.gif)
*** SPOILERS ***Despite its many flaws, I came close to loving M. Night's latest movie. It's a fairytale in modern times; its twists come in the telling of the story, not at the end; the characters are incredibly fun & the film continues to have that style of comedy that I love in his films - humour when the stakes are incredibly high (cf. the son with the gun in Unbreakable, listening for the alien signal in the car in Signs).
Unfortunately, Lady in the Water (LitW) totters on the edge of ridiculousness for almost all of its running time, which of course means it quite often falls and wipes out completely. I appreciated the risks it was taking, but it also handles its middle of Act 2 exposition badly & has a few too many plot points (I think, about 3 too many - Madame Narfs, Takamuks, and the giant eagle).
But what's most interesting to me are the flaws, and how they're actually necessary to the story M. Night is trying to tell:
The animated beginning (which I'd heard was studio imposed) is horribly overlong and expository and emotionally manipulative BUT it serves the purpose of making us believe in who Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) is, which helps Cleveland (Paul Giamatti) believe in her instantly.
But Cleveland's lack of disbelief is the second great flaw. Most reasonable modern people figuring out what Story is would go, "No. Not possible." But the film isn't interested in playing out disbelief beats. And as more and more people rally behind Cleveland and Story, without really questioning why they're doing so, their reactions become more and more implausible.
But, their belief not only fits into the overall mythology of the fairytale - it leads the ideas I enjoyed most in the film: that people who look completely normal can be imbued with mythological power and move among us undetected. Which leads to the final flaw.
Too much stuff. It's cool stuff - people with powers, three or four different creatures, a fairytale being told to Cleveland that's staggered over an hour, precognition, hypnotism, symbolism ... it goes on and on, the script overloading itself even though it's really telling a very simple story - find a special person, then return home through many dangers.
Huh, I just realised it feels like an adaptation of a 600 page Stephen King novel.
Anyway, I find myself in partial agreement with Sean (thanks for the robust post-screening discussion!) LitW feels like a first draft - it's filled with great stuff, good plot points, characters who you really get a sense of their past and future but it needs to be a) leaner, and b) flesh out a few things (the final fight, especially, felt like it was missing a beat).
But the film is not a mess in the same way as Pirates of the Caribbean 2. LitW knows what it wants to do (to bring back wonder), and for all its flaws it got there in the end, for me.
5 comments:
I liked it, but it is very much the kind of thing I would like, and I am very much in sympathy with its themes and fantastical nature.
Fundamentally, I think it was a story, not a film. As a story it works fine. Transposed to film, it doesn't fit the spam in a can expectations of modern film; that is the sense in which it suffers. (Not to say flaws didn't exist in its executions, because they certainly did.)
Story, not film. Agreed.
I think it's easier to achieve those moments of revelation in films than in prose (because you have instant access to the performance, music and camera angle), but in terms of exploring 'cool stuff', prose wins.
I wrote a comment saying this:
*I loved it.
*I thought it would be very easy to sit in the theatre and just say 'this is silly', and thus not love it.
*Some of the names for creatures were way too goofy.
*I liked the level of detail, but in saying that, it did have a story/rpg feel to it, which could put some people off.
Then the interweb ate the comment (which was longer than this one, but didn't really say anything more).
Now I try again.
I have to disagree with you on something there Hix, that about Cleveland's response.
Most people are likely to just take that kind of thing in stride. Oddly enough fiction seems to assume that people will go through a whole "no, no, no!" reaction - but a lot of people secretly desire for magical things to be true.
Look at how easily we, as a species, embrace hegemonies and views like religion, politics and the like.
For example, Noam Chomsky has his myth of the Rich Elite which is almost as fantastical and yet thousands if not millions buy into his explanations. Look at Scientology. Ufologists.
That an ordinary man whose life has crumbled around him would simply accept Story's position is not as unreasonable as it sounds - especially given how every step along the path he finds coincidence supports her claims. (The myth of the Narf, the creature stalking the grass... etc.)
It is less believeable that he would deny the truth. Only fiction seems to grant humanity such inflexibility of mind.
Conan
Conan, great point. With the examples you've mentioned, I imagine most people ask a few questions before adopting a belief system - questions that Cleveland doesn't ask, if I recall correctly.
I'd like to think you're right about the reactions of people who are exposed to the profound and mythological.
There are also a couple of reasons within the story that Cleveland would accept who Story is. You've pointed out his past; there's her mystical effect on people, as well (which I kind of alluded to in the 'imbuing normal people' para).
But at the point in the film where she meets Cleveland, none of that's really been put into play for the audience. I'm not sure how to put it - it requires a real act of faith from the audience, to put away their cynicism and just ... be with Cleveland during that first act with Story.
Post a Comment