Eh gad, Brain, the highly anticipated sequel to both Unbreakable and Split is finally
here, to really, at best mixed reviews.
To be clear, Glass has nowhere near as much well done tension as Split, or Unbreakable, and nowhere near
as much character development as Unbreakable, or Split.
Or really that much Glass, but I think why Shyamalan made Glass is more interesting.
I'm not going to spoil anything, and I'm not going to give even a real summary – all
I'll say is Unbreakable is film from M Night Shyamalan from 2000.
It stars Bruce Willis And Samuel L Jackson, essentially as they discover that Willis'
character has superhuman ability.
In Split, from 2016, we follow James McAvoy's character as he portrays a number of different personalities
trapped in the same body.
To the surprise of many people who first saw Split, but no one now that Glass is out, Split
turned out to be part of the same universe as Unbreakable, and Glass essentially casts
together the hero of Unbreakable against the antihero of Split – even though it's called
Glass, and he's neither of those things.
M Night Shyamalan, when he gives interviews, he usually gives quite shallow interviews.
Interviewer: What inspired the [split personality character] 23 or 24 personalities? And can you name them all?
Shyamalan: Oh! That's such a good question! Oh my god.
When he's asked a question, he's quite obtuse.
Interviewer: Parts of the public thought you had become a joke.
Shyamalan: Maybe, I just don't know who doesn't do this journey.
You're describing the journey of an artist.
Shyamalan: You're saying that specifically?
Interviewer (Offscreen): Yes, I'm just curious-
Shyamalan: I had a question in my folder. The folder that had all the notes.
I'm trying to think of saying it without saying anything.
Erm...
Handsome bald man: And I don't blame him, that isn't a criticism,
he can play it however he wants to play it.
However it does mean that I'm really unsure there's any artistic reason to Glass coming
into existence almost twenty years after the only other film where that character appeared
for more than thirty seconds.
Many Shyamalan fans argue that Unbreakable is the director's finest film, and although
I'm not a fan of everything he's done, I agree.
Unbreakable is restrained.
It has a lot of build up.
It's careful in its choices.
And I think one of the reasons it's successful, is that it has a pretty definitive ending.
It certainly comes across that way, and I'd bet it was written that way.
I think that Unbreakable will always be a film I can enjoy, but Split and Glass, far
more so Glass, do change Unbreakable.
Just as the Star Wars prequels inform the way people watch the original trilogy, by
virtue of filling us in on the backstories that were sort of more interesting when we
didn't know them, Glass too informs Unbreakable.
In terms of analysis, perhaps Unbreakable should be separately. But then perhaps so should any film.
That's a lot easier to say than do. I don't think many people will be able to look at Unbreakable and not think about Glass.
Unbreakable ended with a post-script, but it did end.
I'm sure lots of people wanted to know what happened to the characters – but here's
the temptation film-makers must resist.
And then in the sequel, Ferris Bueller gets his realtor liscence, moves to the southside, gets fat, goes bald,
and realises he's a figmnent of that thin kid's imagination.
But don't let this change the first film for you.
My point is that by giving us more, Shyamalan has changed what many consider to be at very
least, classic Shyamalan, not by changing it Lucas style, but adding a lot of crap that
didn't need adding, Lucas style.
The conclusion of Glass really hammers in that this film is about something different to Unbreakable/
It feels as though the script was for different characters, and also heavy handed andd rushed.
From the outside, it looks as though Glass is trying to capitalise on the warm reception
to Split, a lot of which I think is down to James Macavoy, but at the same time go right
back to high Shyamalan and capitalise on the good will of a fanbase.
Shyamalan is senstive and anxious – the lack of acclaim sincerely hurts him.
Shyamalan: If the universe wants me to fail three more times to teach me to a ... even higher level of the characters,
I, I believe in that.
See there, he talks of failure – but just previously he declared the film a success.
Interviewer: Don't call it a comeback, it's not a comeback.
Shyamalan: Whatever happes with Glass, it's great and good.
Artistically, Shyamalan says, Glass is what he wanted. So where's the failure?
The numbers, box office and tomatoey, matter to him.
I think writing films with sequels in mind, can work.
Unbreakable wasn't that.
If there was more story to tell, why wait nineteen years?
There's no narrative reason for that.
Logistically, Shyamalan could have made this film at any time since 2000 (release of Unbreakable).
It kind of looks like Samuel L Jackson, who's
meant to a dangerous mastermind, has just been hanging out waiting for the film to start.
Spraying his hair everyday, just in case.
It doesn't help that Glass really isn't a standalone film, and I think would really struggle if Unbreakable had never existed.
But if Unbreakable had never existed, Glass would never have been made.
Why did Shyamalan make Glass? Because of issues of ego, and he wanted to stay relevant.
I think Shyamalan often finds himself between wanting to be an artist, and wanting to be
Steven Spielberg – not Spielberg the director, but Spielberg the golden child. Spielberg the success.
But what do I know? I've never met him. This is just what I observed. I could be totally wrong.
But I don't think so.
Shyamalan: *Laughs. In 18 years I'm gonna make a trilogy! No!
When this came out (he touches a bound copy of the script to Unbreakable), it had a kind of...
wonky reception. I felt hurt. I felt like the reaction was 'what is this? Is this a comic book?'
'It's not scary!' That was the main thing.
If Shyamalan made Glass because he's still hurt about the reception Unbreakable got then
that's not a great reason to make a film, but also, I can't wait for Lady Out Of The
Water, and sequels to everything then.
You can't make a film because your other film didn't get enough claps – that's squandering
your position.
Maybe the jokes on me, maybe the fact that a film called Glass is mostly about James
MacAvoy - maybe it's being really meta
and I'm just missing something.
Honestly, I think M Night Shyamalan should take some time, and just do what he wants to do.
As I've said before, I think he has a lot of talent. I think he's good at building tension and characters.
It's really frustrating to see him do this.
One of the reasons Unbreakable is good - one of the reasons anything is good, on a fundamental level
is that I think Shyamalan didn't make it for himself but he didn't make it for critics nor crowds. He was true to himself in what he did.
I think if he's being honest about it, he didn't make Glass in the same way. It's much more about reputation and
adulation. And I'm sure he doesn't want that to be the case.
But I think it is.
Bye.
Shyamalan: It's probably the only time I would do this.
Everyone has been asking me, especially people who've seen the movie (Glass), 'is there more?'
I'm going to say no, for right now.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét