I’m not a WKW expert but I’ve seen a bit of his work (Chungking Express, 2046, In The Mood For Love, Ashes of Time Redux, Happy Together) & I believe he has not had a single screenplay that has shown off his true talent. He is certain a visual stylist (he loves using saturated colours, rapid editing & I like particularly his use of slow motion in Chungking) but sometimes I feel as if he’s devising shots & scenes only show off visually. Some of his movies have scenes that just drag on too long for no symbolic or thematic purpose (e.g. the ending of In The Mood For Love with the camera shot of the temple or Happy Together with the shot of the waterfall) & dialogue certainly needs some revision (especially in the first act of Chungking with Takeshi Kaneshiro and his narration).
It seems as if he devises his scenes to amaze us on a visual scale (especially Ashes of Time Redux) but does his style support the movie’s plot or character development? IMO, every great director must devise a strategy, a style that conforms or supports its screenplay (which is why I admire Scorsese so much). And I’ve rewatched much of his work and I just don’t see WKW doing that at all, he places style over substance, which makes the experience special the first time around. The next viewing just dims down.
If anyone thinks differently, just tell me. But I’ve seen quite a bit of his work & I don’t think he’s a master. I like his occasional imagination but I’d really like to see more human insight in his characters. I was nearly bored to death in my first viewing of In The Mood For Love, got frustrated at the lack of cohesion in Ashes of Time Redux & didn’t see anything special about the homosexual relationship in Happy Together. The only work of his I liked was Chungking but he can do better. He needs more substance & better control in his style.
I hope that his movie ‘The Grand Master’ is good though. Cos Ip Man didn’t treat the script seriously. And his cinematographer, Christopher Doyle deserves far more attention than he’s been received.
I’m not a WKW expert but I’ve seen a bit of his work (Chungking Express, 2046, In The Mood For Love, Ashes of Time Redux, Happy Together) & I believe he has not had a single screenplay that has shown off his true talent. He is certain a visual stylist (he loves using saturated colours, rapid editing & I like particularly his use of slow motion in Chungking) but sometimes I feel as if he’s devising shots & scenes only show off visually. Some of his movies have scenes that just drag on too long for no symbolic or thematic purpose (e.g. the ending of In The Mood For Love with the camera shot of the temple or Happy Together with the shot of the waterfall) & dialogue certainly needs some revision (especially in the first act of Chungking with Takeshi Kaneshiro and his narration).
It seems as if he devises his scenes to amaze us on a visual scale (especially Ashes of Time Redux) but does his style support the movie’s plot or character development? IMO, every great director must devise a strategy, a style that conforms or supports its screenplay (which is why I admire Scorsese so much). And I’ve rewatched much of his work and I just don’t see WKW doing that at all, he places style over substance, which makes the experience special the first time around. The next viewing just dims down.
If anyone thinks differently, just tell me. But I’ve seen quite a bit of his work & I don’t think he’s a master. I like his occasional imagination but I’d really like to see more human insight in his characters. I was nearly bored to death in my first viewing of In The Mood For Love, got frustrated at the lack of cohesion in Ashes of Time Redux & didn’t see anything special about the homosexual relationship in Happy Together. The only work of his I liked was Chungking but he can do better. He needs more substance & better control in his style.
I hope that his movie ‘The Grand Master’ is good though. Cos Ip Man didn’t treat the script seriously. And his cinematographer, Christopher Doyle deserves far more attention than he’s been received.
I’d prolly get scrutinized for this but so far, its The Dark Knight for me. To me, In The Mood For Love is over-rated and I’m surprised that people put that as one of the greatest of the 2000’s.
IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE! Just because Christopher Doyle creates voluptuous images of beauty doesn’t mean the movie’s great.
And Citizen Kane because Orson spend too much effort trying to evoke symbolism in his cinematography. “Less is more”.
(It’s a technical accomplishment though, can’t deny that).
Grave of the Fireflies without a shadow of a doubt. Seeing two innocent children dying & knowing they can’t be helped… I don’t know how any movie can top that.
I agree with Kenji. What must be taken into account is that our opinions are subjective, a product of our opinions at a particular point in time and that any movie that’s considered the best ever may experience a different viewpoint in the future. For instance, many thought that The Graduate was one of the greatest American New Wave movies but now, critics have commented on how the subject material has aged & has become irrelevant for our generation (although this view has not subjected to Dr. Strangelove, only made 3 years later).
I used to think that The Shawshank Redemption was the greatest, then a few years later, I watched Raise The Red Lantern, Sunset Boulevard, Grave of the Fireflies & was completely dumbfounded. How could I possibly judge or compare movies on their greatness when the contexts of the movies are different, the execution/style is different & the movie techniques were different?
Just like what many have already said, THERE IS NO BEST FILM EVER. But… there are films that are considered the greatest.
Watching Babel for the first time, I must admit that I was stunned at the cynical yet truthful account of miscommunication between cultures. I thought that the intertwining of the plots between the three nations was masterfully executed (considering that mixing plots is exceptionally difficult to master), the message was delivered without forcing superficial emotions, the performances (especially by Rinko Kikuchi, Brad Pitt & Cate Blanchett) were first grade & the ending is one of the most thought provoking moments in film I’ve ever experienced. Let’s not forget Bibi No Aozora/Endless Flight (the song before the closing credits) that perfectly embodies the complex motions between Rinko and the father.
Yet when I heard that critics criticised the stitching of the plots, the uneven composition of the stories, it’s cynical view on human nature, the unnecessary addition of the Tokyo plot & the weak ending, I was surprised because the plots intermixed so well, the composition was balanced, the cynical view is truthfully presented (because like the Babel allusion, the culture barrier exists and conflict between cultural norms exist), the Tokyo plot is actually the most fascinating (especially during the nightclub sequence) & the ending was strong because of the implications of Rinko’s nude body.
What are your thoughts on Babel? Because the negative feedback to me is perplexing.
I completely understand what you’re sayin TJ but… I can’t possibly see Babel as manipulative or artsy or preachy at all.
But is a movie that’s ‘’artsy’ a bad thing? What really matters is if the director has used his style in support of the narrative. If he’s just showing off without adhering to the story, that to me is ‘artsy’ & unncessary. But when a director successfully adapts style with substance, that’s not ‘artsy’ because style has enhanced the narrative, their blend is in unison. That is why I am against most of Wong Kar-Wai’s work (e.g. In The Mood For Love, Happy Together) because he uses shots that show off Christopher Doyle’s cinematographical prowess without directly adhering to the narrative. And that is why I love Taxi Driver, because Scorsese has blended style to tell his story about alienation effectively & has made it unique.
I believe that movies become ‘preachy’ when the message is dominating the material to a point where the message isn’t subtle and becomes one-dimensional. E.g. any Michael Moore movie (great imagination but his work is more like literary prose instead of an accurate representation of the truth). Yes, Babel’s plots are dramatic but his artistic choices are subtle, his message is only suggested.
Ryan, I couldn’t agree with you more. Directors are aiming to devise their camera setups and sound design to the optimum effect and yes, it could be to attract attention to their style but isn’t that their intention??? You can’t blame them for wanting to hog the limelight. Many directors want to show off their imagination. E.g. Orson Welles (anyone who spends one minute watching Citizen Kane should realise that he was effortless in his devotion to camera compositions, the lighting, the angles, the shadows, the positioning of the objects, the actor’s body language but whether he succeded is another matter).
If there is one criticism I have for Babel, it’s that the coincidental nature of the events may be too much to stomach for some. Yes, it’s not entirely realistic but the implications, the context & the truth behind the events is entirely plausible. Also, as great as the ending is (because of it’s implications), the camera moving away from the apartment… it’s been done before unfortunately and the cliche’ unfortunately ruins the final impact although you see Innarritu’s point.
There is so much to admire here. E.g. I didn’t even know that the camera focus in the Tokyo scenes were deliberately blurred (to present the viewpoint of Rinko) different from the other plots; these details are startling & I only found them during the second viewing.
TJ, I can definitely see where you’re coming from. But I’m surprised you weren’t in support of my reference to Wong Kar-Wai. I mean, his cinematographer has produced images of startling beauty but that doesn’t mean he’s a great auteur. I believe that he’d be better if he has a better script (I can’t fault him for his segment in Eros).
I can’t believe that someone said that Scorsese was overrated. Sure, some of his work like The Aviator or Kundun aren’t his finest hours but considering that he’s made at least 3 masterpieces, I dunno how he’s not one of the greatest, if not the greatest.
Hirokazu Kore-eda could be a contender. So could Hayao Miyazaki.
Rashomon had a great premise, a new way of telling a story that has not been surpassed since and the breakthrough of Toshiro Mifune. What is a true pity is that Rashomon, with so much ahead of it’s time, was not perfect.
At the beginning, we see the woodchopper completely shocked that the story doesn’t have meaning. We also see the priest in disbelief of the event that he’s just witnessed. But is there anything really shocking about a case where the four testimonies don’t fit? We are told from the beginning of a story so unbelievable and so unique that it would only be customary to feel just a little like the woodchopper & the priest at the end. The emotional payoff to us was never delivered. Is this bad? Not necessarily. But it only damaged the believability of the story.
So did the ending. The priest in tears and joy that there is good in man is just cliched. The sadness in the woodchopper when he explains why he wants to adopt the baby is unnecessary.
The excessive crying from Machiko Kyo (hope I’ve spelt her name right) was irritable. It became a distraction from the tension and the point was delivered too harshly. We get she’s pitiful to watch but her crying was too much. Maybe that was Kurosawa’s point but it can certainly test one’s patience.
It was really the premise of the shock from these two characters and the crying that harmed the believability of the movie. But as Pauline Kael said, once Takashi Shimura began his confession of what happened, the movie had a power of it’s own.
Jazzaloha, great comment. Guess it’s time I started a new post on WKW cos I see where you’re coming from but I completely disagree. I didn’t think INTFL was moving at all, and it could’ve been because Mr Chow’s lack of empathy for Mrs Chan (when he decides to leave HK)could evoke emotion. But I felt the scene where she cries was forced, the trip back to the apartment in the taxi was only to evoke the romanticism in Hk’s decor instead of focussing on the pathos behind the relationship.
I think that Babel will be forgotten to most… but some will remember it’s influence. And hopefully, terrible projects like Transformers 2 & The Aviator will be forgotten.
Thank god that’s not the only reason one can like Babel for…
Now that I’ve read all of these comments and have seen many reviews of Babel, many are criticizing Innarritu’s one-dimensional interpretation of his themes & how the actions of the narrative’s characters have been dramatised to a point where Innarritu is forcing you to accept his p.o.v (and bombarding you with the message). While this could be true, this isn’t a topic only subject to Babel because this applies to most movies and there is clearly a bigger issue than just Innarritu’s bias.
Michael Moore first pops into mind from this topic because his messages are ‘out there’, clear and simple, direct and forced. Many hate his work because of his one-dimensional approach to his subjects, but most movies have a one-dimensional view of the narrative don’t they? Most movies tell a story in one point of view. The audience then becomes the observer to the director’s subjective portrayal of the narrative. Even great movies like Taxi Driver, 2001: A Space Odyssey etc are telling their narratives through one view. So my argument is, do critics and audiences hate movies because they are being bombarded with a biased point of view or do they hate the movie because the presentation of the narrative appears forced, manipulated or constructed?
I believe it’s the latter. Maybe it’s not that they are in conflict with the view that is presented but the manner in which the story is told. Someone in this post has already made this point and I’m sure that if anyone’s watched Departures (2008 Oscar winner for Best Foreign Film), they’d have the same view. Maybe it comes to what parts of the story you accept and what you can’t accept.
Maybe the complaint with Babel and other movies with a one-dimensional view is that the dramatisation of the plot is so heavy-handed that you are withdrawn from the moment (meaning that you don’t accept what you’re seeing on the screen and you become distracted; you sense the artificiality of the narrative). I know that I’m withdrawn from the moment any time I see a John Woo flick (the best example is The Killer). Maybe this is the problem, and not the point of view which the movie addresses.
I couldn’t fault Babel for its view. Many cultures experience communication problems and the consequences can be potentially fatal (especially in the Morrocan plot for Babel). I don’t believe that others will fault the reality that Babel portrays.
Any comments? (After this post, it’s time I criticised Wong Kar-Wai & John Woo).
I can’t say that I agree with your view on Babel but I completely see where you’re coming from now. I can’t agree that his insights weren’t profound or simplistic but… it’s prolly the way he stages the drama (where he’s giving emotional punches unrelentingly to its audience) that many hate. However, you’re spot on with your view on film perspectives. I’d forgotten that one of the greatest movies ever made was based on four perspectives. Rashomon! I can’t believe I’d forgotten it.
I see that it’s gonna be really hard for me to change your mind about WKW (seeing that he’s one of your favourite auteurs) but I understand that people admire WKW for his poetic & visual look to the narrative. Maybe the look doesn’t need to cohere with the material, maybe it’s just there to evoke mood & create memorable imagery. In that respect, he succeeds and I can see why he has such a gathering for that (cos Christopher Doyle is one talented cinematographer).
I also agree that his narratives aren’t what make his work stand out. I agree that his narratives are very conventional (the link to Ang Lee is appropriate). What I would like to know however is, what was the aspect or factor in In The Mood For Love that moved you? Was it your appreciation of the look of the film? Was it your appreciation of his unconventional approach to his material?
Because I can understand how people would be moved at what the movie shows the appreciation of film’s imagination (Like how Quentin Tarantino was moved by Chungking Express, not because of the character development but WKW’s new use of slow motion). But if there was another reason, I wouldn’t know.
Thanks everyone for your insight. Everything makes sense now.
Looks like Clint Eastwood is goin into unknown territory here. It sure is an unconventional plot he’s goin after, basing it on real life events as well. Since Gran Torino & Changeling… I’m not sure if he’ll reach his apex like he did with Baby & Unforgiven. He tends to choose great material and tell the story conventionally. I’d like to see a trailer of it though… since it’s comin out on December.
Looks like Clint Eastwood is goin into unknown territory here. It sure is an unconventional plot he’s goin after, basing it on real life events as well. Since Gran Torino & Changeling… I’m not sure if he’ll reach his apex like he did with Baby & Unforgiven. He tends to choose great material and tell the story conventionally. I’d like to see a trailer of it though… since it’s comin out on December.
I can’t comment on Maborosi seeing that I’ve only seen small clips of it and watched the Siskel and Ebert review. My comment is: isn’t it so frustrating that Kore-eda’s work isn’t receiving the DVD releases they truly deserve? Besides Takeshi Kitano, Hayao Miyazaki or Takashi Miike or other Japanese directors, Kore-eda’s imagination in his Still Walking or After Life is just incredible. Work like his should receive more coverage in the US or Europe… it’s such a pity that you really have to go and look hard to find a decent quality DVD of his work.
Companies like the Criterion Collection, Eureka or Kino should try to get the distribution rights because he isn’t under-rated. It’s just not enough people are seeing his work.
Hero is not a movie that exists only as propaganda. Hero simply has a point of view that may support the principle that the individual must subordinate themselves to the collective and that it was passed into distribution after being subordinated to censorship checks. If it was propaganda, it would be blatantly saying that ALL individuals must sub-ordinate themselves to the state. However, it is only Nameless & Broken Sword who believes that the emperor’s survival will unite all Chinese states together. You still have Flying Snow who believed that the Emperor’s ruthlessness and hunger for power was immoral and unethical. You still have characters like Sky who sacrificed his life because he believed that killing the emperor would stop his reign of terror. If it were true propaganda, the message would be far less subtle, like in Triumph of the Will where every character appears brainwashed and believe that the ideologies of Nazism were absolute. At least in Hero, differing perspectives existed and that the ending allows us to analyse the decision Nameless committed. His actions are not in the form of a parable on the Chinese government but as a moral and ethical decision that he believed was correct. It’s up to the audience to decide if he was wrong.
Zhang Yimou even commented in an interview that he had no desire to fuse political intentions relating to the Chinese government in Hero. And if he did have political views he wanted to express, why is he only being criticised for this in Hero? Since Red Sorghum, he’s made work that has been banned from distribution in China. He was even banned from directing from 2 years because his work was seen as political fables on the negative aspects of China! And most importantly, how about The Curse of the Golden Flower? The movie practically based its entirety on the corruption of the Chinese government, on the artificial and deceptive nature of the characters (look at their complex lives and compare it with the rich environments they inhabit, it’s so ironic). If any movie would be banned, it would surely be the Golden Flower because of its political views on the Chinese government.
Zhang Yimou even commented in an interview that he had no desire to fuse political intentions relating to the Chinese government in Hero. And if he did have political views he wanted to express, why is he only being criticised for this in Hero? Since Red Sorghum, he’s made work that has been banned from distribution in China. He was even banned from directing from 2 years because his work was seen as political fables on the negative aspects of China! And most importantly, how about The Curse of the Golden Flower? The movie practically based its entirety on the corruption of the Chinese government, on the artificial and deceptive nature of the characters (look at their complex lives and compare it with the rich environments they inhabit, it’s so ironic). If any movie would be banned, it would surely be the Golden Flower because of its political views on the Chinese government.
Law, if you understand the qualities of any character properly, all characters can be reduced to a caricature as you said. I myself am Chinese and I don’t feel the same about the Emperor as you do. What I have noticed is that many of the wuxia movies have become Westernised, meaning that the way in which characters talk, the humour and the complexity of the movie’s themes have all experienced changes ever since Crouching Tiger, most likely the most Westernised wuxia movie of modern times.
If I have one criticism that truly hurts Hero, it’s the undermining of the Rashomon effect. Surely, it works in this movie but Rashomon used the effect to emphasise the inconsistent nature of truth and how the motives of the characters led to testimonies that didn’t match up. Hero used the Rashomon effect to test whether the Emperor would believe the stories that were being fed to him. But after the Emperor discovers that it’s false, he creates his own testimony of the event. The problem here is: there isn’t much left to observe in all of the testimonies because at the end of the movie, we know which testimony was true. All we can observe is the way which Nameless attempted to convince the Emperor by the way he told and constructed the false testimonies. Besides that, and how the Emperor’s testimony matched with the real scenario, there’s nothing left to analyse or observe.
Hero isn’t a thought-provoking movie. It merely adheres to commercialised tastes by offering great action sequences, voluptuous imagery & beautiful choreography. It doesn’t leave you with anything except what every blockbuster leaves you with. A Wonderful Experience. It is relatively simple to analyse. But another problem I had with Hero was the ‘wire-fu’ martial arts… I’ve had the same problem with Crouching Tiger where characters can move and jump in such unrealistic ways that the way in which they move is artificial (it’s like they’re floating on water). Hero still has this problem, especially in the fight between Jet Li & Donnie Yen, where they are able to jump horizontally and span such a distance. It’s not the idea that they can fly I’m against, it’s how it was presented. I’ve liked House of Flying Daggers much more because the movement has been corrected, and when they move, the manner in which they move is more natural. To me, it comes down to what I believe and what I don’t believe. And in some of the action sequences for Hero, I just didn’t believe what I saw.
If life was to go as it should’ve, I would’ve known Cantonese by now. Learning it at 18 is somewhat daunting now… but at least now, it’s time I attempted to learn my mother-tongue…
What comes down in ITMFL is social dilemmas & thinking of what is morally right or wrong. The couple try to place the pieces of their lives after both of them suffer a crisis. Neither know whether it’s right to sustain a relationship that goes against traditions. Neither know how to express their feelings & whatever they do is in self-doubt because they are concerned over social expectations and the reactions of their neighbours & well as their spouses.
What it comes down to is (as Roger Ebert said), “They are in the mood for love, but not in the time and place for it.”
I hated it the first time. I had no fascination or interest in the characters or the presentation at all.
The second time, I was observing the camera compositions, the sounds & what the narrative was trying to say.
The third time, I finally realised why everyone loved it & why people either love or hate WKW, even if I still hate it.
WKW is probably not the ‘style over substance’ director I once perceived him as. He’s simply chosen loose or simple narratives to convey his imagery. It doesn’t matter if his shots or his style doesn’t support the narrative or enhance its emotions. What matters to him is his presentation of mood & atmosphere. That’s prolly why everyone fell in love with WKW’s ability to tell his story in poetic & romanticised imagery. Presentation is more important to him than what’s really underneath. & it comes down to whether you appreciate that or not. Because if you don’t appreciate his presentation, there isn’t much else to appreciate.
Christopher Doyle never dissapoints in a WKW movie but even the look isn’t enough to save 2046. It has the feel of a companion piece. Unlike In The Mood For Love, it simply follows in its footsteps without being a work by that can stand up for itself. It was hard to understand the plot (even-though that isn’t always a con but what’s its purpose here?), much of his storytelling techniques (e.g. use of black and white, metaphor of the whispering of the secrets in a hole) have been done in better effect elsewhere & it just dragged & dragged. If you can’t move an audience with the presentation of the story or the actions of the characters, we must find a fascination somewhere otherwise why else would one watch it?. That wasn’t there either (at least in my pov).
Those who are sayin that Doyle’s decision to dissolve from WKW was a falling out in disguise is hard to believe. He knew WKW’s slow process, but none of his other projects took 5 years! What Doyle said was absolutely true because as much as one can be devoted to a project, they don’t want to spend that long on it. Many in the film industry are likely to be ecstatic once the project begins. Then the attention lingers more and more. Some can continue to eternity (e.g. if Stanley Kubrick needed another 5 years for 2001, he wouldn’t hesitate) but at a point, even if one loves their work, many would just want to quit ahead.
When directors must use their limited resources in a short time frame, their talent is truly tested because it’s harder to make a great movie with little resources than with abundance. Martin Scorsese showed the world his intellect & his fierce imagination through Mean Streets. And WKW showed the world his visual imagination from Chungking. It’s visually stimulating (as always) but he doesn’t break new ground because none of his cinematic inventions (use of slow motion, use of source music) is there to support the narrative. It’s simply there as an abundance of style that revokes mood, atmosphere and feeling instead of driving the narrative. It’s a movie that you appreciate if you appreciate film, not because of what it knows on experience.
Opinions on Wong Kar-Wai over 3 years ago
I’m not a WKW expert but I’ve seen a bit of his work (Chungking Express, 2046, In The Mood For Love, Ashes of Time Redux, Happy Together) & I believe he has not had a single screenplay that has shown off his true talent. He is certain a visual stylist (he loves using saturated colours, rapid editing & I like particularly his use of slow motion in Chungking) but sometimes I feel as if he’s devising shots & scenes only show off visually. Some of his movies have scenes that just drag on too long for no symbolic or thematic purpose (e.g. the ending of In The Mood For Love with the camera shot of the temple or Happy Together with the shot of the waterfall) & dialogue certainly needs some revision (especially in the first act of Chungking with Takeshi Kaneshiro and his narration).
It seems as if he devises his scenes to amaze us on a visual scale (especially Ashes of Time Redux) but does his style support the movie’s plot or character development? IMO, every great director must devise a strategy, a style that conforms or supports its screenplay (which is why I admire Scorsese so much). And I’ve rewatched much of his work and I just don’t see WKW doing that at all, he places style over substance, which makes the experience special the first time around. The next viewing just dims down.
If anyone thinks differently, just tell me. But I’ve seen quite a bit of his work & I don’t think he’s a master. I like his occasional imagination but I’d really like to see more human insight in his characters. I was nearly bored to death in my first viewing of In The Mood For Love, got frustrated at the lack of cohesion in Ashes of Time Redux & didn’t see anything special about the homosexual relationship in Happy Together. The only work of his I liked was Chungking but he can do better. He needs more substance & better control in his style.
I hope that his movie ‘The Grand Master’ is good though. Cos Ip Man didn’t treat the script seriously. And his cinematographer, Christopher Doyle deserves far more attention than he’s been received.
Go to Comment
Opinions on Wong Kar-Wai over 3 years ago
I’m not a WKW expert but I’ve seen a bit of his work (Chungking Express, 2046, In The Mood For Love, Ashes of Time Redux, Happy Together) & I believe he has not had a single screenplay that has shown off his true talent. He is certain a visual stylist (he loves using saturated colours, rapid editing & I like particularly his use of slow motion in Chungking) but sometimes I feel as if he’s devising shots & scenes only show off visually. Some of his movies have scenes that just drag on too long for no symbolic or thematic purpose (e.g. the ending of In The Mood For Love with the camera shot of the temple or Happy Together with the shot of the waterfall) & dialogue certainly needs some revision (especially in the first act of Chungking with Takeshi Kaneshiro and his narration).
It seems as if he devises his scenes to amaze us on a visual scale (especially Ashes of Time Redux) but does his style support the movie’s plot or character development? IMO, every great director must devise a strategy, a style that conforms or supports its screenplay (which is why I admire Scorsese so much). And I’ve rewatched much of his work and I just don’t see WKW doing that at all, he places style over substance, which makes the experience special the first time around. The next viewing just dims down.
If anyone thinks differently, just tell me. But I’ve seen quite a bit of his work & I don’t think he’s a master. I like his occasional imagination but I’d really like to see more human insight in his characters. I was nearly bored to death in my first viewing of In The Mood For Love, got frustrated at the lack of cohesion in Ashes of Time Redux & didn’t see anything special about the homosexual relationship in Happy Together. The only work of his I liked was Chungking but he can do better. He needs more substance & better control in his style.
I hope that his movie ‘The Grand Master’ is good though. Cos Ip Man didn’t treat the script seriously. And his cinematographer, Christopher Doyle deserves far more attention than he’s been received.
Go to Comment
The Greatest Film of the 2000s over 3 years ago
I’d prolly get scrutinized for this but so far, its The Dark Knight for me. To me, In The Mood For Love is over-rated and I’m surprised that people put that as one of the greatest of the 2000’s.
Go to Comment
Underrated Films... over 3 years ago
Completely agree with Pavel on Knowing (except for the part when Nic Cage was looking at the spaceship leave with his son, was overdramatised).
Also, Grave of the Fireflies & Raise The Red Lantern have received positive reviews but no WAY near as enough attention as they deserve.
Go to Comment
Movies you hated that everyone else loves over 3 years ago
IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE! Just because Christopher Doyle creates voluptuous images of beauty doesn’t mean the movie’s great.
And Citizen Kane because Orson spend too much effort trying to evoke symbolism in his cinematography. “Less is more”.
(It’s a technical accomplishment though, can’t deny that).
Anyone against me on this?
Go to Comment
Most depressing film you have ever seen? over 3 years ago
Grave of the Fireflies without a shadow of a doubt. Seeing two innocent children dying & knowing they can’t be helped… I don’t know how any movie can top that.
Go to Comment
Top Films of 2009 - so far over 3 years ago
I’m not sure if it counts (was released in Japan in 2008, US & Australia in 2009) but if so, what about Ponyo on a cliff by the sea?
Go to Comment
Best Film Ever over 3 years ago
I agree with Kenji. What must be taken into account is that our opinions are subjective, a product of our opinions at a particular point in time and that any movie that’s considered the best ever may experience a different viewpoint in the future. For instance, many thought that The Graduate was one of the greatest American New Wave movies but now, critics have commented on how the subject material has aged & has become irrelevant for our generation (although this view has not subjected to Dr. Strangelove, only made 3 years later).
I used to think that The Shawshank Redemption was the greatest, then a few years later, I watched Raise The Red Lantern, Sunset Boulevard, Grave of the Fireflies & was completely dumbfounded. How could I possibly judge or compare movies on their greatness when the contexts of the movies are different, the execution/style is different & the movie techniques were different?
Just like what many have already said, THERE IS NO BEST FILM EVER. But… there are films that are considered the greatest.
Go to Comment
Babel: A Love-Hate Relationship over 3 years ago
Watching Babel for the first time, I must admit that I was stunned at the cynical yet truthful account of miscommunication between cultures. I thought that the intertwining of the plots between the three nations was masterfully executed (considering that mixing plots is exceptionally difficult to master), the message was delivered without forcing superficial emotions, the performances (especially by Rinko Kikuchi, Brad Pitt & Cate Blanchett) were first grade & the ending is one of the most thought provoking moments in film I’ve ever experienced. Let’s not forget Bibi No Aozora/Endless Flight (the song before the closing credits) that perfectly embodies the complex motions between Rinko and the father.
Yet when I heard that critics criticised the stitching of the plots, the uneven composition of the stories, it’s cynical view on human nature, the unnecessary addition of the Tokyo plot & the weak ending, I was surprised because the plots intermixed so well, the composition was balanced, the cynical view is truthfully presented (because like the Babel allusion, the culture barrier exists and conflict between cultural norms exist), the Tokyo plot is actually the most fascinating (especially during the nightclub sequence) & the ending was strong because of the implications of Rinko’s nude body.
What are your thoughts on Babel? Because the negative feedback to me is perplexing.
Go to Comment
Babel: A Love-Hate Relationship over 3 years ago
I completely understand what you’re sayin TJ but… I can’t possibly see Babel as manipulative or artsy or preachy at all.
But is a movie that’s ‘’artsy’ a bad thing? What really matters is if the director has used his style in support of the narrative. If he’s just showing off without adhering to the story, that to me is ‘artsy’ & unncessary. But when a director successfully adapts style with substance, that’s not ‘artsy’ because style has enhanced the narrative, their blend is in unison. That is why I am against most of Wong Kar-Wai’s work (e.g. In The Mood For Love, Happy Together) because he uses shots that show off Christopher Doyle’s cinematographical prowess without directly adhering to the narrative. And that is why I love Taxi Driver, because Scorsese has blended style to tell his story about alienation effectively & has made it unique.
I believe that movies become ‘preachy’ when the message is dominating the material to a point where the message isn’t subtle and becomes one-dimensional. E.g. any Michael Moore movie (great imagination but his work is more like literary prose instead of an accurate representation of the truth). Yes, Babel’s plots are dramatic but his artistic choices are subtle, his message is only suggested.
That’s my view. I’m open to comments.
Go to Comment
Babel: A Love-Hate Relationship over 3 years ago
Ryan, I couldn’t agree with you more. Directors are aiming to devise their camera setups and sound design to the optimum effect and yes, it could be to attract attention to their style but isn’t that their intention??? You can’t blame them for wanting to hog the limelight. Many directors want to show off their imagination. E.g. Orson Welles (anyone who spends one minute watching Citizen Kane should realise that he was effortless in his devotion to camera compositions, the lighting, the angles, the shadows, the positioning of the objects, the actor’s body language but whether he succeded is another matter).
If there is one criticism I have for Babel, it’s that the coincidental nature of the events may be too much to stomach for some. Yes, it’s not entirely realistic but the implications, the context & the truth behind the events is entirely plausible. Also, as great as the ending is (because of it’s implications), the camera moving away from the apartment… it’s been done before unfortunately and the cliche’ unfortunately ruins the final impact although you see Innarritu’s point.
There is so much to admire here. E.g. I didn’t even know that the camera focus in the Tokyo scenes were deliberately blurred (to present the viewpoint of Rinko) different from the other plots; these details are startling & I only found them during the second viewing.
TJ, I can definitely see where you’re coming from. But I’m surprised you weren’t in support of my reference to Wong Kar-Wai. I mean, his cinematographer has produced images of startling beauty but that doesn’t mean he’s a great auteur. I believe that he’d be better if he has a better script (I can’t fault him for his segment in Eros).
Go to Comment
who's the greatest living director? over 3 years ago
I can’t believe that someone said that Scorsese was overrated. Sure, some of his work like The Aviator or Kundun aren’t his finest hours but considering that he’s made at least 3 masterpieces, I dunno how he’s not one of the greatest, if not the greatest.
Hirokazu Kore-eda could be a contender. So could Hayao Miyazaki.
Go to Comment
Rashomon over 3 years ago
You’re right Lester, every movie has a flaw.
Rashomon had a great premise, a new way of telling a story that has not been surpassed since and the breakthrough of Toshiro Mifune. What is a true pity is that Rashomon, with so much ahead of it’s time, was not perfect.
At the beginning, we see the woodchopper completely shocked that the story doesn’t have meaning. We also see the priest in disbelief of the event that he’s just witnessed. But is there anything really shocking about a case where the four testimonies don’t fit? We are told from the beginning of a story so unbelievable and so unique that it would only be customary to feel just a little like the woodchopper & the priest at the end. The emotional payoff to us was never delivered. Is this bad? Not necessarily. But it only damaged the believability of the story.
So did the ending. The priest in tears and joy that there is good in man is just cliched. The sadness in the woodchopper when he explains why he wants to adopt the baby is unnecessary.
The excessive crying from Machiko Kyo (hope I’ve spelt her name right) was irritable. It became a distraction from the tension and the point was delivered too harshly. We get she’s pitiful to watch but her crying was too much. Maybe that was Kurosawa’s point but it can certainly test one’s patience.
It was really the premise of the shock from these two characters and the crying that harmed the believability of the movie. But as Pauline Kael said, once Takashi Shimura began his confession of what happened, the movie had a power of it’s own.
Go to Comment
Babel: A Love-Hate Relationship over 3 years ago
Jazzaloha, great comment. Guess it’s time I started a new post on WKW cos I see where you’re coming from but I completely disagree. I didn’t think INTFL was moving at all, and it could’ve been because Mr Chow’s lack of empathy for Mrs Chan (when he decides to leave HK)could evoke emotion. But I felt the scene where she cries was forced, the trip back to the apartment in the taxi was only to evoke the romanticism in Hk’s decor instead of focussing on the pathos behind the relationship.
I think that Babel will be forgotten to most… but some will remember it’s influence. And hopefully, terrible projects like Transformers 2 & The Aviator will be forgotten.
Go to Comment
Babel: A Love-Hate Relationship over 3 years ago
Thank god that’s not the only reason one can like Babel for…
Now that I’ve read all of these comments and have seen many reviews of Babel, many are criticizing Innarritu’s one-dimensional interpretation of his themes & how the actions of the narrative’s characters have been dramatised to a point where Innarritu is forcing you to accept his p.o.v (and bombarding you with the message). While this could be true, this isn’t a topic only subject to Babel because this applies to most movies and there is clearly a bigger issue than just Innarritu’s bias.
Michael Moore first pops into mind from this topic because his messages are ‘out there’, clear and simple, direct and forced. Many hate his work because of his one-dimensional approach to his subjects, but most movies have a one-dimensional view of the narrative don’t they? Most movies tell a story in one point of view. The audience then becomes the observer to the director’s subjective portrayal of the narrative. Even great movies like Taxi Driver, 2001: A Space Odyssey etc are telling their narratives through one view. So my argument is, do critics and audiences hate movies because they are being bombarded with a biased point of view or do they hate the movie because the presentation of the narrative appears forced, manipulated or constructed?
I believe it’s the latter. Maybe it’s not that they are in conflict with the view that is presented but the manner in which the story is told. Someone in this post has already made this point and I’m sure that if anyone’s watched Departures (2008 Oscar winner for Best Foreign Film), they’d have the same view. Maybe it comes to what parts of the story you accept and what you can’t accept.
Maybe the complaint with Babel and other movies with a one-dimensional view is that the dramatisation of the plot is so heavy-handed that you are withdrawn from the moment (meaning that you don’t accept what you’re seeing on the screen and you become distracted; you sense the artificiality of the narrative). I know that I’m withdrawn from the moment any time I see a John Woo flick (the best example is The Killer). Maybe this is the problem, and not the point of view which the movie addresses.
I couldn’t fault Babel for its view. Many cultures experience communication problems and the consequences can be potentially fatal (especially in the Morrocan plot for Babel). I don’t believe that others will fault the reality that Babel portrays.
Any comments? (After this post, it’s time I criticised Wong Kar-Wai & John Woo).
Go to Comment
Babel: A Love-Hate Relationship over 3 years ago
I can’t say that I agree with your view on Babel but I completely see where you’re coming from now. I can’t agree that his insights weren’t profound or simplistic but… it’s prolly the way he stages the drama (where he’s giving emotional punches unrelentingly to its audience) that many hate. However, you’re spot on with your view on film perspectives. I’d forgotten that one of the greatest movies ever made was based on four perspectives. Rashomon! I can’t believe I’d forgotten it.
I see that it’s gonna be really hard for me to change your mind about WKW (seeing that he’s one of your favourite auteurs) but I understand that people admire WKW for his poetic & visual look to the narrative. Maybe the look doesn’t need to cohere with the material, maybe it’s just there to evoke mood & create memorable imagery. In that respect, he succeeds and I can see why he has such a gathering for that (cos Christopher Doyle is one talented cinematographer).
I also agree that his narratives aren’t what make his work stand out. I agree that his narratives are very conventional (the link to Ang Lee is appropriate). What I would like to know however is, what was the aspect or factor in In The Mood For Love that moved you? Was it your appreciation of the look of the film? Was it your appreciation of his unconventional approach to his material?
Because I can understand how people would be moved at what the movie shows the appreciation of film’s imagination (Like how Quentin Tarantino was moved by Chungking Express, not because of the character development but WKW’s new use of slow motion). But if there was another reason, I wouldn’t know.
Thanks everyone for your insight. Everything makes sense now.
Go to Comment
how many of you are interested in invictus and if not den why ? over 3 years ago
Looks like Clint Eastwood is goin into unknown territory here. It sure is an unconventional plot he’s goin after, basing it on real life events as well. Since Gran Torino & Changeling… I’m not sure if he’ll reach his apex like he did with Baby & Unforgiven. He tends to choose great material and tell the story conventionally. I’d like to see a trailer of it though… since it’s comin out on December.
Go to Comment
how many of you are interested in invictus and if not den why ? over 3 years ago
Looks like Clint Eastwood is goin into unknown territory here. It sure is an unconventional plot he’s goin after, basing it on real life events as well. Since Gran Torino & Changeling… I’m not sure if he’ll reach his apex like he did with Baby & Unforgiven. He tends to choose great material and tell the story conventionally. I’d like to see a trailer of it though… since it’s comin out on December.
Go to Comment
MABOROSI (Hirokzau Kore-eda, 1995) over 3 years ago
I can’t comment on Maborosi seeing that I’ve only seen small clips of it and watched the Siskel and Ebert review. My comment is: isn’t it so frustrating that Kore-eda’s work isn’t receiving the DVD releases they truly deserve? Besides Takeshi Kitano, Hayao Miyazaki or Takashi Miike or other Japanese directors, Kore-eda’s imagination in his Still Walking or After Life is just incredible. Work like his should receive more coverage in the US or Europe… it’s such a pity that you really have to go and look hard to find a decent quality DVD of his work.
Companies like the Criterion Collection, Eureka or Kino should try to get the distribution rights because he isn’t under-rated. It’s just not enough people are seeing his work.
Go to Comment
Hero (Zhang Yimou, 2002) over 3 years ago
Hero is not a movie that exists only as propaganda. Hero simply has a point of view that may support the principle that the individual must subordinate themselves to the collective and that it was passed into distribution after being subordinated to censorship checks. If it was propaganda, it would be blatantly saying that ALL individuals must sub-ordinate themselves to the state. However, it is only Nameless & Broken Sword who believes that the emperor’s survival will unite all Chinese states together. You still have Flying Snow who believed that the Emperor’s ruthlessness and hunger for power was immoral and unethical. You still have characters like Sky who sacrificed his life because he believed that killing the emperor would stop his reign of terror. If it were true propaganda, the message would be far less subtle, like in Triumph of the Will where every character appears brainwashed and believe that the ideologies of Nazism were absolute. At least in Hero, differing perspectives existed and that the ending allows us to analyse the decision Nameless committed. His actions are not in the form of a parable on the Chinese government but as a moral and ethical decision that he believed was correct. It’s up to the audience to decide if he was wrong.
Go to Comment
Hero (Zhang Yimou, 2002) over 3 years ago
Zhang Yimou even commented in an interview that he had no desire to fuse political intentions relating to the Chinese government in Hero. And if he did have political views he wanted to express, why is he only being criticised for this in Hero? Since Red Sorghum, he’s made work that has been banned from distribution in China. He was even banned from directing from 2 years because his work was seen as political fables on the negative aspects of China! And most importantly, how about The Curse of the Golden Flower? The movie practically based its entirety on the corruption of the Chinese government, on the artificial and deceptive nature of the characters (look at their complex lives and compare it with the rich environments they inhabit, it’s so ironic). If any movie would be banned, it would surely be the Golden Flower because of its political views on the Chinese government.
Go to Comment
Hero (Zhang Yimou, 2002) over 3 years ago
Zhang Yimou even commented in an interview that he had no desire to fuse political intentions relating to the Chinese government in Hero. And if he did have political views he wanted to express, why is he only being criticised for this in Hero? Since Red Sorghum, he’s made work that has been banned from distribution in China. He was even banned from directing from 2 years because his work was seen as political fables on the negative aspects of China! And most importantly, how about The Curse of the Golden Flower? The movie practically based its entirety on the corruption of the Chinese government, on the artificial and deceptive nature of the characters (look at their complex lives and compare it with the rich environments they inhabit, it’s so ironic). If any movie would be banned, it would surely be the Golden Flower because of its political views on the Chinese government.
Go to Comment
Hero (Zhang Yimou, 2002) over 3 years ago
Law, if you understand the qualities of any character properly, all characters can be reduced to a caricature as you said. I myself am Chinese and I don’t feel the same about the Emperor as you do. What I have noticed is that many of the wuxia movies have become Westernised, meaning that the way in which characters talk, the humour and the complexity of the movie’s themes have all experienced changes ever since Crouching Tiger, most likely the most Westernised wuxia movie of modern times.
If I have one criticism that truly hurts Hero, it’s the undermining of the Rashomon effect. Surely, it works in this movie but Rashomon used the effect to emphasise the inconsistent nature of truth and how the motives of the characters led to testimonies that didn’t match up. Hero used the Rashomon effect to test whether the Emperor would believe the stories that were being fed to him. But after the Emperor discovers that it’s false, he creates his own testimony of the event. The problem here is: there isn’t much left to observe in all of the testimonies because at the end of the movie, we know which testimony was true. All we can observe is the way which Nameless attempted to convince the Emperor by the way he told and constructed the false testimonies. Besides that, and how the Emperor’s testimony matched with the real scenario, there’s nothing left to analyse or observe.
Hero isn’t a thought-provoking movie. It merely adheres to commercialised tastes by offering great action sequences, voluptuous imagery & beautiful choreography. It doesn’t leave you with anything except what every blockbuster leaves you with. A Wonderful Experience. It is relatively simple to analyse. But another problem I had with Hero was the ‘wire-fu’ martial arts… I’ve had the same problem with Crouching Tiger where characters can move and jump in such unrealistic ways that the way in which they move is artificial (it’s like they’re floating on water). Hero still has this problem, especially in the fight between Jet Li & Donnie Yen, where they are able to jump horizontally and span such a distance. It’s not the idea that they can fly I’m against, it’s how it was presented. I’ve liked House of Flying Daggers much more because the movement has been corrected, and when they move, the manner in which they move is more natural. To me, it comes down to what I believe and what I don’t believe. And in some of the action sequences for Hero, I just didn’t believe what I saw.
Go to Comment
Is anybody else currently learning a new language? over 3 years ago
If life was to go as it should’ve, I would’ve known Cantonese by now. Learning it at 18 is somewhat daunting now… but at least now, it’s time I attempted to learn my mother-tongue…
Go to Comment
Interpretations of In The Mood For Love over 3 years ago
What comes down in ITMFL is social dilemmas & thinking of what is morally right or wrong. The couple try to place the pieces of their lives after both of them suffer a crisis. Neither know whether it’s right to sustain a relationship that goes against traditions. Neither know how to express their feelings & whatever they do is in self-doubt because they are concerned over social expectations and the reactions of their neighbours & well as their spouses.
What it comes down to is (as Roger Ebert said), “They are in the mood for love, but not in the time and place for it.”
Go to Comment
A True Beautiful Romantic Film From Kong-Wai over 3 years ago
I hated it the first time. I had no fascination or interest in the characters or the presentation at all.
The second time, I was observing the camera compositions, the sounds & what the narrative was trying to say.
The third time, I finally realised why everyone loved it & why people either love or hate WKW, even if I still hate it.
WKW is probably not the ‘style over substance’ director I once perceived him as. He’s simply chosen loose or simple narratives to convey his imagery. It doesn’t matter if his shots or his style doesn’t support the narrative or enhance its emotions. What matters to him is his presentation of mood & atmosphere. That’s prolly why everyone fell in love with WKW’s ability to tell his story in poetic & romanticised imagery. Presentation is more important to him than what’s really underneath. & it comes down to whether you appreciate that or not. Because if you don’t appreciate his presentation, there isn’t much else to appreciate.
Go to Comment
YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT 2046 over 3 years ago
Christopher Doyle never dissapoints in a WKW movie but even the look isn’t enough to save 2046. It has the feel of a companion piece. Unlike In The Mood For Love, it simply follows in its footsteps without being a work by that can stand up for itself. It was hard to understand the plot (even-though that isn’t always a con but what’s its purpose here?), much of his storytelling techniques (e.g. use of black and white, metaphor of the whispering of the secrets in a hole) have been done in better effect elsewhere & it just dragged & dragged. If you can’t move an audience with the presentation of the story or the actions of the characters, we must find a fascination somewhere otherwise why else would one watch it?. That wasn’t there either (at least in my pov).
Those who are sayin that Doyle’s decision to dissolve from WKW was a falling out in disguise is hard to believe. He knew WKW’s slow process, but none of his other projects took 5 years! What Doyle said was absolutely true because as much as one can be devoted to a project, they don’t want to spend that long on it. Many in the film industry are likely to be ecstatic once the project begins. Then the attention lingers more and more. Some can continue to eternity (e.g. if Stanley Kubrick needed another 5 years for 2001, he wouldn’t hesitate) but at a point, even if one loves their work, many would just want to quit ahead.
Go to Comment
Chungking Express over 3 years ago
When directors must use their limited resources in a short time frame, their talent is truly tested because it’s harder to make a great movie with little resources than with abundance. Martin Scorsese showed the world his intellect & his fierce imagination through Mean Streets. And WKW showed the world his visual imagination from Chungking. It’s visually stimulating (as always) but he doesn’t break new ground because none of his cinematic inventions (use of slow motion, use of source music) is there to support the narrative. It’s simply there as an abundance of style that revokes mood, atmosphere and feeling instead of driving the narrative. It’s a movie that you appreciate if you appreciate film, not because of what it knows on experience.
Go to Comment
BEST OPENING SEQUENCE over 3 years ago
Don’t think I’ve ever been as gobsmacked when I saw the opening for Raging Bull.
Go to Comment
Successful Books -> Film over 3 years ago
THE GODFATHER! Truly an example where the film was better than the book.
Go to Comment