From: Robert Baird <r-baird-AT-ntx1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: RE: lost dawg
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:15:55 -0600


Well, to think that Ang Lee and marketing crew would take a gamble on
creating the first film in history to make it big in the States WITH the aid
of subtitles is probably reading a bit too much into that.

However, I think Michael might be on to something.  In Crouching Tiger there
does seem to be a greater distinction between the typical Hong Kong action
and fantasy films that have come in as low-budget "B" films and the American
action/martial arts film.  In many ways, Crouching Tiger is the most
elaborate blending of Asian/Hong Kong and American mainstream film styles
and approaches I have ever seen.  Instead of seeing Crouching Tiger as
really an American blockbuster with all the "cultural possibilities" sucked
dry, I see it as an interesting and hopefully repeatable meshing of two
similar but distinct film traditions.

best

Robert Baird, Ph.D.
Computer Assisted Instruction Specialist
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Center for Educational Technologies
<http://edtech3.cet.uiuc.edu/r-baird>
r-baird-AT-uiuc.edu || 333-5092
505 East Armory Avenue
182 Armory Building
MC-531
AIM IM Screen Name: BiffTBaird


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Moretti [mailto:moretti-AT-mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 12:46 PM
To: film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: lost dawg


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

on 1/23/01 8:16 PM, BUDGRANT-AT-aol.com at BUDGRANT-AT-aol.com wrote:

> It seems that I missed the responses to lost dog that were embedded in
hugh's
> e-mail, where'd they go? But I wanted to respond, so I will. There is
> something to what this guy is saying, even if it comes off a bit caustic,
> because it is a film theory list and not a movie discussion list (or is
it?)
> Certainly I don't want to impose some sort of fascistic order, and luckily
I
> can't as this is something akin to an egalitarian format. In defense of
the
> general opinion style discussion, I add: when it comes to simply talking
> about stars and opinions I tend to hide out, as I know that at some point
a
> film will be thrown into the discussion that stirs up some fast, furious
and
> biting theoretical dialogue. A few months ago we went on a couple of weeks
in
> response to a posting that began with: anyone see eyes wide shut? The
thread
> died somewhere between the kantian noumenal and the lacanian real. So be
> patient there are some intense minds on this list, and perhaps it is up to
> you to incite the theoretical debate you were hoping to find.
> Waiting patiently in cyberbia,
> Paul
> 
> 
>    --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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


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