Review of Glass (2019) by Nileouroboros — 20 Jan 2019

I've been reading several critic reviews for this film, and can't stop shaking my head. These are people I respect, who are usually spot on for how I feel about films, A.A. Dowd in particular who gave this one a B-. So I'll state my position: This film is perfect. Flawless. At long last and thank heaven, M. Night Shyamalan has arrived; fully self-realized and glorious to behold.

I think where the critics are at a disadvantage comes from two things. First, M. Night Shyamalan has become such a joke in this business that he's practically a meme, certainly a cautionary tale in hubris, and they simply can't accept that he might emerge fully formed from the trash heaps of The Happening and Airbender and After Earth as the seminal film auteur that he always showed the potential of being. Second, Shyamalan has only ever made one movie (barring the ones written in whole or in part by others), and this one is no different. He's just finally perfected it.

And the only movie he's ever made is this: "You're not gonna believe this, but it's true," and he then dissects what he just showed you to irrevocably prove that indeed, it can't be true, and he's transparent about everything the whole time, and in the end he pulls a rhino out of thimble and lo! - It's actually true, and your mind is blown. Or the short version: "The Twist Ending." And the problem with that story is that it is, at its core, a con. Unless it's perfect, in which case it's magic. And it's worked exactly five times (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs, Split, and Glass). Every other attempt failed, and we felt cheated and conned at the end of it.

I do not think less of the auteur for trying to perfect one story over and over. I admire it. If you 'got' Jiro Dreams Of Sushi, you'll understand my perspective. Jiro spends his entire life perfecting one thing. And he only achieves perfection after a full life pursuing it. Compared to that, Shyamalan is precocious in his achievement with Glass.

But why? How? What makes Glass perfect? The best imagery I can provide is one the film itself raises during a therapy session: that the world's finest magicians work at the subtlest levels with inhuman precision to read minds, fool eyes, make believers out of skeptics. What Shyamalan has always been, even in relative drivel like Airbender, is a unique filmmaking voice. His pacing, his framing, lighting, sets, performances... absolutely every single element of what ends up on the screen is distinctly and uniquely his, and almost invariably beautiful to behold. To quote the respected A.A. Dowd: "Every shot is an event." Take a second to appreciate this. The craft of moving images has been evolving at breakneck speed for a solid century, and within all that susurrus, Shyamalan stands out, is distinct, is unique and even momentous in his craft unlike anything current (no disrespect Mr. Tarantino), and surpassing even his inspiration in deliberate purpose: Mr. Hitchcock himself.

The 'meta' nature of this film is brought up in every professional review. What this means is that Shyamalan here is not only a magician, or a magician rolling up his sleeves to show you he isn't cheating. He's walking out on stage completely in the buff, hiding and holding nothing. And as he proceeds to perform his magic he's explaining every step to you in excruciating detail. And at the end, from nowhere, a thimble appears, and a rhino is pulled out, and it sings the national anthem in falsetto.

How does he accomplish this? Let's take for granted that his cinematic craft is flawless, as always. What's different? What's different is that his usual shortcoming has finally been shored up. Even in Split, his secondary characters suffered from what they usually do: they are his exposition. The therapist there is his stopgap, explaining wall climbing and bluntly postulating the film's thesis, which is that DID is an evolutionary step past normal humanity (i.e. a super power). It's too direct. While Split and the others survived this flaw, The Village and the rest were much worse and did not. But it's part of his ploy, to reveal all upfront so you can't believe the final twist. Yet it weakens these characters, which erodes their nominal job as supporting structures for the main characters. Why it works here in Glass is because that exposition comes more from the image sequences themselves, and of course from the meta element - delivered by the titular Mr. Glass himself - which fits both his character and the nature of the whole magic trick.

And that's pretty much it. The eternal fatal flaw finally healed. It doesn't hurt that his leads are some of the most talented actors. Ever. Yeah, you heard me - go ahead, look at Willis' body of work and prove me wrong.

But okay yeah, there is one flaw here. Mr. Glass' mama's aging makeup in super close up. But I'm gonna call that the mole on the supermodel's face that highlights the perfection of everything else.