Skip to main content

Do you have any plans, of any kind, to manipulate the world?

Frequencies
(2013)

(SPOILERS) Low budget science-fiction movies are often among the genre’s most satisfying, since they have to rely almost entirely on their core ideas rather than showy effects or spectacle. Frequencies is one such, positing an alternate reality where we are defined by our frequency – high, low, somewhere in between – and positioned in society accordingly (everything from luck to romantic entanglements is affected – opposites here repel). At its root, this is a love story and rumination on freewill and determinism, but writer-director Darren Paul Fisher infuses the proceedings with such a rich conceptual framework that Frequencies very nearly convinces you of its fictional profundity. Before you pull back and realise it doesn’t really hang together, that is. Although, I’m not altogether sure it needs to.

Fisher, who made several variably received movies before this (Inbetweeners, not The namesake, and Popcorn), introduces the basic arrangement of this society through the interactions of a school of savants and their extended families (both high and low in frequency). They’re all named after high achievers, an overt nod on Fisher’s part to such abilities. He’s perhaps wisely reticent of the minutiae as he depicts their journey from childhood to adulthood, since his intent is as much thematic as it is dramatic. Thus, those of a very high frequency (Marie-Curie Fortune, played successively by Lily Laight, Georgina Minter-Brown and Eleanor Wild) are guaranteed to be high achievers but relatively emotion free (one might draw a series of analogies here, from autistic, to psychopathic – Marie habitually smiles at others because she perceives this is what they expect her to do, very Patrick Bateman – to your straight up Mr Spock). Those of a very low frequency (Isaac-Newton Midgeley, played at respective ages by Charlie Rixon, Dylan Llewellyn and Daniel Fraser) have no luck and are highly empathic. Of course, one might expect them to be very thick too, in a contrasting extremes sense, but Isaac is a genius in his own right.

Being polar opposites, Marie and Zak (Isaac) are not permitted to remain in each other’s company (your classic recipe for star-crossed lovers, excepting that Marie, initially at least, has no feelings for Zak one way or the other). Marie is clinically interested in developing feelings, Zak deeply smitten with Marie. Which is where third significant party Theodor-Adorno – a cute reference on Fisher’s part, Adorno being the alleged creator of The Beatles’ catalogue along with numerous other 60s hits from popular beat combos – Strauss (Ethan Turton, Tom England and Owen Pugh play his various progressions). Along similar lines, another character is called Nicola Tesla.

At his school science fair, Theo produces a device for predicting behaviour, of which “if this is real, then it assumes we are just complex machines, that we may not have a soul, certainly not any free will”. Theo, being exactly average in frequency, is indifferent to this objection, failing to see the importance. We eventually learn that Theo, through a combination of this predictive device and one which, through the use of specifically created words, enables one to change one’s frequency, or enable one to exert control over another, has been manipulating events. The structural conceit adopted in this regard – replaying events from different perspectives – is in itself a smart layer from Fisher, the kind of recalibrating the likes of Damon Lindelof is wont to flourish, and it works well, if not quite as breathtakingly when it comes down to it (there are revelations, but the effect is more focussed on understanding a previously subjective character, the picture moving from Marie to Zak and finally Theo’s machinations).

The love-story angle is perhaps the main connective tissue to Fisher’s previous work, and it is, at heart, not that out-there, with its requisite concerns over betrayal and misunderstandings regarding motive before true love – complete with ruminations over whether this is merely fate at work, and there is no freewill involved in their coming together – prevailing.

It’s a reflection of the shoestring production that none of the performances in Frequencies are outright bad, but some are definitely better than others. Added to which, the picture is nothing special visually, very much a digital production and evidencing the concomitant lack of texture (other than a neat tweaking of the colour palette when Theo touches Marie; her world thaws whilst his becomes slightly frostier). Indeed, by far the most impressive production element is Blair Mowat’s score, lending the picture an infectious rhythm and lyrical progression; without it, Frequencies would be a little too ordinary in execution. With it… well, it’s a perfect reinforcement of the narrative’s importance of music in this world.

I was put onto the trail of watching the movie via a reference to its incorporation of an historical reset in its premise, one that roughly ties in to the period ruminated as having been the “last” great reset: 1760 (although theories tend towards the beginning of that century). Fisher throws in a number of allusions without actually saying as much per se, but the main thrust of “technology” – or magic: “There never was any magic. Only the book being lost, found, written, rewritten. Being used to control the names. And then came the music” – as a means to manipulate and control society by its elite is unmistakable.

Frequencies’ diversion into clandestine government activities and the censure of forbidden ancient tech is an instantly appealing one (if that sort of thing appeals to you, obviously). Government agent Bridges (Timothy Block), is on hand to provide the now requisitioned individuals aware of the technology – in order for them to develop a means to counteract it – with some welcome exposition. We’re told it was first responsible for establishing the ruling class – whether you want to label that as magical/diabolical or through advanced tech – and was “the major contributing factor to most wars up until 1066”. However, the steep decline in its effectiveness after 1100 is not understood, while “The last known date of any successful usage was about 1760. We don’t know why”.

Fortunately, Theo’s dad Strauss (David Broughton-Davies) is on hand to fill in the gaps. The picture’s best scenes are probably both his, thanks to the evocative musical accompaniment, first as he teaches young Zak the piano and then provides “a brief history lesson”, again to the sound of Mozart. Strauss recounts how it was music itself that nullified the mind-control effect of “the book” (of words), and with each new piece the book was weakened until, in 1760, Mozart’s first composition arrived and “truly immunised us against the book” (an interesting choice of words).

As such, while Frequencies presents an alt-reality alt-history, it isn’t providing a co-ordinated reset as such: “Music, it’s the reset button” (unless Mozart’s influence is taken as expressly designed to achieve this). Indeed, aside from the masses being oblivious to what went on before, it appears to be counter to prevailing reset theory: the elite’s hold is lessened during the subsequent quarter millennium, rather than representing a new era in which to repeat the cycle to ultimate doom (albeit, at one point, a means of countering the words is mooted: “It would work. But it would kill most of the population”). Strauss attests that, rather than being a secret “It just fell out of history by mutual consent”.

Fisher is undoubtedly onto something when he identifies the magical properties of words (whether one chooses to define them as incantatory or simple conveyers of cause and effect, they shape and mould our collective paradigm). He’s also again, aided by Mowat, sharp when it comes to the transformative or healing effect of music. Some thought it a bit much that the picture ends with a doctor prescribing Zak Brahms and Mozart and Marie Pachelbel to listen to, and it’s true that this is very arch, but I rather liked the humorously alt-medicine twist.

And it offers the lingering gut punch that, for all the doctor’s comforting manner, “You’re perfectly normal, for a machine”. Despite this musical balm, the world continues to project a dampening, automotive definition of the human (thus easily objectified by ruling classes, as predetermined cogs within a control grid). Even Strauss states we’re “Just mechanisms. Complex, certainly. But mechanisms nonetheless”. However, he qualifies this, and so distinguishes himself from his son. Asked where this reset button is, he replies simply “The soul”.

Strauss believes that, for all his son’s smug assertion that he can know the true pattern, the universal symphony (“Knowledge is useless if you know only parts”), free will is not an illusion, and that creativity and improvisation exist. Frequencies expressly concludes with the open question – Theo able to manipulate an entire bar of drumming fingers, his father leaving his presence forever, Zach and Marie not caring either way as long as they’re together – but maybe Theo’s actions will trigger another reset, after which the conundrum will continue to be posed periodically and ultimately remain forever unsolved.

Frequencies perhaps rather stints on ultimate plausibility because Fisher hasn’t filled in all the blanks in his own mind. Rather like a piece of music, you’re carried along, without interrogating the notes or arrangement too much until it’s over. While this sounds on the face of it like a recipe for bad Young Adult fiction, Frequencies’ sheer wealth of ideas and ability to express some of them at least to a compelling degree make it a largely rewarding endeavour.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism