M. Night Shyamalan: Is He a Jerk?

[pennywisdom]

I've had my suspicions that M. Night Shyamalan is, in fact, a pretentious, no-substance dud for quite a while. To begin with, he's one of those directors who inserts his own name into movie titles. That's the hallmark of a filmmaker who can never live up to the legend of himself that he's fashioned in his own head.

Further cementing my suspicion that Shyamalan might be a talentless git is Janet Maslin's review of The Man Who Heard Voices by Michael Bamberger. (http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/books/10masl.html) Read this review before you pick up the book (if you plan on picking up the book) because it's extremely telling. The book, which is a story about Shyamalan's career leading up to Lady in the Water and documenting the making of said film, is a glorified fluff piece that was written, apparently, by a shameless sycophant who thinks Shyamalan is God. The review features a couple passages excerpted from the book, and it's really pathetic. Not only did he have this bio written by a servile butt-kisser, but he's obviously too full of himself to be believed.

[Noah Johnson]

I've always agreed with the statement that Shyamalan and Tarantino are two very talented directors who ought to avoid ever giving interviews. They never do themselves any favors in those interviews.

Also, Tarantino needs to keep his no-acting ass behind the camera where it belongs, but that goes without saying. Shyamalan has been much more restrained with his cameos.

[DWEarhart]

In dealing with the "artistic" types, their actions as being jerks will be played off as being part of their eccentricity, but in my encounter with people of higher profiles, some are nice, and some are just asses.

I don't know the man, never met him, and books tend to gratify the down side of humanity because it sells better. In all the reports that I've read detailing Shyamalan's attitude, I'd put him up there with being an ass with business people, but I haven't heard of him being a jerk with fans.

If he has been, then, he can just start planning his Outer Limits restart episode.

[pennywisdom]

An article by Caryn James (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/movies/17jame.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) that reiterates a lot of what I was talking about. Shyamalan seems caught up with the self-devised image of himself as the next Spielberg. Given the critical and fan reactions to his most recent movies (Lady in the Water got mediocre to bad reviews) I don't think he's doing as well as he'd like to be.

[Gilda Dent]

An article by Caryn James (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/movies/17jame.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) that reiterates a lot of what I was talking about. Shyamalan seems caught up with the self-devised image of himself as the next Spielberg. Given the critical and fan reactions to his most recent movies (Lady in the Water got mediocre to bad reviews) I don't think he's doing as well as he'd like to be.

Spielberg showed a steady improvement both in terms of popularity and in terms of technical merit over the period covered by his first several films, starting with the already pretty good tv movie Duel, and progressing through the 70's to Raiders and ET.

Shyamalan showed a fairly mature level of expertise for his first film, but hasn't shown nearly the same growth since. He's going to have to demonstrate a bit more range and a bit more depth before such an image would really be warranted.

Gilda

[pennywisdom]

Spielberg showed a steady improvement both in terms of popularity and in terms of technical merit over the period covered by his first several films, starting with the already pretty good tv movie Duel, and progressing through the 70's to Raiders and ET.

Shyamalan showed a fairly mature level of expertise for his first film, but hasn't shown nearly the same growth since. He's going to have to demonstrate a bit more range and a bit more depth before such an image would really be warranted.
Yep. I agree. I think the point of the above linked article was how strange it is that Shyamalan actually buys his own hype, and judging by some of the reviews he's been getting, he might be the only one left.

The critics really don't like his new movie, but according to the new book about him, he's supposedly this brilliant, visionary genius. I just think you'd have to be something of an ass to toot your own horn like that when there's so much evidence to the contrary.

[Lord of Denial]

The man spent millions on a movie that he cast himself in as a writer who's work and life will help change the world and inspire people for generations to come and whose genius will not be understood for years after his death.

And spent the other half of the movie mocking and trying to shame critics for not seeing him as the brilliant and ultratalented filmmaker he believes himself to be.

So yeah he is not only a jerk but also a self-absorbed, egomaniacal assclown.

[pennywisdom]

The man spent millions on a movie that he cast himself in as a writer who's work and life will help change the world and inspire people for generations to come and whose genius will not be understood for years after his death.

And spent the other half of the movie mocking and trying to shame critics for not seeing him as the brilliant and ultratalented filmmaker he believes himself to be.

So yeah he is not only a jerk but also a self-absorbed, egomaniacal assclown.
Wow, that's incredible. See, I had heard that the role he gave himself in Lady in the Water was larger than the roles he gave himself in previous films.

I had no idea he cast himself as some ultra-powerful Christ figure. That's so self-serving it's almost funny.

What did his character do? What did he write? Post a spoiler warning in advance so that people can't complain about plot points being revealed.

[Ronnigon]

Mohammad Shyamalan is an "assclown"... ?

*LOL* I love it. Funny stuff Great phrasing!

[Lord of Denial]

Spoiler Warning








































He writes a book about his thoughts and observations called " The Cookbook" that will change the way people see the world and eacthother and it will also be read by a young man that will one day grow up to become President of The United States and his book will help guide this man in his efforts to change the world for the better.

[cactusmaac]

That's a little OTT even for Hollywood.

[Alex Dragon]

Spielberg showed a steady improvement both in terms of popularity and in terms of technical merit over the period covered by his first several films, starting with the already pretty good tv movie Duel, and progressing through the 70's to Raiders and ET.

Shyamalan showed a fairly mature level of expertise for his first film, but hasn't shown nearly the same growth since. He's going to have to demonstrate a bit more range and a bit more depth before such an image would really be warranted.

Gilda

Yes, but to be totally fair Spielberg's work started at a lower level so it was much easier to go up. Also, Spielberg's work started heading in a much more commercial direction. That meant he was basically taking less chances with more of his work and cutting down the chances of failure a bit more. Plus, take into account that Spielberg got better because over time as he got more successful he was able to surround himself with great people to help him.

M. Night on the other hand is pretty much a one man show doing unconventional movies by Hollywood standards. M's movies will always be hit or miss with the public and critics because he's going down a much more unbeaten path. He's taking risks. It's unfair to compare him with Spielberg because what they do is so totally different. M should be compared to Woody Allen, Spike Lee, or Kevin Smith types.

[rick]

Okay gang, here's the real problem as I see it.

You folks are talking about what a "git" he is or what an "assclown" he is, but mostly your insults have nothing to do with the man, and everything to do with his work.

So do any of you have any examples of the man treating people in a horrible manner, or throwing fits in bars or any of the dozens of things that movie people do all the time to show what kind of pricks they can be?

Because I've really got to say, that just becuase you don't like someones film making, does not make the man a bad person.

[Alex Dragon]

Wow, that's incredible. See, I had heard that the role he gave himself in Lady in the Water was larger than the roles he gave himself in previous films.

I had no idea he cast himself as some ultra-powerful Christ figure. That's so self-serving it's almost funny.

What did his character do? What did he write? Post a spoiler warning in advance so that people can't complain about plot points being revealed.

Just because he wrote a part in the movie and played the character doesn't mean he sees himself that way. Just as I imagine he didn't see himself as the other characters he cast himself as. It's a silly notion.

M. Night was on Howard Stern last week talking about all this stuff and I thought he came off looking like a reasonable filmmaker/human being. He doesn't seem to have an ego other than believing in his work. He said he made the mistake of showing Disney his unfinished script because he thought it might be a good idea to do so in order to get things moving. The execs at Disney didn't know what to make of the uncompleted script and got nervous about doing it. M. said he understood that the script he turned in was unpolished and the story might seem a little off the beaten path but he was surprised that the company he's made so much money for and had hits with didn't trust him and have more faith in him. I don't think that's an ego thing at all.

M. said he's well aware that the movies he makes aren't typical Hollywood movies that exces are ready to throw money at but he felt that his track record had earned him more trust than the studio was showing him. M.'s movies don't always go over well with everyone but the guy seems to have his artistic integrity. It still bothers him that UNBREAKABLE wasn't better received and says that he knows that if he'd put a big fight between the "hero" and "villain" in the movie the movie probably would've done better but he wouldn't do it because that isn't the movie he set out to make.

M. shopped LADY IN THE WATER around because Disney was having doubts and M. believed in his movie. Heck, if he doesn't beileve in it who else will? Is that egotistical? M. also said that some of the stuff that guy wrote in the book weren't all true and were from the perspective of a huge fan of him and his work. As with many books I imagine some stuff were blown out of perportion or changed to make the book more exciting. M. also said he doesn't quite understand why Hollywood wants to see him fail at this point. The only thing he can see is that because they probabaly preceive him as an "outsider".

I haven't read the book in question or any excerpts but listening to M. Night talk about what he did and his love for film and filmaking the guy doesn't seem to be an egomaniac in the least.

[Ronnigon]

His first name is Mohammad.

Why does he just use his first initial, "M"?

[Donald M.]

Okay gang, here's the real problem as I see it.

You folks are talking about what a "git" he is or what an "assclown" he is, but mostly your insults have nothing to do with the man, and everything to do with his work.

So do any of you have any examples of the man treating people in a horrible manner, or throwing fits in bars or any of the dozens of things that movie people do all the time to show what kind of pricks they can be?

Because I've really got to say, that just becuase you don't like someones film making, does not make the man a bad person.

Indeed. Maybe he does buy into his own hype a little too much, his body of work so far doesn't quite live up to the image we're apparently expected to have of him, but that doesn't make him anything more or less than a mediocre director. Fans have an increasing and disturbing tendency to equate making bad movies with being a bad person. If you don't like his films, you have the option of not going to see them.

[rick]

His first name is Mohammad.

Why does he just use his first initial, "M"?

One can speculate that he either thinks that M. Night sounds cooler, or he simply has no interest in the various hassles he would get from Americans who would get more then a little hung up about his name.

[the film freak]

IMDB says his first name is Manoj not Mohammed.

[rick]

Indeed. Maybe he does buy into his own hype a little too much, his body of work so far doesn't quite live up to the image we're apparently expected to have of him, but that doesn't make him anything more or less than a mediocre director. Fans have an increasing and disturbing tendency to equate making bad movies with being a bad person. If you don't like his films, you have the option of not going to see them.


Exactly.

Now I for one am not a fan of the his works. They are in my opinion kind of simplistic. But as for the man himself, I keep seeing him get interviewed on various programs and he has never come across to me as anything but a fairly normal, well adjusted guy.

Kind of likable actually.

[Donald M.]

Exactly.

Now I for one am not a fan of the his works. They are in my opinion kind of simplistic. But as for the man himself, I keep seeing him get interviewed on various programs and he has never come across to me as anything but a fairly normal, well adjusted guy.

Kind of likable actually.

Yeah, he doesn't come off as being nearly screwed-up enough to be the kind of visionary genius the hype would have us believe. If his movies keep performing at the box office though, he can be expected to have a nice, long career making b-grade movies with a-grade budgets and talent.

[the film freak]

Yeah, he doesn't come off as being nearly screwed-up enough to be the kind of visionary genius the hype would have us believe. If his movies keep performing at the box office though, he can be expected to have a nice, long career making b-grade movies with a-grade budgets and talent.

Yeah my roomate said "Lady" was pretty dull and restrained despite the fact it had you know monsters in it.

If you are going to do a narcissistic imcomprehensible mess of a movie at least have the decency to go batshit insane with it. Why do you think people like Terry Gilliam so much?

[Shellhead]

I actually think that One Night Standyman is an excellent cinematographer. There are other aspects of his skills as a director that could get better in time, if he doesn't delude himself that he is already one of the best. While there wasn't a Twilight Zone gimmick ending to Lady in the Water, he probably should have dropped that gimmich faster, like after the second movie in a row. Now people have certain (limited) expectations of his work, and it will take more movies with greater range to overcome those perceptions.

[the film freak]

I actually think that One Night Standyman is an excellent cinematographer.

Christopher Doyle did the cinematography. Every movie he does looks good. He does all Wong Kar Wai's movies.

[Albert]

I actually think that One Night Standyman is an excellent cinematographer. There are other aspects of his skills as a director that could get better in time, if he doesn't delude himself that he is already one of the best. While there wasn't a Twilight Zone gimmick ending to Lady in the Water, he probably should have dropped that gimmich faster, like after the second movie in a row. Now people have certain (limited) expectations of his work, and it will take more movies with greater range to overcome those perceptions.

I agree one hundred percent with you here.Though I think repeating the red = danger motif in the Village (which he used to better effect and with far greater subtelty in Sixth Sense) was a mistake as well. And yes, he should have given the "twist endings" a break after Unbreakable, if not before. Otherwise, its like playing poker with someone who bluffs every hand.

As for the man being a jerk... eh. Eat the rich. A lot of the entertainers and artists I like come off as jerks. If I didn't separate my feelings about an artist's personality and his/her creative output, I'd lose Woody Allen, Jackson Pollock, Stan Lee, Jackson Browne... the list goes on and on.

[Athena Bast]

I saw "Sixth Sense" because everyone was so ooooh and aaaaah over it. The only thing about that movie that shocked or amazed or blew me away was a nekkid Donnie Wahlberg. That and Osment for being so together at his age.

I got "it" early on and was like.. yup and sooooooooo what?

[Alex Dragon]

Yeah, he doesn't come off as being nearly screwed-up enough to be the kind of visionary genius the hype would have us believe. If his movies keep performing at the box office though, he can be expected to have a nice, long career making b-grade movies with a-grade budgets and talent.

Where's all this "hype" and throwing around words like "genius" and such you guys keep hearing about when it comes to M. Night? I don't recall seeing any big hype or a lot of talk about the guy anymore so than most directors.

[rick]

Where's all this "hype" and throwing around words like "genius" and such you guys keep hearing about when it comes to M. Night? I don't recall seeing any big hype or a lot of talk about the guy anymore so than most directors.


Actually I do have to say that I have seen quite a few "genius" references to M. Night over the last couple of years.

So there certainly is at least some hype about the man. I just don't think that makes him a jerk.

[Donald M.]

Where's all this "hype" and throwing around words like "genius" and such you guys keep hearing about when it comes to M. Night? I don't recall seeing any big hype or a lot of talk about the guy anymore so than most directors.

By "most directors" I think you're referring to the small handful of directors whose body of work has made them as much a marquee name as the actors who appear in their films.

M. Night has been shoehorned into that category without really earing it in any way, shape or form.

The trailer for Lady In the Water I've seen about half a dozen times at the movies this year keeps reminding me that his movies have, "Defied convention," and, "Challenged our beliefs." :rolleyes:

None of this makes him a jerk of course. He doesn't create the hype, the studios and press do.

[Donald M.]

Actually I do have to say that I have seen quite a few "genius" references to M. Night over the last couple of years.

So there certainly is at least some hype about the man. I just don't think that makes him a jerk.

Yeah, more than once I've seen him compared to Hitchcock, which is just silly.

For one thing, Hitchcock had the sense to limit himself to very brief cameos.

[eJm]

'What a Twisssst'

All I'm adding to this discussion

[Lord of Denial]

Just because he wrote a part in the movie and played the character doesn't mean he sees himself that way. Just as I imagine he didn't see himself as the other characters he cast himself as. It's a silly notion.

M. Night was on Howard Stern last week talking about all this stuff and I thought he came off looking like a reasonable filmmaker/human being. He doesn't seem to have an ego other than believing in his work. He said he made the mistake of showing Disney his unfinished script because he thought it might be a good idea to do so in order to get things moving. The execs at Disney didn't know what to make of the uncompleted script and got nervous about doing it. M. said he understood that the script he turned in was unpolished and the story might seem a little off the beaten path but he was surprised that the company he's made so much money for and had hits with didn't trust him and have more faith in him. I don't think that's an ego thing at all.

M. said he's well aware that the movies he makes aren't typical Hollywood movies that exces are ready to throw money at but he felt that his track record had earned him more trust than the studio was showing him. M.'s movies don't always go over well with everyone but the guy seems to have his artistic integrity. It still bothers him that UNBREAKABLE wasn't better received and says that he knows that if he'd put a big fight between the "hero" and "villain" in the movie the movie probably would've done better but he wouldn't do it because that isn't the movie he set out to make.

M. shopped LADY IN THE WATER around because Disney was having doubts and M. believed in his movie. Heck, if he doesn't beileve in it who else will? Is that egotistical? M. also said that some of the stuff that guy wrote in the book weren't all true and were from the perspective of a huge fan of him and his work. As with many books I imagine some stuff were blown out of perportion or changed to make the book more exciting. M. also said he doesn't quite understand why Hollywood wants to see him fail at this point. The only thing he can see is that because they probabaly preceive him as an "outsider".

I haven't read the book in question or any excerpts but listening to M. Night talk about what he did and his love for film and filmaking the guy doesn't seem to be an egomaniac in the least.


He could have cast any other " REAL" actor in that part. But instead he cast himself as the man who will help change the world thru his writing. If that is not a ego trip I don't know what is.

The entire movie was him patting himself on the back and trying to stick it to his critics.

[rick]

'What a Twisssst'

All I'm adding to this discussion

M. Night Shyamalan's, the Chubby Checker Story


http://www.andalon.net/Westside/twist/twchubby.jpg

[rick]

He could have cast any other " REAL" actor in that part. But instead he cast himself as the man who will help change the world thru his writing. If that is not a ego trip I don't know what is.

The entire movie was him patting himself on the back and trying to stick it to his critics.

By the way, what film was it that you are talking about?

I've seen most of the guys work, but I don't recall having seen that bit anywhere.

[Donald M.]

By the way, what film was it that you are talking about?

I've seen most of the guys work, but I don't recall having seen that bit anywhere.

He's talking about Lady in the Water.

[Leslie Lee III]

Shyamalan seems caught up with the self-devised image of himself as the next Spielberg.

He's already better than Spielberg. If he thinks of himself as that, he has far too low an image of himself.

And christ almighty, you people need to learn how to use spoiler tags.

{spoil}Spoiler{/spoil}

[] instest of {}

[rick]

He's talking about Lady in the Water.


Thanks.

Haven't seen it yet and I couldn't quite figure it out from the post if that was the movie or not.

[Lord of Denial]

He's talking about Lady in the Water.


Yep! Watch it and it will stun you how much this man thinks of himself.

[Lord of Denial]

He's already better than Spielberg. If he thinks of himself as that, he has far too low an image of himself.

And christ almighty, you people need to learn how to use spoiler tags.

{spoil}Spoiler{/spoil}

[] instest of {}


Please!

When he makes anything even close to Munich, ET, Indiana Jones, Jaws, Close Encounters then say that.

[rick]

He's already better than Spielberg. If he thinks of himself as that, he has far too low an image of himself.


While Spielbergs work as had plenty of misses along with the hits, I think that M. Night has a way to go before he quite matches Steves best work.

Nothing against Sixth Sense or Unbreakable, I did enjoy both of them. But for me anyway they just don't hold a candle to movies like Jaws, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan or Close Encounters of the Third Kind for pure skill and quality film-making.

Heck, Duel was more "visionary" then anything M. Night has made.

[Donald M.]

He's already better than Spielberg. If he thinks of himself as that, he has far too low an image of himself.


It's far too early to in M. Night's career to say that. At best you can say he has the potential to be a director of Spielberg's caliber if he stops making sucky movies. Not directing his own screenplays would help a lot.

[Lord of Denial]

It's far too early to in M. Night's career to say that. At best you can say he has the potential to be a director of Spielberg's caliber if he stops making sucky movies. Not directing his own screenplays would help a lot.


That is hitting the nail on the head. He is a pretty good director but he is a terrible screenwriter and simply does not see where his talents lie or people around him don't want to tell him the truth so he keeps on thinking he is a good writer.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

He's already better than Spielberg. If he thinks of himself as that, he has far too low an image of himself.



Lets compare.


Steven Spielberg has directed films ranging from " Saving Private Ryan " to " Catch Me If You Can " . The man has did Jaws and the Indiana Jones series as a Director.

M.Knight has only Directed 6 films and only 3 have been creatively peaking. With " 6th Sense " , " Unbreakable " and " Signs " pretty much. The rest haven't been as kind to him as a Director.

M.Knight can't even put Spielberg's jock on at this point. It takes more than the overly dramatic films and people talking in low hushed tones to be considered better than f'n Spielberg.

[cactusmaac]

He's already better than Spielberg. If he thinks of himself as that, he has far too low an image of himself.


That would be true if the only Spielberg movies you'd seen were Hook, Jurassic Park 2 and 1941.

[Tommy]

"...he seems to be making a push to raise his celebrity profile beyond that of the guy whose surprise-twist movies make boatloads of money when they’re good (“The Sixth Sense” and “Signs”) and only slightly smaller boatloads when they’re bad (“Unbreakable” and “The Village”)."

In what universe can Signs be considered good?

[Dr. Banner]

In what universe can Signs be considered good?

A universe created of individuals and not clones of you, perhaps?

I love the movie. And I know others that love it. They're not hung up on the trivialities of the details when said details have absolutely no bearing on what the story is all about.

[Karl J. Barnes]

A universe created of individuals and not clones of you, perhaps?

I love the movie. And I know others that love it. They're not hung up on the trivialities of the details when said details have absolutely no bearing on what the story is all about.

I have to say that I've enjoyed all of M Night's movies. No, they weren't masterpices though Sixth Sense and Unbreakable come close in my mind.

[Jack Zodiac]

I've never read anything about him that would suggest he's an asshole to anyone other than movie executives, and you need to be an asshole with movie executives. In fact, from all accounts I've heard about how he deals with his crews and casts, he's a decent guy. Osment thought he was amazing when he worked with him in "Sixth Sense." So, I can't comment on the man's character.

As a film maker, though, he's slowly becoming worse and worse. "Praying with Anger" was a great film for someone just starting out in acting, writing, and directing. It wasn't a great movie in hindsight of what he's done, but it was very good for his first film. "Wide Awake" was more tightly directed, with a bit of an overplayed plot, but still a good movie. Then, with "Sixth Sense," he began his horror motif. The cast was great, and the directing and cinematography were tight, and the movie was great despite a predictable ending. Same goes for "Unbreakable." Both were character-driven movies with horror and thriller highlights. "Signs" was garbage. Character-driven and developmental though it may have been, it lacked the congruency of the other two films in terms of integrating the plot with the characters. Same goes for "The Village."

And that's mostly why I don't wanna' waste my money seeing "Lady in the Water" in theaters.

[Jared]

Exactly.

Now I for one am not a fan of the his works. They are in my opinion kind of simplistic. But as for the man himself, I keep seeing him get interviewed on various programs and he has never come across to me as anything but a fairly normal, well adjusted guy.

Kind of likable actually.

"Night reminds himself of Bob Dylan — and Mr. Dylan's ability to affect a wide and diverse audience is very like Night's, according to the book. When the film's leading lady, Bryce Dallas Howard, is covered with welts after having been dragged across grass and twigs, Night is the injured party. "I can't have a reputation as a director who doesn't protect his actors," he is quoted as saying."

Well that excerpt does make him seem like a bit of an ass, especiallyfrom a book that is practically worshipful of him.
But I have thought he comes across as a pretty cool guy in interviews. Unlike, say, Quentin Tarentino, whose work I really like, but I think would be such an jackass in real life I'd have to punch him. (then claim he struck first, and sue for millions, of course).

Then again, Kirsten Dunst can be likeable in interviews, but I've heard from someone I trust that she's really an absolute **n*.

[Leslie Lee III]

"Night reminds himself of Bob Dylan — and Mr. Dylan's ability to affect a wide and diverse audience is very like Night's, according to the book. When the film's leading lady, Bryce Dallas Howard, is covered with welts after having been dragged across grass and twigs, Night is the injured party. "I can't have a reputation as a director who doesn't protect his actors," he is quoted as saying."

I think that's a terrible example, as it gives no context to the quote and leans hard on offering it's own interpretation. What if everyone was laughing it off and he said that as a joke? I mean, I don't think being dragged across grass is going to cause any life threatening injuries.

[EZMOHR]

All I will say is My favorite Spielberg movies ever are A.I. or Empire of the Sun. My favorite M. Night Shymalan movie is Signs. If someone was to say I could only watch one of those movies ever again, I would pick Signs everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

I tend to not get caught up on how people act in their personal life. If I did, I would hate Tim Robbins as an actor because he basically said all conservatives are evil. I would not enjoy Lauryn Hill's music becuase she said she would rather her babies starve than a white person buy her albums. I would hate Mark Millar's writing because he hates America (and relax kids, that is all in jest.) I've never seen an interview where M. Night Shymalan has said anything more than he "believes" in his works and they make him happy. I never saw M. Night Shymalan say, "F**k that c*nt Kirsten Dunst for backing out of The Village to be in Elizabethtown...she got what she deserved." Hell if anything, Cameron Crowe seems way more stuck on himself in interviews than M. Night Shymalan, but people tend to not call him on it.

And for him taking parts in his movie....did we call out Orson Welles for taking out his frustration of Hurst and all he stood for in Citizen Kane. Shit, that is an all time classic, and it is basically only a "I Hate You" greeting card to one man in the USA. Do we fault Sydney Pollack for casting himself in pivotal roles in every single movie he has ever directed. Hell no. In fact, so far, I've seen slightly better acting from Shymalan in one movie where he had a substantial part (Signs) than in all the works Sydny Pollack has ever done.

And, Woody Allen freaking puts himself in tons of movies. Hell, he gives himself love intrests like Mariel Hemingway and it seems Scarlett Johansson in the forthcoming Scoop. Granted Allen tends to be a good actor..but is that not some sort of hubris on Shymalan's level.

So, I guess, in closing, he may be a jerk, he maybe an ass clown. But, unitl I see him start shooting people on live TV, I'll tend to take each of his works for what they are...entertainment. If they suck, I'll say it. If I like them, I'll say it. If they are like Signs, I'll make it part of my all time watch list. Until then, if you don't like him so much that it would take away from your enjoyment of a movie, don't shell out the money to see it. It's your dollar.

[Shadowfax32]

His first name is Mohammad.

Why does he just use his first initial, "M"?

His first name is Menoj.

[Bright-Raven]

"M. Night Shyamalan's" (insert title of movie here) is really no different than when they advertise the movie as (insert title here), "a (insert director's name here) film".

The guy's done a total of eight movies, and they've averaged about 13 nominatons per film.

When you go to Spielberg's first eight WRITTEN AND DIRECTED films (not just directed), he gets 15 nominations average.

When you take George Lucas, you get 11 nominations, but seeing as half of them are STAR WARS films, the numbers are rather inflated.

When you take James Cameron, you get 33 nominations per film, but TITANIC alone makes that average because it had 135 nominations total. You take TITANIC out of the equation, and he drops to about 9 nominations a film.

So whether you like it or don't, Shyamalan's right on par with these guys, who are considered the preeminent forces in the business.

[Nate Grey]

A universe created of individuals and not clones of you, perhaps?

LOL Sorry, that one had me laughing for a whole minute.

I've liked all of M. Night Shyamalan's movies. I'd say I've liked Unbreakable the most and The Village the least (but I still liked The Village, mind you, that's just my personal ranking order for his movies). Haven't seen Lady in the Water yet but that's cause of money problems.

The hatred of M. Night Shyamalan on these boards are...baffling, to say the least. I remember when there was a time people refused to spell his name right and would refer to him as M. Night Shamalamadingdong or any other terms that aren't his name that I can't think of. Now this. So far, it looks like don't like his movies = he's a jerk. Sorry, doesn't compute. Give me an interview where he's said something like, I don't know, "If people don't like my twists they're IDIOTS" or something HE said, not some other writer's interpretation of him, or judging him based off his work.

So he cast himself in an important role in his newest movie. THAT'S proof he has an ego? He cast himself as the guy who killed Mel Gibson's wife in "Signs", what's that proof of? He cast himself as the terrorist who got away in "Unbreakable", what's that prove? Directors cast themselve in their own movies sometimes. True its not often but it happens. Quentin Tarrantino cast himself in most (or all?) of his movies. Spike Lee did it for a while. I took it to mean nothing more than they simply like acting in movies they've directed. I didn't know I should take it as they have a big ego and they're stroking themselves. :confused:

Just curious, but by all means, let the dogpile continue.

[rick]

"M. Night Shyamalan's" (insert title of movie here) is really no different than when they advertise the movie as (insert title here), "a (insert director's name here) film".

The guy's done a total of eight movies, and they've averaged about 13 nominatons per film.

When you go to Spielberg's first eight WRITTEN AND DIRECTED films (not just directed), he gets 15 nominations average.

When you take George Lucas, you get 11 nominations, but seeing as half of them are STAR WARS films, the numbers are rather inflated.

When you take James Cameron, you get 33 nominations per film, but TITANIC alone makes that average because it had 135 nominations total. You take TITANIC out of the equation, and he drops to about 9 nominations a film.

So whether you like it or don't, Shyamalan's right on par with these guys, who are considered the preeminent forces in the business.


Louis,

All that demonstrates is that his films get nominations for awards, and has nothing at all to do with my opinion, the Lord of Denials opinion or for that matter your opinion on if his films or as good as Spielberg's or not.

[rick]

LOL Sorry, that one had me laughing for a whole minute.

I've liked all of M. Night Shyamalan's movies. I'd say I've liked Unbreakable the most and The Village the least (but I still liked The Village, mind you, that's just my personal ranking order for his movies). Haven't seen Lady in the Water yet but that's cause of money problems.

The hatred of M. Night Shyamalan on these boards are...baffling, to say the least. I remember when there was a time people refused to spell his name right and would refer to him as M. Night Shamalamadingdong or any other terms that aren't his name that I can't think of. Now this. So far, it looks like don't like his movies = he's a jerk. Sorry, doesn't compute. Give me an interview where he's said something like, I don't know, "If people don't like my twists they're IDIOTS" or something HE said, not some other writer's interpretation of him, or judging him based off his work.

So he cast himself in an important role in his newest movie. THAT'S proof he has an ego? He cast himself as the guy who killed Mel Gibson's wife in "Signs", what's that proof of? He cast himself as the terrorist who got away in "Unbreakable", what's that prove? Directors cast themselve in their own movies sometimes. True its not often but it happens. Quentin Tarrantino cast himself in most (or all?) of his movies. Spike Lee did it for a while. I took it to mean nothing more than they simply like acting in movies they've directed. I didn't know I should take it as they have a big ego and they're stroking themselves. :confused:

Just curious, but by all means, let the dogpile continue.


What dogpile?

Some of us like his movies and some of us don't, but so far only one person has said anything negative about the man as a person.

[Corrina]

I love the movie. And I know others that love it. They're not hung up on the trivialities of the details when said details have absolutely no bearing on what the story is all about.

Well, it's hard to pay attention to the story when one is falling asleep from boredom. :)

Which is not to say everyone will but that story could have been told in a half-hour Twilight Zone episode, with better narration.

[drwho]

Can someone here tell me if the monsters they show in Lady in the Water actually do stuff. As in more then walk around as in eat and attack people with blood and guts included.

[Bright-Raven]

Rick:

Spielberg's films that he has written and directed are pretty much on par with what Shyamalan has done.

Spielberg's films written by others - most of which are the ones you're citing as better films than Shyamalan's, to wit - aren't valid films to compare to Shyamalan's works, seeing as he's never directed anyone else's screenplays or stories in his career to date.

The only real film you can consider is CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. And frankly, if you want to get technical, SIGNS and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS are so damned close in the context of the films it's not remotely funny. The big difference is Spielberg chooses to combat the paranoia and fear by invoking child like curiosity as a metaphor for worldwide social, racial, and ideological tolerance... and Shyamalan chooses to heighten the paranoia and fear into a destructive force to show the consequences if we don't learn to have tolerance. Oh, and Shyamalan doesn't have Spielberg's SFX budget. ;)

[spoon_jenkins]

I don't know. He struck fairly normal guy rather than a massive egotist. I think slapping his name on stuff is part of the marketing because his director-writer with a distinctive style, so there's sort of an M. Night Shyamalan brand that's been established that will bring people in. And his name is something that is put in the advertising. It's not part of the official title of any of the films.

That being said, I don't think he's close to Steven Spielberg. I've only seen two Shyamalan films (The Village and Unbreakable), but I think Spielberg's TV movie Duel is better than either one of those.

[Gilda Dent]

Rick:

Spielberg's films that he has written and directed are pretty much on par with what Shyamalan has done.

Spielberg's films written by others - most of which are the ones you're citing as better films than Shyamalan's, to wit - aren't valid films to compare to Shyamalan's works, seeing as he's never directed anyone else's screenplays or stories in his career to date.

The only real film you can consider is CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. And frankly, if you want to get technical, SIGNS and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS are so damned close in the context of the films it's not remotely funny. The big difference is Spielberg chooses to combat the paranoia and fear by invoking child like curiosity as a metaphor for worldwide social, racial, and ideological tolerance... and Shyamalan chooses to heighten the paranoia and fear into a destructive force to show the consequences if we don't learn to have tolerance. Oh, and Shyamalan doesn't have Spielberg's SFX budget. ;)

I'd disagree with this. Whether to write your own screenplay, buy one, or commission one is an artistic choice made at the outset. If Spielberg's best films have been written by others--and I'd agree with that--that doesn't really detract in any way from his skills as a filmmaker or make comparisons unfair. Shyamalan chooses to write his own movies and not film scripts written by others. If those scripts are not as good as the third party scripts Spielberg has filmed, that indicates a weakness at the outset.

Choosing a good script is part of being a good filmmaker--if Shyamalan's at a disadvantage due to weaker scripts, that's his own doing.

Gilda

[Alex Dragon]

By "most directors" I think you're referring to the small handful of directors whose body of work has made them as much a marquee name as the actors who appear in their films.

Yes, pretty much. M. Night at this point is a "marquee" name. He's the reason people go to see his films. M. usually doesn't hire big name actors to draw people in. He's the draw. He's the selling point so of course he's going to be the thing that the ads concentrate on. I don't think it's any different with him than any big time director.

[QUOUTE]M. Night has been shoehorned into that category without really earing it in any way, shape or form.[/QUOTE]

The guy puts asses in the seats. That's what most important in Hollywood. Over the past few years M. has made movies that people went to see. When some people decide to see a movie from an actor, director, producer or whoever they mostly base it on if they liked the last or last few projects from them. They aren't worrying about some long legacy of years. What's the need to think back that far? Spielberg's last few movies I saw didn't do much for me, I don't care what he did 20 years ago.

Some people may feel he got "shoehorned" into that catagory and if this was about long term contribution to the world of film I'd totally agree but this is just marketing for a film so it's nothing to get worked up about.

The trailer for Lady In the Water I've seen about half a dozen times at the movies this year keeps reminding me that his movies have, "Defied convention," and, "Challenged our beliefs." :rolleyes:

I agree with the "defied convention" part. That's his thing. That's what he's known for, of course they're going to play it up. It's marketing. It's selling. It's no different than any other ad that promises you whatever will change your life. It's no different than most movies selling you on why it's so good. None.

None of this makes him a jerk of course. He doesn't create the hype, the studios and press do.

Exactly. Every so often a young/new filmmaker comes along and is compared to the greats after only one or a few films. Once it Spike Lee (who I thought was indeed a jerk at times), John Singleton, Robert Rodriquez, Tim Burton, Kevin Smith, etc., etc...It's marketing's job to make these guys sound good to the audience. In the end it doesn't really mean anything. If people like what they do it's all that really matters. We've seen over the years that hype can only do so much.

[Bright-Raven]

Gilda:

I disagree, mainly because Spielberg's arguably best films (EMPIRE OF THE SUN, AMISTAD, SCHINDLER'S LIST, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN) are films he did after being a director for over twenty-five years and having had some 30-35 films already under his belt. Damn, if you've got that much experience in filmmaking, you ought to be able to pull that off.

Shyamalan doesn't have that level of experience, yet. And who's to say that he ever will? He's only producing one film every other year at this point. But, if you going to compare early career to early career, instead of entire bodies of work, which is the ONLY fair way to compare them, Shyamalan's pretty much on equal footing. Now, will he also become acontrol freak like how Spielberg, Lucas, and Cameron are, and start his own production and special effects and sound development and computer design firms? I doubt it. So no, he will likely not revolutionize the film industry in the way that they have. But it wasn't their writing or directing skills that revolutionized the field, it was their demand as producers and drive to create effects that they wanted for their films that revolutionized the business.

And yeah, I'd say those three are probably the most powerful producers in all of Hollywood over the past three decades, no problem. They rule on that front, and everyone else goes to them to make their films work. The closest to that distinction might be Peter Jackson since he went with WETA for the LOTR stuff primarily, but even then I think Lucas had some minor hand in the sound tracks.

That just goes to show where their power truly lies, though. In production, not writing or directing.

[Bright-Raven]

Alex Dragon: M. usually doesn't hire big name actors to draw people in.

Bruce Willis? Mel Gibson? Samuel L. Jackson? Joaquin Phoenix?

Since when are these guys not box office stars?

[Alex Dragon]

Alex Dragon:

Bruce Willis? Mel Gibson? Samuel L. Jackson? Joaquin Phoenix?

Since when are these guys not box office stars?

Notice I said "usually". Other than Mel G. at the time the others you name starred in M.'s movies they weren't big boxoffice draws. The 6th Sense actually was Willis' "comeback" movie. When Joaquin was in M.'s movies he was still basically "River's little brother". Samuel is well known but isn't a box office star that makes movies big hits on his name alone, particularly back then.

M. Night mostly hired those people because he liked their acting, not as a way to get people into the theatre. That's the point I was going for.

[the film freak]

Notice I said "usually". Other than Mel G. at the time the others you name starred in M.'s movies they weren't big boxoffice draws. The 6th Sense actually was Willis' "comeback" movie. When Joaquin was in M.'s movies he was still basically "River's little brother". Samuel is well known but isn't a box office star that makes movies big hits on his name alone, particularly back then.

M. Night mostly hired those people because he liked their acting, not as a way to get people into the theatre. That's the point I was going for.

Was Joaquin just in Gladiator when Signs came out? And didn't The Village also have Willaim Hurt, Sigourney Weaver and Adrien Brody. I'd consider all three pretty big names.

[Erebus]

I saw him on the Daily Show. He didn't come off as a douche at all, he seemed pretty nice.

[pennywisdom]

So do any of you have any examples of the man treating people in a horrible manner, or throwing fits in bars or any of the dozens of things that movie people do all the time to show what kind of pricks they can be?
Yeah, read the links I posted.

He's a total diva.

EDIT: For the record, I was NOT intending to launch attacks at his person, I'm only reflecting what I've read about him as an individual. Those links I posted are pretty good examples of what I'm talking about.

[marshal99]

I saw him on the Daily Show. He didn't come off as a douche at all, he seemed pretty nice.

I'm sure if Uwe Boll is being interviewed on TV , he would come off pretty nice as well and not a douche as he really is. :D (mind you , i'm not saying that Shymalalalala is a douche but in a TV interview , it would be ill advised to come off as one)

Uwe Boll next game movie masterpiece - Postal
http://www.eurogamer.net/assets/articles/a62899/a_med_2.jpg

[the film freak]

I'm sure if Uwe Boll is being interviewed on TV , he would come off pretty nice as well and not a douche as he really is. :D (mind you , i'm not saying that Shymalalalala is a douche but in a TV interview , it would be ill advised to come off as one)

Uwe Boll next game movie masterpiece - Postal
http://www.eurogamer.net/assets/articles/a62899/a_med_2.jpg

Is that Gary Coleman?

[marshal99]

Is that Gary Coleman?

Yes it is. He will be in the next Uwe Boll masterpiece "Postal". :D

[Nate Grey]

I'm sure if Uwe Boll is being interviewed on TV , he would come off pretty nice as well and not a douche as he really is. :D (mind you , i'm not saying that Shymalalalala is a douche but in a TV interview , it would be ill advised to come off as one)

So, basically, you're saying he's like every other entertainer, then? After all, they could be really jerks but just give good interviews, right?

Shymalalalala, real cute. That was another of those names that was used to taunt him back when, too, I knew there was at least one other.

Again, the hatred is baffling. Not liking his work is one thing, but hating the man like he killed your puppy, I don't get.

[Nate Grey]

I'm sure if Uwe Boll is being interviewed on TV , he would come off pretty nice as well and not a douche as he really is. :D (mind you , i'm not saying that Shymalalalala is a douche but in a TV interview , it would be ill advised to come off as one)

So, basically, you're saying he's like every other entertainer, then? After all, they could be really jerks but just give good interviews, right?

Shymalalalala, real cute. That was another of those names that was used to taunt him back when, too, I knew there was at least one other.

Again, the hatred is baffling. Not liking his work is one thing, but hating the man like he killed your puppy, I don't get.

[marshal99]

I don't hate the guy , the guy who started the thread does though for whatever reason.

Personally , i think he's a one trick pony that has been found out and now he's at least trying to change a bit. For lady in the water , he at least got christopher doyle , the famous hong kong cinematographer to shoot some beautiful shots so that's at least a plus.

[Cayman]

Nothing I've ever seen indicates that he's a jerk.

I'm a fan, and I appreciate that he doesn't just trot out endless remakes and sequels like a lot of current directors.

Cay

[Shellhead]

Professor X is a jerk!

[Leslie Lee III]

For the record, I was NOT intending to launch attacks at his person,

Could have fooled me mate. Anyway, if you wanted to show he was a "talentless git" what does "reflecting" on 3rd hand accounts of what he's like as a person have to do with anything? Watch his movies and say there's no talent there (while we snicker).

I've never seen any indication he's a jerk, considering the people's he's worked with I'd find it hard for someone with supposedly no talent AND a jerk to boot to get the stars he gets (short of a Uwe Bollian tax scheme).

[Jared]

I would not enjoy Lauryn Hill's music becuase she said she would rather her babies starve than a white person buy her albums.

IIRC, that's actually a myth. And it was originally suppossed to be that she'd rather have a baby born retarded.

[kalorama]

By "most directors" I think you're referring to the small handful of directors whose body of work has made them as much a marquee name as the actors who appear in their films.

M. Night has been shoehorned into that category without really earing it in any way, shape or form.

The trailer for Lady In the Water I've seen about half a dozen times at the movies this year keeps reminding me that his movies have, "Defied convention," and, "Challenged our beliefs."

The problem is that, by defying convention using a variation on the same formula over and over again he has, essentially, created a new convention that applies specifically to his movies.

None of this makes him a jerk of course. He doesn't create the hype, the studios and press do.

They generate it, but in order for it to perpetuate he has to be (and clearly is) complicit in it.

I don't know if he's a jerk or not because I've never met the guy. It is clear from his interviews and his comments about himself and his work that he's arrogant and has a massive ego, neither of which qualifies as an unpardonable sin (or even a big surprise) in Hollywood.

[DDM]

I did not like M. Night when he was promoting another film. Supposedly, strange things happened on the set while he was conveniently talking to a television journalist for the Sci-Fi Channel, but, as my suspecians were made true, it was all a publicity stunt for people to see one of his movies. I don't know if he's a jerk. He needs to work on becoming a better director/writer/producer. Thus far, M. Night is a one-trick pony dependent on his films' built-in gimmicks. Gimmicks can be either good or bad in a film. In M. Night's case, I can see his gimmicks from a mile away. He needs to do better to hide or not be dependent on gimmicks to make up for the lack of substance in his films.

Otherwise, M. Night is going to be making direct to DVD feature films with D-list actors & zero budget.

[stealthwise]

Sixth Sense I liked, and can watch once in a while.

Unbreakable I dug, and can watch once in a while, but it might be because I'm a complete comic geek.

Signs... I tried to watch it twice, and fell asleep both times, which is one less attempt than that damned Italian Job remake.

I was going to see The Village, but found out what the reveal was (after a couple I knew gave me their takes on it; one of them hated it, the other loved it), so I avoided it.

This latest flick has 20% on Rotten Tomatoes, with over 140 negative reviews.

I'll pass on his efforts from now on.

[Jack Zodiac]

IIRC, that's actually a myth. And it was originally suppossed to be that she'd rather have a baby born retarded.

Phew! That's a whole lot better. God bless Lauren Hill. :p

[Leslie Lee III]

I did not like M. Night when he was promoting another film. Supposedly, strange things happened on the set while he was conveniently talking to a television journalist for the Sci-Fi Channel, but, as my suspecians were made true, it was all a publicity stunt for people to see one of his movies.

I hope you didn't spend to much time on it, because it was obvious from the get go that it was a parody. Hilarious one at that.

Thus far, M. Night is a one-trick pony dependent on his films' built-in gimmicks.

So the cinematography, acting, characters, inter-personal drama, suspense, all of that is meaningless in his films? It's just the "twist" (when the only movie he's made with a really big twist was the Sixth Sense). If all people get out of his films is that, it shows their limits as viewers not his limits as a director.

[cactusmaac]

I liked Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. Signs I liked a lot and it's probably my favourite of his filmography.

The Village was a major disappointment though. It seemed like it just didn't go through the same refining process as regards characters, plot etc. that his earlier movies did. Based on the buzz so far, I'll most likely be avoiding Lady In The Water.

[kalorama]

So the cinematography, acting, characters, inter-personal drama, suspense, all of that is meaningless in his films? It's just the "twist" (when the only movie he's made with a really big twist was the Sixth Sense). If all people get out of his films is that, it shows there limits as viewers not his limits as a director.

Not really. In Shyamalan's films, everything is built towards and done in service of the almighty twist. Character's personalities and dialogue is designed to hide or reveal as much as is needed to hook the audience in and keep the momentum going towards the reveal. Sure, you can evaluate the elements apart from their relationship to the film's primary purpose, but what would be the point? If a director makes a movie that's intended to be a comedy, would the fact that the lead actor gave an interesting nuanced performance be enough reason to overlook the movie, as a whole, being completely unfunny? In most cases, no.

Night's films are driven by plot and narrative devices (a fact the studio plays up when they tout him in the ads as "defying convention”). If those devices fail to deliver or are put forth in a stale, perfunctory manner, it undermines everything else in the film, because everything else in the film exists to serve that primary element.

[Leslie Lee III]

Not really. In Shyamalan's films, everything is built towards and done in service of the almighty twist.

No. Everything may be connected to this twist (but how often do we see movies where things are completely unconnected to each other). Signs had no twist and was about the family and Gibson's character finding his faith again. Unbreakable was about Willis' becoming and reconnecting with his family, and would have been the same movie with or without the twist.. The Village was about the love story.

Night's films are driven by plot and narrative devices (a fact the studio plays up when they tout him in the ads as "defying convention”).

They also promoted the Village as a horror movie when it was a love story. The ads mean nothing.

[Ontir]

As to the basic question: The industry breeds @$$-holes. To some extent, it's unavoidable, althouth those who become them, are at some point accountable for their behaviour. Shyamalan's statements about the impossibility of him making a film for less than $60 million are ridiculous. He needs to have a sit-down with Soderberg, and learn what's possible. His assault on the now-apparently-vindicated Disney execs, was un-called for, and will haunt him. If he loses money with this film, he doesn't have the relationship with Warners that he HAD with Disney, and he no longer has that to fall back on either. He may learn he CAN make a film for far less, the very hardest way.

[kalorama]

(but how often do we see movies where things are completely unconnected to each other).

It's not uncommon, actually. They're called "bad movies."

As for the rest ...

Even if I take what you say as a valid analysis of his work, it's still irrelevant to my point. Because even if you divorce his storytelling gimmicks from the rest of the film's elements, his work still falls short in my opinion. His dialogue is trite and forced and his characters are uncompelling. He's a good visual stylist, but he's severely underwhelming as a writer and storyteller.

[SteelTownr]

I went to see it tonight and I was worried because I like Paul Giamatti, and I like M. Night. Shyamalan, but this movie has been torn to pieces.

Thankfully, I enjoyed the movie immensely.

If you go, try to forget that it is a M. Night Shyamalan movie. I know that is impossible because he plays a major part in it, but try anyway.

You might just like it.

I heard M. Night on Howard Stern last week and he came across as a pretty cool guy. He said that as far as the author of the book goes, they just happened to dig him. What was he supposed to do, tell the guy to make him look like a jerk so that people wouldn't think he is a jerk?

Mark B.