I really don’t think any of this makes any sense, to be honest. I’m not trying to be mean, but… I would suggest you rewatch it but be mindful, first and foremost, of the title of the film; it’s called “Signs,” not “Alien Invasion.”
To start with, there’s no deus ex machina in the film. A deus ex machina is when a plot point is reversed by something that hadn’t been previously introduced at all. In the case of the water, though, that’s clearly not anything of the sort; the water had been introduced, rather strikingly, earlier in the film, just as the subject of the bat and the baseball player had.
Speaking as a sci-fi fan I agree, of course, that the film does not present a realistic alien invasion. I also believe that that is roughly as relevant to the film’s worth as the fact that Phoenix’s character’s “record” for hitting the longest home run would not actually be the all time record. or that Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix don’t look like they could be brothers. The movie isn’t about the aliens.
I have note seen the movie, and am not talking specifically about Sign here, but there’s a significant flaw in your thesis.
Essentially, if it is so, then the aliens should not have been present. If they are ultimately a completely extraneous element with no real purpose, then they don’t need to be in the movie. But if, on the contrary, they are an integral element to the film, then the movie needs to create a world which can coherently incorporate major elements.
It’s certainly true that you can fudge around the edges a bit. I never much cared for (one of) the endings of Return of the King, where Mordor essentially collapses entirely. That was pretty silly while also being unnecessary, but it didn’t really hurt the movie because it was a small enough point. On the other hand, I would’ve been confused, annoyed and unhappy had Saruman deployed his laser-wielding robotroll infanty. Yet the same argument you use above would excuse both, despite the fact that neither really affects the plot of major themes of the series in question. This is because one, despite not being a good idea, does not break the immersion into the movie’s world. The other absolutely would.
It is the job of the director in any genre or style of filmmaking to develop a believable and internally consistent world, and failing to do results in the kind of attitudes I often see directed at Signs. The ending does not excuse the movie; it must stand on its own regardless. And in this case, I see a lot of people who would love the movie, except that at critical moments it completely destroys suspension of disbelief. At that point, arguing that the problem which destroyed SusOfDis is irrelevant does no good - the director failed in his task and cannot undo it. From that point on, no matter how good any other aspect of them movie may be, it remains no more than a collection of images, actors wandering around a set, and a few chosen sound effects. At this point, you may as well put text on the screen saying “FAITH” (Or Sex, Drugs, Violence, Zoe Deschanel being free-spirited, pop-culture references, taking the audience’s money, or whatever). It will ultimately have the same impact on the audience.
To quote the Man Himself [Tolkein, not Shyamalan]:
“He [the director, author, etc.] makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is ‘true’: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside.”
OK, you’re making me say it, but … Mars Attacks! was a comedy, and Signs was not actually supposed to be a comedy, except maybe the part with the tin-foil hats.
I don’t think “little girl leaves glasses of water everywhere” prevents “water kills aliens” from being a deus ex machina, anymore than “boy has asthma” foreshadows “asthma prevents death from alien poisoning”. And I’m not sure that baseball players are any better at clubbing aliens to death than a random layman or that we need a baseball player to explain why a rural American family would own a baseball bat.
And I’ve seen the movie several times. I know what you’re talking about. But smiling bandit and his Tolkien quote have said everything else I could try add to the subject. Sign’s flaws are the result of someone who is some combination of lazy, clumsy and patronizing and it’s all the more jarring because some elements of the movie are so clearly done right.
I read the Blake Crouch book that the series will be based on, and very much like an M. Night Shyamalan movie, it’s well-crafted but…
…has an eye-rollingly terrible twist ending that makes no sense whatsoever.
So I predict that much like “Lost”, people will be drawn in by the Twin Peaks-like weirdness of the first few episodes, during the middle episodes will argue a lot on the Internet by the seemingly unsolvableness of the mystery, and then finally riot in the streets to protest the nonsensical conclusion.
Unbreakable was a great concept of trying to make a realistic super hero movie- how would a regular person react if they acquired super powers. Probably not with the immediate desire to do good and save the world but with a lot of disbelief and discomfort.
But M. Night’s career has been a lot better than, say, Michael Cimino who went from the Deer Hunter to Heavens Gate. Aside from Lucas and Spielberg, do people really pay that much attention to directors anymore anyway?
I get that. But, and this is a huge but, the aliens actively detract from that story. Imagine you are making a concentration camp story. You are trying to expose some deep meaning of the human experience. And all the German guards for some reason have bright orange skin. Regardless of the quality of every other single piece of the story, when people leave the movie all they will be talking about is the guards’ skin. Maybe they were mostly in the background. Maybe a lot of people didn’t even notice. But once someone brings it up, that’ll be all anyone talks about. The aliens vulnerability to water is like that. Once you spend a second thinking, the story is derailed.
I liked Signs much better than most people (at least in this thread); but I don’t think the girl was leaving half-drank glasses of holy water around the house.
Yes I am. I hate Abrams with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns. His Star Trek films reek. He is going to crash the Star Wars universe even more than George did. I have no idea about MI:3 because I won’t watch any movie Tom Cruise is in.
The theory is that God created a miracle and blessed all the waters of the Earth, making them holy, and thus, deadly to the “Aliens,” who, of course, are actually demons. They were glasses of ordinary drinking water before the miracle.
