bubblesh20
New member
Re: The Village.
I dare not speak of "Those We Should Not Speak Of" - Little Yellow Riding Hood
I dare not speak of "Those We Should Not Speak Of" - Little Yellow Riding Hood
The Village.
- Thread starter seantree
- Start date
Re: The Village.
As my girlfriend mentioned--they sure spent a lot of time talking about "Those We Should Not Speak Of"
. My main gripe boils down to the fact that I thought the movie was shoe-horned into a twist ending that didn't fit. Suspension of disbelief is a pact between the film and the viewer and each party has hold up to their end of the bargain. A film doesn't need to be logical, but it does need to have some consistent internal logic--at least for me. The Sixth Sense showed that M. Night was capable of carefully thinking through the story and maintaining logical continuity. Was it logical that a kid sees dead people? Or course not, but the film maintained it's internal logic. Do I expect every M. Night film to be that good--no, but I do expect some internal consistency to keep me hooked.
Bsmith--spirited film discussion is appreciated, but your post is rambling and insulting. The rambling is fine, but calling other posters "stupid", "selfish", and "morons" because they don't agree with you is not cool. If you're incapable of arguing your point without the insults--please keep it to yourself.
As my girlfriend mentioned--they sure spent a lot of time talking about "Those We Should Not Speak Of"
. My main gripe boils down to the fact that I thought the movie was shoe-horned into a twist ending that didn't fit. Suspension of disbelief is a pact between the film and the viewer and each party has hold up to their end of the bargain. A film doesn't need to be logical, but it does need to have some consistent internal logic--at least for me. The Sixth Sense showed that M. Night was capable of carefully thinking through the story and maintaining logical continuity. Was it logical that a kid sees dead people? Or course not, but the film maintained it's internal logic. Do I expect every M. Night film to be that good--no, but I do expect some internal consistency to keep me hooked. Bsmith--spirited film discussion is appreciated, but your post is rambling and insulting. The rambling is fine, but calling other posters "stupid", "selfish", and "morons" because they don't agree with you is not cool. If you're incapable of arguing your point without the insults--please keep it to yourself.
Re: ****SPOILER****
Re: ****SPOILER****
[quote author=Barry_S link=board=movies;num=1091227794;start=15#17 date=08/01/04 at 20:29:21]Ok--someone tell me why the village elders decided to talk in a weird 19th century-style dialect? And some of the characters decided to talk in a very stilted and phony style--I don't get it--what was the motivation? [/quote]
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
OK, I'll take a stab.
Well, I'm sure it was just to make us believe the movie was taking place in a different era when people talked differently. But I suppose you could come up with some reasons that make sense to the story. For example:
Since the village elders, financed with billions, spared no expense in recreating an 18th century village, they probably included original works of literature which would have been written in old English, hence they adopted the style of language to match their literature.
Or the elders decided they needed to get into the proper head-space by really becoming the characters that they were trying to portray. So they adopted speech affectations to become more immersed in the roles they were playing, much like a method actor, in an effort to create the perfect illusion of bygone days,
Re: ****SPOILER****
[quote author=Barry_S link=board=movies;num=1091227794;start=15#17 date=08/01/04 at 20:29:21]Ok--someone tell me why the village elders decided to talk in a weird 19th century-style dialect? And some of the characters decided to talk in a very stilted and phony style--I don't get it--what was the motivation? [/quote]
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
OK, I'll take a stab.
Well, I'm sure it was just to make us believe the movie was taking place in a different era when people talked differently. But I suppose you could come up with some reasons that make sense to the story. For example:
Since the village elders, financed with billions, spared no expense in recreating an 18th century village, they probably included original works of literature which would have been written in old English, hence they adopted the style of language to match their literature.
Or the elders decided they needed to get into the proper head-space by really becoming the characters that they were trying to portray. So they adopted speech affectations to become more immersed in the roles they were playing, much like a method actor, in an effort to create the perfect illusion of bygone days,
Re: The Village.
Sorry I wasn't trying to offend anyone here...I was just really pissed..mostly at the people that were in the same theater with me last night.
When a movie is over and people start yelling and shouting obscene stuff at the screen b/c they didn't like it...how does that not piss anyone off?
Anyways I really want to know if anyone saw the microphone dip into the screen...I swear what I saw was one of a kind thing. B/c I know it wasn't there the first time I saw it...and it was totally noticable the second time.
Sorry I wasn't trying to offend anyone here...I was just really pissed..mostly at the people that were in the same theater with me last night.
When a movie is over and people start yelling and shouting obscene stuff at the screen b/c they didn't like it...how does that not piss anyone off?
Anyways I really want to know if anyone saw the microphone dip into the screen...I swear what I saw was one of a kind thing. B/c I know it wasn't there the first time I saw it...and it was totally noticable the second time.
Re: ****SPOILER****
Re: ****SPOILER****
[quote author=PaulK link=board=movies;num=1091227794;start=15#22 date=08/02/04 at 00:09:19]
...Or the elders decided they needed to get into the proper head-space by really becoming the characters that they were trying to portray. So they adopted speech affectations to become more immersed in the roles they were playing, much like a method actor, in an effort to create the perfect illusion of bygone days,[/quote]
Ok, I can sort of buy into this. I've been thinking about it and maybe it's consistent with a total rejection of 20th century society. They rejected everything--the way of life, the technology, the language. Although some of Sigourney Weaver's dialogue was so stilted, I can't make up my mind if this was intentional, or bad writing or acting.
How about William Hurt sending his blind daughter into the forest and outside world? Because of the restrictions, she would have been very inexperienced at navigating through the forest. Hurt's character was caring and compassionate--so I still don't see why he'd let her go. Especially in light of the fact that the elders risked *everything* to protect their children from the outside world.
Re: ****SPOILER****
[quote author=PaulK link=board=movies;num=1091227794;start=15#22 date=08/02/04 at 00:09:19]
...Or the elders decided they needed to get into the proper head-space by really becoming the characters that they were trying to portray. So they adopted speech affectations to become more immersed in the roles they were playing, much like a method actor, in an effort to create the perfect illusion of bygone days,[/quote]
Ok, I can sort of buy into this. I've been thinking about it and maybe it's consistent with a total rejection of 20th century society. They rejected everything--the way of life, the technology, the language. Although some of Sigourney Weaver's dialogue was so stilted, I can't make up my mind if this was intentional, or bad writing or acting.
How about William Hurt sending his blind daughter into the forest and outside world? Because of the restrictions, she would have been very inexperienced at navigating through the forest. Hurt's character was caring and compassionate--so I still don't see why he'd let her go. Especially in light of the fact that the elders risked *everything* to protect their children from the outside world.
Re: The Village.
well from what I got out of it...It would be her and Lucious who continue the way of life there..therefore basically having the right to know the "secret." She is blind so she can't see what the outside world is like so won't be very effected by it. Also she was "driven by love." and "more capable than most people in the village."
I'm still a little baffled by why Walker didn't just go to theown himself...but I think its b/c he promised himself to never go back..or something like that.
well from what I got out of it...It would be her and Lucious who continue the way of life there..therefore basically having the right to know the "secret." She is blind so she can't see what the outside world is like so won't be very effected by it. Also she was "driven by love." and "more capable than most people in the village."
I'm still a little baffled by why Walker didn't just go to theown himself...but I think its b/c he promised himself to never go back..or something like that.
smkoch
Well-known member
Re: The Village.
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
I think it was funny I saw it opening day, and someone was sitting next to me and when hurt, picked up his box a the chick goes he's going for the cell phone. I kept thinking (that's stupid keep it to your self) as for the girl going it was becouse she was blind and wouldn't be able to see the world. but even though not going back was promised by all the elders I think hurt should have gone, especially after the kid died at the begining and just taken his ID and demanded a cart full of med's. :-/
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
I think it was funny I saw it opening day, and someone was sitting next to me and when hurt, picked up his box a the chick goes he's going for the cell phone. I kept thinking (that's stupid keep it to your self) as for the girl going it was becouse she was blind and wouldn't be able to see the world. but even though not going back was promised by all the elders I think hurt should have gone, especially after the kid died at the begining and just taken his ID and demanded a cart full of med's. :-/
Re: The Village.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Sending his blind daughter to town bothered me at the time and it still does. Even though I liked the movie (and at my screening -- a sold out 400 seat auditorium -- there was applause at the end, not cursing as in BSmith's screening), there were several things that just didn't make sense, and the daughter thing was one of them. Her father should have gone, or another of the elders, who could better navigate the town and communicate in a modern tongue. Folks with perfect eyesight get lost in the woods all the time. It's ludicrous to think a blind person would be the right choice. Only in the movies.
Plus it was contrived -- just like the violently dangerous Brody character being dead-bolted in a room with a costume *and* a glass window he can break out of at any time -- so that she could confront and defeat the monster, not to mention the irony of being blind so she couldn't see who the monster really was, or see her last name on the side of the jeep, etc.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Sending his blind daughter to town bothered me at the time and it still does. Even though I liked the movie (and at my screening -- a sold out 400 seat auditorium -- there was applause at the end, not cursing as in BSmith's screening), there were several things that just didn't make sense, and the daughter thing was one of them. Her father should have gone, or another of the elders, who could better navigate the town and communicate in a modern tongue. Folks with perfect eyesight get lost in the woods all the time. It's ludicrous to think a blind person would be the right choice. Only in the movies.
Plus it was contrived -- just like the violently dangerous Brody character being dead-bolted in a room with a costume *and* a glass window he can break out of at any time -- so that she could confront and defeat the monster, not to mention the irony of being blind so she couldn't see who the monster really was, or see her last name on the side of the jeep, etc.
bubblesh20
New member
Re: The Village.
Overall I thought the movie was not bad. I like the way it did not follow a predictable, formulated plot which a lot of films seem to do now days. It was a fun to watch.
Overall I thought the movie was not bad. I like the way it did not follow a predictable, formulated plot which a lot of films seem to do now days. It was a fun to watch.
Young-H._Lee
Well-known member
Re: The Village.
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
My main dissapointment was just the whole premise. I would have loved it if there really were monsters in the forest, despite the fact they looked cheesy...Night Shyamalan is great at doing those kinds of scenes.
I felt the first half of the movie's pace was done fairly badly. THe momentum kept being interrupted. There would be a short scene, and Shymalan would cut away right before anything significant happened in the scene, it felt like a lot of half scenes glued together sloppily...I think he needs to work on his pacing.
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
My main dissapointment was just the whole premise. I would have loved it if there really were monsters in the forest, despite the fact they looked cheesy...Night Shyamalan is great at doing those kinds of scenes.
I felt the first half of the movie's pace was done fairly badly. THe momentum kept being interrupted. There would be a short scene, and Shymalan would cut away right before anything significant happened in the scene, it felt like a lot of half scenes glued together sloppily...I think he needs to work on his pacing.
Re: The Village.
I didn't like this one at all. It was very boring. I didn't like the acting at all. I thought Brody was terrible in this movie. The ending was stupid to me. I was looking forward to this movie because I love M Night's work, but this was just terrible. I hardly ever agree with Ebert, but he was dead on the money with his review of the film.....
It was however well shot and it looked great. As do most of Deakins films....
I didn't like this one at all. It was very boring. I didn't like the acting at all. I thought Brody was terrible in this movie. The ending was stupid to me. I was looking forward to this movie because I love M Night's work, but this was just terrible. I hardly ever agree with Ebert, but he was dead on the money with his review of the film.....
It was however well shot and it looked great. As do most of Deakins films....
Scott_Spears
Well-known member
Re: The Village.
I've been digesting the film for the last few days and I think that it's biggest problem is it is too subtle. What Shyamalan does with his movies is make a drama and slap a high concept on top of it. Look at "The Sixth Sense", it's about man dealing with the grief of losing his marriage, but doesn't realize he's dead. The kid seeing dead people is the high concept aspect. "Unbreakable" is about a man who turned away from his potential to have the love of his wife, but it poisons their relationship and in the end he realizes his potential which saves his marriage. (He could have been a painter or filmmaker instead of a superhero.) "Signs" is about a man refinding his faith. The alien attack is just window dressing.
"The Village" is allegory to modern day life and our current situation. It's like something Rod Serling would have written for "The Twilight Zone". Not to stir the political pot, but this film reminds me of a line from "Farenheit 9/11" in which a government offical says, "You can make people do anything if they're afraid." The Elders will do anything to protect the innocense of they're children, but don't realize they're world is a lie and they could be doing more damage than good. Is Noah a product of bad medical care and the paranoia of the plan? Is the blindness of Ivy a product of more bad medical care? In the end, when she goes over the wall, the one person she comes in contact is kind and helpful.
In defense of the laugauge, I'd say they probably decided to use only books written before 1900, thus they picked old style english.
Why send a blind girl? Because she can't see the real world and report back. Plus Walker (Hurt) has realized he was to trust his daughter to help carry on "the plan" because he realizes that the elders are getting old and will die, especially with pre-1900 style medical care.
Does the movie require some suspension of disbief? Yes. That the security guard will play along is a stretch, but I look at this piece as a fantasy/allegory.
I do think that the marketing department at Buena Vista/Touchstone sold the film the best they could so they could make as much money as possible and in doing so duped a lot of people that thought they were going to see a monster movie. It's not about the monsters in the woods, it about the monsters in the village who control through deception and fear.
Scott
I've been digesting the film for the last few days and I think that it's biggest problem is it is too subtle. What Shyamalan does with his movies is make a drama and slap a high concept on top of it. Look at "The Sixth Sense", it's about man dealing with the grief of losing his marriage, but doesn't realize he's dead. The kid seeing dead people is the high concept aspect. "Unbreakable" is about a man who turned away from his potential to have the love of his wife, but it poisons their relationship and in the end he realizes his potential which saves his marriage. (He could have been a painter or filmmaker instead of a superhero.) "Signs" is about a man refinding his faith. The alien attack is just window dressing.
"The Village" is allegory to modern day life and our current situation. It's like something Rod Serling would have written for "The Twilight Zone". Not to stir the political pot, but this film reminds me of a line from "Farenheit 9/11" in which a government offical says, "You can make people do anything if they're afraid." The Elders will do anything to protect the innocense of they're children, but don't realize they're world is a lie and they could be doing more damage than good. Is Noah a product of bad medical care and the paranoia of the plan? Is the blindness of Ivy a product of more bad medical care? In the end, when she goes over the wall, the one person she comes in contact is kind and helpful.
In defense of the laugauge, I'd say they probably decided to use only books written before 1900, thus they picked old style english.
Why send a blind girl? Because she can't see the real world and report back. Plus Walker (Hurt) has realized he was to trust his daughter to help carry on "the plan" because he realizes that the elders are getting old and will die, especially with pre-1900 style medical care.
Does the movie require some suspension of disbief? Yes. That the security guard will play along is a stretch, but I look at this piece as a fantasy/allegory.
I do think that the marketing department at Buena Vista/Touchstone sold the film the best they could so they could make as much money as possible and in doing so duped a lot of people that thought they were going to see a monster movie. It's not about the monsters in the woods, it about the monsters in the village who control through deception and fear.
Scott
Staven
Well-known member
Re: The Village.
Very well thought out post by Scott Spears. You've done a lot of justice for the validity of the film. That was a good read.
A problem I've started having with the film as I've thought about it over the last few days is the premise of the elders creating the paranoia amongst the children.
They leave society to live in peace without fear of crime and other ills of society, yet they create a situation where their offspring live in a state of fear that the monsters in the forest may one day come and kill them. I know it's a movie and the fear was a neccessity for the plot twist, but it seems like an oxymoron for what they wanted to create. The poor suckers that had to watch guard every night, I feel most for them.
Very well thought out post by Scott Spears. You've done a lot of justice for the validity of the film. That was a good read.
A problem I've started having with the film as I've thought about it over the last few days is the premise of the elders creating the paranoia amongst the children.
They leave society to live in peace without fear of crime and other ills of society, yet they create a situation where their offspring live in a state of fear that the monsters in the forest may one day come and kill them. I know it's a movie and the fear was a neccessity for the plot twist, but it seems like an oxymoron for what they wanted to create. The poor suckers that had to watch guard every night, I feel most for them.
Re: The Village.
I'm not sure how much I can add to this discussion, but, I really, really liked it. I think this is Night's second best work (behind "Sixth Sense" and ahead of "Unbreakable").
I think probably too much attention is being paid to the twists. Sure they're there, but they don't really have much to do with the film.
At it's heart (sorry about the pun this is going to be...) I think it's a love story. Love in general, not just romantic love.
It opens with the loss of love. The heart breaking scene of the father weeping next his young son's small coffin before it goes in the ground. That sets up a tone and an expectation for the entire film. We expect loss and tragedy right out of the gate.
Then we have Kitty (Oh, man, could Judy Greer possibly be an more beautiful? I gotta go find my copy of "Adaptation" again...), and newfound undying love for Lucius. This is adolenscent puppy love, but, again there's loss. But she gets over it and meets Nice Shirt Guy and outright marries him. Slightly more mature (only slightly), and it serves to give us a bit of hope that not everything is loss.
Enter Ivy (This is Richie Cunningham's kid? Holy cow! Thank you Ron Howard!). She has a casual love for Lucius. She has always loved him, and has no doubt they will be married. She's rock steady and level headed about everything. She talks to him about how unafraid he is, but I think she's just as solid as him.
And he loves her so deeply it's all he can do to contain it. He does a fine job of explaining exactly who he is sitting on the porch with Ivy protecting her. The one thing in all the world that scares him is losing her.
It's the same for Noah. He's not scared of anything. He laughs at Those We Do Not Speak Of. And he loves Ivy, as well, is terrified of losing her to Lucius. So terrified he's moved to violent action. It's the only way he feels he can express himself.
This act shatters Ivy. She's been strong and solid up to this point, but now the surety of her future with the man she loves isn't so sure anymore, and it's more than she can handle, she thinks.
So we come to her father. Walker loves her. He knows how much she loves Lucius. This is his serious daughter, and she's seriously in pain, and it's going to be a lot worse if Lucius dies. So he reveals the secret
We have a small B subplot here with Sigourney. Hurt has tender feelings for her, but, can't really do much about it (a friend of mine suggested they rename The Shed We Do Not Use to The Shed We Do Not Use Except For Costumes And Adultery). But, now she's in pain, too. She loves her son. She's lost her husband, and now she's about to lose her son. But Hurt can help her. He can give her this one thing, deny the will of the other elders and give this gift to both his daughter and the woman he cannot have. So he does.
Which brings up another point. The whole of the village itself was founded on loss, and the fear of loss, and the love of family. None of these people would be here if they hadn't lost someone in the outside world, and weren't afraid of losing someone again.
So Ivy goes. And she HAS to go. This is her character arch. This has to be terrifying for her. But she has to overcome it to save Lucius. Is it a particularly archy-arch (wasn't archy arch a new kid on the block?)? No, not really. She's strong. We know she's strong. We know she can do this. And she hasn't really ever doubted herself. But here she is, alone, abandoned, in the woods, on the way to The Towns, haunted by real and imagined monsters, blind, and scared the man she loves is going to die.
Her father could go, but is that the sort of thing you want to see in a movie? Ivy has to go. It's what she's meant to do. And, as a plot point, Walker was a billionaire. This is his preserve, and his land. He doesn't know how far he might have to go to get medicine. Suppose he was recognized? Unlikely, but, you never know.
So here Ivy meets Noah in the woods. His love has been corrupted. He has lost her, and it's broken his already fragile mind. His love has been corrupted and turned to hate. So he strikes at her, and it's his own downfall.
And the film ends with the final act of love. Ivy overcoming improbable (probably impossible) odds, to save Lucius.
Long winded, but that's my take on the film.
The point about the language used. I thought it sounded fine. It's not Shakespeare, it's just appropriately period. Is it an affectation? Ok. Maybe. But, keep in mind there are still Amish and Menonnites and what not, and they speak in an old fashioned manner, as well. Even those groups which are not seperationist, and have integrated into modern society, may still speak in old patterns. I don't know, the point is valid, though. These people are from modern America, or, at least 70's America, it's a little weird for them to have changed their mode of speech, if they were SCA freaks.
Are they happy living in fear? I don't think they live in fear normally. It seems like we've come upon them in an interesting time (as well we should, it being a movie, and all), and something has changed. Children have died, and Lucius, and maybe some others of the younger generation, want to help. So the elders have made their bogeymen more active than before in order to try to nip this thing in the bud. Hurt says they have "a gentle understanding." That to me sounds like peace.
The costume in the floor. This is the biggest flaw in the film. I don't get it. It's so tacked on feeling. You need him to escape and threaten Ivy? Fine. Have him escape and break into the Shed We Do Not Use. Why have the thing under the floor?
What's the deal with red? This seems like a bit of mythology the elders have created for absolutely no reason. It has a bit of psychology in that it's an additional tool of control, but beyond that, why? Why red in particular?
Who are all the others in the village? It seems they've been there a while. Long enough for their children who were babies on the outside to grow into young adults. But it seems there's a lot more middle aged folks around, too. Are they in on the gag? When the scares go down, and when the people are looking for reassurance and Siggy has to explain to them that she thinks a coyote did it, there's no way these people are in on the joke. Yet they all look to be old enough that remember coming here from the outside world. And a lot of them look to be the same age as the "elders". I'd have to see it again to be sure about it, but, what's up with this?
From an artistic standpoint, I have an issue with some of the ways he chose to tell his story.
"Do your very best not to scream."
This is an AMAZINGLY powerful line. I got chills. That's genius. The tension it creates is palpable. Why the hell does he cut away??!?! It absolutely ruins the timing. Obviously, he cuts away to keep the mystery intact a bit longer, but it was a very wrong choice. That moment, that line, right then, that's when you reveal your mystery. He killed all the energy it had.
And Noah in the woods. What is this? We KNOW their fake. Sure, we get Hurt's voice over that implies that maybe there are real monsters in the woods, but we know there's not. We were in a universe where monsters were possible half and hour ago. But then we established the first twist, a few minutes ago, and we know now that this world does not have monsters. It's not part of the rules anymore. And here's a monster now. I was left thinking it was all in her mind.
The way he showed the monster there is great. This moment is cut straight from "Signs", when the alien walks past the window at the birthday party. It's a very casual reveal of something very uncasual, and he does it really well. But we know it's not real.
And THEN he tells us it's Noah. WHAT?!?! Tell me it's Noah before you show him to me. Show me the broken glass window. "Oh, my god, Noah's escaped the Quiet Room!" Shouts in the back ground "Someone has broken into the Shed We Do Not Use For Some Reason!" And the Elders look at each with frightened eyes. THEN cut back to Ivy and reveal Noah standing there watching her in costume.
So much more effective. So much more threatening. No doubt at all in my mind that she's in danger. Noah's gone off his nut, and now he's really, really dangerous. So much more tension.
Probably also would have been better to do it after she got the medicine, but that's a finer point, probably.
Ok, I'll shut up now. Flaws aside, I dug it a lot. Bryce and Judy are hot. I may go see it again before it's left the theater.
I'm not sure how much I can add to this discussion, but, I really, really liked it. I think this is Night's second best work (behind "Sixth Sense" and ahead of "Unbreakable").
I think probably too much attention is being paid to the twists. Sure they're there, but they don't really have much to do with the film.
At it's heart (sorry about the pun this is going to be...) I think it's a love story. Love in general, not just romantic love.
It opens with the loss of love. The heart breaking scene of the father weeping next his young son's small coffin before it goes in the ground. That sets up a tone and an expectation for the entire film. We expect loss and tragedy right out of the gate.
Then we have Kitty (Oh, man, could Judy Greer possibly be an more beautiful? I gotta go find my copy of "Adaptation" again...), and newfound undying love for Lucius. This is adolenscent puppy love, but, again there's loss. But she gets over it and meets Nice Shirt Guy and outright marries him. Slightly more mature (only slightly), and it serves to give us a bit of hope that not everything is loss.
Enter Ivy (This is Richie Cunningham's kid? Holy cow! Thank you Ron Howard!). She has a casual love for Lucius. She has always loved him, and has no doubt they will be married. She's rock steady and level headed about everything. She talks to him about how unafraid he is, but I think she's just as solid as him.
And he loves her so deeply it's all he can do to contain it. He does a fine job of explaining exactly who he is sitting on the porch with Ivy protecting her. The one thing in all the world that scares him is losing her.
It's the same for Noah. He's not scared of anything. He laughs at Those We Do Not Speak Of. And he loves Ivy, as well, is terrified of losing her to Lucius. So terrified he's moved to violent action. It's the only way he feels he can express himself.
This act shatters Ivy. She's been strong and solid up to this point, but now the surety of her future with the man she loves isn't so sure anymore, and it's more than she can handle, she thinks.
So we come to her father. Walker loves her. He knows how much she loves Lucius. This is his serious daughter, and she's seriously in pain, and it's going to be a lot worse if Lucius dies. So he reveals the secret
We have a small B subplot here with Sigourney. Hurt has tender feelings for her, but, can't really do much about it (a friend of mine suggested they rename The Shed We Do Not Use to The Shed We Do Not Use Except For Costumes And Adultery). But, now she's in pain, too. She loves her son. She's lost her husband, and now she's about to lose her son. But Hurt can help her. He can give her this one thing, deny the will of the other elders and give this gift to both his daughter and the woman he cannot have. So he does.
Which brings up another point. The whole of the village itself was founded on loss, and the fear of loss, and the love of family. None of these people would be here if they hadn't lost someone in the outside world, and weren't afraid of losing someone again.
So Ivy goes. And she HAS to go. This is her character arch. This has to be terrifying for her. But she has to overcome it to save Lucius. Is it a particularly archy-arch (wasn't archy arch a new kid on the block?)? No, not really. She's strong. We know she's strong. We know she can do this. And she hasn't really ever doubted herself. But here she is, alone, abandoned, in the woods, on the way to The Towns, haunted by real and imagined monsters, blind, and scared the man she loves is going to die.
Her father could go, but is that the sort of thing you want to see in a movie? Ivy has to go. It's what she's meant to do. And, as a plot point, Walker was a billionaire. This is his preserve, and his land. He doesn't know how far he might have to go to get medicine. Suppose he was recognized? Unlikely, but, you never know.
So here Ivy meets Noah in the woods. His love has been corrupted. He has lost her, and it's broken his already fragile mind. His love has been corrupted and turned to hate. So he strikes at her, and it's his own downfall.
And the film ends with the final act of love. Ivy overcoming improbable (probably impossible) odds, to save Lucius.
Long winded, but that's my take on the film.
The point about the language used. I thought it sounded fine. It's not Shakespeare, it's just appropriately period. Is it an affectation? Ok. Maybe. But, keep in mind there are still Amish and Menonnites and what not, and they speak in an old fashioned manner, as well. Even those groups which are not seperationist, and have integrated into modern society, may still speak in old patterns. I don't know, the point is valid, though. These people are from modern America, or, at least 70's America, it's a little weird for them to have changed their mode of speech, if they were SCA freaks.
Are they happy living in fear? I don't think they live in fear normally. It seems like we've come upon them in an interesting time (as well we should, it being a movie, and all), and something has changed. Children have died, and Lucius, and maybe some others of the younger generation, want to help. So the elders have made their bogeymen more active than before in order to try to nip this thing in the bud. Hurt says they have "a gentle understanding." That to me sounds like peace.
The costume in the floor. This is the biggest flaw in the film. I don't get it. It's so tacked on feeling. You need him to escape and threaten Ivy? Fine. Have him escape and break into the Shed We Do Not Use. Why have the thing under the floor?
What's the deal with red? This seems like a bit of mythology the elders have created for absolutely no reason. It has a bit of psychology in that it's an additional tool of control, but beyond that, why? Why red in particular?
Who are all the others in the village? It seems they've been there a while. Long enough for their children who were babies on the outside to grow into young adults. But it seems there's a lot more middle aged folks around, too. Are they in on the gag? When the scares go down, and when the people are looking for reassurance and Siggy has to explain to them that she thinks a coyote did it, there's no way these people are in on the joke. Yet they all look to be old enough that remember coming here from the outside world. And a lot of them look to be the same age as the "elders". I'd have to see it again to be sure about it, but, what's up with this?
From an artistic standpoint, I have an issue with some of the ways he chose to tell his story.
"Do your very best not to scream."
This is an AMAZINGLY powerful line. I got chills. That's genius. The tension it creates is palpable. Why the hell does he cut away??!?! It absolutely ruins the timing. Obviously, he cuts away to keep the mystery intact a bit longer, but it was a very wrong choice. That moment, that line, right then, that's when you reveal your mystery. He killed all the energy it had.
And Noah in the woods. What is this? We KNOW their fake. Sure, we get Hurt's voice over that implies that maybe there are real monsters in the woods, but we know there's not. We were in a universe where monsters were possible half and hour ago. But then we established the first twist, a few minutes ago, and we know now that this world does not have monsters. It's not part of the rules anymore. And here's a monster now. I was left thinking it was all in her mind.
The way he showed the monster there is great. This moment is cut straight from "Signs", when the alien walks past the window at the birthday party. It's a very casual reveal of something very uncasual, and he does it really well. But we know it's not real.
And THEN he tells us it's Noah. WHAT?!?! Tell me it's Noah before you show him to me. Show me the broken glass window. "Oh, my god, Noah's escaped the Quiet Room!" Shouts in the back ground "Someone has broken into the Shed We Do Not Use For Some Reason!" And the Elders look at each with frightened eyes. THEN cut back to Ivy and reveal Noah standing there watching her in costume.
So much more effective. So much more threatening. No doubt at all in my mind that she's in danger. Noah's gone off his nut, and now he's really, really dangerous. So much more tension.
Probably also would have been better to do it after she got the medicine, but that's a finer point, probably.
Ok, I'll shut up now. Flaws aside, I dug it a lot. Bryce and Judy are hot. I may go see it again before it's left the theater.
nullphonic
Well-known member
Re: The Village.
"The 67 percent drop by Walt Disney Co.'s "The Village" is the steepest second-weekend slide by a box office champ this summer".
They're attributing that to 'bad word of mouth'. Wow, I guess there are lots of people that had issues with it....
I haven't seen this one yet but I've always liked all of Shyamalan's films. ('Unbreakable' maybe most of all)
"The 67 percent drop by Walt Disney Co.'s "The Village" is the steepest second-weekend slide by a box office champ this summer".
They're attributing that to 'bad word of mouth'. Wow, I guess there are lots of people that had issues with it....
I haven't seen this one yet but I've always liked all of Shyamalan's films. ('Unbreakable' maybe most of all)
Bart_Boge
Well-known member
Re: The Village.
I was definitely "underwhelmed" by the twist this time. The twists in 6th Sense & Unbreakable were far more effective and poignant, IMHO. Night better watch out or he will market himself into a "one-trick pony" box, and BTW--you are good but you are NO Hitchcock.
Having said that, the cinematography, acting, and directing were very good (aside from the Bourne Supremacy style botched handheld shot in the cemetary). The writing was good in some spots, sketchy in others, and plot holes abound. Any of us with daughters know full way there is no way in HELL we would send a blind girl out on a mission like that. Sorry. Suspension of disbelief has left the building with Elvis.
Shaymalan is very good. This film does not suck. But after hyping it as the scariest thing since the Exorcist, he has squandered quite a bit of street cred with his audience. We'll all be more wary next time.
I was definitely "underwhelmed" by the twist this time. The twists in 6th Sense & Unbreakable were far more effective and poignant, IMHO. Night better watch out or he will market himself into a "one-trick pony" box, and BTW--you are good but you are NO Hitchcock.
Having said that, the cinematography, acting, and directing were very good (aside from the Bourne Supremacy style botched handheld shot in the cemetary). The writing was good in some spots, sketchy in others, and plot holes abound. Any of us with daughters know full way there is no way in HELL we would send a blind girl out on a mission like that. Sorry. Suspension of disbelief has left the building with Elvis.
Shaymalan is very good. This film does not suck. But after hyping it as the scariest thing since the Exorcist, he has squandered quite a bit of street cred with his audience. We'll all be more wary next time.