Lady in the Water
Jul. 22nd, 2006 01:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tealinSo I just got back from Lady in the Water...
And you know what? I liked it. I haven't heard one good review for it but I liked it. My exposure to its reviews has mostly been limited to the headline and/or star count because I knew I was going to see it anyway and didn't want any preconceptions. And, having seen it, that turned out to be very important. You need to leave your cynicism and preconceptions at the door. If you go in there expecting a typical Shyamalan movie you'll be disappointed. If you expect to be freaked out or have your mind gutted, you will be disappointed. If you're expecting a twist to come out of left field towards the end, you will be disappointed. If you expect a deep philosophical exploration of the state of the world and its problems (as the intro might lead some to believe) you will be disappointed. It is a simple story. Well, okay, in some ways it's quite complicated – there's a lot of background information and characters to keep track of – but the story itself is straightforward enough, well-presented, well-written, well-acted, well-paced, and entertaining. There's a part where the main character has to sort of 'become' a child in order to learn some crucial information and that's what you have to do to enjoy this movie. Just sit back and let it take you along, don't try to fight it. And don't be afraid to laugh. If there's a part that strikes you as funny, then laugh; it's probably supposed to be funny. There are lots of funny parts, including times when the movie appears to be laughing at itself. I think that may be part of why people didn't like it – because they were laughing when they thought they shouldn't be laughing. Go ahead and laugh, don't feel guilty.
This movie, in a way, is a further development in the direction The Village took, in that the plot sometimes plays second fiddle to the characters. I don't mean this in a bad way; having strong characters is very important and usually crucial to the quality of the movie. When I saw The Village it naturally blew my mind a little but what made me want to go back and see it again were the characters. This is the same only more so ... the entire cast is full of really entertaining and yet realistically treated characters. They're all portrayed with a very comfortable naturalism by their actors, including Mr Shyamalan himself, who gets a larger role than the cameos he usually gives himself.
Visually it's not the most evocative movie. Bryce Dallas Howard's face was probably the most artistic thing in it. Not to say it was boring to look at; the cinematography was, of course, well-done, and all in all it was rather nice for a movie that takes place entirely in and around an apartment block. There's only so much you can do with that, and in a way, the blandness of the setting (combined with the convincing everydayness of the characters) makes the fantastical elements of the story stand out all the more.
As I mentioned before, there's a fair amount of backstory. This is gradually revealed to the audience, partly as a short primitive animated sequence at the beginning but mostly in bits and pieces throughout the rest of the film, as the main character learns it. Handling a movie with this backstory to plot ratio is doubtless very difficult, but I thought it was worked in relatively well, as a sort of running gag that's helped by the strength of the characterzations which are established well before the backstory revelation begins.
That said, I do have a couple minor quibbles. Very minor. First, the names of the creatures involved with the fantasy side of things do not sound East Asian. They sound like something you might get in a Western fantasy novel or kids' book, but not like something out of Asian folklore. And why oh why was the water creature called a narf? Surely someone must have known that that word has already entered the English lexicon via Pinky and the Brain and hardly conjures up images of serene feminine sea creatures. They could have used something like Nix or Nisse (an established traditional European water nymph) which would be an approximate translation of something in an Asian language, and done the same for the other creatures. Of course I'll probably be shown up by someone presenting evidence that Narfs and Scrunts and whatchamathingies are actually present in some Asian folklore or another, but that's my two cents for the moment.
My other quibble is much more localised and probably only applicable to my experience and maybe a few others'. There were a number of shots, towards the beginning, where you could clearly see the boom mic hovering around at the top of the screen. Now, when the movie started after the trailers, the image was centred very low on the screen, and there were a few seconds of obvious projector manipulation to try to get it registered right, but it still seemed a little low – it could be that the mic was outside the widescreen cutoff and wouldn't normally be seen if the projector had been positioned correctly to begin with. I won't deny that it was distracting, though, especially with the people around me pointing it out in excited whispers every time it appeared. The offset projector might have been all there was to it; after a few minutes of floaty mic distraction, someone further forward in the theatre got up and left in a purposeful manner and came back fairly quickly, and by the time we'd switched to the next reel it was OK and stayed OK for the rest of the movie. I only mention this because the only other movie for which I remember people commenting on a large number of obvious mic shots was The Village, so perhaps Mr Shyamalan (or one of his crew members) has a bad habit of letting the mic stray too close to the widescreen cutoff.
It's a simple story – not uncomplicated, on the surface, but overall it's as unsophisticated and innocent as (like the tagline says) a bedtime story. If you want to find deeper meaning you may be able to if you try, but it's not shoved in your face or presented as a puzzle you must figure out in order to appreciate the film. Is it anti-war? Not exactly. Is it a fantasy? Not really. Is it an exploration of our places in the world as individuals? Maybe, but not necessarily. What it is is a bit weird, which is pretty much the only expectation from past experience with the director that I took with me. A bit weird, but good, if you approach it from the right direction and with an open heart.
Special note must be given to the bumper crop of trailers that accompanied the movie. We're into the season where you get trailers for the more serious winter movies, and this year looks like it might just make up for a lacklustre summer.
If I can remember right, they were (in no particular order):
Children of Men - this looks really fascinating, a sort of [post?]apocalyptic fall-of-civilisation thing sort of vaguely along the lines of Day of the Triffids in flavour. The trailer is worth a look. It'll probably only appeal to a certain audience (my sister carrying the banner) but it looks good. It's directed by Alfonso Cuaron, and I was a bit mystified why they made a point of mentioning Prisoner of Azkaban as one of his prior films when the audience overlap would be miniscule, but I guess that's probably the highest-grossing film of his to date.
The Reaping - Okay, this one didn't interest me so much ... a sort of end-of-the-world/Old-Testament-plagues/little-blond-antichrist thing. Set in the bayou as far as I could tell. What piqued my interest more than anything was wondering how they got permission to turn the water in a cypress swamp red ... it looked too real to be a CG effect, but who knows? Maybe it was.
Hollywoodland - A film about the suicide (or was it murder?!) of the guy who played Superman on TV for a while in the 50s or 60s or something. It looks well done and would probably interest a)Superman fans and b)old-time Hollywood buffs but I am neither ... unless, of course, the hapless square-jawed mannequin met his demise at the hands of a faded star of the silent screen whose hopes and dreams he'd yanked around for his own gain. Heheh. Oh, and it's got Adrien Brody in it. Not playing Superman-guy, though.
The Prestige - a movie about turn-of-the-century* magicians (stage magicians) duking it out. Even putting the subject matter aside, this one grabbed my attention specifically because it convinced both my sister and I that Christopher Nolan HAS to direct the Bartimaeus movie, if and when it is ever made, no matter what medium. If you have read the books, you TOTALLY have to check out the trailer because WOW – that is exactly the right visual language. Wow.
The Fountain - Something to do with the Fountain of Youth but it's actually a tree ... ? I dunno. It was all very artsy and high-brow anime and too pretentious for me. (Me who likes Copenhagen... go fig.) Probably has a Statement or five. Bonanza time for the recreational deconstructors.
World Trade Center - Okay, I am a horrible, heartless person who will burn in hell for my callous jocularity but every time I see this trailer or a commercial for this movie with that theme music in the background, all I can do is hum 'El Doraaaadoooo... El Doraaaadoooo ... ' in my head. And Hans Zimmer didn't even write the score. I hate to possibly ruin the ending for you, but I think the buildings come down and lots of people die.
*To those who like to be all smartypants about it: 'turn-of-the-century,' while technically applicable to the boundary period between any century and the one following it, will be percieved by the majority of people born before 2000 (which probably includes 98.462% of the people reading this, as I doubt many six-year-olds could manage) as the turn of the nineteenth century into the twentieth; the period known in most Anglophone countries as Late Victorian/Edwardian. So there. Shut up.
And you know what? I liked it. I haven't heard one good review for it but I liked it. My exposure to its reviews has mostly been limited to the headline and/or star count because I knew I was going to see it anyway and didn't want any preconceptions. And, having seen it, that turned out to be very important. You need to leave your cynicism and preconceptions at the door. If you go in there expecting a typical Shyamalan movie you'll be disappointed. If you expect to be freaked out or have your mind gutted, you will be disappointed. If you're expecting a twist to come out of left field towards the end, you will be disappointed. If you expect a deep philosophical exploration of the state of the world and its problems (as the intro might lead some to believe) you will be disappointed. It is a simple story. Well, okay, in some ways it's quite complicated – there's a lot of background information and characters to keep track of – but the story itself is straightforward enough, well-presented, well-written, well-acted, well-paced, and entertaining. There's a part where the main character has to sort of 'become' a child in order to learn some crucial information and that's what you have to do to enjoy this movie. Just sit back and let it take you along, don't try to fight it. And don't be afraid to laugh. If there's a part that strikes you as funny, then laugh; it's probably supposed to be funny. There are lots of funny parts, including times when the movie appears to be laughing at itself. I think that may be part of why people didn't like it – because they were laughing when they thought they shouldn't be laughing. Go ahead and laugh, don't feel guilty.
This movie, in a way, is a further development in the direction The Village took, in that the plot sometimes plays second fiddle to the characters. I don't mean this in a bad way; having strong characters is very important and usually crucial to the quality of the movie. When I saw The Village it naturally blew my mind a little but what made me want to go back and see it again were the characters. This is the same only more so ... the entire cast is full of really entertaining and yet realistically treated characters. They're all portrayed with a very comfortable naturalism by their actors, including Mr Shyamalan himself, who gets a larger role than the cameos he usually gives himself.
Visually it's not the most evocative movie. Bryce Dallas Howard's face was probably the most artistic thing in it. Not to say it was boring to look at; the cinematography was, of course, well-done, and all in all it was rather nice for a movie that takes place entirely in and around an apartment block. There's only so much you can do with that, and in a way, the blandness of the setting (combined with the convincing everydayness of the characters) makes the fantastical elements of the story stand out all the more.
As I mentioned before, there's a fair amount of backstory. This is gradually revealed to the audience, partly as a short primitive animated sequence at the beginning but mostly in bits and pieces throughout the rest of the film, as the main character learns it. Handling a movie with this backstory to plot ratio is doubtless very difficult, but I thought it was worked in relatively well, as a sort of running gag that's helped by the strength of the characterzations which are established well before the backstory revelation begins.
That said, I do have a couple minor quibbles. Very minor. First, the names of the creatures involved with the fantasy side of things do not sound East Asian. They sound like something you might get in a Western fantasy novel or kids' book, but not like something out of Asian folklore. And why oh why was the water creature called a narf? Surely someone must have known that that word has already entered the English lexicon via Pinky and the Brain and hardly conjures up images of serene feminine sea creatures. They could have used something like Nix or Nisse (an established traditional European water nymph) which would be an approximate translation of something in an Asian language, and done the same for the other creatures. Of course I'll probably be shown up by someone presenting evidence that Narfs and Scrunts and whatchamathingies are actually present in some Asian folklore or another, but that's my two cents for the moment.
My other quibble is much more localised and probably only applicable to my experience and maybe a few others'. There were a number of shots, towards the beginning, where you could clearly see the boom mic hovering around at the top of the screen. Now, when the movie started after the trailers, the image was centred very low on the screen, and there were a few seconds of obvious projector manipulation to try to get it registered right, but it still seemed a little low – it could be that the mic was outside the widescreen cutoff and wouldn't normally be seen if the projector had been positioned correctly to begin with. I won't deny that it was distracting, though, especially with the people around me pointing it out in excited whispers every time it appeared. The offset projector might have been all there was to it; after a few minutes of floaty mic distraction, someone further forward in the theatre got up and left in a purposeful manner and came back fairly quickly, and by the time we'd switched to the next reel it was OK and stayed OK for the rest of the movie. I only mention this because the only other movie for which I remember people commenting on a large number of obvious mic shots was The Village, so perhaps Mr Shyamalan (or one of his crew members) has a bad habit of letting the mic stray too close to the widescreen cutoff.
It's a simple story – not uncomplicated, on the surface, but overall it's as unsophisticated and innocent as (like the tagline says) a bedtime story. If you want to find deeper meaning you may be able to if you try, but it's not shoved in your face or presented as a puzzle you must figure out in order to appreciate the film. Is it anti-war? Not exactly. Is it a fantasy? Not really. Is it an exploration of our places in the world as individuals? Maybe, but not necessarily. What it is is a bit weird, which is pretty much the only expectation from past experience with the director that I took with me. A bit weird, but good, if you approach it from the right direction and with an open heart.
Special note must be given to the bumper crop of trailers that accompanied the movie. We're into the season where you get trailers for the more serious winter movies, and this year looks like it might just make up for a lacklustre summer.
If I can remember right, they were (in no particular order):
Children of Men - this looks really fascinating, a sort of [post?]apocalyptic fall-of-civilisation thing sort of vaguely along the lines of Day of the Triffids in flavour. The trailer is worth a look. It'll probably only appeal to a certain audience (my sister carrying the banner) but it looks good. It's directed by Alfonso Cuaron, and I was a bit mystified why they made a point of mentioning Prisoner of Azkaban as one of his prior films when the audience overlap would be miniscule, but I guess that's probably the highest-grossing film of his to date.
The Reaping - Okay, this one didn't interest me so much ... a sort of end-of-the-world/Old-Testament-plagues/little-blond-antichrist thing. Set in the bayou as far as I could tell. What piqued my interest more than anything was wondering how they got permission to turn the water in a cypress swamp red ... it looked too real to be a CG effect, but who knows? Maybe it was.
Hollywoodland - A film about the suicide (or was it murder?!) of the guy who played Superman on TV for a while in the 50s or 60s or something. It looks well done and would probably interest a)Superman fans and b)old-time Hollywood buffs but I am neither ... unless, of course, the hapless square-jawed mannequin met his demise at the hands of a faded star of the silent screen whose hopes and dreams he'd yanked around for his own gain. Heheh. Oh, and it's got Adrien Brody in it. Not playing Superman-guy, though.
The Prestige - a movie about turn-of-the-century* magicians (stage magicians) duking it out. Even putting the subject matter aside, this one grabbed my attention specifically because it convinced both my sister and I that Christopher Nolan HAS to direct the Bartimaeus movie, if and when it is ever made, no matter what medium. If you have read the books, you TOTALLY have to check out the trailer because WOW – that is exactly the right visual language. Wow.
The Fountain - Something to do with the Fountain of Youth but it's actually a tree ... ? I dunno. It was all very artsy and high-brow anime and too pretentious for me. (Me who likes Copenhagen... go fig.) Probably has a Statement or five. Bonanza time for the recreational deconstructors.
World Trade Center - Okay, I am a horrible, heartless person who will burn in hell for my callous jocularity but every time I see this trailer or a commercial for this movie with that theme music in the background, all I can do is hum 'El Doraaaadoooo... El Doraaaadoooo ... ' in my head. And Hans Zimmer didn't even write the score. I hate to possibly ruin the ending for you, but I think the buildings come down and lots of people die.
*To those who like to be all smartypants about it: 'turn-of-the-century,' while technically applicable to the boundary period between any century and the one following it, will be percieved by the majority of people born before 2000 (which probably includes 98.462% of the people reading this, as I doubt many six-year-olds could manage) as the turn of the nineteenth century into the twentieth; the period known in most Anglophone countries as Late Victorian/Edwardian. So there. Shut up.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-24 04:08 pm (UTC)Personally, I'm not a fan of Shamalamadingdong.