The Village (2004) (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

Thank you, Edwin! I agree! This is precisely my feeling on these types of objections in film talk. If a person wants to, he can pick apart each and every frame of any film and ask "why this?" "how come that?" constantly, instead of sitting back and enjoying the film, and accepting the story as it's being told to him. Now, I'm not suggesting that there aren't sometimes where a plot point or incident in a film is totally impossible, but it's just that I'm always amazed when people analyze the "plausibility" or "likelihood" of so many things.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Edwin,
I'd have to ask what it was that you think he intended. In your previous post you said the film was about the preservation of family and innocence. Would you say the film is stating that The Village is the ideal that we should be striving for, obstensibly to preserve innocence and saftey for the family? Or that you should risk the utopia to help a family member survive?

 

[Chris Harvey]

This argument is as old as the hills, and unfortunately doesn't improve with time. It's not like people go out of their way to get annoyed at a time, or decide beforehand to nit-pick it to death.

The counter-argument (just as lame) is that all you people who blithely accept everything you see are a bunch of sheep who refuse to think for themselves and happily accept anything you see on screen.

 

[Carlo_M]

Not Edwin, but I'll tell you what I took away from the film.

We live in an increasingly dangerous world. Now whether or not the idealistic village they chose to create *ever really existed* (none of us were around in the 18th-19th century) is irrelevant. They wanted to live a more innocent lifestyle, away from the daily horrors which surround us.

To me, that is a perfectly understandable goal.

However, to keep the people in tow, the creature-myth was created. This to me was the least unimportant part of the film, which is why when people say they were disappointed with the creature, or figured out who/what the creatures were, I don't really relate. I figured this out early on too, but it didn't really seem to matter.

The poignancy was the relationship of the Villagers to each other, and especially the Lucius/Ivy relationship which I felt was the strength of the film. Hurt's performance isn't really appreciated until you know the "reveal".

But, as we find out in real life, we can never escape true evil, and when a crime threatens to kill one of their beloved children (their future, and Ivy's love) it is time to risk everything in order to save him. They never allowed Lucius to leave to get medicine because the previous victim was not a victim of crime, but of "naturally occurring" disease (it was never specified). Thus that didn't warrant the risking of the secret, as death is a part of life. However, crime was exactly what they chose to escape, and now it had found its way into their village. Hurt chose to send Ivy and entrust her with the secret, because someone needs to know in order to continue the life when the elders pass. He arms her with the information she needs and though she knows the creatures aren't real, she will be out of her normal territory and that in and of itself is frightening enough.

So to me, this movie is the search for innocence, then innocence lost, and the attempt to try and regain it. The reveal (or twist) were immaterial to me, that wasn't what the movie was about.

And though I spent most of the time describing the Village life, it was really the love between Lucius and Ivy which I felt was the most compelling part of the movie.

 

[Carlo_M]

You really believe that people go into all things with no preconceived notions? Why does the term "preconceived notions" exist if such a thing never occurs?

 

[Chris Harvey]

I never said anything about preconceived notions. Speaking only for myself, I don't go see movies I'm not interested in and expecting to enjoy.

I didn't walk into THE VILLAGE with an anti-Night chip on my shoulder. Nevertheless, I was underwhelmed in practically every non-technical way.

 

[Carlo_M]

Your statement was really unclear to me, then. You said:
which to me means preconceived notions. So you did say something about preconceived notions though you don't use the term. And by your statement it is really impossible to tell you are only speaking about yourself ("It's not like people...").

You were underwhelmed and that's fine. I am not out to convert you. But your statement seemed more like a generality than a personal statement, hence my response. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Tim Glover]

I ordered the soundtrack to The Village last week and it arrived just before I left town on Friday.

The film itself was disappointing to me but I remembered how effective and beautiful the score was.

In 2 words: Absolutely Breathtaking! Composed by James Newton Howard. Featured Violinist Hilary Hahn is the star here.

I'm quite a film score fan and this one is very different. However it's one of the most original and richest scores I've ever heard. The main theme is heard in a few of the tracks but in slightly different ways.

My favorites:

Track #1 Noah Visits
# 2 What Are You Asking Me?
# 5 Will You Help Me?
#6 I Cannot See His Color
#7 Rituals
# 8 The Gravel Road (beginning 2 minutes of track are gorgeous)
# 11 The Vote

I personally feel this score is the best of 2004, with John Debney's The Passion Of The Christ score a close second. Both should get Oscar nominations.

If you want to hear a truly rich soundtrack, give this one a spin.

 

[CharlieD]

While I didn't loathe this movie to the extent that some people apparently did, I also did not really enjoy it. It wasn't solely because of the ham-fisted moral, although the lack of subtly didn't win it any points with me. My biggest issues are with the story or the direction. M. Night, a director who I have mixed feelings about*, seemingly makes strange and detrimental choices at almost every key moment in the story.

Such as:

Why do they speak in such an obviously antiquated manner? It was bothersome long before I realized that is wasn't 1890, and once I did, it made even less sense. I know some people on this board have tried to relate this with their own experiences in moving to a new country, but that analogy doesn't fly. These people weren't trying to mix into an existing society. They were creating an entirely new one, albeit based on a historical lifestyle. There is no reason for them to change their speech aside from purging it of modern terms and things that would remind them of the society they were escaping. Affecting a stilted and awkward style of speech just seems impractical and without any benefit, not to mention that it was a hurdle the actors didn't clear with much grace.

Also, at no point in this strange "exploration of fear" does M. Night establish what tactics the elders use to create such fear. Aside from walking slowly through the village in Lord of the Rings costumes, which I gathered was a very rare event, what were the stories that instilled and maintained this fear? In drawing comparisons with the intended terrorist parallel, there was a specific event (9-11) that instilled the fear. If you make the comparison with the religious fear that would have been the norm a century ago, there are stories about witches and devils, the wrath of God, eternal damnation and all that jazz. If M.Night wanted to explore fear, where are these crucial parts of the equation?

Assuming we buy into the whole monsters in the woods setup, where is the conflict in act 2? The reason this movie feels so slow is because NOTHING happens between the end of act one and the start of act 3. Really nothing happens at all until the start of act 3. I mean you expect nothing to happen in act 1 - we are just setting the stage, introducing the characters, etc., but after the monsters show up the first time, it should be time to start moving... nope. This did make the ending less of a twist for me since it felt like 100 years had actually passed while I was sitting in my thankfully plush theater seat.

In retrospect wouldn't the dynamic of the elders fighting about the "oath" and the "choice to move away from society" have been a much more interesting one? There would be pleanty of scenes ripe with potential conflict? One elder had just lost a child because of the oath, another has a son who wants to go get help, they are still trying maintain the ruse and perpetuate the fear, Hurt and Weaver's love, baggage from 30 years ago. I am not saying lose the love story, but put it in its rightful place - as a subplot.

If it wasn't for the spectacularly well done stabbing scene, act 2 could be prescribed as a sedative.

In act 3, the undermining of the potential to terrorize the girl (and us) in the woods seemed a particularly peculiar choice. If it was supposed to have some deeper meaning, it was lost on me. But again, if we had established better some dissension in the ranks of the elders early on, it would have been entirely possible that the "monster" in the woods meant her some harm. But because we knew it was fake there was no terror or fear, only confusion.

The very idea that the father would send his blind daughter out, rather than going himself is preposterous. What is the advantage here? She has no idea what she is going out into. He at least could navigate through the modern society undetected. He could slip out make his way to a city and return undetected. The only way she can succeed is if some kid happens to run across her while she scales the wall and decided not only to help her out by stealing some medicine and giving it to her, but also never telling another living soul about it. Seems unlikely, but of course it happens.

In the end, despite the excruciating second act, I didn't completely dislike the movie because Howard and Phoenix were exceptionally good. After it was over, as M. Night movies demand, I recounted the story with my twist-revealed insights and discovered that it was holier than Sonny Corleone at the end of the Godfather.

* Just for frame of reference. I liked The Sixth Sense but thought it relied too heavily on the twist, and so is not enjoyable after the second viewing. I think Unbreakable is fantastic in everyway. And Signs has its moments, but is ultimately undermined by its sappy and awkward ending.

 

[TonyD]

...edited

 

[Will_B]

I am resurrecting this thread now that the film is on DVD because I want to ask a question about a detail of the film:

Was it Brody's character who was flinging dead animal carcasses all over the place? Hurt's character said that the elders didn't know who was doing it -- Hurt's character thought one of the elders was disgruntled. But I guess it must have actually been Brody, right?

 

[Mary M S]

I believe that was indicated, when his mother states "The animals" when the parents find the floorboard opened.

 

[David James]

Was a rental for me, but I thought Hurt said the Elders took turns doing the carcass thing.

Regarding my impressions of the movie. I'm a slave to expectations. I had pretty low ones going in and it exceeded them. I thought it was "okay". As others mentioned, the more I think about it, the more "okay" it becomes. I may even rent it again. I had pretty high expectations for Unbreakable and I was greatly disappointed and ranks a very distant 4th of MNS top four. As for Signs, my thoughts during and since were it was comical (in the wrong ways) and down right dopey. Swing away, game a break I am able to suspend disbelief and accept a lot of what you might refer to as plot holes and logic lapses, but I thought Independence Day was National Geographic documentary material compared to Signs, but still ahead of the sleeping pill called Unbreakable.

Sixth Sense
The Village
Signs
Unbreakable.

Note - Having written this now, I decided I will see Unbreakable again and reserve the right to change my mind

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Different strokes for different folks - to me Unbreakable is far and away is his best film. Brilliant and I love JNH's score to this one.

 

[AlexCremers]

Great post, CharlieD. I just saw 'The Village' on DVD yesterday and, just like you, I find many aspects of it a little hard to swallow, especially the "parental-child-terrorize them no matter what" element. And Shyamalan did not put a lot of effort in making us believe in the unbelievable. For instance, a sick, cruel and oppressive cult leader controlling the community and its elders might have taken us a little further up the road. What kind of parent tells his child that it can only live on a field and if that child does not obey it will die horrifying deaths? What kind of parent puts on the most macabre costume and goes to extreme lengths to terrorize its babies? This sort of upbringing would mentally damage any soul beyond repair. Every parent knows this.

That said, the only Shyamalan movie that worked for me is 'Unbreakable'. But even here I really had a hard time with the film's intimate, domestic scenes. The whole father-mother-child atmosphere felt a bit thick. Here's a movie where the fantastic and spectacular moments are far more plausible than the realistic, so-called true to life family scenes.


------------
Alex Cremers

 

[John Doran]

well, this really isn't the place to discuss child psychology and parenting, so i'll just flatly disagree with you here - while it's certainly obvious that parents can traumatize their children, i didn't find it at all implausible that the children in the village could have been subjected to that kind of upbringing without suffering any profound emotional or mental damage.

 

[AlexCremers]

The story isn't taking place in the 16th century. Remember, these are not a bunch of barbaric people. They are modern and educated people who are escaping modern civilization for the good of the children. I can't believe those parents (all of them) would participate in such terror acts without asking too many questions. And if it's not abnormal behavior then the director/writer failed to convince me. It feels like a farfetched Twilight Zone episode to me.

 

[John Doran]

fair enough. which was my second point: you didn't believe it, but i (and others) did. and vive la difference.

 

[AlexCremers]

"vive la difference"

John, that's because perhaps you're not a parent.

They probably told them not to go into the woods because of wolves and bears and such. OK, I'll grant you a bogeyman on the loose or two. But to actually do those terror acts like they did in 'The Village' (frighten the children with horror costumes, marking the doors and skinning animals) is, well, not parent-like. Sending your blind kid into the vast woods to find a city isn't very parent-like either. I can't believe these parents wanted their kids to live in constant panic and fear. After spending a few weeks in The Village I would long to go back to the "normal" world.

Try to see it this way, John. Imagine a time or a place where people, in order to raise fine and lovely boys, called upon the name of the devil and that they speak of a place called hell where they shall burn eternally should they ever misbehave. Plausible? Yes.
Now, imagine that at night these same parents dress up in nightmarish costumes to impersonate the devil and give their children a good scary lesson for something they did wrong earlier that day. Plausible? I leave it up to you.

------------
Alex Cremers

 

[Will_B]

The kids are also, on the story level, manifesting the adults' way of dealing with the outside world - and these adults have been traumatized by the outside world. So they pass this on to the children. Albeit with a good intent.*

This is obvious, but: the way that Ivy happens to have gone blind, and her father is the one who has been blinding the next generation from the truth.

So if Ivy is embodying that adult's concept, then so is the fear being imprinted on the other children.

*And it seems like the increased "entries" into the town (which I grant you could be traumatic!) was a rare thing - being done now and then, but mainly on this occasion to counter the interest that the lead guy had in going out. Usually, everyone knew there was a truce in place that had lasted a long time, and everyone would be fine if everyone respected the boundary.