Split

Dir: M. Night Shyamalan

2017

****

M. Night Shyamalan's 2017 thriller Split came with many surprises, all of which were pleasant ones. The first thing that struck me was just how great a director he is, it's something I'm afraid I had forgotten, but some of the scenes in Split are incredible. He ventures into the realms of classic thriller and ups the game somewhat. Many of the visuals can be associated/attributed to classics from directors such as Alfred Hitchcock, Louis Malle, Claude Chabrol, Stanley Kubrick and even a bit of Jacques Tourneur. We see long corridors, the viewpoint from a keyhole and attacks from a bird's-eye view but Shyamalan brings all these - dare I say Cliches - to life. There is one particular pull-back chase scene that is worth watching the film for on its own. It is fair to say this is the first visually exciting film from M. Night Shyamalan since 2004's The Village. There aren't so many literal nods to classic thrillers than there are notable acknowledgments, but these are super subtle. Although Betty Buckley has collaborated with Shyamalan before in 2008's The Happening, her brilliant performance is made just that extra special when you let yourself be reminded that she played Ms Collins in Brian de Palma's 1976 horror classic Carrie. Ms Collins and Dr. Karen Fletcher are similar in many ways, showing kindness to the troubled lead character that changes the course of their development in some way. Buckley brings a bit of old school to the film that enriches it no end. It's clear that Shyamalan has thought long and hard about the film's tone and I think he's balanced the mix of classics - ranging from 50s classic to 70s classic - and modern thriller perfectly. There is some weight to the idea that representing a character, who suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder, as a dangerous person is somewhat offensive to mental illness suffers and it does fuel the stigma they often have attached to them. However, it's all part of a much bigger story, it's great fiction with an element of scientific truth attached to it, although this is taken to extremes. At first the film seems to be a simple kidnap/escape, serial killer meets young girls in captivity yarn but is so much more than that. Kevin, the DID sufferer, is never really in the shadows as most comparable movie characters are. His condition is explored and explained and he is on screen for most of the film. The psychology behind the condition is explored rather intelligently all things considered, sure the overall message is an extreme one but it would be a boring thriller if it weren't and the idea that those that have suffered are the more evolved has a lot of truth to it. It's a brilliant piece of writing. However, Shyamalan has always been more than clever writing and fancy visuals, it's true his last few films previous to Split haven't been of the highest quality but this hasn't, in my opinion, been down to said writing or visuals, instead, it's because of the lack of what made him a big name in cinema in the first place - the twist. By the time The Village - his fourth major feature following The Sixth Sense - was released, his signature twists were expected. While they were largely enjoyed, there were always critics who suggested Shyamalan was a one trick pony, and The Village seemed to be the last straw for many people. Personally, I think The Village's twist was and is still his best to date, once he ditched the twist his films suffered. Split has two twists, which I think is something of a bold statement from the director. He's back doing what he does best, it's a fiercely confident film and is all the better for it. Now it should be said that one of the main reasons the film is successful is because James McAvoy is superb. I'm glad he replaced Joaquin Phoenix, I like JP but I can't see him doing this part justice, not in the way that McAvoy did. In many ways the film didn't need two twists, the first is fine, the film stands on its own, but Shyamalan wanted back in the big time and did something a bit special. This is when I should announce that the rest of the review may contain spoilers. The clues were there, as they often are in Shyamalan's films, although you only realize this at the end - which I love about him, but at the end of the film it is revealed that Split is in fact a sort-of sequel to 2000's Unbreakable. Shyamalan wanted to make Split fifteen year previously but decided to wait, and it was well worth it. We had actually seen Kevin as a child in Unbreakable, Bruce Willis's David Dunn found out about his abuse back then, so to see him return before the end credits was something of an unexpected thrill, the likes I haven't experienced in quite a while. You could suggest that Shyamalan wanted back in on the popularity of the superhero genre, his Kevin twist being close to what has been seen recently in Spiderman:Homecoming, but it is worth remembering that Unbreakable was made eight years before the first Iron Man film and the idea behind Split was already thought of before Spider-Man 1, 2 and 3 came out, before it was rebooted as The Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2, and before Homecoming. Unbreakable also predated Chronicle by twelve years, so it is safe to say Unbreakable lead the way forward for superhero and alternative superhero films. Another film in the series has already been announced, combining the characters from both films. Is a sequel of a previous popular film a lazy move by Shyamalan though? No, I don't think so, I think it's a risky move, a bold move and a brilliant move, but certainly not lazy. Throw in the characters from The Village too I say, have them all fight the aliens from Signs, with the help of a grown up Cole Sear of course - just keep Will Smith, his son and Mark Wahlberg away from it and I'll watch it with enthusiasm and anticipation. Superhero films are overdone, twists can become boring and cliched characters can be tiresome, but not when Shyamalan's on top form. He's just made things interesting again.