Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Has Shyamalan DEFIED or DEFINED Convention?

This is topic Has Shyamalan DEFIED or DEFINED Convention? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004717

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-08-2006, 10:43 PM:

In the new trailer for LADY IN THE WATER, I can't make out what the narrator's first sentence is. He either says "His movies have DEFIED convention," or "His movies have DEFINED convention." The way I see it, Shyamalan has done both. The problem is he defied then defined, instead of the other way around.

Either way, isn't it kind of a weird statement to put in a piece of advertising?

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-08-2006, 11:01 PM:

No, because Shyamalamayalan has done neither. He is a fairly conventional mainstream film maker who poses cunningly as a non-conventional "auteur" type of film maker. Hollywood just loves to wallow in how not mainstream and courageous they all think they are while it really is a huge macdonaldized consumer entertainment machinery. "What a courageous movie Brokeback Mountain is".
Next question, please.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-08-2006, 11:34 PM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
Next question, please.

All right. This is something that I've been wondering for a few years now. Slightly off topic. When keeping score of a baseball game, does a passed ball count as an error? [Smile]

But seriously, does it?

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-08-2006, 11:51 PM:

Baseball is a completely irrelavant game. You should watch football ("soccer") instead.
Next question, please.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 07-08-2006, 11:58 PM:

I do give a considerable dose of blame to Buena Vista in misleading audiences into coming to see his films for what seems solely to be the twist; or trying to draw him too broadly into the horror genre. Outside of Wes Anderson's films, BV seems to be trying to cleanly sort its films into genres.

Shyamalan's films always have beautiful locations, shot with good detail to their stories. He's made a good chunk of change off what are, IMHO, "idea stories".

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-09-2006, 12:00 AM:

quote: Mike Schindler
He either says "His movies have DEFIED convention," or "His movies have DEFINED convention."

Probably the first one. The second doesn't really make sense, unless the trailer's putting him down. Conventional implies routine, dull, boring, unimaginative...

Baseball is THE All-American sport. [beer]

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 07-09-2006, 03:42 AM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
You should watch football ("soccer") instead

Michael

Congratulations on Germany coming 3rd in the World Cup [Wink]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-09-2006, 11:11 AM:

Well, Night does not reside in Hollywood and Warner Bros is releasing "Lady"

I really like Night's films...I don't feel like I've seen them before, which is unlike today's Hollywood.

His locations are often around the Philly area. He also is a rather nice guy.

And Baseball is definately the best game.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 07-09-2006, 02:10 PM:

Last fall I gave an extensive lecture on the Thirty-Years War and the subsequent Peace of Westphalia. Afterwards a student approached me and asked if these events were the basis for "The Village". [Confused]

I didn't think the lecture sucked that much.

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 07-09-2006, 02:22 PM:

A passed ball is indicated on a scorecard as "PB" while an error is indicated with an "E." They may seem similar but are kept as separate records and are not the same.

Baseball, often played by the most red-necked guys in sports is one of the most intellectual of the team sports.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-09-2006, 03:13 PM:

Thanks, Jim. So does that mean if a runner's on third and he scores on a passed ball, it counts as an earned run? Because that would suck.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-10-2006, 05:03 AM:

quote: Dick Vaughan
Michael

Congratulations on Germany coming 3rd in the World Cup

Thanks, Dick. But I can't accept your congratulations - I really didn't have anything to do with it! But I am happy for them that they got this far, after all the changes and restructuring Klinsmann had to make, and for which he was massively criticized. But he made the right decisions.

Right now, I am still puzzled by what Zidane did. What a shame! He more or less handed the Cup to Italy. Well, not quite, still, what a shameful exit.

BTW, I was in Berlin for the first two weeks of the WC, not actually *for it*, it was more a timing coincidence. But the athmosphere was fantastic, a giant party, super-relaxed and unaggressive.

Sorry England sucked - but then they always do, don't they? [Wink]

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-10-2006, 09:33 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Well, Night does not reside in Hollywood and Warner Bros is releasing "Lady"

I really like Night's films...I don't feel like I've seen them before, which is unlike today's Hollywood.

His locations are often around the Philly area. He also is a rather nice guy.

And Baseball is definately the best game.

I agree with Steve in the above quote.

I think Night's films have something going for them. When all this crap is coming out from the film companies - an 'idea' film is at least entertaining and thought provoking. I liked all his films so far. The only one I didn't care for too much was "Unbreakable" - however - it was a great idea for a film. Most movies out in the last ten years wish they were that good.

Also - Baseball is the best sport. Of course, I am an American and from the Mid-West. The sports we like come from the area of the world we are from. If I was Canadian - it'd be 'Ice Hockey', if I was from South America or Europe - 'Futbol', India- "Elephant Polo", Austrailia - 'Crocodile Thumping' - stuff like that. [Razz]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-10-2006, 04:57 PM:

Dennis is totally right. Baseball is just a local tribal game, like Elephant Polo. That's what I said [Wink]

I believe the most popular sport in Australia is Koala Kicking, though.

I also liked most of the Shyamalan movies, except for "Unbreakable", but I don't find them, if not quite the same as the typical mainstream sauce, not particularly revolutionary. Well written and made, usually with some surpise in stock. But I also find them very vain in style - "oh, look, how unusual I am. Look, look, really, I am so unusual." But then, they aren't *that* unusual. There are bazillions of films which are completely outside the Hollywood mainstream and much more "unusual" and "convention defying".

I find it kind of funny how the same marketing machinery which tries to sell us all those remakes and sequels and stillborn big budget movies emphasizes that little bit of "unusualness" - "This summer, one man will defy convention!"

On the other hand, it is interesting how slightly different movies can sometimes become huge surprise successes, so it would be good if they noted that and would be a little more daring and try to bring more movies into the cinemas which aren't remakes and sequels and all that. We would all profit from that.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-12-2006, 05:16 PM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
No, because Shyamalamayalan has done neither. He is a fairly conventional mainstream film maker who poses cunningly as a non-conventional "auteur" type of film maker.

It's worth remembering what the term 'auteur' actually signifies. It was first used by a group of French critics in the late '40s (André Bazin & François Truffaut, mainly) who were trying to describe their reactions to the first imported Hollywood films to be shown in France since the end of the Nazi occupation. Bazin in particular believed that a director's 'personal vision' was evident in a mainstream studio production, even though it was the work of hundreds of people, foregrounded the role of stars and was made within a rigidly controlled economic system. He cited examples such as Ford and Hitchcock, and really used the term 'auteur' to mean a director whose personal touch is evident within a commercial, mainstream form of film-making.

Of course, many of this generation of critics and writers later became film-makers themselves (e.g. Truffaut), and tried to put their ideas into practice: hence the reason why, to most people, 'auteur' signifies black-and-white, in a foreign language, at least 10 reels long, sad looking people in beehive hairstyles chain smoking and talking about philosophy etc. etc.

What Truffaut and his mates never saw coming was the post-1980s phenomenon of Hollywood studios marketing directors as stars in their own right. I suspect that M. Night Wotshisname wouldn't qualify, as he is deliberately being used as a 'product' for marketing purposes along with the actors, special effects etc. The original idea of a Hollywood 'auteur' was someone who worked behind the scenes.

quote: Michael Schaffer
Sorry England sucked - but then they always do, don't they?

Especially when the referee's Argentinian.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-12-2006, 07:10 PM:

"What a twist!"

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-12-2006, 09:36 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
I suspect that M. Night Wotshisname wouldn't qualify, as he is deliberately being used as a 'product' for marketing purposes along with the actors, special effects etc. The original idea of a Hollywood 'auteur' was someone who worked behind the scenes.

That sounds more intelligent, but I guess it is basically the same I said.

quote: Leo Enticknap
Especially when the referee's Argentinian.

No, it doesn't have much to do with the referee. They always suck. I know you know that.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-12-2006, 10:13 PM:

I don't think that the commercialism of a filmmaker detracts from their status as an auteur. The point of using a filmmaker's name to sell a movie is to give the audience an idea of what they will be seeing based on that filmmaker's previous work. It's almost as if the marketing is validating the auteur theory. That's not the filmmakers' fault. Besides, Hitchcock was used in marketing way before any of these modern people, and the films which probably pimp their directors more than any others these days are art films.

Regardless of his talent, Shyamalan is certainly an auteur. His movies carry a very distinct style, which is actually his biggest problem. He knocked everyone on their ass with THE SIXTH SENSE, then went a bit further with UNBREAKABLE, which is a near masterpiece. But no one gave that movie the credit it deserved, so he went right back to the SIXTH SENSE formula, and has been wallowing in mediocrity ever since.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-13-2006, 05:15 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
I don't think that the commercialism of a filmmaker detracts from their status as an auteur. The point of using a filmmaker's name to sell a movie is to give the audience an idea of what they will be seeing based on that filmmaker's previous work.

I agree that it doesn't necessarily detract from their status - good, bad and indifferent directors have all been commercialised. I was just trying to point out that the word 'auteur' is a problematic one which has come to mean different things to different people.

It struck me while thinking about this that of the very few directors who established reputations in their own right before the '50s and the wave of writers and non-mainstream filmmakers who popularised the idea of authorship in film, their careers all ended up suffering to some degree. A few examples off the top of my head: Erich von Stroheim was hounded out of Hollywood by Irving Thalberg and ended his days playing supporting roles. Fritz Lang never achieved the status in Hollywood which he enjoyed in Germany (though, ironically, he became a hero of the French critics, and even appeared in one of Godard's films, Le Mepris). Hitchcock left Britain largely because the British studio bosses were uncomfortable with his celebrity status (one of whom publicly accused him of having 'gone with the wind up' to Hollywood at the outbreak of WWII): and although his career didn't suffer as much as Lang's, it was 15 years before he really got that celebrity status back again. Even after he did so, he was an exception which proved what was then the rule.

I'd still argue that the systematic promotion of directors as stars in their own right within mainstream Hollywood is essentially a recent phenomenon, dating from the last 15-20 years or so; though admittedly that's more from personal impression than any systematic research. I still think it's interesting to compare what the term 'auteur' was originally meant to mean with what it's actually come to mean, though.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-14-2006, 02:37 AM:

BTW... This current trend of having the screenwriter direct is making for some long, dull pictures. They want to leave everything in!

Specialization!

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-20-2006, 01:18 PM:

I saw the movie last night. It's actually all about defying convention. But at the same time, it's extremely conventional. However, it still works, because it's a comedy. More specifically, it's a satire of the conventions which Shyamalan himself defined. There are times during SIGNS and THE VILLAGE where you just have to laugh at the ham and cheese of it all. With LADY IN THE WATER, it's like Shyamalan is saying, "Yeah, I know..." But on the flip side, he hasn't learned from his mistakes.

Back when I was in that lovely soul-sucking institution known as "Film School," there was a guy in one of my classes who was making a movie that I somehow got scammed into shooting. We were shooting a scene of a woman walking up some stairs. The whole reason for the scene's existence was to get this woman from point A to point B. If I were editing the movie, this scene would not have survived the first cut. Such was the pointlessness of this scene. So anyway, just before we started shooting, the director turns to me and says, "I want to shoot this in slow motion." I just kind of looked at him for a few seconds, stunned more than anything else, and asked him why. "I don't know. Because it's cool."

This is what I like to call the Film-School Bullshit Aesthetic. And in that setting, it's fine. This movie was a learning experience, and this guy had never shot anything in slow motion before, so who cares? But Shyamalan has embraced the Film-School Bullshit Aesthetic and taken it to a new level over the course of his career. And I'm wondering why none of his very talented collaboraters have ever called him on it. The job of any good DP or editor or producer is to tell the director when he's gone off the deep end, and pull him back. It's almost like with Shyamalan, they encourage his insanity. Crazy stuff.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-23-2006, 02:20 AM:

There are two types of people... Those that love Shamalam's movies EXCEPT for Unbreakable, and those that love Unbreakable but think the rest of his crap is just that.

I guessed the entire movie to sixth sense in the first two minutes. Anyone that has taken film classes know that if someone gets shot and you don't have a connecting scene describing what happens next, then just go to the next scene... THEN HE IS FREAKING DEAD... end of story. Shamalam is just regurgitating sixth grade short stories for the sake of his own personal take on stupidity.

Unbreakable meanwhile, was a leap forward, but most people don't get "forward" so I agree he regressed to film school regurgitation and here we are on the heels of his greatest latest masterpiece... a plate of beef stroganoff ready for the puking.

Ciao

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-23-2006, 04:01 AM:

quote: Dave Williams
Anyone that has taken film classes know that if someone gets shot and you don't have a connecting scene describing what happens next, then just go to the next scene... THEN HE IS FREAKING DEAD... end of story.

I am glad to hear there was at least one thing you got out of film school!

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-25-2006, 03:14 AM:

It was the only class I got an A out of.

Ciao

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-25-2006, 04:08 AM:

quote: Mike Schindler
This is what I like to call the Film-School Bullshit Aesthetic.

A chief I once worked for had an equivalent term: the 'gin and razor blade movie'; the idea being that having to watch one was such a depressing experience that it would drive you to drink and/or suicide...

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 07-25-2006, 06:51 AM:

quote: Dave Williams
There are two types of people... Those that love Shamalam's movies EXCEPT for Unbreakable, and those that love Unbreakable but think the rest of his crap is just that.

I am totally in the first camp. I dislike "Unbreakble". I think it's very formulaic (as are his other films), and boring. At least his other films (haven't seen "Lady in the Water" yet) are interesting. I, too, knew the 'twist' in 6th Sense. It didn't take away from the pacing and character development, however. I have never really been surprised by any of his films, but Unbreakable was most predictable and drab. My favorite of his is "Signs", but that was more for the great acting turned in by the cast than for anything he did as a director. I also like Kevin Smith movies, so take it for what it's worth1 [Big Grin]

For what it's worth, I think that "Stir of Echoes" was a far superior supernatural-type film that was overshadowed by the huge success of "Sixth Sense". If you haven't seen it, I suggest viewing it.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-25-2006, 10:56 AM:

I managed a 10 screen in Knoxville, TN when "Six Sense" came out. I did not screen the film, and when the 7 p.m. show let out on the first night - someone yelled across the lobby to the waiting crowd "he's dead the whole movie". So, I really never bothered watching that film entirely.

The rest of his films I did take the time to see. I enjoyed almost all of them entirely. My take on "Unbreakable" is similar to my take on the original "Stargate" film - an awesome idea that never was carried through properly on film.

When I watch a film and do not critique it like someone who went to film school - beacause I never went. I have worked in the theatre business for quite some time and have come to realize what people like to watch. Movies don't need to have a formula to get a big following. They just need to be good - and everyone has a different opinion of good. It's getting the most people to think a movie is good at the same time - for it to be a success. I guess that's the formula if there is one. [Big Grin]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-25-2006, 12:15 PM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
someone yelled across the lobby to the waiting crowd "he's dead the whole movie".

Geez, I hope someone from management tracked that person down and beat them severely for completely ruining the movie for an entire audience. People like that should never be allowed into a theatre again.

I was totally sucked-in by "Sixth Sense" and I still like to watch it occasionally. People here were very good about not letting the secret out. It was fun to stand in the back of the auditorium during each show and watch the realization settle in on the audience after his wife dropped the ring...you could feel the whole mood of the audience change.

I think Shyamalan needs to make a comedy or something outside the horror genre... each of his movies does less business than the last. He needs a new angle.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-25-2006, 12:29 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think Shyamalan needs to make a comedy or something outside the horror genre...

I think that's what LADY IN THE WATER is supposed to be. But he shouldn't have chosen to do so in such a self-reflexive manner. I don't think he can make a really different movie. He's sort of a one-trick pony.