Film Review: Signs (2002)

(source: tmdb.org)

Just like Brian De Palma used to be called “new Hitchcock” in 1970s, the same privilege was at the start of 21st Century given to M. Night Shyamalan, author thrillers often considered worthy of Master of Suspense. But to call Shyamalan “new Hitchcock” is oversimplifying things. He has built reputation not only as gifted, but also an original artist with very personal and recognisable style. His films often looked like a breath of fresh air in increasingly stale Hollywood which still had to find new formula for summer blockbusters. This might explain why his 2002 film Signs received such positive response from critics and general audience.

The plot is set on a Pennsylvania farm where former Episcopal priest Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) lives with his two young children - son Morgan (played by Rory Culkin) and daughter Bo (Abigal Bresslin) - and younger brother Merrill (played by Joaquin Phoenix), a failed baseball player who makes a living working at a gas station. One day the Hess will be greeted by a mysterious and terrifying sight in the cornfield - someone has created perfect circles and other signs that can only be seen from the air, a feat that, supposedly, can be created through alien technology. Hess, however, is sceptical and believes that this is a prank by local vandals. Things get much more serious when the farm becomes the target of mysterious night visitors, and soon after the world's television netwroks begin to report that crop circles and unexplained lights appear in the sky around the world. And as the world succumbs to mass hysteria and everyone expects an imminent alien invasion, the Hess will have to not only prepare for difficult times but also face their own past.

Shyamalan indeed makes his film look different, and this could be observed in Signs, despite 60 million US$ budget, giving impression that it could have been produced by film student at obscure Eastern European university. The plot takes place almost entirely on an extremely prosaic rural estate, the number of characters is reduced to the ultimate minimum, and Shyamalan, instead of bombarding our senses with MTV-style fireworks of fast shots, deliberately slows down the rhythm with long shots, allowing viewers to notice the seemingly meaningless details. These small details play an important role in the film, causing the viewer to feel uneasy and fearful, especially when those details are shown out of an unusual frame that gives them new meaning. Shyamalan used this technique skillfully in The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, and here it is particularly successful, because the film's deliberate genre indeterminacy also causes the audience discomfort. Until the very last moment, it is not clear to viewers whether Signs is conventional science fiction, conventional horror or simply a prosaic psychological drama. The answer that comes at the end is not in the form of surprise twist that was feature of Shyamalan’s two previous films, and this is the reason why Signs ultimately gives impression of a coherent whole.

Although Shyamalan is an original filmmaker, this film, more than the others, shows the influence of his colleagues. The ending of the film suggests a some sort of homage to the Spanish director Alejandro Amenabar, whose The Others "borrowed" material from the The Sixth Sense. But much better traces of Hitchcock can be observed, both in the plot elements reminiscent of The Birds, and in the music of the brilliant James Newton Howard building on Psycho. Shyamalan (who himself appears in front of the camera in a slightly larger than usual role) also used the services of his old associate, cinematographer Taka Fujimoto. Unfortunately, this time the Bruce Willis did not appear on the screen. The role, originally intended for Paul Newman, went to Mel Gibson, who, despite roles of family figure being well suited for him, could not resist the temptation to exaggerate a bit in the final scenes. Fortunately, the brilliant Joaquin Phoenix is much more convincing as his younger brother, and, as usual, the child-actors did an excellent job under Shaymalan's watch, and the same can be said for those who found themselves in supporting roles, very well contributing to realistic portrayal of small town atmosphere in unusual times. While those who once again expected some “clever” plot twist will ultimately remain disappointed with the ending, Signs should nonetheless be praised as one of the few triumphs of true Art over the industrial impersonality of modern Hollywood.

RATING: 7/10 (+++)