And so the Tensile Strength Trilogy comes to an end.
Written/Directed by M. Night Shyamalan
Cinematography Mike Gioulakis
Edited by Luke Ciarrocchi and Blu Murray
Cast: Samuel L. Jackson, James McAvoy, Bruce Willis,Sarah Paulson, Anya Taylor-Joy,Spencer Treat Clark,Charlayne Woodard
M. Night Shyamalan brings together the narratives of two of his standout originals–2000’s UNBREAKABLE and last year’s SPLIT–in one explosive, all-new comic-book thriller: GLASS. From UNBREAKABLE, Bruce Willis returns as David Dunn as does Samuel L. Jackson as Elijah Price, known also by his pseudonym Mr. Glass. Joining from SPLIT are James McAvoy, reprising his role as Kevin Wendell Crumb and the multiple identities who reside within, and Anya Taylor-Joy as Casey Cooke, the only captive to survive an encounter with The Beast. Following the conclusion of SPLIT, GLASS finds Dunn pursuing Crumb’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Price emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men.
After 19 years, writer-director M. Night Shyamalan delivers Glass a sequel to his cult hit Unbreakable. To be clear Glass really is a sequel to Unbreakable and less of one to Split. Characters continue from Split, but they are not the focus. Unbreakable is the real well Shyamalan draws from in building the aesthetic and philosophical foundation to close out this trilogy of the original “grounded” superhero film.
Picking up roughly two decades after the conclusion of Unbreakable and a few weeks from Split, Glass finds David Dunn acting with the help of his son as the folk vigilante the Overseer. Dunn is soon drawn into conflict with the Horde, who continues to kidnap teenage girls and sacrifice them to the Beast personality. However, the pair are soon captured and sent to a mental hospital with Dr. Ellie Staple, a doctor specializing in treating individuals with delusions of grandeur, specifically people who believe themselves to be superheroes. (Shyamalan uses the term “superhero” throughout but in reality he means something closer to the term metahuman.) As it turns out, Elijah Pierce, AKA Mister Glass, is also receiving treatment at the facility. Dr. Staple is given three days to try and find a breakthrough with them before the law throws the book at them. That is the basic pitch for this film, going into more would give away major plot beats.
In the lead up to Glass I revisited Unbreakable for the first time in a while. It continues to hold up both as a film and as one of historical importance (along with Blade) in explaining the current genre of the moment. Looking back on that film’s marketing materials there was a disconnect between what they were selling—a ’90s thriller with a psychological edge—and what the film was—a subdued, realist film, about divorce and depression, with a superhero metatext. After seeing Glass, a similar disconnect has occurred. The trailers sell a thrilling, super heroic showdown, between Unbreakable David Dunn and the Horde from Split with Mister Glass pulling the strings. That sounds like the basis for a variety of superhero films and narratives, and isn’t really what this film is about or interested in being. Nor does writer-director M. Night Shyamalan seem interested in playing towards audience genre expectations, Glass is closer to Alfred Hichcock’s Vertigo or Psycho. After learning that the director used the profits from his previous two films and a loan against his house to raise the twenty million dollar budget the peculiarities of it all make sense. For better or ill, this is an M. Night Shyamalan film through and through. Which means there is this weird cocktail of eccentricity, tension, high minded philosophy, and corny earnestness to everything, atop a technically sound foundation. The end product is a film that actively disregards the visual spectacle of the superhero film in order to strip it away and try to uncover the human core of these stories.
I would not characterize my viewing experience as “enjoyable,” Shyamalan has made something deconstructive and anticinema out of the superhero film genre as it denies visual spectacle nine times out of ten. When Mister Glass finally gets to meet the Beast, McAvoy’s transformation is shown through the reflection of cabinet glass the camera instead emphasizing the sense of awe in Mister Glass. As the duo escape, primed to wreak supervillain havoc on Philadelphia, they are stopped by a trio of guards. The perfect moment to show the Beast rip into and eat some people, right? Correct, except Shyamalan and cinematographer Mike Gioulakis instead focus on Glass has he rolls towards the camera – in a really nice inverse dolly shot – that actively blocks the Beast’s unleashed fury on the guards. When Dunn and Horde do fight, which is fairly brief both times, it is with fittingly awkward choreography. Dunn isn’t Daredevil or Luke Cage. Their combat is shown from long shots, denying the audio-visual synergy of film fisticuffs, or from angles that seemed to be from go GoPro cameras strapped to them. The spectacle of metahumans duking it out isn’t what Glass is interested in. The film is far more interested in capturing the human awe at that sight of the extraordinary. This is a movie that is very conscious about what it is and isn’t showing.
Continued belowThe treatment of action in this way makes some amount of sense, Shyamalan has made clear he dose not do “action,” but tension, and how that mode acts an extension of the films overall aesthetic borrowing from Unbreakable. Unbreakable is known for its use of hand held cameras and long takes, this is translated to Glass with the use of a Steadicam and more medium length takes. Shyamalan goes postmodern in his realism with the use of copious first person shots and shooting conversations in such away that characters are breaking the fourth wall and speaking directly to the camera. If the lack of constant cuts didn’t make the pace feel languid, this technique forces the audience to be aware of their viewing position. For their part the cast, specifically Sara Paulson, does a good job in these tight close ups.
These close up and speaking at the camera give them film an overly didactic feel at times. I’m unsure what amount that feeling of didacticism is a product of the technique or Shyamalan’s script. His script is a bit thudding at times as it speaks the various tropes it is working through that explain the narrative of Glass, it has a bit of a tin ear quality. At the same time that kind of thudding narration would feel right at home in a Silver Age superhero book. So much of this movie is a blur between something being an actual failure and a purposeful decision to aggravate and awaken the audience.
Shyamalan’s script doesn’t have much to do with the films main trio of characters, who are reduced down the archetypes that inspired them. It’s an odd move to center it around them and not do anything with them. This reduction dose, however, highlight the nature of positions with a narrative and how that spot can inherently deepen or change the perspective on a character. By placing the character of Mister Glass in a more protagonist like position the character, who is the prototype of the terrorist super villain so often seen in these films, turns into something of an antihero as he tries to make the world see them for who they really are. There was always a tragedy to the character, but now you feel it more as Samuel L. Jackson gives another fine performance. Bruce Willis seems slightly more awake than he has been for the past decade, when Glass cuts back to some alternative scenes from Unbreakable it makes for interesting juxtaposition on the actor. The character of Kevin Wendell Crumb / the Horde continues to be one that fails to interest me, but James McAvoy’s turn on a technical level was fun to watch. He backs up the scene chewing personality switching with just the right amount of technique that stops the performance from falling apart.
For all the technical decisions that keep the audience aware they are watching a movie by Gioulakis and Shyamalan, when they choose to forgo those considerations and play towards typical movie style Glass is a beautifully composed film. The framing and blocking doesn’t have high art aspirations, but it is tried and true classic Hollywood staging that make for an enjoyable and visual pleasing film at times. Overall, the battle in the parking lot is purposefully anticlimactic but the initial shots and coverage that establish the environment have the sense of scale and power found in larger budget features. For a movie that actively disregards genre convention, the classic technical presentation makes it look better compared to the blockbusters.
Glass is a purposely alienating movie. Calling it “good” feels reductive and I’m not entirely sure it is. I didn’t really enjoy watching it, squirming in my seat about three quarters of the way through. It has the audacity to go places and do things that may not fully work, both narratively and for the general public if you want to pick at them, but I never the less respect it. While you can make the argument for auteur flourishes within the genre, those films are playing at a scale and with corporate backing and considerations this film has zero interest in. It wants to strip down the superhero narrative down to the essence and act as something like a proper “Watchmen” for the superhero film.
If you take one thing from this review, it is to realize that this film has zero desire at being a crowd pleaser or what you want it to be. M. Night Shyamalan spent $20 million to make the movie his way, for better or worse.
