Frozen (2013): Celebrating Difference

Sisters Elsa and Anna are the center of this new Disney animation that is incredibly smart and very moving.

When Elsa and Anna are young girls (they are both princesses and Elsa will one day be Queen), Elsa uses her powers for fun but accidentally causes Anna to bang her head. Their parents take Anna to be healed by trolls and one of them warns Elsa that even though her powers hold allure, she should be afraid. He warns that she should live in fear of the evils her powers might bring. Anna's memories of magic are removed and Elsa is shut away in her room. Anna does not know why this happened and so spends a lot of her time alone in the castle as Elsa's parents try to teach her how to repress her emotions in order to stop her from showing her magic powers.

The animators took great care over the film, for instance they individually crafted 2, 000 snowflakes to make them look unique, which are seen at the beginning of the film. They also took a lot of inspiration for the look of the film from Norwegian culture, such as the clothes, landscapes, music and buildings. They took several months researching Norway, which shows the care they took in making the film and it helps ground the film and the characters in a viable place, with culture and history like human beings, not fairy tale characters. This makes them easy to relate to and it gives a chance for the viewer to appreciate the culture.

The first song of the film, after the beautiful choral piece Vuelie Frode Fjellheim featuring Cantus, is Frozen Heart. This is sung by men working on the ice and some of the lyrics are a precursor to the action, as ice can be seen as a metaphor for Elsa and her powers: 'Beautiful! Powerful! Dangerous! Cold! Ice has a magic, can’t be controlled'. They warn that 'there’s beauty and there’s danger here' and we should 'beware'. Elsa's magic is beautiful, but those around her fear it. She has not learned how to control it as she was never given the chance to express herself or flourish.

Elsa's parents keep reinforcing that she should not feel anything, she needs to 'conceal, don't feel', she cannot 'let it show'. Of course, this is not possible, and the more she tries, the worse it gets. By teaching her that she needs to hide her powers, they are reinforcing that she should fear them and fear herself. Therefore, by their way of thinking she will never accept the person that she is and only learn to hate herself. This extrapolation of people's reaction to difference is one of the themes that really moved me. As most around her fear her difference, her parents are asking to cage who she really is. We come to learn though that it is acceptance and love that gives her the strength and self confidence she needs to be able to control her powers. When their parents die, Elsa still cages herself away, now fully trained to hate the fact she has powers, terrified of showing them to anyone. This is a powerful example of how many wrongly advise and teach people to suppress their emotions, and in tern making unhealthily ones multiply. In a world where we are told not to feel and to fear difference, it is no wonder that mental health issues are so stigmatized. People cannot understand how to deal with difference in a healthy manner, or how to deal with emotional pain once people go through it. They tell those who have been bullied or emotionally abused to shut away their pain and move on, as if it was that simple. This is a film that understands that pain and tries to send the message of tolerance and acknowledgement. When Elsa manages to acknowledge her own feelings of hurt and when they are understood by someone else, and they show they love her and accept her difference and her pain, she is able to use her powers positively and be in control of them.

When her powers are revealed to those around her, many respond in fear. One of the villains of the film, the the Duke of Weselton even calls her a monster. The reaction Elsa gets proves what she has been trained to think, she is a monster and she needs to live a life alone. So she runs away into the North mountain, and is finally alone, given the freedom to express herself, which leads up to the incredible sequence, Let It Go. As the film is a musical, there are many beautiful numbers that stand out, this and Do You Want to Build a Snowman have to be two of the best musical numbers in an animation for a very long time. What is so great about Let it Go, other than the stunning magic Elsa is able to perform now free from the judgement of others, are the lyrics and the performance by Idina Menzel (who voices Elsa). Idina Menzel really puts emphasis into those lyrics. The song is about the beauty of being different and about being free to express her emotions at last. In this moment, she is not afraid and therefore she is not limited. She is also finally coming to accept herself and in turn becomes more beautiful as she is able to flourish. With her magic, she creates a perfect ice castle where she now wishes to live away from the rest of the word. Elsa sings, 'it’s funny how some distance makes everything seem small and the fears that once controlled me can’t get to me at all'. Here she shows how her fears and her negative emotions were controlling her and limiting her ability to control her magical powers. Now she is able to let go those feelings and create something incredible. However, the past that she wants to leave behind her catches up with her. Even though she says she wishes to leave it behind and be free, she is still isolated, believing she is too dangerous to be around other people.

Anna is a very different person to her sister. Do You Want to Build a Snowman shows her growing up, repeatedly knocking on Elsa's door asking her to come out and play with her or at least to talk to her. After being told to go away and being ignored, she has to make her own fun. She is very optimistic and positive, and is understandably excitable when the palace doors open up for the first time as she will finally meet other people. Anna is also relatable due to her slight awkwardness and nervousness around others. When Elsa's powers are exposed and she runs off, Anna takes responsibility and accepts the blame for what happened. Anna then fearlessly decides to get Elsa back, to try and coax her down. Also, she wishes to try and convince Elsa to unfreeze the winter she has now cast on Arendelle. There is a touching moment when Anna pauses just before she knocks on the door of the ice castle and reunites with Elsa that speaks volumes as to the hurt that all those years of being shut out had on Anna. Do You Want to Build a Snowman is such a great number as it manages to emphasize Anna's pain, isolation and constant rejection from her sister. It also shows her innocence as a child and is a fantastic way to move time forward to when she is asking the same question after their parents death as she so desperately wants some comfort at this point. It really manages to say a lot about what it must feel to be so close to someone who goes through mental health issues or bullying, when they do not know why the person they care about is now shutting themselves off and are unable to come out of their room. The pain of both sisters is very real and this number has manages to bring a tear to my eye each time I have watched it (I have now seen it at the cinema three times). Anna knows that her sister is in pain, but does not know why and is to not be able to understand. When Anna finds out about Elsa's powers, she can finally understand why Elsa shut herself away, as expressed in For the First Time in Forever (Reprise). She knows it was not her fault and that Elsa was just trying to protect her.

There are some great characters that Anna meets on her journey to the castle, such as Kristoff, a slightly gruff but good - hearted man. The film spends time to develop its characters and make them dynamic. As we see a bond develop between Anna and Kristoff, we see just how feisty and resilient Anna is, and how underneath it all Kristoff is quite soft and caring. This is an example of one of the film's messages that we can't always tell everything about a person from a first glance.

The film also carries a great message about young women. The princesses are not defined by their relationships to men, they are individuals with varying characteristics that we get to appreciate and relate to. There is also a brilliant feminist twist on how Anna manages to escape from a curse accidentally put upon her by Elsa. *Spoilers* An act of true love is what will save her heart being frozen and in turn herself. The trolls suggest that it will be a true love's kiss that will do the trick. Conversely, what really saves her is a brilliant twist on previous Disney films. She has the chance to save herself and kiss her true love, but instead she runs to her sister and saves her from the villain's sword by putting herself in front of Elsa to stop him. It is an act of great bravery, which such a great message to children, as it is an act of pure selflessness. It is a feminist move, as she can save herself with her own bravery and courage, but also Anna becomes a different kind of role model by doing something like this. She can stand up to a bully and put herself in danger by protecting her sister and doing what is right. None of us should be passive when we see bullying or victimization and Anna is a great example of this. She loves her sister, understands why she has isolated herself and acknowledges her pain. Anna does not accept Elsa despite or because of her gift. Instead she recognizes that this is a part of what makes her who she is and loves all of her sister, and this is what makes this act of true love so beautiful.

The Duke of Weselton seems to be a parody of some previous Disney villains, such as Jafar from Aladdin, as he is incredibly over - the - top. They even manage to turn this on its head by adding more commentary of previous Disney movies. *Spoiler* Anna meets handsome Prince Hans and soon after meeting they sing Love is an Open Door, which could easily be a pastiche of Once Upon a Dream from Sleeping Beauty. Love is an Open Door is about how in love with each other they are, and at the end of the song they agree to marry each other. Kristoff makes fun of this when Anna tells him about it, thinking it ridiculous as 'who gets engaged to someone they just met?' He also asks if her parents never taught her to be wary of strangers. Hans turns out to be a villain and therefore proving that you shouldn't trust the first handsome Prince you meet. Instead a relationship develops with Kristoff out of working together and getting to know each other through spending time on their quest to bring back summer. Their affection for each other grows as they find out more about each other's personalities. For instance, the more feisty and determined Anna shows herself to be, Kristoff respect grows and he so does his affection for her spirit, which is such a welcome change to the typical Disney love story. There is also a welcome amount of women's names in the crew in powerful positions, which will hopefully be carried forward to future Disney films. For instance, the writer Jennifer Lee also co - directed the film and other positions include the writer of songs' lyrics, Kristen Anderson-Lopez, associate producer Aimee Scribner and many more.

This film is very special to me for many reasons, the themes it explores are ones that touch me on a very personal level. I do know that many people will be able to relate to these themes and think they are very important and positive messages to be sending not only to children but to the general public also. The characters of the film seem so human and unique, that to me everything that comes from this film feels magical. Especially the wonderful music and work from the whole cast and crew. I also know that it will be enjoyed for many years to come.

Stories We Tell (2012): The subjectivity of story telling

Written and directed by Sarah Polley, this documentary focuses on one family’s story and develops into a look at how we tell stories, and create them. 

The documentary gives a look at the film-making such as the recording of the narration with her father, which shows her asking to go over certain lines again in a different way.This shows the examination of the way in which filmmakers create stories, and how even line delivery can affect the way we perceive the story, everything no matter how small affects what we see on screen and what story we believe, even in documentaries. This is true to life as well as not only in films are stories told. We tell stories as human being to share experiences and emotions. However, each story has multiple perspectives. It also relies on memory which can be distorted by emotions, how we see the people involved and are own personal bias. 

Polley has chosen to involve all perspectives available to her, even though they may appear small in terms of the story, their perspective is given equal treatment. This at first appears to be a small story, but this technique allows for questions about the nature of story telling to develop. The story reveals that her father Michael is not her biological father, but that Harry, a man that her mother Diane had an affair with, is. No one knew for sure, but some people, like her siblings guessed that her mother had an affair. This is the story they are focused on, that as well as what Diane was like as a person. 

Harry confesses that his reaction to the idea of involving everyone's point of view was that he didn't like it. He thinks that all these people’s narratives are all affected ‘in terms of what the saw, in terms of what they felt, in terms of what they remembered and in terms of their loyalties. The same set of circumstances will affect different people in different ways. Not that there are different truths, there are different reactions to particular events. The crucial function of art is to tell the truth, to find the truth in the situation.' However, truth is so cold and concrete, which human beings are not. Human emotions are what drives stories, perspectives, art and films. Can we ever reach the truth without bias? Art can attempt to reach truth but it will always be affected by the people who are making it. For instance, Polley's editing of the interviews will then turn the perspectives into something ‘completely different’ as Michael puts it.

When one of her brothers asks her ‘What would you say this documentary is really about?’ She replies ‘Memory and the way we tell the stories of our lives. I think in many ways it is like trying to bring someone to life through people’s stories of them’ She also states that the way the stories differ shows how it is difficult to pin down the truth. It is truth that Michael and Harry seem so keen on being shown or told, but as we are shown, people’s perspectives of that and the past are so different and many of our stories have ‘fictions in them, mostly unintended’. There was even disagreement as to what kind of person their mother was. There is no one truth, everyone sees the world, reality and the past differently.

Harry sees this as his story only to tell, as he was one of the two people directly involved, from his point of view, only he and Diane can tell the story to get at the truth. However, the film shows that a story doesn't belong to any one person as there are so many involved even more than you would normally think. We are all affected by events in the past, even though it might not appear that we are that closely involved. This is illustrated when we see Polley asking her sisters about the revelation that Sarah’s biological father was in fact Harry. All three of her sisters got divorced that same year. Events have a much wider impact than you would guess. Also, when confronted with the truth, those involved show that their previous perceptions are suddenly distorted and so is their memory.

Another example of how people perceive stories differently is shown when Michael narrates the part about how a reporter was trying to get her to get the story published. Sarah cried and begged the reporter not to publish the story. The reporter saw it as a happy story and said she should not cry. We all see things differently. All of the view points differ, memories are distorted as memory is subjective, so is the past, so are the stories we hear. Additionally, the film makes us question how we tell our stories or rather how you in particular tell your own. 

Michael says that he wished Diane would have told her of her worry that he was not the birth father of Sarah. He said he would hope and thinks he would have told her he accepted that ambiguity and would consider the child as his, but that is not how she perceived it. So he says ‘why is it that we talk and talk without somehow conveying what we are really like?' This was a very powerful statement to me as I often worry about the way in which I have said things, and how I come across to others. People all see us in different ways and that may sometimes not echo who we are or how we will really react when it comes to something big like what Diane was going through. 

Sarah asks Harry about his desire to publish the piece he wrote about his version of what he went through. He says, ‘Well I think anyone who writes anything... wants to bring it out to a public. I mean if there’s a story to be told and if the story has some validity and some resonance then you don’t keep it to yourself’. It is human to want to share your story with others, we all want to share what our own experiences through storytelling. His desire to tell his story, and her own desire to document the experience through film, moulded together for Sarah but she was uncomfortable of telling it unless it included everyone’s perspective. This included her families, his and her own, no matter how contradictory the perspectives were. She didn't know what the project would be, something for herself or something she would share. ‘I wouldn't even pretend to know how to tell it’ without beginning to explore it with others through interviews', which suggests that our own point of view is formed through telling a story with someone and sharing opinions on it, reflecting and discussing it. 

Sarah’s own desires of wanting to make a documentary are questioned by Michael, is it a way of her hiding from her own feelings about her mother and a wish to reconstruct her? Her own view of the past shielded by all those she is interviewing? She admits that this is partly the case, and then this knocks onto the way then this film has been pieced together by her with this biased view and the way this story affects her sense of self, her mother, her family and her past. What is also striking is the way this one woman, Diane, has struck the lives of so many, even the memories of her still hold wonder, sadness, pain, laughter and love. She is kept alive through the eyes of those in this documentary.

Michael's narration weaves the film together, and we learn that he has been reading a previous letter he sent to Sarah. His wonderfully expressive prose underlines the themes of the film so well that it makes the film incredibly powerful and affective. ‘I think I wrote this story because it really says so many interesting things about the human condition’. This sentiment really echoes the power of this film, which is one that makes you examine people's stories of an event important to you, how you are perceived and your own way of telling stories. This as well as seeing stories as something that connects us as human beings and accepting that the past is subjective and the truth, hard to reach. 

The Woman (2011): Attitudes to women in horror and society.

This film came up for the Scary Movie Month Movie Club over at Fthismovie (everybody should join in the Scary Movie month challenge over at http://www.fthismovie.net) and it has completely blown me away. I am still processing it but I had to write a review in order to express some of my thoughts. This powerful film follows ‘the woman’ who is living in the woods and Chris Cleek a country lawyer who kidnaps her. He tells his family that they will have to ‘help’ her in an awful attempt to civilize her. 

When the movie was screened at Sundance someone reacted very strongly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqrrxJtcVPM

This man's reaction is very telling of the sort of person this is. The fact he was yelling about degrading women, was as though he needed to speak for women, like the women in the audience can't speak for themselves? This man’s reaction proves he has not only missed the entire point of the film but he also reflects the need for this film. Women in horror have been sexualised and objectified for years. In this film, McKee (the director) is holding up a mirror to that. He is commenting on how men in horror have treated women, how women are treated in the film industry and on the whole by society.

Mckee definitely offers a strong feminist voice in the film. It is great to finally have that in horror, but there is something wrong with horror when one of few feminist voices heard is a male one. How many women are being funded to make a personal film like this one, in which they have something to add to this issue? I do think McKee is addressing that, however, I had a look at the crew list and there are very few women in important positions. Why is it he did not hire more women to work on a film called The Woman (not including cast)?

Saying that though the points he does raise in the film are incredibly important. I really respect him as a filmmaker and as an artist. For instance, when Chris first sees ‘the woman’, she is completely free from our society where women are repressed, second best, and subservient. She is wild, free but animalistic. The only thing Chris wants to do is take her independence away and crush it. He wants to put her back in her place as someone who obeys him. When she bites his finger off it is a subversive action, almost an action of castration as she is rebelling against his authority. She takes away his position as a man for that moment. This drives him crazy and causes him to treat her even more abusively. The performances are very strong and suit the tone of the film for instance Pollyanna McIntosh's performance as the woman is incredibly bold. There is a strong aesthetic to the film that adds to harshness of the film and its messages. 

There is a disturbing scene where Chris and his wife Peggy dress her. Of course, they put her in a dress. This is very telling of Chris’ wish to domesticate her. Could this therefore be a more up front symbolic representation of the way America on the whole treat women? This is similar to the forceful nature in which the 50s tried to brainwash the general public into forced positions, with women being drawn back into the home as housewives and mothers, only there to serve. Women still play that role in a lot of horror films, a role of a hopeless and sometimes pathetic victim. Often women are undeveloped, characters that are only there to be punished for their sexuality or objectified.  This attitude is what The Woman is targeting and challenging and it does it in a way in which you have to face this fact. It is very blunt and over – the – top in making its points, but this is to the film’s service as it means you have to confront the way women are treated in horror, by society and by the media. This means the viewer then has to think about it in a way where they can see just how awful and even dangerous that objectification is. 

When Peggy tells Chris she is leaving, she is finally standing up for herself and her daughters. She tries to make it clear that she will no longer tolerate any abuse and that she wants to get away. She also states that he has already corrupted their son into being a rapist like him. This makes an interesting point, as to the culture that sexualizes and objectifies women makes it seem to men that is the only way to treat them, especially if they are young and influenced by other attitudes of this kind around them. This is quite a bleak and strong message and one that really is trying to influence change to stop this attitude, as there is a dangerous impact (that of abuse). I feel this must be so much more uncomfortable to watch as a male, as men aren't being represented in a positive way. But hopefully the film is loud enough to for the men who watch this that care about the equality of women to start writing more interesting and less objectifying roles for women and even give chances to females wanting to produce their own horror films. 

So even though this is a film called The Woman this is does seem to be equally about male roles as well as female ones, within horror and society. How women are mistreated and how men need to take some responsibility in the way they have been representing them for so long. There needs to be a change, and there is no reason it can’t come from the horror genre. There are so many bold choices in this film that I hope to see more feminist horror, but hopefully even from women as well. 

Calendar Girls (2003): How the film subverts the traditional 'male gaze'

On MA course we had a British cinema module and one of the last movies we discussed was The Full Monty (1997). I started  to think about Calendar Girls as a contrast to this film, so when I got home I decided to re - watch it. I was surprised that the film often puts forward some rather subversive and interesting points.

The film I think gets away with this so well due to being able to hide this subversion under the guise of British quirkiness. At first you are presented with a traditional British comedy, with wacky characters and a self - deprecating style of comedy. However, if you scratch the surface you may well see what I see. A film that often comments on the way women are portrayed in film and media.

The film follows Annie (Julie Walters) who looses her husband John to cancer, and her friend Chris (Helen Mirren). Both women attend the WI (Women's Institute) a British organisation for women that houses many traditionally feminine activities such as cake baking and knitting, which allows women in very traditional roles to become more developed and gain some independence. This is shown with the character Ruth in particular, who was very quite, but then is able to stand up for herself and gain a voice. When Annie sits in the waiting room in the hospital she has to wait on a horrible old sofa, so she wants to raise money in order to get a new one for the hospital. Chris gets the idea to do a calendar from a calendar of young naked women on a mechanic's wall. This together with the porn magazines Chris finds under her son's bed shows how aware the film is of how women are objectified through cameras. Chris's son has a friend Gaz who talks to him constantly about 'tits', this comments on the male gaze. How when women are photographed it is often by a male, for a male audience.

There is an interesting distinction made by the ladies, that is the difference between naked and nude. Nude is artistic, and naked is sexual. When they are just trying it out and take a picture of Chris with her bra off, Jessie (Annette Crosbie) poses the question 'What is the difference between this and the Venus De Milo?' Annie replies 'I think the answer to that is very simple, an artist'. Therefore they go looking for a photographer that will treat them with respect and photograph them in artistic way. The way he does treat them in the photographs means that they are not objectified but suddenly their act of taking their clothes off becomes inspirational. The calendar is a hit, selling millions of copies, and even successful in America as well. These women are presented as gaining something from posing naked. They feel liberated. Not only do they gang together and find strength in all being joined in this act, but they are suddenly reacting against the stereotypical ideals of beauty. They are all middle age and have bodies with flaws, whereas the women presented in the calendar are perfect looking robots, young and air brushed. They are almost presenting the idea that women of all ages should feel comfortable with their bodies and that society should celebrate how women's bodies look naturally, at all ages.

There is a lot of other interesting points being made when the women go to America. They all are very excited to go to Hollywood. They are welcomed and get to live a life of luxury in a very swanky hotel and can afford new designer clothes. Annie is a bit annoyed with Chris and her indulgence of the press. She thinks that Chris is loosing track of why they were doing the calendar to begin with. Chris gets caught up, as do most of the women, in this new life of glamour and loose the values behind the idea of the calendar. When Chris signs them up to do a laundry commercial they are asked to remove their clothes. Annie storms off set and they wonder into a lot which Annie calls 'a cardboard street' and states how Chris is talking about 'meeting George Clooney'. Here, these British quirky characters are plonked onto a Hollywood set. They almost loose their identity. As a film it could easily loose its identity as British and resort to Hollywood cliches. I think it says a lot about the film that is willing to question whether it is doing that. The film is saying that it is attempting is to remain a character piece with heart rather than a cliched Hollywood film with big star names.

Even though the film has big British names, they are playing characters, all with individual charm. For instance, Jessie walks around with journalists asking her questions. She walks to Chris' house and says 'I have brought my journalists to meet your journalists.' This film does has a wonderful sense of humour. It does give into a few cliches but it has charm and does care about the characters it presents. It also tries to present an inspiring way in which a group of women all took on the traditional images of women presented by the media. I may be giving this film a bit too much credit but I do think it is very much aware, it does often reference it after all, of the male gaze and how the women are all gaining something from subverting that stereotypical representation.

Spring Breakers (2012): The Dark Side of Indulgence

The advertising of this film would suggest that this is in fact an exploitation film that revels in objectifying female bodies and the world of partying. However, I heard from a few movie podcasts I listen to, whose opinions I do trust, that the film delivers some surprises that make this a movie more interesting than the advertising would suggest. 

The film follows Faith (Selena Gomez), Brit (Ashley Benson), Candy (Vanessa Hudgens) and Cotty (Rachel Korine) on Spring Break. Faith seems to be the innocent of the group as someone who attends church group. She is a quiet girl who seems a vulnerable and easily influenced by the others, with Candy and Brit being very wild and careless. The girls were all trying to raise money so they could afford the Spring Break they wanted, but despite their best efforts they still were way off their target. This is an example of the film's analysis of the effects of the economy on these young women; no matter what they do or how hard they worked they wouldn't have been able to raise the money they needed. The recession has left young people behind, with a turbulent future ahead, unable to secure a job (with very little opportunities available to them).

Brit, Candy and Cotty decide to rob a restaurant so that they can afford Spring Break. Before they go, they try and encourage each other by saying to imagine themselves in a video game or a movie. They are so immersed in popular culture they can make themselves the stars of their own movie (which is what they are in a way). It is one of the more direct comments on popular culture and their glamorisation of violence, crime, drugs and alcohol. The film develops this further with the examination of Spring Break. All four girls want desperately to go to Spring Break, as they have idealised it as the perfect place, a place where they can be free and discover their own identity. They feel suburban life is claustrophobic and want to break free of the boring life that surrounds them. When they get there they feel that this is the perfect place and yet they rely heavily on drugs and alcohol whilst they are there. Their experience isn't the pure one they make it out to be, they have to live to an excess in order to feel like they are living at all.

Spring Break is also made out to be a hollow experience by the desire for it to last forever. This theme is reiterated throughout with Alien (James Franco) even saying 'Spring break forever' on a loop. The characters want this experience, where they feel young and free from rules, to last forever. This links them to the idea explored in J. M. Barrie's Peter Pan. In the novel there is a dark undercurrent. Peter does not want to grow up or leave Neverland. This leaves him reluctant to take responsibility for his actions, with him being an incredibly arrogant character that even kills others without feeling the weight of his actions. The girls in this gang are very similar to Peter, they are violent and aggressive, they don't take responsibility and they don't think of the long term effects of their behaviour. When they end up in jail, the only one who seems to suddenly realise the impact of what they have done is Faith. The others still act as if they don't care about anything, the cool exterior of the surely teenage is forcefully in place. Faith does see herself as morally superior to the others, even though the film does not. She thanks them for committing their crime and says that she is glad they did it; she is seen to enjoy the benefits of their crime. However, reality settles in when Alien bails them out of jail, she is able to see the world around her as it is and not with rose - tinted glasses. She is very uncomfortable with the attention this strange man is putting on them and manages to get away and go back home.

The way in which women are portrayed in the scenes at the beach and at the parties illustrates them as objectified both by the slow motion shots of their bodies and the way the male characters treat them and get pleasure out of watching them. The film is guilty taking pleasure out of this misogynistic gaze, however it does make a few interesting points about it. These girls have been taught by society that they are less than, they are there to be subjected to the male gaze. Therefore, their indifference to the world around them, their violent acts as well as their participation in drugs and alcohol, are their reaction and way of dealing with this.

The film explores the idea of the American dream and exposes it as a nightmare. The party scenes show the characters living their dream of indulgence and at first these scenes may seem great fun to a few of the viewers, but the film reveals the darker side of this life pretty quickly. The film is subversive through its use of colour tints and exaggerating colours, as well as active camera movements. It is also subversive by casting ex - Disney princess, bubble gum popstars Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens in roles where they are seen to be taking drugs and getting drunk. Harmony Korine (the director) makes the film's messages clear in a rather blunt and direct manner, but manages to discuss them with intelligence. Korine is at times guilty of enjoying the spectacle of female bodies and the indulgent lifestyle he is trying to criticize. It is an interesting film, it has a lot of things to say about society and is definitely worth watching.

Side Effects: The debates this film raises on mental health issues.

This review contains spoilers

I was curious about the release of Stephen Sodebergh’s new film, Side Effects (2013), especially when I heard that there was a discussion of mental illness within the film. The cast put me off at first as Jude Law, Rooney Mara and Channing Tatum are certainly not my favourite actors, but I was willing to give this film a go as I expected it would soon be getting a lot of positive attention from the critics (much like Soderberg’s other films such as Magic Mike). The film is a very tight dynamic thriller for most of the duration, except the final act that is a little chaotic. The film is quite successful at provoking debates on issues of mental illness and medication and I will be discussing these for this blog.  

The film follows a young woman, Emily (Rooney Mara), as her husband Martin (Channing Tatum) is being released from jail. Emily is seen struggling with symptoms of Depression and eventually drives her own car into a brick wall, in a suspected suicide attempt. At the hospital she meets the English Dr Jonathan Banks (Jude Law). Jonathan is introduced to the film as he is brought into to talk to a man who has been brought to him by the police. The policeman thinks this man is insane, but Jonathan soon finds out that he speaks French much better than English, and whilst conversing with him in French he also finds out that his father recently died and he saw his ghost. Jonathan explains that this man is just grieving and it is perfectly normal for a Haitian to see the ghost of their dead just after they have passed away. I enjoyed this short scene as it showed that people, who appear crazy to others, are in fact just in pain. With some patience you can understand where the person is coming from and there is an ability to move forward rather than the situation be aggravated by ignorance.

When Jonathan meets Emily, he is unsure whether or not to hospitalize her, but decides to let her remain as an out patient with her agreeing to come for therapy and to start taking an SSRI, Zoloft. She is seen suffering from side effects such as sickness, which is often seen with people who take Zoloft. Her boss, who is shown to be sympathetic to her Depression, tells her that she had similar reaction to Zoloft and she had more luck with another type of anti – depressant. Jonathan finds out that Emily had seen another psychiatrist Dr. Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta – Jones) before him, who prescribed her Prozac. This discussion of anti – depressants here does give quite an accurate representation of what it is like for a person with Depression. It is quite frustrating as it can take a while to get the right fit in terms of medication, so they have to try several, with differing side effects, but those with these problems should have faith as there are many different types of medication out there so they will find the right fit for them eventually.

Victoria says to Jonathan that she recently started one of her patients on a new drug, Ablixa. She says that she does this because the patients see the adverts on the TV for the new drug and they believe in it as they see people getting better. I remember when I went to New York with a friend and one night we turned on the TV, I was so surprised that they advertised for medication. It unsettled me a bit, as if medication was just another product. This film seems to be critiquing this idea and the film could be onto something here, is there an unhealthy relationship between Americans and medication?

Despite my agreement in the critique of advertising for medication however, when it comes to mental illness my opinions differ here. As the mental illness being discussed throughout the majority of the film is Depression, I will focus with my issues in relation to that. Depression makes you feel ashamed and like you are not worthy of recovery. So the idea the idea of advertising making you believe in something when you are dealing with the debilitating illness that takes away all hope is quite insulting. For people who suffer with Depression, it is important that think they will not be viewed as someone who saw an advert on TV and want all their problems to be washed away by a miracle drug, but instead be safe with their emotions taken seriously and given full support. There are far too many people who are silent in their Depression due to many fears, one of them being that they will not be taken seriously. Even though I disagree with adverts for medication, as it could lead to people taking medication needlessly, I think that when it comes to criticizing these adverts, one needs to be careful that your argument does also contain respect for the sufferers of the illness. Instead of suggesting that the brainless masses will watch these adverts for anti – depressants and rush out to get their hands on some, maybe instead the strongest argument against adverts for medication is that they are trivializing anti – depressants, also suggesting that Depression is a trivial illness, making it in line with cough medicine or headache relief. It could be what is so disturbing about these adverts is a combination of the idea of a medication reliant country and the trivialisation of serious illnesses. It also touches on the idea of a country obsessed with side effects.

One of the things I found amusing about the adverts for medication was that most of the advert is spent listing possible side effects of the medication. This obsession with side effects is usually to prevent court cases, and is an obsession that the film is trying to tap into. The film uses the fact that there is a lot of anxiety around the side effects of medication, hence the title of the film, and taps into this to make an unnerving thriller for anyone caught up in this anxiety. 

Emily starts taking Ablixa, and starts feeling very good. The only side effect seems to be that she sleepwalks. Her husband is quite disturbed by her sleepwalking and this side effect worsens. Martin comes in one night and calls out to Emily. She does not reply, and he whispers under his breathe “Damn pills”. She is in the kitchen, cutting vegetables, but looks like a zombie. She then stabs him to death. Here is where the film starts to tap into the insecurities of many people watching. The film uses the fear of medication. Many fear medication for mental illness in particular. They fear it will mess with your mind and leave you far worse than you were before. This could well be seen as a fair point of discussion and a great way to start a debate about these issues. However, there is a worry that someone who already holds a strong view against medication could see this film, and despite the plot twist at the end, be much firmer in their beliefs in trying stopping someone with mental health issues from taking their medication. 

There are those who have been affected from their plans to see the doctor or take their medication by those around them who think that taking medication or getting help for mental illness will only result in them turning into a vegetable, addicted to “happy pills” or in a mental hospital. The term “happy pills” could not be more offensive, but it is surprising how much it is used. The medication used does not warp your mind; it helps the unbalance of chemicals that causes Depression. You will not end up in a mental hospital unless you are a serious threat to yourself and others. On top of this, medication is never the sole treatment available. It is advised that you also get therapy and come off the medication when the time is right, with supervision from a doctor. None of these reassuring factors are featured in the film, probably because they want to create suspense and reassurance will not fit in well to the film. 

Is the film brave then in touching on these issues? On the one hand the film is brave in touching a subject that can lead to strong reactions. On the other, the film does seem to be stating that this is for entertainment (to create suspense), lessening the edge of the points they are making. They touch on the subject enough so that the issues are raised, but not so much that they can get into trouble for doing so. This is probably due to Sodebergh, whose previous films have also debated controversial topics including one of his earliest films Sex, Lies and Videotape (1989). So by now, Sodobergh knows how to raise debates on a subject without a huge scandal. 

After Emily has killed her husband, there is a question of whether she is responsible or if it is the medication. Jonathan is then called into questioning from the police. He is asked as to why he came to the USA to practice, instead of staying in the UK. He replies that he came from Durham and says: “Where I come from, if you’re seeing a therapist the assumption is that you’re sick. Here the assumption is you’re getting better.” As he delivers this line Jonathan looks quite smug, with the police also seeming happy at his response. What exactly is he implying here? That the UK is backwards compared to the USA in terms of therapy and dealing with mental illness? Although therapy is very popular in the USA,the UK are so backwards in their relationship to therapy. I think it was the idea of smug Americans nodding their head to that as if Durham was some backwards English village that annoyed me. In fact Durham is a city home to one of the world’s top 100 universities. Therapy is becoming more and more acceptable here in the UK, and accepted that when you go to a therapist, you are most likely to have an illness, but want to get better. Going to a therapist is therefore a step in the right direction, which takes strength and a desire to move forwards. Hopefully, this will be the view held by the majority of people in the near future.

Jonathan tells Emily that she is not at fault for what she is going through and that she is just “a victim of circumstance and biology”. Emily herself describes what she is going through similar to a “poisonous fog”. Both of these descriptions of Depression are accurate and yet they somehow seem to underestimate the pain a person with Depression must go through and the strength it takes to try and overcome it. For instance one cannot imagine a doctor stating such a brash statement to a patient, that they are just “a victim of circumstance and biology”, to a diabetic for instance. It is far more complex than that. However, it was a statement that he made to ease the guilt of his patient, which is a valid point as it is not the person’s fault that they are now suffering a period of Depression, despite blaming themselves being one of the symptoms of this illness. On top of this, the analogy to fog is one I hear often, but do not think this is sufficient as implies no strength from the patient as when the fog eventually lifts, it is by miracle rather than by hard work from therapies such as CBT.

There is another interesting debate raised, which is how much is Jonathan to blame? Another psychiatrist that Jonathan asks for advice poses the question “Would you have treated her any differently had she been a man?” Suggesting that because she was an attractive young woman, Jonathan indulged her in her fantasies a bit too much. He did after all prescribe her a drug, for which he did not even know the possible side effects. Despite the film portraying him to show that he was doing his best for her at the time, and after when he tries to find out what really happened, it is interesting to question the level of authority he is given with his patient and whether or not this is right to leave one psychiatrist with so much power and overall judgement over their patients. Despite this, his crazed obsession in finding out the truth does prove to be worthwhile of his time, so he is not crazy but right. So the authority of the psychiatrist is not questioned to a very large extent.

The question he is so intent on proving is whether or not Emily is guilty of the murder of her husband. Was it the drug or was it in fact her all along? If you do not wish to know the answer of this question, skip the next paragraph.

When the question is answered, Emily turns out to be quite deceptive; it seems that Emily has had a different mental health issue all along. This twist unsettled me a bit. The difference between her being a person with Depression and being Schizophrenic in the film’s eyes is somewhat distorted. With Depression, she was at risk of killing herself. With Schizophrenia she was in danger of killing others. Not only this but to use her being schizophrenic as a final development of the film is sort of abusing her mental health problems for the benefit of a final dynamic twist. Is it ethical to use mental health problems in this way? In my opinion, no. Yet psychological thrillers have used mental illness for a long time in order to make their thriller seemingly more complex and stimulating. Is this then a kind of mental health exploitation? Where mental illness is being used purely for suspenseful edgy entertainment, this could most likely be the case. However, this film is not purely exploitative as it expects an intellectual and active viewer, to engage with the films debates and not to simply take it at face value. 

Overall, the film is gripping and well made. There are some good performances, from Jude Law, Catherine Zeta Jones and Rooney Mara. The cinematography is finely executed so that the film looks great as well. The debates raised in the film are not delivered with clear cut answers, which could be a way of avoiding controversy, but also gives the viewers a chance to engage in the debates raised and make up their own minds. Despite not being a fan of the way the film used mental illness in the final chapter of the film, in which it seemed that it could be just another edgy twist to the film and almost mental health exploitation, I did enjoy engaging in the debates the film raised. I would recommend watching it to make up your own mind as this is an intellectually made film that will have very differing opinions from viewers.