M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village"

Yeah, it was definitely to help sell the time period up front. But as you say, since they can tell the kids anything, why even adopt a 19th century period style of dress and living? They could have just as easily isolated themselves in the preserve and dressed like 70's hippies or dust-bowl era farmers. Since Hurt's character was a history professor, maybe that period has some significance to him as "pure" that they don't really explain. So while I agree showing the gravestone up front so prominently was designed to answer any quesitons about when this takes place that would linger if it wasn't shown, I'm just not sure its that unreasonable that the elders would have chosen to date gravestones that way. Shymalan probably should have been more subtle about the date by having it be in the background and not so prominent, but then 80% of the audience wouldn't have even noticed it probably.

Very true. He was already known for the "twist", so The Village is constructed so that audiences will think they've figured out the twist when they find that the creatures are fake, then given a little doubt when one appears in the woods, but are quickly shown that its Noah. And they're supposed to think that was the twist and not see the other coming.

 

Come on. Common sense to pick a fake year? What is the imperative to teach history at all to these kids? They are living a giant lie anyway. The mental gymnastics needed to find a logic to this movie's premise and supporting practices is too much for me and many others apparently.

 

Yes, indeed. That they simply stepped back the dates to recreate a time period is clear as day. It was clear from the opening gravestone and repeated in every detail - I remember one of the details was they had bookshelves full of books but the covers and indications that they were modern reprintings of classic books had been stripped off, showing quite clearly that they were not rejecting history, they were simply trying to go back in time to it. Regarding the cynical comment above about how audiences couldn't figure it out - How could anyone not notice this sort of thing, in a film in which everyone in the audience is looking for clues?

I'm glad that The Village is considered one of his best films, and given the actors involved I remain surprised about how the film has not been released on BluRay anywhere in the world.

 

I kind of thought it was based on the Blithedale Romance.

 

All this smacks of making excuses for the overused unreliable narrator cheat that is a hallmark of weak filmmaking. Believe it or not, I went to see this movie knowing nothing about MKS earlier movies -I hadn't even watched 6th Sense at that time, so no, not everyone was "looking for clues". How many noticed the book bindings you mention? That's the first I have heard about them being hinky.

 

The one item I saw that seemed to stand out as looking out of place was the chest that Sigourney Weaver has where she has locked away news paper clippings and other things from the modern world. Not that they couldn't have a wooden chest with a lock like that back in the 1890's. but it didn't look nearly as rustic as everything else did. I'm sure that was intentional.

 

I suspect that it's for one of the following reasons. 1) It made less money and had less critical support and 2) perhaps it had something to do with Night breaking ties off with Disney right after its release or 3) it didn't sell well on DVD so, perhaps, Disney doesn't see much of a demand (or the BD's for "Sixth" and "Unbreakable" didn't sell well along with his falling reputation, Disney just won't release it.

It could also be simply that they forgot about releasing it. It looks as if a high def master was made from the viewings I've. Seen recently.

I don't mind slight of hand when it is handled well but in "The Village" the tombstone is put smack dab in the Auden e's face deliberately misleading them rather than withholding information. I think that Night felt he could get away with it without thinking through the consequences in terms of audience response. It's the same type of misstep (only even worse because the script just isn't very good) for "Lady". Seems like he can't take constructive criticism very well particularly after his early successss.

 

I don't have a problem with the use of unreliable narrators provided they are done well but, in the case of "The Village" the film itself and Night are unreliable and I believe that audiences (rightly) felt betrayed. The reveal is only as good as how skillfully it is set up and it seemed to me that he was just trying to figure out a way to top himself and keep people guessing no matter what was involved. Stating that it took place in the 19th century upfront made the rcveal a betrayal to many audience members. Once you've betrayed the goodwill of the audience, you will lose a lot of them.

 

Ok, but, how is that betrayal any different than having Bruce Willis walking around, alive and well? Because it was etched in stone rather than just suggested? I can accept that as a valid criticism.

I expect the reason for the grave stone being so blatant was because people might otherwise assume it was a present-day Quaker village, given that the Plymouth Plantation outfits look a bit like Quakers.

You know it has been so many years that I don't know when in watching the film I realized it was not in the past. Maybe when the metal pipes were seen in the forest? Maybe when William Hurt was so precise when he asked the doctor if the victim could be saved by "any" means. Not sure. But I do remember that there was no moment of surprise when it falls into place, as there was with Sixth Sense. I guess there wasn't any moment of surprise in Signs or Unbreakable either, though Unbreakable had many shocks...

 

I think you guys have put a lot more thought into analyzing this movie than Shyamalan ever did writing it.

 

In "Sixth" there isn't anything that states he is alive--he only interacts with the kid AFTER his death. No one else sees him or interacts with him we, as the audience, just assume that he is alive but there are very, very subtle clues in the film that suggest he isn't. In that film Night doesn't blatantly mis lead us--it's more a sin of omission or withholding info.

From a storytelling logic POV, it works because we are clued in even if we don't realize it.

It's the difference between honesty and a con.

 

I don't remember any metal pipes in the forest. Where were those?

 

I don't remember this either and I watched it recently with my wife. I do disagree with those that state it is a bad film--I don't think it's bad so much as flawed. There's much to like about the film and, if Night had taken some constructive criticism, I think it could have been a better film. I do think that many of Roger Ebert's comments about the film are accurate though.

 

The metal pipes are a deleted scene the poster is confusing with the released film. They are what makes the creature noises, when the wind blows through them.

If your leader (a history teacher) believes the setting of the 19th century is ideal for setting up an utopia, then it makes since to set the Village up the way it is. For one, you would not want modern communication or transportation if your goal is isolation. The creatures would not be much of a deterrent under those conditions. Also, living like simpler times has often been the focus of utopian societies.

 

Living like simpler times and pretending and misleading people that they are living in different times are not the same thing. That has never been a component of any utopian community I am familiar with.

 

It is a movie. I have never seen a billionaire who fought as a vigilante crime fighter dressed as a bat either, but the Nolan movies did present it as a believable premise. I feel the premise of the Village holds up quite well.

1. The elders are emotionally disturbed. I do not agree with what they do, but I can believe it.
2. Their leader is a billionaire that can do virtually whatever he wants (something previous utopian communities could not do).
3. The questions about how it works are answered in the film (nature preserve, guards, no-fly zones, etc.)

I understand you did not like the premise (and you are not alone). This movie seems to be a love or hate proposition.

I have no problem with suspending disbelief for this film, but I can understand your position.

 

I understand and respect your take of this movie. I do think the look and performances are excellent in this movie.

 

We can agree that everything since this film is crud (although I have not seen The Visit yet).

 

Wellllllll...I happen to like Lady In the Water, myself. I'm apparently in the vast minority, but I find a lot of it very interesting - and some of it quite moving! I think it suffers from "we now hate MKS, so it sucks" syndrome, personally.

The MKS movies AFTER Lady, however, I will agree are pretty, uh...not good.

 

Same here, though its been a few years since I have seen it. And it is pretty arrogant of MNS having himself in the movie as the writer who will write a story to save the world or whatever it is.

 

You bring up a very important point that should have been explored more--the leaders ARE emotionally disturbed and their leader can't form a new emotional bond (with Signorney Weaver's character for example) because of the potential of loss.

The themes of the film really are all about loss and mental illness (and how they cope with PTSD)-loss of choice, loss of freedom, emotional loss and the inability to,connect with others so extreme outside that they have isolated themselves in an attempt to try and reconnect with life and protect their loved ones. It is, in many respects, a delusion that they think they can forever be isolated from the real world and, as such, a form,of mental disturbance. The fact that Hurt (as the leader) allows his daughter to venture into the outside world is a signicant step in recovering from a mental illness so pervasive that they believe they can create a sustainable reality that will work.

 

Considered by who to be one of his best films? That's not what I see out there.

The Village polarized critics. It earned a "rotten" certification at Rotten Tomatoes with only 43% giving it a positive appraisal, based on 206 reviews and an average score of 5.5/10. The consensus reads, "The Village is appropriately creepy, but Shyamalan's signature twist ending disappoints." At Metacritic, the film holds a score of 44 out of 100, based on 40 reviews, indicating "mixed or average reviews".

Roger Ebert gave the film one star and wrote: "The Village is a colossal miscalculation, a movie based on a premise that cannot support it, a premise so transparent it would be laughable were the movie not so deadly solemn ... To call the ending an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes. It's a crummy secret, about one step up the ladder of narrative originality from It was all a dream. It's so witless, in fact, that when we do discover the secret, we want to rewind the film so we don't know the secret anymore." The film is listed on Ebert's "Most Hated" list. There were also comments that the film, while raising questions about conformity in a time of "evil," did little to "confront" those themes. Slate's Michael Agger commented that Shyamalan was continuing in a pattern of making "sealed-off movies that [fall] apart when exposed to outside logic."

The Village (2004 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia »

It did make money -- grossed $256M on a $60M (actually $72M) budget -- so it was successful from a business point of view. Not a critical success at all. I'd call it somewhere between mixed & bad in terms of critical reception.

I would put Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs among his best films. Everything after that... not so much.

 

Well yeah, it would be 4th place for sure - it's simply from his good years, before the sharp quality fall-off of Lady in the Water and the one about evil pollen.

I may have exaggerated it being considered one of his best, but, it isn't part of that late phase.

It's always number 4 -

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/01/ranking-m-night-shyamalans-movies-worst-to-best

Rating M. Night Shyamalan's movies from worst to best | KSL.com »

Ranking the Films of M. Night Shyamalan »

 

Now that M. Night has had a critical resurgence, I would like to recommend The Village again. It is my wife and I's favorite film of his, and one of our favorite films, period. The cast is incredible, and we love the "feel" of this movie. It is NOT a monster movie, so don't go in expecting one. It is a Gothic Romance (Thanks WayneKlein).

 

Spoiler alert...

Not meaning to threadcrap, but my friends dragged me to The Village years ago and I thought it was beyond awful to the point of being offensive. It most definitely is a monster movie, but the real monsters are of course the people running things, which is meant to be an obvious allegory for the people running the country at the time--even the implications are annoying. The worst was that Shyamalan took his most talented actor who has the ability to very subtly show emotions or logical thought processes, and cast him with a mental disability that required him to act like Ben Stiller's Simple "never go full retard" Jack spoof in Tropic Thunder. Of course that was a comedy meant to denigrate actors. What was Shyamalan's excuse? Casting an academy award winning artist like Brody in this role that required overacting to the nth degree is like asking a neurosurgeon to set broken clavicles.