The Happening ‘a moral obscenity’
Posted by Dirty Harry on Saturday, June 21st, 2008
There’s not much about the environmental movement that isn’t a moral obscenity. Via Kyle Smith I came across this in the WSJ:
I confess to enjoying appalling movies. It takes a kind of reverse genius to make something like “Gigli” or “You Got Served.” There was such possibility, then, when M. Night Shyamalan’s horror film “The Happening” blew into box offices last week on a gale of critical denigration; “the worst film since ‘Gigli,’” someone even called it.
But “The Happening” is no “Kangaroo Jack.” It’s appalling all right, not as entertainment but in the literal sense of genuine moral obscenity. Few major studio releases are so thoroughly pro-death, so deeply anti-human. We have arrived at a strange moment in American pop culture when movie-goers spend two hours in the theater being informed that we all deserve to die.
The “happening” is millions of men, women and children killing themselves, usually in creative ways, as when a zookeeper invites lions to chew off his limbs and a lady offs herself by French-kissing the toaster. The deaths, first believed to be terrorism, are actually acts of nature. Trees are releasing an airborne neurotoxin, as revenge against mankind for global warming, pollution and nuclear power. The genocide, we are told, is condign punishment for our ecological crimes.
The conceit extends a metaphor Al Gore proposed in his 2007 Nobel lecture: If “we have begun to wage war on the Earth itself,” why wouldn’t the Earth fight back? By the end of the film, the dwindling band of survivors — whose more sensible response would have been to blanket the world’s forests with Agent Orange — repents, and is thus spared hideous death. In a recent interview, Mr. Shyamalan, best known for “The Sixth Sense” (1999), said that “The Happening” is intended to “wake everybody up” and “get back to the correct relationship with nature.”
It would take days to detail the intellectual stupidity/dishonesty of the environmental movement, but here’s a few off the top of my head:
1. How can we kill the planet putting back into it exactly what we took out of it? Whether it’s oil or plutonium, it’s as natural as buttercups and rainbows.
2. Why don’t the Greens call for the cutting of carbon emitting old-growth trees?
3. Why outlaw tobacco but legalize marijuana?
Days to detail… But it all falls under the single absurdity that enviro-kooks consider everything native to Earth natural except human beings. Moon rocks and comets aren’t the aberration, we are.
At the college I dropped out of, professor doors were regularly plastered in posters lamenting a “population problem.” Undoubtedly, they were in favor of abortion but opposed to the death penalty. What more do you need to know about such rancid souls?
Filed in General |
JohnFNWayneon 21 Jun 2008 at 7:36 am 1Between this and Shooter, Wahlberg has done some real leftist crap as of late.
Frontiericanon 21 Jun 2008 at 7:45 am 2Never been a fan of Shyamalan or the “green” crowd. Who keeps green-lighting this guy’s movies?
DH –a side note– best of luck with your blog. I was once a Libertas fan, but I now realize I went there just to read your posts. Keep up the good work.
Carlitoson 21 Jun 2008 at 7:54 am 3What famous environmentalist said this:
“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation,”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/051208_prince_philip.htm
Buck Turgidsonon 21 Jun 2008 at 8:37 am 4At least “Shooter” made for some excellent inadvertent comedy. “The Crappening” just sounds awful in the real sense of the word.
Stephanieon 21 Jun 2008 at 8:43 am 5You couldn’t pay me a billion to see this crap.
I find it funny that these people actually hate their own humanity. Is it me or is there a virus causing this mental illness? THats what it has to be. Only someone truly emotionally and mentally disturbed who truly does hate himself to the point where he or she projects such immoral self loathing onto the rest of humanity would say such disgusting things. It is almost like Nazism isn’t it? This is crass materialism to the point of almost parody.
Carlitoson 21 Jun 2008 at 9:56 am 6It’s the logical conclusion to an atheistic worldview. We’re just another lifeform on this insignificant spec of dust. Man has no special status in the universe and as such is the basically the equivalent of the zebra mussel or any other invasive species. Ironically, Secular Humanism was supposed to “elevate” man by ridding us of God. The exact opposite has happenned.
rrpjron 21 Jun 2008 at 10:03 am 7Stephanie has it right. We live in an artistic era of self-hate, reflecting a broader deterioration of our humanity. The decline of liberal artistry (and its attendant joys, discoveries and reaffirmations) into self-hate is at once predictable and yet fascinating in the extremes of mutation required to avoid total boredom.
amzarakon 21 Jun 2008 at 10:37 am 8Stephanie, for years I would joke about there being some kind of virus prevalent in Western society that was driving some to madness. But as the years go by, my joke gets less amusing because something has infected the minds of these people. I can’t explain it. Is it the indoctrination they receive in our public schools nowadays? Is it the media which perpetuates this self-hate? Or is it the absence of God? A combination? Other factors?
I always go back to a line Jeff Bridges said in King Kong. After Grodin tells him the people on that island will be glad that Kong is gone, Bridges replies, “actually they will miss him alot. He was the terror, the mystery in their lives, and the magic. A year from now that will be an island of burnt-out drunks. When we took Kong we kidnapped their God.” Please don’t get me wrong, I am not comparing God to Kong. My point is that God has been forced out of our lives and we have become a nation of burnt-out “drunks” looking for answers. For some, especially those on the Left and those swallowing Algore’s kool-aid, self-hatred and hatred of mankind has become the answer. It has become their new religion.
Acushlaon 21 Jun 2008 at 10:43 am 9Intellects far “loftier” than our own have been peddling horse manure like this rather successfully for half a century or more. Art simply reflects the “reality” around us, they say. Only a twit could possibly fail to see this.
Of course it helps if your reality excludes God, moral absolutes, wonder or joy. Manure goes down easier with a stiff shot of nihilism. The self-hate virus and Kong analogies are accurate.
I’m just curious though. Are movies like these the result of appalling gullibility or just cynical cashing in on the latest trendy brain rot? Either way, the answer is not encouraging.
(Whatever happened to the director of The Sixth Sense? That guy was good.)
Mauraon 21 Jun 2008 at 10:54 am 10Carlitos said, “It’s the logical conclusion to an atheistic worldview. …” and I agree in the main with his statement.
What’s scary for our society is the multitudes who will go to see this film and find “truth” in it.
Thank you for shining the light on the awfulness of this film.
Right in Seattleon 21 Jun 2008 at 10:56 am 11This makes my mind up. I’m definitely not going to see this Shyamalan movie.
amzorak, the sheople have been brainwashed. Dennis Prager noted it recently. He had no idea that a free press could so brainwash a society. However, it isn’t just the media. It’s the State monopolized education system as well. And because of this brainwashing the Left now effectively runs an overwhelming majority of everything these days: Business, Education, Entertainment, News, you name it.
The great G.K. Chesterton wrote in the Fr. Brown story, Oracle of the Dog, “It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense.”
The Left works diligently every day to cut God out of our lives, and in His place they put all manner of nonsense. Shyamalan’s latest is just one more stinking deposit on that heaping pile of feces.
Davidon 21 Jun 2008 at 11:39 am 12You are correct about the moral obscenity of this stupid film. However, I must object to a couple of your points against the environmental movement.
1. While oil is natural, it isn’t returned to the environment in the same form, nor returned to the same place. Plutonium isn’t found in nature; it is produced in nuclear reactors.
3. You accurately describe the Left’s current views on tobacco and marijuana laws, but these controversies have nothing to do with the environmental movement.
no kiddingon 21 Jun 2008 at 11:45 am 13I liked the movie, probably for the same reasons I liked Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds, a movie it closely resembles. If you want to think too deeply about it, then I suppose you should’ve hated The Birds for the same reasons people are claiming they hate The Happening (often without having seen it).
Essentially, it’s just a thriller about some people trying to figure out what to do in a confusing and deadly situation. Just eat your popcorn and enjoy for what it is.
Maxtypeon 21 Jun 2008 at 11:57 am 14I didn’t want to see Shamalan’s latest from the get go.He hasn’t made a good film since ‘The Sixth Sense’.
But after hearing what this self-slaughter fest was REALLY about,I wonder why ANYONE would see it?
As to the brainwashing by the media and school system,I have no doubt.I thank The Lord that my brother and I always had a parent or even both at home when we got home from school.It was their love,their letting us vent,their providing us moral guidance that kept us from this mindlessness.
I shudder for the children without that,knowing that many families simply can’t afford to do things that way.
Wilson the Volleyballon 21 Jun 2008 at 12:11 pm 15I saw it this morning, and it’s horrendous. The acting is laughably bad. It really is like M. Night got 50 million (or whatever) to make a home movie.
Buck Turgidsonon 21 Jun 2008 at 12:23 pm 16Somewhere in here there’s a movie about killer gerbils taking revenge.
Acushlaon 21 Jun 2008 at 12:46 pm 17no kidding: I can see how The Birds being pissed off about Thanksgiving is similar to my Japanese Maple going homicidal on my ass for ignoring the Plight of the Rain Forest.
And I’ve got nothing against popcorn, but do I have to enjoy the movie too? That’s mandatory?
Troyon 21 Jun 2008 at 1:37 pm 18Buck… Richard Gere’s in the movie? I thought they already got to him.
Addison DeWitton 21 Jun 2008 at 1:40 pm 19Don’t you wish there was a way to remake all the crappy movies that had great concepts but were done in by narcissitic nihilism? I should start a list. Every so often there is a trailer I see that makes me think, “gee, what a great idea, I’d like to see that movie”. A worldwide pandemic of mass suicide is just such a concept. But I have been so disappointed in the banality of these movies (narcissitic nihilism is inherently uninteresting) and so wary of the political sucker punch that seems always to be inserted. Now whenever I see a trailer that looks intersting, I think..how will they screw that up.
Oh, and the whole “rejection of God” thing is right on the money.
Carlitoson 21 Jun 2008 at 1:45 pm 20Will you look at the faces of those three sad sacks hiding in the basement. That’s the face of the modern global warming enviro-wackos. Just pathetic.
no kiddingon 21 Jun 2008 at 1:57 pm 21Acusha, what’s your problem? No where in The Happening is it ever explained why plant life starts releasing strange compounds into the air. There’s nothing to say it has anything to do with the Rain Forest, Thanksgiving, or your rear end. In The Birds, it’s never explained why different species of birds suddenly start attacking people. It’s a movie, and it just happens, not everywhere, but in small areas, and terrified people suddenly have to deal with it.
Really, when you first saw The Birds, were you all that upset because the underlying premise of the movie was never explained?
Templaron 21 Jun 2008 at 2:46 pm 22I saw it this morning, and it’s horrendous. The acting is laughably bad. It really is like M. Night got 50 million (or whatever) to make a home movie.
Heh, for some reason my brain initially registered that as “homo movie”.
Acushlaon 21 Jun 2008 at 3:08 pm 23no kidding: The only thing that upset me about The Birds was Suzanne Pleshette getting pecked to death. And I never said I didn’t like The Birds. I said I didn’t care for the nilhilism and crappiness of The Happening.
PerfectTommyon 21 Jun 2008 at 3:21 pm 24“movie-goers spend two hours” - Actually more like a half hour, it just seemed much longer.
Disagree with Maxtype about Night not making a good film since The Sixth Sense. I love Unbreakable and Signs is wonderful until the silly ending (but still appreciated the affirmation of faith in the film).
Night desperately needs a good scriptwriter.
Stephanieon 21 Jun 2008 at 3:27 pm 25Its funny, I have a friend whose name I will not mention. He has had issues with drug abuse and alcoholism and is a lapsed Catholic. His past is full of misdeeds, bad behavior and near escapes. He also goes from belief system to belief system looking to find something to cling to. His latest misadventure is new age Deepak Chopra crap which I banned from being discussed because A: He isn’t quite sure about it and B: It sounds like cult stuff and it has cost him a lot of money…HELLO NEW AGE JIMMY SWAGGERT! The thing is this: He isn’t happy with himself. He has never been able to accept the man in the mirror. He has a good life, a great lively hood and yet he wanders all over the place. He hasnt embraced Global Warming but its the lack of self identity and lack of faith that he carries that seems like it manifests itself in so many people. And frankly it scares me. I hope and pray he makes his way back home again but how? Has he gone too far? Has the human race, at least Western Culture gone so far it can’t bring itself back from the brink? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
no kiddingon 21 Jun 2008 at 4:26 pm 26Acushla, why would one read nihilism into The Happening anymore than The Birds? Let’s see, plants/birds are suddenly causing the deaths of people, and this signifies the rejection of morality and religion?
Relax, as Hitchcock once told an overly anxious Kim Novak, “it’s just a movie.”
Carlitoson 21 Jun 2008 at 6:04 pm 27no kidding,
it boils down to WHY the events are happening. I don’t recall they ever say why in the Birds. They sort of leave it up in the air. Do they leave it to your imagination in the Happening too? Or do they club you over the head with it in the usual Hollywood liberal style.
dappa10on 21 Jun 2008 at 6:17 pm 28Environmentalism is a religion. It’s as simple as that. It takes an act of faith.It sure a hell isn’t based on science.
dappa10on 21 Jun 2008 at 6:22 pm 29Harry, glad to see that you out on you own. As far as I’m concerned you were Libertas.
Ginaon 21 Jun 2008 at 7:16 pm 30Shyamalan an atheist? Did no one see “The Sixth Sense” or “Signs”? He’s not a Christian, but he’s certainly not an atheist.
Carlitoson 21 Jun 2008 at 7:25 pm 31I didn’t say he was an atheist. I said his movie reflects an atheistic worldview.
How can somebody who who isn’t an atheist reflect an atheistic worldview? Easy. You grow up in America in the latter half of the 20th century, go to public schools where God is forbidden, go to a university where the notion of God is laughed at, hang out with secular humanists all your life soaking up their worldview.
In the face of all those things, it would take a concerted and intentional effort NOT to have an atheistic worldview at the end of the day, I don’t care if you call yourself religious.
no kiddingon 21 Jun 2008 at 7:38 pm 32Carlitos, in the The Birds, they did leave the “why of it all” up in the air. But if you remember, they had a lot of speculation going on in the background. Some blamed the weather, some blamed the presence of Tippi Hedrin, and one guy kept claiming it was the “end of the world.” It was the same in The Happening. A lot of theories were thrown around in the background, but no one knew. It’s like Hitchcock’s use of his McGuffin devices. It was an object the movie revolved around, but something that really wasn’t of any particular importance to the audience.
All it came down to was in The Birds, Rod Taylor was trying to figure out how to keep his little group of people alive. In The Happening, it’s Mark Walhberg. And I liked both movies because I could relate to the characters played by Taylor and Walhberg, and what they were trying to do.
Acushlaon 21 Jun 2008 at 8:22 pm 33no kidding: Let’s start with where we do agree. A tale of survival against something the characters do not understand. Check.
From that point on we differ. For me, The Birds was a good movie: directed well, good script, with some very nice acting. As to the interpretation of the actions of the birds. . .well, there is this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=K4Wm1xFu2P0
In my opinion, The Happening basically sucked on every level. And it failed spectacularly in what the director himself stated as part of his intention – The Message. That’s just my opinion. I am allowed to have one, I hope? We really don’t have to agree.
In Hitch’s day, maybe it was “just a movie.” But for the past 40 years I’ve been very much aware of the use of movies as a propaganda tool, 98.9%+ of which leans left, and I’m sensitive to it.
So when someone tells me to just sit back and relax and eat my popcorn when the $10 I just paid for entertainment is actually a lecture about mankind’s sins against nature. . .I feel cheated.
no kiddingon 21 Jun 2008 at 8:54 pm 34Okay, everyone’s entitled to their right to be overly sensitive to Hollywood shoving leftist propaganda into movies. Trust me, I fully appreciate all of that.
But… there’s something about me that enjoys a movie that creeps me out without splattering me with ridiculous gore (and yes, I know The Happening crossed the line a time or two). If you say The Happening “sucked on every level”, then fine. Maybe it did for you. But I may always remember how freaked out those construction guys looked as their fellow workers started plummeting off the building. That was some unique movie-making. And that’s my last word on the subject. Regards.
Bloody Samon 22 Jun 2008 at 2:04 am 35When I first read the synopsis for The Happening, my immediate reaction was that somebody owed James Herbert some acknowledgment, if not a few bucks, for ripping off the concept illustrated in his horror novel The Dark. Herbert’s story concerned a rapid, inexplicable wave of mass suicides and murder, spreading across the globe like some kind of virus.
Of course, no one can copyright a concept or an idea, but, having read The Dark just a few years ago for the first time, I couldn’t help but wonder if Shyamalan hadn’t browsed through Herbert’s book at some point or other. I might add that, after finishing the book, I had a hard time imagining a successful film adaptation faithful to the novel’s depiction of overwhelming barbarism and nihilism. Someone might pull off such an adaptation, I thought, but how many people would actually be interested in sitting through it? Very bleak stuff.
Vincent Wongon 22 Jun 2008 at 3:33 am 36‘no kidding’
Don’t be disingenuous. In the absence of any ‘real’ explanation, the most likely hypothesis carries the day, which was the assertion by the scientist at the end of a natural plant toxin. The alternative hypothesis presented at that same interview was ‘Bush did it’, a premise not unattractive to some, I suppose.
no kiddingon 22 Jun 2008 at 5:48 am 37Vincent Wong, here it is, the next morning for me, and in checking back, I find you accused me of being disingenuous. Not so. You’ll note in my second posting above, I clearly said the plants “suddenly start attacking people” by “releasing strange compounds into the air.” What was unknown was the why of it. (Just like no one knows why the birds suddenly starting attacking people as they did.) You should try be more fair with your accusations.
Garyon 22 Jun 2008 at 8:14 am 38Yes, the horror of “The Birds” was the lack of explanation for the phenomenon. Just like the inexplicable homicidal evil of Michael Myers in Halloween (until Rob Zombie came along and chalked it up to a rough childhood).
I love movies that pit human beings against an unexpected force of nature. A random force, mind you. Not something contrived out of vengeance. It’s what made the difference in “Jaws” being a classic film and “Jaws II” a marginal - at best - sequel. The second shark wanted revenge for the first one? C’mon.
I miss those old Irwin Allen disaster movies - The Poseidon Adventure, Earthquake, The Towing Inferno, et cet. In those films, man’s technological advances failed to account for the power of nature. But in the end the characters fought back and showed their best qualities to survive the day.
This garbage from Shyamalan smacks of complete nihilism. And once again, Hollywood puts out the message “Man bad, nature good”.
Vincent Wongon 22 Jun 2008 at 8:37 am 39‘no kidding’.
I’m sorry. I misunderstood your post.
Stickwick Staperson 23 Jun 2008 at 8:23 am 40Shyamalan had me with The Sixth Sense and Signs, but lost me with Lady in the Water. The bit where his character is the Hope of Mankind and will become a martyr? … blech.
Frankon 25 Jun 2008 at 9:24 am 41Yea, this movie was miserably bad . . . there’s no defense or excuse for this movie. It was so bad, in fact, I produced a parody:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx16epbyj9g
Be sure to watch the high-quality version!
mtmon 28 Oct 2008 at 3:53 pm 42I hate to burst the bubble, but you ought to read this, and the combox there.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_crypto_culture_of_life_director/?view
Ed Driscoll » “The Most Morally Abhorrent Film Ever Made”on 20 May 2009 at 11:17 pm 43[…] in the Wall Street Journal, (found via Dirty Harry’s new film blog) Joseph Rago notes, “We have arrived at a strange moment in American pop culture when […]