really amazed to see so many people putting up comments on WKW's short in this short trilogy.
among many comments posted here on WKW, some claim he's done another masterpiece and some claim the romance within and some even analyzed the connection between "this masterpiece" and and that "2046" and they sound all exhilarated or exhilarating....
but being a Chinese audience, i must say i never really understand well any one of WKW's movies except the one CHUNGKING EXPRESS. Even this Chongqing express was only made more viewer friendly to me with the participation of Faye Wong and Andy Lau, the two constant icons of Hongkong popular culture in the last 10 years or so. But just as the title Chungking Express bears no special meaning to any Chungking native like me, the whole film is of the typical WKW style: formalism in priority.
and when back on WKW's short, i admit that i felt a bit fed up with the reappearing Chinese gowns since IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE and the similar rhythm and backdrop of the 1960's ...All these elements seem ostentatiously formalistic in that the Chinese gown is no more than an instrument to bring out the artificially nostalgic and (to many western viewers,) exotic oriental feel and that the 1960's in Hongkong is something so hollow that those who watch could hardly have any idea of what the 1960's in Hongkong was like and those who have the ideas might rarely watch and hardly understand this film when they are at least at their 5o.
Some supporting critics of WKW comment "..of course, the dim dramatical content and the sadness in the boring slowness of this film have also become the target of criticism for many traditionally formalized critics who regard film, like writing or painting, as (means of expression of profoundity). What these critics can not stand about this film is that there no single icon or symbol in this film for them to amplify or analyze" (p.51, {a hundred years of Chinese cinema}, special issue of Film Watching Magazine, china) And if there is really nothing for those "traditionally formalized" critics to analyze from WKW's film, then the above supporting analysis should come from nowhere but the nothingness of WKW's own creations.
one should be open and tolerant enough towards formalism and nothingness, but what about formalism and nothingness in disguise?
among many comments posted here on WKW, some claim he's done another masterpiece and some claim the romance within and some even analyzed the connection between "this masterpiece" and and that "2046" and they sound all exhilarated or exhilarating....
but being a Chinese audience, i must say i never really understand well any one of WKW's movies except the one CHUNGKING EXPRESS. Even this Chongqing express was only made more viewer friendly to me with the participation of Faye Wong and Andy Lau, the two constant icons of Hongkong popular culture in the last 10 years or so. But just as the title Chungking Express bears no special meaning to any Chungking native like me, the whole film is of the typical WKW style: formalism in priority.
and when back on WKW's short, i admit that i felt a bit fed up with the reappearing Chinese gowns since IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE and the similar rhythm and backdrop of the 1960's ...All these elements seem ostentatiously formalistic in that the Chinese gown is no more than an instrument to bring out the artificially nostalgic and (to many western viewers,) exotic oriental feel and that the 1960's in Hongkong is something so hollow that those who watch could hardly have any idea of what the 1960's in Hongkong was like and those who have the ideas might rarely watch and hardly understand this film when they are at least at their 5o.
Some supporting critics of WKW comment "..of course, the dim dramatical content and the sadness in the boring slowness of this film have also become the target of criticism for many traditionally formalized critics who regard film, like writing or painting, as (means of expression of profoundity). What these critics can not stand about this film is that there no single icon or symbol in this film for them to amplify or analyze" (p.51, {a hundred years of Chinese cinema}, special issue of Film Watching Magazine, china) And if there is really nothing for those "traditionally formalized" critics to analyze from WKW's film, then the above supporting analysis should come from nowhere but the nothingness of WKW's own creations.
one should be open and tolerant enough towards formalism and nothingness, but what about formalism and nothingness in disguise?