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

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Everyone wants a happy ending and everyone wants closure but that's not the way life works out.

It Chapter Two (2019)
(SPOILERS) An exercise in stultifying repetitiveness, It Chapter Two does its very best to undo all the goodwill engendered by the previous instalment. It may simply be that adopting a linear approach to the novel’s interweaving timelines has scuppered the sequel’s chances of doing anything the first film hasn’t. Oh, except getting rid of Pennywise for good, which you’d be hard-pressed to discern as substantially different to the CGI-infused confrontation in the first part, Native American ritual aside.

Check it out. I wonder if BJ brought the Bear with him.

Death Proof (2007)
(SPOILERS) In a way, I’m slightly surprised Tarantino didn’t take the opportunity to disown Death Proof, to claim that, as part of Grindhouse, it was no more one of his ten-official-films-and-out than his Four Rooms segment. But that would be to spurn the exploitation genre affectation that has informed everything he’s put his name to since Kill Bill, to a greater or less extent, and also require him to admit that he was wrong, and you won’t find him doing that for anything bar My Best Friend’s Birthday.

That woman, deserves her revenge and… we deserve to die. But then again, so does she.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2  (2004)
(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I can really conclude whether one Kill Bill is better than the other, since I’m essentially with Quentin in his assertion that they’re one film, just cut into two for the purposes of a selling point. I do think Kill Bill: Vol. 2 has the movie’s one actually interesting character, though, and I’m not talking David Carradine’s title role.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I’ll be waiting.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
(SPOILERS) It sometimes seems as if Quentin Tarantino – in terms of his actual movies, rather than nearly getting Uma killed in an auto stunt – is the last bastion of can-do-no-wrong on the Internet. Or at very least has the preponderance of its vocal weight behind him. Back when his first two movies proper were coming out, so before online was really a thing, I’d likely have agreed, but by about the time the Kill Bills arrived, I’d have admitted I was having serious pause about him being all he was cracked up to be. Because the Kill Bills aren’t very good, and they’ve rather characterised his hermetically sealed wallowing in obscure media trash and genre cul-de-sacs approach to his art ever since. Sometimes to entertaining effect, sometimes less so, but always ever more entrenching his furrow; as Neil Norman note in his Evening Standard review, “Tarantino has attempted (and largely succeeded) in making a movie whose only reality is that of celluloid”. Extend t…

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.