Lady in the Water

(big sigh) It's very difficult for me to write this review as I am being pulled from so many different directions: I love M. Night Shyamalan, I love stories that explore faith and ordinary people rising to do extraordinary things, I love movies about the supernatural, I hate movies that deny the audience a discovery of the supernatural, I hate clumsy directing and sub-par writing, I hate unneccessary monsters. This movie meets all of these criteria to create a sort of balancing act that leaves me a bit confused. I'll probably need to see it again. The sad thing is, I think I'll be the only one to see it twice.

Here's the plot (I'm not giving anything away, because this is explained in the first five minutes of the movie using cheesy hieroglyphic pictogram thingies). There was once a time when people lived in a magic land uner the sea, people left the sea and became man as we know us today, with problems and wars and such. Now the people who remained in the water (or narfs) come to us on big eagles and provide inspiration to whoever will be their vessel. The narfs are always being hunted by the scrunts, essentially big wolves with grass camo, for no explained reason except the pure evilness of it. The buddhist-like balance of the war between scrunts and narfs is maintained by the Tarturic, three monkey-looking things also complete with grass camo. They uphold rules that the scrunts and narfs must follow.

(Deep breath) So, one particular narf comes to Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) the superintendant of a Philadelphia apartment complex. And he must help her return to her world. All of the characters discover that they are a part of a bedtime story, and that they must each use their individual talents and skills to help engineer a happy ending.

Reading a movie's plot on paper is usually not an accurate experience. However, in this case, it pretty much is because Lady in the Water is almost entirely explanatory. The whole plot is one long explanation of "how things work" and there is very little style to add legitemacy to such an involved plot. This is my main complaint and I will come back to it later in detail. But first, some nice words:

Lady in the Water has some promising elements. Ever-solid Paul Giamatti delivers an excellent performance as the stuttering superintendant with a heart of gold. Bryce Dallas Howard is again dreamily beautiful as the leading lady. The rest of the cast (including Shyamalan himself) does a fair job of acting their parts. Bob Balaban is well-cast as a cynical movie critic. His incorporation into the plot is an obvious statement about the way Shyamalan must feel about such people (more on him later). The photography is really good thanks to Shyamalan's own visual flair and cinematographer Christopher Doyle (who rules. His other credits include visual masterpieces such as In the Mood for Love and Hero). The plot (while being the root of all of the film's problems) is certainly original. The plot began as a bedtime story that Shyamalan told his children, but unfortunately as evidenced in movies like The Polar Express the wonder of children's stories don't always translate to film very well.

Thematically, the film is fascinating. As a Christian, I love any filmmaker willing to explore the hugely important elements of faith, the longing for the supernatural, and ultimately, God. Lady in the Water is a largely symbolic film that deals quite intentionally with faith, mortality, and the importance of being united in faith. Shyamalan (not a Christian) is a better vessel of spiritual truth than many preachers I've heard, and his themes are not to be ignored. This film still maintains Shyamalan's place in my head as one of the top people I'd like to meet. There are several beautiful scenes in the movie that touched me on a deeper level than my desire to be entertained. Bob Balaban's character is a wonderfully accurate representation of the psyche of modernity, and many of the situations the characters find themselves in parallel my own struggles with faith in my own life. Wonderful ideas, it's too bad that the execution of these thoughts from a film perspective are in the end, clumsy and imbalanced.

Here's a general movie rule that I have yet to be proven wrong by: any plot, no matter how simple or complex can be believable if the director devotes time and creativity to the presentation of it. In the case of the supernatural world/ordinary world collision plot, an element of DISCOVERY is absolutely essential. Movies like this need a couple of unexplained "what the #*&@?" scenes to draw the audience into the plot. The Matrix is a classic example. The movie has a complicated plot that needs a lengthy explanation. However, the first half of that movie is left entirely unexplained, allowing the audience to discover the truth along with the main character. Mystery is a huge factor in a fantasy/sci-fi movie's believability. Because these movies are completely unbelievable, you need a character in the movie who is (like you) saying "I can't believe this is happening". Shyamalan has done this impeccably in the past with all of his other movies, but in this movie, he neglects this story element altogether. It should be said that Lady in the Water is not a story about discovery, it is a story about what to do after discovery has occured. One could contrast this movie with one of Shyamalan's own past films, Unbreakable, a story entirely about the discovery of something supernatural that ends with the acceptance of it. In a way Lady in the Water picks up right where Unbreakable left off. The characters bypass all disbelief and go straight to the "what do we do about it" phase.

It is hard to criticize Shyamalan, because he does exactly what he wants to do with a movie without letting marketing or outside influence get involved. His movies turn out exactly the way he wants them to. Unfortunately, his intention here is not at all compelling. He explains away at things best shrouded in mystery and leaves no explanation to more important questions such as "grassmonkeys?!?! what the...?" If you've seen the movie you know what I mean, otherwise I'll leave you to wonder. I hope this review doesn't turn potential viewers away, as I'll need several other opinions to organize my own conflicted thoughts on this film.