Soggy All Over
Soggy All Over
M. Night Shyamalan's Lady in the Water (Warner Bros., 7.21) is some kind of disaster -- fanciful, leaden, disconnected. But underneath all the preciousness lies an egoistic obstinacy that I found strangely touching. Night wants so much to make something loving and penetrating and out-there brave, and the failure of the thing to even ignite, much less lift off the runaway, almost breaks your heart. Almost.
Lady has a good thing going inside of it -- a notion that average neurotics who lead inconsequential lives inside big apartment buildings can be selfless, gallant and resourceful -- but the fairy-tale plot feels cockamamie and pasted together, and the dialogue just kinda goes plunk. I wanted it to work, but M. Night just isn't a good- enough writer. Good screenplays never feel turgid and labored-over, and I've written enough shitty stuff to know what I'm talking about. And I'm sorry. Because I admire what Night's trying to do.
And yet I didn't much care for his coverage-restricting approach (only one camera angle per scene), which seems to emphasize rather than obscure Lady's script problems. And I was even bothered at times by Chris Doyle's cinematography, which seems eccentric (occasional non-focused shots, pointlessly "off" framing) in a kind of hip sell-job way so everyone will know what a brilliant dp Doyle is.
But we need to stop for a second and acknowledge that there's one third-act riff by Bob Balaban that's very good. He plays a smug, priggish film critic named Farber, and I I loved it when he tries to use cliched assumptions to fortify himself in an uh-oh situation. It's basically Night swiping at people like me, and saying "take the Pepsi Challenge and tell me who's got a bigger, braver heart -- guys like you or me?" The Farber scene is take-you-out-of-the-movie funny, yes, but at least it's that.
I tried three times to write a pan of Lady in the Water but it wouldn't come. That's because I'm torn. I admire Shyamalan for trying to do something really different by standing up on the balcony railing and balancing himself in front of millions. And I feel sorry for him getting pasted left and right for not only the failings of the film but also for Michael Bamberger's The Man Who Heard Voices, which Janet Maslin has called a puff piece but I feel is one of the nerviest tell-all books about the making of a film ever written.
But I also feel that Night has become arrogant and removed and that he needs to reshuffle the deck and start over.
Most people brave enough to see this film are probably going to lose patience with it early on, as I did. And then, I imagine, they're going to start hating it. Or falling for it like an obsessive, with the same kind of determination that Night had all through the writing and the shooting. The story doesn't work, but if you look at it like something that isn't supposed to "work" but weave a spell and take you someplace new and trippy, you might be okay with it.
Either you're the kind of viewer who finds it somehow enchanting when Paul Giamatti's character, an apartment building superintendent named Cleveland Heep, drinks a glass of milk and gets some of it on his moustache and doesn't wipe it off...or you're the kind of viewer, like me, who says, "Okay, I get it...a milk-soaked moustache and he doesn't care...a character bit...Heep is dreaming, irrational in a good way...but how many scenes are we going to have to look at this milky moldy growth on his upper lip? Wash it off, please!"
Lady is a fable about some lost people waking up and touching something vital and transforming. If you can't go with the bedtime story-ness of it, it won't work...it can't work.
I know this: any filmmaker who tries to explain an arcane mythology in the very beginning of his film with animation is in trouble right from the start. Night is saying to us, I tried to make my story work on its own simple terms, but the test scores showed people are confused so I've stuck this in to help you understand and get into the mood.
Everyone in Heep's apartment complex, located somewhere in the Philadelphia suburbs, is some kind of fuzzy eccentric. There's a tall chatty Korean girl (Cindy Cheung) and her mother, a guy (Bill Irwin) who sits in front of the tube 24-7, a one-sided bodybuilder (Freddy Rodriguez), a guy trying to write a big novel (Shyamalan) while living with his sister (Sarita Choudhury), a group of guys whose lives are about cigarettes and pot), a gentle guy (Jeffrey Wright) and an older woman whose face I half-recognized until I realized....wow, it's Mary Beth Hurt! 24 years ago she was blowing that young guy in the family station wagon in The World According to Garp ...what happened?
Heep is your basic homely lonely guy with a heart -- standard Giamatti stuff. And he comes alive when he meets Story (Bryce Dallas Howard), a "narf" who's been living somewhere under the swimming pool. A narf is a kind of muse -- a female life form whose task is to move people to accomplish something great. She's also trying to return home like E.T., and her big bugaboo is something called a "scrunt" -- a big snarly CG wolf with grass instead of fur.
She can be saved, however, by a guardian...only it's guessing game as to which person in the building will fill this role. Others will help her also -- a group called a "guild", a "symbolist", a "healer" -- but who are they? If Story fulfills her mission or is saved or whatever she'll be carried off by a giant eagle unless something called the "tartutic" stops her...wait a minute, I can't remember what this is or was.
My memory is definitely going, Dave. I can feel it. I'm afraid.
Most of the film is about Giamatti putting together the right answers and piecing together the snarf-vs-scrunt-vs.-tartutic legend as everyone bands together to save Story and their lives in the bargain. Fuck all this, I said after an hour or so. I might have felt more supportive if, say, Bob Balaban's film critic had turned out to be the guardian. But of course, Shyamalan has put "Farber" into Lady so he can show us what clowns and losers critics are, and that cynical know-it-alls know nothing. He may be right, but I had more fun with Balaban than any other actor or element.
I love this passage from Michael Atkinson's Village Voice review: "The film often has the driving tension of a paranoid psychotic, desperately trying to figure out the absolutely nonsensical. This isn't magical realism, it's pure magical thinking -- Shyamalan is mystically assuming that any idea or image that pops into his skull will make a shapely tale, no matter how much cock-and-bull logic he has to invent to Gorilla Glue it together."
But there's something about the goofball tone of this film that I half-liked. Not the puzzle parts or the people finding their purpose in life parts, but...well, the feelings of togetherness and community. That sounds sappy, I realize, but people need to pool their resources to save narfs and beat back the scrunts. Or at least, the people in my building do.
There will be some who will be appalled at Night's visionary obnoxiousness in this film. I can't argue with anyone calling this his worst movie ever -- it obviously is -- or maybe one of the most embarassingly "off" studio-produced films ever made.
There will be others, I'm guessing, who will be taken with it. Maybe it'll find a family audience...people taking their kids. I think it's too complex to appeal to eight year-olds but maybe not. And there will be others, like me, who will feel this way and that way -- mostly not liking it, feeling frustrated for the most part, sometimes getting angry with it, but at the same time going, "Gee, this is too bad....if only it had worked."
Night has to forget about writing and just be a director for the next couple of films. That's all there it to it. He needs to make another Signs, or even make something for a big studio that isn't about faith or spirituality or any kind of strangeness. And after he's paid his dues and made up for Lady in the Water (a task that will take at least four or five years), he can go back to writing again. But I would honestly advise against this.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 20, 2006 at 10:02 AM
comment #1
Bilge says ...
Jeff,
I have to disagree. I was fully prepared to hate LADY IN THE WATER, but found myself quite touched, and I think there's something being ignored here: This is the best performance of Giamatti's career -- he holds the crazy story together. I can't imagine another actor, living or dead, who could have pulled it off. Maybe a young Jack Lemmon. And even him I'm not sure off -- not pathetic enough.
The milk mustache scene isn't meant to be a character thing, it's calculated -- remember, he almost wipes it off, but the Korean girl gestures for him not to. He's trying to act like a child so the mother will reveal to him the fairy tale. It's a hilarious scene.
Also, the bit with the film critic I think isn't so much an attempt to get back at the critics as to suggest that MNS knows there's a more conventional way to tell his story. More than anything, the critic is meant to represent the usual way of doing things -- in his icy, jaded demeanor, he reminded me of a Hollywood exec more than anything, actually. Yeah, he gets mauled (SPOILER) and that was probably a bit of indulgence on MNS's part, but I wish other critics would just get over it. It's actually kind of a throwaway bit.
Posted by Bilge at July 20, 2006 10:19 AM
comment #2
Chuck says ...
One of your best reviews, Jeff, and one of the more even handed considerations I've read of the film. Well done.
Posted by Chuck at July 20, 2006 10:19 AM
comment #3
Jay says ...
I second the "best review" compliment posted above. Thank you for acknowledging the flaws in both film and filmmaker while staying above the personal attacks and hate-mongering. We should appreciate an artist going for something original. So what if it comes up short. At least it is not another rehashing of an old TV show, or a sequel to a theme-park ride, etc.
Posted by Jay at July 20, 2006 10:42 AM
comment #4
Markus R. Mueller says ...
I have to agree with Chuck. This is probably the most honest review Shyamalan will get for "Lady". Bravo.
Posted by Markus R. Mueller at July 20, 2006 10:47 AM
comment #5
oddDuck says ...
Yes, that was a phenomenomal review and one of the best by Wells that I've ever read. I thought his recent Pirates review was similarly strong and well constructed. Wells is definitely elevating his game, or maybe just throwing more energy into writing incredibly high quality movie reviews.
Posted by oddDuck at July 20, 2006 10:48 AM
comment #6
Andrew says ...
Awesome review, Jeff. That's why I keep coming to this site.
Posted by Andrew at July 20, 2006 10:54 AM
comment #7
Anonymous says ...
David Poland and Joel S take note -- this is a review.
Posted by Anonymous at July 20, 2006 10:55 AM
comment #8
Jeffrey Overstreet says ...
I liked your review too, Jeff. I was ready to see you go into full bashing mode. My experience with the film was similar to yours.
And yet I agree with Bilge's comment about Giamatti. He makes the film worth seeing. He's given an impossible clunker to sell, and he sells it. His performance, and that beautiful closing image, almost redeemed the film for me. Almost.
But regarding this:
>>"I know this: any filmmaker that tries to explain an arcane mythology in the very beginning of his film with animation is in trouble right from the start."
You're forgetting Watership Down, which used this kind of introduction beautifully.
Posted by Jeffrey Overstreet at July 20, 2006 10:59 AM
comment #9
Goulet says ...
I'm with Bilge - I looooved the film.
Still, I enjoyed reading Wells' review because, even if it's mostly a pan, you can sense that he's not completely, smugly dismissing it like so many other critics.
You can't get stuck up on details in a movie like this. Sure, it's ridiculous - it's SUPPOSED to be ridiculous. The characters are constantly joking about how silly it all is, yet what's so great to me is that they decide to go along with it anyway.
So much of our lives is about showing restraint and worrying what other people will think, so it's deeply refreshing to see this kind of fuck-it! lets-get-retarded attitude.
It's a bad example here, but for those who didn't hate LORD OF THE RINGS, this is the same deal. If you really think about the plot and rules and so on of that fantasy, it's all pretty silly. Shyamalan just took that kind of storytelling and brought it out of dream worlds of magic and into the real world.
Posted by Goulet at July 20, 2006 11:19 AM
comment #10
Rich S. says ...
The review is well written, but it keeps avoiding the central question: What's on screen? There's too much of the film's baggage woven into the fabric here. If If someone knew none of that, would he or she like the film at all (or even understand it)? My impression is, no. (And remember that Jeff entered this film wanting to like it. Had Peter Jackson tried something like this (Heavenly Creatures?) and failed, my suspicion is that Jeff would have barbecued it.)
I have no rooting interest either way. Night has both hit and missed with me. But this more and more is feeling like something I don't need to see.
Posted by Rich S. at July 20, 2006 11:28 AM
comment #11
Edward says ...
Goulet,
LORD OF THE RINGS is a fantasy? You mean there really weren't Elves and Dwarves and ... This isn't history?
Posted by Edward at July 20, 2006 11:30 AM
comment #12
Nicol D says ...
Nice review and actually makes me want to see the film. I get the impression this is a film that cinephiles actually should see.
Also, you could tell M Night was becoming the 'star' of his films when he quit working with big guns like Willis, Jackson or Gibson.
Once he started casting non-'stars' in The Village and this, you could sense a shift.
I do hope he finds his footing again.
Posted by Nicol D at July 20, 2006 11:49 AM
comment #13
Soho says ...
Great review by Jeffrey, and great comments by Bilge and others here too. What is happening with the rest of the film critic community out there? Are they trying to become more noticeable and important than the films they review? (Speaking of those who try to be the star of a movie who are supposed to remain behind the scenes.) And why isn't most film critique educational or thought-provoking anymore? It's all just mostly snarkey and boring.
Posted by Soho at July 20, 2006 12:26 PM
comment #14
moises says ...
I'm glad for once someone didn't get lazy and fall back on "what a funny last name!", which Poland and others have. Thanks for reviewing the movie and not making yourself as self-important as Shyamalan seems to have.
Checked out Moriarty's review at AICN?
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23916
Posted by moises at July 20, 2006 12:28 PM
comment #15
oddDuck says ...
Moriarty's review was interesting -- it and Wells' review reinforce each other, but it was about three times as long as it needed to be. Can I just say again how impressed I am with Wells's more recent review writing? Just top notch quality work.
Posted by oddDuck at July 20, 2006 12:51 PM
comment #16
Mike Gebert says ...
You know what really turns me off about this movie?
The male leads are Paul Giamatti, Bob Balaban and M. Night Shymalan. What, Wallace Shawn was busy? Rick Moranis was out of town?
James Cromwell could take all three of those pipsqueaks, and he's almost 70. Seriously, two of them at least are very good actors, but a whole movie full of nebbishy little guys, well, isn't that what Woody Allen is for?
Posted by Mike Gebert at July 20, 2006 1:10 PM
comment #17
Chris Molanphy says ...
Jeffrey:
I'm sure it'll be any minute before you notice it yourself, but just in case, Slate just posted an article defending Shyamalan that I know you'll want to read/write up:
http://www.slate.com/id/2146169
The bit I suspect you will relate to (at the very end):
"Shyamalan seems to be aiming for something, amid our summers of high-grossing superhero movies and our winters of little-seen Oscar-bait projects, that's increasingly rare these days: a marriage of entertainment and art, of mass-market tastes and elite sensibilities. This is a hard combination to pull off, as his stumbles have demonstrated, but it's precisely the goal that the film industry, home to our last mass art form, ought to be aspiring to. So, Shyamalan deserves credit, despite his vanity and his missteps—not because he's succeeding, necessarily, but because he's willing to keep trying and unwilling to take his place with those timid, highly compensated directors who know neither victory nor defeat."
I'm no Shyamalan lover – liked 'Sixth Sense,' kinda-liked 'Unbreakable,' haven't bothered since then – but this Slate guy makes as good a case defending him as anybody. And you and he seem to be on the same wavelength.
Posted by Chris Molanphy at July 20, 2006 1:12 PM
comment #18
Sara Michelle says ...
"And then, I imagine, they're going to start hating it. Or falling for it like an obsessive, with the same kind of determination that Night had all through the writing and the shooting. The story doesn't work, but if you look at it like something that isn't supposed to "work" but weave a spell and take you someplace new and trippy, you might be okay with it."
I love this passage. I wish I would have come up with something similar when I wrote my review. There really is not way I could have said it better.
For what it is worth, I ended up in the latter camp. More so, the preview audience I saw it with on Monday applauded, quite boisterously, after it was finished. I was quite suprised. I didn't think they were into it when it turned out they were. I'm curious to see if audiences respond the same come tomorrow or if that was just a big ol'Seattle fluke.
Posted by Sara Michelle at July 20, 2006 1:38 PM
comment #19
Rob says ...
To Jeffrey Overstreet:
I agree Watership Down has an outstanding intro, but wouldn't the fact that the entire movie is animated put that in a different category?
Posted by Rob at July 20, 2006 1:42 PM
comment #20
Bridup says ...
Shyamalan originally did cast big names in The Village: Kirsten Dunst and Ashton Kutcher (the latter in the role that went to Adrien Brody). Both ditched him for Elizabethtown, then Kutcher himself was ditched by Cameron Crowe.
Posted by Bridup at July 20, 2006 1:47 PM
comment #21
Rich E says ...
One thing I missed in your review, Jeff, was on Shyamalan's performance. We keep hearing about how he gave himself this big part and that Jacobson had begged him not to.
I thought his small part in Signs was terrible and was waiting with cringe inducing anxiety to hear how bad he was in this one.
I will probably still see the film as I'm intrigued and I think he's a great filmmaker. I did absolutely hated The Village and was hoping Lady would have been his redemption but it sounds like people are almost unanimous in their pans of Lady and hopefully he'll turn it around next time.
I agree that he's gotten arrogant over time and it's obvious he now wants to be surrounded by yes men or he would have taken Jacobson and Cook's criticisms to heart and reworked the script - I just hope he doesn't fall as far as George Lucas because it means we'll have lost a brilliant filmmaking talent egomania.
Posted by Rich E at July 20, 2006 1:58 PM
comment #22
Pepe says ...
Michael Bamberger's book is all over the place, movie reviews are all over the place, but I can't find someone who is talking about what it could potentially mean when moviegoers get the chance to see the movie starting tomorrow.
How's the tracking? Are average Joes aware of all this critical backlash? Is Warner Bros. doing a good job in selling what most critics consider an utter mess? Is the movie poised to suffer one of the worst declines ever in its sophomore weekend? It's the usual-usual stuff, but it'd be interesting to hear what you have to say Jeff.
Posted by Pepe at July 20, 2006 2:16 PM
comment #23
Kellyb says ...
Good review, Jeff. I haven't seen the movie, and probably won't until it hits Netflix (having a baby limits moviegoing experiences), but I have enjoyed Night's movies over the years. I also agree with a previous poster. At least he is being original, which is more than I can say for most of Hollywood obssessed with sequels, franchises and TV & old movie remakes.
Posted by Kellyb at July 21, 2006 9:08 AM
comment #24
Dixon Steele says ...
Giamatti makes this one worth seeing.
But who can blame Disney for passing on this one. With production/marketing costs at $100 million, I would've passed too.
Word of mouth will not be good and there is no way this one's a hit.
The movie is both compelling (at times) and ridiculous. But definitely worth seeing.
The guy has talent. But the next one will be crucial, if he expects to continue the career he's carefully planned.
The next script has got to be brilliant. Or he'll be doing MIMIC 4 for Harvey.
Posted by Dixon Steele at July 22, 2006 12:11 AM
comment #25
Kit says ...
Probably the angriest Shyamalan attack yet, from AICN's Moriarty nonetheless:
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23916
Posted by Kit at July 22, 2006 6:26 AM
comment #26
Jeremy says ...
Has anyone really realized that Lady in the Water rips off of E.T. in so many places? That's what really bothered me about the movie, perhaps more than anything else, was that it really seemed to copy that movie's structure. It was E.T. without the bicycles.
And to make matters worse, the movie is the end of Shyamalan's career. Sorry it had to end like this.
Posted by Jeremy at July 22, 2006 5:32 PM
comment #27
Jesse says ...
Yea, i pretty much agree with Jeff across the board. There's a certain degree of how much the creator has to bend to suit his public, and Night's story simply isn't at the level to be able to transcend that roadblcok. The whole thing feels strained and pretentious (i know if i was a little kid wanting a good yarn before bedtime, and i was presented with Narfs and shit, i would instantly fall asleep unsatisfied), i detected a whiff of racism when it came to some of the tenants (like he was checking off which racial steriotype-asian, hispanic, he could pull), and i was surprised how muddy and flat the visual style was, and how unthreatening the scrunts were (as opposed to the "creatures" in The Villiage, which were all sorts of menacing). I think Night's strenghs really come out when he has an established story or theme (like ghosts, aliens) instead of him creating his own material. Balaban was completely the best part of the film. It's too interesting to write off, but it's also, as Farber would say, dead in the water.
Posted by Jesse at July 30, 2006 11:40 AM