Shelf Life: The Sixth Sense
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Thrillers, Fandom, Shelf Life
.jpg)
Last week's "Shelf Life" looked back at Carrie, the iconic Brian De Palma movie that introduced the world to movies about terrifying teenage girls, the latest iteration of which is Diablo Cody's follow-up to Juno, Jennifer's Body. In anticipation of the upcoming movie Surrogates, which opens this Friday, we decided to revisit Bruce Willis' last great hit, The Sixth Sense, admittedly less because it has anything other than its star in common with Jonathan Mostow's technothriller than the fact that there are few movies in the last decade as acclaimed and commercially successful as M. Night Shyamalan's 1999 breakthrough. As such, we figured it was time to take a look at the movie that made "I see dead people" a pop culture catchphrase and examine whether it should truly live on as the classic it was originally considered.
The Facts: M. Night Shyamalan and his diminutive star, Haley Joel Osment, became overnight icons with this 1999 film about a doctor named Malcolm (played by Willis) desperately trying to reach a little boy named Cole who claims to see ghosts. Though it allegedly cost only $55 million to make, the film became the sleeper hit of that summer, earning some $670 million worldwide as well as six Academy Award nominations, including for Best Picture, Actress, Supporting Actor, Director, Editor, and Original Screenplay. Meanwhile, the film drew almost unanimous praise from the critical community, and currently enjoys a 85 percent Tomatometer rating. Not to mention its greatest legacy – namely, making twist endings the hallmark (and eventually, Achilles' heel) of its director, most of whose subsequent movies featured some sort of third-act surprise.
What Still Works: Amazingly, almost everything. Truth be told, I only saw The Sixth Sense once in theaters, and never went back to see whether its retroactive logic actually applied to everything that comes before the film's secret is revealed. But Shyamalan expertly constructs almost every sequence in the film both to prey upon and subvert our expectations of what we think is happening, for example beginning or ending scenes that lead the audience to believe characters have had previous conversations, or left or arrived at places they couldn't actually go. Further, the writer-director sneaks little cues, clues and details into the behavior and mannerisms of his characters to provide a foundation both for our initial preconceptions about the story, and its cathartic, revelatory finale, using color motifs and compositional repetition to alert us that something isn't quite right, even before it's explained why.
Dramatically, meanwhile, the film works spectacularly well as a character piece, thanks to the uniformly great performances of Willis, Osment, and Toni Colette, who plays Cole's despondent mother. In particular, the scene where Cole confesses his powers to his mother is absolutely devastating, simply because of the work of Colette and Osment delivering what might in lesser hands be a weepy bit of melodramatic exposition. But Willis makes his character's determination and self-torture for failing another patient palpable in his efforts to help Cole, and of course Osment (in a star-making turn) cements Cole's ongoing torment as a kid who suffers from gruesome visions no matter how hopeful or optimistic he tries to be.
What Doesn't Work: The only problem I had with The Sixth Sense was during the opening scene, where Olivia Williams' character is forced to recite the entire text of the plaque Malcolm receives for superlative child care; while the rest of the film is consistently subtle or understated, this seemed like a particularly self-conscious or telling bit of dialogue, and is in its way the most obvious part of the entire story, whether it's important information or not. Otherwise, there is almost nothing that stands out as a problem or shortcoming, although I'm not sure it was entirely necessary for Mischa Barton's character to be introduced with her vomiting some kind of oatmeal-like substance all over the place.
What's The Verdict: Of the four films that we've covered in this series, The Sixth Sense holds up the best by far. What's really even more amazing is that even if you know the film's secret, its entertainment value and more importantly, its dramatic impact is just as strong on subsequent viewings – and in fact may enhance it. Of course, Shyamalan detractors may see its success as an unfortunate lesson for the filmmaker that he can or should do the "same" thing with every subsequent film – which for the record I don't think he does. But as is often the case when something catches the public off guard, and moreover, captures their imaginations, there's a thin line between recreating a certain kind of movie magic, and simply copying it. Thankfully, when The Sixth Sense created that sensation, it didn't substitute emotional depth for more immediate gratification –which is why the film continues to hold up beautifully today.
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
9-24-2009 @ 11:25PM
Reuben said...
When I first saw this movie I was a little too young for it. Everything sat alright with me until the Mischa Barton scene in the tent. That pushed me over the edge; It haunted me for days.
Reply
9-24-2009 @ 11:24PM
joits said...
the scary moments in this movie still remain to this day some of the most awesome experiences i've had in a movie theater. the steady pace of the movie left me totally unguarded and unprepared for those moments. i am still amazed by haley joel osmont's performance. i love pretty much everything about this movie.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 11:02AM
Brent Schmidt said...
The only thing I care to remember about this movie was how it was my first DVD ever watched. We put the disc in, and the splash screen just kept playing over and over again for about ten minutes until we realized wtf was going on. Sorta like the movie in the end.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 11:03AM
Joseph Finn said...
"Everything sat alright with me until the Mischa Barton scene in the tent."
WAIT, that's Mischa Barton as the Munchhausen kid?!? (checks IMDB) Woah. And Reuben, I'm with you; that was so, so tense, imagining the courage of Osment's character going back in to his room.
True story; my wife at the time had the movie spoiled for her before we saw it (she made sure NOT to spoil it for me). I think she's still annoyed.
Really, it's an interesting movie to re-watch for the clues; the cold spots, Willis being unable to open the basement door (notice you never see him go through that door, but only see him on one side of the door or the other) and that anniversary dinner scene.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 11:05AM
uforeader said...
The car scene where Cole reveals his power to his mother is among the greatest things ever captured on film. I've probably watched 'The Sixth Sense" over 20 times, and I still cry during that scene every time.
Shyamalan is the master of creating a mood out of thin air. He has a terrific sense of space, camera movement, and tone. The scene where Cole's in the kitchen and his mother walks in to find all the drawers open is a great example. The surprise hits the audience at the same time it hits his mother, and by not cutting the camera, it's feels much more real and far more creepy.
And btw, I agree with you that Shyamalan doesn't do the same thing is each subsequent film... in fact, except for all having a flair for the paranormal, I think they're all immensely different films.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 11:10AM
Davey said...
Spoilers within, folks. I mean, if you don't already know the ending to this then I don't know where you've been the last decade, but just sayin'.
I actually think the film's major, major weakness is the way it exploits audience expectations by beginning or ending scenes where we think a previous conversation has already taken place, or left or arrived someplace where they can't really go. I think it takes a lot out of the twist--the film implies a logic that doesn't really exist, and then never explains it, and subsequent viewings point out the major cheat Shyamalan makes. The major question remains: If Willis can't interact with anything, why hasn't he already realized that he's dead, or that there's something significantly wrong here? If he's in such alarming denial, why does he finally realize that he's dead? The fact that the audience isn't clued in to any of this cheapens the twist--we simply don't have enough clues for it to be legitimate, and what clues we have are insubstantial (things are red? the film begins and ends scenes early in order to focus on the important interactions? isn't that one of the first lessons in screenwriting class?). If the film were more overtly a formal experimentation with audience perceptions and expectations the twist would be very interesting and worthwhile, but, again, there's nothing to set this up, and, with the film's focus on telling an involving dramatic story, there are far, far too many unanswered questions for me to buy it.
That said, it's a terrific film in many ways, and even if I don't think the twist works to the degree that it could or should, on a dramatic level it's a beautiful movie, with real emotion, rich atmosphere, beautiful visuals, and amazing characters. Osment, Willis, and Collette are all fantastic, and the film is loaded with mystery, sadness, eerieness, and humanity. But, seriously, I can't be the only one who thinks that the twist doesn't hold up when you really go back and look at it.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 8:09AM
Clark said...
I actually agree with you. That's what bothered me most when I saw it in theaters. Everybody loved it, but I left feeling ripped off, cheated. And I didn't think it was scary (and I was only 14 years old).
9-25-2009 @ 4:39PM
uforeader said...
"If Willis can't interact with anything, why hasn't he already realized that he's dead, or that there's something significantly wrong here?"
I think you might have missed a major plot point then. They explicitly say, "Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dead." The whole point was that Malcolm wasn't ready to accept his fate.
9-25-2009 @ 11:10AM
Davey said...
Incidentally, I actually like Shyamalan's work more than most, though I wouldn't really consider myself a "fan." I think all his films are very interesting (haven't seen "The Happening"), and I think they all have somewhat major problems.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 7:39AM
Maria Stahl said...
I certainly agree that this film has "shelf life." Good choice.
And I think the whole point is, ghosts aren't very logical, as they live in the emotions of their past lives. It was only because Malcolm was intensely emotionally involved with Cole that he was able to believe it when Cole told him what he was.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 7:40AM
Maria Stahl said...
Oh, and also the fact that Cole is a "ghost whisperer" and makes the same outreach to other ghosts, and with good effect. Maybe they just don't believe people who cannot see and hear them.
9-25-2009 @ 10:03AM
ML said...
I agree that the film holds up well. I was not spoiled, but perhaps I was too experienced when I saw it because I saw the "twist" nearly from the beginning because of the manner in which the story was being set up.
POSSIBLE SPOILER: As to the remarks regarding ghosts realizing that they are dead. The classic assumption is that ghosts who remain attached to the physical plane are in denial about their state. Therefore, they are not being logical; who says people act on logic, anyway?
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 11:13AM
Davey said...
I guess that still just cheapens the twist for me. It's as if instead of actually providing real clues, so that we, like Willis, have a real "I should have seen it coming!" moment at the end, Shyamalan opts instead to create a very convenient fantasy world for instant-movie-twist ease. "Ghosts are illogical, so we don't need the movie to actually make SENSE..." Willis' character can't open doors or interact with most of his physical environment. No one except Cole acknowledges his existence (the film shows us a few very conveniently selected interactions with his wife, but why would he notice that she's ignoring him when everyone else on earth is too?). Who knows how he was able to get into Cole's house and sit on a chair and wait for him to get home from school. The character behaves so logically and realistically in every scene we see him in that it doesn't make logical sense for ghosts to simply be written off as "illogical"--I don't see how we're expected to make the jump from the realistic character Willis plays in the film to the ghost character who just so happens never to notice that he can't really touch anything. The other ghost characters are illogical, yes, but that lack of normalcy carries through in everything the ghosts do. Willis is the only ghost character who acts like a normal person, and he does so throughout the entirety of the movie.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 12:17PM
Todd Gilchrist said...
This is the dumbest argument for a movie being bad I've ever read - especially since it sounds like you're just miffed that the film successfully tricked you. First of all, EVERY movie "exploits audience expectations," but beginning or ending scenes - much less where we think something just happened or is about to happen - isn't any different than any other movie. It's called editing. The movie introduces or ends scenes in the exact same places they would begin or end in other movies - which is why few people were clued in to what was really going on until the end. But suggesting that the movie should have been more obvious in order to let you know that it was trying to subvert your expectations is like asking a filmmaker to make something dumber because you want to be able to figure it out before you're supposed to.
You say he creates a "convenient fantasy world" - there's nothing easy or convenient about the way Shyamalan constructs a hermetically-sealed universe where this kid is the only person who can see ghosts, and where ghosts continue to live on because they have unfinished business that they themselves may not know how to resolve. The idea AT LEAST with Willis' character is that (a) he doesn't realize that he's not alive, so he continues to operate in the same way he did when he was alive, which is why he would be privy only to the behavior he would have seen, like after school or during sessions, etc. He can't open the door but ghosts (at least some of them) can movie objects, but the reason he can't open the door is because these ghosts can't always realize they are dead, much less know about things that indicate that they are dead.
Ultimately, there's nothing "illogical" about the movie - his behavior is perfectly logical, and the film perfectly follows its own logic, and holds up through the whole film. If you want a movie that tells you it's fooling you, go watch something else, but Shyamalan's movies are not "all" deeply flawed as you say, and this one is brilliantly complete in terms of its emotional and logical continuity. And incidentally, calling something logical, especially a movie about ghosts, is stupid, unless you're referring to the logic that the movie sets up - meaning in this case, how ghosts behave, which is the same through all of the ghost characters. If you mean a movie about ghosts contacting a little boy is UNREALISTIC, you're right - but then again, that's also why people go to the movies - to see things that aren't real.
9-25-2009 @ 2:38PM
Davey said...
Yes, I'm referring to the film's internal logic. I agree that every film exploits its audience's expectations, but that doesn't mean they all do it well. Everyone has felt like they've been cheated by a movie that went somewhere that felt contrary to what the rest of the film was setting up. "Exploitation," in this sense, is used not as a blanket sin, but with a negative connotation. And I actually figured out the twist before the end of the film, so it's not at all a matter of being miffed that I was fooled. I'm not saying the movie is bad. As I said, I think it's a very good film. I just think there are problems with the ending, as it's set up in the rest of the film.
Let's talk about the scene when Cole comes home to find Willis' character in his house. In order for this to have happened, Willis would have had to wait around for his mom to open the door, and then sneak into the house, and hang out for however long without any interaction between them. That's just silly. And it's an important part of what happened in the film, an important part of the world Shyamalan constructs, and an important part of Willis' character--and we don't see it. That's where the problem lies. And the argument "that's editing" is what I made in my original post--come into the scene as late as possible and leave as early as possible, that's the advice you get in screenwriting books, and it's good. It's wonderful writing and editing, except that it leaves out what amounts to an entire subplot, made up of numerous scenes in which Willis is blatantly ignored by everyone, can't open doors, etc., etc. We don't get the whole story, we have to make things up after the fact in order for moments like that to make sense. In that sense, it isn't "hermetically-sealed." It requires excuses. And very silly excuses at that (Willis waiting around for someone to open a door and then sneak in and wait on a chair for a couple hours, the only explanation that works with the film's internal logic, is just very, very silly, I don't know how else to say it). Saying that "The Sixth Sense" begins and ends its scenes just like every other movie would be like justifying a "Casablanca" in which any moment having to do with the letters of transit is omitted, and then suddenly in the last scene someone says, "Oh yeah, here are those letters of transit everyone wanted. That's what was causing all the fuss. We didn't want to show those scenes to you because we wanted it to be a big surprise. Go back and watch the movie and figure it out." It's sloppy. Because we're not getting the whole story.
It IS a convenient world, because in order for the twist to work, Shyamalan simply says, "Well, ghosts don't notice stuff, so neither should you." It's an easy solution to anything that might have been hard to convey more subtly or anything that might throw a wrench in the twist. "Well, it never really occurs to ghosts that they spend 90% of their lives being totally and completely ignored by everybody--not just their wife--and that they can't open doors, which is kind of a hassle, so they have to walk everywhere, and then wait around so they can sneak into a building with someone else. They don't notice that 90% of their life." OK, you can create a world where that's the case, but am I really such an awful person for not buying into it without further explanation?
9-25-2009 @ 10:54AM
Anthony said...
Thus speaks someone who's never been in denial about anything, and who hasn't had first hand experience of the way the human brain can warp and justify even the most bizarre and illogical behaviors and beliefs.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 2:43PM
Davey said...
You raise a good point, Anthony, and I do think that's a very interesting aspect of the film. I just wish that Shyamalan gave us some of the hints that Willis' character would be privy to so that we, like he, can feel like "Oh man, how could I have missed that?" instead of "I have to go back and watch the movie again right now so I can see just where the hell that came from." Many folks apparently disagree, but I think that movie would have had an even greater emotional impact.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 4:51PM
uforeader said...
I don't understand your point that there aren't enough clues when you claim you figured it out yourself...
The "twist" (I hate that term... I'd call it a revelation) is completely fair. Everything in the film is explained, and the ghost rule of "They only see what they want to see" isn't a ploy. In fact, it's the entire point of the film. Malcolm isn't able to understand his own death until he has completed his work on Earth by helping Cole overcome his fears. You can fill in the gaps however you like, but the point is that there is no way Malcolm can know of his own demise.
9-25-2009 @ 7:49PM
Davey said...
OK, I buy that argument, uforeader. I still think it would be stronger if it was more a sort of denial, so that Malcolm sees these strange things going on in his world but doesn't recognize them for what they are--and neither do we--until the end. I guess it feels to me like that's what Shyamalan was going for, but I don't think the dots are easily connected enough for it to work quite as well as it could. But hearing it articulated that way, I can understand where you're coming from, and why the ending seems to hold up for so many people.
9-29-2009 @ 12:57AM
Jonathan Kuhn said...
Davey, I see what you are saying, but at the end of the day, I have to give the movie the benefit of the doubt.
I don't think there's anything that suggests Willis' character has to "wait around and sneak through a door when someone opens it." He couldn't open the one door because the table was in front of it, and he couldn't "see" the table because it would have made him realize he was dead. (As in, why would this table be here blocking this door?)
As far as sitting there waiting for Cole to show up, that's harder to figure out, but there are some possibilities.
Reply