« China fact of the day, global warming edition | Main | What do we have reason to be uncertain about? »
The Lady in the Water
It is probably the best movie this summer. It creates its own world and draws you in. Forget the bad reviews from writers who do not take obscure Catholic theological debates seriously (well...theology is not my cup of tea either, but I will pretend for the movie's sake. If you can accept the Jedi...). The absurd parts of the film, like the descent of the monkeys, are supposed to be absurd. It is about the miracle (yes miracle, as in miraculous) of the incarnation, the fact that anyone can be special, our stumbles toward the truth, the apparent arbitrariness of earthly justice, and most of all that we have no choice but to believe in something "absurd." The strongest connection, of course, is to The Book of Job and then to Lewis's Narnia. The film also has a first-rate sense of humor, which is increasingly rare in Hollywood today.
Here is one good (Christian) review. It is no surprise that the Catholic Kelly Jane Torrance also liked it. Yet the movie bombed. It is sad to think that Hollywood is about to neuter one of America's most accomplished and original filmmakers.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 13, 2006 at 07:03 PM in Film | Permalink
Comments
No, no, no! It was terrible. First, Shyamalan has a tin ear: what the hell is a "narf"? Phonetically it resonates among "Nerf," "barf," "smurf," "narc"...none of which lend any appropriate shades of meaning.
Second, the plot was incoherent. Who were these Blue World creatures? Why did they want to save us? Why were we separated from them? The Tartutic were...who? They're bad! But they save the day at the end! Huh? What was Story supposed to do to save humanity? Get carried away by a giant eagle?
Every single character other than Giamatti's was paper-thin. That's forgivable in a fairy-tale, though. But the bits with the old Chinese lady and her daughter were cliche in too many ways to list.
Shyamalan's concept of faith is tawdry, saccharine, and cheap, cheap, cheap. Tell you what -- we'll all have this beautiful childlike faith in our own goodness and that of the universe -- as soon as magic blue water creatures show up from another world to save us. Who wouldn't at that point? But until that happens, what on earth do Shyamalan's little visions have to do with anything?
"Obscure Catholic theological debates" (emphasis added)? Oh, would it were so. I (an atheist) love a little Pelagianism v. Semipelagianism philosophical action. Give me angels dancing on pins until I can't count anymore. This wasn't Catholic anything. It was crappy New Age I'm-OK-You're-OK pseudo-theological tripe.
Posted by: Christopher M at Aug 13, 2006 7:54:33 PM
"It is sad to think that Hollywood is about to neuter one of America's most accomplished and original filmmakers."
My God, did you see the idiocy that was "Signs" and "The Village"?!? Alien creatures capable of space flight take over the planet only be defeated by...WATER!!! Silly aliens, it covers much of the planet! Should have checked on that. And I don't even know where to begin with how disappointing and predictable "The Village" was. I enjoyed both "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable," but the recent work is foolish, sentimental, indulgent crap.
Posted by: Laodan at Aug 13, 2006 9:28:30 PM
The best thing about M. Night Shamylan is the beautiful pans he inspires. Read this one from Ebert, really one wicked piece of writing:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060720/REVIEWS/60720002/1001
(I haven't seen the movie and probably won't but not because of Ebert. I quit after Unbreakable but I did like both it and The Sixth Sense.)
Posted by: jeff at Aug 13, 2006 9:31:51 PM
I was going to give it a pass, but now I will go see it. . . Sounds like my kind of movie.
Posted by: Matthew Cromer at Aug 13, 2006 9:36:32 PM
That review is not by Ebert but by his stand-in and blog manager, Jim Emerson.
Posted by: asg at Aug 13, 2006 9:51:14 PM
Professor Cowen:
So you believe in markets in everything -- except directors?
You use "Hollywood" as a metaphor for the capital that funds moviemaking, and the problem you find so sad is that this capital won't choose to fund future movies by this director. But if he's so worthy, why are the capital markets failing to give him the backing you say is his due?
Would you ever have writen : "It is sad to think that THE MARKET is about to neuter one of America's most accomplished and original filmmakers"? Is there a type of market failure, specific to egomaniacal directors, of which I am unaware?
Posted by: Scott Woolley at Aug 13, 2006 11:42:02 PM
Wow, I can't believe you are praising this guy! You have so much better taste than that, Tyler! M Night Shyamalan is exactly what is wrong with Hollywood. He produces cheap, corny crap with really lame religious themes thrown in. Did you see Signs?! It's painful to watch. Even Unbreakable wasn't very good. Sixth Sense was clever and not bad, but ever since its success, Shyamalan feels the need to throw some lame "twist" into the ending of his films. I am not going to waste my time or money to see what the twist in this one is.
Posted by: The Robed One at Aug 14, 2006 12:25:07 AM
Wow, I can't believe you are praising this guy! You have so much better taste than that, Tyler! M Night Shyamalan is exactly what is wrong with Hollywood. He produces cheap, corny crap with really lame religious themes thrown in. Did you see Signs?! It's painful to watch. Even Unbreakable wasn't very good. Sixth Sense was clever and not bad, but ever since its success, Shyamalan feels the need to throw some lame "twist" into the ending of his films. I am not going to waste my time or money to see what the twist in this one is.
Posted by: The Robed One at Aug 14, 2006 12:29:07 AM
Herr Cowen,
You’re starting to sound like a Marxist.
The film was cheesy and out of touch with reality. Nothing in the movie served as a metaphor that deserves intellectual analysis.
A bizarre fairy tale set in a middle class apartment complex? - NO SOUP FOR YOU!!
Posted by: Chairman Mao at Aug 14, 2006 3:08:01 AM
There Economist gives the movie an excellent
review. A pretty notable exception to the
trend. Pay wall of course.
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_STRRJSV
Posted by: stuart at Aug 14, 2006 6:24:10 AM
The very fact Night inspires such strong positive and negative flack is reason enough to say his films are worthy of being made.
I saw the movie and the first commenter totally misses the mark (as do the critics of Signs, etc). The whole point is that in faith you are asked to make and believe in things that are absolutely ridiculous (evil judgement monkeys, giant eagle rescue) and things that seem illogical and which will not and cannot be explained.
I thought it was good, but certainly not the best film I've seen this year. I dont think there has been a legitimate great movie this year, the only one I haven't seen that seems like it may cross that threshhold is Fearless. Most o f the lauded films have been underwhelming and the summer movies have been summer movies.
And man does he shoot beautifully.
Posted by: Johnny Debacle at Aug 14, 2006 7:18:06 AM
It's true that The Economist didn't thrash the film, but it's praise is pretty faint ("constantly risks falling on its face but almost never does").
I'm a bit wigged out that Tyler linked to that ridiculous (Christian) review. Basically, the reviewer liked the film because he could give it a theological intrepretation, and the fact that the MSM panned it fit well with his "Christians are persecuted by secular elites" world-view.
It's fine if you like the film, Tyler, but please don't subject your loyal readers to the rantings of a paranoid evangelical just because his was the only positive review you could find to link to.
Posted by: David Wright at Aug 14, 2006 7:35:16 AM
Tyler, your praise for this terrible film and this hugely overrated egomaniac of a director has undermined my faith in your off-center, contrarian posts. Yikes.
Seriously, are you nuts?
Posted by: Dan at Aug 14, 2006 11:05:01 AM
Why is it that we can easily accept a "muggle" but somehow a "narf" or "scrunt" is completely unforgiveable. And for those that tag Shyamalan as self-indulgent...well...have you seen a Woody Allen movie in the last 20 years? Of course it's self indulgent. It's based on a story he tells his kids as he tucks them in. And honestly, if you had the ability to give life and movement to something your children enjoyed...wouldn't you? Personally, I thought this was a great night out. The movie was as engaging and entertaining as one would expect a bed-time story to be. Maybe next time around M. Night can appeal to our darker demons and need for a good bone-chilling suspense thriller.
Posted by: Brandon at Aug 14, 2006 12:12:04 PM
The unanswered questions in this movie were deliberately left unanswered. How else were we to suspend our disbelief so completely? I once read a description of Zen Koans that said that they provoked rage in the student. The mind hurls itself against the bars of the cage of logic until at last it gives up and sees that the bars aren't real. The first commenter is still railing from within his cage.
The characters are one dimensional because they are archetypal. They are meant to convey ideas and to act as symbols. Think Greek Mythology instead of Shakespeare. Unlikely plot devices used simply to transmit an idea are used throughout literature. Does anyone lambast Melville for the sealed, floating coffin used to save Ishmael? A white whale? Preposterous! What of the symbolism though? What else is the author trying to tell us? People...we have to think a little sometimes.
Lastly, I defy any man with a family to remain dry eyed during Giamatti's scene where he channels his grief in order to save Story. Shyamalan uses this scene, and the porch scene in The Village to portray honest male emotions in a way that is almost entirely absent from modern entertainment. As a father and a husband, Lucius Hunt and Cleveland Heep speak to me in ways that our fathers and uncles should, but often do not.
Posted by: Michael Nardozzi at Aug 14, 2006 12:13:37 PM
narf= nuclear attack readiness force
Posted by: agm at Aug 14, 2006 2:58:18 PM
The whole point is that in faith you are asked to make and believe in things that are absolutely ridiculous (evil judgement monkeys, giant eagle rescue) and things that seem illogical and which will not and cannot be explained.
Hm, then I bet you can't wait to read my unpublished novel, whose whole point is to make you believe in cheesy dialogue, ridiculous plot twists, and lazy characterization.
Posted by: Anderson at Aug 14, 2006 6:08:49 PM
It's by M. Night Shyamalan therefore I can safely assume it's pretty bad. Which leads me to wonder, what did you think of his other films? Unbreakable was ok, The Sixth Sense was bad, and Signs was just awful. By that point I got the idea and didn't bother with The Village or whatever it was called, and I certainly won't waste $9 on this.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Aug 14, 2006 6:34:08 PM
I'm shocked to see anyone defend this film. Personally I thought it was awful, the only defenses I've seen of it have been in similar statements supporting the absurdity. I'll consent this point if it's a fairy tale it should be judged against other fairy tales. On this margin see the film "Little Otik." I don't think it's fare to call "Lady in Water," a remotely decent fairy tale after seeing "Little Otik." Paul Giamatti rules thought.
Posted by: Daniel J. D'Amico at Aug 14, 2006 6:45:08 PM
If there are millions of followers of all major religions, believing in stories/incidents mentioned in the respective relgious books, most of which are too hard to belive, then I think this LitW could also be believed. The principle is the same.
Posted by: Ram at Aug 15, 2006 3:37:44 AM
best bad review of the Village by Ebert
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040719/REVIEWS/40719002/1023
Posted by: judson at Aug 15, 2006 2:25:21 PM
"It is probably the best movie this summer."
No, A Scanner Darkly is probably the best movie this summer.
Posted by: izzy at Aug 15, 2006 7:18:51 PM
I thought it was a sweet film. Movies don't have to be dark or clever or sardonic to be enjoyable. It was simple, it didn't have any twists I noticed, and it drew me into the fantasy. You only wouldn't have a clue why Story (and the Blue World) was there if you missed the beginning. It's not the best movie I've ever seen, but I enjoyed it. I thought that what cinematic entertainment was for.
Posted by: andrea at Aug 17, 2006 5:43:23 AM
Listen, this was easily the best movie of the summer. Nothing can mathc its honesty and its heart. There is fear, doubt, and great challenge all wrapped up in this movie and it conveys any human's journey toward finding the value of one's goodness and faith in the Lord. Faith-it's not a crutch, it's what puts a smile in your and leads to what is better for all. This is one of M. Night's very best tales. To challenge the value of this movie would be very Hollywood-esqe.
Keep the Faith
Posted by: David at Aug 24, 2006 2:53:24 AM
I just finished the movie. I dont know if i liked it or not. I also just finished the celestine prophesy (a book that attempts to explain sychronicity- or meaningful coincidences in every day life. I found this book coincidently on clearance at a halfprice book store for a dollar. I hadn't heard of it- but it said "New York Times Best Seller" so I got it. I'd been freaked out because of the coincidences in my life- and this book coincidentally attempted to explain it. I didnt really like the book but....found myself drawn in looking for my own answeres Then another coincedence and then another...blah blah) So after the book I see this. I dont really like the movie but it illustrates perfectly the mind set im in right now. Kind of like the veil of the 4th wall is being lifted. Its a movie that tells us that our world view might be wrong. Maybe we are manifestations of the whole- the collective conciousness and as soon as we learn that this world is our dream and that anything is possible...everything will be possible. My point......
Crazy people like me should not see movie's like this because it only validates the logic of scitzophrenia (sp) thereby drawing the mentally ill further into their dillusions.
Posted by: maggie at Aug 26, 2006 1:11:25 PM
