The Essential Films: "Signs" (2002)

A Series of Writings on Films that I feel are essential for film lovers, coupled with films that are personal to me. Spoilers for those you haven't seen the film

20 years ago the cover of Newsweek proclaimed writer/director M. Night Shyamalan "The Next Spielberg," ahead of his latest film, the alien invasion drama Signs. While many laugh at this proclamation now, considering the rough road Shyamalan's career went down, if you rewind your mind back to 2002 it's not a surprise he gained this moniker. Like Spielberg, Shyamalan was a filmmaker with an seemingly innate understanding of filmmaking language whose made genre films  about ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, imbued with the kind of sentiment often seen in Spielberg's work. Re-watching Signs, I found it's Shyamalan's most Spielbergian film, the closest to a modern day Close Encounters of the Third Kind in that both are intimate family dramas in disguise as alien arrival stories. While I'd argue Unbreakable is his best film, Signs is the one closest to my heart. This may sound funny but Signs was an important film for me on my journey as a cinephile. I think this was the first film I analyzed on a filmmaking level, where I started to think about shot composition and framing. I know you're laughing but hey, I was 13. 

Signs centers around the Hess family: Graham (Mel Gibson), a former priest who left the church after his wife was killed after being hit by a car, Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), a failed Minor League baseball player, and Graham's two children, Bo (Abigail Breslin) and Morgan (Rory Culkin). They all live on a farm in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and one morning they wake up to discover a crop circle in their corn field. Things get stranger when an intruder is seen on the property and lights appear in the sky over Mexico. While there are several other characters present in the film, including police officer Caroline Paski (Cherry Jones) and Ray Reddy (Shyamalan), the man who killed Graham's wife Colleen (Patricia Calmeber), the story is told through the eyes of the Hesses. Shyamalan eventually leaves behind the other characters, isolating the Hesses. This is similar to Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds, where Hitchcock also isolates Melanie Daniels and The Brenner family by the film's end. Also, when the Hesses board up their house is a direct reference to The Birds' climax.

As I mentioned earlier, Shyamalan as innate filmmaking sense. There's a preciseness to his compositions and camera movement. There's a Kubrickian feel to this shot:

 

And the way the camera pans to the knife, foregrounding it, is funny and tense in exactly the right way.

I also love the reveal of the alien still being in the house at the end through the TV screen

Coming back to Spielberg, the scene where the Hesses are using a walkie-talkie to hear the aliens talking is perhaps the most Spielbergian in the film:

The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were films about coming to accept the incredible, whether it be the ability of a young boy being able to see ghosts, or that you're a superhero. Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis), at first doubts that Cole Seer (Haley Joel Osment) can see ghosts, realizes he's telling the truth after discovering his former patient had the same ability. David Dunn (Willis again), comes to accept he has superhuman powers. In Signs, Graham eventually can't deny there are aliens ready to invade. These films are about faith and belief, as well as accepting your purpose- Cole as the helper of the deceased, David as a superhero vigilante. Shyamalan takes these themes further in Signs by having Graham not just realize these aliens are real but there's a greater design to the universe, something he may have once believed in but turned his back on after his wife was killed. In perhaps Signs' best scene, Graham tells Merrill that there are two groups of people: people who see those lights in the sky and think they're seeing a miracle; the other believe that whether good or bad, there's no higher power looking out for them. 

I think Gibson gives what may be the best performance of his career in this film. Like with Willis, Shyamalan casts Gibson against type as a non-confrontational former priest who can't swear convincingly. When Graham and Merrill are attempting to scare off the intruder Graham awkwardly says "I'm losing my mind." It's hard not to imagine Gibson having fun playing a guy *pretending* to lose his mind rather than genuine loose cannons like Martin Riggs and Mad Max. This role also allows Gibson to be the most emotionally vulnerable he's been since the first two Lethal Weapon movies. There's a scene where Graham encounters Ray, whose trapped an alien in his house and leaving for a safer place, in which her tells Graham he's sorry for the pain he caused him. Gibson's reaction to that-the pain, the anger, but the acceptance of Ray's apology, displays how stronh he can be as actor. Overall it's a great movie star performance and perhaps the last time Gibson was without baggage as an actor/star.

Instead of casting another huge movie star as Merrill Shyamalan went for a more offbeat choice with Phoenix. Phoenix was coming off his first Oscar nomination for Gladiator and Walk the Line was a few years down the road. This was the film that turned me in to a Phoenix fan. He's so funny here. His reaction to the alien walking across the TV screen and the image of him sitting with the children, all of them wearing tinfoil hats, is likely the funniest thing Shyamalan has put on screen. Merrill is sort of a loser but he's got a good heart and is pretty endearing. I love that when Graham asks Merrill if he believes in miracles Merrill tells of the time he avoided being vomited on a girl he wanted to kiss because he had to take a piece of gum out. This is the same scene where Graham outlines the two groups of people and Shyamalan really gives us a good sense of how these two guys approach life. Gibson and Phoenix don't look a thing like brothers but I really enjoy their chemistry.

Coming back to the themes of faith and belief, Shyamalan's twist ending her- along with the Village- is his most audacious conceptually and thematically. I remember when I first the saw Signs I was expecting a twist along the lines of The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable, more of an "Oh my God!" than a slow realization of what has been set up over the course of the film. Shyamalan is going less for shock than for quiet realization. Bo's leaving glasses of water around for various reasons (supposed contamination, tastes funny), Morgan's asthma, Merrill's bat hanging in the living room, and Colleen's final words to Graham about telling Merrill to swing away, are all part of a grand design, calling back to Graham's question, "What if there are no coincidences?" Morgan's asthma protects him from the aliens' poisons and the glasses of water kill the aliens. Graham's faith is restored and the final shot shows him months later getting ready to go to church. He's found his purpose again. I find the ending I find little too pat. If Shyamalan had made things more ambiguous regarding whether certain things were coincidental or not it would've provided some great discussion. Instead, there's not much room for questioning these things. If we're going to continue the Spielberg comparisons, it's the kind of  easy ending for which, Spielberg often gets criticized. 

Ultimately, I don't think Signs is a particularly deep movie but I still think the movie overall works on an emotional and technical level. After using Eduardo Serra on Unbreakable as his cinematographer, Shyamalan brought back his The Sixth Sense cinematographer Tak Fujimoto (who photographed no less than Terrence Malick's debut feature Badlands as well as The Silence of the Lambs) for Signs. Fujimoto bring an eerily cozy feel to the film, the same way he did with The Sixth Sense. There's a paradoxical cold and warmth to these early Shyamalan films. James Newton Howard's elegant and elegiac scores also bring a beautiful autumnal melancholy this film and Shyamalan's other work. There's a little bit of Danny Elfman too in Howard's main theme for Signs. If not for Shyamalan's name you'd be forgiven if you thought maybe you were about to watch a Tim Burton alien invasion film. 

Like H.G.Wells' War of the Worlds and its cinematic interpretations, the aliens are defeated pretty easily at the end of story, which I'm okay with because the story isn't really about a war against aliens. It's a home invasion thriller which just happens to be set against a backdrop of a world invasion. The Birds, which I referenced earlier is also a smaller, almost apocalyptic story that's focused on this small town and its inhabitants. Shyamalan goes even smaller than Hitchcock, creating an almost chamber drama feel to the certain parts of the film. I almost wish there no other characters in the film other than the Hesses. 

The next Spielberg moniker obviously didn't stick, with The Village getting mostly negative reviews and Shyamalan getting worse and worse reviews over the next several films, though he's made a comeback or the last several years. However,  I don't think Shyamalan has ever recaptured what made people deem him the heir to Spielberg. The specific atmosphere of his early work has never completely returned for me unfortunately. Still, Shyamalan has always stayed true to his own particular sensibilities, similar to George Lucas, who's also gone through a reappraisal regarding his specific quirks. Maybe because we're at a place where pop culture lacks vision and spark it's easier to appreciate people like Shyamalan more now. Signs, along with The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and yes, The Village, represent a filmmaker unafraid of being laughed at for his earnestness, whose pretentiousness oddly feels like genuine sincerity. 

It's weird to think of Signs as a 20 year old film but it makes sense- it does feel like a film from another era, a star and director driven blockbuster, the kind that would feel like a throwback if released now. I never know how to end these things so I'll say that despite it losing some of its luster for me over the years, I still think Signs is a beautiful, if somewhat reductive, film, which represents a filmmaker who at the time seemed unstoppable as a pop culture force, even if calling him the next Spielberg ended up being a curse. So, what are your thoughts on Signs and M. Night Shyamalan's career. Comment and let me know. 

Some Thoughts on the 2020 Oscar Nominations

Earlier this week the nominations for the 2020 Oscars were announced; and as expected there was controversy over who was nominated and who wasn't, especially in regards to race and gender. Greta Gerwig became the new Barbara Streisand as her adaptation of Louis May Alcott's Little Women garnered 6 nominations including Best Picture but she was left out of the Best Director line-up, which was completely absent of any women. I do wonder if the outcry over Gerwig's lack of a Best Director nomination will help her win Best Adapted Screenplay. Though if she wins there it'll feel like the Academy attempting to brush aside the problem. 

Todd Phillips' Joker led with 11 nominations, including Best Actor for its star Joaquin Phoenix and Best Picture. While I think they overdid it with the nominations I'll say it's incredible we're at a point where a film based on a comic book character can receive the most nominations from the Academy Awards. I do believe The Dark Knight paved the way for Joker, and Black Panther getting in last year. I remember the push to get Christopher Nolan's film to get in the Best Picture and Best Director race. Now with the expanded line-up, The Dark Knight would be a shoo-in for at least a nomination in both categories.

Could Joker win Best Picture? I know even the thought of the film winning gives certain people aneurysms. Many people believed the film would incite violence, claiming it appealed to incels, though the fact the film grossed a billion dollars and has received awards and nominations shows it appeals to people outside of that democratic. If Joker does win, there's a chance Best Director doesn't go to Phillips. Sam Mendes, who won Best Director 20 years ago for his debut film American Beauty, stands a very good shot at winning his second Oscar since his war epic 1917, crafted to look like one continuous shot, is perhaps the *most* directed of the Best Picture nominees, and the Academy often go for that kind of direction.

Then there's Quentin Tarantino, nominated for Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood, who's never won Best Director but has two screenwriting Oscars. Tarantino is arguably the most due of any Hollywood director right now, and if there's a film for which the Academy may finally give him Best Director, it's likely OUATIH, which feels like his most personal and humane film. Also, the film is a love letter to Hollywood, and the Academy has awarded films about itself in the past.

Brad Pitt appears to be a sure thing for OUATIH in the Best Supporting Actor category. He has the advantage of being the only nominee without an acting Oscar (he has one for producing Best Picture winner 12 Years a Slave) in this category. He also has the overdue factor and if he wins it'll be as much for his career as this particular performance. Joe Pesci could upset him. Martin Scorsese had to coax him out of retirement for The Irishman, so this will likely be Pesci's last appearance in a film. He has the sentimental factor, as does his co-star Al Pacino, who's nominated for the first since finally winning Best Actor for Scent of a Woman. I love Pacino and I think it's a shame he didn't win for either of the first two Godfather films, Serpico or Dog Day Afternoon. 

Tom Hanks received his first nomination in nearly 20 years (for Castaway) for playing Fred Rogers in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. Hanks could win a third Oscar some day but I think this is a more of a "Welcome back Tom" nomination. The same goes for Anthony Hopkins in The Two Popes, his first nomination in 22 years, his last being for Amistad in this category.

As with Pitt, Laura Dern winning Best Supporting Actress for Marriage Story feels like a career win, though her speech about the double standards for men and women is a quintessential "Oscar scene." Her co-star Scarlett Johansson received not only her first Oscar nomination but two, Best Actress for Marriage Story, and in this category for JoJo Rabbit, Taika Waititi's satire about a boy in Nazi Germany whose imaginary friend is Adolf Hitler. 

While Renee Zellwegger's turn as Judy Garland in Judy has made her the de facto front-runner, I'm thinking Johansson could upset her here. I don't feel the passion around Judy and without Zellwegger  there'd likely be more of a narrative for Johansson winning. She's had a long career in Hollywood and has reinvented herself from child actress to indie darling. She became a sex symbol and Marvel hero. Now she's becoming somewhat of a character actress. And with Marriage Story having more support in other categories I think she genuinely has a shot. 

Saoirse Ronan received her fourth nomination for Little Women. An argument could be made she deserved to win for Gerwig's debut feature Lady Bird, the Academy likely feels they can get to her later. There's no urgency to reward her just yet.

Joaquin Phoenix has been the front-runner for Best Actor since Joker premiered at the Venice Film Festival back in September I feel he's pretty locked to win. He has the overdue factor as well as the big showy role. And if Joker wins awards through the night before Best Actor is announced, it'd be odd if its star is ignored. I also think Hildur Guonadottir could win Best Original Score for the film. She's already built up an impressive resume with her collaborations with Denis Villeneuve and Alejandro Inarritu and had a breakthrough year with Joker and the HBO miniseries Chernobyl.  She's only the seventh woman to be nominated for Best Original Score and would become the fourth recipient if she won. If the Academy feels they need to make up for the lack of female nominees this year it'd also help Gunadottir's chances. 

Thelma Schoonmaker, Martin Scorsese's long time editor, received her eighth nomination for The Irishman and has won three times previously for Raging Bull, The Aviator and The Departed.  I could see Parasite or Joker winning here. Joker feels like it could do really well on Oscar night though it could also under-perform. 

OUATIH missed out in editing; the editing nomination is seen as essential for a film to win Best Picture, with the exception of Birdman which was made to look like a continuous shot, which is likely the reason why 1917 also failed to receive an editing nomination as well. I think Best Picture is wide open. Parasite could become the first Foreign Language Best Picture winner. Alfonso Cuaron's Roma seemed pegged to take that honour but lost out to Green Book. If Parasite wins, it'll make history and act as a make-up for Roma.    

Now, I want to talk a little bit more about the controversy surrounding the lack of female and POC nominees this year, which has also been an issue previous years as well. I believe that the lack of diversity in the Oscar race is a symptom of the larger problem in Hollywood rather than the cause. If this problem is to be fixed we have to approach it from the angle from how movies are made and who gets to make them. I know this also easier to say then to do but it's important to remember the Oscars are part of a larger problem. 

So, those my overall thoughts on this year's nominations. How do you feel about the nominations? Who did want to get in and who do you think will win. Let me know.

Some thoughts on ''RoboCop Returns'' and other recently announced films

It was recently announced that another RoboCop film-entitled RoboCop Returns- is in development with Neil Blomkamp attached to direct. What intrigues me about this announcement is it's not another remake or re-imagining but a direct sequel to the original, essentially ignoring RoboCop 2 and 3, and based on a story by the writers of the original film, Edward Nuemeier  and Michael Miner. Nuemeier and Miner wrote a script for RoboCop 2, which was never used. Justin Rhodes- who wrote the new Terminator film in production- will be writing the screenplay 

I know for many Blomkamp is a director who made one good movie (District 9) and hasn't made anything worthwhile since. I agree Blomkamp hasn't completely lived up to his promise; both Elysium and Chappie partly felt like attempts to replicate District 9's success. However, I do believe he's a talented director and working from another writer's script may be beneficial. Also, Blomkamp is somewhat of a spiritual heir to Paul Verhoeven who directed the original. Like Verhoeven Blompkamp blends social commentary and gory violence, though with all together different aesthetic. 

This isn't the first time a franchise film has ignored previous sequels. Superman Returns acted as alternate Superman 3 to the first two Christopher Reeve films; the upcoming Halloween (with Jamie Lee Curtis returning) is ignoring everything post John Carpenter's original, nixing the brother-sister twist regarding Michael Myers and Laurie. Funnily enough, Blomkamp wanted to make a follow-up to Aliens with Sigourney Weaver, disregarding David Fincher's controversial Alien 3. I was worried that Blomkamp just wanted to do Aliens again, even though I still want Weaver to come back for another film. Ideally, RoboCop Returns won't just be Blomkamp remaking the original but expanding upon its themes- similar to Blade Runner 2049.

. 

I'll freely admit I'm more of a fan of the DCEU than the MCU, despite the behind the scenes problems and reshuffling constantly going on at Warner Bros. I'm also one of those people who want to see Zack Snyder's cut of Justice League, despite having fun with the theatrically released version. With that said, it's a little odd to be getting two Joker movies, one with the already established Jared Leto version from Suicide Squad and an origin film set a different continuity, starring Joaquin Phoenix and directed by Todd Phillips, with Martin Scorsese on board as a producer. But I do like that DC is further distancing itself from the MCU, with movies set in alternate continuities, which reflects DC Comics history.

While I was excited for Leto's performance in Suicide Squad I  was a little disappointed in the depiction of the character, though in a better written and realized film I think he can be great. I love Phoenix as an actor, and I've always have since seeing in M. Night Shyamalan's Signs back in 2002. I think he's a perfect fit for the Joker. 

The problem I have is this film is to be a Joker origin story. I feel the Joker works best without a origin story. It differentiates him from Batman's other villains and super villains in general. The Joker isn't defined by a tragic past or any psychological motivation, which makes him the complete opposite of Batman, who is all about having a tragic past and psychological motivations. Batman wants to control the chaos of his mind and the world, while the Joker is an "agent of chaos," as Heath Ledger's Joker proclaimed himself in The Dark Knight. And a big part of what made Ledger's Joker great is the character's ambiguous nature. Were any of the stories he told true, were some aspects true, can he not even remember? In Alan Moore's seminal graphic novel The Killing Joke the Joker says he prefers his backstory to be "multiple choice," casting doubt on the backstory we're given in the story.  

I'm also not excited about Phillips directing. though I see how his background in directing gritty comedies about masculinity does fit. It's just I'd be more enthusiastic if someone like Fincher or Denis Villenueve was behind the camera.

Almost a decade later, a sequel to Zombieland has been officially announced, with the original cast members (Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin) all returning, as well as original director Ruben Fleischer. I don't know exactly what you do with a sequel to this property. I really liked the original when I first saw it but it essentially was a re-worked TV pilot made in to a movie. Certainly, Eisenberg and Stone are bigger names than they were in 2009. Back then he was probably still seen as the ''poor man's Michael Cera'' and she was still the ''girl from Superbad.'' It'll be weird seeing them back in these parts, particularly Stone who to me always comes across as just being Emma Stone. Given the gap in time between movies, especially in regards to Breslin- I assume this movie will be ten years post the original, so I'd be kind of interested in what the world of the original looks like now. Maybe civilization has rebuilt itself though the charm of the original came from it being a four-hander. I think it's best to not incorporate too many new characters. Keep it simple. 

So, what are your thoughts on these upcoming projects? Comment below and let me know.