Unbreakable
May. 1st, 2007 04:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rmSo ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
wordsofastory and I wateched Unbreakable the other night, and it is, as many people have told me over the years, a far better film that one expects especially considering Shyamalan's subsequent films. Certainly, I think it was much, much better than The Sixth Sense, which I think was exceptionally competently executed but had nothing to say.
Specifically, I think Unbreakable has a tremendous amount to say, or at least to ask, about the nature of villainy. The current fashion, of course is that villains are sexy or who even needs villains when we have anti-heroes.
The thing is, whether Elijah (and what a choice, to give this physically broken and morally distressing man the name of the ghost at the table!) is a villain or anti-hero (even if he's clearly in the mode of the comic book supervillain) is something that the viewers should be left stewing about. Instead, there are these damnable surtitles at the end of the film that tell us what happen to the characters afte rthe closing shots. Surtitles that remove the ability to ask fascinating questions.
I would have rather been left wondering if our hero and villain do their battled through legal channels or the back channels of comic book tropes.
I would also rather have not been given the specificity of the crimes Elijah was jailed for -- after all, his office is filled with clippings of disasters, far more tantalizing for me to consider that he's some sort of nearly supernatural, Keyser Sozesque (or, speaking of Kevin Spacey roles of this form, something like his role in Se7en, that is a man so on a mission one wonders as to his supernaturalness even when one knows better) character as opposed to a guy who when he got sick of no one surviving mudslides blew some shit up.
Finally, leaving these questions open to us would have further kept open the one that is to me the most important of all. I think we see real regret in Elijah for what his role makes it necessary for him to do -- hence, more anti-hero than villain, sort of a much, much, much more distressing Severus Snape as opposed to a Voldemort. But those damn surtitles just let us go "villain. insane." and dismiss the man's own fractured (intentional choice of words) reasoning.
Oddly interesting film. Interesting enough that it doesn't seem like the patented Shyamalan "more twist than plot" routine.
wordsofastory and I wateched Unbreakable the other night, and it is, as many people have told me over the years, a far better film that one expects especially considering Shyamalan's subsequent films. Certainly, I think it was much, much better than The Sixth Sense, which I think was exceptionally competently executed but had nothing to say.Specifically, I think Unbreakable has a tremendous amount to say, or at least to ask, about the nature of villainy. The current fashion, of course is that villains are sexy or who even needs villains when we have anti-heroes.
The thing is, whether Elijah (and what a choice, to give this physically broken and morally distressing man the name of the ghost at the table!) is a villain or anti-hero (even if he's clearly in the mode of the comic book supervillain) is something that the viewers should be left stewing about. Instead, there are these damnable surtitles at the end of the film that tell us what happen to the characters afte rthe closing shots. Surtitles that remove the ability to ask fascinating questions.
I would have rather been left wondering if our hero and villain do their battled through legal channels or the back channels of comic book tropes.
I would also rather have not been given the specificity of the crimes Elijah was jailed for -- after all, his office is filled with clippings of disasters, far more tantalizing for me to consider that he's some sort of nearly supernatural, Keyser Sozesque (or, speaking of Kevin Spacey roles of this form, something like his role in Se7en, that is a man so on a mission one wonders as to his supernaturalness even when one knows better) character as opposed to a guy who when he got sick of no one surviving mudslides blew some shit up.
Finally, leaving these questions open to us would have further kept open the one that is to me the most important of all. I think we see real regret in Elijah for what his role makes it necessary for him to do -- hence, more anti-hero than villain, sort of a much, much, much more distressing Severus Snape as opposed to a Voldemort. But those damn surtitles just let us go "villain. insane." and dismiss the man's own fractured (intentional choice of words) reasoning.
Oddly interesting film. Interesting enough that it doesn't seem like the patented Shyamalan "more twist than plot" routine.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 09:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 10:22 pm (UTC)Mostly I think this film was made back before Shyamalan started refusing to be edited, and is all the better for it.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-02 04:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-02 04:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-02 04:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-02 04:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 10:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-02 12:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-02 09:23 am (UTC)i like the explanation of the villain's self-discovery, and how it altered his motivations, just by adding intent to his nature.
of course, it's been a while since i've seen it. i have a copy that's been waiting for the right day.
-=T=-