Should We Expect Redemption or Disappointment With The Happening?

Novelist Scott Sigler's horror column appears every Thursday.
I'm not buying the hype this time. I'm just not. M. Night Shyamalan took my money for The Sixth Sense. I coughed up the dough for Unbreakable, which seemed to annoy many critics, but as a lifelong comic book fan, I loved it. Then, like my ex-girlfriend Sadie who was done giving up the goods and just milking me for free dinners, he took my cash for Signs, strung me along again with The Village, and for Lady in the Water, ordered the surf and turf and a bottle of Cristal before dumping me and leaving the restaurant.
M. Night Shyamalan, once up on a time you were a sure thing, but you've stopped putting out. And I'm pissed.
Now he's flirting with us again, batting his eyelashes and promising that this time, with The Happening, the movie not only looks hot as hell, it's going to give it up as well. That's right, The Happening hits theaters tomorrow. Yeah, Friday the 13th. Wooo, that's scary. And it should be scary. With all the global warming hysteria, a horror movie about nature releasing a biotoxin that makes people kill themselves could be simultaneously apocalyptic and... so green. A politically correct horror flick? Why not: Enough people in our culture buy into the concept that humans are actually a disease that inflicts Earth, so why not play on an immune response as a plot device?
So I have to ask -- will this be redemption for a man that is supposed to be one of the great storytellers of our time, or will it be another contrived plot with more holes than Fifty Cent? "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." That phrase is known as The Peter Principle. This theory postulates that if you are successful at your job, you get promoted to the next level, and keep moving up the ladder until you reach a job at which you suck. Then because you suck, you can't advance any farther. You advance to the point of failure, and stay there.
Sometimes it seems like entertainment can produce the same effect, particularly with the authors and directors who are responsible for large-scale story concepts. In the early stages of such careers, those people go through a tough gamut of feedback and control from editors, publishers, producers, investors and the like. Entertainment is a business, and while fans and critics often moan about the endless commercialization of art, without a happy, paying audience, an "artist" is just some dude living in his parent's basement, ducking away from dad every time the conversation rolls around to "Isn't it time you got a real job?"
Movies are big money. When wallets are on the line, everyone wants a say in what gets made. Too many cooks can turn a perfect steak into a half-digested mess, but they can also push the artist to refine his or her vision. Additional eyes find more plot holes. As a storyteller, sometimes you just flat-out miss stuff that blazes obvious to others. In my own experience, feedback from readers and editors, even bad feedback, can open up new thoughts and make you look at a story in a different light. You find plot holes. You eliminate illogical character actions. In the end, the plot gets tighter, the story flows better and you create a better product.
But once you have a big-time bestseller or two, you might start to ignore that outside advice completely. Or in the case of M. Night Shyamalan, once you are heralded as a moviemaking god, you probably think you can pull a culinary Lazarus and turn that half-digested mess back into a perfect steak.
Shyamalan, of course, gave us all an iconic gem with The Sixth Sense. Let's not beat around the bush, he knocked that one out of the park. We weren't just entertained by the movie; we weren't simply relieved to have seen something that didn't suck -- we were absolutely riveted. The movie was so strong it catapulted Shyamalan into legendary directorial heights. He was heralded as either either as "the new Hitchcock" or "the new Spielberg" or sometimes both in the same breath. As an artist, the problem comes when you start to believe the hype.
When the box office
apparently backs up the critical acclaim, perhaps you hit that zone
where you buy in (and if you doubt he's bought in, check out the second
paragraph in this 2006 Time Magazine article).
At this point, two bad things can happen -- you stop listening to the
people around you, or they buy the hype too and stop offering up
critique.
For Shyamalan, it seems clear he stopped listening. The horribly contrived plot of Signs alone basically insults the intelligence of anyone that watches it (how about instead of an all-powerful God killing Mel Gibson's wife, putting Gibson through a decade of anguish and doubt, not to mention killing thousands of people who have nothing to with Gibson, how about just making the aliens go somewhere else? And come on, monsters that die from water? You can fly across space, but you can't afford a wetsuit?). The myopic story concepts continued with The Village, which did show Shyamalan's penchant for creating suspense, but the plot defied common-sense logic to the point where it became more fairy tale than suspense movie. The culmination came with Lady in the Water: Not only did this story spiral off into Neverland, but Shyamalan cast himself as a visionary writer that completely changes humanity for the better. Ego, meet Night. Night, Ego.
We can all elevate ourselves
to the Olympian heights, but if you go back to the assertion that
movies are a business, you can't argue with Shyamalan's magic. Starting
with The Sixth Sense, every one of his films has turned a big profit. He's responsible for over a billion
dollars in box office. Whether we like his movies or not, enough of us
go to see them to ensure he can keep making more, and keep making them
the way he wants to -- ridiculous plot contrivances and all.
But
you know what, Sadie? You've teased me enough. I've had it. I'm not
picking you up and we're not going to the Lobster House... I'm
swapping the surf and turf and Cristal for Cheese-Its and Diet Coke --
I think a quiet night at home when you're out on DVD will do just fine.
Scott Sigler writes tales of hard-science horror, then gives them away as free audiobooks at www.scottsigler.com. His hardcover debut Infected is available in stores now. If
you don't agree with what Scott says in this blog, please email him
scott@scottsigler.com. Please include all relevant personal
information, such as your address and what times you are not home, in
case Scott wishes to send someone to "discuss" your opinions.




















Absolutely agree with everything you wrote. I gave up on Night after The Village. I even liked Unbreakable for the same reason, but otherwise, it was at best, plodding.
I'm in the same boat, I really enjoyed The Sixth sense (who didn't?), loved Unbreakable, had high hopes for Signs, and threw in the towel after The Village.
My expectations for The Village were low enough that it really only annoyed me in all honestly. But still it did annoy me enough to skip Lady in the Water completely, still...
Seriously though, those aliens in Signs. Shouldn't the humidity in the air have at the very least caused them a really annoying and unsightly rash?
Oh Heck, I do agree with you Scott, but I try to go see everything Horror, Scifi, and inbetween, and I just remember the parts I like....so when I am done I only remember half of a bad movie, the good half. It's fun being led down a winding plot path of even questionable quality. I am easy to please and when I finally see a real gem of a movie, I am blown away.... and aren't bad movies really fun to slam? Where would the critics be without them? Shyamalan is a master of hype if nothing else.
This movie sucked big time. The premise was decent, and it had potential. The acting itself? Awful. Absolutely awful. "I am talking to a fake plant. I am still doing it" M Night was a one-hit wonder, and he'll never take another dime of my $ !
Big disappointment. The ending couldn't be any worse. I couldn't stand Zooey Deschanel. The whole premise of people being infected by some plant-spore-altering-bacteria-thing which causes them to want to kill themselves was just too Al Gore on crack for me. Lots of camera shots of mold on a tree branch and wind blowing the trees...yeah, that's some spooky stuff there!
I should have known better after "Lady in the Water".
I'm one of the few that has actually enjoyed Shaymalan's movies (yes, even the Village and Lady in the Water), but I just had to draw the line with this one. Not only was the premise completely stupid, but the blatant anti-science attitudes just pissed me off. If you ever want to guarantee that I won't see your crappy movie, just say the words "evolution is just a theory."
"..., once up on a time you were a sure thing, but you've stopped putting out."
Scott, haven't you copy and pasted that from comments to your blog?
artm: How dare you call me out on my own shortcomings.
dsstrkl: You think M. Knight is going the way of Creationism? His plots seem to provide about as much integrity as does that theory ...
mtnbkr1: Ha! Beat you to it! He didn't take a dime of my money for this one. I learned my lesson with the one-two nut shots known as SIGNS and LADY IN THE WATER.
acboock: He is a master of hype, and for that, I repeatedly tip my hat to him. But as long as you're hyping everyone into a frenzy, why not just go ahead and tell a good story?
MC52 & Pierce: Looks like you were in my camp -- we've had enough, lost enough hard-earned money, just not going to experience that theatrical disappointment any longer.
Scott: I was just referring to somebody else's comments, OK?
BTW, there was an interview with M. Night Shyamalan about the Happening on Scientific American podcast:
http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=7D143269-CDF5-97B4-8E87A33F3D39DA4B
(yes, June 12, I'm behind on all my podcasts but one).
artm: I was only pretending to take offense - I thought it was pretty funny.