Stupid People Will Like This Film

Rating: Null/10 (31 July 2004)

Spoiler Alert Allow me to preface this review by stating I will be discussing the "plot twist" upon which this film relied. In other words, there are spoilers.
"The Village" was awful, and was awful on many levels. A brief synopsis is necessary. A group of individuals suffering from the various tragedies of the late twentieth century decided to retreat into a safely-guarded preserve and develop a commune, financed by the wealthy head of the village. The dates on the tombstone of a boy who dies at the beginning of the film places the Village at the turn of the century. This is blatant misdirection, and one wonders why it was employed besides setting the stage for the "twist." Especially since the founders of this little social experiment chose to adopt a lifestyle that was far more akin to the communities of the Amish and Mennonites than it was to the Industrial Age.
For fear their children would wander back into the modern world with its myriad hazards, the elders of the town developed a mythology involving nebulous monsters who skulk in the woods which border the village. The viewer is not let in on the secret shared by the elders until the end of the film, kept in darkness like the young protagonists. Now, on to the suckitude.
Acting/Dialogue: The acting was painfully stilted, employing a wealth of florid prose. The actors struggle with dialogue that Shamylan intended to sound similar to the dialects of the Amish and their ilk, but it sounds incredibly forced. What is especially irritating about this prose is that it serves a purpose germane to the "twist." The residents of the village speak with great formality, eschewing contractions such as "don't, I'm, can't," etc. When the character Ivy returns from the "modern-world" beyond the forest, she addresses her betrothed by declaring "I'm back, Lucius." She has fallen prey to the manner of speech employed in the outside world, symbolic of the imminent changes the elders have been dreading. The problem is that this is hardly worth suffering through the awful dialogue that pollutes the majority of the film. Shamylan made his viewers suffer for a moment of "cleverness." It wasn't worth it, trust me.
The Monsters: The monsters look ridiculous. I've read reviews comparing them to the monsters in "The Dark Crystal," but this does those fabulous muppets a grave disservice. I understand that the monsters are fake, but let's keep in mind the founder of this town was wealthy enough to sustain a commune and hire elaborate security to guard it. He could have produced better costumes. Seeing the monsters early in the film, it is apparent that they are merely disguises, ruining one of the "twists."
The Pacing: This movie was abysmally slow. The moments of excitement were far and few between and most were achieved through the score rather than the direction. After Ivy has learned the farcical nature of the monsters and is wandering in the forest, a voice-over hints that they may, in fact, be real (having been based on legends that preexisted the village). This seems like M. Night's desperate attempt to resurrect some suspense when Ivy encounters a hooded figure in the course of her journey. Of course, it's just the village idiot in disguise. There is no reward for suffering through this movie...as I'll address next.
The "Twist": I've seen only one other of M. Night's movies: The 6th Sense. I had no idea that twists had become his "trademark," so I was not searching for any revelation. Regardless, I guessed what was afoot fairly early on. Not because there were clues, but because I assumed the director would attempt something outlandish to rescue this film. The clues are far and few between and not terribly specific. When the elders allude to their previous lives, they could easily be referring to the misery inherent in any turn-of-the-century city. M. Night seems to forget that violent urban crimes did, in fact, exist prior to 1900.
M. Night wants to be Rod Serling. However, Serling knew something Night does not. The sort of "twist" formula that worked so well on the Twilight Zone only works for brief films/shows. During its fourth season, CBS tried to extend the Twilight Zone to an hour-long format, and it failed. Now imagine trying to extend it to a two-hour format. Misdirection cannot be sustained that long; it just doesn't work (The 6th Sense was a rare exception). M. Night may want to bear in mind that Serling wrote other, longer screen-plays...and usually decided to forgo the twist. The Village's fillip is pointless. It may fool stupid people into believing this idiotic film is "deep." However, I ask you, would this have been greatly different if it were, in fact, set in 1897? The village was already anachronistic for the time period it was supposedly set in. The more anachronistic, the more shocking? Or worse, the more anachronistic, the more significant? Lord Rod, save us all!
Symbolism: Stupid people will likely try to defend this film as "thoughtful." It isn't. Is it a commentary on post 9/11 isolationism? Well, unless the members of the village decide to amass an army and storm the wicked "towns," this film isn't a very good metaphor. The Amish actually live in relative isolation...should we consider their existence metaphor simply because it shares some isolationist qualities with a fearful America? Perhaps this is a political statement: isolation is bad because it keeps us ignorant, backward, stagnant, etc. A nice sentiment.
But please, now. Is an increase in airport security really tantamount to sealing ourselves off as we blithely watch our children (or, gasp, our FREEDOMS) die for the sake of an illusory safety? It's too grandiose of a stretch to produce any emotional impact upon viewers.
Is this about generational tensions? Is it making the wildly bold statement that the old guard is inevitably replaced by the new? Thank you, M. Night, for illustrating (poorly) what history has never ceased to show us. Were it not for "The Village," I may never have realized that nothing lasts forever and that the fleeting nature of things causes distress. Sorry, M. Night, but Buddhism and common sense have already got that one covered.
Maybe M. Night is trying to explore the nature of secrets. After all, secrecy is a recurring motif (the hidden loves of the various characters form a half-baked subplot). Maybe. But what does it say about secrets? That they come back to haunt us? That we can't lock up the past as the elders attempt to do? This is not a terribly original or thought-provoking sentiment. This is not philosophy, but rather a string of clichés.
The color symbolism was gratuitous. Red is Shymalan's signature, fine. So the monsters who run his secret show (he plays the head of security, I guess, on the outside of the village) are adorned in red. Yellow? Are these allusions to levels of alert? If so...who cares? This murky film is too far removed from social commentary for such symbolism to have any significance other than as a gimmick.
So, my motivations for not liking this film was not my inability to "get it." There's really nothing to "get" once one gives this trainwreck of a movie any real thought. However, I'm sure many will be quite pleased with themselves after they discern the "depth" of this movie and M. Night's "genius." This is the kind of film dumb people enjoy because it provides them an illusory sense of insight. "Philosophy/Social Commentary/Allegory for Idiots" is what "The Village" is all about.
The Village was awful. Get the Twilight Zone on DVD instead and enjoy the work of a real genius.