Get thee behind the camera

I apologize if we've dished on Shyamalan's presence enough in earlier threads, but I wanted to ask how much his presence affected the movie's flow for you. I thought his acting was good and his presence plausible. But watching him kept yanking me out of the story and movie-watching experience. I wondered whose role had been cut down to give him more screen time. I wondered where, as a principal character, he was during the swimming pool party scene. (I guess he had to be behind the camera then.) So he kept interrupting the movie for me and, like the implausible scenarios I listed in the comments with dw's first post, there were too many reasons to lose the "story" feel and stay in critique mode instead.

And another question: Does watching a movie for Cinema Chatter disrupt everybody's ability to "lose" themselves in the story? I either watch it through and enjoy, or take a few notes along the way, and then rewatch parts, especially after discussion starts. Can you watch a film the same way if you plan to critique it?

Paul Giamatti

I am part of the .000009 percent of the population who hasn't seen "Sideways," but I like Paul Giamatti. He's a good leading man in this part, someone likable, and I was interested in what would happen to his character.

Casting and script were handled well for Cleveland, too. He's not one of those improbably handsome actors who you could never imagine as a building super. He doesn't have to have a romance or, god forbid, an obligatory love scene the way all blockbusters seem to require anymore. It stretched my patience how the movie just skipped over how Cleveland convinced all of his neighbors about Story's story, but he came across as the kind of guy people liked and trusted. He was an ordinary man inexplicably chosen to play a great, important role, and he lived up to his end. For me, he redeemed the movie from its flaws.

Mermaids schmermaids

When is someone going to make a film about a pretty merMAN (or a Monsieur Narf)? And if they do, will he be a peaceful, delicate, passive temptress (or tempter), like most of his female counterparts? A pale little stud muffin who has trouble talking? And what actor would be your ideal merman? (Boys, it won't make you gay to pick someone).

Found in translation

The scene I enjoyed most was when Young-Soon Choi was at the dance club and was translating over the phone for Cleveland and her crusty mom, who made Cleveland stay out in the hall. The stereotype of Asians having ancient wisdom/remedies ("ancient Chinese secret") was a bit annoying. I mean, why couldn't the Mexican dude be the tale teller? Nevertheless, the scene was well done and humorous, with a goofy party girl being the link between two individuals who couldn't otherwise understand each other and who didn't really want to deal with each other at all.

So there's that story in the story, an explanation. But there's a more general explanation at the beginning of the movie, before the action starts, where the primitive line drawings are used to explain how humans lost touch with the sea people and became a degenerated civilization. The drawings show up again at the end as the credits roll, to reinforce the fairytale frame of reference. Do you think these various stories about the story work? Do they work well together? Did the intro story intrigue you?

Camera work

DW, I'm eager to hear, since you based your selection on the cinematographer, Christopher Doyle, what you really think about the camera work in this movie. I really liked the opening scene where Cleveland was killing something under the sink (what was that, by the way?) and the characters were being shot from underneath the sink. I also liked the scene where Cleveland fell down near the pool in his first encounter with Story. I think the camera was in the pool, as from Story's point of view.

All Those Neighbors

Having a cross section of recognizable social types also had promise. Since the movie never left the apartment complex, it made it seem like a little village. But although the movie was plenty long, these characters seemed underdeveloped. They needed the help of somebody who can do quick character sketches in just a few scenes to give a bit of depth to this large cast.

How Do You Do That Again...

One of the best bits of this movie is how incompetent the characters were at fulfilling their part of the epic. Wouldn’t you be, too? I mean, who really does know how to send a not-quite-mermaid back to her water world? I didn’t study that in school. I’m not sure that playing D&D would have helped me much either.

This element could have been improved by having more than one source for the fairytale so that there were conflicts between the two versions. Also, I would have liked more ambiguity throughout. In particular, it would have been cool if there was some doubt about whether Story escape back to her world or got munched. It would have been a better movie, but it would have been hard to get it past the Hollywood masters.

Things that Go Bump in the Night

Like Erin, I also liked Shyamalan’s invented mythology and story. But I don’t think they realized it very well. The creatures were supposedly “things unseen”, but then they had the grass dog strolling around the halls of the apartment complex. Frankly, it wasn’t very scary. I suspect that they could have had a lot better result if their special effects budget had been hacked almost to zero and they were forced to make the best of vague glimpses and imagination.

That Big American Industry....

For the moment at least, this internet connection is working, so let’s get started...


Before I saw “Lady in the Water”, I didn’t realize that it had a big enough budget that they could build their own apartment complex from scratch. So it was more Hollywood than I expected.

Like I said when I picked it, all I really knew about it was that it was filmed by Doyle. He has done some great work with asian filmmakers, but I had not seen him work in a Hollywood type production.

Did anybody look at the extras that were on the DVD? Shyamalan has published this story as a children’s book and they showed some of illustrations in it. I might see if the library has a copy of the book because I think it looks more successful than the movie. Anyway, my overall reaction to the movie is that it had some very promising elements that never quite gelled. Before trying to pick that apart, do people have some first reactions?

Erin's pick: "The Station Agent"

I was not feeling inspired this go-round, and I had some trouble making a pick. I came across "The Station Agent," though, and it really grabbed me. Sounds like a nice, character-driven story. And it features the remarkable Patricia Clarkson.

Another chick in the mall

The mall setting was probably my favorite thing about this movie. I love the conversation where someone asks why the zombies go to the mall, and the answer is "instinct." The mall where the movie was filmed was one of the first of its kind, according to the Wikipedia article, and it's interesting to see how early in the game it became an object of satire — a symbol of surburban boredom, materialism, time-wasting. The mall in American culture became not just a place to shop, but a place to hang out, to roam through zombie-like, staring at all the products that hold out so much promise of making us happy.

What were your thoughts on the mall's role in the movie?

survival

If Romero skewers anyone in this film, it's the hunting, fishing, Iron City-drinking types who respond so indifferently to what has become of humanity. (Though he does this scene with some humor.)

What struck me is how much safer they seemed, sticking together out in the countryside. What do you think of the foursome's decision to go it alone? Granted, I think they had to protect a precious commodity -- the helicopter -- but otherwise, survival instinct would be safety in numbers.

On the other hand, look what happens when law deteriorates to a point where Wally can butcher people according to his personal, bigoted agenda. Or what if they settled into a mini-theocracy or some other form of rule? That's one of the reasons I like films or books ("The Stand," "Lord of the Flies") with a survival setting. Maybe the undead aren't the scariest threat a character deals with.

In media res

What did you think of the film beginning in the middle of things, with no prelude whatsoever? Havoc and zombies and crisis from the first minute.

Alternate ending

The Wikipedia link I mentioned earlier delves into making of an alternate ending for "Dawn." In the original plan, Romero had Peter shoot himself at the end after all, and Fran was to thrust her head into the moving helicopter blades. (The special effects crew was probably pretty psyched for that).

Like most movie viewers, I preferred the ending Romero chose in which Fran and Peter get away, but because I saw "Dawn" before "Night," I didn't understand one of the basic concepts about the zombies. I thought that you didn't become a zombie unless they infected you. But as "Night" tells it, if you die of any cause in this new era, you become a zombie, unless it's a fatal head wound. By that logic, Fran, Peter and the other survivors will eventually have to choose suicide or become one of the undead. (Barring a "fortuitous," fatal head injury.)

That made me rethink Romero's ending -- maybe he shouldn't have chosen the "happy" version.

racial issues

Note: This is a spoiler for "Night of the Living Dead" (which came before "Dawn").

"Night" was an unconventional horror film for many reasons, but among them, the hero of movie was black, and the year was 1968. While he survives the zombies up to the last minute of the film, he dies because a civil patrol posse of good old boys mistakes him for a zombie and shoots him in the head. The film ends with newsreel-type images of the hero being dragged out of the house, to a pile of bodies and then set afire -- a disturbing image in a time of civil rights turmoil.

I think that's relevant background to why the introduction to the SWAT team in "Dawn" was set in the projects, with a racist unit leader controlling a bloody charge into a building where families wouldn't give up their undead. I squirmed when Wally called the people the n-word and called their building "a fancy hotel -- they've got it better than I do."

Who's your daddy?

Was there a misunderstanding about the conversation to abort Fran's baby? Peter asks Steven, "Do you want to get rid of it?" in Fran's absence -- and she took it to mean that Steven and the others would be making the call. I thought Peter meant "you" in the sense of "you and Fran" when he asked it.

In any case, it was an interesting moment in the movie for Fran, one in which she realizes she is a minority in the mini-society they've created, and that her rights could be revoked.

Macho, macho men ...

Were you stranded in a big city full of zombies, it would be handy to have at least one SWAT team sniper in your gang. And once you've got two, the testosterone is practically contagious! Was the group machisimo responsible for any of the character deaths? And what happened to Steven -- was his carelessness driven by a desire to protect Fran? A need to be one of the boys?

The plot not taken

The smart script for this film didn't develop into some of the obvious lines directors would take. Chief among them was the storyline of Fran's pregnancy, which is 1) not revealed until about a half-hour into the movie (and her smoking might throw viewers off the scent, even if the habit was less verboten in the late '70s), 2) does not turn her into a archtypal expectant mother who will suffer health problems and need protection and 3) is not seen to full-term, which is what I expected. (Another director might have succumbed to having Fran be mid-labor when the bikers/zombies get in, for example, like there wasn't enough suspense to go around.)

Also off the path was how some of George Romero's characters developed -- who would be heroic, who would survive, who would elicit sympathy. Did you experience any surprises in that respect?

I'll post about the ending tomorrow, but the earlier Wikipedia link had details about the alternate scenes filmed to conclude the movie, which also would have defied conventional audience expectations.

splatter chatter

I can't decide whether this is a good early question, but it might surface later, so here goes.

I like horror movies. I like the cathartic feeling at the end, if the film's good, and I like believing in supernatural elements against my better judgment (like in "The Shining") during the movie's run. But most horror movies feature a body count to heighten the suspense/gore factor/move the plot along, etc. -- and that's not something others may want to see.

As I rewatched "Dawn" last night, even I thought the initial killing spree and gore was intense, and I'm desensitized from all the other horror films I've watched. Did the violence turn you off initially or throughout the film? Did it detract from the pleasure of watching the movie?

The lowdown on "Dawn"

I don't believe everything my parents told me -- and I feel the same way about Wikipedia -- but it has an extensive, interesting entry on "Dawn of the Dead". It delves into a lot of the shooting challenges of the movie -- trying to film at a mall after close, managing all the extras (some of whom would show up drunk) and handling special effects.

Don't read it until you've seen the film, but it's fun.

It also made me aware that a fourth film came out in 2005, "Land of the Dead," which I plan to watch. Also, a "Diary of the Dead" was shot in late 2006. It reads like a "Blair Witch" retelling of the original lore. There are links to those films from the Wikipedia entry above.

Take a Gamble

One of my most favorite cinematographers is Christopher Doyle. I just realized that I haven’t seen either of the two films he shot last year, so I’m picking one of them for our next movie. In 2003 he shot a film for Pen-Ek-Ratanaruang that is known in English as “Last Life in the Universe”. This is a very cool film and reminds me in some ways of the movies that Doyle has made with Wong Kar-Wai (one of most favorite filmmakers). One of Doyle’s 2006 films is another one with Pen-Ek Ratanaruang, so I thought that this should be the pick. However, my local store with a strong collection of art and asian film didn’t have it, so I thought maybe it will be too hard for people to track down.

So, Doyle’s other 2006 movie is one he did for M. Night Shyamalan called “Lady in the Water”. Although Shyamalan has been making movies for fifteen years, I haven’t seen any of them yet. I didn’t even see the highly popular “Sixth Sense” from 1999. So, thus far, I don’t have much idea if I will like Shyamalan, but this one at least has Paul Giamatti which sounds like a promising start.

There you have it then, my basically blind pick: “Lady in the Water”.

The dead shall walk the earth ...

But not on my watch today.

Went to a dubious-looking video store on the east side of the city to pick up "Dawn of the Dead" (and was pleasantly surprised by the Criterion collection and other choices -- all about a buck less than Blockbuster and LH) and found "Dawn" right away. Get to the counter and realize I picked up the 2004 remake! I congratulate myself for catching this amateurish mistake and go back and pick up "Dawn" and go home.

I put the DVD in the player and realize I checked out "Day of the Dead" instead.

And my co-worker is right -- it's the dud in the series. I felt like I was watching an excerpt from "T.J. Hooker" or "Hunter," except with undead.

So if you want to talk about "Dawn" today, you can start without me -- or I've seen it before, so I can discuss. I'll be in full moderating mode tomorrow.