« Home | PRECISION WITH REGARD TO THE SMALL THINGS AND BEIN... » | HORATIUS BONAR'S BIRTH DAY INTO GLORY » | SOME SORT OF GAME ABOUT BOOKS READ » | THE NETUREI-KARTA AND THE FIGHTING IN LEBANON » | PURE CHURCH--A BLOG TO READ REGULARLY » | ROMANS 11:26 AND THE FIGHTING IN LEBANON » | "SURELY, IRISH ZION DEMANDS OUR PRAYERS" » | READING FLANNERY O'CONNOR » | MORE STUFF NEVER READ » | "NOT ABSOLUTELY DEAD THINGS" »

LADY IN THE WATER


My wife, daughter and I saw the movie Lady in the Water, directed by M. Night Shyamalan, last night. Briefly I thought it was brilliant. With respectful disagreement with Ian Clary’s views of the movie—“Water Not Too Deep”—I am not sure where he found each of the following in the movie: “Buddhism, existentialism, postmodernism, etc. I even caught of hint of Heidegger’s dasein.” Postmodernism, to be sure, with the fascination with spirituality—certainly vague and somewhat confused—but “Heidegger’s dasein”? And existentialism, which Ian mistakenly equates with the absurd, I am not sure was anywhere to be found. Unless the five smokers were existentialists—or were they simply comic relief?

I would agree with Ian that the acting was very good and the “directing was spot on and the camera angles were classic Shyamalan.” But when he complains that “the invented terminology was too cheesy,” I would hasten to note that it was, after all, a bedtime story—hence the names, “narf,” “scrunt,” etc. Ian was also critical of the “mediocre story line” that was all “too typical,” and complained about the high level of “suspension of disbelief.” The latter was no higher than in LOTR or Narnia—by the way LOTR is not an allegory. And as for the story line, I found it intriguing and kept waiting for some sort of “natural explanation” as in Shyamalan’s The Village. The story did draw me in and kept me on the edge of my seat at times. And it succeeded in evoking a sense of wonder and joy in the ending, which C.S. Lewis would have said qualified it for a good read (or in this case, a good view).

There were also some great lines—redolent of postmodern spirituality—such as Mr. Leeds’ “Does man deserve to be saved?” Shyamalan certainly believes he should be—hence Cleveland’s last line to Story, thanking her for saving him.

All in all, an excellent film.




I am an unabashed fan of Shyamalan’s work, strange and sometimes disturbing as it is. I have not seen Lady in the Water yet, although this blogsphere debate has intrigued me. I am a particular fan of Unbreakable. As a former comic book reader and as a teacher of Classical mythology, I thought the story was as unique and fresh as any of his films. Anyway, I look forward to watching the film sometime soon.

On the topic of allegory, Narnia isn’t an allegory either. See my brief blog entry on the subject (http://jer-johnston.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-best-allegory-is-christian_26.html).

Jeremy

Yippee!!! I really wanted to see it, and was kind of sad when Ian reported he didn't like it. Ha Ian ha! :)

Lady in the Water?

I almost thought the movie was about Baptism!

Thank you for your post Michael.

I also thought the film was excellent. I have posted further on The Lady in the Water on my blog: http://riellymclaren.blogspot.com

I found that Shyamalan's work fits Lewis's views on what an apologetic of the imagination would look like. I found it very exciting that theme's of being 'child-like' are interjected very well.

I also disagree with the criticisms the movie has recieved. In some ways, the criticisms make Shyamalan's points even more true.

Rielly

I never said I didn't like it!!!

Man, I can't believe Ian hated it soooo much. Boo for him. He's such a hater.

Post a Comment