everything Shyamalan does...
blows me away. This was a wonderful movie.
shareTotally agreed...about this movie of course.
share
MovieChat Forums > Wide Awake (1998) Discussion > everything Shyamalan does...
I disagree, the guy is basically a hack.
"Did I leave the gas on? No, I´m a @#¤%ing squirrel!"
Shyamalan is a genius.
He expects his audience to "think" while they watch rather than just sitting and experiencing mindless action/effects.
Those who can't or don't want to will never "get him".
i was surprised when i first found out he wrote and directed this because i found it lighter than his other work
shareI personally love movies that force you to "think". The problem with Shyamalan is that all his movies are the same unintelligent crap. And those silly plot twists don´t help either.
"Did I leave the gas on? No, I´m a @#¤%ing squirrel!"
Shyamalan is a genius.That's pretty funny. On most other Shyamalan boards, people who are doing the "thinking" point out the many flaws in his recent films; the fans respond by saying "It's just a movie! It's not meant to be realistic or scientific! Just jurn your brains off and you'll enjoy it!"
He expects his audience to "think" while they watch rather than just sitting and experiencing mindless action/effects.
Those who can't or don't want to will never "get him".
Pretty well the opposite of what you claim. Those who can't or don't want to turn ther brains off while watching film will never appreciate Shyamalan. They'll be too busy screaming at the screen "But! but... ! You just said or did the opposite in the last scene; you're contradicting your script's own internal rules, you hack!" Yeah, I know, I know. Stop analyzing his films so much and I'll enjoy them better. If ever I'm near brain dead and want to see a film some day, I'll take up the Sham fans on their suggestions. share
he's the only director that comes up with anything original any more. his movies never have sex, nudity, heavy violence, etc... they're interesting and thought provoking with out anything unneeded like that. he's my freaking idol!
share"he's the only director that comes up with anything original any more."
You obviously don't see anything that isn't playing at AMC. Try skipping the blockbuster crap and look below the surface. Theres a whole lot of good *beep* out that no one sees. The Darjeeling Limited was EXCELLENT. Check it out, its a hell of alot more thought provoking then Signs. That movie meant nothing and was total trash. The only reason that it worked at all is because Mel is an excellent actor.
It's completely absurd to say that this one man is the only person doing anything original. How many directors can you even name off the top of your head? Go ahead, think about it. I'll wait. While you're at it, consider that virtually all films made until the late '60s also didn't have sex or graphic violence, which didn't make them "original," or any better on average than modern films.
Night has about one story in him, which comes out with little variations. They almost all have:
Some regular guy finding out his special place in the world.
A marriage destroyed by either death or infidelity.
Some hokey spiritualism, like finding the answers to life on a cereal box, or deciding that asthma is a gift from God.
A twist ending.
People who will blindly accept whatever they're told, no matter how ridiculous it is.
Annoyingly precocious children with overwritten dialogue.
Occassionally, he'll also throw in:
Red as an indicator of evil.
Water as a danger, sometimes to the good guys, sometimes to the bad.
Hashing out family baggage while trapped in a basement.
Stuttering.
This is not how I identify "original." The only real differences between his films are that some are good, and some are really, really bad. I wouldn't mind that he's a one-trick pony if the trick always worked, but sometimes the pony breaks all four legs in the attempt.
-There is no such word as "alot."
If you look at his track record, body of work, style of writing and background it is clear that he embodies the definition of a film hack. He is smart. He is very smart. He understands film clearly and probably has a passion for them. Yes. He probably has studied intensively various methods and know how to make one (added to his producer parents and family funding) but he didn't have the chops to allow himself to grow and has taken many (sometimes PAINFULLY obvious) shortcuts to create his work.
Copying narrative formats from other scripts or books, consistently using the same "twist" ending [as it has been coined], dry bland dialog that is thankfully (but allusively) washed over by the use of editing, music and shot sequencing. The dialog and narrative is what really gets me about this guy's movies. He clearly thinks about the general feel of a film, and once it comes down to scripting the thing he just gets lazy. Its disturbing to see it happen to such a young, blossoming director to get so pigeon holed. It's almost like watching a late Hitchcock in motion, except Hitchcock actually had a great career before his own decline. Hitchcock also had better scripts and took far greater (sometimes fatal) risks.
I'm sure I will get a lot of flack for this but I used to work with an Indian editor (did a lot of footage editing and some small music videos and short films in his time - probably still does) and he had a great knowledge and background in styles and films. For some reason though, his cultural upbringing (being Indian in America) unlike one of maniacal egotism (akin to say, oh, an American?) but instead, he had this attitude towards his work that screamed to me: "I am an open-minded and cultured man of the world. I am Indian and at peace with my work. I carry no ego." and it was this very "my fart's don't stink" kind of attitude that made his work the same repetitive horribly tacky edited drivel that in turn became filled with ego schlock (completely blind-sided to the crap he was producing) It REALLY reminds me of Shamalayan and his deep pocketed background and his work thus far. This is not a stab at Indians. I have many that are friends. However, it is akin to something Peter Jackson had spoken about in reference to New Zealand art and culture; something to the effect that New Zealand's film in particular is usually geared to failure or giving up simply because the general consensus there is that New Zealand's art and culture is under appreciated and destined to fail in lieu of the rest of this planet's culture's productions. Of course, he reversed this sentiment and has produced and directed many successful films IN New Zealand or about New Zealand. A feat he attributes to his initial idea to backlash at the general resentment his culture has for itself. I've met guys like Shamalayan and they need to get their head's out of their ass. In his case, he needs script help and fresh ideas. At least Brett Ratner's American money chasing is acceptable simply because it doesn't try to look smart.
Up until "Lady in the Water" came out, I loved all his films. "The Sixth Sense", "Wide Awake", and "Signs" were brilliant!!
"The Happening" was terrific until the second half, then it seemed to go downhill.
I soooo wish he'd go back to his original style of filmmaking!
"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."
he is one great storyteller, his script and dialogue in films are always inspirational. none of his films really disappoint me, but it's true that his earlier works are more beautifully portrayed.
shareDirectingQueen^
Agree ~
Love this film.
And, he is one of my favorite directors ~
~~ Truth exists; only lies are invented. ~~ G. Braque