Film discussed: The Village (2004)

Also mentioned: The Happening (2008), Lady in the Water (2006), Signs (2002), Unbreakable (2000), The Sixth Sense (1999), The Elephant Man (1980)

Shyamalan's Rising Star

In the early 2000s, M. Night Shyamalan was on a hot streak. The Sixth Sense (1999) redefined what a "twist ending" could do, and how a director, good acting, and a solid script could blissfully trick an audience. It's a textbook example of an artful slight of hand, like a David Copperfield trick in movie form. Unbreakable (2000) did not get the fanfare that Sixth Sense received, but it is contains the same subtle power that its predecesser holds. In hindsight, Unbreakable stands as a unique and interesting selection, a superhero movie for the thinking man.

Then came Signs, adding a major summer blockbuster to Shyamalan's growing list of accomplishments. The magic of Signs is that Shyamalan's technical skill--the pacing, the unique long shots, the Hitchcock-style "leave it to the imagination" horror--overpowers the (rather glaring) plot holes. Signs is so fun to watch with friends that one can overlook its logic errors. Then came The Village.

"Those We Don't Speak Of"

The Village shares elements with other Shyamalan films. There is a gentle drama to the pacing. Shyamalan's camera work seems a central character. The cast is great, and so are their performances. Joaquin Phoenix, Bryce Dallas Howard, Adrien Brody, Sigourney Weaver, and William Hurt are all great. The costumes are great. The cinematography is great. The monsters are great. So why the controversy?

The Village is Shyamalan's first big film where many critics said, "I don't buy it." The problem hinges on the twist. Don't worry, if you haven't seen it, nothing is revealed here. By the time The Village arrived in 2004, Shyamalan's name was so associated with twist endings that all the energy of the film seem to hinge on the twist. It's as if audiences came to movie waiting for the twist, instead of enjoying the film as a whole. Shyamalan's previous success became a liabiity here.

The concensus was that the twist was weak. And because the twist was weak, the whole film was weak. Some would come to say that Shyamalan was a one-trick pony, and the trick was now old. This suspicion seemed to be confirmed with successive films, notably Lady in the Water (2006), The Happening (2008), and After Earth (2013). This perception, the notion that Shyamalan was passed his prime, or that his magic had worn thin, dogged his work to the point where it almost seemed as if the criticisms of his films were avenues to attack him personally.

The Village Re-Examined

Time has given The Village a vindication. When viewed without the demand for a spectacular twist, the film is actually pretty good. In fact, the earth tones selected throughout give it a distinct feel. The understated pacing of the film is very unique, especially in an era of over-the-top action films. The characters are all quite interesting. The score by James Newton Howard alone is worth the ticket price. As it turns out, The Village is actually a pretty good movie. In fact, it's quite beautiful. It also leaves the viewer with things to think about.

In hindsight, much of the criticism comes off as unmerited. Sure the twist is not at the Sixth Sense level, but that is not the only feature of the film. The ending isn't the only factor in the judgement of film. For instance, The Elephant Man (1980) has a very strange ending, but the film as a whole is still sound. In fact, one might wonder: are other films all judged by the ending? The ending is not the entire picture, it is a part of the picture. In addition, although the "shock" of the twist is not as strong as Sixth Sense the discussion that the ending launches is more profound than the Sixth Sense. Where Sixth Sense surprised the audience with a slight of hand, The Village prompts something even deeper: the introduction of questions that are worth discussing, as opposed to a mere description of how "surprised" one was with a twist.

Shyamalan's subsequent films were criticized even more harshley. Yet, time has softened the edge on these as well. Lady in the Water is a strange movie, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad movie. Yes, it is strange that Shyamalan casts himself as a writer who will inspire a leader who will change the world. It's strange, but it's also one sentence in the movie. The names of the creatures in the movie is also strange. In fact, I would have done without all the different monsters myself, and just kept to wolves. Wolves are scary enough. But Paul Giamatti is great. And there's something to be said about the kinds of people Shyamalan has as heroes and major players in his films: they are ordinary folks, not otherworldly supermen. Also, it's important for big name directors and big name actors to take risks and try new things. Lady in the Water is definitely different. It's a risk, like it or not. And not to sound too much like a broken record, but the music, again, is excellent in this film.

So give The Village and maybe one or two of Shyamalan's other films a second go. You might have been disappointed with The Village in 2004, but another viewing might shine a light on an often misunderstood and disregarded film.

Updated August 2019