M. Night Shyamalan - why isn't there more love for this fine director? in Second Takes on Films of the 2000s Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

M. Night Shyamalan - why isn't there more love for this fine director?

Author	Comment
Siouxsie Sue		#61	[-]
Jan 13 09 8:27 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Argh. I'm derailing the thread! Sorry Joe! Who needs lingerie pics anyway? Mebbe a pic of the bookcase would be more alluring. (Spidey, FF & Fourth World Omnibi, Krazy Kat, Locas, etc...)
	Remove this ad
skelton knaggs		#62	[-]
Jan 13 09 8:27 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	We all best beware........... This thread is turning into a referendum of Siouxsie Sue's viewing habits rather than the phenomenal works of the great M. Night Shyamalan. Mr. Night might get angry and wish us all away to the cornfields... "You can't smell any reefer, can you"?
Richard		#63	[-]
Jan 13 09 8:54 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Shyamalan's films are in no way about sexuality. Maybe that's why so many people have a hard time connecting with him. No oppression, no fetish, no attraction, no lust, no studio exec-mandated gendre war. Not even class warfare. In other words, bland. I think he would benefit by studying up on the subtext of Val Lewton: http://www.whiskeyloosetongue.com/lewton_index.html "... little by little the look of the country changes because of the people we admire." dialog in HUD (1963)
Richard		#64	[-]
Jan 13 09 8:59 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If I were to remake episodes of The Twilight Zone, i would choose Shamalan as one of the directors. He would have to noir it up in the style of the series. I cannot pay any director a higher compliment. Richard "... little by little the look of the country changes because of the people we admire." dialog in HUD (1963)
Siouxsie Sue		#65	[-]
Jan 13 09 9:02 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Character-driven yet devoid of many key aspects of human character? I don't think you meant that, though. Still, Yin-Yang, conflict, passion, love, hate, sex -- without these, there isn't much left, is there? I promise to revisit, however, the work of Mr. Michael Knight Shamone when I'm able... if only for curiosity. (And my own doubts WRT my opinions...)
Richard		#66	[-]
Jan 13 09 9:29 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Signs was about faith, or the renewal of faith, and the brother rediscovering his self-confidence. Not exactly the underlying themes of most horror or sci-fi films. The content is there, we're just accustomed to something else. Stop these self-doubts, Siouxsie Sue, and tell the horney kids to shut up. There's nothing wrong with your perception. You might want to dig deep into Val Lewton and Ingmar Bergman, though -- starting with Persona. Richard "... little by little the look of the country changes because of the people we admire." dialog in HUD (1963) Last Edited By: Richard Jan 13 09 9:32 PM. Edited 2 times.
Siouxsie Sue		#67	[-]
Jan 13 09 9:49 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I love Lewton but my DVD budget's limited for now. I know there's a nice boxset out there I've gazed upon but it's not prudent at the moment. Bergman, I've seen maybe two films -- one of them with the other Bergman starring -- but so long ago my memory's very fuzzy. So many films, so little money!
bromstaker		#68	[-]
Jan 13 09 9:53 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I like Shyamalan's films very much. I like some more than others, but I've enjoyed them all.
yendor1152		#69	[-]
Jan 13 09 10:38 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't go to see a movie like "Signs" for a renewal of faith. I go because the advertising hooked me in--and I was hooked! Alas, the film had as much to do with signs as it did with the watusi. Getting back to The Sixth Sense for a minute...anybody else notice how the director cheated in his attempts to keep Willis' fate a secret? When the flashback happens, and we see all the moments when Willis interacted with characters (or apparently thought he did), it all seems to make perfect sense now that we know what really happened to him. All except in one spot, where Willis is in Cole's apartment, sitting across from the mother. Spoilers! Now, if the Willis character was dead and didn't "know" he was dead, then how did he get into that apartment? If he was operating as a human and could do human things (like throwing something through a plate glass window, for example), it would stand to reason that he rang the doorbell or knocked on the door, and Cole's mom let him in. Certainly, it appeared as if they'd been conversing right before Cole showed up...yet, the director clearly wants us to think the mom doesn't even know of Willis' existence. If Willis merely appeared on the coucvh or chair (can't remember which), then he must know he's a ghost with extraordinary powers. So, which is it? Also, I gotta ask...is Cole aware that Willis is a ghost right from the very start? Rod
killer meteor		#70	[-]
Jan 14 09 3:29 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Signs and the water issue...well to be fair, the aliens might not be allergic to water per se but maybe its chemical properties, just like the aliens in War of the Worlds are undone by the common cold. Heck, maybe our water just isn't good enough for them. It;s a LOT better than the awful Day of the Triffids film, where salt walter is sprayed onto the Triffids, despite the fact they've been crawling on costal rocks throughout the film
	Remove this ad
Hollywood Gothique		#71	[-]
Jan 14 09 5:51 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I love SIXTH SENSE and SIGNS. The rest of the films are disappointing or outright bad. That's not enough to make me actively dislike Shyamalan - everyone's entitled to a mistake or three - but the underlying theme of his flms can be off-putting. I covered this territory in this essay: Shyamalan has gradually alienated viewers by presenting a vision that gives new meaning to the word solipsism: after the breakthrough success of the wonderful THE SIXTH SENSE and the disappointment of the muddled UNBREAKABLE, the writer-director's three subsequent films (SIGNS, THE VILLAGE,and LADY IN THE WATER) indulged in a sort of self-gratifying meditation on his own perceived importance that can be enjoyed only by those with a cult-like enthusiasm for their idol. As for anyone else, if LADY IN THE WATER is to be believed, Shyamalan thinks they should just shut up and die. This assessment may seem harsh, but the films support it thematically: begining with SIGNS, continuing with THE VILLAGE, and climaxing with LADY IN THE WATER, all of them can be read as a reaction to critics who began to turn against him with UNBREAKABLE. However, the films are not merely self-justfying; they are self-aggrandizing. The message is not merely that critics treat his work unfairly; Shyamalan is telling us that he is a purveyor of Profound Truth, whose message must be unquestionably accepted on faith, and he is mightily annoyed at having his pearls of wisdom trampled by swine. Cinefantastique Online: The Review of Horror, Fantasy, & Science Fiction Films
Joe Karlosi		#72	[-]
Jan 14 09 6:05 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	skelton knaggs wrote: I just get the feeling Mr. Night is a glorious legend in his own mind. Nothing wrong with having confidence in yourself. For some reason we live in a world where it's deemed sinful to believe in yourself, and you're supposed to walk around humbling yourself and being self-deprecating. Whether or not Shyamalan actually thinks he's great or anything, that should have no bearing on watching one of his movies objectively. His movies are old style class horror stuff, and it's mind-boggling to me that so many fans of old style class horror stuff don't see that.
Joe Karlosi		#73	[-]
Jan 14 09 6:11 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	killer meteor wrote: Signs and the water issue...well to be fair, the aliens might not be allergic to water per se but maybe its chemical properties, just like the aliens in War of the Worlds are undone by the common cold. Heck, maybe our water just isn't good enough for them. It;s a LOT better than the awful Day of the Triffids film, where salt walter is sprayed onto the Triffids, despite the fact they've been crawling on costal rocks throughout the film True. But the thing is, KM, when viewers have it in for a director for whatever reason, they don't want to even bother with other considerations or explanations. Or even if it's not due at all to animosity against a director, but someone makes up their mind they don't like the way something "makes no sense to them" in a movie and refuse to try to adopt another angle in order to allow a movie to work for them. They stubbornly hang onto their objection, even if other feasible alternatives like yours are brought up. And yup, it's ususally a contradiction in that at the very same time they're enjoying scores of other films with equally "senseless" plot points, or what have you. As I said earlier -- how many people love Dracula films, even though in 100 years of filmmaking the Count never realizes he can't stay out only a few second before sunrise? Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi Jan 14 09 6:15 AM. Edited 3 times.
Omega Man		#74	[-]
Jan 14 09 6:51 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Now that I think about it, the "Stupid Dracula Award" goes to the Universal films. Hammer, of course, wins the "Klutzy Dracula Award" (falling off the castle battlements, stumbling into a Hawthorne bush, etc.) But the only Hammer flick in which Drac is destroyed by the sun is HORROR OF DRACULA... and note that his castle was pre-equipped with heavy blackout curtains. Van Helsing has to physically rip 'em down for the sun to be effective. In SCARS OF DRACULA, the Count has pretty much won but is killed at the very last instant by an "Act of God". Not much he could do about that. So Lee's Count didn't need to wear a watch. Carradine's sure as hell did, though. "Dammit, it's jammed!" www.eccentric-cinema.com
Rakshasa		#75	[-]
Jan 14 09 8:57 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Speaking for myself, I know nothing about M. Night Shyamalan as a person. I don't worship him, study him, dislike him, like him, or anything. I just know he's a guy who made some movies and that early on he became known for his "twist endings". I also know that I went to see one (1) of his movies (Signs) and thought it awful. Awful enough to walk out in frustration and disgust two thirds of the way into it. I went to a movie and didn't like it. It doesn't get any more objective than that. Links To All The Classic Monster Stills I've Posted: http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/30758
yendor1152		#76	[-]
Jan 14 09 10:23 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I wonder what's next for M. Night after his first Nickoldean movie. He could do wonders with Spongebob and wouldn't have explain away all that water! Rod Last Edited By: yendor1152 Jan 14 09 10:26 AM. Edited 1 times.
Siouxsie Sue		#77	[-]
Jan 14 09 10:47 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It's all personal taste, you know? And I even question my indifference healthily. Maybe I could change my mind or maybe I could be even more sure. Dunno. And BTW, personal taste IS subjective, of course, and shouldn't be judged by objective standards. If there were an objective standard by which THIS is objectively Good and THAT is objectively Bad, to follow that -- everyone would agree on everything. That could be a bit boring.
Rakshasa		#78	[-]
Jan 14 09 11:30 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Rakshasa wrote: I went to a movie and didn't like it. It doesn't get any more objective than that. Just to clarify my above words, I meant "objective" in the sense that I had no pre-conceived opinions of the film maker when I went to see the movie. I sat and watched Signs and came to the conclusion that I didn't like it as a film, not basing that opinion on anything I'd heard or read about the director. I made up my own mind that Signs wasn't for me. I reiterate this because Joe Karlosi, in one of his recent posts, seemed to be insinuating that if someone doesn't like an M. Night Shyamalan film, it's probably because of some pre-existing bias they have against M. Night Shyamalan. Not true for me. I just didn't enjoy the film. Also, Richard, in an earlier post, seemed to be insinuating that viewers aren't picking up on the underlying themes of M. Night Shyamalan's films, and THAT'S why they don't like them. Again, not true for me. I got the underlying themes. I just didn't enjoy the film. Links To All The Classic Monster Stills I've Posted: http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/30758 Last Edited By: Rakshasa Jan 14 09 11:34 AM. Edited 1 times.
aycorn		#79	[-]
Jan 14 09 12:04 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'll chime in the chorus here with pretty much the same thoughts - I loved "Sixth Sense," liked "Unbreakable" a lot, couldn't wait for "Signs" but was ultimately disappointed, couldn't wait for "The Village" but was really disappointed, couldn't even get through "Lady in the Water" and passed on "The Happening" when it was universally panned (when EVERY review calls the movie a stinker, and for the same reasons, I figure it probably is pretty bad). So the problem is, steadily and consistently diminishing returns from the guy. If you put his films on a graph, it would look like this: \ I do think he's talented as a director, that he's a good director who consistently works in the fantasy genre (cool), and my hats off to him for helping re-introduce Lewton-esque horror, but he's let me down. I too would rate Del Toro very high (Mimic, Kronos, Devil's Backbone and especially Pan's Labyrinth - and I liked the Hellboy movies), also Peter Jackson. I once thought Tim Burton would turn out to be one of the greats, but he let me down even more.
skelton knaggs		#80	[-]
Jan 14 09 12:19 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe Karlosi wrote: skelton knaggs wrote: I just get the feeling Mr. Night is a glorious legend in his own mind. Nothing wrong with having confidence in yourself. For some reason we live in a world where it's deemed sinful to believe in yourself, and you're supposed to walk around humbling yourself and being self-deprecating. Whether or not Shyamalan actually thinks he's great or anything, that should have no bearing on watching one of his movies objectively. His movies are old style class horror stuff, and it's mind-boggling to me that so many fans of old style class horror stuff don't see that. My comments are far from a rebuke of confidence. And I certainly don't live in that sinful self-deprecating world you see. My only misunderstood point was Mr. Night caught lightning in a bottle first time out. His subsequent endeavours are proof he can't do it all. Oh, and that's my objectively humbling take on his work. It's very nice of you to act as an advocate for Mr.Night's prowess as a old style filmmaker. But from what I don't see in his later work.....I just don't buy it. But the guy definitely has talent. "You can't smell any reefer, can you"? Last Edited By: skelton knaggs Jan 14 09 2:02 PM. Edited 1 times.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

M. Night Shyamalan - why isn't there more love for this fine director?