21 thoughts on “Considering the Cinema Ep. 032: Why M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village (2004) Is a Masterpiece”

1. I am really looking forward to this episode Jay. That someone has the passion, time and knowledge to talk about The Village for 3 hours is one of the reasons I love moviesand what they can do, so much.

   This is a movie that didn’t work fully for me when I saw it, but it has never left my mind and I think it has a lot of great and haunting qualities. It might not be my favorite film, but it has one of all time favorite film scores, hands down.

   I also own it, and have watched it about a half-dozen times since it was released. And when it was time to show my kids a Shyamalan film, this is the one I started with. They loved it, and it’s been a year or so, so maybe I’ll pull it back out today and give it a rewatch with them prior to listening.

   I will say, the other day I revisited Altered States from 1980 for an upcoming podcast, and was reminded what a strong and effective actor William Hurt is, especially in roles that require him to interact with the unreal, the supernatural, or the uncanny. He brings a certain kind of gently pragmatic realism to them; you feel this might be the way a human being we know would actually behave in the face of the fantastic or otherworldly. Shyamalan knew this, I believe, and saved him for the lynchpin scene, narratively speaking. I know not everyone agrees, but I thought he nailed it.

   Can’t wait to listen, and will be back with my thoughts. Thanks for taking the time to put it all together!

   Reply ↓

   • Thank you, Nathan.
     I have a small sense of guilt or trepidation for releasing such a self-indulgent, personalized episode. In other words, I’ve been encouraging people to only listen to the sections that interest them. But thanks for at least giving it a try. Josh and Mack have some great contributions.

     I’m so happy you showed your kids “The Village” first of all Shyamalan films! What a great dad!

     I can’t agree with you more about William Hurt. That man has impressive range. He can play the spectrum. He’s often wise and gentle in his roles, but he can even be scary (such as “A History of Violence”). I will never get tired of his speaking cadence.

     Thanks for giving this episode a listen. I’m curious to hear if anything we say during this episode helps with any of your Village concerns.
     -J

     Reply ↓

2. Ahh, this is a lengthy episode I can really sink my teeth into. It almost kept me busy until my lunch break! Luckily, Horror Movie Podcast put out their own 3 hour episode today to fill up the second half of my work day.

   A highlight for me in this exceptional episode was the scene analysis of Ivy waiting for Lucius. I have only seen the film once, only after hearing it was your all time favorite film at that, and I did not expect that listening to a scene with no dialogue would translate to a podcast. Boy, was I wrong. As soon as Hilary Haun’s violin hit my ears, the visuals came flooding back to me and I began to feel emotional.

   Overall, you did a great job with this episode and want to commend you for following through on an episode that was a long time coming. Well worth the wait.

   P.S. Is there a place I can read your first film review of The Straight Story? I watched the film recently and thought it was quite coincidental that you mentioned it.

   Reply ↓

   • Koop brings up an excellent point…The way you handled this episode, with a very clear analysis and letting the film, at times, literally speak for itself, was very good. I would like to see you do more stuff like that in the analysis vein.

     Reply ↓

     • Thank you, Nathan. I will definitely attempt to continue to increase the merit and depth of my film reviews and discussions. (Having people on the show like Mack Robins and Dave Becker will definitely help with that! Wait until you hear Dr. Shock’s forthcoming DVD Infatuation Podcast episode coming up a few weeks from now.) Seriously, though, I appreciate the encouragement! -J

       Reply ↓

       • Dave was telling me there’s an upcoming episode he did. He sounded excited, and I’m excited to listen–Doctor Shock Unleashed!

         Each and every guest on this episode amplified it, and you had them all exactly where they needed to be for each part; it flowed nicely.

         Reply ↓

   • Inbred Coop,
     Thanks to both you and Nathan for your kind compliment on the quality of analysis during this episode. It was an earnest attempt, to be sure, but especially difficult since we were discussing it over an audio podcast, instead of a scene-by-scene, freeze-frame analysis. Thank you.

     My “Straight Story” review — my first ever written — was done on June 22, 2005. And for me, it’s a little cringe-worthy how much I was trying to conjure Roger Ebert and imitate his review style. Anyone who’s familiar with Ebert’s work will see a genuine novice who’s trying way too hard. But I am not ashamed to say that I am still trying to be a student of Roger Ebert.

     I don’t have any digital versions of my “Straight Story” review (and it’s probably 600 to 800 words), so let me know if you can see the included photo linked below:

     https://www.consideringthecinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/The-Straight-Story.jpg

     You can see my heart was in the right place. Actually, if I may, my all-time favorite opening line for one of my written reviews is the first line to my second written review ever, “The Village.” It begins:

     “In Covington Woods, a truce exists.” (I think I actually used that line during this episode.)

     One last indulgence: I have a tie between two reviews (both for Ozu films, incidentally) for my favorite Roger Ebert openings:

     One is from his review of “Floating Weeds”:
     “Sooner or later, everyone who loves movies comes to Ozu. He is the quietest and gentlest of directors, the most humanistic, the most serene. But the emotions that flow through his films are strong and deep, because they reflect the things we care about the most: Parents and children, marriage or a life lived alone, illness and death, and taking care of one another.”

     And the other is Ebert’s opening to Ozu’s “Tokyo Story.” (Check out this first sentence!)
     “No story could be simpler. An old couple come to the city to visit their children and grandchildren. Their children are busy, and the old people upset their routines. In a quiet way, without anyone admitting it, the visit goes badly. The parents return home. A few days later, the grandmother dies. Now it is the turn of the children to make a journey.

     From these few elements Yasujiro Ozu made one of the greatest films of all time. “Tokyo Story” (1953) lacks sentimental triggers and contrived emotion; it looks away from moments a lesser movie would have exploited. It doesn’t want to force our emotions, but to share its understanding. It does this so well that I am near tears in the last 30 minutes. It ennobles the cinema. It says, yes, a movie can help us make small steps against our imperfections.”

     Anyway, thanks for being interested in the cinema and film criticism with me. It’s wonderful to have a community like this.
     -J

     Reply ↓

3. Just listened Jay….I think you have a lot to be proud of there. I LOVED it, and didn’t find it any more indulgent than anyone else getting a chance to celebrate their favorite film of all time. Then again, I also just watched about five minutes of David Lynch using glue to fix a pair of pants he was wearing at the time, so what do I know about indulgence? JK.

   I’m happy you finally did it, and that you brought your wife, Wolfman Josh, and Mack along for the ride. It’s a great episode, the whole darn thing. The way you feel about The Village is the way I feel about a film with some similarities, thematically speaking, called Dark City from 1998 (William Hurt too!). I could easily talk 3 hours plus about that movie, despite the fact the film itself probably only runs half as long.

   I also think sometimes we worry about being perceived as indulgent, because of the way a certain film is publicly perceived. Would anyone balk at someone talking for hours about a ‘bonafide’ classic that the public has decided is worthwhile? The thing is, I’ve heard hours and hours and pages of pages defending the merit of Godfather, or Citizen Kane, or Halloween, but these days the stuff that perks up my ears is when someone decides to go into detail about something they personally love, even when it flies in the face of what the majority might say. I think as long as people shy away from doing that, we remain stale in the podcasting and critical community, so bring on more stuff like this!

   One thing I do believe you’re right on, is that while you may not likely sway someone to see it as a ‘masterpiece’ the enthusiasm and energy and information you bring makes it almost impossible to not have at least a little more appreciation for the film.

   I also need to clarify my earlier statement. While it didn’t fully work for me at the time I saw it (also opening night), I eventually got over my disappointments and do view it as a solidly good film that I have a lot of love for. In fact, if pressed I’d say it’s my third favorite M. Night film, after Unbreakable and Sixth Sense, and ahead of Signs, which wasn’t always the case. The thing is, my issue wasn’t with the twists themselves, but how the second half of the film bends the narrative and its viewpoints to structurally accommodate the twists for suspense and surprise factors. A certain conversation is seen in flashback for obvious plot reasons, but it ends up mostly existing as information, and doesn’t really let us see how the recipient reacts emotionally to it, which I would argue is possibly the most dramatically important event in the film. So, my disappointments at the time were more over how those pieces were handled, not the thematic or narrative elements themselves.

   As far as what was said during the ep, I thought your few criticisms of the film do mostly line up with where I thought the film was a bit weak, and the rest was handled more as an even-handed treatise on why it’s great instead of just gushing. Kudos on bringing up the Myth of the Cave viewpoint, which I think fits into this film’s unique world better than The Matrix, where it’s usually trotted out for discussion. The thing it really did was give me some new enthusiasm about returning to it, and Im glad I listened before I revisited it with my kids. They were arguing at the breakfast table today over the ending of ‘Carnival of Souls’, so I’m really looking forward to hearing them on this, cause I don’t think they remember the twists.

   But even if none of that were true, all 3 hours were worth the line “Yea, the time I realized that feeling was when I did a podcast with a guy and it turned out he had a thing for pig heads”

   Reply ↓

   • Ha ha This was an excellent comment. Thanks for taking the time to write. First of all — YES! — “Dark City” is an incredible film! (I’m sure you have, but I gotta make sure: Have you ever heard Roger Ebert’s film commentary for “Dark City”? It’s a must-listen / must-own, if you haven’t.)

     Nathan, if you’re not too bashful, and you’d be up for it, would you be interested in recording an hour-long review together for “Dark City,” sometime in September? I can’t keep doing three-hour shows, but I think we should at least give that incredible film an hour. Let me know: ConsideringTheCinema@gmail.com.

     I loved what you said about people not even blinking when others rave about “classics” like “The Godfather,” “Citizen Kane,” or “Halloween.” You’re exactly right! I never thought of it that way before. Every film’s champion should have an equal right to make his or her case.

     And I think I know what you’re saying … Shyamalan, admittedly, strains a little sometimes to get his twists to align. I really started noticing this trend with “Lady in the Water.” All the “seeds” that are planted in that film, you can tell by the odd phrasing and the ham-fisted underscoring that they are set-ups to eventual pay-offs. If they have to be forced or contrived, then the impact is much less. “The Sixth Sense,” “Unbreakable” and “Signs” are all strong, but I think all the little setups in “Signs” (indeed, the titular signs that don’t refer to crop circles) are the first glimpse of this in Shyamalan’s filmography. But since that was the first more conspicuous example of this, we didn’t notice it. But then you can start to see his scaffolding in “The Village,” and by the time we get to “Lady in the Water,” it undercuts the film.

     And you’re right, Josh’s comment about “doing a podcast with a guy who had a thing for pig heads” was hilarious.
     -J

     Reply ↓

     • Jay,

       So, first with the podcast invite. The short answer is Yes, absolutely, and Thanks! Also, Doc Shock and I had been discussing a few weeks back about doing a potential Dark City ep for Phantom Galaxy, but some sort of trifecta with you, if it’s feasible, would be amazing. I’ll send you an email.

       As for Roger’s commentary, I have heard it and it’s one of my all-time favorite pieces of a critic commenting on anything. I saw tv spots and trailers for Dark City in early winter of 98 and was already psyched for it, but when I got up that opening Friday and saw Ebert had not only posted a 4 star review, but one raving about it and quoting Herzog about a world “starved for new images”, my anticipation went through the roof. When I saw it the following afternoon with my dad, it did not disappoint either.

       That track he recorded is brimming with passion and knowledge for the film, and I also love the update he did that was released with the directors cut in 2008 (even if you can tell in the new sections that his voice was getting shot prior to the surgery that would take it completely.) I suspect you might relate, but I spent so much time weekly reading Roger and even replaying old Siskel and Ebert episodes, that I was genuinely broken-hearted when he passed. It left an actual void in my routine and in my heart as a critic and film lover. I still miss him, and it’s strange, because as good as that commentary is as an exploration of the film, I find that I sometimes go to it the way I would an old home movie or recording of a lost loved one; its like he’s back and you’re right there with him.

       I like the term “scaffolding” with regards to M Night, and I think you are right on. It was becoming evident, here although not egregious, but by Lady in Water (which had the elements on paper to be a bonafide classic) it became an actual crutch IMO. I will say, I’ve been enjoying him again since The Visit, even if there were certain choices he made in Glass I really didn’t agree with. I’ll always root for Night.

       Reply ↓

4. I never understood why people don’t like this movie. The conversation you had with Wolfman is one I’m going to go back and listen to again. Honestly, if this movie was the straight up horror movie some people were expecting, would you have been able to converse about it that in depth? Well, maybe Jay if the Dead could. Lol! It was hilarious to hear you and your wife talk about “this little place called Fazoli’s, What ever happened to that place?” Those restaurants are everywhere out here in Indiana. Lol. Great episode!

   Reply ↓

   • Dr. Acula! (I still say that’s an incredibly clever Horror moniker.)

     Thank you. I agree. I especially loved the sections with Josh and Mack. They both gave me great insights, and I’ve been thinking about this film for years.

     And I think you’re exactly right: Not to impugn the genre we love, but Horror is, more often than not — for better or for worse — built upon more simplistic narratives that usually don’t possess much thematic depth. Honestly, I think that’s one reason why I like to try to deep-dive when reviewing Horror films because the nature of the genre reveals dark things about humanity and our fears, even if the filmmaker didn’t consciously intend to include such commentary.

     And yes, “The Village” is a more complex film. Its themes and subtext are richer than the average Horror film, which is why I do think it fits so aptly in other genres, as well.

     Anyway, thanks for listening to the episode. And I’m super jealous that you guys still have Fazoli’s… Aren’t their breadsticks pretty good?
     -J

     Reply ↓

     • Yes, even more delicious when they’re free and limitless! Lol.

       Reply ↓

5. Jay of the Dead. Fairly new listener, been combing over your work on HMP for the last month or so and found your new podcast here and Horror Weekly.

   I’m looking forward to listening to this episode, though I haven’t yet. Some of my background with The Village, and I’m sure other people have said similar things in the past, but I was younger when it came out. 15 or 16, and man was I amped for this movie. Coming off from Signs I thought Shyamalan could do no wrong. I remember seeing this in the theater with my best friend and we were all in, as I think my theater was too, until the reveal that the monsters weren’t actually monsters. I can’t ever recall people bad mouthing a movie or walking out before this, but after that reveal it seemed everyone was done.

   We stayed and finished the movie, I left disappointed. I wanted to love this movie. The dude made Signs! I bring all this up because I didn’t rewatch the movie for years. Probably close to 13 years or so. Now that I’m older though, and know what happens, I like and appreciate the film way more than I ever would’ve in the past. It’s not my number one Shyamalan movie, that would belong to Signs which I still love to this day, but I would say its probably my number 2 of his now. I’ve since watched it a few more times and it honestly shocks me that there still isn’t a Blu-Ray for this.

   It never hurts to talk your passion, I have a few movies I could talk about for hours that some don’t like or don’t like as much as me. Thanks for all the backlog of content, I’ve been trying to catch up on everything and it gives me something to listen to while I work. Keep up the good work sir.

   Reply ↓

   • Hi Brandon!
     Thanks so much for finding me here on Considering the Cinema and Horror Movie Weekly! I’m truly grateful, and I appreciate you giving my new shows a chance. I tried to get the word out about my two new podcasts on Movie Podcast Weekly and HMP, but believe it or not, it’s tougher than you’d expect to get people to venture over to check out something new. So, seriously, thank you for tracking CTC and HMW down!

     The next surprise is how much people have said, “Don’t apologize for being passionate about your favorite film!” I have felt a little sheepish and apologetic about the indulgent and overly personal nature of this episode, so I’m grateful that people are giving it a chance. Thanks for that, too.

     I cannot understand why “The Village” doesn’t have a Blu-ray edition. Or a 4K. But I’ll tell you what I did: There is a VHS edition, so I recently purchased that! (Now I have it on Full Screen DVD — from when I was completely ignorant about formats — Widescreen on DVD — and VHS.) Maybe we can also get LaserDisc and Betamax versions someday! ha ha

     If you’re an HMP man, be sure to check out Episode 030 (two episodes ago) on this podcast because my fellow HMP alum, Dr. Walking Dead Kyle Bishop, joins me! Thanks for listening and writing a comment.
     -J

     Reply ↓

     • Thanks for the heads up about episode 30, I’ll definitely be checking that out. I plan on making my way through everything from like 2012 on haha. I’ve got about 50 or 60 episodes listened to so I’m getting there.

       Episode’s like this are important in my opinion because people tend to avoid movies based on reviews which sucks. I try not to do that but I’ve been guilty of it myself. I had avoided the Need for Speed with Aaron Paul movie for years, even though I wanted to see it, because or bad reviews. I’m not saying its a masterpiece or anything but I did finally watch it a couple weeks ago and I had a really good time with it. For what it is and the type of movie it is, I think it’s better than a few others I’ve seen.

       Frame of mind can drastically change how one feels about the film as well. I’ve seen movies in just horrible moods and hated them, but then revisit them later on in a better mood or right state of mind and enjoy myself.

       I’m all for it Jay, there have been movies you guys have mentioned on all these shows I’ve listened to that I probably never would’ve watched before. I’ve enjoyed probably 95% of those films as well. So it never hurts to champion something. One that I had seen prior to listening to the old shows that I absolutely agree with and loved that you were high one was The Invitation. I saw it a few years ago and it just stuck with me.

       Ps. Fazolis breadsticks are awesome lol

       Reply ↓

     • Couple more thoughts since I’ve listened to the episode. First off, awesome discussion. I plan on rewatching The Village tonight or tomorrow, which I will say I’ve appreciated more with each viewing after my disappointment on 2004.

       I’ll do a few quick things and I wanted to touch on a couple things I had in mind while listening to this. Bryce Dallas Howard is amazing in this as is the ensemble they have here. Roger Deakins is amazing, he’s a massive reason why Blade Runner 2049 is one of my all time favorites. His visual capabilities are top notch. Lastly for my quick thought, I agree with you on the marketing. I remember coming in expecting a beastly freak movie, which I think was just such a big part of what soured me way back then.

       Now for the bigger thoughts I had. Have you watched this since the pandemic started? I feel like this would be one of those movies where it can kind of take on an entirely new meaning and feel living in a world where we’re having to isolate ourselves within our “villages” so to speak. I’ve found some movies feel a bit different now like The Invasion or Mayhem, and also Darrell brought up on the newest episode of HMP that I Am Legend takes on a whole new meaning. I think it adds another dimension to some of the films where we’ve never given much thought to them in those specific ways. Gives it a bit more gravitas and realness.

       I like The Happening more than most people, I’d assume. It was a movie I had skipped over until last year and I gave it a watch. I think this could also be a COVID type movie, possibly. Part of why I like it is sometimes I find ideas more terrifying, sometimes more so than the execution. The idea of nature turning on us as a people, I also have this feeling about The Birds, is quite scary. We would mostly be defenseless.

       I look forward to rewatching The Village after hearing the discussions and I’m going to give it a bit of a different look and try to watch it through the way you and Josh see it. I’m still not sure it can overtake Signs for me, but I do know I have liked it more with each viewing.

       Reply ↓

6. This was an awesome deep dive. I haven’t seen The Village in years and can’t wait to revisit it tonight.

   Thanks for all the great content.

   Reply ↓

7. This is nothing if not a veritable powerhouse of an episode, Jay! You’ve outdone yourself on this one, and I FULLY believe anyone who might want to get into podcasting themselves should listen to this as a foundation for putting a show together. Superb work on all levels, buddy.

   The way you tackled the film by incorporating your PERSONAL ties to it alongside your wife…

   The way you and Wolfman Josh discussed the film’s underlying THEMES and finer points…

   The way you and Mack broke down the TECHNICAL merits of the film…

   Brilliant stuff here. I haven’t seen The Village in years, but I had a number of incredibly similar observations regarding the film’s subtext, and I was overjoyed that you guys talked about those things!

   I’ll be promoting this show to the best of my limited ability on Twitter because people need to hear this. Much love, Jay.

   Cheers,
   Mister Watson

   Reply ↓

8. Wow. I can’t say I agree with a lot of what was said here, but I love the nerdy deep dive into any one work of art. Whether or not any of us shares the opinion, I think most of us can also understand the impulse to make this episode, as any of us who deeply love a film have probably put years of thought into it like is exhibited here.

   I didn’t especially like this movie when I saw it years ago, and I think this was the beginning of Shyamalan becoming sort of a punchline. This is the ultimate, big, ‘hey look at this!’ kind of twist, and this point everyone was already expecting that from him. Unbreakable and Signs had twist endings of sorts, but that’s not really what they were about, and they didn’t really rely on that surprise. In this case, I think people may have spotted this ending because they were primed for a twist already when going in, and the accents and manner of speech don’t ring as truly authentic to a time and place.

   I found some stuff about it annoying, I think some of the dialogue is really bad, and I found that it cheated and just straight up lied to the audience in many spots.

   But I also acknowledge that there is some beautiful imagery and that there are strong performances. Shyamalan does work well with actors and has an undeniable knack for creating visual tension and has great patience and instinct for pace, composition, and montage. It’s just that I think his scripts let him down sometimes.

   But on the strength of this episode I intend to give this film another watch soon and try to empathize more with your point of view, and try to push out Roger Ebert’s.

   Reply ↓

9. Excellent episode, Jay! The insights of you and your guests increased my enjoyment of ‘The Village’ on a re-watch.

   Loved the one you had recently with Dr. Walking Dead, too. Just saw ‘The Cured’ on Hulu-U.S. Unusual take. Thanks for the recommendation.

   Keep rockin’, my friend.

   Best,
   VV

   Reply ↓