Tweet
-
2013: +8.24u(increased unit size on 5/19)
Favorites: 20-6 + 6.13u
Underdogs: 10-19 -2.51u
Ludo's Locks Parlay Project: +1.4u
2012: +20.311u -
^^^^ That's so wrong.......but Lol2015 MMA BETTING CHAMP
Comment
-
Went and saw The Visit. 7/10
Good but not great. Kind of slow to ramp up and really get going, but overall I enjoyed it.
Had some good moments of humor and moments of suspense.I heart cockComment
-
The fuck happened to Eire? That dude showed up, posted like a thousand times in a week, and then disappeared.I heart cockComment
-
So after our previous discussion about Signs I decided to give it another look. It had been quite a few years since I had last seen it. Maybe 10. Long enough at least that, while I remembered the general plot, I had forgotten a lot of the details and could never quite remember what comes next.
So what I'm going to do in this thread is give a brief review on this film after re-visiting it after so many years, and then dive into an examination of the well-known "demon" theory and see how this holds up after a fresh viewing.
Without further ado.
Mini-Review:
There's so much going on this movie. It's a sci-fi film about an alien invasion (or is it? wait, we'll get to that later), it's a film about one man who has lost his spiritual faith, it's a film about a brother who can't seem to get his life on track, it's a film about a family that is trying to hold itself together after a terrible tragedy. . .
There are several stories going on at once here--all separate but all intertwined--and all told with skilled craft. But the main thread that runs through the whole movie is that of faith. Do we live in a godless world or is there a reason to believe that something greater is out there? In fact, while Signs is often considered a movie about invading aliens, I'd argue that the aliens are ultimately just a plot device that allows us to explore what the movie is REALLY about -- faith and the bonds of a family in trying times.
Signs is every bit as good as I remember it being. The criticism about the water twist is legitimate, but in my view it's a small thing that is overpowered by the movie's many strengths. This is a film full of HEART that manages to simultaneously bring "the feels" while also creating an atmosphere of suspense and, occasionally, outright dread. This was M. Night at his best.I heart cockComment
-
The Demon Theory
For those who are not familiar with the demon theory, go ahead and read this first:
Last night while watching the movie I kept a notebook nearby and jotted down two columns of information: Detracting Evidence and Supporting Evidence. I hope these headings are self-explanatory.
The question here is: Can the aliens in the film be read as demons--either in addition to or instead of ETs, and did M. Night intentionally encode this double-meaning into the film? Ever since running into the demon fan theory I've been meaning to go back and watch the movie with the theory in mind, and now I've finally done it. I'll first present the evidence, as I see it, that is presented in the film and then give my personal conclusion.
To make this easier and so that no one will get confused by the names, here's the cast of characters we're dealing with:
Graham (Mel Gibson) - The Father
Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix) - The Uncle / Graham's Younger Brother
Morgan (Rory Culkin) - Graham's Son / The Little Brother
Bo (Abigail Breslin) - Graham's Daughter / The Little Sister
First I'd like to deal with the detracting evidence which goes against the theory and get that out of the way.
Detracting Evidence
1. The Baby Monitor - During a crucial scene in the movie, in which the family as a whole begins to realize that they are dealing with something not of the this world, they pick up signals on a baby monitor. Morgan realizes that these signals are the creatures talking (presumably over some kind of radio frequency, perhaps between ships). It's confirmed later that this is clearly a form of verbal communication, leading one to ask the question, What sort of demons have a verbal language? And how is it that their voices can be picked up on a baby monitor?
2. The Creatures Are Clearly Corporeal - When we think of demons, we don't think of flesh-and-blood beings with extensions in time and space; rather, we think of disembodied spirits with no physical bodies. But the creatures in Signs clearly are physical in nature, or at least have the ability to manifest physically. There are a number of things that point to this but the most important is this: In the scene at Ray Reddy's house when the creature is locked in the pantry, Graham chops off two of its fingers. Not only this, but at the end of the movie this same creature--missing its fingers--comes back, and not only comes back, but also uses a physical weapon on Morgan (the poison gas), implying a reliance on technology.
3. Navigation - Morgan, who is often the character providing us with key pieces of information throughout the movie (and reliably so, I think), tells us that the real purpose of the crop circles is for navigation. The creatures use them to know where they're supposed to be and how to get there. Why would demons need such navigational clues?
4. The Movie Tells Us It's Aliens - This point is pretty obvious. The movie comes right out and SAYS, "Hey guys, we're dealing with aliens here." So it is of course on the shoulders of the theorist to prove that there's more going on here than we are being told by the movie's creator and its characters.I heart cockComment
-
Supporting Evidence
1. The Creatures' Appearance - As the writer of the original demon theory post states, these guys don't appear to be space-farers but rather "clawed, naked beast creatures." We would expect legitimate aliens to be highly intelligent and masters of technology. If that's the case, why would they come down to a foreign planet wearing no protective gear? Are they just perfectly attuned to our atmosphere and climate? And do they have no knowledge of their weakness to water? Furthermore, demons have long been depicted as having claw-like hands with long-sharp nails.
2. "Alien craft" Not Detected by Radar - Okay, this piece of evidence is fairly weak, but it's something to consider. When the lights in the sky appear over Mexico City, the newscaster makes it a point to say that the activity was not detected by radar. Since these are supposedly highly advanced aliens it would make sense that they would have cloaking technology, there's something about the way the newscaster says it--I believe he says it twice in fact--that makes you wonder if there's something more significant about this statement. We never do see a craft, only lights. So is this a way of telling us that there is no actual physical craft at all and the whole thing is an act of deception?
3. The Creatures Aren't in the Alien Book - This is another fairly weak argument but one that I find interesting. Early in the movie Morgan goes to a bookstore and buys a book on extra-terrestrials and this is essentially the source that's used to learn all that we know about aliens. Some of the information sounds legitimate, but other information seems dubious (i.e. tin-foil hats keep the aliens from reading people's minds) so it's hard to know how much we can trust this book. But one thing to note is that there are a variety of depictions of aliens in the book. All of these pictures show a creature that appears much like the classic Grey. And none of these pictures looks anything like the creatures that are now invading earth.
4. The Water Theory "Sounds Made Up" - At one point Graham tells Merrill and the kids about Ray Reddy's water theory. Ray doesn't have any real reasoning beyond the fact that the creatures haven't been seen much near water, that's it. Morgan says the idea "sounds made up" and Merrill and Bo agree that it doesn't sound right. One thing to keep in mind here is that, as I mentioned earlier, from the beginning Morgan has been our conduit of information about the creatures. He was the one who first tuned into the signal on the baby monitor. He is the one who realizes that the crop circles are used for navigation. He is the one who provides what little information we have about the creatures' possible motivations. He is the Keeper of the Book. So when he reacts negatively--almost violently--to the water theory, it may be something we are supposed to listen to. I know you're saying, "But wait! It WAS water that defeated the aliens!" I know, I know. I'm getting to that.
5. Bo is Special - We'll have to take this one in parts.
* Early on it's revealed that when the creatures are nearby, animals tune into this and lose their minds. They go rabid. During this earliest incident Morgan has to kill the family dog. After he does it, Morgan says, "He tried to kill Bo." Not "He tried to kill ME," but "he tried to kill Bo." Why would the dog want to kill Bo? Is there something special about Bo? Was the dog somehow being influenced by the creatures to kill her because she is dangerous to them? The original theory post says that Bo is referred to both as "holy" and as "an angel." I didn't catch a reference to her holiness, but she is told that when she was born she was "LIKE an angel." Is she like an angel literally, in her nature? If the creatures are in fact demons (i.e. fallen angels) then it would make sense that they'd put extra effort into attacking her.
* Bo has a special relationship with water. Every glass of water she touches she decides there's something wrong with it and she wants a new glass, which leads to lots of glasses of water being left around the house. It is these glasses of water that are ultimately used to defeat the invading creature at the end. It's always BO'S WATER, not just any water. Is there something special about Bo's water? Is the original theorist correct that Bo--perhaps by her angelic nature--has infused each glass with her angelic nature, transforming it into HOLY WATER? Because if we pay attention, there's never another mention anywhere in the movie of water actually causing harm to any of the creatures. The viewer may assume that there is, because of the conversation with Ray Reddy earlier, but its effectiveness is never confirmed outside of the Hess household. Which leads me to my final point. . .
* Near the beginning of the film, as illustrated by my gif, Bo comes up to her dad and says, "There's a monster outside my room. Can I have a glass of water?" This is long before water is ever discussed as any sort of weapon, but thinking about it in hindsight it is VERY CLEAR that Bo is not asking for something to drink here, she's asking for something to protect herself. Bo somehow already KNOWS that water (or perhaps only her water?) is effective in warding off these entities, further proving that she has some sort of supernatural powers.
6. Three Cities in the Middle East - At the end of the movie there's a final TV broadcast where the newscaster says (and I might be paraphrasing this very slightly), "Three cities in the Middle East found a method to defeat them using a primitive method." Take careful note that it does not say WATER was used. It says three cities "in the Middle East" (the home of the Holy Land) found success using "a primitive method." Merely throwing small amounts of water on something has never been known as an effective method of attack, but the use of holy water is an ancient and primitive method that has traditionally been used in spiritual warfare. And the reaction that the creature has near the end when water is thrown on him is not unlike the reaction that demon-possessed people supposedly have when coming in contact with holy water.I heart cockComment
-
Conclusion
I think a strong case can be made for the demon theory. There is definitely some good evidence to suggest that M. Night had a few tricks up his sleeve with this script and there's a hidden narrative within the main story. The detracting evidence, however, is strong I think. While less voluminous than the supporting evidence, it nonetheless punches some pretty big logical holes into the demonic interpretation. (Although one could argue that demons are masters of deception.)
One thing that is definitely true is that the demon theory allows you to resolve certain narrative problems like, "Why would the demons come down without protective suits on?" and "Really? WATER?!"
Personally, I think that one's own openness to the theory will depend on how much weight you place on certain factors. If you just can't get over the detracting evidence, then that's understandable. On the other hand, if you find the supporting evidence to be strong enough that you clearly feel like Shyamalan is trying to say SOMETHING that's not obvious on the surface, then I can definitely understand that as well.
For me, I think the movie works (albeit imperfectly) as a film about an alien invasion. I also think it works (albeit imperfectly) as a movie about demonic forces at work. And I know that I'll never be able to watch it again without interpreting it on both levels, regardless of what the director intended. Though I will say this: If the theory is correct, and M. Night intentionally encoded this hidden story-within-a-story in the movie, knowing that only a few would ever see this hidden meaning, then he is a GENIUS and Signs stands as an even better movie that I previously gave it credit for.I heart cockComment
-
A lot of good movies coming out this week: Pawn Sacrifice , Black Mass, Everest, and Sicario. Will definitely hit up the theater this weekend. Probably gonna watch Everest or Black Mass2015 MMA BETTING CHAMP
Comment
-
The demon theory is an interesting fan theory, but it seems like just that: a fan theory. To me, it is nothing more than an attempt to explain away the parts of the movie that don't make sense and try to ascribe a deeper meaning to something that doesn't exist.
Two things:
1. I don't think M Night is that clever. He's a guy who writes a good, entertaining thriller and likes to shock people with a twist, but he's essentially a one-trick pony whose trick worked so well one time that it defined his career and he's been chasing it ever since. All of the 'evidence' for the demon theory reads like <insert your favorite conspiracy theory here>. That is, they are either red herrings, or attempts at over-explaining plot minutia.
Why is Bo special? Is she? Maybe she's just meant to be creepy and weird. This is M Night Shymalan after all. And both of the kids are pretty damn weird, to be honest. Why don't the alien craft show up on radar? Maybe because they're technologically advanced enough to invade another planet. Three cities from the Middle East? Ok, sure, but it's just a throw-away line reinforcing the theme of faith. Maybe this film was hamstrung in production and the story was changed or cuts were made. It is under 2 hours, after all. The point is none of this is very compelling, and I'm not going to make huge logical leaps and read into something that isn't there.
2. The overarching theme of faith you mentioned is fairly obvious, and not particularly disputable. If you did, however, somehow gloss over it while watching, your overall enjoyment of the film would not be adversely affected too considerably.
This is the complete opposite of the demon theory. Most great films with underlying meanings stand as good to great films on their own, even without comprehension of deeper implications. If the demon theory is to be believed, then M Night is living and dying by his "water twist", which is ultimately my main problem with this theory. If your intention is to craft a film that relies so intensely upon an esoteric metaphor that overlooking it relegates your film from 'genius' all the way down to recycle bin status, and your skill at conveying this metaphor is so inept or subtle that the vast majority of your viewing audience miss it, then I'm sorry, but you have failed.
But I don't think that's the case here. Occam's Razor. No hidden masterpiece, just an OK idea that was never fully fleshed out, some shaky writing, and probably some unfortunate edit cuts.Triple-six killers in this motherfucker runnin shitComment
-
Jesus H, did you write all those posts or get them from somewhere else? If you wrote them, you should be writing on your own movie website. Well done(if thats the case).Conclusion
I think a strong case can be made for the demon theory. There is definitely some good evidence to suggest that M. Night had a few tricks up his sleeve with this script and there's a hidden narrative within the main story. The detracting evidence, however, is strong I think. While less voluminous than the supporting evidence, it nonetheless punches some pretty big logical holes into the demonic interpretation. (Although one could argue that demons are masters of deception.)
One thing that is definitely true is that the demon theory allows you to resolve certain narrative problems like, "Why would the demons come down without protective suits on?" and "Really? WATER?!"
Personally, I think that one's own openness to the theory will depend on how much weight you place on certain factors. If you just can't get over the detracting evidence, then that's understandable. On the other hand, if you find the supporting evidence to be strong enough that you clearly feel like Shyamalan is trying to say SOMETHING that's not obvious on the surface, then I can definitely understand that as well.
For me, I think the movie works (albeit imperfectly) as a film about an alien invasion. I also think it works (albeit imperfectly) as a movie about demonic forces at work. And I know that I'll never be able to watch it again without interpreting it on both levels, regardless of what the director intended. Though I will say this: If the theory is correct, and M. Night intentionally encoded this hidden story-within-a-story in the movie, knowing that only a few would ever see this hidden meaning, then he is a GENIUS and Signs stands as an even better movie that I previously gave it credit for.
Anyway, I think you can make an arguement for demons or aliens, its according to your mindeset and what "you" see in the movie. I have to admit, I havent seen the movie in 10 years either. I think the biggest arguemebt for demons is the Bo and the water. Its almost like shes the holy one who was put there to protect everyone.
The fact they call them aliens, they come from the sky, and they are doing things to protect themselves from aliens gives the arguement they are acutally aliens and they are just putting faith in god to protect them
I would have to watch the movie again to give a better opinion, but don't think there "needs" to be a definte answer to what they are. The fact people talk about it still is good enough for the film makers, imo
good post
edmann2015 MMA BETTING CHAMP
Comment
Comment