Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Ashes of Time (1994)
8/10
I want to see the two together
19 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
My own memory is scattered in the ashes of time, and I really need to re-view the original to see if my memory holds, but here is my impression. I'd give the original a 10. This one rates an 8. The two together are probably a 12.

I personally didn't like the amped up color. I gather that one of the things that happened when the filmmaker rediscovered a warehouse full of bootlegs was that there were some terrible copies that distorted the color, and he liked and played with that. This version also seemed more static than I remember--a lot of shots seem to have been done with still or very short segments of film. I have to see the original again to see if that's really the case, or if it is just my memory that there were more frames of action in the original. This often felt like it was cut from snippets. For example, the shifting sands under the title was a pair of superimposed images moving in different directions. Was that the case originally as well?

I loved the original but also could never quite follow the plot. Redux slices and dices (or-rather-unslices) so that each story is parceled together and the blurring that is going on in the interactions on-screen (for example, the Yin/Yang sibs) does not spill over quite as much into the interaction between viewer and screen. Redux shakes out the story lines so you can parse them. I miss the mystification, and don't think it's a net gain.

I also think something else may be going on here... If you remember the original (or have a copy to view), tell me what you think of this reading: The point of view of the story seems to have shifted from Huang Yaoshi to Ouyang Feng--although because of how the movie mixes action, memory and stories it is hard to tell. In the original, we followed the wandering Huang as his memory unspooled. Part of the difficulty for a viewer in understanding was the difficulty that his point of view had, because he was moving through a world of consequences without his memory to root understanding. The story flowed in pieces which might have been his splintered memories-ashes of time- or might have been others'. Things that he is told by unreliable narrators are accepted at face value until experience tells him otherwise. Events are repeated in variation as his understanding of them waxes and wanes.

In this version, the narrator (Huang Yaoshi) is fixed and the world comes to him. Things enacted in the first movie (for example, the encounter between Huang and Murong) with all the attendant ambiguity of living sequence, are instead recounted, with the flattening filters of narrator and listener. Unlike Huang, Ouyang accepts nothing at face value. So each event is more clearly arranged in a narrative, but all the narratives are filtered in the same way by a mind that rejects nuances that it can't fit to its particular ego. It is only at the end that Ouyang gains an insight that he may have missed things as important as his life's love as a result of his fear and pride.

The story consists of interlocking circles,organized around male-female pairs. Ouyang and his true love are separated because of mutual pride and unwillingness to be the first to declare love; Huang plays messenger between them, never telling the woman his own love for her. This story of two men and a woman is mirrored in a minor key in another triangle which engages Huang. In this one, passion was realized with unhappy consequences for all. Huang seduced his best friend's bride. At the time of the story, the blind husband encounters the memoryless Huang. Just as the moment to tell love had gone by for the lovers in the first triangle, the moment to enact revenge has slipped past the rivals.

The subsidiary stories also have evenly balanced male and female parts. The balance of male and female is concentrated to a point in Murong, who manifests that experience as a spinning latticed cage, sexual identity as a trap. Hong Qi, the natural, is steadfastly pursued by his wife, who ignores his rejection and simply acts to do what she thinks is right. The girl who wants revenge for her brother mirrors Ouyang. Each believes they have only one thing to sell, and each expects to be able to withhold the self from the exchange. For each, it takes another person's wound to break the trance of transactions.

Whatever is going on Wong Kar Wai and Christopher Doyle are gods.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yi Yi (2000)
10/10
The meaning of life and what we see and don;'t see
4 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Delicate and gorgeously filmed meditation on how we make meaning at different stages of life. Interlocking stories are full of interest--an unplanned pregnancy and marriage, a sudden illness, dramas at work and school-but the engine of the movie is not the many-petaled narrative but an underlying quest to, as the little son of the narrative focus puts it, "see what you see and have you see what I see."

Among the overlapping parts of the story are the contrast between a family driven by impulse and belief in luck and one where each choice is done with humility and thought; an elderly parent's coma pushes family members into an existential crisis; teen rebellion and teen love as a fragile tremulous flower, not a gaudy explosion; an old love--rediscovered--and the reason it ended rediscovered. While one family member literally retreats to a mountaintop to be with a guru (who in the end is as disappointing as the comatose materfamilias) others find insight from a video game designer and revelation in images of the napes of necks.

We saw this three days ago and I am still replaying scenes mentally. If you have never seen this, put it at the top of your Netflix list NOW.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Balkan witness
30 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I cannot praise this film highly enough. It is one of my all time favorites.

This is an exquisite, haunting film that does not get shown enough. The three interlocking parts of the story slant time and recast different characters in parallel tales that form a wreath, not a sequence or circle.

Each story follows a similar arc and includes similar elements: a hidden impregnation; an agonizing choice that reaches out to one that has already passed out of reach; an unexpected victim of violence; and the tragic back story of attack and retribution that dates back at least a thousand years to a late Byzantine reprisal. The elements map to the Christ story as if it had been compressed in a black hole, the virgin birth and sacrificial death compacted together and exploding out of a dazzling collage of violently mindless brutality and mindful attention--to prayer, to craft, to shepherdry.

Where is the viewer? A tragedy that is so alive in current events calls to action. If we are mute witnesses, then the story will reach a point where we must testify to the tragedy(so the photographer's stills tell us). But what words could have stopped what happened? If we stand by and are glad that the story is not ours we may yet find ourselves in the story. It doesn't matter if the face is Balkan or Palestinian--ejecting the combatants fails as policy. In the end and ending, reentering the picture as participant, not witness, repossessing the ruins of home and taking responsibility for the fruit of love, means giving up personal immortality (the European illusion of celebrity) in exchange for a blood-soaked collective eternity.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Groundhog Day by Jarmusch
3 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The film opens with Don John...ston (get it?) watching what appears to be a version of Don Juan (sorry, I don't know which one...) as his sad girlfriend breaks it off. Adrift in anomie, this aging Don Juan watches his black and white counterpart.

All the Jarmusch deadpan meets the Murray deadpan. A delight to watch.

A letter launches Murray on a series of encounters that are reminiscent of the tape loop of his earlier movie. He is stuck in his narcissism. Although superficially the encounters with exes are different from one another, they all play the same theme of sadness, dissatisfaction, drift. Like the pink flowers that he brings each woman, the encounters are variations composed of the same motifs. Each offers successively less entre to this face from the past, throwing him back more and more on himself.

At the very moment he is convinced the letter is a hoax, he also comes to believe in the son. The possibility leads to his rebirth. For the first time he becomes emotionally open, achieving a contact that has eluded him through the transcendent narcissism of parenthood, even if only imagined.

Film maker and actor both just get better and better. A very sweet movie.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
amazing historical and psychological drama
4 May 2005
This is a film that has haunted me for thirty years. I just re-viewed it on DVD and it was every bit as good as I remembered. I don't know why it doesn't show up in festivals and best-of-all-times list; it is on mine. It is satisfyingly densely textured and the acting is flawless. It is rich in every way-- historically fascinating as it shows the tugging at the fibers of France that would eventually (but not quite yet) culminate in revolution, the many nuances of class resentment from the top down -- tension between royalty and nobility, generals and (would-be) clergy, and provincial gentry and their peasantry.

Luxurious scenes and costumes and cinematography. Psychologically rich, terrific dialog, in the closely twined relationship between jaded nobility and ambitious bourgeois that plays out in a tug-of-war over the fate of Bretons. Philippe Noiret as the jaded regent is the ambiguous moral center, stoic yet decadent, embodying la patrie yet carving a private erotic niche apart from a world where his decision can tip the balance of European powers.
17 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Karmen Gei (2001)
10/10
This translation is true rather than faithful.
8 September 2004
There's an aphorism about translations that says that translations are like women--if they are beautiful they aren't faithful, and if they are faithful they aren't beautiful. This may not be a literal version of the familiar Carmen, but it is beautifully true to the spirit of the original. It is also unlike anything you've ever seen.

The acting and cinematography are splendid. The score honors Bizet in its tonality without ever quoting the opera. Djeïnaba Diop Gaï's Karmen is a shooting star. The original Carmen's transgressive sexuality, freely flaunted in a way that spills outrageously beyond societal rules, translates here into bisexuality. Other themes are also aptly and satisfyingly tranmuted--the smugglers are hauling dope; her toreador is a musical star.

It's rare for me to want to watch a movie twice in a row. The first thing I did after seeing this was look up when it would be shown again.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Karmen Gei (2001)
10/10
This translation is true rather than faithful.
8 September 2004
There's an aphorism about translations that says that translations are like women--if they are beautiful they aren't faithful, and if they are faithful they aren't beautiful. This may not be a literal version of the familiar Carmen, but it is beautifully true to the spirit of the original. It is also unlike anything you've ever seen.

The acting and cinematography are splendid. The score honors Bizet in its tonality without ever quoting the opera. Djeïnaba Diop Gaï's Karmen is a shooting star. The original Carmen's transgressive sexuality, freely flaunted in a way that spills outrageously beyond societal rules, translates here into bisexuality. Other themes are also aptly and satisfyingly transmuted--the smugglers are hauling dope; her toreador is a musical star.

It's rare for me to want to watch a movie twice in a row. The first thing I did after seeing this was look up when it would be shown again.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Funny Bones (1995)
10/10
On my all time top ten list
27 May 2004
This amazing film won't let you go. I was never a Jerry Lewis fan, but his performance here is extraordinary. The movie is a Pirandellean exploration of the nature of comedy. It works on so many levels--acting, script, cinematography, plot, and of course comedy. The dark secret of humor is that a grin is really a grimace. Oliver Platt is amazing--I hadn't seen him before and will now go to anything he plays in on the basis of the performance. He plays a failed comic son of a famous comic father (Jerry Lewis) exploring the roots of comedy--his own personal family roots, the roots in his home town's vaudeville, and ultimately its roots in the human psyche. I can't tell much more without giving away some of the twists of the roller-coaster of a plot. If you like to think while being entertained, here's a movie for you.
20 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A perfect movie
19 June 2001
I just saw Leningrad Cowboys for the third time and think it is a perfect film. Whatever else it may be about, it is a quest into the heart of rock and roll. The Cowboys start in New York playing their soulful/klezmerish immigrant blues on a seedy rooftop, then reel back through the roots of the genre--Memphis, Natchez, New Orleans, Honky Tonk and Biker Bars, road house and funeral...to their destination in Mexico where their Finnish filtered rock returns to its original sound, converging on the joyous soulful wedding as they back up a singer whose classic Indian features are not that different from some of the singers'... The esthetic is stylish and dead pan. The cinematography is actually quite beautiful, lyric of industrial decay. If you like Jarmusch (who does a spot as a car salesman) you'll like this movie. The pacing did not seem slow to me at all--but that may just be a sign of my age. The form is a series of theatrical skits and blackouts, and the tension of many scenes owes more to mime or comedia than MTV. I think my favorite is one involving the village idiot and a shoe that is not the one he wants. Poignant and hysterical at the same time. Oh, and maybe his treck with what looks to be a 50lb catfish... If you have a chance to see it, go. It is hilarious and sweet and utterly unlike anything else you've ever seen.
19 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed