The last film Shyamalan put out suffered from the same problem. Lady in the Water (2006) was fantastic children’s film. It was a little scary for the youngest set, but it was a new fairytale. The Grimm brother’s tales are just as dark and fantastic but we have heard them all many times. Shyamalan created the first true fairytale in years. I went into Lady in the Water expecting what was advertised, a film much like Shyamalan’s previous work, when I didn’t get it I turned on the film. Only after Jennifer and I were leaving the theatre did she explain what he was trying to do. And I realized what a great film and story he had created.
Fast forward a couple of years and Shyamalan’s new film is advertised as, “the directors first R rated film.” Dark stuff, right? Again, I went into the film expecting Shyamalan in his normal state, and again I hated it, till Jennie revealed the real twist. This is Shyamalan doing a 1960’s B movie. In the style of such B movies as They Came From Beyond Space (1967), The Terror (1963), or Attack of the Monsters! (1969) The Happening has a ridiculous horror attacking the protagonists. The advertising should have gone a little something like this:
(in a large flamboyant font each words spins in and spins out before the next word shows up)Horror!
Terror!
(woman shrieks)
Unimaginable Fear!
(show a shot of a massive crowd running and screaming)Voice Over: Stay indoors, keep close to your family, pray for mercy from
(the screen goes black)
The Happening
(pizzicato strings, close up on a woman screaming)
You get my drift. This film is over acted, Mark Wahlberg is hilarious. The dialog is completely over the top and comical. The gruesome suicides are frightening and entertaining. This is Shyamalan doing camp. And he does it well. After “getting it” I enjoyed myself thoroughly. Now, I know it is popular to bag on Shyamalan, but go into this film thinking it is camp and you will enjoy it. Shyamalan is original. In a summer filled with superheros, remakes, and adaptations The Happening is fresh. Enjoy it, because there aren't many originals out there anymore.
Spoiler Alert, there is no twist.
7 out of 10: I loved what Shyamalan was trying to do, he got me to like camp as much as I will, and that aint much.
4 comments:
Now this is more like it.
I think that you drank the kool-aid with this one my friend and I can't say I'm surprised considering how much actual kool-aid you ingest on a regular basis.
I have to say how agitated I get when people do this kind of thing to save their projects- this very type of justification of post-modern intagibles such as "irony" and "camp." Most of the time I have found these half-baked explanations are nothing more than desperate attempts to help better explain a projects whose strength can't be found in the ol' fashioned way by...um, actually watching/enjoying it. I in no way wholly dismiss either term as an accurate descriptor or legtimate aesthetic desire but the fact that your wife had to TELL you what the movie was going for instead of you yourself recognizing it does not bode well. "oh, that canned dialogue...that is stupid on purpose! Not like those other movies this director makes with the shitty dialogue!"
MNS, one of modern cinema's biggest schlockmeister's, post-hoc "camp" explanation strikes me as particularly pathetic considering this man does not have a modest bone in his body and strikes me as the exact kind of meglomaniac that wields the power to design whatever ad campaign he chooses.
-5 out of 10.
Ahh I was waiting for this!
A.) have you seen the movie? It is ok if you haven't I figured that would be the case, but.... I find it hard to argue with someone, just for the pure hatred of M. Night Shyamalan.
B.) The campy dialog and outrageous acting wasn't to save his project. He had planned it to be a B horror film. This is from an interview:
CNN: So a lot of people are going to see this and say, "Is this an environment movie?" Are you sending an Al Gore-like message out here, or is it just a thriller?
Shyamalan: No. 1, it's a B movie... That's what this is. If there's other things that stick to your ribs as you walk out, that's great, but it's supposed to be, you know, zombies eating flesh.
I went into this not expecting camp. The preview made it out to be serious. If you went into Army of Darkness thinking, this is going to be a serious movie. Then you would be disappointed and annoyed that such horrible filmmaking made it to your screen. But since it is camp you expect it.
Thus the "post-hoc" explanation to support bad dialog doesn't work. It was originally made to be over the top. Something I didn't account for in the beginning and thus attributed the over the top dialog as just bad writing. I present Mrs. Pettigrew for a Day in defense. That had over the top dialog and everyone was fine with it. Because that is the genre they were going for. Same thing for the Happening. This is what Shyamalan was going for, and he succeeded.
I think it's no coincidence that you decided to delete this from that very interview:
Shyamalan: "No. 1, it's a B movie. This is the best B movie you will ever see, that's it. That's what this is. If there's other things that stick to your ribs as you walk out, that's great, but it's supposed to be, you know, zombies eating flesh."
THE BEST B movie you will ever see. I have not seen this movie and don't plan on it simply because a) I have not enjoyed his other films and b) I find his work at best gimmicky and at worst atrocious. The fact that his regular projects have routinely suffered from bad dialogue makes this camp tag seem particularly dubious. If that was the case, have all of his films to this point been camp? How does he(and SHOULD HE) draw the distinction between how we "interpret" his work? Shouldn't it be abundantly clear?
Ahh shit!
I thought you might find the whole quote.
I can't argue that his works... needs work. I also can't argue for it being the best camp film. But I do quite enjoy it on that level.
Post a Comment