The Village (2004)
Here's how I explained the film
to friends after I saw "The Village:" While I was
watching the film, every time a plot twist happened,
I was like, "Oh wow! That's fucking awesome!" But
later in the evening, when I was lying in bed trying
to go to sleep, I was like, "Wait a minute, that couldn't
happen."
"The Village" has more than one
plot twist (and even more plot holes) and I assume
that if you are reading this, by now you have seen
the film. You wouldn't want to read anything that
might give away the story here, would you? It is impossible
to discuss this film without discussing its plot points.
So, here we go... (Note: This is what's known in the
business as a SPOILER ALERT!)
There's no doubt that M. Night Shyamalan
is one of the greatest filmmakers of this or any other
time. Like Hitchcock, he has a seemingly innate ability
to create immense tension on the screen. He does not
frighten us with cats jumping out of dark corners
or knife-wielding serial killers but rather with an
intuitive sense of what is creepy. When it was announced
after "Signs" that his next film would be set in the
late 1800's and involve a small village where they
believed creatures lived in the woods outside their
homes, nothing could have seemed a more ideal film
for the writer/director. The legions of his fans,
of which I am one, awaited the film with much anticipation
and heightened expectations.
I should have been a little bit
more pessimistic. I thought that perhaps the creatures
in the woods would be just another group of settlers
who feared the members of the titular village as much
as their neighbors feared them. Or, even more hopeful,
I thought perhaps we might never find out what they
are, leaving the fear of the unknown to haunt not
only the characters but the viewer. Sadly, this latter
idea is not even considered here really. I have come
to realize that Shyamalan is one of those filmmakers,
somewhat like Hitchcock, who insists on taking the
ethereal and making it literal. Shyamalan insists
on giving you his version of reality. In "Unbreakable,"
Bruce Willis has superhuman strength not only because
he believes it but because he has been manipulated
into believing it. In "Signs," crop circles are actually
explained as being made by aliens. Not only that,
we actually get to see the aliens. They are real,
not imagined. Even as early as "Close Encounters of
the Third Kind," Spielberg knew that it was far more
effective to simply suggest there were real extraterrestrial
aliens rather than show them to us. Of course, Spielberg
forgot about this with "E.T.," "A.I.," and the "Special
Edition" of "CE3K," but that's besides the point.
Shyamalan insists on making his "monsters" literal,
and this film is no exception.
But there are several "Wow!" moments
when it comes to the monsters in "The Village." The
first, of course, is when we see one in the background
of a scene and feel the impending danger which affects
his blind protagonist who, of course, cannot see "it."
This moment works best because it shows us that there
really are monsters. We know immediately that, at
least, they are not imagined because they appear in
a scene with a blind girl.
The second "shock" comes with the
reveal of the true nature of the beasts and the third
when one appears again, after we have been told they
are a "farce." Shyamalan, of course, is telling his
own story here, so it is should be no surprise that
he reveals the monsters to us in this manner. He has
a definite plot he is going to reveal to us in exactly
the manner he has calculated for maximum shock and
surprise. As a script writer as well as a filmmaker,
Shyamalan has an immense talent for timing. His plot
points unfold perfectly.
The final "Wow!" moment in the film
is, of course, when we discover the real time period
in which the film is taking place. Many naysayers
have stated that they could see this plot twist coming
miles away. If you are one of the people who had that
foresight, I pity you. A perfectly wonderful and surprising
movie was ruined for you by your own cynicism and
conniving mind. Not seeing this coming, the twist
had me gasping in amazement. Yes, if you want to pick
apart the film, you can come up with a hundred different
reasons why this couldn't possibly be true. But if
you just want to accept it and live with it, this
plot twist is cool as hell. It's an intriguing idea.
One of the reasons the final plot
twist is hard to believe for some is the language
of the film. The community exposed here does not have
a named religion, but they seem very much like Quakers.
They speak in an almost poetic manner and have a delightful
usage of phrases and sentence structure. For example,
William Hurt's school teacher doesn't ask a group
of students what they are looking at by simply saying
just that. He asks, "What manner of spectacle has
captured your attention on this fine afternoon?" It's
a beautiful use of the English language and one that
is simply gorgeous to hear.
Still, if the film's plot were true
and these were really 70's urban dwellers who moved
to the country, why would they chose to speak in a
such a manner? I know it's been 30 years since their
self-imposed exile began, but wouldn't one of them
say something like, "That's cool," or "Wow," just
by accident? Dude, I could move to Russian and learn
Russian and speak it fluently for years and I would
still start most of my sentences with the word "Dude"
when I speak aloud. So, even though the characters
have to speak in this flowery language to make you
believe it is 1897 - so that you will be awed by the
plot twist, even though it is totally contrived, I
still loved the dialogue in the film.
Part of the reason I liked it was
because it helped to make the community in which these
characters live seem so idyllic. And this fits in
perfectly with the 70's sort of hippie/ commune ideal
that the characters in the film were supposedly trying
to set-up when they undertook the establishment of
this village. Still, why would these people, now known
as the elders, insist on living COMPLETELY like it
was a hundred years ago. This idea, explored when
Shyamalan has his "cameo" (his most gratuitous one
yet - you don't need to appear in every one of your
films, dude), that they have paid off people to keep
planes from flying over, is just silly. Why wouldn't
they just tell the kids they are "silver birds" or
something. Again, the only reason this is even discussed
is so that we will be able to rationalize the set-up
of the film. So, even though this stuff is all explained
in a totally contrived way, I still like the film
and the story.
Two of the main things that makes
"The Village" work, besides its amazing plot, are
the acting and the cinematography. But also of great
value, is the score by James Newton Howard. This score,
which features the violin work of Hillary Hahn, will
surely be remembered at Oscar time. Capturing the
immediacy of Bernard Hermann, the intricacies of Phillip
Glass and Howard's own sense of blockbuster accentuation,
the composer provides the best work of his career
here. It is truly a beautiful score. All of this,
combined with Shyamalan's amazing directorial and
storytelling skills unites to provide quite a wonderful
film.
If you have any doubt of Shyamalan's
mastery of the art of film, simply watch the stabbing
scene. It is stunning and it captivates not only because
of his skill but due to the beautiful camera work,
the amazing acting and the perfect music.
We expect William Hurt and Sigourney
Weaver to be perfect here, and thy are. We expect
Adrien Brody to overact a bit if allowed to play a
retard, and he does. We expect Michael Pitt's bee-stung
lips to be the hottest thing in a movie, even a period
piece, and they are. Pitt looks simply gorgeous here
even if he is given absolutely nothing to do. The
scene where he is peering out from his hooded coat,
under the tarp as it rains in the forest is simply
divine. He's so hot... God, he is just beautiful.
I really need to find out if "The Dreamers" is out
on DVD yet...
Um... Anyway, where was I? Oh yes...
One of the true minor standouts
here is Celia Weston. This actress has consistently
proved herself a wonderful secondary performer in
film after film over the past few years. She again
provides wonderful support for the main stars in this
piece. Her emotion-filled crying scene towards the
end of the film is heartbreaking.
And one must also note the gentle
softness provided by Bryce Dallas Howard. As sightless
Ivy, Howard, daughter of multi- hyphenate Ron, may
not be quite so good at playing a blind girl. But,
then again, Ivy is very intuitive. Maybe its okay
that Howard seems to reach precisely where it is she
should be grabbing even though she is supposedly blind.
Regardless of her evocations of a sightless person,
Howard brings a sweetness and kindness to the film
that makes her a heroine to cheer for.
But it is Jaoquin Phoenix, who gives
his best performance yet, that makes the film imminently
watchable. Phoenix is wonderful here, providing a
quiet, stoic young man that we immediately like and
care for. This is without a doubt Phoenix's best work
yet. His scene with Howard where he finally professes
his love is one of the most wonderful love scenes
you will ever see in a film. That's what makes "The
Village" so easy to watch for 100 minutes, Phoenix's
quiet charm and Howard's delicate sweetness.
Much has been made of the allegory
Shyamalan may be making towards modern American society
with his film. Consider this: His village is kept
in fear by false bogeyman who are made villains by
the town elders through stories and gossip. A color
code is used to symbolize "safety" and "danger." While
all of these corollaries to life in America under
the Bush regime seem obvious to me now that I have
seen the film, I never once considered such a thing
while watching it.
Perhaps it is best to simply call
"The Village" a subtle reminder that often the only
thing we have to fear is fear itself and that isolating
ourselves from problems may be safer but ultimately
leads us to living in an illusion.
Notes
Also with Brendan Gleeson, Cherry
Jones, Jesse Eisenberg, and Charlie Hoffheimer.
Cinematography by Roger Deakins.
Scott Rudin is a producer as is Shyamalan.
This is at least 6th film to be
called "The Village."
Originally called "The Woods," that
title had to be dropped when another film by that
name was released.
Kirsten Dunst was originally cast
as Ivy but dropped out to be in Cameron Crowe's "Elizabethtown."
At one time Ashton Kutcher was also mentioned as possibly
being in the film but that didn't happen, of course.
Filmed in Shyamalan's home state
of Pennsylvania as well as New Jersey.
The first Disney/Touchstone/Buena
Vista film to be a financial success in 2004.
Viewed at a sneak on Thursday night
at midnight on the day the film opened in July 2004
in Austin.
