A diamond creation: The movie M. Night Shyamalan called the “Rosetta Stone” of cinema
Every director has one film that continually inspires them, or for some a whole gamut of films, but few will tout films as the key to their understanding of film entirely. It would be especially hard to predict a film doing so for a director as unique as M. Night Shyamalan. However, there is one film that the king of the twist credits with being his Rosetta Stone.
An ancient tablet discovered in the 18th century, the Rosetta Stone allowed scholars to interpret Egyptian hieroglyphics and is thus a term used to describe an essential clue to a new field of knowledge. So, to use the term in reference to a film means it must have had a profound effect.
He admitted to The Guardian, that like all languages, there are patterns and styles to understand within the lexicon of cinema but some movies have the power to unlock them all: “There are also some movies that for me are like a Rosetta Stone of cinematic answers.” For M. Night Shyamalan, and surely for many others, one of those guiding lights is The Last Picture Show.
Released in 1971, The Last Picture Show was only Peter Bogdanovich’s second feature film, but it was considered so influential that it was nominated for eight Academy Awards. Featuring an ensemble cast with Jeff Bridges, Cybill Shepard and Ellen Burstyn, it follows two long-term friends as they finish their senior year of high school and work towards a bleak future in Anarene, Texas.
It was acclaimed at the time for its evocation of mood, accuracy of setting and focus on characters over plot, an approach which many critics felt had been lacking in recent films. This opinion of the film has persisted, with it being inducted by the American Library of Congress into the National Film Registry for its “cultural, historical or aesthetic significance”.
It was also significant in influencing Shyamalan’s understanding of cinema, citing the ways in which texture and tone subordinate plot as the main ways in which the film has inspired him. Speaking to The Guardian, he said the film was “Quirky and profound and tragic and suffocating” and enjoyed that every scene seemed to be about the same thing as they were “all facets of the same diamond”.
It’s interesting to consider these aspects as important to the director, considering his own films are considered and criticised for being entirely plot-driven. But this is a remark he fights against, saying his goal has always been to evoke the texture and tone of a scenario over simply depicting its story. He is so dedicated to the tone of his films that he refuses to watch anything outside of a pre-ordained list of tonally linked movies when writing a new film.
He explains that apart from the occasional rom-com, which comes into his life unwilling due to his wife, his watching is “super curated”. However, like any true cinephile, he admits, “I spend my life letting films impact me… it’s not like you can passively come into my life” Shyamalan says, proving that regardless of your opinion of his films the director is nothing if not dedicated to his art form.
