Shyamalan (or something)

[emjen]

Shyamalan, the director who got fame with The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable and now Signs. I like his work.

I've seen Signs yesterday. It doesn't really happen a lot when i can recognise a directors work in different movies, but I did yesterday. I think it's well directed, moody camera positions chosen. He makes walking through the house a scary thing.

I thought Signs was a good movie, exciting from the start.

[Gurdeep Samra]

It should be pointed out that the guy is Indian....like me! [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

[Esparto]

i like his style, and he's got one heck of unique style. he deffinatly manages to emphersise mood and emotions.

the only bad thing i can say is that all three films seem very very similar.

[cash]

has any one seen Wide Awake (1998) and Praying with Anger (1992) that he wrote and directed

[BlackArtsProductions]

i just watched Road to Perdition and found the style of sam mendes and shyamalan to be quite similar. hmmm

[Red House Painter]

I find his films, contrived, run of the mill rubbish.

I'm so excited that he's made a film about crop circles and aliens. Who ever wrote the script really must have been visited by god himself to come up with something so worth seeing.

[Yammeryammeryammer]

Shyamalan produces the least "contrived, run of the mill rubbish" versus virtually all Hollywood directors his age. He is only 32 and he manipulates the audience with more skill than many directors twice his age. You want to talk contrived? How about Rush Hour 2? Stealing Harvard? *** ? Any of the formulaic horseshit that is pumped through the public film intake. If you actually went to see 'Signs' you'd know it wasn't about crop circles, that was simply a limited venue used, skillfully to portray a higher message that virtually ALL films people pay $13 a piece to see lack. Signs isn't about crop circles, just like Taxi Driver wasn't about public transit, and Shyamalan is one of the few young directors breaking relatively new ground.

[Gurdeep Samra]

Yammeryammeryammer, I could not have put it better myself. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

[SoulJacker]

His dialogue is contrived as **** . The one thing I don?t like about Shammy's films is no one I know speaks like his characters?Imo, that's a flaw in his well-made movies.

[GREATwarEAGLE]

I'm not necessarily defending the dialogue of SIGNS, but the craft of dialogue in general.

Nobody I know speaks like anyone in any movie. Characters in films aren't meant to speak like we do in real life. We ramble, sometimes talking about sh*t that's way off topic and ultimately pointless. We "shoot the sh*t".

Even David Mamet's dialogue, though full of nuance, is still unrealistic.

Unless the "sh*t we shoot" reveals character or advances the plot, it's superfluous. It's unnecessary. Maybe occasionally a few pieces of brief dialogue that is "slice of life", just to add a little special something is nice. But if it's in every scene, it's a waste of time. The trick is to disguise the dialogue as if it is casual, matter of fact, nonchalant - when it is actually indeed necessary. On the surface it may seem trivial, but the subtext reveals it's purpose.

We don't follow a character as he wakes up, showers, eats breakfast, gets dressed, goes to work, etc. We only see the moments necessary in telling the story, of course. Same with dialogue. It's condensed.