Our next episodes are on The Sixth Sense and The Village — what should we talk about?

One thing I don't think was mentioned for the Sixth Sense: the only reason "the twist" works despite the opening scene giving it all away is because the movie gives us a narrative reason for that beginning scene. We are led to believe that the scene is trying to tell us why Bruce Willis' character cares so much about Osment's character, not to set up his death.

Chad Wilson

The GOAT

Cameren Ceniceros

Shyamalan has a recurring element in his movies where truths are spoken from the mouths of babes, cynical adults look for more rational explanations, but childlike wonder is vindicated as a way of looking at the world. What do you think he's trying to say?

Robin

Again! Super happy you guys are doing horror/thrillers. Something I was always fascinated by these two movies was how a twist is used to further the story. Specifically does it enhance or detract from the story once the twist occurs

Cameren Ceniceros

Alternative: How the editing in The Sixth Sense creatively hides that Malcolm is a ghost. Examples are the living room scene and the bus scene, which begin mid-action so the audience assumes what Malcolm was doing prior to start of the scene (talking to Cole’s mom, getting on the bus with Cole). Even the scene where Malcolm is shot transitions into the next scene in a way to make the audience assume that he survived.

andrew

How does the placement of a twist in the structure of a movie affect the response to it? Unbreakable and Blade Runner have twists in the final scene of the movie. Empire Strikes Back and Signs have twists that land in the middle of the climax. Mad Max: Fury Road and the more recent God's Country have twists before the final act. True Lies and Casino Royale have twists that lead into a surprise final act.

Did the Sixth Sense and its twist ending destroy our collective innocence as an audience; did it make us anticipatory and ever-vigilant for twists, Easter eggs, plot clues, references, etc., and how much did its release in 1999 (a critical year in film and the internet) contribute to this? Did it handicap appreciation of MNS’s later work?

andrew

Having just gone on a Shyamalan rewatch independently, I was struck and offended by how often Shyamalan uses characters with disabilities (both physical and mental) as villains, a trope that I wish had dated by now. I was especially annoyed by The Village. Whilst Ivy is a character whose physical disability becomes a positive heroic trait, the way Noah’s intellectual disability is portrayed as closer to psychotic in its murder calculation is almost Sia-ish in its misunderstanding of childhood developmental delay. I am a parent of a intellectually disabled child, so am aware that I view movies with a different lens than most. But having noticed the frequency that Shyamalan uses disability as a plot device, I believe it is a theme worth discussing. FYI I still very much enjoy Signs - The small scale study of how grief and faith can impact a family is refreshingly different to his other films.

Sera Prince McGill

For sure. That’s one of the most interesting aspects of the movie to me - does “pure love” trump how complicated the previous generation makes things for us? I was fifteen when The Village came out. I’m now thirty three with a two and a half year old, and I understand the Elders more now. Don’t necessarily thing they’re doing it right or condone it, but I can see why they react the way they do. I still would’ve loved to have seen the movie end as originally intended, with the truck driver at the gas station instead of the border patrol thing that’s in the film now. I actually got my hands on a copy of the script that leaked way before the movie came out, and it has a fairly different ending that I’m convinced was legit because I remember some behind the scenes photos that had leaked when they were shooting it that involved a semi. (A truck driver was supposed to meet and assist Ivy, who then goes to a nearby gas station where the station proprietors explain rumors of what they’ve heard about what goes on inside that animal sanctuary. They then rip the guy off and the script ends with a line that would’ve been a lightning rod for controversy at the time. I hope the footage comes out some day, because it was a downer, but I like the hopeful note the actual movie ends on better.)

Nick Sanford

Great thoughts all round. The call you make in point 1 about the cynicism of the twist in The Village vs the previous ones - you're onto something. Then mix that with the sincerity of the love story. The film coaxes cynicism on the one hand, and tries to argue for something better with the other.

Michael McLennan

Good call. I did wonder -- there's a couple of projects that don't get discussed much.

Michael McLennan

I think he sort of did once. I don’t remember what episode it was, but he briefly mentioned working with “a really big director” who meticulously storyboarded everything and wouldn’t even accept some b-cameras Deakins was trying to set up. Some simple “just in case you need them in the editing room shots.” The director refused. I’m pretty sure he was talking about Shyamalan. I’ve always gotten the sense that things were pretty tense between them.

Nick Sanford

Some things I don't hear about enough when discussing Shyamalan's work, and these two movies in particular: 1. The "supernatural discrepancies" between his first three thrillers and his fourth. The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs are all these beautiful love letters to the unknown, and they really make you believe that the supernatural can exist. The Village does the exact opposite. Obviously, it was his first true post-9/11 movie and was clearly feeling cynical about where America was heading, but I've always thought it was an interesting bucket of cold water after his previous three films. 2. The actual function of his twists, surprises, and revelations. Critics label Shyamalan a one-trick pony, and sometimes his execution isn't always perfect, but I feel like it can often be overlooked WHY he chooses the twists that he does. The Village and Glass both in common these insane twists toward the end that really angered people (including myself the first time I saw them) and it seems like once you actually take some time to think about WHY he chooses to do what he does sometimes, the movies can sometimes be more rewarding for people. They go down smoother once you meet them on their terms. 3. People say the marketing for The Village is what killed it from the start, but I've always wondered if that's half the problem. While it's one of my favorite movies now, the first time viewing it is just weird because of its structure and the way it's shot. It doesn't really have a clear protagonist to latch yourself to, and the movie is shot in a LOT of wide shots that I wonder if was disengaging for some viewers initially. I found it hard to connect with until subsequent viewings. So, marketing or not, I think it was always destined to have the reaction it was going to have. 4. The Sixth Sense seems to be Shyamalan's "best" when you look at the general consensus, and while it's true that it's craft is first rate, and I personally usually am sobbing by the end every time I watch it, I usually have more of an inclination to throw on literally any other movie of his just because the others are riskier and weirder. The Sixth Sense is a perfect Oscar-caliber movie that checks all the boxes of pleasing a mainstream audiences while still being personally authentic, but something like Lady in the Water or The Village feels somehow more exciting to watch because he's actively taking risks that he has to know will alienate some people. Maybe that's just me, but part of the joy of seeing a new Shyamalan movie is seeing how full-tilt-boogie he'll allow himself to get, how pissed I'll be the first time I watch it, how pissed everyone else will be, and how I feel about it when I eventually think about it and come around to it more. Shyamalan's one of my all-time favorite directors, and probably the one I just plain connect with the most personally. I saw Signs for the first time the second weekend it was in theaters. I'd just turned thirteen. I knew I was going to be a director, but that's the movie that set me on A Path, personally and creatively. I'm excited you guys are finally getting around to talking about him and I can't wait to hear what you come up with.

Nick Sanford

That anniversary dinner scene was so well done! Along with all the scenes with the estranged wife really. You talked about it during the Get Out episode when rose defends her black boyfriend from the racist cop at the beginning. How you can read it differently once you know the twist. And how tough it is to write that. And I love how they do that in the sixth sense! Makes for an amazing rewatch. Because the first time it’s heartbreaking to see the couple growing apart and the second time is even more devastating because it’s a widow grieving her deceased husband.

I’m curious if you went into those movies knowing about the twist, and if you’ve ever had the chance of watching with someone who doesn’t know about them.

Bel

YOU KNOW

Tricia Aurand

Toni Colette !!!

Also can you just touch on the crazy scene in the village where “the monster” chases Bryce Dallas Howard through the forest in broad daylight? On like a subjectivity level, since she’s blind, shouldn’t the audience be experiencing the monster in largely the same the way the main character is-in shadow and in darkness. Shooting that scene at night with glimpses of the monster seems like the best way to capture the protagonists POV and project that POV onto the audience

If you can, talk about child actors and getting fantastic performances out of them. Haley Joel Osment is phenomenal in 6th sense and A.I. And the child actors in Signs are very good. I’m most interested in how directors can get performances that are legitimately amazing, and not just by “child actor” standards. Especially with someone like Haley Joel Osment dealing with such dark material at such a young age.

I just it's worth pointing out that despite these being "big twist movies", they have compelling core stories. Nobody cares about the twist if they're not sucked into the story.

6. Lastly, why the film didn't work. There is an arc of audience/critical appreciation of Hollywood product that is amazed by the first thing, adores the second, has the potential to sour on the third, and is rancid by the fourth. It's possible this was the case with Village, although Signs - while it had its detractors - was well-liked and well-attended. I think the answer lies more in Trojan Horse genre switches. There is an audience who can go with a genre switch. For that audience, it can elevate a film. But often it fails, breaking the unity of action. The few people who don't like Nolan's Prestige usually come back to the unexpected turn from a historical revenge drama with a realistic take on magic into something for which 'science-fiction' feels like the best word. Too big a jump for some. Other films that come to mind include Danny Boyle's Supernova (truly two films in one), and that very strange-sounding McConaghy/Knight film Serenity sounds like it may have run into it too. I personally always liked that the Village went from fairy tale thriller (with a shade of monster movie/horror) to a revealed protagonist love story. When that girl walks out in faith into the unknown, I feel for her - and my involvement in the film grows rather than subsides. But for some, was it too much of a change of expected destination? Sincerity often falls deaf on a cynical audience, and this audience both came with reasons for cynicism and to some extent, the suspicious environment of the commune encourages a cynicism. (And then there are those odd deadpan performances he was getting into - sort of Yorgos Lanthimos well before its time, and with a slightly more fun edge.) Who knows, maybe people just hated the twist. I tend to think that an ending sours a good film but doesn't make one terrible on its own - that audience is well and truly lost, and the twist then adds insult to injury. By this theory, the root cause is they felt the story changed on them. And it did - change of protagonist, and change of genre. Big structural risk.

Michael McLennan

5. Similarities to Hitchcock's Psycho, structurally. Critically, the main character is taken out, and the baton is passed to another. A child man who likes dressing up is the culprit.

Michael McLennan

4. Roger Deakins has never once told a story about The village in all the episodes I've heard of Team Deakins. It's a noticeable absence.

Michael McLennan

3. The first name in the end credits is Hilary Hahn as 'featured violinist' from memory. I believe both Shyamalan and Newton-Howard found themselves increasingly drawn into the love story over the horror. (Not surprising as it is where the stakes are.) Hahn's violin performance together with Newton-Howard's extraordinary score truly make this one of the scores for the ages. As proof to this - The Village is the sort of film that awaits Razzie treatment at the end of a year, and there were no Oscars waiting for it, save one nomination. For music. Village is not the kind of film the Music Branch was honoring at the time. And Newton-Howard was a former head of the music branch, so maybe it was a little political. But my hope has always been that it was about the music, and that's how you know how strong it is.

Michael McLennan

2. The ending of the Village is, I understand, a rejig in post. The original ending was more of a groaner. A new story had dominated what Shyamalan had originally had in mind, and the pickups included Shyamalan's cameo at the end. Rather than the ending expressing cynicism, it became a more sincere awestruck coda. But there's always a chance this story is nonsense, and there was a fashion at the time of thinking Shyamalan was putting fake endings in his scripts so that the real twists could remain a surprise.

Michael McLennan

The MUSIC. James Newton Howard's score for both these films are haunting and beautiful.

Israel Benard II