Exploring the Sea: The Little Mermaid and Freud

Sigmund Freud had an interesting consideration of the human mind and personality. He wrote abundantly on the importance of a child’s upbringing and its eventual effect on his or her behaviour. He formulated theories that spanned several different aspects of development but that were all related to sexuality. He produced many popular writings which detail his created frameworks and the way they relate to the ‘average’ person. These frameworks can be applied to a wide range of other fictional works to help garner a deeper understanding of characters and the underlying themes within. In particular, in relation to the 1989 Disney film The Little Mermaid, Freudian theories can be applied.[1] The film provides several, varying characters who each incorporate different aspects of Freud’s theories.

Freud provides three basic states that differentiate and are distinguished by how conscious and aware a person is of any personal actions or behaviours. The ‘Conscious’ is where all of our current memories are stored along with all of our basic instincts like how to function within society. The ‘Preconscious’ is for memories that are not accessed daily but can be recalled if needed. The ‘Unconscious’ contains unfiltered and unaltered memories that we cannot possibly remember and the things that we encounter and absorb daily that our conscious mind is not aware of.[2] Freud believed that the ‘Unconscious’ was also a place for any of our troubling or disturbing thoughts that we suppress, to further help us conform to the social norms. Repression is often associated with shame, guilt and trauma and a need to hide our differences from others. Freud had the understanding that we cannot control ourselves in our dreams, therefore, anything from our past can manifest itself clearly whilst dreaming, without us trying hard to forget or suppress.

Freud wanted to learn more about the suppressed unconscious by exploring and discussing dreams. In The Little Mermaid, the love interest, Prince Eric, claims to have dreams of Ariel’s beautiful voice but he cannot picture her face. But yet when he meets her he is instinctively drawn to her. Freud would assume that Eric’s subconscious is trying to guide him towards Ariel even though he cannot remember being saved by her. Freud claimed that making unconscious impulses conscious could cure ‘neurotic symptoms’.[3] And in the case of the film, by realising the truth about Ariel, Eric would not only be reunited with his love but would also prevent her kingdom and voice from being permanently seized by the sea witch.

Freud believes that a person’s attitude and personality can be traced back to key stages of their development. Freud splits these stages into the following: Oral, Anal, Phallic, Latency and Genital. The Oral stage is in the early years of a child’s life and many arguments arise from whether the child is breast or bottle fed. Often when problems arise later in life, people fixate on this stage and are convinced that something that occurred within the first 18 months of a child’s life can explain away any habits or addictions they come to have in later life. The Anal stage tends to be from 18 months to 3 years old and centres on toilet training and a child ability to accept and fit with social norms and conventions. The Phallic stage, from 3 to 7/8 years of age, is considered to be the ‘most important’ by Freud.[4] As this is the stage where a boy goes through the Oedipus complex and women go through penis envy. Just before puberty comes the Latency Stage where sexual interests and desires are hidden under the surface and then finally the Genital stage when sexuality becomes apparent..

In The Little Mermaid, we are never told about Ariel’s Mother nor are we informed about the details of her childhood. Much of Freud’s psychosexual theory does not apply because of the lack of a Mother figure in the young girl’s life. A flaw within his theory is that it is dependent on there being both parents present during upbringing and that any child without both will have instability issues. In order to properly analyse a film in relation to the psychosexual stages, it is important to see how a child was raised in order to determine how that has affected their personality and habits. However, when we are introduced to our main character it is established early on that she is still a child and it is easily deduced that she is in her Phallic stage due to her age and interest in scavenging things, an interest that subsides when she becomes interested in men. Freud pays key attention to the early stages of a child’s life and its life altering effects. Ariel is surrounded by male authority figures whether it is her Father or Sebastian, so it is no surprise that when she is finally approached by a female, who is seemingly looking out for her, Ariel trusts and follows the advice of a complete stranger. 

A secondary character, Flounder, plays an interesting role within the film when considered alongside Freud’s theory. Ariel’s cowardly best friend’s age is never revealed but his personality is one of a scared young girl, despite him being a boy. Other personality traits that Flounder is considered to have are kindness, innocence and an anxious disposition. When reflected upon with Freud in mind, it could be assumed that Flounder was over nurtured by his Mother as a child, who perhaps worried that he would be in danger if he ever went too far from her. This bond was likely developed in the oral stage. The first stage is also the most intimate between Mother and child as the connection can be physical, through breast feeding, and the Mother has full control over her young. Although we never hear of Flounder’s mother, Freud would say it is clear that her influence is there as he has a very feminine personality – one that is doting and caring to the stronger character. And even when Flounder tries to be brave his ‘very effort to “be a man” seems to invite the opposite: to bring on his repressed feminine side’.[5]

Freud identifies three main players in the brain that work together to form a person’s personality. Freud first discussed the three agencies of the mind in his 1923 writing entitled, The Ego and the Id.[6] The Id controls all of our wants, needs and desires. The Ego is our sense of self. And the Superego acts as a judge or a censor within our mind. All three of these agencies within our mind work together. The Ego works with the Id to ensure we don’t over indulge (or in some cases, make sure we do) and pleases the Superego. The Superego has a leadership role and has control over the other two. The idea that we are ultimately driven by three sections of our brain, allows for a discussion regarding what is more powerful: desire or reason. The superego is another name for a conscience and often the existence of one can be questioned. Freud may not have accounted for the varying degrees of humanity within the population and the ability to do ‘bad things’ within ‘good people’.

A rather liberal approach to the Id, Ego and Superego would be to assign each to a different character within the film that typifies the basic characteristics of each mental structure. The Id in the case of The Little Mermaid would be the protagonist herself, Ariel. She works by desire and impulse rather than by reason and rationalising. Freud’s Id is the driving force of emotions and instincts and as a result, when someone like Ariel is as instinctive as she is then it is logical to deduce that this mental structure has more control than the others in her brain. Whilst the story wouldn’t have existed if Ariel had thought carefully about her decisions and taken into account the implications of her actions, she would have been a more rounded human/mermaid if she had. She is so emotionally driven that it causes her to encounter possibilities of downfall for both her romantic life and her Father’s leadership.

The Ego in the story is represented by Sebastian. Representing the voice of reason who literally shuttles back and forth in an attempt to please both the Id and the Superego. The Ego is a part of the mind that Freud considered to stem from logic and understanding. The character Sebastian is a loyal servant to King Triton but also serves as a loyal friend to Ariel. This in between structure is important as its presence creates a rational person. Personality ‘is derived from the interplay of these three psychic structures, which differ in terms of power and influence’.[7] It is clear that neither Ariel nor King Triton are able to control the situation, so it is with the assistance of Sebastian the story ends happily. His independence and coping skills are developed as a result of the Ego being a more mentally stable character than the other two structures.

Finally the Superego, King Triton is considered the morality and conscience. From the outset of the film Triton clearly has rules that he likes to have enforced but many of them are strict and hold his daughter back from being the person she wants to be. He is overbearing in this sense, and it is through Sebastian, the Id, that he is able to reconnect with his child. Freud believed that the Superego is the last structure to develop within the mind, which makes sense in relation to the film at King Triton is the eldest character. The Superego strives for perfection in everything, ‘it seeks moralistic rather than realistic solutions’.[8] Triton epitomises this opinion from Barbara Engler in her introductory writing to studying personality. This is because he wants his daughter to fit in with her sisters and follow the moral compass he has set for her instead of venturing out into the world by herself.

The main characters can be dissected alongside Freud’s writing to reveal underlying motivation and reasoning behind their actions. Although, by applying Freud’s ideas to a story we are able to identify the flaws that appear within his work and the little allocation he left for female sexuality and identity out with the constraints of her Father. Ultimately, Freud’s theories are sound, but not necessarily valid, and applicable to many situations, with the understanding that society, location and individual situation can alter how affective the dissection will be. In the case of The Little Mermaid Freud’s theories are applicable because of the vast diversity between each character and the way the film has tried to reflect some real life relationships, like those between Father and Daughter.

---

[1] The Little Mermaid, dir. By Ron Clements and John Musker (Buena Vista Pictures, 1989)

[2] Jacki Watts, ‘Jung’s Analytic Theory of the Development of Personality’ in Developmental Psychology, ed. by Derek Hook, Jacki Watts, Kate Cockcroft (Landsdowne, Cape Town, University of Cape Town, 2002), p. 124

[3] Richard W. Noland, ‘Sigmund Freud’ in Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory: Approaches, Scholars, Terms, ed. by Irene R. Makaryk (Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto, 1993), p. 321

[4] Janell L. Carroll, Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity, 4^th edn (Belmont CA: Wadsworth, 2010), p. 29

[5] Christopher Benfey, ‘From Modern to Postmodern Literatures’ in Men Writing the Feminine Literature, Theory and the Questions of Genders, ed. By Thais E. Morgan (Albany, NY: University of New York, 1994), p. 124

[6] Sigmund Freud, The Ego and the Id (Eastford, CT: Martino Publishing, 2011)

[7] Robert F Bornstein, ‘The Evolution of Psychoanalysis: Gazing Across Three Centuries’ in Handbook of Pyschology, Personality and Social Psychology, ed. By Theodore Millon, Melvin J Lerner (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2003), p. 121

[8] Barbara Engler, Personality Theories: An Introduction (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2009), p. 48

Rosemary's Baby meets Ben Affleck's Argo

When the buzz initially started to surround Ben Affleck's new film Argo, I was convinced that considering he was once a part of a relationship that was dubbed 'Bennifer', that his movie would be sub standard at best. I didn't want to see this film at all until the Golden Globes where he won for Best Director and Best Motion Picture. I finally sat myself down to watch the flick with a bottle of Ribena and some chocolate in the hopes that I would enjoy the film a little more because I had snacks. It was brilliant. I loved the pace of the movie more than anything. With many films these days (Star Trek being one of them) it can sometimes feel like time is being wasted or that the action is unevenly spaced. Thankfully, Argo was well timed in a way that made me feel like there was never an unused moment. The opening was clever as it combined some of the story board for the film (the film within this film, that is) with archive footage and a calm voice over. The story centres on a feared country during its revolution as six American embassy workers find themselves trapped and unable to escape without the possibility of death by public hanging. The actors were excellent in their portrayals of fear and pressure in particular the acclaimed director. Affleck is a calm and mysterious character who doesn't really reveal much. Occasionally we discover more about his personal life and its troubles but it isn't relevant to the story itself. Based on a true story, the film had me interested in the step by step process of freeing the Americans from their impending doom. The crowd scenes were excellent in there execution as the rage and fear were palpable for some parts of the film. The score for Argo was classic late 70's and never felt intrusive or out of place. Despite my hesitation to watch the film in the beginning, I highly recommend Argo to anyone who is looking for a little bit more out of their films rather than the usual fluff. It was entertaining and at times nail bitingly tense.

Rosemary's Baby first came to my attention earlier this year in my Contemporary Hollywood Film module and then again more recently through Alli Trippy and CTFxC cinema. As it slowly but surely crept into my life from different angles I felt obliged to watch Mia Farrow, under the direction of Roman Polanski, fall deeper and deeper into the traps made by the devil. From the outset we learn that the previous tenant of the apartment was hospitalised and also grew herbs and moved a chest of drawers in front of a closet. All seemingly innocent but of course are given more meaning as the film unfolds. The talk of the 'devil' also starts from the beginning which slowly lures the audience in and intrigues them. I didn't really get the dream/rape sequence but I don't think that you are necessarily supposed to. This film is a classic mysterious thriller that puts those of the 21st Century to shame. Many films made in the last 13 years dream of the sort of slow tension and fear that Rosemary's Baby builds. What I found strange was the 'good luck' necklace because I bought my mother something nearly identical years ago. After seeing how this film turned out, I want to find that necklace and destroy it. Another great aspect of the film is all of the simply yet effective dramatic devices such as foreshadowing and more importantly the horror film favourite, pathetic fallacy. I'm a sucker for an image of a crying woman with rain beating against the window. I also enjoyed hating Guy, Rosemary's husband, more and more as the film went on. He seemed so nice in the beginning but slowly became this figure of evil. Many of the reviews I have read complain about the ending and criticise it as being anti climactic, but I enjoyed the way the story was left open and that the audience were able to contemplate the next stages in Rosemary's life and whether or not she does what the group want her to do. (Spoiler Alert) Obviously it was a little bizarre considering the character is rebellious throughout but perhaps it was mothers love that made her decide to care and love for the child in spite of what it is.

I enjoyed watching an older film this week, it was a nice change from the Hollywood films I've been watching in the run up to the Oscars. Unfortunately by the time the ceremony came around, I still had four films in the Best Picture category to watch. But other than Beast's of the Southern Wild, I saw all the films from that category that I wanted to see. Also, I have been working on a detailed review of Moonrise Kingdom because I absolutely loved it. I will likely watch the film again before I publish that post but it is definitely coming.

Forty Year Old Psychotic Zombie

Another week, another selection of films. It's always been a part of my weekly routine to watch as many new films as I possibly can in just 7 days. Sometimes the week is filled with an eclectic mix of intelligent and clever cinema and other times it is pure awful film generated to satisfy the mass population. This week was a mix of both. I started by watching This is 40 and Warm Bodies before ending my week with Hitchcock. So here is my opinion of the current box office smashes.

This is 40 was another pathetic comedy. It's so frustrating to me that producers and directors are spouting out the same generic formula packed with as many clichés and famous actors as they can get. Leslie Mann seems to fill the role of the same mid-life crisis wife and mother who we see in every single mass produced film. But of course everything works out in the end despite her character and her husbands being completely incompatible in my eyes. Paul Rudd introduced another stereotypical moment for Hollywood films, the 'smoke weed, get high' montage. Obviously weed distribution and subsequently its popularity has grown over the last decade alone but is it really necessary to show every 40-something adult smoking it in an attempt to be 'fun again'. I did enjoy their children though. They were blunt and hilarious and reminded me a lot of the children in the popular British TV show Outnumbered. The teenage daughter's obsession with Lost was a fun side plot that felt totally appropriate considering the current obsession with 'shipping' and 'fan-girling' over every show and every singer. I found her breakdown in the closet near the beginning particularly hilarious. Lena Dunham! One of my newest obsessions despite her poor choice in body art, features very briefly in this film. But my final thoughts on the film is that it is another mediocre film produced purely for profit. Are any comedy films made to satisfy more than the producers wallet these days?

Second in my week of new films was the current box office hit, Warm Bodies. You know, that film that takes Twilight a little step further and explores the romance from the 'monsters' point of view. Nicholas Hoult plays a zombie looking for something more. The casting of this film was spectacularly on point. I can think of no one better to play an awkward bumbling zombie than Hoult who happens to be lanky and awkward himself. It was like he was built for the role. I mentioned in a previous post that I'm very particular about the execution of voice overs. I found the one in this film to be very satirical and at some points unnecessary. However, enough of the voice over was funny enough for me to consider it relevant to the development of the story. Overall the film had a cute humour to it opposed to the typical Hollywood humour like in This is 40. The lead actress, Teresa Palmer, does emote more than Kristen Stewart which was a pleasant surprise but unfortunately the idea and expression of 'teenage angst' was never too far from her face. But my favourite part about the film was part of the writing. I LOVE when zombie films, television shows or literature feature different variations of the zombie. The skeletons vs the corpses was a great idea that I feel propelled the story past the same old boring comedy horror.

Thankfully, my week ended on an ultimate high with the Oscar nominated, Hitchcock. With a strange narrated beginning and end which was incredibly unexpected the film had me hooked from the start.The title sequence itself was striking and set the tone for a beautiful film. As a fan of the directorial process I found it really interesting seeing a, slightly fictionalised, version of the famous director work his magic. I found Helen Mirren to be cheeky and fabulous as ever! Wonderfully headstrong and calm even when she is playing a relatively controlling character, it is difficult not to love and praise her. She always chooses the perfect role that showcases just how brilliant she really is. Now, I am the first to admit that Scarlett Johansson's figure is absolutely stunning and possibly the epitome of female perfection. But there is something about her face, her voice and her overall presence that just pisses me off. Am I the only one that was frustrated by her painfully awful Dolce and Gabbana advert? My favourite scene in the film comes just at the end when an audience is watching Psycho for the first time. There is something strangely poetic and sweet about Alfred dancing to the shrieking sounds of the shower scene in the lobby. There was an overall elegance and sweetness to the film that makes me wonder why it was not nominated for best picture. Although I have yet to see it, I don't think Lincoln belongs in that category and should have been replaced by Hitchcock. Before the closing titles there are a few short sentences detailing the rest of Hitchcock's career after Psycho and the fact that Hitchcock never won an Oscar. Now after seeing this film and reading into more of Alfred Hitchcock's work I feel like this should be corrected.

So my week wasn't great, in relation to movies, and I still have 5 films in the best picture category to watch before the 24th of this month. Hopefully, I'll get this done before the ceremony but if I don't I'm sure I will watch them sooner rather than later. But for now I'm going to continue to watch whatever comes my way.

Eight Minutes and Twenty-Three Seconds

I have paused my film 8 minutes and 23 seconds in to mull over what I have seen and heard so far. The film is The Perks of Being a Wallflower and my impression thus far is that it is simply captivating. I am in engrossed and in all honesty, I've only paused the film because the stream needs to buffer and I don't want to watch a movie that stops and starts every minute! So let's talk about what has happened in these 8 minutes and 23 seconds that have inspired me to open a new tab on my computer and write.

I am a sucker for a well executed voice over and POBAF does not disappoint. Logan Lerman's clear yet emotive tone is a pleasant introduction to the film and I can only hope that it continues in such a way that does not feel intrusive or annoying. We discover that our leading man, Charlie, is hiding some sort of secret that happened during his last year of middle school. Of course as I am barely 10 minutes into the film I have no idea what this could have been. He mentions that he doesn't want his parents thinking he will get 'bad' again and the first image that popped into my head was of Charlie dressed as Michael Jackson for Halloween! He's an obviously intelligent young man who is an outcast striving to simply get by which is something that many audiences members will have experienced. The voice over is a clever tool that can be so easily slaughtered so it's nice when it is occasionally done right.

I was surprised that when the opening credits were rolling I recognised several names. I was particularly surprised to see Nina Dobrev and Dylan McDermott were in this film, for two very different reasons. Dylan I love and would praise nearly any role he chooses but Nina... Girl, what are you doing here? You are a vampire in a CW television series not a serious actor in a film about self reflection. Spoiler alert! Emma Watson is not in the first 8 minutes and 23 seconds of this film and I am totally fine with that. She is yet to win me over completely even though I do like her body of work. She's a bit of a weird one for me as I don't have any solid reasons for why I don't like her, I just don't. Logan Lerman, with his afore mentioned lovely clear voice, has a certain beautiful quality about him. I can never tell if it is the character or the actor that I find attractive especially when I haven't seen the actor in any other role. But so far, I am 100% on his side and even his one strange eyebrow will not change that. And to round off the cast, the wonderful Ezra Miller. Afterschool and We Need To Talk About Kevin are two of my favourite movies and both feature him as either a leading or supporting actor. I look forward to seeing what type of character this 'Patrick' is and whether or not it's similar to any of Miller's previous roles. I really hope that his popularity grows further because of this movie and I would love to see him in more and more films in the near future. I think there is something to be said about an actor who can play a raging psychopathic killer and be incredibly sexy doing so. Oh and Paul Rudd is a teacher who wants to be Charlie's friend. It was odd but I enjoyed learning where the term 'Box Office' came from so that's a thing.

So far there has only been one thing I don't like. The kids at the high school are truly awful. I know that directors, writers and everyone else on the planet want to highlight the bullying that goes on in schools but isn't this a little extreme? The whole 'bully every freshman' thing is far too over the top and, in my mind, a little ridiculous. I'm not suggesting that bullying doesn't happen and that it's not a huge issue but I have never in my life seen or heard of anything as ludicrous as a whole senior class resorting to picking on the younger classmen. Even at my school, no one liked the first years because they were annoying and had a strange sense of ownership because they had just been the oldest year group in the junior school. We would always moan about them and laugh at their huge backpacks but ultimately if we ever saw that a first year was lost, I know that I personally, would try to help them. And even when they are screaming and running into you it is never acceptable to grab their book and rip it just to be mean or teach them a lesson. Urgh, so stupid! I've never read the book but considering the author is also the director I feel that he is to blame for such a gross misrepresentation. Despite this, I am enjoying Perks of Being a Wallflower and I'm now going to un-pause and resume watching Nina Dobrev eat all of those green beans. Girl has one hell of an appetite.

Operation Neptune Spear

On Friday night I went to see the film I have been eagerly anticipating since it finished production months ago. Zero Dark Thirty. Becky, Nathan, his sister Laura and her flatmate and I arrived at a very busy Cameo for the 8 pm showing of the film based on one of 'America's greatest achievements'. The decade- long hunt and eventual assassination of one of the worlds most feared terrorists. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. An amazing cast, led by the beautiful Jessica Chastain, detailed the hard work and pressure the American government and counter terrorism teams faced in the aftermath of 9/11. Within minutes I was totally engulfed in the action on screen and soon forgot I was in a cinema full of people. The film started with a dark screen as audio of 911 calls from September 11th 2001 boomed through the speakers which seemed to surround and trap the audience. This really set the tone for a very dramatic and painful film. The silence during certain scenes was palpable as the audience waited cautiously for something else to go wrong. 

Despite reading a rather compelling article written by a real CIA analyst somewhat slating the movie, I still felt like it was a brilliant piece of work that deserves the recognition it has received. Miss Chastain was not originally up for the role of strong and ambitious Maya. Rooney Mara had the role but had to drop out which was a decision that I think has benefited and contributed to the success of the film. I have no problem with Mara but that was simply not her role. Another interesting fact that I came across was that the screenplay was actually finished before OBL was killed and was initially supposed to be a film about the unsuccessful hunt for the notorious terrorist but was rewritten after the fact. Despite being three hours long the length felt totally appropriate in relation to the subject matter, I only wish I knew how long it was before hand so I could mentally prepare myself to sit still for that amount of time.



Another surprise was the completely unnecessary appearance of John Barrowman. Anyone outside of Scotland and the UK may not understand the hilarity of his presence in such a profoundly deep film. He regularly appears in pantomime and is most famous for starring in B list movies and a Doctor Who spin off series. He also has his own, extremely camp, Saturday night television show where he starts and ends the show singing and dancing. But Barrowman aside, the film was ground breaking. And yes there are factual inaccuracies and it may give the general public an incorrect impression of national security, however, it does do one key thing right. It entertains in a thought provoking manner. Since Friday night I have read dozens of articles detailing Operation Neptune Spear and the events that led up to it. 

I have been watching documentaries and films surrounding men and women who work for intelligence agencies in an attempt to better understand their efforts to protect their own individual countries and the world as a whole. Because even though the killing of OBL has been dubbed as 'America's greatest achievement', the USA was not alone in celebrating. Agents and the general population from around the world rejoiced at the knowledge of being that little bit safer. Obviously we are never far from danger but by eliminating such an influential player from that world, we begin a new narrative that could have a drastically different level of terrorist presence. To get back to my point, this film is a stepping stone for people to explore in greater detail the activities and events that lead to such monumental moments in history. And I for one thoroughly enjoyed every aspect of the film... even John Barrowman. The added bonus is of course that this is another Oscar nominated film that I can tick off my list! Meaning that I only have 5 more (in the Best Picture category) to watch before this years ceremony. I look forward to another month full of great films and outstanding performances.

The first four

As I always do around this time of year, I began watching the films that are nominated for various achievements. In particular I focus on the Oscar nominees. Award season has always been an exciting time for me (and millions of avid film lovers/creators) but seeing as I now study film and film theory as part of my course, I finally have a valid excuse to watch a hoard of new movies each week. And this year the Oscar noms are films that I really want to see! So far I have watched Les Miserables, Django Unchained, Flight and Silver Linings Playbook in that order. But before I delve into comparisons and opinions I want to make clear that these opinions are my own. You may not agree with them and that is something you are fully entitled to and it doesn't bother me one bit! But I ask that you keep an open mind to any criticisms I make. And as for spoilers, I don't plan on including any in this post but just in case if you haven't seen the four afore mentioned films maybe give this blog a miss!
Les Mis was a huge disappointment. Having never seen the stage show or read the book, I approached the film with a completely open mind like many others and prepared myself to be wowed by a story and characters that friends have described as breath taking and captivating. Unfortunately the experience I had was nothing like the experience that friends had had. I found the story to be messy and disjointed and the characters were underdeveloped. As my opinion was drastically different to those of nearly everyone else who saw the film, I decided to read a little into the creation and development of Les Miserables. I really tried to change my mind but even after reading page after page of facts and stories, I still found myself utterly underwhelmed. It is possible that my expectations were simply too high but isn't it also equally possible that the film was just 'average'. I do believe that Anne Hathaway gave a desperate performance and for that she deserves an oscar but I really hope that Les Mis does not win Best Picture. In my opinion, it is not the best film in that category.

The second film I saw was also my favourite. Actually I've gotten pretty obsessed with everything about it! Django Unchained directed by the infamous Quentin Tarantino is a fantastic blend of serious and comedic. I was pleasantly surprised by certain scenes that had the audience in stitches. Naturally, as the film explores Slavery in the South, there were scenes that I found difficult to watch. In particular, the audiences first encounter with Mandingo fighters was bloody and painful to watch. I believe whole heartedly that this film deserves every single award it has been nominated for. Not only was the screenplay excellently written and executed but every aspect of the film from the actors to the carefully selected soundtrack helped pull together a truly interesting and compelling piece of cinema that I want to see again and again. Jamie Foxx was snubbed by the Academy but his performance will not go unnoticed by film goers across the world. If he hadn't already proven himself as a serious actor with Ray, this film will certainly do it. And I for one cannot wait to hear Christoph Waltz acceptance speech.

Flight starring Denzel Washington is not actually nominated for Best Picture but is nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role. I completely understand this decision. Whilst it is a heart wrenching story of a troubled pilot and is acted brilliantly by Washington, it did feel very familiar to films that have already been made. I enjoyed Flight in the same way that I enjoy films with Colin Firth - I could take it or leave it. I wasn't bored but I wasn't fully engaged with the characters. I don't think Denzel will win in his category but I think that even he knows that. It was a very average film for him to be involved with. But one aspect of the plot that I really 'enjoyed' was the unfortunate circumstances. The audience sees Captain Whitaker navigate through an incredibly unusual and tragic situation. We see a true hero at work. Unfortunately the aftermath of the crash sees government officials desperate to assign blame. And despite his courageous and skilled efforts he was intoxicated during the incident and has to face the consequences for that. Facing your own devils and accepting the consequences is a heavy theme in the movie that is possibly the reason for its popularity amongst audiences.
Finally, I saw Silver Linings Playbook. This film surprised me. Whilst it was still showing in cinemas I felt no inclination to go and see it. I don't know if it was the trailer that failed to capture my interest or if it was my misconceptions about Bradley Cooper in any serious role. But thankfully the movie was not what I had thought it would be. The heavy subject matter was dealt with delicately and Lawrence and Cooper make a wonderful on-screen couple. I enjoyed Robert De Niro's portrayal of Pat Sr. and overall enjoyed the experience of watching it. It could have been very easy for the film to step on the toes of other films that deal with the inner workings of a troubled mind but it managed to pave its own way. In terms of cinematography I would compare it to A Beautiful Mind. Both films have a dark wash over them but Silver Linings has breaks with light humour and conversation. Whilst A Beautiful Mind is purely drama opposed to the rom-com drama that I am comparing it to, it shows the delicacy of the mind and how fragile we are especially when our emotions go into over drive. This emotional state is seen repeatedly throughout Silver Linings Playbook. Despite my positive review of the film, I do not think that it is Best Picture material. A movie needs to really evoke an emotional response. With Django Unchained, I smiled, I laughed, I teared up, I recoiled and I gasped. But with Silver Linings Playbook I simply watched and took in the action. I was reading up on the film and its creation and discovered it was based on a book that I have now added to my 'to read' list for summer. I find books are normally better at stirring emotions so hopefully my opinion will be swayed once its read.

My first blog of the year has turned into the longest. But hey! I love films and I love to write about them. Hopefully I will have watched the remainder of the Best Picture nominees before the ceremony in late February.