"The Village"....Part 2.....Does contain spoilers.....

Good idea, mpal.........new thread started here. My husband says I tend to over-analyze things, so this movie is no exception. Good connection with Hurt's character and the use of "evil" as not the animal kind, but man himself. I actually liked the ending, but instead of saying "ahhhhh" as I did with the endings of "The Sixth Sense" and "Signs", what I thought was "awwwww". The arrogance of this man, using his wealth not to further medical research, etc., but to "imprison" a town of people using ignorance and fear to promote his own agenda. My anger at his character in turn tainted my initial response to the film. Both my hubby and son loved it, so it has caused me to rethink it a bit. I was totally impressed with young Howard, and of course Phoenix (has he ever made a bad film?) 42

I see your point. In fact, Shyamalan made a point of putting on a different spin from Signs. Mel Gibson's character was "freed" by his faith. William Hurt's character was "imprisoned" by his idea of hope and safety.

What did you think about the stabbing scene between Noah (Adrian Brody) and Lucius (Joaquin Phoenix)? The younger generation of the village had a very innocent quality to them while the elders had this fear and sadness. That was emphasized by the stabbing. Lucius turned his back on a very upset Noah because he would never have been able to comprehend or imagine what might happen next. That scene just seems to be exactly what it would be like if two "innocents" found themselves in a suddenly violent situation. Although Noah wasn't so much of an innocent at that point.

I expected the monsters outside the village to be simply people and Shyamalan didn't disappoint. There is a really good review in The USA Today regarding Shyamalan and his approach to films. One of the qoutes is that he feels this is his best movie and also the most personal to him.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-07-29-shyamalan-main_x.htm

I'm betting the sound effect taken out is when Lucius is stabbed by Noah.

I am supposing that it is to an artists credit (the artist being Shyamalan) when the outcome of a movie moves the audience to either embrace it or reflect on it. The stabbing scene came out of nowhere. Brody played that masterfully, and the second stab came as almost an afterthought.........I sure didn't see the second attack coming and it shook me to the bone. I am guessing that Hurt's character thought he had created a Utopian society, with no flaws.......I'm sure this little "nick" in the blade lowered his resolve that allowed him to send his "blind" daughter for help. It was later when I realized why he had sent her....being blind she wouldn't see that society had "advanced" just a bit.....42

That stabbing scene and the scene with Lily and Kevin (? the guard on patrol) really stand out compared to the rest of the film. At least for me. Everyone gasped when Noah stabbed Lucius the second time. I think that's the point where Noah really turned into the monster. IMO, the first stabbing was emotional, the second was deliberate.

The scene with Lily and Kevin had a lot of impact with me. IIRC, they never showed the name of the nature preserve until after Lily gave Kevin her full name. That guy had a small part, but he played it extremely well.

I got a little confused with a side plot on William Hurt and Sigourney Weaver's characters. He was in love with her, but was he already married to the other lady? Is that why he told Sigourney that sending Lily out for help was the only thing he could do for her and her son?

That side plot had me confused too. It was sort of a "throw-away" storyline that went no where and could have done without........Totally agreed with the "gasping" of the audience when the second stabbing occurred (including myself).........I kept thinking, after the movie, that Noah could have gotten therapy or some type of intervention had he been in the "outside" world. Another act of selfishness on the part of the leaders........the real monsters of the movie......42

Oh well, maybe someone else will have caught the side plot between Hunt and Weaver. Either that or I'll just have to go see it again.

Just a thought.........when Weaver was explaining to her son that his father disappeared......she meant he was taken by the "creatures"........but do you suppose he just got fed up with village life and left for the outside world? Actually, this movie does need a second viewing afterall................42

Sigourney's husband was killed in "the towns" before she left to become part of the village. Every one of the elders was part of a support group for those who had lost a loved one in a violent crime. William Hurt was the one who suggested the idea to his support group and they all decided to go with him. It was in the end flashback sequences that went by so quickly. I just remember her voiceover at the end saying that her husband left to go to the store and was found nude and dead in the river (I just had a brain spasm and can't remember its name, but it's the famous Jersey/New York river where all the mob victims go to rest). I really do need to watch it again to catch all of the stories.

Thanks mpal........that's exactly right. Now I know I'm going to have to see it again.............42

show 42 said:

I kept thinking, after the movie, that Noah could have gotten therapy or some type of intervention had he been in the "outside" world. Another act of selfishness on the part of the leaders........the real monsters of the movie......42

Click to expand...

I saw it last night and enjoyed it a lot. But, I would not rate it an a, a B- perhaps.

I would not agree that the elders were the "real monsters". I think their intensions were very noble. The Village folk are not the only ones to live a sheltered life.

True, Noah could've gotten some therapy, but did you pay attention to the newspaper headlines that M. Night Shalaman's character was reading at the end? It was one murder after another. So if Noah stabbing Lucius and then himself getting killed are the only violent acts that the Village folk ever experience, then it's pretty tame by comparing it to what could've happened if they all stayed in the "towns". I assume that the outside life in the story is very violent, not what it is in our real lifes.

My real concern is, how long do they plan on living that way? Sonner or later they will be facing some serious interbreeding issues. Let the Wrong Turn 2 enter..

Yana

My real concern is, how long do they plan on living that way? Sonner or later they will be facing some serious interbreeding issues. Let the Wrong Turn 2 enter..

Click to expand...

Exactly........where did all the people come from? They must have talked others into their venture.......As for the elders being "monsters"...that was metaphorically speaking on my part, ( I do love to pick apart novels and movies).
One violent act in a village of about 50 people or so seems to be a lot. Now if it were one out of 10,000 people, it wouldn't stand out as much....

The premise of the movie led me to believe that the menace was "in the woods", when all the time, it was actually "in the village"......a nice twist by Shyamalan........42

I think the "founding fathers", if you will, were a group of 6 people (i.e., the elders). It appeared to be a lot more adults than that. It makes sense that they convinced others to join them. If you pay closer attention (I am mentally rewinding the movie, I am lucky to have a good memory - you could see that it was the youngest generation that was terrified in the thrilling scenes. I can't recall seeing an adult being scared, really. All the close-ups of the terrified faces were the young ones. Think the bravery game, hiding in the basement... Thus, it seems that all the people who decided to join the "elders" either had very young kids or most of the 2nd generation was actually born at the village. What will happen to the next generation is a lot less clear.

I would guess the village was more than 50. Obviously one violent act out 50, even a 100 is a lot. But I am guessing (by looking at the age of the 2nd generation) that the settlement has been in existence for about 25 years or so. Considering that every family was touched by a tragedy in the "towns" I would say one out 50, 100 is not too bad.

I am just thinking that the tragedy they suffered in the "towns" must have been absolutely tremendous in order to abandon the life as they know it, leaving relatives and friends behind. Imagine giving it all up and going back to colonial life, giving up medicine, literature, art?? Figure skating ))))))

I would still disagree that the "menace" was in the village.. maybe more like in their heads? IMO, they were really affected psychologically to come up with such an elaborate escape from reality.

I really liked how Shyalamna played with the "creature" in the forest idea. Growing up, I was spending summers in the country house which was partially sitting in the woods. The nights in the woods seem so much darker and we always imagined the creepiest creatures lurking in there. Going out in the evenings was at times an act of bravery, especially if you were just fed a horror fairy tail

Yana

I've convinced a friend that hasn't seen the movie yet to watch it with me. I'm hoping I'll pick up more details the 2nd time through. I'll have to pay attention to which generation looks scared. I didn't think of that detail before but it would make sense.

Of course, I don't think anyone was expecting the animals in the village to get slaughtered. The elders were definitely shaken by that. And their earlier explanation of coyotes was definitely reaching for anything but the truth. I don't think Noah was at the wedding and had time for a little killing while he was bored.

I am not too familiar with Shyamalan's work, other than the three movies mentioned in this thread. Did he write other screen plays? I wonder how much thought he put into the subtlies that are being keyed in on....reference to only the young one's registering fear, viewers noticing more adults in the village than the original six, etc..............42

B

I didn't think this was Shyamalan's best work at all. I much prefer "The Sixth Sense" and "Signs". But, it is a solid effort with some beautiful cinematography, great performances (particularly Ron Howard's daughter, Joaquin Phoenix and Adrien Brody) and a few interesting ideas about society, politics and religion. You can see the twist coming quite early on, but it is still an interesting one.

Also, I felt Shyamalan's might have been making a statement about the fallacy of trying to hide away or close yourself off from the world. You can seclude yourself in your own world and make everything just as you like it...but sooner or later fate and real life will find you. You can't run and hide from the way things are, or try to smooth them over with lies or deceit...you have to face the realities of life and learn how to deal with them. LOL! I only saw it yesterday and it was just something that occured to me today.

show 42 said:

I am not too familiar with Shyamalan's work, other than the three movies mentioned in this thread. Did he write other screen plays? I wonder how much thought he put into the subtlies that are being keyed in on....reference to only the young one's registering fear, viewers noticing more adults in the village than the original six, etc..............42

Click to expand...

From what I understand from listening to various interviews, he's a pretty detailed person. He probably put a lot of thought into the nuances. Given the fact that he writes, produces and directs the film he at least has several months to think up the details.

I think it's a great that he is able to write, produce and direct the movie. He is able to keep a clear picture throughout of what he wants without other people's visions getting in the way. I'm pretty sure the success of The Sixth Sense made that possible for him.

Am I remembering this detail correctly? I believe that Bruce Willis did The Sixth Sense for a low salary (for him). He liked the story so much that he did the movie.

Another food for thought

It just came to me that there was no mention of religion AT ALL. Utopia, indeed.

Even the wedding started with the dinner and not a ceremony.

I would disagree that it was Noah who was responsible for skinning the animals. I think adults just went along with being shocked and scared.

I am sure he would not have such a reaction when he saw Lucios's blood on his hands right after he stabbed him. To me that was not a reaction of somebody thinking, oh what have I done but more somebody who sees blood for the 1st time. Also, Ivy's father told her that skinning animals is a job of one of the elders.

Yana

Religion wasn't specificly mentioned, but there was a church in the village and it was alluded to in other, subtle ways. I would have to see it again to list all of those. But, it is interesting that religion is never directly brought to the forefront.

I just saw the movie and I loved it, except for the William Hurt/Sigourney Weaver subplot. Could've lived without it, he could've sent Ivy to the town in order to save Lucius just because he's a good person. Or not. Anyway.


Adrien Brody was AMAZING and I hope he's rewarded for that role. ITA that the second stabbing was shocking, and his reaction to the blood was so well done. A lot of actors would've gone for hysteria, but he played it just right.

I also agree that the role of Kevin, while small, was also excellently done. Who was that? I didn't stay for the credits...

Laura

I DID NOT lie this movie at all. I thought it was boring. The 2 people I went with thought so also. For me it is on the same level as "The Blair Witch Project"
boring== boring== boring==

cb