Skip to main content

You know what the scariest thing is? To not know your place in this world. To not know why you're here... That's... That's just an awful feeling.


Unbreakable
(2000)

(SOME SPOILERS) In the fourteen years since The Sixth Sense went from sleeper hit to box office titan, M. Night Shyamalan’s cachet has taken a significant tumble. Initially impressed with his distinctive narrative and visual approach, realisation dawned that he was, by all appearances, a one-trick pony. The appetite for his tales-with-a-twist diffused and, in seeming recognition (or, through difficulty in finding funding) he turned to adapting others’ material. First up was The Last Airbender (which, I admit, I still haven’t seen) and this summer comes Will Smith & Son in After Earth. But Unbreakable was his first post-Sense picture. Bruce was back. Big things were expected. And it did well at the box office, it’s just that well was only a third of the gross of his spook story.

When I saw Unbreakable at the cinema, I instantly preferred it to its predecessor. In part, guessing Sense’s twist in the first fifteen minutes rendered it too predictable and calculated for me; I admired the filmmaking and the performances but that reveal was all there was to it. The rest was just filling out the twist, with an earnest tone that sold it as sincere. Unbreakable’s central conceit, ironically, takes a lot more swallowing. But I admired what the director was attempting to do with the superhero genre, even if he proves only partially successful.

Shyamalan’s Achilles Heel (aside from originating his own material, but that’s a given) is that he’s a pretentious filmmaker; he imbues his subjects with a sense of importance that invariably, when stripped away, reveals very limited substance in terms of depth and theme. Pushed, that scale can tip further into outright silliness (Lady in the Water, The Happening). Unbreakable sees the director working back from his premise in the same manner he did for The Sixth Sense, it’s just that this time he reveals his subject early on. The twist is not so central, it’s in the abilities or otherwise of Willis’ David Dunn that the film’s impact lies. The additional layer of self-reflexivity in having the characters represent, and comment upon, the rules of comic books never has the impact Shymalan clearly wants it to, perhaps because he makes such heavy weather of it.

So we have a man who survives a train crash unscathed, when all the other passengers died. The whys of this are seized upon Samuel L Jackson’s Elijah Price, the fright-wigged owner of a comic book art gallery who suffers from a brittle bone disorder. And that’s where Shyamalan begins to strain credulity. He does well setting up his characters; David is first seen concealing his wedding ring as he unsuccessfully attempts to chat up a fellow passenger. In shorthand, the director deftly establishes David’ unfulfilled existence. And, all the while, the camera sits behind the opposite seats, shifting angle with the speaker. David’s a blue collar guy, could have been a pro-footballer but an injury put him out of the frame. His marriage is not working, and he’s due to move on his own to New York. His son idolises him, of which he feels profoundly undeserving. All of this, the director communicates with restraint and confidence.

Understandably, David thinks Elijah, who was nicknamed Mr. Glass by his schoolmates, is a nut. But the problem comes with the profound questions David is asked. I find it very hard to swallow that David would have failed to notice that he never gets sick; in trying to transpose a fantasy genre to the “real” world, Shymalan falls prey to suspect logic. And because the revelations hold such weight they invite proportionately greater disbelief than if they had featured in a less portentous piece.

David’s a very forgetful man; he also forgot a childhood trauma crucial to the plot. Somehow his wife never learned of it (despite being together since they were teenagers) and also never noticed his amazing good health. And, while it provides a neat shortcut for discerning folks in danger, imbuing David with a clairvoyance that he has hitherto suppressed (conveniently, like everything else) seems to over-egging the pudding (is there no limit to this man’s abilities now he’s discovered them?) Perhaps it’s a result of Elijah interrogating his history, but it encourages the viewer to do likewise, and you come up realising that the director is desperately hoping (or arrogantly confident) that the IMPACT of his revelations will be enough.

It’s this same over-earnestness nearly topples the scene where David’s son Joseph (played with slightly creepy conviction by Spencer Treat Clark; Shymalan certainly seems able to cast preternatural kids in his sleep) points a gun at his father, convinced that the bullets won’t kill him. It feels like it was shoehorned in because the director thought it would provide dramatic meat, and there’s a resultant impulse to laugh derisively at it.

But, and this is a big but, Shymalan’s slow-but-sure approach to pacing, framing and editing is immensely appealing. Particularly in an age of quicker-faster-better. An effective early example sees David and Joseph gradually increasing the weights he is lifting to see how much he can carry. Later, when it comes time for David to test his powers as Windcheater Man, the director is ready to ride a cathartic wave perfectly supported by James Newton Howard’s swelling score.

Willis is dependably impassive, which suits the part, although this is unfortunately part of his minimalist phase as a “serious” actor. Jackson reins it in a bit, and thus is reasonably effective. Robin Wright Penn does much with a limited role (the convenience whereby Elijah ends up receiving physiotherapy from Audrey is another point where the conflagration of coincidences demands viewer suspicion).

I can’t help but like the film, and the director’ style generally; even with his last couple of movies I’ve found some merit on that score. It’s unfortunate that he chose to flash up a “What happened next” text in lieu of proposed sequels; it’s pretty clear what’s going to happen, and spelling out is a little trite. Then, I guess so is his oeuvre, since it assumes the viewer will be more than content with the surface details and look no further.

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?