"The Village" idiots

Rating: 8/10 (7 August 2004)

Contains spoiler!!! I'm not referring to the makers of the film, but to the army of critics who have made it sound like another Plan 9 From Outer Space.
What is their problem? And what is motivating this inexplicable, over-the-top hostility towards M. Night Shyamalan?
Uh, hello? The dude makes GOOD films.
I went to see The Village this afternoon, despite all the negative buzz, bracing myself for something REALLY bad, like Bats, or The Haunting, or even Battlefield Earth.
But not only is there nothing terribly wrong with the film, it is, in fact, an absorbing, suspenseful, carefully made, expertly directed Mystery/Thriller/Romance - yes, a bit self-consciously arty at times and with Shyamalan's characteristic hiccups of awkward-sounding dialogue - but a more-than-satisfactory movie-going experience and far better than the typical summer flick, with a standout performance from newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard, and able support from veterans William Hurt (who for once brings his "A" game) Sigourney Weaver, and Adrien Brody.
It also delivers the director's trademark twist ending, one that I, for one, did NOT see coming. To all the geniuses who like to boast that they - SPOILERS! - knew all along that the story actually takes place in the present day and not in the late 1800s, I have two words for you: you're lying.
Because Shyamalan presents his films partly as puzzles to be solved, a segment of the audience who fancy themselves great intellects enter the theater not in the typical relaxed movie-going mode of simply wanting to be entertained, but with arms crossed, feeling challenged to "crack" the film, prove they're smarter than it; in essence, wanting desperately to beat Shyamalan as if he were not a filmmaker but an opponent at Chess. Therefore, they're guarded, closed off, emotionally inaccessible and unlikely to enjoy themselves, regardless of how good the movie might be (and in fact is).
The film is only a cheat from the standpoint that Shyamalan is associated with the supernatural, and when the explanation in this case is a rather prosaic one - uncomfortably close to the unmasking of the monster at the end of an episode of Scooby Doo - it is a bit of a letdown. If studies show that over half the population believes in ghosts (or aliens) then I'd estimate that the other half WANTS to believe in them. And that is why The Sixth Sense and Signs were such huge hits - in them, Shyamalan confirms those beliefs, validates them by making the supernatural world seem not ridiculous and far-fetched as most do, but tantalizingly realistic.
It also doesn't help that the marketing of the film is so misleading, priming one to expect a spooky spine-tingler with chills aplenty (something like The Others) which, despite a few well-placed jolts, The Village most certainly is not. It is, of course, primarily a love story, with Shyamalan, I believe, having been inspired by Wuthering Heights. But, while the well-liked Spider-Man 2 is a love story disguised as action-adventure, it's a convincing disguise, the movie suffering from no shortage of action and excitement.
The Village's disguise is not nearly so effective, its marketing the equivalent of slapping a splashy Stephen King dust jacket over a copy of The Age of Innocence.
One can also question the casting of Joaquin Phoenix, a dour, somewhat charmless, far-from-handsome actor in the crucial role of Lucius, the strange, silent, sensitive young man consumed with a secret love for the free-spirited Ivy and a desire to venture into the forbidden woods. I think much of the negative reaction to the film can be explained by a subconscious desire on the part of most men and women for a more accessible, likable, and, well, better-looking actor to play that particular part. Had Orlando Bloom, for instance, been cast, I firmly believe general reaction to the film would have been much more favorable.
Phoenix does finally come alive in that vividly acted porch scene where he suddenly declares his love for Ivy. And that was the scene that got me, the centerpiece of the film, where it "clicks" into place, reveals itself for what it is and makes no apologies for it. Lucius and Ivy belong together. You can see it in their eyes, and it is impossible for me to dislike a film that is able to capture such honesty of emotion. The essence of successful film-making is the ability to create the illusion that two people are in love. It does not happen often.
So how to explain the critics' wildly inaccurate evaluation of the film, as well as their seeming hatred of Shyamalan? I can only guess that it has something to do with Shyamalan's films having a certain overly delicate "goody-goody" quality which makes them easy targets - I really don't know. I do know that, unlike some, I don't go into any movie determined to "crack" them, or even enjoy them, but I always go in determined to give them a chance.