Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
I have to say, this trailer has raised my hopes. :thumbup:
M KNIGHT's The Happening
- Thread starter J.R. Hudson
- Start date
I have to say, this trailer has raised my hopes. :thumbup:
After reading the book on making of Lady in the Water, I gained a lot of respect for him. He's an independent artist who is following his gut, even when it ruffles feathers and goes against the grain. He was really wrong on that one, as far as audiences are concerned. But maybe not wrong as far as following his creative path. Would we have been so critical of Wong Kar-Wai? I mean, Wong Kar-Wai isn't even supposed to be appealing to mainstream audiences (beautiful, thoughtful and BORING). Maybe Shyamalan will simply prove to be something of an outsider trying to work on the inside. And sometimes his gut's going to be wrong. At least he's trying to do something true to his vision. As Woody Allen said (paraphrasing here): "If you're not failing once in a while, you're not pushing your creative limits."
The trailer for Happening looks cool to me.
The trailer for Happening looks cool to me.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Great post.
I'm sincere when I say I believe he speakath the langauge of cinema and completely in the vien of the masters. His films are carefully paced, visual joyrides that are meticulously edited and have a definitive stamp of the Autuer.
This guy is a classic textbook case of studness; Wiki says he made 45 short films by the time he was 17.
This is something I did not know:
John, agreed 100%. Shyamalan is a true auteur.
And, Sean, great reasoning.
In my opinion, Shyamalan is one of those rare cases of an auteur that trully minds about the mainstream audience.
Like Roberto Begnini or Hitchkock, for example. They try to communicate to a mass audience, but never neglect the "art" of filmmaking and use their "own" language. All of them masterfuly approach complex themes that are relevant for them, in an ingenuosly simple way that a mainstream audience can understand.
He has a unique "language"- not only on the storytelling, but on the visual cinematic "art".
I'm with John on this: He's trully a contemporary master of Cinema.
Unfortunately, due to his concern about the masses, he'll very hardly be recognized...Unless he goes for a more "artsy" approach, which I'm sure he could, and would excel on, but doesn't go for because, above all, he is a master storyteller, and a master storyteller's main ambition is not awards, but to communicate and share his story with the widest audience possible.
The themes in all his movies are complex human dillemas, from religion, faith, love, identity, etc. Countless of "arthouse" films have approached these themes, some succesfully, but never in a way that could reach such a wide audience... And work.
This is what I want to achieve with filmmaking.
M. Night is one of my favourite filmmakers, and one of my references.
And, Sean, great reasoning.
In my opinion, Shyamalan is one of those rare cases of an auteur that trully minds about the mainstream audience.
Like Roberto Begnini or Hitchkock, for example. They try to communicate to a mass audience, but never neglect the "art" of filmmaking and use their "own" language. All of them masterfuly approach complex themes that are relevant for them, in an ingenuosly simple way that a mainstream audience can understand.
He has a unique "language"- not only on the storytelling, but on the visual cinematic "art".
I'm with John on this: He's trully a contemporary master of Cinema.
Unfortunately, due to his concern about the masses, he'll very hardly be recognized...Unless he goes for a more "artsy" approach, which I'm sure he could, and would excel on, but doesn't go for because, above all, he is a master storyteller, and a master storyteller's main ambition is not awards, but to communicate and share his story with the widest audience possible.
The themes in all his movies are complex human dillemas, from religion, faith, love, identity, etc. Countless of "arthouse" films have approached these themes, some succesfully, but never in a way that could reach such a wide audience... And work.
This is what I want to achieve with filmmaking.
M. Night is one of my favourite filmmakers, and one of my references.
Last edited:
SPZ, what films are you talking about when you lavish this much praise on him? Sixth Sense was great, but you make it sound like he's the second coming.
Isaac, M Night, obviously, still has a long way to go to become a "Second coming"
To tell you the truth, none of his films are on my top 10 list (even though one of them is on my top 30), but I do think he deserves the praise. Why?
I think its incredibly hard to do what he's trying to do in his movies. Doing what he does was only achieved by a (very) talented few. What is this? To "create" his own "language", to tell "personal" stories based on very strong emotions and concerns, with a wide audience in mind, and making it work. When I watch an M Night Film, I feel that "movie magic"- not the CGI, or the over the top action, the melodrama, but that unique set of emotions you feel when you watch a movie that just feels fresh and fullfilling, in every sense. When all those aspects of cinema- acting, framing, lighting, script, set, shots editing, etc. just feel like a whole piece of a filmmakers vision. Very, very few directors could make me feel this way.
I praise him this much based on the fact that, at least in Europe, being an Auteur almost immediately means "arthouse", and segregating audiences. I believe this notion is completely wrong.
Comparing M Night to the likes of Hitchcock might be too early or far fetched, but the truth is, M Night does have a cinematic language that closely follows this master, without copying it. Early De Palma was obviously very much influenced by Hitchcock (too much, IMO), but it obviously helped him establish his own language. M Night, however, while obviously showing glimpses of Hitchcock influence, has, based on his short list of films, IMO, a unique, wonderfuly crafted and mature cinematic language.
You see Unbreakable, The Village, Lady In the Water, and you can immediately see it was shot by the same director.
As for movies from M Night that I particularly liked, I must praise the often bashed "The Village" . Its a brilliant analogy for current times, in an incredibly simple, yet subtle way.
Also, believe it or not, if it wasn't for the (very) pretentious self casting in "Lady In the Water" and the ridiculous comic relief character (the "critic") , I would also consider this to be one of his most interesting films, with a very interesting story about society, appearances, current affairs, etc.
Lady In the Water, IMO was probably his best shot film.
As he grows with his films, I'm pretty sure we're still to see the best from M. Night.
As for the Happening, sincerely, I'm not expecting this to be his masterpiece, but I'm sure its going to be superior to most summer movies coming out this holiday season. Whÿ? Because it will be a movie with a cinematic "soul" that obviously we'll find lacking in most Summer movies- maybe excluding Indy 4
Last edited:
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Isaac, M Night, obviously, still has a long way to go to become a "Second coming"
To tell you the truth, none of his films are on my top 10 list (even though one of them is on my top 30), but I do think he deserves the praise. Why?
I think its incredibly hard to do what he's trying to do in his movies. Doing what he does was only achieved by a (very) talented few. What is this? To "create" his own "language", to tell "personal" stories based on very strong emotions and concerns, with a wide audience in mind, and making it work. When I watch an M Night Film, I feel that "movie magic"- not the CGI, or the over the top action, the melodrama, but that unique set of emotions you feel when you watch a movie that just feels fresh and fullfilling, in every sense. When all those aspects of cinema- acting, framing, lighting, script, set, shots editing, etc. just feel like a whole piece of a filmmakers vision. Very, very few directors could make me feel this way.
I praise him this much based on the fact that, at least in Europe, being an Auteur almost immediately means "arthouse", and segregating audiences. I believe this notion is completely wrong.
Comparing M Night to the likes of Hitchcock might be too early or far fetched, but the truth is, M Night does have a cinematic language that closely follows this master, without copying it. Early De Palma was obviously very much influenced by Hitchcock (too much, IMO), but it obviously helped him establish his own language. M Night, however, while obviously showing glimpses of Hitchcock influence, has, based on his short list of films, IMO, a unique, wonderfuly crafted and mature cinematic language.
You see Unbreakable, The Village, Lady In the Water, and you can immediately see it was shot by the same director.
As for movies from M Night that I particularly liked, I must praise the often bashed "The Village" . Its a brilliant analogy for current times, in an incredibly simple, yet subtle way.
Also, believe it or not, if it wasn't for the (very) pretentious self casting in "Lady In the Water" and the ridiculous comic relief character (the "critic") , I would also consider this to be one of his most interesting films, with a very interesting story about society, appearances, current affairs, etc.
Lady In the Water, IMO was probably his best shot film.
As he grows with his films, I'm pretty sure we're still to see the best from M. Night.
As for the Happening, sincerely, I'm not expecting this to be his masterpiece, but I'm sure its going to be superior to most summer movies coming out this holiday season. Whÿ? Because it will be a movie with a cinematic "soul" that obviously we'll find lacking in most Summer movies- maybe excluding Indy 4
For what it is worth; I could have wrote this post to the 'T'.
Very well thought out Sergio; I agree !
Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
As for the Happening, sincerely, I'm not expecting this to be his masterpiece, but I'm sure its going to be superior to most summer movies coming out this holiday season. Whÿ? Because it will be a movie with a cinematic "soul" that obviously we'll find lacking in most Summer movies- maybe excluding Indy 4
I wouldn't exclude it yet. :happy:
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
When I think of the films that have come out or are coming out and then think of what NIGHT has offered us, there is no comparison. NIGHTS films are not in the league of a film like NO COUNTRY or THERE WILL BE BLOOD but he isn't trying to be.
But his films are vastly superior to the superhero films we have seen and the countless other 'popcorn' excuses for cinema; romantic comedies, teen films and PG-13 horror crapfests.
In contrast, at least NIGHTS previous PG-13 entry's have bordered on atmospheric and scary at times.
-
I'd love to get to the heart of this love / hate with NIGHT. You see the same attitudes towards Tarantino and sometimes even Spielberg (usually from the more arduous film-goers.)
Like Isaac, I'd like to see him tackle some other offerings and even consider hiring a screenwriter for his story ideas and I am convinced he could pull off a true masterpiece (in time, when he decides) but right now, he is a baby rattlesnake exercising his childhood fantasy's. Like Spielberg, one day, he'll wake up and say 'I'm doing a serious film (The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun and inevitably a Schindler's)
Yes, I think at the end of his career, NIGHT will be mentioned in the same breath as our current and past contemporary masters.
But his films are vastly superior to the superhero films we have seen and the countless other 'popcorn' excuses for cinema; romantic comedies, teen films and PG-13 horror crapfests.
In contrast, at least NIGHTS previous PG-13 entry's have bordered on atmospheric and scary at times.
-
I'd love to get to the heart of this love / hate with NIGHT. You see the same attitudes towards Tarantino and sometimes even Spielberg (usually from the more arduous film-goers.)
Like Isaac, I'd like to see him tackle some other offerings and even consider hiring a screenwriter for his story ideas and I am convinced he could pull off a true masterpiece (in time, when he decides) but right now, he is a baby rattlesnake exercising his childhood fantasy's. Like Spielberg, one day, he'll wake up and say 'I'm doing a serious film (The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun and inevitably a Schindler's)
Yes, I think at the end of his career, NIGHT will be mentioned in the same breath as our current and past contemporary masters.
Batutta
Major Contributor
I think with Tarantino and M. Night, they have such particular obsessions and filmmaking styles that each subsequent film seems to amplify what people don't like about them. They keep making the same movie, so if you didn't like it the first time, you'll hate it the second, and loathe it the third. Spielberg mixes it up and while he has particular weaknesses (a sentimental streak being most dominant), he's harder to pin down because he ventures into new territory all the time.
Last edited:
holymexicobatman
Well-known member
Night's style stands out! and that simple fact is becoming more and more difficult , IMHO, these days. Him and JJ Abrams are my two most favorite weirdish/suspense-ish directors of all time.
Though this trailer doesn't quite grab hold of me as much as i predict the actual film will--im still going opening night provided i dont have any obligations to attend to.
Though this trailer doesn't quite grab hold of me as much as i predict the actual film will--im still going opening night provided i dont have any obligations to attend to.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
JJ Abrams ?
Batutta
Major Contributor
He hasn't proven himself in features, but in his defense I will say the pilots he directed for Alias and Lost are two of the best ever shot. MI:3 was solid. Let's hope he delivers on Star Trek.
Rick Meyer
Veteran
Quite a few years ago, before I went to CSUN (give a shout out to my alma mater and TC) I applied to UCLA’s film program. When I went there in person to meet with some of the staff I was young and eager and remember jokingly saying “I want to be the next Spielberg”. Nevermind the fact that I am much more of an actor before I will ever be a filmmaker, writer or director. Point is, the 3 faculty members there resoundingly said, “oh God. We are going to try to teach you to be a different kind of filmmaker than that!” I never understood that.
I never understood any animosity towards Spielberg. He may not be the artistic choice like Kubrick, Hitchcock, Michel Gondry, Mike Figgis, etc…He may not be arty but give me a mother freaking break. He is still one of the best if not THE best filmmaker/storyteller ever to grace the silver screen. The man has been and always will be a genius. I can’t help but dismiss Spielberg haters as jealous hacks.
The man has brought us some of the greatest movie experiences of our time or in the history of film…Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., The Color Purple, Always, Saving Private Ryan, Munich, etc. etc. etc. To insult Steven Spielberg is to insult yourself. He is clearly an incredible auteur.
Add to that, M. Night Shyamalan comes across as a jerk. However, he is a great storyteller. I love how he ropes you into every story. It doesn’t matter if the finality is unsatisfying, the truth is, he is very adept at roping you in. Why the hate? It’s all about getting fans, eyes, people to watch, and audience members…A lot of people hate or resent SIGNS, THE VILLAGE and THE LADY IN THE WATER.
Thing is, he is a very skilled teller of stories.
I never understood any animosity towards Spielberg. He may not be the artistic choice like Kubrick, Hitchcock, Michel Gondry, Mike Figgis, etc…He may not be arty but give me a mother freaking break. He is still one of the best if not THE best filmmaker/storyteller ever to grace the silver screen. The man has been and always will be a genius. I can’t help but dismiss Spielberg haters as jealous hacks.
The man has brought us some of the greatest movie experiences of our time or in the history of film…Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., The Color Purple, Always, Saving Private Ryan, Munich, etc. etc. etc. To insult Steven Spielberg is to insult yourself. He is clearly an incredible auteur.
Add to that, M. Night Shyamalan comes across as a jerk. However, he is a great storyteller. I love how he ropes you into every story. It doesn’t matter if the finality is unsatisfying, the truth is, he is very adept at roping you in. Why the hate? It’s all about getting fans, eyes, people to watch, and audience members…A lot of people hate or resent SIGNS, THE VILLAGE and THE LADY IN THE WATER.
Thing is, he is a very skilled teller of stories.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Effin Bravo to that.
Batutta
Major Contributor
When Spielberg is at his best his work feels invisible. There is nothing between you and the screen and you are one with the emotions of the characters. The camera is always in the right place. My problem with M. Night is that his style is too deliberate. It calls attention to itself. It's, "look at me and how long I can hold this shot!", and the camera is often not where you want to to be but where HE wants it to be. As a result I usually feel outside his films, watching them, but not inside them. I think it's because his work is TOO carefully storyboarded, crowding out any spontaneity. Spielberg's films, even when storyboarded, feel fluid and lively. M. Night's films mostly feel ponderous and ceremonial. And I must disagree about his storytelling. If someone ropes me in but doesn't deliver the goods, I feel cheated. That's like having a girl whisper all the dirty things she's going to do to you in the sack and then pouring a cold bucket of water on your nuts.
Last edited:
holymexicobatman
Well-known member
well, i like him!! *folds arms and puffs chest*
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Lmao !!
