Silver wrote:Yes, instead of actually responding to an argument, it's much easier to copy and paste the same nonsense. I understand.
What I could respond to an "argument" like this? You're repeating the same mantra all over again for The Sixth Sense (that the overall picture is less than the sum of its components, whatever that means) and for LITW you already admitted directly that you actually have not seen the Freudian connection here (so, it's a bit late for "I understood the meager intellectualism").
Sigh. You are decent at making points yourself, but whenever anyone responds, you either switch the topic to something marginally different, or ignore it altogether.
In The Sixth Sense, there are some decent/good scenes
by themselves, but they often contradict one another, and don't build up to anything greater and more significant over the course of the film. The "Stuttering Stanley" part is just one of the more memorable examples. Fine by itself, but it contradicts what we already knew of Cole's character, and doesn't set us up for anything significant later on.
As for "Lady in the Water", for the last time; glancing through the torturous long manuscript you linked to (instead of making an argument by yourself), there were metaphors that were glaringly obvious, and others that I considered a tenuous, huge stretch. (Like the Freud)
If you want to defend that review, why not specifically address metaphors you felt added to the picture?
Silver wrote:Thanks for proving my point. The teacher does nothing wrong or out of the ordinary in that scene.
Are you blind?
Stanley is looking at Cole in a weird patronizing way like he is a bit crazy now, but this eventually will pass when he grows up.
A "weird patronizing way"? So what? Cole, being an outcast, should be used to these kinds of stares from
virtually every adult he encounters, his mother included. Why, out of all the instances where he is subjected to this gaze, does he lash out then and there? It still makes no sense.
Silver wrote: We all know Stanley is the brainwashed dumb-ass here.
Really? How do you get such a childish interpretation out of that scene? What makes him a "brainwashed dumb-ass"? That he isn't aware of a piece of history Cole only knows from being able to communicate with the dead?
In that case, anyone who has
ever studied history is a "brainwashed dumb-ass", since there are always events recorded very differently from what actually occurred.
Silver wrote:And when Cole is telling him that he doesn't like people to look at him this way, the asshole is falling in a typical child-state by responding - "Like what?". Then Cole is shouting "Stop it!" and what he gets? - "I don't know how else to look". Ha. Ha.
You're going completely overboard here. It could well be that Stanley is unaware of how he is staring at Cole, and more importantly,
means nothing bad by it. Compare that to all the times in Cole's life that he is tormented by people being willfully and purposefully malicious. This makes his outburst at a naive but well-meaning teacher all the more difficult to swallow.
Stanley deserves every bit of provocation from a kid which is much smarter than him. And that's the beauty of it - you said it perfectly: he "skillfully and articulately (notice his smooth language) brings up his past, latches on to a sore spot, and exploits it like a pro".
Except that a taciturn child loner simply doesn't fucking talk like that, and that it completely contradicts what we know of his character.
I think the problem might be that you simply don't care about plot holes and contradictions when you watch films. Cheap thrills and solid camera work is all you need. That's a fine perspective to have, but it also doesn't make Shyamalan a misunderstood genius, which is what you're arguing.
The funny part in all this is you have not a clue how the main character develops towards the end, and yet you continue to search for contradictions in his development. Usually the Shyamalan haters I deal with are a bit more... educated.
Writes the idiot whose interpretation of characters is "brain-washed dumbass. Deserves what he gets, ha ha ha."
And of course, seeing it again highlighted another silly element which I had completely forgotten about; once Cole begins taunting him, the teacher immediately starts stuttering like a drunkard stricken with cerebral palsy.
You're exaggerating, of course. In reality this happens. Of course, here you watch a movie, not a documentary, so a bit of idealization is allowed.
A bit of idealization? To quote you, "ha ha ha".
Oh, shut up. Ironically, your savior has made many films every bit as crappy as Transformes, and not just TLA.
Many? How so? You've watched TLA? Or any other movie by Shyamalan, except for half The Sixth Sense and LITW? Btw, if you've watched Transformers, you forgot to rate it.
Lady in the Water at least, and by
your own admission, The Last Avatar. I will let others decide if "The Happening" deserves to be included in that list. (Or "The Village" and "Signs")
I've watched parts of Transformers, but it was too boring/stupid to hold my attention for long. I can't rate it, since the score could be anywhere from 5-30 out of 100. So yes, one of the two Shyamalan films I have seen, The Sixth Sense, is better than one of Michael Bay's travesties. That sure proves a lot.
So would you now define what is a right and wrong comment.
I guess they don't teach English as well in Bulgaria as they do in my native Russia, do they?
You said yourself;
Silver wrote:The director should be always true to himself, and NEVER to give a damn about what the audience may think.
I responded by saying, "that's not so, there are exceptions."
Your response was "but that's exactly what M Night Shyamalan did in Lady in the Water!!!"
Then I made a joke, asking if that's the reason it was so much worse. (Even fans of the guy will admit The Sixth Sense is better than Lady in the Water)
Now, you're once again changing the topic to some convoluted nonsense about "right or wrong comment". Hurray.