I’ve been meaning to get around to three of the four you listed. But, since I haven’t seen a film in a week and a half…
Nathan,
I hear what you’re saying, and I think there’s some validity to your claim. I think there are flaws in his films—flaws that might not exist in another format (like music videos), but I have enjoyed his films.
Robert,
I have The Vertical Ray waiting at the library for me. Now, if I can find the time to watch it!
I can see the connection between Maborosi, but that film didn’t grab me for some reason. But I saw it when I watched a lot of films, so I could have easily overlooked it.
WKW may be able to provide a new visual imagination with each of his projects but my problem is: he never chooses narratives that can elevate his work to new levels. Instead, he impeccably portrays the poetic & romanticised nature of his character’s relationships in excess. Many desire this quality when they see his work. But is that enough? Viewers may appreciate the atmospheres he creates. But others will want to desire more than just atmosphere. I’m not saying ‘less style, more substance’. I’m trying to say that he should do both: make works that are thought provoking & give us a new visual stimulus we’ve never seen before.
My main criticism of WKW is that his projects only show the obvious & never go deeper than it could. For instance, In The Mood For Love was most likely loved by people at Cannes because of the portrayal of his. Audiences hadn’t seen the poetry, the glamour & the images he created before. However, that’s all the movie had. After that layer of detail, there’s nothing left. Many wouldn’t care; they’d be astounded by the storytelling but for those who weren’t as ecstatic of the presentation, it leaves more to be desired. That’s why many have criticised him for his shallow screenplays, for his ‘style over substance’ approach. & until he offers a combination of both style & substance (like he did in The Hand), he will not find a new audience.
He doesn’t need to say anything, but wouldn’t it enhance the movie if he did?
John said, “Instead, he impeccably portrays the poetic & romanticised nature of his character’s relationships in excess. Many desire this quality when they see his work. But is that enough?”
For those who want more—particularly a stronger story—than the approach won’t be enough, which is fine. People will like what they like. On the other hand, I don’t think this means his films aren’t any good. I don’t think WKW’s films should be penalized because the stories aren’t strong, especially if strong narratives aren’t his objective. (I’m not sure if it is or not.)
Btw, I don’t think his films are just about “mood” or “atmosphere.” I do think that the plots are often simple or at least not strong enough to make the films noteworthy by themselves. But they are often situational and universal. I think that good films can be made with this approach—if the film is working on other levels—i.e. the character depictions, stylistic elements, etc. Ozu’s Tokyo Story (and many of his other films) are like this. The narratives in Ozu’s films aren’t the strong point. Indeed, he made several versions of the same storyline. My point is that filmmakers can make good films with a very pared down story.
Robert W Peabody III
@ Jazz /Nathan/Frank These films are in the same vein (atmosphere, space, color, mood) and way deeper
DIR Anh Hung Tran The Vertical Ray of the Sun (2000)
DIR Tsai Ming-liang What Time is it There? (2001)
DIR Apichatpong Weerasethakul Syndromes and a Century 2006
DIR Hirokazu Kore-Eda Maborosi No Hıkari (1995) (early I know)
The odd one out is What Time is it There? but the others, to answer Frank, are more Antonioni: that is, they have that threshold/space thingy going on (liminality).