SCFZ poll: Wong Kar-Wai

[Umbugbene]

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.

I wouldn't doubt that. Part of our disagreement above is probably semantic, although some of it is a difference in expectation.

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.

Agreed, and if I'm skeptical of our chances of persuading each other on a messageboard, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the discussion. If nothing else, chats like these help me to sharpen my own thinking. I wish more of my students were so engaged.

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.

This actually helps, I think, to hone in on the problem, which is the word "messaging". I don't think I used the word here, but if I did it should be understood as a metonymy for something greater. "Messaging" sounds too programmatic... it's better to say that I expect a film to open my eyes in some way, to see life differently, or to view the world, or some particular topic, with greater understanding. In the case of an Antonioni or Duras film, that may mean seeing everyday things with a freshness of vision, with unaccustomed wonder. Hitchcock usually offers a kind of psychological understanding. Ozu's films offer an unusually broad perspective on the cycle of life. Dramas from Depression-era Hollywood tend to offer practical wisdom about life, keeping marriages together through challenges, things like that.

By no means would I try to diminish whatever satisfaction you get from the sensual properties of films. Those are important, even essential, in any movie. As I've insisted all along, I believe that some kind of insight, or view of reality, or "substance" if you want to call it that, is part of the greatest films... but how can I demonstrate this without sharing a large part of the lifelong viewing experience that's led me to this? (You can buy my book if you want!) If more critics brought out the "substance" of movies I'm pretty sure people's priorities would shift. Ever since Eisenstein we've been taught to think that the "cinematic" lay in film-school techniques, although even Eisenstein wanted his montage to express new ideas.

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.

I'd put it this way - she's a talented director who wasted her talents because she put her skills in the service of bad ideas. But I'm not sure we have a disagreement here.

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.

Ah yes, Marienbad, one of my favorites as well. But if you want to get serious, would you care to expand on a handful of the 100+ possible interpretations? I have one - and it leads clearly to a particular insight - but to get there you have to reverse the usual thinking about the film. I mentioned it above alongside Vertigo and Charulata as a film about the hazards, or dark side, of romantic longing.

But I agree with you about its ambiguity. The scene with the statue hints as much.

[Joks Trois]

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.

Yes. We aren't really talking past each other, we just seem to have different ideas about concepts, or perhaps applying different definitions. I prefer to have these conversations face to face personally. It's much easier. Less room for misinterpretation.

[Joks Trois]

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)

I would not agree with the above. I prefer films that are more 'holistic'. Two of my favourite films of all time are Au Hasard Balthazar and Ordet. Do those films tell stories? Yes. Do they have points to make? Yes. Do they use form in an extraordinary, or at least masterful, way? Yes. Do they have emotional impact? Absolutely.

Wong's films fulfill some criteria but not all for me, so I can't label them, or him, great. I definitely enjoy big stylistic films, that's why I love Fellini, but Fellini had a lot more to say than Wong, and he was far more creative too. I'm using Fellini as an example because his films can also be appreciated quite superficially.

[St. Gloede]

This actually helps, I think, to hone in on the problem, which is the word "messaging". I don't think I used the word here, but if I did it should be understood as a metonymy for something greater. "Messaging" sounds too programmatic... it's better to say that I expect a film to open my eyes in some way, to see life differently, or to view the world, or some particular topic, with greater understanding. In the case of an Antonioni or Duras film, that may mean seeing everyday things with a freshness of vision, with unaccustomed wonder. Hitchcock usually offers a kind of psychological understanding. Ozu's films offer an unusually broad perspective on the cycle of life. Dramas from Depression-era Hollywood tend to offer practical wisdom about life, keeping marriages together through challenges, things like that.

By no means would I try to diminish whatever satisfaction you get from the sensual properties of films. Those are important, even essential, in any movie. As I've insisted all along, I believe that some kind of insight, or view of reality, or "substance" if you want to call it that, is part of the greatest films... but how can I demonstrate this without sharing a large part of the lifelong viewing experience that's led me to this? (You can buy my book if you want!) If more critics brought out the "substance" of movies I'm pretty sure people's priorities would shift. Ever since Eisenstein we've been taught to think that the "cinematic" lay in film-school techniques, although even Eisenstein wanted his montage to express new ideas.

I think we broadly agree that critics/academics should look at films holistically, and understand how important elements not connected to "film school techniques" and explore the ideas in play. Even in purely form-based exercises, it is not the techniques in a vacuum, but the ideas behind how they are applied, and how they interact with the medium that is interesting - which - if we don't use terms like messaging, would quality as substance. Same, to an extent for "narrative for the sake of narrative" or "beauty for the sake of beauty" where, in the first case the narrative can play with narrative conventions in the same daring/exciting way as form can challenge our perceptions - and in the latter - by - in one way or another issuing a sense of euphoria, which again will hit on something human - it is all, if interesting, carrying something more.

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.

Ah yes, Marienbad, one of my favorites as well. But if you want to get serious, would you care to expand on a handful of the 100+ possible interpretations? I have one - and it leads clearly to a particular insight - but to get there you have to reverse the usual thinking about the film. I mentioned it above alongside Vertigo and Charulata as a film about the hazards, or dark side, of romantic longing.

But I agree with you about its ambiguity. The scene with the statue hints as much.

That would almost deserve its own thread or a book, but I can do a stripped-down version of 3 quick alternative pathways to go down, and a set of the interpretations that can go below them.

1. Looking at the film first and foremost as a linear straight-forward narrative

1. He is lying, parts of what we see never happened (if so, a large part of the fun is determining what is a lie, and to what extent)
2. She is lying, parts of what we see are their past
3. The reality is somewhere in between (we need to determine what is true and what is not)
4. Elements of the film is dream, fantasy, lies and truth mixed into one (again, you need to sort out what is and isn't true - and what it means)

2. Restructured narrative

1. The order in which the scenes are presented is wrong but can be put back in place (for instance M discovers them by the fountain - then the "aftermath") - the order you reassemble it in creates near-infinite possibilities
2. The film is not set to 1-2 events, but a recurring yearly encounter, where every year the same or similar scenario plays out.

3. Afterlife

*This is where the statue scene comes into play - and given the clarifications of M of what the statue represents - adds further possibilities of twists.

1. A and X had an affair, M killed her - and X is now trying to reconnect in the afterlife and free A
2. It is purgatory - judging A and X for their transgression
3. It is hell, punishing A and X (or 1 of them), sending them into an eternal loop

4. It is not about A and X at all - but M - he is the one being punished for killing A by seeing the affair over and over again.

There are plenty of other directions to go in as well - and the statue is interesting - as many may see it as A and X - but it is more likely M and A - with X being the dog (though M could also be the dog).

[St. Gloede]

I prefer films that are more 'holistic'.

That's perfectly understandable, can't fault anyone for having slightly different points of interest. Cheers. Very good conversation.

[wba]

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.

I've watched it 6 or 7 times and my impression of it has changed considerably over time.

The first time I saw it I disliked it, and was baffled by the fact that people seemed to love it. The second time wasn't much better. The third time I enjoyed it, and the fourth or fifth time I fell in love with it.
Why have I watched it so many times? Cause people wanted to watch it when I was visiting them or hanging out with them initially. By my own I probably would have left it dying on the floor after my first watch (having filed it under "uninteresting").
I also strongly disliked AS TEARS GO BY after my first viewing, and always thought it was Wong's weakest film. But a few more viewings (and some of those from gorgeous original 35mm prints from the 80s at the cinema) have convinced me that it is actually his best film (by far). I haven't seen much by Wong (9 films), but watching them several times has always helped. Also my appreciation of IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE has grwon after several viewings (switching from disinterest to love).
I think people tend to say that Wong is all surface and no/less substance, cause there is so much surface, and it is so obviously and flagrantly shown/slapped in your face.

I haven't seen any Wong in close to 10 years now, and the last one was a screening of the atrocious ASHES OF TIME REDUX (2008), which was easily one of the worst films I have ever had to endure at the cinema. I haven't seen the original from 1994, but I'm sure it's a masterpiece, cause Wong - for me - was at the height of his powers as a filmmaker at the time.

It would surely be interesting to watch me some Wong in chronological order in the future and find out what I think of him. I doubt that my appreciation of his work from 1988 till 2000 would change, but hopefully I could also find something of interest in his work post-In the Mood for Love.

[flip]

Seen 6

Aberration, you can pick our next director if you want!

i won't start the next poll for about a week though, so lots of time

[Abe]

Seen 6

Aberration, you can pick our next director if you want!

i won't start the next poll for about a week though, so lots of time

Sure. How about Kieslowski?

[flip]

that's surprising, that we haven't polled kieslowski yet! he'll definitely work for a poll, so i'll start that up in a week or so

[Umbugbene]

That would almost deserve its own thread or a book, but I can do a stripped-down version of 3 quick alternative pathways to go down, and a set of the interpretations that can go below them.

You're right, we should save this for another thread or a later discussion. Lots of tantalizing possibilities there, all worth exploring. As you might imagine I have a high standard for interpretations, and I'd want to test them before accepting them. One of my tests (no surprise) is whether it gives a voice to the film, i.e. whether it says more than just "this happened".

[MrCarmady]

Watched As Tears Go By, which was a fun little take on Mean Streets of Fire but wba's assertion that it's Wong's best film by far is a bit baffling as it's clearly a blueprint for his collaborations with Doyle which squeeze vastly more out of the same milieu of Hong Kong, neon, and romantic longing. Maggie Cheung, though, ahh. Now it's time to catch up with Days of Being Wild which looks sick, not sure I'll do in time for it to change my list, though.

[wba]

Watched As Tears Go By, which was a fun little take on Mean Streets of Fire but wba's assertion that it's Wong's best film by far is a bit baffling as it's clearly a blueprint for his collaborations with Doyle which squeeze vastly more out of the same milieu of Hong Kong, neon, and romantic longing. Maggie Cheung, though, ahh. Now it's time to catch up with Days of Being Wild which looks sick, not sure I'll do in time for it to change my list, though.

Well, in my opinion it combines all the best elements in Wong. Which the subsequent films leave behind more and more. Wong changes and evolves much over the course of his filmography, and while I'm a huge fan of "early" Wong, I dislike almost everything about 21st century Wong. So in my opinion he begins with a bang (as say in creating one of the 100 best films of all time - that's how high I'd rank AS TEARS GO BY!), and slowly deteriorates afterwards. For me AS TEARS GO BY is not a (somewhat poor) blueprint of all that was to follow, but the most perfect expression of all his future themes (making his other films mere variations on everything he already did in AS TEARS GO BY). Also the cinematography in this one by far surpasses the cinematography in his other films: Doyle - as great as he can sometimes be - isn't as good with the camera in later Wongs (though he is also a master) as Andrew Lau is in this one. In my opinion AS TEARS GO BY is a masterclass in acting, directing, screenwriting, editing, cinematography, use of score/songs, art direction, and almost everything else, and easily in the Top 10 best Hong Kong films of all time. I also think AS TEARS GO BY is Wong's most heartfelt and honest and gut-wrenching film (a very close second: DAYS OF BEING WILD), while the others are being more and more nostalgic and more and more metareflective and navel-gazing looks on the past and that part of him, which he put into making AS TEARS GO BY. Maybe it's the collaborative aspect of a director (Wong), working with other directors (Jeffrey Lau with the screenplay, Andrew Lau with the cinematography), so that those three and the rest of the crew were totally on fire with this project. I don't know how the stars aligned on this one

Btw.: I'm not a fan of MEAN STREETS (which I think is merely a poor student film, and doesn't have an iota of greatness), but adore STREETS OF FIRE (which I think is Hill's best film). For whatever that's worth.

[MrCarmady]

I like both Mean Streets and Streets of Fire a lot, and I enjoyed this one, but I mostly found the triads stuff comically exaggerated and not at all hard-hitting, which is why I prefer Wong's sidelining/abstraction of genre elements in his later work.

Anyway, flip's list has alerted me to a couple of his shorts I haven't seen so I'm gonna jump on those before the poll closes.

[Curtis, baby]

not a huge fan of Streets of Fire, but i think we can all agree that "Tonight is What It Means to be Young" is the ultimate soundtrack to the sexual tension u feel at a summer house party when you're 25 and u realize that u and your gf's close friend (who actually introduced u to your gf) have fallen hard for each other, but now what, you're moving to chicago at the end of the summer and she's going to berlin. cmon bud. you missed your shot. u fucked up. u need to come to terms with it

you know, hypothetically...

[MrCarmady]

I watched Streets of Fire pretty damn stoned when we had the Hill poll a while back and as that sequence was playing I was honestly considering where the film would fall on my top 10 list. Hard to live up to that tho.

[MrCarmady]

Wait did I mix up the two songs? They're both sick. Even though this is off-topic, it isn't really - I think Wong's use of pop music is nearly unparalleled, at least in the films that I've watched. Apart from the obvious Scorseses and Tarantinos, who are the directors who can lay claim to rivalling the use of California Dreamin' or Happy Together or that amazing cover of Dreams?!

[wba]

not a huge fan of Streets of Fire, but i think we can all agree that "Tonight is What It Means to be Young" is the ultimate soundtrack to the sexual tension u feel at a summer house party when you're 25 and u realize that u and your gf's close friend (who actually introduced u to your gf) have fallen hard for each other, but now what, you're moving to chicago at the end of the summer and she's going to berlin. cmon bud. you missed your shot. u fucked up. u need to come to terms with it

you know, hypothetically...

If you change the age from 25 to 15 I'd agree.

[wba]

Wait did I mix up the two songs? They're both sick. Even though this is off-topic, it isn't really - I think Wong's use of pop music is nearly unparalleled, at least in the films that I've watched. Apart from the obvious Scorseses and Tarantinos, who are the directors who can lay claim to rivalling the use of California Dreamin' or Happy Together or that amazing cover of Dreams?!

Yeah, Wong is kinda one of the kings of using songs for his films and fitting them to the scenes. Best one for me is the extremely loooong TAKE MY BREATH AWAY-scene (like 10 minutes or something?) culminating with the protagonists in the phone booth.

[wba]

found the "long" version online, with nine and a half minutes:

https://vimeo.com/342244410

[Curtis, baby]

not a huge fan of Streets of Fire, but i think we can all agree that "Tonight is What It Means to be Young" is the ultimate soundtrack to the sexual tension u feel at a summer house party when you're 25 and u realize that u and your gf's close friend (who actually introduced u to your gf) have fallen hard for each other, but now what, you're moving to chicago at the end of the summer and she's going to berlin. cmon bud. you missed your shot. u fucked up. u need to come to terms with it

you know, hypothetically...

If you change the age from 25 to 15 I'd agree.

I'm a late bloomer bro

[thoxans]

wanna watch the as tears go by take my breath away clip sooo bad but haven't seen the film and just feel it's the type of clip that needs to be seen in the context of the whole flick...

[wba]

wanna watch the as tears go by take my breath away clip sooo bad but haven't seen the film and just feel it's the type of clip that needs to be seen in the context of the whole flick...

yeah, it totally doesn't work without the context. Sorry!
But still a nice song and "typical" Wong-scene, if you don't know the film.

[greennui]

Reading about his upcoming project and it doesn't sound all that promising, 'tv show and movie based on the same source but set in different decades'. Sounds like another clusterfuck. Kinda wished he'd do a 'small' film instead. I mean, Chungking was done on the fly whilst editing a more ambitous project. Feel like there was a lesson to be learned there.

[flip]

for a poll with this many votes, we have an improbable tie for first

so we'll have a runoff vote to decide the winner. you can only vote in the runoff if you have seen both films, in the mood for love and chungking express. i was able to infer some votes from ballots posted already, so if your vote already appears below, no need to do anything. if your name does not appear below, you can vote just by replying in this thread with your choice of the two films:

in the mood for love
oscarwerner
brian d
aberration
joks trois
ofrene
john ryan
mesnalty
evelyn
umbugbene
dt.
grabmymask
cinesmith

chungking express
flip
flabrezu
mrcarmady
st gloede
filmjunkie
wba
nrh
curtis
thoxans

if a brand new ballot comes in that breaks the tie, that will supersede the runoff, but i won't let an edited ballot change the outcome (then anyone determined to vote tactically would just be able to decide the winner)

results
1. In the Mood for Love (2000) — 53.12 pts
2. Chungking Express (1994) — 49.09 pts
3. Happy Together (1997) — 43 pts
4. Fallen Angels (1995) — 26 pts
5. Days of Being Wild (1990) — 22 pts
6. 2046 (2004) — 20 pts
7. Ashes of Time (1994) — 14 pts
7. As Tears Go By (1988) — 14 pts
9. The Grandmaster (2013) — 10 pts
10. Eros: “The Hand” (2004) — 4 pts
11. My Blueberry Nights (2007) — 2 pts
11. Hua yang de nian hua (2000) — 2 pts
11. Ashes of Time Redux (2008) — 2 pts
14. There’s Only One Sun (2007) — 1 pt

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

Seen both. In the Mood for Love.

[greennui]

Didn't know Ashes of Time and Redux are seen as two different films, voted for Ashes of Time but I've only seen Redux.

[Umbugbene]

I've seen both and strongly prefer In the Mood for Love. I voted for it and left Chungking Express out.

[flip]

Didn't know Ashes of Time and Redux are seen as two different films, voted for Ashes of Time but I've only seen Redux.

i don't know what the difference is (haven't seen either), so not sure if they should be considered different, but nrh voted for both on the same ballot so i counted them as two different films.

[nrh]

Didn't know Ashes of Time and Redux are seen as two different films, voted for Ashes of Time but I've only seen Redux.

ashes of time redux is fully resequenced, rescored and color corrected in a way aggressively distinct from the original. definitely the same elements but they very much feel like different films, even moreso than say apocalypse now original feels from its revised versions, to use one example.

it's probably pedantic to list both on the same list but i like both movies and feel kind of sad that the original feels sort of lost to history, languishing on those afwul sd copies you had to pay to get shipped from asia if you wanted the correct aspect ratio (and now in nicely confusing torrent history i guess).

[nrh]

and seen both but will pick chungking express.