This movie had so much potential that it squandered on a nonsensical story where the main female character is basically mute and for some reason is required to sit naked in a shower for most of the movie. Oh, and I would be remiss not to mention the fact that she is the Madame Narf whose life work is to inspire an author whose writings will change humanity, but here’s the cherry on top: that writer is none other than M. Night Shyamalan! He is not literally the writer, but he plays Vick Ran, the character who is.
If that is not enough self indulgence for you, don’t worry there’s more. He claims that the plot of this movie is based solely on stories he told his daughters before they went to bed. So basically, he believed that his off-the-cuff bedtime stories were so brilliant that $70 million should be spent to turn it into a movie.
Now you may think: wow, $70 million. Where did they film this thing? What kind of amazing sets are there? Are there a lot of high tech special effects? The answer to all of these questions is no. Lady in the Water takes place in a single apartment complex with a pool that does harbor one underwater sequence. There are also brief CGI appearances from a Scrunt, Tartutic and an Eatlon (I can’t even begin to explain what these creatures all are, but basically a Scrunt is a wolf, Tartutic are monkeys, and an Eatlon is a giant eagle), but no big explosions can be found in this movie. This should not add up to $70 million, but it does because Shyamalan decided that he needed to have the whole apartment complex constructed from scratch, instead of using a pre-existing one.
Even without all of the over the top self indulgence, Lady in the Water would still be deeply disappointing. Its big problem is really just that the whole thing makes no sense. I cannot describe the plot because I truly do not understand it. I do understand the basic premise that a water nymph-like race, called Narfs are trying to save humanity and that one of them has been sent to this apartment complex to try to accomplish that mission. That Narf is Story, which is really too on the nose, who is played by Bryce Dallas Howard. She is discovered by Paul Giamatti’s character, Clevland Heep who is the superintendent of the building who he feels that has to help her with her mission and see that she safely returns to her home, the “blue world”. Cleveland quickly finds the author that Story must influence to change the world, but then, of course, obstacles occur.
It is revealed by an elderly Korean tenant that for Story to return home she needs the help of a Symbolist, a Guardian, a Guild, and a Healer. Why Story could not have just shared that information is truly mystifying. With the help of a film critic tenant, played by Bob Balaban, Cleveland casts residents of the building in these roles and they plan a party to cover for Story’s departure. I got really lost after this, but basically everything goes wrong and it is revealed that different people actually belong in all the roles and Story gets to go home.
There is also a storyline running through the movie about how Cleveland used to be a doctor, and that his family was murdered while he was working, causing him to become a reclusive superintendent. I think the moral is supposed to have to do with that storyline and his redemption through helping Story, but it is definitely loose, at best.
If you are confused, I cannot blame you, but I promise that watching the movie is an even more baffling experience. So let’s forget the plot for now, and look beyond it. Shyamalan is Indian American, but besides himself, there have rarely been actors of color in his movies up to this point. At the time, he was definitely criticized for the extreme whiteness of his movies. He must have taken it to heart because this movie has a fair amount of actors of color in it. It is definitely of note, however, that the two leads of the movie are still both white. That is not the biggest issue involving race, though.
Shyamalan would probably argue that Lady in the Water is a movie about making assumptions about others, as the film critic character does, and how that is never a good path to go down. While that is a lovely moral, it does not mesh well with how heavily this movie relies on stereotypes. The offenses range from big to small, with some of the less egregious ones being the characterization of a Latino family, an older Jewish couple, and Vick Ran’s sister, played by Sarita Choudhury.
These little vignettes are annoying, but they can be at least partially forgiven because of the joy that seeing Jeffery Wright provides. He plays a crossword obsessed, single dad, who appears to be totally stereotype free, and is, as always, a delight to watch.
What poses a bigger issue however, is the Chois, a Korean mother and daughter duo, played by June Kyoko Lu and Cindy Cheung, respectively. Cleveland goes back to them often to get more information about Story, who is part of some very complex ancient Korean folklore. He has to keep going back because the elder Ms. Choi is portrayed as being reclusive and deeply distrustful of men and can also not speak any English, so her student daughter is constantly needed as an interpreter. The depiction of Ms. Choi is Orientalism, which is defined as the West's patronizing representations of “The East”, at its worst. The stereotype of Eastern mysticism and mistrust of “foreigners” is used as a major plot point.
What makes this choice more upsetting is that it seems as though Shyamalan only used the offensive trope because without it, his increasingly thin plot would resolve itself in about ten minutes. Stereotypes of all kinds, but in this movie mostly racial ones, are crutches for writers who can’t think of any original characterizations. It is not only offensive, but lazy, too.
Unfortunately, I know that in his next movie, The Last Airbender, he will not have fixed this problem, but in fact, just doubled down by casting white people as his heroes and Asians as the bad guys and simple village people, despite all the characters being Asian in the TV show. Come on M. Night! You are better than this. We know you can make smart, entertaining, and not offensive movies, so I entreat you, please try harder.
