Village People
8 o'clock, August 9, 2004
The nice thing about the auteur approach to filmmaking is that it gives you someone to blame.
So, let me start by saying I’m one of the eleven people in the English-speaking world who hasn’t seen “The Sixth Sense” — and boy, am I glad I haven’t, because if I had (and if it was really any good) I would have been even more disappointed by “The Village” than I was. Also, if I had gone to see it, M. Night Shmalyan might have gotten some of my money, and that is something that is never going to happen again.1
I won’t give you any spoilers — but don’t worry, if you do see this film (which course of action I am, obviously, recommending against) it will spoil itself for you. You’ll have the film’s central “revelation” figured out by the time the first monster comes knocking at the door, and after that it won’t matter how good Mr. Night S. is with camera angles and whooshy noises and snuffly noises. You will feel absolutely no fear, because after that you will know that the film is on rails.2
In due course and a series of clumsy flashbacks, the alleged reversal will be presented to you and to the protagonist. (The protagonist’s reaction, by the way, is entirely implausible: think about the way it’s revealed, then ask yourself exactly what the protagonist’s terror is in response to — how does the protagonist even understand what’s being shown?) You will be disturbed — when you look at your watch and see how much of the movie is left to run.
By the time Mr. Night S. presents his attempt at a second reversal, you will have no trust in him, as a director, to do anything interesting, so your only reaction will be to look again at your watch and sigh regretfully, knowing that at least another fifteen minutes of your time will be wasted explaining this and tying it up.
Eventually, in a way that does not so much wrap up the film’s implausibilities (which in a better-plotted film one might be able to over look, but which in this one produce a disbelief too heavy to suspend) as parade them, the film will end.
And you will be left to ponder the real mysteries of “The Village”:
- Why did so many good actors sign up for such a bad script?
- Why were their performances so wooden?3
- What justifies the reputation Mr. Night S. has gotten as a writer/director?
And, most curiously:
- When was the last time a film left you feeling this badly ripped off?
If you figure it out, let me know.
1 No, I didn’t see “Signs” either. The reviews weren’t that great, and anyway Mel Gibson makes me break out in a rash.
2 Yes, there’s a subplot, which does have a twist in it that’s merely foreshadowed rather than telegraphed. Someone will undoubtedly claim that this subplot is the main plot and that, therefore, the film is not on rails To that I say: Feh. It’s not interesting or complex enough to be the main plot. (A role reversal is not a plot reversal, Mr. Night S.) In a film of this type — if it’s not good enough to transcend its type — the “plot” is just the process of answering the question: “What the hell is going on?” And that, as I’ve said, you’ll know long before Mr. Night S. decides to hit you over the head with it.
3 The one exception is Adrien Brody, who gives us the film’s one really interesting character. Unfortunately, that character is completely wasted on this plot. As for Hurt, Weaver, Phoenix et al. — they just leave me expecting to cringe the next several times I hear the word “coyote”. I know the dialogue was stilted. The dialogue in “Ride With The Devil” was stilted, too, but that didn’t stop Tobey Maguire.
I take it you weren't impressed with the performance of Ms. Bryce Dallas Howard? Many reviews I've read have gone on and on about her.