The Village Review
by Balaji Srinivasan (balaji_cheenu AT yahoo DOT com)August 3rd, 2004
This review does NOT contain any spoilers.
Long before he made big-time movies that he is associated with like Psycho, Rear Window or Rope, Alfred Hitchcock came out with a few lesser-known but more engrossing movies in the early 1940s. These included Rebecca, Suspicion and Shadow of Doubt. The common thread across these movies was the drama that Hitchcock built up through powerful performances, without actually quickly going through the stories. These films were a bit long, ponderous, lacked action for the most part and lead to cathartic climaxes. But, they were riveting. You couldn't turn your head away from the screen for even a moment. Suspense was on the air; Seemingly simple actions held an aura of mystique with them. The audience would be spellbound (not a reference to the Hitchcock movie!).
These characteristics helped create the suspense thriller genre, which Hitchcock was a king of. Today, many directors try to emulate him but rarely succeed. Christopher Nolan and M.Night Shyamalan are the chief aspirants to Hitchcock's throne. Shyamalan, who dazzled with 'The Sixth Sense' and spooked the audience with 'The Signs', has come out with a film that is reminiscent of the 1940s Hitchcock; A classic tale of suspense, intrigue and more importantly, a powerful human drama.
The Village is set in a close-knit Amish-like community at the turn of the 19th century. The villagers grow garden vegetables, rear sheep, dance and sing and eat in long tables and generally do everything together. The group is governed by a council of elders, led by Edward Walker (William Hurt). There is Alice Hunt (Sigourney Weaver who gets little screen time), the mother of a brooding but brave young Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix). There is the village retard, played by Adrian Brody, who frequently gets into fights and laughs at inopportune moments. And then there is Ivy, a blind daughter of Walker, played by a newcomer, Bryce Dallas Howard.
Though the village looks like a mini utopia (as Shyamalan shows with a montage of fleeting shots), something is in the air. We get an early glimpse of this when a couple of merrily dancing girls quickly bury a red flower. Soon we come to know of 'Those We Don't speak Of'. These are monsters in the neighboring woods; Monsters that skin the animals and take the flesh, kill anyone who steps into the woods and strike fear at the hearts of the innocent villagers. There is a strange truce between the villagers and the monsters; One doesn't set foot in the other's space. The people go about their lives, but with an underlying fear.
Shyamanalan slowly brings out this fear to build up his drama. Lucius Hunt wants to cross the woods to go to 'the towns' to bring back medicines for the village; A child had been lost recently due to illness. The elders are of course against this, thinking that the monsters would wreak havoc. Hunt is brave enough to venture into the woods, but retaliation comes fast. The houses are tagged with red marks, and more animals are killed and skinned. It is clear that the truce is no longer in place.
In the middle of all this, Ivy and Lucius Hunt fall in love. The romance between a blind, tomboyish girl and a brooding, questioning man is shown well. It is important for the movie for this chemistry to work, and it does. They decide to get married; But then the well-awaited twist happens and the audience is sent through a worm-hole of discovery. What follows is a fascinating exposition of the plot that cannot be discussed here without spoiling the
experience.
The movie has its highs and lows; The dialogues are trite and laughable in places. It is as though M.Night has deliberately chosen to write in this sophomoric fashion, though I don't know for what effect. The pondering slow going of the movie is sure to put off people who come in expecting a racy suspenseful summer flick. The twist and the final resolution will seem to some as banal and ridiculous, but to others as acceptable. I myself found it to be very well written; Shyamalan is incredibly gifted in making sure he dots his 'i's and crosses his 't's. The overall plot that is revealed made sense to me; This is a very well crafted film. Like '21 Grams' last year, the director holds the cards close to his chest and reveals one by one slowly, but with great effect. I would gladly hang on to this 'willing suspension of disbelief' anytime.
Even if this film is forgotten like the 1940s flicks of Hitchcock, it may be remembered for launching the career of Bryce Dallas Howard. The daughter of Ron Howard, she looks like Uma Thurman and Cate Blanchett rolled into one. She has given an amazing performance for a newcomer, and is a shoo-in for a best actress Oscar nomination. She has a powerful on-screen intensity, and doesn't play the blind girl in the traditional way. She brings out the character's determination and struggle well, and saves the film to a large extent. With a weaker actor, Shyamalan would have found it very difficult to carry this film through its stages. This is the most impressive screen debut I've seen since Kate Hudson in 'Almost Famous'.
Joaquin Phoenix, Adrian Brody and the support cast do their jobs. William Hurt revels in a crucial character, a big performance for him after a long time. Sigourney Weaver is a bit miscast; A romantic angle between her and Hurt is implied but never explored. That angle is only one of the several sub-plots in this richly layered movie. The subtexts are engrossing and believe me, when critics pan this film as having a 'thin story line', they have no idea what they are talking about. There is enough material for couple of rewinds on a DVD.
Just like 'The Sixth Sense', this movie will also work well on a DVD. Shyamalan drops a lot of subtle hints throughout the movie. Some I picked up instantly, some on hindsight, and some I probably never even noticed. The story will probably initiate a lot of discussion, as it has more than one trick up its sleeve. His camera angles are always worth noticing. The camera works from a point of view of an observer. True to Hitchcock, the screen is always busy; If you focus on the main action on-screen, you are bound to miss out on the various things happening in the sidelines. Shyamalan has color coded this film as well. The village and the villagers are associated with yellow, while the monsters take red ("the bad color"). Subtle things like the usage of candles or fire places to accentuate the yellowish hue add to the aura of the film.
The red-hooded monsters look like right out of a high-school Halloween party, but at least they are not as ridiculous as the spandex wearing aliens in 'The Signs'. At least for the next movie, Shyamalan should hire a better costume designer and a dialogue writer. He should also move away from making summer flicks aimed at spooking the youth and earning big bucks at the box-office. He should do less hyped movies that would release at the end of December, with no pressure on him to cater to the whims of the box-office. His next venture, filming 'Life Of Pi' by Yann Martel, a booker prize winner, is a step in the right direction.
The film can be enjoyed if you are willing to hold the director's hands and be taken on a ride that the movie takes. Shyamalan's creative talent shows out, and even if the plot turns out to be too simplistic or unbelievable for you, just sit back and enjoy. Here's a Hitchcock making his mark. If Hitchcock's career is anything to go on, more impressive films are yet to come from M.Night Shyamalan.
- Balaji.
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
