catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

signs

Default

ddiggler
Aug 06 2002
10:11 am

has anyone else seen Signs?

I kind of liked it…..

I would recommend it. M. Night does some fine work here. Pulling on some of that good ’ole Hitchcock stuff.

Default

Jasonvb
Aug 06 2002
10:42 am

I loved, loved it. Saw it in a packed house, too, and that always adds to the experience. Lots of jolts and screams. Shyamalan knows how to keep you interested!

Default

Alice
Aug 08 2002
04:55 am

I’m looking forward to seeing it sometime soon…I’m more excited about my recent purchase of The Lord of the Rings DVD. But, my almost 15 yr old daughter saw Signs and liked it…but….(for what it’s worth since it’s not my opinion) thought that showing the aliens detracted from the reality/impact of the film…also, had high praise for the child actors.

Default

Norm
Aug 10 2002
08:11 am

Not only was it intense, but it also had a pretty cool message—the fact that there is something out there that is in control of everything. Everything has an ordination and a purpose—and as Christians we have faith in it (in our case, God). Nothing is an accident, nothing is coincedence, nothing is left to chance.

Sweet.

Default

grant
Aug 20 2002
05:18 am

I’m not quite sure that the film spoke to the existence of God so much as it revealed the ability of film directors to tie up loose ends so that the ending turns every “coincidence” into something significant. Didn’t anyone else think the whole premise was kind of silly, bringing ordinary seemingly “insignificant” events together in such a way that, when combined together, have the power to defeat a cheesy-looking green monster-alien with killer gas jets hidden beneath its wrists? Despite Shamalala’s apparent clean-up job at the end, he still left some messy spots behind. I just felt like he was pushing too hard to make a point.

Default

Jasonvb
Aug 20 2002
08:09 am

SHUT UP!!!

Okay, you’re right, I guess. But I still like it. Not because of the point, though. I seldom like movies for the points they make.

I didn’t think the alien was cheesy.

Default

ddiggler
Aug 20 2002
10:31 am

The movie itself nicely sums up my faith journey…I have this little box that I keep my faith in and I put things in I want and discard those things I don’t. Everything has its perfect place in my life…. Of course I’m just kidding. And I do think the director of Signs (of which I can barely pronounce let alone spell) did push for a too tight and cosy ending. However, I think the movie was fun and I agree with Jason that the monster was not cheesy.

The “explain all” nature of the movie does appeal to a side of me though. I sometimes wish that things were more plain to us simple hamans. The movie just resonates with a desire in me to believe in the end that “everything happens for a purpose” like that of Mel Gibson’s character. However I find much in the world does not go together as neatly as that…..

Default

grant
Aug 20 2002
06:58 pm

I agree that we can like the movie merely for the way it worked, for the way it sent tingles up the spine and made one afraid of loud, sudden barkings of dogs. But I could have done without such things as the ominous screaming sounds in the walkie talkie and the swamp-monster alien sightings. And I still think that this particular “sci-fi B-movie” meets “man’s spiritual struggle with the existence of God” story was a strange mix that worked against eachother.

And the ending reminded me of that analogy people use about how other people sometimes give God credit for good things and then something bad happens and they say “Just be patient and wait on God” and then something good happens and people say, “see, God was there all along” and then something bad happens etc. etc…..ad infinitum. So I was wondering what would happen to Mel Gibson’s faith after the end credits if his son died anyway of another asthma attack or if the aliens came back with a new weapon to defend themselves against water. We’ll have to see if the Father’s faith can withstand such things in “Signs II, Ad Infinitum”.

Default

DvdSchp
Aug 26 2002
04:46 pm

grant, grant, grant…. you just hate popular movies, don’t you? I don’t know why you think you can’t combine “B-Movie sci-fi” with “faith crisis.” It’s quite apporpirate I think. Schrader aruges, I agree with him, that the movement of a soul, of spirit, is miniscule. It moves only a tiny bit and it’s inheriently against the nature of film, which is movement. So there’s some arguement as to whether you can have even have a movie solely about the spiritual struggle with the exisence of God. The movie isn’t even about God; it’s about faith. Anyway, this is all beside the point. Aliens and faith crisis may seem a bit of strech, even down right laughable, but the whole alien/UFO culture is basically a construction to fill the void of a culture’s loss in faith and religion. Jung called UFOs technological angels. They’re higher beings, wiser and more powerful than us. Do we believe in them or not? Should we be scared of them? A worldwide invasion of green men from outerspace only serve as the apocolypse, the final judgement. All those unbelievers will change they’re tune now. It was almost Rapture-like in Signs, too. They didn’t come to destroy the earth, just to take a some of them away (and I’m not getting into any theological arugment about the end times). It all smacks of spirituality to me.
I think this raises questions about the difference between popular entertainment and art than anything else. If this were considered an “art” flick, you know the type, then the bohemians would be complaining about its pedantic nature. But Shyamalan (or however that’s spelled) isn’t that; he’s an entertainer. He became that after The Sixth Sense grossed a disgusting amount of money, so I say let’s speak about him on that level. He’s using popular, established genres—for the masses. He’s trying to reach as many people as he can and thus playing to the lowest common denominator. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. And you have to give him credit for frankly discussing the nature of faith and its implications in our contemporary world, not just in this film, but in all of his. No, he’s not Augustine and no, his movies are not the most profound statements ever but, it’s not intended for theologicans and academics. At least he’s bringing up the subject to a large cross section of people.
I think he also deserves credit simply for craftsmanship. As a thriller, the thing is extremely effective, and that’s not something that just anyone can pull off. There’s a lot of talk about him being the new Hitchcock, which is not true. There never will be another Hitchcock, plus M. Night uses a two by four to smash his point deep down into your skull. Hitch worked on levels; M. Night is one level. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. It obviously can be, but in some ways Signs was built like a mirror image of a Robert Bresson film. Bresson did everthing in his power to distance you, to repress emotions and keep it cold until that final moment when the light shines and you can’t help yourself from giving into his point. M Night seems to exhaust your emotions to the point where you instead give up from fatigue. At the climax of the movie, at the absolute peak, we cut away from this alien ready to kill the kid to a relatively lengthy flashback which hammer the point in. In both M. Night and Bresson, there’s that same driving the audience to the limit and then going in for the kill. Bresson lead us by silence and stillness while M Night drags thru action and screaming. I admire him for that. And anyone who has the balls to cut a flashback right in the middle of the film’s climax has my respect.
Anyway, I still liked it even though the point was obvious. The whole thing about the preacher losing his Christian faith was hokey though; I agree with that. Apparently, nobody thinks that a layman can struggle with faith. Personally, I think the whole “conversion” motif would have been more meaningful to me if it were just a guy struggling with his wife’s death instead of a preacher, which was… yeah, hokey. And water being the alien’s weakness? Come on. Wouldn’t they’re skin start to melt off in a humid climate?

Default

grant
Aug 28 2002
03:19 pm

o.k., where do I begin? I don’t think this is a matter of art-house vs. popular movies, at least not for me. It’s precisely because the sci-fi B-movie style was not integrated well-enough with the faith-struggle parts that I thought it was a strange mix. I think Alien 1,2,3 works, Star Wars 1,2,4,5,6… work, that zombie movie you and I saw last Halloween (I can’t remember the name of it now) worked! Signs was like two movies in one—which, again, I would typically accept—but in Signs, neither side was carried out to its full potential.

Yeah, the use of aliens as symbols of the divine can be great/effective/nuanced (hello?! CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND!!!! Amen? Amen.), but Shy-man’s use of the aliens was like a side-issue in the end, like, “Ooooh, so the ALIENS were just there to hold our INTEREST while the Father struggled with his FAITH?” Art movie or not, if the aliens were just candy to get us to swallow the veggies, that’s dissing the audience, dude.

I want to believe the director was working with something more by using the aliens, yes, but I’m having trouble putting the two stories together. I was greatly conflicted when the aliens were easily conquered by the fragile (but resourceful!) humans in the end. Shyamalan was setting up the rapture sense very well, but then he closed it off with this silly water thing, leaving me to wonder how Gibson’s coming to believe in the reality of the aliens relates to his coming to believe in the existence and goodness of God.

Now, brace yourself, Dave. This is the part of my response where I drive you to madness. I agree that Signs is not at all about faith in God; and I would say it only surfacely has anything to do with faith. I think the movie is really a probe into sign-making (which is one of film’s only true interests, yes?) (I can actually see you hopping up and down right now as you read this, gnashing your teeth and cursing me under your breath). The director is asking what it is that makes something significant. Unfortunately, because of the flimsy argument made in the end for having faith, I think God comes off looking pretty bad while the artist/film-maker/storyteller appears to be the genuine almighty, all-powerful, omnipotent creator of significance. Remember, in the movie, how Shyamalan himself says that he, the guy in the pickup truck, is to blame for Gibson’s lack of faith, since he was responsible for Gibson’s wife’s death? Well, isn’t Shyamalan responsible for Gibson’s final faith in God, too? Wow, so much control, so much power…..and I can’t even remember how to spell the poor guy’s name!

Default

DvdSchp
Aug 29 2002
11:22 am

Well, I’m resigned to your obessions so it doesn’t bother me so much anymore. At least you didn’t start talking about Storytelling again. :) I actually agree with you, more or less. I now regret that I didn’t leave in my comment about M. Night’s role in the movie. I was going to talk about in relation to Hitchcock, who would just float in small cameos in the background of all his movies (which mirrors his style of filmmaking as well as psychological obsessions), while M. Night took the role of a god, both the cause of Gibson’s distress (as actor) and his salvation (as director). I saw all of this too, and it looks insiduous, and maybe it is, but I let it go, primarily because I don’t think its trying to be a treastie on a film director’s role in creating signs. This is why I think it’s important to talk about “art” flick and pop movie; there’s some good questions there. I think we have the same general conception what its about, we’re just coming at it form different mindsets. And I’m bored to tears with metaficiton.
I understand your general distaste for M. Night’s attemmpt blending to sci-fi with faith/signs. All I can say is, yes, you certainly have a point, but it’s not as bad as you’re making it seem.

That Zombie movie….? Were we watching the same thing?

Anyway, I want to switch gears here. Star Wars. I think it has sabotaged itself with the new movies and its role as one our primary popular myths will diminish. It will always have a Trekkie like fan club, but I think it’s losing its power, and rightfully so. George Lucas will not resign to criticism and ends up making not the good, low budget, B movies of the first triology, but rather lousy, expensive, B movies of Episode I and II. I don’t even care about this next one coming out. Another small but important reason why it’s shot itself in the foot is the that explanation in Phantom Meance about how the Force is just the level of these certain microbes in your bloodstream. That was the biggest blow to me.
My assertion now is that the Matrix will be the new Star Wars. I’m excited for the new ones to come out next summer. Even though I have huge problems with the first one, it will be interesting to what is done with the next ones.