SCFZ poll: Wong Kar-Wai

[Joks Trois]

what sets him apart is how consistently and brilliantly he can depict romantic longing

That's a good start, but what's his purpose in showing romantic longing? Movies like Vertigo, Charulata, and Last Year at Marienbad also depict romantic longing brilliantly, but each of them shows an unhealthy side of it. For another instance, in Casablanca the longing is healthy because it's combined with sacrifice and acceptance of reality.

He has nothing to say about it imo, except for perhaps in 2046, which is probably the only film of his from his 'prime' that has any kind of complexity to it, and even that film is generally interpreted, quite blandly, in basic political terms. i.e. the uncertainty about HK's future in relation to China.

Wong is a very superficial film maker. Yeah he is a 'sensualist', but too often that is an excuse used to avoid accepting his very obvious limitations. Sokurov is also a sensualist, but he has far more to say than Wong. The comparison also highlights the difference between a stylist and formalist.

[Monsieur Arkadin]

Idk. I love filmmakers who have interesting things to say, and I don’t necessarily want to agree that wkw doesn’t have something to say. But I don’t see why one can’t simply lean into presenting a specific subjective experience beautifully. Wong, to me, seems like a great embodiment of Susan Sontag’s “erotics of Art”. What’s wrong with longing for its own sake? Not every film needs to be a macrocosm, IMO. I’ve felt that longing. Most people I know have felt that. It’s a significant emotion and recalling it effectively is interesting enough to merit respect. How much that should be attributed to him over Doyle can be argued, but the fact that he makes films that lean heavier into musicality than philosophy is noteworthy in and of itself.

[St. Gloede]

I find the discussion above a little odd. I'm not sure if this is a controversial take or not, but as far as I'm concerned style is substance, substance is style. Any additional substance not in service of style (cinematic expression) is cinematically irrelevant - at best getting a bit of sympathy for good intentions.

To be honest though, I'm inclined to disagree on the basis of both my own stance on substance and the one seemingly expressed here.

Expressing romantic longing, and allowing us to feel this longing is deeply profound and fits the general understanding of substance. Romantic longing is universal and pivotal to the human experiences. Putting it into words, or other forms of communication has been an enormous part of art throughout history. Wong manages, better than any other director, to put "cinematic words" to describe/express this - allowing us to feel it as never before or since.

[mesnalty]

Seen 8:

1. In the Mood for Love
2. 2046
3. Chungking Express
4. Days of Being Wild

[Umbugbene]

Well we're certainly getting down to fundamentals here. Of course it's a question of what you want a movie to do, and I'm not going to say there's anything wrong with movies that are "purely sensual" (if that's possible), it's just that movies can do so much more, so I find such films strangely limited (hence my "wallpaper" comment earlier).

Since their beginning films have tried to capture life... i.e. human stories, emotions, lessons, etc. You can call it philosophy, but even the best philosophical movies combine emotion with insight. I can't speak for anyone else, but I find movies a lot more powerful when they get me to look at life differently - that's how I understand the word "substance".

I can appreciate In the Mood for Love for its visual and aesthetic qualities, and having seen it only twice I'm not going to commit myself to say that's all there is. But romantic longing doesn't exist in a vacuum, and if a movie wants to depict it I'd expect it to have a clear purpose.

As for Susan Sontag, I find her hostility to interpretation (she actually wrote a famous essay "Against Interpretation") totally wrongheaded... as if interpretation weren't an essential, everyday part of how we negotiate with the world around us. When we watch a movie we interpret it by default... it's not something you can avoid. What she wants is a lazy approach to viewing films, and if critics were better at interpretation this would be obvious.

[Joks Trois]

I find the discussion above a little odd. I'm not sure if this is a controversial take or not, but as far as I'm concerned style is substance, substance is style. Any additional substance not in service of style (cinematic expression) is cinematically irrelevant - at best getting a bit of sympathy for good intentions.

This is not a controversial take at all. It is how most 'serious' cinephiles think nowadays, including ones in academia. In fact, it has been taken to such an extreme in some quarters that many do not even feel the need to engage with source material at all. It seems strange to me that one could watch the films of Straub-Huillet, for example, and feel that they don't have to know anything about Pavese or Hölderlin, but that's what is happening right now. 'The film is the film and that's it'. That is what contemporary cinephiles think, and to me that is totally ignorant. Film does not exist in a vacuum and has relationships to other art forms.

While style and form is no doubt an integral part of the analysis, there are also other questions, such as applicability/suitability, for example, and what the style/form is actually doing and whether it has limits. That of course is a judgement call.

UM: Sontag was a bit inconsistent on this matter. Have you read her essay on Our Hitler? Regarding Wong's romantic longing in Mood, I guess at a stretch one could argue that it's related to the 'oppressive' society that he is presenting in the film, but even then, that is a rather mundane take.

To me there is also a distinct difference between a mood piece with ideas that is not a narrative film or only a marginal one, or a film like In The Mood for Love that does have a very clear plot/objective.

[flip]

i think i know what joks is saying, but i only partly agree with it. i think wkw is, of any filmmaker/auteur i can think of, possibly the worst writer besides maybe spike jonze. i cringe through a lot of his dialogue, vapid gift card platitudes mixed with bad teenage love poetry. but that doesn't lead me to think wkw lacks 'substance' or that he doesn't have enough 'to say'. i think the opposite: he tries to have too much 'substance', and he tries to 'say' things when he shouldn't bother. all that stuff just detracts for me from what his films actually do, and do extremely well.

film can explore light, colour, rhythm, sound, music, gesture, language, narrative, ideas, politics, and on and on. only a subset of what film can do is probably of interest to any one viewer, and every filmmaker explores their own subset and doesn't give much thought to the rest. when someone faults wkw because he doesn't have much 'to say', that person is saying more about their own preferences than about wkw's value as a filmmaker. most art doesn't have much to 'say' in the sense of having an articulable 'message' or set of perspectives or ideas that it conveys to an audience. try to articulate what one of beethoven's late string quartets is 'saying' and you'll see what i mean.

i did sort of get lost right from the beginning of the conversation, because i don't even know what joks means by 'formalist'. in my background (primarily in music), a formalist is someone working in prescribed forms; someone writing sonatas is a formalist. that someone is a formalist, in that sense, has nothing to do with how much the person is 'saying', just as a poet writing a sonnet might be saying a lot or nothing at all. there's a second definition of the word in my apple dictionary -- 'an artist who is excessively concerned with form, technique, or symbolism, rather than content'. so if that's the meaning intended, then i really don't follow what joks meant, because the formalist and the stylist are presumably equally unconcerned with content, and with what they have 'to say'. so i didn't even understand what joks meant; as far as i can understand the meanings of the words, the formalist is no more concerned with 'saying things' than the stylist.

[Umbugbene]

Sontag was a bit inconsistent on this matter. Have you read her essay on Our Hitler?

No, I haven't, but I'm not at all surprised if she was inconsistent on the topic. It can't be easy to keep pretending that you're not interpreting.

For everyone who's impressed with the romantic passions in Wong's films, I can only urge you to try to look deeper. Don't be too easily satisfied. I've read way too many reviews of Vertigo that go on and on about the deep romantic longing, and they completely overlook what a creep Scottie is, or that his obsession with Madeleine is nothing more than juvenile incest. The point is, romantic longing is too powerful an emotion to take at face value in a movie.

[Umbugbene]

most art doesn't have much to 'say' in the sense of having an articulable 'message' or set of perspectives or ideas that it conveys to an audience. try to articulate what one of beethoven's late string quartets is 'saying' and you'll see what i mean.

"Art" is such an abstract category that I prefer to avoid it altogether. Movies share some qualities with music, but what they do is so different. Film might not always express important ideas, but it can express them, often in ways no other medium does, and in my opinion the most impressive films do.

[Joks Trois]

FLIP: Before we get to definitions and whether artists are consciously saying things or not, which is not entirely the point but some of it, what is symbolism? Is it inert? To me a formalist in film is distinguished more by rigor and stylistic choices that cannot be separated from the material. WkW is not like S/H or Costa or Tarr in this meaning of the term. His style more closely resembles fashion photography and the language of advertisement. In short, I don't consider him to be a serious artist in the same way that they are. Each to their own.

More later. I'm at work.

[St. Gloede]

I find the discussion above a little odd. I'm not sure if this is a controversial take or not, but as far as I'm concerned style is substance, substance is style. Any additional substance not in service of style (cinematic expression) is cinematically irrelevant - at best getting a bit of sympathy for good intentions.

This is not a controversial take at all. It is how most 'serious' cinephiles think nowadays, including ones in academia. In fact, it has been taken to such an extreme in some quarters that many do not even feel the need to engage with source material at all. It seems strange to me that one could watch the films of Straub-Huillet, for example, and feel that they don't have to know anything about Pavese or Hölderlin, but that's what is happening right now. 'The film is the film and that's it'. That is what contemporary cinephiles think, and to me that is totally ignorant. Film does not exist in a vacuum and has relationships to other art forms.
While style and form is no doubt an integral part of the analysis, there are also other questions, such as applicability/suitability, for example, and what the style/form is actually doing and whether it has limits. That of course is a judgement call. 
UM: Sontag was a bit inconsistent on this matter. Have you read her essay on Our Hitler? Regarding Wong's romantic longing in Mood, I guess at a stretch one could argue that it's related to the 'oppressive' society that he is presenting in the film, but even then, that is a rather mundane take.
To me there is also a distinct difference between a mood piece with ideas that is not a narrative film or only a marginal one, or a film like In The Mood for Love that does have a very clear plot/objective.

Hmmm, maybe I was not expressing myself as clearly as I thought.

I never made the case that we should overlook interpretation, ignore context, etc. This is part of the cinematic expression. If a film utilizes philosophy, theology, economic theory, etc. this is part of the cinematic expression(style). 

My stance is that these (whatever you wish to classify as "substance") are simply cinematic tools that aid cinematic expression, style. The cinematic expression may be one of political and economic upheaval or of dissecting society, making you find new ways of understanding truth. This can carry an entire film and be the kay part of its cinematic expression. 

BUT: It is only a set of the tools available to a filmmaker, and they are not necessary. Just as you don't need actors, story, dialogue or even moving images to make a great film, you don't need political or philosophical messaging, metaphors, etc. 

I don't see how interpretation adds any kind of necessary value.

It may depend on what kind of interpretation we are talking about. But, if we look at say Eric Rohmer, one of my favourite things to do with his work is dissecting his dialectics and metaphors, especially in Comedies and Proverbs as the whole cycle to be is a complete dialectic, rather than his more common antithesis filmmaker style. However, repetition of endings, metaphors and interplay between films and characters does not exactly change the world. Maybe you are solely talking of something more direct, perhaps political and social - maybe social conscience films with a clear moral take away - but I don't see how throwing in some added "brain teasers" (to use a derogatory term), regardless of how fun or intellectually stimulating, really passes as substance if conveying emotions do not. And I don't see their value as necessarily different. 

At the end of the day - art is about the reaction - it is specifically about emotions. It is what separates appliances from art. Use value vs. something else, something intangible - that may vary from person to person - but at some level or another boils down to a degree of engagement beyond use, beyond practicality - and that can generally be described as emotional - be it based on intellectual or visceral stimulation (if we want to separate the two, which I'm not quite sure we should).

I suppose a key difference between us is that I do not see a distinct difference between formalists and stylists. To be frank, this seems a little like to a stance based on preferential treatment, where those exploring form in a more abstract way gets "a pass" and does not need the toolset of "substance" while those exploring style or adding plot as a tool to elevate form, do. 

I can, to an extent, see where you are coming from. While form and style can be too sides of the same coin - and in many ways, I would say Straub-Huillet worked on style and could be classified as stylists - the general understanding is that form is more intellectual - while style is not. See Othon, for instance - which could be seen as an exercise in stripped-down style - or stripped-down form - it generally gets understood as form because it upsets the senses in a way - it subverts expectation - it subverts how film is meant to look and feel. As such it is doing something beyond "look, pretty" - if anything, the opposite. Brakhage could perhaps be said to be in the "look, pretty!" camp, same goes for Jean Painlevé - but it is still taking us outside of the realms of "narrative" cinema.

If form is intellectual, and style is icing on a cake, I do get the distinction - but we are murdering cinematic expression and throwing its corpse into to cheap coffins based on shaky classifications - because sending us into dreams of beauty, like Painlevé and Wong does - has a direct visceral link - and style can and does take the medium to new places.

Why is it that beauty - is meaningless - irrelevant - to be denegraded - regardless of the intellectual capacity placed into creating it? Why is magic and wonder to be despised? How is adding in brain teasers or messaging superior (again, being derogatory for the sake of it). As for "saying something". Well, anyone can "say something". Saying something doesn't mean anything, it has no value - unless it brings value. I don't see why a piece of art should need to say anything specific - art can speak to you in so many ways. If anything saying something is even cheaper than mind teasers - as it is just an opinion - expressed through art. This can be great, ok or terrible - but it has no inherent value in and of itself - except perhaps for the artist in question.

Above you talk about limiting the scope of art - but from how I interpret you, you are making a specific case for limiting art. You are saying only a specific set of tools are good/worthwhile, while other sets of tools are not - and you are writing off "style" seemingly in its entirety.

If you are saying "style" (not in the sense of cinematic expression) has limits - sure - but so does interpretations, so does messaging, etc. Everything has limits - even cinema in itself. That doesn't seem like an argument for or against Wong.

I won't denegrade your personal preferences. If you need a specific form intellectual stimulation to enjoy a film (at least to a certain higher level) that is absolutely fine - but I really take issue with dismissing beauty - especially when expressing something so fundamental and puts it into cinematic words like no one else. That seems far more substantive than several formalists that I love and respect. I also think the idea of saying something is, on its own, cheap. (Different opinions are ok of course).

[St. Gloede]

*I might have been too strict in my interpretation of filmmakers "saying something".

I often levy this critique myself. For instance, if you allow me to use an example, I believe a major issue with the majority of Christian Petzold's films is that he has nothing to say. He has, even since his early TV films in the 90s, had the skill of creating great cinematic tension - and has proven to be a master of stripped-down, minimalist suspense - but most of his work are missing something stopping them from rising to greatness.

In general he seems to be someone eager to make films for the sake of making films, and to do so he often grabs onto general tropes, or ideas from previous films and strings together a plot - and my issue is that it seems too manufactured. There is nothing wrong with creating films just to create films. Fassbinder did it, Sono does it - but there the lust and eagerness of making films turn into something more - either because they are interested in doing something with cinema - they are eager to try new things out, to play around with form or ideas, etc. and the success rate, at least for me, is increased - because the work finds something to say, something to try or something to express.

When Petzold did his Living Under Oppressive Systems trilogy (Barbara, Phoenix, Transit) something changed. Even something as thin as commenting upon/exploring oppressive systems added life. It was the little extra spark that was so often missing (though he has other great films) and the 3 stand out as his 3 best because they have this power. They have something to express, to say - though, to repeat, it is fairly "flimsy" and "thin" - it is just that little spark that grounds it all.

However, when we speak about what a filmmaker has to say/express it cannot be limited to commentary, be it social, political, philosophical, etc. When Wong explores romantic longing and brings it to screen - he is expressing it - and in my mind beautifully so - which in terms means he is saying something.

Similarly (or perhaps not) I think simply exploring and expressing a style/form - is saying something in itself - or rather: it can. Wong is powerful because he brings something powerful to the screen. Powerful art has some kind of anchor in something else, something of importance - but we may disagree on what is important. For instance, it may be anchored in representing social injustice - or it can be anchored in allowing us to expand our mind in terms of form - or it can be anchored in something as traditional as great dialogue and characters, letting us into the human psyche or even more banal - allowing us to experience emotions through empathy - or distancing effects. I'm not sure if plot, characters, storytelling, etc. is dismissed like style is - even though it is not saying anything (if we use the same definition) but to me at least both have power - and in being used "right" can evoke emotions. The question then is - can exploring dialogue, story, characters, colours, long shots, etc. say something in itself - or by itself.

I would say yes.

Both style and plot can do something more - and by doing something more I mean inspire reaction - emotion - thought. Style, if that is the driving force, can explore isolation and loneliness (common in particular with contemplative films), but also all other emotions - including romantic longing.

There is of course a discussion to be had if entirely narrative or stylistic exercises - where the point is either to immerse you into the world and characters for the sake of the world and characters or style for the sake of style has something "to say" - but while they by some definitions may not - they still "do" - and if that "do" creates strong emotions, be it of immersion, empathy, wonder, etc.

Perhaps I should revise my critique of Petzold to be that he doesn't quite know what to do, rather than what to say - to be as consistent in my language as possible - and maybe there really is a difference as well between "something to say" and "something to express/explore" - but if so, I don't think the latter is by any measurement the lesser.

[St. Gloede]

Also: apologies for 2 separate walls of text.

[Monsieur Arkadin]

There's a fallacy here that someone didn't engage properly with Vertigo, therefore that same technique when applied to Wong is also improper. Films aren't monolithic and believing that there's only one way to engage with all of them, is a mistake in my opinion. You wouldn't say "I once watched a heathen eat a boef bourgignone with his hands. So next time you eat pizza, go for the silverware." Different foods require different tools. That shouldn't be controversial. Anyone refusing to interpret wholesale is making a mistake. And I think anyone who insists that interpretation is the only valid way to engage with a film is making a mistake of equal magnitude.
That is Sontag's position as well. She was not hostile to interpretation (at least in "Against Interpretation" though I haven't read all her work) she was hostile to the academic pretensions that forsake major components of artistic expression for the sake of finding (often tenuous) "meaning".

[nrh]

also it is a wild misreading to look at the romance in any of wong's films besides tears and think of them as "passionate romances."

even in the mood for love - with tony and maggie refusing to sleep with each other as a kind of one-upmanship to their cheating spouses, choosing instead to live in a kind of limbo of desire that in a weird way matches this fake shanghai that never was that wong has built - is fundamentally perverse, and in 2046 tony re-emerges as a broken man, a lothario with a pencil mustache who leaves a trail of heartbreak behind him. to say nothing of happy together!

[Umbugbene]

Not only did "someone" fail to engage properly with Vertigo, but not a single critic that I know of engaged properly with it. As a whole the critical profession, I think, has abdicated its responsibility to look for meaning in films, and how convenient to have a semi-respected intellectual like Sontag reassure them that they don't need to bother.

Of course there are many ways to engage with films, and not every film yields to close reading. But people should at least try. And I maintain my position that the most impressive films are the ones that have something to say.

[Umbugbene]

@nrh I stand corrected, I suppose. I didn't mean "passionate" in the sense that they indulged their longing with sex, only that their longing was deeply felt.

[Monsieur Arkadin]

I think, has abdicated its responsibility to look for meaning in films

I'd wholly agree here. And I'd say, as well, abdicated responsibility to "show how it is what it is or even that it is what it is..." to borrow from Sontag. Criticism is in a dire place right now, and if they want to use Sontag incorrectly to make themselves feel better about their mediocrity, I guess it doesn't matter, because they'll justify their mediocrity with whatever works.

[Samourai]

Seen 10

1. Chungking Express
2. Fallen Angels
3. In the Mood for Love
4. Days of Being Wild
5. Happy Together

[grabmymask]

Fallen Angels

[Joks Trois]

I can, to an extent, see where you are coming from. While form and style can be too sides of the same coin - and in many ways, I would say Straub-Huillet worked on style and could be classified as stylists - the general understanding is that form is more intellectual - while style is not. See Othon, for instance - which could be seen as an exercise in stripped-down style - or stripped-down form - it generally gets understood as form because it upsets the senses in a way - it subverts expectation - it subverts how film is meant to look and feel. As such it is doing something beyond "look, pretty" - if anything, the opposite. Brakhage could perhaps be said to be in the "look, pretty!" camp, same goes for Jean Painlevé - but it is still taking us outside of the realms of "narrative" cinema.

All formalists are stylists to a degree but not all stylists are formalists. S/H are not 'stylists'. If they were, they would be far more popular. They are/were stringent.

Above you talk about limiting the scope of art - but from how I interpret you, you are making a specific case for limiting art. You are saying only a specific set of tools are good/worthwhile, while other sets of tools are not - and you are writing off "style" seemingly in its entirety.

When talking about greatness, it is necessarily limiting. When talking about creativity in general, it is much less of a concern.

The problem I have with Wong's status is the currency assigned to him, and I suspect he would not have that currency without novelty or if he arrived a few decades earlier.

[Joks Trois]

even in the mood for love - with tony and maggie refusing to sleep with each other as a kind of one-upmanship to their cheating spouses, choosing instead to live in a kind of limbo of desire that in a weird way matches this fake shanghai that never was that wong has built - is fundamentally perverse

It really isn't. He burns, she burns, they do nothing and it ends. We are supposed to feel a sense of tragedy that nothing happened. That's it.

and in 2046 tony re-emerges as a broken man, a lothario with a pencil mustache who leaves a trail of heartbreak behind him.

Ah yes, the lothario who leaves a trail of heartbreak and feels empty inside, then comes to a kind of 'realisation' at the end of it all. Sounds quite conventional to me, even if it's well played out.

Wong takes zero risks with content basically.

[St. Gloede]

When talking about greatness, it is necessarily limiting. When talking about creativity in general, it is much less of a concern.

Certainly, everyone has different standards and views on what qualifies a piece of art as great, but, what you are doing here is not just setting up thresholds of greatness - you are excluding entire sections of cinema from the ability to achieve greatness. From what I have understood so far, there are currently only 3 ways a film can achieve greatness according to you:

1. It is set up to be interpreted
2. It has "something to say"
3. It does something with form

If it is not interesting in assembling some fun mind game on the side, throwing out an opinion and/or playing around with form - it can't be great. Do I understand you correctly? If so, that means:

Storytelling is out
Stylization is out

And much, much more.

(Obviously, if nothing else appeals to you, that's perfectly fine - everyone has their own tastes and preferences)

[Umbugbene]

Something occurred to me that might clarify the style vs. substance question, and I think you might appreciate this St. Gloede because it's one of your favorite movies.

If you look at critical writing on Alphaville, you'll probably run into a lot of essays about the film's style. One critic will talk about it as dystopian science fiction; another thinks it's an homage to German Expressionism; and someone else is preoccupied with how it draws from pulp film noir. Now all of these might be correct, but focusing on the style is too easy a way to distract from the substance - namely that Alphaville is a pretty damn thorough and rigorous treatise on the falsity of opposites. Anyone familiar with it can surely recall how often the movie calls attention to opposites:

the traffic light blinking on and off
people shaking their head no to mean yes
doors that are "occupée" or "libre"
Ivan Johnson
Figaro Pravda
positive & negative footage
Nord/Sud zones which are cold/hot
all the slides during Alpha 60's lecture, e.g. a head & a foot, ? / !, etc.

The climax is when Lemmy Caution (note that the yellow caution light in a traffic signal mediates between the opposites of stop & go) asks the supercomputer a riddle that forces it to reconcile several pairs of opposites. A computer can only think in terms of opposites - zeros and ones - and it spirals out of control. Caution's victory is a triumph against the oversimplification of thought that Alpha 60 represents. Opposites are imposed on nature by humans through language, but they don't capture the full complexity of reality. All of this fits easily into Godard's critique of dialectical thinking and Cold War politics.

Once you see the logic of Alphaville, all considerations of style become secondary. Sure, you might still love the film for its style - there's nothing wrong with that - but that's almost purely personal. It's a lot more convincing to argue that Alphaville is a great film because of how it engages with important real world issues than to argue that it's great because you like how it looks. And furthermore, critics should focus on the substance because everything else is in service to the movie's central purpose.

That said, style is still important. A movie isn't like a written dissertation. Logic and meaning alone aren't enough to sustain it... it needs some combination of emotion, visuals, sound, etc. to work as a movie. But if a movie is nothing but a photographic showpiece, I'd argue that it's not in the same league as a movie that expresses worthwhile ideas. For example, no matter how great the cinematography or editing or "filmic artistry" is in a Leni Riefenstahl propaganda piece, the film is still a piece of trash.

[St. Gloede]

That's a lovely reading, and broadly matches my own - though I had not incorporated a critique of dialectics - interesting addition. (I don't think I have entertained this possibility due to my perception of Godard being more dogmatic in this respect).

I think there is a fundamental difference in seeing things here. "Style" (simple stylization) is only secondary if the filmmakers - or in this case the individual viewer decides it is - that this is the focus and the driving force. It is perfectly plausible for a viewer (or even Godard) to view the messaging as secondary - or even a sideshow of minor importance. The question I would ask is to what extend is this messaging apart of the cinematic expression. Is it a driving force of the entertainment/engrossment/interest while viewing the film - to what extent is it part of our thoughts after - to what extent is it elevating or devalueing the rest of the content at hand?

To be frank, in the case of Alphaville I don't think the messaging itself is a major part of why the film works or why it is a great piece of cinema. It makes it more interesting to talk about, and elevates it - critics should speak of it (and they do) - but the film would function perfectly, as a great work, if this scene was edited out - and it could not deliver an equally striking message. The messaging here is comparable to a great finale in a more narrative work - or perhaps an incredible performance or spellbinding dialogue.

"It's a lot more convincing to argue that Alphaville is a great film because of how it engages with important real-world issues than to argue that it's great because you like how it looks."

I fundamentally disagree, and I don't see how. I would not even say it is equal. A film looking great, at least to me, will always be endlessly more important than any messaging in the world. Any purpose.

Why?

Because looking great is a reflection on cinematic expression, purpose, meaning, real-world issues, etc. are not. If a film looks great - you have a qualifier of quality. A film having X message - gives zero information of how well this is executed - and more so - to what extent the messaging is actually a central part of the cinematic expression.

At times messaging can indeed be a driving force of a cinematic work - take for instance Debord's adaptation of Society and the Spectacle to the format of a film essay - or more recently - I Do Not Care if We Go Down in History as Barbarians - where the messaging is part of the cinematic expression throughout - and has a major impact on why it is a masterpiece. Take the showcase of Romanian apologia of Fascism and inability to face its past away - you don't really have a film - and its power is gone.

Alphaville would lose power if it ended up with a less clear or even contradictory message - it would still have tapped into the same surrealist and horrifying expression of a world without feeling - and given the same senses of unease, awe, black humour. It would simply be lighter. This is why I compare its importance to that of a great ending in a narrative work - as it completes the story in a specific way and gives it added power - leaving you with something to think about and ponder. I completely agree that the style is in service of this message - but so is the message to the style. A narrative can be in service of the ending - perhaps an emotional confrontation - leaving everything that happened before validated. Think Wenders' Paris, Texas - where the emotion of the final meeting - and understanding the past - gives everything emotional resonance and power. The film would still be great without it - but not as strong - and whatmore - I don't necessarily think Alphaville and Paris, Texas are different classes of quality.

-

To simplify this a little, I don't think style for the sake of style, form for the sake of form, narrative for the sake of narrative or meaning for the sake of meaning have different values. And I don't think meaning for the sake of meaning is any more meaningful to cinema than style for the sake of style and narrative for the sake of narrative. My personal preference is form for the sake of form - and you can - technically achieve greatness with primarily relying on 1 - or - you can achieve greatness by combining them - but at the end of the day we are describing 4 (out of many) different ways to create great cinematic expression.

[wba]

Wonderful director!

01. As Tears Go By (1988)
02. Days of Being Wild (1990)
03. Chungking Express (1994)
04. In the Mood for Love (2000)

Wong seen: 9

[Umbugbene]

A film looking great, at least to me, will always be endlessly more important than any messaging in the world. Any purpose.

By the logic of your answer, it sounds like you'd defend a gorgeously shot fascist propaganda film, but that doesn't sound like the St. Gloede I know.

You're mistaken if you think I'm talking about "messaging" vs. "form" or even trying to separate and oppose style and substance. If that were the case then I wouldn't have learned anything from Alphaville. These things aren't opposites... they usually work in tandem, but they can be dangerously abstract if you try to theorize about them apart from the films themselves. Film criticism has to learn to see films whole - I find that utterly missing. If you can take a film and bring it to life by talking about camerawork and editing - separate from any humanity in the movie - then I might acknowledge your point, but I've never seen it done.

At any rate, I'm skeptical that this discussion will be easy to settle in a forum like this. If we sat down over a few evenings with a dvd player and a nice variety of films, then we might get somewhere.

[St. Gloede]

You're mistaken if you think I'm talking about "messaging" vs. "form" or even trying to separate and oppose style and substance. If that were the case then I wouldn't have learned anything from Alphaville. These things aren't opposites... they usually work in tandem, but they can be dangerously abstract if you try to theorize about them apart from the films themselves. Film criticism has to learn to see films whole - I find that utterly missing. If you can take a film and bring it to life by talking about camerawork and editing - separate from any humanity in the movie - then I might acknowledge your point, but I've never seen it done.

I don't think you are saying messaging vs. form, but unless I misunderstood, you are saying that messaging is an essential part of the puzzle that makes a film great or extraordinary - and this is where I disagree.

I absolutely agree - that film criticism should see a film as a whole - it is all about the tools used and the expression intended. Films have a long list of tools they can use to create an interesting cinematic experience - and they don't all need the same tools.

A film does not need to have great visuals to be great. In fact, a film does, arguably, not even need to have "visuals" at all to be great. There are respected films that present you with a blank screen - be it completely black - or perhaps in shades of a colour - take Jarman's Blue or Debord's Hurlements en faveur de Sade - I love neither, but both are interesting/good, and both have staunch defenders.

To many people story is the most important thing in the world - perhaps a story about characters you can relate to. But you don't need a story at all. You don't even need characters or dialogue. Take, for instance, James Benning films.

Similarly, a film does not need messaging to be great. You can shoot the same house over 4 seasons, with no actors, dialogue, etc. and it can provide artistic value.

To me, at least - the messaging only matters if used - and if used, the degree to which it is used and is a part of the film broadly decides to what extent the messaging actually matters in my final assessment - because, as you say, it is about the greater whole.

Messaging is also rarely what strikes me about cinema. You will have the occasional case where it can carry a film - but that is not that common - more frequently it either elevates or devalues a film to some extent - or plays no role at all.

Now - messaging - and "something human" is very, very different things.

Almost everything can be applied to something human. Tying this back to Wong this is why In the Mood for Love and 2046 are often so beloved as they are - as they catch something so deeply human and powerful.

If you, for instance, look at my favourite film - Last Year at Marienbad - I don't think "messaging" has any relevance in the film at all. What I love about it is, beyond the visual style, composition, etc. which certainly elevates it - the fact that it is an absolute mystery and can be interpreted in 100+ ways. I love it because it more than any other film (personal opinion) is an active film, setting your mind to work at piecing together the puzzle pieces and seeing how they fit: like an interpretation game.

Now, if you go to my second favourite film (they are essentially tied) Le bonheur - messaging does play an enormous part - as it is actively dissecting (in my interpretation anyways) the fleeting nature of happiness, showing its ugliness and banality - and tying this into broader themes of gender roles/sex and family.

Moving onto my third - Children of Paradise (yes, this ranking is arbitrary, and yes, somehow they are arbitrarily French from a 20year period ...) it is - while stunning and broadly carried by the visuals - brought to perfection with a tragic, character-based-story.

In this mini-case study - we have - for me - 3 completely different things carrying the films (all are beautifully shot and I am generally a visually driven person - but there are films I love that are actively shot to be an affront to cinematic conventions, such as work from the Cinema Marginal movement). In one messaging is essential, in two I would say it would at best be an afterthought for me - and it is not a part of why I love the films - if even there at all.

My general stance is that anything can be used or ignored by the filmmakers when they create a work and that a film can even be the greatest film of all time (personal preference) without clear messaging. Of all the tools used to create cinema, form is really the only line that always shows up - as everything can be form - every other attribute - including moving images (at least now that you don't need to project a film anymore) does not actually need to be there - and it is possible - even easy to do something great leaning on any point of interest - be it a great story, important messages, fun mind games, fun form games, etc.

A film looking great, at least to me, will always be endlessly more important than any messaging in the world. Any purpose.

By the logic of your answer, it sounds like you'd defend a gorgeously shot fascist propaganda film, but that doesn't sound like the St. Gloede I know.

That sentence is taken slightly out of the context there - the importance referenced is in terms of a description of whether or not a film is great, and a general argument for a films greatness. Stating a film's message - or even that it is a great message - does not mean that the message is done in a great way. Saying a film is well shot/have great visuals - do. The latter provides a qualitative statement, the former does not.

Having "good intentions" means very little in terms of cinematic expression - while great visuals do.

If we changed the language to great messaging, instead of "great message" - maybe a question of semantics - we would be having an entirely different conversation, however - but in that case, I would say "great messaging" and "great visuals" would be equal in terms of qualitative information they provide. Of course, a reviewer always goes further (or at least - they should).

-

Now, the stance on Fascist propaganda is interesting, and my answer would depend on what you mean with "defend".

I would not say that cinematic quality disappears simply because the messaging is vile. I am perfectly willing to say that Leni Riefenstahl was a relatively good director (or that she worked with good-great cinematographers) and that her films are shot well. Then, of course, comes the rest of the content. Composition, blocking, cinematography, etc. is not enough to make a film - unless it is a specific exercise in form - and then you still need formatic ideas being in play.

Regardless of how well made, i.e. how good the craftmanship is, you can fail in all or most other respects, and even destroy the value of your great visuals.

To use an example more divorced from morality (not in terms of the film, but the complaint) I think War Horse by Spielberg has gorgeous cinematography - in certain scenes, it is near perfect just in terms of a technicality - but what he chooses to capture with it - in terms of extreme sentimentality - especially in the farm life - renders it not only moot - but works against and devalues part of the craftmanship. This is of course a personal reaction - but then all individual reaction to art is personal, from our tastes to our moral and philosophical views.

Now, to return to morality - or messages - a genuinely vile message can certainly sink a film - just as messaging can elevate a film.

If you make a visually stunning film - but the end morality - message - the key take-away is to dehumanize a race or group of people - this will change the impact of the entire film - and how it is seen/experienced.

Though: beyond pure messaging - a lot else plays in here. Unless we are literally talking about Fascist propaganda in the form of James Benning style exploration of architecture/landscape that subversively packages specific aesthetics that support underlying Fascist aesthetics - or perhaps contrasts order vs. slums - linking it to say - people of a certain race - there will be dialogue, logic, plotting, acting, atmosphere, etc. set up to support the narrative - and as Fascism does not hold up very well to intellectual scrutiny this too would falter. And even in this James Benning style scenario, we are still left with form, representation, and how it makes its subversive arguments - and if a large enough part of the film it will certainly leave a major impact upon cinematic expression. Is the contrast Fascist James Benning is making a sound or clever? "Probably" no.

It may be the case that I am detaching elements of filmmaking more than you - but I would be quite inclined to contrast stunning cinematography - with nasty undertones - and overt messaging rendering the film impossible to enjoy - be it rendering it disgusting, or rendering it (to go away from morality) ridiculous - in my description of the film. I would still be even handed with the attributes that are good, and comment on how it could not save it from X or allow me to overlook X.

It is also important to note, as an aside, that I can like, or even love films with moral elements I disagree with - if other elements are done well. I think I have been writing far too much now however, so I will stop myself from expanding this wall of text even further.

At any rate, I'm skeptical that this discussion will be easy to settle in a forum like this. If we sat down over a few evenings with a dvd player and a nice variety of films, then we might get somewhere.

True, and even then we may just realize we take different things from films - but that is one of the most interesting kinds of conversation you can have.

[Abe]

This is a good debate but to be honest, I think a lot of you have a different thing in mind when you’re using these terms so I don’t think you’re even disagreeing as much as you think you are. For me, there should be an underlying meaning to a film and for a film to be good or great, it has to ‘say’ something of weight in a way that is complex, original and subtle. But that’s just me, and I am aware that there are a lot of films and books I cannot appreciate because I have quite a narrow view and I can certainly appreciate that others look for other things and envy those a little who are able to appreciate a wider spectrum of films or just any work on its own terms.

Now to get to WKW, I have a mixed reaction to his films. He is an exceptional stylist, but I don’t always think there’s a lot there beyond the style. I’ve heard some of his films called complex because they interweave multiple storylines and connect in small ways but I’ve never really figured how that equated to complexity or at least, to something worth praising. I don’t know, I feel his most effective film is the most focused of them, In the Mood for Love. It puts his stylistic flourishes to best use, rather than the scatterbrain chaotic stuff he does in some of the other films. I’ve watched it three times now and each time it’s grown on me. I can’t think of another film so attentive to body positions, beyond Bresson’s work, and while all his films seem to deal in the same themes, the others do so in more overt ways, or fall into too much quirkiness or silliness for me to really appreciate. Given what I said in the previous paragraph, In the Mood for Love would appear to go against what I normally appreciate in a film, but it’s become a favourite nonetheless.

Another irrelevant thing to add is that I’ve watched Chungking Express twice. The first time I was sober and I despised it and the second time I was drunk and loved it.

[flip]

It feels like we have a ton of open polls right now, along with the Cup, so I think I'll slow things down with Director Polls for now. There are four that are open (one by request, one that I should have tallied a few days ago), and I'll probably tally them all up this weekend, then start the next poll a week from today. So we're taking a week off!

And I might chime in the discussion later if I have time.