Night and the Non-event

I am intimately familiar with the films of M. Night Shyamalan, and with the people who populate them. From “The Sixth Sense” to the sombre “Unbreakable”, the apocalyptic “Signs” and riveting “Village” (apologies for the adjective overload), he’d carved himself a niche as nouveau thriller director with a penchant for attractive mise-en-scene. His heroes are always multidimensional, dark and even despairing men who embark on spiritual journeys via the narratives. Even “Lady in the Water”, his much despised (not by me) fairy tale that almost brought an end to his career, if certain commentators can be believed, is far better than one would expect. (It features another strong performance by Paul Giamatti as well as a wonderfully innovative closing shot filmed in water.) Yet here we have “The Happening”, a film that fails as both a thriller and as a Shyamalan film.

I will assume that you have seen the film. I guess I could post a spoiler warning, but there’s nothing to spoil, really. “The Happening” is the non-event of the year, to cite Leon van Nierop. The film opens with some well rendered shots of dynamic cloud formations. Once the credits are done with (“Written, produced and directed by M. Night Shyamalan”) we see the first of the suicides as a young woman reading a book she’s not that interested in takes her hairpin and proceeds to stab herself through the neck. A policeman shoots himself in the head. Men fling themselves from the roof of a building. We meet Mark Wahlberg’s character, Elliot, who is as bland a protagonist as one can get, who has trouble with his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel, who has never been worse despite her icy blue eyed stares). They realise that something’s wrong; the television news informs them and us that some kind of airborne toxin has been used in a terrorist attack. So far, so so-so. This is the first act of the film.

The second act has the main characters flee from the threat (where to?) as they ponder why and how ‘the event’ could’ve occurred. A kooky character (Horace from “Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman”) is there to supply an answer: it’s the plants, you see, who are giving humans some of our own medicine. We destroy the planet, so they take violent steps against us. Their poison is in the grass, the trees, and the flowers and in those tasty smoothies served art Kuai. We see people running through grass. The film dispatches some of them in rather shocking ways (the most violent yet in a Shyamalan film). The third act has the survivors hole up with a batty old lady (Betty Buckely) who seems like she’s walked into the wrong movie, having gotten lost on her way to the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” audition. Cue more frowning (Wahlberg) and staring (Deschanel). The lady’s house has an outbuilding used as a slave house. There is a pipe that carries crystal clear sound between these buildings. The only reason this house has a slave house and that sound pipe is so that Shyamalan can set up a supposedly dramatic reunion of sorts between key characters. These scenes are similar to other Shyamalan movies where the sense of climax is so strong it practically has you by the throat.

Then the movie ends. Nothing happens to, with or between the characters and there’s a fade to black. Fade-in: the characters again, now one big happy family. We’ve been warned, intones a scientist on a nearby TV; we’d better take care of our planet or who knows what it could do to us next? I envision trees grabbing pedestrians a la “Evil Dead”, Whomping Willows bashing men senseless and sharp blades of grass cutting joggers’ feet. Then, just as we think humanity’s safe, the film cuts to Paris, where the next ‘event’ is about to being. End of film at a quite brisk 90 minutes.

“The Happening” has some solid death scenes, but doesn’t this simply make it Shyamalan’s “Final Destination 4: Planet Terror”? I kept waiting to see, perversely, how characters would be killed off. There’s tension at the beginning, but shot after shot of ominous leave-rustling and dangerous-looking grass-swaying accomplish little in the end, where things culminate in a whimper instead of a bang. A key element missing here is the emotional punch of the previous films related to the hero’s psychological maturation throughout the film. In Shyamalan’s earlier films, the plot comes together at the moment that the hero actualises his psychological ‘whole’. (This is not necessarily dependent on a ‘twist’, as “Lady in the Water” proved.) In “The Happening”, Wahlberg barely registers as a character, let alone a hero. Such an underwritten protagonist cannot be expected to anchor the film, even though Walhberg tries his best. In a supporting role, John Leguizamo is effective as a colleague of Elliot’s, but he doesn’t last long.
A few well crafted scenes and shots do not make a good film, particularly not if the screenplay isn’t effective at sustaining tension or if it contains hammy, forced dialogue or if it contains no surprises whatsoever. This is the first misfire from Shyamalan. It is said that all great directors make at least one really bad movie in their careers, and in that sense, there’s hope for the writer-director yet.