[BRIEF NOTE] The Village and Urbanism
Sep. 1st, 2004 05:55 pmI watched M. Night Shyamalan's The Village with a friend. Contrary to the opinion of Ebert and others, I actually found it a good film. I admit that I'm not the most sophisticated of moviegoers, but there you go.
In the first half of the movie, I noted that the inhabitants of Covington Woods have a mental universe divided into three segments. The center of their universe, of course, is the village of Covington Woods, the fields surrounding the village, and the settled regions of their valley. This area, home to a highly communal and traditional population, is normative. Surrounding the village on every side are the woods, home to Those We Do Not Speak Of, a savage speechless population of monsters that is the antithesis to the detailed and civilized humans of Covington Woods. The villagers also trace their origins to a flight from "the Towns," described as places both physically and morally dangerous to the people of Covington Woods. (The first references to "the Towns" inevitably refer to close relatives who met horrible ends there.) Even as the villagers distinguish themselves from "the Towns," though, there's also an unacknowledged relationship of dependence, as the capital and goods they needed to set up their village came from there, while their community's unity is maintained in relationship to the threatening human and non-human outsides.
It's a good film. I won't give any spoilers, but the ending is unique (and no, no matter what Ebert says, it isn't a cop-out).
In the first half of the movie, I noted that the inhabitants of Covington Woods have a mental universe divided into three segments. The center of their universe, of course, is the village of Covington Woods, the fields surrounding the village, and the settled regions of their valley. This area, home to a highly communal and traditional population, is normative. Surrounding the village on every side are the woods, home to Those We Do Not Speak Of, a savage speechless population of monsters that is the antithesis to the detailed and civilized humans of Covington Woods. The villagers also trace their origins to a flight from "the Towns," described as places both physically and morally dangerous to the people of Covington Woods. (The first references to "the Towns" inevitably refer to close relatives who met horrible ends there.) Even as the villagers distinguish themselves from "the Towns," though, there's also an unacknowledged relationship of dependence, as the capital and goods they needed to set up their village came from there, while their community's unity is maintained in relationship to the threatening human and non-human outsides.
It's a good film. I won't give any spoilers, but the ending is unique (and no, no matter what Ebert says, it isn't a cop-out).