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.

MYST #4: After Earth

Now that awards season has passed, I should be making an effort to watch movies that professionals have decided deserve our praise. However, this year I learned about the existence of the Razzies. An anti-awards show, they named the worsts of Hollywood this past year. After Earth, starring Will and Jaden Smith, was nominated in almost every category and "won" or rather lost by being named the biggest loser in many. So, I viewed this movie expecting a failed effort that received unfair, abundant criticism because it wasn't good like a movie with big names should be. It turned out that the film was horrible by any standard.

The plot is simple. The movie opens to clips of a disaster struck earth; flooding and fires consume our modern civilization. Jaden smith then explains that 1000 years ago human kind had to abandon a dying Earth and move to a new planet. The catch is that the entire human race moved to a planet which they were unaware was occupied by an alien race which kills humans. Here's where the entire plot of the movie takes its first painful turn. The aliens are blind, but can smell pheromones, which are secreted with sweat. In this case, sweat caused only by fear. So, we learn that Will Smith, Jaden's father in the movie, is the hero of human kind because he can "ghost" meaning he has no fear and therefore is invisible to the aliens.

Predictably, they crash land on Earth and Jaden has to overcome his fears to save him and his injured father. And naturally, one of the blind aliens was in a cage on the ship and is now loose in the same jungle as our hero. A beacon to send an SOS message into space is located with the alien at the tail end of the ship, 100 kilometers away. SPOILER ALERT: The film ends exactly you expect it to from this information.

So this movie sucked, a lot, but well beyond the plot. Jaden, winner of worst lead actor, embarked on his journey and was meant to significantly mature. He suffered from fearful flashes of his sister's death, which he was five at the time of but somehow feels responsible for. His character was extremely fearful including when he encounters the alien, and only survives by a sudden realization that he has no fear. 

Cinematographically, this film was average! A huge success compared to the standard it set for itself, the shots felt very natural and were extremely easy to follow. The issue was that in the close ups both Smiths maintained a pained attempt at discomfort and hidden emotion, but the emotion being hidden was irrelevant; they just made weird, sad pouts (seen below).

The lighting and sound in the film were both just ok. The lighting was natural but nothing interesting ever happened. The sound was fine, but failed to elicit the emotion it was meant to. The soundscape never built as strongly as it was meant to in moments of intensity and never achieved a feeling of peace when it was needed. This resulted in Jaden seeming like a whining brat and Will seeming like a horrible father even through the closing credits. I found myself cheering against Jaden in multiple situations.

All together, this movie made itself extremely easy to hate. Poor writing and acting by Will Smith and even worse acting by his son, this movie was clearly made largely in front of a green screen and was boring to sit through. It shows why actors shouldn't be allowed to write and produce movies just because they're famous, let alone starring their own children.

After Earth earns a generous 1/5 Planet Earths.

MYST #3: Trainspotting

Like everyone else, I do everything I can to squeeze every last drop of worth-while content out of Netflix Instant. So, through searches and top fifties, I found Trainspotting starring Ewen McGregor. Knowing him only as a Jedi, I gave the film a chance.

Trainspotting tells the story of Renton (Ewen McGregor), a Heroin addict. Surrounded by his friends and fellow junkies(Sick Boy, Tommy, Diane, Begbie, Spud). In the film, which takes place in Scotland, Renton stumbles through this humorous and dark comedy that spans about a year of his life. Renton feels his Heroin use is by choice, using it as an avenue by which he can pass the painful and depressing struggle that comes with a real life. Openly disgusted by the greed and monotony of the employed, we follow Renton as he, seemingly in control, moves from high to high and crime to crime, all in an effort to forget what surrounds him. 

This isn't a movie for your mother. Framing addicts as good people in a misguided situation, the film holds drugs rather than people accountable for the mistakes and actions made in day to day life. But it doesn't glorify the lifestyle either. Facedown in vomit isn't a surprising way to find a character as they meet their end in the film. The chosen bliss doesn't dance around the consequences, or the pains of withdrawal.

As seen above, the scenes in the film don't always take place in a concrete world. We see Renton's view of the world both philosophically and physically. As a result, rooms stretch into gigantic hallways and shrink into claustrophobic cubes. When Renton is high, the world is calm and still, even needles are soft and nonthreatening. But when he's suffering withdrawal and the world is a blur, it's the the same to us.

In the world we perceive as Renton's reality, pure or peaceful things are powerless, and so that it also how they're framed. His parents are weak and fail to dominate a shot. His friend's baby is happy and helpless, surrounded by disease, and is only shown in the context of the filth it lives in. As is seen below, at one point in the film a kitten lives with Tommy, and is only ever subject to its surroundings.

As a whole, Trainspotting confused me. Which it was meant to. The morals were gray and the decisions made by characters out of greed were often pitied rather than chastised. Addictive personalities thrived in both illegal and legal cultures. The disgust an outsider feels about another group was only ever valid until they had a taste of the greed. Heroin wasn't evil, but money earned either at a job or on a street was.

Through all the upsetting, crazy confusion a full emotionally complex film develops. I had trouble relating to and sometimes understanding its Scottish characters, but it communicated exactly as it intended. As a result, I give it 5/5 Pounds. I didn't enjoy it as much as either of the movies I've already reviewed, but that wasn't always its goal. It was meant to make me laugh and then feel sick, which is exactly what it did. Also, don't watch this movie if you can't look at needles. 

MYST #2: Her

When I first saw the trailer for Her, I was intrigued by how bizarre the premise was.  To add to confusion the trailer isn't strikingly funny but romantic and serious. So I wanted to watch it because it was out of my comfort zone and, like most people, expected to be alienated rather then emotionally invested in the character(s).

Her essentially tells the story of a professional love letter writer, Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix), and his lonely struggle to cope with his pending divorce. No longer social or happy, he spends his day writing passionate letters, but then has no one to give his own to, as he goes home to his lonely routine. One day, he buys the newest operating system, which has the ability to evolve and learn both to serve the user and to create a real personality which manages your life and questions, like a human secretary. Theodore happens to choose a female voice, and ultimately, as the trailer shows, falls in love. He does not originally struggle to accept his love for an abstract object. He struggles with his own real issues of his divorce and what he wants, as well as the long term social and physical limitations of loving something that only truly exists as sound.

The picture above is of the couple. Samantha only ever seen as a phone and an earpiece, the presentation of their interactions is unique. There are no over the shoulder shots of their interaction as with everyone else in the film, but rather images of Joaquin interacting with his surroundings. Often, Samantha is represented by what he looks at. When Samantha's knowledge and feelings consume him, he views big beautiful skylines and nature, which we are lead to believe represent her. On the other hand, when they struggle to manage a relationship so personal yet distant, Samantha is a small dark phone in an empty room, or the absence of a physical being all together. 

As the sole subject of many shots, Joaquin needed to stand out from a world full of color and light. To do this, he was often placed in the foreground of shots wearing extremely vibrant tones of red. It almost looks like a laundry detergent commercial at times, when his clothes are so red they make the surrounding colors seem strictly gray. However, when he's upset, color surrounds him but he is the dullest tone in the frame. And everyone's pants are way too high but I have no clue why. 

The music in the movie has almost a complete absence of word. The main style switches between peaceful electronic and artificial music contributing to the future feel, while being warm. The other is light with a piano, which Samantha writes and then plays for Joaquin to fit the dates they go on and the experiences they have. As the movie addresses, he just looks like a crazy creep spinning in circles in public and laying on the beach alone and talking to the ocean. The only song in the movie with meaningful words is sung by Samantha as Joaquin experiences life physically alone, but with Samantha in his earpiece and to him, right next to him. It is below.

To my surprise, the movie was extremely funny at times. The humor was blunt and realistic, and didn't take away from the believability of the characters as it does in a movie like Adam Sandler does, ruining the interest the audience has in his emotions. 

The movie comes down to what a relationship really is and needs to be. Tons of questions arise and are purposely left unaddressed. Some people in this future American city see the relationship as healthy, while  others see it as childish and non confrontational. The movie portrays no successful human relationships or marriages, and the struggles of our couple are often universal statements rather than just those of a man dating a phone. Samantha happens to have a female voice which maybe be a statement about our perceptions considering nothing makes "her" female. Love is fun but not lasting in many cases in the movie, and the viewer is meant to feel discomfort from many interactions in the film.

Overall, this movie earns 4/5 iPhone 5c's, because it's surprisingly warm and believable love story that I found myself very invested in. Additionally, its visually pleasing and creatively presented.

Formal Film Study: M. Night Shyamalan

M. Night Shyamalan is the butt of more movie jokes than any other director in the business. I was curious to see how a director who's so horrible could be so famous and get such big name actors in his movies. So, I designed my study around M. Night Shyamalan movies known for their twist. After research, I ended up choosing The Sixth Sense, The Village, and Unbreakable. These being some of his older movies, they are know to be better than his current work, including After Earth, known for being arguably the worst movie of the year.

Briefly, Unbreakable is about Samuel L Jackson believing Bruce Willis is a super hero, and doing everything in his power to convince him. The Village is the story of a small 1800s town surrounded by forests, known to be filled with evil red beasts who will not let villagers pass through. Last, The Sixth Sense is about a psychologist for a boy who as the famous quote tells us, sees dead people. All these films are unique in plot, but are told similarly by M. Night.

The Village

The color in all the films is unique from most films. They all have standard, realistic shades and appearances, but choose to stress a certain color at a certain time. In The Village it's red. The evil creatures are red, so any red found in the village is immediately buried. As a result, when red enters the frame it shines brighter than the rest of the scene, and demands attention from the viewer. Similarly in Unbreakable, the scenes are average until we need to focus on one thing, which rather than being framed as most important explodes with color, in this case during flashes Bruce Willis has of crime. Lastly, The Sixth Sense used shot types more than color, but M. Night did choose to use color to make religious statues stand out in times when the boy was scared, as they protected him from the dead people he believed he was seeing.

The Sixth Sense

This brings me to my larger focus, the cinematography of the films. Here, there is a lot that all the films have in common.  In interactions between characters, M. Night frequently makes a choice to use one shot, but pan back and forth as the speaker changes, of then leaving one completely out of the frame before panning back. I thought this was unique because one continuous shot would end up framing the same scene multiple different ways. When scenes would suddenly become frantic, using the camera to swing into a new framed shot would become completely natural. Shifting from a close up to a long shot with a quick pan was completely natural in a scene, without having to pick up the pace of the editing and create artificial angst rather than use the natural tension created in the scene.

The other cinematographic aspect unique to M. Night was his placement of objects in the foreground of his shots, especially when they didn't interact with the scene. In all three movies, an object or person will be framed in the bottom right hand part of the screen, and then the subject enters the frame late. This choice didn't disorient the shot, but rather framed where it was taking place  an allowed for the scene to play out with something dominating the lower half of the frame, but not the shot. This was unique to me, but felt very normal.

Unbreakable

The other main aspects I found to be specific of Shyamalan were his use of low fill lighting in intense scenes, not allowing us to see sometimes more than half of an actors face and a use of symbols. M. Night often used recurring symbols when cutting between scenes, many of which made no sense until the very end.

This brings me to what makes M. Night Shyamalan who he is, the twist. SPOILER ALERT to anyone who hasn't seen these movies yet. In all three, information given in the last five minutes completely overturns the viewer's entire understanding of the plot. In all three movies I had to sit as the credits rolled and wonder how the pieces had to fit together with this single piece of new information. In The Sixth Sense, we learn that not only was the boy actually seeing ghosts, but that his psychologist was one! The wife who we thought was ignoring him was mourning his death! In The Village we discover that our helpless little town wasn't living in the 1800s at all. Our main character wanders onto a highway! Luckily, she's blind and has no idea so she cannot ruin the elder's secrets including that they live in a modern wild life reservation and they dress up as the killer beasts! This one was a little less believable, and a little more of the expected let down we're supposed to expect from M. Night. Lastly, we discover in the last minute of Unbreakable that Samauel L Jackson is the evil villain! He's killed hundreds of people trying to find a superhero! This was fun, believable within the context, and intense.

All of these sudden plot twists make their entire film a confused lie, which doesn't discredit the ride, but rather adds an entire new depth to the film (usually). These twists are fun, and all believable within  the realm of their movie. They are the most surprising endings to movies I have ever seen, and they truly made them an even bigger pleasure to watch.


So why is M. Night Shyamalan the laughing stock of bad movie endings? The answer is in his more recent work, which would more properly complete my study. Ultimately, he cannot be understood unless six or more movies are taken into account, which I haven't seen, but from research range from bad to absolutely horrible. Additionally, he tried to make a fake documentary about himself, but was found out, greatly hurting his image. M. Night Shyamalan started out as "the next Steven Spielberg" and now would be lucky to get above a 20% on Rotten Tomatoes. I wish my study had followed all his works, but I was unaware of the serious drop off when I began. Of all the sources I found on him, this article seems to encompass the mystery of M. Night. In the end I recommend the movies of his that I have seen, but cannot speak to the supposedly horrible newer releases.
http://www.vulture.com/2013/05/the-buried-secret-of-m-night-shyamalan.html

1935 Movie Project: The Goldigger

I was home sick the day we presented these so I missed out on showing off my group's ideas as well as seeing everyone else's. Because of this I'm not 100% sure what we presented as our final, but I think I know well enough to post.

Our story, created by Doug, Jessica and me, stars the Marx Brothers. We cast them because they were an obvious crowd pleaser at the time and our strategy was to win with a blockbuster. In the story, they inherit a lot of money and a broke Hollywood actress played by Jean Harlow decides to marry into the family to get in on the cash. The only problem she has is it's the Marx Brothers she's dealing with. Groucho knows better, Chico begins to fall for it, and Harpo is totally unaware. At the end, they lose all of their money but they're still happy, leaving Jean Harlow distressed, leaving them forever. The moral is meant to match the era and the Great Depression because they didn't need money to be happy.

This plot fell perfectly into the genre of slapstick comedy. This wasn't a choice we made on purpose, other than wanting to give our audience something familiar to want to watch. MGM produced the movie because although the Marx Brothers moved around Hollywood constantly in the 1930's, they landed at MGM for at least most of 1935. This is what influenced us to choose Jean Harlow as our lead actress. A sex symbol of the era, she fit the shady role perfectly. Our director would naturally be the same as for Duck Soup, Leo McCarey. However, our big surprise for the crew is Gregg Toland. This is because the movie was going to need to frame Jean interacting with one brother in the foreground, while the others could still do their thing in the middle ground. Aware that this would be complicated to do, Gregg was the perfect man for the job.

By the nature of the film, Hays code had potential to interfere, so our rule for addressing it was simple. The only person allowed to walk the line of appropriate behavior would be Jean because she's an evil character who the audiences would know not to trust or emulate. This would fall within the rules of the code while still getting away with some inappropriate behavior for the time. We stuck to black and white because color wasn't fully accepted at the time and we wanted to make a blockbuster, not a movie with controversy.

I wanted to change a lot while we were coming up with the movie. Firstly, I think the Marx Brothers having to raise Shirley Temple would be an all time classic. When their long lost sister dies and they're the only one to take care of the american sweetheart it would be the biggest blockbuster in history. The group didn't agree. My other major dispute concerned Jean's fate. As our villain, I wanted her greed to lead to a dramatic death, either from being hit by a car or some other dramatic end. Sadly, my cinematic genius was limited by my group. Overall, I think we came up with a movie that would draw fans and make money, which was our goal from the start.