Movie 161: The Happening

The Happening (2008) by M. Night Shyamalan

starring Marky Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel

In a nutshell: Stupid on so many levels. But the extremely strange acting is oddly transfixing. This one belongs in the "so bad it's good" category.

Quick synopsis: Something in the air is causing people to die in mass numbers. Marky Mark and Zooey try to run away.

Content: How the mighty have fallen. After crafting one of the past decade's most highly regarding mystery/thrillers, The Sixth Sense, M. Night Shyamalan was riding high was riding high in the early '00's. Unbreakable found a cult audience and Signs turned into a blockbuster. Since then, he has gone decidedly downhill.

I liked The Village more than most, and maybe that was because I wanted so badly to like it after loving Signs, But I know it's not exactly Hitchcock, as badly as Shyamalan wants it to be. Then came the Lady in the Water. I refused to see that one. Read a synopsis and you will understand why. And finally, his latest, The Happening hit theaters to astoundingly bad reviews in summer '08. "How bad can it be?" I wondered. Shyamalan clearly knows how to make a movie, so what could he have done that went so horribly wrong? I doubted the critics, citing the fact that they criminally underrated The Village, and dove headfirst into Shyamalan's first 'R' rated effort. Turns out I was not disappointed, but not even remotely for the reasons I expected.

The Happening is one of the strangest mixes of competency derailed by incompetency I have ever encountered. Some movies are just plain bad in nearly all aspects. But these are not the spectacular failures, they are simply forgotten. The most spectacular failures are those with ambition involved. Those where a good director isolates himself with a work for so long that he loses his ability to objectively view it. He simply sees right through the flaws because they have started looking normal to him. Then, these flaws stick out like a sore thumb in front of an audience because they seem so out of place in an otherwise interesting high-concept movie. From time to time I find myself writing about certain movies that "in the hands of another director, this could have been an utter disaster". Movies like In Bruges and Children of Men are great examples. It would have been extremely easy to completely screw up either of these high concept scripts. Well....I think The Happening is what happens when one of these scripts ends up in the wrong hands.

Although the premise sounds silly, I can honestly imagine a scenario in which another director, with great care, pulls off a movie in which the plant life turns against humankind. But alas, M. Night efforts are derailed from the very start by the one and only Mark Wahlberg. I am hesitant to call his performance bad because it's almost so bad that I think he might have done it on purpose. No reasonable actor would act the way he does. It feels like he is doing a parody of Andy Samberg doing a parody of Mark Wahlberg, but sadly, I know this is not the case. You really have to see it to understand.

The Happening is fairly gory. And I cannot go without mentioning the film's most overt gory moment because it actually caused me to laugh aloud. Taking a step back, the basis of the story is that there is a toxin in the air that reverses humans' survival instinct, changing that signal that governs much of our behavior from "survive, survive, survive" to "die, die, die". So when people get hit with the toxin, they look for the most convenient method of killing themselves. So, if you were an on-duty zookeeper, how would you off yourself? Taunt lions! Of course! So this guy, conveniently recorded on someone's iPhone wanders into the lion den and starts to piss off one of the lions. The camera is obstructed for a moment, and when it returns to the action, there is am arm missing. But he is not satisfied. He extends his other arm towards a lion, who gets a hold of it and gives it a yank. Now, I don't mean to downplay the strength of a lion. I'm sure having an arm pulled on by one does not feel good. But if that were to occur, what would happen? Most likely, the owner of said arm would be pulled towards the lion or pulled to the ground and perhaps the arms is broken in the lion is feeling violent enough. At this point panic ensues and the arm, if not life, is likely lost as the lion has its way. But not in The Happening...oh no, in The Happening, when the arm is yanked, it pops right off as the rest of the guy remains still and looking unfazed. Let me say that again...The arm falls right off! As it if it isn't attached by tendons and nerves and muscles and bone. As if it were a chicken wing being pulled off a slow roasted chicken. Awesome!

Now we reach the fundamental problem with the concept. Horror movies are easy to make when the enemy our heroes are running from is a monster, or a man, or a mutant Anaconda, or an alien. But what about when the enemy is air? Do you have people run from the wind?! Apparently the answer is a resounding "yes!", M. Night does. As if there isn't enough unintentional comedy in that, the film's violent acts are constantly being foreshadowed by gusts of wind and shots of not-particularly-ominous looking trees. It's laughable.

There are many other problems with The Happening. But there are some good things too. M. Night has proved himself to be a master of atmosphere (which is why I loved Signs) and there are some very creepy scenes. My favorite involved a police officer hit by the toxin who shoots himself. The camera lingers on the ground, showing the dead cop and his gun lying nearby. Then we see feet walking to the gun, someone else picking it up and following suit. Then a third person. Super creepy and well shot.

But not everyone has it as easy as the cop. In fact some people go to significant lengths to off themselves. One person starts up a large lawnmower before lying down in front of it. What an evil toxin!

M. Night devotees might be disappointed to hear that there's no twist ending to The Happening. In fact, the ending is somewhat anticlimactic. After all, I'm not sure how to stage a climactic showdown against the wind. The epilogue is pointless and the final shot, which is supposed to be ominous had me giggling again. I'm guessing that the whole thing is some sort of statement about the dangers of destroying our environment, a sentiment that I very much agree with, but The Happening can't be taken seriously enough to get many people thinking.

I read that M. Night warned people that The Happening is supposed to be a "B-movie", explaining away the ridiculous premise. This indicates that M. Night did not take himself very seriously while making it. But you wouldn't know it by watching, because frankly, it's not that far removed from his other movies, which are not supposed to be taken as "B-movies". So how are the viewers supposed to know the difference between The Village and The Happening, one of which you are supposed to laugh at, and the other you aren't. Who knows? But I definitely felt like I was laughing AT The Happening, not with it.

As bad as it is, I recommend watching at least some of The Happening because it's very difficult to explain how bizarre it is. Watching is an enjoyable experience, but for all the wrong reasons.

Rolling rankings:

1. Good Will Hunting (#156)

2. In Bruges(#153)

3. The Hangover (#157)

4. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (#155)

5. Doubt (#160)

6. Burn After Reading (#152)

7. THe Happening (#161)

8. 21 (#154)

9. Fever Pitch (#158)

10. Fanboys (#159)

Movie 160: Doubt

Doubt (2008) by John Patrick Shanley

starring Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams

In a nutshell: The performances are better than the movie. Decently thought provoking though.

Quick synopsis: Sister Aloysius (Streep) is on a crusade to remove Father Flynn (Hoffman) from his role as pastor after she believes something inappropriate may have taken place between him and a male student in their middle school.

Content: It is very obvious that Doubt is based on a play. It is very talky and takes place mostly in a few locations. Although, I have never seen nor heard much about the play, it seems to have been translated pretty well and cast perfectly. After all, Streep and Hoffman are both Oscar winners and deservingly so. Amy Adams is one of the better young-ish actresses out there, too. And I thought all three of them were on their A-game in Doubt. Streep completely transforms herself into a shrew of a nun, domineering and striking fear into everyone she comes into contact with. Hoffman made me want to believe his story, but gave me enough Doubt to keep me guessing. Adams acts as kind of a manifestation of the viewers take on the whole thing. She really wants to believe Flynn and asks the questions that we want her to ask.

All three actors received Oscar nominations for their roles, along with a fourth, Viola Davis playing the child's mother. Although she only appears in one scene, she goes head-to-head with Meryl Streep and unbelievably puts on a virtuoso performance that reduces Meryl Streep to background noise, merely there to give throw-in reactions necessary to keep Davis plowing through the scene. I had heard about this ahead of time, but I was still blown away. Plus, there are plenty of actresses who can cry on demand, but how many do you know that can make snot run uncontrollably from their nose like she does? Not many :)

I don't want to get into a deep philosophical arguments that this movie explores (centered around doubt, of course) but there is significant fodder for discussions. Sister Aloysius manages to prove to herself that something improper has occured, but is that enough to act on? And without proof, can we ever be sure of something simply based on our gut? Plus, in getting Flynn to give what she considers a confession, she veered outside the moral standards by which she must live and justifies it as necessary to conquer evil. But if there is any crack in her conviction, it compromises her methods, because she essentially gave Father Flynn no choice but to leave (or be publicly shamed, guilty or not). And when the tiniest bit of doubt creeps in at the end, her entire facade breaks down and she begins to crumble under the weight of her doubt in either Flynn's guilt or in her faith (which may be one in the same in this case).

Whew, what a mouthful. I'm glad I don't have to write a paper on this one.

First time director Shanley (the original playwright) does an admirable job, although it's not perfectly polished and in some places it seems as though he is trying too hard with all of those fancy angled shots. He makes it very fun to watch each of the characters go at each other. There is an especially impressive confrontation between Aloysius and Flynn near the end. But in the end, not all that much happens other than a lot of arguing. In fact, the major event that most of the story is based on might not have even happened. But nevertheless Doubt is an interesting one-time watch as long as you don't expect an eventful story. Instead, expect one strange occurrence to kick things off, then lots of engaging discussion about whether or not it happened.

Rolling rankings:

1. Good Will Hunting (#156)

2. In Bruges(#153)

3. The Hangover (#157)

4. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (#155)

5. Doubt (#160)

6. Burn After Reading (#152)

7. The Da Vinci Code (#151)

8. 21 (#154)

9. Fever Pitch (#158)

10. Fanboys (#159)

Catching Up

It's been a while since I watched and reviewed the disappointing Fanboys, but I haven't found the time to watch any movies since, so let's catch up on a few other odds and ends I've been meaning to write about...

Although I haven't "officially" watched any movies for the blog, I did catch the last hour or so an ESPN documentary called The Lost Son of Havana. It's about baseball legend Luis Tiant, one of the last significant players to leave Cuba legally to play baseball in this country. He spent some of his best years with the Red Sox in the 70's, and although I was not yet around to watch, I have been made well aware of his importance by my more experienced bretheren.

The documentary was fantastic. It tells his complete story, but focuses on his return to Cuba after an unplanned 40 year exile caused by chilly relations between Castro and the U.S. I was near tears several times as he was reunited with old friends and teammates after decades apart and discussed with them the plight of Cubans. It was both touching and eye opening.

I always knew Tiant as the colorful guy with the cigars who hung around the team once in a while, but The Lost Son of Havana clued me in to the fact that there is much more to this man, and these additional insights go a long way towards explaining his success on the mound despite pitching without the hardest fastball or the sharpest curve. He simply didn't know how to quit and enever gave in. I can't wait to catch the documentary (part of ESPN's 30 in 30 series) in its entirety at some time in the future. Highly recommended, especially for baseball fans.

When Genius Failed is the story of Long-Term Capital Management, the giant hedge that infamously imploded in the late 90's. Sounds dry, expecially to those who do not care about finance, but I was very engaged by the story and the lead characters. Lowenstein paints a very clear picture of the major players before recounting their actions, which makes all the difference in the world as far as pulling his readers in. I still wouldn't recommend it to anyone who doesn't know or care what fixed income arbitrage is, I think that anyone who aspires to find a career in the hedge fund industry should read this book. It will help maintain your humility, even in the face of unbridled success. The LTCM guys, by many accounts, most likely including their own, were too smart to screw up. Many of them are MIT PhD's and Harvard professors. But, in the end, even a handful of the smartest guys and best investors in the world managed to lose the vast majority of their net worth in a very short timeframe.

In case you are unfamiliar, the man in that photo above is Malcolm Gladwell, author of national bestsellers Blink, The Tipping Point and Outliers. I have read Blink and The Tipping Point this summer. Both books frustrated me a little bit while reading them. Gladwell returns over and over again to the same examples that back up his thesis as he adds new examples to build his case. It feels a little repetitive. But for those of us who read like I do, in fits and starts, it actually works. To be perfectly honest with myself, I needed to be reminded of each new anecdote's connection to those that came before.

Gladwell also loves pointing out the obvious. While reading, I often feel like saying "no sh*t, Malcom". But his messages stick with you afterwards. He manages to put our subconsious thoughts and instincts into words. And when thinking about his books in retrospect, I realized that he actually got me to think about my surroundings differently, despite my skepticism when reading. If I were trying to spread an idea, I would absolutely use the philiosophy of The Tipping Point to do so. I might have done the same thing had I not read the book, but I wouldn't have been able to have explained as eloquently why.

So, why read a 200 page book (which are very easy reads, by the way) when you can sum up his theses in one sentence? Because by giving so many thought-provoking examples, and by repeating the main ideas over and over again, it actually SINKS IN. In fact, reading The Tipping Point probably had a greater effect on me than any number of marketing lectures would have. Outliers is currently at the top of my reading pile, and I expect much of the same feelings after reading it.

If you have never read a Gladwell book but are interested, I recommend starting with The Tipping Point.

House of Cards by William Cohan is the "inside story" of the demise of Bear Stearns, the venerable investment bank that was the first domino to fall in the credit crisis of 2008. The story is divided into two parts, and the order in which they are presented is curious. The first section of the book is a detailed account of the 10 fateful days in early 2008 that it took for Bear to go from a fully functional, money-minting investment bank to insolvent. This is followed by a history of the firm, from it's earliest days through the departure of its notorious leader, Jimmy Cayne, just months before the end.

I almost didn't make it through the first part. On more than one occasion I put the book down and had to basically force myself to pick it up again. This section was confusing as hell. Too many names were being thrown around and I didn't have a sense of who any of them are. Sections were poorly written. There were sentences I had to read two or three times in order to divine their point. And worst of all, there were two blatant mistakes I discovered within the first 20 pages or so. I understand that when we are dealing with current events, books are rushed into print in order to capitalize on newspaper headlines, but these mistakes are some seriously weak sauce.

Then something strange happened when the book takes a deep breath and jumps back in time 80-odd years: It gets good! Cohan starts building up the personalities of the larger-than-life characters in Bear's long history. And it's so much more interesting to hear about these people's actions when I have some insight into what type of person they are and what roads they travelled to get to their current position.

Once I read through the fascinating history of the firm, I felt like I needed to read the first section of the book again. Now that I knew who Jimmy Cayne, Ace Greenberg and Alan Schwartz were, their actions during the crisis would have held much more meaning. But I just couldn't bring myself to endure the first part again. I didn't want to give Mr. Cohan the satisfaction.

I can understand the reasons for putting the end of the story first. There are certainly other well regarded works of literatureand film that have succeeded using that playbook. But it does not remotely work for House of Cards, unless the reader is a former Bear employee who knows who all these people were already. When Genius Failed, was constructed perfectly. It gave us a tiny taste of the endgame before whisking us back through time to the beginning of the story. Then when it re-reached the turning point it exposed us to in the intro, the unfolding scene made much more sense. I loved being given a glimpse of the dire circumstances in which the firm would end up because it altered my perspective when reading through the heyday of the firm. I wish House of Cards had been written this way.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

And now for something totally unrelated...One of the worst people on all of television has to be Nancy Grace. I can't take any more of her loaded questions and cutting-off of guests. And she acts like a crusader against all the world's injustices and ills, but I think she just loves the spotlight and/or yelling at people from a position of power. Otherwise she would not have written a novel (a vanity project if there ever was one) and would have spent that time investigating the cases that she loves shouting about so much. Or at least she could have written about something related to her work.

I cannot stand overly self-righteous people, and Ms. Grace is a paragon of self-righteousness. She loves oversimplifying things into black and white, rather than into the many shades of gray that are actually present. She loves to pick people apart without ever putting herself out there to be judged by those like herself. I hate this woman.

To me, she is like Joe Morgan, Tim McCarver, Scott Van Pelt and Glenn Beck: She must have a fanbase in order to stay on the air, but the identities of those that count themselves among her fanbase remain a mystery to me.