The Village (2004) (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

Rodney

This is the DISCUSSION thread for The Village. Spoiler tags are NOT required in Discussion threads.

Have you even read any of the discussions in this thread?

 

[Alex Spindler]

Rodney,
I truly wouldn't have posted any of what I've said if it wasn't the discussion thread. Nobody should be reading this thread (or any film-specific Official Discussion Thread) at all if they haven't seen the movie. That's basic HTF thread policy as I understand it.

Minor edits for those new to the HTF.

 

[Robert Crawford]

As stated, those participating in Official Discussion threads, do so at their own risk, once a film is released to the general public. However, spoilers should be utilized in the Official Review threads, so that people can get a general idea about a film, without specific film details effecting their potential viewing pleasure.







Crawdaddy

 

[FredK]

If this really blows up in MNS face he'd be wise to do some research and buy the rights to whatever it may be in the future (as Lucas did for SW, and I'm sure many producers do all the time for their works). If things are that close, even if by coincidence, they should be reconciled beforehand.

I didn't think this would be a big thing, but that's a good sales run for a book so I guess the publisher may have a go at it.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Alex, interesting post. But before I address your points, I would like to know where you stand on the following plot points in other films as I may be able to save both of us some time (Spoilers ahead):

The Lord of The Rings: Did you also question that if Gandalf can ride a flying creature, then why didn’t he just take the ring from Frodo and dropped it in Mount Doom in the first place and avoided the additional 6 hours of the film? Or did you just go along with the story’s plotline and accepted it and why?

Before Sunrise/Before Sunset: Did you also question why these two characters did not exchange full names, phone numbers or addresses if they really liked each other before they parted, therefore after nine years, they wouldn’t have any regrets? Or did you just accept the predicament they were in as presented in the storyline and why?

The Sixth Sense: Did you also question why the mother of a 10-year old kid let’s her little boy frolick around the city on his own going to other people’s houses uninvited, etc.? As you put it, as an underage boy, I'd think social services would want to have a word with his Mom who has been neglecting him. Also, I’d like to know where he got the fare to ride the bus with Willis and was able to find the deceased person’s house on his own as both weren’t shown or explained in the film. In addition, did you also question why a mother cannot hear her son talking to someone else in the living room while she herself is only in a room next door, when from her perspective, no one was actually there with his son in the first place? Or did you just accept these situations, as well, and why?

Memento: Did you also question why the protagonist with a short memory loss is ABLE to remember that he has a short term memory loss condition? Since the entire film hinges on this critical plot point, did you accept the director’s explanation to this situation as well or did you not and why?

~Edwin

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

By the way, I also just ran into your first comments on the film:


That gives me a better idea as to where you are coming from but please answer my earlier post first.

~Edwin

 

[Chris Harvey]

Edwin, I think you're being specious here... either that, or playing fast and loose with what VILLAGE detractors are bothered by.

It is not one single anomoly. It is not that we need every little thing spelled out. It is that Night, based on his choices of structure and story content, focused far too much attention on what we feel is a weak payoff to the detriment of the rest of the story and character development.

In many cases, this issues are not because we're idly demanding full documentary-style information, but because of how Night chose to reveal certain plot points and, in fact, what he chose to reveal.

Your mileage may vary -- for me, a one-line "oh, we bribed the government so there are no fly-overs" simply doesn't fly (no pun intended), based in part because Night is asking us to accept that the "real" world outside of the Village is the same one we live in. So, with this one-line explanation, he's asking us to believe that some payoff actually controls various government, especially since there are only two choices: a 30-old lump sum payment, or a regular and consistent payoff (which seems dubious given William Hurt's given up the world and hangs out in the village).

I'm not one to niggle over real-world details, usually, and I'm totally willing to give the film the benefit of the doubt.... up to a point. I ask that they also play fair with me, however. And to me, Night didn't. I believe the comments that I, Alex, Quentin, Scott, and others have made are valid enough not to be dismissed by a smug reply about plot-holes (whether real or not) in other films.

If the ones in THE VILLAGE didn't bother you, that's totally cool. There are plenty of films I enjoy that I willingly accept have problems (whether plotholes, dubious characterization, or what have you). But to repeatly deny that these issues exist (to a degree that they bother a significant chunk of the viewing audience) is disingenuous.

 

[James_Kiang]

I've been following this thread for a while now, but have resisted posting because I just wasn't confident I'd get my point(s) across as clearly as I'd like. I'll go ahead and take a stab at it now.

First, my overall opinion of The Village is mediocre. I liked it more than Unbreakable and Signs, not nearly as much as The Sixth Sense. I say this just to give some measure of what I've felt about Shyamalan's films. I did not go into the movie looking to compare it to his previous efforts, at least not on a conscious level.

In terms of story, I found The Village to be mostly predictable.
- Noah stabbing Lucius was well-shot, but I figured something had to happen to push the issue of someone leaving the village for the towns. I just thought it would be Lucius who would leave, not Ivy. Moreover, it had been portrayed that there was some tension in the Noah-Ivy-Lucius relationship.
- The non-existance of the creatures was also mostly a moot point for me once they showed the one under the watchtower. My thinking was that if the creatures were real, that revelation would not be done on-camera until much later in the movie. Seeing one at that point in time - and to a lesser degree seeing the one approach Ivy and not harm her before Lucius grabbed her hand - cemented the fiction of the creatures for me.
- Once I determined that the creatures were not real, it was not a large step to come to think that the village existed in the present time. I do think this was meant to be a shcoking/"oh my gosh" kind of revelation, but it just kind of happened for me.
Was all this my fault for thinking too much during the movie and not just letting myself experience it? Perhaps, but that is how it is.

A major theme of the movie, IMO, is that isolation is not a viable solution to escaping the evils of the world. Human nature is in all people, and so even in a community designed to be "pure" there is sure to be some problems. MNS did succeed in this. There was violence, there was sickness, there was lust - both young and more forbidden (William Hurt and Sigourney Weaver), and so on.

The acting generally gets praised. I'll mildly disagree with that assessment. Someone earlier used the word "staged" - that sums up how I felt during some scenes very well. I did not buy that these were characters experiencing feelings, but instead saw them as actors trying to be those characters. I will give props to Joaquin Phoenix as I did feel he did a good job, but I do not hold Bryce Howard's performance as highly as many others do.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I am not denying that others have issues with the film. I am merely offering explanations to some of the problems that have been pointed out. Whether one accepts those or not I really could care less as long as I am able to point out the other perspective. But to repeatedly deny or dismiss that possible explanations exist and acceptable to others is also being disingenuous.

~Edwin

 

[James_Kiang]

I felt I was getting a little long in my previous post so I decided to do another here. The previous one dealt more with the film itself, this one deals with some issues I've felt because of this thread.

1 - The use of the word "hate". Sorry to beat a dead horse but I do have something to say. When writing on the internet, I think people - I know I do - try to be concise. Instead of writing "I really, really, REALLY, strongly disliked that movie" it is easier to say "I hated that movie." Laziness? Maybe, but not something I get bothered by. I don't think anyone who describes their feelings for a movie with that word mean it in the more distasteful, real-world sense.

2 - The use of the words "thought provoking". A movie can generate discussion without being thought provoking. I've found this thread to be more thought provoking than The Village itself because it's made me consider what I am going to type to a large degree. I feel that when people use these words to compliment a movie they are saying it is deep and has multiple meanings. IMHO, there really aren't that many movies are really are thought provoking. I do think, and not because of anything MNS has been quoted as saying, that he intended the movie to be "thought provoking" in my self-described complimentary use of the term. I just don't think it was, at least at that level.

3 - The attitude some people have displayed in this thread has been somewhat disappointing to me (I know, I know - you're really going to lose sleep ). This is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. I've felt many of the responses by those who really liked The Village to be dismissive, elitist, and - no offense - even pissy. No one (I don't think) who disliked the movie is trying to change the opinion of those who did. We're just trying to expound on our opinions beyond saying, "That movie really blew." I think everyone, regardless of what they think of this movie, would jump on someone who gave a minimal response with no supportive argument.

Last thing I'll say: Driving people away by being combative...wrong word, maybe dismissive is what I mean here again...does not make your opinion right, nor does it give you a "win" (not that I think that is anyone's motivation). All it does is stifle discussion and lead to people having preconceived ideas about your posts when they see your name. Without mentioning names, there was another JK on these boards who took all this to even more of an extreme, and he wore out his welcome eventually.

 

[Chris Harvey]

Edwin, evidently I took the tone of your post wrong. Sorry about that.

At the end of the day, I think it comes down to a simple matter: whether your overall enjoyment of the film (of any film!) outweighs any holes or flaws it has. If so, you'll willing to overlook them, or they never become an issue. If not, they consistently "interrupt" the film for you, and contribute to your overall disappointment.

As a side note: you mention what you feel could be various holes in THE SIXTH SENSE. While I didn't necessarily have an issue with most of them, there are certainly moments in TSS that I find dubious when considered outside of the twist; moments that are essentially staged solely for the audience but make little sense when viewed within the story. (Example: the early scene where Willis and Collette are sitting silently opposite each other when Haley Joel Osmont gets home. The implication is that they've finished a conversation; the reality is that she's seated alone with a ghost. How long has Willis been sitting there, and how much of an idiot is he for not realizing that she's not reacting to him?)

It's a relatively minor moment and it didn't affect my enjoyment of the movie, but IMHO it indicates the trend where Night has been heading... more and more scenes that exist "outside" the story, simply to mislead the audience.

Of course, the strength of TSS is that most of it *does* work within the story, making the twist all the stronger.

Again, your mileage may vary.

 

[Alex Spindler]

I think these are good questions overall, and I'll try to tackle them.

This seems an odd question to pose as the film specifically addresses that he can 'remember' his memory loss and other functions through conditioning and repetition, which transcends his short term memory (as with language and coordination). There is a specific dialogue section that deals with it, I believe. And the presentation of this fact was well presented in the film, as it was involved in the exposition of the lead as he was discovering the truth about his condition for the first time.

 

[Holadem]

"They only see what they want to see".

--
H

 

[Citizen87645]

I'm not in that camp, but I can see how that explanation could be seen as the equivalent of "We paid off the government to restrict air traffic."

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

It’s more of the latter. But overall, I agree with you.

Alex, I was hoping you’d at least dismiss one or two of those plot points I noted then I would have just called it a day in your favor. Now I’ll have to dig through your rather lengthy post. Alright, give me a few minutes.

~Edwin

 

[Alex Spindler]

Not trying to be combative. I'm in no way giving a free pass to the films, but I happen to think your examples are pretty well supported by each of your example film's tone and plot.

 

[Mike~Sileck]

Just saw this for the first time 2nite and spent the last half hour or so skimming this thread.

I enjoyed this movie alot. I did read the ending and what not before seeing it, so I went into the movie expecting a different experience than I would have had I not read things. I did not look for a scary movie, or a monster movie, and I'm glad I did not. Instead I was able to focus and let my mind wrap around the idea of whether these people were truly better off they way they had made their civilization. What do you guys think? Are we better off with cities and crime, or are the 1800's truly the utopia that this film presents them to be?

Ivy was amazing, and so was the violin. MNS's cameo just seemed forced.

Sure, there were some plot holes, but honestly I looked past them, probably because i knew about them way in advance, and was able to stop myself from harping on them during the movie, so I could truly absorb what his message really was.

Quick question, so when they (the elders) all stand up after the "If we truly want to stay in this village [not exact quote, i hope you get the idea, its at the end, by lucious's bed]" quote, does that mean they are going to keep the village, or not? Couldn't quite get this one.

Again, overall I enjoyed this movie a lot, and look forward to MNS's next film.

Mike

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Alex, you obviously put a lot of thought in your answers. Thanks. By the way, there are those who wouldn’t accept certain plot points for three of the four films I noted above. The film is ruined for them, unfortunately. I just didn’t know where you stood on all of this. By the way, I enjoyed every single one of those four films.

If I had just looked at your original comments, I would have said that the reasons you were disappointed by the film is understandable as these are the same reasons being given by a lot of people who felt the same way as you did (i.e. very little suspense, the twist didn’t work, not enough scares, etc.). I would have suggested to try looking at it from a different perspective and obviously you have done that. But I still think you are not quite there based on how I read your post. You still view the ending as a big twist.


The exception was given because the event that triggered this is the same event that some of the elders were originally running away from. They did not foresee this happening in their own pristine village. As such, they were shocked when it happened. (By the way, that is the correct usage of that word. Alright, enough of that. ) This is the first crime ever inside their village. It does not automatically open the opportunity for others to make the same journey. If the same crime happens in the future, the elders will have to cross that bridge then. The elders are not looking that far ahead into the future. That goes beyond what was presented in the film. In a romantic film, when they show the guy marrying the girl you don’t worry if the marriage is going to work or if they are going to get a divorce. The narrative stops when the film ends.


THE MONSTERS

As to the monsters: “Baboons abducted by alien beings are mutated into flesh eating indestructible creatures that prey on anything that wanders into their territory.”

To be honest, I can’t remember for sure if this was the description given to the monsters in the film. But regardless and going by the costumes that were made, the idea is to inflict fear to those who do not know, to keep them inside the village and maintain their way of living. To us, these monsters look silly.

When The Exorcist was first released, there were reports of people fainting and throwing up in the theaters. Moviegoers described it as the most terrifying movie/experience they have ever seen/been. When it was re-released to a new audience about three years ago, the new generation of moviegoers (kids) was laughing at the film. The level of what is supposed to be scary based on everything else that has been shown since the original Exorcist has now been raised. Do you think that Orson Wells’ War of the Worlds would work today? No. But people were in a panic when they first heard of that radio broadcast. To a certain extent we have been desensitized to fear and violence.

The elders knew this. In order for the fear level to work, their description of the monsters to their children must be as unimaginable and horrifying as it can be. To us who have seen a lot of monsters in movies, it is silly. But to these kids who have not seen a single monster in their lifetime, it is scary. To me, this element works.


THE FLYOVER ISSUE

Initially, the elders would have purchased a big enough land in the most remote part of this country as possible. It is also possible that given the estate being in the billions of dollars, Walker has established a trust fund to support the village. Having some knowledge in trust funds, this is not at all impossible. This trust fund has enough money in it or corpus to last a lifetime or in perpetuity. The fund is administered by a trusted and dear friend of the Walkers and elders outside of the village but never gets in touch with them. The corpus never gets touched and only the income from the fund is used to pay for operating purposes such as property taxes, guards and to pay off a government official or two.

Even if this explanation doesn’t work, it still doesn’t ruin the film for me. Besides, it is almost possible these days to do anything if one has that kind of money.


WHAT IF SCENARIOS

You presented a lot of what if scenarios and other things that were not shown in the film that I would consider trivial. And as I said before, I’d rather not comment on what the film might have been. The things you mentioned (i.e. small pox or tetanus infections, them moving into a low crime rural community instead, etc.) are outside the scope of the film. Shyamalan can’t possibly cover every single nuance in a community or in a story like this like you want him to. As for the costume changes one just accepts that the elders are able to get away with it much like for the same reasons that those other plot points I noted above from other films are accepted. Otherwise, the ruse would have been discovered by now and we won’t have a film.


FINAL THOUGHTS

In my view, Shyamalan is not asking us to judge whether the elders will succeed in this quest of theirs or not. It is more for us to consider the ideas and principles that are being advanced. What is scary to me though is the lengths that the elders will go just to maintain this perceived way of life (i.e. losing a child through illness without getting outside help even if it is available). In a way, Shyamalan tells us that maybe as a society, we are doomed. That there is no way to escape crime and violence. That crime will permeate any kind of society no matter how noble its causes are and how susceptible families are today to violent crime. But, for a brief moment, he has shown us how one can be created and possibly be sustained for a reasonable period of time until it starts collapsing on its own.

~Edwin

 

[Alex Spindler]

I can see where you're coming from, but I think it is a flawed approach.

If this is supposed to be a commentary that we can't escape crime and violence even in a utopian society, then I think it is irrevocably broken by having the only source of violence be from a retarded person. By not having it be from someone without mental illness, you're just presenting violence as a rare abberation. However, violence and crime are committed every day by ordinary and often non evil people.

Now, perhaps if MNS had chosen to have a regular suitor of Ivy stab him, it would be a credible reason to consider the constant presence of the worlds ills even in seclusion. But to push it off to someone with mental illness dulls any impact the same way as if they had a reveal that the other elder's child had died of a rare genetic disorder and then trying to make a point that they live under the constant threat of general illness. All it does is say there utopia is only under threat from extreme abberations.


And I have a hard time thinking about how this is about the preservation of family. The village elders have chosen to let their own children die and the events of the film are only presented because one elder has chosen, against the will of the others, to breach the wall for his daughter's and future son's well being. I can't see how that's a commentary on family. And I didn't get the innocence vibe because they all seemed to be running from violence and not from the corruption of society. I recall the one story about how William Hurt's father was especially good at earning money, and was killed for it. But they didn't appear to be talking about children who had died of drugs or had children underage or any other kinds of innocence.


It's just very hard for me to accept it as a discussion on a perfect society of innocence when we open the film showing the very faults that seem glaring, that being the threat they live under of their children dying, being unable to care for their sick, and then being driven to have stern rules about buildings and boxes that can't ever be opened and borders that can never be crossed.


As to the fear element, as a director, MNS has shown no small amount of skill maintaining suspense, especially as displayed in The Sixth Sense and Signs. For him to present a film with monsters at the borders, and to stalk his protagonist after the reveal that the monster isn't real, and follow that with a chase that wasn't very suspenseful is something I can't help but be disappointed with. You might argue that the film isn't meant to be scary and suspenseful, but to devote fifteen minutes to a girl being chased by a man in a suit and not intend for it to be scary or suspenseful is akin to have the agonizing bad motorcycle chase in Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever and then counter that it wasn't supposed to be thrilling or exciting.

To be honest about it, considering the situation they were living under, it would almost be more honest and genuine if there had been no monster costume but rather a curious geographic feature that created the historically scary whistling and creaking forest. The elders would only have to embed the story of the monsters and rely on nature to maintain the illusion. It bears up more effectively than the idea that they've maintained 20 years of Santa leaving presents under the trees without the children being the wiser. Sure he cookies and milk may have gone, but didn't I hear the stairs creak from mom and dad's room when Santa shows up?


I'm fairly sure he wanted to say something with this film, but I don't think it's very deep or effective. If he's trying to say we were better in the small town 1800s life, then it doesn't wash because it brings death and heartbreak just like normal. I remember reading that infant mortality was up to 50% in parts of Ireland during this time.

If his intention was that were weren't better off in that kind of world, it doesn't fly because he has Ivy come back and maintain the charade while presenting a convenient avoidance of outside interest despite Ivy's walkabout by having a very agreeable new guy guard who chooses to go into a shack with his boss stil in it and steal medical supplies and maybe even drugs.


Perhaps if he had taken some more time to develop the concept and script for the film before making it, he might have developed some poignant commentary for whatever he was interested in portraying. But there just wasn't anything in there that I could find to sink my teeth into.


All opinion of course, but that's what a discussion thread is for, right?

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

What Shyamalan intended worked for me. I'm sorry it didn't work for you.

~Edwin