Movie: Signs

[TheLastMohican]

This is for the discussion of the intricacies of the appreciation (or denouncement) of the movie Signs.

Warning: This thread will contain major spoilers!

[Claptonian]

The message I got from the movie (and the message my friends--most of them Christians--got from it) is that everything happens for a reason. Even things that seem cruel (such as the death of Mel Gibson's character's wife, the son's asthma) or trivial (the wife's last words) have a vital "purpose" in the grand scheme of things. This is illustrated when the day is saved thanks to all the cruel, trivial things that have been plaguing the family.

The argument in the movie seems to be that God made ostensibly terrible things happen to this family in order to save them from the aliens. In this light, the terrible things weren't really terrible. The problem with this is that there's no reason provided for the alien invasion. All the problems plaguing the family only become necessary and purposeful if the alien invasion was necessary and purposeful, but we have no reason to believe that it was. Furthermore, if we accept that God is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being (which is the common definition of the Christian God), then we know absolutely that the invasion wasn't "necessary," since an all-powerful being could reach the same outcome through other means (or, more accurate for an omnipotent being, no means at all).

Therefore, I call the execution of the movie "misguided." While attempting to argue that God makes everything happen for a reason, it actually points out just how trivial everything that happens is by showing a family suffer random, unnecessary problems in order to survive another random, unnecessary problem.

[TheLastMohican]

All right, you have a point there. I hadn't thought that the movie was trying to say that everything happens for a reason like that though. I thought it was merely offering an example that was obviously exaggerated (if it happened all the time, then would it be worthy of a movie?) in order to really hit you over the head with it (which is unfortunately necessary for many modern viewers to "get it").

Presumably the aliens came for a reason that was offscreen. When such things happen, they both solve and create problems, and therefore they require other things to happen. It could be seen as a perpetual motion system of catastrophes, and their solutions, which bring about more catastrophes.

Shyamalan believes in fate in a semi-Christian context. (His religious background is ambiguously mixed.) So his views seem to be a little more extreme than mine concerning predestination. But the general theme, which applies more subtly throughout the world, is simply that of divine guidance and presence, and the point that we rarely realize what purpose an event might have when it happens.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 1 minutes and 22 seconds later...

While we are here, I invite any others interested in the film to come discuss it. I would also like to talk about the other aspects: The acting, the cinematography, the score by James Newton Howard, etc.

[Claptonian]

All right, you have a point there. I hadn't thought that the movie was trying to say that everything happens for a reason like that though. I thought it was merely offering an example that was obviously exaggerated (if it happened all the time, then would it be worthy of a movie?) in order to really hit you over the head with it (which is unfortunately necessary for many modern viewers to "get it").

Presumably the aliens came for a reason that was offscreen. When such things happen, they both solve and create problems, and therefore they require other things to happen. It could be seen as a perpetual motion system of catastrophes, and their solutions, which bring about more catastrophes.

But, based on the religious theme of the movie, I think this has to be looked at from a paradigm of Christianity, and as I said before, if God was really omnipotent, he wouldn't have to use such catastrophes to breed solutions, and if God was really omnibenevolent, one would assume he wouldn't want to use catastrophes if there were less...well, catastrophic ways to solve the problems at hand.

That's my big problem with the movie: the "moral of the story" feels good, but even the slightest bit of analysis reveals it to be unsatisfying and irrational. It's not enough to say that there's a reason for the invasion but it takes place off screen. If that satisfies you, why even watch the ending of the movie? You could just say there's an off-screen reasons for all of the problems in the movie and turn it off.

But the general theme, which applies more subtly throughout the world, is simply that of divine guidance and presence, and the point that we rarely realize what purpose an event might have when it happens.

The events in the movie (other than the alien invasion) had a purpose, but they were hardly justified when you consider that God is supposedly omnipotent and therefore would not have to use cruelty and suffering to achieve his ends. Here's how I see it:

1. God killed Mel Gibson's character's wife and made her say some seemingly trivial last words that would haunt, frustrate and depress Mel's character. He also pretty much ruined the life of the guy who accidently killed the wife.

2. God gave the son horrible asthma which causes the entire family to suffer.

3. God gave the daughter some psychological issue(s) that would cause her to leave glasses of water all over the house, causing the family frustration.

4. God created violent, ruthless aliens and sent them to Earth.

This strikes me more as divine sadism than divine guidance. I get that the events of the movie are supposed to be more allegorical than literal, but that doesn't change the logical conclusion. If this is how God acts, then I would like to decline his "divine presence and guidance." :laugh:

[TheLastMohican]

But, based on the religious theme of the movie, I think this has to be looked at from a paradigm of Christianity, and as I said before, if God was really omnipotent, he wouldn't have to use such catastrophes to breed solutions, and if God was really omnibenevolent, one would assume he wouldn't want to use catastrophes if there were less...well, catastrophic ways to solve the problems at hand.

That's my big problem with the movie: the "moral of the story" feels good, but even the slightest bit of analysis reveals it to be unsatisfying and irrational. It's not enough to say that there's a reason for the invasion but it takes place off screen. If that satisfies you, why even watch the ending of the movie? You could just say there's an off-screen reasons for all of the problems in the movie and turn it off.



The events in the movie (other than the alien invasion) had a purpose, but they were hardly justified when you consider that God is supposedly omnipotent and therefore would not have to use cruelty and suffering to achieve his ends. Here's how I see it:

1. God killed Mel Gibson's character's wife and made her say some seemingly trivial last words that would haunt, frustrate and depress Mel's character. He also pretty much ruined the life of the guy who accidently killed the wife.

2. God gave the son horrible asthma which causes the entire family to suffer.

3. God gave the daughter some psychological issue(s) that would cause her to leave glasses of water all over the house, causing the family frustration.

4. God created violent, ruthless aliens and sent them to Earth.

This strikes me more as divine sadism than divine guidance. I get that the events of the movie are supposed to be more allegorical than literal, but that doesn't change the logical conclusion. If this is how God acts, then I would like to decline his "divine presence and guidance." :laugh:

I can pretty much sum up my reply as follows: God's will is not always the same as His action or the actual occurrences. God also does not want people to reject him, but it happens anyway. It is free will at work.

Likewise, not all things that happen are for a certain purpose that we can discern, and not all things that happen for a reason are initially good. Bad things will happen; God is not wishing bad things to happen to us. He simply makes many of those bad things happen for a greater good.

It is really impossible to tell which things are random and which are things are precisely planned by God, or the extremes of either view. Therefore the overall scheme of things remains ambiguous.

The point is that Signs is a tightly written, suspenseful movie!

The above emboldened mini-rant can be ignored. It is just a little glimpse of my frustration that this is gradually becoming a discussion of theology and destiny instead of the movie!

*cools down* Anyway, we might have to agree to disagree on the details of the movie's message and its theological accuracy in accordance with Christian doctrine. If that's okay with you, let's have some discussion about the aesthetic qualities of the film, especially the score. (Have you heard the score?)

[Claptonian]

In all honesty, your "mini-rant" seems to ignore the logical implications of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being, and the concept of free will under such a being is a total crock. But, if you want to steer away from the theology debate, that's fine with me. ;)

I haven't seen the movie in about a year and I don't particularly recall the score. Aside from the aforementioned issues, I didn't really find anything else about the movie to be worthy of discussion. :laugh:

[TheLastMohican]

In all honesty, your "mini-rant" seems to ignore the logical implications of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being, and the concept of free will under such a being is a total crock.

Yes, it ignored what we were discussing; that was why I called it a mini-rant that could be ignored.

But, if you want to steer away from the theology debate, that's fine with me. ;)

I haven't seen the movie in about a year and I don't particularly recall the score. Aside from the aforementioned issues, I didn't really find anything else about the movie to be worthy of discussion. :laugh:

Very well. Let's see if anyone else has some input. :thumbsup:

[escapist11]

HAHAHAHA
I laughed when I saw the title of this thread.

That's all I wanted to say.

[TheLastMohican]

HAHAHAHA
I laughed when I saw the title of this thread.

That's all I wanted to say.

I gather you either don't like Signs or don't like threads about movies.

[escapist11]

I gather you either don't like Signs or don't like threads about movies.

I don't like signs.
And it was just a funny name for a thread.
It's like...
OHH
Let's discuss Signs and any other [bad] mel gibson movies while we're at it!
Sounds like an intense party!!!
:popcorn:

[TheLastMohican]

I don't like signs.
And it was just a funny name for a thread.
It's like...
OHH
Let's discuss Signs and any other [bad] mel gibson movies while we're at it!
Sounds like an intense party!!!
:popcorn:

It's been done before. But I started thread because Claptonian and I had a good conversation going on the "message" of signs. We pretty much settled the fact that we disagree on that one, so now I wonder if there is anyone else here who likes Signs.

I will try to sound really self-important and snooty here, just for the fun of it:

Am I the only one present here sufficiently enlightened to appreciate the intricate details of the vast intellectual sophistication of the classic cinema feature commonly referred to as Signs?

(In other words, am I the only one here who likes the movie?)

[SShack]

I just couldn't get over the logical issue of an alien species deciding to invade a planet where a substance that is toxic to them falls from the sky on a regular basis. It would be like us deciding to colonize the sun. I remember some comic or critic of some sort pointing this out. I simply can't get into any of the metaphysical concept behind the movie because I can't get past that issue for some reason.

[Claptonian]

I just couldn't get over the logical issue of an alien species deciding to invade a planet where a substance that is toxic to them falls from the sky on a regular basis. It would be like us deciding to colonize the sun. I remember some comic or critic of some sort pointing this out. I simply can't get into any of the metaphysical concept behind the movie because I can't get past that issue for some reason.

That issue is more logical than the metaphysical concepts. :laugh:

[Tinmaiden]

I like most of Shyamalan's work, with the possible exception of Signs. I suppose that the movie just sort of bored me... and the little boy was NOT using his inhaler correctly. That distracted me... and the aliens looked a bit fake. It would have been better if they'd never showed them at all.

[sriv]

Indian pride! I definitely liked the Sixth Sense much better than Signs.

[TheLastMohican]

Indian pride! I definitely liked the Sixth Sense much better than Signs.

What made the difference for you?