M. Night Shyamalan has had an strange time during his short, but interesting career as a director. His movies have either a devoted following or a much loathed taint. Really, the only movie he released which people look back on with near universal fondness would be The Sixth Sense, and even then, that probably has more to do with the freshness of the twist ending rather than the story itself. Then Shyamalan began to make things worse for himself. As The Village neared it’s opening date Shyamalan miscalculated with some lame documentary about his own life that felt the need to lie to the audiences about the director’s past. And now just last month, with the release of the book The Man Who Hears Voices, Shyamalan makes public his departure from Disney and how it really hurt his feelings a lot.
Furthermore, every one of his movies has been burdened with what became his patented twist endings. Sometimes they worked brilliantly, as with The Sixth Sense or Signs, and sometimes they felt self important or unnecessary. And speaking of self important, Shyamalan deserves more than his fair share of jabs considering he has a tendency to cast himself in key roles in his own movies.
Now we are faced with another M. Night Shyamalan film. This one is Lady in the Water, and most critics would have you believe that the film isn’t worth your time or energy, and I am going to help you decide whether it is worth your time by spoiling the big twist of the film right up front:
The Lady in the Water is not a failure at all. In fact, it ranks right up there at the top of this summer’s most entertaining movies.
The premise of Lady in the Water is supposed to remind us of bedtime stories, and for the most part, it does it well enough. Paul Giamatti plays Cleveland Heep, the super of an apartment complex that I assume is somewhere right between Philadelphia and the woods that birthed the Blair Witch. Shyamalan takes great and economical pains in showing the world of The Cove. In a few deliberates scenes, we are introduced to characters and their quirks that will eventually become an important part of how the movie eventually resolves. Within the first few scenes, Cleveland expresses concern about someone using the pool after hours, and it isn’t long before he runs out to the pool to see who is breaking the rules. Unfortunately, a watery deck throws Cleveland into the pool unconscious.
When he awakes he finds that he was saved by the very cryptic Bryce Dallas Howard, who is a narf, or sea nymph, named Story. She has a purpose in their little community, and that is one of two mysteries that drive the narrative of the film.
First, let’s dispense with the truly and memorably bad stuff, because there is plenty. I have read many reviews of this film that slammed it for its meandering and over-important story, for its ridiculous plot, and the total misfire that was casting Shyamalan as a visionary writer. All those reviews are right, to be honest. The movie does have a make-it-up-as-you-go kind of vibe. Shyamalan not only endeavors to create a whole vast new mythology, but he places such importance on how it affects humanity that it’s almost laughable.
But ultimately none of that really matters. You see, Lady in the Water could almost serve as a spiritual sequel to Signs. The movie isn’t so much about the huge events and surprises that audiences face at every turn, but instead it’s about how normal people under extraordinary circumstances find their own purpose and heroism.
For example, one of the most ludicrous aspects of the movie is how Cleveland unravels the mystery of his guest. Two tenants, and asian student and her cranky mother, slowly disperse information about narfs and their blue world in the most hammy way imaginable. The retarded lengths that Cleveland has to go to in order to learn the full story are meant to be funny, but really it’s a waste of time. Unfortunately, it is necessary.
Once the full story is understood, the movie becomes about finding key tenants who must play a role in Story’s mission and her eventual salvation. I will be the first to tell you, all the hocus pocus of the story and mechanics are sometimes painful to sit through, but again, none of that matters. It’s almost as if the first two-thirds of the film are merely there to bring the clockwork plot to the final act. With all the pieces in place, the movie manages to find sure footing and the story ends both unexpectedly and in exactly the way you think it should. Like most good bedtime stories.
Not that the first two acts of the movie are a waste. Giamatti manages to wring out an incredible performance as Cleveland Heep. Cursed with a terrible and well-acted stutter (you will think it’s natural!), Giamatti manages to breath real life into the super of the Cove. If not for his humanistic performance to anchor it, the movie would seem much more fatuous. But wringing great performances from great actors is something Shyamalan does very well, and it’s not just Giamatti who gives the movie life. Bryce Dallas Howard doesn’t have much to say in her role, but the pained situation she finds herself in and how it torments her draws out a rich performance from her.
The cast is rounded out by some stalwart actors giving it there all and they include Jeffrey Wright as a befuddled crossword expert that has too much faith placed in his abilities, and Freddie Rodriguez as a circus-freak of a tenant who lifts weights with only one half of his body making him a grotesque. I have no problem with Rodriguez’ performance, but it would have been nice to see a real pay off for his strange body condition.
The only appalling decision in the film was to include Bob Balaban as a know-it-all movie critic. Balaban’s performance is fine, but the character seems vengefully tacked on, and the characters grotesque end is among the films most glaring and lame faults.
Now for something really controversial. I didn’t find a thing wrong with Shyamalan’s performance in the movie. Yes, it’s ridiculously self important, but within the film, it works. Shyamalan has a nice chemistry with both Giamatti and Howard, and a mid-movie revelation about the characters ultimate fate is touching and heroic in all the right ways. Be honest here, there’s no difference between Shyamalan casting himself and Kevin Costner doing the same thing in no less than three films. Or how about Mel Gibson casting himself as both William Wallace and Hamlet? At least Shyamalan doesn’t cast himself in the lead. Perhaps that will one day happen, but his performance here is a well founded one considering the movie allows itself to be used as a deconstruction of cinema itself. He doesn’t detract from the overall flow of the film like his cameos in both Signs and The Village.
Bedtime stories rarely work unless there is a crafty villain at play, and we get that in full force with the scrunt. So what the heck is a scrunt? I would have to describe as the perfect cross between the big bad wolf and Treebeard from Lord of the Rings. The scrunt plays an important role in the movie as the heavy, and unlike most of Shyamalan’s work, we don’t have to wait long to see the dark force that drives the story. The CGI work done on the creature is top notch, and the beastie even provides some excellent scares… both the creepy and the jump out of your seat kind.
What makes the movie work ultimately is the way the plot gels and all these ordinary people find their purpose, which is really what the movie strives for. Shyamalan obviously wants to live in a world where there are no coincidences. He wants his audience to believe that no matter what lot you have in life, there is some worth in you because you ultimately have a purpose. Yes, it’s a lot of metaphysical bullshit, but Lady in the Water is the type of film that makes me want to believe that it is possible, and for that, it was worth the price of my ticket. And yours too.
