With Sixth Sense, Signs and Unbreakable under his belt, it
seems that Shyamalan has got himself stuck firmly in the rut of producing films
which need some incredible twist at the end. That would be fine in itself if it
were carried off well, but The Village just disappoints.
There is something entirely lacking here; mainly suspense, but a hindsight
reflection shows wide open holes in the whole plot.
If you don't want the entire film spoiled, stop reading now.
It's impossible to comment on the plot without blowing it wide-open, because
there is very little to it.
Some truly cheesed-off citizens decide to take themselves out of the rat race of
murder and brutality ( modern day living, American-style ) and set up camp in
the middle of a forest.
Tolerable enough so far, but why would they then have to perpetrate a hoax for
their offspring that they were living in 1896, and why would they all decide to
talk as they did in that era ? What difference at all would any of this have to
anyone brought up entirely within the confines of their village ? They would
not care if it were today, a hundred years in the past or a hundred years in
the future. The time is irrelevant, only the passing of it matters.
The only logical explanation is that Shyamalan needed a vehicle to throw a twist
at the end. Okay we'll grant him that, as every film needs a story, but what did
he make of it from then on ?
Not a lot. Suspense was almost entirely lacking, and the only aspects of
intrigue were never really answered; who did skin the wildstock, and why ? Was
it Noah, the village nutter, or was it an Elder as Walker says ?
We are of course meant to believe it's some nasty monster hiding in the woods,
but such creatures are a fabrication by the village Elders themselves to keep
their children from straying into the woods. One look at the unbelievably stupid
and totally unscarey hoax monster was enough to give that away.
So when Walker takes his daughter into the foreboding shed, and she touches the
monster costume; why would she jump a mile ? She had never seen such a creature
and certainly wouldn't have known what it was she was touching anyway from such
brief contact.
And why would Walker let his daughter in on the secret, and send her blindly
through a treacherous wood when he could have gone himself ? That is blandly
resolved with a throw-away line that he had taken an oath,
presumably that the Elders would never leave the village come what may. But if
that is the case, then sending his daughter is simply playing semantics. The
secrecy created is broken, and that presumably is what the oath is there for;
it can't be held both ways.
That Shyamalan is concocting a vehicle to deliver a twist becomes blatant
and is even undermined by his own efforts. Having let the audience in on the
secret, that there's absolutely nothing to fear in the woods at all, why would
they be remotely surprised when a blind girl stumbles into the midst of some
bright red flowers. She can't see them, and we know that it's not an important
colour as there are no monsters.
But then, on cue, up pops Noah the nutter rigged in a monster costume having
escaped from the village where he's been imprisoned for almost killing another
villager which is the only way Shyamalan could have caused a sequence of events
that would have led to anyone needing to leave the village anyway. Why the hell
would anyone have hidden a spare monster costume under the floorboards ? And
why would Noah be looking under them ? No matter, Shyamalan has bodged together
a sequence which leads us to the twist, and that is the name of the game.
When the big twist hits us, that it's all set in modern times, he has almost
destroyed the impact anyway with the revelation of who the Elders are and "the
secrets" they keep locked away. A few more throwaway and entirely implausible
lines as to why no aircraft have been seen, and how the village has remained
detached from the real world, wraps up the film in a poor, "You got your twist;
the end", manner.
A film needs a beginning, middle and end, not just an ending and some hacked
together plot to get there. The ending was totally weak on its own - not
much better than an, "It was all a dream", get-out clause - and the rest more
so.
There was an air of disbelief that permeated the whole film, and knowing there
was more than likely to be some twist to come, it dragged its feet to get
there, and threw in some pretty horribly composed shots while doing so. Ramping
up the violently sawing violin strings to a thundering crescendo was laughable,
especially if one deliberately let out a faked, "Eeek !", to an on-screen
event of entire nothingness.
The film's best moment, in a superbly laughable and incredibly badly composed
shot, we have Noah dressed as a monster standing behind a tree while Walker's
daughter looks intrepid. So unfortunate that it looks like the monster is
taking a p--s.
When cutting back from the epic trek through the woods, an Elder tells us that
Lucien has a strong will to live. It was uttered at about the same time as I'd
given mine up.
A very poor offering from Shyamalan who had better buck his ideas up if he wants
to remain master of the back-end twist.
The Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan
It's impossible to mention The Village without referencing the
so-called documentary, The Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan.
Alleged to be a documentary about the Director which strays off the officially
agreed path and unearths some deep and hidden secret in Shyamalan's past, it is
a complete hoax.
Sci-Fi Channel heavily advertised the documentary as being a true story, and the
press was coerced into printing reports of the documentary contents and legal
threats by Shyamalan to prevent broadcast of Buried Secret as fact.
In reality, Shyamalan was instrumentally involved in the hoax documentary
although he has not explained why a director with such acclaimed offerings
behind him needs to stoop so low as to
orchestrate such a scam to promote his film, and both scam and promotion the
documentary is.
For their part in the hoax, Sci-Fi President, Bonnie Hammer, says that the hoax
was part of a, "guerrilla marketing campaign"; "We thought it would create
controversy and it probably went one step too far".
NBC, who have control over the Sci-Fi Channel as a result of their merger with
Universal, stated that such misleading advertising of programme material was,
"not consistent with our policy at NBC", and added that, "we would never intend
to offend the public or the press and value our relationship with both". Funny
how that didn't stop the Sci-Fi channel in the UK advertising the documentary
as fact well after its true status had been admitted to in the US. Rather
amusingly, Sci-Fi's "exclusive" was shown on Channel Five in the UK, the night
before it got its broadcast there; so not much of an exclusive either.
Many people may consider Buried Secret to be no worse than
Blair Witch, but there, that was the product
whereas Buried Secret is advertising hype dressed up as documentary and
deliberately misrepresented to disguise this truth, and goes on claims a
falsehood as the truth. Sure, there was massive hype surrounding Blair
Witch and a huge debate on the internet about whether it was true or not,
but this goes far beyond that.
Whereas Blair Witch set up a rumour mill and sat back to watch interest
grow, letting prospective fans create their own theories, rumour and hype,
Disney and the Shyamalan team actively foisted their lies onto others, telling
them it was true, and there's no honour in that.
Here we have an alleged reputable broadcaster telling us that it is going to
present a documentary that is both factual and true, and will give an insight
into Shyamalan we are unaware of. It fails on all counts, and tarnishes the
reputation of the Sci-Fi channel and its owners. Why should we ever believe
them in the future when they offer to expose "The truth behind the Iraq War",
"The truth about Nuclear Weapons", or "The truth" about anything ? We can't.
Although the advertising for Buried Secret did indicate that it was made
as part of the promotional package for The Village, we are led to
believe that it goes far beyond that, is no longer an marketing tool but
something which is valid in its own right. It isn't.
It is true that most people recognised the documentary for what it was, and that
is not really the subject of complaint; it's the way it has been sold to the
viewers which is the problem. We shouldn't have to second guess a broadcaster
when they tell us something is true.
Had Shyamalan not been in on the act from the start, he could perhaps be excused
for the part he may have inadvertently played in the con, but he was an active
part of the scam and is therefore deserving of the consequences arising from
it, as are its backers, Disney.
Shyamalan's antics very nearly made me decide not to see The Village,
and, if there had been anything better showing, I wouldn't have. He has
tarnished his reputation, and it's not rescued by The Village. We can
only hope that he's seen the errors of his way.
