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

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.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

The protocol actually says that most Tersies will say this has to be a dream.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)
(SPOILERS) The Wachowski siblings’ wildly patchy career continues apace. They bespoiled a great thing with The Matrix sequels (I liked the first, not the second), misfired with Speed Racer (bubble-gum visuals aside, hijinks and comedy ain’t their forte) and recently delivered the Marmite Sense8 for Netflix (I was somewhere in between on it). Their only slam-dunk since The Matrix put them on the movie map is Cloud Atlas, and even that’s a case of rising above its limitations (mostly prosthetic-based). Jupiter Ascending, their latest cinema outing and first stab at space opera, elevates their lesser works by default, however. It manages to be tone deaf in all the areas that count, and sadly fetches up at the bottom of their filmography pile.

This is a case where the roundly damning verdicts have sadly been largely on the ball. What’s most baffling about the picture is that, after a reasonably engaging set-up, it determinedly bores the pants off you. I haven’t enco…

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

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.