Frequencies (2014)

Rabelais

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
Storyline
OXV: THE MANUAL (original title) is being billed as the world's first Scientific-Philosophical romance. Boy meets girl in a not-quite-here, not-quite-now world where one simple discovery has forever changed all human interaction. The film could perhaps best be described as a combination of 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind', '(500) Days of Summer' and 'Primer'.

The above IMDB storyline does not do the film justice. It opens in a school in the English countryside for students who are not just gifted, but prodigies. The school's motto is "Knowledge Determines Destiny". The students are not classified by IQ but by their frequency. 10 year old Zak is the lowest frequency in the school, a minus 7. Marie, whom Zak adores, is the highest frequency in the school. Unfortunately the higher the frequency, the lower the empathy. Marie is a very cold, emotionless child.

Zak has gifts that the metrics of the school are incapable of measuring. Later, as young adults, Zak and his friend Theo, with some knowledge gleaned from Theo's father, discover what could be called the unified field theory of consciousness. This has disturbing consequences for a blacker agency of the government.

The plot touches on so many topics that this forum deals with that it almost seems written by Thor's Pantheum, and maybe it was. The film is as entertaining as it is thought provoking. Its now one of my favorites. I think I'll watch it again tonight... and buy some Mozart. You'll "get" that remark after you see the movie :)

Here's a snip from a review:
Frequencies is a small, British film with a very low budget - and it feels like it doesn't need to cost a cent more than it does. Everything that needs to be in the movie is here. It's a romance and a philosophical experiment, and it's also a science fiction film of the best kind: one that favors ideas over special effects. Fisher creates a fully-realized new world in Frequencies, and he does it with words and concepts instead of computer graphics and creatures. That is Frequencies' biggest triumph, and one that the summer tentpoles currently dominating the box office could learn from.
_http://badassdigest.com/2014/05/28/frequencies-review/

You can search for reviews of this film. There are many and they all have essentially the same flavor. It seems to be a hit. I am looking forward to any future film projects from Darren Paul Fisher.
 
How about a trailer to tease? ;)
www.traileraddict.com/frequencies/trailer

Trailer for Frequencies, previously known as OXV: The Manual.

What if physics determined the laws of attraction? In a parallel world where human frequencies determine luck, love, and destiny, Zak, a young college student, must overcome science in order to love Marie, who emits a different frequency than his own. In an attempt to make their love a reality, Zak experiments on the laws of nature, putting in danger the cosmic equilibrium of fate and everything he holds dear. This unique and experimental drama blends science fiction and romance to create a futuristic tale where love, science, and fate collide.

Posted: May 06, 2014
Director: Darren Paul Fisher
Writer: Darren Paul Fisher
Studio: FilmBuff
Release: May 22, 2014
Cast: Daniel Fraser, Eleanor Wyld, Owen Pugh
Reading this made me think of that Albert Brooks film, (not that I remember the name of course... guess I'll have to look it up as well) :mad:
Found it, "Defending Your Life" is a 1991 romantic comedy-fantasy film about a man who dies and arrives in the afterlife only to find that he must stand trial and justify his lifelong fears in order to advance to the next phase of life; or be sent back to earth to do it again. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defending_Your_Life

Regarding 'Frequencies', not to be confused with Frequency, another interesting film... being American, it has to have the dramatic cop/killer plotline of course....anyway... regarding Frequencies, doesn't it seem like the basis of the usual 'smart, thus no emotion' storyline, often in scifi, this is in regards to 'aliens', who don't understand human emotion.... not that most humans do either. ;) Seems Mozart would call it a variation on a theme.
 
Very interesting Rabelais! Made me think about the session where the C's commented on the notion that spoken words and sound do have power and that our current civilization has lost this knowledge. Thought provoking indeed!

P.s. Also going to check out some Mozart :cool2:
 
Having watched this, I found it well directed, but the ideas somewhat grotesque. And entertaining movie all the same.

The Philosophy of the movie is strange. It's all about frequency, which in the movie is really 'luck'. The ultra high frequency Marie, despite being frightfully unemotional, is constantly favored by nature. She never waits for a train, never knocks over a train, and always gets what she wants, except for the one the she apparently desires most: Emotions. Yes, the whole line of thought of how an emotionless person could desire anything is kind of silly, but that desire fuels the plot.

Then we have the male lead, Zak, who is the most unlucky person you can find, with an ultra-low, negative frequency. He always comes at a bad time, is plagued by strange and deathly events when forced into proximity with Marie (because of their conflicting frequencies), and is a genius... amidst prodigies. No luck for this guy.

All the characters, including Theo, Nicola Tesla, the school teacher, all of them suppose that frequency is unchangeable and humanity is mechanical, although a select few individuals have these vain hopes that mankind is more than a machine. This philosophical question underpins the whole movie. I won't spoil the twists and turns for you, the whole thing was well put together.

In the end, music is central to reality. But how and why, I leave to viewers who choose to watch the movie.

I wonder if the director was some kind of Cartesian materialist? The whole setting could have been a projection of his own internal world. The whole time watch it I sensed logical inconsistency after inconsistency. Or it could have been a critique of it?

An idea that cycles in the movie is, "Are we all machines with pre-determined paths" and the response is always "Does it matter?" Not really satisfying for my taste.

Logical troubles aside, I did very much enjoy it. It was clever, it was streamlined, it was thought provoking, and it contributed an appreciation for music. If you want to watch something to burn some time, and get up feeling emotionally refreshed but mentally discomforted, I'd recommend this movie.
 
I wonder if the director was some kind of Cartesian materialist? The whole setting could have been a projection of his own internal world. The whole time watch it I sensed logical inconsistency after inconsistency. Or it could have been a critique of it?

An idea that cycles in the movie is, "Are we all machines with pre-determined paths" and the response is always "Does it matter?" Not really satisfying for my taste.

Logical troubles aside, I did very much enjoy it. It was clever, it was streamlined, it was thought provoking, and it contributed an appreciation for music. If you want to watch something to burn some time, and get up feeling emotionally refreshed but mentally discomforted, I'd recommend this movie.

I agree with you about the feeling of mental discomfort. I was impressed by the intelligence that went into this film, although the director's concept of frequency had a very shaky foundation, and yes, a person completely without emotions desiring to have emotions. The idea of certain sounds, produced by human vocal chords, that could influence reality and others in it, was very interesting. And the whole "language of the Universe" thing.

Part of the feeling of uneasiness after watching probably came from the fact that we basically are machines, at least in our default state. But I think there was something else about it, like some pathological worldview of the film's creator that seemed to affect me for a few hours afterwards.
 
Carlisle said:
Part of the feeling of uneasiness after watching probably came from the fact that we basically are machines, at least in our default state. But I think there was something else about it, like some pathological worldview of the film's creator that seemed to affect me for a few hours afterwards.
Sort of like negative entrainment?
 
gdpetti said:
Carlisle said:
Part of the feeling of uneasiness after watching probably came from the fact that we basically are machines, at least in our default state. But I think there was something else about it, like some pathological worldview of the film's creator that seemed to affect me for a few hours afterwards.
Sort of like negative entrainment?

What is negative entrainment, in the sense you mean? I searched and found a physics definitions. I could see how it applies, as the slowing of an individuals greater frequency according to a more base one, but I'd like clarification if you are willing.
 
Just saw the movie, thanks for mentioning it Rabelais. BTW, it is of year 2013 (not 14).

The movie sort of reminded me about the movie Pi, where a genius tries to find a formula to explain the stock market (and life). The ending was less rosy in that movie, if you can call Frequencies to have a rosy ending, lol.

The girl character that cannot feel and how she explains that she keeps pretending to show emotions expecting it to come out, seems like some kind of super functioning autistic, much like a Vulcan from Star Trek. She didn't seem to be psychopathic.
 
Divide By Zero said:
Just saw the movie, thanks for mentioning it Rabelais. BTW, it is of year 2013 (not 14).

Just going by the release IMDB date:

Country: Australia | UK
Language: English
Release Date: 23 May 2014 (USA)

Has anyone seen it in a theater?
 
Strange!
I see the same by the date, but the movie I found said 2013 and so does IMDB in the search result title.

I haven't seen it in a theater but sometimes these movies only air in certain cities.
In the past I have seen movies like this in "specialty" theaters.
 
I did enjoy this movie and it had some interesting ideas but I agree with others that the worldview it presented had some issues. Still possible to learn from as long as we're practicing discernment.

As for the release year, often an independent movie like this will spend some time on the festival circuit and playing to relatively small audiences before being distributed and given a larger theatrical release. 2013 is probably when it was first finished and shown to audiences and 2014 is when it became widely available to the public.
 
Carlisle said:
I agree with you about the feeling of mental discomfort. I was impressed by the intelligence that went into this film, although the director's concept of frequency had a very shaky foundation, and yes, a person completely without emotions desiring to have emotions. The idea of certain sounds, produced by human vocal chords, that could influence reality and others in it, was very interesting. And the whole "language of the Universe" thing.

Part of the feeling of uneasiness after watching probably came from the fact that we basically are machines, at least in our default state. But I think there was something else about it, like some pathological worldview of the film's creator that seemed to affect me for a few hours afterwards.

I experienced this as well mostly when they first illustrated their belief/theory that personal frequencies were immutable. I felt like that was a significant plot hole because in my opinion almost everything in nature is changing or can be subject to change due to either new/more information or outside forces (FRV?). I just couldn't see how they would miss this as a concept after seeing how much they put into the theories they were displaying throughout the film.

Towards the end Zak makes this realization or rather uses it as a rationale all the while manipulating his own "frequency" with spoken words (if i'm understanding their explanation correctly). In contrast, and also towards the end of the movie Zak's close friend (I think this was Theo?) finds an equation that seemingly reveals that everything is "hardwired" and predetermined. This is in stark contrast to the wiggle room that Zak & Theo stumbled upon using spoken words. Unless of course Theo's equation supersedes Zak's use of spoken word to manipulate situations where he was directly involved. Implying that Zak was always meant to do what he was doing all along. I think they hinted at this somewhat.

But still, how could they have two theories that seem to "work" running side-by-side in the same movie that contradict one another so vehemently and not make explicit clarifications as to how that could be so?
 
Wu Wei Wu said:
What is negative entrainment, in the sense you mean? I searched and found a physics definitions. I could see how it applies, as the slowing of an individuals greater frequency according to a more base one, but I'd like clarification if you are willing

Slowing? Usually it's the other way around as I understand it, as being near a person of greater frequency will make you feel a stronger frequency, though not a 'higher' one necessary, but a stronger one, which con men are good at, unless it is out of sync with your own, and repels you.

Usually, the positive form is shown in 'spiritual' studies as gurus or whoever has an effect upon their students by their presence, their FRV, and after a while they leave so that you can tell the difference between your FRV and theirs, or if in a group, the groups collective FRV. You will feel the affect if you are paying attention, sort of like when running with another person, you start to feel the automatic process of alignment to their breathing, speed etc, unless you are careful to maintain your own pace, but if you are running with them, some adjustment must be made by one of you, unless you both just happen to naturally have the same pace/frequency. Addiction is similar it seems and the same withdraw affects can occur like in any relationship. Sort of a collinear thing perhaps, an EM interaction it seems like everything else in creation. Isn't this why people network, to gain that associated frequency, to get on board a train that they think is going where think or feel they want to go? The negative is the same only not many seek that destination, so the means of getting people on board is usually done 'under the radar', by clever means of 'persuasion' in the media, education, religion, society in general, which is where the ponerization process comes in, to get you started and keep you on board their train, as it needs your fuel to keep its speed up. Of course, if necessary, force will be used unless or until stopped, but force is like throwing back the curtain in Oz and revealing yourself as you are, inviting opposition, sort of like the Ukrainian situation just now, for those paying attention of course.

Usually what we get in media like this is a mix of thoughts and feelings which may or may not be intentional. The writer/director's previous works will usually show the train they are riding on, and not all trains seem to know where they are going, but they get there nevertheless, which may be stuck in the middle of nowhere, as they can only go as far as their frequency can take them and their train might run out of fuel before it figures out where it's going and why, like finding yourself in a bad relationship. Escape velocity has to be reached so you can operate your own train, in conjunction with like-minded trains or not. Prey usually finds more safety in numbers, same with predators, only they don't like to share, and those that do seem like a pack of hyenas most of the time... like most of our so-called leaders... entrained to 'the dark side', whether or not they realize it.

That's my take on the word.
 
I saw this movie last night following the discussion going on in this thread.

I thought it was interesting and unique though it could have been so much better if the writers took a slightly different direction in terms of how they constructed the main characters and their interactions. I didn't like how Marie was designed. If she was so high frequency, intelligent and all that.. why did she seem to just be living a middle class life as an adult? If she was natures highest achievement, I expected to see her in high society as an adult, especially in this movie where everything was so mechanical.

Also, my understanding of frequency is opposite to what was presented in the movie which I suppose made me somewhat sceptical about the whole thing. A high frequency person would be adept at dealing with people, understanding emotions and being able to calibrate themselves to their environment, a low frequency person would be someone out of touch with the environment/others.

Also the whole idea of how they presented the mechanics of the universe seemed to really 'downsize' the universe!

I couldn't really pick up on the more subtle assertions of what the director was trying to say. Maybe a second viewing will resolve that.

I also would have liked to see more philosophical discussions... I was expecting discussions of philosophy!!!!

7/10
 
Back
Top Bottom