Skip to main content

You’re a staring Stanley!

The Sixth Sense
(1999)

(SPOILERS) It has usually been a shrewd move for the Academy to ensure there’s at least one big hit among its Best Picture Oscar nominees. At least, until the era of ever-plummeting ratings; not only do the studios get to congratulate themselves for their own profligacy (often, but not always, the big hits are also the costliest productions), but the audience also has something to identify with and possibly root for. Plus, it evidences that the ceremony isn’t just about populism-shunning snobbery. The Sixth Sense provided Oscar’s supernatural bookend to a decade – albeit, The Green Mile also has a stake in this – that opened with Ghost while representing the kind of deliberate, skilfully-honed genre fare there was no shame in recognising. Plus, it had a twist. Everyone loves a twist.

As it happened, despite nominations in a handful of major categories (Director, Original Screenplay, both Supporting Actor and Actress) it won none (it was similarly left wanting by the BAFTAs). Its real achievement was just getting there, though. Not entirely unlike Stallone and Rocky (except Rocky won), once it became clear how steeped in genre M Night Shyamalan was – and how dependent he was on twists in the string of films that followed– they lost interest. There was to be no Spielberg-esque flirtation and eventual embrace. He was, for all his formal respectability, fairly low-brow. And he had a vulgar thing for cameos (Tarantino eventually learnt his lesson in the latter regard, kind of). If anything, after falling out of favour with both critics and public, Shyamalan has doubled down on his genre credentials; something like Glass is very identifiably from the same director as The Sixth Sense, but with the budget squeezed and the shlock upped, it wouldn’t even merit a passing glance from awards bodies.

Which, I think, is probably right. I don’t even think The Sixth Sense really merited such attention (while it’s very much more “blockbuster” in its beats, or perhaps because it is, Ghost holds up as the superior picture). Like many, I went into the cinema knowing there was a twist, although I managed to avoid any detail of what it was; I was able to guess it in the first five minutes (the overhead shot of bleeding Bruce on the couch gave it away), which made the picture, even on first viewing, interesting to examine from a structural point of view.

But it also exposed it as rather limited in range. It’s so focussed on withholding, on the element that you don’t see that forms the “Wow!” moment, that the dividends it pays in repeat viewing (or in knowing what it’s up to) are quite restricted. Compare The Sixth Sense to Fight Club, which is doing something very similar in that respect, and the latter’s impact is dented not at all when you know, and when you return to it knowing, mostly because Fincher has a whole lot going on in the picture, and the side that’s reliant on the reveal becomes more rather than less fascinating as a consequence.

Shyamalan’s screenplay for The Sixth Sense, rather than being stuffed, is very spartan, like much of his work; the film is designed to imbue atmosphere and expectancy, pregnant with a revealed or development that will blind side you. In that respect, I still think he’s a first-rate director, one with a distinctively assured style who is refreshingly dedicated to letting his material breathe. The flip side is that as a writer he could often use a whole lot of help, and there often isn’t much that’s very rewarding emotionally from his pictures; they’re rather glib, offering empty calorie catharsis through characters’ arcs or journeys entirely wrapped up in those scrupulously designed twists.

That assessment may be antithetical to most viewers’ takeaway of his best movies; because he spends so much time focussed on his actors, it may seem at first glance that he’s great with character but you’d be hard pressed to identify much about them from his movies – a recent Hollywood Reporter piece claimed the movie’s real achievement was making “a family drama first and a scary movie second” but that simply isn’t the case; its greatest achievement was making the twist factor currency, and when you take that away, the dramatics are somewhat torturous and heavy handed.

But that detachment might be why he’s a gift to someone like Bruce Willis in his later, humour bypass, frowning mode. He’s ideal for The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, where his studied impassivity is the nuts and bolts of those characters. Just let him look stern/ moody/ contemplative for two hours. I mean, Bruce is fine in M Night’s movies, but aside from the last gasp of his rug period, there’s nothing much to take away from his performance as Malcolm Crowe; Crowe’s oblivious to his state of passing and needs a prod from Haley Joel Osment’s Cole, and all Bruce needs to do is look vaguely perplexed.

One can draw parallels between Patrick Swayze in Ghost, aware of his recently deceased state and trying to communicate from the beyond, and Bruce’s more symbolic – I hesitate to say thematic, as this is very much literal; he can’t let go of his and Olivia Williams’ lost relationship so he’s become a ghost to her, there’s nothing subtle there – role, but I think the key that differentiates them is the vitality of Jerry Zucker’s movie and introverted, buttoned-down flow of Shyamalan’s. Bruce’s fate doesn’t really resonate beyond the gasp it gives the audience.

Much more successful is the relationship drawn between Cole and his mother (Toni Collette, recently headliner of another shock twist movie Hereditary, but as unhinged there as she is restrained here). It’s much easier to recognise the quality of Collette’s performance as a confused and fraught mother in retrospective than it is Osment’s, who attracted all the raves and was, for a brief period, a kind of preternatural variant on Macauley Culkin, subsequently in demand for another half decade. The problem with Osment, though, is that he was an almost too technically-accomplished child actor, when often what you want is a performance a little less varnished and so more truthful. He hits every necessary beat in The Sixth Sense, but he’s often underlying, capitalising and adding exclamation marks to each point too.

Shyamalan knows exactly what he’s doing with the horror here, of course, eliciting the necessary anticipation and dread from scenes, and as such it’s a much more satisfying mainstream horror concoction – as in, for those who don’t necessarily usually go and see such genre movies – than the same year’s The Blair Witch Project, both of which thrived on a must-see cachet. That doesn’t prevent it from coming across as overtly schematic and reverse-engineered. Is it fair to complain that a picture predicated on first viewing potency doesn’t hold up that well? I’d say it’s indicative of where its strengths and weaknesses lie; if Malcolm wasn’t by necessity a character half-formed through the need to reveal, and Cole defined by his withholding – only with Cole’s mum do you see what you get – the picture might have retained the longevity of an enduring classic (but maybe I’m out of touch, and thatishow it’s perceived. I’m always mystified – particularly during this year of twentieth anniversary of 1999 retrospectives – when The Blair Witch Project is cited as a masterpiece).

On a budget of just $40m, The Sixth Sense became the second biggest film of the year after The Phantom Menace (which cost three times as much), with a $673m take; it even had unheard of increasesin its fifth and sixth weekend grosses (spending five weeks in the top slot), the true mark of a word-of-mouth sleeper. And amongst the Best Picture hopefuls, it was the third highest grossing of its decade, the silver and gold going to actual prize winners Forrest Gump and Titanic. Of course, Shyamalan’s movie had a very significant factor going against the movie’s hopes, as supernatural horror fare (the subsequent likes of The Return of the King and The Shape of Water are more comfortably fantasy – also hitherto shunned – while the prior The Silence of the Lambs is more a thriller). In that respect, you probably have to go back to The Exorcist for a parallel. And recognition of a picture still alive in the public consciousness in a manner I don’t think The Sixth Sense quite is (except as an abiding entry in the greatest twist movies ever lists).


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

I don’t want to spend the holidays dead.

National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (1989) (SPOILERS) Chevy Chase gets a bad rap. By which, I don’t mean the canvas of opinion suggesting he really is a bit of a tool in real life is misplaced, as there’s no shortage of witnesses to his antics (head of the pack being probably Bill Murray, whose brother Brian appears here as Clark’s boss). But rather that, during his – relatively brief – heyday, I was a genuine fan of his deadpan delivery in the likes of Caddyshack and Fletch . The National Lampoon’s Vacation movies, even the initial trilogy overseen by John Hughes, are very hit-and-miss affairs, but it’s Chase, with his almost Basil Fawlty-esque ability both to put his foot in it and deliver withering put-downs, who forms their irrepressibly upbeat core.