| Apr. 22nd, 2008 @ 04:49 pm Film Review for "Lady in the Water" |
|---|
M. Night Shyamalans “Lady in the Water”
Two years ago M. Night introduced to the world “Lady in the Water”, a modern fairytale that takes place in the pool of an apartment complex. In the film magical elements seamlessly intertwine with the mundane, making the ordinary extraordinary.
And two years ago, Sun Times film critic Jim Emerson tore relentlessly into the production, calling the storyline “Worse then amateurish” and claiming “the low star rating isn’t just for pretension or ineptitude, its for hypocrisy and cowardice.”
Thanks to Mr. Emerson’s professional critique, “Lady in the Water” received a bad reputation for being nonsensical and pointless, and Shyamalan’s role in the movie condemned as arrogant hypocrisy. Appeased, Emerson stamped the movie with his whopping star and a half and moved on with his life.
But was this really a fair estimation of the movie’s worth? Surely Emerson was looking at the movie as a whole, and judging whether the general audience would enjoy the film. Certainly he wouldn’t let any personal biases get in the way of his job, right?
Unless of course, his job is being a movie critic and the movie assigns the unsympathetic jackass character his profession. So how did Jim feel about that character?
“Mr. Farber represents… well, nothing so much as the filmmaker’s pre-emptive strike against the bad reviews he expects to receive for making this poorly written, stiffly directed, audience-insulting story-without-a-cause.”
If anything’s clear from this statement, its that Emerson’s review is more then just an estimation of the movie’s worth: it’s a personal vendetta. Emerson makes a sweepingly damning claim and brushes the shrapnel of his explosive temper under the rug. Well done Mr. Emerson. When you’re ready to tell me about the movie I might give a damn.
For the rest of the population that’s interested in the movie and not the critic, “Lady in the Water” is far from a story without a cause. The movie’s cause is apparent: everyone has a purpose. Everyone has something they can do to help. So pick up your pencil, and lets go.
And when I say everyone, I mean anyone. The main character, Cleveland Heep, is nothing short of mundane. Socially awkward (and suffering from a stutter), he plays the landlord of the apartment complex. But through well written dialogue and some stellar acting on Giamatti’s part, Heep keeps with the nature of the movie. His initially bland character grows into something complex, even heroic. And that’s just the start.
The movie covers a wide gamut of characters, from the elderly to the very young, nuclear families, cross-cultural, the sober and the trashed (including an apartment full of junkies). I challenge anyone to feel alienated by this movie: everyone has a part, everyone has a place. That is, except Mr. Farber.
So how about that character Mr. Farber and the other character who has been highly criticized, Vick Ran. One is a critic, the other is a writer. For those of us with the ability to separate an allegory from reality, can see that the characters are acting as ‘types’. One creates, the other criticizes. And for a movie about taking action, it only makes sense that the active creator would be painted in a good light while the passive critic is set up as a villain, as one who confuses, as one who inhibits. An assertion proven true by Emerson’s actions against M. Night.
For fans of Shyamalan’s work, “Lady in the Water” won’t disappoint when it comes to the climactic twist he’s known for. Like in “Sixth Sense”, “The Village”, and “Unbreakable,” “Lady in the Water” has a dynamic turn that dramatically changes how the audience understands the movie. Instead of confusing the audience, the twist enlightens and deepens the characters and storyline. And while movie critics would have us believe Shyamalan hasn’t committed to the twist, it’s obvious from the movie he has. Heep is so certain he risks his reputation, his wallet, and his life on being right. All Emerson can offer us is that Shyamalan fails to “convey to us the sense that he buys his own con”. I’d like to know what movie he was watching, because there’s no evidence of that in this one. The turn is strong, and it works.
What is also working is the world Shyamalan creates. With beasts that can become nothing more then a bump in the lawn or the branches in the trees, “Lady in the Water” brings the mythical into our own backyards. Like “The Matrix”, the movie could be our world: there’s no way to disprove it. It’s anywhere and everywhere. That’s why the fairytale aspect works so well as an allegory. For those with a little imagination the story could happen to them. And because of that, the messages the movie carries are all the stronger.
The movie is also emotively charged. Dealing with deep rooted issues in the past, the risk of tragedy in the present, and the acknowledgement of an inevitable death in the future, the movie centers on several heavy themes and characters coming to terms with those very things. With seemingly innocuous foreshadowing that builds to dramatic sometimes painfully empathetic reveals, the writing in ‘Lady in the Water” is far from poor. This is compounded by the excellent acting seen from Paul Giamatti, Bryce Dallas Howard, and even M. Night. So much so that, at the climactic scene in the piece my companion was reduced to a shuddering mass of tears. I can assure you, it was not because she was insulted.
So while movie critics may have you believe that “Lady in the Water” isn’t worth the film it’s produced upon, I would ask the general audience to reconsider. With a brilliantly constructed set, beautiful creature creations, emotionally charged acting and natural, dramatic writing “Lady in the Water” is easily on equal footing with any of the best current films out there. |
|  |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
faxion's journal
listless
chipper
pensive
contemplative
empty
mischievous
exhausted
odd
ambivalent
breaking
tired
wrought
Irish
Color!
sleepy
ecstatic