A movie review

Lesson by Kaj Jordison

See “A yarn that fails to spin” Real.Time, page 5

The section Real.Time in the Bangkok Post focuses a lot on different cultural events among other things. So, I thought that today I would cover a review of a new movie by the director M. Night Shyamalan. Even though some people might not know his name, I’m quite sure that most people who are interested in movies have seen at least one or two of his movies. The most successful, and maybe even the best, would probably by the very quiet but still scary movie The Sixth Sense. My own personal favourite, however, is actually Unbreakable.

The writer (the Bangkok Post’s Kong Rithdee) reviewing the movie clearly respects and likes Shyamalan’s movies, and also Shyamalan as a person. On many occasions in the text, the reviewer mentions that Shyamanlan is a very intelligent man and storyteller. However, even though the writer shows his big appreciation of Shyamanlan’s earlier movies, he doesn’t seem to be too impressed by Lady in the Water; the movie he is reviewing. The writer almost seems to be upset. Can that be because he is disappointed? Maybe he expected more of Shyamanlan? Read and find out (paragraphs three and eight especially focus on the flaws of Lady in the Water).

The movie itself is adapted from a children’s book written in the 1990s. It’s a magical, mythical story about strange creatures entering the human realm to fight over the future of humankind. Good creatures are battling bad creatures in an attempt to decide over our future. 

Vocabulary from the introduction

flaws – things that make something or someone less perfect
mythical – not true or real, but existing only in somebody's imagination
creatures – any living person, animal, or in this case fantasy being
human realm – the world of humans

Vocabulary from the review

astute – clever and perceptive
guile – cleverly thought out in a kind of lying way
blithely – cheerful and carefree
cajole – to persuade somebody to do something by saying nice things, or gentle but persistent argument
reckon with – to have to deal or come to terms with
much-hyped folly – a thoughtless, somewhat stupid thing that has been widely publicised
self-indulgence – lack of self-control in pursuing your own pleasure or satisfaction
torchbearer – somebody who provides leadership or inspiration
lofty – behaving in a falsely superior manner
sarcasm – remarks that mean the opposite of what they seem to say and are intended to make fun of something or someone
whimsy – the quality of being slightly odd or playfully humorous
devoid – completely lacking in something
zest – an exciting and enjoyable quality
rigid – firm and stiff
sagging – becoming weaker or losing intensity or enthusiasm
garrulous – using many or too many words; talking a great deal
pallid-faced – having an unhealthily pale skin
sewage – human and domestic waste matter from buildings, especially houses, that is carried away through tunnels underground
fumbling – acting in a clumsy way
stuttering – saying something unsuccessfully, repeating sounds when attempting to pronounce them, either from nervousness or as the result of a speech disorder
real guts – showing courage; not being afraid of doing something
prominent – well-known
straight-facedly – with serious expression on your face
proclaimed – announced something publicly or formally
bogus – fake
fuzzy – not clear or straightforward
pretentious – acting as though it is more important or special than it actually is, or appearing to have an unrealistically high self-image
mumbo-jumbo – religious beliefs, language, or rituals that seem to be pointless or meaningless 
allure – highly attractive quality
subcontinental – the area around the countries of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh regarded as a special part of South Asia
artifact – an object made by humans (in this case people from Hollywood making movies)
enchantment – charm; something that delights or captivates
disservice – an action that causes harm or difficulty

A yarn that fails to spin

M. Night Shyamalan's latest venture turns out to be a much-hyped folly

KONG RITHDEE

Lady in the Water, Starring Paul Giamatti, Bryce Dallas Howard, M. Night Shyamalan, Directed by M. Night Shyamalan : I have no doubt M. Night Shyamalan is an intelligent filmmaker, an astute storyteller with a keen sense of plot, character, and the cinematic guile that sometimes blithely pulls the rug from under our feet. He's a modern pop-artist operating on the oldest tradition of yarn-spinning; he cajoles us to sit around the fire and tells us his stories in whispers as the bad wolves howl and strange birds screech in the distance. He's a refreshing force to reckon with when his stories work, like in The Sixth Sense, or to an extent in Unbreakable. But how could we — how could anybody — explain the much-hyped folly known as Lady in the Water? Is it over-confidence, self-indulgence, or simply an excusable blunder of this director once tipped to become the new Spielberg?

Shyamalan has the right to see himself as the torch-bearer who preserves the art of storytelling as a human impulse - storytelling as something that could change the culture, or even the world. Yet perhaps we, too, have the right to question his lofty creative ambitions. He doesn't need to let loose a spiky dog from hell to bite off the heads of the critics (and the viewers?) who do not like his movies, like he's done with childish glee in Lady in the Water; I meant no sacarsm when I said this guy is intelligent, though unfortunately his new film isn't .

Lady in the Water, which the writer-director adapted from his children's book written in the 1990s, is told with the mythical whimsy of a bedtime story, but the apparent flaw is how the film is totally devoid of any magical zest. It's rigid instead of flexible, sagging instead of swooping, and distractingly garrulous instead of quietly engaging. Shyamalan's last few films often feel like they have been manufactured, as opposed to being created, and the stiff-jointed plotline in Lady in the Water could make us forget how elegant the narrative flowed in The Sixth Sense.

Paul Giamatti plays a superintendent of an apartment building who rescues what looks like a model from a Vivienne Westwood fashion show from his swimming pool. Played by the pallid-faced Bryce Dallas Howard, the woman is in fact a narf, an aquatic creature who comes to the human realm to inspire one person to do something that will change the world. She's being hunted, however, by a "scrunt", a hellish hyena bent on gnawing the narf before the Great Eatlon, the divine eagle, arrives to collect her. Oh and there's also the Tartutic, which is... some animal who will destroy the scrunt should "the Guardian", "the Healer", and "the Guild" fail to protect the narf - or to be precise you have to call her Madam Narf.

Don't miss the key plot point that the narf pops out of the sewage with the sole purpose of enlightening just one person. This particular person, the Chosen One if I may, is not the fumbling, stuttering Giamatti character, but a tenant in his building called Vic.

Vic is writing a very important book, which contains a lot of radical thoughts that will, sweet Jesus, be read by the future leader of the USA and will inspire him to change the world. In the film, Vic is played by Shyamalan. I guess it takes real guts for a prominent filmmaker to write a movie script about the Chosen One and play the Chosen One himself, straight-facedly. Spielberg has never done that, neither did other real great directors of our time.

I insist that Shyamalan possesses an exceptional level of intelligence, and perhaps only he knows what he's trying to achieve with Lady in the Water. Film criticism as a form of cultural interpretation is maybe rendered useless when dealing with a director who once proclaimed that he makes films "to make cultural phenomenon".

All I know is that a bedtime story could easily feel like a nonsense bogus, even to children. There's a fuzzy line that separates pretentious mumbo-jumbo from an honest attempt to recapture the fantastic allure of a story - and that line separates Lady in the Water from, say, a book like Haroun and the Sea of Stories, by another First-World star of subcontinental origin, Salman Rushdie. Shyamalan's latest film poses as a Hollywood artifact that celebrates the enchantment of storytelling — so forgotten and buried these days beneath the crushing weight of star power and special effects — but the film only does a disservice to the art by ending up telling nothing but a bad story.

Reading activity

Below there are four questions that will help you gain a deeper understanding of the text. Read the review with the aid of the vocabulary list and then answer the questions (some of these questions have no exact answers; you’ll have to try to analyse the text a little).

1. The writer says that Shyamalan’s movies sometimes “pull the rug from under our feet”. What does that mean?
2. Why does the writer think that the movie isn’t very good?
3. Who plays the character Vic in the movie?
4. How has Hollywood destroyed some of the art of storytelling?  

Extra activity

Think about your own favourite movie. Once you’ve decided which movie it is, try to write a short review about it. In the review, include these two things: a general description of the storyline, and the reasons it is a good movie.

Remember that you want to make people interested in this movie. You want to write a review that makes people want to see it. Don’t forget, a review can be very personal, so don’t try to make it too neutral. Use a lot of adjectives describing the good qualities of the movie.

Posted by Terry Fredrickson at 12:08 PM