham has any depth (and I can tell he does), he would realize it.

    The reality of life is that we really don't get "authentic signs" aside from the ones we make up for ourselves; the reality of life is that it is ambiguous, yet we choose sometimes to step out in REAL faith. Because Graham could play the role of God in the life of his son, and because he could recognize how much he loved his son, felt his pain, was willing to die to save him if need be, he should have been able to recognize that God could also exist and feel the exact same way towards Graham. Even if he never got an answer as to why his wife died. Even if the alien invasion could never be explained.

    Here is where a man of real faith would choose to believe without needing a bunch of manipulated and contrived 'signs' -- which in effect actually remove the need for faith, as you are using these contrived events to justify the risk you are taking rather than stepping out solely on conviction and thus faith.

    So the ending to me claims to be faith, but it is the exact opposite of faith -- and it's even more painful, because I could clearly see REAL truth in the movie in regards to Graham's search for meaning as well as the way he takes the role of God in the life of his son. I feel like I watched a virtuoso performance by a top-notch football team that fumbles the ball in the last 30 seconds of the Superbowl after an entire game of excellent play.

    I honestly don't know how to rate a movie like this. I might even suggest that the first 95% of the movie is better than Unbreakable (which is saying a lot). It would have been better than "Knowing" by Alex Proyas, which is actually a very similar kind of movie (it deals with an apocalyptic event, weird foreshadowings, strange visitors, and explorations of faith vs atheism), it's just that Proyas actually makes a CONSISTENT movie throughout, so while his first part is weaker than Signs, at least the story retains tone and the ending actually does what it claims to do rather than the opposite.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #2
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ü™
    Unbreakable was his best movie, and I have very few complaints about it. I'd go as far as consider it a masterpiece. Why? Well, frankly, I'm getting tired of writing, so...next movie.

    The Sixth Sense was good the first time I saw it, but it lost its appeal rather quickly. And yes, I was an avid watcher of Are You Afraid of the Dark? and yes, I was thinking about that particular episode that M. Night later revealed to be his inspiration. But I thought it was a well-told spin on that story. But it's nowhere near as thrilling after multiple views, Unbreakable, on the other hand, is.
    I think this is more just a personality preference, as I would agree that these are his two best "overall" movies but I prefer The Sixth Sense. I think this is because (1) I personally identify a lot with Cole, (2) I found a few pieces in Unbreakable to be cheesy (usually the stuff dealing with comic book mumbo-jumbo), and (3) I think Unbreakable has a more accessible straightforward plot about a man looking for what he should do with his life, whereas the story in TSS is about a boy trying to rise about fear and figure out how to use his gifts, which is a bit more ambiguous. I think I have a little more NF style traits in me than you do, I like "fuzzy stuff," and I resonate more with the first movie.

    I think my favorite parts of Unbreakable revolve around David's relationships with his wife and with his son (especially the wife); Robin Wright is just pretty damned good here in the dramatic rendering, for what essentially is a supernatural + man finding himself pic. Although I really enjoy (1) the train station scene where he is "reading" people that walk by and (2) the opening scene, from the train wreck to where he is sitting talking to the doctor and you are just watching this stain slowly spread on the torso of someone in the foreground, and then he's the only guy to walk out of the hospital while everyone else is staring at him (resentment? Grief? fear? what?), and his family barely says a word as they walk out. When MNS actually puts effort into things, he can write excellent scenes.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #3
    ✿ڿڰۣஇღ♥ wut ♥ღஇڿڰۣ✿ digesthisickness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,262

    Default

    Once he screwed up "The Last Airbender" the way he did, he became dead to me. Terrible.
    ✻ღϠ₡ღ✻
    (¯`✻´¯)
    `*.¸.*'ღϠ₡ღஇڿڰۣ
    •.¸¸. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒჱܓ. இڿڰۣ.¸¸.இڿڰۣ´¯`·.─♥


    Cerebral Artery
    http://www.facebook.com/CerebralArtery

  4. #4
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    I do agree that the scientific details don't fly - aliens that can pilot a spacecraft and try to invade a world are stopped by a closed door and H2O? Ludicrous.

    The reality of life is that we really don't get "authentic signs" aside from the ones we make up for ourselves; the reality of life is that it is ambiguous, yet we choose sometimes to step out in REAL faith.
    This is the part I have trouble with, but no time to expand on that atm. Will try to be back and get into this, but I suspect we will still be left with the same question at the end, because even if we make up signs for ourselves, does that necessarily mean they are not real, not from a higher plane? Anyhoodle, some great expansion by you above, thanks for that.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  5. #5
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    I do agree that the scientific details don't fly - aliens that can pilot a spacecraft and try to invade a world are stopped by a closed door and H2O? Ludicrous.
    Yeah. I don't want to get hung up on it, it should just be noted that some constraints provided by an author can ramge from reasonable to very unreasonable to the degree of ruining faith in the author and/or taking people out of the story.

    This is the part I have trouble with, but no time to expand on that atm. Will try to be back and get into this, but I suspect we will still be left with the same question at the end, because even if we make up signs for ourselves, does that necessarily mean they are not real, not from a higher plane?
    We will never know whether it reflects a higher reality or not, although now "Occam's Razor" becomes an issue, and whether a particular assumption is "more reasonable" or "less reasonable" than another. I could make the same case for ANY kind of belief in anything, so in the end we're forced to the, "Possible? yes. Likely? well....." line of reasoning.

    Also, we start asking questions like, "You mean God killed his wife / let her die just so he could be given some really bizarre snippet of information that could later save him from an alien invasion, as opposed to just sending a sign in a clearer and much kinder context?" I'm not sure why, if Graham was so angry and bitter, he didn't just go THERE instead. It could have easily gone either way; I've seen people go in both directions.

    What it tells me is that Graham wanted to believe and still believed in God (it's not that he stopped believing that God was real), but was just very angry, and when he got some kind of cue back that God was still involved, then he could forgive God.

    I was going to say first that maybe he felt like God wasn't in control, and the cues gave him a sense that God WAS in control and could influence things; thus, his wife death's wouldn't be God's fault, and God was still worth depending on since some good could be brought out of the situation. However, that's not the emotional journey that Graham took; he was angry at God and BLAMED God for robbing him of his wife. So I'm still not sure how he reconciled God's help here with God's capriciousness earlier, I don't work that way myself.

    For me, what it has come down to is seeing God reflected in the lives of people who play the role of God in the lives of the hurt, suffering, weak, lost, and whatever else. I saw a lot of my idea of God reflected in Graham's love for his son and "being with him" in time of trial rather than necessarily making the trial disappear.

    Anyhoodle, some great expansion by you above, thanks for that.
    You're welcome.

    Obviously not everyone has that same perspective, but I hope it's clearer why I personally had such a bad reaction; it goes against what meaningfulness I've found in my own life.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #6
    You have a choice! 21%'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    2,631

    Default

    I don't have much to add to the discussion, but just wanted to say a bit about "Signs". While the story was ridiculous, I really liked the atmosphere. I like how everyone is freaking out and leaving CNN on all the time, and everything comes to a standstill where no one has any idea what they should be doing. I've had similar experiences at times of natural disasters and protests-gone-crazy and things like that, and no other movie has been able to create that 'domestic feel' in the midst of mass public panic.

    Plus, I'm like the little girl who leaves out glasses of water. I really do that, so when it ends up saving people's lives I look at the movie quite kindly
    4w5 sp/sx EII

  7. #7
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    The alien invaders should have formed an alliance with the gremlins. How would we have stopped that?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #8
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The alien invaders should have formed an alliance with the gremlins. How would we have stopped that?
    I like how your twisted little mind works.
    (Then again, maybe I don't.)




    Actually, maybe what would happen is throwing water on the aliens makes them reproduce and die all at the same time, so you end up with aliens stacked like cordwood in your living room until they flow out the windows...
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #9
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Apparently he quit Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull because he had a difference in vision with Spielberg and Lucas. I'm thinking he tends to be a bit sensitive to others' input and perhaps that's what threw him into a funk. Either that, or The Sixth Sense was just a fluke and he rose to fame for no legitimate reason.

    I do think his talents lie in exploring the unknown, which does not always seem to be a logically coherent endeavor regardless of your skills in story telling. Even though the climax and end of Signs made some people scratch their heads, Shyamalan crafted the exposition excellently. I think I'll always remember the baby monitor scenes and the silhouette just chilling on the rooftop of the barn. Even though those scenes don't really flow with the logic of what would be a mainstream science-fiction narrative, we still give E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind credit, allowing the illogic to slip past with the knowledge that those movies were made a quarter of a century ago. It seems a bit unfair.

  10. #10
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    Even though those scenes don't really flow with the logic of what would be a mainstream science-fiction narrative, we still give E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind credit, allowing the illogic to slip past with the knowledge that those movies were made a quarter of a century ago. It seems a bit unfair.
    Ironically, watching those movies as an adult, I wasn't that impressed. (There's much of Jaws I'm not impressed by either, although it had a few great scenes.) Yes, I'm a heretic.

    But E.T. just seems to be more of a Boomer dream.
    I liked Super 8 far better, it acknowledges realistic loss for me while finding beauty amid tragedy. There's my Gen X mentality, for you...
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. How The Economic Machine Works by Ray Dalio
    By phobik in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-16-2016, 09:32 AM
  2. Quotes to Motivate You to *Get To Work*
    By Usehername in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09-21-2014, 12:36 PM
  3. Favorite quotes by type
    By Cenomite in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 08-27-2011, 10:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO