|
Author
|
Comment
|
LegendMaker
Registered User
(8/15/04 5:06 am)
|
Moments of brilliance
Shelly: The reason I'm thinking it wasn't *intended* to be gold is because that might make one think of money. The villagers were living in an anti-capitalist community because Walker believes the motivation behind his father's murder was money. This would, of course, prove to be a futile diversion, as murder takes place whether there is money or not, a point the film makes clear. I think the color gold has a little more red in it than the cloaks and paint they used as the safe color. But it was a dark yellow to be sure, so I understand the connection.
Ivy said she could always identify Lucius, despite her blindness, because he gave off a color. But I have wondered what color that might be, and if the director intended for us to guess?
As discouraged as I was when I saw the movie the first time, I'm amazed at how much thinking the movie inspires. M. Night Shyamalan is a director whose career I am closely following, because he knows how to take his time and bleed a moment for its impact. He is a master of the subtle brushstroke, and you can only see what he's *really* doing if you lean in and squint your eyes. He has no interest in spoonfeeding his audience. He makes them sit up and work for their entertainment.
My favorite moments are: the stabbing of Lucius, the eerie shot of the red-cloaked creature approaching the house as Lucius ducks around the corner, the moment Ivy's sister proposed to Lucius (the very subtle movements of his eyes made the audience laugh out loud both times I saw the film, as well as the jump cut to her balling in bed) and the conversation in the fog between Lucius and Ivy ("Why are you on this porch?"), which was most extraordinary dialog.
I thought the performances were not trivial. This was a cast who took the movie very, very seriously. Adrien Brody was extremely believable. I loved Bryce Dallas Howard's perky character, and she really sold me her fear in those woods.
The stilted dialog was very likely on purpose, and wasn't intended to sound natural among the elders because they were modern-day people trying to pretend they lived in another time period. (Note the 2nd and 3rd generations sounded more natural.) The way William Hurt spoke sounded both highly intelligent and very lost, hopeful and yet frightened. The way Sigourney Weaver spoke sounded tense and yet weakened. It was as though Sig's character was trying to *force* herself to be optimistic and happy, and *force* herself to talk in a way that didn't feel natural to her.
"I also think that the monsters are very real--they just happen to be human not some otherworldly creature. Ivy's blindness is perfect because she'll never see either that the monsters are human or that the humans are monsters."
A very good point!
This was a movie about fear in all its colors, if I may pun, and the many different ways in which we react to them. But in most cases, we create our own fears.
|
HyldorQueen
Registered User
(8/15/04 9:08 pm)
|
Same ideas recurring
LegendMaker said:
"Believe it or not, it is entirely possible, and even likely, for two people to come up with remarkably similar ideas."
This is absolutely true, especially as the ideas get closer and closer to fundamental human mythology, call it the collective unconscious or what have you. Some experiences are so basic that people almost "have" to come up with stories about them. Nowhere is this more in evidence than in the world's mythological traditions, which recount the same themes and situations time and again. While some of the ideas expressed in "The Village" are somewhat more advanced, such as the social critique, the "creature in the woods" scheme, the barely controlled animus, is likely as old as humans themselves.
-Courtney
|
redtriskell
Registered User
(8/18/04 12:27 am)
|
what a movie
To LegendMaker: I really enjoyed your comments. Very thoughtful, perceptive, and interesting. I agree that red is so loaded with symbolism that it practically tells the story all alone. I have to say that I regarded the yellow as indicative of cowardice. The elders bailed out of their lives; they ran. I was angry that these at least reasonably intelligent people would choose to cripple their offspring. What was going to happen to their children when they all died? How long did they think the fabrication would hold up? And what on earth were they doing harboring a person like Noah? Surely his violence was known to them. I thought of Noah as a reminder for them. Something along the lines of you can run, but you can't hide. I mean, Walker was a history professor- surely he knew what people did when they discovered a bad guy in their midst. The tendency in history has always been to execute violent and dangerous people. My thoughts on this movie are scattered because I can't decide what to think. So I guess I'll close for now and ponder it some more.
|
Helen J Pilinovsky
Registered User
(8/18/04 7:45 am)
|
Re: what a movie
You know, watching the movie, I actually had a horrible thought: we know that Noah exhibited moderate violence throughout the film, culminating in his stabbing of Lucius ... but, prior to that, none of it against humans. And we know that he'd made many, many trips into the forest before that, and that Ivy was a long-time and much beloved playmate. There is an, albeit distant, very disturbing possibility that he was just trying to play tag with her ...
|
Amal
Registered User
(8/18/04 9:27 am)
|
Re: what a movie
Actually, I think that's a very likely possibility, Helen -- especially appropriate given that Noah, an element of society typically ignored, should disguise himself as one of Those they don't speak of before dying.
|
LegendMaker
Registered User
(8/19/04 8:16 pm)
|
Re: what a movie
"I really enjoyed your comments. Very thoughtful, perceptive, and interesting."
Many thanks! --A reflection of these boards more than anything else... This is quite different from the many forums out there, which are loaded with the most inane statements, unqualified arguments, unchecked fallacies, uninformed opinions and grammatical errors as you can imagine. Usually they are nests of bored teenagers baiting each other into threads so they can vent their hostilities. Here, instead, we have deep thinkers, professional authors, serious researchers, and lots of interesting discussions. I'm glad I happened across it!
--CS Haviland
faithandfairies.com
|
siogfinsceal
Unregistered User
(8/25/04 2:32 am)
|
The Village
Hi Guys,
Did anyone else think about the black boxes that were hidden in the corner of the room of each of the elders?. They made me think of the story of pandora's box, and also of the idea of original sin. When Pandora opened her box, she released sin and evil into the world. The boxes in the film contain, what the elders believe created the pain and suffering in their lives. i.e. , they contain links to the real world.
|
redtriskell
Registered User
(8/30/04 9:36 pm)
|
boxes and such
An interesting take on the boxes... relating them to Pandora. For me, though, they were more like Shirley Jackson's Lottery box. The thing dusted off annually to participate in the festival and then hidden away until next year. A necessary evil, if you will. Or maybe a touchstone, an integral part of an elaborate ritual. Or a scar, a permanent, inescapable reminder of what had gone before. If you had an ominous box full of painful memories, would you keep it where you would see it everyday?
|
deathcookie
Registered User
(9/1/04 1:47 pm)
|
copperwise's paper
In reply to Copperwise's statement about a book that plagierized Tolkien,
Just out of curiosity, were you referring to Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series?
I just finished the first book, and I noticed many similarities to Lord of the Rings,
-Callie
|
lisajensen
Unregistered User
(9/1/04 4:42 pm)
|
More on The Village
Hi, group: I came late to this thread, so let me just add a couple of points re: The Village. I think it's much more successful in symbolic terms, political (the hunger for a kinder, gentler past that probably never existed; the fear of outsiders) or folkloric (the colors, the woods, etc.) than as dramatic narrative. Too many things don't make sense in the dramatic storyline even after you "get" the big secret. Especially after blind Ivy is sent into the woods, and we see the poor girl running along with stick outstretched, but not actually touching any of the ground she's running over—even after she has already fallen once into a deep pit.
And what exactly did Mr. Walker think she was going to find when he sent her out into the world beyond the wood? That she would just happen to run into a kindly ranger who would just happen to sneak some medical supplies out of the office while his boss was reading the paper? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to send her with a note to someone in authority? After all (and please do correct me if I'm wrong on this), it's his grandfather's money that's maintaining the preserve in which they all live.
As to the likeliest villager to be out skinning livestock at the beginning, I like the idea someone posted that it was Brendan Gleeson (father of the dead child). That would indeed make sense if he were trying to coax them all out of their dream and back to the real world. The impression I got when I saw the movie was that the renegade elder was Noah's father (for reasons I could not fathom), because Noah finds the monster costume under the floorboards of the punishment room. And because his parents open the door & talk about the missing costume, I assumed at the time it was their house & their costume. Did all the elders have costumes of their own squirreled away?
Finally, what about those black boxes? They did not actually use them in any ritual, did they? (As a previous poster suggests.) Symbolically, it works to enclose (thus render harmless) one's most painful memories in a locked box. But in practical/realistic terms, wouldn't those people throw those awful memories away, if they were so determined to reinvent their lives & start over?
I think the fairy tale aspects of the movie are fine, and I'm grateful to so many thoughtful people on this site for pointing out ones I hadn't thought of. I just wish the plotting of the storyline up front had been tighter and more credible.
Lisa
|
Wyndryder
Unregistered User
(10/16/04 5:24 am)
|
A late note ...
I finally caught the movie last night, and quite loved it. As with other Shyamalan flics, I'm prone to play the movie over and over again in my mind, thinking and grinning about how he pulled it off. Arriving home, I jumped online to search out some of the discussions on the film that I knew must be out there. I found much discussion about many aspects of the film, most of which I had already pondered somewhat myself. However, I did not find any talk about one question that stuck in my head as I left the theatre.
It concerns Ivy and Noah (as the monster) in the forest near the end. I would suggest to you that there is a possibility that by the time Ivy was standing on the edge of the pit, baiting "the monster", she actually *knew* that it was Noah, and had decided to kill him.
Why? Several reasons. Firstly, when the monster (who she tried to make herself believe was not real) got close, she may have been able to "see" or recognize Noah's aura, smell, or whatever. She obviously had heightened senses of some sort, and was able to do that very easily with Lucius, and her father. Secondly, when the monster (Noah) first charged her, it actually made contact with her, and carried on past her, as though it was playing a game, similar to the games Ivy and Noah played in the village. Why would a "real" monster not keep hold of her, and kill her then and there. This would be another strong hint to Ivy as to the real nature and character of the monster. It didn't really want to kill her. At least not right away. Thirdly, she (blind) was able to outrun the monster to get to the edge of the pit. Did she truly believe that this could have been possible if the monster truly wanted solely to kill her?
It's possible that as the whole episode between Ivy and the monster developed, Ivy gradually put two and two together, and realized that it was Noah, and that he was obviously unstable. Noah was conflicted, having just stabbed her beloved, and was now chasing her, but as yet sparing her. She knew that Noah had tried to kill Lucius. She knew that jealousy is a powerful motivator, and that Noah may want to kill her. She also knew that Noah loved her, and probably wanted her all to himself. Furthermore, once she had "sensed" (however unlikely it may seem) that the monster was in fact Noah, she would have realized that Noah must have been the one responsible for all of the recent "escalation" of activity in the village (the red doors, skinned animals, etc.), and was therefore a real danger to the village. All Noah's other minor behaviour (hitting other people, laughing at the monster's calls, expressing joy during the "monster alert") only served to reinforce this. Top all of this off with the likelihood that she felt a great deal of anger and hate for Noah for what he had just done to Lucius, her betrothed.
This all culminates in a conscious decision, and realization, that she was not just trying to kill a "monster", but that she was about to try to kill Noah.
Farfetched? Reaching? I don't know. What do you think? I think it's an interesting possibility.
|
blisslessly
Registered User
(10/16/04 12:16 pm)
|
The Village continues
What struck me most about this movie is its parallelism with present-day media. The village people created their own mythology to control the environment they lived in and to avoid dealing with their inner monsters by projecting them to an outer world. Of course, Noah breaks the mirage, a constant reminder of the senseless violence they sought to avoid, indeed, the monster incarnate, regardless of his mental innocence. Everywhere you look, societies adhere to certain mythologies, often created by a select view and then broadcasted to the community as a given. The writing of history, the creating of identity, it all follows the same vein. Somebody mentioned in a previous response that the Village was trying to be 'peaceful...like the Israeli Kibbutzim.' In what planet are the Kibbutzim peaceful? How are the killing of indiginous people and the bulldozing of their homes and the diversion of their water, peaceful? But there you have it, the mythology is so much stronger than actual facts on the grounds. It's quite scary. 'Facts' are taken for granted while people forget that there elders chosing what goes on mainstream television and what hardly recieves any mention. The demonization of the enemy into a clearly defined monster - I thought Night was symbolizing the fear of the unknown, the violence and greed of humanity, just the basic fears of loss and death that we have to live with everyday - in an attempt to control our environement and hence our fate, quite simply backfires. Death, loss, and pain are everywhere, and the Village can't escape illness - exemplified by both the initial death of a child and the mental ineptitude of Noah. Its interesting how many early rituals and the development of religion arises from this fear of illness and death. But I think its dangerous not to see how these mythologies, while useful in helping us cope, they often channel our energies outwards, making us focus on dangerous monsters that lurk just around the corner as opposed to focusing on inner problems that remain neglected. Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine comes to mind.
|
johnsod4547
Registered User
(10/18/04 12:02 am)
|
Re: The Village continues
For another story about disinformation,
What about Harlan Ellison's 'Phoenix without Ashes'?
|
blisslessly
Registered User
(10/18/04 10:40 am)
|
rebirth from ashes
I'm not familiar with that one, what's it about? Is it of Chinese origin? Mongol perhaps? Curious to know cuz a lot of Chinese and Central Asian art and mythology traveled westward via the Silk Road since time immemorial!
|
redtriskell
Registered User
(10/20/04 11:02 pm)
|
Harlan Ellison
I am a tremendous fan of Harlan Ellison. "Phoenix without Ashes" is one of those stories you just have to read. It can't, like most of Harlan's work, be summed up in any meaningful way. My personal favorite of his that defys all attempts to categorize it is "The Deathbird." Followed closely by "Mefisto in Onyx" Anyway, give Phoenix a read- it's been anthologized about a zillion times, as far as I can tell. Shouldn't be too hard to find. And then you can come back to post what you thought about it. I'd like to know. Of course, I'd like to know what anyone has to say about Harlan's work. Or Avram Davidson, for that matter- one of the truly great writers of the 20th century who is frequently overlooked. His story, "The Golem" would be a great starting point for a thread about Jewish mysticism and/or the role of people in the future. Anyway, I guess I'd better stop myself before I ramble forever about these guys and the other writers I adore.;)
|
|
