TAIPEI – THE cream of Asian cinema is set to gather in Taipei on Saturday for the Golden Horse Film Awards, considered the Chinese-language ‘Oscars’.

Famed Taiwan directors Ang Lee and Hou Hsiao-hsien will join Hong Kong peers Johnnie To and Stanley Kwan to present the best director award at tonight’s gala ceremony.

However, another top Hong Hong film-maker, John Woo, reportedly will shun the event after his blockbuster war epic ‘Red Cliff II’ was snubbed by the Golden Horse nomination committee.

‘It’s disappointing and regrettable. The actors and the crew did very well and worked really hard… I didn’t understand what standard the judges used,’ he told reporters in Taipei earlier this week.

Chinese actor Zhang Hanyu and last year’s best actor winner also voiced bewilderment at the judges’ decisions. ‘I was hoping for a best actor nomination for ‘The Message’. I didn’t know what happened,’ said Zhang, who is instead up for the best supporting actor for the lesser known ‘The Equation of Love and Death’.

Hit espionage thriller ‘The Message’ received five nods, including a surprise double nomination in the best leading actress category for Zhou Xun and Li Bingbing of China. Other nominees including Li, director Clara Law and heart-throb actor Daniel Wu of Hong Kong, as well as Taiwanese director Leon Dai, are expected to walk down the red carpet in a suburban Taipei auditorium. — AFP

Source: Straits Times, 2009

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Dinner dates, a night at the town, private massage service or whatever else you fancy.

Metro Touch Singapore Escort Companionship

(+65) 90973455 ( 24 hours )

www.metro-touch.com ( visit us )

Before I begin this review properly I would like to apologise for the lack of a review yesterday.  The review of the French comedy classic Le diner de cons will be on its way to you soon.  However, I am going to bring my own musings on another film Taking Woodstock.  The eagle-eyed among you will have seen the headline and will guess how I feel about this film.  Unfortunately I am quite a big Ang Lee fan.  The man who brought the world classics such as Lust, Caution and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon has not repeated his usual high standards. In fact he has created a disaster worst than his 2003 epic of misery Hulk. I feel cheated.  I feel like the master has decided not to treat me to an evening of cinematic excellence, and instead has pulled down my trousers and bummed vigorously for 2 hours (Not a pleasant experience).  Anyway sit back relax and watch as we probe away to discover why you should not watch Taking Woodstock.

The film follows Jake Teichberg.  He has gone back to his families loss making motel to help them try and survive.  With closure looming, Jake gets wind of the forced move of the Woodstock music festival.  As he has already got a license to host a music event he gets in touch with them, this results in him turning his small town in to the iconic music event.

Where do I begin?  The film is 1hr 50 minutes and you feel every single second of this, in particular the first half feels like you are pulling your teeth out with the most boring dentist in Beige Hospital.  Everything about it is dull.  I understand that Mr Lee was simply trying to set everything up for the second half.  However, he could have done this in a tenth of the time and still not have lost any of the quality of the film.

The second half is completely different.  The film springs to life.  The festival is on the verge of collapsing again.  The young people are destroying the family motel and Jake is on the brink.  The development from here to the end of the festival is actually quite good.  In particular the scenes involving the father rediscovering his happiness by spending time with a transvestite security guard and Jake’s journey into the world of drugs and music.

There are two exceptional performances in the film.  Imelda Staunton plays Jakes mother, a strict Russian woman who is obsessed with making money.  Staunton’s performance is spell bindingly and probably steals the show as she is so dislikeable that you end up enjoying every scene she is in.  The other great performance is Liev Schreiber, his portrayal of Vilma a transvestite security guard is priceless.  Frankly without him the film would have been devoid of any humour.  I put his small role down to the film being just about acceptable to watch.  and for achieving that he surely deserves a nod at this years Oscars.

The worst performance is sadly Jake, played by Henry Goodman.  He is wooden, uninteresting and is a disappointment to the acting profession. It is not because the character is like this, its because he cannot act.  At no point do you believe that he is Jake and throughout you’re fully aware that this is a young actor cutting his teeth.  He breaks the cinematic illusion and for that I not forgive him.  I also do not forgive him for having possibly the biggest nose I have ever seen in my life.  It is so large people in Austria ski down it in winter.  For half the film I spent my time trying to work out if there was a background, because his nose was in the way.  Get plastic surgery and acting lessons and then you might just be able too appear in something other than series 10 of I’m a celebrity, get me out of here.

Ang Lee.  I won’t rip you to pieces because you’re a great director but honestly this was poor.  Next time make sure you have actually got a plot line and vaguely decent script before you decide to make a film.

Overall it is alright but is not worth the money.  Wait until it is on itv2 in three years.

4/10 – Beige

Taking Woodstock is Ang Lee’s newest movie, starring Demetri Martin, Imelda Staunton, Emile Hirsch, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Liev Schreiber and Paul Dano.

Plot:
Taking Woodstock is based on the real life story of Elliot Tiber (Demetri Martin), an out of luck interior designer who has to move back to his parents’ motel and of how he gets the Woodstock festival to be in his small town after Woodstock (and a neughbouring village) both pull the permits for it to be held there.

Taking Woodstock is a funny and heartfelt movie but most of all, a movie that manages to capture the spirit of the time (or at least it seems that way to someone who wasn’t alive then). It’s a captivating coming of age story set in slightly crazy but definitely special times that is told with a lot of humour and respect. Loved it.

Taking Woodstock had practically no marketing campaign. If I wasn’t an obsessive looker-at-cinema-posters, I probably would have missed it (even though I’m a huge Ang Lee fan). And I really don’t know why (though I have a theory – there’s plenty of nudity and some swearing and *gasp* gay loving). In any case, the movie didn’t deserve this silence – it really was wonderful.

The acting was amazing. And every ten minutes or so there seemed to be another cameo. (Oh look! It’s Jeffrey Dean Morgan! Oh look! It’s Liev Schreiber! Oh look! It’s Emile Hirsch! Oh look! It’s Paul Dano!) And they just kept on coming.
Imelda Staunton was her usual wonderful self and newcomer Demetri Martin convinced me fully. It just seemed like everybody was really enjoying the shoot and had a lot of fun.

The story has a beautiful lightness to it and yet covers a whole lot of ground – the story of the festival itself, Elliot’s coming of age, Elliot’s parents’ relationship, sex, drugs, morality – it’s actually quite dense when you think about it, but it never feels heavy.

The cinematography is beautiful, but the most beautiful part about it might well be when Elliot tries LSD for the first time – the way the high is shown to us… I never saw such a realistic portrayal of a LSD high. [Just to clarify: I have never taken LSD myself, but this felt amazingly real - not so over the top as many other stylised highs seem to be.]

So, summarising I’d say it was an amazing film that should be a must see for anyone who is even only slightly interested in the Woodstock festival. The only caveat: Don’t expect the Woodstock music: Elliot never really got to hear the bands playing and neither do we.

Ang Lee's "Eat Drink Man Woman"

Besides tomorrows screening of Eat Drink Man Woman for the Ang Lee Film Festival, today’s events are the last chance to celebrate International Education Week at UNT. 

For lunch, stop by the International Welcome Center for “Tea, Samosas, and the Promise of Education,” benefitting internally displaced families of Pakistan from 11:00-12:00.  Then head to the Kerr Hall Cafeteria for a Moroccan lunch menu, lasting until 2:30.

This afternoon, visit Marquis hall room 118 for information on funding international research and scholarly work from 2:00-4:00.  Then from 3:00-7:30, be sure to stop by the Chilton hall Cooking Lab for “Cooking and Tasting around the World” to enjoy a taste-test of cuisines from all over the world!

Depois de dirigir dois romances premiados: Brokeback Mountain e Desejo e Perigo, o cineasta multifacetado Ang Lee voltou aos estúdios hollywoodianos para contar a história de Elliot Tiber, o rapaz responsável por levar o Festival de Woodstock para a pacata cidadezinha americana de White Lake. Tudo isso está no livro em que é baseado o filme Taking Woodstock: A True Story of a Riot, A Concert, and A Life.

Para os nascidos nos meados dos anos 80 o filme é uma boa oportunidade para entrar em contato com uma época em que havia utopia. Na tela um casal judeu prestes a perder o hotel do qual são donos veem nos “3 dias de música e paz” a chance de ganharem grana. A atriz Imelda Stanton dá show de interpretação como a mãe judia pão-dura e que vive a mandar os hippies vestirem suas roupas, Emile Hirsh dá o tom certo ao jovem recém chegado da guerra do Vietnã cheio de traumas e Demetri Martin, o Elliot, sabe manter o conflito entre o filho que precisa ajudar os pais, mas que anseia por ganhar o mundo.

Cheio de cenas divertidas, Aconteceu em Woodstock é uma delícia para aqueles que sentem nostalgia de um tempo em que nem viveram. Eu sou um desses…

Lust. Caution.

Lust, Caution.

Lust….Caution.

The English name of Ang Lee’s latest film consists of two words. Taken separately, they stand alone as two individual concepts: Lust, a primal, human urge; and Caution, an evolved, societal tool. Put them side by side, and you see a comparison: the primal versus the evolved, individual versus society, incongruent.

Poke a little hole in the membrane that seperates the two, and we begin to see a contrast. Lust, the human emotion, surges in the face of caution. Caution stares right back, coolly, unflinching.

Make that membrane even more porous…and the two start to bleed into one another. Can you see it? The red, thick goo of lust languishedly start to expand ever so relentlessly…and the pale, milky fog of caution determinately surrounds the lust, permeating through space, suspending, until the red is only visible as a faint, blushing pink through the suffocating, white curtain.

Ever since I saw Ang Lee’s “Lust, Caution” (2007), I have not been able to stop thinking about these two words. They were not chosen at random, I know. Lee is a master at quietly evoking powerful emotions. To me, his directorial style is a gentle cross between Wong Kar-Wai and Clint Eastwood, combining Wong’s taste for moody, lush cinematography with Eastwood’s strong, silent characterizations. All three innately understand the power of the unsaid. All three evocate instead of telling. And that is why they move me like no other. Lee, in particular, is a provocative blend of eastern sentimentalities and western sensibilities. Perhaps that is due to his upbringing, born in TaiWan and educated in both his native land and America, he strucks me as a director with a precise feel for what he wants. The title of his first film, “Sense and Sensibility,” seems oddly appropriate.

“Lust, Caution” opens in ShangHai, China in 1942. The first shot is that of the face of a german shepherd, and pans up to the face of a man. Observe this quiet link between man and beast. It is an important theme that is revertebrated throughout the rest of the film.

We float up the stairs of a house, following the trail of indistinctable, womanly chatter, through a darkened corridor, and into a richly decorated room where a MaJong table sit in its midst, surrounded by four Chinese women at its sides.  The air is sweet with scent of extravagance. Expertly-cut cheongsams glide over their well-preserved figures, the lush fabrics intimately outlining the curves of its adorner, its silky weight titallatingly speak of the pearly flesh that lies beneath. The upper class women giggle and laugh while their immaculately manicured hands float across the tabletop like marble scrulptures that come to life, precisely picking up, sorting, stacking, and throwing down MaJong pieces with a well-oiled ease, the gold and gems of rings and bracelets cut through the air in a blur, occassionally catch the light and reflect off a glint that is too bright to the eye.  It’s 1940s in Japanese-occupied ShangHai, and everything seems possible and uncertain. Outside, the alleyways are dark.

This is described as an espionage thriller. It is so much more than that. Lee says that it’s filmed in the tradition of film noir. I believe that. It is also a love story, one of distrust, patrioism, self-preservation, of lust, and of caution.

The break-out star here is Wei Tang. This is her first film role, but you wouldn’t be able to tell. The story starts four years before that fateful MaJong game, in Hong Kong. The Japanese is closing in, and patrioism boils amongst young blood. Wong Chia Chi (Wei Tang), a first year university student, falls in with a group of eager fellow theatre students, and they come up with a plot to assassinate Mr. Yee (Tony Leung), a high level Chinese official working for the Japanese, a traitor to the country they love. The gang  has no experience in anything of this sort, but their naivete is all the courage they need. The plan evolves in unexpected fashion when Mr. Yee and Mrs. Mak, Wong’s cover, meet. He takes an immediate interest in her. She is a natural actor and responds in kind, believing this is the “in” they needed. Once the spark is lit, there is no turning back. Unbeknownst to them, the fate of these six young people were forever sealed in the first look that passed between Mr. Yee and Mrs. Mak.

The plan is interrupted prematurely when Mr. Yee moves to ShangHai. Four years later, everyone find themselves in the same city again, and as fate would have it, in the same predictment. The naivete has long been stripped away by this point. The Japanese ruled the city. Death and poverty litter the streets of ShangHai, while the rich and powerful live in bored extravagance. That’s always the way it is. That was the way it was.

What follows, is the living-out of the fate of Mr. Yee and Mrs. Mak. They are from different worlds: a high official that lives in layers of secrets and security and a poor young woman with nothing to live for. But he is a man that many people wants to kill, and she is a woman that is hired precisely by those people to kill him. He is a traitor to his country. She is a patriot, or at least, she thinks she is. For all those reasons above, the two people most unlikely to meet, meet once again, and they rekindle the flame that was snuffed out four years ago.

What ensues you can imagine. The sex is explicit, and the film has gotten more attention for its NC-17 rating than its story. This is wrong. The sex is not unnecessary. It is the ultimate portrayal of intimacy between Yee and Mak…not only physical, but emotional. These are two of the most fear-filled, confused, and desperate individuals that existed. Yee can have anything he wants, but he is so scared of death, so consumed with the preservation of his mortality, that he can hardly find pleasure in all that is so readily available to him. His wife, his wealth, his job, his secrets, he goes through them with an air of stoic endurance. He endures them because he must in order to live, and he has accepted that…until he meets her.

Mrs. Mak is a cover, but for Wong, it is an escape from her life in reality. We hear little about her father, but we sense that she has been abandoned. She floats through life with a ghostly hopelessness. She insists on going to school just to feel some kind of purpose, even though all that is taught is Japanese, language of the oppressors that have sucked out all the hope in her life. She keeps on going to movies and cries in the dark, but even films are interrupted by war announcements. Escape is so hard to come by in those times…so when an opportunity presented itself, she seized it, and she met him.

Their relationship quickly ended up in bed, and that is where it stayed, most of the time. I suspect that is the only place where they both feel safe…stripped of clothes, naked, all that is visible is their lust for each other. Within the lust caution is exerted. They look at each other intently while their bodies engage, trying to find any trace of deceit and secrecy. They physically exhaust each other, fighting for climax, for weakness. This is a battle of the will, and the tangle of limbs are merely soldiers of war.

“I hate you.” She says. “I believe you.” He grabs her. “I haven’t believed anyone in a long time…but I believe you.” He shakes her with force. “Say it again.”

The problem with humans is that we are emotional creatures. Emotions are like floods…you open a small break in the barrier, and before you know it it all comes crashing down.

“You shouldn’t be so beautiful.” He wraps his arm around her in an iron vice, as if trying to squeeze out his desire of her, furious with his loss of focus while she waited outside.

“He knows better than anyone the extent of pretending.” She gasped, when asked by superiors to stay in the role longer. “He not only invades my body…but my heart. Only if I faithfully stay in this role can I burrow into his heart.” She breathes harder. “He makes me bleed and cry every time, only then will he be satisfied, only then will he feel alive in the dark. Only he knows that it is real.”

This is a losing game from the start. They both tried to conquer each other while deceiving each other. Lust was their weapon of choice, and caution was their armour. But even the most intimate act cannot strip away all that armour. Or maybe it did, eventually. They started to injure each other, inside. The seed of lust grew and grew, and started to chip away at the armour of caution from the inside out, and they were both helpless against it. The ending was inevitable. It could not have ended any other way. Watch the last shot of her, observe the flashback to those innocent days, and weight the consequence of that one, simple choice she didn’t even know she made.

Tony Leung has been my favorite actor for a long time, ever since I saw him in “In the Mood for Love.” I can’t explain why he is except, well, that he is my kind of person. There are many, many great actors that I admire: Edward Norton, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Benecio Del Toro, the list goes on. But no one does melancholy like Tony Leung. No one does a longing look like Tony Leung. And no one…and I mean no one, can make me feel myself breaking away into a million pieces, by simply walking away, into the shadows.

The film opened with a shot of a beast and a man. It closed with a view of just the man, Him. Observe him sitting in the darkness that he is so afraid of, then emerging towards the light, and walks into it. But even then he was never completely in the dark. He kept the light on himself, partially, as if afraid of fading into oblivion completely. And when he stands up and leaves the bed that he once shared with possibly the most real love of his life, his shadow lingers until the very last frame. He never really left the dark either. The beast in him is alone now, again, and how long will it be before it rips him to shreds?

Lust, Caution. Translated literally into Chinese, it becomes “色,戒” (Se, Jie), the official Chinese title of the film. Translating each character literally in the other direction, you get “Color, Ban.” The ban of color results in a void, filled only with shades of black and white. It is a simple state, non-emotional, ordered, but it is not real. We live our lives in color and chaos. Humanity is color. The emotions that mark our identity are colored, and are evoked through color. How ironic is it, that the caution against lust, one of the most powerful and colorful human emotions of all, is also synonymous with its complete removal. It is not a caution, then, but a complete wipe out of one’s humanity.

The line between lust and caution is a foggy one. Tread carefully… as once blurred, one may wipe the other out entirely.

“Even the favorite reviews, the audience response is the movie is too slow, deliberately slow. But for the Chinese audience, the biggest complaint is it happens too quick. I think the historical background that build into our genes is different. American people has never been occupied. The deep sadness and sentimentality, the cultural background that relates to melodrama that we relate to and grow up with, the propaganda, I didn’t imagine the difference is so big. It’s a very interesting cultural phenomenon.” – Ang Lee

Taking Woodstock

Director: Ang Lee.

Guión: James Schamus, basado en la

novela de Elliot Tiber y Tom Monte

Intérpretes: Henry Goodman, Imelda Staunton, Emile Hirsh, Paul Dano, Jeffrey Dean Morgan.

Música: Danny Elfman

Fotografía: Eric Gautier

Montaje: Tim Squyres

EEUU. 2009. 111 minutos.

Coherencia

El regreso de Ang Lee a la industria norteamericana tras la realización en China de Lust, Caution tiene apariencia de artefacto iconográfico sin ínfulas –o, dicho de otra forma, una obra de encargo y descargo tras el periplo del rodaje en China del filme precitado-, pero se añade a la ya pródiga filmografía del realizador de una forma que sólo cabe calificar de coherente. Eso significa que los detractores del autor de Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon hallarán en la película idénticos argumentos a los que han erigido sus críticas pretéritas (incluyendo aquellas –otras- críticas que parten de prejuicios, a las que en esta Taking Woodstock también se les da motivos), y podrán decir que el filme tiene tanto de telefilme como su anterior Brokeback Mountain o que Lee no profundiza en los ítems planteados. Y lo mismo sucederá entre los admiradores del realizador, entre quienes me cuento, que consideramos que el cineasta hongkonés sigue manejando a la perfección los elementos cinematográficos –sobretodo el montaje, la dirección de actores y la capacidad atmosférica que reside en su escenografía- para llevar al mejor puerto (y puede entenderse trascender) los postulados escritos en el sustrato literario y argumental.

Woodstock, 1969

Allende las consideraciones estilísticas, esa coherencia también puede predicarse desde y en la perspectiva de temas y abordajes que informan buena parte de la filmografía norteamericana de Ang Lee, pues el realizador ha querido llevarnos consigo –con esa mirada foránea y lúcida- a lecturas de periodos históricos diversos de la Historia de América, desde la Guerra de Secesión en la poco convencional Ride with the Devil a los años de la crisis coetánea a Vietnam y Watergate en The Ice Storm, pasando por esa radiografía de los tiempos crepusculares para los viejos métodos en el oeste rural que informa el drama de la citada Brokeback Mountain. Y si en la película protagonizada por el malogrado Heath Ledger se cubría un vasto abanico temporal, en esta Taking Woodstock la acción se concentra en un solo verano (y más de medio metraje, en solo tres días, los que duró el concierto), pero ello no impide que Lee halle en el sustrato literario –la novela escrita por Elliot Tiber y Tom Monte que James Schamus adapta- el caldo de cultivo necesario para radiografiar un estado de las cosas, concreto pero trascendente en el devenir ideológico de aquella nación (y del mundo), bien conocido por haberse tratado en múltiples ocasiones en el cine, pero no manido, por cuanto Lee, partiendo de su historia anecdótica que abre ventanas hacia muchos reflejos sociológicos, sabe aportar su particular granito de arena.

Con los Teichberg

Esa historia anecdótica es la de la familia Teichberg, un matrimonio anciano y uno de sus hijos, Jake, que aún vive con ellos, judíos de origen ruso que regentan un motel de mala muerte situado en un small town perdido en el estado –geográficamente sito al norte de la ciudad- de Nueva York, que viven agobiados por las deudas, y cuya suerte cambia de la noche a la mañana cuando, por vaivenes del azar y el don de la oportunidad del emprendedor Jake, los promotores del concierto de Woodstock deciden organizar el magno evento en la campiña del lugar. El filme progresa desde la descripción del seno familiar y en particular desde la perspectiva de Jake, cuyo talante, prudente, tolerante, paciente y pactante, le sirve a Lee para, amén de narrar la consabida historia de descubrimiento y superación, instalar en el personaje rasgos de esa mirada objetiva –quizá por su raigambre foránea- del propio Lee (lo cual, en el entramado narrativo, se basa en la paradoja de que, invadido el pueblo de decenas de miles de hippies, los autóctonos son quienes se sienten extraños), que es la que en definitiva le dota de personalidad al relato, en un tono mucho más expositivo que valorativo, donde las imágenes dejan cierto margen a lo intuitivo y mucho a la contemplación extasiada de las circunstancias culturales, sociales, históricas en definitiva, que se refieren.

Progresión narrativa

Una de las cosas más agradecibles del filme es su progresión narrativa, el talento que demuestra Lee para estirar los hilos de los innumerables clichés que maneja para llegar a cubrir, aunque sea desde la humildad de esa historia íntima, un retrato sobrio, robusto, que abraza al mismo tiempo lo emocional (el retrato familiar y generacional) y lo circunstancial (la contracultura encarnada por el movimiento hippie, e incluso las heridas de la guerra de Vietnam –particular que sólo aletea durante el metraje en las contadas ocasiones en las que aparece el personaje de Billy –Emile Hirsch-, un joven veterano amigo de Jake, personaje cuyo tratamiento corre el constante peligro de abonar el cliché, pero que Lee sabe desplegarlo con habilidad suficiente para rehuirlo e, incluso, culminarlo con una soberbia dosis de emotividad-). En sus primeros compases uno piensa que está asistiendo a un telefilme al uso, quizá mejor ambientado, pero de argumentos demasiado planos y mascados. Ello sin embargo, conforme se precipiten los acontecimientos y dé inicio la vorágine festivalera (inicio que en el metraje, y no por azar, podemos identificar con la introducción del recurso a la split screen, utilizado aquí para conjugar diversos puntos de vista sobre idéntica secuencia narrativa), la máquina cinematográfica parece engrasarse, y es porque, nos damos cuenta, hasta entonces Lee no había hecho otra cosa que ilustrar largo y tendido una exposición, una puesta en situación de tono y argumento.

“El Centro del Universo” y el cambio de estación de la vida

Amén de los citados segmentos de pantalla partida, Lee se permite otro alarde formal majestuoso en el corto pasaje que ilustra un viaje de ácido al que Jake accede merced de dos hippies que le invitan a compartir su experiencia en el interior de su camioneta, segmento en el que Lee juega a la perfección con los conceptos psicodélicos para ilustrar la paranoia de la droga química, y que –otra vez, el azar nada tiene que ver con ello- culmina con la visión casi mística del escenario en el que discurre el concierto, la marea humana materializándose por arte de birlibirloque lisérgico: la ilustración tiene título: Jake asiste a la visión de “el centro del universo”; lo difícil era llegar a plasmarlo en imágenes con la solvencia que Lee demuestra. Comentario aparte merece la penetrante introspección en el trasfondo homosexual que el realizador consigue colarnos por entre los poros de las muchas convenciones del relato: más que el personaje a la postre anecdótico del transexual encarnado por Liev Schreiber, destaca el modo,  en balance imposible entre la frescura y la sensualidad, fascinado en definitiva, en que están filmadas las miradas entre Jake y el técnico con el que terminará enrollándose –y cuya resolución sexual el realizador deja sabiamente en elipsis-. Menos afortunadas resultan quizá las secuencias que culminan los encuentros y desencuentros entre Tommy y sus padres: a pesar del buen hacer de los tres actores, hay una cierta sensación de encorsetamiento en el tratamiento de ese desenlace: la secuencia en la que el padre y el hijo descubren que la madre tenía guardada una fortuna en un rincón de su armario resulta demasiado obvia en su catalogación del pulso generacional en manos de lo material; más feliz, por austera, resulta la ulterior despedida de padre e hijo, las confesiones a la luz de una lamparilla y la marcha del joven de la que ha sido su habitación, no sin antes hallar una respuesta irrefutable a la pregunta que había formulado disfrazando un reproche.

 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1127896/

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090826/REVIEWS/908269991/1023

http://www.urbancinefile.com.au/home/view.asp?a=16082&s=Reviews

http://alinaderzad.blogspot.com/2009/05/cannes-day-3-ang-lees-taking-woodstock.html

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/cinetology/2009/09/02/taking-woodstock-film-review-its-not-about-the-music/#more-4220

http://www.daveonfilm.com/review-taking-woodstock-9061.html

http://www.canaltcm.com/estadocritico/post/2009/09/25/destino-woodstock-ang-lee-y-amaorica-del-paz-y-amor

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movieDetail.cfm/i/1DB85B64-9A11-8C5E-EE7E01E1B94B2FFA/ia/3F3C0286-0918-5B90-00AD96B8604E5FDC/a/1

Todas las imágenes pertenecen a sus autores 

“Cabalga con el diablo” pasó sin pena ni gloria en su día, obviada por completo o despachada como un exótico/fallido “western” revisionista-romántico con una miopía alarmante que terminó por dejarla en ese limbo que acoge entre bostezos tantas y tantas películas recientes que no se acogieron a lo acomodaticio o a los modismos estéticos o que simplemente planteaban un cine adulto. Pero a estas alturas de la carrera de un director tan estimulante y fiable como Ang Lee, que se mueve sin perder sus coordenadas más originales entre géneros y estilos con asombrosa comodidad, este título no solo merece una revisión sino que aparece como uno de sus mejores trabajos pese a ser desde luego, un film algo tocado por una estructura demasiado episódica que provoca un cierto desequilibrio interno pero que de ningún modo merece el olvido y se erige como una pieza con verdadera personalidad.

El resultado del esfuerzo de Lee es un western historicista sobre las milicias de irregulares en Missouri durante la guerra de Secesión (a las que por cierto había pertenecido la banda James/Younger) y los enfrentamientos en la frontera con Kansas (de hay también el sobrenombre de “border ruffians” que se ganaron), que de modo bastante comprensible no pareció gustar a casi nadie. Principalmente por su extraño ritmo interno y su decidida falta de maniqueísmo, repartiendo por igual a unos y otros hasta acabar, razonablemente, siendo la historia de dos inadaptados, un joven de origen alemán y un negro que lucha con el Sur que terminarán por quedarse a la deriva (fenomenalmente explicitado en toda la parte final presidida por el lirismo paisajístico y un calma cotidiana que hasta el momento se les había negado, en ese sentido es ejemplar el corte de pelo de Maguire como despedida a toda una época de su vida) cuando las verdadera razón de su guerra desaparezca. Y es que esta no es otra que, no tanto la amistad, que también, como sobre la lealtad asumida como compromiso vital. Jake Roedel se alista a las órdenes del duro Black John siguiendo a su mejor amigo Jack Bull Chilles después de que los “jayhawkers” (las milicias nordistas) maten a su padre y arrasen su granja (una lealtad que se extenderá incluso post-mortem, ya que Roedel se hará cargo de Sue Lee Shelley y del hijo que engendró con Skeet Ulrich) y por su parte Daniel Holt sigue solo a su amigo y prácticamente hermano George Clyde (un estupendo Simon Baker mucho antes de “El mentalista”) comprado por su familia tras ser su  madre vendida  siedo esclava de unos vecinos arruinados ya que ambos se habían criado juntos, existiendo de este modo una relación intima y tierna  imposible de ser explicitada en público.Muy bien interpretada por un grupo de actores conjuntado y sin alardes, destacan eso sí, la economía expresiva de Tobey Maguire, el poso de Jeffrey Wright y un Jonathan Rhys-Meyers escalofriante como el pálido asesino natural Pitt Mackeson, que se la tiene jurada a Roedel y al que Lee recupera en la espléndida última secuencia completamente ido y decrépito. Con diálogos magníficos (ese “-Mujer, he matado quince hombres” con el que Maguire responde altivo a su torpeza ante Jewell en la casi forzada noche de bodas), estupendamente ambientada, con toques tan peculiares, y que ayudan a la nada decorativista autenticidad del conjunto, como la incongruente y atildada elegancia de los “bushwhackers” y sus cuidadas melenas y coloridas camisas herencia de una vida pasada en contraste con la rudeza de su estado actual. Unido a una sabia valoración del hermoso paisaje (con un uso naturalista del color y encuadres de los hombres descansando sobre los caballos o a galope y planos generales de las formaciones o las figuras en el paisaje que no pueden menos que recordar a las magistrales obras de los paisajistas americanos  con Frederic Remington a la cabeza) y los cambios de las estaciones como elemento dramático por antonomasia del western y rematada por una banda sonora fuera de serie cortesía de Mychael Danna privilegiando el banjo, el violín y la melodía tradicional, al igual que la película enérgica y melancólica a partes iguales.

Combina con acierto lo contemplativo con lo activo en un tempo dramático quizás descompensado pero singular y está rematadamente bien rodada, con limpieza, elegancia y claridad (la contundente escaramuza primera resulta ejemplar, comenzada con un vibrante tiroteo y continuada por una huida por el bosque en loca cabalgada, no se asusta ante la violencia gráfica y el detalle verista, la mandíbula descuajaringada es buen ejemplo) que no desdeña ni la violencia ni la extrañeza como bien demuestra el célebre “raid” sobre Lawrence, Kansas, en la mañana del 21 de Agosto de 1863 a las órdenes del legendario Quantrill (que contaba nada menos que con 26 años) visualizado y narrado de un modo absurdamente sereno, la calma en el ojo del huracán con los dos protagonistas paseándose y desayunando tranquilamente (un elección no solo estética sino también dramática al simbolizar que ambos están pero ya no pertenecen, son “outsiders” entre los “outsiders”) mientras todos los hombres son sacados de su casa y negocios o ejecutados allí donde se encuentren.Una gran película que desborda humanismo (el uso de las cartas que guarda Maguire robadas a un soldado de la unión y que lee regularmente para sentir algo de genuino calor) y que pese a su dramatismo y reflexión no olvida ni el humor ni el amor en una bella historia que no nace de la pasión  sino de la necesidad y la comprensión y que aporta una verdadera paz nacida para perdurar. Lo que también puede ayudar a entender el fracaso crematístico del invento, la audacia de plantear algo así  en pleno Hollywood, tan lejano del folletín inflamado“bigger than life” como del  asexuadamente fantasioso romanticismo  adolescente.Ang Lee vuelve así a reflexionar sobre América prorrogando coherentemente la estupenda “La tormenta de hielo”, no solo en este componente histórico sino, y sobre todo, su agudeza, su falta de complacencia y un entendimiento profundo mezcla de fascinación y distancia, de cariño y dureza que se extiende aquí a traveés de una nada engolado discurso sobre el fin de unos tiempos y de unos hombres que como bien dice el personaje de Zach Grenier cuando acoge en su casa a los huidos, pelean por algo que ya no existe.

Cabalga con el diablo (Ride with the devil)

Director: Ang Lee

Año: 1999

País: Estados Unidos

139 min.

Fotografía: Frederick Elmes

Música: Mychael Danna

Guión: James Schamus según la novela de Daniel Woodrell “Woe to live on”, 1987

Reparto: Tobey Maguire, Jewell, Skeet Ulrich, Jeffrey Wright, Simon Baker, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, Jim Caviezel, Tom Wilkinson, Margo Martindale, Jonathan Brandis,Zach Grenier, Mark Ruffalo

Why can’t I be loved as what I am
A wolf among wolves, and not as a man
Among men

Bonnie Prince Billy

Um apanhado dos filmes vistos nessa semana:

Adeus, Dragon Inn (Goodbye, Dragon Inn), dir. Tsai Ming-Liang

Demora muito a engrenar, mas tem lá seu interesse pelo vazio completo da sala de cinema. Seria uma analogia ao espetáculo cinematográfico contemporâneo?

Quanto Dura o Amor?, dir. Roberto Moreira

As grandes transformações da protagonista não são compartilhadas com o espectador.

Sukiyaki Western Django, dir. Takashi Miike

História em quadrinhos, com molho tarantinesco em dose cavalar, levada ao paroxismo. Sacou?

A Mulher sem Cabeça (La Mujer sin Cabeza), dir. Lucrecia Martel

A grande ironista do cinema latino-americano aposta na questão do visto e do não visto para falar sobre o que existe ou não e o papel da percepção, sempre deficiente. O cinemascope opressor e a personagem que parece vagar sozinha no quadro em meio a fantasmas, o som cheio de alarmes falsos colorem o jogo. Parece até pesado, mas é a grande ironia da cineasta argentina.

Singularidades de uma Rapariga Loura, dir. Manoel de Oliveira

Doce surpresa. Um filme cheio de alegria e simplicidade.

Vencer (Vincere), dir. Marco Bellocchio

Um melodrama dos mais bem dirigidos. Não há invencionices, nem cafonagens modernosas. É filme das antigas, mas nunca antigo. Reflete sobre a história, o totalitarismo e a construção do imaginário (do qual a história também faz parte). Bellocchio faz barba e cabelo numa das obras-primas do ano.

Besouro, dir. João Daniel Tikhomiroff

O Tigre e o Dragão revisitado, sem a sensibilidade de Ang Lee, sem a presença de Chow Yun-Fat, com um roteiro primário de tão amador e recheado da cafonice do filme taiwanês. Mas tudo bem, as lutas são sensacionais. Fica o exemplo.

ผู้กำกับ อังลี (Ang Lee) ถือได้ว่าเป็นผู้กำกับชาวเอเชียคนหนึ่งที่ประสบความสำเร็จที่สุดในทีไปคว้าฝันในวงการภาพยนตร์ฮอลลีวู๊ดนับตั้งแต่ภาพยนตร์สร้างชื่อ Brokeback Mountain ที่สามารถคว้าชัยชนะออสการ์มาถึง 3 ตัว ผลงานของเขาก็ไม่โดดเด่นอีกเลย และล่าสุดต้องรอพิสูจน์กับผลงานใหม่ที่จะลงจอเร็ว ๆนี้ กับ Taking Woodstock

เมื่อเร็ว ๆ นี้เอาก็ออกมาให้สัมภาษณ์ว่าเขามีโปรเจคใหม่กับการนำบทประพันธ์ของ Yann Martel ที่มีชื่อว่า Life of Pi การเดินทางของ Pi Patel ที่การันตีด้วยรางวัลชนะเลิศวรรณกรรมแคนาดา Hugh MacLennan Prize (Canada) มาสร้างเป็นภาพยนตร์ กับเรื่องเล่าของ พาย พาเทล (Pi Patel) เด็กหนุ่มชาวอินเดียที่เล่าถึงเหตุการณ์เรือแตก โดยเขาต้องใช้ชีวิตกับบรรดาสรรพสัตว์ ได้แก่ หมาป่าฮายีน่า,ม้าลาย,ลิงอุรังอุตัง และเสือเบงกอล ตัวใหญ่ ตลอด 227 วัน เขาต้องใช้ชีวิตกับบรรดาสัตว์เหล่านี้โดยลำพัง โดยใช้ไหวพริบ และความศรัทธา เพื่อการมีชีวิตรอด และเมื่อคนกับสัตว์ไปถึงฝั่งแม๊กซิโก บรรดาสัตว์ต่าง ๆ ก็ต่างแยกย้ายเข้าป่าไปกันหมด เจ้าหน้าพยายามซักถามพาย และไม่ยอมเชื่อเรื่องเล่าของเขา และกดดันให้พายบอก “ความจริง” หลังจากที่ถูกบังคับขู่เข็ญอยู่หลายชั่วโมง พายจึงยอมเล่าเรื่องอีกเรื่อง ซึ่งประหลาดน้อยกว่า ธรรมดาสามัญมากกว่า ทว่าเรื่องไหนกันแน่ที่เป็นความจริง?!!

หนังของอังลีถ้าไม่นับหุ่นยักษ์เขียวแล้ว ผลงานของเขาในระยะหลังแต่ละเรื่องจำกัดเฉพาะกลุ่ม จึงทำให้ไม่สามารถเข้าถึงผู้ชมได้ทุกระดับ แต่สำหรับโปรเจคนี้ น่าจะสร้างความแปลกใหม่ให้กับผู้ชม ที่เข้าใกล้จินตนาการอันเหลือเชื่อ ที่น่าจะเข้าถึงผู้ชมได้ในทุกระดับวัย โดยเขาได้ร่างสคริปไว้แล้ว วางแผนคัดเลือกตัวแสดงต่อไป และสามารถลงจอได้ภายใน 2 ปีนับจากนี้ !!

Taking Woodstock (2009)
★★★ / ★★★★

Directed by Ang Lee (“The Ice Storm,” “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” “Brokeback Mountain”), “Taking Woodstock” was about the summer of 1969 and the flourishing counterculture that culminated in the Woodstock Music and Arts Festival. Caught among the powerful movement was a family and their debt concerning a motel that no one ever visits. Demetri Martin tried to help out his mother (Imelda Staunton) and father (Henry Goodman) with money and moral support as best he could to the point where he had to sacrifice his career as an interior designer. Stuck in the ennui of rural town, the arrival of his childhood friend (Jonathan Groff) and concert organizers gave Martin and his family a chance to finally get out of debt. The only catch was that they had to somehow take in hundreds and thousands of people (which eventually grew to about a million or so) and deal with the frustrations of the citizens of their own town, the neighboring cities and the media coverage. They also had to find a land owner (Eugene Levy) who was willing to take in all sorts of people and be able to deal with the mess afterwards.

I’ll admit right away that “Taking Woodstock” could have been so much bigger and more interesting. However, I do admire Lee’s choice of telling a story from a struggling family’s perspective, especially from a son who was more than ready to leave the nest but was chained at home because of his own guilt of abandoning his parents when they needed him most. Making that decision gave the film a much-needed heart. I was amused when I saw the family dynamics because Staunton was so intense, Goodman was so passive and Martin was inbetween. But then there were truly touching moments, especially a scene toward the end between Martin and his father when the son finally summoned the courage to do whatever it was that he wanted to do in the first place.

The storytelling was light (even for a comedy-drama) and all over the place which worked at some parts because it reflected that era. With a little bit more focus on the event at hand, stronger script and storytelling, this could have been an Oscar contender. I also would have liked to see more of Jonathan Groff. He had a certain spark about him that intrigued me. It might have been his extremely laidback nature or the way he looked into the main character’s eyes, I’m not exactly sure, but what I’m sure of is that the film would have benefited if it had fully explored characters. On the other hand, as much as I love Emile Hirsch, I felt like his character was simpy a distraction. His scenes could have been cut off from the picture and the final product would pretty much have been the same. But then Liev Schreiber as a cross-dresser and having great comedic timing really had me engaged. With this picture, one thing that didn’t work was almost always coupled with two or three things that worked.

I cannot say that “Taking Woodstock” was a disappointment because it managed to entertain and it had a fresh perspective on the monumental event. But it definitely would have won extra brownie points if it had actual footages of several artists’ performance such as Janis Joplin or Jimi Hendrix, or at least a restaging of some sort.

Il faut reconnaître à Ang Lee sa grande habileté à savoir s’insinuer avec grâce dans les bonheurs et les affres de la passion amoureuse. Il peut y consacrer un film entier (Raisons et sentiments, son meilleur à ce jour) tout comme la traiter en toile de fond (Tigre et dragon, pas mal non plus). Débarqué de nulle part, Taking Woodstock sonne le début de la récré. Au placard les problèmes, on enlève les fringues et on va se baigner à poil dans l’étang le plus proche. Retour, donc, en 1969 sur les collines de Bethel dans l’état de New York, à l’endroit même où s’est déroulé le mythique festival de musique qui a rassemblé plus de 450 000 spectateurs. Plutôt que de se focaliser sur les concerts, Ang Lee décale son objectif à quelques mètres des lieux, sur le motel pouilleux de la famille Teichberg. On y retrouve Elliot, jeune décorateur new-yorkais venu prêter main forte à ses parents menacés de saisie. Animé par le désir de réveiller sa petite ville natale, il portera sur lui l’initiative de l’évènement : apprenant qu’une bourgade voisine a refusé d’accueillir un festival de musique hippie il décide d’inviter les organisateurs à venir s’installer dans le coin, du côté de Woodstock.

Le film n’est finalement rien de moins qu’une petite chose bien sympathique n’ayant pour autre ambition que de retranscrire une ambiance, et accessoirement de faire rire à deux ou trois reprises. Le réalisateur s’amuse comme un petit fou avec le personnage d’Elliot : il lui fait fumer des joints avant de l’envoyer en conférence de presse, le met face à sa condition d’homosexuel, lui fait rencontrer des vétérans du Vietnam devenus complètement cinglés. Puis quand il en a marre il passe aux parents, les gave de brownies au hasch, les fait nager dans des billets de banque, leur trouve des atomes crochus avec des transexuels, etc, etc… Bref, Ang Lee navigue en plein océan d’amour et de paix, s’appliquant à trouver une alternative à la tendance ‘crise économique’ qui sévit en cette année 2009. Tant mieux pour lui, et tant mieux pour nous !

Ceci dit, même en mode récré, Ang Lee reste un perfectionniste. Loin de lui l’idée de bâcler un film ! Par conséquent Taking Woodstock (dont la traduction française du titre est décidément bien ridicule) remplit son contrat en s’appliquant à recréer un décor et à toucher du doigt une ambiance, le tout sur un ton joyeux et dans un rythme effréné. Par moments il est vrai qu’on fait plus que froler la caricature (en témoigne le personnage d’Imelda Staunton, juive loufoque rongée par l’avarice), mais finalement qu’importe ! Le film aspire à la légèreté. Par conséquent il serait idiot de lui reprocher un quelconque manque de profondeur. En revanche, à bien y repenser, Taking Woodstock en compétition à Cannes, c’était bel et bien une erreur de casting !

v

TAKING WOODSTOCK (USA, 2009) R. : Ang Lee ; Sc. : Jake  Schamus d’après l’oeuvre d’Elliot Tiber et Tom Monte ; Ph. : Eric Gautier ; M. : Danny Elfman ; Int. : Demetri Martin (Elliot Teichberg), Imelda Staunton (Sonia Teichberg), Henry Goodman (Jake Teichberg), Emile Hirsch (Billy), Liev Schreiber (Vilma), Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Dan), Paul Dano, Kelli Garner. Couleurs, 110mn.

O Besouro e o Dragão

Não se pode negar que Besouro tem qualidade técnica. Todos os “valores de produção” do filme são de primeira: a reconstituição histórica dos cenários e figurinos, as locações externas, a fotografia cintilante, a trilha sonora recheada de diversos ritmos e principalmente as seqüências de luta.

Estas tem coreografia de Huan-Chiu Ku, que fez Kill Bill e O Tigre e o Dragão. Este último parece ser também o modelo para o filme brasileiro.

Primeiro porque a capoeira aqui é vista sob o mesmo filtro místico que o filme de Ang Lee. Ela é entendida enquanto uma arte de luta que manifesta forças superiores no homem e só é possível pela graça dos deuses.

É feita, então, uma apropriação do imaginário do candomblé e religiões africanas para permear a jornada de Besouro. Há inclusive uma didática seqüência para nomear cada uma das divindades e como elas agem sobre o protagonista.

Besouro é um negro que após a morte de seu mestre pelas forças do coronel da região decide agir contra os maus tratos aos seus pares. Os deuses interferem em sua formação final, quando assume para si a missão da libertação de seu povo. Aprende a voar e a ter consciência social. Tudo pelos deuses ou espíritos dos mortos. Cria-se uma metafísica da consciência social, no caso. Besouro quer insurgir sua comunidade, mas isso só é possível a poderes divinos e não ao homem comum que batalha no dia-a-dia contra a opressão. Só os deuses podem dar o mártir ao povo.

Nesse sentido, Besouro é um herói clássico, no melhor estilo mitológico que o cinema de ação tem propagado. Há um pouco de Matrix, um bocado de Guerra nas Estrelas.

Com esse herói tão clássico que chega a soltar poeira, a dramaturgia tem também a inocência didática de separar os heróis dos bandidos das maneiras mais simples possíveis, fazer com que os obstáculos do protagonista se multipliquem a cada passo que ele dá, coloca seu meu amigo contra ele por causa da mulher e um vilão que não mata, mas manda matar. Beira à prova dos nove da cartilha de Christopher Vogler.

Depois de traçado esse panorama mais estrutural, pode-se dizer que a influência de O Tigre e o Dragão se mostra, ainda, no impulso de construir a conjuntura histórica em razão da dramaturgia deficiente e não explorar dramaticamente o que esta conjuntura pode dar.

Há uma simplificação estetizante, no sentido que todo o desconhecido universo do Recôncavo Baiano do início do século permanece em “descontexto”. Isso acontece porque as personagens são planas e descoladas de seu meio. As belas paisagens não são mais que formas perfeitas num estúdio gigante a que chamamos de mundo. A história se desenrola então de maneira automática, realçada aqui (o que não acontece no filme de Ang Lee) pela câmera incessantemente virtuose de Tikhomiroff, pouco interessada nas transformações de Besouro e da comunidade a qual ele supostamente tenta insurgir, e a montagem que interrompe momentos crescentes de tensão e faz digressões temporais que mais engasgam o ritmo do filme e cansam o espectador, além de pouco eficientes.

Nesta dramaturgia mais canhesta, a construção metafísica do herói é mais pobre que a do filme de Ang Lee. O misticismo é de certa maneira figura chave no imaginário do filme do cineasta taiwanês, enquanto que aqui, o misticismo é figura-chave no mundo e não na dramaturgia, como se fosse problema e solução das coisas. Besouro é o escolhido metafísico, não tem méritos terrenos a não ser deixar seu corpo fazer a capoeira que pode salvar sua comunidade. O poder vem de outra fonte.

É um filme, portanto, que se apropria de um imaginário mais nacional para inserir elementos próprios do gênero de ação, mas realiza uma experiência redutora ao tratar o universo rico baiano – e do imaginário africano em geral – e suas personagens como cenários e bonecos comandados por um ser superior.

Besouro, dir. João Daniel Tikhomiroff

]]> http://dinnerauction.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/die-kunst-des-kochens-im-film-und-im-leben-die-kulinarische-filmnacht-mit-meisterwerk-eat-drink-man-woman/ Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:35:02 +0000 Silke http://dinnerauction.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/die-kunst-des-kochens-im-film-und-im-leben-die-kulinarische-filmnacht-mit-meisterwerk-eat-drink-man-woman/

Alles dreht sich um die Kunst des Kochens, um Familie und Liebe, gewürzt mit einer unvergleich humorvollen Auslegung großer Alltagsdramen - der Film Eat Drink Man Woman des Regisseurs Ang Lee ist ein cineastisches Meisterwerk, das berührt. Alle Kinobesucher und -besucherinnen haben direkt im Anschluss an den Film die Möglichkeit, in angeregter Runde über das Gesehene zu plaudern – bei einem Menü, dass den Film auch geschmacklich fassbar macht.

Tickets für die Kulinarische Filmnacht im Kino Die Kurbel und dem Restaurant Thiels finden Sie bei dinner-auction, zum Ersteigern und im Sofort-Kauf!

Zu den Auktionen und Sofort-Kauf

2005: Brokeback Mountain di Ang Lee

Brokeback Mountain, che in America è stato un successo al botteghino anche se proiettato in un numero limitato di cinema e solo a New York Los Angeles e San Francisco (sembra che il film sia costato così poco da ripagarsi nella prima settimana di programmazione), oltre ad aver vinto il Leone d’oro a Venezia, ha trionfato ai Golden Globe e agli Oscar ed è stato votato come migliore pellicola dell’anno dai critici Usa (che lo hanno premiato anche come miglior regia, sceneggiatura e fotografia).

Il film è tratto dal racconto breve pubblicato dal New Yorker nel 1997 (in Italia col titolo “Gente del Wyoming”, Baldini & Castoldi), della settantenne Annie Proulx, la scrittrice americana premio Pulitzer che insieme ad un altro premio Pulitzer, Larry McMurtry (il grande sceneggiatore dell’ Ultimo spettacolo e di Hud il selvaggio), ha adattato la storia per lo schermo.

Più racconto interiore che narrazione spettacolare, più vicino alle atmosfere rarefatte de La tempesta di ghiaccio che a quelle epiche e d’azione de La tigre e il dragone, il film è l’esaltazione di un legame umano che, esposto all’ostilità e all’incomprensione del mondo circostante, resiste nonostante tutto: ritratto di due esistenze mancate in una realtà dove troppo spesso non si ha coraggio di esprimere i propri sentimenti (ed è inevitabile il compromesso tra se stessi e quello che la società vorrebbe fossimo), una realtà dove regna l’incapacità di comunicare.

Le restrizioni sociali che incombono sulla propria vita e la continua lotta tra l’essere e l’apparire sono le vere protagoniste del film.

Con a disposizione una storia che qualcuno potrebbe definire “scabrosa”, Lee non vuole mai provocare, non ostenta , non ha pretese rivoluzionarie, al contrario nel film prevalgono pudore, garbo, pudicizia e molto intimismo.

Il primo western gay?

Si parla di omosessualità, i protagonisti sono due cowboy del nostro tempo, l’ambientazione è quella del Far West con il tradizionale repertorio (la bellezza del paesaggio, i pascoli sconfinati, i boschi e le vallate mozzafiato, i cieli disseminati di nuvole candide , la neve sulle alte cime… una natura incantevole e insidiosa) ma non è un western.

Non si comprende bene quindi perché molti Americani si siano offesi e abbiano accusato il regista di aver profanato la loro antica tradizione, un “luogo sacro” della loro cultura (una catena di cinema dello Utah ha addirittura bloccato le proiezioni).

Il film narra semplicemente di una storia d’amore lunga vent’anni, e il tutto è centrato non tanto sulle scene di sesso, peraltro mai volgari (e senza mai registrare cadute di stile o toni caricati), quanto sulla forza dei sentimenti che ossessionano due uomini.

Scrive Liberazione: “Era dai tempi dei «Ponti di Madison County » che non vedevamo una storia d’amore così tormentata e trascinante” .

Non è possibile concordare.

Il tema del film è coraggioso e la denuncia contro ogni forma di bigottismo e di violenza è da lodare senza condizioni, ma questo film difetta proprio per non essere trascinante.

Più di due ore che non riescono mai ad entusiasmare, rivelando nella parte mediana affanno e lentezza. L’impressione è che la storia sia accattivante e coinvolgente in teoria ma che la regia non abbia saputo renderla tale. Una eccessiva paura di scivolare nel facile sentimentalismo ha forse fatto sì che Ang Lee abbia realizzato un’opera formalmente bella ma fredda e razionale, senza cuore. Una storia d’amore che non commuove minimamente… che storia d’amore è?

L’opera risulta manchevole anche nella colonna sonora (musiche country troppo scontate). E nella scelta dei protagonisti, due star molto amate dal pubblico dei ragazzi, Heath Ledger e Jake Gyllenhaal: troppo giovani per ricoprire dei ruoli di cui si raccontano le vicende per un ventennio. E’ da sottolineare comunque che Ledger è sorprendentemente bravo e rivela la sua capacità (insospettata) di interpretare qualsiasi parte, Gyllenhaal non risulta (come al solito, a mio parere) convincente non riuscendo a dare spessore al suo personaggio.

Eccezionali le tre figure femminili, soprattutto Michelle Williams (strameritata la nomination all’Oscar).

p.s

La relazione omosessuale raccontata non nasce “spontaneamente e naturalmente”. Penso che questo sia un errore in un’opera che ha l’evidente scopo di combattere ostilità e pregiudizi. Se faccio pratica omosessuale perché qualcuno mi “spinge e provoca”, come convincere chi è persuaso che il tutto sia immorale e innaturale?

scheda

premi e riconoscimenti

sito ufficiale

ผู้กำกับ อังลี (Ang Lee) ถือได้ว่าเป็นผู้กำกับชาวเอเชียคนหนึ่งที่ประสบความสำเร็จที่สุดในทีไปคว้าฝันในวงการภาพยนตร์ฮอลลีวู๊ดนับตั้งแต่ภาพยนตร์สร้างชื่อ Brokeback Mountain ที่สามารถคว้าชัยชนะออสการ์มาถึง 3 ตัว ผลงานของเขาก็ไม่โดดเด่นอีกเลย และล่าสุดต้องรอพิสูจน์กับผลงานใหม่ที่จะลงจอเร็ว ๆนี้ กับ Taking Woodstock

เมื่อเร็ว ๆ นี้เอาก็ออกมาให้สัมภาษณ์ว่าเขามีโปรเจคใหม่กับการนำบทประพันธ์ของ Yann Martel ที่มีชื่อว่า Life of Pi การเดินทางของ Pi Patel ที่การันตีด้วยรางวัลชนะเลิศวรรณกรรมแคนาดา Hugh MacLennan Prize (Canada) มาสร้างเป็นภาพยนตร์ กับเรื่องเล่าของ พาย พาเทล (Pi Patel) เด็กหนุ่มชาวอินเดียที่เล่าถึงเหตุการณ์เรือแตก โดยเขาต้องใช้ชีวิตกับบรรดาสรรพสัตว์ ได้แก่ หมาป่าฮายีน่า,ม้าลาย,ลิงอุรังอุตัง และเสือเบงกอล ตัวใหญ่ ตลอด 227 วัน เขาต้องใช้ชีวิตกับบรรดาสัตว์เหล่านี้โดยลำพัง โดยใช้ไหวพริบ และความศรัทธา เพื่อการมีชีวิตรอด และเมื่อคนกับสัตว์ไปถึงฝั่งแม๊กซิโก บรรดาสัตว์ต่าง ๆ ก็ต่างแยกย้ายเข้าป่าไปกันหมด เจ้าหน้าพยายามซักถามพาย และไม่ยอมเชื่อเรื่องเล่าของเขา และกดดันให้พายบอก “ความจริง” หลังจากที่ถูกบังคับขู่เข็ญอยู่หลายชั่วโมง พายจึงยอมเล่าเรื่องอีกเรื่อง ซึ่งประหลาดน้อยกว่า ธรรมดาสามัญมากกว่า ทว่าเรื่องไหนกันแน่ที่เป็นความจริง?!!

หนังของอังลีถ้าไม่นับหุ่นยักษ์เขียวแล้ว ผลงานของเขาในระยะหลังแต่ละเรื่องจำกัดเฉพาะกลุ่ม จึงทำให้ไม่สามารถเข้าถึงผู้ชมได้ทุกระดับ แต่สำหรับโปรเจคนี้ น่าจะสร้างความแปลกใหม่ให้กับผู้ชม ที่เข้าใกล้จินตนาการอันเหลือเชื่อ ที่น่าจะเข้าถึงผู้ชมได้ในทุกระดับวัย โดยเขาได้ร่างสคริปไว้แล้ว วางแผนคัดเลือกตัวแสดงต่อไป และสามารถลงจอได้ภายใน 2 ปีนับจากนี้ !!

Der gealterte Schwertmeister Li Mu Bai (Chow Yun-Fat) hat beschlossen, die Kampfkunst aufzugeben, und vertraut sein legendäres Grünes Schwert der Unterwelt seiner langjährigen Gefährtin Yu Xiu Lian (Michelle Yeoh) an. Sie soll es nach Peking bringen, wo die Waffe sicher verwahrt werden soll. Als das Schwert jedoch bereits in der ersten Nacht gestohlen wird, führt die Suche nach dem Dieb Li Mu Bai auf die Fährte seiner Erzfeindin Jadefuchs, die einst seinen Meister tötete. Yu Xiu Lian lernt indes die junge Gouverneurstochter Yu Jiao Long kennen, die kurz vor ihrer arrangierten Heirat steht, vor ihrem Vater und dem Rest der Welt jedoch einige schwerwiegende Geheimnisse bewahrt …

Dass ausländische Filme bei der Oscar-Verleihung überhaupt größere Aufmerksamkeit erfahren, geschieht nur alle Jubeljahre. 2001 war das chinesische Kampfkunstdrama für ganze zehn Oscars nominiert, unter anderem für den besten Film, und gewann letzten Endes immerhin vier der begehrten Trophäen, was Regisseur Ang Lee fünf Jahre vor “Brokeback Mountain” in die Riege der Hollywoodgrößen hievte. Eine beachtliche Leistung für einen recht außergewöhnlichen Genrefilm, der mit den gängigen Hollywood-Motiven so gar nichts gemein hat. Nein? Immerhin lassen sich durchaus Parallelen zum gerne verfilmten Shakespear’schen “Romeo & Julia” ziehen, zudem zeigt Lee ein Jahr, nachdem die Matrix Amerika eroberte, dass man auch in Fernost fliegen kann.

Die Liebesgeschichten, die den Film letztendlich zusammenhalten, sind dagegen von einer Art, wie man sie in Hollywood selten zu sehen bekommt. Das gilt einerseits für die Beziehung der schönen Yu Jiao Long zu dem geheimnisvollen Luo Xiao Hu, einem als “Schwarze Wolke” bekannten Gesetzesfreien, den sie bei einem Ritt durch die Wüste kennen lernt. Die Geschichte der beiden steht etwas außerhalb des Filmes, denn sie wird in einer abgeschlossenen Rückblende erzählt, die die eigentliche Story für sichelrich eine halbe Stunde ziemlich abrupt unterbricht, was den Fluss des Filmes vielleicht ein wenig stört. So bewegend die Geschichte auch ist, sie lässt sich nur schwer optimal in den gesamten Film einfügen. Aber mit einem solchen Risiko muss man wahrscheinlich leben, wenn man Martial-Arts-Action mit tiefschürfender Romantik zu verbinden sucht. Was, das muss man zugeben, Ang Lee wirklich fantastisch gelingt.

Die interessantere Romanze ist nämlich die zwischen Li Mu Bai und Yu Xiu Lian, die einst die Verlobte seines Meisters war, weshalb die beiden ihre Gefühle füreinander nach dem Tod Meister Mengs lange Zeit verdrängten und es nicht schafften, einander ihre Liebe zu gestehen. Die komplizierte Beziehung der beiden Figuren, deren Darstellung Chow Yun-Fat und Michelle Yeoh superb meistern, fügt sich nahtlos ein in die wilde Geschichte um Kampfkunst und Rache, die das Drehbuch durch unglaubliche Kämpfe und wahnwitzige Stunts hindurch zu einem wirklich bewegenden Ende treibt. Der Film schafft es dabei, nie zu lange auf einem seiner beiden Elemente zu verharren, sondern immer geschickt zwischen Drama und Action hin und her zu springen, ohne dabei eines von beiden zu vernachlässigen. Eine solche gelungene Mischung habe ich selten zuvor gesehen.

Trotz Ang Lee habe ich von “Tiger & Dragon” wenig erwartet und bin sehr positiv überrascht worden. Auch wenn die ungewöhnliche Idee, die fernöstlichen Kampfkunstfilme, im jeder physikalischen Logik spottenden “Matrix”-Stil auf die Spitze getrieben, mit ergreifendem Charakterdrama zu verbinden, irgendwo an ihre Grenzen stößt und der Film mit seinen knapp zwei Stunden sicher nicht zu kurz ausgefallen ist, ist “Tiger & Dragon” ein Film, den man sich ansehen sollte. Nicht bloß wegen der grandiosen Fights, sondern eben auch, weil dieser Film von seiner Machart her einzigartig ist. Sein Meisterwerk hat Ang Lee erst 2005 abgeliefert, das hier war allerdings ein mehr as ehrenwerter Versuch.

Wertung: 8 / 10