PDA

View Full Version : Syndromes and a Century (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2006)



origami_mustache
01-25-2008, 05:26 PM
Syndromes and a Century (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2006)

http://www.indiewire.com/movies/Syndromes.jpg

Proceed with caution: spoilers below...

Very few directors utilize the film medium in such a way Apichatpong Weerasethakul does; Tarkovsky comes to mind, and perhaps a handful of others, but there is something about eliciting feelings and recreating dreams and memories that I find more engaging than narrative filmmaking. Syndromes and a Century is an exploration of memory and reflection for the director himself as well as the audience. The film is divided into two parts. As the Apichatpong explains, the first part recollects his parent's courtship. However this pretext isn't necessary for enjoying and understanding the film. To simplify things it's about different lives intersecting, and triggering memories and emotions through everyday seemingly innocuous events.

The first half of the film takes place at a small clinic where a man falls in love with a female doctor. His confession of love to her sparks the story of her past love with an orchid expert. We are also introduced to a dentist who befriends a monk. As they get to know one another we discover the dentist is also a singer, while the monk once dreamed of being a DJ. In a touching scene the dentist asks the monk if he is the reincarnation of his brother who died when he was 8 years old. The dentist feels responsible for his death and wants a chance to apologize. The dentist offers the monk a toy horse that belonged to the his brother, however the monk explains that he was not a human and his past life so therefor cannot be his brother. So the dentist offers him his new album instead.

The setting and space evokes a certain warm emotion, as we see the sunshine beaming through open windows, lush greenery, and the comforting sounds of chirping birds. Occasionally the camera strays from the characters entirely and we are left with images of an open field or an eclipse. In the first half of the film the camera is mostly static with few very minimal movements in contrast to the second half of the film which includes a much more mobile camera reflecting the transition into a more modern environment. The second half of the film includes the same characters we met in the first half, and in fact some of the same events reoccur almost verbatim, except for the fact that the sequence of shots as well as the setting has changed, which in turns affects the relationships the characters have with one another. The setting becomes a large Metropolitan hospital with a much colder feel to it as machinery and the white walls replace the colorful palette created by the greenery and sunlight.

The environment is much more impersonal. This is most overt when the dentist and the monk reenact their meeting. Instead of forming a close bond, there is only awkward silence as the dentist performs his tasks. Only phrases like "open your mouth" and "rinse" are spoken between the two, leaving a sad emptiness when reflecting upon their relationship in the first half. The reflections the film triggers is the magic of it in my opinion. Syndromes and a Century is a film about memory that creates memories for the viewer to recall and compare these fractured scenes, making for a very cerebral experience.

Velocipedist
01-25-2008, 05:42 PM
A 10? Good God! I need to see this but, alas,

1. We never get movies around here. Like, you know, in theatres.
2. We never get DVD releases and, when we do, it's for the obvious stuff.

Good write-up, but you need to be more personal!

Also kudos to the fact that you stick with the original release date; more people should do this.

origami_mustache
01-25-2008, 05:52 PM
A 10? Good God! I need to see this but, alas,

1. We never get movies around here. Like, you know, in theatres.
2. We never get DVD releases and, when we do, it's for the obvious stuff.

Good write-up, but you need to be more personal!

Also kudos to the fact that you stick with the original release date; more people should do this.


haha I suppose I give tens more than most people here, but I really loved this. Memories and nostalgia haunt me, so I'm always fascinated by these kinds of abstractions. Thanks for the critque.

Where are you from by the way?

Velocipedist
01-25-2008, 05:54 PM
Where are you from by the way?

rumeinia

Cherish
02-01-2008, 02:27 AM
Thank goodness someone saw this! I’ve been desperate for discussion! I loved reading your thoughts. I found the monk/dentist friendship to be very touching as well.


To simplify things it's about different lives intersecting, and triggering memories and emotions through everyday seemingly innocuous events.

This is true, and makes it even more amazing that it's so mesmerizing (since it's built on such innocuous events).

I did want to point out one thing -- when you said:


The first half of the film takes place at a small clinic where newly hired Dr. Nohng falls in love with another doctor.

Actually, the man who asks her to marry him is another character (named Toa). I read, in an interview with Weerasethakul, that both halves of the movie are set in the time when his parents worked together, but before they fell in love. The first half is from her point of view, the second, his. And the modern setting of the second half reflects Weerasethakul’s own recollections of seeing his parents work in an urban hospital. His memories have gotten mixed up over time with the anecdotes his parents told him.

This is one time when I was glad I’d read quite a bit about the movie before I saw it. I think I would have felt lost without the framework of the parents and memory.

I don't understand why he changed the title (Light of the Century in Thai) for its English language release. I read that he considered “syndromes” not to have negative connotations, but to refer, at least somewhat, to falling in love. Don't you think Light of the Century is more elegant and evocative?

origami_mustache
02-01-2008, 06:04 AM
I did want to point out one thing -- when you said:

Actually, the man who asks her to marry him is another character (named Toa). I read, in an interview with Weerasethakul, that both halves of the movie are set in the time when his parents worked together, but before they fell in love. The first half is from her point of view, the second, his. And the modern setting of the second half reflects Weerasethakul’s own recollections of seeing his parents work in an urban hospital. His memories have gotten mixed up over time with the anecdotes his parents told him.

This is one time when I was glad I’d read quite a bit about the movie before I saw it. I think I would have felt lost without the framework of the parents and memory.

I don't understand why he changed the title (Light of the Century in Thai) for its English language release. I read that he considered “syndromes” not to have negative connotations, but to refer, at least somewhat, to falling in love. Don't you think Light of the Century is more elegant and evocative?

Yeah, the fact the film sort of needs an introduction to fully comprehend the director's thoughts is maybe the one concern I have about it. I interpreted the first half as his parents courting and the second half being how things would have turned out in a more modern atmosphere rather than the perspective of each. So you're saying that the man who asks her to get engaged is actually another actor entirely? I suppose this changes things a bit hmmm.

As far as the title is goes, I actually like 'syndromes' in the title especially since the characters are doctors in love, but either would suffice for me.

Cherish
02-01-2008, 12:23 PM
So you're saying that the man who asks her to get engaged is actually another actor entirely? I suppose this changes things a bit hmmm. Yeah. That's confirmed by the interviews I read. If I recall correctly, I don't believe we see the father character at all after the interview scene (in the first half, of course). The guy who asks her to marry him is the sad-looking one who's waiting in her office during the interview.


As far as the title is goes, I actually like 'syndromes' in the title especially since the characters are doctors in love, but either would suffice for me. That's a good point, especially since the love we see in the film is all unsuccessful. Maybe I'm warming up to it...

lovejuice
02-01-2008, 03:31 PM
I don't understand why he changed the title (Light of the Century in Thai) for its English language release. I read that he considered “syndromes” not to have negative connotations, but to refer, at least somewhat, to falling in love. Don't you think Light of the Century is more elegant and evocative?

well, syndromes and a century is actually the original title. Joe named his movie in english first before he thought of a thai title. (since the funding was from foreign source.) i like the word "syndromes". it rings quite well with "malady" in his previous film, and somehow suggests his obsession with disease.

a tidbit about name: the movie was first shown to selected media in a run-down theater called "century." i asked him if there was any connection, but he didn't even think about it at that point. it just happens to be the cheapest place. :P

origami_mustache
02-02-2008, 06:53 AM
Yeah. That's confirmed by the interviews I read. If I recall correctly, I don't believe we see the father character at all after the interview scene (in the first half, of course). The guy who asks her to marry him is the sad-looking one who's waiting in her office during the interview.


Oh OK that makes sense now. It was hard to tell as there was never a close up of the man's face after the opening scene....at least not that I can recall.

MacGuffin
02-02-2008, 06:55 PM
A monumental achievement.

Cherish
02-02-2008, 10:17 PM
well, syndromes and a century is actually the original title. Joe named his movie in english first before he thought of a thai title. (since the funding was from foreign source.)

That's good to know! As I said above, I think I've come around on the title. It certainly sounds better than his working title -- Intimacy and Turbulance.


A monumental achievement.

Yes. I think it's amazing!

Stay Puft
02-07-2008, 11:56 PM
Yeah, the fact the film sort of needs an introduction to fully comprehend the director's thoughts is maybe the one concern I have about it.

Should that be a concern? Unlike Cherish, I didn't read much about the movie before watching it. I don't think it's important, because the movie is about impressions and associations. What I loved about Syndromes, what I loved about Tropical Malady, is that it is such a suggestive movie. It's hard to describe: You could say there is no beginning or end as in a traditional narrative, that the movie simply gives you pieces and details that suggest worlds of meaning, but at the same time it is a rigorously structured movie, specific in intent (parallelism between two halves being the most obvious structure). The movie gives you specific details, constructs a specific experience - but one that is contemplative, one that invites associations and thus fiction making.

The shift from the first half to the second is the most evocative and charged, as it is with Tropical Malady. What is happening? We have moved from the rural to the urban, this much is specific. The actors are the same. This much is specific. The scene is similar, but not specific. What is happening? Has the scene shifted geographical location? Has the time period shifted? (The title is Syndromes and a Century, an evocative title if ever there was one.) Are these supposed to be the same characters? Different characters? Second lives, or an infinite possiblity therein? (Reincarnation and past lives come up in conversation in both halves). The associations are up for grabs. Throughout the movie certain details come into focus. Others fade away. This is an exciting feeling. It's an exciting movie to watch. Regarding your original post:


In a touching scene the dentist asks the monk if he is the reincarnation of his brother who died when he was 8 years old. The dentist feels responsible for his death and wants a chance to apologize. The dentist offers the monk a toy horse that belonged to the his brother, however the monk explains that he was not a human and his past life so therefor cannot be his brother. So the dentist offers him his new album instead.

This is my favorite scene, particularly the way it ends, with the dentist following the monk, arriving back in his office and turning on the light. I can't explain why, but it was precisely that scene that gave me a surge of energy, of sheer joy even, and made me happy to be watching this movie, made me happy to be alive to see this movie. Both of Joe's movies that I have seen have given me this feeling, have filled me with joy. I am always elated afterwards.


In the first half of the film the camera is mostly static with few very minimal movements in contrast to the second half of the film which includes a much more mobile camera reflecting the transition into a more modern environment.

Good observation on the form. I think there is even a handheld shot in there, if I recall correctly.

What I find interesting about the two halves is the perhaps conventional association with the warmth and naturalness of the first half, and the cold and clinical setting of the second. The impersonal relationship between the dentist and the monk is saddening, but I think the second half ends up being the more intimate of the two. I love the scene with the montage of images of the new industrial town, when the doctor is being asked by his girlfriend to transfer. Her reaction is surprisingly warm - she loves the look of the city, wants to move there, even says it will be a location by the water. The doctor says "don't tempt me with nature," alluding to the setting of the first half, exhibiting perhaps that conventional attitude, but it's the setting of the second half that the girlfriend loves and wants to be a part of. And it's the setting of the second half wherein we actually see characters embrace, kiss, and in the doctor's case he even has an erection. And of course it ends with some of the characters, including the monks, outside, as in the first half, socializing. And there is again music, and a community event, albeit in a different fashion.

Both halves express something in different ways, with different techniques. There is a lot of construction in the second half, images of new cities being built, images of construction workers in the hospital, images of prosthetics, the construction of new limbs for patients. I don't think there was any in the first half. It is content that reinforces form, the impression of a static first half and a second half in motion. Things are happening the second half. The first half is practically unmoving, locked away. Because it is set in the past? Because it is set the rural areas? Perhaps it is meant to imply direction, a moving forward in space and time, development and changing behavior of society - but if it does so, it does so not to make a statement, but to destabilize. It is only one direction in a movie with many. The two halves are too interconnected, too ambiguous. This is a movie without progress or grand narratives.

And so on, etc.

lovejuice
02-08-2008, 12:12 AM
What I find interesting about the two halves is the perhaps conventional association with the warmth and naturalness of the first half, and the cold and clinical setting of the second. The impersonal relationship between the dentist and the monk is saddening, but I think the second half ends up being the more intimate of the two.


i agree with what you're saying here. compared to when he did TM, joe is now more in tune with city life. He grew up in a rural, and always had that sense of mistrusting the big bad city and its people. i'm not saying TM is a caricature of evil city vs. virtuous rural. only now joe finds life in a big city can be very intimate.

Cherish
02-08-2008, 01:00 AM
This is my favorite scene, particularly the way it ends, with the dentist following the monk, arriving back in his office and turning on the light. I can't explain why, but it was precisely that scene that gave me a surge of energy, of sheer joy even, and made me happy to be watching this movie, made me happy to be alive to see this movie. Both of Joe's movies that I have seen have given me this feeling, have filled me with joy. I am always elated afterwards.

That scene gave me a feeling of excitement and joy, too. I don't know why. But, wasn't the jungle outside the window amazing when he turned on the light?! The other scene that affected me like that was the ventilation pipe, at the moment when I recognized the black disk from the eclipse scene. I have absolutely no idea why, but I felt a surge of elation.

I have to see Tropical Malady!

origami_mustache
02-08-2008, 06:13 PM
This is my favorite scene, particularly the way it ends, with the dentist following the monk, arriving back in his office and turning on the light. I can't explain why, but it was precisely that scene that gave me a surge of energy, of sheer joy even, and made me happy to be watching this movie, made me happy to be alive to see this movie. Both of Joe's movies that I have seen have given me this feeling, have filled me with joy. I am always elated afterwards.



This is my favorite scene as well. It hints at the film's Buddhist structure and it's influences from the idea of reincarnation among other beliefs.

lovejuice
02-08-2008, 09:28 PM
This is my favorite scene as well. It hints at the film's Buddhist structure and it's influences from the idea of reincarnation among other beliefs.

my favorite is during the second half with the scary old lady breaking the fouth wall. although i am partial toward an handicab guy walking in a hospital hallway as well, mainly because the scene is based on my friend's idea. :P

Stay Puft
02-09-2008, 12:44 AM
i agree with what you're saying here. compared to when he did TM, joe is now more in tune with city life. He grew up in a rural, and always had that sense of mistrusting the big bad city and its people. i'm not saying TM is a caricature of evil city vs. virtuous rural. only now joe finds life in a big city can be very intimate.

That's interesting. How do you know Weerasethakul, by the way? Some of your comments in this thread are vague but suggest a personal connection, e.g. your friend's idea for the hospital scene. I am confused and curious.


The other scene that affected me like that was the ventilation pipe, at the moment when I recognized the black disk from the eclipse scene.

Great association. I did not make that connection. That's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Incidentally, that scene freaked me out, largely because of the sound design. I cannot wait to watch this again, but I think I'll rewatch Tropical Malady first. Or track down a copy of Blissfully Yours.


I have to see Tropical Malady!

Yes, you do. There are quite a few connections between Tropical Malady and Syndromes, such as similar scenes or moments. I won't spoil which ones. Some of them surprising, some of them amusing. I imagine you'll be getting that kind of charge now with Tropical Malady, so enjoy!

MacGuffin
02-09-2008, 01:16 AM
There are quite a few connections between Tropical Malady and Syndromes, such as similar scenes or moments.

Or how about a completely similar structure in general? This isn't to say Joe is becoming gimmicky so much as it is a compliment that he is slowly becoming an auteur, and evoking emotional resonance with the similar "two stories meant to convey a single theme" structure. However, to be fair, here it's more of the second half working as a modern day reflection of the first half.

lovejuice
02-09-2008, 02:09 AM
That's interesting. How do you know Weerasethakul, by the way? Some of your comments in this thread are vague but suggest a personal connection, e.g. your friend's idea for the hospital scene. I am confused and curious.


my best friend had been working with him for three or four films during the past years. i myself wrote stuffs for him occassionally, but our gigs never fall through. so yes i know him personally and almost professionally.

Cherish
02-09-2008, 03:21 AM
Great association. I did not make that connection. That's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Incidentally, that scene freaked me out, largely because of the sound design. Yeah, it was mesmerizing!! I think the music/sound was the same in that scene as over the opening credits. Not sure if that means anything...


Yes, you do. There are quite a few connections between Tropical Malady and Syndromes, such as similar scenes or moments. I won't spoil which ones. Some of them surprising, some of them amusing. I imagine you'll be getting that kind of charge now with Tropical Malady, so enjoy!

Cool. It's at the top of my Netflix queue now.

Stay Puft
02-09-2008, 03:29 AM
Or how about a completely similar structure in general? This isn't to say Joe is becoming gimmicky so much as it is a compliment that he is slowly becoming an auteur, and evoking emotional resonance with the similar "two stories meant to convey a single theme" structure. However, to be fair, here it's more of the second half working as a modern day reflection of the first half.

Well, there's the obvious, yes. I think Blissfully Yours is supposed to be like this, too. I read an interview with Weerasethakul yesterday in which he discussed his obsession with binary oppositions (and incidentally said he probably won't be making another film with the same general structure after Syndromes). With Syndromes in particular, it strikes me that the work is deconstructionist - and reflecting on it more, I can see how Tropical Malady establishes binary oppositions and deconstructs them as well. With Syndromes there are a couple classic ones (urban/rural, male/female), while Tropical Malady deals more with - I'm not too sure how to phrase this - something along the lines of rational/irrational. (Late edit: Nature/civilization being a big one, too.)


my best friend had been working with him for three or four films during the past years. i myself wrote stuffs for him occassionally, but our gigs never fall through. so yes i know him personally and almost professionally.

That's cool. Can I touch you? ;)

MacGuffin
02-09-2008, 03:38 AM
I didn't like Blissfully Yours, Puft, but since Joe's delivered two of this decade's greatest so far, I'd be willing to give it and Mysterious Object at Noon another chance sometime. By the way, they should release his art installments on DVD, even if that defeats the purpose, etc., etc.

ledfloyd
03-15-2008, 05:22 AM
i just watched this and enjoyed it quite a bit but need to see it again before finalizing any thoughts on it. i was just poking around online and was delighted to see joe is going to be featured in an international art show at a local museum opening in may. i can't wait.

lovejuice
03-15-2008, 05:38 AM
fucking glorious! (http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/blog/2008/03/stranger-than-fiction.php)