Log in

View Full Version : Lady In The Water



cinemabon
07-23-2006, 01:41 PM
Lady in the water – a film by M. Night Shyamalan

As much as Hitchcock was dubbed the Master of Suspense, so M. Night Shyamalan must be dubbed the Master of Dramatic Irony. In the past five films, beginning with “The Sixth Sense,” he has brought to the screen a series of stories so unique and so special that I believe he will form a new kind of genre, one that bridges fantasy with fantastic. “Lady in the Water” is no different. Unfortunately, the PR people from Warner Brothers have again given us a very different impression from the trailers, that this is a horror film. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a Grimm Fairy Tale, whose plot twists and explanations never end.

Shyamalan stated that the idea for this film came from a story he made up to tell his children. Oh to have been in that bedroom and have your father doing all the characters! From the very opening of the film, he makes no bones about declaring this story a fable rooted in the subconscious mind. It is there we must travel, to the little boy or girl that get frightened by the dark, afraid of what’s out there. Yet in the light of day, we see that nothing is really there, only our fear. The lady, however, is the tangible bridge between fantasy and our real world. She then becomes the connecting force that brings our plot and our characters together.

The director employs a clever use of revealing characters by using the apartment complex as a motive for introducing them. Just as in “Rear Window” or Fellini’s “Roma” we gradually are introduced to characters at random that will later come into play when the climactic resolution to the plot takes place. Each character is a caricature of some idyllic person with special traits or abilities we only gets hints of… a man sits in a room full of books, a woman attracts butterflies, a group of women are collectively frightened of a spider, a man cleverly solves crossword puzzles, another develops his strength, but in only one arm, and a group of displaced young men sit around all day and discuss random topics, to name but a few. Then we have our authority figure, a film critic, which the director pokes fun at his expense. He is the distraction in this piece and the comic relief from the dramatic tension.

Paul Giamatti is a dream in this film. What do I mean by that? Just that. He seems to come from a dream, as if he is there and real in one scene, and then not there in the next, a changed man. This dual nature has a purpose which, being a M. Night Shyamalan film, one does not reveal. Suffice to say that while the director makes his usual appearance as one of the characters, almost to the detriment of the film, it is Giamatti’s performance that will most certainly garner him a nomination. In a long dramatic moment at the end, Giamatti brings the film its emotional payoff for the audience, and lifts this little fairy out of the mundane.

tabuno
07-24-2006, 03:34 PM
Shyamalan demonstrates a creative ability to bring mythology and pre-historical, oral tales to the current present day. This movie is definitely no horror movie, but a neat production of using the more basic, primitive emotions of humankind. While I can't offer my best accolades to this film because of a few weaknesses, particularly the beginning of the movie (including the overly juvenile animated sequence and the beginning character set-up as well as the final sequence of the movie, Shyamalan does bring his innate abilities to lead the audience into a creepy, scary place. He must be a good storyteller both on and off the screen. His own presence does almost detract from the movie (it would have been more fascinating for him to have been the narrator telling the story). I'm glad that his exclusion of movie twists have been relegated to secondary twinking of the movie storyline. I enjoyed the movie its technique and storytelling.

oscar jubis
07-24-2006, 09:00 PM
I'm not a fan of Shayamalan's movies. The young actor from The Sixth Sense was fun to watch, and Eduardo Serra's cinematography is the reason I found Unbreakable worth seeing. That's about it, for me. I hadn't given the writer/director much thought until I heard his interview on NPR last weekend. The man portrayed himself as genius storyteller and masterful director who inexplicably gets mistreated by clueless critics. He makes expensive studio movies but he thinks of himself as a maverick outsider because he still lives in Philly. Shyamalan truly believes himself to be an iconoclast who makes very original and unusually "deep" movies. I haven't seen any evidence of that but I'm aware others disagree: cinemabon writes about "stories so unique and so special that will form a new kind of genre, one that bridges fantasy with fantastic". I'm not sure what that means, and Lady in the Water rates a "pass" for me. But I'm driving the kids to the theatre tonight so they can see it.

Chris Knipp
07-25-2006, 12:57 PM
I tend to agree with Oscar, and knew about Shyamalan's stances, but I also think his films must be seen. He has much talent, much much talent. That it is somehow wasted or misfires a lot of the time doesn't change the fact that when you see his stuff, you learn something about how movies are made. He has authentic gifts. But there is something wrong with his imagination. Part of it may be his grandiosity. He thinks of himself as a genius--that is because he was a prodigy and because he has a hyperactive imagination. There's hubris there. More later when I have seen this one. I have read Manohla Dargis's review where she says it shows he has definitely lost his marbles, but nonetheless it's the most watchable movie of the summer. Sounds about right. For someone so ready to watch obscure and forgotten films as Oscar, an unwillingness to see the latest by a US director as talented as Shyamalan seems like a mistake to me. Sure, he's commercial. And he has many influences. But he's original, nonetheless.

cinemabon
07-26-2006, 10:04 PM
As usual, my exuberance for the source material is clouded by experiencing the film with my son. As an objective critic, I might tend to be a bit more harsh on the details of this film. Here is another take, with Shyamalan up to bat.....

Strike One: Shyamalan is not an actor. By increasing his performance in this film from one of cameo to supporting, he has crossed the line Hitch made about appearing in his own movies, and entered the realm of Woody Allen, a director that actually stars in his own films. While Allen has had years of experience to perfect this technique, he is one of the few people that can actually do it. Shyamalan, on the other hand, gives a very flat performance (with no one around to critique it). Similar to the way Mel Brook's plays over-the-top sometimes, ruining some of his films with his overt "shmaltz", Shyamalan's emotional underplay brings down this film and leaves us wishing he didn't show up for the casting call.

Strike Two: Eat the critic joke. Including the film critic as an essential character in the movie, using him as a reference to destroy the plot, then having him killed off as he describes cliches, undermines the rest of the remaining plot. Bob Balaban's character, cynical from the start, really has little to do, and no where to go, acting as Shyamalan's sounding board on what is wrong with the film critic. He might have thrown in pompous directors, too.

Strike Three: I love Paul Giamatti. I think he is a great and under rated actor. He does give a great speech at the end of the film, one of the few moments worth remembering. However, the end to the story plotwise is just plain silly. Trying to bridge the fairytale with the 'real' characters never quite comes up to the believable level, especially when the bald monkeys with Mohawk hairdos coming flying in. This is bad cinema.

YOU'RE OUT!

Chris Knipp
07-27-2006, 12:06 AM
cinemabon,

Have you changed your mind or just made up your mind? These are damning criticisms and are making it harder for me to want to go and see the film, but I still hold to my statement that his work has be seen.

Good observations, anyway.