THE PLANK JUNE 14, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Chris does an admirable (and hilarious) job of tearing apart M. Night Shyamalan's latest crime against cinema, The Happening. It is incredibly awful, so laughingly bad that at one point during the screening I attended last night a man in the audience yelled, "I can't take it anymore!" No one shushed him. While Chris deconstructs the film's myriad absurdities, poor performances, and atrocious script, he didn't go after what I believe is its morally appalling premise: that the mere existence of the human race is a cause for great shame.
As with most of Shyamalan's films, The Happening has an intriguing plot: centuries of human pollution has prompted nature to retaliate against us by form of a noxious gas released from trees, plants, grass -- it's never really clear. The toxin is first emitted in Central Park, smack dab in the middle of one of the most densly populated places in the United States. First, victims lose their critical faculties. Then they freeze. Then they killl themselves. From New York City "The Happening" spreads all along the east coast, from Boston to Washington. Shyamalan leaves little to the imagination in depicting man's nature-inflicted suicide. We see a woman stab herself in the neck with a hair pin. A man runs himself over with a lawnmower. On can't help but leave the theater thinking that Shyamalan derives a sick, masochistic pleasure in showing the deaths of all his bit characters, hopeless rubes are these human beings. They drove their SUVs for too long and had a big carbon footprint and now they're going to pay.
After 90 minutes of this, the culling of humanity ends. We catch a brief television news segment in which a scientist warns us that what the Northeast just experienced was akin to a terrestrial occurrence of oceanic "red tides." The earth warned us, but thankfully we get another chance to amend the errors of our ways. Like the end of An Inconvenient Truth, we're left with some hope that environmental catastrophe is not a foregone conclusion. Buy a plug-in car. Use public transportation when available. Turn off the light when you leave a room. An unoffensive, and indeed positive message. The second to last scene depicts the female lead waiting nervously in her bathroom to read the results of a home pregnancy test. To her delight, she is with child. Her husband comes home, they embrace. Humanity soldiers on. What a warm feeling after so many scenes of horrific death.
But Shyamalan is obsessed with conceits at the expense of every other aspect -- the script, character development, and most importantly, good taste. He lives by the conceit, and, in this case, dies by it. After the pregnancy scene, the screen goes dark and we find ourselves in Paris, the Jardin des Tuileries to be exact. It's eerily reminiscent of the film's opening, with two men walking, engaged in pleasant conversation about their plans for the evening. A gust of wind! One of the men starts to stutter. People freeze. Screams. Mon Dieu!. Roll credits.This isn't just radical environemntalist fare; it's perverse and anti-human. Shyamalan cuts immediately from the natural joy of pregnancy to its consequence: mass, nature-inflicted murder. It's not carbon output, styrofoam cups or the clearing of the rain forests that so angers Mother Earth and, thus, her self-appointed human spokesman. It's us.
--James Kirchick
33 comments
I guess that's what happens when a religious extremist tries "radical environmentalist fare" and preaches "intelligent" design and in a movie.
io9.com/.../the-happening-is-the-biggest-intelligent-design-movie-of-the-year
io9.com/.../the-science-behind-the-happening-is-jesus
- WoodyBombay
June 14, 2008 at 3:56pm
James, it is just a frickin movie, leave that to Chris. Nothing more boring than people trying to make larger points about society based on the happenings in a crappy movie. I can see it happening when a serious movie crosses over into societal consciousness, like for example Forrest Gump or Brokeback Mountain, but to get all righteous about junk is a waste of time. It was bad enough when conservatives got all nuts about the Day after Tomorrow, treating it as though this is how environmentalists really think, now we got a lecture about this one.
- blackton
June 14, 2008 at 4:07pm
You're right that the movie - which I saw last night - is morally abhorrent, but you're wrong when you imply that its message is outside the mainstream of environmentalism. What is the "environment," which is the standard of the good in this religion? Anything - animal, mineral, or vegetable - which isn't human. It follows that humanity is evil, a blot on an otherwise pristine natural world. There are plenty of prominent environmentalists who will say as much explicitly.
If you think human beings are alright, you might be a conservationist, but you're not an environmentalist.
- bcrago77
June 14, 2008 at 4:30pm
Two points:
1. Yeah, I have to agree with blackton that overanalyzing a bad movie is pretty much a waste of time. I mean, Chris has already established that Shyamalan's movie is short on fundamentals like plot, character, logic, and so forth. Which means that it's really just like one of those awful Jackson Pollack paintings: you can see whatever you want in there.
2. To be fair, the sheer mass of humanity, arguably already past the planet's carrying capacity, is in fact a huge problem. Shyamalan has apparently made a singlularly awful movie based on the conceit that we're outgrowing our Petri dish, but the bad movie doesn't discredit the idea. Nature will, in fact, cull the herd if it gets too large. I understand that your objection is a moral one, that you think Shyamalan seems to be saying that human presence is intrinsically bad. I dunno--haven't seen the movie and don't plan to, and I suspect your accusation is one of those highly arguable, eye-of-the-beholder things. But even if we grant that point, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
At some point, we'll either have to manage our population growth or drastically increase the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet, or both--or we court disaster. You can make really bad science fiction out of an idea like that, MNS has apparently done (in re Shyamalan: I never saw what all the fuss was about. His first movie was a hoary old cliche, and he went downhill from there). You can also make excellent, nuanced sf out of the exact same idea: see Silverberg, Benford, Sterling, et al.
- sullydog
June 14, 2008 at 4:36pm
"The Most Morally Abhorrent Film Ever Made?" Ever hear of Triumph of the Will? I'd say hyperbole warning, but it's given away by the author. As for horror of horrors, the film ends with first a moment of relief (life goes on, the wife is pregnant) then a moment of doom (death in Paris). Has Jamie ever seen a horror movie? That's practically a conceit of the genre. Just when the movie's over, low and behold, Michael Myers, Jason, Freddy Krueger, the Texas Chainsaw Massacring guy, etc, is still out there to terrify you. Cliche, sure. Morally abhorrent? Please.
- Crock1701
June 14, 2008 at 4:56pm
bcrago: Please excuse me, but you're full of shit. Mainstream environmentalism is not anti-humanity. Mainstream environmentalism proceeds from the view that (contrary to your trite assertion) human beings are part of the enviroment, effect the environment, and depend on the enviroment. Without humanity and a concern for humanity, environmentalism would be pointless.
You, clearly, are not an environmentalist. That's your choice, but it does cast considerable doubt on your qualifications to stomp in here and pontificate to the rest of us about what mainstream environmentalism does or does not stand for.
Even more troubling for your position are the facts (agh! those pesky things!)
Frex, here's the mission statement of the Sierra Club:
"The Sierra Club's members and supporters are more than 1.3 million of your friends and neighbors. Inspired by nature, we work together to protect our communities and the planet. The Club is America's oldest, largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization."
Hmm. They come right out and claim to be environmentalists, THE environmentalists, even, and yet they want to protect "our communities." That doesn't sound very anti-human to me. Let's try again. Maybe The Nature Conservancy hates America:
"Welcome to The Nature Conservancy — the leading conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people."
Wow. These guys can't be environmentalists. They want to do stuff for nature AND people. Let's try Greenpeace:
"Our fight to save the planet has grown more serious – the threat of global warming, destruction of ancient forests, deterioration of our oceans, and the threat of a nuclear disaster loom large. Greenpeace is actively working to address these and other threats."
Nope. No "humanity is evil" rhetoric here.
I wonder why not?
Could it be that these environmentalists, mainstream environmentalists, three of the largest environmental organizations on the planet, are engaging in disinformation, trying to lull us into a false sense of security as they devilishly work toward their goal of staging the eradication of humanity in a setting of natural beauty?
Or...is it simply that you felt like throwing some wild irrelevant accusations around and don't know what the blue fuck you're talking about?
- sullydog
June 14, 2008 at 5:04pm
"James Kirchick": They Most Hyperbolically Hysterical Writer in the History of the English Language?
- rhubarbs
June 14, 2008 at 5:23pm
Original sin is central to the environmental faith. We, humans, have sinned by the knowledge of technology and have thus been caste out of the pre industrial Eden into a world of industrial sin. The absolution of this sin comes from de-development where humans regain Eden by disassembling the machines that lost us our innocence.
This is why environmentalists uses Carbon Dioxide as its enemy. It is produced when humans do anything industrial and its elimination only happens when we reach Eden.
- cthulhu2008
June 14, 2008 at 5:42pm
kirch my laddie, why couldn't you just say that it was morally abhorrent and leave it at that?
I saw The Strangers, which I think was another offering from this guy's trashyard, and man, was that a horrible movie. My wife and kids were away in Santa Cruz so I went with a pal - his call I must add - and when we staggered out, this good old gal, with two teens in tow, looked at me, I looked at her, and we both said, "what an awful movie!".
Word of constructive advice from someone who has a few wrinkles: You're too much of a stripling for all this "ever made!!!" hyperbole. Off the top of my head, I can think of Triumph as mentioned, Caligula (though it did have a pretty good orgy scene), The Matrix, The Hitcher, To Live and Die in LA, and so many others.
Settle down or in a lifetime of bad movies, you may just stroke out before you're 35...
- thejauntyboulevardier
June 14, 2008 at 6:07pm
Wow, you gave me a shock there, jaunty. I thought "To Live and Die in LA" was a pretty powerful movie, a great thriller and an experiment in finding the appropriate film aesthetic to match the LA freeway experience (e.g. try merging from the 405 onto the 101 around 7 p.m. on a summer's evening with the sun directly in your eyes).
- ironyroad
June 14, 2008 at 6:34pm
ironyroad: agree. TLADILA is terrific stuff.
cthulhu: you're full of it, too.
- sullydog
June 14, 2008 at 6:49pm
irony...
let me clarify: It was an amoral movie, particularly when the acolyte cop "takes over" from the dirty cop. As far as being a finely crafted thriller, yes, I agree: Billy Friedkin's LA freeway chase was one of my favorites. But this is not a movie that I would show my kids, at least until they're out of high school.
Boy, here is tnrland, one needs to be very precise with one's posts.
- thejauntyboulevardier
June 14, 2008 at 7:17pm
Yeah, jaunty, your inclusion of The Matrix and The Hitcher makes more sense now, too--although I don't exactly agree that The Matrix was amoral.
- sullydog
June 14, 2008 at 7:42pm
jaunty, ok I see what you mean -- it was more the satire of dysfucntion than the poetry of redemption.
- ironyroad
June 14, 2008 at 8:16pm
I believe The Money Pit is the most morally abhorrent movie ever made.
- jhildner
June 15, 2008 at 12:13am
I don't see how you go from the two ending scenes to the conclusion that Shyamalan is anti-human. THere is a difference between being anti-human (the ultimate in self-loathing which would make one wonder why he hasn't committed suicide) and being extremely critical of our behaviors. You might want to look at forgiving yourself for whatever irredeemable transgressions you think you have committed so that you aren't seeing such damnable judgment at every turn.
- asnevitt
June 15, 2008 at 1:31am
ok, so its a terrible movie. ok, so syhamalan's an egotistical, half-talented hack. ok, so he hasn't made a good movie in god knows how long. but "the most morally abhorrent Film ever made?" come on. a film about evil trees is worse than, say, "triumph of the will?"
- jackson5
June 15, 2008 at 3:19am
I haven't seen Happening and almost certainly won't--unless it's the only remaining choice on my next MEL-LAX Qantas flight and the sleepy medicine still hasn't kicked in. But what I'd object to most about the final fade to gay Paris isn't its anti-human subtext, it's that that final sequence is such a blatant ripoff of "28 Weeks Later."
BTW, I've got an absolute ripper of a treatment for a sequel to 28 Days/28 Weeks Later--mine would be 28 Years Later--involving an Australian navy destroyer, a lone survivor (female and hot) in post-apocalyptic Manhattan, and a raccoon. Anyone know how I can get it into the hands of the people who matter?
- aeromonas
June 15, 2008 at 7:34am
This film is morally abhorrent because environmentalism is morally abhorrent. It's a faithful depiction of the "green" worldview, and it's creepily similar to the fantasies of several environmentalists I've spoken to personally over the years.
- JohnGalt101
June 15, 2008 at 11:15am
jaunty/cookie, not to quibble, what is your rap on The Matrix? I recall it as a film tailor made for kids. Good vs Evil, Flesh and Blood vs Heartless Communism. What's not to like?
- tomeg
June 15, 2008 at 12:37pm
Yeah, I was curious about that too, why Matrix was on your list. Btw as for moral/amoral films I'd like to stand with Sir Philip Sydney, who said in the 1560s in A Defense of Poesy, "Now, for the poet, he nothing affirms, and therefore never lieth."
He maketh still crappy movies, though.
- ironyroad
June 15, 2008 at 1:39pm
Does anyone else see the irony in adopting the screen name JohnGalt101?
One quivers at the mighty power of you individualist spirit, Galt number one-oh-one!
- rhubarbs
June 15, 2008 at 1:49pm
Yeah, well I haven't eaten rhubarb since I was 10, and even then it was under protest. You named yourself after a sucky foodstuff.
- bcrago77
June 15, 2008 at 2:27pm
Once you complete JohnGalt101 (with a final grade of at least C+) you can enroll in any 200-level JohnGalt class.
- ironyroad
June 15, 2008 at 2:28pm
Have any of you had to sit through the Matrix? Soul less, the complete absence of plot, total fealty to digital special effects, a mindless exercise, about as nourishing as a quick frappacino...
Galt is back! Or is this a new Galt?
A few years ago, I had a run in with a previous Galt. In fact, both Seth (remember him? Wow, what ever happened to him...he was one of my favorites) and I tangled with that iteration of galt. Didn't like a story I told about how, at a breakfast joint, I ran into two guys with anti liberal stickers all over their truck and while they were monosyllabically bashing liberals, I lived a bit large - no wife so she couldn't stop me - and started up a conversation with the waitress and we starting talking politics and I let rip on Bush lovers, and guys who drive trucks, etc. I have to say that I was actin' like a real asshole but I couldn't help it. I wanted to see if they would take my bait. I was alone and there were two of these boys, hats on backwards, unshaven, beefy white dudes, the kind you often see at truck stops. While I was riffing with the good old gal, this old street brawler was layin' out strategy - take out the fatter one with a opening kick to he shins followed by a few good shots to the kidneys, step back and watch him piss all that coffee all over hisself - then take on the Big One head on. Planned to go up the staircase, work on his body, shots to the gut, kidneys, solar plexus, then go up the middle, straight up the middle, with a upper cut to the lower chin, followed by a quick left -right to both sides of his head, aiming for the fleshy part of his ears, then pivot, and take him out with a well balanced shot to the back of the head.
The boys looked at me, I gazed at them a lazy grin, they muttered something to each other but did not make the move. As they left, I said "ta ta boys" and the waitress laughed and they walked out, got into the truck covered with all those "If Gore was President, we'd be speaking Farsi" type stickers, and on gunned it out of the parking lot, probably to watch FOX back at the hotel and try to pirate some hotel porn.
I wonder if this is the same galt?
- thejauntyboulevardier
June 15, 2008 at 2:49pm
"Have any of you had to sit through the Matrix?"
Several times. Gladly.
"Soul less,"
Interesting. Cinematic theology. I don't have my Film Lover's Ouija Board handy, so I'll have to pass on this point.
"the complete absence of plot,"
Come on, my friend. You know better than that. It had a plot. I'd be happy to outline it for you.
" total fealty to digital special effects,"
I disagree. Fun story, interesting premise, hot babes, kickass soundtrack, great fight choreography. So "total fealty to digital special effects" is, I'm afraid, an almost Kirchikian pronouncement on your part.
But, yeah, great special effects!
" a mindless exercise"
Give me a break! This movie put the "pistol" back into epistemology. It was a groovy (if unoriginal) allegory, it required a lot more attention and thought from viewers than, say, "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" or "Spiderman 3," and for those of us who like to think about stuff akin to Wolfram's Universe-as-a-cellular-automaton ideas, it was about as close as contemporary sf cinema ever gets to brain candy. (Which is to say, not very close, but I takes what I can gets. For better sfnal treatements of solipsitic existence, try Greg Egan.) No, it ain't Bergman or Kurosawa, but it's not as bad as you paint it.
And, of course, it meets the Joe Bob test: Lots Of Stuff Gets Blown Up Real Good. QED.
Of course, YMMV.
- sullydog
June 15, 2008 at 4:35pm
Walt, I get the hot woman, but the raccoon? You definitely got some issues. Hah. Sully, Cookie is, now how can I politely say it? well, he is old. As such he won't be able to get the Matrix (the first one of course, the latter two, bleah). Cookie grew up back in the dark ages before computers so he simply can't relate. It would be like trying to teach a caveman to ride a bike, maybe good for a laugh, but I doubt the caveman would enjoy the experience.
- blackton
June 15, 2008 at 5:10pm
The 'coon is the RESERVOIR blackie--epidemiologically speaking. It's how the rage virus lingers in North America for 28 years with no people left to infect and how it gets onto the Aussie ship. From there on out, it's like Alien on the high seas.
- aeromonas
June 15, 2008 at 8:28pm
Sully, a friend of mine from college days is now a professor of ancient Greek philosophy.
He wrote a paper on The Matrix and Plato's Cave.
whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/.../new_phil_partridge.html
Not sure if this was published in an academic journal, but the Warner Bros marketing folks seemed to like it.
- aeromonas
June 15, 2008 at 8:34pm
sully,
hee, hee, I give up. I think Blackie nailed it: I am too old - I went with my kids - and when it comes to digital cinematography, a bit of a Luddite. If you say The Matrix is more than digital flummery, I gladly cede the point. Just remember laddie...art appreciations if often subjective...
- thejauntyboulevardier
June 15, 2008 at 11:09pm
The lucky thing for jaunty is, since he didn't care for 'The Matrix' he no doubt skipped the two sequels. I still roll my eyes whenever I think of them. Not even Monica Bellucci could save them.
- WoodyBombay
June 15, 2008 at 11:36pm
Jaunty: exactamundo. Some like liver n' onions, some don't.
Woody: No, Monica couldn't save "Reloaded."
But, DAMN, she was welcome to try.
- sullydog
June 16, 2008 at 4:41am
Read the title; saw the name; ho hum.
This much you can say for the kid: he arouses passions (ahem, intellectually, at any rate) and gets the juices flowing (ahem, intellectually, at any rate), such that the comments are far more interesting and thought provoking than the original post.
It's just a film, and based on Chris Orr's comments, a bad one at that (I won't see it). But - as Oscar might have put it, movies are not moral or immoral; they are well-made, or badly-made, that is all.
- icarusr
June 16, 2008 at 11:15am