M.Night Shyamalan

[jakncoke]

It'd be nice if he made good movies again, Unbreakable was good, The Sixth Sense was godly and then downhill ever since

[ShogunRua]

ShogunRua,
You may understand things like partial differential equations (oh, it's not that hard, actually), but how on earth you manage to read exactly the opposite of what I am saying? I am NOT saying you're dumb, I am saying I can't discuss Shyamalan with you, because you have watched only 1 of his movies.

No, I have watched 2 of his films. If one of them was so bad, boring, and predictable that I had to leave, that is a mark against the movie, not an indication that I should have sat through more torture. I did the same thing for "Fast and Furious 4" and "Get him to the Greek", more recently.

Obviously, those were way worse, and I at least managed to get through over an hour of "The Sixth Sense", but all three were monotonous and had equally predictable endings.

Would you discuss Bergman with me, when I watched 1-2 of his films?

Certainly! I have only watched one of his films, but it's one of the most amazing things I have ever seen, in addition to being essentially perfect.

Concerning LITW, if you actually bothered to open the link, you would have seen it contains not a review, but almost complete analysis of the movie. I thought it is not necessary to write here a short version of it, just to make it easier for you.

I glanced through the link now, and it is some of the most insane, tenuous bullshit I have ever read in a film review. The third poster put it best,

"How much were you paid by Warner Bros. to promote the film here?"

The stuttering Stanley scene is not a contradiction to the previously established character and to understand this is not required PhD on psychology. Anybody will tell you, that quite often children, who systematically hide and bury their problems and usually behave quiet and reserved, tend to outburst suddenly in situations like this.

Oh, that's ridiculous. An out-burst with parents is one thing. An out-burst when other kids are tormenting him is also possible (never happens, by the way). But with a normal, well-liked teacher, who didn't provoke him in any fashion? And it was no simple out-burst; Cole, a loner, reserved kid, taunted and riled up an adult teacher like an effective, smooth-talking adult bully. Now that's fucking bullshit.

Cole is a complicated character. I know, for the sake of your bashing, you want to make him one-dimensional, which is lazy,

No, what Shyamalan did was the very definition of lazy; I wanted the character to be a living, breathing kid, not a cardboard cut-out who occasionally transforms into completely different characters based on what Shyamalan felt like doing with the script. That's bad writing, folks.

I have brought specific examples in Bay's work, which are showing he is sloppy, as far as the visual style is concerned. This can not be subjective. You either pay attention to these things, or not. If the visual style of the movie is not important to you, then ok, there is no point to discuss it.

On the whole, the cinemaphotography of Bay's movies is pretty good. Nothing special, but pretty good. So is the cinemaphotography of Shyamalan's films. I'm sure you can find a few minor gaffes and gremlins in his films too, if you looked hard enough.

No. Absolutely NOT. This is disastrous strategy for any serious filmmaker. When you start to compromise or adapt your style, just to fit the audience's expectations, then you're done as an artist and you're becoming just a piece in the popcorn selling system. The director should be always true to himself, and NEVER to give a damn about what the audience may think. Actually, the main reason TLA sucks is that Shyamalan tried to departure from his own vision and to adapt it to a typical Hollywood system movie.

It's not so simple, though. Watching the excellent Martin Scorsese documentary about movies, he points out how rigid the studio system was in the 40s and 50s, and how it forced its directors to adapt to the production company's (Warner Bros, RKO, MGM, or Paramount) style.

Quite a few of the ones that did exactly that are praised by critics today, like Michael Curtiz. Personally, I think he was a hack director that made maudlin romance films where plot holes occur every time the movie needs a reason to keep going, and "Casablanca", a mediocre film, is an example of this.

However, quite a few consider him and his contemporaries to be significant directors despite the fact that they were more closely controlled by audience/production company expectation than Shyamalan was for The Last Airbender.

[Pickpocket]

Michael Curtiz. Personally, I think he was a hack director

Quite a statement considering you've only seen one of his films

[ShogunRua]

Michael Curtiz. Personally, I think he was a hack director

Quite a statement considering you've only seen one of his films

I've seen a couple of his other ones back on AMC when I was a teenager. I can't assign them ratings because my recollections are so dim, but I remember them being typical, mass-produced Hollywood romances, popular in the 40s and 50s.

If you gathered a different impression from his work, what was it?

[Silver]

ShogunRua,
I get tired quite quickly of discussion like this one. All you're saying is personal opinion without a glimpse of objectivity. Yeah, I know how easy is to dismiss something this way:

I glanced through the link now, and it is some of the most insane, tenuous bullshit I have ever read in a film review.

You have said nothing, absolutely NOTHING here. Can you formulate what exactly you find insane, instead? The metaphors in LITW are actually so obvious that I am really surprised so few people have got them. Apparently all the critics were too busy to cry over the self-promotion of Shyamalan as God, to see what really the movie is about. Please, if you have something to say against the interpretation from the link, say it as concrete criticism.

Concerning Cole - I have quite an experience with cases like this, and believe me, Cole's reaction is nothing in comparison to what you can see in reality. If you want to bash The Sixths Sense, find other ways. You see, I can accept that you walked out because of the slow pacing - indeed The Sixth Sense is slower passed than Kindergarten Cop, for example. That does not make the movie bad. That makes you not liking quiet movies with "slow pacing". If you insist your opinion is objective and Shyamalan movies are fundamentally bad, that means you have not a clue what means good or bad movie. All of his films before TLA are good because they *function* as intended.

On the whole, the cinemaphotography of Bay's movies is pretty good. Nothing special, but pretty good. So is the cinemaphotography of Shyamalan's films. I'm sure you can find a few minor gaffes and gremlins in his films too, if you looked hard enough.

I have tried and failed. Good luck.

It's not so simple, though. Watching the excellent Martin Scorsese documentary about movies, he points out how rigid the studio system was in the 40s and 50s, and how it forced its directors to adapt to the production company's (Warner Bros, RKO, MGM, or Paramount) style.

Quite a few of the ones that did exactly that are praised by critics today, like Michael Curtiz. Personally, I think he was a hack director that made maudlin romance films where plot holes occur every time the movie needs a reason to keep going, and "Casablanca", a mediocre film, is an example of this.

However, quite a few consider him and his contemporaries to be significant directors despite the fact that they were more closely controlled by audience/production company expectation than Shyamalan was for The Last Airbender.

Oh, I know that even The Godfathers are work for hire, don't worry. However, who is considered universally a good or a bad director does not matter for me. For me all the movies are personal experience, not depending on external factors. And this experience is honest, when the movie is as true as possible to author's intentions. Then I can forgive even huge miscalculations like the vendetta Shyamalan performed on the critics and the audience with LITW and The Happening. TLA is different story. The movie clearly is compromised by the studio - you see that even from the ridiculous 3D conversion which ruined almost entirely the few really good things (the effects and the cinematography). However, Shyamalan is the one to blame here. He thought writing schematic story with all the important stuff SAID by the characters instead of SHOWN, is a good idea. His fault is also the awful casting and the poor directing of the characters. The main problem is that he tried to adapt his style to the different genre and he failed. I really enjoyed the small shyamalanisms here and there, but unfortunately, the movie is too formulaic.

[ShogunRua]

ShogunRua,
I get tired quite quickly of discussion like this one. All you're saying is personal opinion without a glimpse of objectivity. Yeah, I know how easy is to dismiss something this way:

I glanced through the link now, and it is some of the most insane, tenuous bullshit I have ever read in a film review.

You have said nothing, absolutely NOTHING here. Can you formulate what exactly you find insane, instead? The metaphors in LITW are actually so obvious that I am really surprised so few people have got them. Apparently all the critics were too busy to cry over the self-promotion of Shyamalan as God, to see what really the movie is about. Please, if you have something to say against the interpretation from the link, say it as concrete criticism.

You have said absolutely NOTHING, either. As for the metaphors, some of the ones in the link are quite obvious, while others are just an incredible stretch. In both cases, it is not clear what they do in improving a dreary, boring, and predictable film.

Concerning Cole - I have quite an experience with cases like this, and believe me, Cole's reaction is nothing in comparison to what you can see in reality.

You're missing the point. Again. Can quiet and reserved kids throw insane temper tantrums, and/or act out in a very aggressive manner? Absolutely.

But can a repressed loner suddenly become an expert, high-level bullier who causes a full-grown, sane adult to lash out in anger? No. That part is just lazy writing that ignores previously established character traits.

That makes you not liking quiet movies with "slow pacing". If you insist your opinion is objective and Shyamalan movies are fundamentally bad, that means you have not a clue what means good or bad movie. All of his films before TLA are good because they *function* as intended.

It's not "slow-paced"; it's "poorly paced", since often, not much happens on screen at all, while other times, there is a whole jumble of events. Yes, this diachotomy can be pulled off, but in "The Sixth Sense", it was uneven and disengaging. Also, the picture was anything but "quiet".

Oh, I know that even The Godfathers are work for hire, don't worry. However, who is considered universally a good or a bad director does not matter for me. For me all the movies are personal experience, not depending on external factors. And this experience is honest, when the movie is as true as possible to author's intentions. Then I can forgive even huge miscalculations like the vendetta Shyamalan performed on the critics and the audience with LITW and The Happening. TLA is different story. The movie clearly is compromised by the studio - you see that even from the ridiculous 3D conversion which ruined almost entirely the few really good things (the effects and the cinematography). However, Shyamalan is the one to blame here. He thought writing schematic story with all the important stuff SAID by the characters instead of SHOWN, is a good idea. His fault is also the awful casting and the poor directing of the characters. The main problem is that he tried to adapt his style to the different genre and he failed. I really enjoyed the small shyamalanisms here and there, but unfortunately, the movie is too formulaic.

I'm not disagreeing with your main point; that the producers had a deleterious influence on "The Last Airbender". However, such an effect does not always have to be pernicious (another example was "Gone with the Wind"), and it's not always true that every director should tune out everything the audience has to say.

Yes, a director should never has his innate style overwhelmed and washed away by the critique of others, but that's a far stretch from taking certain elements of audience reaction in mind when making one's next picture.

[Silver]

Well, ok, if you want to play this game: The Sixth Sense is perfectly paced, extremely well written and acted; LITW is filled with clever metaphors, which are making it even more engaging, interesting and unpredictable. See, everybody can do it.

But can a repressed loner suddenly become an expert, high-level bullier who causes a full-grown, sane adult to lash out in anger? No. That part is just lazy writing that ignores previously established character traits.

Haha, a kid to make an adult crazy - this happens every day in every school. All the time. Besides, there is a reason Cole starts screaming "Stuttering Stanley", apparently you missed it. This (quite amazing actually) scene is connected with very common characteristics of Shyamalan, when the directing of his child actors and writing of his child characters is concerned, but unfortunately it is a bit difficult to discuss this with you, when you have not watched Unbreakable, Signs and The Happening.

Yes, a director should never has his innate style overwhelmed and washed away by the critique of others, but that's a far stretch from taking certain elements of audience reaction in mind when making one's next picture.

This is *exactly* what Shyamalan did with LITW and The Happening.

[ShogunRua]

Well, ok, if you want to play this game: The Sixth Sense is perfectly paced, extremely well written and acted; LITW is filled with clever metaphors, which are making it even more engaging, interesting and unpredictable. See, everybody can do it.

Except it's not. A lot of the individual scenes are fine in "The Sixth Sense" (providing cheap scares/thrills), but taken as a whole, it's irrelevant and boring. I can't even say that much for "Lady in the Water"; each scene was dry as dust, and yes, I understood the meager intellectualism behind it.

But can a repressed loner suddenly become an expert, high-level bullier who causes a full-grown, sane adult to lash out in anger? No. That part is just lazy writing that ignores previously established character traits.

Haha, a kid to make an adult crazy - this happens every day in every school.

Again, whether intentionally or not, you are ignoring the point. It's not that Cole made the teacher angry as hell, but rather, how he did it which is so unbelievable and fake.

All the time. Besides, there is a reason Cole starts screaming "Stuttering Stanley", apparently you missed it.

What reason? That the teacher expressed natural, logical skepticism about what Cole said about historical figures?

This (quite amazing actually) scene is connected with very common characteristics of Shyamalan, when the directing of his child actors and writing of his child characters is concerned, but unfortunately it is a bit difficult to discuss this with you, when you have not watched Unbreakable, Signs and The Happening.

Of course. I make a point about a specific film, and you respond by saying that it's impossible to answer without my having watched all the other films made by the same director. By that moronic logic, one needs to watch a director's entire body of work before being qualified to discuss an individual picture, right?

Yes, a director should never has his innate style overwhelmed and washed away by the critique of others, but that's a far stretch from taking certain elements of audience reaction in mind when making one's next picture.

This is *exactly* what Shyamalan did with LITW and The Happening.

[/QUOTE]

Ah, so that's the reason "Lady in the Water" was so much worse than "The Sixth Sense". Got you.

In that case, Shyamalan reacted to the wrong comments!

[Silver]

Except, it's not. A lot of the individual scenes are alright in "The Sixth Sense" (providing cheap scares/thrills), but taken as a whole, it's irrelevant and boring. I can't even say that much for "Lady in the Water"; each scene was dry as dust, and yes, I understood the meager intellectualism.

And I can respond again with the following:

The Sixth Sense is perfectly paced, extremely well written and acted; LITW is filled with clever metaphors, which are making it even more engaging, interesting and unpredictable.

But I am tired of this.

Again, whether intentionally or not, you are ignoring the point. It's not that Cole made the teacher angry as hell, but rather, how he did it which is so unbelievable and fake.

It's really funny how you constantly shifting the point when I am addressing it.

What reason? That the teacher expressed natural, logical skepticism about what Cole said about historical figures?

Watch the scene again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aow69yy4UQU
If you still have problems understanding why, I will help you.

Of course. I make a point about a specific film, and you respond by saying that it's impossible to answer without my having watched all the other films made by the same director. By that moronic logic, one needs to watch a director's entire body of work before being qualified to discuss an individual picture, right?

In case of Shyamalan - yes, this "moronic" logic is applicable more than for anybody else. This is a very rare case - you have to know well the person behind the movie to appreciate his creation. Writing Cole as a kid which doesn't want the adults to treat him like a child is very typical for all of his films - for example, the girl in The Happening is almost a parent figure to the real adults in a way. The only movie by Shyamalan where children characters behave like children is TLA and it was a disaster.

So this scene with Stanley is exactly that - the teacher is looking at Cole like he doesn't know what he is talking about (while the audience knows he is right - we already saw the hanged dead bodies). And Cole reacts accordingly - ironically behaving as a kid the teacher want him to be (a dumb one), he is actually teaching him a lesson by provoking him. It is amazing scene, perfectly executed (even technically - from sound design and camera work point of view), with a lot of small touches (like the kid who is writing on the black board or the deliberate use of a word starting with "f" at the end) and it functions perfectly as dramatic and comic moment at the same time. Very few directors are capable of delivering such weirdness in such an effective way. Of course, you're perfectly free not to like it - there are other movies, like Transformers, for example, where you'll not find scenes like this to bitch about.

Ah, so that's the reason "Lady in the Water" was so much worse than "The Sixth Sense". Got you.

In that case, Shyamalan reacted to the wrong comments!

Really? Tell me, how do you define which comments are right and which are wrong? Most of the comments after LITW were that he should get a cancer and die in pain. Is this a right or wrong comment to react to?

[ShogunRua]

Except, it's not. A lot of the individual scenes are alright in "The Sixth Sense" (providing cheap scares/thrills), but taken as a whole, it's irrelevant and boring. I can't even say that much for "Lady in the Water"; each scene was dry as dust, and yes, I understood the meager intellectualism.

And I can respond again with the following:

The Sixth Sense is perfectly paced, extremely well written and acted; LITW is filled with clever metaphors, which are making it even more engaging, interesting and unpredictable.

But I am tired of this.

Yes, instead of actually responding to an argument, it's much easier to copy and paste the same nonsense. I understand.

Again, whether intentionally or not, you are ignoring the point. It's not that Cole made the teacher angry as hell, but rather, how he did it which is so unbelievable and fake.

It's really funny how you constantly shifting the point when I am addressing it.

It was my point from the very beginning. You simply chose to ignore it, and are continuing to do so. Here, I can copy and paste, too;

"Can quiet and reserved kids throw insane temper tantrums, and/or act out in a very aggressive manner? Absolutely.

But can a repressed loner suddenly become an expert, high-level bullier who causes a full-grown, sane adult to lash out in anger? No. That part is just lazy writing that ignores previously established character traits."

What reason? That the teacher expressed natural, logical skepticism about what Cole said about historical figures?

Watch the scene again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aow69yy4UQU
If you still have problems understanding why, I will help you.

Thanks for proving my point. The teacher does nothing wrong or out of the ordinary in that scene.

Then, suddenly, Cole, in the midst of a severe temper tantrum, skillfully and articulately (notice his smooth language) brings up his past, latches on to a sore spot, and exploits it like a pro. Sure, it makes for a dramatic scene, (and there are quite a few in "The Sixth Sense", I will give it that) but it's also quite silly and contradictory.

Which is why the whole of "The Sixth Sense" is less than the sum of all its individual parts (scenes).

So this scene with Stanley is exactly that - the teacher is looking at Cole like he doesn't know what he is talking about (while the audience knows he is right - we already saw the hanged dead bodies). And Cole reacts accordingly - ironically behaving as a kid the teacher want him to be (a dumb one), he is actually teaching him a lesson by provoking him. It is amazing scene, perfectly executed (even technically - from sound design and camera work point of view), with a lot of small touches (like the kid who is writing on the black board or the deliberate use of a word starting with "f" at the end) and it functions perfectly as dramatic and comic moment at the same time. Very few directors are capable of delivering such weirdness in such an effective way.

Some of what you write is certainly accurate; the camera perspective and timing were very good in that scene, heightening the dramatic effect. (I wouldn't go so far as "amazing" or "perfect") I fail to see the comedic element, though; the overwhelming tension of that moment completely drowns out any possible humor.

And of course, seeing it again highlighted another silly element which I had completely forgotten about; once Cole begins taunting him, the teacher immediately starts stuttering like a drunkard stricken with cerebral palsy.

Of course, you're perfectly free not to like it - there are other movies, like Transformers, for example, where you'll not find scenes like this to bitch about.

Oh, shut up. Ironically, your savior has made many films every bit as crappy as Transformes, and not just TLA.

Ah, so that's the reason "Lady in the Water" was so much worse than "The Sixth Sense". Got you.

In that case, Shyamalan reacted to the wrong comments!

Really? Tell me, how do you define which comments are right and which are wrong? Most of the comments after LITW were that he should get a cancer and die in pain. Is this a right or wrong comment to react to?

Listen, your original statement had nothing to do with Shyamalan or his movies specifically.

Instead, it was a general, broader statement about how all directors should never listen to/be affected by audience reaction or critical reception. Here is what you wrote;

The director should be always true to himself, and NEVER to give a damn about what the audience may think.

I was responding to THIS, and noting that it's an overly extreme viewpoint, with plenty of exceptions.