Shyamalan caught selling tickets to the wrong niche

August 10, 2004 By

thevillagewallOK, I first spotted this a week or two ago and I have been watching ever since for another flash of this possible, maybe, kind of guilt-by-association, post-Passion ghost story.

Of course, we are used to reading about ghost stories involving the work of M. Night Shyamalan. But I am talking about an interesting thread that is woven through some of the essays about his latest movie. The best example of the genre is found in “Village Idiot: The case against M. Night Shyamalan” by Michael Agger, published at Slate.com.

It is always interesting, of course, to watch the tide turn in criticism of an artist who had previously been a critical darling. This is the whole “jump the shark” phenomenon, only being played for keeps in the mainstream media. Shyamalan has been one of the “it” directors for several years. But then he made a movie with, well, that Mel Gibson fellow. And it had a priest in it, and prayer, and that faith-friendly “did somebody save me?” dialogue in the final scene, and the cross symbol on the door and other problems, as well.

Maybe something was seriously wrong with Shyamalan. Pay close attention to this passage from Agger:

The Sixth Sense became one of top 10 grossing films of all time, and what does M. Night do with his newfound power? He stays put in Philadelphia, refusing to move to L.A. and play ball. He creates a local film industry around his productions. And most importantly, he begins the process of burnishing his legend. When a reporter asks him what he wanted his name to mean in the future, he replied, “Originality.” Access to his scripts in progress is extremely limited, lest anyone reveal their secrets.

OK, so far so good. It is interesting, of course, to note that the director is being lashed for the very qualities that previously led critics to praise him. This is one of those artists who wants to stand out and does not mind being honest about it. He holds prayer vigils at the start of his movies and things like … Wait, we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Here comes Agger again:

M. Night could not control the audience, however, and he was unhappy with the poor performance of his sophomore thriller, Unbreakable (2000). He vowed to inject more emotion (and box office) in his next effort. Again, Shyamalan made the talk show rounds, promising another twist ending and cultivating auteurish tics such as putting himself in the movie, just like Quentin, just like Hitchcock. The result was Signs (2002) and a teary Mel Gibson. It became a modest hit, but only after it was adopted by Christians as [a] movie about the power of faith.

Bingo! The spiritual imagery in “Signs” must have been so obvious that even people in the Red Theaters liked it and started buying tickets and spreading the good news about the movie, perhaps even in church publications. Here is how Roberto Rivera, a culture writer for Boundless.org and other similar venues, reacted to the anti-Shyamalan blitz at Slate.com:

The writers’ problems stem from the religious/spiritual core to M. Night Shyamalan’s movies. He’s so distracted by this that he commits howlers like ascribing “Signs” $450 million take to evangelicals. Evangelicals probably didn’t get much of “Signs,” what with its sacramental imagery.

And while we are at it, is a film that makes $227 million or so domestic and $400-plus at the global box office really a “modest” hit? Perhaps in comparison to “The Sixth Sense,” but the adjective still seems a little strained. As does the headline on the second Slate.com essay attacking “The Village.” Speaking of interesting adjectives, check out this headline: “Village of the Darned: More pious hokum from M. Night Shyamalan.”

I think Mr. Shyamalan has wandered into the “culture wars” minefield, whether he wanted to or not.

Now, I have not had a chance to see the film yet as I dash to get ready for a new semester after a wild summer of work, study and travel. But the word of mouth from friends is almost totally positive. The film is doing OK, but not rocketing out of the gate.

Has anyone else in GetReligion-land (a) seen the film as worthy of comment on these semi-political lines or (b) seen other essays and reviews that reflect this Slate.com onslaught?

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Film
About TMatt

Terry Mattingly directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. He writes a weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

  • http://www.timdrake.blogspot.com Tim Drake

    First, I haven’t seen the film either, but look forward to seeing it.

    Second, my retrospective of Shyamalan’s work, “Fear of Evil: The `Catholic` Imagination of M. Night Shyamalan” — http://timdrake.blogspot.com/2003_06_01_timdrake_archive.html — takes a look at the spirituality which pervades all of his films. Too many reviewers forget his earliest film, “Wide Awake.”

    Both Time Magazine and a New York Times review try to paint Shyamalan with political colors, comparing the color-code scheme in “The Village” with our government’s terror alerts as a way of keeping us frightened. Here’s the excerpt from the New York Times:

    “An elaborate set of rules and customs has been devised to keep the beasts at bay: there are watchtowers, warning bells and amber flags and robes, and anything red (“the bad color”) must be buried. (These colors may, in the film’s allegorical scheme, be intended to evoke the government’s color-coded terror alerts.)”

  • http://www.chattablogs.com/aionioszoe Clifton

    I have not seen the movie, but my wife, a children’s librarian, forwarded to me this link in which children’s author Margaret Peterson Haddix and her publisher Simon & Schuster are considering suing Disney over possible “similarities” to a book she wrote. By the way, I haven’t read the book, either, though my wife has. And although she hasn’t been intending to see the movie, she now wants to to see what similarities there are.

  • http://www.chattablogs.com/aionioszoe Clifton

    I’m sorry, but I failed to include the link to the story I referenced:

    http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/10/news/newsmakers/village.reut/index.htm

  • mizznicole

    I’ve never heard of something so ridiculous as criticizing a filmmaker for supporting his local economy and staying near family. For cripes sake! That’s exactly what Robert Rodriguez and the whole Austin film community are on about. The scorn of the film elites is palpable. How did we get _The Lord of the Rings_ in such a climate?

  • http://theparish.typepad.com greg

    Saw it. Loved it. For the record, I consider myself a post-evangelical. I’m surprised that Mr. Agger doesn’t like the film. He may be allowing the spiritual metaphors to blind him. Sure, there are issues of faith, but the metaphors also work on the level of an anti-fundamentalist screed and as a corrective to the politics of fear with which we are so beset these days. The story is entertaining enough on the surface if somewhat contrived, but the multiple layers of meaning make it a worthwhile view for people who don’t enjoy Shyamalan’s trickery and Hitchcock worship.

  • amy

    I haven’t seen it either, but my daughter has, and although she liked it very much, one of the first things she mentioned was its similarities to that novel…which she loved and has read twice, I believe.

  • Molly Douthett

    I think Shaymalyan and the Wachowski brothers have both received the same sort of criticism and for the very same reason; each set the bar so incredibly high on their break out movies (Sixth Sense and Matrix) that it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make anything that will even approach much less surpass the level of audiences’ willingess to get on board with the premise. It isn’t so much that the subsequent movies stunk but that critics’ expectations were stoked and only the actual Second Advent would be sufficient to wow them. I haven’t seen the Village but did see Signs and was disappointed in it, mostly because I was so thoroughly creeped out by Sixth Sense. I even had to sleep with the light on and will still not stand too close to the bed for fear of someone reaching out to grab my ankle.