Today it’s exactly 10 years since the release of M. Night Shyamalan’s SIGNS in the UK. I remember seeing it for the first time and absolutely loving the film. I found the tension and fear to be well paced and it still creeps me the hell out today. But as the years went by I noticed a strange phenomenon whenever I mentioned SIGNS. Whenever I would bring up the film, those around me would become defensive scientists, attacking the film because the aliens appear to be killed by water. From friends to a University lecturer, the idea that aliens were killed by water seemed to be genuinely offensive. However, is it just me or are the aliens not even killed by water? Over the course of this article I hope to show how the aliens were not allergic to water, and how even if they were, it wouldn’t even matter.
Would It Matter If Water Was The Aliens’ Weakness?
People take great offence to an alien being killed by water. I don’t see people complaining about the Wicked Witch in THE WIZARD OF OZ, and she left a bucket of the stuff in her own damn castle. Sure, that turned out to be a dream, which is kind of one of the lamest twists in storytelling, but still. Stories often give an unexpectedly obvious weakness to creatures, such as bacteria in WAR OF THE WORLDS, or a conveniently placed destruct mechanism in STAR WARS. Even in this year’s THE AVENGERS, all the aliens died after the mother ship was destroyed. I’d say water isn’t such a bad weakness to give these chaps.
Why Would They Come To A Planet So Reliant On And Covered In Water?
Assuming that water is the aliens’ weakness, then why come to Earth? Well, that’s kind of the point of the film. We don’t know exactly because the film is told from the perspective of one family. What we do know is that the aliens take humans with them, so they are here for us. Where else are they going to get humans from? Why do they want us? We really have no idea. Perhaps this is a test, where the king of all the aliens has decreed the prince who can bring back however many humans can marry his daughter. Or maybe it’s a sport.
Shouldn’t They At Least Wear Protective Armour?
No. The aliens have the ability to blend in with their surroundings. Wearing armour would completely negate this beneficial skill. Let’s also remember that the aliens don’t seem particularly violent for the majority of the film. They don’t bring any weapons with them, probably because they do not wish to cause us harm. They are here for us, and most of their work involves reconnaissance. They may also be wearing some kind of protective cream, like humans do when they…I mean we, visit the beach. Don’t forget that the only alien we see killed by water was the one locked in Ray Reddy’s (M. Night Shyamalan) pantry. Perhaps he stayed on Earth for too long without visiting the mother ship for another application of Factor 30.
It Isn’t The Water That Kills The Aliens
I must reiterate the fact that we only see one alien killed by water. The script makes a point of announcing that the rest of the aliens were driven away by ‘primitive methods’ it never mentions water specifically. Ray Reddy does say that he doesn’t think they like water, but that’s just his theory. It could very well be a red herring, just like the picture that looks like the Hess family’s house on fire in the book about aliens. Ray Reddy bases his theory on the fact that none of the crop circles are near water, but another way of looking at it is that major cities are mostly built around water because of transportation, power, drinking water, and farming back in the day. A more reasonable assumption would be that the aliens aren’t avoiding water, but avoiding large settlements of people so as to limit casualties or great conflict.
But What About The Alien We See Get Killed?
Remember that the young girl Bo leaves glasses of water around the house because she believes they taste funny and have amoebas in them. This is most likely true in some regard. Take for example the earlier scene where the dog reacts violently to a bowl of water. Why would he act this way if there wasn’t something wrong with the water? It’s also suggested that one of the dogs is sick, although perhaps the aliens decide to infect the pets with something for some reason. When the water does strike the alien’s skin, even he seems shocked by the chemical reaction. It’s not like he walked into the room, saw all the glasses of water and said “Well, fuck this.” He doesn’t seem to perceive them as a threat. Perhaps he is the only alien allergic to water. Even humans can be allergic to water. The condition aquagenic urticaria affects 35 people in the world. It’s not impossible that this alien would have an allergy, and if you think it’s a big coincidence, just remember that the main theme of the film is faith and how there are no coincidences.
Overall I think SIGNS is a victim of Shyamalan bashing. Sure Shyamalan has given us some absolute clunkers since SIGNS, but I really don’t think it deserves the hate it receives, especially for a plot point that isn’t spelled out or definite. Give it another try to see how it holds up 10 years on, it’s one of the films I find easiest to return to.
Craig Hunter
Sep 13, 2012 at 8:49 pm
I’m with you Luke. Always a classic in my eyes!
Matt H
Sep 14, 2012 at 9:23 am
I love Signs. I even prefer it to The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable.
Everything about it just seems to hit the right unsettlingly creepy nerve. Especially the camera work and music.
Gives the hairs on the back of my neck good exercise every time I watch it.
Dan Bullock
Sep 14, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Indeed, I actually think Signs was the last good one he did. Cleverly played out.
Unbreakable though is, by far, my favourite. A beautiful piece of work!
strider
Mar 16, 2013 at 3:31 pm
Alright so let’s say it is amoebas in the water. The adults and everyone else in the house have been drinking the water. So wouldn’t the adults notice something wrong or at the very least began getting sick, etc. So why didn’t they as well, if it was amoebas or bacteria in the water supply then the adults would become at the very least ill.
It’s more likely that this is another case of Shyamalan trying too hard with the twist, he was obviously going for a war of the worlds idea. Remember the weakness in that one, it was human germs.
So either way we have a plothole.
Plothole A: it is the something in the water itself and thus the plothole is why the humans didn’t get effected by it. something that virulent would be effecting humans as well, in different ways but it would be effecting them.
Plothole B: it is the water itself and the aliens are morons for coming to a planet covered mostly in water.
To further back this let’s look at his following films, if you pay attention you can see that he focused way too hard on the twist. This is where it started going downhill.
In the village, the twist is that there are no monsters and that the outside world is in fact modern times. Not bad except for the fact that you are going to sit there straight faced and tell me the government is being “paid off”. Not just the government but the FAA as well apparently (the no fly zone explanation) For pete’s sake it’s supposed to be the modern world, in other words, 2004 thus was after Jonestown, Waco, and 9/11. I don’t care how corrupt you are there’s going to be questions and investigations by one branch or another. It’s inevitable and you expect me to believe NO ONE has investigated this place?
Next we have the lady in the water, i’ll put this as nicely as I can. Stori IS LITERALLY THE STORY. Come on, that is the weak as heck. Oh there’s also the whole Shyamalan’s character is he who will more or less helps create a man who will change the world. WTF?
Then there’s the happening, yeah deadly plants, enough said.
What i’m saying is you’re giving Shyamalan more credit for signs than the effort he put into writing it or at least the ending. Don’t get me wrong I like unbreakable and the 6th sense, but the whole twist thing pretty much put him on a downhill path. He had to keep making twists because that’s what audiences wanted. So each subsequent twist got weaker and weaker and it started with signs.
Sierra
Jun 1, 2013 at 9:51 pm
Did you ever notice that in the scene where Bo first sees the alien in her home, she screams, and we see (very faintly) Bo’s own screaming face etched on the alien’s back?
This has been confusing the heck out of me since I saw the movie when I was 9 years old. Do you know why her face is on his back?? And if it shows up/is explained in any other part of the movie?