MovieChat Forums > OXV: The Manual (2014) Discussion > Confusion doesn't equal cleverness

Confusion doesn't equal cleverness

posted 10 years ago by kenmay139
30 replies | jump to latest

Frequencies (aka OXV: The Manual) has a great cast, great cinematography, and much more but if a filmmaker is confused about what the title of his film is, maybe there are other important aspects of the film he hasn't figured out, like a plot, characters, meaning, etc. Real life is very confusing sometimes but a successful film, no matter what its goals, is more than just scenes strung together just as music is more than just a bunch of sequential notes.
Just because you can't figure out what happened doesn't mean you've read a clever story.
The emperor does indeed have no clothes and if Frequencies (aka OXV: The Manual) does have any meaning it's a lot more hidden than it ought to be in order for most ordinary people of average frequency to find it.
Maybe Frequencies (aka OXV: The Manual) is what happens when you make it up as you go along and when the time to end it comes, well, you just stop.
If Frequencies (aka OXV: The Manual) actually had a coherent story or something meaningful to say it could have been a great film, but it simply doesn't. It just pretends to.

[–] Fieflc 10 years ago

What is so confusing about it? It's the same story seen from 3 different angles, and each time in chronological order.
Your reaction just makes it seem that you didn't get it, but instead of thinking about it, you get into a rant.
Doesn't that seem a bit, well... Dumb and lazy?
At least you are right about one thing, confusion doesn't equal cleverness, in your case.

[–] Enrique-8 10 years ago

Great retort FIEFIC!

Enrique Sanchez

[–] denise1234 9 years ago

I liked it and I thought it was clever.

More than one age-old philosophical idea played around with in the film.

I *am* going to watch it again, though, because there are so many strands to the story that I think it deserves a rewatch to ensure I have it all strung together.

And that's not a bad thing. I like a movie with that kind of heft 😃

I do think a spot more editing could have helped...seemed a bit rushed the last quarter or so.

And one scene that I didn't think was done too well was when a bunch of them were at the whiteboard, changing different formulas around, and acting as if a solution could be found (or disputed) by changing one part of a formula 'here' or one part of a formula 'there'. The acting (and idea) was a bit hoaky and I didn't believe the actors in that scene.

Otherwise, I enjoyed the film ~

"Shake your hair girl with your ponytail"

[–] moviemasochism 9 years ago

You should hear his rant about Algebra.

[–] astralxromance 9 years ago

Well said! I don't even understand what's not to get???

[–] thetrouve 9 years ago

no it doesn't, it means YOU are confused and not clever. are you american?

[–] JurijFedorov 9 years ago

It doesn't. But so what? This is a movie about nothing. It tries to be confusing.

[–] charactercombo 7 years ago

Incorrect. The movie IS about something. It doesn't try to tell the story in a confusing way. There is a point to the story and the story is told in a "non-linear way" which is not unique to this movie or to storytelling as a whole. So try again.

The movie is about whether or not destiny is predetermined and/or controlled. If you were to stop and think about that for a moment you would realize that your minute to minute, hour to hour, day by day choices ARE in fact your own, overall those decisions are made within the confines of decisions made by a greater whole. You only have the ability to shape your local reality, but not the reality of your world experience.

"No talking from things that don't talk!" - Jaye Tyler

[–] JurijFedorov 7 years ago

That's not a storyline. That's an idea. If the movie is only about an idea it has failed to tell a coherent story.

[–] sloane-square-undergroun 9 years ago

This sort of debate always seems to arise from philosophical movies. Are the people who think the movie is logical and complete too simple to notice when something doesn't make sense? Or are the people who find it confusing too simple to put the pieces together?

To get analytical myself, I'd point out that "kenmay139" posted an opinion that the movie was not as intricate as it wanted to appear, and that it hoped to mask the plot holes with confusing presentation. "Fieflc" calls the "kenmay139" post a "rant," implying that the OP's opinion was emotional, and therefore to be discredited. "Fieflc" refers to the OP as dumb and lazy and implies that "kenmay139" can't understand the movie because s/he's stupid. The strong reaction and personal attacks suggest that "Fieflc" thought the movie was clever and that any criticism of the movie's logic would cast aspersions on his/her own intelligence.

I'm not sure which perspective is correct. They might arise more from expectations than from intelligence. Personally, I agree with the OP. It felt like the viewer was expected to fill in the plot holes for the writers. I love open endings and movies that leave one or two things open to interpretation, but I think good writers manipulate their stories to lead you to conclusions - they arrange the story so that the alternatives are clear, but the viewer/reader picks out the various clues that lead them to prefer one of the intended interpretations. Frequencies has no clear direction; there are far too many blanks that you must fill in yourself in order to force a logical story. The leap from human frequencies, to celestial phenomenon, to complete control of a human's actions by use of specific words, to Mozart as an antidote, to algorithms predicting everything that would ever happen in the universe requires a little too much suspension of disbelief (for me, personally). The movie's ultimate attempt to be philosophical about fate and whether it matters if we have free will seems completely removed from the original alternate-universe alpha vs. delta world of the first half of the movie.

To me, the pivotal point is whether you can suspend your disbelief to accept that specific frequencies can alter a person's behaviour and character, and that somehow this means everything is predestined. Except that if Theo is the master manipulator we're supposed to believe he is, are we also supposed to believe that his particular frequencies are compelling him to manipulate? Why? Human behaviour is incredibly complex. Even if I could allow for this being an alternate universe, in order for the movie to have any meaning at all, it has to have some relevance to OUR universe, otherwise it feels pointless. I can't suspend my disbelief to accept the main premise of this movie.

[–] mobocracy 9 years ago

I'm not sure which perspective is correct. They might arise more from expectations than from intelligence. Personally, I agree with the OP. It felt like the viewer was expected to fill in the plot holes for the writers. I love open endings and movies that leave one or two things open to interpretation, but I think good writers manipulate their stories to lead you to conclusions - they arrange the story so that the alternatives are clear, but the viewer/reader picks out the various clues that lead them to prefer one of the intended interpretations. Frequencies has no clear direction; there are far too many blanks that you must fill in yourself in order to force a logical story. The leap from human frequencies, to celestial phenomenon, to complete control of a human's actions by use of specific words, to Mozart as an antidote, to algorithms predicting everything that would ever happen in the universe requires a little too much suspension of disbelief (for me, personally). The movie's ultimate attempt to be philosophical about fate and whether it matters if we have free will seems completely removed from the original alternate-universe alpha vs. delta world of the first half of the movie.

I think this does a pretty good job of explaining it. Far too many holes in the narrative that don't really get explained. Kids are tested for "frequencies" which implies something about the nature of their success and intelligence, yet we don't actually see why this matters in the larger society when I would assume it had broad social/political/class implications.

Part of me wonders if maybe this film strikes more of a chord among UK citizens due to their experience with the class system. Frequencies seem an obvious metaphor for class membership/status.

[–] jenx42 9 years ago

I didn't watch this movie because I just watched a movie called Upstream Color which pissed me off too much to expose myself to the possibility of going through something similar again. It feels like it's too soon. I just wanted to say that the way you articulated your opinion in your first two paragraphs of your reply was quite enjoyable. I'm not sure which perspective is correct either. I just know that as someone of above average intelligence it does get my goat a bit when someone tells me I just didn't get it. Uhhhh, maybe I did get it but I still thought it was dumb. Maybe there truly was nothing to "get". Orrrr, maybe what I get from films have a different value than what you get from films. 😀

Anyway, thanks again for the thought provoking post.

[–] zithe161 9 years ago

I agree with every single word you said.

[–] zithe161 9 years ago

I agree with every single word you said. At the end all I got from it was pointlessness and a bit of frustration.

[–] meisterjaan 9 years ago

Yes

[–] shoutingagain 8 years ago

Agreed Sloane, nicely stated.
Didn't work for me. Maybe too tired to focus seriously & roll with it but bet not....trying for too much. I do not think all the pieces fit & didn't much care when getting confused with this convoluted (pretty silly) plot.

[–] deepc185 9 years ago

I think the whole point of the movie is that whether our lives are preordained or not, does it really matter? Unless you know how it will all play out, if it feels like free will, who's to say it isn't?

[–] sedativchunk 9 years ago

Ok, sorry, I gotta agree with OP on the ending here. I watch a lot of movies/TV and like thought-provoking science fiction, but THIS movie, I have to agree, confusion doesn't equal cleverness.

[–] tecnogaming 9 years ago

I think the point of the movie is pretty clear, Theo is god in this universe, getting to know the real formula, this is pretty evident when he states that he KNOWS how this is going to play out but he loves to actually see it playing it, this is god we are talking about.

Let me put this more simple, Theo is the god that created this reality getting to know itself, his path is the latest in the narrative.

Theo is god creating a universe for himself yet getting to know himself in the process.

Best part is when Marie says "it doesn't really matter", this is acceptance, the characters recognize who they are in this world and decide to live anyway.

Knowing the formula is one thing, god knows it, LIVING it is another, Marie and Zak are living it and they are happy... Theo ends alone watching it all play out while he raises his finger and everyone in the restaurant goes quiet.

I think, the way I interpreted the movie, god want to know itself through us and even though everything is destined to be, life is worth living.

Or something like that.

Alex Vojacek

[–] partyintheruins 9 years ago

Great interpretation, just seen the film now and had to come here. SPOILERS already but anyway.

//It certainly seemed like Theo became an arrogant near god at the end (I kept thinking, why was he not detained before by the secret police types like the rest? That was the first note that something was different), and he had been such a "nice" character during, but I really felt sorry for the father who had been so full of passion before. The movie really switches it up act to act, so it travels far.

I really don't get why though when theo is drumming his fingers or raises his hand everyone falls quite, it wasn't like he was "controlling" everybody - not like The book - or really that he was in tune with everything. Perhaps he wasn't just becoming master manipulator but an actual god.. however if so why was the mozart code in existence before him, mozart discovered something which was already there. I feel the music prescription piece was really just done for laughs and a way to wrap the "the book" chapter.

Theo really played the god part maniacal and arrogant almost like you'd hope something bad would happen to him (why be cruel to his father for instance? -perhaps the old god?).
//

Okay so your interpretation that he was already god and discovering his universe and it's actually his story is 1, but 2 if you catch it - when it all "Clicks" for him he looks up directly at and into the camera at the viewer and says "Oh I see". Like he KNOWS he's being viewed by the viewer, that there's ANOTHER world beyond him, that we are looking into his world. But if we are looking in to his world and seeing it happen there he is looking into ours and seeing it happen here.

Wrapping that part up, I'd still prefer not to think of Theo as that god of that universe, and still the friend who was helping out, but we know he was manipulating things.

//
The thing is his science project led him to discovering the pattern. He himself was destined to find it.

The music stops control of the book, but the book and music are part of the same cycle of control with in control. The people who think they are in control controlling others are still part of it all.
//

I prefer the main story of the lovebirds. Right at the end when it seems Marie "wished" for Zak, and Zak thinks oh well I was meant to be here all for her. I'm not sure that's right, it doesn't feel right. For a start it assumes everything was for marie, that she was the one that is only "worth" anything and that Zak had no part.. even if Zak was a puppet (ironic since in the middle you think he's a puppet master perhaps - nice twist) it means Marie was getting what she wanted according to the universe and even Theo then was part of being manipulated by her "cosmic fate/in tuneness". However he clearly thinks he's the one putting them together. (someone chimes in with women always getting what they want :P)

[Clearly this is also why the code word to make her not fall in love didn't work - because she was already in tune with what she wanted. She was horrified at the thought of being controlled, but still then had to prove her love, the irony again is that she wished for him, she wished for someone to manipulate her and then come clean]

Back to the beginning of the movie, Maries roboticness and lack of feeling - before we really know much about the world they inhabit - seems like some dampening effect like of drugs perhaps, and when we see her older we see her "in tune" with the world - like it runs on clock work. But we know the world doesn't act like that, and we see others in that world in a more normal situation, it seems like their special school is a huge secret, but I guess not, they just don't elaborate... So when Chaos is introduced to her, in the form of feelings, things become "out of step" but that out of stepness is still part of the same world, discordant and cordant.

(Anyone else pick up on how the father and mother were played extra opposite during the wine glass scene - they'd previously been quite the same. Or how in the board room mostly everyone was positive but there was one sour discordant note? The emotional tones of the actors was played like notes in a song.)
//

Did anyone watch this and not feel like Zak as a child? or some of Maries coldness?

Probably time to watch it again.

[–] doggie_rodriguez 9 years ago

Just because you can't figure out what happened doesn't mean you've read a clever story.

And just b/c you couldn't figure it out doesn't mean no one else could.

Your whole rant is based on you thinking that just b/c you couldn't figure it out that means no one else could. Which is ridiculously flawed (unless you have the highest IQ in the world.......which I doubt you do).

[–] zithe161 9 years ago

I wouldn't call it confusing but rather random. Random and silly. It's like someone wanted to make a smart sci-fi but were too lazy to actually study science and so decided to incorporate some scientific terms into the plot, poorly, and justified it by setting the whole thing in an alternate universe where the laws of nature is different. I agree with OP the writer might have made things as he went along, the movie's full of convenient plot devices.

[–] doggie_rodriguez 9 years ago

Since they were dealing with something that doesn't exist in real life I don't buy that it's "lazy writing" b/c the science behind it is lacking. How can they come up with "real" science to back a fake thing?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]