Shyamalan pulls off a similar piece of magic with Signs, which stars Mel Gibson as Graham Hess, a former minister and widower forced to examine his faith - or lack thereof - when a mysterious set of crop circles appears on his Pennsylvania farm. Except perhaps for the film's heavy-handed and unnecessary final shot, Shyamalan subtly teases our intellect and emotions with near perfect precision throughout. There are few films, and few directors, that can provoke an almost uniform response from an audience. And yet, there I sat, watching everyone laugh, listen quietly to important pieces of dialogue, and jump out of their seats in unison.
Remarkably though, Signs is a crowd-pleaser that doesn't conform to any of the current entertainment standards in Hollywood. The film manages to be sentimental without veering into sentimentality. And while having a definitive style, the film is anything but stylish. The pacing is deliberate, with long takes that allow the audience to watch the actors follow a thought or action from beginning to end - which is particularly enjoyable to see since both Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix, as Graham's aimless but likeable brother Merrill, give two of the best performances of their careers.
In his critical review, Slate's David Edelstein writes: "As a scare picture, Signs is good enough. As a religious parable, it's scarier—and I don't mean that as a compliment." Edelstein's problem is with what he sees as the film's "fundamentalist" religious ethos: "Shyamalan is saying that when you reject God, you kill your kids. The idea that an atheist or agnostic parent could be [a] good parent—could instill values of skepticism and intellectual rigor—is outside this movie's purview."
I typically agree with Edelstein, and I appreciate his criticism precisely for such bold assertions. In this case, however, I can't imagine a more misguided interpretation. It's true that Shyamalan isn't concerned with the parenting techniques of atheists and agnostics, but that's like criticizing Ocean's Eleven for not showing how gambling (and theft), while tremendous fun, can also be addictive and destructive.
Signs isn't really about "Religion" and its many variations and ramifications. It's the story of one man's struggles with faith. Graham isn't an atheist or agnostic; he's a man of God who has shunned his faith after experiencing the tragic loss of his wife. His kids (Abigail Breslin and Rory Culkin) don't feel abandoned because he no longer believes in God, but because he no longer believes in anything. He stopped being their father - the man they rely on and look to for guidance - when he more or less gave up on life.
Where Shyamalan does have to be careful is in the way he handles his now trademark "twist" endings. Signs doesn't offer any surprises on the level of Sixth Sense or Unbreakable, but like those films, Shyamalan again concludes - don't worry, I'm not giving anything away - with an ending that shows the protagonist piecing together all of the "signs" he (and the audience) have been given throughout the movie. Even when it works, as it does here, this maneuver is starting to feel a bit like a gimmick or a crutch, or both.
Edelstein's negative review aside, the critical response has been overwhelmingly positive. Rotten Tomatoes shows 107 "fresh" reviews to only 31 "rotten." Among the most glowing, Roger Ebert gives Signs 4 stars and calls it "the work of a born filmmaker, able to summon apprehension out of thin air. When it is over, we think not how little has been decided, but how much has been experienced. Here is a movie in which the plot is the rhythm section, not the melody."
No comments:
Post a Comment