After weeks of bemoaning the fact that we never see any movies in the theater anymore, Cindy and I decided to treat ourselves to the new M. Night Shyamalan film The Lady in the Water.
Cindy and I enjoyed Shyamalan's first three films*, The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs, but were both hugely disappointed with The Village. But, we thought, everyone deserves a second chance.
You already know the plot (or if you don't, you can find it easily here), so let's talk about the topic I hear most people complaining about: Shyamalan's starring in his own film.
First of all, he's appeared in all of his films from The Sixth Sense on. (And I believe he appeared in Playing with Anger, but I haven't seen it.) Do moviegoers have a problem with a director appearing in his own films? If so, they should also have a problem with some of these people:
Charlie Chaplin
Orson Welles
Alfred Hitchcock
Woody Allen
Mel Brooks
John Huston
Roman Polanski
Clint Eastwood
Kevin Costner
Warren Beatty
And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
It could be, however, that the problem lies in Shyamalan's character in the movie: a writer whose book will greatly influence not only a future world leader, but millions of people. Is Shyamalan for real? Does he really think so highly of himself that his films are going to change the world? Maybe he's got a bigger head than I thought. If that's the problem people have with his appearance in the film, I can certainly understand it.
If that weren't enough, Shyamalan attacks (literally) movie critics in general, killing one off in the film. Had Shyamalan not appeared in the film (or maybe if it had been a cameo appearance), this jab at his critics would be funny, even a bit charming. But the best way to silence your critics is easy: make a good movie.
Has he done that? The Lady in the Water has a lot of problems and weaknesses, but for me, it still qualifies as a good movie. Sure, the movie's got problems: stereotypical characters, inconsistency in story and character, and the film requires a constant (and very unsteady) suspension of disbelief. There really aren't many surprises here. If you've seen even one of Shyamalan's films, you'll probably have a good idea what to expect. You might even be bored.
Yet in spite of everything I've mentioned, I enjoyed the film.
What?
Yes, I enjoyed it. One of the reasons the film works for me is Shyamalan's obvious passion for the story. Yeah, it's got problems, but he believes in it. He wants you to walk out of the theatre feeling something. Remember how you felt after you saw The Sixth Sense? Probably because you cared about the characters. Shyamalan makes you care about Cleveland Heep (and so does Paul Giamatti in a very good performance), even if you could care less about Story (Bryce Dallas Howard).
And it's entertaining, despite the flaws. Maybe Shyamalan's passion was enough to override all my reasons why the movie shouldn't work.
We might find fault with the film, we might dismiss it by saying "It's just a fairy tale, it's just a bedtime story," but when it's all over, Shyamalan does something that not many filmmakers know how to do anymore: entertain us and more importantly, give us hope.
*Actually he directed two films before these, Playing with Anger (1992) and Wide Awake (1998).
No comments:
Post a Comment