Confession time: I had a great time at M. Night Shyamalan's The Village. There, I said it. However, the fact that I enjoyed this film while so many others did not has forced me to question my own intelligence as a moviegoer and lover of film. Am I stupid for liking this movie, or just crazy? One must accept that there is a distinct difference between being; a) an individual who is easy to please, and b) entering a film with low expectations. Am I a "simple" person, as some critics have so kindly put it, for enjoying The Village, or is it that I just didn't enter the movie with the same level of excitement as everybody else? There are many simple people in this world, and a large number of them fit into your average moviegoer crowd. If this offends the one or two people reading this, then I'm sorry. Actually, no I'm not sorry. Don't worry, if you're blessed with the patience to read all my ramblings then I don't consider you to be simple at all. Quite the opposite, you've got an open mind. Consider yourself gifted.
Simple people have short attention spans. Simple people "wait for the movie" instead of reading the book. Simple people are responsible for reality TV being the success it has become. Simple people are not malicious, nor should they be sneered at. Simple people are ignorant, not stupid. There's a difference. Ignorance is not knowing any better. Stupidity IS knowing better, but acting foolish anyway. Simple people must be educated, whereas stupid people must be gathered up and ridiculed. So I guess you could say that there are three types of moviegoers out there: ignorant, stupid, and indifferent. Perhaps I fall into the later category. I certainly hope so.
In the case of The Village, I entered the film with the lowest of expectations. Prior to the film's release, I saw only one trailer, and other than that I never really did much research into the film's background. I knew it was a M. Night Shyamalan film, a director whose previous three films I greatly enjoyed. Other than that, I knew next to nothing about the story. Something about a peaceful village? Monsters you say? Whatever. I didn't even find out Adrian Brody was in it until about a week beforehand. I didn't enter the film for the "twist", nor did I expect to soil my pants in fear (that hasn't happened since The Changeling.)
M. Night Shyamalan is a director who seems to rely on the "twist" like a crutch, and some artists develop their entire careers around the art of teasing their audience. I think this is a route Shyamalan is going to have to reexamine for future projects. Using The Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock films as inspiration is all well and good, but you need to distance yourself from your influences lest you allow them to control your every move. This is a variation on "Pulling a Loeb",
As an example, let's say Star Wars and Star Trek are my two biggest influences; Technically, it should be possible for me to craft a science-fiction tale, one set in outer space and involving an inter-stellar war, without making it a total rip-off of Wars/Trek. It's not easy, but it can be done. As a creator, I'm still grappling with this dilemma myself; To write like Alan Moore without sounding like Alan Moore. To be inspired by the ideas of people like George Lucas, Gene Roddenberry, Bill Watterson and Stan Lee, not their
specific stories. To be influenced by what these people did differently and how they viewed their respective genres. Why did Gene Roddenberry set out to create Star Trek? Why did J. R. R. Tolkien sit down to write The Lord of The Rings? To be moved by the story behind the story, as it were, that's the trick. At least for me it is. M. Night needs to craft a variation on the "twist" ending theme. To make a Twilight Zone movie that doesn't look, feel, or act like a Twilight Zone movie. The first step is to get away from mystery/suspense and produce a straight drama. No twists, no turns. Just solid writing and directing. But again, this is NOT easy. And besides, I'm a filmgoer, not a filmmaker, so I suppose I'm not really in any position to give advice on a field I'm not personally involved in. I just know what I like and I know what works when it comes to mystery, suspense and horror.
If people go to each of Shyamalan's movies expecting to get the rug pulled out from under them, it's going to get old quick. For moviegoers AND for M. Night. For certain movies, advertising can actually hurt. Those who have seen The Village will tell you that the previews for the film showed a very different product than what was actually delivered. But I was never lured in by the "twist". That's not why I went to see the movie. Most everyone I know went with the idea of "I can't wait to see what the twist ending is!". I never viewed the twist of The Village as a twist at all, rather I saw it as a natural part of the story. By not anticipating the twist, and instead accepting everything that happens as simple plot points, it makes it all feel natural. The twist in The Sixth Sense worked as a "twist ending" because it was unexpected and made you totally reexamine the film after its conclusion. It's a different movie the second time through. Unbreakable, Signs and The Village fall into a different category because their twists are not twists at all. They are a natural evolution of the story. Does Bruce Willis really have superpowers, or is he just freakishly lucky? Are there real aliens lurking in Mel Gibson's corn fields, or is it just some kids pulling pranks? The answers to these questions are not twists, they are not designed to shock you or make you shudder in disbelief. You get exactly what you expect with Unbreakable and Signs. Ditto for The Village. These twists are just part of the story.
Darth Vader's true identity revealed in The Empire Strikes Back. That's a twist.
The true villain in Alan Moore's Watchmen. That's a twist.
The climaxes of Soylent Green, Planet of the Apes, and just about every single Rod Serling Twilight Zone episode. Those are twists.
While everyone I know found nothing but a disappointing "twist", what I found in The Village is a story about love, loss, hope, and a futile attempt to escape the past. Maybe the film contains a subliminal message to Shyamalan's fans, that he himself is trying to escape his own directorial style. Maybe M. Night was aware all along that the twist in The Village was predictable. Maybe it was supposed to be predictable, because a) the twist was not the point of the story, and b) it's a tired cry for help that he needs and wants a break from these kinds of movies.
Is Shyamalan a perfect director? No, but the man has talent. Is The Village a perfect film? Far from it. But for me, it was enjoyable and I can honestly say I got my money's worth. It's earned a recommendation from me. Just watch the film for what it is, not for what you hope it to be. Shyamalan has said that he wants his films to stand on their own and not be compared to each other. That's probably impossible at this stage in his career, but it's the proper way to experience any work of fiction. It's how I'm approaching M. Night Shyamalan's work from now on. Maybe all moviegoers should do the same.
"'Excellent' News? Hardly, But The Truth Hurts..."
Harry Shearer made some comments recently about the deteriorating quality of The Simpsons. In my honest opinion, he's only saying what we've all been thinking for a long time now. The Simpsons is LONG past its prime, and the best is over. The eighth season's premiere, the hilarious "You Only Move Twice" featuring Albert Brooks' brilliant turn as Hank Scorpio, marked the beginning of the end.
They should have capped it off after ten years. They should have given The Simpsons the proper finale it deserved, a finale it sadly no longer deserves. It's worn out it's welcome. Fox had a good thing with Matt Groening's Futurama. That show reached a level in its first season that The Simpsons didn't reach until season 4. Futurama was a better-written and better designed show than The Simpsons, and it had, at the risk of sounding blasphemous, better characters than The Simpsons. I cared more about Fry than I ever did about Homer. Hell, I cared more about Nixon's head-in-a-jar than Homer. Homer was a jackass from day one; come on, you can admit it.
Unfortunately, Futurama's strengths were matched only by it's weaknesses. It was not a show that held to the adage: "If you like The Simpsons, you'll like Futurama." It was more like: "If you liked The Simpsons AND sci-fi/fantasy, then you'll like Futurama." Non-sci-fi fans were seriously left out of the loop, and a majority of the gags went right over their heads. It's sad that the show couldn't appeal to a larger audience, but television sci-fi is a tricky market. If Futurama was as good as it was after three and a half seasons, we can only imagine how good it could have gotten by seasons seven or eight. It's a question for the Professor's "What If?" machine. As the old man was apt to say: "A man can dream..."
Yes, I watch The Simpsons each and every week, and yes I will continue to do so. Perhaps that makes me a hypocrite, but the sad truth is that despite its flaws, The Simpsons remains one of the few watchable programs on television. Producer Al Jean feels that Shearer's comments are insulting to the production staff. Uh, that's the point. I hate to break it to you Al, but just because you worked hard on something, that doesn't make it good. If it looks like crap and smells like crap, it's still crap. You poured you blood and sweat into the production? Good for you. That doesn't change the fact that the show is weak and boring. All the hard work and good intentions in the world can't save a tired idea. Dead is dead. And The Simpsons is dead.
Long live The Simpsons.
