Although this year's The Last Airbender has M. Night Shyamalan's worst Rotten Tomatoes number (7% positive), most people seem to gravitate towards his evil tree fable The Happening as the The Sixth Sense director's worst film.
It’s definitely a reasonable choice- from the terribly drawn characters to the bad acting to the Monty Python-esque suicide scenes to Mark Wahlberg's attempt at using the scientific method (“identify the variables!”)- the film fails on every level.
But Lady In The Water is even worse.
Why is it so bad? Or, at least, worse than Spores of Doom? For several reasons that I will get into below. But it's main failing comes at its point of inception.
Lady in the Water attempts to create a brand new ancient fairy tale that can fit alongside the works of the Brothers Grimm and the like, but brought to modern day. CORRECTION. Shyamalan tries to create a universe of fairy tales from ancient times semi-related to modern day events. But ti's not that either...
Actually, it might be best to tell the bedtime story of The Blue World.
Once Upon A Time... (The Scrunts, The Narfs, The Blue World And Other Stupid Bullshit)
In the film proper, many elements of the story are left vague and unexplained. Is it because the story is so old that man doesn't remember? Is it because the story is so magical that details don't matter? Os is M. Night Shyamalan's film a hodgepodge of half-baked ideas? All I want to know is where does The Blue World exist (The ocean? An alternate dimension? Pools across America?)
The details of the story is usually told from Stereotype Young Asian Punk Girl Who Talks Like Short Round from Temple of Doom, who translates from Stereotype Old Asian Mother Figure who screams in what I can only imagine is offensively gibberish Chinese. Why them? Well, the Blue World tale is an Eastern Bedtime Story, so I guess it's some sort of ancient Chinese secret, huh?
The information is divulged slowly, but not in any way that builds mystery or suspense. It seems more as if Shyamalan made up new rules every day on set and has the Asian Expositions pop in to say them. Another reason why this tactic fails is because every time protagonist Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) asks for details and is told ‘no,’ he is almost immediately given more information with barely any coaxing.
So here's what we know about the Blue World.
The film starts with an opening narration over cave drawings, in case we couldn’t get that this is old mythology.
“Once, man and those in the water were linked. They inspired us. They spoke of the future. Man listened and it became real. But man does not listen very well. Man's need to own everything led him deeper into land. The magic world of the ones that lived in the ocean... and the world of men... separated. Through the centuries, their world and all the inhabitants of it... stopped trying. The world of man became more violent. War upon war played out, as there were no guides to listen to. Now those in the water are trying again... trying to reach us. A handful of their precious young ones have been sent into the world of man. They are brought in the dead of night... to where man lives. They need only be glimpsed... and the awakening of man will happen. But their enemies roam the land. There are laws that are meant to keep the young ones safe... but they are sent at great risk to their lives. Many... do not return. Yet still they try... try to help man. But man has forgotten how to listen...”
Obviously this opening broaches a lot of questions such as what caused the schism? Did man originally live in the water? If they could tell the future, why couldn’t they foresee this happening? What do they mean by “not listen very well”? Clarify the prophecies then. Later in the film, narf Story’s (Bryce Dallas Howard) prophecies are pretty damned detailed….but I am getting ahead of myself.
Narf Indeed
The first bit of information we get from the Asians is that the “Narf is a sea nymph...
The Narf must be seen by the one human chosen for her. That person is called 'The Vessel.' Seeing the Narf will awaken something in the chosen one. If she's successful in this, she will return with the Great Eatlon, giant eagle and become free.”
Note 1: We never see Story in a sea, just in a shitty motel-apartment swimming pool, which probably would not be connected to any natural body of water, even with Story's crazy underground lair
Note 2: That classic sea creature, the eagle. Next bit: “There are bad guys, creatures called scrunts and they kill Narfs (Narves?) when they are out of the water. They lay completely flat, their back is covered in grass, and that's why man never sees them”
Except, Cleveland does see a scrunt. Well, maybe he was able to because the scrunt was attacking at the time. Also, why weren't the scrunts mentioned in the opening narration? How do they fit into the prehistoric man/narf relationship?
Story is attacked by a Scrunt the first time the eagle comes to get her. We soon discover that “the scrunt has poison that kills narfs but narfs can protect themselves with a special mud called Qui that cures them and they keep it where they live.”
I guess the scrunt needs the poison because its massive jaws and claws aren't enough to do the job, I guess. Still looks better than the werewolves in Twilight.
Heep then asks “what keeps a scrunt from attacking the narf when the eagle come?” Shouldn't the question be, why wouldn't a scrunt attack a narf when the eagle comes if their sole purpose is to kill narfs? That would seem like the best time.
Answer: "Only a rogue scrunt will break the law of that night because most scrunts are afraid of Tutunics, the law keepers in this bedtime story. … there are three of them but they are called by one name: Tutunic. They live in the trees. They are said to look like monkeys but no one knows for sure because no one who has seen them has lived. The legend says they were born so evil that they killed their parents on the night they were born. Fear of them have kept justice in The Blue World for centuries."
If there are only three Tartunics, the peacekeepers in the Blue World, so we see all three of them in the woods near The Cove (the shitty apartment complex the action takes place). So does the Blue World solely exist in Pennsylvania? But we only see one narf and one scrunt. So did the Tutunics transfer to the Pennsylvania trees to keep an eye on things because of a Narf is seeking her Vessel? But if they’re here, then who is keeping peace in the Blue World? Also... if the Tartunics are tree creatures, scrunts are grass things, eagles are air, and narfs live in the sea, why do they run into so much conflict? And WHERE do humans fit in?
When next we encounter the Asians, we learn the reason the Asian Mother won't give out more of the story is because she doesn't see Heep as a child, since it is a bedtime story after all. So we get to see Paul Giamatti act like an adult baby and finally get to wrap up what we need to know.
“One Thousand Narfs is about a rare narf that comes once in a generation of narfs who is called a Madame Narf. (Stop saying narf.) Her Vessel is important. This Vessel will cause change. (Change where? Does change in our world = change in The Blue World? Does change in the Blue World = change in our world?) But it is the Madame Narf herself that is truly the key. She's considered a queen to her people. (What people? We know nothing about her world other than there’s a giant eagle, other narfs apparently, scrunts, and Tutunics. Are they a peaceful race? A Warrior race?) Her return would be seen as a great inspiration. (To whom? Us? The Narfs? We don’t know any Narfs other than Story. Are there male narfs?) A Scrunt will do anything to kill a Madame Narf. Even forget his fears of The Tutunics. (So what was all that bullshit about rogue scrunts?)
You want more? We have more.
After being attacked, we learn that the eagle will come back one more time to collect Story. (If the eagle doesn't get her this time then... *shrug* )
To assist her, “there are humans with powers that can help her. People drawn to live near the Vessel. (The dates of the origins of leases are left unknown.) Now these humans don't know who they are and they always appear in the story earlier. (So the story isn't the story of the Narf but the story of the Narf On Earth?) They are.... a Symbolist, a Guardian and a Guild.”
- The Guardian...he can hypnotize scrunts.
- The Symbolist, an interpreter who can read signs in clouds and other forms. He will interpret messages from the universe if problems should arise.
- And the Guild, whose many hands will combine to help.
- In some stories, there is also a Healer who awakens the life force in all living things. You can tell because butterflies are drawn to them. (Only one butterfly in the film just to mislead you.)
Blue World? Our World? It doesn't matter, we see no signs at the end besides people looking at a giant CGI eagle.
So we all on the same page? Good.
The Plot
The myths of The Blue World pretty much make up the film's entire plot. No, not the interesting stuff with alternate universes stretching back to the birth of man, epic battles of narves v. scrunts but the boring parts with personalityless alien Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) and the inhabitants of The Cove, a shitty apartment complex in Philadelphia.
At the beginning we learn that someone has been messing with The Cove's pool and pool guys cannot figure out what it is. The best they can figure is that someone is swimming in it after closing time. But how could this be? It's so well guarded.
Turns out to be Story, the Narf who turns out to be the Madame Narf. She lives in some underground area in the pool and she's there to see her Vessel. How she got there? We never know.
Cleveland Heep, caretaker of The Cove, discovers her and cares for her. She finds the Vessel (more on him later), inspires him, goes to the Great Eagle, is attacked by a scrunt, and goes mute for some reason. After Cleveland finds the special mud, she's healed and can talk again.
Wet Shirtless Giamatti in Story's Crazy Underground Lair
Story has one more time to get to the eagle, and that's when the Guild/Symbolist/Healer (“Guild, et al.”) come in. Guesses are made as to whom fits the three roles and the “chosen ones” kind of accept it.
We never understand why they believe in Story's story; many of them do without even seeing Story. Even when they meet her, they have no reason to believe she's anything more than a kind of hot semi-catatonic cutter chick who likes to hang out in the shower. Is her aura that powerful that people just do things without questioning why? I can understand Cleveland believing her because he comes to know her the best, and even The Vessel is supposed to be changed psychically in some significant way- but why does everyone else? We don't even see Cleveland trying to explain to them what's going on.
Anyway, the group decides to throw a party, made up of the seemingly hundreds of tenants and friends (the vast, vast majority of whom we never see), on the day of the eagle's final visit in order to confuse the scrunt because that many people will throw it off Story’s scent. Except…Story isn’t human. Her scent could be entirely different than every human on the planet. Her scent could be “green” while every human could be a varying shade of “blue.” And since we’ve seen scrunts attack humans, these mythological heroes are basically inviting everyone they know to what could amount to a massive slaughter just to save Story and the Blue World because…?
Anyway, the party happens, Story is attacked and dies, and it turns out that their first guesses at to the identities of the human helpers are wrong. After second, equally nonsensical, guesses turn out to be right, Story comes back to life, the scrunt is stopped by the tree monkeys, and great eagle flies her away.
With the plot out of the way, let's get into the man in charge, M. Night Shyamalan who doesn't just direct and write but has a significant role as an actor.
M. Night Shyamalan (Actor)
Plenty of filmmakers put themselves in their movies. Alfred Hitchcock regularly made cameos in his film. Non-actor Spike Lee gave himself important roles in such films as Do The Right Thing and Mo’ Better Blues. Quentin Tarantino as Jimmy in Pulp Fiction awarded him the opportunity to work with Vincent, Jules and The Wolf as well as the classic “Dead nigger storage” line and coffee monologue.
But none approach the level of the self congratulatory blow job M. Night Shyamalan gave himself in Lady in the Water. He is The Vessel. He makes himself The Chosen One, whose brilliant insights will save us all!!!
M. Night Shyamalan plays Vick, a loser tenant at The Cove. He’s a writer who lives with his sister while toiling away on his book, The Cookbook, about “you know, just my thoughts on all our cultural problems and thoughts on leaders and stuff.” As he puts it, “there's a lot of things in The Cookbook people won't like to hear.”
In prior times, that would be a “manifesto.”
But today, we live in a world where every asshole has a blog.
If this work is some sort of crazy rebellious piece that will bring people enlightenment, it would be nice to at least have some idea about the challenging ideas that will change the universe. You don't have to read your treatise (though someone sitting and reading from The Cookbook, like in The Invention of Lying would probably be more entertaining than the movie itself), but give us some hints. Is it liberal? Conservative? Social? Economic? Vick continues to act all humble and sheepish about it, annoyingly so, even after being told it'll be crazy influential.
Eventually, he learns from Story that "a boy in the midwest of this land will grow up in a home where your book will be on the shelf and spoken of often. He'll grow up with these ideas in his head. He will grow into a great orator. He will speak and his words will be heard of throughout this land and throughout the world. This boy will become leader of this country and begin a movement of great change. He will speak of you and your words. your book will be the seeds of many of his great thoughts. It will be the seeds of change.” Make your Obama joke... now
In another conversation later on, Story tells Vick the terrible truth when he asks if he will be killed because he wrote The Cookbook (his awesome thoughts are that dangerous!). Story tells him, “yes.” Story later tells him that he will live to see two of his sister's seven children. So I'm sure when the second child is born, that'll be a happy day.
If asking questions about the future, may I suggest a couple of other ones such as “How do I get a publisher? Do I get an agent first? What is his name? Is it a successful book and I get to move out of this shithole or does it only become notable after I die?”
And yes, he is a terrible actor.
M. Night Shyamalan (Filmmaker)
As a filmmaker, Shyamalan is at his worst. The dialogue is weak (see above, below, and this line when he is joshing with his character's sister) “I asked [Story] if she knew the name of the deaf, dumb and blind guy that's gonna marry you.”)
Directorally, the film is populated by bizarre framing and useless close-ups. One example, is when Heep is trying to face down a Scrunt, most of the scene shows Story talking into a walkie-talkie as Heep describes the action off-screen. When we do see the action, instead of seeing Heep's fear and confusion, we see his shorts and leg. There is a way to show both the rise of the scrunt and Heep, especially considering the scene is not just made up of one long shot of the scrunt rising out of the grass.
The film is slow and plodding. And while slow and plodding is M. Night Shyamalan's “thing,” it probably works less here than in any of his other films. In movies like Unbreakable or The Happening, he attempts to tell a fantasy-based story semi-realistically, but in an all fantasy story like Lady in the Water, that tactic doesn't work. In most other Shyamalan films, the characters lack personalities but in this one, the characters are boring but made up of forced, unimaginative quirks yet without being quirky.
Because the story of Story is supposed to be like an old bedtime story that harkens back to days of innocence and childhood, for something like that to work, there needs to be some whimsy; the subject is not treated dark enough to warrant M. Night's typical directorial style. Good directors know to switch up the way they tell the story depending on the film being shot while maintaining their own unique vision (think The Coen Brothers). This film proves that Shyamalan lacks that crucial ability.
One example of M. Night's lack of focus is a bizarre subplot that pops up in two scenes and could have easily been excised from the entire film. In one scene, the “Stoners” try to invent their own catchphrase. One of them comes up with “blim-blam.” This is referenced in a later scene when Vick says “blim-blam” showing that the catch phrase is catching on. But what might have, should have, been a running joke (not a funny one but one nonetheless) dies right there.
Another sign of Shyamalan's failings as a writer is that the movie tries to pull off one of those bullshit “we're all interconnected!!!” themes. You know, the “we're all special”/”everything matters”/”everyone loves you” bullshit that rarely ever works? Well, Story tries to espouse that hogwash philosophy several times throughout the film. If we do not begin to get a sense of how The Blue World connects with our world, how can we begin to believe we're all one and the same? Furthermore, at the climax, the film even defeats its own point. All the original choices for the guild, et al. are wrong and end up being useless in saving Story; their scheme to protect the Madame Narf fails on every level, and only the proper guild, et al. can save her. Doesn't then the theme become that some people are destined for greatness and others aren't?
Meta
Another odd sojourn Shyamalan takes is into the world of meta. Meta, for those who aren't hip enough to know, is another word for smarmily winking at the audience. The movie has several of these moments and I don't think it was a vein Shyamalan had previously (or since) tapped into. For instance, when discussing the humans who will help Story, we learn that these humans won't know who they are but will “appear earlier in the story.”
And no, telling us that we're watching a story doesn't make the story any better.
Also, aside from casting himself as the role of The Vessel, the writer whose brilliant insights will save us all!!!, he also casts A Critic (booo).
The Critic (Booooob Balaban) is meant to be something of an uptight asshole. I mean after all, he's a critic (boo) who came from California (boo) and reviews films and books (boo). (NOTE: He came to Philadelphia from California to be the local newspaper's book and film reviewer, but later in the film he says he hadn't written anything in a while, so... why did his agent/publisher/whatever send him all the way across country?) One character even has a “Hello Laverne” moment as they say “What kind of person would be so arrogant......to presume to know the intention of another human being?” right before The Critic appears.
More clues as to the douchery of The Critic? He dresses like a prick, has asshole glasses, and acts kind of douchey. Yet when Cleveland asks him for advice on how to figure out whom is the guild, et al. he's pretty forthcoming and detailed about the qualities Cleveland should be looking for in the team members. If he's supposed to be this evil pretentious cunt of a man, he really should have turned Cleveland away the second he asked him for advice. (Not that that would make him a dick because who would want to answer Cleveland's stupid questions? But in the film philosophy, it would help.)
To give another example of the terrible dialogue, here's the language when The Critic faces down a scrunt.
"My God. This is like a moment from a horror movie. It is precisely the moment where the mutation or beast will attempt to kill an unlikable side character. But in stories where there has been no prior cursing, nudity killing or death, such as in a family film the unlikable character will narrowly escape his encounter and be referenced again later in the story having learned valuable lessons. He may even be given a humorous moment to allow the audience to feel good about him. This is where I turn to run. You will leap for me. I will shut the door. And you will land a fraction of a second too late.”
Although he is killed, (in an attempt to show that this movie is so outrageous and defies so many conventions!!!) this is just terrible.
Also, the implication that a critic dies ignominiously while M. Night's works inspire generations is not lost to anyone.
Story
Story is the lady in the water. The entire film hinges upon whether or not we care about her journey.
We do not.
One problem is that Shyamalan cannot really figure out how she acts. She begins quiet and enigmatic (enigmatic might be too strong a word, bored might be better), then she becomes silent after being attacked, then she's talking normally and screaming at one point, then she's back to being quiet and enigmatic. She says she can't speak about her world, but gives step-by-step instructions on how to defeat a scrunt to Cleveland. But most of all, she's very dull.
Why is she screaming?Story: “I'm not special. I'm clumsy. They make fun of me. I don't know how to lead.”
She's like Rudolph?
Cleveland: Do you get sick every time you break a rule? Every time that you tell me something that you shouldn't?
Story: I am scared.
Cleves: It's okay to be scared.
S: I do not have courage. I do not want to be a Madam Narf.
C: You do what you think is right. You are very brave. You were always meant to lead, Story.
And that's it. As well done as Michael Corleone taking over the Family in The Godfather.
Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti)
Paul Giamatti plays Cleveland Heep, the landlord/super for The Cove. He affects a terrible stutter (terrible as in terribly-acted, not merely debilitating) as shorthand that he is a nervous loser. The stutter only disappears when he’s by Story, as shorthand of how special she is.
He's a sad, miserable man whose wife and children were killed (Story tells us this in a terrible scene of exposition) but most of the tenants seem to appreciate him and know him by name. For those of you who live in an apartment, how often do you even see your super? I’m not talking about absentee slumlords but decent supers. Do you see them enough to know their names? Offer them dinner? He’s like Mr. Furley with how involved he is in these people's lives.
And The Rest
The rest of the characters aren’t really worth mentioning because they aren’t characters. They aren’t even caricatures or archetypes. They all have one (maybe two) semi-quirks. Maybe Shyamalan thought he was continuing with the fairy tale motif by creating something like the seven dwarfs but, no.
Freddy Rodriguez plays Reggie, a guy who exercises only one half of his body because…. no reason. He just does. He turns out to be The Guardian. Spoiler.
A bunch of guys in their late 40s play the worst, most unbelievable Stoners in movie history (they discuss Axl Rose v. Sebastian Bach). Their dialogue sounds written by someone who only knows of marijuana use from hearing second-hand about those anti-marijuana propaganda films of the 30s. Also, it would be nice if they smoked joints, not cigarettes.
There's a Stereotypical Jewish Couple, the Bubchicks, with kvetching wife and comically ailing husband.
There's a Stereotypical Spanish Family, the Perez de la Torres.
We’ve already been through the Asians.
We've been through The Critic.
There's Mr. Dury (Jeffrey Wright, better than this), who does crossword puzzles, which somehow makes him the prime candidate as the interpreter but it turns out to be his son Dury Jr. (Noah Gray-Cabey) who makes up stories from the backs of cereal boxes.
There's an Old Lady, Mrs. Bell, who seems caring.
And there's a lonely book guy who holes himself up in his apartment with lots of books but he keeps his apartment door open so that kind of defeats the purpose of his possible agoraphobia.
I'm sure there are others. But who cares.
Conclusion
The Sixth Sense (1999) made writer-director M. Night Shyamalan one of the top names to watch on the film scene. While some thought Unbreakable (2000) was a disappointing follow-up, personally I thought it was better than The Sixth Sense. Nevertheless it wasn't a terrible film, albeit maybe a little slow.
Ever since then, he has been a steady decline. Signs (2002) had good elements but more flawed than Unbreakable (the water situation, aliens can’t open doors, swing hard, etc.) The Village (2004) was even worse.
And then came Lady in the Water (2006) and The Happening (2008), which solidified his status as something worse than a hack, a laugh-at-him-not-with-him bad filmmaker. And now his name literally causes guffaws when it appears in a trailer- just see the preview for Devil with an audience.
Next time… Superman III and Superman IV: Quest For Peace
