![]() |
July 31, 2004The secret of The VillageI think everyone must have seen the trailer to The Village, the latest movie from the self-regarding director M. Night Shyamalan. 1897. Remote, isolated village. Uneasy truce with some monsters in the forest. But now something's gone wrong... Shyamalan is known for his twist endings, and this one is no different. Everything you read about this movie is careful not to give away any 'spoilers'. But who cares about spoilers if the movie is so terrible? Most of the reviews I've seen have been critical. IMDb poster CWessonSpeaks lays it down: Perhaps the most laughable, implausible, asinine film to grace screens this summer. This shamefully trashy and reactionary yarn about red cape wearing monsters threatening an idyllic Amish-like village is truly preposterous, interminably dull and its narrative `twists' can be seen a mile away. Imagine the silliest episode of Scooby Doo mixed with a `very special' Halloween episode of Little House on the Prairie. The outrageous promotion of this world class turkey from this country's most self promoting, arrogant hack M. Night Shyamalan (who inexplicably and egocentrically seems to fancy himself a modern day Hitchcock) is really unforgivable.Sounds bad right? Not going to go see it? But you want to know what the twist ending is? You're in luck. I've braved numerous bulletin boards on various obsessive movie sites, separated the red herrings from the facts and come up with this. I even found a wacky left-wing interpretation of the movie that reveals deep important insights into the danger of -- wait for it -- George W. Bush! Select the hidden text below to read it: Guess what! It's not really 'the olden days' but modern times! One of the town elders was a billionaire and gathered some of his isolationalist buddies to create a primitive utopian community! He even prevented planes from flying over! The younger people don't know anything about the outside world! The monsters are fake and run by a villager to keep everyone frightened! And how does Bush fit in? Well, I'll let you read it for yourself: My theory is that the film is against Americas war against terror.Notice the end.The security guard is reading the newspaper that says of a number of soldiers killed in action and the radio reports of more being killed.Plus there is a community in which nobody-with the exception of a small elite-know what is happening out of its borders.They have blind faith in the elders and in order for the villagers to be obedient,they are given a pshycological fear through suggestion about these dangerous and bloodthursty creatures that lurk in the forest waiting to harm them.Ofcourse no one,exept the elders have ever seen these creatures.If you watch the news and have been to America,you know what im talking about.It's like a ... a metaphor or something. I get it! Posted by Bruce Gottfred at July 31, 2004 11:43 AM | TrackBack Comments
Hey, thanks for posting that! I had no intention to see that crap, but just wanted to know what the secret was. Although, I have to say, anything that's anti-Bush is OK with me! Posted by: russ at August 7, 2004 10:28 PMYes, thank you very much. I didn't want to see it because of "Unbreakble" being such a POS. Reading the ending, I know now that "The Village" is even worse than I could have imagined. Posted by: Mikey at August 19, 2004 05:40 PMLook I saw the movie. It blew, but the "metaphor" theory is the lamest thing I've heard in a while. This guys saying that the terrorist are paid by Georgie boy to scare us and keep us in line? Oooookay, is he one of these people who also think the Holocaust was made up by rich jews to gain sentimental support? Oh well. I don't even know why I am responding to this...I'm pretty pathetic, I know. Posted by: Uhhh ok at August 20, 2004 11:37 PMI don't think the interpretation is far off. The security firm is "W" as in "Walker." There was an interview with Night in which he expressed concern at the time for the isolationist climate in the country. I don't have the source now, but the movie is obviously an allegory and not to read it as one is to think the filmmaker is just stupid. Filmmakers are not stupid. They all have a point of view and Night's has never been more obvious than in this film Posted by: mk at February 9, 2005 12:02 AMPost a comment
|