I love some of Shyamalan's movies, but he's the last person I'd hire to direct something heavy on ambiguity, and the last person I'd hire to direct something heavy on theme. For me, "Cabin at the End of the World" is fundamentally about modern anxieties around how much access to information we have and how apocalyptic that makes everything feel---how apocalyptic everything is designed to feel by people who can make money from making people think the world is ending. It's secondarily about (as Scott Renshaw discusses in his excellent review) the uneasy status of being gay in 2022 and being told by reasonable, polite people that, no, you have to sacrifice your family because of our religion. I bet if you asked Shyamalan what this story is "about", he'd say, "Oh, it's about these people in this cabin and then there's a home invasion and then the ending wasn't that cool, but then I made a cool ending." He simply doesn't operate on the level of theme. He operates on the level of, "How can I make this ending cool?"
And I'm not someone who nitpicks about whether an actor looks like his character, generally. I hate that. But so much of this story's heft comes from the fact that Leonard is "twenty-four and a half"---that he's young and immature enough to describe himself that way, and that he's nonetheless the leader of this group. The naivete of these characters is the point. Casting a professional wrestler in his mid-fifties for that role was such a Shyamalan decision - because, hey, it says the guy is big in the book, and what's more faithful to the book than casting a big guy?
Also, "Knock at the Cabin" is a weird and nonsensical title and it bugs me a lot.
I think Bautista's casting is great in capturing both physical intimidation and gentleness. If Leonard is just a gigantic menacing presence, there's no way Eric and Andrew start questioning if these ppl are anything but home invaders.
I do agree with a lot of your other points. I haven't read the book but from the description, it sounds like a lot of core themes were flattened or excised completely.
Yeah, I haven't seen the movie and am not familiar with Bautista, so it was unfair of me to be negative about his casting. I think the character being as young as he is was absolutely crucial to the book, but I can easily imagine someone of Bautista's age who is similarly naive and childlike (heck, I've known plenty of people like that) - it's not a HUGE shift from the book to have Leonard be fifty or whatever. But I do think it's a change, and one that implies that Shyamalan didn't fully understand the story he was adapting.
It doesn't surprise that Shyamalan chose this direction for the ending because pretty much every one of his movies features a conflict between belief and doubt, with Night ultimately coming down on the side of the believers. His conclusions tend to be bittersweet, offering hope and optimism in addition to what seems like crushing despair. (eg. "Unbreakable," 'The Village,' "The Visit," "Glass")
It bothers me though how many critics keep trying to frame even this ending as a 'twist' or 'worse than a twist' or 'the twist that there is no twist.' For the movie that Night made, I think the ending was quite fitting, if a little too brief.
Brief is the right word. I really enjoyed the character work in this movie (excellent pithy flashbacks!), but the plot felt a little scant. It felt like it would have made for a good 45-60m Twilight Zone episode, but not quite a full movie. The journey of "we don't believe you" -> "we're starting to believe you" -> "ok, we believe you" happened in, what, 8 minutes?
Caveat that I haven't seen the movie, but read the novel recently. I hated the book's refusal (through Andrew) to engage with the moral dilemma that was presented to the characters, even while I understand it on thematic grounds. That said, it also is more palatable/understandable when the couple has already lost Wen--their world has already effectively ended, so...fuck it. If, as a filmmaker, you're making the choice to keep Wen alive, I think the ending as described is pretty defensible.
I do hope that this film leads to more Tremblay adaptations, but ambiguity is central to so many of his books (thinking of A HEAD FULL OF GHOSTS and the recent THE PALLBEARER'S CLUB) adapting them is inherently tricky.
To me Knock’s ending felt like an expansion of Signs’ overt theism, to the point where they might as well inhabit the same fictional universe. It’s a universe in which the Abrahamic God is a literal entity, alternately capricious, tricky, and cruel. This being is never interrogated, either for the justice of its actions or its right to perform them. It is correct to worship it and at the end of the day it has your best interests at heart, despite all evidence to the contrary.
I haven’t read Tremblay’s novel, but the ending outlined here seems like a much more natural one, and also much more hopeful. Capitulating to an invisible cosmic monster by killing the love of your life seems to me the much harsher bummer.
“Signs” is where I kinda checked out with Shyamalan. I’ve seen him claim to be agnostic, but it sure doesn’t seem that way from his films. And if he really is, then I can only assume that he is pandering to his perceived audience.
Yeah, his movies at least are fairly clear on where they stand, even if he’s equivocating. And I had a similar reaction to Signs, which was a fun slow-burn horror exercise until it resolved itself in the dumbest way possible.
Also hilarious to me that the God of Signs is explicitly pro-human, which makes me wonder if the aliens were made by the devil, a premise that sounds like a lot more fun.
You know, I heard talk in Church when I was growing up that dinosaur bones were made by the devil and placed in the earth to lead the righteous astray... This would be a much more direct approach!
I'm actually really happy to hear about the book's ending, because I've thought about the conundrum here since the movie came out. The options are to kill someone I love and to have to live with that forever, or to allow someone I love to kill me. The only way I could allow either of those two things to happen would be if I was a true believer, and I don't think there's any way a trio of weirdoes could bring me around to believing in a few hours.
and then... if you do believe..... what kind of demand is that?
"The novel ends with Andrew and Eric refusing to commit to a sacrifice as a kind of rebuke to God. Yes, this may be how the universe works and what God wants. But it’s unfair and they refuse to go along with it."
is there anything to make of the other 21st-century Cabin movie that incorporates this theme? the one in the Woods?
Tasha suggested we do that pairing on THE NEXT PICTURE SHOW but the timing wasn't entirely right. (She, Scott and I did record a bonus episode on KNOCK, however.)
I think the viewer would have to sit more with the ambiguity Keith proposes if the film ended one beat earlier and if we don’t hear the reoccurrence of “Boogie Shoes”. Having that be where we end, though hardly “happy” seems to give more hope on the future of this family unit. If it instead ended at that earlier beat, where they sit in silence after turning the radio off, the audience has to sit more in that discomfort. I know, writing the movie I want rather than the one we got, but I kept hoping for him to cut earlier in a film that I largely enjoyed.
I just came back from the movie and this is exactly what I wanted to say. Turning that song back on feels cutesy and like everything is going to be alright. We don’t get a moment to sit with the horror of what just happened
It reminds me of how wildly different the film endings for adaptations can be like Fight Club, The Shining and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. Most people didn't even notice in Mike Flanagan's Doctor Sleep it would be weird the Overlook still existed. Just like how in the Fight Club novel Jack "kills" Tyler and "goes to heaven" without doing anything significant—later on in the comic book sequel it goes super meta to the point "Chuck Palahniuk" confronts a crowd trying to explain he's referencing the novel and not the film. In Scott Pilgrim's case, the final three(?) books hadn't come out when the film went into production and Wright made a few creative choices over what O'Malley ended the series on. But it can work! And I think they tend to be neat as the films can slide more into view of the director/screenwriter but the threat is which will live on longer in pop culture.
I love some of Shyamalan's movies, but he's the last person I'd hire to direct something heavy on ambiguity, and the last person I'd hire to direct something heavy on theme. For me, "Cabin at the End of the World" is fundamentally about modern anxieties around how much access to information we have and how apocalyptic that makes everything feel---how apocalyptic everything is designed to feel by people who can make money from making people think the world is ending. It's secondarily about (as Scott Renshaw discusses in his excellent review) the uneasy status of being gay in 2022 and being told by reasonable, polite people that, no, you have to sacrifice your family because of our religion. I bet if you asked Shyamalan what this story is "about", he'd say, "Oh, it's about these people in this cabin and then there's a home invasion and then the ending wasn't that cool, but then I made a cool ending." He simply doesn't operate on the level of theme. He operates on the level of, "How can I make this ending cool?"
And I'm not someone who nitpicks about whether an actor looks like his character, generally. I hate that. But so much of this story's heft comes from the fact that Leonard is "twenty-four and a half"---that he's young and immature enough to describe himself that way, and that he's nonetheless the leader of this group. The naivete of these characters is the point. Casting a professional wrestler in his mid-fifties for that role was such a Shyamalan decision - because, hey, it says the guy is big in the book, and what's more faithful to the book than casting a big guy?
Also, "Knock at the Cabin" is a weird and nonsensical title and it bugs me a lot.
I think Bautista's casting is great in capturing both physical intimidation and gentleness. If Leonard is just a gigantic menacing presence, there's no way Eric and Andrew start questioning if these ppl are anything but home invaders.
I do agree with a lot of your other points. I haven't read the book but from the description, it sounds like a lot of core themes were flattened or excised completely.
Yeah, I haven't seen the movie and am not familiar with Bautista, so it was unfair of me to be negative about his casting. I think the character being as young as he is was absolutely crucial to the book, but I can easily imagine someone of Bautista's age who is similarly naive and childlike (heck, I've known plenty of people like that) - it's not a HUGE shift from the book to have Leonard be fifty or whatever. But I do think it's a change, and one that implies that Shyamalan didn't fully understand the story he was adapting.
It doesn't surprise that Shyamalan chose this direction for the ending because pretty much every one of his movies features a conflict between belief and doubt, with Night ultimately coming down on the side of the believers. His conclusions tend to be bittersweet, offering hope and optimism in addition to what seems like crushing despair. (eg. "Unbreakable," 'The Village,' "The Visit," "Glass")
It bothers me though how many critics keep trying to frame even this ending as a 'twist' or 'worse than a twist' or 'the twist that there is no twist.' For the movie that Night made, I think the ending was quite fitting, if a little too brief.
Brief is the right word. I really enjoyed the character work in this movie (excellent pithy flashbacks!), but the plot felt a little scant. It felt like it would have made for a good 45-60m Twilight Zone episode, but not quite a full movie. The journey of "we don't believe you" -> "we're starting to believe you" -> "ok, we believe you" happened in, what, 8 minutes?
Caveat that I haven't seen the movie, but read the novel recently. I hated the book's refusal (through Andrew) to engage with the moral dilemma that was presented to the characters, even while I understand it on thematic grounds. That said, it also is more palatable/understandable when the couple has already lost Wen--their world has already effectively ended, so...fuck it. If, as a filmmaker, you're making the choice to keep Wen alive, I think the ending as described is pretty defensible.
I do hope that this film leads to more Tremblay adaptations, but ambiguity is central to so many of his books (thinking of A HEAD FULL OF GHOSTS and the recent THE PALLBEARER'S CLUB) adapting them is inherently tricky.
To me Knock’s ending felt like an expansion of Signs’ overt theism, to the point where they might as well inhabit the same fictional universe. It’s a universe in which the Abrahamic God is a literal entity, alternately capricious, tricky, and cruel. This being is never interrogated, either for the justice of its actions or its right to perform them. It is correct to worship it and at the end of the day it has your best interests at heart, despite all evidence to the contrary.
I haven’t read Tremblay’s novel, but the ending outlined here seems like a much more natural one, and also much more hopeful. Capitulating to an invisible cosmic monster by killing the love of your life seems to me the much harsher bummer.
“Signs” is where I kinda checked out with Shyamalan. I’ve seen him claim to be agnostic, but it sure doesn’t seem that way from his films. And if he really is, then I can only assume that he is pandering to his perceived audience.
Yeah, his movies at least are fairly clear on where they stand, even if he’s equivocating. And I had a similar reaction to Signs, which was a fun slow-burn horror exercise until it resolved itself in the dumbest way possible.
Also hilarious to me that the God of Signs is explicitly pro-human, which makes me wonder if the aliens were made by the devil, a premise that sounds like a lot more fun.
You know, I heard talk in Church when I was growing up that dinosaur bones were made by the devil and placed in the earth to lead the righteous astray... This would be a much more direct approach!
I'm actually really happy to hear about the book's ending, because I've thought about the conundrum here since the movie came out. The options are to kill someone I love and to have to live with that forever, or to allow someone I love to kill me. The only way I could allow either of those two things to happen would be if I was a true believer, and I don't think there's any way a trio of weirdoes could bring me around to believing in a few hours.
and then... if you do believe..... what kind of demand is that?
"The novel ends with Andrew and Eric refusing to commit to a sacrifice as a kind of rebuke to God. Yes, this may be how the universe works and what God wants. But it’s unfair and they refuse to go along with it."
is there anything to make of the other 21st-century Cabin movie that incorporates this theme? the one in the Woods?
Tasha suggested we do that pairing on THE NEXT PICTURE SHOW but the timing wasn't entirely right. (She, Scott and I did record a bonus episode on KNOCK, however.)
That would have been an illuminating pairing! I love that other Cabin movie.
I think the viewer would have to sit more with the ambiguity Keith proposes if the film ended one beat earlier and if we don’t hear the reoccurrence of “Boogie Shoes”. Having that be where we end, though hardly “happy” seems to give more hope on the future of this family unit. If it instead ended at that earlier beat, where they sit in silence after turning the radio off, the audience has to sit more in that discomfort. I know, writing the movie I want rather than the one we got, but I kept hoping for him to cut earlier in a film that I largely enjoyed.
I just came back from the movie and this is exactly what I wanted to say. Turning that song back on feels cutesy and like everything is going to be alright. We don’t get a moment to sit with the horror of what just happened
It reminds me of how wildly different the film endings for adaptations can be like Fight Club, The Shining and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. Most people didn't even notice in Mike Flanagan's Doctor Sleep it would be weird the Overlook still existed. Just like how in the Fight Club novel Jack "kills" Tyler and "goes to heaven" without doing anything significant—later on in the comic book sequel it goes super meta to the point "Chuck Palahniuk" confronts a crowd trying to explain he's referencing the novel and not the film. In Scott Pilgrim's case, the final three(?) books hadn't come out when the film went into production and Wright made a few creative choices over what O'Malley ended the series on. But it can work! And I think they tend to be neat as the films can slide more into view of the director/screenwriter but the threat is which will live on longer in pop culture.
The Scott Pilgrim movie came out the same year as the final book, fwiw.