(Warning: The Village, Signs, and Unbreakable spoilers follow.)

(Also, pretentious deconstruction ahead.)

In the past, I complained bitterly about Signs being a bad movie because it said something that I believed was the exact opposite of what the filmmaker meant to say. After seeing The Village, I've changed my mind. The meaning I got from Signs is exactly what Shyamalan meant to say.

Shortly after Unbreakable was released, news came out that it was the first of a trilogy of movies. We all thought, initially, that that meant there would be three superhero movies, but were quickly rebuffed. The other movies would not necessarily be superhero movies. They would be a thematic trilogy. I soon forgot, and nothing about Signs seemed to have any relationship to Unbreakable.

But after I saw The Village, another movie that I didn't think worked as well as either The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable, I remembered the trilogy idea and saw the relationship between the movies.

They are all about the choices that are made beyond our control.

As I've previously stated, my problem with Signs is that on the surface, it appears to be ultimately an upbeat story about a man regaining his faith in God, but when looked at more closely, I came to the conclusion that each of the characters in the movie exists solely for a singular Calvinistic purpose: to make Graham Hess regain his faith. His brother's ability and wont to swing a baseball bat very hard, his son's asthma, his daughter's otherwise unexplained prediliction for stacking glasses of water, and his wife's bizarre final words and death all exist for the sole purpose of defeating the aliens, and the regaining of his faith, which seems, not unjustly, more important to the movie. The choices made in the movie were almost nonexistant. They were predestined. I believed at the time that this sorely undermined the uplifting message that the movie was intending to send. I see now that this was the message that he intended to send, and the upliftingness of it was a disguise.

In The Village, the village elders make the decision for all of their descendents, who seem quite numerous by now, that they will continue to live away from the rest of the world. Late in the movie, they are given a clear opportunity to recant their previous decision and let everyone in on the secret, but they again choose to make that decision for everyone else. Even when forced to reveal one secret to an unknowing member of the community, the major one is left hidden, and the decision as to which member of the community is chosen is based not on the abilities of that person, but on the fact that she is much less likely to be able to reason out the rest of the secret. The village elders are completely in control of the choices of the rest of the community.

Which brings me back to Unbreakable, the movie which seemed to have no parallels to Signs. I was wrong. David Dunn had lived forty-five years or so without ever noticing that he was super-powered. He'd had no illnesses or injuries (save one), but he didn't ever really consider it. He could easily have gone the rest of his life without noticing. But Mr. Glass forced his hand. He killed hundreds or thousands of people searching for his counterpart. He forced Dunn to realize what he was. Dunn made the decision to fight crime, and, in fact, later made the decision not to, but his life was drastically changed by forces outside his control. Honestly, I think there's more to be explored here in relation to the choices that Mr. Glass had in the movie. This is also the weakest connection to the theme. (There are flaws in my analysis, but I can't find a better one right now. Perhaps analyzing how he got the powers, and the duality between him and Mr. Glass, including Mr. Glass's choice.)

The differences between these stories is who is making these choices. In Unbreakable, Dunn's choice is made for him by his enemy. In Signs, it is made by fate, or God, or some other force that can be said to be, at least in the context of the movie, neither benevolent nor malevolent. In The Village, the decision is made by the elders, who are intending to be acting for the good of the community and largely for the good of the individuals in the community. But this raises the question of whether intent is enough of a factor to make the removal of the choice a positive action. In Unbreakable, the choice is made by an abject villain. In doing so, he kills many, many people. But he also potentially creates a force for good in Dunn, and also improves Dunn's life itself. It can also be viewed that the killing of the innocents is not directly related to Dunn's revelation, as he is unaware of them both when the realization occurs and when he decides to become a crime fighter. In Signs, the choice is made by forces whose intentions are unknown, if they even have intentions at all. To elucidate, the choices are made for Graham Hess through the means of making his brother a failure in life, killing his wife, and giving his son a life-threatening incurable illness. But it results in saving the family's lives and in making him an apparently more well-adjusted person. So that seems to be both positive and negative. In The Village, the elders are depicted as good people, and are certainly trying to do the right thing for their community. But this means that people will die of easily curable diseases and injuries and the community will remain ignorant of the rest of the world.

I'm not sure what conclusions I can draw from this. Certainly there are drawbacks due to the removal of choice in each case. There are also positive elements. Each removal of choice is made with a different intention, but none of the results is wildly better than any of the other results. Of course, this is not to say that the characters, given the choice, would have had better results, or even that they would have made a choice different than the one that was chosen for them. I think the issue is that the ability to decide was removed. In much science fiction literature, from George Orwell to Star Trek to The Matrix, the ability for people to choose is presented as amongst the most important things in people's lives. Since Shyamalan's films are often taken to be science fiction, can we ignore this trope? I think not. I don't have an ironclad conclusion to draw, but I think this is potentially the most important theme in this series of movies and deserves to be discussed.

I haven’t yet seen “The Village” so I had to skip those parts of your post. Even so, the idea of human choice is an interesting discussion as applied to at least the first two movies, especially considering your comments on “Signs.” I didn’t catch your thoughts on that one before, which is a shame because that would have been an interesting discussion.

I wonder if this is the theme that was intended, or if it’s merely just a byproduct of the way Shyamalan writes. In all three movies I’ve seen (The Sixth Sense included) there always seems to be an air of determinism- that people are going through motions without a real free will.

But to address your question:

Quote:
In much science fiction literature, from George Orwell to Star Trek to The Matrix, the ability for people to choose is presented as amongst the most important things in people's lives

What do you mean by “the ability for people to choose”? Because it seems to me an overarching theme found in a lot of Sci-Fi is that human choice is not about affecting your destiny but revealing your character. The happy endings are merely there to provide reader/viewer satisfaction.

For example- Neo “chooses” to go after Morpheous when he has every reason to believe he will fail (after all, he isn’t the one right?) Yet he does anyway, not because he can choose the outcome but because the choice defines his character. He chooses to save Trinity in the second move, not because he wants the destruction of humanity, but because his love for her defines who he is. Finally in the last movie there’s a big speech on why he will fail and he comes back with “because I choose to.” What exactly is he choosing? Not to succeed (though he does), but to struggle. As a matter of fact, I do believe this was the major theme of the trilogy.

In the LOTR (not Sci-Fi, but related literature) the characters consistently state that they have little hope of success but yet they still struggle against evil. Why? Because they are good and good must struggle against evil whatever the result.

How many Star Trek episodes start out with impossible situations from which the characters have no escape? And yet they spend time struggling until Kirk/Picard/etc. finds the “magic button” that fixes everything?

In a darker example, take “Minority Report” (the story, not the movie). [Spoiler]It’s a great example of a character without choice but with character. Once the future has been defined his actions are determined but still he has the freedom as to how he will carry out those actions. In this story the character revealed is a bit more complex than the others- is it good to murder a human being to save a “system” that is morally questionable but saves lives? The revelation about the main character is “yes”. Perhaps it might be different if it were you or I in his position. Maybe we would have committed the murder out of anger, a desire to see the system destroyed, or some other reason- but we would have committed the murder.[/Spoiler]

I think this is all a very accurate reflection of real life- especially the latter example as the character revealed is not a simple one. We are all faced with choices that are made for us, be it by others or events beyond our control. Sometimes we cannot change the outcome no matter what we do- but it is how we behave in those instances that truly reveals our character.

Perhaps what your saying is that Shyamalan's movies don't addres freewill even at the level of character, but I’d say that’s not true. Especially in “Signs”- the way Hess responds to his lack of control tells us much about his character- and that character is something that changes by the end of the movie.

I mean that part of humanity is freedom, and part of freedom is the ability to choose, no matter whether that choice is the right one or the one that benefits you the most, much like your Matrix examples.

However, while I might agree with the fact that Graham Hess has the ability to choose, the lives of those around him seem to be predefined to lead him to that conclusion. Honestly, if I were in the same situation he was in at the end of the movie, I believe that I would be madder at God than ever because not only did God allow his wife to die, but he ordained it, along with the dismal life given to his brother and the illness given to his child. Then again, it did prove to him that God existed and intervened, and apparently a manipulative God is better than an uncaring or nonexistant God in his mind.

So, while I can see that Graham Hess is given a choice, especially since I would have made the opposite choice (or maybe the choice was to believe again, regardless of attitude), his family and the vet were not given choices. They were manipulated for a particular outcome.

Well, that's part of my point. Is the good outcome of this one man worth the trials of those near him? I think that may be in part what Shyamalan is saying. I think that if you watch The Village you might start seeing a pattern like I did. I could be wrong, though.

Yeah, I'll try to watch it soon.

Totally unrelated to the discussions above, I had two problems with "The Village"...

1. When, later in the film, we are expected to recall words spoken earlier in the film, those words are voice-overed. Normally I feel like I'm merely being patronized when they do that, but in this film it was so blatant and hit-you-over-the-head that I was just disgusted. Hey, Knight, I was paying attention earlier. You didn't need to remind me about the "rumors" of creatures in the woods to increase the suspense, especially considering that you were already about 60 seconds past the moment where I really needed to recall it in order for the suspense to be useful. You didn't need to remind me that she would "come upon a hidden path" when that's precisely what she just did.

2. During the chase in the woods late in the film, he kept cutting back to a still picture of treetops, mid-chase. It totally ruined the rhythm of the scene. It was like chase chase chase treetops, chase chase chase treetops. I was suddenly acutely aware of the fact that I was watching a movie that was edited with an editing machine instead of being involved in the story. It took me out of my "suspension of disbelief" mode and put me into "noticing the man behind the curtain" mode.

Other than that, I liked the film a lot. I've got no opinion one way or the other on the thematic discussions.

I think that showing the treetops was a way to show Ivy's POV -- that there was a creature, but that she couldn't see it. I don't think a blank screen would have worked. I don't really think that worked, either, but I believe that was his point. Continually keeping it just off screen to reveal it suddenly would have worked better, IMO.

All of this discussion, by the way, doesn't necessarily mean that I liked the movie. Parts of it were good and parts were bad, but I don't think I'd watch it again. Whereas I own Unbreakable and have watched it many times.

I really disliked Unbreakable when I initially saw it. But it was one of those movies that I couldn't stop thinking about, and I came to the realization that there was a lot more going on than I gave it credit for. I think I got suckered into disliking it because it was slow, but then I remembered all the other slow movies that I like, and other things got me to thinking about some of the symbology he used, etc. Plus: superheroes!

Signs and The Village were okay. I really disliked Signs when it came out because I believed the theme I'm expressing above was unintentional and undercut what the theme of the movie was. Now that I see that that may not be the case, I may have to rewatch it. However, I was well into not particularly enjoying the film by the time the parts of it happened that cemented my opinion. I haven't changed my opinion of The Village. It's important to note, though, that this critique is based largely on the scripts. Shyamalan is an excellent director visually, and he seems to direct actors well, too. I just think that his scripts can be a little shallow, almost like they're just tissue that are used to hold his cinematic vision. I'd very much like to see him direct something by a solid screenwriter. Of course, as I say that, there's much more depth to his scripts that I'm calling shallow than those of the vast majority of movies released these days. I guess it's the disconnect between the remarkable depth of his visuals and the only somewhat deep scripts.

Ok, I saw “The Village” and I thought it was a decent flick. The least favorite of mine so far, but I’ve liked them all. FWIW, I totally agree about Tony’s criticism of the shots of the trees- that was very distracting and really broke the flow of the scene.

Now to Bitt’s discussion:

Quote:
They are all about the choices that are made beyond our control.

I don’t think this is true. Not that I don’t see the links, but I think it is more a byproduct of the stories Shyamalan is telling and his style than an overt theme. If there is any theme running through all his movies, it’s that perceptions may be wrong and should be challenged. He loves to “pull the rug” out from under the audience and do a quick reveal that challenges the perceptions of both the main characters and the audience. It is this trait that gives the “choices made beyond our control” thread that seems to run through all FOUR of his movies. In each movie there is some belief held by the main characters (and often the audience) that is controlling the actions of everyone involved. Or at least that’s my take.

Regarding those in Signs who have no choice but supposedly exist for the sole sake of the main character’s faith, this might be true or it might be something else. In Christian theology (on which I assume this movie was based) the idea is NOT that God causes car accidents, failed dreams, illness, etc. The belief is that these are a result of the fallen world we live in (ultimately brought about my man’s choosing sin over God’s plan) but that God “works things out for the good of those who believe”. The Calvinism you spoke of merely states that man cannot choose to follow God without the enabling of the Holy Spirit- not that man’s actions are predetermined. In fact, it is mankind’s *choice* of sin that brought evil into the world. Of course, I really can’t say if Shyamalan had this distinction in mind (the difference between causing evil things and using evil things), but if he meant the latter then the tragedy’s effecting those around Graham were not brought about for his “faith adjustment,” God just used them for that.

All I mean to say is that I think you were probably right in your first understanding of Shyamalan’s intent in “Signs”- that it was about one man’s faith not the effect that has on those around him. The broader message (since I don’t really suppose Shyamalan is promoting Christian theology) is that whatever we believe or subscribe to our perceptions may not be correct and often it is our adherence to our misled beliefs that bind our actions.

I loved Unbreakable (right from the first time). Liked Signs and quite liked The Village (saw it just last night - in the theatre even). I thought the Sixth Sense was garbage. I'll watch it again, but I'm not looking forward to it.

I own Unbreakable and I'll buy Signs and The Village when it comes out.

I think Bitt has put a lot more thought into his theory than Shyamalan did. Or at the very least I don't believe Shyamalan had the same thoughts/theory as Bitt. I'm not saying the theory isn't without merit, but I don't have the same take. I also believe that something predestined doesn't preclude it from being uplifting which is something I did take issue with regarding the interpretation of Signs.

I try taking a much less analytical approach to watching movies these days. They either work or they don't (regardless of meaning). For instance, Spiderman 2 was watchable, but I don't really have any opinion regarding what the writer was trying to do other than make a quick buck. I'll say the CG was sub-par at times (like every scene that showed Spiderman swinging, jumping or climbing), but that's just a technical observation and comes from a different perspective than plot/thematic evaluation. Then there was the Stepford Wives which was just plain terrible in every respect. Story, acting, pace, plot, you name it.

As an aside, I did see some intersting previews and was quite shocked I didn't see any commercials prior to the showing.

Bruno

This is funny:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0804/thevillage.html

Bruno

On the other hand, Spider-Man 2 was written by a Pulitzer Prize winner for fiction. (There's actually a reasonable amount going on there, too.)

One of my problems with the two latest Shyamalan films is that they seem to be written to a theme rather than progressing from a premise. They're too cerebral and calculated. So I'd have to disagree with the notion that he spent less time thinking about them than I did. But that does make them more interesting to deconstruct, even if it is just a passing waste of time.

The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay

Pulitzer Citation

Michael Chabon's IMDb entry

Just want to make it clear that I was joking

Sorry.

That's an interesting notion, too. I didn't mean to imply at any point, BTW, that my theory was the only theme being promoted in the movies. Regardless of whether I liked them or not, Shyamalan's films at least seem to have a lot of substance to them, unlike most other movies released these days.