The Big Twist M. Night Shyamalan Needs: He Should Stop Writing His Own Scripts (Column)

Quick, name the greatest film by each of the following directors: Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg, David Lean, Robert Altman, Roman Polanski, Kathryn Bigelow, Jonathan Demme. Answers will vary (mine would be: “Psycho,” “Saving Private Ryan,” “Lawrence of Arabia,” “Nashville,” “Chinatown,” “The Hurt Locker,” “The Silence of the Lambs”), but whatever your taste, odds are that the movies you chose were not written by the director in question. (On my list, none of them were.)

There are, of course, countless great writer-directors — Ingmar Bergman, Preston Sturges, Quentin Tarantino, you name it. So it’s not as if it has to be one way or the other. But the point of my little exercise is that the history of cinema is brimming with directors who are towering artists, who ruled and stretched and defined the medium, yet did so without ever claiming to be screenwriters. A few of them dabbled at it, at times effectively (Spielberg, for instance, wrote “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” which I would call his second greatest film), and just about every director worth his or her salt is probably, on the set, doing some version of what amounts to rewriting. But you get the point. The fact that you’re a virtuoso film director doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re a virtuoso crafter of words.

Which brings us to M. Night Shyamalan. In my review of “Glass,” his sequel to “Unbreakable” that’s also a sequel to “Split” (and yes, he hog-tied those movies together in the final minutes of “Split,” but come on! Until that moment, the two films had nothing to do with each other), I wrote that Shyamalan “may be the most gifted director of the last 20 years to see his own name turn into a punchline.” I refer, of course, to the way his twist endings became a signature that devolved into a tic that began to inspire a collective eye roll, but my point wasn’t just about the twists. Shyamalan is a major talent who is not, in the end, a virtuoso. He’s a delectably skilled craftsman, and when his mojo is working (“The Sixth Sense,” “Unbreakable,” parts of “Signs” and “The Village”), he’s an entertainer it feels gratifying to be in the hands of.

Yet given the stature, the power, the brand, the trademark name recognition he achieved in his heyday, it’s not as if he went on to have some awesome track record. He hit the sweet spot with “The Sixth Sense,” which was supremely well-directed if highly derivative (I always thought of the Haley Joel Osment character as Danny Lloyd from “The Shining” meets Demi Moore in “Ghost”: A kid who can see dead people who are nice!), and some of us think that “Unbreakable” is his most satisfying film. But after that end-of-the-millennium one-two punch, his movies began to feel at once top-heavy and threadbare, and I think there are very few viewers who would seriously dispute that.

What happened? Did Shyamalan, once he became a force in Hollywood, turn into a worse director? In a sense, you could say he did. But that’s because he was taking orders from someone who wasn’t doing him any good. The name of that person was M. Night Shyamalan, screenwriter.

Shyamalan has now directed a total of 13 features, and with the exception of “After Earth,” the soggy post-apocalyptic adventure curio he made in 2013 with Will and Jaden Smith (Will Smith was credited as one of the screenwriters, along with Shyamalan and Gary Whitta), he has written the script for every last one of them. To put it bluntly: That’s a very tall pile of mediocre screenwriting trying to stretch itself into something higher.

It also represents a great deal of willfully armored and glorifying self-belief. M. Night Shyamalan clearly likes generating his own projects, and he’s invested in thinking of himself as a singular entertainment auteur. That’s the way he rolls. And though he spent a number of years in the weeds, “Split,” his 2016 thriller starring James McAvoy as a chatterbox psychopath with 24 personalities, marked a resounding commercial comeback. I confess, though, that I wasn’t crazy about it. I wanted it to be terrific, and it was problematic. “Split” had a great character (and a great actor to play him), but it needed a more shrewdly sculptured story. Even the character wore out his welcome.

I don’t begrudge Shyamalan his success; I’m seriously glad he’s back. Yet “Glass,” if you think of it as the second film of Shyamalan’s second act, is far from a sophomore triumph. I thought it was competent and watchable but lacked the enigmatic aura of haunted discovery that made “Unbreakable” indelible. And while the film’s $40 million opening weekend puts it snugly in the profitable column (it testifies that the Shyamalan name is still a draw), it’s telling that the movie, given its pedigree, was expected to do better. It’s also been savaged by more than a few critics, who saw too many shades of his old tricks. They’re probably being too hard on him — “Glass” isn’t terrible, it’s just so-so — but the curse of the Shyamalan screenplay is built into it. The story is transparently cobbled together. It’s like a Tinker Toy designed to connect this and that, but that’s not the same thing as a supernatural (or superhero) tale that casts an honest spell.

That said, it’s hard to escape the feeling that Shyamalan, who is now characterizing “Unbreakable,” “Split,” and “Glass” as a trilogy, may be emboldened to extend the franchise. Surely he must now be dreaming of the far-reaching possibilities of the MNCU (the M. Night Cinematic Universe). All of it to be written by him.

Imagine if you will, though, an alternate reality, one in which he lays aside his ambitions as a writer and seeks, simply, to direct. Think of the possibilities of collaboration! We’ve never been able to picture them clearly, because Shyamalan has never indulged in the luxury of directing a movie that wasn’t based on his (catchy) (gimmicky) concepts and (decent) (functional) dialogue. Yet his talent as a director is gold. In his best films, he displays the essential moviemaking gift that fuses rhythm, character, mood, and visual storytelling. He has the instinct for how to frame a shot so that it’s the cinematic equivalent of an enthralling sentence.

Imagine that he was working, for the first time, with a fantastic screenwriter. He could redefine his career and make a movie that might blow us all away. That’s what he’s always been set on doing. But message to M. Night: It isn’t working — or, at least, it hasn’t for a long time. Not really. So why not try something else? Let someone else’s words, and even someone else’s ideas, liberate you into being the director you’ve always been, minus the screenwriter you think is lifting you up but is really tying you down.

More Film

  • Amanda Awards

    ‘Out Stealing Horses’ Tops Norway’s 2019 Amanda Awards

    HAUGESUND, Norway —  Hans Petter Moland’s sweeping literary adaptation “Out Stealing Horses” put in a dominant showing at Norway’s Amanda Awards on Saturday night, placing first with a collected five awards, including best Norwegian film. Celebrating its 35th edition this year, the Norwegian industry’s top film prize helped kick off the Haugesund Film Festival and [...]

  • Editorial use onlyMandatory Credit: Photo by

    Richard Williams, 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit' Animator, Dies at 86

    Renowned animator Richard Williams, best known for his work on “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” died Friday at his home in Bristol, England, Variety has confirmed. He was 86. Williams was a distinguished animator, director, producer, author and teacher whose work has garnered three Oscars and three BAFTA Awards. In addition to his groundbreaking work as [...]

  • Instinct

    Locarno Film Review: 'Instinct'

    Now that “Game of Thrones” has finally reached its conclusion, releasing its gifted international ensemble into the casting wilds, will Hollywood remember just what it has in Carice van Houten? It’s not that the statuesque Dutch thesp hasn’t been consistently employed since her startling 2006 breakout in Paul Verhoeven’s “Black Book,” or even that she’s [...]

  • Good Boys Movie

    Box Office: 'Good Boys' Eyes Best Original Comedy Opening of 2019

    Universal’s “Good Boys” is surpassing expectations as it heads toward an estimated $20.8 million opening weekend at the domestic box office following $8.3 million in Friday ticket sales. That’s well above earlier estimates which placed the film in the $12 million to $15 million range, marking the first R-rated comedy to open at No. 1 [...]

  • Pedro Costa’s 'Vitalina Varela' Wins at

    Pedro Costa’s 'Vitalina Varela' Triumphs at Locarno Film Festival

    The 72nd Locarno Film Festival drew to a close Saturday with Portuguese auteur Pedro Costa’s dark and detached film “Vitalina Varela” coming away with several awards together with superlatives from segments of the hardcore cinephile crowd, including jury president Catherine Breillat. In announcing the Golden Leopard prize for the film, as well as best actress [...]

  • Vitalina Varela

    Locarno Film Review: 'Vitalina Varela'

    Frequently beautiful compositions and the theatrical use of a fierce kind of artifice have long been the hallmarks of Portuguese auteur Pedro Costa, regarded by a small but influential group of aesthetes as one of the great filmmakers of our era. For those in tune with his vision, the director’s films offer an exciting lesson [...]

  • Notre dame

    Locarno Film Review: 'Notre dame'

    Not to be too cynical about it, but might the recent horrific fire in Paris’ cathedral attract audiences to a film in which the gothic gem plays a major role? It’s likely a wiser marketing strategy than promoting the unrelenting silliness of Valerie Donzelli’s oh-so-kooky comedy “Notre dame,” the writer-director-star’s return to contemporary Paris following [...]

More From Our Brands

Access exclusive content