Goldstein on Shyamalan
According to L.A. Times columnist Patrick Goldstein, what makes Michael Bamberger's "The Man Who Heard Voices" "especially damaging" is that Lady in the Water director-writer M. Night Shyamalan told Bamberger absolutely everything and let it all hang out. In so doing, says Goldstein, Night "violated Hollywood PR Law No. 1: Never let people see you as you really are. In an era when stars hide behind their handlers, who vet writers, limit their access and keep them miles away from any dirty laundry, Night let Bamberger see it all -- straight, no chaser."
This is an early July riff, I realize, and it's time to move on, but Goldstein's column just came out and I'm reacting
I said this before in my response to Janet Maslin's N.Y. Times review about Bamberger book, and here it is again. By giving Bamberger access to his insecure inner sanctum without restrictions, Shyamalan allowed for a portrait of "a vulnerable egoistic guy with problems -- a guy with a deep belief in dreams and voices (as all creative types need to be) but with control-freak tendencies and a need for a certain kind of approval that requires being not just rich but fully understood by colleagues; a guy with demons and uncertainties like anyone else, but amplified by the power he's accumulated as a big-time Hollywood director."
What I find very revealing is that Maslin and Goldstein and a lot of others in the media are contemptuous of Night's honesty. And they endorse and approve of people who carefully edit their public persona and spin everything up and down the flapgpole. They're actually standing on the side of the 2006 Generic Deceivers. We all recognize that everyone has to play the game this way if they want to survive, but why am I one of the few people to at least show respect for Shyamalan's willingness to let people see his trembling inner child? The guy may have problems, granted, but you can't say he doesn't have a kind of cast-iron courage.
And one other repeated point: take off the armor and we're all scared and anxious and messed up in this or that way, including myself and Patrick Goldstein and Janet Maslin and Michael Mann. The difference is that Shyamalan has the courage to confess this and Bamberger has the focus and discipline to just lay it down as he heard and felt it, and all Maslin and Goldstein can write in response is tsk-tsk, "not very smart", and a repeat of the John Lennon lyric, "Hey, you've got to hide your love away." How very big of them.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 25, 2006 at 11:48 AM
comment #1
christian says ...
this is absolutely correct. while m.night has an ego, the people gunning for him, executives and critics, don't like their veil exposed. vengeance is theirs.
Posted by christian at July 25, 2006 12:35 PM
comment #2
Dixon Steele says ...
Like anything else in Hollywood, if the movie delivered, there wouldn't be such a big deal.
I'm sure James Cameron's massive ego is no smaller than M. Night's.
But Cameron delivered big time with TITANIC. And Night came up WAY short with LADY.
Hollywood will forgive anything...but failure.
Posted by Dixon Steele at July 25, 2006 1:02 PM
comment #3
Markus R. Mueller says ...
I still don't understand all this hatred. Last week on the daily show Shyamalan seemed like a regular nice guy - I did not sense a big ego at all.
I guess he just tries to put himself up into the pantheon of great directors because to gain (and keep) artistic freedom and not to fall into the Weinstein-trap again like on "Praying with anger". That's okay with me.
And it's certainly no news that MOST artists/writers/directors/actors have a fragile soul and have often low self-confidence and are very vulnerable.
I applaud Shyamalans honesty in bambergers book
Posted by Markus R. Mueller at July 25, 2006 1:39 PM
comment #4
jjs says ...
Courage! Yes! Stones! Yes! Night definitely, good or bad, does things differently.
Posted by jjs at July 25, 2006 1:39 PM
comment #5
Round About M. Night says ...
Good for you, Jeffrey. I'm with you 100% here.
Posted by Round About M. Night at July 25, 2006 1:48 PM
comment #6
Rich S. says ...
Tom Cruise took off the armor and showed people what he's really like and that seems to be working out just fine for him...
Posted by Rich S. at July 25, 2006 2:06 PM
comment #7
CDS says ...
"Tom Cruise took off the armor and showed people what he's really like and that seems to be working out just fine for him...
Posted by: Rich S. at July 25, 2006 02:06 PM"
Winner.
Posted by CDS at July 25, 2006 2:13 PM
comment #8
Terry McCarty says ...
If I recall correctly, Night's problem with Harvey was on WIDE AWAKE, rather than PRAYING WITH ANGER.
Posted by Terry McCarty at July 25, 2006 2:19 PM
comment #9
Rod in Tallahassee, FL says ...
Is it working so well with Cruise? His performance in "War of the Worlds" was spot on, especially in the first hour or so - total prick and really great at all the reactionary stuff...yet some report that movie was a "failure" because of his Oprah antics and his mess of a conversation with Matt Lauer. Good or bad, he was Pat Kingsley's boy no more. Next? "Mission Impossible 3" which Entertainment Weekly hails as a "failure," though it has grossed over $200 million worldwide. And a lot of folk seem gleeful that the South Park episode that skewers Cruise is nominated for an Emmy. No one speaks of Cruise's "courage" not to be censored, and many snicker in private joy that a mega-star received his commupence.But Shyamalan is a poster boy of bravery? Have you seen his performance in this thing? Like another actor couldn't have played it? Writer-Director not big enough...wants to be Warren Beatty with the trifecta? Please. He needs some Coppola intervention like Jeff said, DIRECT SOMETHING YOU DID NOT WRITE- at least "Gardens of Stones" and "Dracula" and "The Rainmaker" shook him loose.
Posted by Rod in Tallahassee, FL at July 25, 2006 2:46 PM
comment #10
Markus R. Mueller says ...
Yes, of course! You are right, Terry. Thanks for the correction.
Posted by Markus R. Mueller at July 25, 2006 2:50 PM
comment #11
mark says ...
No. They're not contemptuous of his "honesty." They're contemtuous of his arrogance, self-righteousness and overblown view of himself. He's modestly talented. He'll be forgotten in five years. Or directing a series for Showtime...
Posted by mark at July 25, 2006 3:27 PM
comment #12
larry says ...
If Night has a talent, it's for whining and self-promotion. As a movie-maker, he's nothing much.
Posted by larry at July 25, 2006 3:34 PM
comment #13
Anonymous says ...
"If Night has a talent, it's for whining and self-promotion. As a movie-maker, he's nothing much." says the famous and talented "larry".
Posted by Anonymous at July 25, 2006 3:47 PM
comment #14
Anonymous says ...
I agree that Night's public revelation of his insecurities is in some ways brave, although clearly stupid. My major criticism that comes from the Bamberger book is that Night has enormous privleges, truly unique among writer-directors. Within 14 months of finishing his script he was able to finish his film with the cast he wanted at the budget he wanted and with complete control over every detail. When Disney has some criticism about the script, almost all of it justified in retrospect; he can just turn around and give it to the biggest studio in town, and have them instantly greenlight it. he has no creative interference from the studio, the producer is his hand picked man, everything is exactly as he wants, and this was the final result. Lady in the Water, accompanied by the book as a notes guide, is the best testament i know of for the importance of collaboration in the moviemaking business, and the real value of those so frequently derided suits.
Posted by Anonymous at July 25, 2006 6:13 PM
comment #15
Anonymous says ...
I've watched with fascination recently that the tide seems to be turning on The Village, with more and more people saying they like it. A couple of years from now Lady in the Water will be reconsidered in the same way. It is really quite good, much better than the Shyamalan-hating critics are saying.
Posted by Anonymous at July 25, 2006 6:39 PM
comment #16
Phil says ...
I don't think Night should have gone into all of that. I mean, everyone has their own issues and who wants to hear the smallest violins from someone else anyways. Give me a break. If you really look at it, being just middle class, my problems are no worse or more than anyone elses versus say someone in a tolatarian state or something. Or a parent who lost a child. Personally if you ask me, it's a bunch of whining and self absorbtion by Night when not talking about the problems he has (if you want to call them that) is all the better. No bravery there, just a bunch of whining.
Posted by Phil at July 26, 2006 7:00 AM
comment #17
Michael says ...
I find it very interesting that everybody attacks Night for being egotistical. so i guess that James cameron and Michael Mann and Steven spielberg and...oh the list goes on and these are just the directors. I guess all these people have no ego? come on, to be a director, to be the captain of the "ship" so to speak..to be able to tell hundreds of people what to do, where to stand...all these things would be impossible without an ego. does Night have an ego? of course he does. the only difference is that he isn't as good at hiding his.
but who cares? I don't.
Posted by Michael at July 26, 2006 7:01 AM
comment #18
Phil says ...
Well, I really your point is fine Mike but I think the real issue is the whining and such. His problems are no big deal ... the man came from a wealthy family, has had great deals of success, and made millions ... and God bless him for that. But when he whines about how his "issues" have affected him ... well, that's a bit over board. Either way, his films from 6th Sense to Signs were absolutely great.
Posted by Phil at July 26, 2006 7:56 AM
comment #19
Clifford Anderson says ...
mark is right. The knives weren't out for M. Night because he was honest. The knives were out because he's a CUNT.
Posted by Clifford Anderson at July 26, 2006 8:49 PM
comment #20
Anonymous says ...
Classy.
Posted by Anonymous at July 27, 2006 5:42 AM