M. Night Shyamalan's "Split" - January 20th, 2017

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by ky658, Jan 3, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yeah unfortunately that's the case with most of his films but, given that this is a "popcorn" movie, I'm OK with it. I just found the subplot (which explains a key plot point) to be from a different film and the tone didn't quite work for me. I would also have been interested in finding out how Kevin became who he was--what triggered him precisely beyond what we are told to see those personalities form but that would have been a different movie. Really, this is Shyamalan's second version of a comic book film and the last shot in the film is what made me see it that way.

    I don't know that I found it any more exploitative than some of De Palma's films or any director that uses someone who has some sort of mental disturbance contributing to entertainment. It's rare that can be used and also reach beyond the purely exploitative like Hitchcock's "Psycho". There is a large uproar over the film making a person with dissociate personality disorder the villain of the piece but I also felt that he was as much victim in a sense. While the Betty Buckley character appears to want to help him, she also uses him for her own professional needs and that plays a role in what happens to her. De Palma does bring a bit more depth and his skill as a director melds well with the material but there's also an obvious element of camp that comes into play with "Dressed to Kill" for example. I was thinking that the use of subplot of "Dressed to Kill" reminded me of this film in a way--De Palma uses it as the justification of the murder of Angie Dickenson's character but it also provides us context for what happens to her. The one think that always made me uncomfortable was both how De Palma forces us to judge the character as a slut however De Palma also reaches beyond that giving us a sense of compassion for her character as just another mom as well. Shyamalan's films do much the same thing but are even more derivative lacking any sense of reality for his characters--they are just like the toy soldiers he used to make home movies in his backyard. He's never moved beyond that.

    The characters are largely shallow (except for Casey once we are given a context for her behavior) but I've found that to be the case with most of Shyamalan's films. Even his highwater mark as a film director "The Sixth Sense" suffers from character development issues. Even that film had elements of exploitation particularly around the girl who is poisoned by her mother who is suffering from Munchhausen Syndrome by proxy and there are elements in "Unbreakable" as well. The challenge is that Shyamalan is very gifted technician and comes up with interesting concepts (and of course his infamous O. Henry twists) but he's really a lousy writer and when the script works it's because the actors bring quite a bit to the film.

    The tastefulness of Casey's character's backstory is, of course, questionable and the fact that he uses it to explain her behavior and provide salvation just demonstrates how facile the film really is. I agree with others that I questioned the use of it in a thriller like this but it bothered me more conceptually than it did in execution because it was, again, really disconnected from anything real.

    I will admit that I felt a bit dirty after watching the film i.e., because of the exploitative nature of the film with the DPD condition (and it's good that the film does bring these elements forward) and there was certainly a better, more tasteful way to do it BUT it works. Shyamalan makes Roger Corman exploitation films (or William Castle) with bigger budgets and skill which makes his films seem more than they are. The film certainly wasn't bad IMHO and I wasn't offended at it (but then I don't know anyone who has DPD but I do have a family member who suffers from mental illness so that did add a bit of unease) but the saving grace of the film is the fact that it has nothing to do with reality--the characters in the film don't behave as people would in the real world much less well drawn characters in a film.

    I may have felt a bit dirty afterwards but I still enjoyed the film for what it was. So this really is an exploitation film with classy production values. I do agree that it is one of his better films because most of his worst directorial flaws are kept at bay.
     
    Pete Puma and Solaris like this.
  2. For what it was, I felt'it was an I,provement from what came before and found it entertaining. Then again, I didn't pay to see it.
     
  3. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    At least for me, my literal investment in a film doesn't impact my opinion of it/enjoyment of it. If I liked movies because they were free, my website would be 99% positive reviews! :D

    The last MNS-related film that I liked was "Devil" - not a great one, but fairly entertaining.

    "Village" and "Water" were both mediocre to bad, and "Happening" was terrible. Didn't see "After Earth" or "Airbender" - kinda doubt I missed anything.

    I did like MNS's first few movies and always hope he'll "return to form" - just haven't seen it yet! :shrug:
     
    Vidiot and wayneklein like this.
  4. Eh, I liked his second and third ("The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable"), the first half of "Signs" which creates a very creepy vibe but thought the fact that they wanted to conquer a planet where the Surface is covered by 71% water and that everyone could fight aliens with slip and slides or garden hoses really really stupid plotting. For me, it struck me immediately sitting in the theater that it was truly idiotic and, while "Split" also has an idiotic moment, the character played by Betty Buckley really didn't get a chance to use that u til it was too late. It was dumb but not as dumb as melting the wicked aliens with water.
     
  5. neo123

    neo123 Senior Member

    Location:
    Northern Kentucky
    My brother saw this today and he didn't like it. Told me not to waste my money on it.

    I was going to see it over the weekend, but I think I will wait until it comes to 2nd run discount theatre or to cable. I too think MNS's best work was his first and then gradually got worse over the next 3. Everything else after those...garbage. I didn't even bother seeing his last two prior to Split. The previews for Split got me excited and really do look good and suspenseful. I guess I won't find out unless I do see the movie, but I'm not paying full price for it now based on what my brother said about it today.
     
  6. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    This is basically what I got at earlier with the "suspension of disbelief". Yes, "Signs" has some dopey elements, but it's still a fairly well-told and entertaining story. I rolled my eyes at parts of it, but it drew me in and I liked enough of it to "live with" the lame parts.

    That just didn't happen for me during "Split". Even though I thought the scene in the car was illogical, I could've forgiven it if I felt the rest went anywhere - but it didn't.

    I still think the movie's biggest sin was the Buckley character anyway. Why not just name her "Betty Exposition" and be done with it? :laugh:
     
    Solaris, wayneklein and Vidiot like this.
  7. Agree with the suspension of disbelief but it didn't bother me here as much as it did there especially given how key the water was to the conclusion. Different strokes I suppose but the one big issue is the use of sexual abuse as a O. Henry type of twist essential to the resolution. That certainly cheapens the film and robs it of quite a bit but, aga, the Shy looks at these type of issues without investing much thought or emotion i to it.
     
  8. vince

    vince Stan Ricker's son-in-law

    Considering how MUCH MNS HBO is showing.... it's like a freakin' marathon on all the different HBOs!
    I expect to see this on the channel by the end of the year!
     
  9. Mainline461

    Mainline461 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tamiami Trail
    Art is "of more than ordinary significance", so no, the 3 year old child's finger painting is not art, it's a child's finger painting (although to a parent it might be a masterpiece, but only because he/she is the child's parent). Some photographs are considered art, but is every photo you take with your phone, art, of course not ... because it is not "of more than ordinary significance". Split is just another film produced to make money. Are there films that are considered art, of course there are, just like some photographs, recordings, paintings, etc. Just because a person expresses themselves doesn't mean that it's artistic ... although their parents may have told them so. By the way the quotes were are from the dictionary definition of art.
     
  10. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    But who decides what is "of more than ordinary significance"?

    Any creative endeavor can be considered as "art". What you deem to be "of more than ordinary significance" I might see as junk, so you can't apply that kind of judgment call to it.

    Movies are an art form. "Split" is an expression of art. It's not a good one, but it's still art...
     
  11. Mainline461

    Mainline461 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tamiami Trail

    Now you're coming around ... we've gotten away from talking about 3 year olds to "creative endeavors". A certain level of talent must be within a person to create art. Are there exceptions, sure, there always are. But it's not the norm. Is art considered art to everyone that experiences it, of course not. Movies are an art form but every movie is not art, same with any form of art. Just because you own a guitar and can make a sound come from it doesn't make you a musician/artist.
     
    Deesky likes this.
  12. Solaris

    Solaris a bullet in flight

    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    Yes, agree 100%, but even more annoying is her use as a device to express Shyamalan's wide-eyed stupidity pretending to be a sense of wonder. She ends up being kind of a dotty old fool, really.

    This also points to a rather substantial plot hole:

    If one of the personalities could email and say they needed to see her, when the crisis heated up why couldn't they also email and say "Hey, we've kidnapped three girls, this is serious, and some of us are bent on murder."

    I realize the issue is self-preservation and the above might be too explicit of an admission, but SOME kind of indication of a dangerous situation would seem to be warranted.

    I really need to stop thinking about how dumb this movie is.
     
  13. Mainline461

    Mainline461 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tamiami Trail
    "Split", number 1 at the box office for a second week. Glad to see MNS have some renewed success.
     
  14. balzac

    balzac Senior Member

    Regarding the girls, maybe they're not meant to be portrayed as especially *uncommonly* vapid. It may be just the typical teenager variety. But as we later learn he was scoping them out for some period of time, he has some level of familiarity with how they might tend to react to things, and/or how much they *don't* pay attention to the world around them.

    As for waiting to incapacitate Casey, I think that was a clear stylistic/thematic choice. It's not a particularly great moment in the film, but it wasn't at all some sort of "oh man, c'mon!" moment of stretching credulity. Being in the car with them but nothing else happening for some length of time is clearly meant to build tension and start to give us some information about their characters (the girls aren't paying attention, the guy has patience but seems to feel in control, Casey is having a somewhat interestingly ambiguous reaction). Clearly we're supposed to take away that the guy is weird and has idiosyncrasies, and is something of the "calm, creepy, reserved" bad guy type. We're also supposed to take away that Casey is weird too. She *doesn't* run away, and I would assume that he picks up on the fact that because she doesn't *immediately* try to get away, she's somehow *different.* I think we're supposed to believe he has some sort of extra ability to empathize or at least interpret others' reactions and personalities.

    I think assuming this spray stuff really does what it does and does so as quickly as it does, then as I mentioned before, he really only needs a split second reaction to take them down with it. If such a spray doesn't exist or doesn't work *that* quickly, then that would be by far the biggest stretch in the scene.
     
    Tim S and Dr. Bogenbroom like this.
  15. Mainline461

    Mainline461 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tamiami Trail
    I wholly agree. To me it was a "why" moment, like why isn't she trying to get away? As the movie advances we find out why, she's different, she has a history of abuse, etc. Who knows, maybe she once tried to get away from her uncle and found it better just to remain calm, try reasoning, or succumb. Also, personally I found the two girls in the back seat reaction, "excuse me sir you have the wrong car", a refreshing change from what you would normally expect, a total freak out.
     
    Stormrider77 likes this.
  16. inaptitude

    inaptitude Forum Resident

    I'm surprised that the film isn't getting criticized more for it's treatment of abuse, mental illness and just its general treatment of women in general. This idea that characters are somehow superior (and in some ways benefit) from enduring years of sexual abuse just strikes me as incredibly unsettling. Perhaps because I know where this kind of thing has torn apart families and completely demolished the lives of people, it just seems like its really in bad taste.

    There just seemed to be a real dark underlying thread of misogyny throughout the whole thing... ick. I just felt gross afterwards. Anyhow. Just my thoughts.
     
  17. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    But Casey does make a move to get away - she tries to open the car door. That's when Kevin sedates her.

    IIRC, the other girls weren't drugged as they attempted to flee/fight back - Kevin gassed them as soon as they said "excuse me".

    The bigger issue remains the strange decision for Kevin to leave her unsedated until Casey tries to escape.

    Makes no sense!
     
  18. Mainline461

    Mainline461 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tamiami Trail
    You're correct, she does try to get away, but, I feel had she not tried to get away he may not have gassed her. He almost looked disappointed she tried to escape and had to gas her. The two in the rear (whom he had been stalking as we find out later in the film) were going to get gassed no matter what they did. This of course is how I viewed it, others may see it differently.
     
  19. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Logically, he would've gassed all 3 right away - or at least all at the same time. Once he sedated the girls in the back seat, he should've sedated Casey - especially because she was theoretically the "wild card". Kevin may have "prepared" for the other 2 by stalking them but Casey wasn't supposed to be there, so she would've been an unknown quantity...
     
  20. Mainline461

    Mainline461 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tamiami Trail
    I must say I'm glad I don't let "logic" dictate whether or not I enjoy a movie, or sit and try to pick a movie apart. It just seems counterproductive to the whole idea of the escape aspect of what movies are all about. I've disliked many a film but never after only 10 minutes because I didn't see the logic in a single scene (yeah, yeah, I know you would have "forgiven" the scene if the rest was any good). You've made your point quite clear that you thought this movie was a "stinker".
     
    Stormrider77 likes this.
  21. Then there would be a very different, better movie and the audience (most of them) aren't smart enough to think of that.

    Again, as soon as I suspected he had kidnapped someone or done something awful, I would have gone to the police but the. We wouldn't have had the end we had.

    He's got some interesting concepts he's just not a very good writer. Even the best moments in "The Sixth Sense" feel canned and don't have the natural flow of dialog that you would expect.
     
  22. It is.
     
  23. neo123

    neo123 Senior Member

    Location:
    Northern Kentucky
  24. Mainline461

    Mainline461 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tamiami Trail
    "Split", number 1 at the box office for the third week at 98million with a projected gross total now at 138million. I think it could now be called a hit movie. Good for you M. Night!
     
    Luke The Drifter likes this.
  25. Mainline461

    Mainline461 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tamiami Trail
    "Split", number 1 at the box office for the third week at 98million with a projected gross total now at 138million. I think it could now be called a hit movie. Good for you M. Night!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine