Dissenting Opinion: Shyamalan sacrifices characters for "surprise endings"

Rating: Null/10 (28 August 2002)

M. Knight Shyamalan's "The Sixth Sense", and his latest film, "Signs", have both done very well at the box office, not to mention gaining some critical acclaim. He brings a wonderful sense of mood to the screen, portrays human emotion effectively, uses dialog well, and his slow, determined pacing takes the audience through wonderful psychological distresses. He also presents interesting and compelling supernatural ideas for a premise to get us to wonder and imagine other-worldly situations. Mixed in with that, his surprise endings successfully leave the audience feeling duped, but happy. We were into looking one way, while the magician skillfully removes our wristwatch without our noticing. What a clever skill, right?
Well, the problem is that his technique for getting us to look the other direction is, frankly, done on the cheap. To illustrate the point, understand that supernatural/sci-fi films require at least two storytelling elements: "suspension of disbelief" and "staying within the circle of plausible possibilities." That is, "suspension of disbelief" is where an impossible premise is used as the framework for a story. For example, we can believe in aliens, or that a child can see dead people, because we can imagine a fantasy world where that may take place in our mind's eye. Because we know it's not a true story, which we would "disbelieve", we instead "suspend" that disbelief in order to keep the fantasy going. And, as long as everything that happens that story makes sense, we're willing to continue playing the game. This is the "circle of plausible possibilities." If the boy who can see dead people suddenly becomes an award-winning chef and gets a TV cooking show, we don't like it because it distracts from where the story was going. If the story and the characters don't remain consistent with the premise, we are left unfulfilled.
Let's address how these take place in two of Shyamalan's films, "The Sixth Sense", and "Signs."
In "Signs", Mel Gibson plays Graham Hess, an ex-priest who lost his faith after his wife died in a freak auto accident. When crop circles suddenly appear around the world, followed by a hostile invasion of aliens, he begins to wonder about his own faith in God and the meaning of life. Challenged to face his own demise (and that of his family), he desperately searches for true signs, purposes to life, anything to help him come to terms with his situation, and the ultimate meaning of life. Yet, during the struggle for survival, he pieces together what had appeared to be unrelated statements or events from his past, enabling him to save his family and regain his faith in God.
Here, the suspension of disbelief is "aliens attack from outer space." The circle of plausible possibilities include ways he deals with that, and his personal search for the meaning of life. Whether he actually saves his family, or how, is not really important. The story, and the one the audience is really watching -- is the development of his character. How does come to terms with his own loss of faith? How does he reconcile the struggle between logic and faith, the two classic opposites that challenge most people in their quest for belief in higher powers? These are universal themes, and we're given a story that promises to tell us something new. What we are looking for is something that brings him around to whatever conclusion he's going to come to. Yet, when we are given the surprise at the end, which suggests that there are no coincidences, and that everything happens for a reason, and God has a reason for everything, this premise is presented so unambiguously, so far-fetched, that it falls outside of the circle of possibilities for this story line. It's not that it be the case, but it detracts from the story we were being told. All of Hess' objectives are gone. It's as though God himself spoke to him and said, "it's like this". All you can say now is, "oh, ok." What happened to the story we were being told?
In "The Sixth Sense", the same thing happens: the suspension of disbelief involves a boy that can see dead people. The other story involves two characters with personal struggles: the aforementioned boy and his relationship with his mother and others in his environment; and a child psychologist who has to deal with his own inner demons and his failing relationship with his wife and search for personal meaning. The circle of possibilities includes all the ways that these people have to face and deal with these problems. Whatever happens to help them come to terms psychologically with their searches is fine--as long as they come to discover something about what they're looking for. However, the surprise ending shows us that none of these issues are even relevant anymore, so we can toss out all the invested emotions we put into them. Their stories no longer matter.
In each movie, the endings are surprises because they addressed a simple "fact" of the backdrop -- how it is the boy saw the psychologist, or how god now unambiguously exists. We were surprised not because we didn't see it coming (even though we didn't), we were surprised because we didn't NEED to see those stories solved. Sure, it's fun that we did see them solved, but the movie isn't over till the character's stories are concluded too. It doesn't matter that we can't predict the ending; what's important is that all endings tie together.
Compare either of these films with Alfred Hitchcock's classic "Psycho." Here, we are lead to believe that Norman Bates and his mother live in a hotel and are killing people, and the surprise at the end shows us that it wasn't quite what we thought. Yet, the was his psychological profile: why he did what he did, and how other characters were affected by it. This is addressed the characters' issues; we weren't left hanging.
Granted, "complete" filmmaking is harder, since tying things together effectively requires an extra level of ingenuity that only a true master of storytelling can accomplish. Shyamala's skill is his portrayal of the human spirit and character. He gives us three-dimension people, not just kids in a summer camp about to be murdered. These people have motivations, ambitions, goals, or losses that they need to come to terms with. He just needs to learn how to incorporate their issues with his surprise endings, so that all holes are filled. What makes a story compelling, is the characters discovering things for themselves, through their own interpretations of events, and have the conclusion - surprise or not - come from the results of those learned lessons. Otherwise, we lose the bonding that we feel for them. Shyamalan's films are good, but not nearly worth the critical acclaim they are getting.