I saw Lady in the Water last night solely because a friend liked it. She said it should be required viewing for any aspiring writer. I was hoping to like it, but my reaction was quite the opposite. The movie was simply terrible! I cannot believe how self-indulgent Shyamalan was in this collection of random thoughts. The plot is wildly improbably and coincidental; the characters have practically zero dimensions; and the overarching philosophy is impossible to determine. There was something about how mankind is worse now than it has ever been, how a writer ("acted" by a blank-faced Shyamalan) can impact Everything for Good, how it would be nice to be able to believe that stories are true, how all humans will work together in a good cause if they are only asked nicely, and a horde of other random and naive concepts. People throughout the theater, including myself, exploded in helpless snorts of laughter at the absurdity of some of the parts that were supposed to be most serious. One old man a few rows ahead of me fell asleep and started snoring loudly, which added to the general atmosphere. And I liked the sour little critic, whom apparently we were supposed to despise.

OK, I'll give Shyamalan this. Rare moments here and there came together beautifully. Also, Paul Giamatti did a superb job. I think he has become one of my favorite actors. But otherwise - yuck, yuck, yuck! Bleh. I think I need to watch a little bit of Braveheart.

---

EDIT: I didn't want to give spoilers, but after reading my friend's latest post explaining her own (quite valid) reasons for liking the movie, I will spoil at will.

There's no doubt Shyamalan was writing an allegory, but for me it didn't work for a number of reasons. First, he didn't stick cohesively to his intent. The movie at time resembles actual reality and at other times unreality. It centers around an Eastern bedtime story while at the same time being the same story. It doesn't work because this central story is bizarrely untrue and pagan. The beings from the Blue World are innocent saviors of the poor, foolish humans, who fell because of their greed for property. Can anyone say "Rousseau?" The only way Paul Giamatti's character can learn the whole story is by appearing innocent and good himself. This directly reverses the Christian process, in which we come for help as desperately dirty and ragged as we truly are.

Second, who made them ask the little critic for his advice? He just wanted to be left alone! Why did he deserve to die because he answered when he was asked? Again, Shyamalan had that part exactly backward. I liked the critic because he was the oddity in this naive little story - he believed that there was no creativity left in the world, that all humanity was messed up. What do you know? He's right! This is why Ecclesiastes is my favorite book of the Bible: "Vanity, vanity, vanity... all is vanity... There is nothing new under the sun."

And the execution was terrible. Shyamalan likes things slow and dramatic. Sometimes that works. Sometimes not.

*grump* :D  ¶ 11:33 AM