filmaven

A few episodes as good as anything ever on the Treks.

As a former lawyer and one who fell out of love with the law, the way that this show discusses the machinery of the law struck a strong chord with me. While we have seen much of the legal procedural that this show portrays elsewhere, I also loved the very real and complex relationships within an extended and blended African American family, where the mother and father are legal professionals, and there is the shadow of trauma and loss in the background. I love that they are intelligent, sensitive and caring people, they are also very fallible. The writers tempt us to see these and other characters hidden motives as evil, but it is an intentional trap; there really is little true arch evil in the world - just the damage that comes from assumed and apparent evil. Highly recommended.

I usually agree with Ebert about 98% of the time, but he is dead wrong here. I seem to be out of synch with EVERYONE on M. Night films, which I love, see in theaters and buy as soon as released on DVD - I can't say that for any other modern director. I thought The 6th Sense was his least effective film. I found it very conventional in Hollywood terms in many respects, and I saw through its conceit in minutes. Shyamalan's films have grown progressively stronger since. Many have criticized Shyamalan for an alleged lack of reality in his films, e.g., the "Achilles heel" of the alien creatures in signs; but as in this film, I believe those critics have missed the point and architecture of Shyamalan movies. M. Night poses for the viewer an internally consistent set of rules - like in comics, the rules may be (somewhat) implausible in real life, but he does not cheat on them once set (Many of Hitchcock's films require you to suspend disbelief, not to mention the Twilight Zone, Star Trek, most comic books, etc.) The viewer's sense of reality and the set up for the twist arises from the emotional truth of the characters, and therefore depends heavily on the acting abilities of the cast (probably why I was not fooled by The 6th Sense - somehow Bruce Willis tipped his hand to me, perhaps because it was hard for me to buy him as such a passive character - unless there was some physical reason he could not effect change in his life).

I note that everyone seems to acknowledge how scared/creeped out they were by the movie, but then disappointed when the twist was revealed. Does that make the earlier fear any less palpable or real when experienced? Do you still believe in the bogeyman? Or do you deny that you had a night light when you were a tot? CGI does not make the monster any more real - it is all just light pictures on a screen.

I think that as a culture, many are predisposed to reject the innocence of The Village's characters; we have lost so much innocence in our society, that those from a more innocent place seem almost like another species rather than another time or culture - we need others to be as corrupt as we are in order to justify our own corruption. Part of my childhood was spent on a farm in the rural south; and the secrets and lies (incl. religion, to which M. Night alludes but does not state, but in the current political clime wisely sidesteps confronting it) employed by elders to "protect" the younger generation and maintain social control rang particularly true for me. Also the theme that even in a utopia, the darker side of human nature will out, even in the most seemingly innocent creatures (Caliban?). The Village is by no means perfect, but there is deep emotional truth in this film. In support thereof, there are also astonishing performances, esp. by the young lady, Bryce Dallas Howard (Saints be praised that Kirsten Dunst was otherwise occupied). I deeply hope M. Night stays true to his vision and continues to make "horror" films about the human condition.