Question on "The Village" (spoilers)

[Wilt Dasney]

OK, one last warning....if you haven't seen the movie and don't want anything ruined, stop reading now.














OK, so here's my BIIIIIG question: Why in the HAIL didn't these people keep some basic medical supplies in their village in case somebody got injured? I understand that they wanted to stay isolated from the modern world, but did they really think a few Band-Aids and some rubbing alcohol would open Pandora's box and lead their youth down the slippery slope toward Eminem CD's and gold jewelry? Ivy got this stuff from a ranger's outpost, so we know she wasn't exactly traveling for the most advanced offerings of modern medical science.

I thought the movie was beautifully shot and paced very well, but come on....couldn't M. Night come up with some better reason for Ivy to leave the village? That little detail just bugged me so much that I think I have to drop my final evaluation of the movie by like, 20 points.

Thoughts? Did I miss something?

 

[MKCP 1985]

SPOILER CONTINUES










Antibiotics have expiration dates maybe? I am no medical doctor, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and I don't believe ranger outposts would have the type antibiotics necessary to eradicate a subcutaneous tissue infection (and likely abscess). There are some nasty bugs inside the digestive tract and if that knife spilled intestines, a little whatever was in the refrigerator at Ranger Smith's station wasn't likely to fix it.

File that one away with the westerns of yore where the good guys' six shooters never ran out of bullets.

But the monster - wasn't that the big bad wolf after he had devoured Red Riding Hood's grandmother and assumed her identity? Creeeepy!

 

[dxwwf3]

Thank you for using spoiler tags.

 

[stranger]

Don't read if you don't want to know anything about the movie...










Maybe the elders wanted it to be authentically 19th century...meaning no Antibiotics because they were discovered in the 20th century. :veryconfu

 

[WDWFREAK53]

Anybody else catch M.Night's cameo? (He's the ranger reading the paper...you only see his face in the reflection of the refridgerator door)

Although I thought this movie was as lame as they come...I thought the acting was phenomenal.

(BTW...Brody's "psycho" acting would be perfect for the next "Joker". I thought it was up there with Hannibal)

Now, back to the question at hand. I can understand why they wouldn't have the "medication" because they wouldn't be able to explain how they GOT the medication or made the medication...ALTHOUGH...they could've just brought some TO the village from the towns when they settled...but then...like said previously, the "expiration" comes into question.

I would like to know what they are keeping those torches and lanterns lit with.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Maybe the elders wanted it to be authentically 19th century...meaning no Antibiotics because they were discovered in the 20th century. :veryconfu

OK, I thought about this, too, and can't make it fit. They're in charge of everything their young people "learn," so the only way the kids would know that basic medicine is out of place in their village is if the adults tell them it is. Otherwise, they wouldn't give it a second thought.

If the kids are learning history, then I can see the adults fudging on some of the details and saying that antibiotics were invented in the 1800's. After all, they were willing to lie about the creatures in the woods to keep them from leaving...how unethical would it be, then, to keep some basic meds around and say they're modern items to keep them from having to travel into "the towns"?

(And you're still cute as a button, even if I don't agree with your proposal.)

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Anybody else catch M.Night's cameo? (He's the ranger reading the paper...you only see his face in the reflection of the refridgerator door)

Caught that.

Although I thought this movie was as lame as they come...I thought the acting was phenomenal.

I agree..the cast and production crew took a premise that was somewhere between "so-so" and just crappy, IMO, and did a terrific job. The great leadup to "the big twist" is the only thing that salvaged the film, for me. After all, if you enjoy the first hour and a half of a movie (like I did here) and then get let down by the last 10 minutes, can you really say it was horrible? I just can't, even though I thought the end was lame-o-rama.

 

[AliciaLuvzDizne]

thanks for the spoiler tags guys... i read it anyways and actually i read this scenario on a message board about the movie weeks ago... i wonder how it got leaked. im still going to see it though

 

[stranger]

(And you're still cute as a button, even if I don't agree with your proposal.)

:kiss:

But you have thought about it, too :lol: .

OK, I thought about this, too

:lol:

Anybody else catch M.Night's cameo? (He's the ranger reading the paper...you only see his face in the reflection of the refridgerator door)

Very Hitchcock-like, isn't he? :lookaroun

 

[lebernadin]

Now, back to the question at hand. I can understand why they wouldn't have the "medication" because they wouldn't be able to explain how they GOT the medication or made the medication...ALTHOUGH...they could've just brought some TO the village from the towns when they settled...but then...like said previously, the "expiration" comes into question.

This is a common explanation, however it doesn't hold up since only someone looking into this village from our, the viewers, perspective would make sense of this.

For most of the Village, this life is all they've ever known. So they would have no conception of such medicines having not been invented for years and years. The elders control the way of life in the Village. They have the entire Village under the impression that its 1897 and that the elders had left "the towns" a few decades back. Therefore the elders could have introduced anything into the Village that they wanted to, as no one in the Village would have the knowledge to contradict its existence in 1897.

But Night didn't put together this film for people to micro-analyze everything down to this level. If you accept the story and its lessons for what it is, and not question the plot vehicles by which they arrived at them then maybe it will have more appeal.

I would like to know what they are keeping those torches and lanterns lit with.

In 1897? Oh, did you see the caveman version of the film?

 

[imagineer99]

I agree with Lebernadin--It's hard to look at an M. Night Shayamalan movie in a literal sense.

After all, would Aliens that can be killed by water, really invade a planet that is mostly comprised of it?

The ending was...umm...disappointing (for lack of a better word), but it did its job in conveying the story's message.

On the positive side, the scene where Lucius is stabbed by Noah is one of the best filmed scenes I have ever seen. The whole theater let out a collective gasp. Shyamalan KNOWS how to put together a well shot film.

I'll be very interested to see what he does with "The Life of Pi".

 

[Wilt Dasney]

OK, so with the "Signs" reference thrown in, I suppose I can concede that M. Night is more interested in telling parables or morality tales than he is in constructing literal worlds. But if this is the case, then why does he insist on including the big "gotcha" near the end of every movie? If he really isn't all that concerned with the plot holding together and just wants the message to come through, then why does he want the audience to go "gasp" (or "I saw that coming") at the end of every movie? Is it just for the shock value, or maybe because that's where he typically includes his moral "clincher"?

I agree that the stabbing scene was very well done. Seeing it on screen, it took my mind a few seconds to catch up with my eyes and accept what had just happened. From a visceral standpoint, his films certainly hit the mark. I just would have a lot more respect for him if he didn't seem to be such a lazy writer at times.

 

[nicholas]

I assume another reason this village didn't have medications (and just lie to the children of the village and teach them that medications had existed already up to that point) is because the viewing audience would immediately notice it and a everyone would have figured out the whole "big twist" immediately.

 

[imagineer99]

I have tremmendous faith in Shyamalan as a director.

However, I must concede, that as a writer (while talented) the man sometimes "looses it." It's gotten to the point, where it seems as if he's writing his stories, with the ending FIRST.

This is never a good sign. The Sixth Sense succeeded on the fact that the film could have existed (and would have still been good) with out the twist ending. The Village on the otherhand is clearly dependent on what Shyamlan is building up to. In the end, so much pressure is built up, that it is almost impossible to relieve it withoug some disappointment.

I would REALLY like to sit down and have a chat with him...

 

[lebernadin]

I assume another reason this village didn't have medications (and just lie to the children of the village and teach them that medications had existed already up to that point) is because the viewing audience would immediately notice it and a everyone would have figured out the whole "big twist" immediately.

Yes. For someone to question whether or not they would have medicine, is to make the right assumption that such medicines weren't introduced in the plot up until the point that they were. To have acknowledged that such medicines existed in the Village at any point earlier than they acknowledge that they did not, would be to reveal the present day context altogether to those in the theatre with the knowledge that such medicines may not be available. But then again, Night doesn't place an emphasis on the details of the medicines, he doesn't write into the script penicillin etc he doesn't write in that the guard, Kevin, would speak of exact medicines etc when he got to the guard post where Night is playing the supervisor. Instead, he uses the written paper from Hurt's character, given to his blind daughter, which further facilitates that the audience shouldn't be worrying about what medicines are listed, since a blind girl can't be faulted for not revealing them in dialogue as she walks through the woods to the perimeter and then talks with Kevin by chance.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Still....how hard would it have been for such a skillful director to just not let us see any medicine, while still having it there? It's not like we have to see every item in every house. He could have easily avoided putting it on screen until the "right" moment, while still having had it there all along.

(I know, I'm impossible to please here. This detail just bugged me massively, and all of these explanations sound like cop outs in favor of MNS to me.)

 

[MagicalMonorail]

I have another question to add to this thread. I read in a local newspaper review that Ivy was psychic. I had no indication that she was psychic in the movie. Did anyone else think so?

 

[WDWFREAK53]

In 1897? Oh, did you see the caveman version of the film?

No...lanterns burn oil...where was this oil coming from?

 

[lebernadin]

Still....how hard would it have been for such a skillful director to just not let us see any medicine, while still having it there? It's not like we have to see every item in every house. He could have easily avoided putting it on screen until the "right" moment, while still having had it there all along.

(I know, I'm impossible to please here. This detail just bugged me massively, and all of these explanations sound like cop outs in favor of MNS to me.)

Well these explanation are based in logic. I'm not a Night fan as i've already said, i've only seen Unbreakable before the Village, and that's because it was on HBO late night as i was trying to get my kid back to sleep. So it sounds like anything anyone says in response to your questions won't satisfy you.

But i find it hilarious that you're criticizing an actual director with this nonsense.

How can something be somewhere, and you're cognizant of it, even though you've never seen it. Having to get the medicine from the outside world is at the middle of the entire plot. To have it in the Village would mean there was absolutely no point to the film at all. Is that not obvious? They would go on living in the Village while Lucious recovered from his knife wounds and it also would have wiped out the necessity of Hurt's character revealing the costume to his daughter. It would have changed the film completely.

This is the problem when people try to be too philosophical in their criticism. There isn't a fictional film made that couldn't have been made differently.

 

[lebernadin]

No...lanterns burn oil...where was this oil coming from?

I would assume from the Props Department.

Where did they get the cotton/wool to make all the clothes?
Where did they get all their food from, they didn't show us enough meat/vegetables to feed the entire Village.
Why were there some older people who were "in on it" and other that weren't?
Why did the film start when it did and end when it did?
Why 1897?
Where can't we build a death star?
Why is Kermit the frog green when certainly not all frogs are green?
Why did Donnie Darko make those choices?

There IS such a thing as over-analysis.