Days of Being in the Mood for Love

The way in which one approaches Wong Kar-wai's 2046 will no doubt have a tremendous effect on the reaction to it. Is it possible to simply view it as the "new" Wong Kar-wai film given the hype that has surrounded this film since it was first announced almost four years ago? First it was meant to be about Hong Kong fifty years after the handover, then we heard that Bjork and Maggie Cheung were involved, then there was the website Wong set up, looking for interesting faces. When it was revealed that it would be a sequel (of sorts) to In the Mood for Love, the anticipation grew even more. There were endless delays, right up until the premiere at Cannes earlier this year, where the film arrived a couple of days late due to some last minute edits. Even after the festival Wong pulled the film in order to tinker with it some more. (Back in October, Variety reported that the post-Cannes version ran four minutes longer, with some minor music changes.) The critical reaction so far has been rather tepid. (At least from the reviews Filmbrain has read.) It seems that after all the waiting, critics were expecting something flawless, or at the very least better than In the Mood for Love, and few have approached it simply as a film on its own. (Which, admittedly, is not so easy.) Filmbrain has seen 2046, though only on DVD (a nice release out of Hong Kong). This is a shame, for Wong's direction and Christopher Doyle's cinematography needs be seen on the big screen. (At the moment the film has no US distributor.) The easy stuff first -- the film looks exquisite. The pairing of Wong and Doyle has once again proven itself a match made in heaven, and the re-creation of 1960's Hong Kong is breathtaking. (It was shot in Cinemascope, yet another reason why it must be seen large.) Unfortunately, the sequences not shot by Doyle (but by Kwan Pung-leung and Lai Yiu-fai) pale in comparison, and, as Doyle told Filmbrain earlier this year at the Tribeca Film Festival, "it's clear who shot what". The soundtrack once again contains themes by Shigeru Umebayashi, and period songs by Nat King Cole and Dean Martin, but it also includes new music by regular Fassbinder composer Peer Raben. Interestingly, Wong also uses themes from other films, including Kieslowski's A Short Film About Killing and Truffaut's Confidentially Yours. Now the difficult part -- what to make of the film itself? 2046, at times, seems more conventional than Wong's earlier films -- whereas he often relies on images and gestures to tell the story (as opposed to endless dialog), this one contains voiceover that is at times too expository, even though the story is being told by a writer. (Was Wong going for a film-noir feel?) Fortunately, it's not overused, nor does it reach the point of being obtrusive. The film also employs a non-linear structure that works to great effect, and is not simply a gimmick. Also effective is the mood of the film, which is an amalgam of his other works -- the longing of In the Mood for Love, the playfulness of Chungking Express, and the romantic loss of Days of Being Wild. (And of course, the film contains Wong's signature head-on-the-shoulder-in-the-back-of-a-taxi shot.) Beginning some years after the conclusion of In the Mood for Love, 2046 continues with the story of Chow Mo Wan (Tony Leung), a changed man after losing Su Li Zhen (Maggie Cheung). Returning to Hong Kong, he checks into a hotel and requests room 2046 (the room number he and Su Li Zhen had their few intimate moments in). What follows is a series of varying relationships with several women at the hotel -- Carina Lau (reprising her role from Days of Being Wild), Faye Wong and Zhang Ziyi (who proves that she actually can act) -- and it is these sequences that find Wong at his very best. His use of space, his framing, the repetition of certain actions and shots -- this is what makes him one of cinema's greatest artists. Each of the relationships reveals a little bit more about Chow, and as to how damaged he actually is. This is masterful storytelling, and Wong's screenplay never says more than it needs to. Noticeably different are the sex scenes which, though far from explicit, are a bit more daring than usual, but they don't work as well, and come off as slightly uncomfortable. The story jumps back and forth in time, and these other sequences, particularly the futuristic scenes, don't work nearly as well. The tale set in 2046 (written by Chow) concerns a Japanese man (Takuya Kimura) who has made the mistake of falling in love with an android -- a relationship that is doomed from the start. Though this is clearly an allegory of Chow's own story, it lacks the emotional draw of his Hong Kong scenes, and the CGI effects are distracting. The sequence in Singapore, which tells of Chow's relationship with yet another Su Li Zhen (Gong Li, who is phenomenal here), feels truncated and rushed. (Wong mentioned in a recent interview that there is enough material for at least one more feature on the cutting room floor.) Even with these minor gripes, 2046 is a reminder of the fabulous potential of cinema as an art form, and not simply as a storytelling device. There are images and tiny moments that stick with you for days after seeing the film, and lines that can repeatedly tear you apart. (Faye Wong repeating Japanese phrases, Tony Leung's voyeuristic gaze into an adjoining room, conversations in doorways, phone calls made behind a partition, etc.) Stories of love and loss come a dime a dozen, but Wong's method is uniquely his own. 2046 is an incredibly sad film that doesn't leave you feeling miserable. The reason this review lacks greater insight is that it's going to take Filmbrain more time (and repeated viewings) to fully grasp everything the film has to offer. The question also remains -- can/does 2046 work as well if you haven't seen In the Mood for Love? Is 2046 as perfect a film as In the Mood for Love? No. It's larger in scope and tells not one simple story, but many. It is, however, a great Wong Kar-wai film, and is without a doubt a leap forward for him. Is it one of the best films of the year? Very possibly. [The region-free DVD of 2046 has been released by Mei Ah, and is readily available from many online Asian DVD etailers.]

Comments

[Greg Samsa]

Mesmerizing, hypnotic, lush, disjointed, dreamlike, hallucinatory, episodic, sensual, moving - in short a Wong Kar Wai movie. Apocalypse Chow?

[md'a]

I must say I'm disappointed that you (and so many others) have chosen to experience this film for the first time on video. Does nobody have any patience anymore?

[Filmbrain]

That's a fair criticism -- and I have to admit that I thought about it for a few days before watching it -- but I don't think it's simply a question of patience. I would never have discovered all the great Korean films I've seen if it wasn't for video. Believe me, I don't like that that's the case, but should I deny myself a film because nobody has found it in their best interest financially to release a film? I'm fortunate enough to live in NYC, and have had a chance to see every Hong Sang-soo film on the big screen, but what if one lives in Kansas?

And another thing -- even when 2046 is released, it will probably play on a tiny screen that won't do justice to the Cinemascope beauty of the film

[Steve]

I would hold off on 2046 because I'm sure we'll get a chance to see it theatrically. (As for the screen size issue, I wouldn't be surprised if its NYC debut takes place at the Walter Reade's "FILM COMMENT Selects" program.) However, DVD has made it possible to see many Asian films without waiting for an American festival or distributor to pick them up. Who knows when MCDULL, PRINCE DE LA BUN, THREE...EXTREMES or ONE NITE IN MONGKOK will play New York theatrically? (MY LIFE AS MCDULL never did.) How can you even attempt to keep up with the Takashi Miike oeuvre without video? Between a number of commercial releases, the Imaginasian's Korean fest and the Walter Reade's Korean series, it's been fairly easy to see films from that country in New York in 2004, but how could anyone have known that a year ago? Video can be a helpful way of filling in the gaps. The problem comes when it supersedes theatrical screenings.

[Sal C.]

Further to Filmbrain's final point, I saw In the Mood for Love at the Village East in NYC on a dingy screen no bigger than 8' x 6'. And I had to pay $10 for the privilege. I was on the fence regarding the 2046 DVD, but Filmbrain's review convinced me to take a chance. Will I go see it if/when it shows up on the big screen here in New York? Of course. But given the lack of quality theatres showing 'art' films in the city I feel comfortable watching it for the first time on my widescreen Toshiba at home. In my pajamas.

[Mikko Pihkoluoma]

For what it's worth, I saw 2046 in 35mm (we've had it in theaters in Helsinki for a month or so now) and my reaction to it couldn't have been extrapolated better than what Filmbrain wrote here. And I think the lukewarm critical reaction is justified.

I was very intrigued to hear that Wong has said there's enough material for another film on the cutting room floor, because that's what it feels like. The film is a bit too long, as it is, but it also feels bigger than it is. As if there were more grand plans for it, and it fell a bit short of the grandeur... But yet still, as a result, is overlong in its own whole.

[md'a]

I make allowances for people who live in Kansas or the equivalent. But I'll bet you any sum you like that 2046 will screen in New York City by the end of 2005. And even the dinky Film Forum screens are preferable to a television set.

Obscure Korean films that may not show up in repertory for 20 years are another matter. But this is the new Wong we're talking about.

[Filmbrain]

But Mike, let's not forget that many "professional" critics write their reviews based on screeners -- a sad fact. These are films that they can see theatrically.

Sure, the Film Forum is a step up, but just.

[Greg Samsa]

Most of my favorite films I've seen first on video. Citizen Kane, Vertigo, etc. It's just not feasible to wait for something to screen and hope to see everything you want to.

Hell, when I think of the shitty VHS bootlegs of Godard films, duped Wong Kar Wai tapes with homemade labels from mom and pop video rental places in Chinatown - compared to that watching 2046 on DVD on an HDTV with a good 5.1 system is paradise!

Would I love to drive up the street to the Arclight and watch 2046 in 35mm? Of course, but I am not going to wait 2 years for it. Thank god for home video and DVD so we can watch these films whenever we want to.

[Filmbrain]

watching 2046 on DVD on an HDTV with a good 5.1 system is paradise!

Hey Greg -- can I come over to your place to watch it?

[wayne]

I've seen 2046 four times on the big screen already. Neener neener neener.

The one WKW movie that 2046 most resembles is Ashes of Time. Both involve extended voice-over narration, a convulted plot with several different storylines that require multiple viewings to really get a handle on, and all-star casts. But 2046 is the more emotionally mature of the two. The only emotion in Ashes of Time is pure, unadulterated and unrequited longing. When you're finally able to decode all the different stories, it feels like it's a movie directed by a 17-year old who was just been dumped and who thinks human relationships bring nothing but pain. On the other hand, yes, 2046 has longing, but there's also joy and lust and jealousy. It feels like a movie that's been directed by an adult.

Still, Ashes of Time is worth checking out. Unfortunately, the only DVD version available is a TERRIBLE transfer by Mei Ah.

Does 2046 work without having seen ITMFL? No, in that we learn that Tony Leung womanizing stems from the fact that he still can't get over his relationship with Maggie Cheung. Also, there are several references in 2046 to ITMFL. Like when Tony Leung writes a martial arts novel with Wang Fei, which doesn't have as much meaning if you didn't know how Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung tried to write a martial arts story in the first movie.

Furthermore, 2046 puts an end to a silly debate I had with some friends, who insisted that Tony and Maggie did NOT consummate their relationship in ITMFL.