M. Night Shyamalan is a director adept at the art of misdirection. He has a wonderful ability to achieve an atmosphere and tell a story in such a way as to lead the audience into believing what he wants them to believe, when the film isn’t really about that at all, but something else that has been there all along, but he had you concentrating so much on what he wanted you to look at, you didn’t think it was the point. The Sixth Sense isn’t about a boy who sees dead people, it’s about Bruce Willis. Unbreakable isn’t about Bruce Willis and his invulnerability, it’s about Sam Jackson. Similarly, Signs isn’t really about an alien invasion, it’s about something else.
In Signs, Mel Gibson is Graham Hess, a recently widowed farmer, who also used to be a reverend. He lives in Bucks County, PA, with his brother and two children, where their life is changed when they wake up to discover crop circles in their cornfields. Soon, most of the earth is covered in crop circles and these ominous omens point to something sinister. As always, the actors in a Shyamalan film, especially the child actors, bring fine performances to the screen, as the director tells his story in his own absorbing and unique manner. Shyamalan really knows how to tell a story visually, the sign of a director who knows exactly what he wants in his head and how to get that vision onto the screen. The dialogue is sparse in this film, allowing the actors to use their expressions and mannerisms to convey the tension and emotions as the plot unfolds. The story ratchets up the suspense throughout the film, scaring the audience one minute, allowing them some breathing space the next with some appropriate humour, before the next chill sends shivers down the spine. The adverts advise you not to see this alone; this is true, because seeing the film in a large, darkened room with other people increases the level of suspense (and allows one to witness the reactions of others, which is always good for a laugh.)
Signs is just a good a film as The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable (my personal favourite of the three), telling the story brilliantly, and thoroughly enjoyable at the same time. Personally, I found the end of the film ultimately unsatisfying, not because it isn’t one of his trademark big twists, rather I wasn’t convinced that the real story of Signs was as interesting as the director would hope. Your mileage may vary. The only real problem I have with the film is a small one; Shyamlan himself in the film. His cameos before in his films have been fine, but his scene in this film was overlong and a little unconvincing. I hope he doesn’t begin to suffer from Tarantino Syndrome and think he can act as well; like Tarantino, he should stick to writing and directing superb pieces of cinema.
Rating: VID
