(narrator) When people think Shyamalan, they probably think of his failures or his biggest box office
success, The Sixth Sense.
The Sixth Sense is the film that launched Shyamalan’s career, and it’s much more
than a movie with a great twist.
(kid) "I see dead people."
It’s in The Sixth Sense where comparisons
between Spielberg and Shyamalan are most transparent.
Like Spielberg’s Jaws, The Sixth Sense was a suspense film that shattered box office
expectations, but more than just superficial similarities,
the films share stylistic qualities as well.
First off, both films, rooted in the classical tradition of filmmaking, prioritize the visual.
The story is told through the camera.
Both films released in times where editing and film grammar were undergoing radical changes.
But instead of follow those trends, each film grounded itself in the classic grammar developed
over film’s last century.
One of the most efficient visual tactics employed by Spielberg in Jaws was his
deft use of offscreen space.
The less the camera reveals in Jaws, the scarier the film.
Spielberg, making the best of a faulty mechanical shark, also understood that people’s imaginations
are often more powerful than any visual that could be produced through
practical or special effects.
Shyamalan takes this strategy even further.
He builds suspense by being selective with what to show and what to hide.
(buzzing sound)
Hitchcock was great at this, as was early Spielberg, but Shyamalan, despite all his
faults, is perhaps the best user of offscreen space ever.
(gunshot, woman screams)
(gunshot)
Shyamalan shares something else with Spielberg.
Both directors are sentimental, often to a fault.
When Shyamalan plays the sentiment correctly, he is able to produce some deeply moving scenes.
But sentiment is a double-edge sword, and like Spielberg, Shyamalan often loses his
magic when he overindulges.
If The Sixth Sense takes from the American tradition, Shyamalan’s next film, Unbreakable,
combines two approaches: the American and the European.
In Unbreakable, Shyamalan exercises a style very few American filmmakers are allowed.
It’s understatement in the face of the comic book film genre known for overemphasis and
exaggeration is not only refreshing, it was way ahead of its time.
At the time of Unbreakable, comic book adaptations were a formidable force in Hollywood, but
it would’ve been impossible to predict the behemoth that would
soon absorb the entire industry.
Shyamalan broke the conventions of an industry a decade before it fully realized itself.
More than being ahead of its time, it’s still remains the best critique of the genre.
Unlike many Hollywood directors that rely on comic book conventions, Shyamalan tackles
it differently.
References are more subtle, sophisticated.
For instance, instead of dressing his hero and villain in costumes and capes, Shyamalan
designs the characters through color and real life clothing.
David is green.
Mr Glass is purple.
Sure they have wardrobes, and Shyamalan makes clever visual suggestions to David having
a cape, but for the most part, its mis en scene and clever cinematography that builds
their superhero persona.
Mr. Glass, for example, is often shot around glass.
We often see him reflected in a mirror or a TV screen.
Having a glass cane is a little on the nose, but the character is the only one who actively
participates in the comic fantasy.
As a clever visual callback to comics, Shyamalan often frames the characters through windows
and doors.
The film is framed as if the characters are in comic book panels, and not in an overt
and distracting way like Ang Lee’s Hulk.
Unbreakable really is a great film, but I’m not the only one who feels this way.
In his review of the 20 best films of the last 20 years, Tarantino called Unbreakable
one of the masterpieces of our time.
Less grandiose, he also called Shyamalan “Shamalamadingdong.”
(Tarantino) "Shamalamadingdong"
(narrator) So there’s that.
One of Unbreakable’s accomplishments is its blending of high and low culture.
Both in its subject matter of comic books side by side art galleries and Philadelphia
murals, as well as the very film itself.
In many ways, it reminds me of what Watchmen, the comic series not the film, did for its time.
Watchmen is a comic about superheroes that breaks down conventions and in the act of
tearing down, actually elevates the genre.
There is an intelligence and maturity in the work that challenges the audience’s expectations.
Following the box office smash of The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable was a major financial disappointment
for Shyamalan and the studios.
His next film, Signs, performed much better.
Signs did successfully what many of Shyamalan’s later films did not: it was able to sell people
on its premise, and when the quirky plot points develop, audiences bought them.
There are several clever things going on with Signs, but probably my favorite is the film’s
use of the aliens as a metaphor.
Cinematic aliens are no strangers to symbols.
Science fiction films have used them as metaphors for decades.
But instead of representing a common science fiction trope such as alien invasion as
Soviet invasion, Signs takes a spiritual route.
The film’s protagonist, Graham Hess is a former Episcopal priest struggling
with his faith.
The aliens serve as metaphorical demons, both in his eternal struggle against them as well
as his internal struggle fighting the demons of his past.
He slays the alien demons with holy water, and comes to terms with his past.
He then regains his faith.
The aliens may or may not be literal demons, but either way the metaphor persists.
The film is a parable and a unique take on alien invasion.
Now that we’ve explored most of Shyamalan’s career, let’s take a look at his two most
recent films.
The first was 2015’s The Visit.
Produced under Shyamalan’s production company for a meager $5 million, the film grossed
close to $100 million and received relatively positive reviews.
Many viewed the film as a comeback for Shyamalan, but after the one-two punch of Last Airbender
and After Earth, the bar was set pretty low for comebacks.
Nonetheless, The Visit does offer a few interesting bits for audiences, but it’s nowhere near
anything like The Sixth Sense.
When you watch The Visit, it’s easy to pick up on Shyamalan’s missed opportunities,
likely from lack of budget more than anything.
But there is a certain confusion in the edit and Shyamalan admitted himself in interviews.
I, personally, am left wondering what the first cut was like, but with his own money
on the line, and an absolute need to rewin audiences, it’d be hard to blame Shyamalan
for not gambling.
If The Visit was a box office success, Shyamalan’s next film, Split was an absolute hit.
Self-financed with $9 million, Split grossed over $275 million and received generally favorable
reviews.
As a surprise to most, Split turned out to be a tie-in to Unbreakable, and the start
of Shyamalan’s own comic cinematic universe.
Split is no Unbreakable, and if it spawns a series of drawn out comic narratives, Shyamalan
might lose his voice and become absorbed in the system, but the fact that the film achieved
what it did, and looks the way it does, on the very low budget is rather impressive.
Rather than stretch the budget across multiple locations and visual effects, Shyamalan instead
centered his narrative in one major location.
More than practical, setting the film in the underground of a zoo acts as a metaphor for
McAvoy’s character “The Beast” and the dark alleyways of the mind under the animalistic
psychology of the character.
Shyamalan frequently uses the film’s visuals to make a split landscape--a favorite of mine
is the closing credits, where the crawl is split 24 times across the screen to represent
the personalities of Kevin.
Like all of Shyamalan’s films, Split borrows from classic cinema.
Many shots are inspired by the German Expressionist movement, but more than anything, Split draws
much of its inspiration from Shyamalan’s idol, suspense director Alfred Hitchcock,
and McAvoy’s Kevin is a clear callback to Psycho’s Norman Bates.
But Split and The Visit don’t exactly match the glory of Shyamalan’s earlier pictures
such as The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable, but they are a start, and maybe the beginning
of a new, brighter chapter of Shyamalan’s career.
Although if Shyamalan is to regain full heights, there’s a tremendous amount of baggage
he has to shake.
But why does this baggage exist in the first place?
For the most part, Shyamalan horror movies are substantially better quality than the
average horror film.
Even his bad films are significantly better lit, acted, and framed than most horror films.
The issue is probably not with the quality, but the personality.
It’s true Shyamalan has a formidable ego, just watch any opening credits of any of his movies.
(ding)
But again, if we're being fair, we have to ask ourselves since when has an ego been an
unattractive quality for filmmakers.
Many of cinema’s finest have at worst had their egos tolerated.
But more often those egos were celebrated.
It’s also true he’s made some clunkers.
Yet, even some of clumsy films have admirable qualities.
The films are completely different than the movies of their time.
The voice is unique, even when the execution falls short.
It might be healthier for audiences to sympathize with a bad film with good intentions over
a well-produced movie that does nothing new, is completely derivative and was clearly designed
with market constraints in mind.
But even Shyamalan’s unique voice is possibly under threat.
If positive reactions to Split and its sequel encourage Shyamalan to get lost in his own
comic book cinematic universe, then he might find himself in the trap other talented filmmakers
fell into in order to service the system.
When you consider cinema’s current state, where studio conference rooms calculate every
facet of a film, the notorious Newsweek story on Shyamalan from years ago seems especially
off the mark.
Shyamalan wasn’t just the new Spielberg.
He may be the last one.
(music playing)