criterionforum.org

on every forum on the internet there is always
at least 1 member who for some unfathomable
reason writes only half way across the full screen.
No-one knows why.
Enlighten us, pianocrash.

Not much of a mystery - it's a case of hitting the return button every time the edge of the 'Post a reply' box is reached.

pianocrash wrote:Since I don't have cable tv, and since I don't read
entertainment weekly or the millions of internet
equivalents, I actually was able to see this movie fresh,
away from the hype, the aggrandizing articles, the trailers,
the chat show appearances, and everything in between
me & the film itself. Imagine that.

Yes, but you do have the internet, and post on the Criterionforum message board. You also seem to be aware of "the hype, aggrandizing articles," etc. etc. If you liked the movie, that's wonderful, but your post seems to imply that since you supposedly saw this movie in a vacuum, and could view it objectively, your untainted opinion of this film is the correct opinion, while everyone else is just influenced by, apparently, Entertainment Weekly.

I think I'm intelligent enough to judge a film on its own merits, regardless of the controversy surrounding it. I would think that's true for most of the people here (except maybe the people who are really looking forward to Snakes on a Plane).

I thought Lady in the Water was pretty dumb, and clearly the work of an egomaniac.

And, as Highway 61 points out, Shyamalan's statement that he wanted to take his name off the film is clearly disingenuous considering his acting role in the film. Although I wouldn't put it past him to have devised a marketing strategy where he takes his name off the film and then leaks the story to the press right before the release date, or uses his role in the film to reveal who the director is, thereby creating, in Shyamalan's mind, an earth-shattering revelation...his biggest twist yet!

pianocrash wrote:Since I don't have cable tv, and since I don't read entertainment weekly or the millions of internet equivalents, I actually was able to see this movie fresh, away from the hype, the aggrandizing articles, the trailers, the chat show appearances, and everything in between me & the film itself. Imagine that.

Yes, I'd seen his previous movies. But even that couldn't have prepared me for the visual fluidity of the film. It's as much christopher doyle's film as it is shyamalan's, as it is his circle of cherry-picked actors reading his almost-beyond-unbelievable-dialogue & making it stick.

Yes, there are some narrative gaps toward the end of the film, and the small amount of hokey which pokes around here & there (giamatti's stutter, the nearly wooden caricatures of "types" within the films, fantastical names for fantastical creatures, director given the tastiest character, critic being eaten alive by animal, etc.), but the center of the
whole film rests, to me, in the death of cynicism (sorry, I'll find another word to be hung up on later, but for now just bear with me). Is that so bad?

The point of the whole storybook aspect is to reflect the suspension of disbelief within the film itself. Without it, it would probably just turn into birth, another film which relied heavily on its visual tactics, but was overburdened with cheap reasoning & empty performances. You
could probably say the same for lady in the water, but then you probably rate films on some sort of sick mike d'angelo point scale (and that would just be silly). This isn't a baseball game; it's art!

I was discouraged at first to find the bank of heavy hitters acting on the screen in such menial terms in this film, but I realized that they were there to serve a purpose. Sure, jeffrey wright probably deserves better, along with bill irwin, and everybody else, but they did work in the slightly messy stew.

But maybe the real reason behind all my love for this film had to do with the monarchs fluttering into season the weekend it was released. I guess I'm just that easy?

I'm sorry... I hate coming on like this, but what in god's name are you talking about?? Was that about you or about the film?

I only ask because I'm very interested in feedback from that rare soul who's been witness to none of the splutter surrounding this film...

SPOILERS BELOW

Finally saw this tonight and before I get into it, I should say that I liked Sixth Sense, I liked Unbreakable and loved Signs so I certainly am not coming from the anti-Shyamalan camp.

The first thing that should be noted is that this is somewhat of a departure for Shyamalan. It's in many ways a child's movie - not a thriller as the advertising would have you believe. There is no big mystery to be solved, but rather the pleasure of watching a good fairy tale (and it is quite beautiful at the core) being told.

The major problem which has been now well documented is Shyamalan's shameless ego stroking character inserted into the movie. Playing a writer, he is at one point told by the lead character Story (yes, Story) that he will write something that will change the world. There is also a lot of talk by characters about the expectations of a "usual" plot and Shyamalan (the director) not so subtly showboats on how he's subverting them.

The result is that Lady In The Water comes off in many ways as Shyamalan desperately wanting to be loved. It's a film by a director lacking confidence but who also bristles at criticism. It's no suprise that the only character to be harmed in the film is a film critic.

The biggest bright spot of the film however is Paul Giamatti. He plays every scene wonderfully, choosing some brilliant ways to act some fairly standard scenes. And as for pianocrash's assertion that this is very much a "Christopher Doyle film" I feel the complete opposite. His touch is barely felt on the film, except in some early scenes with some wonderful warm color. But compositionally, this is still Shyamalan's film.

If you already hate Shyamalan this movie certainly won't change your mind, and current Shyamalan fans unfortunately will be disappointed.

on every forum on the internet there is always
at least 1 member who for some unfathomable
reason writes only half way across the full screen.
No-one knows why.
Enlighten us, pianocrash.

Not much of a mystery - it's a case of hitting the return button every time the edge of the 'Post a reply' box is reached.

Indeed.

Yes, but you do have the internet, and post on the Criterionforum message board. You also seem to be aware of "the hype, aggrandizing articles," etc. etc. If you liked the movie, that's wonderful, but your post seems to imply that since you supposedly saw this movie in a vacuum, and could view it objectively, your untainted opinion of this film is the correct opinion, while everyone else is just influenced by, apparently, Entertainment Weekly.

I think I'm intelligent enough to judge a film on its own merits, regardless of the controversy surrounding it. I would think that's true for most of the people here (except maybe the people who are really looking forward to Snakes on a Plane).

I thought Lady in the Water was pretty dumb, and clearly the work of an egomaniac.

Yes, no, yes, no, definitely no, maybe, & probably.

I'm sorry... I hate coming on like this, but what in god's name are you talking about?? Was that about you or about the film?

I only ask because I'm very interested in feedback from that rare soul who's been witness to none of the splutter surrounding this film...

Yes. But I would like to continue any/all discussion of the quote & quoted topics in the crazy-time wacky hour thread, and/or a thread about fat children having heart attacks at 11, movies that I made up in my head during a browse through the local strokebook emporium, the relevance of the strokebook emporium, care & handling for you & your collectible sports jerseys, the darjeeling ltd., hitchcock as lubricant vs. the dry shoehorn variety, pita pockets consuming quantities in the southeasternmost areas of duluth, the relevance of m. night shamalamadingdong, sly stone's food stamp collection, old crack pipe & pump varieties, the pointer sisters & having doubles & triples of all their records, pointer sisters cassettes, the pointer sisters, & the city of philadelphia. Saw you there?

tryavna wrote:Mr. Sausage, I actually think you make a lot of good points here; however, discussions of this sort always remind me of a line by Homer Simpson in one of the earliest Simpsons episodes:

"What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind!"

That is actually a famous epigram generally attributed to the great 18th Century Irish Bishop and Idealist philosopher, George Berekley and I laughed when I first read it, but, as ever, it is even funnier when such words of wisdom are placed in the mouth of the loveable, bumbling slob.

HerrSchreck wrote:I'm stunned to read favorable reviews of SIGNS.. of course to each his own and I'm glad some at least found pleasure in this film, but to me & mine, this was truly one of the worst films I've ever ever, man I mean ever. Especially considering the promise inherent in 6th SENSE. SIGNS made Schrader's EXCORCIST-DOMINION look like THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC.

Indeed. Gary Tooze, to my surprise, reviewed Signs recently, calling it, "slick, smart, and keeps you on the edge of your seat with fine performances, subtle humor and slight references to faith and conviction." I avoided this film on its initial release, as Unbreakable, though very intriguing, had such a ridiculous ending, that I was reticent to watch his latest film - an alien-invasion of a would-be Norman Rockwell family, no less. But Gary's high praise intrigued me and so I decided to rent the film. Now, the premise was very familiar and it reminded me of so many whimsical fantasy films of years gone by: War of the Worlds is the bedrock of all alien-invasion stories and Wells' classic tale pervades this film throughout; the aesthetic of the homey corn-farm in Field of Dreams returns, but it isn't Shoeless Joe that's lurking in the corn, folks; the obvious influence of Speilberg's Close Encounters is felt in many scenes. Frankly, I didn't see much originality in this film, apart from the aspect of loss-of-faith in Gibson's priest. but what it curious is that this priest is also a corn-farmer! How did he find the time to do both jobs? Corn-farming is a tough enterprise and by the sound of things, he had a large and loyal flock before he left the Church. The contrivance of the little girl's fickle taste for water bothered me, as did the whole aspect of the aliens' reaction to water - why come to a planet whose surface is 75% water, to enslave or eat beings who are, physically speaking, also 75% water?! I am always perplexed by the praise Shyamalan receives for his 'clever' writing, when I consider these contrivances and absurdities. The idea that a conspicuous chronic cripple could be a prolific terrorist destroyed the power of Unbreakable for me. The narrative unfolds reasonably enough in Signs until the aliens finally attack, after much waiting (they could hardly have been preparing, as they seem to have no strategy at all) and the family, after boarding up the house, simply stand around, putting all their hopes on the strength of three inch nails against galaxy conquering super-beings. So they opt for the old 'hole-up in the basement' option, but all the time, they all seem quite calm, quite a contrast to the hysterical screaming of Nevada Fanning in War of the Worlds, but soon Gibson freaks out once again, only to find compassion once again. And then... it's all over; the aliens somehow conquered, rather vaguely through "primitive means" - but wait! there's one alien left! Ooh! Terrible film and I haven't even mentioned the indistinctive flashbacks to the mother's absurd death, where she is conscious, yet feels no pain despite being mashed in half between a truck and 4x4! Eh? She can even talk and with considerable lucidity! Despite these massive flaws, I had a jolly good time chuckling away at this yarn - sometime the humour was intended by Night, but often unintentional and that is what bothers me about his films: they generally have the air of a somewhat serious and adult stance and Shyamalan speaks of his films as serious, intelligent stories, yet silliness and goofiness seem to be part of the mix. Joachin Phoenix (b. 1974) was wasted in this film and it was hard to believe his character was Gibson's (b.1956) brother.

To be honest this film, as well as Spielberg's, War of the World, didn't stand much of a chance, as I have pretty much had my fill of alien-invasion films where there has not been any progress since the 1953 film of Wells' novel. Filmmakers seem to read the wrong books or do the wrong thinking regarding alien intelligences (as well as 'Divine' intelligences) as time after time, we keep seeing the same premise, narrative, situations, characters and conclusions. Adding a religious dimension to this well-worn premise could be fruitful, but with Signs, Shyamalan does very little with it - Gibson's character regains his metaphysics yet how this came about is not even hinted at - some form of Providence is the Divine agent, it seems. Ultimately, this was a story not worth telling, as I feel that we've seen all this stuff before, but it is presented in very sophisticated manner with fine atmosphere. But guess what? Old Gordo was bothered by the score! Overbearing and overused. Interestingly, in the making-of, Shyamlan states that he didn't want a score, but he obviously realised that a film where one doesn't show the threat, needs music to indicate that threat; it takes a master of the medium to use silence successfully.

Gary Tooze asks us to trust him, as Shyamalan is "one of the futures of modern cinema as we know it" and if that is case, then I at least hope that he refines his writing significantly and jettisons the magpie-ing of Hitchcock, Spielberg and many 'magical realism' films. His new film, Lady in the Water doesn't sound too appealing, frankly. Shyamalan's mini freak-out with Disney is quite amusing. He really seems to be convinced of his own genius, but to be quite honest, his films are just old fashioned escapist entertainment trying to be serious dramas on some level; they more or less succed in the former, but not the latter. Hitchcock remains the master of this alchemy of dark humour, suspense and psychology, but Hitch never went in for fantasy, as when you do that, those other three aspects are often undermined. Bringing Christianity into the mix is certainly a bridge too far for me, personally. Tarkovsky is probably the best - perhaps only - artist who could pull these disparate elements together and often to mesmerizing effect to various degrees in his films, but then, he was the most patient of writers and directors and that is what complex stories require; Signs seems thrown together in comparison, yet there is an earnestness and seriousness to the film that could only cause bemusement in me.

Just rented this movie and was still high from making fun of Flyboys (if you haven't seen FB yet, you must! It is good laughs from beginning to end), so I figured this was a surefire way to have fun drunkenly laughing at a stupid movie. Unfortunately, the movie wasn't all bad. The sincerety of the performances and the sweetness of the story got to me, and I thoroughly enjoyed every scene involving the film critic.

By the end I was disappointed that the movie had failed, because for a little while there I was under the impression that I was horribly misinformed by everybody and that Mr. Shyamalan was indeed the brilliant visionary he promised to be so many years ago with that little ghost movie he did.

Spoiler

I like that the film critic was wrong about the identity of the interpreter and the guild, and I was pleased that Shyamalan was sidestepping cliches, but then he brings in the most obvious character as the guardian at the end, and I think that is where I realized the movie (for me at least) had failed.

really? it wasn't when he cast himself as a writer whose work would change the world? seems to me that "lady in the water" is nothing more than masterbation.

As someone who has enjoyed much of Shyamalan's cinematic output, I was really surprised by how much I not only didn't enjoy LITW, but by how much I disliked it. I went into the film with a very open mind, hoping that Shyamalan would prove all of the naysayers wrong. Unfortunately, to me the film simply "felt" juvenile and half baked. Now, the films supporters claim that one needs to be open to fantasy to enjoy the film, but I am as much a supporter of good fantasy as anyone. To me, this was simply a film that wasn't going to work from day one, because the script just isn't that great. That being said, I hope that he can recover from this film. But boy, what a mess and a disappointment.

What's up with Cahiers du Cinema putting this on their top 10 list this year?

Maybe they saw the untranslated version.

Anyway, this was the first Shaman movie I skipped, and I don't plan on seeing any more. Every one of his films has been disappointing and fundamentally silly.

Cahiers top 10.

Wow what a boring list:

1. Coeurs (Alain Resnais)
Le Soleil (Aleksandr Sokurov)
3. The Host (Bong Joon-ho)
4. Lady Chatterley (Pascale Ferran)
5. Un couple parfait (Nobuhiro Suwa)
6. Ces rencontres avec eux (Danièle Huillet & Jean-Marie Straub)
The Lady in the Water (M. Night Shyamalan)
Capote (Bennett Miller)
9. The Departed (Martin Scorsese)
10. Flags of Our Fathers (Clint Eastwood)
The New World (Terrence Malick)

Barmy wrote:Anyway, this was the first Shaman movie I skipped, and I don't plan on seeing any more. Every one of his films has been disappointing and fundamentally silly.

It seems to parallel his growing, public distaste for his audience. He's been rambling on and on since Unbreakable about how disappointed he is with his audience's responses and why he'll have to adapt his work for "the Denny's crowd". I think his intentionally revised screenwriting style has only become increasingly passive agressive towards the viewer, in that his outward distaste and assumptions about their intelligence has corrupted his ability to avoid pretention, predictability and glorified hand-holding.

I don't think it's at all surprising that Fox is the only studio showing interest in his next script, considering that the story falls into the Day After Tomorrow arena of the recently sensationalized, nature-run-rampant apacolaypse paranoia. He's done ghosts, superheroes, aliens and storybook fantasy... he's running out of popularized mythology to brush with his 'genius'.

Just to note, I am not calling the actual theory regarding global warming mythology, simply the movie/TV incarnations making the rounds.

There was nothing particularly complex about those movies with the glass dude or the faux-19th century people. Is there really a "philosophy" behind those films. I guess missed it.

I need to read more about this dude because he sounds kinda funny.

Has it really been that bad of a year? The New World tied at #10? Has the world lost it?

I don't know what to think of Shyamalan's films, this one especially. They always appear to have some depth to them but then he goes and does something irritating or unnecessary that makes you question why you ever took him seriously. Making himself the world changing author is naive in every sense-- who knows what he meant by it, maybe to attract critics and intentionally make his film a bullseye for cynical audiences, as if to make a point. But he's still taking advantage of this image he's built up for himself and putting it on the screen, annoying. He may have some talent, but if he were a genius he wouldn't be wasting time on this formula of supernatural mystery thriller that he's worked out. For all we know he doesn't have any range outside this model, the fact that his new script is supposedly about aliens doesn't help him at all.

I really wonder: Why do people care that Shyamalan gave himself the ego-stroking role of world-saving writer? What's it matter? Aren't movies meant to be judged on, I dunno...story, acting, direction? All that good stuff?

Personally, I like LitW. It's not Shyamalan's best work (that would be Signs), but not his worst either (that would be Sixth Sense, which isn't bad; just his least good. Horrible grammar right there, eh?) Maybe I'm just a sucker for a good fantasy story, but I was completely engrossed in this movie from start to finish.

scalesojustice wrote:really? it wasn't when he cast himself as a writer whose work would change the world? seems to me that "lady in the water" is nothing more than masterbation.

Nah, if I get pissed at him for casting himself like that I might as well criticize Costner for always casting himself as the hero, or Woody Allen for casting himself as. . . himself?

No, the movie was bad for so many other reasons, and after skimming over some scenes today I am of the opinion that the special effects are even kind of lousy.

It also bothers me a bit that all the residents of the apartment building are so eager to 'believe' and need little persuasion to meet Story.

Spoiler

But if you ask me, Giamatti really sold the scene where they heal Story. Too bad the rest of the movie couldn't have lived up to that scene.

Just saw this, and found it delightful. Going to read Michael Bamberger's dig at Disney - I'm very curious.

The stuff about Shyamalan as a world-saving author -- is there, I wonder, ANY chance that Shyamalan is poking fun at his own pretensions? If he's serious, he's some sort of fool - maybe a holy fool, but a fool no less; but there are a few points where he SEEMS to subvert his egomania a bit (I mean, he's shown procrastinating for months at writing the book, and the scene where he finally stands with it in front of Story has such grandiosity to it that he's GOT to be winking at us... doesn't he? I mean, the fucking thing is called The Cookbook, ferchrissake).

As I've said in The Happening thread, I laughed, cried, was uplifted, and CONSTANTLY surprised and delighted during this film. I don't know what to make of Shyamalan's messianic egomania - but I'm willing to extend him the benefit of a doubt. Maybe even more than I'd extend Vincent Gallo. Oddly, they remind me a bit of each other.

P.