MYST #5: Silver Linings Playbook

This film was a huge name at the Oscars in 2013, and like with most Oscar winning films, I had never even seen the trailer until this week. Because it showed up on demand, I decided to give the film a try. I was already a fan of Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, so I began the film expecting great things.

The film follows Cooper's character, Pat, starting from the day he is released from a mental hospital after an eight month stay. Struggling with bi-polar disorder, Pat is often painfully straightforward with other characters, including his therapist and his parol officer. Previously married, he cannot adjust to his new life living in his parents' house, and decides he must work to earn his ex-wife's attention and ultimately win her back.

Along the way he meets Jennifer Lawrence's widowed character, who is also struggling with depression and is in recovery. They clash, even as they cooperate in an effort to both benefit from doing a dance competition. Cooper's character has a newfound optimism in which he believes every situation has a silver lining. Additionally, his unemployed father is a bookie and a huge Eagles fan, hence the name, Silver Linings Playbook.

I believe the secret to this films success was largely the acting and natural conflicting personalities in the film. Cooper's character felt extremely real. Truly angry when upset, and truly sad when confused, his character  felt like he belonged in a fist fight on the street, not dancing with Jennifer Lawrence. Lawrence, on the other hand, seemed like she was truly emotionally unstable. Hanging on every word for hidden meaning and ready to scream at Copper, the characters conflicted beautifully. Truthful even in its pain, they understood and each other and fought constantly. Robert De Niro, Cooper's character's father, played an OCD gambling addict, who like Cooper, was always too honest. They made for a sickeningly real combination of feelings and motives, which Doug admits to having made him cry.

The camerawork in the film was simple, which was exactly what it needed to be. Eye level and often shaking, the camera communicated emotion through the speed of its movements and the rapidity of its shakes. The viewer often sees the back of Cooper's head as he interacts with others. This creates discomfort, often setting the stage for an interesting interaction. Ultimately, the actors preformed and the camera captured it from a straightforward perspective. The lighting in the film was often natural, and like the shots only grew significant as emotions did. 

Ultimately, this film grabbed my attention from the first scene and didn't let go. I was consumed by the film and rarely felt I had the chance to stop and analyze what was being done artistically, and why. The film was unbelievably captivating, and as a result I may have missed noting key elements which I should have noted. The film was a real experience from start to finish.

Upon research, I discovered that the only Oscar actually won by the film was Best Actress (Lawrence). Its seven other nominations were all deserved in my opinion. All of the nominations were mostly related to plot and acting, which I believe is reflected in my interpretations above. 

This movie earns 5/5 Philly cheese steaks

Formal Film Study: Movies Filmed in a Single Room

I saw "Non-stop" starring Liam Neeson when it was in theaters, and almost the entire film took place in an airplane. This made me curious as to the cinematography necessary to present a full, interesting story as well as to the plot similarities of movies filmed in one location. As I have now discovered, there cinematic rules and plot guidelines that are usually followed for this feat to be pulled off.

The three films I watched were Fermat's Room, Unknown, and Exam. In Fermat's Room, a Spanish film, four mathematicians are locked in a room and must solve "enigmas" in order to stop it from shrinking and ultimately crushing them. In Unknown, six men awaken with amnesia, all unaware of why they are there and unsure why some of them are handcuffed, some are bloodied, and why none can escape the warehouse. In Exam, eight finalists for a high profile job have 80 minutes to answer a final interview question, but the question is unknown as is the actual job they all want.

 

There are many plot components which link these films. Firstly, mystery as to the purpose of the situation. No characters in any of these films know who or what has brought them to one location and ultimately trapped them in a single space. For the movie to hold its excitement, the viewer never has knowledge as to the purpose more than the average person in a room does. This keeps the viewer interested as the characters try new things in an effort to gain freedom or information. This rule is only broken if it adds to our understanding of the specific situation of a character, such as their possession of a gun or their knowledge acquired within the room. Never anything about outside the walls.

This brings forward the next common component. Everyone is a stranger, so no one can be trusted. Either uninterested in sharing names such as in Exam, or unable to such as in Unknown, no character can trust any other. If everyone could trust each other, they would all just be great team building exercises, and the characters could pool their skills to escape. Luckily for the viewer, characters are hostile and not trusting. This leads to constant conversation concerning the motives of anyone's statements. Any big decision comes down to the importance of if it may more strongly benefit someone who is hiding something. This, of course, creates abundant dialogue containing sentences like "Well I know I'm not the one who put us here but how do we know you're not the one who put us here?".

Time is important in all of the films. The mathematicians in the shrinking room calculate one hour, the guys in the warehouse who don't know who they want to kill have until sunset, and the potential employees have 80 minutes. This adds two components. Firstly, it creates suspense working against a clock. Second, it allows the film to be edited in real time, never skipping ahead because all the stories advance continually, and the viewer seemingly misses nothing.

One of the last major components of the plot commonalities is the fact that one character in the room does know more than everyone else. The culprit is often in the room, and the others often realize this fact, or assume they're being watched. In all three films, we learn late that someone knows the most, and they are often responsible.

Lastly, death is everywhere. No character can ever escape its possibility because at any second a stranger could reveal their motivation and kill them. This naturally leads to excessive fear, and the potential for innocent people to kill other innocent people based off very small, insignificant possibilities that they are dangerous to the group. To every character, they are surrounded by potential killers until proven otherwise.

Moving on to the cinematic similarities and differences in capturing the situations. All three films had to follow basic rules. Lighting had to remain natural. As lights broke or time of day changed, the viewer was aware and therefore the viewer knew if the lighting was realistic. All together, these films all utilized similar natural lighting, only intensifying contrast in late scenes as intensity grew, and information rather than location became important.

Across the films, sound was consistent. Speech was heard at an appropriate level, and any unknown sound was heard only at the same loudness as the people in the room. More interestingly, all three movies contained music, but none of the music has words. This is likely because and speech in a song would unintentionally suggest information to the viewer. The films were meant to be seen only at the level of understanding of those in the room. If the characters couldn't gain information from a source, neither could the viewers.

A notably common use of object was the mirror. The possibility of a two way mirror was feared in Exam and Fermat's Room, while the use of a mirror to see yourself and hope to see your own identity in Unknown. Additionally, Mirrors were able to expand the feeling of a tight room. All three films used their mirrors to expand their modes of showing interaction and used it as an alternative way to frame a scene.

Shots and angles were very interesting in these films, as there was very limited space and therefore limited opportunities for long shots or use of a significant background in a shot. Rather, these films often framed one character in the foreground while action took place in the middle ground. With important dialogue and small interactions taking place, knowing where everyone was at a given time was always part of shots.

The most interesting part of the shots and angles was whether or not a director chose restrict the viewer to the actual physical limitations of the room. In Exam, the viewer never got to leave the room, but did get to view it from small nooks and opening in the walls for lights or drainage. The camera seemingly passed into small openings into which it would actually fit. I imagine that in order to actually film the movie, walls must have been taken down constantly in order for the viewer to feel as if against the wall.

In Fermat's Room, however, the camera could pass freely out of the room through the ceiling. The viewer sometimes looked down on the room as if it had no ceiling, watching it slowly shrink.

Lastly, the editing in all three movies was reasonably consistent. Because the viewer gained a spacial understanding of the room through time spent viewing all for walls and every item, discontinuous editing was major. Shots could jump to face the complete opposite direction to disorient the viewer's perception of what was significant at the moment, but it did not distort the understanding of location. No corner of the room was unknown to the viewer, so any jump or sudden break of the 180 degree line disoriented a scene, it simply switched its attention. 

Ultimately, the formula for a film in one room is reasonably consistent. There must be mistrust and mystery. The room is likely inescapable, and characters are strangers, or at least maintain the allusion that they are. They are all filmed framing shots with frequent interaction between the foreground and middle ground. The rules for the camerawork varies, but it ultimately must be filmed by constantly movie objects and maintaining the perception that the walls remain. 

With research, I found that all three of these films were ultimately pretty small productions. Fermat's Room is a foreign film, and although I cannot find a number it is said to be "low budget". Unknown was made by Miramax, known for distributing "independent" films. Lastly, Exam is a British film not linked to any single distributor. This may speak to a lack of interest in films of this type by common audiences.

To me, this is a very exciting formula. I stayed interested in all of these movies right up until the very end. It feels like the plot could be a Mad-Libs. "A group of _(plural noun)___ find themselves in a _(adjective)_ room. Unaware of how they got there or who the other people are, they must _(plural verb)_ a _(noun)_in less than _(number)_ minutes or they will all die _(adjective)_ deaths. One of them turns out to be a _(noun)_" 

While the premise is often similar, the ultimate message can vary dramatically depending on the twists and turns in the identities of the characters, but many morals seem to relate to self identity, and the concept of being "good" versus benefiting one's self.