Bohemian Cinema By Jonathan Pacheco

Drowning in Ambition?

Tags: Blog-a-thon, Lady in the Water, Shyamalan

NOTE: This post is a contribution to the Ambitious Failure Blog-a-thon at [This Savage Art].

Back in 2006, I wrote a fairly harsh review of M. Night Shyamalan’s latest film, Lady in the Water.

If you look at Lady in the Water, it’s easy to tell that Shyamalan can do this sort of material—he can practically do it in his sleep, if you ask me. The problem is that he may have overslept. Or maybe he’s just been staying up too late, because somehow, he managed to botch this one. As with many movies, I think Shyamalan’s ideas are actually pretty interesting, and very cool at times; the idea of mythological characters in everyday life is one I love, but when it’s sloppily handled and quite heavy handed, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

By the way, that “overslept” line still makes me laugh.

I can say a lot of things about how hammy and blatant Lady in the Water is, but one thing I can’t say about the film is that it lacks heart. Shyamalan’s heart is all over this mess, and I know how passionate he was about this project. Heck, he even left Disney over it—not something you do on a whim.

This story is personal for Shyamalan, coming from a bedtime story he told to his kids every night; there’s nothing more personal than your kids.

Yeah, I’m just having so much fun and for me Lady is probably one of my most personal movies and there’s just no way you’re going to knock me down on this one. You know what I mean? It’s like, you can hit me square in the face and I’m not moving. I’m in that mood, you know? And it’s so perfect because it’s kind of like you have to be a little crazy to believe in stories.

I truly think Shyamalan was blinded by his vision for the film. He was so focused on getting this film made, and making it the way he told it, that he failed to realize how self-righteous and pretentious the film would turn out, regardless of his intentions. I feel that Shyamalan really felt that if he poured his heart into this film, he could make a difference in the world. Look at the character he plays: a writer who, if he gets the right inspiration, could put out a book that would ultimately change western civilization.

Why is this film ambitious? Because it makes Shyamalan very vulnerable. He’s displaying his passion and his heart, and if it’s not received well, he could be a laughing stock. The scale of the film is larger than Shyamalan’s other momvies as well; there are a lot more special effects than in Signs, and an entire apartment complex was constructed just for the shooting of Lady.

Mythological and archetypical characters and creatures in modern-day settings are difficult to pull off without feeling fake or lame, and this story is littered with them as Shyamalan attempts to create a fairy tale for adults—something that rarely succeeds (some will point to Pan’s Labyrinth, which I would disagree with. Another time, though, friends). Plus, the film’s story was essentially improvised, or at least improvisational in nature, requiring the audience to surrender any logic or skepticism to just go along with the ride.

Needless to point out, the film was a failure on many fronts: critically, financially, creatively…. I just felt that Lady in the Water lacked any sort of subtlety that Shyamalan displayed in films like Unbreakable. Where was the slow, methodical storytelling? Where was the depth? My main quibble is that it felt like the rough draft of what could be a great film. But it still needed a few pass-throughs to figure out the pacing and development. If you want me to have “faith in an absurd story,” you need to draw me in; don’t drop me in.

What was written above was written after one viewing of the film. What is written below is after a second viewing.

---

One of the film’s biggest flaws is bypassed upon second viewing. If you’ll remember, I had this to say about the characters in Lady compared to the characters in other Shyamalan films:

They behave as doubtful, jaded human beings. In Unbreakable, it is a good hour and a half before the protagonist buys into what is being presented to him. In Signs, it takes concrete proof and an intense confrontation for Mel Gibson’s character to accept the reality of the situation. Yet during Lady in the Water, all it takes for Cleveland Heap is about ten minutes, the word ‘narf,’ and the beginning of a bedtime story, and he’s sold. The mind of a child, indeed. Not only that, but it takes little-to-no convincing to get everyone else in the apartment complex onto Cleveland’s mission train as well.

The second time I watched this film, I didn’t have that problem. I had already seen it, so I knew the world, accepting its flaws. No longer hung up on that, I was able to focus on the story and I allowed myself to be caught up in it. I watched and listened to these characters, and while the ocassional cheesy moment took me out, the world generally sucked me in. I felt a little better about the characters and the mistakes they made because I was able to pick up on a few clues throughout the film that would point to some of these decisions. It made some events more acceptable, and it made it feel like Shyamalan actually thought this thing out.

Remove a few forced stutters, and you actually have a strong performance by Paul Giamatti (what else is new?). This time around, I noticed some moments of fear and sadness that just felt true in a desperate way that only he can portray. I also found his monologue near the end to be quite effective, and extremely moving; Giamatti’s emotions always feel very real and never forced.

The same can be said about the score; I didn’t realize how much I enjoyed the music in this film. James Newton Howard has done great work on all of Shyamalan’s movies, and this is no exception. The main theme is beautiful work that I loved hearing every time it appeared—it just added a wonderful sense of hope.

Overall, the entire film felt a lot more moving emotionally, and I think this is because I dropped my cynicism. I knew I didn’t like the film, so I was simply going to watch it for this essay to see if I noticed anything new, but in the process, I find my heart being tugged at.

Is it a perfect film upon reflection? No, not at all. There are several obstacles: the beginning, some of the characters make mistakes simply to appease the plot…. Is it at least a good film? Absolutely. I want to see this thing again, and I’ll probably end up buying it—that’s a far cry from what I initially felt in my review. It’s not Shyamalan’s best film—not by a long shot—but it’s definitely a Shyamalan film, and a very worthy one at that.