Support NeoGAF

[Escape Goat]

*Brian's in a movie theater describing the action to a blind man*

Brian the dog - "They're running around the wooods...they're looking for something I forget what I wasn't paying attention...nothings happening...nothings happening...okay its over. Alot of people in the audience look pissed."

 

[Error Macro]

Even though it was a bit disappointing to me because of the obvious ending, I have to say now that I've been thinking about it, it was a good movie, and I will buy it when it comes out on DVD. It has great atmosphere and design.

 

[sc0la]

I saw it tonight after spending all week camping in a coastal forest.

It was shit. His worst movie. I absoultely love Unbreakable and his other two films are part of my permenant collection. I will go into detail more tomorrow, I am shit tired after camping. My main complaint lies in it simply not being scary.

I pretty much agree with others in this thread like Mike Works and Phoenix who really enjoyed his other films but didn't like this one. More tommorow

 

[Quadrophenic]

The Village wasn't a horrible movie, imo...it just seemed to miss a lot of opportunities that could have made it great. Most of these (such as unveiling the secret behind the monsters) have already been mentioned in the thread. Still my least favorite M Night film by a large margin.

As for who did the animal skinnings...I assumed it was one of the elders working alone, and not Noah (though, in retrospect, I can see how it could be Noah as well). Since the animal skinnings did not occur until after Lucious had made his desire to enter the woods clear to the elders, I figured it was a reaction to that rather than just Noah suddenly deciding to go skin a dog.

Then again, now that I think about it, during the wedding scene when the barn was broken into and more animals skinned (or whatever), that could have been Noah, I guess, imitating what he had seen earlier (skinned animals). I don't know why he would choose then to do it though, and I can't remember what happened just prior to that event.


I thought the monster's costumes were pretty cool looking. I also thought that the best and most shocking part of the movie was Noah stabbing Lucious. That was a pretty slick scene.

 

[Dracos]

I saw the movie, and I loved it. I went in knowing the spoilers, and expecting the movie to suck badly. What I got was something really different. The way the movie played out really made sense. Looking at it from a monster/horror movie standpoint you will be disappointed, but it's not either of those types of movies. The concept of creature was just to set boundaries. The characters was what this movie was about. The atmosphere was great, as was the music. I think I probably like it more because I knew beforehand what the twist really was. I will definately buy this movie.

 

[CrisKre]

I loved the movie. The acting was phenomenal. Ivy should win something for this.

The only thing I ws disappoited about was that I would have liked a kick ass Sigourny Weaver, but that is not the movie's fault

 

[Error Macro]

I think that a lot of people just aren't understanding the movie, and therefore are saying "it sucks, piece of crap, etc." Unfortunately I went in thinking it was what the previews made it out to be: a thriller/horror movie. It's not that at all. It's mostly a love story, and a lesson about how people use fear to control other people. The monsters are just a catalyst to the underlying themes of fear and control. I don't think of the ending as really being a twist; there were multiple, obvious clues given throughout the whole picture. I see it more as a logical and natural conclusion to the film. In reading through people's crtiques of the film, it's clear to me that many people missed out on some key points (not on this board, per se, but on others) such as this, for example: When the father sent Ivy out into the forest, he gave her explicit instructions on how to reach "the towns." Those instructions led her directly to that giant hole left by the uprooted tree. It was a trap, intended to stop her from reaching civilization. He never expected she would return, and he indeed does have a surprised look on his face when she returns. He also said something earlier to the effect of his daughter being all that he could sacrifice. I need to see this movie again to absorb all of it's subtleties.

 

[BuddyC]

 

[FightyF]

In reading through people's crtiques of the film, it's clear to me that many people missed out on some key points (not on this board, per se, but on others) such as this, for example: When the father sent Ivy out into the forest, he gave her explicit instructions on how to reach "the towns." Those instructions led her directly to that giant hole left by the uprooted tree. It was a trap, intended to stop her from reaching civilization. He never expected she would return, and he indeed does have a surprised look on his face when she returns. He also said something earlier to the effect of his daughter being all that he could sacrifice.

Very interesting. I'm inclined to believe that he didn't want her killed (though it makes sense that maybe he thought she couldn't live without Lucious and so it's better for her to die...or something like that) because he talked to the other elders about them being the next generation. I gotta watch this movie again. I don't know why I'm so fascinated by this movie...

 

[Error Macro]

though it makes sense that maybe he thought she couldn't live without Lucious and so it's better for her to die...or something like that

Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. He might have been thinking that it would be better to have her be gone than to live her life in misery. She said that if Lucious died, everything inside her would die with him. I forget exactly the words that went on between the father and Sigourney Weaver, but he definitely foreshadowed her death based upon that sacrifice line.

 

[Dan]

Huh, that is an interesting tidbit that you noticed. I think I just may go and see this again in theaters so I can dissect it more.

 

[sc0la]

I think that a lot of people just aren't understanding the movie, and therefore are saying "it sucks, piece of crap, etc."

I do not agree with you. And here is why.

Unfortunately I went in thinking it was what the previews made it out to be: a thriller/horror movie. It's not that at all. It's mostly a love story, and a lesson about how people use fear to control other people. The monsters are just a catalyst to the underlying themes of fear and control.

I did the exact same thing. The thing about signs and unbreakable is that Night nearly nailed the balances between the seperate story lines, the dialoug and the thrills etc. And the village had a lot of great shit in it, he just didn't balance it properly and didn't deliver a product as tightly wound.

I understand what the monsters are. I understand they were a tool of control for the elders, I understand they represented the animalistic side of human nature, the violent side (which manifested itself in some people perhaps over relishing their role as the creature). I understand the monsters also represent our fears of the unkown, and present an obstacle over which the characters must climb for each other. But he did not sell it. He didn't sell to me the terror which these things represented. I needed more thrill, more looming threat, and not just because it was my most anticipated aspect of the film. The more he sold the violence and the terror of the beasts the more he would have sold the elders as misguided, fanatical and hypocritical, though in their minds well intentioned. Night binds himself with the "double twist" and forces an early reveal of the monster's identity. They had barely appeared on screen before the cover was blow, and it took a lot of steam out of what were some beautiful scenes in the forest and totally removed opportunities for more terror.

I shivered when the creature marked the door, it was amazing. But I never realy feared for the characters because the threat wasn't sold as real enough. Night has proven he can meld seemingly disparate themes, and blend drama and thriller with great balance, but he tried to juggle to much in this and the thriller aspect suffered badly.

In reading through people's crtiques of the film, it's clear to me that many people missed out on some key points (not on this board, per se, but on others) such as this, for example: When the father sent Ivy out into the forest, he gave her explicit instructions on how to reach "the towns." Those instructions led her directly to that giant hole left by the uprooted tree. It was a trap, intended to stop her from reaching civilization. He never expected she would return, and he indeed does have a surprised look on his face when she returns. He also said something earlier to the effect of his daughter being all that he could sacrifice. I need to see this movie again to absorb all of it's subtleties.

False. She had no explicite instructions except to follow the sound of the stream untill she found the road, the hole was not on the path. Also there was no indication that the father had ever been that deep in the woods since they left the city. And further more (if you contend that his words were as intentional as you suggest) the father sent two companions who were to accompany her to the road (the hole is before the road) but left on their own will, and by his own admission she was more apt in the unkown than any other, with sight or not, and it was the earth giving way that made her fall, not her blindness.

All the tragedy the elders caused was by inaction, not action. Had they wanted to use action they could have sent a "creature" or simply killed her in the shed. They wanted very much to perserve the future of their way of life, and thus took the calculated risk of sending the blind one to save Luscious. She may even still believe the creatures are real, and that her father was simply trying to allay some fear, but that is a little more beyond speculation and hinted at only by the echoing of her fathers voice in the forest.

 

[Error Macro]

Okay, first off, I said that "a lot" of people aren't understanding the movie. Surely you know that this does not mean "everyone."

False. She had no explicite instructions except to follow the sound of the stream untill she found the road, the hole was not on the path. Also there was no indication that the father had ever been that deep in the woods since they left the city. And further more (if you contend that his words were as intentional as you suggest) the father sent two companions who were to accompany her to the road (the hole is before the road) but left on their own will, and by his own admission she was more apt in the unkown than any other, with sight or not, and it was the earth giving way that made her fall, not her blindness.

All the tragedy the elders caused was by inaction, not action. Had they wanted to use action they could have sent a "creature" or simply killed her in the shed. They wanted very much to perserve the future of their way of life, and thus took the calculated risk of sending the blind one to save Luscious. She may even still believe the creatures are real, and that her father was simply trying to allay some fear, but that is a little more beyond speculation and hinted at only by the echoing of her fathers voice in the forest.

Ok, I don't remember exactly how the instructions were worded, but they were a bit more precise than just following the stream. No indication that the father had been in the woods? There was no need for indication; the moment it was revealed that he was behind this elaborate scheme of The Things That Shall Not Be Spoken Off, a gateway for explanations of things opened. Since the "creatures" were actually in the forest, someone could have easily looked around for a bit outside of the village. I think that the father was counting on the companions to become afraid and abandon Ivy (yes, yes, that's a bit of an assumption on the father's part; but the premise of this movie is pretty thin) since he says earlier to Lucius that no one in the village had ever shown the kind of courage and bravery that he had, and he later made a comment similar to that to Ivy, saying that she also shared that courage.

The elders inactions: I believe that since the scene showing the father talking to the elders about what he had revealed to Ivy was meant to be chronologically taking place after Ivy had been deep into the forest, that the other elders had no clue as to what was taking place up to that point. Of course the town would know that three people were leaving the village, but no one but the father and Ivy knew what took place in the shed.

 

[KarishBHR]

Okay, first off, I said that "a lot" of people aren't understanding the movie. Surely you know that this does not mean "everyone."



Ok, I don't remember exactly how the instructions were worded, but they were a bit more precise than just following the stream. No indication that the father had been in the woods? There was no need for indication; the moment it was revealed that he was behind this elaborate scheme of The Things That Shall Not Be Spoken Off, a gateway for explanations of things opened. Since the "creatures" were actually in the forest, someone could have easily looked around for a bit outside of the village. I think that the father was counting on the companions to become afraid and abandon Ivy (yes, yes, that's a bit of an assumption on the father's part; but the premise of this movie is pretty thin) since he says earlier to Lucius that no one in the village had ever shown the kind of courage and bravery that he had, and he later made a comment similar to that to Ivy, saying that she also shared that courage.

The elders inactions: I believe that since the scene showing the father talking to the elders about what he had revealed to Ivy was meant to be chronologically taking place after Ivy had been deep into the forest, that the other elders had no clue as to what was taking place up to that point. Of course the town would know that three people were leaving the village, but no one but the father and Ivy knew what took place in the shed.

You seem to be forgetting he had already told Ivy the monsters were made up at this point... so it makes perfect sense

 

[SteveMeister]

You seem to be forgetting he had already told Ivy the monsters were made up at this point... so it makes perfect sense

But he ALSO told her that there were REAL monsters when the settlement first arrived, but they hadn't been seen in a long time. That's why she was afraid in the woods despite what her father said. He gave her that one little seed of doubt.

 

[Phoenix]

But he ALSO told her that there were REAL monsters when the settlement first arrived, but they hadn't been seen in a long time. That's why she was afraid in the woods despite what her father said. He gave her that one little seed of doubt.

And that is why they would be able to continue, because now they have someone who knows the truth and believes the lie (that there are real creatures), so the cycle can continue. She and whomever can continue going around wearing the suit yet tell people that there are real creatures out there - that they just haven't been seen.

 

[SyNapSe]

But he ALSO told her that there were REAL monsters when the settlement first arrived, but they hadn't been seen in a long time. That's why she was afraid in the woods despite what her father said. He gave her that one little seed of doubt.

No, he said when they first arrived that there were "stories" of monsters in the woods. The elders then began portraying the monsters those stories were composed around.

Ok, I don't remember exactly how the instructions were worded, but they were a bit more precise than just following the stream.

I believe the exact instructions were follow the sounds of the stream for a 1/2 days journey, at which point she would intersect a hidden road/path. This path would lead her to the Towns.

 

[ced]

But he ALSO told her that there were REAL monsters when the settlement first arrived, but they hadn't been seen in a long time. That's why she was afraid in the woods despite what her father said. He gave her that one little seed of doubt.

I thought he just said there were "myths" from some of his teaching books.

If only the costume Noah stole was a little different and more realistically portrayed in the chase sequence it could have been that much more suspenseful. Unfortuantly it wasnt, and as I think Mike mentioned it was very ametuerishly shot.

Ive got to say there was something missing from the film that I cant put my finger on or explain. I enjoyed it though, and its still making me think, better than any other movie Ive seen this year.

 

[Warm Machine]

I thought he just said there were "myths" from some of his teaching books.

If only the costume Noah stole was a little different and more realistically portrayed in the chase sequence it could have been that much more suspenseful. Unfortuantly it wasnt, and as I think Mike mentioned it was very ametuerishly shot.

Ive got to say there was something missing from the film that I cant put my finger on or explain. I enjoyed it though, and its still making me think, better than any other movie Ive seen this year.

I though that the monster shot in the woods was really well done. Very matter of fact yet surreal. When it makes a run for her all of a sudden the entire audience screamed.

 

[ced]

I though that the monster shot in the woods was really well done. Very matter of fact yet surreal. When it makes a run for her all of a sudden the entire audience screamed.

Really? I just kind of laughed to myself, I knew it was just someone in a suit, even though M Night tried to make you believe "maybe" there are actually real creatures in the woods, or perhaps the costume was created from a dead one.

I cant really explain what my problem with it was, but compare it to the shot of the alien walking out of the bushes in Signs. That was freaky to me, none of the revealing creature sequences were good, in my opinion of course.

Like I said before though, I really enjoyed it overall, just wish I could place a finger on what was missing from it.

 

[Iceman]

Having seen the movie for the second time I can confidently say this is not only M. Night's best film*, but it's one of the greatest films I've ever seen.

The first time I was disappointed to a degree. I already knew about the

Spoiler

modern time

spoiler and the

Spoiler

no monster

spoiler so my assessment of the film was already tainted. I had those spoilers in the back of my mind and it ruined a couple of scenes for me. But despite that, the movie had tons of environment/ambience, good pacing, GREAT music, superb acting, fantastic dialogue and some absolutely stunning individual scenes. Yet, the story seemed lacking... what was actually lacking was proper perspective on my part.

I watched the film again with full knowledge of the twists and the motivations and the story began to come alive almost instantly:

Spoiler

While the most immediate focus of the story was the romance between Lucius and Ivy, the more complete concept of the story was love AND loss. One of the elders of the town (August, the one who had lost his son) had the most central and important line in the movie. To paraphrase, you cannot run from your sorrow for it will find you. The point is that there is no way to sheild anyone from loss, from sorrow, from tragedy. Even by hiding and stuffing your sorrow in a small wooden box and staging a most complex scenario for people to live in.. even by taking these most drastic of measures to try to ensure safety from pain, from harm one can never truly be secure.

The ghosts of the elders' past haunted the village. Whenever the camera would focus on an empty chair, that was to show you that the what came before was because of the sorrow of the past. The movie featured NUMEROUS empty chair shots. And when a character would be found sitting in one of these chairs it imparted terrible loss and sorrow. Noah sitting in the chair after he had stabbed Lucius, Ivy in the chair after finding the dying Lucius.. the same chair her father had sat in when he found out his daughter had finally lost all sight, August sitting in the chair talking to Lucius about his dead son. Even in the last scene when all the elders were in the room with a dying Lucius waiting for the arrival of Ivy. Noah's parents, upon hearing the news of Noah's death sat down on chairs, and all the while Alice Hunt sat in a chair next to her dying son. Everyone else in the room was standing. And even the silent room featured a prominent chair to which the camera work imbued a disturbing presence.

Aside from the banquets and the town hall scenes there were very few scenes with people sitting in chairs in the entire movie. People sat on a rock, on the hillside, on the bed.. but mostly they stood.

I would even venture to say that the movie was more about running from loss than it was about the central romance. But evenso the movie had tons to say about love. Like Lucius said to Noah, there are many kinds of love. Lucius and Ivy had a very special bond, Alice and Edward Walker (oscar nominations for William Hurt PLEASE!) had a forbidden love and
Noah's love for Ivy was a sibling kind of love (a love that Noah obviously felt Lucius was threatening).

What was so darn clever about the movie wasn't the twists or the secrets but the dichotomy between the artifice of the woods, the monsters and the rules versus the all too true power of the sorrow they were trying to suppress which, as manifested within the character of Noah, was more dangerous to the people of the village. And what as even sadder than this was that in the end, with only Ivy having ventured into the woods and to her knowledge having actually encountered a monster, that this myth would still be perpetuated beyond the point at the which the movie ended. Everything would stay the same. Even after experiencing all the turmoil which was inevitable from trying to protect themselves from sorrow the elders elected to continue the charade in futile hope.

I think its highly poignant.. not in a political sense like some would argue, but in the sense that one should fear nothing but fear itself. The elders of the village created it out of fear mixed with hope. The fear came back to bite their bums.

The movie was shakesperean in a sense. It was both a romance and a tragedy. It is the Truman Show and Jurassic Park all in one. While the movie tells a very sullen tale of human machinations it also has at its core a very touching love story.. one that seems so much more powerful nestled within the context of the artifice. This love story shines so much more after you know the truth of the village and the sorrows of the past weigh so much more heavily when you see that it almost destroyed such a great love story.

The movie only had one flaw in my estimation: the oath that the elders took prevented edward walker from going outside of the town??? Why? He could have danced through that forest told his employees that he needs some meds and danced right back to village with plenty of other lies to propagate his myth and none would be the wiser.

Despite that weakness/plot hole the movie stands up better than just about any movie I've ever seen. It's up there with Signs (my #1 favorite movie before I saw the village). I came into signs knowing what to look for in the movie making and I came out massively satisfied. On my second vewing of the The Village I knew what to look for and came out even more satisfied. This is a lasting movie, fellas.

BTW, Lucius' color is white (my guess).. how do I know? The opening credits. The black background had a very faint but unmistakeable white blur spot at the center.

Oh, also... major props to the music and editing. In all the scenes where it was just Ivy and no one else you felt as though you were experiencing things from her point of view. It was pretty impressive IMO.

Beautiful movie. Beautiful story.

*I'm watching Sixth Sense again real soon just to confirm it

 

[Mike Works]

Having seen the movie for the second time I can confidently say this is not only M. Night's best film*, but it's one of the greatest films I've ever seen.

The first time I was disappointed to a degree. But despite that, the movie had tons of environment/ambience, good pacing, GREAT music, superb acting, fantastic dialogue and some absolutely stunning individual scenes. Yet, the story seemed lacking... what was actually lacking was proper perspective on my part.

I watched the film again with full knowledge of the twists and the motivations and the story began to come alive almost instantly:

[lots of spoilers]

Beautiful movie. Beautiful story.

*I'm watching Sixth Sense again real soon just to confirm it

Ok, now I truly, truly don't mean any offense towards you personally, but that was the biggest sack of shit I've ever read.

I could take any single movie or book out there and come up with hidden underlying meanings like you just did. The movie is great because vacant chairs equals sorrow, as does sitting down in chairs, but only sometimes, but sitting on rocks is meaningless? Are you serious?

I'm a big advocator of not looking for underlying meanings as a sense of improving a story unless they're truly meant to be found. Any person can reach like you just did to find empty meaning in order to improve their view/opinion on a piece of work. You may truly believe what you wrote, but I honestly just laughed at your entire post.

One of the best movies ever? Jesus.

But again, that's your opinion, and that's cool. I'm just stating my opinion- mainly on attempting to discover underlying meaning and message in faulty prose, which is what I feel you, and most anyone else did in order to justify this film as being an excellently crafted piece of material.

 

[maharg]

Well it's not as if Night hasn't used recurring shot elements to make a point before. Red things in Sixth Sense comes to mind immediately.

 

[SyNapSe]

Well it's not as if Night hasn't used recurring shot elements to make a point before. Red things in Sixth Sense comes to mind immediately.

Yeah, I remember something about that? There was red in the room anytime a ghost was there.

 

[BuddyC]

There's definately an empahsis on chairs in The Village - the meaning behind it, or lack thereof, is what's up for debate.

 

[Mike Works]

Yeah, I remember something about that? There was red in the room anytime a ghost was there.

Thus signifying the fragile nature of the human composition. Red equates to everything from raw emotion to the most delicate vitality such as blood. What M Night was trying to convey through the color red being evident in every scene featuring an undead person was the evident commentary on the fragility of the sdjlfhsdjffsdklfhsdklfsd

See how fucking easy it is? I'm sure he might have meant for something to be said there, but it's so god damn easy to make up bullshit about every single thing having an underlying meaning. I could be wrong, but I bet that's the exact reason as to why he put something red in each of those scenes- so people could make something up for themselves in order to trick themselves into liking the movie more.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the guy and his movies- save for the Village- I just detest the practice of looking into overlapping meaning that just isn't there.

 

[SyNapSe]

See how fucking easy it is? I'm sure he might have meant for something to be said there, but it's so god damn easy to make up bullshit about every single thing having an underlying meaning. I could be wrong, but I bet that's the exact reason as to why he put something red in each of those scenes- so people could make something up for themselves in order to trick themselves into liking the movie more.

That's great, but what I'm saying is he came out and pointed these things out. I agree, if something is even semi-vague you can probably pull anything out of your ass you want, but this was on the special commentary from M. Night.

They were supposed to be the clues that let you know Bruce Willis' character was a ghost. One of them was the fact that red was always accentuated in some way while Ghosts were present. The other was that Bruce wore the exact same outfit throughout the whole film. They simply removed the Jacket sometimes, and he had a undersweater also.. if I remember right. I didn't catch any of them, and was one of the people shocked when the twist was revealed.

 

[Iceman]

Mike Works, I got.. correction, had... nothing against you.

Ouch.

Honestly, I was just exploring the chair angle 'cause I was fresh from seeing the movie and I was still working things out. I'd honestly rather talk about Noah's character as it was probably the most intersting part of the movie... but since I haven't quite wrapped my head around that character I couldn't say much about him.

The chair bit just piqued my interest right away.. why did they end that second monster invasion scene (the one in which all the sheep had been killed, shaved and hung next to people's doors?) by using another shot of the dance gazeebo/hall? What was the purpose? To show that the people left in chaos? Like we already didn't know that. The focus of that shot was the tipped over chair. There were so many other scenes involving empty chairs that it was hard not to make a connection.

So really, are you disrespecting my thoughts and opinions because I consider the movie to be that good or because I had a couple of paragraphs on chairs? (and really, who else has picked up on that in any review you've read or heard?)

So in order for you to make up for your hurtful comments all you have to do is grant me the following tag: I am making a birdhouse!

And I thank you.

Edit: Hm, also, I don't look for underlying messages in most movies. Doesn't make sense to do so. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind had a message that was buried about an inch deep. I got it right away and it wasn't so muddled in the plot that it took any kind of mental prowess. The movie turned to something surreal with lots of visual twists. Great movie, one of my recent favorites. I, Robot. No hidden meaning. Everything is placed right there on the table. Great movie really enjoyed it. Bourne Supremacy. No hidden meaning. Kind of a letdown and gave me quite the headache. Master and Commander. No message here either. Just an awesome tale about a man and the crew that would follow him to the end of the world. In a word awesome.

There are reasons to hate or like a movie that have nothing to do with underlying messages. But when a movie is clearly about giving form to an underlying message, like M. Night's last two movies, then maybe one should consider that before judging. Clearly, he takes a chance by giving the audience less than 100% on the surface of a movie and if you come into one of his movies looking to be totally satisfied in the first viewing without having to think about it then you're bound to be disappointed. If you don't like that kind of movie then I have nothing against you and you're perfectly free to judge the movie based on your standards... but I can see this kind of film for what it is, for what it's trying to do and I play along, unwrapping the layers. I enjoy it and can tell whether its been done poorly or effectively. Like I said, the movie has one major hangup in that sense, but aside from that it does just about everything else well.

It really is worth a repeated viewing, just as long as you aren't looking for a simple, scary movie.

 

[Mike Works]

That's great, but what I'm saying is he came out and pointed these things out. I agree, if something is even semi-vague you can probably pull anything out of your ass you want, but this was on the special commentary from M. Night.

They were supposed to be the clues that let you know Bruce Willis' character was a ghost. One of them was the fact that red was always accentuated in some way while Ghosts were present. The other was that Bruce wore the exact same outfit throughout the whole film. They simply removed the Jacket sometimes, and he had a undersweater also.. if I remember right. I didn't catch any of them, and was one of the people shocked when the twist was revealed.

See, now Bruce wearing the same clothing in the entire movie isn't an underlying premise, that's an integral part of the realization that he is a ghost. There's a big difference between that and the color red popping up or shots of chairs being emphasized.

To be a little more clear on the subject though, I am fine with, again, say the color red being evident in each of those shots, so long as the rest of the movie is competant.

However, I am not fine with them if there are much larger problems within the movie that should have been addressed and taken priority over putting time and thought into less important aspects regarding underlying meaning. The Village's sequential editing was the big area there for me.

It'd basically be like comparing Halo with, say, Turok Evolution. Halo is a very competant game, with a solid foundation in regards to controls (mapping), environments, and everything else that a first person shooter needs. Since Bungie successfully implemented the essentials correctly, I can then fully appreciate extra touches, like the cutscenes, voiceovers, graphical finishes, physics, and whatnot.

Turok Evolution on the other hand is a broken game. It sorely lacks fine craftmenship in many essential areas of the game/genre. Despite this, it does have some nice extra touches, be it graphically with the foliage, or with creative weapon design.

Now one could maybe enjoy Turok Evolution on a lower level by purely focusing on whatever gore-inducing weaponry the game totes, while ignoring the crippled game design. For the most part, I can't do that. Not with games, not with movies. I can't appreciate the forboding sense of grief that each shot involving a chair arises if the basic core of the movie is completely trashed in the last quarter of the movie by shoddy, shoddy fucking editing.

Now the color red appearing in The Sixth Sense in scenes regarding ghosts, that I can appreciate, because the integrals of The Sixth Sense, the acting, cinematography, script, editing, it was all rock solid.

I'm saying that I'm not willing to forgive key core design flaws in The Village thanks to token extras, whereas I think others are.

 

[element]

i just got back from seeing it with my gf and i've never seen her so upset at something.

she i 'WTF!! That was retarded!!' 'I hated the movie'

I read the impressions before seeing it, so i went in with really low expectations.

 

[Mike Works]

Mike Works, I got.. correction, had... nothing against you.

Ouch.

I meant it when I told you not to take anything personally. It was your opinion that angered me, not you. I know that sounds weird, but it's true.

I'd honestly rather talk about Noah's character as it was probably the most intersting part of the movie... but since I haven't quite wrapped my head around that character I couldn't say much about him.

Noah was definitely the most complex character, I agree, and should I see the movie again, I'm going to pay a lot more attention to him.

So really, are you disrespecting my thoughts and opinions because I consider the movie to be that good or because I had a couple of paragraphs on chairs? (and really, who else has picked up on that in any review you've read or heard?)

I was disrespecting your main opinion on this one subject, because it's one that has been used as a crutch for countless poor movies and books. I literally can't stand it when authors or directors claim credit for an underlying meaning that they didn't even consider when creating their work. While I don't think this is exactly the case here, the act also promotes excuse for lazy and flawed work, which I detailed in my post above.

So in order for you to make up for your hurtful comments all you have to do is grant me the following tag: I am making a birdhouse!

Okay!

 

[Iceman]

haha, awesome, thanks for the tag. very fitting.

 

[FightyF]

I just detest the practice of looking into overlapping meaning that just isn't there.

I absolutely hated doing that in English class...analyzing stuff left and right...and the people who were best at that were the ones who were good as BSing anything they can think of.

On the other hand...M. Night seems like someone who would do something like this on purpose. Especially when certain images are repeated.

We all remember when she was being chased by Noah in the suit, it would go to the shot of the tree branches looking up. By the fifth time it did that, I was like WTF. There has to be some meaning or reason for it. On the other hand, claiming that the colors of their eyes is indicitive of blah blah blah...yeah it can get ridiculous.

 

[Warm Machine]

I loved just how many times, in Unbreakable, Shyamalan alluded to Samuel being a super villian and every single one of those instances went over my head until the ending. I of course noticed them while the movie played out but I never put each piece together to form the archetype/stereotype.

That is the general beauty of Shyamalan's films. There isn't a wasted line of dialouge or a wasted shot. Everything has purpose and motivation that points toward the central theme and drives the story forward.

The Village has a lot of this style and substance it is just that the concept wears out its welcome long before the credits roll due to misjudgement. Each surprise in a story like this should build off the last one. The surprises are not interesting or unexpected. We don't need to know exactly what they are, just a cue that are surprises coming. That is enough to get our minds turning and expecting exactly what the story delivers. Sure, the more minor details were impossible to see coming but the grander picture was.

In a case like this Shyamalan maybe should have got us pretty well convinced that the monsters were the elders in the Village fucking with the townspeople only to do a 180 turn and bring the real monsters in for the last 15 minutes. Then we could have traced back through the story on our way out the movie theater and it would all become clear that of course the real monsters were doing everything the whole time and it was stupid of us to think that it was something else.

 

[Iceman]

Thinking about it a bit more, the movie reminds me quite a bit of A Beautiful Mind in terms of story-crafting. The first act of Ron Howard's movie (coincidence?) is focused on placing you firmly in John Nash's head. He wanted you to see the world as this genius schizophrenic did.. the hazards he constantly felt. The second act of the movie flipped the perspective.

Similarly, the movie was designed to be viewed from the perspective of the naive villagers the first time and your perspective is flipped on the second viewing. In the first viewing you are as horrified and confused as the villagers but in the second viewing you can appreciate the artificial world of the village and how and why it was constructed to keep the villagers in that limbo like world mixed with bliss and fear. Two sides of a coin.

At first I hated A Beautiful Mind. I thought I was had by Howard and I can't believe he misled me with the trailer. But afterwards I appreciated what he did with the story to endear the audience to John Nash, to understand how a schizophrenic was viewing the world so that it could make all his accomplishments that much more profound.

In a similar sense, knowing about the artifice of the rules and fear and the doom that the past cast over the village both served to magnify the courage and love of Lucius Hunt and especially Ivy Walker.

 

[isamu]

_________________________

 

[isamu]

Just saw it...........

Just got back from the movie, and I fucking hated it. Signs and The Sixth Sense are two of my favorite movies of all time, and I also really like Unbreakable, and I just hated this garbage. I'd read the construction worker spoilers months back, but made sure to avoid anything else, so I came into the movie knowing nothing but the possible construction worker scenario. M Night is/was one of my favorite directors (he still is, but his next movie had better be a step up from this), and I always especially like how the full story always unrolled at the end, and his excellent choice cinematography, but this movie was poor on both accounts.

The movie would've been MUCH better in my opinion if;

There was no scene of the outside/current world (with M Night and that kid doing patrol) AND if they didn't give away that the "monsters" were just costumes so early. It would've been much better and more surprising if the sequence of events were re-arranged as follows;

1) You see the scene where she and her father are inside the forbidden barn with the costumes, she reaches her arm out, slowly walks forward- and that's it. Cut to next scene. Don't show the claw/costumes. Don't tell the viewer that she knows what it is.

2) She is confronted with the "creature" in the woods. She evades it, it falls into the pit. They then DON'T show the viewer that the creature was Adrien Brody in the costume, and they DON'T show the quit scene with the elders discovering a missing suit. All one would know at this point was there was something secret in the barn and one of the creatures had falled into the pit.

3) She gets to that wall of vines and climbs over it. Cut to next scene back at the village, do not show the paved road/jeep/anything else.

4) She arrives back at the village and hands the bag of medicine (which she obviously hasn't seen) to one of the village elders. Everyone leaves the room but the elders who are taking care of Joquain Phoenix. Once the door is closed, they take out the bag, and place down a bottle of peniciline or aspirin or some sort of recognizable modern medicine that would be useful for a stab wound. You could then add the opening of the black box and viewing of the picture of them in the city/70's if deemed neccessary.

5) The next and final scene would then be William Hurt (or whoever the main elder was) talking to another elder (perhaps that irish guy with the big ears, or hell you could have all of the elders there) outside of the forbidden barn. They can be having the conversation that was held inside the room with Joquaine that the elders held regarding whether or not they should continue living like this. After they all agree, they then audibly agree that it's best to do what they've been doing. At this point, they'd open the door to the forbidden barn, revealing the suits (to the audience, for the first time). William Hurt could say, "wait..."

It could then cut back to Ivy and Joquaine, with Ivy telling him about what she did. Then it goes back to the elders, with Hurt proclaiming something along the lines of, "There's a suit missing..."

The final shot would then be a high shot looking straight down at the ground, panning along the muddy forest floor, eventually and slowly reaching the pit. It (the camera shot) would slowly lower into the pit, to reveal Adrien Brody with the mask off, in his dying scene.

Honest to God, that's the exact same movie that I just watched, only spliced differently, and it would've been SO MUCH BETTER if they had done it like that.

 

[Phoenix]

Ok, now I truly, truly don't mean any offense towards you personally, but that was the biggest sack of shit I've ever read.

I could take any single movie or book out there and come up with hidden underlying meanings like you just did. The movie is great because vacant chairs equals sorrow, as does sitting down in chairs, but only sometimes, but sitting on rocks is meaningless? Are you serious?

+1 for Mike

 

[way more]

I never thought I would be bored at a M. Night movie, what a sad day in movie history.

 

[Cafeman]

Late to ze partie. I watched The Village last night.

I couldn't wait to read through this thread, because I had a some questions -- what was the significance of the different colors, yellow and red? (A: allusion to terror color codes).

Another question I had after watching the film, did Noah or the elders kill and skin the animals? (My take: I think it was Noah. He'd laugh and clap when he heard the "sounds" while everyone else was scared to death. He'd figured it out that the elders were doing that, and he just carried it on in his own way. It was clear to me that elder Walker (Hurt) wasn't sure who was getting carried away with things. Also, when Lucius ventured into the woods the first time, something was watching him -- you think it was one of the monsters, but I now think it was Noah, prompting the later "attack").

My take on The Village follows.

I kept away from all spoilers! But, like many, I suspected early on the modern-day spoiler. But I wasn't sure how it'd come around until the flashback / box-opening scene of the elders in front of the counseling center. The clues of how one elder's sister died, or Lucius' father was found, made me think of modern-day violent crimes. Also, it seemed to me that the characters' olden-times accents would sometimes slightly dissolve into more modern colloquialisms -- anyone notice this? Was it bad acting or subtle clues? I think clues.

The watchtower surprise scene made me JUMP! I found the music and cinematography to be very atmospheric and great stuff. Great violin music that haunted my mind the whole drive home. The attack in the forest alarmed me! Was Ivy imagining this? Or was there really a monster? As it turned out, it was Noah. Noah was psychotic and would be in a mental institution (or on medication) if he lived in the modern world. The way that the camera and sound effects conveyed Ivy's experience from a blind perspective was AWESOME! Did you notice that loud flag flapping in the wind?

The ending and overall explanation was weaker than I had wanted. But I still enjoyed the experience and will probably buy the DVD to watch it now & then. It's not a bad film.