Are Shyamalan's Cameos Distracting?

[LAW]

I didn't know it was him in the Sixth Sense. By the time Unbreakable came around I knew who he was but is was a very small/insigificant performance. Now in his latest fare you cannot NOT notice him and I think it's a little distracting. Why does he do this in all his movies? Does he really want to be an actor? Surely with the budgets he gets, he can afford to hire actors for these parts! Next time he may give himself a big role and it might ruin the movie because his acting is kind of flat.

[docholiday_13]

At least hes a better actor than Tarantino.

[HHH123007]

The answer to your question, yes.

When I saw Signs, I don't know how many idiots made a collective **Gasp!** when he showed up. A couple of them even made it a point to tell everyone in the theater that it was him. I hate being in movie theaters...

By the way, I thought he was fine in the movie..

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Well, I didnt know who he was in Signs, because I had never seen him (not a big fan of his earlier work), but I must say that I disagree that his cameo was distracting (now that I know who it was) and that his acting was not flat. In this film anyways (dont remember him in the other films).

[Cyclonus]

Well, I think he just wants to uphold Hitchcock's tradition perhaps?

[A.J. Hakari]

The audience at the screening I attended seemed like they thought that M. Night was just another actor, not even connecting him to being the writer/director of SIGNS.

In my opinion, the cameos he's made in his films have been relatively small, but never once does it seem like he's saying, "Look at me! I can direct myself!" He's just there, and seeing him in THE SIXTH SENSE, UNBREAKABLE, and SIGNS didn't distract me from liking each film.

[LAW]

I don't think his acting (from what little there has been) is bad per-say, it just that he seems out of place, sort of, in a way. Maybe because he's Indian he stands out or he is making himself stand out? He does make sure India is predominantely mentioned in his new flick.

OOPY. I go back & forth from General to Best/Worst so much I just realized this topic is in the wrong spot. Sorry, honest mistake.

[YodaMokona]

To answer your question: for at least 95% of the movie-going public it's a moot point, as they have no idea how to even pronounce the poor guy's name (let alone know what he looks like!). At the showing of Signs I went to see, maybe 5 people in the sold-out show had a clue. For the other 5%, I think it's a bit distracting at first (along the lines of stunt casting) but in no way hinders your enjoyment of the overall film. I personally think his cameos are kinda cool! And he is definitely a far, far better actor than Tarantino. Yech!

[notchreturns]

I don't mind at all. In fact, I enjoy it. I was particualry impressed with his performance in Signs. A damn good job if you ask me...

[bskutle]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by notchreturns:
I don't mind at all. In fact, I enjoy it. I was particualry impressed with his performance in Signs. A damn good job if you ask me...</font>

That's the way I see it.

[belphegor]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by LAW:
I didn't know it was him in the Sixth Sense. By the time Unbreakable came around I knew who he was but is was a very small/insigificant performance. Now in his latest fare you cannot NOT notice him and I think it's a little distracting. Why does he do this in all his movies? Does he really want to be an actor? Surely with the budgets he gets, he can afford to hire actors for these parts! Next time he may give himself a big role and it might ruin the movie because his acting is kind of flat.</font>

i think he has an Hitchcock complex without the subtlety

[This message has been edited by belphegor (edited 08-04-2002).]

[Cyclonus]

I didn't know who he was in The Sixth Sense, so it wasn't a problem there. I still haven't seen Unbreakable or Signs yet.

[notchreturns]

In The Sixth Sense he had the small role as the doctor who thought the mother was abusive, Cy.

And, In Unbreakable he was a drug dealer at a sporting event.

He blows both of these performances away in Signs giving himself quite the important role and shining through.

[Raena]

Okay yeah it is distracting, especially since it was a significant part.

At the same time though, he's easy on the eyes and was actually pretty decent in the role.

It's annoying though because he's a talented and respected writer/director and you expect that from folks like Woody Allen and Spike Lee--who are ingenious in their own right. But I think (and this is just my own humble opinion), that M. Night is at another level than those mentioned. Maybe it's too early to state this, but M. Night has the potential to rank right up there with Spielberg and Hitchcock, if he doesn't already. And while Hitchcock did put in extremely small cameos in his flicks, neither director exploits himself to the extent of being labled an actor. Hey, if a director wants to act, fine, more power to him/her. But maybe me and my small mind just considers it a faux pas or something--especially for a director as talented as he is.



[This message has been edited by Raena (edited 08-04-2002).]

[ColinM]

I don't find it annoying at all. In fact, I love it. Speaking for myself, I've noticed shades of Hitchcock in Shyamalan's work, and so I find it pretty amusing that he appears in his own films. And after Signs (his best work yet in my book), I found that, surprisingly, the guy can actually act. I know it wasn't a huge part, but he was pretty damn good in it.

I've loved all three of his movies. So I guess the way I feel is this...as long as he keeps making awesome films, I don't mind the cameos at all.

[Mr. Orange]

First off it was the Sixth Sense hardly a role at all. About 7 secs. screen time. Then it was Unbreakable he boosted his role up to about 15 secs. Now with Signs he has a role large enough to make it into the credits! Where will the madness stop?! I bet in his next movie he will be the supporting actor, and after that he will be the lead actor, and after that he will be the lead actor and win an oscar! After that I bet he will play 3 different characters and then he will play all of the characters as well has film the movie, write the script, handle and paint the props, be all of the extas, light the set, and show the movie in the movie theater personally!

[daredevil0214]

ok ive heard of his cameos but where were they in sixth sense and unbreakable... i totally missed them!?

i didnt like the character in signs, the one he played, i guess if he tried he could be an actor, but he wasnt really what i guess i wanted... you know? it was weird, he WAS distracting, he drew away from the plot, his very presence drew me away from the movie, so i had to try even harder to understand the words that he was saying, which was of somewhat importance...

i dunno, i guess i havent gotten used to the idea of seeing him on the big screen with mel gibson... :T

damn joaquin phoenix was soo great in signs... sigH

[bluegopher]

Can't some of you people just ignore the fact that he directed the films and just treat him like another actor and stop whining about his cameos. Heck, he's already a better actor than some people that headline big budget films.

[dannywalker17]

I thought it was great that he gave himself this significant role. I thought he did a good job and it didnt bother me at all.

[Antonio]

Night's cameos are nowhere near as distracting as Stephen King's attempts to be Hitchcock.

[LAW]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Antonio:
Night's cameos are nowhere near as distracting as Stephen King's attempts to be Hitchcock.</font>

Granted, but, I thought Stephen King was so funny in Creepshow when he played Jordy Verril. I mean he's a bumpkin from Maine, and he played that hick part so perfectly with the whole "Meteor-shit" thing and the "OH NO! not THERE!" part where he saw that the meteor-moss from outerspace had spread to his privates. King's other cameos were at best ill-advised. I just wonder what these people are thinking when they decide to do this. It has to be an ego thing because obviously these decisions were not based on what was best for the film.
I guess cameos are appropriate when the director/actor is appropriate for the part, when they're not they're not.

[JoBlo]

Moving to our GENERAL MOVIE TALK forum --&gt;