Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:43:49 -0800
Subject: Re: lost dawg
From: Michael Moretti <moretti-AT-mac.com>


Okay, call me nutty, but my point remains that I think the film was
contrived for consumption by a Western audience, not that I thought it
failed to conform to the form of Western film. I don't believe that this
film rated among the better martial arts films, and I have seen many. Let me
stress that I did not go to see this film because it was or was not a
martial arts flick. I went because it looked promising from what I had
heard. Back to my thought that the film was contrived: I felt as though the
film was packaged as a foreign (exotic) film which are typically viewed by
American/Western audiences as either being too deep for mass consumption or
just was the intellectual elite love to feast upon. And I count myself more
among the latter. Many films are just made and play to the smaller audience
because they are made as art, not commercial products. Most of us can
separate the Bressons/Truffauts from the Warner Bros. I read the code: I
just thought it was too obvious to be natural. And, I tend to side with
Tarkovsky - characters should not be symbols. They should be natural,
truthful expressions of the type/ideal. By succeeding at this they give us
characters who are unique, memorable and with whom we can identify. This
film stayed too deep in its own form to appeal to me on a real emotional
level. I couldn't escape its genre thanks to the effort I feel the filmmaker
put into conforming to the genre so that it would sell. A great martial arts
flick for the aristocracy... not.

And some like to jump to the conclusion that because one criticizes a film
it's because of some populist allergy. Admittedly, I rarely find myself at
movies that everyone's raving about. But, this doesn't mean that I cannot
transcend my bias. I have been surprised, so I do keep myself open. I
realize that "some of you" are more enlightened than others when it comes to
film criticism. But, is my claim that the film ends abruptly really personal
criticism, or just personal observation. In fact, it seems that I have run
afoul of the film criticism community standards by suggesting that by taking
a personal position I am somewhat of an anarchist seeking ownership in a
process which belongs to others... Have we forgotten that film is between
filmmaker and audience: art and meaning are not the province of the critic,
only his objects.

A work of real art cannot be seen universally. It is a very peculiar thing.
If everyone likes it, understands it, then it has failed as art. The
artist's vision has been diluted, corrupted and sold out. It's when it has
succeeded for a few that it transcends its worldliness.

Okay, I still wept when the Reluctant Warrior died...

Michael

 1/24/01 11:54 AM, gary patrick norris at ngary2-AT-qwest.net wrote:

>> Is this inciteful...?
>> 
>> I saw Crouching Tiger last week and I have to go against the crowd on this
>> one - I was less than moved. I think the subtitles were a marketing ploy to
>> get us to think we were going to see some exotic/esoteric flick. My sense
>> was that Crouching Tiger was made for a Western audience. That in itself
>> depreciates the cultural possibilities. (More criticisim: the acting was
>> well-performed but predictable; the ending was too abrupt - even seemed a
>> bit David Carradine-ish; if the filmmaker had just let us see the wires I
>> might have enjoyed this more as an outlandish b-flick; etc., etc.) So where
>> does the theory come in to play here? Anyone...?
>> 
>> Michael
> 
> 
> Crouching Tiger participates in a specific genre of film, filmmamking
> and storytelling.  The theory comes into play the moment the critic
> (you) is willing to deal with the decisions that were made in making
> the film.  You can't theorize in a vacuum.  If you have watched many
> ASIAN martial arts FANTASY films, Crouching Tiger fulfills (and
> outperforms at times) the group.
> 
> Ang Lee is very aware of the "flaws" that you mention.  Crouching
> Tiger has no B-film aspirations.
> 
> The theory comes in when you are willing to ask questions like "how
> is the hero/heroine portrayed in this film as compared to this or
> that genre?"
> 
> Crouching Tiger is not Western fare storytelling.  There is a whole
> different semiotic code to this film.
> 
> This idea that the subtitles are a marketing ploy for western
> audiences is nutty criticism.  What do you mean?  Crouching tiger is
> an exotic film, by definition.  It is fantasy.  And it is "from
> another world."  In this sense, it is for everybody.
> 
> Why the conflating of the terms "exotic" and "esoteric"?  Last time I
> checked exotic meant "from another world" and esoteric meant "made to
> be understood by only a few."  Now, only a certain type of film fan
> will love Crouching Tiger, but it does have all the elements of the
> love story and the epic, just to mention two narrative techniques,
> that are universally understood by all audiences.  Once again, the
> semiotic code, the symbolism developed, is slightly different.
> Things might appear strange at times.  But that is because the story
> is literally from another world and its director allows it
> sovereignty.  Imagine if this film had been cluttered by Western
> mechanism of filmmaking like the product placement and the obligatory
> obvious climax.  What an awful, predictable movie Crouching Tiger
> would be.  Instead, it's action is unpredictable.  Certainly, the
> dialogue is predictable.  But the characters are symbols; they are
> stock characters that symbolize specific roles.  They are entirely
> NOT AT ALL self-reflexive.
> 
> Your sense that Lee made the film FOR western audiences is really an
> unjustifiable argument.
> 
> To be honest I enjoyed the spectacle and ignored the frail storyline.
> Yet I knew what to expect before I walked into the theatre.
> 
> 
> Some "critics" just like to criticize anything colored with a populist brush.
> 
> 
> Some of us have come to the realization that HONG KONG film is not
> all Woo shoot 'em ups and Chan chop-socky.  The Bride with the White
> Hair series, the Chinese Ghost Story, the Tai Chi Master series (just
> to name three) are good examples of what Crouching Tiger is going
> after in style.  For crying out loud, half of Tai Chi Master is
> literally "in the air."  Sometimes the title of the film is the
> storyline.  These films are made for endulging in fantastic
> spectacle, they transcend bullshit political pandering structure.
> They are all action, uncanny at times, but always strangely human.
> 
> What I love about "Western Audiences" is their  unwillingness to
> understand a narrative unless it follows pseudo-Aristotlean
> structure.  Your claim that Crouching Tiger ends abruptly is strictly
> personal criticism.  So what?  You ask, "where does theory come into
> play here"?  RIGHT NOW:
> 
> THEORY OF SEEING
> THEORY OF AUDIENCE REACTION
> THOERY OF NARRATIVE STRUCTURE
> THEORY OF PERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY
> THEORY OF THE POLITICS OF CINEMA
> 
> criticism isn't "I liked this 'cause" or "I didn't like this 'cause."
> Fuck Ebert.  Criticism is a method of discovering something new about
> something we are familiar with.  It is a search for answers that
> develops its own unique dialectic that can be learned and unlearned,
> practiced or ignored.  This practice begins with theory and ends with
> the auteur (author).  The critique>>>The Theory>>>The practice...
> 
> you participate in this process...it does not belong to you...
> 
> 
> gary norris
> 
> 



     --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---