Thomas’s review published on Letterboxd:
Many people consider “The Village” the beginning of M. Night Shyamalan “losing his way” but I simply don´t agree with that sentiment at all. In my opinion, “The Village” is astoundingly beautiful and Shyamalan´s best film apart from “The Sixth Sense”.
Even just purely on a surface level, “The Village” is a gorgeous work of art. It´s a masterfully composed movie and thanks to Roger Deakins´ contribution as the DP, it´s Shyamalan’s best shot movie by a mile, and he has made several stunning-looking movies. The atmosphere that is created by the otherworldly cinematography and production design is utterly entrancing. Among many other things, the striking red and yellow colors and the symbolism behind that color contrast stood out to me as a fascinating detail. And as if the visual brilliance wasn´t already enough, James Newton Howard composed one of the most soul-stirring scores of the 21st century for the film. On an audiovisual level alone, I could lose myself completely in this movie.
The vibe of “The Village” is one-of-a-kind. It has several spooky moments and an unsettling sense of foreboding that make it feel like a horror film yet I see it more as a dark yet serene fairytale filled with mystery, heart, wisdom, and bittersweet melancholy. Above everything else, “The Village” is an achingly romantic movie. The tender love story between Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Lucius (Joaquin Phoenix) is delicately developed and the lengths both are willing to go to for the other are inspiring and pull on your heartstrings. Shyamalan portrays this love story by focusing on subtle gestures that have great meaning. In particular two moments of our lovers joining hands live rent-free in my mind.
“The Village” is a poetic movie and even the theatrical, stilted dialogue that so often feels out of place in Shyamalan´s films fits the setting like a glove and has an in-universe explanation. I actually love how the characters talk. I was even thinking that maybe I should also start saying “make haste” instead of “hurry up”.
I think it´s pretty safe to say that this film stars the greatest ensemble cast of Shyamalan´s career. The sheer quantity of great performances in “The Village” is astounding, and everyone gets at least one moment to shine. This includes the small roles portrayed by Judy Greer, Michael Pitt, and Jesse Eisenberg, the slightly bigger roles portrayed by Sigourney Weaver and Brendan Gleeson, and the central roles of William Hurt, Adrien Brody, and Joaquin Phoenix, who all three deliver outstanding performances. Yet they all get outshined by Bryce Dallas Howard, who is a revelation in her lead debut. She has the difficult task to make the highly idealized Ivy, who is the embodiment of grace, hope, love, and resilience, feel like a real person, and she succeeds splendidly. She is spellbinding, gorgeous, and deeply sympathetic, both vulnerable and strong, and she makes Ivy a layered, inspiring, and unforgettable heroic character. Outside of the main trio of “The Sixth Sense”, Howard delivers my favorite performance in a Shyamalan film. Also, Ivy´s “true sight” is another example of Shyamalan turning a burden into a blessing, a common theme in his movies. I´ve read some complaints along the lines of “this is not how being blind works”…well yeah, obviously, and little boys don´t see dead people, what´s your point? It´s a slice of Shyamalan´s brand of magical realism.
Now, Shyamalan´s romanticism and pathos sometimes border on corniness, I admit that, but what makes it work for me is that his empathy for all his characters is palpable and sincere, as is his celebration of hope and love. “The world moves for love; it kneels before it in awe” is a standout quote of the movie. Is it corny? Yes. Do I personally believe that statement? No. But I believe that Shyamalan believes it and I believe that Edward Walker believes it because of William Hurt´s heartfelt delivery…and this moves me deeply. Many of my favorite filmmakers are cynics (or “realists”, as most cynics call themselves) but I also need a few hopeful, idealistic believers and Shyamalan is one of them. I find his heartfelt pathos utterly disarming.
Shyamalan´s universal empathy is most apparent in his portrayal of the elders, who are not presented as villains but as torn, broken people deserving of pity. They couldn´t cope with the pain and tragedy they experienced, so they fled from it and created a fake safe haven instead of addressing their issues directly, which would allow them to heal in a proper, natural way. Shyamalan sympathizes with that choice, but he also makes it clear that this isn´t a viable solution long-term and that it´s especially wrong to inherit the generational trauma to the next generation and deny them the opportunity to make that choice for themselves. And as Ivy and Lucius, representing the new generation, demonstrate, isolation and restrictions born out of fear can´t contain the human spirit forever. In contrast to their parents, Ivy and Lucius are willing to open themselves to the world and they are better for it. Just look at the contrast between the Ivy/Lucius romance and the Edward/Alice romance. Who is willing to open up and make themselves vulnerable and who is not? Who is happy and who is not? The elders represent bitterness, fear, sorrow, and guilt, while Ivy and Lucius represent love, bravery, hope, and innocence. Shyamalan makes it clear to which side the future will belong, but he sympathizes with both sides. That´s what makes “The Village” so special. Shyamalan crafts an inspiring ode to the most noble aspects of the human spirit, while also showing sympathy and understanding for the weaknesses of human nature.
(there are spoilers in the next 2 paragraphs)
Now I have to address the most controversial aspect of the movie, the twist. The first question should be: Why is there a twist in the first place? The film doesn´t need it, all the themes I talked about in the previous paragraph could be explored in a strict period setting. What it does is removing the safe distance between audience and characters. Suddenly, the tragedy of the elders becomes more impactful because it´s now much closer to us. The second question should be: Does the twist make sense? Well, the way I see it, the natural “huh, really?” response to the twist is at least partly intended. Of course it´s absurd, of course it´s extreme, of course it can´t work for long, that is the point. It´s an act of immense desperation. You should not ask how is this possible but why would someone do this. What does it say about our reality that some people are driven to this extreme form of escapism and mythmaking? One thing you should keep in mind is that “The Village” is Shyamalan´s first true post 9/11 film (“Signs” was already in production, when the terrorist attacks happened). It reflects a time when the desire for escapism after tragedy was at a national high. A time of widespread isolationism and xenophobia, issues Shyamalan probably feels strongly about as an Indian immigrant. The twist turns “The Village” from a period drama into a zeitgeist movie that captures the anxieties of its time. At first, you think the film is a time capsule for the era it´s supposedly set in but then you realize it´s a time capsule for the era it was made in. I appreciate that the twist adds this aspect to the movie. That being said, I can understand that some people don´t like the twist. It´s not as satisfying and perfectly integrated into the narrative as in “The Sixth Sense”. You could also say the twist is inessential, rather predictable, underwhelming, or even plain silly. But saying that the twist is “not worth the buildup” and therefore the movie is a failure shows that you approach the film with the wrong mindset. The twist is not the raison d'être of the movie, it just adds another layer to it. “The Village” is not a puzzle that needs to be solved or a battle of wits between the audience and director to see who can outsmart whom. It´s a journey with the director as your guide, and the twist is only one point on this journey. It´s ok not to like the twist but don´t let that turn you off from all the beauty, heartfelt emotions, and thematic depth the film has to offer beyond that plot point.
The ending is bittersweet and ambiguous. Our lovers are reunited and safe, but the lie continues, at least for now. The elders are stuck in their world-weariness and have resigned, which I see as Shyamalan´s critique of the status quo of post 9/11 American society. But he also offers hope in form of Ivy and Lucius, who have both shown that they´re ready to open up to world and not run away from their problems. It´s like Edward Walker says at one point to Lucius (and the same is true for Ivy): “You are fearless in a way I shall never know”. They have both proven that several times throughout the movie and I´m certain they will continue to prove that in the future. The comforting delusion the elders created wont survive forever and that´s a good thing. I see it as a hopeful ending.
(end of spoilers)
“The Village” deserves to be reevaluated. It´s a gorgeous, affecting, enthralling, and poignant movie that has profound things to say about the human condition. Early Shyamalan was a great storyteller and humanist filmmaker and I wish he would get more appreciation for that. Well, I also wish he would rediscover this side of himself.
