Sorry, but I didn’t work all that hard. In fact, all I did was pay attention, something that many of my responses reveal your lack of.
Yes, and your attributing Ivy with “mystical powers” was pure inspiration… my ass.
Warm and sunny? That sure explains everyone’s coats and hats. My suggestion? Dig up.
Munch, I apologized for the sarcastic remark that deflected the civil tone, but you continue to be abusive. Can we back the tone up please, to before the remark that I apologized for?
It’s the goal of a director to give the audience a smoothly comprehensible picture of the univers his movie takes place in. He shows you thing, in other words, that make sense on their face, that fit together, and give you a clear idea of what’s going on, and where, and to imply, where necessary, a backstory, or a sense of what has led up to the scene he’s showing us. If the scene onscreen is illogical, or a non sequitur, or implies a convoluted backstory, those things ruffle the continuity of story. There’d better be a damn good reason to do this. Most of the visual nonsequiturs in TV that require a convoluted backstory to get us to the scene we’re seeing now end up being for no better reason than MNS liked the visual. We have to justify, for example, the non sequitur that it takes two women to sweep a tiny porch not for any reason that supports the story, but simply because MNS liked the visual. Ditto the blind girl discovering the truth by being made to touch a claw in the dark, ditto the kid in the watchtower acting illogically, ditto the climactic shift between forest and clearing. None of the little incongruities that would, in a good movie–say, The Sixth Sense–be little signposts, or clues, that subliminally support the paradigm shift that will happen a the end’s twist, serve any purpose in TV beyond “looking cool.”
When you come upon some such snag, however minor, you expect it to be relevant. Each time you discover that it’s not, that it’s just an artifact of the “no one will notice it” attitude, you get a little more peeved. In a movie such as TV, where these little snags pile up in drifts, you kind of give up on it after a while.
And I did pay attention: the wall at the end is solid brick, not brick columns with wire in between.
And Ivy isn’t just selectively colorblind. it’s implied that she sees certain people’s colors, not certain colors. The suggestion is that she sees auras, or some such mystical thing. Everyone I’ve talked to who’s seen the film got the same impression. Her sight is psychic in nature.
Christ, lissener, if you’re not going to address my points, why the hell should I bother?
Chalk me up as one more viewer who liked The Village. It had a lot of flaws, and it was easily Shyamalan’s worst movie, but I still found it enjoyable and thought-provoking.
Um, I did. I specifically pointed out where you were factually mistaken, and also made the point that where you’re willing to back-justify nonsequiturs that snag, I just want to call them coasty selfindulgence. I just read back over this, and I feel they’ve all been addressed.
Not that this is a debate or anything; it’s just a swirl of individual opinions. But if it were a debate, it seems to me like the next point to be addressed is the one I made about pileups of nitpickable cavalierities.
I also got the distinct impression that Ivy saw mystically saw certain colors. She sneakily knew whenever Pheonix was around, which made it more mysterious. I even made the point to call her Jean Grey when she was talking to Pheonix on her porch.
*take out that first “saw”
The problem wasn’t merely that it was predictable. The problem was that it was so lame, and reminded everybody of the type of story that ends with the revelation that the creepy old caretaker was dressing up as a ghost so he could get the property (and would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for those darn kids).
Wait, are you suggesting that the following is your attempt to address my points?
Let’s start with one individual point: that you believe the fact that the kid in the watchtower acting irrationally needs to be justified.
There have been entire movies made about individuals who act irrationally because they’re scared. Why is explaining that “justifying” it?
My larger point was that one or two such minor nitpickables is no big deal. But when they pile up as they do in TV, it’s a problem. Kind of like circumstantial evidence in a criminal case: an instance or two doesn’t prove anything, but if enough instances of circumstantial evidence accumulate, he’s guilty.
Yeah, take two playing cards, put them against each other so they form a little wigwam, and thats a “pile”.
-Joe, not a botanist, doesn’t really give a shit if plant X is a wildflower or not
The freezing rain bit in the woods was a bit lame…but they do wear lots of coats all the time - But I think this is legit criticism.
The red flower complaint does go a bit far though!
And 20th and 21st century kids would always go to the forbidden shed…but remember the elders basically brainwashed these kids to be “good”, so there is no way that this can fairly be used as a complaint.
I still like it though…but some of the complaints do hold water.
I’m not so sure about the idea that you can “brainwash” kids to not disobey and that it’s only in the last hundred years or so that kids would have gone into the shed. Can you honestly say that a farm boy from the 1800s wouldn’t have been curious enough to disregard warnings about something? Surely kids even then ended up checking out the nearby abandoned mill or mine, trying to climb down the dried-up well, or otherwise tangled up in whatever potentially dangerous, forbidden places were around?
Zackly. There are so many instances in the movie where the characters’ actions can’t really be justified by anything organic to the situation. Over and over again, I imagined asking this character or that, “Why did you do that?” and having them answer, “Why, because it is in the script.”
I agree. But my larger point is that you’ve created nitpicks were there are none. Particularly, the girls sweeping the porch and the scared kid on watchtower duty scream out “I’m looking for something to hate about this movie, and nothing will stop me until I’ve found/created it”.
Well I disagree strongly. I went to the movie expecting to like it. It wore me down. And I certainly disagree about, for one, the boy on the watchtower. Of course we act illogically when we’re afraid. But that’s usually driven by some overwhelming urge to get away from the danger. We follow an emotional logic, rather than an intellectual logic. Moving toward the exposed open edge of the tower makes no sense at all, especially when one is acting emotionally. You move away from areas of exposure, not toward them. Of course not everyone would always behave the same way. But a better director–say, MNS of The Sixth Sense–would have had his characters act in sympathy with his audience during that part of the setup. He would not hand us so many instances where we have to intellectually justify things that don’t feel emotionally right. That was his skill in the earlier films: paralleling his audiences emotional assumptions and manipulating them very skillfully.
I am making that exact argument because this wasn’t a real 1800s society, but one person’s (or group’s) idea of a utopian 1800s society where they controlled every part of it for about a generation. Kids can be “brainwashed” for all types of things…think of the the cults and hate groups that convince kids of crazy stuff all the time. And these people are completely isolated. So I don’t think it to be that far fetched.
One good beating and nobody will go near the shed again! 
By putting in the scenes where the teenage boys see who can stand with their back to the forest for the longest time, MNS made it very clear that the shed would have provided an irresistable enticement to somebody. You can’t have it both ways.
You mean like away from the side of the watchtower that faces the woods that are supposedly inhabited by any number of creatures that want to eat his face off?
Yeah, that’s pretty illogical.
:rolleyes:
I got the impression that The Shed belonged to Mr. Walker and I didn’t think that the whole town called it TSTMNBU, just his family. So there’s two kids, a flighty girl and a blind girl, to keep away from the shed, not the whole town.
I almost laughed out loud when she called it TSTMNBU. That was the climax of cheese.