"Lady in the Water" Meta-Review

I suppose I should start with an actual review of the movie. M. Night Shyamalan's newest film is an odd little movie. Paul Giamatti plays Cleveland Heep, the caretaker of an apartment complex that, despite its being in Philadelphia, is situated right next to what appears to be an impenetrable forest. No doubt that will not figure in the story. Or at least not prominently.

Cleveland is visited by a strange woman who seems to live in the swimming pool. Her name is Story, and she's played by Bryce Dallas Howard. She is a narf from the Blue World with a task to perform to help humanity.

Obviously, with these names and this premise, we're not in the realm of serious drama here. WB's marketing, framing this as "a bedtime story" is completely appropriate. What I particularly enjoyed was that I wasn't forced to slog my way through endless scenes of sceptical adults complaining how "this just can't be happening!" We've bought the premise enough to buy a ticket to the movie. Why should we have to endure characters with less gullibility than we have?

Personally, I think Story is a listless character, kind of like Leeloo from "The Fifth Element", but without the buttkicking or the orange hair. Cleveland is the hero, and his task isn't to directly save Story from the evil scrunt (read: green lawn wolf), but to sort out who among the bizarre collection of apartment dwellers plays which part in Story's story. For me, those scenes, of revelation, and failure, and further deeper revelation, as the destinies of these characters are revealed... those scenes worked. The middle of the movie is the best part. (Which is unusual.)

Also unusual, and not really obvious until I thought about it later? Among all the people living in that complex, not a single romantic couple... I can't believe that's a coincidence... but I'm hard pressed to know why he would write it that way... Anyway.

Now, on to the meta-review...

One of the reasons that Disney backed out of producing this particular film after so much success with Shyamalan is that they thought the thing would be drubbed by the critics, mostly for two reasons. There is a character of a movie critic (played hilariously by Bob Balaban) who gets attacked by the scrunt. Also, Shyamalan plays a critical secondary role in the movie, as the "Vessel" into which Story pours ideas, like a muse. The book he will write based on these ideas will revolutionize the world. Disney believed that the one-two punch of these story ideas would ensure bad reviews. Score one for the Mouse House. They were right. Sadly, the critics in question are wrong.

So, let's deal with the cameo first. I think Shyamalan is a pretty good actor. His bit in "Signs" was very well done. And he's so low key with his performance there's no chance of him overshadowing the "talent". I liked watching him on screen. Much was made by these critics of his messianic complex. This from Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe: "The impulse is to roll your eyes while the filmmaker pats himself on the back." Or this from Jim Emerson of the Chicago Sun-Times: "But then, who am I to knock the work of the man who, in his own film, casts himself as a writer whose ideas will inspire a future leader who will save the world..."

Okay, so, guys? I have a newsflash for you. None of the "ideas" that are in The Cookbook (the name of the world-changing book within the movie) are actually presented to the viewing audience. It's a plot device to explain why Story is there in the first place. Were Shyamalan saying he was the savior of the world (and not just playing one) I think he might have given us a glimpse of his ideology. And do you also assume that Shyamalan believes he will be assassinated in the future? Or that his sister (if he even has one) will have seven kids? Please.

As for the Balaban character, I'm not really sure why the critics have a problem with him getting attacked. This from Mr. Emerson: "In Shyamalan's rickety mythology, Mr. Farber represents... well, nothing so much as the filmmaker's pre-emptive strike against the bad reviews he expects to receive for making this poorly written, stiffly directed, audience-insulting story-without-a-cause." Farber is a mean, unlikeable character who sucks the joy out of the storytelling process. I would certainly hope that any person so cynical about movies would, for their own personal mental health, stop reviewing movies! If you, John (or Jane) Critic see yourself in Mr. Farber, you need to find a new job. And if you don't, then why get so freaking worked up!?

It's not like the movie is perfect. (I'd say it falls above "The Village" and below his other works.) But, c'mon. Review it based on what it is, not on your personal pride.

Okay. Rant over.