On the people before and behind the camera. And the question of why it has become fashionable to hate M Night Shyamalan.
Poor Earth. You’d think it’s already bedeviled by an expanding population, melting icecaps, a shrinking ozone layer, and a few questionable nuclear programmes – and now Hollywood just won’t let it be. Two apocalyptic thrillers this summer – After Earth (note that damning preposition; not before, not during, but after) and World War Z – inflict unimaginable horrors on the planet. And yet, the biggest lesson that these films offer isn’t ecological or existential but sidereal: cast a big star and you won’t go broke. After Earth was hit by dreadful reviews that just stopped short of leaping off the page, rolling themselves up and smacking potential viewers on the head. (The Wall Street Journal’s Joe Morgenstern began with this question: “Is After Earth the worst movie ever made?”) But the film’s worldwide grosses, while not exactly spectacular, prove that Will Smith is a far way from being written off. Anyone can deliver a hit with a well-acclaimed, well-made movie. But to steer a bomb away from total career-annihilation? That takes a real star.
The bigger revelation, though, is how the tide has turned against the film’s director. After I watched the movie, I was baffled. Why were the reviews so toxic? Has M Night Shyamalan Bashing become an accepted sport? The film I saw was nowhere close to great, but it was nowhere as terrible as the reviews suggested either – and the one thing that stands out is the direction. Look at the storyline. A man and his son (Will Smith and Jaden Smith, whom The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw lovingly described as playing the role with a face like a smacked bum) crash-land on an dangerous planet named… Earth. Father is hurt. He cannot move. Son has to trek to the tail of the craft and retrieve the signaling beacon, using his survival skills while avoiding dangers along the way (giant creatures, breathing trouble, extreme cold, and so forth). Nothing extraordinary here. A linear story. No surprises. Essentially a glorified video game. As plots go, all this one needs is a PlayStation.
But Shyamalan makes it a movie. In a sense, he is very much a director-for-hire here, but After Earth is not as shockingly impersonal as, say, the recent films of Tim Burton have been. (After Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Alice in Wonderland and Dark Shadows, hasn’t the once-great Burton come to resemble a… director-for-hire, replacing a genuinely personal vision with a generic blockbuster template?) This is still the work of the Shyamalan who became known to us through The Sixth Sense, and went on to make his greatest film, Unbreakable, before setting out on a path of diminishing returns. But even his worst films – I haven’t seen The Last Airbender, so I cannot talk about that – have been characterised by a very distinct (and yes, personal) style, whose signature elements are a slow, spooky pace, a father figure crippled by stasis, and careful employment of background music. And we are slowly sucked into this ridiculous premise. Anyone can make a movie from a well-written script. But to steer a potential bomb away from implosion? That takes a real filmmaker.
How can critics not see that the problem lies not with Shyamalan’s filmmaking skills but with the material (which he either writes himself, with increasingly painful “twist endings,” or is handed over)? And what would he do with something like World War Z, which could use all his signature tricks? This isn’t a video-game premise, though it certainly sounds like one with its one-line summary of zombies attacking the good people of… Earth. And in the Brad Pitt character, we have another father figure in stasis, someone with a certain power but unwilling (or unable) to use it at present. Had Shyamalan made the film (instead of Marc Forster), would it have gotten worse reviews? I realise I am harping on the same point, but I simply cannot get over the reviews for After Earth, which suggest something larger at work than just the response to a somewhat underwhelming film. Haven’t these critics seen worse films? Haven’t they seen Battlefield Earth?
Now that I’ve let off steam that’s been building for a while, World War Z is another film whose box-office prospects were brightened by its star, who now has a terrific track record of opening unusual mainstream films like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Moneyball and Inglourious Basterds. World War Z isn’t a headache-inducing special-effects extravaganza, but a thoughtful little action movie with a mother who instructs her husband to not indulge in shop talk in front of the kids, and a father torn between saving the world and saving his family. Yes, there are crowds of zombies who, provoked by noise, churn with the force and the liquid ease of tidal waves – but nothing about the way the film has been made screams blockbuster. Nothing except Pitt. Even when he’s playing a hero on a human scale, he’s able to make a more impressive statement than the star of a superhero movie. Anyone can make a hit by saving… Earth. But to attract hordes of ticket-buyers by playing a version of themselves? That takes a real star.
Lights, Camera, Conversation… is a weekly dose of cud-chewing over what Satyajit Ray called Our Films Their Films. An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2013 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
sanjay2706
June 28, 2013
One other guy whom I can think of is Abhishek Bacchan. He isn’t as bad an actor as he is projected to be.I think there are many people who bash people just for the sake of it.
I know few people who rave about Vijay Sethupathy without seeing his work. It’s the herd mentality that makes people give such opinions.
LikeLike
Shankar
June 28, 2013
Baddy, over here, it has been known for a few years that Night bashing is an accepted sport. Nobody gives him any credit. “After Earth” was nowhere as bad as it was portrayed to be.
The only positive review I read was in Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/05/30/review-after-earth-is-m-night-shyamalans-impersonal-declaration-of-competence/
Some of the reasons include that ridiculous marketing campaign he was part of before “The Village” released though that film is a personal favorite of mine. It has numerous flaws, but man, the pacing, the camera work, the score….as you put it, it’s such a personal style! In all his movies (I haven’t seen Airbender too), that’s one thing I enjoy…a guy who is sure of his craft. The supporters that he has in mainstream media have all been clamoring for him to get a screen-writer. And, he does have his share of loyal supporters, however small a group they may be.
However, the vitriolic ones have painted him to be very arrogant citing his move between studios for “Lady in the water” etc. The truth lies somewhere in between. However, for all the mass budget, packaged films that Hollywood churns out, a film maker who has such an intimate style of film making should not wither away. That’s my only wish!
LikeLike
vinjk
June 28, 2013
Like you, even I feel Unbreakable was brilliant. The last airbender was really really bad esp. the dialogues. But even then I never found Shyamalan Night a bad filmmaker. There have been far worse movies than his. His overall filmography comes somewhere in the mid range in terms of quality.
LikeLike
Saikumar
June 28, 2013
When the ‘After Earth’ promos appeared in the theatres, i did not realise that the director was Shyamalan for a long time. It appears that was an intentional ploy by Sony, as they felt that the Shyamalan branding would turn away the audience (inspite the fact that all his films have done well commercially if not critically).
Been a fan of Shyamalan ever since ‘Sixth Sense’. Only movie of his i have been disappointed with is ‘Happening’, which i felt would have worked if it had some better lead artist performances. Otherwise, i loved even ‘Lady in Water’, which the US critics tore into shreds.
Agreeing with you that ‘Unbreakable’ is a masterpiece.
Read somewhere that he is working on an ‘Unbreakable’ sequel with Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson again. Looking forward to that.
LikeLike
skb
June 28, 2013
1. the zombie in the lab at wales was kind of cute
2. There is an incubation period for a bacteria to get to work before a person falls sick. Makes one wonder what kind of lightning fast strain Pitt injected himself with.
3. It amuses me that Pitt appears to be the harbinger of death and destruction to whichever city he goes , esp. how jerusalem is screwed as soon as he arrives there.
LikeLike
Shankar
June 28, 2013
I feel one of the other reasons why Night is being bashed so much here is because he doesn’t tow the Hollywood line. All his films, until now, have been filmed around his base, Philly. He prefers working out of the East Coast and is not part of the “crowd”. He is considered an outsider in more ways than one. He prefers his own material and at one point was hailed as the next Spielberg by Time. All of that is enough to make people want to pull him down, without fully exploring the merit of his work. Slowly he is turning into a cult, with a small group of passionate followers with the larger masses only interested in bashing him. He has faults, no question…but who doesn’t?
LikeLike
Vishak Bharadwaj
June 28, 2013
Im finally commenting here after two years of reading!
Somehow I feel I deserve a say on M.Night.
I actually feel shyamalan is a great director but a horribly incapable writer whose films reek of cliche’d dialogue and in your face morality. That isn’t always bad for melodrama. But thrillers?
In ‘unbreakable’, after the train accident Bruce Willis asks the doctor why he’s staring at him ,and the doctor replies,” the reason I’m staring at you is because……”.
The sheer stupidity of that line stunned me.
And believe me the last airbender is so bad it almost physically hurts. Horrible acting and writing.
He is a genius. But he’s got a big ego and is immune to constructive criticism. His faults, minute in the beginning magnified themselves to unbearably OTT. He sorely lacks subtlety in his themes and its becoming less subtler in each of his films. He needs to hire a writer. Desparately.
That said, Signs is a masterpiece in my eyes and the day I saw it I was convinced he was the next Hitchcock (although I’m less optimistic now ). His ability to induce fear out of thin air is nothing short of brilliant.
End of Ramble.
LikeLike
Ravi K
June 28, 2013
When I saw the trailer for The Happening (or maybe it was Devil, which he wrote and produced), people in the theater laughed/groaned when “from the mind of M. Night Shyamalan” appeared on-screen.
The backlash against MNS happened because he was being touted as the next Spielberg and whatnot, and a brand was created around him, and then people grew tired of it. While I haven’t seen any of his films after Signs, I have a hard time believing they’re as dire as people claim they are. He has a sure-footed sense of pacing and imagery, and he comes up with some interesting premises. What I’ve heard about The Happening does sound pretty ridiculous though…
The Last Airbender and After Earth are director-for-hire projects, even though he also wrote them. I’d like to see what he does with a writing partner on something he’s more passionate about directing.
LikeLike
Mambazha Manidhan
June 29, 2013
Exactly. Also, After Earth is engaging and is thematically sound as well. It is by no means a summer blockbuster as it has been marketed.
World War Z. I am not one to usually crib about product placements, but that blatant Pepsi thing was groan inducing. It seemed gratuitous and out of place at least for a moment in an otherwise tense climax. Here was me leaving the film thinking couldn’t he have made the loud noise first and then stopped to take a sip.
LikeLike
vpjaiganesh
June 29, 2013
Saw the disney telugu movie (anaganaka oka veerudu)with siddharth and shruti hassan last night and wondered why it was criticized so much – the amalgamation of a disney template into a pseudo medieval Indian myth (that Telugu movies of the yore so lovingly churned out in hundreds) with fantastic visual effects – decent music – what else do they want from it? One flew over cuckoo’s nest? Sometimes some critics should be paraded into an alley of film makers with stone in their hands.
LikeLike
Sanjay Shankar
June 30, 2013
skb: Please leave a spoiler alert if you are going to reveal plot details.
LikeLike
auroravampiris
June 30, 2013
Interesting. But yeah, I’ve always thought reviewers had this tendency to think with a hive mentality, especially for something as subjective as art.
But as for M Night, well… the thing is, he’s excellent at making allegorical tales that are… explicitly allegorical. Every single one of his movies (prior to The Last Airbender) has been ABOUT something MORE than it is about SOMEONE. It’s his thing – that’s what he does. His characterization is often inconsistent (and his dialogues groan-inducing) but it serves a larger purpose – to illustrate his theme. About isolation, about the false appeal of heroism, about father figures.
I feel like The Last Airbender, as well as After Earth, needed a director who was more about characters than themes – because as much as I love Avatar (the animated series), it’s only fun when it’s about the epic adventure the kids in the series have. The themes are slightly cliched. Same with After Earth – “overcome fear by overcoming humanity” is a bit too heavy-handed for most people, not to mention entirely and utterly repulsive to others (people in the West generally like their humanity and flawed nature, thank you very much). As such, it needed a director who could really milk the father-son angle.
And much as I like most of Shyamalan’s early output (The Village, Signs, Unbreakable, Sixth Sense), IMO, he wasn’t the right choice for this. That said, I have no idea why people seem to be so hostile to him. The Schadenfreude is strong with this bunch.
LikeLike
joe tempo
July 3, 2013
Agree with Vishak Bharadwaj. Shyamalan’s ego got the better of him. And it would not be a stretch to say that the real reason behind Mr.Rangan supporting Shyamalan, is the same reason he suspects the critics don’t. His ethnicity. Having a personal style does not excuse making horrendous films. Had Mr.Rangan actually sat through Mark Wahlbergs antics in The Happening? I happened to catch it midway on the telly and thought it was low rent end-of-days spoof – till it became clear they were not joking.
@sanjay2706 – Shyamalan may have lost his way but had talent. Please don’t do him a disservice by comparing him to the bachchan sod.
LikeLike
brangan
July 3, 2013
vinjk: His overall filmography comes somewhere in the mid range in terms of quality.
Absolutely. Even if he never reached the levels of “Unbreakable” again, there are far worse films around that don’t get bashed as much. Saying that a film is bad is par for the course, but few filmmakers seem to get torn apart with such glee.
LikeLike
Arvind S Srinivasan
July 14, 2013
Yet to watch ‘After earth’. But I really felt I watched a good one in World war Z. But coming to think of it the movie does follow certain patterns of a hollywood blockbuster. A protagonist dubbed as the saviour of the earth by his friend and UN general sceretary, he making all the right moves to the level of escaping an air crash almost unscathed, the climatic part where a bacterial infection sets in at a record time. And I felt the movie played to the pysche of the people perfectly. Almost a virus like attack on the minds of the people. Fear can be captivating you know. A similar movie that was based on finding the origin of a virus was the 2011 release, Contagion. For me that was more objective in its aim as a movie than this one….
LikeLike