Signs

[coalescent]

The short version: Better than The Sixth Sense, not as good as Unbreakable.



I tried my best to avoid spoilers for Signs, but by the time I got around to seeing it I knew: (a) aliens put in an appearance at the end, and (b) Mel Gibson finds his faith. I also knew opinions of the film were mixed, to say the least.

I thought it was flat-out great.

I thought the aliens looked fine. With the information I had when I went in, I was terrified that they were going to turn out to be misunderstood good guys, but that didn't happen. As for the method by which they are defeated, well - it ties beautifully into the film's central theme, and it is a lovely homage to The War Of The Worlds. And if still you want a fanwank to explain why aliens would invade a planet where three quarters of the surface is water, it would be trivial to argue that they are only demonstrably affected by fresh water...

The film's theme is for many, I suspect, where most of the problems arise. Gibson's character, having lost his faith after the arbitrary death of his wife in a car accident, regains it. There are too many coincidences involved in the saving of his son's life - the fact that his daughter leaves glasses of water all over the house, the son's asthma - for him to see it as chance. He has to see it as a sign; it's who he is.

And that's precisely why I think it works. It's who he is. It's not who everyone is - the film makes it quite clear that where some people see signs, others merely see chance. It's not who everyone should be - the indictment of people who see coincidences as being alone and afraid does, after all, come from Gibson's character, who might be expected to be a tad bitter on the subject. Signs is a personal story; it's about how one man copes with extraordinary circumstances.

And it is a fine, fine slice of SF.

Comments

[truecatachresis.livejournal.com]

The aliens were far too b-movieish.

Well, uh, yeah. That's kinda the point, isn't it? As _The Sixth Sense_ was a take on the traditional ghost story, and _Unbreakable_ a take on the superhero origin story, so _Signs_ is a take on the alien invasion story. In this case, it's what happens to all the normal people in the B-movie? What's the little story?

Not really. The ghosts in the Sixth Sense were not "far too" ghost story-ish, the superhero in Unbreakable was not "far too" comic-bookish. They were interesting takes on the theme the movie chose as a backdrop, and more importantly, as a key role in the plot.

The actual SF was less advanced than almost anything I've ever seen. There are aliens; that's it.

Because it's not about the aliens, it's about the people. Obviously, I disagree about how well the human-interest story worked, but you're right that it is the hook for the film - if you're not interested in what happens to the characters, there's not a lot left for you to enjoy.

My point here was with your statement that it was a damn fine piece of SF, or similar. I disagree. As SF, it was poor, having virtually no interesting SF factors whatsoever. This is unrelated to its aspect as a story about the little people. I still disagree with your sentiment there, but I have more respect for that. But, as a fine piece of SF, I'd say unequivocably not.

...ended with an ambiguous and not terribly meaningful "conclusion".

And here, I thought the ambiguity was the best bit. I don't need a film telling me that religion is Great and Life-Affirming, thanks; and whilst a film telling me that religion is a load of hooey might be entertaining on a personal level, it's no less biased. So this resolution - where, again, it's about the little story, not the big picture - worked for me.

OK, I understand your sentiment here, and I agree with you that it probably took the best line it could have done with the premise. But that premise is, itself, so completely unmeaningful, in my opinion.

I can, however, see that others might feel it has a bit more meaning. And as I said, the film is very well put together. Shyamalan is a good director, and that still shows in this film despite its many other flaws.

[malenfant.livejournal.com]

My point here was with your statement that it was a damn fine piece of SF, or similar. I disagree. As SF, it was poor, having virtually no interesting SF factors whatsoever.

Ah, we're working from different definitions of SF. As far as I'm concerned, if something takes a genre trope - even a standard, simplistic one like alien invasion - and uses it as a thematic backdrop, or as a metaphor, then it's SF.

In other words, it doesn't have to be about the impact of the idea on society or on characters, though that is certainly a form of SF; it can be about using the idea to cast reflections on and illuminate society or characters. And that's what I think Signs did.