Poetics of terror

Specialist in the creation of mystical thrillers, M. Knight Shyamalan presented the viewer his new film "Phenomenon". Lovers of such a movie well remembered his other works: “Sixth Self”, “Signs”, “Mysterious Forest”. Shyamalan - an ethnic Indian living in the USA since childhood, achieved good results in the Hollywood industry. The fees from his directorial projects almost always significantly exceed the funds invested in the production, which gives their creator additional confidence in the implementation of the next idea. "Phenomenon" is a film where Shyamalan is again experimenting with images. The grotesque plot not only reflects the fears of modernity, but also contains an atypical view of the surrounding reality. If we take into account that the director himself is the author of the script for all his paintings, then we can safely consider the content of his films as his own attitude to the processes taking place in the world.

The "phenomenon", which would be more appropriate from English as "case" ("Happening"), begins with an episode in the city park. Suddenly, people massively become scattered, after which they end the life of suicide in any assistant ways. It is suggested that some terrorists spray toxin, but later this version, due to the scale of suicide cases, is questioned. The school teacher of biology (Mark Walberg) determines that toxin is released by plants, but this does not give an answer to the causes of an unusual phenomenon, which remains unsolved.

From the creative biography of the director it is known that he experienced the strong influence of Hitchcock’s films when he was still in the film school at the New York University. Apparently, Shyamalan also carefully studied the criticism of the thriller of the English master. "Phenomenon" is a film created according to the pattern of the Hitchcokov "birds" taking into account their various interpretations. The Indian claims that the resulting film was shot in the spirit of the 50s (although, in fairness, it is worth noting that the "birds" came out in 1963). Also, arguing about the name of his new picture, Shyamalan says that in the process of writing the script, he changed him towards a more foggy, by analogy with the general name of the mentioned Hitchcock’s film. In the "Phenomenon" there is even a direct reference to the "birds" in the episode when a woman who has been acting toxin, as if trying to penetrate the locked house. She, like the seagulls from the Hitchcokovsky masterpiece, beats into the wall, and then breaks the head of the glass on the windows. The principle of "incredity of what is happening", on which the "birds" are based, says Shyamalan in an interview with his own work, is also the basis of the "phenomenon". Although it can be seen here that the Indian, who is staring the integrity of the initial scenario and having the right to final installation, did not dare to make the finale vaguely, following the example of the surgeon. In the 60s, after the end of the "birds" session, the audience remained to sit in bewilderment in the hall with the question "Is it all?" Unfortunately, today's Hollywood cannot afford such a luxury, although our contemporary made an attempt to get closer to achieving the same effect.

In the film studies, the phenomenon of the inexplicable behavior of birds in Hitchcock is traditionally given several explanations. There are three main versions: birds with their unnatural behavior symbolize the jealousy of a man’s mother to their potential daughter -in -law; Birds denote the rebellious nature; Birds fix the element of random, characteristic of some films of the Englishman. Shyamalan managed to accommodate all three interpretations into his new film, masterfully uniting them in the structure of the plot. The whole new film is watched by a couple who is not the best period of his relationship. At the very beginning of the film, the main character-teacher, preparing a colleague for a meeting with his friend, warns that "something is wrong with her ...". This "something is wrong" is involuntarily projected to the surrounding reality. All subsequent deployment of the plot can be considered as a gradual rapprochement of these two characters. It is at that moment when the normal relations of the biology teacher and his girlfriend are restored, the gas loses its deadly effect. A beautiful metaphor for their remoteness from each other is a fragment, where they find themselves in isolation in two closed rooms, between which you can talk. The desire of a man and a woman to each other, overcoming the fear of death, leads to the cessation of a natural fatal process. An important factor of rapprochement is the child whom the school colleague passes to the couple for the time for supervision. Later, the girl becomes pregnant, as if symbolizing the normalization of relations in a pair that is experiencing a crisis.

The version of the rebellion of nature against man, which gained more weight from the beginning of the 60s, was also used by Shyamalan in its plot fabric. But if Hitchcock openly ironized, openly giving the birds in the trailer of the picture (he was shot separately, without scenes from the film) attributes of power, for which he showed a pen on the medieval hat of the nobleman, then Shyamalan was serious. He speaks of the upcoming natural disasters, and even means an attempt to connect with them the reason for the attack of plants in the film itself. But this explanation takes place in the plot only as a version, with the accompanying comments that it is impossible to understand the causes of nature aggression.

The greatest impression of what they saw in the film leave numerous scenes of suicides of people. They crash into memory for a long time, being well thought out in their form. Since the largest cultivated fear of death in the modern world is a fear of becoming a victim of terror, Shyamalan tries to use this promoted media resource as much as possible. One of the first dead from toxin are workers at the construction of a high -rise building. They together break down from the roof down, stepping into the air. This scene immediately sets up the viewer to draw analogies from 09/11, when people were also thrown off the twin towers. Later, a television announcer is building an assumption of a terrorist attack in a city park. In this vein, the tactics of choosing toxin of their victims are interesting - first, the objects of the attack are large cities, then small, and after the village. Plant attacks are subject to groups of people, preferably large in numbers, as well as terrorists choose goals according to similar signs. Although it later shows that terror does not spare anyone. The hermit, who does not want to hear about what is happening in the world, also accepts death, although it "does not grow." Terror as a form (self) of the destruction of mankind, plot is associated with the crisis of personal relations of the main characters. It seems to grow out of the lack of love. The strongest scene in the "Phenomenon" is people who shoot in turn with one gun. Is this not a metaphor for the attack when people kill each other within the same community?

The third interpretation of such a plot, which was borrowed from the Hichkok critics, Shyamalan, is an accident and inexplicability of what is happening. And here the construction of the plot is pushed away from the changeability of the relationship of the two main characters. Everything is built on unpredictability, like "forgive me? - will not forgive?" And then this game of accidents is projected onto all of humanity. The scale of the inexplicable covers the whole planet with a mystery. True, Hitchcock was completely wrong. The elegant plot of "birds" was built on the analogies of the actions of the world powers and their relations among themselves, which was further projected onto the actions of the characters. Shyamalan has a reverse sequence. This, probably, is the difference between the master and his follower - in the level of the flight of thought. The Indian gives the processes taking place in the world, mystical content. As the teacher says at school: "A person cannot understand this." It is appropriate to recall Foucault, who connected terrible images in the Gothic literature of the 18th century with the old order, which impeded the "complete visibility of things, people, truths." Or, for example, vampires - the image is inextricably linked with aristocracy. But nothing prevents the reader from understanding everything literally! And the same Shyamalalan, discussing the deep phobias, says that they are more significant for him than the fear of Iran. The principle laid down in the "phenomenon" leads to the fact that the viewer will perceive the surrounding reality, as something inexplicable, his Majesty is the case! And this is not at all like that! Therefore, the film will find its grateful fans in the circle of people who live in the world of full mysteries. The other part of the society, consisting of inquisitive minds, and connecting the processes in the world with the causes of their appearance, he will rather be a little to be a little.

From other things, a lot of shortcomings and roughnesses can be noted. Casting leaves much to be desired, and for Mark Walberg, this was far from the best role. The film obvious is not enough for the veneration of dialogs (Shyamalan always puts the condition for producers not to change the original scenario). From this, the film gravitates to the standards of category "B". The sharp start and conversations of the characters with themselves are especially annoying ...

But still, the "phenomenon" is an important movie document. Here terror acquires poetics. It is possible that there are deeper fears for the author than one of the main problems of our time.

Phenomenon

The Happening

Director M. Night Shyamalan
Cast Mark Walberg, Zui Deschanel, John Legizamo
India, USA, 2008