[noprocess]
April 12, 2006

Unbreakable: Pocket Full of Dihydrogen Monoxide

By Courtney Vien

[/noprocess][var: 'thisCategory' = 'Sci-Fi / Fantasy'][if: $thisCategory != 'Author Bio']
Recent Entries in Sci-Fi / Fantasy
[/if][noprocess]

I’ve never quite gotten the whole M. Night Shyamalan thing. Sure, The Sixth Sense (199) was creepy fun and kept me sleeping with the hall light on for a few nights, but the guy’s gone downhill since. He was oversold, it swelled his head to colossal proportions (I’ve heard he’s even compared himself to Hitchcock), and now he weighs his films down with pseudo-profound verbiage intended to cement his reputation as a Serious Director.

Unbreakable (2000) is a perfect example. The plot goes like this: A horrible train crash occurs, and only one man, a security guard named David, survives. Soon David is contacted by Elijah, a comic-book devotee and comics gallery owner, who confronts him with a series of questions: Have you ever been sick? Ever been injured? Can you predict when people are about to commit crimes? Elijah thinks David may be a real-life superhero. Long fascinated by such super-powered guardians, Elijah is in some respects the antithesis of one. Born with a rare disorder that makes his bones extremely fragile, he has suffered over 50 fractures; as a child, other kids nicknamed him “Mr. Glass.”

Elijah and David’s meeting kicks off an overly extended exposition, throughout which David wonders if he actually has superpowers. There are red herrings: What about the time he was in that car accident? How about when he almost drowned in the pool? In an interminable scene—remarkable only for the obvious product placement—David tries to find out how much he can bench-press. Son Joseph, the representative Gloomy Shyamalan Boy, wants Dad to flex his muscles and impress the neighborhood kids; in a scene that seriously strains the viewer’s credulity, he even threatens to shoot David, so he can prove his dad’s “super.”

At this point, I kept thinking, “Come on, you’re super already—go out and kick some villain butt!” But the superhero action, when it finally comes, is disappointing and merely changes the film’s tone from dreary to outright silly. Why did David almost drown that one time? Because his one weakness is water! Of course—water! Hey, maybe he’s really one of the aliens from Signs (2002)! Powerful stuff, that H20.

David’s superhero debut is equally as comical. With his super senses, he sees that a janitor has entered a home and terrorized its inhabitants; he follows the guy into the house, frees the family—and then gets into a fight with the janitor. Unfortunately, while the house looks real, David and the janitor are dressed such that they resemble costumed comic-book characters: David in a cowled, cape-like rain slicker, and the janitor in a neon-orange jumpsuit. The effect is mirth-provoking: the Cowled Avenger versus Orange Jumpsuit Guy. Making the scene even more amusing, the janitor knocks David into a pool. A pool! Water! Nooo! Swim, Slicker Man, swim!

Unbreakable’s ending—which I won’t reveal—puts the grace note on all this absurdity. Shyamalan gifts his audience with yet another twist ending; the surprise comes largely because the psychological motivation accounting for it is so poorly developed. In fact, the director seems to have deliberately withheld information in order to preserve the shock of this “twist,” a choice that considerably weakens the ending, as well as some of the themes he’s trying to put forward.

But what ultimately breaks Unbreakable is how seriously it takes itself. This movie wants you to believe it’s a reservoir of Really Deep Ideas, when all it does is toss some concepts clumsily on-screen and surrounds them with pretentious dialogue. For instance, there’s a lot of blather about David and Elijah being opposite ends of the same spectrum: one’s immune to physical harm and the other’s constantly being harmed, one has a superior body, the other’s got a disabled and weakened body. This idea sounds promising until it is undercut by—yes—more superhero silliness. “I’ve got the same problem with swallowing too much water that you have,” Elijah announces victoriously, once he figures out that David’s near-drowning does not disqualify him from herohood. “It links us together! It’s our greatest weakness!” I don’t mean to sound callous, but I would think that Elijah’s bone disease would present a greater weakness than a tendency to gulp water.

The premise that the human race occasionally produces a person with prodigious powers who could act as a defender—and that such people provide the archetypes on which comic-book heroes are based—is intriguing. But throw a so-called realistic superhero on the screen, fighting crime in a ridiculous-looking slicker-cape, and this idea is exploded. Superheroes have an essentially campy quality that precludes seriousness. The makers of the Spider-Man movies knew this, and that’s what make their films fun to watch. Unbreakable is neither fun—by the end I was hoping for Doctor Deluge or Geyser Girl to appear and create a showdown situation—nor does it have much to say.

Posted by Courtney Vien at April 12, 2006 9:26 PM

Comments

Interesting, as always, Courtney.

Ok, so M. Night Shamalamadingdong is moody and big-headed. But I think those are his most endearing qualities.

He is big-headed enough to take risks on original stuff in an era of comic book adaptations and endless sequals. He is big-headed enough to throw goofy-looking 1950's era aliens into a film and still ask us to believe it. He is big-headed enough to put himself into his films, signaling (perhaps unwittingly) that we shouldn't be taking this stuff too seriously.

And moody... I think he pulls it off, especially in Sixth Sense and the Village. Here's the three step secret recipe: First, create a character (preferrably a child) with an affliction (seeing dead people, asthma, brittle bones, blindness, mental handicap).

Next have everybody whisper almost all of their lines ("I see dead people!" "Are you ready for the truth?" "Swing away." "You run like a girl."). This means you need to find actors who can pull that off (Joaquin Phoenix is quite a find for Mr. Night, but it seemed to put a particular strain on Samuel L. Jackson, a.k.a. Mr. Shoutie).

Finally, have a twisty ending. Voila! You've got a mood.

Formulaic, yes. But I've got to tell ya, I think it works, as long as you don't take things too seriously.

Being original and still batting .500 (Sixth Sense and the Village) is pretty good.

Posted by: Bill S at April 25, 2006 9:24 AM

Bill, you've got a point. If you're going to be bad, at least dare to be big and bad. In this regard, M. Night's cinematic ancestor isn't Hitchcock so much as Cecil B. DeMille (The Ten Commandments: best bad movie ever). Not that he'd appreciate that comparison!

The problem I have with him, though, is that he wants so badly to be taken seriously. His movies lack the saving wink at themselves that would allow them to be entirely enjoyable. Instead, when I find them inadvertently funny, I feel like I'm laughing at him, not with him.

Posted by: Courtney Vien at April 25, 2006 2:07 PM

If you've seen the Village, do you consider his role in that film to be the saving wink? I do.

Posted by: Bill Stevenson at April 26, 2006 8:13 AM

Bill, I watched The Village last night, just out of curiosity, and I can't agree with you that Night's role in that film is the "saving wink." Honestly, The Village just seemed sloppily put together for me, and it was as though, towards the end of the film, ol' M. Night realized that viewers might start asking questions about some of its plot holes, such as, "Hey, how come hikers or hunters haven't stumbled across the village yet? What about planes flying over it?" and threw together his role to pre-empt such questions. But I got the impression that we were supposed to take the rest of the film seriously, even with its ham-handed dialogue.

I know you and Paul won't agree, but I think Shyamalan's batting .250, not .500 (soon to be amended to .200 with the arrival of Lady in the Water, if the trailer's any indication).
I did want to give him credit for casting Paul Giamatti, who seems like the perfect choice if you intend to create a quirky, half-serious, half-silly film, but, judging by the trailer, he too knows how to whisper ("How many of you are there?"). Seriously, it can't be a good sign if the trailer makes you roll your eyes and crack up inadvertently (what's that, a meteor falling into that swimming pool?).

Posted by: Courtney Vien at April 29, 2006 5:26 PM

You know me well, Courtney. I can't help but disagree.

Posted by: Paul M. at May 1, 2006 10:12 AM

[/noprocess]