Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Bobby ‘Exorcist’ Jindal: intelligent design is legitimate science Previous entry: Time Interviews Tsvangirai

Bamboo Review: The Happening

imageI made a sacrifice for you people.  I went to go see M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening, which has to qualify for sainthood in some circles.

The central premise of the movie is that some mysterious happening is causing people to systematically kill themselves - first speech goes, then they start walking backwards, then they kill themselves in often rather gory fashion.  Our central characters, Elliot (Mark Wahlberg) and Alma Moore (Zooey Deschanel) are a bland couple on the bland rocks running away from what’s surely the only interesting thing to happen in their otherwise vanilla-and-water lives in years.  The film does exactly what you expect an M. Night Shyamalan film to do: take an intriguing concept and competent direction, and then send the whole thing zooming into the ground as fast as humanly possible once you realize that the twist isn’t going to be as good as The Sixth Sense

The Happening, however, has a special twist to it.  Okay, plotwise, plants are releasing a neurotoxin that’s making everyone kill themselves.  Big whoop.  More intriguingly, The Happening is an anti-science Intelligent Design film.  If a conservative ever asks why Hollywood doesn’t make conservative films, The Happening’s hopeful failure should be the first item on the rebuttal list.
Let’s get past the mechanics of filmmaking first.  Shyamalan is a competent director, but hasn’t learned much in the past ten years.  He directs the film with the same sort of detached gaze that made The Sixth Sense so entrancing - the bare hints of horror around each corner, the methodical reveal of what terrible thing the lead character is seeing - but that simply doesn’t work for his other plots.  The Happening is basically people versus plants, and the plants are not only everywhere, but go from safe to deadly with nothing but the wind as a sign of their threat.  For a movie that deals in gory deaths, from a needle to the neck to mass jumping off of a construction site to a chain of self-shootings with the same gun to a man laying down in front of a lawnmower and letting himself be chewed up alive, everything happens in a decidedly cold and bloodless manner, as if Shyamalan doesn’t want you to be too shocked or too scared to miss his point.  There’s no horror, just observation.

The point, then, is summed up in the film’s bookends of scientists - Elliot Moore at the beginning, a scientist discussing the fallout at the end - opining about unexplained mysteries of nature.  Sometimes, you see, science just can’t explain things.  Irrationality is being pawned off as rationality, incomprehension as explanation.  This, of course, is a fundamental tenet of intelligent design, wherein the unexplainable is filled in with the God of the Gaps, ID denials aside

Seeing this in motion is startling, all the more so because it’s introduced in the midst of a high school science class. 

As the ethos to the drama of a horror movie, it’s impossible to escape, even during the movie’s better crafted moments.  The movie telegraphs its intent at every turn - the reveal that plants are behind the suicides is shoved hamfistedly in the middle of the plot.  That the threat will crest and then fall off rapidly is made obvious well before it happens.  There is nothing unexpected because the goal isn’t to scare you, to shock you with what’s around the corner, but rather to impress you with the systematic and brutal plan that nature (and the director) has laid out. 

The whole thing, however, is entirely unimpressive.  The systematic extermination of the human race through Shyamalan’s eyes really isn’t that sad of a thing, all told.  Scientists who are too intellectually facile to wonder if there’s something behind a mass neurotoxin release from every plant in a several hundred mile radius?  If we are too cowed by the greatest mass death in history to even investigate the hows and whys of it, what was the point of surviving? 

The Moores are supposed to be our point of reference for this terrible event.  Wahlberg’s performance as Elliot is one of the few redeemable things about the movie, but he’s still stuck with lines that force his to speak like a pedantic grammarian, inserting proper whoms in the midst of what’s supposed to be confused terror.  As the driving force of the movie, he embodies the problem with the film’s take on people - that they’re only there to drive the fable towards its end, all tools of the grand designer (Shyamalan playing around as God).  Things seem to happen because they’re supposed to, not because people would actually act that way.

Alma Moore is perhaps one of the most laughably stupid characters that’s ever graced a summer multiplex.  Zooey Deschanel is an actress who always exudes a quiet intelligence about what’s happening onscreen, as if she read the script before everyone else did and is giving you a wink and a nod to just trust her and follow along.  In this case, she seems to have read the script and just gone into denial about the 90 minutes of bullshit she’s a part of. 

Alma has problems showing her emotions.  How do you know?  Because twice in fifteen minutes, she says it, point blank.  It’s a core piece of characterization that Shyamalan didn’t seem to have confidence in his actors to show.  Her Alma seems almost as if she has Asperger’s, incapable of relating to others properly or responding to the moment at hand.  Treading through what’s quite literally a killing field, she reveals a dark secret to Elliot - she had dessert after work (tiramisu, to be exact) with her coworker, Joey.  Joey, of course, is the offscreen voice of M. Night Shyamalan, who is now both God and the dude that the female lead wants to fuck. 

If he could have dressed up as a tree, I’m sure he would have.

Her almost-dalliance with Joey, though, is so asinine and even innocent that instead of making you look at the Moores as a couple, it just makes you wonder why they’re even together.  The simplest answer?  They were meant to be.  And we figure this out at the end as Alma is with child, blessed by the benevolent M. Night with the greatest gift he can imagine.

Equal parts heavyhanded, heavyhearted and just plain heavy, The Happening is a movie about Intelligent Design…and about the notable and repeated failures of its designer.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Jesse Taylor on 10:33 PM • (68) Comments

Wahlberg’s performance as Elliot is one of the few redeemable things about the movie
I love how people piss all over Marky Mark just because he used to be a part of the funky bunch and occasionally picks shitty roles.  The guy is an amazing actor, and when he gets the right role he just sinks into his character.

Comment #1: Jonathan Hohensee  on  06/15  at  11:08 PM

Can we PLEASE call this movie “The Crappening” already?

Comment #2: theDAWG  on  06/15  at  11:14 PM

The science in that movie was terribad. Typically science fiction writers go to actual scientists (that’s why Larry Niven often writes about writers who hang out at NASA) to get their story straight. But M. Night is such a fucking god among men that he apparently doesn’t need to do what other writers do. Had he consulted say, a botanist, he might have found out that the premise for the movie was completely bogus.

Comment #3: Entomologista  on  06/15  at  11:18 PM

Not to be persnickety, but “victim of Asperger’s” is probably a bit more pejorative than necessary.  The people I know with AS don’t see themselves as suffering from an illness. 

APS

Comment #4: Ape Man  on  06/15  at  11:22 PM

Even “science fiction” movies (which this is clearly not) don’t generally get evolution right. If I remember correctly, the original Andromeda Strain (movie, and book too - I didn’t watch the recent remake) solves the problem by having alll the Andromeda viris, wherver it has taken root, *simultaneously* evolve into a harmless form. Separate organisms don’t simultaneously evolve into the same thing at the same time.

That movie pretended to be drawing on science. This one, apparently, has the scientist figures giving lectures on how trying to understand natural pheomena through science is a waste of time. Oh goody.

M. Night’s movie Signs was also considered “conservative” and “pro-religion,” and people who didn’t like it were accused of trying to force Hollywood away from pro-religious themes. I have no problems with religious themes whatsoever (and I don’t happen to be an atheist), but that movie’s infantile view of God - who gives cryptic, “clever,” prophetic messages through the mouth of a woman dying in an accident, so that her husband can “come to Jesus” later by figuring out the clues - seemed like a parady of God to me. And a particularly silly one. (And *water* is their kryptonite? Are you kidding me?)

Comment #5: Panask  on  06/15  at  11:22 PM

Ape Man - corrected.  I looked up Asperger’s and found how offensive the characterization was after your comment.  Thanks!

Comment #6: Jesse Taylor  on  06/15  at  11:25 PM

I’m probably just being oversensitive here, but I found the Asperger’s comment vaguely insulting. Great review otherwise.

Anyway, I wasn’t ever planning on going to this one (I’ve decided to stay away from Shyamalan movies since I saw the ending of Signs. Still, Unbreakable was good, wasn’t it? That guy totally couldn’t be broken. Or something), but I was still really disappointed when I heard about this Intelligent Design aspect. I don’t mind plot-necessitated pseudoscience and superstition in my entertainment; I can accept faster than light travel, vampires, and pretty much anything the average comic can throw at me, but I can’t stand it when these idiots try to pass this stuff off as reality. Seriously, ID would barely pass the mustard for a Superman comic from the 60’s. This sort of thing gives traction to ideas that really don’t deserve any.

Does anyone know anything about Shyamalan’s specific religious beliefs? Is he Christian or some kind of quasi-eastern spiritualist along the lines of Chopra?

Comment #7: Phil  on  06/15  at  11:30 PM

Oh, thanks for the correction Jesse. That’s what I get for walking away before posting and not checking for new comments.

Panask: I’m reminded of the Star Trek: TNG episode where a virus caused the crew to “Devolve” into spiders and fish and things. Even as a scientifically illiterate 13 year old, I knew there was something off about that.

Comment #8: Phil  on  06/15  at  11:34 PM

“Had he consulted say, a botanist, he might have found out that the premise for the movie was completely bogus.”

Not to mention that there are perfectly real examples of parasites which cause their hosts to engage in freaky behavior as they’re dying of the infection that would account for something like this quite handily without stepping outside the realm of the plausible or the known. 

You don’t even have to have the Scientist! character pull a win out of their ass at the last second.  Much of the punch in zombie movies comes from the idea that even though the characters are better in every way than the monsters, they’re still toast.  You can play with the science fiction cliche of figuring out how to defeat the menace just in time to save mankind by having the characters figure out what’s going on without having any real way of stopping it.

Comment #9: preying mantis  on  06/15  at  11:35 PM

Well, I don’t know about that. Plants release gases from time to time, and plants totally hate people (for example). I think the problem is more that no chemists or toxicologists were consulted. But wev. I wasn’t especially tempted to see this movie in the first place, but since everybody in the reality-based community seems to have just hated it, now I wouldn’t even consider going to see it. Sainthood indeed.

Comment #10: mr_subjunctive  on  06/15  at  11:35 PM

The Plantening.

If the movie doesn’t already do this, would it have made it better if the deaths started happening to plants’ natural enemies? Not just lawnmowers, but all groundskeepers, fruit-pickers, and weed-pullers suddenly turn up dead. What’s the connection? Is there a serial killer? No—a cereal killer! (As in grain.)

Comment #11: Grumpy  on  06/16  at  12:04 AM

Thanks for making it $10 likelier he’ll get to make another movie.

Comment #12: norbizness  on  06/16  at  12:17 AM

Signs made me crazy*, and seeing The Village on TV was an exercise in bored contempt. This guy has read way too much of his own press.

*In order:
-why do aliens need crop circles? Navigating across the galaxy=ok dokey, but finding a farm in Iowa needs elaborate crop patterns?
-WATER????
-M Night shows up for stupid pointless overlong section, because he just loves himself so much. His character served no purpose.
-WATER???? THEY ARE FRIGHTENED OFF BY fucking WATER?? ON A PLANET THAT’S MOSTLY WATER??? BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO STUPID TO INVENT HAZMAT SUITS????

Not being as stupid as Shamalayan’s aliens, I was enraged at the waste of two hours of precious, precious life in that crapfest. Jeebus.

Comment #13: emjaybee  on  06/16  at  12:31 AM

The Happening is an anti-science Intelligent Design film.

The most obvious evidence of that being the Robert Frost quote taking up half the blackboard in the still you posted.  I mean, Frost is all well and good and everything, but he wasn’t a scientist, and I can totally imagine some kid in his class wondering, “ummm, how exactly is some long-winded ass quote by a poet going to get me into CalTech?  could I get a physics equation up there or something, please?  Maybe some kind of nifty scientific diagram?”

/art director

Comment #14: The Opoponax  on  06/16  at  12:36 AM

Oh, and Shyamalan is Hindu.

Which, btw, is a real religion, not “quasi-eastern spirituali[ty] along the lines of Chopra”.

If Wikipedia is correct, however, he attended Christian parochial schools growing up.  Also, his parents are both doctors, so it’s entirely possible that his upbringing was not-really-observant/secular/agnostic, just like most other Americans.  I would guess, having seen some of his films, that he doesn’t have any particular religious inclination and is either A) just a solipsist, or B) trying to throw in namby-pamby religiosity to lure in a certain demographic.

Comment #15: The Opoponax  on  06/16  at  12:50 AM

I love how people piss all over Marky Mark just because he used to be a part of the funky bunch and occasionally picks shitty roles.  The guy is an amazing actor, and when he gets the right role he just sinks into his character.

Yeah I looked up his filmography and he really does seem to have a real Nicholas Cage half-super-artsy/serious half-bills-paying-semi-fun-crap vibe going on.

Comment #16: Erl  on  06/16  at  01:02 AM

I think MNS is a bright, competent director.  That said, he peaked awhile (apparently) and this sad ode to his love for big ‘g” god is flailingly tedious.

There was a short, twelve minute interview with him on NPR’s Science Friday.  It was a joke and it was the host could do to not insult chuckle for two reasons:
-MNS on “Science Friday” - get real
-MNS’s views weren’t very scientific, to say the least

Some bad publicity isn’t worth it.  It tough to learn that the hard way.

Comment #17: ice weaasel  on  06/16  at  01:02 AM

Panask: I’m reminded of the Star Trek: TNG episode where a virus caused the crew to “Devolve” into spiders and fish and things.

Or that episode of Star Trek: Voyager when they discovered that crossing the Warp 10 barrier “vastly sped up evolution,” and Paris and Janeway wound up as lizards.

Comment #18: J. A. Baker  on  06/16  at  01:07 AM

The film Evolution had the same bad science premise too, right?  One creature constantly transforming was called “evolution”?  And Pokémon!  No natural selection, no mutation, the animals just go through metamorphous and that’s enough for it to be evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokemon#Morality

Yeah I looked up his filmography and he really does seem to have a real Nicholas Cage half-super-artsy/serious half-bills-paying-semi-fun-crap vibe going on.
This is one of those secrets I need to tell, but would rather have complete strangers know then those who I care about, but Shooter was da bomb.

Comment #19: Jonathan Hohensee  on  06/16  at  01:22 AM

This is one of those secrets I need to tell, but would rather have complete strangers know then those who I care about, but Shooter was da bomb.

If you ignore the plot holes that were larger than the actual plot, yeah . . .

Nah but it was pretty exciting. Its hardcore conspiracy vibe turned me off a bit at points though

Comment #20: Erl  on  06/16  at  01:29 AM

The Opoponax: I’ll go with “B”, given how much one of the posters for “The Happening” resembles a Rapture painting (did nobody else catch that?)

Comment #21: KJK::Hyperion  on  06/16  at  01:34 AM

Had he consulted say, a botanist, he might have found out that the premise for the movie was completely bogus.

He supposedly did consult some biologists (See this interview). I suspect he was just so fixated on making a movie about “unknowable nature” that he ignored the pesky details.

Comment #22: Peggy  on  06/16  at  01:38 AM

-WATER???? THEY ARE FRIGHTENED OFF BY fucking WATER?? ON A PLANET THAT’S MOSTLY WATER??? BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO STUPID TO INVENT HAZMAT SUITS????

“People of Earth - we’re taking Mars.”

Comment #23: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/16  at  01:46 AM

I think Day of the Triffids said all that needs to be said about killer plants. 

I don’t suppose MNS had the sense of humor to include a reference to Triffids in this movie, did he?  That might make it a little bit awesome…

Comment #24: Bradley  on  06/16  at  02:05 AM

Which, btw, is a real religion, not “quasi-eastern spirituali[ty] along the lines of Chopra”.

Real religion! I LOLed.

Plants release gases from time to time, and plants totally hate people

Sure, but they don’t release gases because they’ve had a little chit-chat with their fellow plants and decided it was time to tell humans to back off. Because that was the implication in the movie. So, so stupid.

Comment #25: Entomologista  on  06/16  at  02:36 AM

One of the things I love most about this blog is the movie reviewing.  I also want to thank you, Jesse, for making one of the few blog posts I’ve seen to review this movie without making the core of your disappointment the movie’s themes.  Of all the things wrong with this movie (which I actually liked), the themes a reviewer doesn’t agree with shouldn’t be the basis for panning the movie.  How the themes are presented, however, is fair game.

Comment #26: Spooky Skeptic  on  06/16  at  02:54 AM

the themes a reviewer doesn’t agree with shouldn’t be the basis for panning the movie

Why not? Please explain why I should not pan ‘Triumph of the Will’ or ‘Jud Süß’ for their themes?

(I risk Godwin’s Law only to illustrate the logical absurdity of such a stance.)

Comment #27: percyprune  on  06/16  at  03:05 AM

Jonathan Hohensee: “The film Evolution had the same bad science premise too, right?  One creature constantly transforming was called “evolution”?”

As long as we’re citing bad evolution in movies, “Mimic” doesn’t get it right, either. I can suspend my disbelief that genetic tinkering can give insects lungs, enabling them to overcome the usual arthropod size limitation. But how are they supposed to evolve into a form that mimics a human silhouette if no humans ever encountered them before?

Comment #28: Grumpy  on  06/16  at  03:07 AM

percyprune has a point. Criticizing a work for its rhetorical message is valid. However, since Hollywood movies usually don’t deliver such rhetoric, they can avoid this critical mode. Criticizing a movie’s realism or formal structure is far more common. (Note that the fourth main critical mode, expressionism, is also useless in analyzing most Hollywood works, as they are not the coherent visions of single authors.)

Comment #29: Grumpy  on  06/16  at  03:12 AM

I go into more detail on my website, but the method of presentation is part of what I mean.  If you make a movie that has an intelligent design bent and it’s a plot device, then it’s just there.  If he were making the movie as a vehicle expressly for the advocacy of the idea that intelligent design is the only thing to believe and that any other idea is a path the teh H3ll… Well, then that’s fair game.  Making a movie that contains something relating to your own experiences or beliefs isn’t the same as propaganda.  This movie is too vague to be taken as propaganda.  Both of your expamples, percyprune, are active propaganda.  There’s a pretty big difference.

Comment #30: Spooky Skeptic  on  06/16  at  03:17 AM

There are different types of propaganda, Spooky. Not all of it is clearly-labelled. The framing of ideas, the establishment of memes can function as propaganda too, and are vitally important at building a mainstream consensus. I think this sort of thing needs to be fought vigorously. You claim the movie is too vague to be considered propaganda, but that very vagueness, its seeming benignity, does not make it any less dangerous at inculating populist misconceptions about science. Even if it were merely wrongheaded rather than propagandist, people should still stand up and point out its absurdities and foolishness.

Comment #31: percyprune  on  06/16  at  03:29 AM

Grrr. Anger.  From the ripping-off-Sean-of-the-Dead ‘TV channel epilogue’ to the ‘don’t try to understand nature, it’s so mysteeeeriooouuusss!!!’ bs, I can only pray that this will be the one to end the long, painful backsliding that is MNS’s film career.  It’s like a good film career in reverse.

Comment #32: JoeBlu  on  06/16  at  03:48 AM

From the ripping-off-Sean-of-the-Dead ‘TV channel epilogue’

*Bangs head against desk*

Comment #33: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/16  at  04:38 AM

When I talked to my dad last night, he said he’d seen it, and that I had to go see it. Of course, he also said it was a terrible movie… but apparently large parts of it were filed within two blocks of where I used to live in Philly.

Maybe I’ll wait to be able to Netflix it and watch it with the sound off.

Comment #34: rhiain  on  06/16  at  06:35 AM

I’m a little bit in love with Zooey Deschanel. That is all.

Comment #35: Courtney  on  06/16  at  09:17 AM

“Signs made me crazy*, and seeing The Village on TV was an exercise in bored contempt. This guy has read way too much of his own press.”

Signs was a real mess.  The whole crop-circles-are-from-aliens! thing in general pisses me off, and the ending just made things worse.  The subplot about Mel Gibson losing his faith, etc., wasn’t bad - it just belonged in another (better) movie…

OTOH, I thought The Village was quite good.  Very interesting premise, good acting, interesting story.  I know people who would act like the leaders of The Village acted if they could.  A lot of very interesting philosophical questions posed…some pretty deep stuff about the meaning of life and the meaning of reality…

Comment #36: MikeEss  on  06/16  at  09:53 AM

Signs is actually the only of his films I have any patience for, because I saw it as a metaphor for September 11.  The idea of this thing happening, terrorizing everyone, creating very real consequences even though it was like something we thought only happened in silly action movies. 

However, every subsequent film he releases causes me to think that was just a fluke and not the point of Signs, at all.

Comment #37: The Opoponax  on  06/16  at  10:08 AM

Haven’t seen the movie, but just because it’s anti science doesn’t necessarily mean it’s deliberately Intelligent Design.

The concept of scientists advocating or evincing incuriosity in the face of radical new phenomena is pretty outrageous.  But that’s part of Shyamalan’s larger world view.  God’s will is inscrutable, capricious, mysterious, and cruel.  With the emphasis on inscrutable.  So STOP scrutinizing.  Bad Person.  You’re going to ruin the pat moral.

Comment #38: mhoram  on  06/16  at  10:57 AM

Jonathan, I have never actually heard anyone piss on Marky Mark.  Except me, in jest.  No, seriously, every thinking human being alive thinks that he’s a great actor, to the point where the embarrassing rap career can just be ignored.  He’s completely redeemed.

However, choosing this movie has hurt his reputation in my eyes.

Comment #39: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/16  at  11:10 AM

Honestly, the people in my theater were laughing at the movie (not at the “jokes” either) or groaning at it.  It was just So Bad.  Not even So Bad It’s Good bad, but So So Bad It’s Good It’s Bad bad.

“Act of nature” = “we can’t explain it”.  GRRRRR.  ANGER!  SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!!

Ahem.  Also, why does the wind blow whenever the chemical is getting released?  When did the plants gain control of the wind?

Lastly: the most fucked-up part was the sign near the development community as they’re fleeing after the lawnmower scene: “You Deserve It”.  Real subtle, dipshit.

Comment #40: themann1086  on  06/16  at  11:25 AM

A friend and I went to go see it, and she said that Shyamalan must have gotten ahold of a copy of The Secret Lives of Plants, in which the author did an experiment with the chemical reactions of trees. When one tree was cut down, all of the trees within a certain radius reacted chemically to the action.

It’s fringe science, but science nonetheless. There are botanists who believe this stuff.

Comment #41: Nemohee  on  06/16  at  11:34 AM

just because it’s anti science doesn’t necessarily mean it’s deliberately Intelligent Design.

At the same time, though, you have to admit that this whole “well, it’s not evolution, per se.  It’s, like, something else.  But, you know, all godly and stuff…” fits right in with Shyamalan’s “solipsism and junk science, yay!” worldview and the whole concept behind this particular film.

I’m having this problem where Bobby Jindal and M. Night Shyamalan are starting to blend together in my brain.  Hate both, both have very similar roots and personal narratives, both are total hacks who don’t seem understand the slightest thing about the worlds they have somehow managed to succeed in, both have in a lot of ways defied all the rules of their respective fields. it’s kind of fascinating actually.

Comment #42: The Opoponax  on  06/16  at  11:36 AM

“Act of nature” = “we can’t explain it”.  GRRRRR.  ANGER!  SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!!

Well, on the other hand, it can sometimes take a really long time to figure out these freaky “acts of nature”, and scientists can be very, very wrong in the mean time.  I recently wet on a tear reading about early AIDS research.  It took almost a decade between the first cases of full-blown AIDS showing up in American and European hospitals (circa 1976) and researchers really understanding the full ramifications of what the disease was doing and how it works.  For a good 5 years the tentative consensus was that it was being caused by bad drugs, or maybe gay men just wearing out their immune systems with repetitive STI exposures.

You don’t often see that sort of thing in sci fi movies—they usually manage to figure out what’s going on just in time to stop it in its tracks.  Not so in the real world, unfortunately.

Comment #43: The Opoponax  on  06/16  at  11:42 AM

Ultimately, though, the issue is that in the real world, until the problem is understood well enough to be exploited or controlled, science doesn’t stop asking questions about it.  That’s the difference between science and not-science.

That said, not all physicians play the role of scientists.  Many of them are technicians of the body.  And unlike electronics, there are limits to how much you’re allowed to disassemble and experiment with bodies to find out what’s wrong with them.

Comment #44: mhoram  on  06/16  at  11:52 AM

It’s fringe science, but science nonetheless. There are botanists who believe this stuff.

Oh, I can believe in chemical signals between plants - that’s easy.

What no sane semi-scientifically literate person can believe in is:

(i) that plants could “evolve” a chemical with any real effect on human behaviour other than direct sensory assault (think skunks), and even then a real evolutionary process would select AGAINST any plant assaulting humans.  We’re mean motherfuckers, we control fire, and we don’t believe in the civil rights of vegetation.

(ii0 that plants would consider humans a threat.  I mean, we deliberately grow and foster huge numbers of them - shit, we dig oil and coal out of the ground and haul guano over seas to feed them.  Specific plants might be pissed at us, but the trees and grass that supposedly attacked people in the movie have done fairly well out of a symbosis with people.

(iii) That multiple species of plants could get together and launch an attack coordinated over half the East Coast - overnight.  What, were they getting together beforehand and saying “seed yourselves over here and wait until I give the signal”?

(iv) That the consequences of such an attack wouldn’t have more obvious results after the event.  We are talking about most of the population of the East Coast of the US getting wiped out, rather horribly.  And three months later, the two protaganists - refugees - are settled down in Leave It To Beaver bliss?  We’re talking about a government that fucked up the post-Katrina recovery, and which has just has its head cut off. And where is the fucking paranoia about it happening again?

Comment #45: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/16  at  12:08 PM

Haven’t seen this one, but from reading the review, I think I have another explanation for this trashfest.

MNS worships Hitchcock.  The review made the film sound suspiciously similar to The Birds.  It was also a movie where nature just suddenly, and for no identifiable reason, decided to start attacking and killing people. 

The ID thing with the scientists is pretty stupid, but it sounds to me like MNS was trying to make a tribute to the Birds, which I thought was a pretty dull, unfrightening movie (OTOH, the short story on which the movie was based made me crap my pants). 

In the Birds, all the birds on earth decide suddenly, and without explanation, to just start killing people, oftentimes in a suicidal manner.  I remember one scene (not sure if it was from the short story or the movie) where a flock of birds intentionally flew into the engines of some airplanes, bringing them down.  Of course, the birds all died as well. 

The movie was pretty silly.  The short story at least built up some drama, tension, and suspense.

Comment #46: jerry 101  on  06/16  at  12:08 PM

I’ve never quite understood all the raves Sixth Sense got. I figured out the plot twist in the first 15 minutes, so I kept waiting for Bruce Willis to figure it out. OTOH, Unbreakable was pretty good and I liked the Village up until the stupid ending. Signs was just stupid.

The commercials for this movie have been spine tingly chilling. Too bad it doesn’t live up to it.

However, choosing this movie has hurt his reputation in my eyes.

For me, it was the remake of the Planet of the Apes.

Comment #47: lou  on  06/16  at  12:12 PM

science doesn’t stop asking questions about it.  That’s the difference between science and not-science.

That said, not all physicians play the role of scientists.  Many of them are technicians of the body.  And unlike electronics, there are limits to how much you’re allowed to disassemble and experiment with bodies to find out what’s wrong with them.

Well, if you read the story of early AIDS research, actually people were unfortunately all too happy to stop asking questions, to silence people who were asking questions, and to kill competing ideas that, if shared, might have made things a lot easier.  Science doesn’t always work all nice and pretty and cooperatively, unfortunately.

And, yes, I’m referring to researchers and scholars and scientists, not some pokey overworked GP. 

And The Band Played On is one of the most appalling books I’ve ever read about science, public health, and the medical industry.  I seriously recommend it if this sort of thing interests you .

BTW none of this has turned me “anti-science”, it’s just that, yeah, sometimes the so-called ‘scientists’ can be pretty dense about studying things that don’t jibe with their interests or politics or even just what they want the answer to be.

Comment #48: The Opoponax  on  06/16  at  12:22 PM

Jonathan: The film Evolution had the same bad science premise too, right?

Yes, but that one was a comedy.

That said, what is regarded as “evolution” in SF movies and TV makes me cringe. Genetic engineering != evolution, damnit.

Comment #49: inge  on  06/16  at  12:39 PM

The Happening, however, has a special twist to it.  Okay, plotwise, plants are releasing a neurotoxin that’s making everyone kill themselves.

Wait, it’s not about everyone mysteriously turning into hippies and getting together for a huge be-in?

Comment #50: atheist  on  06/16  at  12:56 PM

Wait, it’s not about everyone mysteriously turning into hippies and getting together for a huge be-in?

LOLz.

Actually, yesterday I was having drinks with some friends who mentioned they’d “Been to The Happening”, and I fully thought they were talking about that kind of Happening.  I thought maybe MoMA or The Whitney or someone was doing some kind of retrospective on them, or some gallery somewhere was trying to resurrect the idea.

Comment #51: The Opoponax  on  06/16  at  01:40 PM

If a conservative ever asks why Hollywood doesn’t make conservative films, The Happening’s hopeful failure should be the first item on the rebuttal list.

Wait, don’t be so fast to use the word “failure”. Rottentomatoes currently notes that The Happening made $30 million this past weekend. IMDB currently estimates that The Happening had a budget of $57 million. I would assume this thing on track to at least break even.

Comment #52: mcc  on  06/16  at  03:25 PM

mcc: breaking even does not make it a hit. Unless some profit is being made, fast, it’s considered a flop. And since it’s already Monday and they aren’t even close to breaking even: flop.

Which is a good thing. Maybe the studios will take this into consideration before handing him another check for some nonsensical bland suspense thriller no one wants to see.

Comment #53: Keith  on  06/16  at  03:48 PM

What no sane semi-scientifically literate person can believe in is:

(i) that plants could “evolve” a chemical with any real effect on human behaviour other than direct sensory assault (think skunks),

You forgot tetrahydrocannabinol, dimethyltryptamine, lysergic acid amides, mescaline, cocaine, salvinorin, psilocybin, morphine, codeine, nicotine, and countless others.

and even then a real evolutionary process would select AGAINST any plant assaulting humans.  We’re mean motherfuckers, we control fire, and we don’t believe in the civil rights of vegetation.

That wouldn’t stop the mutation from arising, and for a while, spreading. It would only tend to prevent it from persisting in the population. In the movie, the mutation arises suddenly, right? And it takes a while before anyone knows what’s happening? Plausible.

(ii0 that plants would consider humans a threat.  I mean, we deliberately grow and foster huge numbers of them - shit, we dig oil and coal out of the ground and haul guano over seas to feed them.  Specific plants might be pissed at us, but the trees and grass that supposedly attacked people in the movie have done fairly well out of a symbosis with people.

I haven’t seen the movie. Does it claim that these plants are actually thinking about what mutations they should develop? Then that’s ridiculous on its face, and doubly so considering the symbiosis you point out.

In reality, a random mutation is a random mutation. It may be detrimental to the plants that carry it, but that won’t stop them from developing that mutation. It’ll just put them at a reproductive disadvantage compared to other plants in the same niche.

(iii) That multiple species of plants could get together and launch an attack coordinated over half the East Coast - overnight.  What, were they getting together beforehand and saying “seed yourselves over here and wait until I give the signal”?

Multiple species would not simultaneously develop the same mutation throughout their populations. But a retrovirus that attacks plants could induce this mutation in multiple species. Depending on how quickly that virus spreads, it might show its effects within a single day. Unlikely but not impossible. Or there may be an environmental trigger that activates protein synthesis from the new viral genes, and that trigger could occur throughout a wide geographic area.

Comment #54: Grammar RWA  on  06/16  at  04:46 PM

I haven’t seen the movie, but from the description here it sounds much more like a half-baked environmental horror film—the green world gets revenge on its human tormentors.  If it’s anti-science, it could be more like a pantheistic Gaia thing rather than something packed with Christ-y goodness.  Capital-N “Nature.”

Comment #55: FlipYrWhig  on  06/16  at  06:56 PM

I think M. Night Shamalayan needs to get a writer to write some good, eerie material with a good twist. Then he should direct the movie. From what I’ve seen of this director, he is just great at creating atmosphere and suspense, and has an awesome talent for arresting images and sounds. He makes tone poems or something. What he’s not so good at is writing a plot which holds together and seems plausible. Maybe he needs to mix it up, try something new, and let someone else do the writing.

Comment #56: atheist  on  06/16  at  07:25 PM

“I haven’t seen the movie, but from the description here it sounds much more like a half-baked environmental horror film—the green world gets revenge on its human tormentors.”

Somebody mentioned Day of the Triffids above.  If you want a good “revenge of the green world” story, that’s a good one.  The movie was okay, ripe for a really scary remake, but he blew his wad on Happening, dammit!...

BTW, “triffid” (the fictional name of a species of plants) is in the Firefox spelling dictionary, but Obama still is not…figure that one out…

Comment #57: MikeEss  on  06/16  at  07:33 PM

I wish I could add something to the conversation here, but I really don’t think I can.  I generally adore MNS’ filmmaking.  Even Signs, which was horribly flawed and the scene with MNS was awful and the scene with the wife was awful, had some truly transcendent moments of filmmaking.  And I just can’t agree with everybody that hates The Village; it’s not as smart as it thinks it is, but it’s a damn watchable movie.

In general, I think that that’s MNS problem, and a big part of why smart people are coming to dislike his work; he’s smart, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.  The ‘nature does weird things, don’t try to understand it’ vibe of The Happening is pure bunk.

Comment #58: NBarnes  on  06/16  at  07:54 PM

Somebody mentioned Day of the Triffids above.  If you want a good “revenge of the green world” story, that’s a good one.

I’d vote Miyazaki here, specifically Nausicaa and Princess Mononoke. The nice thing in these movies is that the narrative gives you the impression you’re in a fantasy setting to begin with, so you don’t really have to worry too much about the scientific plausibility of events—“it was magic!” is an acceptable explanation for anything that happens.

Meanwhile, USA Today here has an interview with M. Night specifically on the science-teacher-protagonist angle. M. Night seems to think he has made a pro-science movie.

Q: How do you come by your interest in science? Science isn’t a hot topic with most film directors, is it?

A: I think it is a forgotten passion of mine, just daydreaming about some of the wonderful things we’ve learned from science. My family was in the medical field when I was younger, so science was always a particular (laughs) option out there for me and I saw it as interesting even after life took me to art school and then film school.

Q: So, how was it reopening that interest for this movie?

A: Well, we spent last year talking to scientists and developing ideas for The Happening and it has been fun. The way it really worked is that the story is science-based. I had the idea for the movie and then I asked a research assistant to check into it. “Go tell me if I just made up that part of a consciousness, a rabid ability to defend itself in the environment?” I asked her. And she came back with this stack of research papers. Often a story is loosely based on something you heard somewhere in a conversation and then you have see if it will work.

...

Q: Scientists often feel they get badly treated in films; they’re madmen in lab coats. What do you think of their complaint?

A: I guess they feel they are trapped in the “knowledge at any cost” role. But in The Happening, science is a means for people to validate the believers out there, how they feel about the natural world. The hero, Eliot, sees the gaps of knowledge as something wonderful; he sees mysteries that make his beliefs stronger.

Q: So what sort of science fiction movies do you admire?

A: I loved The Andromeda Strain. I wish they had offered me Jurassic Park.

Q: Those are movies that are a little more suspicious of science, aren’t they?

A: Well, in The Happening, I see the character of Eliot as the opposite of Mel Gibson’s character in Signs. He (Gibson) was a priest who lost faith and went to rely on reason. Eliot is a man of science who is interested in belief.

(The “Gaia Hypothesis” that Nausicaa gently riffs on gets mentioned at one point.)

Comment #59: mcc  on  06/16  at  08:27 PM

BTW, “triffid” (the fictional name of a species of plants) is in the Firefox spelling dictionary, but Obama still is not…figure that one out…

I think whoever said the firefox people were more into Star Trek and less into history, politics, literature, and philosophy might be on to something…  Soylent Green and Zardoz are still setting off my spell check, though.

M. Night seems to think he has made a pro-science movie.

I think I nailed it on “solipsist”, as opposed to “religious nutbag”.

Comment #60: The Opoponax  on  06/16  at  09:40 PM

If you’re going to keep is at least scientifically plausible, make the “neurotoxin” a gene that spreads piggy-backed on a virus. Make it originally developed (by people) to—for example—act as a pesticide.


Doesn’t have to be “inexplicable”. Merely, unexplained.

Comment #61: Paul G. Brown  on  06/16  at  09:40 PM

first of all, this is a terrible movie. like 0 out of 5 stars. or, maybe 1/2 out of five, if only because it somehow didn’t make me want to leave the theatre. perhaps because it is mercifully short. or, because it is so simple-minded. or, I was bound to my seat by some mysterious pollen-force floating through the theatre.

second, I disagree about intelligent design. now, admittedly, I know very little about the creator-director, but I tend to agree with zombie “frame” that several reviewers have correctly employed. this stupid piece of hollywood crap just re-deploys zombie horror moves to lame effect. while I have no doubt that the creator-director may have his own ideological, quasi-theological, or other motives, the primary message he imparts in this film is squarely directed at the “teenage bloodsucker” demographic: kill, kill, kill! or, maybe, look at how many ways I can kill. I truly can’t imagine that even if he intended some message about anything, that anyone cares.

Comment #62: big swede  on  06/16  at  10:43 PM

oh yeah, and one more thing. THEY LIVE is a great movie.

Comment #63: big swede  on  06/16  at  10:46 PM

“oh yeah, and one more thing. THEY LIVE is a great movie.”

Seconded…even if it stars Rowdy Roddy Piper…

Comment #64: MikeEss  on  06/16  at  10:57 PM

Zooey Deschanel, whispering, “I see dead plants.”

Comment #65: hbsweet, empress of ice cream  on  06/16  at  11:25 PM

The real secret of the movie Signs, is that he stole the idea of water hating aliens from Invader Zim.  Zim found that bathing in paste worked as a burn preventive.

Comment #66: Tom  on  06/17  at  12:15 AM

I can see the film as being anti-science, but not pro-Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design basically denies evolution, and here there is way too much evolution, much too fast. I got more of the Gaia-New Age feeling that some other commenters mentioned. (Remember Elliot’s mood ring?) Actually, I couldn’t help thinking of Reagan’s infamous “killer trees” comment as I watched; he didn’t literally refer to “killer trees”, of course, but he did say that trees were the biggest source of pollution. So maybe it’s a conservative movie after all.

Comment #67: Andy  on  06/17  at  04:53 AM

So Durkon was right, the trees really are out to get us! Cut them all down before they kill us all!

Comment #68: Doug S.  on  06/17  at  05:54 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.