Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:06:40 -0500
From: Ryan Krivoshey <ryan-AT-frif.com>
Subject: Re: lost dawg


I agree with Michael on the Crouching Tiger debate. I think the film was 
obviously geared for a 'mainstream' western audience, and thusly suffers as 
a result. One doesn't need to look far to backup this point. Ang Lee is a 
Hollywood director, plain and simple. It's very difficult - nearly 
impossible - for a filmmaker, who is accustomed to making mainstream fare 
(i.e. films such as the Ice Storm and Run With Devil) to turn around and 
deliberately make an art film (I would invite any examples of this).

To further complicate the authenticity of Crouching Tiger as a true foreign 
film,  the scriptwriter of Crouching Tiger is American, a co-owner of the 
U.S. distribution company Good Machine, and has himself said that he 
modeled the characters in the film on his own Jewish family members and 
friends. All this if of course a moot point, a triviality, if the final 
product succeeds as a film. But unfortunately, the film, in my opinion, 
does not succeed. It is a rehash of cliches - of western cliches, and tired 
cliches that western moviegoers have about foreign films. It's a fun movie, 
but nowhere near a great film, and certainly not deserving of the praise 
that has been heaped on it.

There are too many elements in Crouching Tiger that are familiar to western 
audiences. The love story is classic Hollywood. The idea of the hero 
training an unruly disciple is classic Hollywood. And even the action 
sequences that everyone raves about, even though they are spectacular, were 
done by the same man who choreographed the action scenes for The Matrix. My 
point in bringing up all these facts, is that this film was made by a team 
that has worked in Hollywood, knows how to employ Hollywood techniques and 
cliches, and whose gimmicks are all too familiar to mainstream western 
audiences, which is the reason why it has been such a strong crossover hit.

I won't drag this out, but I would like to mention two other current Asian 
films that with their critical raves manage to live up to the hype. Both 
Edward Yang's YI YI and Wong Kar Wai's IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE are exceptional 
films. One need only to watch these films to see how they differ from 
western fare, and what changes a western director and screenwriter would 
have made to the script - to make it more salacious, less complex, more 
clear cut, and a more linear plot that builds suspense as it goes. All 
contrivances that can be found in Crouching Tiger.

Ryan




At 12:43 PM 1/24/01 -0800, you wrote:
>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 ---



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