Shyamalan sees dead people again

Shyamalan sees dead people again
By Ben Flanagan
BEN AROUND

Nearly twenty years passed before Steven Spielberg ventured into R-rated territory with his 1993 masterpiece “Schindler’s List.” With it, the wide-eyed storyteller who dazzled all of America with spectacular event films for kids and adults (“Close Encounters,” “E.T.,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark”), film’s wonderboy grew into an adult whose storytelling evolved into a more poetic “for adults only” realm.

In a 2002 issue, Newsweek tapped writer/director wunderkind M. Night Shyamalan as “The Next Spielberg” (on its cover, no less). While the kind title came after only his third film – or second that anyone knew about – and right before his fourth (“Signs”), the magazine described the newbie as “more akin to the young Spielberg in his careful rippling of the heartstrings, his deft touch with child actors, his fascination with the middle-class American family and his desperate desire to keep pleasing the same demographic over and over: people between the ages of 10 and 100.”

In the article, they stress a “young” Spielberg; but does Newsweek still stand by its claim just seven years ago before Shyamalan’s notoriously debated films “The Village” and “Lady in the Water” were released to underwhelming box office numbers and mixed critical responses?

Sometimes, members of the media rush to judge new faces both in front of and behind the camera, which is unfair. Remember a few years ago when writers helmed Tom Hanks as the next Jimmy Stewart? Or more recently with George Clooney as the next Cary Grant? With the ladies, folks want to determine just who will be the next Julia Roberts: Amy Adams or Anne Hathaway. Didn’t work out with Reese Witherspoon, so they’ve moved on apparently.

The same thing happens in politics and sports, too. Barack Obama as the next John F. Kennedy. Kobe Bryant as the next Michael Jordan. To the contemporary figures whose achievements have led them to this point, I’d say the comparisons are certainly justified in some cases to a certain extent, but most of the time they stretch towards insulting. Never will these people accomplish on any level specifically what their predecessors did in their own respectively incompatible eras. They may hope to meet some sort of equivalent or even transcend what’s already been attained, but don’t look for carbon copies.

Such comparisons can potentially damage careers like Shyamalan’s. If he must live up to the likeness of an icon like Spielberg, he’ll never make it. Instead, he’ll be pressured into become more imaginative and different from his own contemporaries, and he’ll squirt out unforgivable drivel like “Lady in the Water” which convinced Disney the man may have hit a creative brick wall and needed more time to develop his thoughts. Personally, I find his underrated, beautifully shot and paced film, “The Village,” to be Shyamalan’s masterpiece, which could raise the eyebrows of the many “Sixth Sense” and “Unbreakable” loyalists who’d laugh at the notion of anything else surpassing those gems.

At this point, it’s safe to declare Shyamalan a unique talent among most of today’s offerings in Tinseltown. As a filmmaker, the guy has almost seamlessly developed his own style for the craft that most of us immediately recognize when we see a new trailer of his without even seeing his name attached – something we can only do with a select few today (Wes Anderson maybe?).

And so we don’t fall behind in our unfair comparisons, let us acknowledge that, like Spielberg back in 1993, M. Night Shyamalan will release his first ever R-rated feature film today with “The Happening.”

Those who have seen advertisements for the thriller may notice the heavy emphasis the marketing puts on the mature rating, highlighting the ‘R’ in bright-red coloring. The Motion Picture Association of America ratings board’s official justification for the rating says the film contains “violent and disturbing images,” and if you’ve seen the red-band trailer online, you get the idea that Shyamalan ain’t messing around this time. The violence shown in these clips emphasizes that this director whose childlike sensibilities told unconventional stories for everyone in the recent past has shifted gears toward a much more mature audience.

Skeptics claim that the film’s box office numbers could hurt from the notion that audiences are unfamiliar with just what “The Happening” is all about. To clarify, the story follows a family on the run from an inexplicable and relentless event that threatens humankind. Some say that Shyamalan’s getting all environmental on us, suggesting that the threat could be something toxic in order to scare us into going green. Reckon we’ll see.

After the disappointing “Lady in the Water,” I found it hard to defend Shyamalan after his “bedtime story” that most assuredly put his children (along with those of us who saw it) to sleep. But I’m a believer in second chances, and I especially believe in a filmmaker who’s willing to take chances. Perhaps the R-rating will negatively affect the film’s box office (against “The Incredible Hulk” today), but I see it as an opportunity for the guy to grow a little...or just experiment with some gory makeup effects.


The Incredible Hulk at the Cobb Hollywood 16 - Not sure what to think about Marvel's re-do on the not-so jolly green giant? Perhaps you're asking yourself, "Haven't I already seen a 'Hulk' movie? Like 5 years ago? And didn't it stink?" If that's how you feel, then Marvel Studios might agree with you. Virtually spitting in the creative faces of Ang Lee and others involved with the first disappointing go-around with 2003's "Hulk," Marvel has teamed up with Universal Pictures, French director Louis Letterier (The Transporter movies) and Edward Norton (who co-wrote) to try and get it right this time. Judging from the initial trailer released several months ago, the revamped version felt silly and overcharged with obvious CGI effects (especially when compared to Lee's superior work in the first film). But since a few clips have hit the web, buzz has grown much stronger thanks to what look to be strong action set pieces, which Lee's version sorely lacked from beginning to end. Norton, Tim Roth, Liv Tyler and William Hurt co-star; and if you liked Marvel's first summer foray with "Iron Man" this summer, rumors flying around suggesting some key character crossover action should only help matters.

Funny Games on DVD - What happens when we see a remake before the original version of a film, TV show or song? Do we always prefer which ever we've seen first, even if someone had the idea and executed it with success before? For instance, most of us remember indie hero Gus Van Sant's failed experiment with his shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho," but I don't hold it against the guy. Either way, how bad can a shot-for-shot remake of that movie actually be? Casting's always the issue, it seems - and color, for that matter. German filmmaker Michael Haneke has done something similar to what Van Sant did, only he's done it with his own movie, called "Funny Games," previously released in 1997. This week, his remake, starring Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Michael Pitt, hit the streets - and I'll be seeing it before I see the original. I can't offer any kind of substantial rationale other than I saw the new edition's trailer before I heard of the first, and it immediately piqued my interest. Said to be highly disturbing by most critics, as the story follows two psychotic young men who take a family hostage in their home, the brilliant trailer promises what could be a dark comedy that takes things the extra mile. While most may not have the stomach for it, the real cinephiles ought to latch on to either version.