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

[(Anonymous)]

I thought it was a good film,too, I just found the foreshadowing a little unsubtle, and the ending too b-movie-ish. I did find it scary but I'm a scaredy cat, so doesn't say much. I think you're right on about the faith angle, though. He only concludes, based on remarkable coincidences, that this is work of a higher being, it isn't necessarily stated to be fact, which I think is for the best. It's about faith, not fact.

I agree taht the aliens were well-handed.

Fantastic acting, especially from the four main ones. I especialy though joaquin was good.

M Knight didn't do too badly with his short role.

Eve

[truecatachresis.livejournal.com]

I have to disagree. I was massively disappointed by this film; partially this was because I thought the previous two Shyamalan films were flat out fantastic, and as such this was a crushing disappointment, but also because, regardless of the director, I didn't think it was a good film.

In fact, I came out of it thinking that I had wasted the fee and two hours of my time. I rarely feel that about a film.

The aliens were far too b-movieish. There's too much shock-factor about their occasional appearances, and too little reason behind them. They come, they disappear for a bit, they come again, they go. At the same time, they were focused on too much and too little. Was the film about the aliens, or was it about Mel Gibson's family? The answer: neither, as neither get a decent treatment.

The basic plot was empty and facile. The actual SF was less advanced than almost anything I've ever seen. There are aliens; that's it. There was a personal interest story, which was not very compelling, and which ended with an ambiguous and not terribly meaningful "conclusion".

The acting, however, was generally very good. Shyamalan once more got good work of child actors. The alien effects were well done for what was required of them.

[malenfant.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?

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.

...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.

[malenfant.livejournal.com]

M Knight didn't do too badly with his short role.

I recognised him straight away in this, but for some reason hadn't twigged that he was also in the two previous films. D'oh.

[hawleygriffen.livejournal.com]

Oh, dear. Ohdearohdear, oh dear. You didn't get the queue guy in Unbreakable? Tshk.

[snowking.livejournal.com]

"GOD IS GOOD! GOD IS GOOD!"

...yeah. Thanks for that Night.

I liked, nay loved, everything else. Which makes the fact that I find the moral message repugnant and hamfisted doubly annoying.

[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.