OR: Shyamalan's Ode to Terrorism
Published on August 5, 2004 By CrispE In Politics
A few weeks ago there was a bunch of hoopla over John Kerry's Hollywood Star-studded cash bash when personalities like Whoopi Goldberg and John Mellencamp made derogatory statements about President Bush and the administration. John Kerry said at the end of the night that "Hollywood conveys the image of America" which many neocons saw as absurd and insulting. Michael Moore (not a Hollywood insider) is the right's whipping post for how the film industry misrepresents American culture and values. Movies like "America's Heart and Soul" which portrays independent and resourceful Americans in a positive light does less than 10% of the box office that "Fahrenheit 9/11" did. However, a bigger threat is the Hollywood filmmaker who subtlely tells the message (conveyors on alert) in a way designed to make the point much more dramatically.

M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" is the case in point. Shyamalan tells the story of a small Utopia, much in the image of what he imagines conservatives think utopia would be. This is a backward religious group hidden away from the threat of the world with all it's violence and destruction living in peace with one another. The elders of the town make all the decisions and "protect" the residents (and you are "safer" under Bush, aren't you?) from the supposed terrors that await us from those "who must not be mentioned."

Moment by moment we see how we can give up everything for peace and quiet. All we need do is give up all control and freedom to those whom would protect us from those bogeymen and women who threaten us.

You might question whether this has any bearing on the real world. It's just a movie, I hear you say. It's entertainment and Shyamalan is an entertainer. But that is where propoganda really does find it's way into our lives. It isn't "in your face" LOOK AT OUR DUMB IRAQ WAR! that gets people to think the system doesn't work. It's the questioning of our values and the values of others that places our thinking in motion.

Recently the terror alert was raised in certain places that the Homeland Security Department said face increased risk. Some people saw this as simple political posturing by the White House to increase our awareness of this issue in the presidential campaign. While healthcare, education and business seem to need our attention we are telling the bankrobbers what bank we think they will rob and disregard the issues where President Bush is seen as weak. Those on the left point out that there are many banks that won't be protected and telling the terrorists what ones you will be protecting seems a bit odd. "Did the increase in terrorst alert status have the same effect that a terrorist act would have, anyway" they ask?

Which is exactly the point of "The Village." What are we willing to sacrifice for security is Shymalan's question. Freedoms? (the Patriot Act) Justice? (Abu Gharib) Even Linda Ronstadt and the Dixie Chicks are "un-American" for talking about "those who are beloved beyond all reason."

So who is living in The Village? Is it you and me?

Comments
on Aug 05, 2004
Saw the movie. Thought the exact same thing while watching it. It's a good flick and a modern parable that really makes you think about the issue at hand, as opposed to which rich white guy should be sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
on Aug 05, 2004
This doesn't make sense to me. The Bush strategy has been to project power and overthrow governments that support terrorists, not hide out in an isolated country.

Dissent is fine, disrespect is not.
on Aug 05, 2004
I agree with you in principle but I think the film is a bit bigger than this analogy. There are countless "Utopia" books and movies, where a small group of ideological individuals strive to make the perfect world, finding themselves in ethical dilemmas the more they try to protect paradise. One could argue it's really speaking to the flaws inherent in the communist model, than anything to do with modern world politics. I'm not disagreeing with you though. I think you saw some very fine simile's. I just think it does Shyamalan's film a disservice to think it's nothing more that a propaganda piece geared toward mondern American politics.
on Aug 05, 2004
I just think it does Shyamalan's film a disservice to think it's nothing more that a propaganda piece geared toward mondern American politics.

Well, I saw an interview with Shyamalan recently where he stated that this was the intent of the movie. That he got the idea after observing the "scare tactics" used post 9/11.
on Aug 05, 2004
Bush does not support isolation. Isolation is supported by the war-protestors. Although, many people will state that I am wrong and they do not believe in isolation, the propoganda they use to support their anti-war beliefs is isolationism propoganda of the pre-WW's era US.

I do agree that we should be leary of giving up any rights in the name of protection, but as of yet I have not seen any rights abandoned in the US.

The "scare-tactics" used post-9/11 are outrageous if and only if you believe that terrorism is not a threat in the US. How many more 9/11's must we face before we realize that terrorists have targeted the US based solely upon the success of our nation economically and in industry and technology. The US (99% of us any way) stand for better economy, industry, technology, and more freedom. This is exactly what these terrorist groups stand against. Since when have the "scare-tactics" actually affected any of your rights?
on Aug 05, 2004
Madine:
There is an answer for your comments but without spoiling the movie it is impossible to answer how Shymalan deals with this. I felt he created the same feeling many have for the Bush response. Actually, (although this is not a review) he uses a device that demonstrates how much of the world feels about terrorist threats.
on Aug 05, 2004
Sarah:
I wasn't trying to belittle the film and was not trying to say it only is about terrorism or the Bush administration's response. However, neither was Moore's movie only about Bush and the media and neocons tried to make it sound like it was a referendum on Bush's leadership.
on Aug 05, 2004
Draigon74:
Some notables who were against NAFTA (as an example of isolationism) include Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan. Politics makes strange bedfellows amongst both liberals and conservatives. I think war-protestors are for international solutions to politics, not unilateral solutions. The U.S. is in an interesting position, politically and trade-wise. We often bully countries with trade and troops, using American policy to full benefit. Some examples of this include the Canadian softwood lumber trade as well as HIV drugs being sold at retail regardless of the implications to cost of life.
Now, before people start commenting on how the examples listed are protections of U.S. industries, remember protectionism is economic isolationism.