analysis of the film

Rating: Null/10 (30 July 2004)

People are torn about the movie. Let me begin by saying that the cinematography and soundtrack were masterpieces in their own right. But what about the story?
The movie was marketed as a horror movie whereby monsters live in the woods and the village must overcome their fears to survive. Was this what we saw? Perhaps, if looked at in a more metaphorical manner, yes, otherwise it was completely different. There was in fact a monster, but who or what was it, and was it Shyamalan's intent to symbolically create such a monster? Also, we all expected the usual Shyamalan twist to make the whole movie come together in unity to further express a point made in the movie. Midway through The Village the message appeared to be "The things you want to do the most are the things you wont do out of fear", such as why Pheonix's character would no longer touch Howards character, because he was feared that she would know that he loved her, and why Hurt's character wouldn't touch Weaver's character because he didn't want his feelings for her to be revealed due to his fear of being accused of having an affair. Was the ultimate twist going to pull this point into the foreground?
The twist was in fact not Shyamalan's style. The twist was more of a reverse Truman Show ending rather than a signs, sixth sense, or unbreakable ending. Essentially it turns out Hurt's character along with Gleeson, Weaver, and the other "elders" of this pioneer village created an isolated society to try and make a world for themselves, whereby no evil can be done by the people. The twist, just unexpected due to the fact that we were all expecting Shyamalan's usual style, and he went for a more mainstream tactic of simple red herrings and false information leading to an unexpected ending. Now, in all fairness, that alone was Shyamalan's tactic for his twist. He knew what EVERYONE would be waiting for, and alas, it was a simple and lackluster explanation. Even the story itself, about people creating their own utopia, has been done over and over again. Was THAT intended to be the shock, or is Shyamalan's movie going to turn into a neo-Shakespeare piece where the interpretation turns something of hardly any notable mention into a masterpiece? How crucially deceptive he made this movie. Where most of his plots went from simple and rational into completely unexpected and borderline unbelievable, this movie did the opposite. It went from a story of paranormal monsters and superstition into a movie about a bunch of born-again amish who use fear to ensure they keep their way of life preserved. I am truly baffled.
I simply cannot figure out if this movie was a masterpiece or a piece of sh*t, but i have to admit i was pleased up until the end, and then i just said "So what? the colony is separate from the rest of the world, thats entirely plausible AND had i not been misled by the previews and expecting Shyamalan's usual style of the blatantly extraordinary unexpected i could have seen that coming a mile away!" But that was my problem... i expected the same thing over again, and i got something totally new. Was this a bad thing?
But enough about the confusion, after debating it, I've decided that if i INCLUDE my confusion about the twist into the judgment of the overall movie, i got less than i expected but if i SEPARATE that twist and the confusion that comes with it from the rest of the movie, i would argue the movie was phenomenal. For all those who hated the movie, allow me time to make my point.
The acting was by all means absolutely FANTASTIC by EVERY actor. Granted thats not hard to do when you have an all-star cast of Joaquin Pheonix, Adrien Brody, William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Brendan Gleeson, and countless others, but i was truly awe-struck by performance of the leading lady. For all those who didn't know, her name is Bryce Dallas Howard, and she is Ron Howard(movie director)'s daughter, and this was the first role she has had in a movie AT ALL! Consideering all of this, i argue the acting was astounding.
As for the visuals and sound, i will argue with anyone who sees them as anything less than fantastic.
Also i argue that some of the story was well done, because certain scenes were fantastic. The scene where Pheonix grabs Howards hand and pulls her inside in slow motion just as the beast is reaching out to take her was extremely well done.
Another thing that stands out in my mind is the performance, character, and scenes involving Adrien Brody. For all those who aren't as movie-crazy as myself, Adrien Brody played Noah Percy (the retard who was also in love with Bryce Dallas Howards character Ivy). The scene that will live on for me was when Ivy walks into the room and slaps Noah repeatedly, and gets pulled away, and Noah is once again locked in confinement. Why does this stand out? Because of what Noah did in response. The screaming and wailing that came from the other side of that door was unreal... That scene alone may have carried a lot of the movie on its back because he truly sounded heartbroken, furious, and confused.
Overall, i must say i have no CLUE where i stand... i mean.. here is what i basically believe in a nutshell: the sights and sounds were fantastic the acting was phenomenal some scenes were spectacular the story was bland the ending twist remains a mystery which the answer to can only be found in Shyamalan's head, and it alone holds the truth to whether this was a masterpiece living up to all of Shyamalan's other movies, or if it was a piece of sh*t by all expectations held by the viewers who were awaiting another Shyamalan blockbuster.