Excellent film!
For me it’a all about juxtaposition.
Nature/Urbanity
Masculine/Feminine
Doctor/Patient
Desire/Rejection
And one of the funniest endings to any film I have ever seen.
A wonderful film that deserves six stars out of five. Not quite as minimalist as HHH, and with a much clearer sense of humor. I was struck by how many shots of windows there are, and how nearly every shot in the entire first half contains greenery of some kind (starkly contrasted with the second half).
If I had a meaningful top ten list, this would be in it.
Love the photo choices!
This is one I’ve been meaning to revisit.
The first time I saw it I realize I was mystified in retrospect.
THe interesting thing about a Weerasethakul, or a Tarkovsky,
or any of the other transcendental directors,
is oftentimes the film becomes what we are thinking about during it,
by always giving us time to process every shot in detail, their films become part of us in a way.
“by always giving us time to process every shot in detail, their films become part of us in a way.”
An excellent insight into this film and many other great ones. I need to revisit is as well. One of the best I’ve seen this decade.
I envy most in other artists their ability to express feelings poetically.
Syndromes and a Century is poetry to be envied.
Thanks Mike. & well-put Robert.
although Syndromes it moved me, I didn’t feel as strong a connection as I did to the second half of Tropical Malady.
I just saw this, and while I haven’t processed the film, I want to write some initial thoughts:
—I wasn’t in the mood to watch this (I wanted to see an action film), but, surprisingly, this film pulled me in right away. I liked the first half of this;
—My take on the second half is that it serves as a commentary on the modern changes that the society has gone through. The first half shows the way a more rural environment (with nature being a prominent feature) affects people, while the second half shows the effects of an urban-modern environment. (I have to put in a lot of thought on the differences between the two halves.)
—My thoughts on the ending shot: Thais entering the modern world; the many shots of people exercising made me think of the modern need for creating opportunities for physical activity. (I have no idea of that was the filmmaker’s intention, but that’s what came to mind.)
—Not sure of the point with the military patients in the basement
Questions:
—Why is the female protagonist largely absent in the second half of the film? She’s a prominent character, but in the second half (besides going over the same interview), I believe the only shot of her is of her sitting quietly a desk.
—What was the significance of the military patients in the basement? What about the images of the prosthetic legs?
—Did women have a more prominent role in the past? In the first half, the female doctor has a more prominent role in the hospital, while in the second half men seem to have a more prominent role; this could be a wrong impression.
—What has been the role of the military in Thai society and how has that changed?
Jazz, all I can say is that, also, the male doctor is in the first story very little, as well, other than the opening scene, I think. The man she chases who loves her is the other doctor who we see in the second shot, who gives her the beef as a gift (I think it’s beef). So, essentially, the female doctor and the male doctor are in both of the stories about the same amount (or thereabouts).
Savvy
I love the way he personifies nature; a mysterious presence that no doubt reflects his spiritual background. So good.
It’s a very lovely film about how his parents met.
David, not going to lie, if I could ever figure out how his parents met from this film, I’d be very pleased. I mean, I LOVE this movie, but I certainly do not see anywhere in the film that shows anything beyond the interview process. I probably have missed a lot ( I have seen it more than once, so…), and I have my ideas on what the film is about, and, yes, Weerasethakul started with that idea, but the way he inserted it into the film has confounded me to no end.
Savvy
The man she chases who loves her is the other doctor who we see in the second shot, who gives her the beef as a gift (I think it’s beef).
I just re-watched that particular scene and verified that the gift was actually crispy pork instead of beef. For those who are curious what DDT actually stands for, the answer is dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. See here for more details.
I really, really liked this film when I saw it (though unfortunately I did not completely love it). My interpretation is that the first half is about the feminine and the second half about the masculine – both worlds that are shown are shown to have their advantages and their disadvantages. It is only when the masculine and feminine are united at the end, with the couple on the bench, that the world can be whole.
I hope to revisit this one day, maybe after having watched some more Weerasethakul, and hopefully I will love it.
Does anyone known if there are two versions of this film and which one does the director prefer?
I’m sure he/you would prefer the normal edition and not the Thailand edition because the Thailand edition has a black screen during all of the scenes that he was supposed to censor.
Jazz, so far as I’m aware, there’s only one “version,” although this article discusses what was shown to people in Thailand. The one the director prefers is CLEARLY not that one.
Savvy
OK, guys, thanks. That’s good to know.
Thai Censors Demand Cuts in Critically Acclaimed Film
23 April 2007 | Studio Briefing – Film News | See recent Studio Briefing – Film News news »
The decision by Thai director Apichatpong Weerasetthakul not to allow his critically praised Syndromes and a Century to be screened in Thailand after censors there demanded that four scenes be removed could lead to changes in the law that would replace the censorship board with a ratings system, published reports in Bangkok said today (Monday). Apichatpong said in a statement Sunday that the censorship board had refused to return the print of the film he had submitted and that it would make the cuts itself. As a result, the Thai Film Foundation, the Thai Film Directors Association and Bioscope magazine posted a petition online demanding “the complete overhaul” of the 1930 law that established the censorship board. The controversy arose as Apichatpong was touring the U.S. to promote his film, which David Ansen of Newsweek said “sent me out into the streets in a state of euphoria I couldn’t properly explain.” In a review posted on the Newsweek website Saturday, Ansen wrote: “For those seeking a palette cleanser after a steady diet of Hollywood ‘product, ’ it’s as invigorating as a perfect sorbet.”
OK, I finally wrote up a review http://www.theauteurs.com/reviews/19884
In a nutshell, my own interpretation—which is admittedly influenced by my ideas on community and urban planning—is there’s a “traditional syndrome” (first half) and a “modern syndrome” (second half). The century refers to a lapse of time between the two “syndromes.” The film seems (again my own bias, perhaps) heavily favor the former.
Some of you have said that there is a male-female dichotomy going on between the two sections, and I’d be interested in hearing a case for that.
Also, while the film may depict the way Weerasethakul’s parents met, my own reading is that that is a very small part of the film. I’d be open to hearing a case other wise.
Here are some scenes that I still have questions about:
There’s a scene in the second half of the film where an older female doctor tries to adjust a boy’s “chakras.” When the camera pans back, her friend (another older woman) stares into the camera. What was that all about?
Anyone has an interpretation of scene with the vacuum device sucking up the dust from the workers breaking a wall of the hospital?
There are others, but I can think of them right now.
The sucking up of dust thing, I’ve read, is a parallel to the Eclipse that happens in the first portion of the film. No longer can we even see the beauty of the outdoors when we are trapped so far below.
And I agree with you on his parents meeting; that may have been the original idea, but I think he strayed very far from it.
Savvy
Thanks for that interpretation, Z. I never thought of that connection.
The parallel elements in the two parts certainly invite comparing the two halves. One thing that I was struck by is how much broader the first half was. There is much more sense of a community surrounding the rural setting and we see much richer social interactions. The urban hospital is much larger, so it’s internal goings on are more complex. But our sense of the city is that group exercise event which, while social, is also rather anonymous.
“There is much more sense of a community surrounding the rural setting and we see much richer social interactions. The urban hospital is much larger, so it’s internal goings on are more complex. But our sense of the city is that group exercise event which, while social, is also rather anonymous.”
Modernist ideas of architecture and urban planning, plus the advent of various technologies (cars, electronic media, etc.) often lead to a deterioration of community ties and increased isolation.
“But our sense of the city is that group exercise event which, while social, is also rather anonymous.”
Right. The music is also more mechanical—both in terms of the nature of the music and the way it’s performed via a machine. Contrast that with the live performance (the singer and guitarist) in the first section; also, the physical activity was much more interactive (volleyball type of game).
In any event, I think the film was a very creative way to compare and contrast two modes of living: traditional vs. modern.
Not only was that music more mechanical, it was a tool for the goal of fitness instead of something enjoyed for itself. But we aren’t just given a romantic take on the beauty of a bucolic life. The volleyball game was certainly an interactive social engagement. But hanging out on that playground at night under those lights? Ugly.
Here’s a quote from an article from Reverse Shot:
“It would be easy to imagine these crossings in binary terms splitting city and country, past and present, or science and folklore, but Weerasethakul resists the substitution of one extreme for another. Instead he mixes together and multiplies the dualities, less concerned with rupture or dis-ease than of living with and through difference.”
I’m interested in this theory, but the article doesn’t offer any example. Would anyone care to help me tease this out? I feel like a simple bifurcation is too easy for a filmmaker like Weerasethakul, but how does he resist it? Could one example be that the end blends nature and the city? We are, after all, in an urban park. It’s green but we can still see skyscrapers. Maybe I’m reaching…
Here’s the article: http://www.reverseshot.com/article/5_syndromes_and_century
I saw ‘’Syndromes and a Century’’ twice last week and wanted to say a few words, or more accurately to ask some questions if I can formulate them. I guess what I’d like to ask is about ‘’and a century’’ in the title. For me it is quite clear that the two halves are not set in different periods of time so I guess I am a little bit confused how to apply that part of the title to the film, and why is it actually titled ‘’Syndromes AND a century’’ rather than ‘’Syndromes of a century’’? If my question makes any sense :))
apursansar
“What the modern movie lacks is beauty, the beauty of moving wind in the trees, the little movement in a beautiful blowing on the blossoms in the trees.” (Jean-Marie Straub)
Apichatpong Weerasethakul is among those few contemporary directors who still make an effort in order to search for new innovations and capture the lost beauty in modern cinema. His film “Syndromes and a Century” could be regarded as a prime example of the particular style he had been developing ever since his first feature “Mysterious Object at Noon”, which was his first mayor intent to combine experimental cinema and quiet observation. He has since then moved his camera from the “civilized” towns to the Thailandian jungle, in onstant search for the beauty Straub seems to suggest, and that has become for difficult to contemplate in a society which disregards any attempt that is not in accord with efficency and celerity. “Syndromes and a Century” is not as radical in its refusal of modernity as his previous works, and the film´s structure suggests contradiction.
While the first half (exactly 53 minutes) mostly feature static medium shots and few very slow camera movements, as well as a constant presence of nature, flowers and sunlight can the second half be regarded as a depiction of modernity while at the same time mirroring the happenings centered around the hospital that were displayed in the first. The camera movement become more appearant and at times filmed with handheld, remaining mostly inside the hospital corridors and replacing the sunlight of the first half with artificial light. The sleaziness in tone and subject matter of the first half which depicted the love story of his parents as well as the funny and homoerotic encounter between a singing dentist and a monk gives way to a more downbeat and darker hospital of the hospital in which tradition has increasingly been replaced by scientific advancements, and especially focusses on the basement patients suffering from strange ilnesses. At the end Weerasethakul moves his camera out of the hospital again in order to display people doing open-air exercises, a demanding scene for those trying to make sense out of it. While “Syndromes and a Century” is a subtle Proustian meditation on remebrance and things past, the delicate nature of beautiful moments and love, can we also regard it as harsh criticim and denunciation of an ill and artificial society which has deliberately sacrificed its bond with nature and pure beauty while worshipping scientific advance.