Want to talk Village spoilers? Do it here. Everything’s fair game. Got a question or interpretation? This is the place, so fire away in as much detail as you like.
Comment with Facebook
About John Campea
You may like these posts
195 thoughts on “Village Discussion Free For All”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Village is outstanding and In my opinion better than all the movies I think M.Night has created,However I felt the Village was slopped out at the end and this was a disappointment.I would have liked to seen Ivy and Lucius United in a sacred Marriage.
One of the twists.I have noticed bunches but will share a few here.I think Ivy by not realizing it Had led Noah on in her way of trying to punish him but slacking it off.She was flirty in a way to Noah of which had gave him the wrong impression of their friendship.So it could have been this leading in Noah’s love for Ivy to attempt to kill Lucius.Also Noah’s character was smarter then he made out to be.Perhaps he was the Quiet one.
There are many things I picked up in this Movie and may be back to share on the forum.
This movie is the biggest rip-off of Lois Lowry’s book, “Gathering Blue” which was published in 1995. I can’t believe she’s not suing MNS!!!!!!!!!
I would sue the pants off of him if I were her!! Everyone here must read this book to understand what I’m talking about.
This movie isn’t “genius” or “clever” as so many have stated in previous posts.
It’s called stealing another person’s idea and making huge amounts of money off of it. He can claim that he’s not familiar with the book (whatever…) but once you read it, you’ll know that he is a big fat LIAR. There are too many similarities…or should I say things that are EXACTLY alike. Even down to colors representing things, fake beasts living in the woods, a handicapped female as the protagonist, and…oh my! Where they live is called “The Village” How appropriate!!!! Coincidence??? I THINK NOT!
Although I absolutely loved this film, and someday in the very near future I will have Ivy for my wife, I have a simple simple question…
What about an amish sect? Why go so elaborate when there are so many seperatives like the Amish or even the Zendik? Seems a rather silly way to get out of the city… I dunno.
So, the sound thing just bugs the hell out of me. While I appreciate the symbolism being rung out of every frame of this movie (I type cynically, but I really do appreciate it), the sounds in the woods are far too deliberate and kill the credibility of the ending. Sound plays a tremendous role as Ivy treks through the woods alone, with several scenes dedicated to nothing but her reactions to unseen creaks and groans.
Listen again and see if these moments are a figment of my imagination:
-Lucious goes into the woods (I don’t exactly remember when, but he’s wearing the yellow cloak) and breaks a branch, a few moments later we hear something very close to the same sound, slowed down and amplified.
-Listen when Ivy throws the rock (or stick, it’s been a little while since I’ve watched it). A few moments later, you hear another “echo”, this time slowed down, reversed and amplified.
Wha? There aren’t consistent “echoes” through the whole movie, but I swear the foley guys are recycling sounds. It kills me.
First — I don’t see any reason Ivy wouldn’t continue to believe it was 1897. She was born in the village; the year is just a number to her, and I don’t think she would find it unlikely that the people from the towns have things that she doesn’t recognize (e.g. the car whose sound she hears). Whether she puts one and one together when she returns and Noah is dead is another matter.
Second — nobody has really brought this up. I don’t see any way such a large group of people could sustain themselves for so long. Where did they get all the material for all those pretty dresses, and all the food, and the tombstones? I didn’t see a quarry in that clearing.
I think I would have enjoyed it more if the pieces had hung together better. Did anybody else notice that Ivy’s dad didn’t mention which way to go on the road? “Oops, sweetie, good thing you turned right on the road, or you would have had to walk 45 miles.”
First, I have to say that I am a fan of M. Night and I loved all of his pictures up to “The Village.” “Sixth Sense” was simply ingenious, “Unbreakable” was totally underrated, and “Signs” was good also. However, I wanted to strangle Night after viewing “The Village.” Horror and psychological thrillers are my favorite genres of film. I do not know whether I should be upset with Night or the studio that produced this film because all the previews leading up to the movie had this pegged as a horror film when it truly was not. It was a drama–with a tad bit of suspense. I realize what Night was trying to achieve with the movie. He was making a commentary on the evils of society and how people try to escape it–hence, the elders leaving modern society to create their own. Yet, throw me a freaking bone here (quote courtesy of Dr. Evil)! I wanted to see REAL CREATURES. Even after Ivy’s father revealed that it was fake I had a glimmer of hope that Night would throw a monster in for another twist. Remember, he was a historian and he told her that there were tales of creatures living in the area. Yet, Night never played the monster card…all I got was a dead Noah at the bottom of a sink hole!
One thing to ponder also…since Ivy’s father inherited all that money and land I still find it hard to believe he paid to have planes not fly over the area so they could keep the circa 1800s vibe going. No amount of money could do that here in America. Even under the guise of an animal sanctuary. Congress and the FAA would go ballistic.
I do love the conversations and topics you all have posted though. They are all insightful. Maybe if I saw the film again I will have a greater appreciation for the film, but my opinion sticks…this was Night’s worst movie so far.
I’m so glad I found this site. I saw the movie in the theater and now just bought the DVD. I’m hoping this discussion can continue.
In the DVD cut scenes, the question of what makes the sound in the woods is answered. M. Night himself says he can’t believe this scene isn’t in the movie, but he didn’t like the way it fit, so it got cut. It comes right after the climax with Ivy and the creature in the woods. Soon, the wind begins to stir and Ivy hears the creature sounds, apparently very loud and nearby. She is terrified and yells, “It is for love that I am here and I ask you to let me pass.” Cut to a new angle and we see that she is hollering to a tree with lots of pipes hanging in it. Evidently they were hung there by the elders and the wind would blow across them and make the moaning noise. Interesting. Of course, it raises more questions for me. Is it windy every time the noises are heard? I don’t think so. And I recall one scene where Ivy’s dress and hair are blowing significantly and we don’t hear the noises.
I, too, have wondered how innocent Ivy is on her return. Her dad told her that the creatures were fake, but then she was attacked by one. He also told her that he chose that area because of rumors of creatures long ago. So I wonder if she ever knows she killed Noah, or if she goes back to the idea of the rumors and feels that her experience reinforces the rumors.
The elder named August was the man whose son died at the beginning of the movie. He is the same one who when the elders met in discussing Ivy’s journey, said that his brother was killed in the towns, but the rest of his family died in the village. He said you can’t run from heartache, “we know that now.” That was the purpose of the village and it also explains that the boy wasn’t the first to die in the village. You can also see that in the photo outside the counseling center, August has a wife, but he seems not to in the movie. Something else that points to her dying in the village.
Something that wasn’t mentioned in the above discussion of the authenticity of Ivy’s blindness was that she seems to see the creature in the woods at times. She hears noises, certainly, but when she pans around and the camera first sees the creature (in the distance), she seems to see it, too, and she reacts to it. Then, moments later, she is hiding behind the tree and she “looks” around behind it, we see that the creature is now RIGHT THERE, and Ivy seems to know that, too. She is frightened and she reacts, but quietly, as she seems to know that the creature is nearby and doesn’t want him to hear.
Please keep the conversation going!
I’ve just seen this movie and my first impression was disappointment. However, having just read all above posts, it’s got my mind ticking over and I’ll have to give it another go. Not only to look out for the points and observations made but to give MNS another chance as I am a big fan.
I’ve got some theories:
(a)About the colour of Lucious’ Aura:
What about RED. She can’t see his aura after he’s been stabbed because of all the blood.
(b) Maybe MNS is setting us up for a “Village 2”, where he will unleash his best twists and the most awesome surprise ending we have ever seen !!!!!
I wish !!!! 8-)
the village sucks…..
awful awful awful
whas all those involved smoking crack?
the village
awful awful
did someone actually pay for this crap?
the village
what can i say, what a loser movie
who paid for this shit?????
Lot of people skipping over an important few scenes–
the ordeal between Lucious’ mom and Ivys’ dad. How ivy’s dad didnt touch l’s mom, and so forth. Seems very odd to me and in retrospect it makes sense. Ivy’s dad does not want to be portrayed as coveting thy neighbors wife (as both had lost their spouse in the ‘towns’) and were trying to stay with their beliefs–but yet both had the sinful urges.
Also, those who did leave the town died? I’m not sure that is all true. I think that they may have left and for all intents and purposes their relatives remaining in the village/preserve considered them dead. They also use those myths to keep their children away from the towns.
Noah had a cognitive impairment, but the lack of the creatures attacking him let Lucious know the whole thing was a load of crap. I’m fairly certain Lucious had an idea of what was going on and that they sent Ivy out to get the medicines, but sent Noah out after her–what better way to make those we dont speak of seem worse? The flip side is Ivy was sent out because she clearly couldn’t see what occured all around her.
What I still don’t get is why the guy who gets the medicine doesn’t say anything?
Please help us settle a disagreement….
I am confident that Lucious does not die at the end of the movie because Ivy returns and he and Ivy will lead the next group of elders who know and carry on the secret of the Ones we do not speak Of. I also believe that since the elders agree that Noah’s death is not in vain if the Village continues, Lucious must live to lead the next generation.
Please let me know what you think. Thank you.
I don’t know if I myself am convinced that the elders were involved with the violence of their loved ones. It is clear that each were somehow involved with the loss of a loved one and that they all met at a support group, but there is ambiguous evidence that they were involved with violence themselves, yes. That’s a very good, ambiguous point. But I do agree that to a certain extent, all of them a mentally ill. I mean, to create the village with the olden times, with the tricks of the monsters and all, I think they believed they were doing what was “best” for their children, no matter how sick or twisted it is.
You bring up some very interesting points. :D
Christie
Here’s a couple of ideas and points I haven’t read here. First, the year 1897 is not random, of course. Remember, Edward was a historian, and 1897 is known to historians as one of the most violent years in American history. There is a book titled “1897, Year of Violence” I had to read in a college history class.
Second, MNS uses themes of opposites in all of his movies, as most of you know. The villagers were portrayed as innocent to a point of absurdity throughout the movie. The opposite of innocence is, of course, guilt. The youth of the village were largely innocent, with the notable exception of Noah. The adults, on the contrary, were guilty. I believe the adults were escaping criminal pasts, and thus formed the village, not only to escape society, but also prosecution. That is the symbolism of the newspaper: the articles describe several murders that relate to the villagers, and one article title refers to several suspects being sought in a series of slayings. I know the newspaper is current, but it’s symbolic, and of course time is skewed in this movie.
All of the elders met at therapy, with the initial assumption that they were involved in a support group for survivors of murdered family members. However, the film doesn’t specify that they attended therapy after their loved ones were slain. I propose that the elders attended therapy because they were mentally ill, and fell under the spell of Edward, who is the sickest of all. Of course this theory is supported by all of the elders dressing up as monsters, and scaring their children into submission.
Also, it is clear that Edward inherited Covington Woods. He would be the boss of the guards. He would have known the guardhouse would have the stockpile of antibiotics. He could have easily found his way there and back. Why risk sending Ivy, if not for fear of the discovery of his whereabouts?
I know this is a more radical interpretation than most, but I find it convincing. Let me know if anyone agrees.
I wish I could help you out, Anthony. I’ve been trying to figure it out myself. Perhaps to know more, I’ll have to see it again, but it doesn’t come out to own until sometime in January.
As much as I hate to say this (because I ADORE symbolism), perhaps MNS was using it as a McGuffin…kinda like Hitchcock. Maybe it doesn’t mean anything at all. But, I REALLY think that it does. We just have to figure it out.
Okay, so next time I see it, focusing on ALL chairs… not just rocking chairs, but ALL of them, empty, occupied… ALL of them…
Christie
ok. i just found this post, and im very glad i did. ive been contemplating this since i saw the movie, and you guys have just barely skimmed the surface. im taking you back to the chairs…
ive spent soooo much time contemplating this, and im clueless. i was focusing more on the fact that they were EMPTY chairs, not rocking chairs. i noticed 4: the quiet room, the porch, the one randomly out in the middle of nowhere facing out towards the forest (a little too random?), and finally, the MOST FREAKIN SYMBOLIC OF THEM ALL THAT YOU GUYS MISSED, after the reception, when the ‘monsters’ come, it pans back to the reception room for like 10 seconds. the room is basked in the yellow ‘good’ colored light, and what is in the room? chairs. dozens of EMPTY chairs all facing inside almost in a circle. whats in the middle of the circle? and EMPTY chair. whats important about this chair, ITS TURNED ON ITS SIDE!!!!!! the camera pans out, and you see a bunch of EMPTY chairs surrounding this upturned EMPTY chair, all basked in yellow lights. holy eff, its bringing a tear to my eyes just talking about the image. how effing powerful. now, with this insight, what the crap is going on with the chairs?!?!?!?! its been driving me insane for months. help me…..
Ben, if you look further up on the forum, you’ll see that your question has already been answered! :D
Christie
someone said that this movie had something to do with restrictive religions. can anyone see how the village could be an allegory for the Bush administration. a society controlled by fear. (karl rove pioneered the fear campaign) and the colors. cmon!. yellow is the safe color. red is the bad color. orange is in between. (sort of like the terror threat levels.)
does anyone agree?
Thanks for that link redneck……
That’s a nice little bit on questioning authority. It very well could be one of the themes MNS was trying to communicate. I also like your interpretation of the line, “Don’t get into conversation.” There is just something about it that sticks out in my mind. :D
Christie
Here’s what I think the movie is about
I suppose the main theme of this movie is the trade off
between maintaining order and sacrificing the truth.
The elders made this sacrifice to preserve their way of
life, and their stories manifest into Noah and the near
death of Lucious.
In the real world, M. Night is reading the paper and
recommends to the security guard “don’t get into
conversations”, meaning don’t question authority. This suggests that a similar trade off is made in the real world and manifests itself into similar evils.
This is probably the reason for the inclusion of the death of the 7 year old boy in the paper, to suggest that we ourselves metaphorically live in a “village” that we have constructed for ourselves.
Another related theme, which I suppose may be obvious to everyone is how genuine feelings like love and dedication and all that stuff can naturally lead to a challenge of authority.
Lucious and Ivy both felt naturally inclined to challenge the truth that they had been told and to venture into the unknown, as did the security guard in the real world.
M. Night is probably pointing out that in building authority we have a necessary evil to some degree but sometimes challenging that authority can lead to positive things eg the saving of lucious’ life.
Then I suppose you could delve deeper and say that because the elders chose to continue on using Noah to qualify their stories, that authorities in the real world use the very evils that they inherantly perpetuate as justification for the maintainance of order.
Could you then argue that M. Night is an anarchist? I don’t think so but some might.
Sorry if all of this has been mentioned before but I couldn’t be bothered to read like 50 pages of discussion. Great movie though, made me think. I think people who hated it really missed the point.
Here’s an interesting question. A lot of people wonder why of all the villagers, the blind girl is sent through the forest. One assumption is that only a blind girl could go into the modern world and not discover the truth about the time period. But, do you think Ivy remained ignorant or do you think she realized that it wasn’t really the 19th century?
WAY TO GO! NICE CATCH, AMRICK! I’ll look for that when I see it again! How exciting!
Christie
Watched it again today. I noticed Ivy took off her hood in two important instances when she was walking in Covington forest, and both instances involved her intentionally ‘attracting’ the attention of the ‘rumoured creatures’ by removing her hood and revealing her ‘red’ hair….
Yeh, plus lets look at the obvious point, tell me a wall covered with ivy is going to stop Ivy (excuse the pun), from reaching her quest for love. Yeh, Terry, use abit of intellect/logic and its easy to come to the conclusion that although Edward stated it was ‘half a days walk’ doesnt mean Ivy would get there in good time. Lets not forget the obstacles she had to deal with! :)
To add to Amrick’s comments, she did climb over the fence, and they show her climbing over it. Ivy is a tomboy, after all. I’m sure it was something easy for her to do.
Also, with the weather bit of it, I don’t know about you, but when it rains like that where I live, it becomes SO dark outside, as if the sun were just setting or just comming up, plus you add trees to the fact and I’m guessing it would be REALLY dark in the forest. True, it could have taken her longer than half a day to reach the road (they never really are clear about exactly how long it took Ivy to reach it), but I certainly wouldn’t want to be walking in a downpour of rain. It would make sense to wait it out.
Does that make sense?
Christie
Hmnn, they can’t predict the weather. The dirt road could be overgrown, but seeing as the vegetation seemed alot less affluent in the outer areas of the reserve, MAYBE the growth was not sufficient to hide the path completely. Nothing was said about the escorts because maybe they didn’t announce their arrival out of shame, or maybe their arrival back was expected? Seeing as though the burden was ‘hers and hers alone’, it only seemed fair that she tread the path for love on her own. Hmnn, you’re kind of missing the point, Edward didn’t give her instructions because the journey was her burden, plus how could he explain to her that there was a wall. For him to tell her that would mean Edward would have to reveal the whole truth about them living in a ‘preserve’ and thereby destroying the secret of the village. And your comment about the easily surmountable fence…. what good is a fence when there are ‘creatures’ to instill such fear into the denizens of the village that they forbid a certain color to be allowed, simply because it may incite them (the creatures)? Kevin was being paid for a job, that is, keeping guard around the perimeter of the reserve. In other words, it makes sense to me that he wasn’t really stealing, merely doing his job. Kevin seemed quite transfixed at the pure innocence radiating from Ivy, it almost seemed as though he was deeply touched by such innocence, coupled with pure confusion. These elements may have been part of the reason he felt a strong NEED to help Ivy. Then again, I may be wrong, its possible he just likes old watches ALOT :)
I have lots of questions about Ivy’s journey.
Firstly she had to follow the stream for ‘half a day until reaching the dirt road’- but then she and one escort camp out beneath a tarpaulin- doesn’t seem to make much sense unless they sent her out late in the day.
And the dirt road- no-one has used it in decades, would it not be overgrown?
Her two escorts both abandon her- but nothing is said about them arriving back in the village.
When Edward was giving instructions to Ivy about how to get to the town, why did he not give her some warning or instruction about what to do when she hit the perimeter wall? What did he expect her to do when she hit it? Did he just guess that she would somehow climb over it?
Or did she? I was confused about this. When she first runs into it there is no sign of the modern road, so I assume that it runs outside, not inside the wall and she must have climbed over it. But why then does she seem to still be trying to find a way round it when Kevin finds her? And if the wall is SO central to the integrity of the whole set up, surely it would be something that no-one, let alone a blind woman in a long dress, could possibly get over so easily? ie electric fences, spikes etc
And her whole encounter with Kevin was weird- how could she be so lucky as to run straight into a person who would steal for her on the basis of a two minute conversation? Were they both set up?
True, even if its just subconcious, color in MNS works always seems to be receptive to some part of the brain. It creates and identifies certain aspects of his films really well.
You know, I went back and watched 6th Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs, and color is so vastly used in each, it’s just amazing. And, I think whether people are consiously aware of the use or not, it still takes a great effect, even if it’s just mood and not only meaning.
Christie
I’m definitely going to have to agree with the color representation you put forth. Whether MNS chose them to relate to the hindu faith, i’m not sure, but I think that they more or less represent those ideas. As with Ivy’s color, I would have to go with blue too, mainly becuase of the scene in the meeting house when Lucious confesses his crossing into the woods. Her dress just overpowers everything else in the room. I think it’s interesting how she lives in darkness, yet seems to be the brightest person whenever she is on screen. MNS work with colors and light is truely amazing.
I read about that. I’ve perused the book out of curiosity, and the only parts that seem to be the same is just the fact that a secluded town needs medicine, and a tomboy teenage girl goes off into the woods alone to get it. Nothing else is the same, really, from what I’ve found. I read an article where MNS says that he’s never even heard of the book, let alone have read it. Personally, I think there’s enough differentiation to make his case. Besides, if you look at a lot of fantasy/sci-fi plots, many repeat, but take a new twist on the subject. I mean, look at THX1138, Brave New World, and A Wrinkle in Time. All of them have to do with perfect societies, and in that respect, a lot of the plot conflict is the same. However, the themes and basic messages of each story differ greatly. I think this concept applies to The Village and Running Out of Time.
Again, this is just my opinion. I could be completely wrong, but I do think that it is just a coincidence.
Christie
I just hope MNS doesn’t have any copies of ‘Running Out OF Time’ lying about :(
Here’s an interesting food for thought:
While doing a search on bells in google, I found that Hinduism uses a bell to ring during worship time too. Coincidence? Maybe, but it’s still interesting.
In doing more Hindu research, I found that blue (in my opinion, Ivy’s color) represents inner peace, red represents temporal power or charge, yellow is their warmest color and represents spiritual influence and relates to the sun and gold.
Again, some interesting food for thought. :D What do you guys make of it?
Christie
lol…
Oh, the lengths we go…
Amrick, it’s true that a cigar may just be a cigar and nothing more (which it just might be the case for the bell), but Kevin and a few others, like me, are just having a little fun. Like I’ve said before, I’m an English major, so I like overanalyzing things, even if they don’t mean anything. If nothing else, it gets the blood flowing and the brain thinking, plus you learn lots of cool facts if you really delve into it. I still think that there is some sort of significance to the bell, especially because it’s shown in many scenery shots along with the important warning bell sequence. We’re just throwing up some ideas into the air to see if something makes sense or not.
And, like I’ve said before, the bell may or may not have a Christian link. It’s just one of the many routes to take to understanding the significance.
Kevin, I like your ideas, and I’ll have to see the film again to really see if I catch anything that might help support or reject the idea, such as juxtoposition of shots or what not. I still don’t know what the bell means for sure. Do you or anyone else have any thoughts as a different significance to the bell? So far, I think we’ve glossed over the ideas of:
1)Liberty Bell
2)Church Bell
Any other ideas?
Christie
wow! Slow down there Kevin :)
‘But, as stated earlier, The bell in the village sends people running for their houses away out of the open. This is a very confusing aspect of the movie.’
Kevin not EVERY little nitty gritty detail has to be analyzed in such depth. Chances are MNS depicted the bell as a warning bell….and nothing more. Don’t get too confused over things that aren’t there or don’t mean what you think they mean :) It seems like religion becomes a necessity for the people of the village, when the need arises. Yet predominantly, religion is not followed closely by most or all of the denizens. It seems that snippets of religious themes are simply there to propagate the whole ‘faith’ notion , coupled with love. As with signs. Possibly. :)
Yeah, I really didn’t know if it had a definite link or not, it was just a quick thought that came to my mind. However, I will note that not once did I see a Church in the village, nor any type of preacher or preist at the funeral nor the wedding. I believe one of the elders read from a book of common prayer for the marriage, as shown when Ivy was talking with Mrs. Clack.
However, I do think that at least some of the villagers are Christians because if you look on some of the gravestones, there are crosses, plus, there is the little prayer before meals, “We are thankful for the time we have been given.” Although, this is rather an odd prayer because it seems to be rather reluctant, even a bit fearful, and to no one in particular.
I have no theories on this, just observations. Does anyone else have any thoughts?
Christie
The bell has certainly been a symbol of the church for quite some time. Most churches are equipped with one and it rings to summon people to Sunday Mass. But, as stated earlier, The bell in the village sends people running for their houses away out of the open. This is a very confusing aspect of the movie. Some thoughts that I have been playing with concern MNS and his view on religion. Could it be possibly that he is trying to show that people’s homes can be viewed as personal churches and that the population does not need a specific institution or building to worship what they believe in. Furthermore, the location of the bell could possibly show this further. The bell lies on the boundary between safety and danger, maybe representing that there is a good and bad side to structured religion? The bell, being the prime symbol for religion, could very well be his metaphor for all of this, or maybe I’m just out of my mind. Goodnight.
Interesting Christie, wether these Christian ideas are relevant or involve pure coincidence is still in question.
One final thing…
The whole religious thing got me thinking again about the significance of the bell, which was brought up earlier in our discussion. I don’t have time right now to ponder, but do you think there might be a connection between the bell and religion? I mean, bells call people into Church. I’ll ponder this and get back to you, but I didn’t know of someone else had any ideas.
Christie
Okay… Here’s a little clip of what I found from the website http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/village.htm
Apart from “predictable unpredictability,” something else Shyamalan is known for is inserting not-so-subtle spiritual messages into his films, and The Village is no exception. What we have here is a group of people, who have withdrawn from the wider culture to establish their own ideal society, the boundaries of which are reinforced by fear. Sound familiar? It should. Covington looks and feels very much like an Amish, Mennonite or Hutterite community—if you don’t count the bloodthirsty monsters prowling the borders, that is. The renunciation process required to join the community demands that each elder retain a small box of mementos from their past life to remind them of their sins, “lest they be reborn in another form.” But sins were never meant to be boxed up. And once the corruption and death that haunted them in the towns begins to creep into their village, the elders of Covington come to realize that sin is not in the towns, it is in them. Running away from their past or trying to stuff it in a box will not solve anything. Sin thrives in fear and secrecy. Thus, the only way to overcome sin is to bring it out into the open, confess it, and then embrace the freedom that follows.
Despite a golden opportunity to do just that; the elders choose to maintain the façade of their existence instead. While they realize doing so may prevent them and their children from embracing life to the fullest, better that than having to return to the towns and attempt to be salt and light in a society that repudiates all they hold dear.
It was difficult to watch the elders make such a decision. But as I did, I could not help but think of how many times we Christians have done exactly the same thing. Rather than work to transform society from the inside, as we have been called, we have withdrawn from it into segregated communities dominated by fear and control. Like the elders, we have chosen a lesser existence rather than risk being polluted or rejected by the world. However, also like the elders, we must realize that sin is not “out there.” It is right here, in us. Only when we are able to face that fact and bring our secrets into the light will we truly become the people God has called us to be.
Anyway, I read another article out there somewhere that said basically this, but there was a little more involved, so I’m still going to search for it. Anyway, I think it’s an interesting theory. What you you guys and gals think?
Christie
Religion
I know we’ve already discussed the whole “crucifixtion” pose, and I read somewhere a really interesting insight to Christian faith in the film (I’ll have to go searching to find it now), but one thing that my youth minister brought up that I never thought of was the red marks on the doors. She made a comment that the red slashes reminded her of pass over in the Bible, but in this case, it wasn’t for a pass over but a warning slash. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
I still don’t know anything about the Hindu side of things, since I don’t know that much about Hinduism. However, I do remember someone telling me that yellow is highly significant in the Hindu faith. Does anyone know anything about this? I sure don’t.
Christie
Is it just me or is this forum starting lose its novelty :)
If at all possible, I would like to delve back into the dicussion that was started a while back, but never really finished, on the subject of religion. Are there any ideas out there concerning this topic?
True its importance may be miniscule, but needless to say, quite a few things Christie and a few others delved into weren’t very important either, but you can get caught up in the moment of trying to unravel something :)
Again, an outside sound system is always possible. But, we may never know the answer, which brings me back to one of my earlier conclusions, that HOW the sounds were made was not important in the overall picture. But, we can still look out for possible clues. :D
Christie
Seeing as there are network of patrol stations and technology etc, JUST outside the borders….we can’t rule out exterior ways of producing the sounds.
M. Nights movies are supposed to be slow, he builds character and tension very effectively. You actually have to pay attention to the ‘slowness’, because what may seem irrelevant may actually turn out to be very important. The inconsistencies in the language was explained very well by someone above. The village was an EMULATION of an earlier time period, think about it, of course the Elders are not going to speak authentically, seeing as they were brought up in the moden world. Its not a flaw, its truth and accuracy in the plot. The ending ‘dragged on and on’ for good reason…. Phoenix (Luscius) DID NOT die, were you even paying attention? It seems obvious why you don’t like M.Night’s movies….you DON’T PAY ATTENTION. Ivy didn’t go through the forest with the intention of finding that guy, the guy didn’t save the day, Ivy did. The guy was paid to patrol the borders, he was simply doing his job. Try staying awake during the movie if you see it again, it helps :)
M. Nights movies are always a little slow. I predicted the Sixth Sense with no problems, and signs was a good movie but my goodness did it drag on. I was really disappointed with The Village. First off, the language they used they kept jumping back from normal everyday language to old english and it was really irratating. If you are going to do a movie with accents of anykind keep them throughout the movie. I also thought the ending dragged on and on. Once Phoenix was dead they should have ended it rather quickly. But no the blind chick had to go though a forest to find a nice guy to save the day. Luckily it wasn’t a normal person who probably would have ignored her old english rants about living in a closed off forest. but over all, the twists were there but they took so long to twist by the time it changed you forgot what they hell everyone was talking about. Not one of his best, but not bad could have been a lot better.
Kevin, you have a great point against the use of a sound system. Come to think of it, a sound system is so complex, what would happen if it broke down? Who would come in to fix it? That’s why it’s such a mystery, one I whish I knew the answer to.
Christie
woops excuse my double post, i was editing :)
Kevin, the sounds were way too realistic for them be emanated from a horn (definitely sounded like an animal of some sort). Using modern technology is possible in this instance, as it is not being used IN THE VILLAGE, rather outside. I am guessing the Elders didnt contemplate the idea of ever having to worry about its use, seeing as they also didn’t contemplate people leaving the village.
Kevin, the sounds were way too realistic for them be emanated from a horn. Using modern technology is possible in this instance, as it is not being used IN THE VILLAGE, rather outside. I am guessing the Elders didnt contemplate the idea of ever having to worry about its use, seeing as they also didn’t contemplate people leaving the village.
I am going to have to disagree. Though I can not remember any clues proving or disproving the use of a modern system to create the monster’s sounds, I just can not see it happening. Having any sort of modern technology within the preserve would completely ruin what it is suppose to stand for. Any technology, no matter how small, brings the outside world into the village. These elders aren’t playing a game, they are trying to protect their way of life, which is a place without unnecessary posessions. If they did not compromise to go outside the village to save one of the elder’s sons, I just can not see them compromising their humbleness to put up a speaker system in the trees to make sounds.
So what do I think they used? My initial thought was a wooden horn of some sort.
We only know two things for sure about the sounds from the woods:
1) The elder’s created those sounds, because when Edward is explaining things to Ivy, he says, “We created those sounds.”
2) The villagers can hear the sounds.
We are never shown just how the sounds are created, but I think that a modern solution to creating the sounds is very possible. I mean, I can’t see any way of them creating the sounds without modern technology. You could, but I doubt they’d be able to impliment it without one of the elders going into the woods to set it off, unless they found a natural way to create such terrifying sounds, like wind in pipes or something. But, these are just theories. We have nothing conclusive on how the sounds are created, just that they exist due to the elders.
I wonder…
Does anyone know if there are any clues to this mystery in the wildlife preserve station? Like, on the walls or equipment in the room? I mean, the government was tipped not to allow flight paths over the area, so it is possible for such a sound system or something to be set up… but it would need matenience. Does anyone remember seeing anything that would help to solve how they created the sounds?
Perhaps we will always be left to guess and wonder, and maybe HOW isn’t important at all, but it would still be interesting to see.
Christie
Yes I agree with Christie, if you think about it logically, from the very start, Noah seemed absolutely enchanted by any hint of the creatures (at the start he laughs very enthusiastically at the eating table). So it follows logically that his enthusiasm led him to mimick the Elders in their ‘game’ of monsters. This is just a thought, about the unexplained sounds issued by the monsters, is it POSSIBLE that Edward could have established a MODERN solution for this? Ummm, could we say setting up speakers or some sort of amplified sound device in the woods, hidden from any possible view? I don’t know, just a thought. :)
Amrick, I agree with your interpretation of Noah’s behavior toward Ivy. I think he was playing a type of “hide and seek” game with her. It’s not conclusive, but definitely inferred because of the previous scenes of Ivy and Noah playing together. Still, we’re just left to wonder.
As for you, NotSoConfused Anymore, Noah wasn’t pretending to be a creator. I don’t know if he had any notion of what he was actually doing. He just found a costume and put it on. I guess the best way I can explain it is the curiosity of little kids and halloween costumes. When you try on costumes in the store or find some in the attic or basement, you try it on and then pretend to be whatever it is. Like, Freddie Kruger, for example. If an 8-year-old puts on a Kruger costume, there is a pretty good chance that he is going to whip his fingers through the air a few times or practice an evil laugh. The same thing with Noah. I think he was pretending to be one of “those whom they don’t speak of” just for fun, especially because during the chase sequence when he reached for Ivy, he didn’t attack her, just reached his arm out pretending. It was just a game to him, just like what Amrick stated earlier.
As for the time when the creatures came into the town marking the doors, and we as an audience finally got to see what they look like, I think that was one or more elders. I know for a fact it wasn’t Noah because Noah was inside with Ivy and Kitty. Remember, he was dancing around, clapping his hands and snapping his fingers? And then, Ivy holds out her hand for Lucius when the creature was about to grab her (swoon!)? I think the creatures marking the doors was just a mechanism for scarring the villagers into obeying the boarder rules again, especially since Lucius was repeatedly asking for permission to cross the boundary into the woods.
Does this help?
Christie
WOW!!! Christie!!! that was one good axplanation!! thank you so much.. I understand so many things right now.
See, my problem was that I never noticed in the begining that the gravestone says 1987.. and so I couldn’t add it all up.. and than when they show the picture I couldn’t really understand how it’s connected.
But this explains so much. Because the entire movie I thought they were really living around that time.. and all of a sudden Ivy comes to the towns and we see a car… lol, that didn’t make any sense to me.. and now it does! so thank you.
I do understand the photo, and why they wanted to get away from the towns and pretending it was 1987.. what I don’t understand yet is why Noah is the one pretending to be a creator.. or was it just a mistake because he found the suits… and before that different elders pretended to be the animals on different times to scare the children…?
Thank you so much again!
I was thinking about that thrilling scene with Ivy in the woods and the ‘monster’ (Noah) in the background. I recall Noah came charging towards her, before playing abit of ‘hide and seek’ so to speak (as he did with her often), but it was as if he was just fooling around or something. I couldn’t quite get my head around why he would skim past her and hardly touch her, then let her keep running, almost as if he wanted HER to hide this time. Just abit confusing, Christie, if you have any thoughts, anything would be greatly appreciated. Ta.
Okay, So Confused… Hopefully we’ll be able to help straighten you out. If my explanation is at all confusing, let me know, and maybe someone else here can better articulate or I can rephrase. :D Oh, and by the way, I’m glad you are excited about this film. Pretty much everyone here feels the same. :D
Okay…
In the year 1897 (because the grave stone in the beginning says so), a village community exists believing there are creatures in the surrounding woods that can harm them if provoked. However, a treaty exists where those whom they don’t speak of do not come into the valley and the villagers do not come into their woods. So, the villagers live in fear that the creatures will harm them, which is why they don’t enter the woods and stay in the valley. Basically, the villagers have the down side of the deal because TECHNICALLY the creaturs can enter the valley without consequence, but because of this treaty, they don’t, whereas if the villagers enter the woods, LOOK OUT because chances are the creatures will be provoked and start attacking.
Anyway…
The problem is, some of the villagers, namely Lucious, want to cross into the woods to get to the towns to retrieve medicine to help the people of the village. Of course, this would violate the treaty and anger the creatures, plus, all of the elders who have been to the towns tell horrific tales of how dangerous and evil the towns are, so traveling through the woods and into the towns is not really a good idea.
What the villagers don’t know is that all the elders of the town flead from the towns and into the valley because of a deeply hurtful event in their life, namely crime that has been committed against a family member. Because the elders don’t want any of their families to feel the hurt and heartache of such crimes, they all founded the village and made up the creatures and the rituals in order to keep everyone in the village and frighten them so they wouldn’t want to enter neither the woods nor the towns. The creaturs aren’t real. They are a farce. Twist number one.
The problem is, even though the elders know the creatures are a farce, everyone else believes they are real. So, when the skinned animals start showing up, the villagers naturally think that it is the creatures doing it, even though the elders know they aren’t, which leaves them puzzled as to who is actually doing the skinning and killing. That is why Edward Walker and Alice Hunt are seen discusing their confusion over the livestock being skinned, and how a cyote couldn’t possible have done it. This is also why Edward tells Ivy he believes ONE of the elders is responsible for the skinning, but he didn’t know who.
Of course, now that we know the creatures are just a farce, it is frightening to see Ivy in the woods with a creature right behind her. This thrilling chase sequence is juxtaposed with a scene of Noah’s parents finding him missing from the quiet room. His mother exclaims that he found one of the suits under the floorboards, and then says, “The animals,” meaning that Noah was responsible for all of the skinning and killing. The camera also pans the floor showing a number of animal pelts and bird feathers to make the point. Why Noah put on the suit and killed the animals is not exactly conclusive in practical terms, although one could argue it was because of his disability, but no one really knows, it is a great symbolic gesture. Twist number two.
The final twist has to do with the photograph. This whole time, we believe that the film takes place in 1897, and for good reasons. First of all, the gravestone says 1897 when the son died, and they were burrying him that day, so logically we would think the time is 1897. Plus, the villagers’ way of life, dress, culture, speech, and such are also support for this time period. But, in reality, that too is a lie. It is really the present day, which is why the photo is needed. The photo shows all of the elders sometime in the late 1970’s, early 1980’s in front of a support group building, presumably where they all met because of their struggles with the crimes of the real world. Although it is never explained, I read somewhere that the elders chose the time period of 1897 because it is right before the massive boom of the industrial revolution, where crime massively increased or something to this effect. I can’t remember exactly. Does anyone here know what I’m talking about??? Maybe it was in this thread… I can’t remember… Anyway, that is the third twist, everyone thinking that it is 1897 when in fact it is present day 2004.
Does that make sense? I hope it alieviates some of your confusion.
Christie
Hi everybody!!
This is the first time I see this place.. and boy, am I glad I ofund it…
I have to ask you guys, I just saw “The Village” for the first time.. I was tld it was such a great movie… and though I think it was.. I’m so confused.
I’m sure you all talked about it before.. and I realize I’, a little late.. but if anyone could please explain to me the twists of the movie and then ending..
I didn’t understand what was the point with the picture of everybody.. and why are they being seperated from the town knowing that the all story is a lie..?
How come Noah is the one pretending to be the “ones we don’t speak of” and why didn’t Lucios & Ivy knew about it?
I would really appreciate an explanation.
Thank you.
Hi everybody!!
This is the first time I see this place.. and boy, am I glad I ofund it…
I have to ask you guys, I just saw “The Village” for the first time.. I was tld it was such a great movie… and though I think it was.. I’m so confused.
I’m sure you all talked about it before.. and I realize I’, a little late.. but if anyone could please explain to me the twists of the movie and then ending..
I didn’t understand what was the point with the picture of everybody.. and why are they being seperated from the town knowing that the all story is a lie..?
How come Noah is the one pretending to be the “ones we don’t speak of” and why didn’t Lucios & Ivy knew about it?
I would really appreciate an explanation.
Thank you.
Is MNS trying to present something about his own ideals and beliefs?’
I don’t think M.Night adheres to Hindu beliefs much. I think its clear his movies build on Christian themes moreso. I think…… :)
I also was reminded of the crucifiction at those two moments. Hm… I will have to ponder this… :D
Christie
Also, the movie can be looked at having a lack of any religion at all. From my memory, I can only recall the word “God” being used once in the film by kitty telling Ivy “God bless you and your life together.” Secondly, Mr. Walker does not give thanks to anyone when at the feasts. He just says “we are thankful for the time that we have been given.” Could this possibly represent the Elders abandoment of religion due to the atrocities that occured? Is MNS trying to present something about his own ideals and beliefs?
Well, first off, thank you Amrick for bringing this discussion back on track, it is appreciated.
Next, yes, I do possibly see some Christian roots in this film. One in particular I remember hearing somewhere, and find extrememly interesting is the position the boy takes standing on the stump and Ivy’s position in front of the hole. Possible allusion to the crucifixion, or is it just used to streghthen Ivy’s image as a tomboy?
Wow… Wow… :D
All I’m going to say is I have no hurt feelings and people’s opinions are their own opinions. If you have a theory, that’s great. All I ask for is support. That’s all.
As for Indian decent, not me. I’m a European mutt born and raised in America. :D
Speaking of which… I read somewhere that MNS likes to put in hindu and christian themes into his films. Now, I’m Catholic, but I know only general things about Hinduism. Is there anyone out there who knows a lot about the religion who saw themes in “The Village?” Is there a significance to the colors of the film in Hindu Faith???
Christie
guys, guys, GUYS!!!……
sometimes a cigar is just a cigar…….!!!
;)
My apologies to Christie and Christie alone, I just read the whole forum properly and picked up on Ned’s thoughtful, albeit speculative ideas. My mistake, I didn’t read the ongoing discussion in its entirety, continue the wonderful discussion. P.S. Are there any people of Indian descent here? Poor kid, two MD parents…ouch. :)
Christie, I read all of your posts, very interesting and well thought out theories. Nice.
Sticking to M.Night and getting closer to topic, did anyone NOT like signs…and why?
Well clearly I ment ‘attacking’ in a non literal sense, maybe you intepreted it too aggressively. By attacking I simply meant she refuted every facet of Ned’s interesting theories, leaving no room for further discussion. I don’t think thats hard to understand Mantiss. Spelt ‘courteous’, I don’t think she was being courteous, I think its clear she was putting words in my mouth, thats the only problem I had with her thoughtful input. Just calm down Mantiss, this isn’t the kind of discussion you’re making it out to be.
I hate to be the one to drag this back to earth but…it was a movie. A good one, a bad one, it doesn’t matter. I know this is The Movie Blog but I think even here people take precedence. Amrick, while I appreciate where you’re coming from, you’re not paying very good attention to what other people are really saying and that’s turning this into a bigger thing than it’s worth.
Christine said:
Ned, your claims are interesting, but you have no backing or proof. You can reason and interpret, but without proof, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s like saying Ivy really isn’t blind. There isn’t any proof, and it goes against all of the rules of the storyline.
If that’s attacking then there’s no point in ever having any type of discussion here. Even in response to your comments she was more than courtious and gave you the benefit of the doubt, trying to see things from your perspective of there being more evidence that Ivy was not blind. Nobody is attacking here except you and that’s because you are perceiving things that are not there. Please read more carefully and consider where people are coming from.
Please stop turning this into a personal argument, if you want to reciprocate this, then we can take it AWAY from this public forum.
Well if Ned did try and convey his own ideas as truth, then yes it is wrong. No Kevin, you’re wrong, I am not dragging this discussion down, simply perpetuating it in a way YOU don’t agree with.
Amrick, Ned conveyed his theories like they were the truth, which was incorrect. Christie was mearly pointing that fact out. There was no sense of attack in her argument at all, and encouraged him to explain himself and yourself more thoughoughly. Christie has contributed plenty of interesting and well-thought out points on this film. Please try and keep this discussion going, not drag it down.
Firstly, I never said I thought she wasn’t blind, you’re drawing your own conclusions from inconclusive evidence. Secondly, I will use YOUR OWN justification of true/false notions, but with your name instead of Ned’s:
‘Christie, your claims are interesting, but you have no backing or proof. You can reason and interpret, but without proof, it doesn’t mean anything.’
Thirdly, there doesn’t need to be a revelation to reveal certain subtleties in the plot, demonstrably in all of Night’s movies thus far. I’m NOT saying she isn’t blind, what I am saying is that you shouldnt attack people (namely Ned) for simply being creative. If you don’t agree, then don’t degenerate his ideas by refuting everything he has to say (you even tried that with me).
Amrick,
There were only two times when I didn’t think Ivy was blind:
1) When she is bending over Noah saying, “Stop your fussing right this minute,” right before scolding him because she is looking directly at him
and
2) When she is sitting with Lucius at resting rock talking with him because many times she looks directly at him.
At first, I reasoned that it was just a bad acting moment from the actress, which I still think is the case for the first instance, but since she can see Lucius’s color, it would make sense that she sees him.
However, I am interested in your comment that there is more evidence of Ivy not being blind. How do you mean? There isn’t any revelation of her NOT being blind, and everyone talks about her being blind, and she has a cain and a walking stick, and if she truly could see, why would she still “act” blind when she’s in the woods by herself? She wouldn’t have to act blind for anyone, but she did. Plus, in the technical aspects of the film, there are many scenes where the sound is muted or enhanced to emphasize Ivy’s use of her hearing to compensate for her blindness.
That being said, what makes you think she isn’t blind? I’m interested…
Christie
Bad choice of negation Christie, there is probably more evidence of Ivy not being blind, than her being blind….
I have to agree with Kevin.
Ned, your claims are interesting, but you have no backing or proof. You can reason and interpret, but without proof, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s like saying Ivy really isn’t blind. There isn’t any proof, and it goes against all of the rules of the storyline.
Christie
There are a lot of problems with your interpretation. First, you provide no solid evidence that points to Edward skinning the animals or any that point to your theory about his “sociological experiments.” Furthermore, if Edwards motives were strictly scientific, why did he not create the village with other scientists or just people willing to live apart from society to gather information. The elders were all trying to escape the root of their despair. They weren’t concerned about how an isolated society functioned separated from the world, just that they were in a society separated from the world.
Lastly, if Edward’s longing to live away from the brutalities of the world in a utopian society are truely “demented,” Then the majority of the human race are pretty twisted people.
Perhaps this man’s decision was a little extreme, but when tragedies, like the one’s these people experienced, hit so close to home, nothing seemed too far out of reach.
All in all, Edward shows no signs of any mental disturbance throughout the film, just a clear vision of what he believes in.
Edward wasn’t skinning the animals. Noah was. That point is very, very clear.
I’m just now getting back to further explain why Edward killed his own father and his father’s business partner…
Edward was a history professor and was willing to perform sociological experiments to prove his theories. Theories about a self contained civilization being able to function apart from society.
Throughout the film Edward was always the one to go to extremes to protect the secret of the outside world. The words he used in each situation of despair were always about how the bad had happened in order to preserve the good which they had in their village. Think about it…what kind of man would skin animals and leave them for children to find in order to support a ficticious story. I mean a lot of people get their kids to believe in Santa but I haven’t heard of anyone actually leaving only a lump of coal for a six year old for being on the naughty list. I mean, come on, a little baby of a skinned dead animal. That is demented.
Edward never showed greif when speaking of his father’s tragedy, while every other ‘victim’ was extremely saddened when sharing their story with others.
And about the money…..
Christie you asked me what he did with the money and then went ahead and answered it yourself
That he bought the preserve and paid someone off so there would be a no-fly zone overhead of the area.
That was what he wanted from the beginning.. he wasn’t interested in pimping out an Escalade. He wanted to perform his demented sociological experiment.
Just think of how twisted Edward had to be to convince all these people to do what they did.
Kevin: I definitely agree with you on your last line. It sent sivers up my spine:
“The world moves for love and kneels before it in awe.” ..living in a world where one can not say this truely is more frightening than any monster.
How incredibly true…
As for everyone being shot, that’s not true. Edward’s father and Mr. Nicholson’s brother were shot, but I don’t think Mrs. Clack said anything about her sister being shot, only raped and stuffed in a dumpster, and Alice’s husband was robbed and found naked, but I don’t think she said anything about him being shot either. Another thing to watch for, I suppose. This doesn’t mean that they COULDN’T have been shot, but I don’t believe they said if they were exactly.
I like MNS’s philosophies… Being a Roman Catholic myself, I can see spirituality in all of his films, espeically Signs. It’s truly awesome.
Christie
Maarten: have you looked at the murder stats for any major US city lately? There’s nothing strange about it at all. Not a bit. They all met in grief support groups …
I just stumbled across a very interesting page that contained a interview with MNS. Check it out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/08/06/bfshy06.xml
I think he sums up pretty well what he was aiming for with this movie, and certainly to why some people felt the way they did after seeing it.
I am sorry for all those who went in expecting a blood bath, and who’s dissapointment then blinded them from his real reason for making the film.
“The world moves for love and kneels before it in awe.” ..living in a world where one can not say this truely is more frightening than any monster.
The point I’ve been thinking about is just as Ned and some others already brought forward why almost all relatives from the village elders were murdered before the village was established. The movie seems to explain that the elders established the village BECAUSE OF these murders and other cruelties in the real world, but my mind tells me that it cannot be coincidence that so many people WERE SHOT (explicitly told in the scene with the newspaper fragments) just before the plan to establish the village was executed.
Has anyone alse thought about this?
Maarten
Yes, there definitely is a difference in the meanings between the bell of our country and the bell of the Village, almost complete opposites. And, there are definitely many aspects of the village that could be attributed to the framework of the United States. I really must say though, i won’t be sold on those interpretations unless I heard it from MNS himself. I just don’t believe, when looking at his other films, that he is that caught up in politics to base a movie on them.
The Bell
I got so swept up in the political aspect that I forgot you asked about the bell. :D
Well, from an American point of view, there is the Liberty Bell. Here’s the inscription of it:
“Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof – Lev. XXV, v. x. By order of the Assembly of the Province of Pensylvania [sic] for the State House in Philada.”
Notice that MNS lives in Philidelphia, all of his films take place somewhere in or outside of Philidelphia, and the Liberty Bell originated in Philidelphia. Coincidence? I think not. :D
I found this information about the Liberty Bell from a website: http://www.nps.gov/inde/liberty-bell.html
The Liberty Bell’s inscription conveys a message of liberty which goes beyond the words themselves. Since the bell was made, the words of the inscription have meant different things to different people.
When William Penn created Pennsylvania’s government he allowed citizens to take part in making laws and gave them the right to choose the religion they wanted. The colonists were proud of the freedom that Penn gave them. In 1751, the Speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly ordered a new bell for the State House. He asked that a Bible verse to be placed on the bell – “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof” (Leviticus 25:10). As the official bell of the Pennsylvania State House (today called Independence Hall) it rang many times for public announcements, but we remember times like July 8, 1776 when it rang to announce the first public reading of the Declaration of Independence.
In 1915, the bell made its last trip and came home to Philadelphia, where it now silently reminds us of the power of liberty. For more than 200 years people from around the world have felt the bell’s message. No one can see liberty, but people have used the Liberty Bell to represent this important idea.
Now, in the village, it is the Warning Bell, and only rung when the creatures are here, but I thought it was interesting that the Liberty Bell symbolizes freedom, while the Warning Bell symbolizes the slavery of the villagers to the creatures.
Does anyone else have any other thoughts?
Christie
Hey, Kevin.
I too have heard that theory about politics. It’s a good insight, and it makes sense. It’s very hidden, but still there. I especially like the whole yellow being the “safe” color. It’s not the “good” color, but the “safe” color. Interesting… Plus, being Americans, we are led to believe that we are the best, which in some aspects we are, but how many other billions of people are there out there who live in different countries and get along fine? Just like those in the village, we are taught that the outside world is dangerous, but not everyone is. There’s that whole “fear” element again. But, I agree that there is a political side to it. It’s so multifaceted, it just makes me tingle! :D
First off, excellent points by everyone, especially Christie. I would just like to add another viewpoint that the movie could possibly be looked at. Now, I am not sure how interested MNS is in the political spectrum of the United States, but I have heard different rumors regarding connections between the film and current, national events. Some include connecting red and yellow, the bad and safe colors, respectively, with the terrorist levels implemented by our security council. Also using the film as a possible attack on the US’s foreign policy using the many border infrences. Any insight into MNS’s political viewpoints and if they are passionate enough for him to base a movie on would be very interesting. Thank you all for your insight.
Also, any ideas about the bell would be appreciated.
Hold up, hold up, hold up……..
That makes no sense… Why would Edward murder his father and his father’s business partner??? If he did it for the money, he was never really able to use it. Sure, he set up the preservation and tipped the gov. and all that jazz, but he couldn’t buy anything to make his life easier… It just doesn’t make sense that he would kill his own father. I admit that all of the elders had a motivation to be part of their village fantasy, but I don’t see Edward having any motivation to kill his father and then help fund such a place. Edward has no motivation to want make the village happen because he has not experienced that fundamental loss in his life as the rest have. What you’re suggesting is an interesting idea, but it just isn’t supported. There is no hard evidence of that actually happening. If you can prove me wrong, go for it, but I need some support, like a conversation between characters, a newspaper headline, blah blah blah. I can’t think of a single thing to support that. If you can, go for it, but I just don’t see it happening.
Christie
I just wanted to add some explanations to the discussion.
The history professor Edward Walker actually murdered his father and his father’s business partner and convinced the other members of the support group to join him and his idea in forming this separate society. Edward gave them the fake story about the business partner killing his father and then committing suicide in order to make them take him in as one of their own. Because after all if his father was a billionaire and his business partner killed him it would make no sense for that business partner to go ahead and kill himself.
Edward the professor had this all worked out from the beginning and is just demented enough to go to extremes in order to perform such a manipulatingly vile experiment.
A couple things:
The dead child was the son of an elder – a point explicitly made a few different times – and thus just as well connected as Lucius.
As to the elders being missed: they very rarely had to actually dress up. A few random noises and consistently telling people that there is something out there were all it took to do the job. Actually having the creatures be seen on any kind of regular basis would actually be counter productive. A faceless enemy is far more frightening than a familiar one.
Alice and Edward had the conversation because whatever made the marks there was NOT authorized by the elders council. They either had a rogue elder on their hands – which is what they believed – or something else was going on, which proved to be the case.
Some questions-
If it was the elders dressing up to scare the Village- wouldn’t they be missed when they should be collecting their families together under their houses?
Why would Alice Hunt and Edward Walker have a private conversation after the wedding night about a creature putting marks on the barn door that couldn’t be a coyote/wolf as they were so high up when they knew the secret?
The colour red is also MNS’s trademark colour in his other films- it featured heavily in Sixth Sense and Unbreakable.
MNS does a great job portraying how being “connected” can save the lives of children whose parents seek a better life. I left disturbed by the idea of creating a better world built on the sacrifice of nameless children. I left disturbed that only the well-connected children get the chance of survival.
The Village started with the death of the child who had belonged to a faceless villager who is powerless to change the lot of his child’s life. It ended contrasted against the power of the well-connected elders who know that their utopia is a farce and not really worth endangering their own children’s lives.
So the elders create and review the dilemmas of utopia as it relates to their own children: Crime or no crime, presence of mind or not, sighted or blind. In the end, Lucius, Ivy and Noah, have well-connected parents that circumvent or bend their rules.
Unfortunately no dilemmas are pondered for the unknown child. What knowledge, if any, the unknown townsperson has of the outside is not open for debate: No one is permitted to speak. The child died as a necessary part of the better life syndrome. The cycle for the unconnected masses to suffer is the same cycle for well-connected albeit hypocritical elders to enjoy. The Village, as a movie, highlights this classic tragedy as does John Fogerty’s lyrics, in the song: “I ain’t no senator’s son”
I’m glad to have seen the Village. The love story and dialogue not are canned. The layering of issues is cool for those of us who think too much. And I’m always interested in a movie that makes me appreciate my way of life and at the same time understands my fascination with giving my children a better life.
Really? I didn’t think that she said they had the same color, just that her father, like Lucius, both have auras. Hmmmm…. I’ll have to listen more closely next time…which is Sunday, by the way. My brother just said he’d go see it with me. :D YAY! I’ll pay REALLY close attention! I promise! I want this mystery solved…
Christie
Sorry back to the color thing :) Ivy tells Lucius that he and her father are the same color. Does the yellow thing make sense knowing that? Thanks
lol!
So, I began looking up other names, just for kicks to see if any of them meant anything significant in the film… Well, let’s look at a few:
Edward Walker:
EDWARD means: Wealthy Guardian
Leader in the village, wealthy from his father’s billions.
Alice Hunt:
ALICE means: Truth, Noble
Well, I don’t know about truthful since she has so many secrets from Lucius, but she certainly is noble in that she doesn’t fool around with Edward.
The other names didn’t mean much… I especially thought that Edward’s meaning was awesome.
Noah’s Name:
Well, Noah is Hebrew for “peace, rest” which is funny since that really isn’t his character in the film… But, looking through my Bible for some answers, since Noah is a biblical name. I didn’t find much. I’m posting the Flood story here anyway incase someone can find a connection I can’t. Basically it seems to me that the only thing Noah from the Village and Noah from the Bible have in common is the fact that they both delt with animals… though one killed them and the other saved them… but, I’m posting it just the same.
The Flood
Genesis 6
1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with [1] man forever, for he is mortal [2] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
5 The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD .
9 This is the account of Noah.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.
11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress [3] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. [4] 16 Make a roof for it and finish [5] the ark to within 18 inches [6] of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark-you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”
22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.
Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven [1] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”
5 And Noah did all that the LORD commanded him.
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [2] , [3] 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 8
1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
6 After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. 12 He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him.
13 By the first day of the first month of Noah’s six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. 14 By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.
15 Then God said to Noah, 16 “Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives. 17 Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you-the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground-so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number upon it.”
18 So Noah came out, together with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives. 19 All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds-everything that moves on the earth-came out of the ark, one kind after another.
20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [1] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
22 “As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.”
Genesis 9
God’s Covenant With Noah
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”
8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you-the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you-every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”
17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”
The Sons of Noah
18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [1] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father’s nakedness.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”
26 He also said,
“Blessed be the LORD , the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem. [2]
27 May God extend the territory of Japheth [3] ;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his [4] slave.”
28 After the flood Noah lived 350 years. 29 Altogether, Noah lived 950 years, and then he died.
That’s all. The only possible thing I can think of to link this connection is not something I can quote from the Bible, but from Bill Cosby in his hilarious Noah routine. He says that Noah was a “simple man.” Here’s some of the lines from the comedy routine:
(Noah enters, and begins working in his garden, digging)
God: (standing on a chair behind Noah, he rings a bell once) NOAH.
Noah: (Looks up) Is someone calling me? (Shrugs and goes back to his work)
God: (Ding) NOAH!!
Noah: Who is that?
God: It’s the Lord, Noah.
Noah: Right … Where are ya? What do ya want? I’ve been good.
God: I want you to build an ark.
Noah: Right … What’s an ark?
God: Get some wood and build it 300 cubits by 80 cubits by 40 cubits.
Noah: Right … What’s a cubit?
God: Well never mind. Don’t worry about that right now. After you build the ark, I want you to go out into the world and collect all the animals of the world, two by two, male and female, and put them into the ark.
Noah: Right … Who is this really? What’s going on? How come you want me to do all these weird things?
God: I’m going to destroy the world.
Noah: Right … Am I on Candid Camera? How are you gonna do it?
God: I’m going to make it rain for a thousand days and drown them right out.
Noah: Right … Listen, do this and you’ll save water. Let it rain for forty days and forty nights and wait for the sewers to back up.
God: Right…
So, by this, Noah is indeed simple of nature, quite like Noah in “The Village.” But, I think this is a stretch. I personally don’t think there’s any significance to his name, and if there is, can someone let me know?
However, while we are on Biblical themes, the Elders created the village to keep evil out, but because of the snake and the apple, man fell. We all have original sin, and when Noah sinned for his jelousy, he’s a good example that even the simplest of people sin.
As for Ken2t’s other comments, they don’t necessarily need to hunt for turkeys. They can raise them as livestock, so you wouldn’t have to hear them in the woods. They had chickens, but I didn’t hear many of them either. As for the “Creature” sounds, that one is left unexplained. All we know from Edward Walker is that the elders created them, but we are never told nor shown how.
I don’t quite know what to think of the “quiet room” yet… Hmmm…. I’ll get back to you on that.
Christie
dear all,
great forum and discussion. But there is still one thing missing in the discussion about the symbolism thing. its about Noah, does his name symbolises anyhthing??? As we think of the ark of Noah,is there any simmilarities??
I have a question, why is the “quiet room” called as the quiet room? why not the punishment room or panic room ;). and what did you have to do to end up in that quiet room? maybe people have been put there if they started talking about “the ones that we don’t speak of”. as seen in the movie when they close the door of this quiet room after the slapping of ivy, you can see that the room was used often. you can see this by observing the stains around the door nob and key hole where you can see that the paint is dirty/worn.
another funny thing: at the second banquet sceen where they have a large dinner to celebrate the wedding of the sister of ivy, you can see large turkeys made for dinner. now, turkey that big make sound that you can hear from miles away, how come we don;t hear any during the movie ;).
something else: the clattering sound that the creatures make, sounded quite like the clattering sound that “predators: the movie” make. almost thought, I entered in the wrong cinema room because they were showing alien VS predators next door, hahaha.
(sorry for any mistakes in nmy english, I am not a native speaker of english)
dear all,
great forum and discussion. But there is still one thing missing in the discussion about the symbolism thing. its about Noah, does his name symbolises anyhthing??? As we think of the ark of Noah,is there any simmilarities??
I have a question, why is the “quiet room” called as the quiet room? why not the punishment room or panic room ;). and what did you have to do to end up in that quiet room? maybe people have been put there if they started talking about “the ones that we don’t speak of”. as seen in the movie when they close the door of this quiet room after the slapping of ivy, you can see that the room was used often. you can see this by observing the stains around the door nob and key hole where you can see that the paint is dirty/worn.
another funny thing: at the second banquet sceen where they have a large dinner to celebrate the wedding of the sister of ivy, you can see large turkeys made for dinner. now, turkey that big make sound that you can hear from miles away, how come we don;t hear any during the movie ;).
something else: the clattering sound that the creatures make, sounded quite like the clattering sound that “predators: the movie” make. almost thought, I entered in the wrong cinema room because they were showing alien VS predators next door, hahaha.
(sorry for any mistakes in nmy english, I am not a native speaker of english)
Hmmm…. That’s a really interesting theory, Kirstin. I almost want to pay close attention to see if there is a constant color associated with Lucius… I don’t think there is, but there is SO much detail, there could be. His color could very well be yellow, but I highly doubt that both he and Ivy’s father BOTH have yellow as their color…although they could… Hmmmmm…. I suppose I’ll just have to see it again. :D Thanks for your thougths, Kirstin.
Christie
I have been thinking about it and I think that Lucius’s color was yellow. I wasn’t sure at first because if he was the safe color I couldn’t understand why it went away when he was stabbed. After reading Christie’s response I see that it was gone because she had to be the protector for him. That would also explain why her father had the same color; because he was “safe” and a protector to her. Lucius and her father were the only men who really loved her and had her best interest at heart so it makes sense that they would have the same color.
All right…
In addition to the stuff we already know about the elders and how they wanted to preserve innocense… We all know that part of the message MNS was portraying is how sometimes our parents are too over-protective, and even though they love us and want to protect our innocnese, we can’t hide from the real world forever. I was looking at all of the rituals they practice, how red is the color that attracts them, yellow is the safe color, the ceremony of meat, the marking of the poles with yellow paint…blah blah… Ever notice how parents can make up silly rules when we are teens to try to keep us safe? They tell us things that don’t make sense, but we believe them? For instance… Before I went off to college last year, my Mom was very much opposed to living in the dorms because “it’s not safe.” My roomates would drug me, take me to parties, get me drunk…etc. Now, I know this is rediculous, but that is what she told me. When I was younger, 8, 10, 12… my parents wouldn’t let me walk or ride my bike to the park only 1 block from our house because someone would kidnap me. Also, does anyone recall tales of the “Boogie
Man?” My parents would tell me stories of the Boogie Man who sneaks around at night, hiding in the shadows, and if you wander around at night, he will take you. Then there’s the “don’t cross your eyes because they’ll stay that way,” or “if you lie your nose will grow,” kind of thing. My Mom was so sick of my brother telling lies when he was 7 that she said when you lie, you grow a tail. Well, my brother being 7 was feeling around for a tail, and he felt the tip of his tail bone, broke down into tears and actually thought he was growing a tail. Also, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy… These are fantasy characters for parents to show their love for us, but the are still made up. Remember “Santa sees you. If you aren’t good, you’ll get a lump of coal or a switch in your stocking.”
Kinda makes you think about the greater message of parenthood that MNS is trying to tell us… Interesting…
Christie
WOW!
Okay, kids, 3rd time seeing it, and it still thrills me!
All right… I did notice a lot more this time around, more with the shot structure than anything else, but I did want to first comment on the famous rocking chairs. Before I can support my theory on foreshadowing and such, I really need to have the DVD so I can watch and re-watch and note before and after scenes. It’s much too difficult in the theater. Also, as for the chair on the famous porch love scene, IT DOES NOT MOVE. It was facing the woods when Ivy enters the shot, and facing the woods when the camera pans off from their kiss. The only thing that I can possibly say about it is that PERHAPS because I wasn’t looking hard enough, it shifts position SLIGHTY, but I don’t know. Again, I’ll have to wait for the DVD or pay REALLY close attention when I see it in the theater again. Yeah, I have friends lined up around the block to see it with. :D
That being said…
looking more closely at the positioning of characters in a scene and lighting, and all that good stuff, I particularly LOVED the scene where Edward Walker and Alice Hunt are sharing their sweet moment when Edward comes to say, “It is all that I can give you.” If you’ll look closely at this shot, Alice is on one side, Edward is on the other, and the scene is divided with the wall of the room on Alice’s side and the open doorway on Edward’s. If you watch closely, not only do Alice and Edward NEVER touch, Alice NEVER crosses the boarder from her “wall” half of the screen into the open doorway half, and Edward never crosses from the open doorway half into Alice’s wall half. Very nice touch indeed…
Also, there is a similar type of shot with Ivy and Lucius. It’s when they are talking outside with Ivy on the porch and Lucius facing her in the yard. Ivy’s back is to the house, but there is a great deal of light shining from the porch, and it almost looks like light is shining from behind her onto Lucius. Lucius, on the other hand, is in the dark facing the light. I thought it was a nice role-reversal, especially since Ivy is blind, but has the light, and Lucius isn’t, but is in the dark, plus at this moment he asks her if she is upset that she cannot see, to which she replies, “I see the world, Lucius Hunt, just not as you do.”
Speaking of role-reversals…
If you’ll notice in the first half of the film, Lucius is the brave one, always out helping people with the firewood, keeping lookouts company, requesting permission to go through the woods for medicine, picking up a little girl when the warning bell sounds, taking Ivy’s hand right before the creature comes (*swoon*) and at her sister’s wedding (*swoon*), plus he holds the record for standing on the stump with his back to the woods. During this time, he pretty much protects Ivy, along with others. In the middle of the film, Ivy asks, “How is it that you are unafraid when the rest of us shake in our boots?” implying that Ivy is scared of the creatures. Plus, during this first half, Ivy holds out her hand to Lucius to take twice, and during these 2 times, he is always the one to make the move and effort to take it. More on this after I explain the rest… However, when Lucius is hurt, Ivy and he switch roles. Lucius is now the one who needs protection, and Ivy ventrues “blindly” (lol) into the unknown to protect him. Going back to the hand holding, during this half, Ivy makes the effort to take hold of Lucius’s hand twice, once when he is lying on the ground when he’s initially hurt, and the second time when she comes back with the medicine. Another nice little theme that I was glad to notice…
I did notice more in terms of the elders protecting innocense, but I’ll get to that tomorrow. I’m really tired.
Good night!
Christie
I agree with Rachel on this one. Edward Walker THOUGHT it was one of the elders, but he wasn’t sure. Shen Noah’s parents find him missing and the anamal skinns under the floor with feathers and all that jazz, they realize, and yes, Rachel, she does say, “the animals.” I’m seeing it again in a few hours, so I’ll try to catch some more stuff for you. :D
It was Noah killing the animals. Remember when they go to the quiet room and find that he had escaped and they say “The animals” or something like that… Am I wrong? It’s been a few weeks since I’ve seen it…
If it wass the elders all along killing the animals in the village, why were Lucious’s mom and Ivy’s dad having the conversation outside the shed about who or what killed the animals…. they were totally alone and no-one could hear them so this does not make sense to me… surely if they were responsible they would not have been having this conversation? any ideas? I am from the UK and find this chatroom thing amazing… we do not do this in the UK as such… its wacca… you americans are top people!!
Wow.. I just read this whole discussion and it really makes me happy to see that atleast some people take the time to really think about the movie, and catch parts that I haven’t even noticed before. And now that I think about everything you guys have said, it really makes me understand the movie a lot better. Thanks =P
But I have a question.. I don’t really understand how the elders managed to like, be the creatures. It was the elders, right? Anyway, I don’t get how they managed to pull off all those crazy sounds coming from the woods and everything. I’m just confused… I guess.
Hello all. I am so glad to have found this discussion. It is 4 a.m. and I have been up all night thinking about all of the symbolism in this movie. I love movies like this that make you think.
I am still confused about what color Lucious is. They make very clear that he has the same color as her father, which made me think that it had something to do with her and their love for her. If that is the case I don’t understand why the color would have disappeared when he was stabbed. Maybe is has to do with Lucious being fearless of the creatures and only being scared when she may be in harm, similar to her father. I just don’t know, this is really bothering me. If anyone has any thoughts on this please respond :)
I also noticed that throughout much of the movie Ivy is wearing blue and in the scene where Lucious admits to going into the woods Ivy’s dress stands out bold amoung the drab colors that everyone else is wearing. She stands out in this scene more than any other. Any thoughts on why?
Thanks for the awesome discussion!
Okay, whoever posted their name as “Lucius and Ivy.” I found the beautiful conversation between Lucius and Ivy on the porch. It was on the Internet Movie Database, incase anyone is interested. It’s not their entire conversation, but what I believe to be the most memorable part:
Ivy Walker : When we are married, will you dance with me? I find dancing very agreeable. Why can you not say what is in your head?
Lucius Hunt : Why can you not stop saying what is in yours? Why must you lead, when I want to lead? If I want to dance I will ask you to dance. If I want to speak I will open my mouth and speak. Everyone is forever plaguing me to speak further. Why? What good is it to tell you you are in my every thought from the time I wake? What good can come from my saying that I sometimes cannot think clearly or do my work properly? What gain can rise of my telling you the only time I feel fear as others do is when I think of you in harm? That is why I am on this porch, Ivy Walker. I fear for your safety before all others. And yes, I will dance with you on our wedding night.
*swoon*
Christie
I think that MNS will be a director who is appreciated by the certain few at the moment, then praised and worshiped later on in life after he has 2 dozen or so films out and film students from all over study his techniques. The same thing happened with Hitckock and Orson Wells, and look at them now. ESPECIALLY look at Citizen Kane. Only a handful of people liked that film, and only later when a film student was studying autorism in film class did he stumble back on Citizen Kane, and suddenly there exploded a massive study on it and how great it is. Now it’s considered by the AFI the best film ever created. I don’t know if I’D go as far as to say such a thing, but for all the rules it broke during the manufactured film days, and can see why they chose it.
All of us who enjoyed “The Village,” just wait. In 15-20 years, we’ll enjoy MNS’s recognition. By then, we’ll have weeded out everyone who was disappointed by the previews and their expectations. :D
Christie
Thank heavens I’m not the only one who found this movie, enjoyable, thought-provoking and absolutely jam-packed with detail. The more I think about it, the more I liked the film and the more I want to see it again. The only people who dislike this film seem to be the mass-market, cheap-thrills “where’s the monsters?” types, and, in a way, I can understand those sort of people feeling a little cheated – ie. the marketing itself was a red herring. I think that was a brave move, but in the end it turned out to be a far deeper, subtler experience than most critics gave it credit. I’ve loved reading your comments – thanks!
(PS – thanks for the whole ‘rocking chairs’ discussion, and thoughts too – I thought I was going mad too when i couldn’t work out the importance and symbolism! And it’s exactly this kind of subtle detail that does indeed make Night a great storyteller and film-maker – he is NOT a film-maker for the mass market, his stories are FAR too involved and way deeper than most regular idiots can ever take on-board)
Phil
To answer some questions about auras…
One of my friends can see them, and she has explained to me that not everyone has them, and people have different colors for different reasons. She said colors are linked to character. So, of course I asked her if I had an aura, which she says I do, and my color is white. She said white is rare and is usually the color of someone who has had to struggle through something, but never gives up and tries to do the right thing. She said she will only trust someone with a white aura. You know… it wouldn’t surprise me if Lucius had a white aura based on what my friend has told me. Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about auras to answer any of your other questions about it being linked to the soul or anything like that. However, I too thought that he was dead when she didn’t see him. If he had died, I would have stormed out of the theater SCREAMING! I’m glad I didn’t have to.
As for the stream and the sound, it did come up at least twice. First, at the beginning. The shot is looking down at the stream with one of the “creatures” reflection’s in the water. Later when she’s walking through the woods, they do show a few shots of it.
Christie
Actually very few people have a color. They make a very definite point that it’s only Ivy’s father and Lucius that she can see, and actually make enough of a point that I was waiting for some sort of reveal that Ivy’s father had had an affair with Lucius’ mother. I was thinking for a while that the obvious tension between Hurt and Weaver was based in something like that, but Hurt so easily allowing the relationship between Ivy and Lucius pretty much put an end to that line of thought. I just can’t imagine a father letting his children get married to each other.
And yeah, they do show the stream and it is in the sound mix.
I don’t know why they never reveal the color. I think the point was that everyone had a definite aura, so she knew when people were there. At the time when Ivy found Lucius lying in his house after he was stabbed, she did not “see” him because the aura was gone, and she said he did not have a color, well, I assumed he was dead at that point. I always thought that an aura represented the soul. I was surprised that he was still alive.
What bothers me is that I don’t see how Ivy could have made it through the woods like that on her own being blind. Her father told her to follow the sound of the stream, but does anyone remember seeing the stream, or hearing it in the background?
I think Christie is smart to go and see it again!
Lisa
You know, I don’t think she ever said what his color was… just that he had a color, but wouldn’t tell him. Hmmmm…. I wonder why they never reveal his color…
Christie
What was Lucius’ color as Ivey described?
You’re welcome, Lisa. :D
Just letting everyone know…
I’m seeing “The Village” again this Thursday with some friends who haven’t seen it yet. I’m so excited! Aside from the shifting rocking chairs, is there anything anyone wants me to look out for or pay attention to?
Christie
Thanks Christie. I thought the woman who said, “You took the oath” (Tabitha Walker) looked much older than Mr. Walker, but I guess not. Also, you never saw her in his home with the two girls, indicating that she was their mother. It hadn’t been clear in my mind who he was standing with when he was looking through the black box at the end. I thought the way they revealed the situation at the end flashed by way too fast, you really didn’t have time to see who was who. I’ll have to get it on DVD when it comes out so that I can replay some of the scenes.
Lisa
Okay… I just went to http://www.imdb.com to look up the character names, and Tabitha Walker, the woman he was seen with many times, is his wife.
Christie
During the movie, they never come out and say that he is married. I just thought it was deeply implied by the woman he kept hanging around, especially when she kept telling him, “You took the oath!” when he wanted to go to the town to get medicine. He huged her and such. He was also with the same woman standing in line greeting guests for his daughter’s wedding party, and at the end when they were going through their black box together.
As for “It is all that I can give you,” he sent Ivy to get medicine for her son, Lucius to save him. That was all he could give her. He couldn’t even touch her. Does that help any? I hope I explained it well…
Christie
Loved the movie. But the part about Mr. Walker not touching Lucius’ mother is bothering me, as I don’t quite get it. I missed the fact that Mr. Walker was married. He seemed to me to be available. What was he talking about when he said, “That is all that I can give you.” What had he given her?
Lisa
Sorry… thought of something else…
When Lucius’s mother explains to him that his father died on a Tuesday…blah blah blah… I really didn’t think of this until just now, but the color most associate with Tuesday is Red. Recall “Ruby Tuesday” if you will. Just a coincidence? Maybe… but, it’s still interesting.
Christie
Oh, one more thing… Ivy also grows abundantly in the shade. I think this is strongly linked to Ivy’s blindness.
You know, I was just looking up the symbolism of the rocking chair, and I stumbled upon this site. The Village is just SATURATED with symbolism, it tingles all over! :D Sorry… English major…
Anyway, I feel like ranting, so here we go with my theories:
Color as symbolism:
RED–The BAD Color
Obviously, red is the bad color of the film. This one is easy to figure out. Every time something bad happens, red is somehow in the shot. Red is most often associated with blood or warning, hence the marks on the doors, the Lucious stabing scene, even in the after shot with Ivy, blood is smeared on her white blouse. In that particular shot, white is symbolic because it symbolizes innocense, which has been smeared. The only thing that somewhat confuses me is Ivy’s hair. Can anyone find the symbolism of her hair being red?
YELLOW–The GOOD Color
Yellow is most often associated with happiness and joy, and the town was founded in attempt to preserve innocence and happiness, so that’s not too hard to figure out. Also, if you look closely, almost ALL of the walls unside the houses are painted yellow. A lot of the women’s dresses are also yellow. There are yellow candles burning in jars, yellow flowers worn at the wedding.
BLUE–Primarily Ivy’s Color
All except two of Ivy’s outfits are blue. Blue is the color of serenity and peace, which very much describes her character. There is one particular scene in the court house where Ivy wears a VERY DEEP BLUE dress. It’s quite eye-catching. Ivy also has blue eyes. Lucious is almost always wearing blue as well. Blue is also trimmed in many places: the lining of clothes, the table cloths outside.
BLACK–The Secrets
Secrets are kept in the dark, hence the black boxes. On airplanes, black boxes also hold truth. In this story, both are true.
ORAS–Ivy’s sight
I think it was absolutely brilliant that Ivy is blind. The oras that she sees around certain people are colorful. Again, more symbolism here.
Names As Symbolism:
IVY–Consistant and Steadfast
In many traditions, Ivy is considered everlasting, clinging to a strong support, very femenine. It also signifies true love, faithfulness, and undying affection. Ring a bell??? Also, if you look closely, when Ivy is climbing over the wall of the woods to get to the town, notice that it is ivy growing on the fence. Pretty cool, huh?
LUCIUS–Bringer of Light
Do I really need to explain this one? It seems pretty simple to me.
Thematic Symbolism:
CRIME IS THE MONSTER
The Elders founded the Village to preserve innocense and goodness at the cost of freedom, instilling fear in the next generation. They created “those whom they don’t speak of” as the monster keeping them in the valley, when the real monster is the crime and downfall of man they were all hurt by. But, since biblical times with the snake and the apple, we all know man is destined to fall. Noah fell.
Because of jealousy, he committed a crime against Lucius, the very thing the Elders were trying to keep out. It is oh so very symbolic that Noah should adorn the monster costume, as because of the crime he committed, he became the “monster.” This is one of my favorites symbolic themes of the film.
TOUCH
This is another favorite theme of mine. Touch is so very important to the development of human beings, it’s not even funny. In order to survive, we need to touch and be touched by other human beings. It’s crucial to our development. I did a thesis paper on touch in “Edward Scissorhands.” Trust me on this one.
Touch mostly focused on Ivy and Lucius. At the resting rock, Ivy talks about how Lucius never holds her arm any more. Then, when the monster is in the background, ready to reach for Ivy’s hand, Lucius takes it and doesn’t let go. I bet EVERY female felt her heart skip a beat during this scene… especially with the violins in the background. :D It’s again focused at the wedding celebration when Ivy reaches for someone to take her hand, and Lucius takes it. Also, when Ivy finds Lucius hurt, she holds his hand, and then at the end when she comes back with the medicine, she takes it again. Lucius stopped touching Ivy to conceal his feelings for her, but as soon as he grabbed her hand, that connection was established.
The LACK of touch is also important. Lucius explains to his mother that Mr. Walker likes her because he never touches her. She finds this to be true when she reaches for his hand at the wedding and he does not take it, yet firmly grasps the next person’s. Also, during the scene with them inspecting the empty barn and chicken cages, they stand SO close, but do not touch. When Mr. Walker finally tells her he has sent Ivy to get medicine, he steps toward her and says, “It is all I can give you.” He takes another step closer and repeats, “it is all I can give you.” Again, they are SOOOOOOO close, yet do not touch, because once that happens, the connection is made and there is no turning back. But, Mr. Walker remains true to his wife and NEVER touches Lucius’s mother.
The Rocking Chair
There is DEFINITELY some symbolism with the chair. I’ve seen this film twice, and noticed it the first time. I began looking closer the second time to see if I could spot the symbolism. Here are the scenes with the chairs:
1: the empty chair in the quiet room
There is indeed a long pan to get the chair to take up most of the shot, and it overpowers Ivy and Noah in the background. This chair remains empty.
2: the empty chair on the Walker’s porch
This chair is scene during the Ivy/Lucius love scene.
3: the empty chair on the landscape
I believe during one or two shots there is an empty chair in the grass facing the woods.
4: Noah sits in the chair after stabbing Lucius
This is the first time anyone is seen sitting in one of the chairs, and it is after a pivitol moment in the story.
5: Noah sits in the chair in the quite room.
Noah again sits in a chair, this time in the quiet room when Ivy repeatedly slaps him for what he’s done.
6: Ivy sits in the chair on her porch
This is the third and final time. It is right after she has decided to get medicine for Lucius.
7: Mr. Walker sat in the chair once.
During this same scene, her father tells Ivy that he sat in that chair after he was told she would be forever blind.
I need to see the film again to confirm this, but I believe the chair symbolizes foreshadowing and turning points in the film. When the chairs are empty, foreshadowing, when someone is sitting in them, turning points. Can anyone else confirm this? Or, is there an inconsistancy somewhere that I don’t know about? Again, this is just a theory. I want to know as much as you guys.
Okay… I think I’ve got all the symbolism I could find. I’m sure I’ll find more later on. This is quite the brilliant film. One of my most favorite things about MNS is how he uses an fanciful element to teach a greater truth, all of which have something to do with conquering fears.
The ghosts were awesome in 6th Sense, but the point was second chances for the underdog, strongly linked with courage.
Superheros were awesome in Unbreakable, but the point was unleashing the hero in us all to protect the greater good.
Aliens were awesome in Signs, but the point was keeping the Faith through all things.
And now, Monsters are awesome in The Village, but the point is how love is everlasting.
Getting off my soap box now… MNS is the Alfred Hitchcock of our generation. I’m excited to see what he has to offer next.
Feel free to comment.
Christie
The thing I love so much about the Village is the wonderful cinematography! I cannot remember who the director of photography is, but I was captivated right from the first shots of the woods being reflected in the water. It was eerie and definitely set the mood.
I wonder if anyone picked up on the common theme of borders. The Village set its borders along the valley and no one was allowed out. Yet when Ivy ventures outside of the woods, we discover that the world has set up some of its own borders, and no one was allowed in.
Also, to the question surrounding the many older villagers that were not elders: there were a few elders that we did not know much about, as they were static characters. They could have all had children of their own at the time of the founding of the Village. There could have also been collaborators that were involved with the founding but not included the central elder council. I believe MNS left this ambiguous for a reason, either because it took too long to explain (and potentially got cut from the final version) or for a deeper, more symbolic reason yet to be discussed.
As for the rocking chairs, I would really like to know what MNS had in mind. Unless it was a mere cinematic device, there was a specific reason for the framing of it in the Lucius/Ivy love scene.
Lastly, and perhaps humorously, I thought it was funny that “the ones we do not speak of” were often spoke of among the characters throughout the movie.
The thing that keeps me up at night about this movie is all the mysterys.
1st is how did the boy die? Lucious said that other factors brought his death.
2nd did the elders make the drawings on the rock, the one noah found.
3rd which one of the elders (if it was one of them…) saw noah when he went past the lines to look at the berries.
4th and of course who was the animal mutilator, deep down i dont think it was noah that was a lot of work for him to doand he dosent know how to clean himself up so wouldnt ther be blood on him after mutilating them.
MNS write a movie on so many levels and i think once you think about this movie and you rember that all the monsters are fake you still wonder. I guess the fear is always in your head. which is a amzing feat for a movie to do
I noticed the chair changed direction also but the folks I saw the movie with told me that it didn’t move and it lead to a big arguement!!
I waited for something in the movie to relate to the moving chair and nothing did, so by the time Ivy went on her trip, I assumed that one of the monsters had sat down unheard and had been sitting near Ivy and Lucious and turned it and that it was meant to be spooky.
Then when I realized Noah was the only ‘monster’ in the movie, I decided that I had been correct all along and that Noah had easedropped on their conversation -giving him more reason to do what he did to Lucious later.
For those asking questions…all you gotta do is read the previous posts, and 99.9% of your questions are answered.
WHY DID THEY HELP LUCIOUS, AND NOT OTHERS WHO DIED? Lucious was a victim of a crime, which is what they attempted to escape. Ivy, and the other elder’s son, both were stricken with disease, which in their thought process, is a natural process. Therefore the attempted murder of Lucious was something that could be rectified.
THE ROCKING CHAIR: Never thought of it, however I do remember the scenes you’re describing, and it is a valid point…i don’t know…perhaps it’s something relevant, or on the other hand, we’re giving MNS too much credit.
Thank God at least one other person mentioned the role of rocking chairs in the movie!! I didn’t notice the chair on the porch changing direction, but I did notice that it was given seemingly undue significance by the framing of the shot…and I became very piqued to rocking chairs because…and I hope I’m not going batty…in the scene where Ivy and Noah look into the “quiet room”, a rocking chair moves all the way across the room from far screen left to center frame!! I was wondering why the hell mns chose to shoot that scene in the manner that he did (the duo stand in the door frame taking up only a small part of the mise-en-scene in a nearly empty room), and so I searched the rest of the frame for an explanation when I noticed the moving chair…I suspected at the time that village ancestors remained active as spirits (and this is why we later get a close up of an empty rocking chair on the village borderline facing out into “other” territory), but clearly I was mistaken and the rocking chair symbolism is never explicitly articulated in the film. Does anyone else have any clue whats going on with the rocking chair motif?
Much Obliged…
Sonia
They didn’t cut themselves off from the outside world entirely… They kept an office full of medical supplies right outside the forest!
But Bubba, you made a good point about the boy being the first to die in the village. I noticed there were no other grave stones. Thanks!
They’re not obsessed with a perfect world, they’re trying to hide from the evil of the outside world, which they seem to think has been brought on by money, finance and all the things that go along with that, including technology. They’ve cut themselves off from the outside world and reverted to what they believe is a more pure lifestyle and are afraid that any exposure to the outside world will lead to contamination. If they can’t produce it themselves, they don’t use it.
As for why Lucius and not the others: Ivy went blind as a child, but they never say why. It may have been something preventable but there are a lot of eye diseases that are not. Youth-onset blindness happens all the time even with the presence of modern medicine. My general impression with the boy at the beginning is that he was the first person to die in the Village since it was founded and the elders were simply unwilling to risk the trip. After experiencing the loss of a child first hand Ivy’s father, and the boy’s, were unwilling to let anybody else go through that when it might be prevented. Hurt says that flat out.
one more thought… If the elders were obsessed with a perfect world, why DIDN’T they use the medicine to heal their own family?
I’m still wondering why they got medicine for Lucien but not for Ivy when she was going blind as a child OR for the 7 year old boy who died after being sick for a long time? Someone had mentioned perhaps it was because Lucien’s death was a crime… I don’t know.
Also, why would that office where MNS sat, be stocked with medicine if the people in the village allowed their children to go blind and die of sickness and didn’t use the medicine?
Cat – When he said “ashamed,” when talking about his daughter going blind. I just thought that, maybe, he meant that he was ashamed at what he would sacrifice to keep his “oath”…his daughter’s sight.I am 100% positive that he did say this when telling Ivy that he was sitting on “that very rocking chair”…etc
Noah’s Death – Yah, if you remember, Ivy first feels her way around the tree, near the ditch (i found this odd, and assumed if they took the time to show this, that it would be important). She then found that spot again, and knew where she was.
Also, holding her hands out…imitating the record-breaking stand by Lucious…very cool. Maybe in the character’s mind, she thought this would attract the monster (or person dressed as a monster, since she was kind of questioning whether or not it was real or fake). And Noah, familiar with this game, wanted to play, and ran after her. What I don’t understand is why Noah was soooo violent with her? Was it because of the 7 or 8 bitch slaps she applied on him? Then again, he is mentally unstable, so you can’t really question it (MNS, you genius…or whoever he stole this movie from ;).
In the end, Noah was either impaled by something (perhaps the spikes from the costume istelf???), or just hit his head on a solid…but anywho, he dies.
The movie was great IMO. It lured people in with advertisments of blood and gore…but in the end, it was something much more!
And 1 more point to add.
I believed that Noah is more innocent than what has been suggested. He found the creature suit and may not even known that it’s purpose. Perhaps he just wore in good fun and nature.
In the woods, he spotted Ivy and was apparently very excited. Perhaps he did not realise that he was in the creature suit and wanted to ‘play’ with Ivy.
Well after reading thru the threads, I realised that I have a point which I did not see it elsewhere.
I believed that Edward knew the rest of the ‘elders’ from a kind of help groups, like those “Alcohol Anonymous” groups. This is evident from the voice-overs, which the rest of the elders spoke about how they lost a loved one to violent crime, presumably to one another during some sessions. This is also evident from the photograph of the group that was taken outside a building of sorts, suggesting that bond forged between the members of the group.
It is also quite evident that Edward Walker had inherited his father’s wealth and used the money to buy a piece of land to be a “reservation”, naming it “Walker” preservation in the process.
Loved The Village. I agree with Bubba about how Noah died. That’s how I remember it.
John
Ivy runs away knowing that there’s a creature there and runs into the stump that she found next to the pit and recognizes where she is. She then steps out with her back to Noah – repeating the game that the village boys play on the stump at the border – until she hears him coming. When he gets close enough she just steps out of the way and he falls. Pretty sure he got impaled by something down there …
Please help me out with my previous question on exactly how Noah dies as I am getting hungry.
We have a dispute as to how Noah buys it in the end of the movie. We all saw it at different theatres, and we are wondering if there are two versions. When he is coming after Ivy, she holds her arms up, and the _______________ fill in the blank – how did he die exactly. This is important as lunch depends on your answers.
Boniquatashima – go back to class and work on your multiplication tables and let the adults have a meaningful discussion. Bad.
Can anyone post the exact conversation between Lucius and Ivy in that Porch scene? It was very powerful.
I remember Lucius says something like “.. and yes Ivy Walker, I will hold your hand and dance with you on your marriage.” Ivy has a tear falling down on the other side of her cheek.
Wonderful and poignant!
Maybe someone can answer this question for me. Did anyone else think it was strange that their in the middle of a wildlife refuge and didnt encounter any animals. Ivy walked through the woods for about a day and a half and didnt even run into a single animal.
oops! M. Night Shyamalan was accused of stealing a Pennsylvania screenwriter’s film for “Signs.” Curious to see if the movie was adapted from one of the Lois Lowry books I mentioned, I discovered it’s happening again. Children’s book author Margaret Peterson Haddix is being encouraged by fans to take action, accusing Shyamalan of stealing The Village plot from her popular 1995 novel “Running Out of Time,” where there’s a fake 1800’s town, the adults have secrets, someone needs medicine, a tomboy protagonist has to leave the fakeness to go get it… the similarities go on. I haven’t read it, but a article from the 8/5/04 Philly Inquirer outlines these similarities.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/magazine/daily/9321908.htm
Whether there was wrongdoing or not, I still liked the movie. He did a good job adapting/stealing/coincidentally coming up with the same plot as the book.
I think Tabitha and Edward’s conversation (“you took the oath”) explains why Ivy was the one who traveled. Ivy went instead of Edward because she never took the oath; all the elders, Edward included, did.
Did anything in the movie indicate whether or not Edward “let” Ivy go blind? We know she was blind at a young age, since she mentioned Lucius’ former tendency to help her around when she was a child. I assumed she had been born blind.
I liked the the twist, partially because of my interest in homesteading. I did not predict the twist, or perhaps I could say, like Rick who posted on 8/1, that I “saw the twists coming once they started,” which I think is an equivalent (and ridiculous) phrase. (Yes, most people can see a ball coming for them once it has been thrown) My sister guessed the twist, crediting her foresight to having read “The Giver” and “Gathering Blue,” both by Lois Lowry, with similar themes.
^^^That seemed kind of retarded. It makes perfect sense for him to go. But then again, he was the one who sat idley’ by as his daughter went blind. But common, a blind girl going through the woods. The ditch…one simple way for a blind girl to die in the woods…there are plenty of other things that could prevent her from making it. I just thought it was stupid to believe a father would allow that.
And here’s a major question, noone asked…WHAT COLOR WAS LUCIOUS, IN IVY’S EYES??? RED???
I think that’s what the whole conversation with his wife was about: “YOU took the oath.” implying that she supports his decision to allow Ivy to go.
I think of office that MNS was in was stacked with medicine was because that character knew about the village. He was hired to protect the village from outsiders, that’s why he gave that “no conversation” speech. So he kept medicine in case the village would ever need it, I think.
btw…first sentence…
“he could do something to stop her”
What i meant was that he could’ve perhaps prevented her from going blind, with the right medical proceedures and medicines.
Also…they created their refuge to escape crime…violence…murder. So that is probably why they didn’t want to sit by and allow completion of murder. It makes sense to me.
The girl going blind…the father was “ashamed”…and i guess it’s because he could do something to stop her, but his obsession with a perfect world, didn’t allow it. Same thing with the father of the 7yr old boy. That kinda’ freaks me out. The reason they seeked help for Lucious, is because it was a “Crime”…he was stabbed. And that was the exception to the rule.
So why didn’t her father journey to the outside world??? He knew about the secret. So if he went to the real world, he’d easily be able to communicate with others. When he fought with his wife about going…I assumed he was arguing for himself, not his friggn’ daughter. But all of a sudden, the entire burden is on her?
I can’t figure out why that office that MNS was sittig in was so stocked with medicine? They had mentioned it was for animal bites, but no one would require penicillin for that… Also, if there was all that medicine, why did they let Ivy go blind? Why didn’t they seek help for the 7 year old boy who died? Why DID they seek help for Lucien? Do you think MNS’s character was in on the whole thing?
Hi.I saw the movie. It wasn’t scarey like they said it would be. I do have to say it did keep me in suspense for a while. I think the twist was a little to…..The way you find out..I think you find out too soon. Overall..I THINK THE MOVIE SUCKED.AHAHAH. IT WAS THE DUMBEST MOVIE I’VE EVER SEEN. I CAN SIT UP in CLASS AND DAYDREAM BETTER CRAP THEN THAT. FOR ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO BE SO NICE..WHY DON’T U JSUT COME OUT AND SAY U HATE IT. IT WAS AWFUL. STUPID AND POINTLESS. IT SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO BE PLAYED IN THEATERS..AND I WANT MY FREAKIN MONEY BACK U DUMB PPL.
If Noah killed the livestock, would he have been able to clean himself. After he kills Lucius, he has the blood on his clothes and hands. He shows his hands to the elders. Probably out of guilt or remorse. He did have a knife, though. Whatever…
I am thinking about the symbolism in the colors in the film, with the yellow flags symbolizing cowardice. Afraid of the outside world, the village elders retreated to create their own so called utopia, rather than dealing with their past tragedies.
Does the movie provide commentary about America’s current condition? Was it Hillary Clinton or Barbara Bush who during talked about how we were all a “village” and that we all were responsible for our children? Is America so busy focusing on outside threats that we are not giving the same attention to the problems within our borders? Are we a generally fearful nation?
As a mother of young children, I am thinking how I can’t let my children ride their bikes out alone in the neighborhood like I used to when I was little, for fear that they will be abducted.
I am seeing some similarities between the parents of today, and the village elders. Fear was being created by the elders with the creation of”those we do not speak of”. Are we manufacturing unnecessary fear in our society rather than dealing with problems head on?
ooops, I meant what Amy said about the newspapers! sorry.
There was one part that seemed to definitively state that Noah was responsible for the animals–When his parents discovered that he’d escaped from the quiet room, his mother said something like “Oh, Noah… the animals” as if she was suddenly realizing or letting herself realize that he was responsible for it. As for why he was chasing her, I think he was just playing a variation of their “game” in which he hid and always played chase games with her. I liked what Ashley had to say about the parrallel lives being lived as exampled by the newspaper articles. As far as the other adults: I think the “elders” were the ones who concieved of the idea in the first place, and the other adults were other victims of violent crimes whom they recruited to come along. So many were the same age or older than the elders there’s no way they could be their children. I don’t know what they’re planning on doing in years future when the children are all related, but I guess that’s a subject for another movie!
Noah’s not schizophrenic. I have a paranoid schizophrenic uncle and have worked with a good number of other schizophrenics in the past and that’s not how it plays out. Schizophrenia doesn’t involve developmental delays, which Noah absolutely DOES have, and generally doesn’t kick in until late adolesence (usually between 16 and 18) so schizophrenics are generally very high functioning outside of their delusions. For lack of a better term Noah’s ‘simple’ … his development appears to have stalled out at about a two or three year old level. He’s not delusional, he just lacks the ability to process and filter information the way an adult would, has a primitive grasp on personal relationships and can’t grasp that his actions have consequences.
I find the Village to be an irony. There are many supremacist groups in the world that believe that if one particular race, religion, or culture existed, that the world’s impurities would cease to exist. Now, let’s look at the Village. They were all the same (nationality, religion, etc.). They believed that isolating themselves from the world, would keep them from impure thoughts (such as murder), when in actuality, impure thoughts doesn’t discriminate.
I wonder if Ivy’s reference to color represented race?
As for Noah, I wonder what his true purpose was.
Other then that, I enjoyed the movie. Of course, it wasn’t some highly souped up movie like Spider-Man 2, but for its simplicity, it’s one of a kind.
Actually, many people of the village have rocking chairs – it’s not the same one.
My theory isn’t that Noah is “special”, it’s that he suffers from schizophrenia, which causes “psychotic manifestations, such as hearing internal voices (hallucinations) and assigning unusual significance or meaning to normal events or holding fixed false personal beliefs (delusions). No single symptom is definitive for diagnosis; rather, the diagnosis encompasses a pattern of signs and symptoms, in conjunction with impaired occupational or social functioning.”
I’m so glad to have found a forum where people appreciate M. Night’s work in The Village! I think the marketing of the movie led people to expect this movie to be a formulaic thriller, and so its poignant themes and powerful artistry was lost on a lot of people.
I noticed the camera’s focus on the rocking chair too. While I didn’t notice that the position changed, I did observe that Noah sits in that same rocking chair right after he stabs Lucias and has the “bad color” on his hands. Maybe it was some kind of foreshadowing of what’s to come…
Ivy’s blindness is fascinating to think about…In some ways, I think she represents the Villager’s blindness to reality beyond their constructed world. In some ways, her blindness gives her the power to see things that other cannot see, paralled to the villagers’ way of life that allows them to experience something modernity has lost. On the other hand, this blindness also prevents her from actually seeing and realizing the truth, as with the villagers’ blindness. I love the way it’s ambiguous, as the consequences and emotions of life’s choices are never black and white.
Along with Ivy’s character-doesn’t the plant ivy grow without light? (Or am I recalling inaccurate facts about plant life?) Any connection there?
I also had some thoughts about Lucias and Noah. Both characters were in their own ways, unafraid of the creatures in the woods. And it’s interesting that the ones without fear were the ones involved in the first crime (it seems like it’s the first murder in the village). Anyone have any thoughts on that?
Finally, in response to the analogy for legalism and religion, I definitely see the connection, except one thing-William Hurt’s respect and admiration for Lucias’ courage. Instead of being angry at Lucias when he confessed to trespassing the woods, Hurt’s character, the leader, extended grace to Lucias, and says he has a courage he himself could never possess. Within this constructed world (legalistic religions), maybe there are individuals who yearn to experience spiritual freedom and truth beyond man-made rules, or people who are at a crossroads between letting go of what they thought was religion, to experience something deeper.
Overall…kudos to M. Night!
I’m surprised that no one brought this up yet. I think that this movie is a direct metaphor for strict religions. Think about it…a group of people don’t like the way things are so they isolate themselves and create their own society. They back it up with stories that can be changed to meet their needs. In the movie, the people in the woods=the devil. The elders scare villagers by telling them if you stray from the village (religion) you will probably die. The big fear by the elders is that young people will realize that the myth isn’t true, and the society that they worked so hard to create will crumble. The intentions of the elders are good, but they use fear to control other’s lives to perpetuate their own desires. I don’t want to bash any religions, but does anyone else see this?
I didn’t like the ending. I thought it could have been better, but then, oh well. I didn’t see it coming. Throughout the whole movie, I was so drawn into the idea that there was a monster roaming outside the village, until the end, you realize it was the elders all along. This movie really portrays anti-socialism in the sense that since they each had their own life experience losing someone they loved, they drew away from society and lived secluded and they way of keeping their children that way was to make up a damned lie.
Tell me if my mind is playing tricks on me.
At night time, when Ivy suddenly wakes up because she “saw” Lucius at her window, she walks across the porch, past a rocking chair, and sets down beside him on the steps.
I remember doing a double-take at this scene because I could have swore that when she walked by the rocking chair, it was facing slightly toward the house in such a way that she could set down in it. In fact, that’s what I thought she was going to do. However, she sat on the steps and talked with Lucius. After that conversation, the camera pans back toward the porch and looks at the rocking chair…which is now facing toward the woods. Am I imagining this? Did anyone else notice?
I’m half tempted to see the movie again, solely to see if the rocking chair changed positions!! And if so, what’s that supposed to mean? It showed up as a frequent symbol in the movie.
I’ve enjoyed the comments above!
Thanks.
I thought that the 6th Sense was good, and I thought that Signs was good also, I don’t know why people hated Signs. I thought it was a great movie by M. The Village I thought would be a little scarier, although it did have its suspenceful moments. The creature costumes look awesome, would have been better if they were real. Brodey, Phoenix, and Howard are all great in this film. If you haven’t seen it you should.
It is so nice to see that there are people who actually liked the movie and saw the points that M. Night was trying to get across. I think too many people focus on “the twist” and keep expecting something like the 6th Sense, and they miss out on a great story. Like the purpose of the 6th Sense was not that Bruce Willis was dead, but that there are things we need to tell people while they’re alive. In Signs (which I liked, although it was a little slow) it was that everything happened for a reason, and that there are small miracles everyday, and in this one it’s that you can’t escape sorrow and human nature. If you look at it, they are themes that run through the lives of everyone, part of the human existence.
I just really liked the little details that pulled everything together — the newspaper article at the end, the color red (blood) being bad, Ivy being the only one allowed out of the town, etc.
I am glad that people have answered the question I had which was — who skinned the animals. At first I thought it may have been the guy whose son died b/c he was trying to tell people that the Village wasn’t working, and sorrow followed them, but I think it being Noah makes more sense. It looks like Noah may have been in on the whole “creature” thing — he laughed when noises came from the woods, and he knew how to wear the creature suit.
One thing still puzzles me — where did all those other people come from? It looks like there were people the same age as the Elders — did they know about the creatures too? Not that it matters, it was still a great story.
Wow! What great insights from everyone.
The man reading the paper – I think the stories in the paper were not about the village inhabitants. I think the newspaper articles were show to demonstrate how parallel the events in the village were to the outside world. In each world, a seven year old boy died. In each world, a murderer was killed. The elders, despite their efforts, could not prevent the real world events from taking place in their village. The newspaper also had an article about a billionaire who died. At first, I thought this was a reference to Walker’s father. But, that would have been many years before. I think maybe it was a clue that somewhere, somehow, the cycle was starting over again.
Although I doubt it will happen, I would love to see a sequel to this movie, but it would be very hard for mns to make a decent one, and sequels arent really his thing. If anyone has a DvD date on it please email me on it, Thanks.
I loved this movie and have a lot to say about it. The screenwriting was genius because of its subtlety, something that unfortunately eludes many movie goers. For example, I was perturbed, even to the point of being distracted at one point by the characters’ seemingly hokey language. I thought, “Come on, I know this is a period piece, but some of this just sounds silly. I know MNS has written better than this.” At the end of course, it all makes sense. This language was contrived by Professor Walker, who was trying to reconstruct a fictional time period. It would be the same if you and I decided to talk like they did in colonial times; it would sound silly. But this shows how The Village’s society was trying to control every variable including language, making the grammar passive and restrained, to prevent the society from any “modern” corruptions such as crime. However, they could not control Noah, a person whose evil came not from society but from his uncontrollable nature. They would have done well to remember that Cain and Able did not live in “the towns.” The irony is that someone like Noah may have been able to be subdued with medication…..in a modern society.
Another great clue that Shymalan gives us is the women. I remember watching thinking, “Man, for this time period in a rural society, the women certainly have a lot of power. There are just as many women on the council as there are men.” Again, this is because they are modern women. I suppose 2nd class citizenship is one antiquity they were not willing to adopt :)
A final seeming flaw in the movie that turns out to make sense at the end is the contrived time period. We are lead to belive that it is the late 1800’s. History saavy viewers might have thought that these people’s way of life was a little too primitive, even for a hundred years ago. But look further into that time period. The turn of the century, later called “The Guilded Age” by Mark Twain, was the time of the American Industrial Revolution, where many people were drawn out of their agrarian societies and into the cities, with the promise of more stable jobs and modern technologies of the time. But this promise was tainted by the over crowding, pollution, poor living and working conditions and….crime of the big cities. So it’s understandable that these people have decided to go back to an agricultural lifestyle, away from “the towns.”
correction: I meant to type “under his nose” , not “under his knows” :P
First off, a few answers to above questions. The man reading the paper was, of course, m. night shymalan. I didn’t realize that the forest was called Walker preserve but that all makes sense. The man reading the paper knew about The Village. It was bought and paid for and he was helping to keep it a secret. That’s why he appeared to let the ranger steal those drugs right under his knows; he knew what was going on. The boxes in the elders homes contained bad memories of modern life, like tragic newspaper articles, especially the articles of their own family members’ murders. They kept these in case they were ever tempted by modern conveniences. My next post will be some thoughts on the themes of the movie.
Robert: the guy reading the paper was Night himself. He always tucks himself into his films. That’s the main reason it’s there.
I was wondering why Ivy’s father insisted she be the only one to actually enter the towns – even when she had escorts they were only to take her as far as the road – and it’s actually pretty obvious. Anybody sighted would see that the world outside was radically different from the world of the village and realize that they had been lied to. Ivy’s the only person who can go without spoiling the illusion because she simply will never know what she’s hearing.
The boxes had mementos of their former lives in them to remind them why they founded the village in the first place.
About The Village~
I loved this movie. M. Night takes you for a head trip and does it very well. I have some points/questions.
1) Mark. I saw the child’s death in the newspaper too, and was actually really confused about it. I’m sure there was a connection, why would it be there if it wasn’t? Maybe no matter how hard the elders tried to seclude themselves, they were experiencing the same pain as the real world. Also, the newspaper also had an article about a serial killer being killed, I thought there could be a relation to Noah.
2) The color red. I would think red was used only for literary reasons. Red = pain, horror, etc. Also, by making red the “bad color,” killing someone would go against everything in their nature. Think of Noah sitting in the chair after stabbing Lucius “The bad color…”
3) What was with the guy reading the paper. Something about him was important, something was there, I can’t seem to figure it out for the life of me.
4) M. Night only allowed Ivy to leave the village. Why is this? Blindness, historically, allows for a character to see beyond his years. Think about all the blind prophets etc. Ivy leaves the town and enters the modern world, but her physical handicap doesn’t allow her to see reality?
5) People talk about the kids, growing up in the Village. Noah and Lucius were the oldest children right? Noah was, well, slow. Lucius wasn’t all together either. It made me think that they were the most affected by the move from normal life to the Village.
6) Anyone notice how many times M. Night used the camera angle from between two curtains? This is kind of hard to explain, but try to imagine the movie screen with the two sets of curtains coming from the sides. They don’t join in the middle, but leave a little space.
7) Lastly, what was with those boxes? Did they represent the repressed memories of the elders? What was in them? Did the move out of modern life become like a burden to the elders? Were the boxes supposed to represent this burden?
Thats it, I really loved this movie.
Did anyone else notice the noises near the beginning of the movie, when Night was showing us the guard shack? The noises of the “creatures” were present, but also, the noise of an airplane, very discreetly. I know that planes were not allowed to fly overhead, but the noise of a plane flying nearby could be heard. Any thoughts?
When the saw that Noah was gone from the “quiet room”, there were bones under the floorboard…..I was thinking maybe those were animal bones (even though they were only skinned) from ones he had eaten….
Up until i realized that the creatures were… well.. fake \=? i was trying to figure out why everyone was so fired up by red… everyone in the movie had red hair …
Scott, the name of the forest preserve was Walker, the name of the billionaire who was killed. Ivy’s father owned/inherited the preserve and that is why they got away with living there.
I don’t remember any statement that proves this fact with out a doubt. But, it seems to make sense. I think Noah knew more than was let on. Perhaps b/c he was “special” the elders didn’t think to hide as much from him, assuming he couldn’t communicate the secret with the others and even if he could, who would believe him? He was also allowed to venture into the woods, pick the red berries, etc.
He also was the only one shown with a knife (when he stabbed Lucius). And, he didn’t seem to be present at the wedding reception, when the so called killings took place….
I missed the name of the forest preserve. How in the world did they go undetected for so long?
Is there any reference that would prove beyond assumption that Noah was killing the livestock?
I’m asking because I’m debating this topic at another forum.
I assumed that Noah was the one killing the livestock. In retrospect, all of the elders (the ones who know the secret)seemed puzzled as to which of them is doing it. Noah was the only other one who seemed to know what was going on.
Who were the one Killing the livestock???
i think noah was older, knew that the elders were playing with the suits since he’d been around them longer, might’ve seen and thought it was all a game.
i didn’t notice the timing with the newspaper stuff. don’t think i’ll see it again in the theaters, but wait for the DVD by Christmas. m. night mentioned on 20/20 or something that there’s a scene (I think it was with ivy in the woods) where a sound effect was changed to knock it from an “R” to a “PG-13” – that must’ve been some nasty sound.
Is there any relation to the boy passing away at the beginning of the movie (1890-1897= 7yrs old) and the newspaper article M. Night is reading at the security station. The title of the article read something like “Body of 7yr old boy found missing after 3 days”.
I’m wondering about Noah putting on the suit. They worked hard to show how limited his cognitive abilities were. How did he think to put the suit on? What was his motive in chasing Ivy? Other than this unexplained plot point, the film was excellent.
It’s amazing what a complete lack of birth control can do … my guess is Noah was brought with them and Phoenix’s character definitely was as he shows up in the picture of all the elders at the counselling center as an infant. They’re the oldest of the coming generation, so yeah, everyone else was born there. Not that unbelievable when you consider that the elders would’ve been having kids every year or so and that the kids would’ve been marrying and having kids of their own by the time they were sixteen or so. And the Village really isn’t that big … small enough that the blind girl can find her way around easily.
so far i agree. unbreakable…slow, signs…crappy, the village…a small improvement. the twists were interesting but definately easy to figure for those of us who get off on ruining the surprise for ourselves. overall…a decent movie. my only question is, if only the small group of elders know the secret, where did all the others come from? they couldn’t have given birth to all of them in the 20 or so years that they were there, so were they kidnapped?
spoiler – “twist” is that thie film isn’t scary. at all. suspense, yes – scary, not really. but howard is *wonderful* and imho deserves a nomination at oscar time. i saw the twists coming once they started, and the pace was a little unbreakable-esque – but i really enjoyed this story. m. night’s among the best storytellers we have today.
moral: it right home with me. my takeaway is that we might want to shelter ourselves from all the crap in this world – but using fear to do it probably isn’t the way to go. would the people have chosen to stay in town if they knew they were completely protected? maybe – or they could’ve been given a change like truman to exit the reality series and live in the real world.
Considering the complete CRAPPINESS of signs, I wasn’t expecting much of anything. in fact, I was going to wait for video, but my sister owed me a favor and paid my way. I was pleasantly surprised and, while not the best movie of the year, it certainly wasn’t bad. The twists were a *little* obvious, but I always figure out stuff like that before it happens. All in all, a 3 star movie, especially when we have stuff like “Boa vs. Python” going straight to video (I saw that in VPD today at my brother’s video store. Who watches that junk?)
I want to start out by saying that although the twists weren’t the main focus of the movie… I was absolutely blown away by them. I never saw them coming.
Well down, M. Night!