@Douglas
Thanks for the review. I think you and I are the only two people on the site who like this film. I might not like the film as much as you did, but I really did enjoy it. Some comments:
>I really like Jude Law in this, too. Sometimes he doesn’t seem to fit well in the movies he’s been in, but here he really works. (I love the scene where he’s calling diners in the South.)
>The second story didn’t work for me at all—perhaps because the two leads just didn’t work for me. (You mentioned “camp,” and that about describes it for me.)
>However, I loved the chemistry between Jones and Portman. Casting Portman in that role was one strange move, but it totally worked for me! I love her character and the chemistry she had with Jones—so much so that I wanted to see a movie with just the two of them.
>One thing I’d like to hear from you is if you think the stories connect to each to make a larger whole. To me, the movie feels a bit fragmented—and that would be one of the biggest weaknesses of it, imo. Still, I really liked the film, despite this.
>One last thing. I love the settings in the film—the first diner especially.
This subplot, like the previous, also ends in a death, but the overall moral is that of existentiality being lost rather than love fading away.
Could you go into what you meant by the above?
I feel the substance of this film was defeated by the style, and many of the fine cast members were left hanging by a story that just couldn’t deliver.
I was extremely disappointed that I did not enjoy this film, and I feel the blame lies in the cinematography, which again I am disappointed with, because I love Khondji’s work. The strobed slow motion was completely out of place, and took be out of the big moments, leave that crap to Michael Bay, if you want to go slo-mo, do it right, thew strobed effect seemed manufactured, unnatural, ripping an audience away from the poignancy of the moment.
While I liked Jones, I could not get into the film because of it’s style.
You have shown some beautiful stills, Douglas, and with the artists involved, that is not surprising, but as we all know, the moving image can be very different, and too often here it was.
I wanted to like My Blueberry Nights, was fully prepared to, but after watching, I just couldn’t.
@Uli
The strobed slow motion was completely out of place, and took be out of the big moments, leave that crap to Michael Bay, if you want to go slo-mo, do it right, thew strobed effect seemed manufactured, unnatural, ripping an audience away from the poignancy of the moment.
I don’t remember the use of slow motion, but these remarks regarding the cinematography ruining the film for you surprise me. I loved that aspect. I wonder if you have a keener sense of these matters than me.
I brought it up in this thread
@ Jazzaloha
(some spoilers for Blueberry virgins)
I feel like Wong’s purpose in using the title cards chronicling the days of her journey was to remind how fast time can go by when we’re prioritized with just “moving on” and “striving to reach a destination we aren’t even aware of”. After over a year of living this way, Jones’ character finally realizes that she has a home to go back to. And I think the two stories helped her figure this out, as they both end with a death that kind of awakens her into realizing how short of time she has. That’s how I read it, at least. She watches how a death rattles Weisz’s character. And it’s after that moment that she realizes she loved that man. And then you watch as Portman’s character is rattled by a death. And it’s only after that she realizes that she’s fooling herself and she actually loved her father. I think this repetition of spite, death, and then rediscovering affection is what the film is about. And I think that’s what brings Jones to come back to that diner. Back to Law.
Just how I read into the entire film, and why it hit me so hard. And still does.
@ Uli
I don’t know why, but the strobe effect never distracted me. It quite complimented it, actually, and I adjusted to it pretty easily. It kind of fits with the whole time aspect, I think. I don’t know why – but I get the feeling Wong meant for this film to focus on time – the banality of it and then the quickness of it when looking back.
I must confess that Norah Jones is one of the few women that i have an almost school boy type crush on, esp nowadays. Never used to like her music until around 3 years ago either. Her new album with Dangermouse kicks all kinds of ass, but I thought she was pretty lousy in My Blueberry Nights and the movie was crap too.
It wasn’t even visually impressive, at least not compared to 2046 anyway, which to me is W.K.W’s best looking film, hands down.
I think the problem is that W.K.W tried to make a film that was both different and familiar at the same time, and imo he completely failed.
@Douglas
And it’s only after that she realizes that she’s fooling herself and she actually loved her father. I think this repetition of spite, death, and then rediscovering affection is what the film is about. And I think that’s what brings Jones to come back to that diner. Back to Law.
And that makes sense—the death of the loved ones makes Jones realize what’s important—but I’m not sure if the rest of story in the two vignettes have much meaning (besides being entertaining, I guess). Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
@Joks
I think the problem is that W.K.W tried to make a film that was both different and familiar at the same time, and imo he completely failed.
I don’t know if different-familiar dichotomy was the problem so much as the use of vignettes and bringing them together into a coherent and strong whole. Did you like Chungking Express? I think that film suffered for the same reason. In both films, if you don’t like specific aspects of the film (e.g., the characters, situations or maybe the mood, etc.), I don’t think you’re going to like the films. They’re fragmented and feel more like improvised sketches in a way. I don’t think MBN is a great film, but I enjoyed moments and certain aspects of it.
A meta comment:
Forget about whether any of us like, dislike, or remain indifferent to the picture in question,
I like the fact that you went to so much trouble to present your thoughts here, Douglas.
It’s a very good presentation, and leaves all kinds of jumping off points for discussion,
as Uli very well demonstrated.
It’s precisely the sort of approach that can distinguish this site from your basic forum.
But to the point: I wish more folks here would do the same. It would certainly resolve some of the recent
worries about the lack of interesting posts (how say you, Jazz?).
I will address this again in a post I plan to make soon about the review section.
Doctor said, I like the fact that you went to so much trouble to present your thoughts here, Douglas.
It’s a very good presentation, and leaves all kinds of jumping off points for discussion,
as Uli very well demonstrated.
I agree with this, and I appreciate Douglas’ effort.
If more people took the time to write posts like this, that would be great. At the same time, I don’t want people to feel like they have to write this type of OP to start a thread. I don’t want people feeling like they have to gather their thoughts and work to find the perfect expression for them before posting. I’d much prefer if people speak off the top of their heads—even if the ideas may not be fully formed or expressed in the most polished manner. The ideas can be refined and even discovered through the process of discussing them on the thread.
I strongly believe that the forum is closer to a discussion than a written review. It’s more like a group of us hanging out a cafe “talking story” (as we say in Hawai’i)—or shooting the bull, if you prefer—rather than writing an essay.
Of course, there is room for the posts written like essays, too—but I don’t think they’re crucial for really good threads.
Jazz, re: “I strongly believe that the forum is closer to a discussion than a written review.”
My counter to that would be the wealth of examples of the sheer length that posts reach in many discussions,
or the number of responses that, if combined in a single post, might comprise an overall view.
In other words, many, many folks here are going to wind up doing quite a bit of typing anyway,
and hopefully gathering their thoughts (to some extent) before doing so.
So why NOT create a lengthy OP?
I’m not asking for well-organized, cogent, and syntactically
perfect articles or essays. Plain, everyday language and informal style will do just fine.
I would not even rule out a mild stream of consciousness.
But surely anyone with a passion for a particular director, actor, motion picture,
or even a specific scene has three paragraphs in them to share.
As I mentioned before, they will wind up sharing as much anyway.
Short version: why not, as you say, speak from the top of their heads, but nonetheless speak at length?
So why NOT create a lengthy OP?
The length is not so much the issue as the quality of the post. In this thread, you can tell that Douglas put in a lot of effort—not only in choosing his words or organizing his thoughts, but also selecting stills. That’s a lot of work! I wouldn’t want people to feel they have to do that in order to start a thread or even post their thoughts. In my experience, that type of thinking sometimes deters me from posting—so I try to not to think that way. I usually start with the phrase, “Off the top of my head,” which gives me permission to not have a well-written post; from there I ramble the first thoughts that come to mind—and I think that participating and getting some ideas out there are more important. Now, I’m trying to be as thoughtful and specific as possible, but I’m not going to spend a lot of energy editing or rewriting—otherwise I wouldn’t post as much. If that applies to other people, then I don’t want them to get hung up on this either.
But surely anyone with a passion for a particular director, actor, motion picture, or even a specific scene has three paragraphs in them to share.
Right, but sometimes I find these posts/threads to be the most difficult to jump into. Why? Well, because I care so much about the film, director, etc. I want to write the a reallly good post. But I’ve gotten into the habit of pushing aside that mindset and using the “off the top of my head” approach.
Short version: why not, as you say, speak from the top of their heads, but nonetheless speak at length?
Oh, I’m totally for this! And I would encourage others to do this. At the same time, I don’t want to pressure people into writing long posts. Short posts are perfectly fine, too. But as you mentioned, when people go a bit deep and take more time to express their thoughts, it’s a lot more interesting.
dp
LEMONGLOW: Reece’s M.O is to come on here and try to hype up bad or disrespected films. I don’t think he is being ‘objective’ at all. He barely ever offers a balanced perspective. He just talks about how the supposed ‘flaws’ are actually virtues that were misunderstood on release.
This is probably the most balanced post of his i’ve ever seen i must admit.
I enjoy his posts, but a spade is a spade, no matter how shiny or attractive it may be ;-)
Joks:
I wasn’t aware of that.
I was addressing form as opposed to content.
But in any case, I don’t require objectivity in every instance.
I’m just looking for the exchange of ideas, and I think there are probably five or six dozen folks here
capable of doing so on a bit larger and more complex scale.
(A couple pf paragraphs and maybe some images if possible.)
One angle for those wondering where to start or why might be the revelation, upon a second or tenth viewing,
they experience about a particular picture.
For example, it was only after repeated viewings that I discovered similarities (strong ones)
between certain scenes in Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte and Les Yeux Sans Visage,
which has me re-thinking the popularity of gothic melodrama in the horror pictures of the 1960s.
I think that would call for more than a sentence or two, and certainly requires images.
I discovered similarities (strong ones) between certain scenes in Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte and Les Yeux Sans Visage
Now that I would love to hear about. (people lump HHSC and WHTBJ together but they are different, both are kind of grand guignol hag horror but HHSC also has a definite Southern Gothic vibe.)
GIAC: and hear about it you shall, as soon as my screen-capture capabilities are better established,
which won’t be long, what with my brand new giant Mac and 27-inch screen and new software and all.
(Sorry about this thread taking a left turn, Douglas)
DOUGLAS REESE
Wong Kar-wai’s My Blueberry Nights is a film with incredible warmth and respect for what it means to love and what it means to live. Wong has proven many times before that he is one of the best filmmakers working today, throwing out an assortment of genres and themes that all have an auteur brand unlike others out there. With films like In the Mood for Love and Chungking Express, we have seen what the guy is capable of. He’s a natural born romantic, and his films all have a poetic grace in their romanticisms.
My Blueberry Nights is Wong’s first English-language picture, and it’s a film that peers at America through the lens of Wong’s wonderful Asian aesthetic. From the director’s viewpoint on the country, the film manages to capture an incredibly unique mood – one that blends together Wong’s staple sensibility alongside American stereotypes and caricatures. It’s something to marvel when a trashy Southern party woman (Rachel Weisz) dresses in a somber black dress with a pair of sunglasses that recalls the ones that are so iconic about Wong’s Chungking Express, and spews on the screen in a thick Southern accent that verges on camp. But throughout all of this, Wong still manages to mix the over-the-top with his sensitivity, thus giving My Blueberry Nights a highly original concoction of realism and fantasy, granting the old-fashioned and familiar story into something fresh and surreal.
The love story in this film isn’t nowhere near being a groundbreaking piece of narrative. It’s the simple story of a woman (Norah Jones) who finds herself absent of love in her life and finds herself going on a life-changing odyssey outside of her New York City home where she meets an assortment of people (David Strathairn, Weisz, Natalie Portman) that remind her that she might have left the person she loves (Jude Law) back home. What makes the story so rich and wonderful is the way in which Wong tells it. Not just through that unique mood he invokes, but from the way he tells it in a highly-stylized yet completely restrained way.
Wong splashes My Blueberry Nights in eye-popping color, moving the camera constantly in swift glides, occasionally peering through windows into the action. Other of the director’s trademarks are here as well… from the slow motion to the abrupt and unpredictable editing. But somehow, while all this style is here, the film still handles its substance with a gentle hand, never once throwing it into pretension. This is something Wong is totally a master of (I’m tempted to call him the pinnacle director for cinematic love stories), but the minimalist nature of this film helps make it the one of his that I most closely respond to.
I’ve always liked this film, ever since first seeing it upon its DVD release, but it wasn’t until time has passed and I’ve had time to linger on it and rewatch it that I realized how much I really love it. It might have something to do with how I had come to relate so keenly with the Norah Jones character. Thanks to Jones’ down-to-earth naturalism and subdued control, she helps deliver My Blueberry Nights a larger step toward what it is – a story asking us to relate. From her first scene filled with anger, to her last filled with hope, she makes up a lot of the wonderful spirit that the film possesses. Credit should also be thrown at her for, while staying the film’s only lead character, she never once hogs the show, allowing Wong’s fable be brought to life the way it should. Jones is the lead, but she supports the supporting cast throughout, deftly showing us how the actions of the smaller characters come to shape where she arrives in the film’s final scene.
If My Blueberry Nights gets bonus points for anything, it’s the fact that Wong tells a double-sided love story. One that is the classic “home is where the heart is” and one that reminds us that we should also love ourselves and the short life we are living. Wong makes point on this by telling his story in such an episodic manner, provoking the viewer to feel just as much whiplash as Jones’ character in this personal journey of hers. The film is told with title cards reminding us how many days it has been since Jones first met Law, constantly reminding us about time and its importance. In the swift 95 minutes this film lasts, we are flashed selected moments from a period of 300-plus days so that, in the film’s final beautiful breath at the end, we are capable of feeling just like the Jones character even more. Finding the calm, sweet beauty in a piece of blueberry pie with ice cream and the man who serves it to her.
Which brings me to want to talk about Jude Law in this film. He has proven during his career that he is a dedicated performer willing to dive into characters both charming and terrifying (and sometimes even both) with complete ease. Alongside his terrific supporting turns in The Talented Mr. Ripley and A.I., this is up there as one of Law’s best. There’s a twinkle in his eye, a caring touch with his hand, and a certain fire that bursts to life occasionally. He makes it understandable why his character makes Jones feel sad and why he makes her feel even more lonely. And on top of that, he even further helps us understand why she falls in love with him. He never comes off as fake, making the character so tender that kissing a sleeping Jones just doesn’t really rub us the wrong way.
Wong’s decision to only have Jones and Law share scenes together at the beginning and at the end of the film is a wonderful touch to the way he tells his story. Jones’ narration (in the form of postcard letters she writes to Law) is the only means of connection, as Law himself can’t seem to find a way of contacting her. It’s a reverse effect to how Law’s character was before. He tells Jones earlier in the film, during their first days together, that he keeps snippets from his surveillance videos for his entertainment. It’s his personal way of connecting with those around him, keeping track of moments he has missed, on a closer level than when they were actually being served in his diner. This might be why Law falls in love with Jones so feverishly. She’s never really there, but she is on those surveillance tapes, and as he tells her upon her return at the end of the film, he’s played them so much they no longer work.
Wong’s bittersweet handling of this development enriches that side of the story, helping us connect pieces with other moments outside of the diner and outside of New York City. Jones shows up in the south and finds herself working double jobs (to keep her from being bored and thinking of her ex-boyfriend) at a diner during the day and at a bar during the night. It is here that she meets an alcoholic police officer (David Strathairn) who has, not quite unlike Jones’ character at the moment, found himself robbed of his love. That particular love of his happens to be his wife (Rachel Weisz) who has separated from her husband in order to suit her sexually adventurous needs. This subplot is wonderfully constructed, Wong enhancing its beauty with his visual flourishes while the events lead toward a Sirkian, however very moving, finish. A finish that ultimately leads Jones to the west, working as a hostess in a casino, and finding herself in a temporary friendship with a mysterious and neurotic Southern belle (a hilarious Natalie Portman) with a penchant for pathologically lying. This subplot, like the previous, also ends in a death, but the overall moral is that of existentiality being lost rather than love fading away.
A love story about life, and the life story of someone overlooking love. It’s amazing how tacky that message sounds when written on paper, but how alive and somber it plays during My Blueberry Nights. Through the actors, both Jones and her support, and through Wong’s intensely special direction, garnering a response to the film’s message becomes rather easy, even when it never feels like its really being preached. It blossoms all the way up to that final scene, the one I keep coming back to because the entire film is meant to come up to this point. The kiss. The cuts to the blueberry pie with ice cream. Love found. Life accepted.
It has taken a couple of years for me to really grasp onto how special the film really is to me, but I finally have found myself embracing it passionately. Maybe I grew into finally relating to the Jones character, walking each step in the film with her as opposed to just observing from a distance (of which I do with most films I watch, assumedly). Wong’s keen understanding of love, and of life, helps develop the film into truly potent territory. I seriously love it to pieces.