(no subject)
Aug. 29th, 2004 10:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aleathielI saw The Village.
Thoughts and queries below.
Okay, first of all I did enjoy it.
But I worked out both twists.
In fact, I went in thinking "post 9/11 the only way they can make an US vs THEM film is if US is them".
I knew I was right when the woman said to Walker the whole thing about "you made an oath" but didn't once say the obvious "there are things out in the wood that will kill you".
Secondly, I wondered about the date thing. I wasn't sure, but the one woman talking about her sister being killed in an alleyway made me wonder.
With the exception of the whole "but what if they are real?" part with Noah in the monster suit, which I thought was superfluous to the plot and just an excuse to put more "scary" bits in, I thought it was very well done. It was, as you'd expect from Shyamalan, beautifully filmed and the acting was fabulous. Joaquin Phoenix is brilliant - particularly his "why does everyone try to make me speak" speech. Bryce Dallas Howard was fantastic. Her ability to be convincingly blind - her lack of blinking even, was very good. And considering how many of the scenes, in typical Shyamalan fashion - he used it beautifully in Signs too - hung on the expression on Howard's face, she deserves recognition of her ability.
And Adrien Brody. The scene on the rocking chair with blood on his hands. The man can act. Like I said, I felt his final bit of plotline was pointless, but he himself was very good.
As to the film itself:
I thought the early part was beautifully done, the guard looking down through the trapdoor at the flash of red, reminicent of the "birthday party footage" in Signs was very well done. As was Ivy standing at the door with her hand outstretched before Lucius pulled her into the house. But once we saw the spikes and the snouts the beasts were just silly.
The issue of hope and perserving innocence, the making safety in withdrawing from the world, the self-sufficency (although interestingly they didn't appear to have any horses) was interesting. It's a very American ideal. And the fact that there was an "us" and "them", albeit a self-generated one of the community and the rest of the world, as opposed to the people and the monsters, was a clever additional layer.
Walker's speech about love, while sounding unconvincing, was actually very nicely done in the context: he was trying to convince himself, I think. His idea that the world bows down and is awed by the power of love was so blatently contradicted by everything in the plot, including the fact that they had set up the community because they had all lost loved ones: people for whom the world had not stopped however much they were loved. It sounded wonderfully hollow, especially when following his speech about preserving innocence and protecting the next generation.
I thought the guy in the ranger's van with the ladder was very good. It could have been a nothing part and he infused it with a life it needed.
And a few other things:
Ivy seeing Lucius as a colour. I was somewhat disappointed that this was left to pointless. I expected her to say at some point that she saw him as red.
And the stabbing was brilliantly done. If anything, that was the thing I least expected in the film. In fact, when Lucius turned and Noah was standing there I wondered briefly in Noah was in love with Lucius not Ivy.
And finally, although the elders all decide at the end to continue running the village, I couldn't help wondering whether Lucius and Ivy will choose to stay. Perhaps they will because Ivy is blind and did not see what was beyond the fence. And yet the man was kind to her.
And Lucius knew there was something wrong. He mentioned secrets very early in the plot, if not what they were.
A couple of queries:
How did the elders know to dress in the costume for that bit when Lucius picked the berries. I suspect there was a rebel faction within the elders trying to exert tighter control. Walker says to Ivy that "one among us" was responsible for killing and skinning the animals. I wondered at that time if it were him.
And yet there is the scene with him and Sigourney Weaver's character where she says the red marks were too high, that coyotes couldn't reach that high. It is a slightly strange scene in retrospect because they must both know it was an elder and they both know that the beasts do not exist. I wonder whether the first animal carcass was one elder without the knowledge of the others and the others were trying to play it down. Then there are more and this scene is half acknowledging that they have to admit to the "them" story and half her wondering if it was him. Because it seems a strange conversation for them to be having when there is no one to hear - it isn't a conversation for the benefit of Ivy or Lucius or whatever and yet it appears to be a conversation between two who know the beasts aren't real, discussing the fact that it had to have been the beasts.
And on that fantastically complex and badly expressed thought, I will leave you.
Thoughts and queries below.
Okay, first of all I did enjoy it.
But I worked out both twists.
In fact, I went in thinking "post 9/11 the only way they can make an US vs THEM film is if US is them".
I knew I was right when the woman said to Walker the whole thing about "you made an oath" but didn't once say the obvious "there are things out in the wood that will kill you".
Secondly, I wondered about the date thing. I wasn't sure, but the one woman talking about her sister being killed in an alleyway made me wonder.
With the exception of the whole "but what if they are real?" part with Noah in the monster suit, which I thought was superfluous to the plot and just an excuse to put more "scary" bits in, I thought it was very well done. It was, as you'd expect from Shyamalan, beautifully filmed and the acting was fabulous. Joaquin Phoenix is brilliant - particularly his "why does everyone try to make me speak" speech. Bryce Dallas Howard was fantastic. Her ability to be convincingly blind - her lack of blinking even, was very good. And considering how many of the scenes, in typical Shyamalan fashion - he used it beautifully in Signs too - hung on the expression on Howard's face, she deserves recognition of her ability.
And Adrien Brody. The scene on the rocking chair with blood on his hands. The man can act. Like I said, I felt his final bit of plotline was pointless, but he himself was very good.
As to the film itself:
I thought the early part was beautifully done, the guard looking down through the trapdoor at the flash of red, reminicent of the "birthday party footage" in Signs was very well done. As was Ivy standing at the door with her hand outstretched before Lucius pulled her into the house. But once we saw the spikes and the snouts the beasts were just silly.
The issue of hope and perserving innocence, the making safety in withdrawing from the world, the self-sufficency (although interestingly they didn't appear to have any horses) was interesting. It's a very American ideal. And the fact that there was an "us" and "them", albeit a self-generated one of the community and the rest of the world, as opposed to the people and the monsters, was a clever additional layer.
Walker's speech about love, while sounding unconvincing, was actually very nicely done in the context: he was trying to convince himself, I think. His idea that the world bows down and is awed by the power of love was so blatently contradicted by everything in the plot, including the fact that they had set up the community because they had all lost loved ones: people for whom the world had not stopped however much they were loved. It sounded wonderfully hollow, especially when following his speech about preserving innocence and protecting the next generation.
I thought the guy in the ranger's van with the ladder was very good. It could have been a nothing part and he infused it with a life it needed.
And a few other things:
Ivy seeing Lucius as a colour. I was somewhat disappointed that this was left to pointless. I expected her to say at some point that she saw him as red.
And the stabbing was brilliantly done. If anything, that was the thing I least expected in the film. In fact, when Lucius turned and Noah was standing there I wondered briefly in Noah was in love with Lucius not Ivy.
And finally, although the elders all decide at the end to continue running the village, I couldn't help wondering whether Lucius and Ivy will choose to stay. Perhaps they will because Ivy is blind and did not see what was beyond the fence. And yet the man was kind to her.
And Lucius knew there was something wrong. He mentioned secrets very early in the plot, if not what they were.
A couple of queries:
How did the elders know to dress in the costume for that bit when Lucius picked the berries. I suspect there was a rebel faction within the elders trying to exert tighter control. Walker says to Ivy that "one among us" was responsible for killing and skinning the animals. I wondered at that time if it were him.
And yet there is the scene with him and Sigourney Weaver's character where she says the red marks were too high, that coyotes couldn't reach that high. It is a slightly strange scene in retrospect because they must both know it was an elder and they both know that the beasts do not exist. I wonder whether the first animal carcass was one elder without the knowledge of the others and the others were trying to play it down. Then there are more and this scene is half acknowledging that they have to admit to the "them" story and half her wondering if it was him. Because it seems a strange conversation for them to be having when there is no one to hear - it isn't a conversation for the benefit of Ivy or Lucius or whatever and yet it appears to be a conversation between two who know the beasts aren't real, discussing the fact that it had to have been the beasts.
And on that fantastically complex and badly expressed thought, I will leave you.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-29 08:43 pm (UTC)for me, better than Signs though
*shrug*
:)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-30 01:27 am (UTC)Yes, as I said I also worked it out early on. I guess part of the problem is that we knew it was Shyamalan and so were looking for a twist. Perhaps from another director it wouldn't have looked so obvious.
when they use a mentally ill person to further along the plot
I know what you mean, but to some extent I have to disagree. I frequently hate it when it is badly done, but I thought this walked a thin line. Perhaps what it did was in bad taste, but I thought Brody was fantastically believeable and the plot didn't shy away from the existance of mentally handicapped people, even in this haven they had built for themselves. Despite his part in the plot he wasn't demonised.
However, I totally agree that his second plot loop, as it were with the "finding the suit" simply should not have been there. It was a cheap excuse to builld up the tension after it had apparently been resolved.