What is Wrong With M. Night Shyamalan

Note: 1). This post will very likely contain spoilers of some sort, so don’t read if you don’t want to know stuff about certain movies. 2). The title of this post isn’t meant to come across sounding completely angry or spiteful, the question it possesses is merely one I intent to confront in this post.  Okay, that is it for notes for now . . .

So, last night, after eating some left over gumbo at Meg and Evan’s house, Evan and I decided to go watch Mr. Shyamalan‘s newest movie, “The Happening” starring Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel.  Admittedly I was a little skeptical about seeing this movie because I have been disappointed with something about every other M. Night Shyamalan movie I have seen.  Here is the thing though, I’ve never left watching a film by Mr. Shyamalan and said, “that was an awful piece of shit, I can’t believe I just spent time watching that!”  But I have responded to all his movies with a general feel of dissatisfaction and after watching “The Happening” and thinking about it over a night’s sleep I think I may finally have found what it is that bothers me about Mr. Shyamalan’s films.  Of course this is all a matter of personal opinion and y’all are more than welcome to agree, disagree, claim that Shyamalan is the greatest director of all times, or say that his work is little more than colorful dog shit . . . anyway, let’s see if I can write this so that I am making the most sense.  Allow my friend Haley Joel Osment to express the idea for me:

  

This is exactly what I believe.  It isn’t that M. Night Shyamalan can’t come up with some pretty good movie premises.  It isn’t that he can’t get the audiences to jump at certain times.  It isn’t even that the acting or the cinematography in his films seem all that bad.  But what it comes down to in the end, I think, is that he just kind of cops out for mediocrity and ultimately this pisses people off.  

Allow me to discuss further by considering a couple of his films.

First off, Mr. Shyamalan has three films that he directed/wrote that I have not seen.  They are, “Praying With Anger” “Wide Awake” and “Lady in the Water.”  Of these three Shyamalan films that I haven not seen I know absolutely nothing about the first two and so can pass no judgment.  Of “Lady in the Water” all I can say is that it received such god awful reviews even I was not interested in the least bit.  Beyond that I have seen every other movie that Shyamalan has directed.

Let’s start with the movie that really put M. Night’s name on the board, that of course being 1999’s “The Sixth Sense.”  Personally I think that of all of Mr. Shyamalan’s movies that I’ve seen this has to be my favorite.  It is a good ghost story that is creepy enough to freak you out but not so scary that you will loose a ton of sleep over it (though, seeing it in theaters when I was 15 years old, it did make having to take a piss at night a little bit freaky for a few days).  Haley Joel Osment and Bruce Willis both do a really fantastic job acting in the film.  But here is my criticism.  I honestly didn’t know what was going to happen in the movie before going to see it (I hadn’t heard about the twist or anything) all I knew is that it was a ghost movie that was getting some pretty descent reviews.  But within the first ten minutes or so of the movie I had figured out that Bruce Willis’ character was obviously a ghost himself (first spoiler right here for any of y’all who haven’t seen “The Sixth Sense” though by now, even if you haven’t seen it, you probably have heard about the twist).  I didn’t need to watch over an hour and a half of the film to figure that out.  I guess what really got me is how many people, upon seeing “The Sixth Sense” were like, “Wow, I didn’t see that coming!”  Seriously? I don’t know, maybe people are not as perceptive as I was at 15, but I thought the fact that Bruce Willis’ character get shot right in the beginning of a movie about ghosts was a pretty good clue that he was dead, further supported by the fact that the only person who ever talks to him throughout the rest of the movie is the kid who just so happens to be able to see said ghosts.  All and all it wasn’t a bad film but I just felt that the “twist” was kind of weak and predictable and considering the relative quality of the rest of the movie this left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

Next we have “Unbreakable” again with Willis but this time also including Samuel L. Jackson.  “Unbreakable” is yet again a rather original premise focusing on two characters; one who seems to be invulnerable to harm and have a strange ability to know what people have done when touching them (Willis) and another man who is incredibly frail and harm prone (Jackson).  The story kind of takes a super hero type of twist with Jackson urging Willis to use his powers.  In the end it turns out that Jackson has caused a whole slew of disasters in hopes of finding a person just like Willis to be his “nemesis.”  It has been quite a while since I last saw “Unbreakable” but I just remember thinking, “Okay, kind of a cool plot, but just so nihilistic and all around disinterested.”  Samuel L. Jackson is definitely the highlight of the movie in my opinion but beyond him it just struck me as kind of meandering and not really giving a flying fuck about existing.  Quite essentially it just seemed “half-assed.”

Moving on.  2002’s “Signs” starring Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix.  Of all of M. Night Shyamalan’s movies that I’ve seen, “Signs” is my least favorite because I think it the least creative.  Sure it has it’s moments of suspense and a few good jumps here and there but I just wasn’t all that struck by a sense of originality.  And then there is this whole background story about the death of Mel Gibson’s character’s wife and some jazz about Joaquin Phoenix and baseball and it all just kind of sucked.  Really I can’t put my finger on a specific detail beyond saying, again, that the movie just seemed pretty half-assed and kind of a poor rip off of H. G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds (the aliens in The War of the Worlds were vulnerable to Earth microbes and in “Signs” they were vulnerable to water.  There were other weak similarities too).

After “Signs” we had 2004’s “The Village” again with Joaquin Phoenix and introducing Bryce Dallas Howard, the daughter of Ron Howard.  Next to “The Sixth Sense” I think this is my other favorite film by M. Night Shyamalan.  “The Village” really did (does) have an originality to it.  The premise of a secluded village bordered by a forest supposedly inhabited by unknown monsters is quite captivating.  The look and feel of the movie is also rather good.  But, like “The Sixth Sense” I had kind of seen the plot twist coming from afar and this annoyed me.  The spoiler is that there are not really any monsters, it is just the village elders in disguise to keep the other villagers from asking too many questions or trying to leave.  The village it turns out is in the modern world, just hidden in a giant nature reserve.  Okay, great, neat twist jackass.  I would have been much happier if there really had been some strange creatures in the woods and if it really was a secluded village in say either some post-apocalyptic world or a whole different world.  Why?  I don’t know that just seemed more appealing than the twist.  It was another “Really, that is what you are going to pull?” moment in Shyamalan films.

Skip M. Night. Shyamalan’s next movie, “Lady in the Water” and that brings us to “The Happening.”  Again, like most of his films (except maybe “Signs”) we are given a pretty interesting premise and two good actors (well one is an actress).  The images of people offing themselves in various ways for unknown reasons is quite creative and even the eventual possible explanation, that plants are producing some chemical that is causing people to commit suicide, is intriguing.  All around the basic plot makes for a rather different look at the apocalyptic film (no huge violent natural disasters or invasive somethings or others like zombies, aliens, or robots) but, as has turned out to be status quo with Shyamalan at this point, the movie just seemed weak and not really all that driven with itself.  I think both Wahlberg and Deschanel are very good at acting but even they seemed a bit lost and weak in “The Happening.”  All around I left the movie, last night, feeling like there had been a potential good idea with a relatively good start that just kind of fizzled out.  It seemed like there were a number of options where the movie could have really kicked it up a bit (like some more on the need for groups to separate or the crazy recluse lady) but never did.  Again it just fizzled.

So, what is my suggestion to Mr. Shyamalan?  Personally I think he has the ability to think up some pretty descent premises and plot ideas but he lacks skill at carrying them through to full fruition.  Also, while his directing isn’t horrible I have seen similar movies done much better.  What I would suggest is that M. Night Shyamalan sticks to producing.  He hires himself a few talented young writers and he brainstorms some plot ideas with them but lets one or two of them handle most of the writing end.  Then he finds a director, somebody who will really embrace a project and not cop out (and also won’t over do the whole special effects thing) and lets them go with it.  Hell Shyamalan can even still make his stupidly vain cameos in these movies if he wants to, but all and all let others handle them because chances are some people can do a better job than he can.

There, I’ve said it, I think M. Night Shyamalan creates half assed movies that could have been good if somebody else had been handling them.

Post Notes: 1).  I’d love to hear what people think about my conclusion and M. Night Shyamalan, just keep it respectful (to me, I could care less if you want to rip Shyamalan a new one).  2).  I feel like I deserve a thank you card from IMDb for the number of hotlinks to their site that I’ve included on this post. 3). This is definitely on of the longest posts I’ve written in quite some time, it was real fun!

~ by Nathaniel on June 17, 2008.