[Mr_Glass.1]

Man, some critics, actually most critics do just like to bash films.  Anything that doesn't have some political point or is a totally crappy movie the critics don't like.  Still, with the Academy Awards at least there is a comeback with good movies winning awards.  Just take a look at the numbers, even though some of the succesful movies really aren't that good, that isn't the case with most.  I think critics are desperate for attention, that 's why they bash everything.

[okokokok]

I feel like M Night has a very specific voice and it is just becoming more and more specific.  I know that with each movie it's like he is speaking directly to my aesthetic more and more.  But I think that the more specific and refined his voice becomes, the less interesting he is to critics/audiences who enjoyed his earlier and more broad perspective.  A lot of what critics have said about The Village(and Lady in the Water as well) I can understand and see what they are talking about, but it doesn't mean I feel the same way.  Here is an example:  A producer told me he didn't like The Village because he didn't think Ivy's father would let her go off into the woods by herself because she was blind, even though she took 2 guides with her.  There are so many reasons why it was completely within reason to have her do that on both a story level and a thematic level, yet this person just couldn't see that happening in real life.  Where he sees a weakness, I saw a strength.  I think the gesture of letting a blind person do something like that emphasized Ivy's strength as a person that will be a leader in the village and it show's her father's trust in her.  That is a pretty powerful idea I think, especially that the 2 people with sight were too afraid and turned back!  As well, it works on a story level perfectly because she can't see the "outside' world.  And this same producer's problem with Lady in the Water was that the character's had no motivation to do what they were doing.  Again, that is what I loved most about Lady in the Water.  I felt there was a sense of community and desire to believe in something and the willingness to comply with someone who they appreciate, and that moved me.  I think his voice is just becoming more specific.

Also Mr. Glass.1, there is definitely a political point in The Village, if only in the subtext.  The bad color?  It's like the Bush administration all over again. 

[Mr_Glass.1]

okokokok, I agree with everything you said, all the critics have to do is watch the movie, everything is explained in the stories, why the cahracters do what they do, what is happening, everything.  I agree with that.  What I don't get is, what do you mean by your last sentence, it was kind of confusing. 

[okokokok]

I was talking about the terror alert system we used to have.  Anytime the government wanted our attention, or to divert our attention even, all of a sudden there would be a terror alert, the worst kind of course being the "red" alert.  It was a way of controlling us, just as it is a way of controlling members of the village. 

[Mr_Glass.1]

You know, I hadn't thought about that.  I still think I disagree with you, but I think your point is well made.  I certainly can see where you got that.  Thanks for explaining, I was kind of confused. 

[okokokok]

Im curious about what you disagree with...the idea that the government used that system as a way to control people, or with that idea being in the films subtext?

[Dr Malcolm Crowe]

I would agree that there is a political subtext there. I'm not sure exactly how much of it is intentional, or how much of it is supposed to relate to the current government - but it's definitely there.

[abby_hess]

just because something is 'critically acclaimed' doesn't make it good with the flip side being if it ISN'T critically acclaimed that doesn't mean it's crap.

critics aren't known to be the best or even close to being all that good at judging what the PEOPLE like and in the end, that's really what matters.

different people like or love this movie for various reasons.  some because it's creepy.  some for the love story.  but one thing is for sure, it's not like the overrated fluff that is put out all too often by hollywood these days.  and that's something that is a constant with night's films.  they WILL be different.  they WILL have subtleties that make you think.  and personally, i hope they will ALWAYS have a twist in the end!! 

[Mr_Glass.1]

Well lifeordeath1, it depends on what you mean by controlling? If you could answer that I will answer, I'm just trying to make sure were not talking about two different things here.   

[Lifeordeath1]

Well lifeordeath1, it depends on what you mean by controlling? If you could answer that I will answer, I'm just trying to make sure were not talking about two different things here.   

Was this directed to me Mr. Glass?  I am confussed.  I think you were having a conversation with someone else.  If not what did you need me to respond to?   

[Dr Malcolm Crowe]

Yeah, I think his question is for okokokok.

[Mr_Glass.1]

Yea, it was directed at okokokok, I didn't want to get in an argument, when we weren't even arguing about the same thing.  Sorry about lifeordeath1, I accidently typed in the wrong name.   

[Lifeordeath1]

Its all good!      Just wanted to clarify things!

[Mr_Glass.1]

If you get the chance okokokok go ahead and reply otherwise, we should probably get back to the topic.

[Dr Malcolm Crowe]

My take is: in the story, the elders are using the creatures and fear as a method of controlling the village. Of course their intentions are good, but the lies are used as a method of protecting and controlling the citizens who live there.

The parallel I believe okokokok is drawing at, is that the government could be using terror and the terror level warning system as a method of protecting, but ultimately controlling it's citizens.

Of course I don't speak for okokokok.... so.... is that what you were trying to say?