THE VILLAGE (2004)

SHORT REVIEW: It’s like a long, warm nap…no wait, that’s because it put me to sleep. I’m a dunce. That’s why I like films to have a clear point by the time they wrap up. I’m silly that way. Stories are arguments. The first act of a story is the "question", wherein the central issue put before the characters and audience is posed. The second act is the various attempts to solve the riddle unleashed in the first act. The third and final act is the answer to the main question of the story. This is the whole point of the three-act structure. Ask – Debate – Answer. In The Village, M. Night Shamalamadingdong lets rip a cornucopia of symbols and mysteries. Each seems to move toward some grand truth. The film is a string of events that lead us to some interesting places but ends taking us nowhere. Its as if he had a thousand cool ideas, but had no idea what they meant. It is vital for a story to have a point of view – to take a stand on the issue it presses. This film doesn’t make its stake even slightly. With all of the conflicting subplots, symbols and statements, we end up with a story that is as murky and fun as the lining my toddler son makes for his diapers. Either Shamalamadingdong is for organized religion or he’s against it. Either he is arguing for the goodness of mankind, or he is arguing against it. Either civilization is needed or it is not. Read other reviews of this film. Find me one that is not confused on what is being said with this film. It’s not clever or fair to leave people guessing in this fashion. It’s okay to leave em’ guessing on some plot point or final reveal – but it’s never okay to have large questions surrounding the whole thesis of your piece. That’s just bad storytelling. Again, it is the result of the third act not carrying its weight. The answers to the questions must make some sense. Perhaps he didn’t know what he was asking. I don’t know. The problem is, no one else does either. Categories: film, movie, DVD, The Village, M Night Shyamalan, Joaquin Phoenix