The Prestige - A Psychoanalytical Review

WARNING: SPOILERS

This is mainly a review of the psychological points throughout the movie that I had to complete for a class.

The Prestige

The Prestige is about two magicians working together to make a living and be the best show in town until, one day, something goes terribly wrong that causes two friends to break apart. Filled with envy and obsession, Angier does his best to ruin Borden’s life. Borden does his best to retaliate anyway he could, but eventually has to overcome a struggle that a turn of events has lead him to.

     I do not own rights to above image. (Left: Alfred Borden; Right: Robert Angier)

            Robert Angier will be my main subject for this psychological analysis. Angier lost something very important to him early in the movie, and tries to blame Alfred Borden for it. Borden refuses to be taken advantage of and pushes Angier to his limits. Borden has arguably the best tricks and seems to be one step ahead of Angier at all times. Borden’s main trick, The Transporting Man, was above and beyond anything Angier has ever seen. In various efforts to try and replicate the trick in his own manner, Borden still manages to ruin Angier’s shows by using hostile passive aggressive methods. At this point, Angier is ready to do anything to get at Borden. One day, Angier has lost all control and tries the impossible to get the better of Borden. He travels to America to find out about a machine that can do the impossible: transport – for real. Angier’s obsession of trying to be better than Borden has cost him many things. It cost him a love interest, his career, his fame, and certainly his mental stability.

            Obsession can lead to very dangerous things. It may ruin your life, someone else’s or both. In Angier’s case, it ruined his own life. He is a miserable man that went from using competitive motives to get better then Borden to hostile actions that costs people their lives. At one point, Angier was talking to the man in charge of constructing the teleportation machine. Tesla questioned if Angier was thinking of the costs. Angier merely replied that money is not an issue. Tesla then warned him again that this would cost Angier. After a few more lines of dialogue, Angier, himself, tells Tesla that there is no way to change his mind because of this potent obsession. Tesla reluctantly follows though and builds the machine.

            With an obsession, not everything good comes from it. Angier had to make many sacrifices to let his new and improved Transported Man be the best, yet. At this point in the film, Borden has given up trying to make new tricks or to sabotage Angier. Borden notices that Angier is falling to his own demise. Angier last show, he nabs at more attempt to get at Borden for ruining his life. Instead of emerging from the Tesla device, he stays gone. During this performance Borden (dressed up in a disguise) was allowed to inspect the device prior to the trick. Wanting to see what happens below stage, Borden forces himself behind the performance to see what is happening to Angier. In this act, Angier falls through the trap door, which is part of the trick, and into a tank of water that locks itself. Borden tries to save Angier. Angier’s manager catches Borden under the stage looking at a drowning Angier. Borden is then sent to court under a death sentence for murdering Angier. Even while Angier is supposed to be dead, he still tries his best to make Borden’s life suffer. Angier reemerges after a while under another name and takes custody of Borden’s daughter all while Borden is still being sentenced to death.

            Even with an obsession to be better than Borden at every trick, he still wants revenge for what Borden did earlier in the movie. All while Angier is supposed to be dead, he is still ruining Borden’s life by targeting him where he is most soft: his daughter. Borden, however, still has the upper hand through many tricks of his own (that’s the best part of the film, so I won’t mention them!) Overall, Angier ruined his own life through desperate attempts of sabotage toward Borden. Obsession is a tricky mechanic of the mind, and will most of the time make everything worse. 

Jaws

To start, Jaws is quite the masterpiece for new, or modern, Hollywood. It uses many techniques that were new then, but standard now. Jaws is about a shark that terrorizes a beach town by picking off citizens one by one. Chief Brody needs him captured, now! With the help of a boat captain and an oceanographer, the three go sailing to find this shark and kill it.

I thought the movie was phenomenal, to put it lightly. I'm a fan of longer shots and not so quick cuts. It puts more work onto the actors and tests their actually skill. Instead of keeping in character for two seconds and then having a lunch break. Longer takes require them to keep in character most of the time, which is what they're on set for. Going on from that, I feel the camera work was spot on perfect. Right off the bat, the cinematography was superb. Never showing the shark is iconic for this film and it obviously did well. Jaws also contained a lot of smooth transitions from one character to another, or even one focal point to another. When Brody drives away in his yellow truck, the camera stops panning when we see the town sign - a perfect introduction of the setting of the movie. Exposition at its least, I feel. Another example would be when Bordy is at the beach and thinks he sees something in the water. We see him, then a person walks by, cutting to the water, and then another persons walks by, cutting back to Brody. This is one of my favorite cutting techniques. Most movies do it with trees during a chase scene, notably Sherlock Holmes 2 and Harry Potter 7.

I kept seeing some great foreshadowing elements throughout the movie. Some may be intentional, some may not. But here's what I found:

• Chrissie (the first victim) sticks her leg up while swimming and slowly sinks down playfully. A huge insight on what the shark will do. Bring you down. 
• The little boy on the beach with red trunks. You can tell he'll be the next victim for a couple reasons. The camera focused him a lot. Also, his bright red trunks that scream blood. Almost nothing else in the movie is as bright a red as that, except blood itself. 
• When Brody is learning about sharks in his book, during the semi-montage scene where he flips through the pictures, one of the pictures has a shark with a tank (Oxygen? CO2?) in its mouth. This is the way the shark dies at the end. 

So, I thought those were quite interesting and I think Spielberg did an outstanding job making this, even at such a young age. Up until today, I still look up to Spielberg as an inspiration. I haven't read the book, but since Benchley had his hand in the film script, I feel it is a really good adaptation. However, I don't know for sure. Either way, I consider this film one of few masterpieces of New Hollywood. 

Night of the Living Dead

Night of the Living Dead (1968) was quite the treat considering it being an old movie. I'm not a fan of old movies, but this one caught my attention for a couple reasons, one of which being the first ever "zombie" film. Also, I found it interesting the main lead is a black male in a horror movie. The stereotype for many horror movies these days is that the 'black man dies first.' Well, apparently not. He died last in this one. That's right. Learn to get your stereotypes from the right movies. Thirdly, the biggest twist is the fact that everyone dies in this movie. There is no heroic savior at the end, or a romantic kiss with explosions in the background. Everyone dies, plain and simple.

Night of the Living Dead is about a group of people getting trapped inside a house while savage human-eating people from the graves try to overrun them. It all starts as a joke, but when things take a wrong turn, havoc is brought upon Barbra...and eventually the people in the house. The movie is in black and white even though color has been past introduced. Then again, so is Schindler's List and The Artist. That choice is up to the Director and it's been holding up well. Along with the grayscale color choice, the music was also a good fit. The music determined whether to be scared or not and came and went right on cue. Another thing I noticed was the obvious use of handheld cameras instead of tri-pods - another Director's choice, I assume. Why should the the camera be still and perfect when the characters are frightened for their lives? The camera should reflect the characters in a horror film. Another thing I liked about the camera-work was use of crooked, diagonal, and low set-ups.

The dialogue was very fluent and didn't seem scripted, which is what most writers try to go for. One thing that bothered me a bit was the fact that the zombies seemed a bit too smart. How did they know how and when to pick up rocks? Then again, that goes against what I said about the black man dying first. Who's to say zombies are not smart? Who made it up? Nobody, I suppose. And how did zombies know to stay away from fire? How did they know it might hurt them? I'm not sure. I'll leave the zombie lore to the experts.

My final notes are these: George did a spectacular job making this movie come to life...from the grave. Get it? Never mind. Either way, I really enjoyed this movie and it remains to be one of my favorites from the '60s.

Evil Dead (2013)

I do not own rights to above image

WARNING - MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

The first thing I will say is that this movie blew me out of the water. It was so spectacularly done. I loved the acting, the filming, the practical effects, and most notably, the level of violence. Most horror movies can't portray horror in such brutality as this one did. I'm not much of a fan of the types of horror that require one's imagination to be afraid (i.e. anything Paranormal/ghostly), nor am I a fan of creature features/serial killers (i.e. Friday the 13th).

Possession horrors fit right in that one spot in between both stated above. It's ghosty/spiritual-like, but at the same time becoming possessed turns the character into a creature (metaphorically). Possession is the key (in my opinion) to be at the height of frightening. Being unable to control oneself scares me more than anything. Saying that, the original Evil Dead and this one are both my favorites for the horror genre.

Including such brutality with the violence and gore is one thing, but taking it to this level pulled it all together. Saw was one thing, and now it's in the past. Filmmakers are scared to put such imagery in a movie - it may repel some audiences. I understand that, but where is the line when it starts looking fake? If I cut off my arm with a turkey cutter, will it be a clean cut with no blood, guts, and bone? No! It'll be just that: The most horrific thing you've ever seen.

To take an example from the movie, I loved the fact that Mia got her hand stuck underneath the truck for a few reasons. Most people roll out of the way, no harm done. But, was Mia an action hero? No, she was a scared girl with a blood-drenched dress on. How far could she possibly go? Getting her hand stuck made it look more realistic. Another thing I liked about it was the fact that it gave the filmmaker more time for the [real] possessed girl to approach and scare the audience. Thirdly, making Mia rip off her own hand was what pulled it all together. It looked real, and I felt the pain running through my nerves. I commend the filmmaker and actress for that scene.

Other than specific examples, my summation of Evil Dead is this: The movie was truly an amazing thing. I was so happy to find out I got a pre-screening ticket for it. I'm probably going to go see it again once it officially releases, and then buy it on Blu-Ray! Definitely within my top 3 favorite horror movies. Sam and Fede did such a fantastic job. It truly was the most terrifying film I've ever experienced.

The Artist

2012 Academy Awards for 2011 movies…Is it the 2011 Oscars, or the 2012 Oscars? Either way, winner of Best Picture that year was “The Artist.” This movie was in black and white and silent, complete with the title cards with dialogue. The beginning and end credits matched ‘20s and ‘30s movies, as did the movie itself. I was uncertain why this had won so many awards. I made myself sit down last night and watch it. I’m not a fan of old movies or movies with “bad quality.” I like the more hi-res movies with a ton of quality in animation and in CGI. Diving back into the early 20^th Century was tough, but I finally figured out how to swim.

I do not own the rights to above image.

During my viewing of it, I found myself sitting ever so close to the screen; I was becoming immersed into the film. Even though it didn’t have sound effects and voice, the music was still there to drive the train. Now that I mention it, the music accompaniment to this film was so incredible; it was like I was back at five years old watching Looney Tunes. The music drove the storyline through low tones and high tones. Another thing I liked about the music was that it matches with the actions simultaneously. It wasn’t just in background where it gets set aside, to fill that ringing in your ear. Not this time. It gave the story life and passion.

The two leads played by Jean Dujardin (George Valentin) and Bérénice Bejo (Peppy Miller) was spectacular. There was so much emotion with Jean, especially when the conflict started to uproar, which, ironically enough, is sound. The main problem is this film is the usage of sound in film, thus destroying the career of poor George Valentin. When George met Peppy Miller for the first time, it changed his life in more ways than one.

Another thing worth mentioning was the costume design. Obviously this is a timepiece, so getting the wardrobe done correctly has a big toll on the movie itself. I felt the wardrobe was very inviting and exciting. It made me feel like I was actually present in that era.

All the upbeats of the film were loud and exciting. Well, not loud…oh never mind. They were FUN. The laughs, the humor, the smiles from everyone. For the first twenty minutes, it was pure joy. Nothing could ever go wrong. Until, BAM: The introduction of sound effects and the degradation of our two beloved characters. As George wants to keep doing the silent films, having a large contrast with his love interest Peppy being so positive about the new Talkies (movies with sound) causes a problem. Now, George sets out to pay for, make, and act in a new movie on his own. He puts in his life savings for it. But, Peppy’s performance is too great in the new Talkies. George loses everything.

Enough with the actual storyline, however compelling it may be. One thing that really stood out to me was the sequence of SOUND. Yup You heard me: Sound. There is a sequence in the movie where sound is actually present. It was so well done. The performance by George during it was fun, but depressing. I felt really sad for the character, something that rarely happens these days.

As the climax approaches and leaves, the movie is in freefall. Anything and everything is going wrong. The character is in such a rut he can’t get out. I won’t spoil anything, but the character gets at the lowest point in the movie and possibly their life. Again, I won’t spoil anything, but the movie uses a clever title card reading, “BANG!” I’m not afraid to admit, I was on the verge of tears when this happened. I was so emotionally connected to the movie and character, that I felt his pain, although empathetically, I still felt it.

Of course, like any movie, everything ends up being ok. Everyone is happy, including myself.  I felt this movie deserved the awards it received. Best Picture now seems like an understatement to me. I enjoyed every minute of “The Artist.” 

Nightmare Before Christmas

Netflix was so kind as to include this great family movie on its list of streaming. I watched it with a friend last night looking for subtle, but easily noticeable, setups within the Halloween world. There were a couple major things I noticed and a couple more inward things that many of you probably overlooked. These "things" include the smooth camera movement, the music accompaniment, the framing of particular subjects and persons, transition, lens flare, even introductory cues for characters. I'll start with the camera:

It's hard for me to give specific details about the camera that I liked (yes, the entire movie was that good). However, I must mention how smooth the camera panning was. In a few scenes throughout the film, the panning was very elegant. In one scene, particularly where Jack was singing his famed "Poor Jack," the fly-cam panning was so well done, I had to pause the movie to take it all in and to talk about it with my friend +Kamryn Lamons.

I do not own the rights to above image.

As the camera circled Jack, presumably imitating his mind spinning from what just happened, it brought the feeling of insecurity and confusion to the table. Talking about the techs of it, doing such a smooth path for a stop motion film has to be one of the most amazing accomplishments in the film. Like I said before, the entire movie included some of these shots, however most of them being establishing shots. 

A couple specific things I saw during the film was how some shots were set up. For example, I saw low-cam, high-cam and its derivatives. Most pronounced would be the fact that they use mostly low-cam shots for when they are depicting Jack to be in power. In contrast, during the low point in the characters life (during "Poor Jack"), the camera seemed to predominately be overhead, looking down on Jack, which also implies that he had just messed up. Also, this movie featured a confident amount of close-ups. Which leads in to the aperture of the film, and it was fantastic. The definition of foreground and background was immaculate. 

I do not own the rights to above image

Moving on from the camera, it's safe to introduce the subject of framing. The framing in the movie was phenomenal. To start, the iconic scene where Jack walks on the hill with the moon behind him is spectacular for a reason. Not only is it spine chilling to watch Jack climb up and over a hill that unrolls itself, but the moon. The moon! The moon was framing him the ENTIRE time! I counted seven different shots of him walking within the moon in the same scene. Not until "Jack's Lament" ended, did he walk out of the framing yellow moon. I was very impressed with this to say the least. Not really a framing aspect, but I did notice that whenever Jack was being powerful and strong (or scary) he potentially fills the entire screen with open arms and his tall slim skeleton-self. 

Next, I want to talk about the coloring in this film. The first thing I noticed was when Jack was in the Halloween town being a star, and when he walks away from the town, he's walking into blue light and away from orange light. I feel a lot of movies use these two colors to represent two polar opposites (notably the movie "Drive"). Blue and Orange are very common as a pair. Anyway, to wrap up the feelings for Jack, at the end of the movie, he does the opposite: He walks away from the blue light and into the orange. To me, that's a great way to complete the story. 

The music accompaniment for the film was so spectacular. Danny Elfman usually does an amazing job. Away from the score, the musical lyrics have deep meaning. Besides the physical music, when and where it's placed is almost masterful too. I can tell which character is talking or about to show up just on the score. Especially when Oogie Boogie comes. The music turns jazzy, a high contrast to the "normal" music. A great thing too, because Oogie is considered the main villain. At least for Sandy Claws (even though I can argue that Jack himself is the villain -- but we are led to believe in him and support him, the same way we do for "Inception"). But enough of that controversy. 

Some random things I noticed throughout the film:

• Jack breaks the fourth wall a couple times. 
• There are, in fact, a couple of POV shots. 
• When the main town has its Christmas jeopardized, none of the adults' faces are shown. Parents, police, etc. They are all left out. 
• The bats at the beginning sequence are held up by noticeable strings/wires. 

Also, another tech fact I learned from IMDb Trivia, is that this movie technically ran at 12fps (frames per second). Only two scenes were the traditional 24: 

1. The overhead shot of the forest
2. When the bugs were falling out of Oogie Boogie (which was horrifying, by the way)

This concludes my Movie Review for "Nightmare Before Christmas." I hope you enjoyed it, because I certainly did. Please leave any comments or questions. 

High Frame Rate and "The Hobbit"

Peter Jackson recently released the beginning of his new trilogy, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" in the stunning High Frame Rate (HFR). I've had quite a run with HFR in general. As a person who absolutely loves quality in resolution and refresh rate, I was thrilled to here that Jackson will be showing his new movie in double the frame rate. If you don't know, normal films run at 24 frames per second, or fps. The new special HFR format is at an astonishing 48fps.

I do not own the rights to above image. 

I started doing as much research as possible when I heard the news. Apparently, HFR formats have acquired a not-so-surprising nickname: the Soap Opera effect. I don't watch tv much, but I can tell if something is feature film or a tv show. I can't explain it, but I can just tell. I assume this is what people were talking about. HFR looking too fake (if that makes any sense). Upon further research, I came across some clips of various movies in HFR format. One was a snippet of "Avatar." Being that EVERYTHING in that movie was Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) and Greenscreen, it looked more fake than ever. I was slightly disappointed about it, but I try to keep an open mind about new technologies, and more importantly I didn't want to bash Jackson's new movie that hadn't even come out yet. I found another clip in HFR. It was the "Inception" trailer. I finally saw what people were referring to when they talked about the soap opera effect. The "Inception" trailer looked like a really bad Telemundo show (is that a double negative?). When Cobb was walking around with Ariadne while the street was folding over itself, it looked so bad, I had to pause it and start laughing. Also when Cobb was silently doing his assassinations in Saito's mind (sorry, spoilers), it looked really bad. I'm sorry. 

My optimism about watching "The Hobbit" in HFR was dropping. Quick. So I decided to forget the HFR and go watch it in IMAX instead. I went to the Fort Lauderdale IMAX the Monday after its release with a few friends. However, this was my first time going to a real IMAX in years. The last movie I saw was "Monsters vs. Aliens," but that's beside the point. I was so excited about seeing it in IMAX 3D, that it actually came out to be horrible in my opinion. The movie wasn't horrible, by any means, but the technical quality of the movie projector was really bad. I refused to blame Peter Jackson; I know he's better than that. So I blamed the theater and said that their projector is way out of date, or broken out of spite. I wasted 14 dollars that night. 

I guess this is a good time for me to express my loathing for motion blur within movies. Especially for Jackson's Rings Trilogy, where most of the shots are of the group trekking through landscapes. I don't want to see the grass as a solid block of green, but as grass. I don't want to see trees as flying hedges, but as swaying trees. Now to continue:

After another week, I dropped everything I was doing and decided to look for theaters near me to go see the HFR (the Fort Lauderdale IMAX I went to didn't offer HFR). The closest one I could find was in Sawgrass. I told my dad, +Robert McElveen, and we went to go see it. After a long day of errands, we accidentally showed up a little late but eventually got in in time for Thorin, Son of Thrain, to do his deep and heartpounding song, Misty Mountains, with the other dwarves. I'll tell you right now, the second walked into the theater, I looked up onto the screen, without my 3D glasses on, and could physically see how smooth the movie was. Everything just floated on by. I was speechless. I hurried to sit down and shoved the glassed onto my face so hard, my nose hurt for the next 2 hours. I looked up onto the screen with awe at how amazingly beautiful the movie was. Over course, at the beginning, everybody isn't doing much, so I waited for the ultimate test: panning over the fields with trees and mountains in the background. I was so impressed with it, I couldn't stop smiling to myself in the theater. What threw it over the edge was the mountain giant battle on the latter half of the movie. That was so crystal clear, I can't even describe it. 

Besides how smooth the movie ran, the actual quality of the film seemed to have upgraded compared to other movies. Needless to say whenever it zoomed in on the goblin king's face, Thorin's face, Gandalf's face, or Gollum's face, I was so impressed with it. Also spoilers, at the very end, when it zooms into Smaug's eye, it was such high definition, I need to research if the Sawgrass AMC has a 4K screen or not. It seemed too good. I loved every minute of the movie. 

Here is my verdict. I certainly loved seeing "The Hobbit" in HFR and all its glory. However, I can tell you right now that HFR doesn't seem like it's for every movie from now (like 3D is. Read my other blog! Movies in 3D) It seems to me, that "The Hobbit" was a perfect candidate for the the upcoming technology. A large congratulations to Peter Jackson and RED Cameras for making such a impeccably fantasy.