Film Review: Satoshi Kon's 'Paprika' (2006)

Fig. 1 Poster

Satoshi Kon's 'Paprika' (2006) has themes of reams within dreams and dreams blending with reality. The film explores technology that has gotten out of hand, it shows the dangers of technological progress, even when the progress is intended to help humanity. In the film a doctor and a detective must recover stolen devices that allow people to enter dreams. Kon based the film on a novel of the same name by Yasutaka Tsutsui. He uses the idea of dreams in much of his work, he began as a background artist who was recognised for 'injecting a staggering level of lived-in detail into each of his compositions' (Jackson, 2008). The detail he places in his animations is very effective in conveying distorted realities, because on the one hand we can see these details but they are also still clearly drawings and drawings that are morphed in very strange ways. The detail in the film contrasted with the strange and unrealistic movements, happenings and transformations works well to create an unsettling effect.

Fig. 2 Dream parade

In the film animation is used in service of the dream premise. Unusual, unrealistic in action and realistic in detail animations are employed to represent dreamscapes. The animation allows for morphing things to more fully represent the distortion possible in dreams. The playful colours and morphing of human characters and inanimate objects is used well to bring the strange and vibrant quality of dreams to the screen. Fig. 2 shows this in action, the variety of bizarre characters and the way they fill the screen with detail creates a dazzling, confusing impression that works to imitate the experience of dreaming.

The film was largely well received; Scott Clarke, writing for Starburst Magazine, describes the film as 'one of the most fulfilling achievements in animation from the past twenty years' (Clarke, 2017). Many reviewers agree that the animation is used effectively to create a dreamscape that resonates with the audience, Clarke comments that 'as an experience it really knows how to exploit dream logic, leap-frogging boundaries with dizzying rapidity' (Clarke 2017). Kon uses his skills and the animation medium to bring a powerful and exciting representation of dreams to the screen.

Bibliography:

Clarke, S (2017). 'Paprika (2006)'. At: https://www.starburstmagazine.com/reviews/paprika-2006 (Accessed on 01.2.017)

Jackson, P (2008). 'Paprika'. At: http://www.midnighteye.com/reviews/paprika/ (Accessed on 01.2.017)

Illustration List:

Fig. 1 Poster

Kon, S (2006). 'Paprika'. [Poster] At: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71iy1OY4t-L._SL1125_.jpg (Accessed on 01.2.017)

Fig. 2 Dream Parade

Kon, S (2006). 'Paprika'. [Poster] At: https://s.ynet.me/assets/images/movies/paprika_2006/large-screenshot1.jpg (Accessed on 01.2.017)

Film Review: Adam Elliot's 'Mary and Max' (2009)

Fig. 1 Poster

Adam Elliot's 'Mary and Max' (2009) follows the story of two lonely people sending letters to each other. Mary lives in Melbourne, Australia and begins the story as an 8 year old girl who is teased for her appearance and who also feels isolated from her alcoholic mother. Max is middle aged and lives in New York, he is also struggling and isolated, due to Asperger's Syndrome. Mary randomly finds his address and, desperate for some connection, sends him a letter. Max responds and they become regular pen pals. The story begins in the 70s and runs through the 80s, exploring their relationship and their growth and maturation. Writing for The Guardian, Andrew Pulver notes that the film 'manages to be sickly-cute, alarmingly grotesque, and right-on at the same time – often in the very same scene.' (Pulver, 2010). The film has both humorous and sad themes throughout, the two moods highlight and support each other, making the emotional impact of the film that much stronger.

Elliot made the film with a small team and a budget of $7.3 million over the course of five years. He had previously won an Oscar for his 2003 short film 'Harvey Krumpet'. Elliot labels his films as 'clayographies' referring to his use of claymation and his tendency to make stories out of real people and real events. The story of 'Mary and Max' draws from Elliot's experience of having his own long term pen pal. Speaking to Bill Desowitz for Animation World Network, Elliot said 'All my films are deeply personal and based on the people around me. I try to make films with depth, substance; films that deeply engage, move and make the audience think.' (Elliot, 2009).

Fig. 2 Max

The use of claymation is powerful and important in this film. Claymation allows Elliot to make the characters seem particularly unique and vivid. Luke Buckmaster, writing for The Guardian, describes the characters as 'haunted but cute.' (Buckmaster, 2014), which fits well with the way the film moves between sadness and silliness. Fig. 2 shows Max, who appears rounded and in some ways soft in shape but has exaggerated features and lines on his face, making him seem different and distorted. Also, claymation is associated with children's cartoons, which links with Noblets, the fictional cartoon that Mary and Max both enjoy. The cartoon is used to show elements of Mary and Max's friendship and also the way that they mature through the years. At one point Max is deeply hurt by Mary and doesn't write to her. Fig. 3 shows Max's shelf of Noblets figures, figures that he eventually sends to Mary to show that he forgives her and realises that people aren't perfect.

Fig. 3 Noblets

The film won many awards, including the Annecy Cristal and it opened the 2009 Sundance Festival. While the film remained only in the festival circuit it did well and received very positive reviews from critics and the public.

Bibliography

Buckmaster, L (2014). 'Mary and Max: rewatching classic Australian films'. At: https://www.theguardian.com/film/australia-culture-blog/2014/may/30/mary-and-max-rewatching-classic-australian-films (accessed on 24.01.18)

Desowitz, B (2009). ''Mary and Max': Elliot and Clayography'. At: https://www.awn.com/animationworld/mary-and-max-elliot-and-clayography (accessed on 24.01.18)

Pulver, A (2010). 'Mary and Max - Review'. At: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/21/mary-and-max-review (accessed on 24.01.18)

Illustration List

Fig. 1 Poster

Elliot, A (2009). 'Mary and Max'. [Poster] At: https://vulpeslibris.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/mary-and-max.jpg

(accessed on 24.01.18)

Fig. 2 Max

Elliot, A (2009). 'Mary and Max'. [Film Still] At: https://images.moviepilot.com/image/upload/c_fill,h_470,q_auto:good,w_620/mary-and-max-2009-sometimes-perfect-strangers-make-the-best-friends-png-127982.jpg (accessed on 24.01.18)

Fig. 3 Noblets

Elliot, A (2009). 'Mary and Max'. [Film Still] At: http://pierdariomarzi.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/mary-and-max.html (accessed on 24.01.18)

Film Review: 'What We Do in the Shadows' (2014)

Fig. 1 Poster

'What We do in the Shadows' (2014) is a mockumentary style film directed by Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi, it received critical acclaim as an excellent comedy and did reasonably well at the box office. The film is about vampires in a house share and presents its fictional events as truthful, using documentary techniques for comedic effect. Michael O'Sullivan, writing for The Washington Post comments that that the filmmakers' 'satire is a crude but effective tool' (O'Sullivan, 2015). Documentaries aim to present a view of real life events, often to inform people about things going on in the world that they might not know about. Mockumentaries use the stylings of documentaries to display fictional events, often for satirical effect. Writing for The Chicago Reader, J.R. Jones notes that 'Clement and Waititi have got the reality-show format just right: the direct-address interviews, the confessional voice-overs, the zoom-in reaction shots.' (Jones, 2015). Fig. 2 shows the character of Deacon addressing the camera for an interview, much as one might see in many reality shows. The stylings of the set and of Deacon himself contrast well with the contemporary nature of this format.

Fig. 2 Deacon

The film's first character Viago, played by Waititi, is a 379 year old vampire from Europe. He lives with Deacon, Vladislav and Petyr, who have a ages ranging from 183 to 8,000. Clement and Waititi wanted to separate their film from other mockumentaries, which they realised tended to be about realistic things, by making the mockumentary on things that aren't realistic and cannot be documented (Bailey, 2015). There is often conflict that is common in a regular house share situation, but the film uses the differences that would arise when the housemates are vampires to inject comedy into the situation. For example, the vampires argue about dishes and have a chore wheel, all pretty normal stuff, but it turns out that Deacon hasn't done the dishes for five years. Fig. 3 shows the pile up of dishes that has occurred during this time. The extreme length of time is incongruent with the everyday nature of the argument and then the characters fly around in the air. The contrasts here, and throughout the film, between the ordinary and the extraordinary is an important part of bringing comedy to the film.

Fig. 3 Dishes

The directors use the contrast between mundane daily life and gore and the supernatural to create comedy through incongruity; the mockumentary style is useful in creating the mundane and ordinary elements of the contrast.

Bibliography

Bailey, J (2015) 'Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi on Second-Wave Vampire Movies, the Conchords Reunion, and ‘What We Do in the Shadows’'. At: http://flavorwire.com/504317/jemaine-clement-and-taika-waititi-on-second-wave-vampire-movies-the-conchords-reunion-and-what-we-do-in-the-shadows (accessed on 16.01.18)

Jones, J (2015) 'Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi want to suck your blood'. At: https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/what-we-do-in-the-shadows-jemaine-clement-taika-waititi-horror-comedy/Content?oid=16676536 (accessed on 16.01.18)

O'Sullivan, M (2015) ''What We Do in the Shadows' lampoons the undead lifestyle'. At: https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/what-we-do-in-the-shadows-lampoons-the-undead-lifestyle/2015/02/18/09beb3d4-b2f8-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html?tid=kp_google&utm_term=.ed672ea76372 (accessed on 16.01.18)

Illustration List

Fig. 1 Poster

Clement, J & Waititi, T (2014) 'What We Do in the Shadows' [Poster] At: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjAwNDA5NzEwM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTA1MDUyNDE@._V1_UY1200_CR90,0,630,1200_AL_.jpg (accessed on 16.01.18)

Fig. 2 Deacon

Clement, J & Waititi, T (2014) 'What We Do in the Shadows' [Film Still] At: http://imwithgeekarchive.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/7/2/12727119/6029949_orig.jpg (accessed on 16.01.18)

Fig. 3 Dishes

Clement, J & Waititi, T (2014) 'What We Do in the Shadows' [Film Still] At: http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/54db96b6ecad04d06da75726-836-453/what-we-do-in-shadows-screen-3.jpg (accessed on 16.01.18)

Jaws, 1975

Fig. 1 Poster

Steven Spielberg’s ‘Jaws’ (1975) is one of the most commercially successful films of all time. It is described by Mark Dinning, writing for Empire Online, as ‘a film of immense, visceral and psychological power’ (Dinning, 2000). As a cultural phenomenon, ‘Jaws’ changed the trajectory of film and was the beginning of the summer blockbuster. Mark Kermode of The Guardian writes that the film was ‘a genre-defining blockbuster that changed the face of modern cinema.’ (Kermode, 2015).

Fig. 2 Contra zoom

Spielberg makes use of a technique called contra zoom, originally used in Hitchcock's ‘Vertigo’ (1958), for a scene (shown in Fig. 2) in which he wishes to convey the horror and shock his character is feeling. There is a pivotal moment and the contra zoom changes the amount of the background that is seen, showing the character’s world warping around him as he comes to a realisation. Due to the massive success of the film, this type of shot became very popular and many people attempted to imitate its effectiveness in Spielberg’s film. Another shot that Spielberg makes considerable use of is the long shot, as shown in Fig. 3, Almar Haflidason comments on his ‘fearless’ (Haflidason, 2001) use of this shot and the way it ‘helps convey both isolation for the victims and endows the shark with seemingly god-like hunting powers.’ (Haflidason, 2001). 

Fig. 3 Long shot

A huge element of the success of these shots is down to the editing by Verna Fields, described by A.D. Murphy, writing for Variety, as ‘topnotch’ (Murphy, 1975). This editing is one of ways the shark is established in the mind of the viewer long before it is shown on screen. Shots from the shark’s point of view, as shown in Fig. 4, are used throughout the film to give the audience a sense of its presence without actually showing it to them. The shark is established as a ruthless killer through ‘factual’ discussion with an oceanographer and frightful images from pages of a book.

Fig. 4 POV

 As Dinning comments ‘the unseen element, is crucial.’ (Dinning, 2000). The viewer’s imagination is a powerful tool and Spielberg is clever to make use of it here. The massive build up to the first appearance of the shark is important, Roger Ebert comments that ‘The shark has been so thoroughly established, through dialogue and quasi-documentary material, that its actual presence is enhanced in our imaginations by all we've seen and heard.’ (Ebert, 2000). Spielberg makes use of floating objects attached to the shark, such as the keg shown in Fig. 3, to give it presence and character. Ebert also comments that the audience ‘don't see the shark but the results of his actions. The payoff is one of the most effective thrillers ever made.’ (Ebert, 2000).

These techniques alone would have a formidable effect, but it is the score that gives the invisible film its full cinematic power. Alexandre Tylski, writing for Film Score Monthly, describes the way John William’s score mimics the shark, with sounds that ‘suddenly disappear, exactly like a shark slowly circling its prey, vanishing without warning, then attacking abruptly from an unknown quarter’ (Tylski, 1999). This has an impressive effect and Tylski goes on to note that the audience ‘feel that something threatening is coming closer and closer but we can see nothing. Williams, by using the crescendo, creates an idea of distance and movement, transforming rhythm into a highly visual element’ (Tylski, 1999). The score complements Spielberg’s techniques beautifully and it is little wonder that it is so memorable.

Fig. 5 Pier

There is a particular scene involving a torn away bit of pier (shown in Fig. 5) that is particularly effective at building a frightening atmosphere. As the shark hasn’t been seen yet, it exists here as how the viewer’s imagination has combined their pre-existing idea of sharks with the viciously frightening image conjured up by the narrative, visual and musical choices made by the filmmakers. At the time of release, the audience’s understanding of sharks would be less than that of a modern audience and so there is more room for Spielberg to work his magic. As Murphy comments, ‘implicit dramaturgy is often more effective than explicit carnage’ (Murphy, 1975).

Bibliography

Dinning, M (2000). Empire Essay: Jaws review. At: http://www.empireonline.com/movies/empire-essay-jaws/review/ (Accessed on 03.03.17)

Ebert, R (2000). Great Movie Jaws. At: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-jaws-1975 (Accessed on 03.03.17)

Haflidason, A (2001). Jaws. At: http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2000/07/14/jaws_review.shtml (Accessed on 03.03.17)

Kermode, M (2015). Jaws: 40 years on: 'One of the truly great and lasting classics of American cinema'. At: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/may/31/jaws-40-years-on-truly-great-lasting-classics-of-america-cinema (Accessed on 03.03.17)

Murphy, A (1975). Review: ''Jaws': 1975 Movie Review'. At: http://variety.com/1975/film/reviews/jaws-1200423515/ (Accessed on 03.03.17)

Tylski, A (1999). A Study of Jaws' Incisive Overture. At: http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/articles/1999/14_Sep---A_Study_of_Jaws_Incisive_Overture.asp (Accessed on 03.03.17)

Illustration List

Fig. 1 Poster

Spielberg, S (1975). Jaws [Poster] At: http://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/01_jaws_main_0.jpg (Accessed on 03.03.17)

Fig. 2 Contra zoom

Spielberg, S (1975). Jaws [Poster] At: http://www.dioramamagazine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Jaws-7.jpg (Accessed on 03.03.17)

Fig. 3 Long shot

Spielberg, S (1975). Jaws [Poster] At: http://viewandreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/JAWS-62-1.26.02-1024x429.png (Accessed on 03.03.17)

Fig. 4 POV

Spielberg, S (1975). Jaws [Poster] At: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1EnP2zPvo6PO-G9VxdDmNn_IPOkfjanizMWPbW-6mkgkDdoe2hN6g5TyVMHNEPQ20OXl4drDGz539fJsZoYrjwAp2-SdrU0lTN6iexC-AG3Vo_RGnmtenWZGy-874iig6npvLZbu1EaQ/s1600/jaws-swim-scene-02.jpg (Accessed on 03.03.17)

Fig. 5 Pier

Spielberg, S (1975). Jaws [Poster] At: http://www.top10films.co.uk/img/Jaws_The-Unseen-Monster_pier.jpg (Accessed on 03.03.17)