Matt:

Okay. Here goes. Frequent perusers of this site (you know who you are) will have seen that the films of one man controversially tend to occupy high spots in my lists. This man is M. Night Shyamalan. Less controversial perhaps for ‘The Sixth Sense’ (B-), critically well received (though, for me, one of his weakest), though a great deal more so for the above mentioned and his recent ‘Lady in the Water’ (A-), which I also loved. The latter particularly suffers from being constantly tagged with ‘strictly for fans only’. So, I’m a fan and unapologetically so but this is not a defence of Shyamalan, as such, only Signs, so I’ll move on.

First of all, context. My esteemed colleague pointed out to me a few weeks ago, in one of our many informed discussions, that, when grading a film, you should also try to remember the context in which you first saw it, both physically and emotionally. I think I was talking about the Departed, and how it didn’t stand up so well to a second viewing. I still think this is true, but my esteemed colleague is also right, it’s an important point. In fact, it’s probably very difficult to detach the film from the context in the first place. I’m sure there are many films I wouldn’t have like so much if I’d felt differently going into them and, of course, vice-versa. This isn’t a cop out - oh, the only reason I liked it was because I saw it at a particular time in my life - but just a place to begin. I didn’t see Signs in England, had no idea of the reception it had got (I actually thought it must have been very well received and was surprised on my return to see that this was not the case) and hadn’t seen a film (literally) for five months. I watched it in the best and most atmospheric cinema I’ve ever been in, in Calcutta. It was pretty full, old and spooky. It felt as though ghosts were dripping off the walls. I loved the film and the cinema so much I nearly bought another ticket for the next showing, and might have done if I’d had a bit more money. The moral of the story is - as my esteemed colleague realised long before me - don’t forget where, and how, you were when you saw the film in question. Of course, some films will transcend that context (and that will be a large part of what makes them great) and this proved to be the case with Signs, which I still watch frequently.

I said I wouldn’t defend Shyamalan, only Signs, though in one - important - factor the two go hand in hand. Why I like him, and why I like his films, is that he treats me, and my fellow audience members, with respect. He makes films that earn a lot of money and are (generally speaking) often looked for on release schedules (another word for these is ‘blockbusters’) but he makes them intelligently, and the central part of that intelligence (which Spielberg seems to have forgotten) is character. Signs is far more family drama than sci-fi (as ‘Lady…’ is more one man’s quest for meaning and fulfilment than fairytale) and is all the better for it. In this way (though the action sequences, tense though they are, will not stand the comparison) it is reminiscent of Spielberg’s best, Jaws, often cited as the original ‘blockbuster’. What the two do so well is place character before menace thereby making the menace (and its denouement - superb in both cases, that are, in a way, again reminiscent of one another) far more fulfilling and compelling when the last reel comes. Here a riveting family drama is played out before a very unsettling unknown, itself beautifully photographed by Tak Fujimoto. You care about these people and want them to resolve their obvious difficulties as much as you want to see them escape from the mysterious threat that surrounds their quaint farmhouse. An odd feeling (it’s not quite fear, and is perhaps closer to genuine unsettling worry) permeates throughout, and, on screen, it is notoriously difficult to capture and deliver. Shyamalan does it very well and nowhere better than here. One word for it might be ‘foreboding’ and he successfully mirrored the effect in the otherwise flawed Village (B).

The reason that you do care about these people is simply down to one thing, the performances. Gibson has never been better and is more than ably supported by a pre-Sunshine Abigail Breslin and Rory Culkin (also excellent in Down in the Valley (A-) ). But it’s really Joaquin Phoenix who steals the show. I think he’s a truly superb actor and only doesn’t make my top spot in 2002 because he’s up against one of the most memorable performances I’ve ever seen - by Javier Bardem as the charismatic Santa in Los Lunes al Sol (A). Still, he might just have made the all time top 25 (you won’t have to wait long to find out, I’m sure the tension is unbearable). It’s very difficult to play normal and ordinary and everyday and to play it well, but Phoenix has it down to a tee here. Merrill is a million miles away from Phoenix’s equally memorable Cash but the performance is no less believable or powerful for that. It’s not only one of those performances where you’re desperate for the character to reappear on the screen when he’s off it but, unusually, are equally desperate to find out what happens to him after the curtain falls. There are two scenes in particular which live long in the memory, Merrill and Graham on the sofa and when Merrill goes to sign up for the army and encounters an old enemy. Phoenix is one of the few performers I’d pay to see regardless of the film, and that is largely down to the great job he does here.

There’s also a fascinating thread about fate and - in the final analysis - the freedom of the will. I don’t happen to agree with a word of it (I don’t believe things happen for a reason) but that in no way takes away from how subtly and, ultimately, intelligently it’s done. The final denouement, which I’ve already touched on, genuinely provides one of the most satisfying endings to a film (list to follow, excited readers) I’ve seen. As my esteemed colleague knows, I’ve got no bones about shedding a tear or two during a film that moves me. Merrill’s swinging away had that effect and a film which manages to draw that response from it’s viewers (it still does, by the way) can’t be bad.  

The performances and the character driven nature of the film give way to some touching and tender moments amidst some genuinely frightening moments (the silhouette of the alien on the roof - a perfectly fleeting glimpse - still creeps me out). It was a bold move to focus on the basement occupied by a single, tragic, family on the night the world faces an alien invasion. Shyamalan, however, pulls it off and it should stand as a strong lesson to filmmakers. You can place character development and genuinely tender (read non-cliched) family drama at the centre of your films and audiences will still go and see them. There’s a lesson here for Shyamalan too (see, I told you I wasn’t defending him). Don’t worry about the twist. You’ve got the ability to tell a great story and to drive it along by the strong characters through which it is told. Twists, as the critical reception to the Village proved, can distract from what a filmmaker is trying to do and, more importantly, the characters she is trying to do it with. Character, fundamentally, is what makes a good film great. I want to be able to sit and watch characters I enjoy regardless of the story, or the context, they happen to be in and I want to be disappointed when the film ends because I have been so caught up in what those characters are doing. This, not just the tension, is what makes Jaws so, so, so, good. The same goes for Signs, even if it does not quite tread the same brilliant (shark-infested) water of Spielberg’s finest. 

Grade: A