Moriarty on Night
This passage from Drew McWeeny's Lady in the Water AICN review got me: M. Night Shyamalan "seems to have cast himself as the Writing Messiah, a man whose words are so powerful that they will alter the very fabric of our reality. The character idea alone would be a little nauseating, but for Night to step in and play his biggest role in any film except his largely-unseen first film...and to have it be this particular role... this is what I mean when I say he invites the comments on his ego now. This would be like George Lucas insisting on playing The Emperor or Alfred Hitchcock playing Norman Bates. It's so lunkheaded you can't look away. God help me, I’m not exaggerating." Read the whole review. It's a mean one, but it has a thorough and perceptive examination of Night's egoistic artist psychology.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 22, 2006 at 9:20 PM
comment #1
BFE says ...
Except that The Emperor and Norman Bates are much bigger and more central characters in their respective films. The thing that surprised me about Shyamalan's character in this film, given all the ultra-negative advance billing, is how relatively minor the character was. Yes, he is the reason why Story is there in the first place, but ultimately the story is not about him. It was a mistake to cast himself, yes, but I think people are blowing this thing totally out of proportion.
Posted by BFE at July 22, 2006 10:12 PM
comment #2
Eddie says ...
I agree with BFE. If people didn't know, they wouldn't care. This is a lot better than, say, Eric Schaeffer casting himself opposite supermodels.
Posted by Eddie at July 22, 2006 11:14 PM
comment #3
Simon says ...
Shyamalan has earnt the right to try and fail - he *is* the Writing Messiah next to McWeeny, whose criticisms might hold some weight coming from a better writer, but they seem like major pot / kettle black sniping to the eyes of someone whose had the misfortune to read four of McWeenys 'scripts cum legally-distinct fan fiction'.
I'm serious. There was the 'Westworld / Matrix' ripoff. Then the 'Scanners / X-Men' ripoff. Then the 'Independence Day' ripoff. Then the 'Urban Legend / Flatliners' ripoff that featured a character going insane because their *computer failed to boot up*.
Tragic, tragic stuff.
Posted by Simon at July 22, 2006 11:38 PM
comment #4
Bob Arctor says ...
What's really sad and discouraging is how many critics and commentators seem to think they've "discovered something" by pointing out Night's cameo.
At the very most, he's having a little fun breaking the fourth wall by casting himself as the writer. In a story about stories, it's nothing more than a wink at the audience. But spare us any more psychiatric analyses of the "overgrown ego of M. Night Shymalan." He seems to be doing fine.
Posted by Bob Arctor at July 22, 2006 11:40 PM
comment #5
Thornhill says ...
Hitchcock wasn't Norman Bates, he was Cary Grant. This couldn't be any plaliner. Hence, his undying wellspring of angst. But M. Night Shymalan is no Cary Grant.
Posted by Thornhill at July 23, 2006 4:05 AM
comment #6
Thornhill take two says ...
plaliner=plainer
Dag nab it.
Posted by Thornhill take two at July 23, 2006 4:05 AM
comment #7
Greg says ...
Drew's analogy is a little weak. Now, had Shyamalan cast himself as The Guardian of Story, then we'd be on to something regarding his raging ego.
The questions is: Just because he didn't, would any of you put it past him?
(Take that as rhetorical or not...)
Posted by Greg at July 23, 2006 5:23 AM
comment #8
L.B. says ...
I prefer "Writer Jesus" as my friend described him. By the way, almost as entertaining as the movie itself is to sit outside of screenings as they let out and listen to audiences bitch about how much they hated it. It goes on for a while as this movie seemingly inspires people to stop in their tracks and tell each other.
Posted by L.B. at July 23, 2006 9:21 AM
comment #9
Chris H. says ...
I think it is pretty obvious that he cast himself as Writer Jesus as a joke. The guy has a pretty good sense of humor.
I actually kinda liked Lady in the Water. I thought its flaws were somewhat charming. I admire M. Night Shyamalan for sticking to his guns and trying to create a splash of originality in a sea of TV show adaptations and sequels.
Posted by Chris H. at July 23, 2006 9:27 AM
comment #10
Craig says ...
Am I the only one who didn't think Shyamalan did a bad acting job? If it was another actor in the part who gave the exact performance as Shyamalan, I doubt people would be picking him out for criticism.
Posted by Craig at July 23, 2006 9:57 AM
comment #11
Greg says ...
To Craig:
No one's criticizing his performance or the fact he gave himself a role.
It's the part he gave himself that is drawing such ire. It's as if Mel Gibson had played the role of Jesus in The Passion of the Christ.
Posted by Greg at July 23, 2006 10:49 AM
comment #12
Jojo says ...
Simon, don't forget that McWeeny ripped off the book 'Flicker' for that horrible John Carpenter Masters Of Horror episode 'Cigarette Burns'.
Posted by Jojo at July 23, 2006 11:16 AM
comment #13
jjs says ...
I don't know, I think Drew's got some sort of intense jealousy for Night's position in life. Why color a whole review with what you think a director should be doing if you had his status? "Bulletproofing" the story is one way to look at it, having a little bit of fun is another. I mean, who's to say what kind of movie Night should make? I think it's excellent the guy has the perseverance to get his wacky movies made. If you don't like him, great ... don't see his movies. Don't get pissed because he's not doing what you think he should be doing. As for things like the Sci-Fi Channel documentary and the book, I think those are not signs of an egomaniac ... I think those are signs of creative marketing. Love it or hate it, Night has gotten people to talk about his movie and the studio didn't have to pay for half the coverage the movie's gotten. I think Night's a pretty clever guy, I think he's convinced the world that he takes himself seriously, but I firmly believe for the most part, the guy's just having fun stirring the pot and making people talk as a side result of telling his stories. "Indefensible"...Drew's wrong. A movie like "Basic Instinct 2" is indefensible. "Lady in the Water" is very defendable, but if people don't like it, no one's going to convince them otherwise.
Posted by jjs at July 23, 2006 12:25 PM
comment #14
jjs says ...
And one more point, Drew's assertion that this movie needed to be a cultural phenomen is so off-base. Why can't the guy just make a movie? I don't think Night believes each movie he makes is a pivotal moment in the history of moviemaking, I think quite the opposite: he's said this is just a bedtime story he told his kids. Can't the guy try to make a fanciful, silly kind of flick? Why bury him for it? Again, I firmly believe all the ancillary behind-the-scenes nonsense is to drive people who wouldn't normally see the movie into the the theater seats. Everybody just needs to relax. It's just a movie.
Posted by jjs at July 23, 2006 12:33 PM
comment #15
Nikki Finke's Rack says ...
You think if Drew were getting paid by WB he would take shots at one of their guys? Just asking.
Posted by Nikki Finke's Rack at July 23, 2006 4:17 PM
comment #16
Anonymous says ...
That Revolution gig is gonna be ending real soon.......
Posted by Anonymous at July 23, 2006 4:37 PM
comment #17
Scott Mendelson says ...
Having just finally seen Lady In The Water (am annoyed, not because it was terrible, but because it was so close to being good), I have two thoughts...
A) I have always liked M Night's acting in his own movies. In terms of his alleged ego, he was smart enough to cut back on his own scene in The Sixth Sense because he didn't like his work. He was actually quite good in the very important role he had in Signs. And he was barely in Unbreakable and The Village.
B) As for the new movie (spoilers...)
.
.
.
I liked the arc of the writer played by M. Night. Whatever part ego played in the casting, it's not there in the character itself. His character is not this incredible, super duper writer, but rather a moderately talented thinker who's ideas will change the world, but not for the reason he thinks. His scene in the bathroom and his reaction to said development was probably my favorite scene in the film. It's a challenging idea and adds a dark undercurrent to the movie.
Scott Mendelson
Posted by Scott Mendelson at July 23, 2006 5:27 PM