28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[baby doll]

I think Park Chan-Wook's films are going to age very well. At the moment, we are living through a post-modern type of cinematic appreciation, where hardcore cinema fans generally seem to want either formal structurialism or a distinct genre investigation - both nice and self-contained, easy to read and to discern the intention of the fiilmaker.

With this in mind, Park's disdain for sticking to a single genre, and his fluid, unpredictable story structure, has meant that a lot of critics automatically dismiss him as semi-incompetent, as if he is chasing structural formalism or genre deconstruction and failing completely. But simply look at the films, and they are (generally - I still hate Cyborg, but that is going to happen from time to time) kinetic, emotional, fully human blasts of satisfying story and resonant themes....just not in a package that is generally accepted by the critical elite at the moment. I say in 25 years from now, he'll be seen as a stone cold master (at least for what he has done till now; it's always possible he may implode, who knows?)

Well, I'm not going to say what will or won't age well, since I'm not a psychic, but speaking for myself, I haven't been a huge fan of the three Park films I've seen so far, although Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance seems to me obviously the most accomplished. The grizzly black comedy tone he's going for in all three Vengeance movies is a hard one to maintain, with Oldboy becoming increasingly cartoonish, and Lady Vengeance shooting itself in the foot with a wildly inappropriate scene that just stops the movie dead in its tracks. However, in Mr. Vengeance, he seems to get the balance just right. That said, I'm obviously not qualified to judge the value of his entire oeuvre, or his place in cinema history.

What I take issue with is your characterization of hardcore cinephiles as postmodernists who only want "formal structuralism" or "distinct genre investigation," and that Park is doing something so different that it'll take us some time before we've all caught up to his innovations. A fluid approach to genre and tone is a common characteristic of much commercial South Korean cinema, as on the TV show Boys Before Flowers, which was hugely popular when I was living in Busan, and which seemed to ping-pong between comedy and drama. However, mixing genres and tones doesn't necessarily mean that a film has a "fluid structure," and in fact, the very idea seems to me a contradiction of terms. Incidentally, in Oldboy, the structure couldn't be more firm: Following a series of clues, the protagonist tries to unravel who his tormentors are and what their motives were, so he can avenge himself. Nor am I sure how Park's intent here is less clear-cut than, say, Quentin Tarantino's in Inglourious Basterds, a revenge film that plays somewhat self-consciously with structure (a V-shape narrative that converges in the climatic theatre sequence); mixes tones and genres (World War II movies, spaghetti westerns); and one which you can't read as unambiguously as pro- or anti-revenge--despite which, it was widely accepted by the "cinema elite" (although I'm not entirely sure who they're supposed to be: weekly reviewers, academic critics and scholars, internet nerds--all of whom had a field day with Tarantino's film).

[transmogrifier]

What I take issue with is your characterization of hardcore cinephiles as postmodernists who only want "formal structuralism" or "distinct genre investigation," and that Park is doing something so different that it'll take us some time before we've all caught up to his innovations. A fluid approach to genre and tone is a common characteristic of much commercial South Korean cinema, as on the TV show Boys Before Flowers, which was hugely popular when I was living in Busan, and which seemed to ping-pong between comedy and drama. However, mixing genres and tones doesn't necessarily mean that a film has a "fluid structure," and in fact, the very idea seems to me a contradiction of terms. Incidentally, in Oldboy, the structure couldn't be more firm: Following a series of clues, the protagonist tries to unravel who his tormentors are and what their motives were, so he can avenge himself. Nor am I sure how Park's intent here is less clear-cut than, say, Quentin Tarantino's in Inglourious Basterds, a revenge film that plays somewhat self-consciously with structure (a V-shape narrative that converges in the climatic theatre sequence); mixes tones and genres (World War II movies, spaghetti westerns); and one which you can't read as unambiguously as pro- or anti-revenge--despite which, it was widely accepted by the "cinema elite" (although I'm not entirely sure who they're supposed to be: weekly reviewers, academic critics and scholars, internet nerds--all of whom had a field day with Tarantino's film).

I never said Park was necessarily being innovative - he's simply not as interested in formalism, story structure or genre convention. But it's interesting to see that, in your questioning of how important structuralism and genre is to modern cineastes, you automatically spend the final part of your post desperately trying to establish specific formalist and genre deconstruction examples in Park's films. What's with that?

[Sven]

he's simply not as interested in formalism, story structure or genre convention.

You choose to compliment his own handling of story structure, then you say here that he's not interested in it. I guess I should assume you mean he's not interested in conventional story structure. Because I look at a Park film, and if I see anything, it is that the man is very much indeed a structuralist. He just likes to subvert a lot of things.

[baby doll]

I never said Park was necessarily being innovative - he's simply not as interested in formalism, story structure or genre convention. But it's interesting to see that, in your questioning of how important structuralism and genre is to modern cineastes, you automatically spend the final part of your post desperately trying to establish specific formalist and genre deconstruction examples in Park's films. What's with that?

I'm not sure what you mean precisely by "formalism," but in terms of style, the three Park films I've seen have all been fairly slick and professional-looking. As for story structure, perhaps he's not as ambitious as a Tarantino in terms of playing with structure and chronology, but that doesn't mean his films don't have a structure. And aside from his trilogy of revenge movies (the revenge movie being a genre), I know he's also made war movies (JSA) and horror movies (Thirst), which makes him, well, a genre stylist. So the idea that he's not interested in genre, structure, and if not form than at least craftsmanship, is for me counter-intuitive, especially as Park makes movies for mass consumption.

As for "genre deconstruction," whatever that is, I don't think that mixing elements of various genres--either out of an ambition to try something different, or an indifference to the established boundaries between genres--automatically qualifies as "deconstruction," which according to Wikipedia is, "an approach, introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is apparently founded and showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible." I'd be very interested to read an essay explaining how a film (which is, after all, a text) can expose its own contradictions from within. It all sounds very postmodern, but who actually thinks about this stuff while watching a movie?

[transmogrifier]

You choose to compliment his own handling of story structure, then you say here that he's not interested in it. I guess I should assume you mean he's not interested in conventional story structure. Because I look at a Park film, and if I see anything, it is that the man is very much indeed a structuralist. He just likes to subvert a lot of things.

And I assume you see anything not following the typical three-act structure as a deliberate subversion? Because I don't see it. The long wordless sequence that ends Thirst is a resonant component of the story, rather than any particular comment on how other films end, or on how vampire films end.

When I watch a Park film, I see a director (and screenwriter) working with mood, atmosphere, emotion and the kinetic energy of story, not someone too interested in the mechanics of how films fit together.

Of course, Park might come out tomorrow and say that all his films are intended as perfectly sculpted formalist exercises. And if he does, expect the critical reception to be even frostier, because that's not what makes his films such a blast to watch.

[transmogrifier]

I'm not sure what you mean precisely by "formalism," but in terms of style, the three Park films I've seen have all been fairly slick and professional-looking. As for story structure, perhaps he's not as ambitious as a Tarantino in terms of playing with structure and chronology, but that doesn't mean his films don't have a structure. And aside from his trilogy of revenge movies (the revenge movie being a genre), I know he's also made war movies (JSA) and horror movies (Thirst), which makes him, well, a genre stylist. So the idea that he's not interested in genre, structure, and if not form than at least craftsmanship, is for me counter-intuitive, especially as Park makes movies for mass consumption.

As for "genre deconstruction," whatever that is, I don't think that mixing elements of various genres--either out of an ambition to try something different, or an indifference to the established boundaries between genres--automatically qualifies as "deconstruction," which according to Wikipedia is, "an approach, introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is apparently founded and showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible." I'd be very interested to read an essay explaining how a film (which is, after all, a text) can expose its own contradictions from within. It all sounds very postmodern, but who actually thinks about this stuff while watching a movie?

I use formalism as a catch-all for the use of camera and cinematic tropes to produce thematic depth to a story. For example, the use of all those actors in I'm Not There, where the way the film has been made (casting, in that case) makes specific comment on the thematic content of the film. I don't think Park does much of that at all; his films certainly use a lot of flashy tricks, but I think they are more attuned to the emotional energy of the story, rather than expanding on themes.

[B-side]

Which ratings are you going to? our of 10? 100?

*looks at sig*

Out of 100.

[

Show Spoiler

:P

]

[Winston*]

Religulous (Charles, 2008) *** re.

I watched a bit of this recently and it was insufferable. "Religious people be crazy".

[B-side]

I watched a bit of this recently and it was insufferable. "Religious people be crazy".

I think it's funny.

[Sven]

And I assume you see anything not following the typical three-act structure as a deliberate subversion? Because I don't see it.

I don't know how what I said leads to this assumption. There can be a lot of subversion done within a three-act structure and there are well-established structures that do not operate within the traditional three-act one. I am saying that Park's films possess twists and variations on structure. Or at the very least, they practically tear at the audience to pay particular attention to how the story is being told.

BTW, I've only seen JSA and the three revenge films.

When I watch a Park film, I see a director (and screenwriter) working with mood, atmosphere, emotion and the kinetic energy of story, not someone too interested in the mechanics of how films fit together.

His compositions themselves demonstrate a tremendous amount of care and expression.

Of course, Park might come out tomorrow and say that all his films are intended as perfectly sculpted formalist exercises.

Films don't need to be "sculpted" "perfectly" to be formally considered or accomplished, as it seems you are here again trying to imply that I am assuming. Those two words imply an adherence to an established system. It doesn't seem like he's interested in conventional perspectives.

[Sven]

Oh, and I saw The Last Airbender tonite. Oof. Happy Birthday to me... :sad:

[Dead & Messed Up]

Oh, and I saw The Last Airbender tonite. Oof. Happy Birthday to me... :sad:

Aww. I was hoping someone would like the flick.

[Watashi]

Oh, and I saw The Last Airbender tonite. Oof. Happy Birthday to me... :sad:

Jesus Christ.

Why would you go to THAT movie on your birthday?

[transmogrifier]

Jesus Christ.

Why would you go to THAT movie on your birthday?

I too wonder this.

[transmogrifier]

His compositions themselves demonstrate a tremendous amount of care and expression.

No doubt, but in service of atmosphere, story momentum and character shading, not in genre investigation nor formalism.

In fact, I don't think Park has made a genre film yet.

[number8]

[youtube]QmbNoomxiuk[/youtube]

[Spaceman Spiff]

I too wonder this.

Army has probably called it a masterpiece. The most formally and thematically impressive actioneer since Ecks vs. Sever.

[Sven]

Army has probably called it a masterpiece. The most formally and thematically impressive actioneer since Ecks vs. Sever.

Again, with the poorly aimed Armond jokes. They really ought to stop. If you knew anything about him, you'd know that White hates Shyamalan more than even most do.

[Watashi]

You still haven't answered our question, Sven.

[Dead & Messed Up]

As I recall, Sven liked a few of Night's recent films. That's reason enough to give the film a shot.

[Watashi]

As I recall, Sven liked a few of Night's recent films. That's reason enough to give the film a shot.

Yeah, but on his birthday. Especially when something like Scott Pilgrim is already out.

I'm a huge Shaymalan fan and a HUGE fan of the series and I didn't even waste my time with the film because I saw no redeeming merit from anyone.

[Fezzik]

So....saw Memento yesterday.

What took me so long?

I used to think I wasn't a fan of Nolan, so I considered Inception somewhat of an anomaly.

Then I realized I pretty much loved The Prestige as well, and now Memento.

Maybe I'm just not a fan of his take on Batman.

[Rowland]

Whew. I had to take a break from The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting, it was beginning to make my head spin. About halfway through, I felt like I was finally beginning to make sense of what Ruiz was after, but being sick and over-tired, the work was giving me a headache. :lol:

I'll probably just start from the beginning tonight after work. It's certainly fascinating, enigmatic, and aesthetically appealing enough so that watching the first half hour again won't be a problem.

[MacGuffin]

It really does seem like Ruiz is the cinema world's Jorge Luis Borges.

[Grouchy]

That's a wild comparison to make. I really need to see something by this Raúl Ruiz character.