IslamOnline reviews "Signs," and tells us why we must believe.

[EGarrett]

I was searching for "Shyamalan" and "abyss," in google, looking for a quote he gave about how writing is being in an abyss of uncertainty...and look what I found...

http://www.islamonline.net/english/ArtCulture/2002/08/article07.shtml

Graham tells him there are two types of people in the world: Ones who sees the lights and believe it’s a miracle - whether good or bad - and that God will be there to help them through.

The other group sees the lights as coincidences or phenomena they can’t control, and because they don’t believe, they are afraid of what is to come. For Merrill, he is without a doubt a group one member, but Graham is not, though his family desperately needs him to believe. When the family makes it through a harrowing night of barricading themselves against the aliens, Merrill demands his brother regain his faith, or at least the appearance of it, for the sake of the family.

For Muslims, this theme is but a verification of why we must believe and worship. Without belief, Graham is standing on the edge of a unfathomable abyss where nothing has meaning, nothing happens for a reason, and there’s no point to life. It’s a teetering position affecting his loved ones to an alarming degree.Most importantly, Signs presents a strong case for having reverence and respect for God, because without that there is just the emptiness of a lonely existence where fear is the cloak you wear.

I will not mince words. As an atheist, I absolutely ******* despised the "characterization" of atheists in the movie Signs. It struck me as ignorant, damaging, rude, arrogant and plainly disrespectful to everyone who is able to live their lives without religion. The fact that one man was given a bullhorn to scream this stupid idea while we were left to yell back with no hope of being heard pissed me off even further.

Anyway, pure rage aside...this review offers some interesting further insight into the believer's mind towards atheists. Your thoughts?

[l0rca]

The article is written in the vein of a glossy pop zine's empowerment trip. Even the title of the article is silly concerning the content of the movie. Signs tests the powers of faith? In what part? The part where they affirm faith? Is that what "test" means? Ok.

It might as well appeared in Oprah's zine. It's drivel. Not worth attention.

*flick*

[EGarrett]

I consider all of religion drivel...but there are issues around it that are interesting to discuss nonetheless.

[shecky]

Haven't seen any of Shyamalan's movies, and given the general reviews I've seen here, I'm not likely to. However, I was kinda surprised recently about the glowing reviews he's gotten from religiously oriented critics, and Catholic critics in particular. Some religious folks seem to love his movies, everyone else says they're crap. What gives here? Can someone explain. Please don't make me put his movies in my netflix queue just to find out how crappy they are.

[I'll_buy_that]

Let me save you. Signs sucked. and what is this? test our faith in aliens?

so basically don't question, accept anything, even bent crops made by kids, as a sign of a higher power or you have no meaning.

it's drivel. if you don't question and you just accept everything as faith, your life has no meaning.

[l0rca]

Drunk when written. Please delete.

[rachaella]

Haven't seen any of Shyamalan's movies, and given the general reviews I've seen here, I'm not likely to. However, I was kinda surprised recently about the glowing reviews he's gotten from religiously oriented critics, and Catholic critics in particular. Some religious folks seem to love his movies, everyone else says they're crap. What gives here? Can someone explain. Please don't make me put his movies in my netflix queue just to find out how crappy they are.

I really enjoyed "The Sixth Sense". Since then, I felt they went downhill. "Unbreakable", at least from what I remember, wasn't filled with veiled insults to atheists, but I didn't really enjoy it all that much. My mother, an agostic, but perhaps one willing to overlook religious crap in movies more than me, really enjoyed "Signs" and basically guilted me into watching it with her. I didn't enjoy it and felt the subplot of the atheist who gave up his faith because a terrible thing happened to his wife and then found god again at the end to be disturbing, and all too familiar. The Alien invasion was pretty dull and the few cute parts with the children in the film didn't make up for all the rest. I never saw "The Village" so I can't comment on that. From what I've heard, "The Lady in the Water" also is steeped in messages about blind belief as well and somewhat hostile to those who don't give in to it, but I am only speaking from movie reviews that I've read. I may be totally wrong and am willing to be corrected by someone who has seen it.

[fuelair]

I really enjoyed "The Sixth Sense". Since then, I felt they went downhill. "Unbreakable", at least from what I remember, wasn't filled with veiled insults to atheists, but I didn't really enjoy it all that much. My mother, an agostic, but perhaps one willing to overlook religious crap in movies more than me, really enjoyed "Signs" and basically guilted me into watching it with her. I didn't enjoy it and felt the subplot of the atheist who gave up his faith because a terrible thing happened to his wife and then found god again at the end to be disturbing, and all too familiar. The Alien invasion was pretty dull and the few cute parts with the children in the film didn't make up for all the rest. I never saw "The Village" so I can't comment on that. From what I've heard, "The Lady in the Water" also is steeped in messages about blind belief as well and somewhat hostile to those who don't give in to it, but I am only speaking from movie reviews that I've read. I may be totally wrong and am willing to be corrected by someone who has seen it.

Haven't seen Signs - but if a terrible thing happened to his wife and he located Dog, why was Dog left alive???

[Ryokan]

I loved Sixth Sense. I loved Unbreakable.

I've seen a few scenes from and read reviews of Signs, and that was enough for me to refuse to see it.

[gfunkusarelius]

i always thought it was funny (or frustrating as hell) that theists believe that athiests must have no direction in their life and that we are incapable of many of the feelings they have, while i look at it as very sad that a theist lives their whole life devoted to something that doesnt even exist, esentially wasting (IMO) time that could be spent appreciating the world and the universe for what it is. i always had this disconnect with my mom- basically she thought when i she my beliefs that i was giving up hope for happiness. makes no sense to me, but the way i feel makes no sense to her.

[Darth Rotor]

I will not mince words. As an atheist, I absolutely ******* despised the "characterization" of atheists in the movie Signs. It struck me as ignorant, damaging, rude, arrogant and plainly disrespectful to everyone who is able to live their lives without religion.
Wow, I didn't see any of that when I saw the film, but perhaps I wasn't looking for it, nor was I sensitized to what you saw, and so that is why I missed it. That film was only worth seeing once. Not interested in seeing it again, as it wasn't that great.

I saw a story, a fable, of a man who lost his Faith and blamed God for the loss of his wife. Turning his back on his Faith and his God was, as a reverand, a painful method to work out his grief. It would be, to me, like an auto mechanic throwing away his tools as a sign of grief over a car wreck. (Maybe a poor analogy.)

The way he interpreted his wife's

** spoilers **

prescient comments

were unique to him.

His interpretation of them made him see her loss in a different light, and only after certain events. So, he rediscovered his Faith. Whether or not her moment of clarity was induced by God or some other agency was for the preacher immaterial. In his memory of the event, he saw a sign that his loss of Faith was in error, and so returned to what he was all along, a reverand.

Shymalian pushed a lot of buttons in that film, to be sure, but I'd not read too much into it.

For my money, the Aliens were horrible science fiction. They were very quick, and clever early on, but somehow once confronted, became almost triflingly easy to overcome. They were very similar to humans, were similarly constructed carbon life forms, muscles and fluids and all that, but their vulnerability made no sense to me. Poorly thought out aliens, for my money.

The "Wicked Witch of the West" mechanism was a cop out.

Desu ex machina much, M Night? Yup.

DR

[EGarrett]

I wasn't referring to Graham when I was talking about Sign's characterization of atheists...he's just a bitter theist...I was referring entirely to this quote...

Graham tells him there are two types of people in the world: Ones who sees the lights and believe it’s a miracle - whether good or bad - and that God will be there to help them through.

The other group sees the lights as coincidences or phenomena they can’t control, and because they don’t believe, they are afraid of what is to come.

How dare he (Shyamalan) ignorantly and arrogantly put words like that in atheists mouths and, damaginly, spew them all over the world as if they're fact.

[Beerina]

Graham tells him there are two types of people in the world: Ones who sees the lights Presumably he's talking about some alien/UFO/Close Encounters type of phenomenon and believe it’s a miracle - whether good or bad - and that God will be there to help them through.

The other group sees the lights as coincidences or phenomena they can’t control, and because they don’t believe, they are afraid of what is to come. Well, there's a third group: those of us who hope they are actually aliens and are here to rescue humanity from the idiocy governing it via religion and jealousy-and-anger-based politics. For Merrill, he is without a doubt a group one member, but Graham is not, though his family desperately needs him to believe. When the family makes it through a harrowing night of barricading themselves against the aliens, Merrill demands his brother regain his faith, or at least the appearance of it, for the sake of the family.


2c

[EGarrett]

Plus a fourth group, those of us who see the lights...try to find out what they are (science in a nutshell)...and rely on each other to do whatever we can if worse comes to worse.

These guys are also not idiotic cowards expecting a fairy godmother to come save them.

[Darth Rotor]

I wasn't referring to Graham when I was talking about Sign's characterization of atheists...he's just a bitter theist...I was referring entirely to this quote...
How dare he (Shyamalan) ignorantly and arrogantly put words like that in atheists mouths and, damaginly, spew them all over the world as if they're fact.
He's putting into the words of a theist, if I understand the passage correctly, a theist's explanation (in rather reductionist terms from his point of view) a child level version of how non-theists -- atheist and other non-theists (since an agnostic is a non theist without being an Atheist, right?; or animists who also aren't atheists, right?) would/might interpret the lights. I honestly don't think Shymalan actually looked that deeply into the parsing of that line beyond trying to imagine how a theist (even a bitter and fallen theist) would portray his view versus the opposed view in kiddy speak.

By the way, it's his movie, he can write what he damned well pleases. That said, let me join you in outrage at the Entertainment industry, which is all the fashion these days.

How dare any Hollywood film director portray Romans as cruel bastidges?

How dare any film portray men as horny, lust driven drunken college students? How dare any TV show portray women as slovenly dressed trollops?

How dare any screenplay depict police as brutes? How dare any film portray a black man as a murderer? How dare any film portray geeks in glasses as serial killers?

How dare any TV show depict kids as smarter than grownups?

HOW DARE THEY ALL? :D

First off, thanks for pointing out the detail I missed, I better understand your discontent with Shymalan's dialogue.

Second, thanks for the chance for some fun. :cool:

DR

[EGarrett]

Take your entire post, and notice how easily the name Griffith could replace Shyamalan and the movie Birth of a Nation coud replace Signs.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Take your entire post, and notice how easily the name Griffith could replace Shyamalan and the movie Birth of a Nation coud replace Signs.

Ok, now I have this freaky mental image of Mel Gibsons family running in fear from invading jews and Mel finding the moral courage to once again put on his white bedsheet.

Wich unfortunately, given recent events, is more plausible than the actual movie. :p