No ambivalence for me. I hated it. I agree it's exquisitely crafted, very VERY deliberately so. The approach to the material, the length, the scope, the self-imposed sense of significance is at odds with what is essentially a chamber piece, and a not very interesting one at that. Too bad, because it begins so promisingly. When it focuses on the young theatrical troupe in thrall with the exciting idealism of the resistance movement, it feels like the film is building up to something wonderful. Turns out, this buildup wasn't even necessary to the main thrust of the story since Lee jettison's it halfway through. Much of the second half explores (or maybe just suggests) the dynamics of the sexual relationship between the secret agent and the collaborator is as metaphorically heavy-handed as it is sexually explicit. ("Black Book" was on my mind as I watched this, and as BJ said "Black Book" did much the same thing far more interestingly.) Stylistically, it's not all that different from Ang Lee's other movies, most of which I like very much. But this filmmaker and this story was a bad match. It's a pretentious, over-stretched bore.
As for the graphic sex footage, I must admit I was distracted by it. Rather than accept it organically, I kept thinking "Wait. Are they REALLY doing it? No, of course they're not. Okay then, what must they be doing in order to... er, not do it?" At least with films like "Shortbus" and "9 Songs", there's no question about it. Of course, you guys didn't help any. I had the discussion you all had playing out in my mind while the scenes were going on. Thanks, peeps. There's ONE shot where it sure looks like actual coitus was going on, but you don't see any faces so maybe they had shag-doubles. Anyway, I found the graphic, unnecessary mah-jong footage far more offensive.
Lust, Caution
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
I guess it's fitting that a film entitled Lust, Caution would evoke in me feelings of ambivalence.
I think no less highly of Ang Lee as a filmmaker than I did going in. The film is a sharply intelligent, grown-up effort, with a number of interesting characters, and an absorbing historical context. Much as I said about Minghella, Lee won't blow you away with bravura shots, but his visuals often seem exquisite -- the picture of Wong running away down the street after the killing of Tsao feels perfect for reasons I can't even articulate. The acting is fine overall, and something more than that when it comes to Tang Wei: she maneuvers between child and adult, actress and human being, political naif and ruthless professional with dazzling skill. (Her sudden spew in Wu's office felt like a classic Oscar scene) Oh, and as everyone has said, Desplat's score is glorious. All in all, a movie about which I felt quite positive.
So, the problem? It just didn't feel like enough movie for its size. About half an hour in, I started thinking to myself, How are they going to stretch this out two more hours? They did it better than I expected; I was never exactly bored. But at the end, I couldn't help but feel I'd seen something like a Notorious knock-off inflated to Sand Pebbles size (I invoke the latter not for its Asian setting, but because it's always seemed to me the epitome of mid-60s bloat: a wispy story blown up to shakily fit into a massive historic framework).
Perhaps a lack of empathy for Lee's personal history prevents me from investing emotionally in the political story. The occupation of Shanghai may well have such deep resonance for him (esp. with its echoes vis a vis China/Taiwan) that Wong's personal vs. political decision hits as more heart-wrenching than it did for me (I mentally substituted the archetypal evil collaboration -- that with Nazis -- but still didn't feel the personal disgust Lee likely did). All I know is, none of it felt like enough to merit 2 hours and 40 minutes running time. I like all of Ang Lee's films -- yes, even a good bit of The Hulk -- but this disparity of scale definitely made this a second-tier effort for me.
Oh, and regarding the ratings hypocrisy people discussed earlier in the thread: The film started with the title card for the NC-17 rating, and it said "For explicit sexuality". Which is true enough...but don't the ratings also usually mention the violence factor? As in Tsao's bloody killing, which was quite viciously violent, surely enough to rate an R on its own? I guess when pubic hair and testicles are on-scene, everything else goes by the wayside.
I think no less highly of Ang Lee as a filmmaker than I did going in. The film is a sharply intelligent, grown-up effort, with a number of interesting characters, and an absorbing historical context. Much as I said about Minghella, Lee won't blow you away with bravura shots, but his visuals often seem exquisite -- the picture of Wong running away down the street after the killing of Tsao feels perfect for reasons I can't even articulate. The acting is fine overall, and something more than that when it comes to Tang Wei: she maneuvers between child and adult, actress and human being, political naif and ruthless professional with dazzling skill. (Her sudden spew in Wu's office felt like a classic Oscar scene) Oh, and as everyone has said, Desplat's score is glorious. All in all, a movie about which I felt quite positive.
So, the problem? It just didn't feel like enough movie for its size. About half an hour in, I started thinking to myself, How are they going to stretch this out two more hours? They did it better than I expected; I was never exactly bored. But at the end, I couldn't help but feel I'd seen something like a Notorious knock-off inflated to Sand Pebbles size (I invoke the latter not for its Asian setting, but because it's always seemed to me the epitome of mid-60s bloat: a wispy story blown up to shakily fit into a massive historic framework).
Perhaps a lack of empathy for Lee's personal history prevents me from investing emotionally in the political story. The occupation of Shanghai may well have such deep resonance for him (esp. with its echoes vis a vis China/Taiwan) that Wong's personal vs. political decision hits as more heart-wrenching than it did for me (I mentally substituted the archetypal evil collaboration -- that with Nazis -- but still didn't feel the personal disgust Lee likely did). All I know is, none of it felt like enough to merit 2 hours and 40 minutes running time. I like all of Ang Lee's films -- yes, even a good bit of The Hulk -- but this disparity of scale definitely made this a second-tier effort for me.
Oh, and regarding the ratings hypocrisy people discussed earlier in the thread: The film started with the title card for the NC-17 rating, and it said "For explicit sexuality". Which is true enough...but don't the ratings also usually mention the violence factor? As in Tsao's bloody killing, which was quite viciously violent, surely enough to rate an R on its own? I guess when pubic hair and testicles are on-scene, everything else goes by the wayside.
How amazing were the cinematography nominees this year when Prieto can't even get a precursor nod?
**1/2. The first hour, I was convinced I was watching the most underrated film of Lee's oeuvre but then the next hour just drags so much that the film doesn't end so much as just decides not to happen anymore, which is incredibly sad because there is so much on the line in 'Lust, Caution'. Tang Wei is exceptional as are the mahjonng games, but it's an incredibly overlong, overly-stately affair, which usually plagues Ang Lee's films. His greatest strength is in his study of implosive performances. I've yet to see a single explosive performance in any of his films and that honor belongs to Nick Nolte in 'Hulk'. For much of the running time in 'Lust, Caution', I wouldn't have minded that guy showing up.
Edited By Sabin on 1204567740
**1/2. The first hour, I was convinced I was watching the most underrated film of Lee's oeuvre but then the next hour just drags so much that the film doesn't end so much as just decides not to happen anymore, which is incredibly sad because there is so much on the line in 'Lust, Caution'. Tang Wei is exceptional as are the mahjonng games, but it's an incredibly overlong, overly-stately affair, which usually plagues Ang Lee's films. His greatest strength is in his study of implosive performances. I've yet to see a single explosive performance in any of his films and that honor belongs to Nick Nolte in 'Hulk'. For much of the running time in 'Lust, Caution', I wouldn't have minded that guy showing up.
Edited By Sabin on 1204567740
"How's the despair?"
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Haven't had much time to write about this since I saw it a number of weeks ago, but better late than never...
Let me start off by saying I have an interesting relationship with Ang Lee's canon. I don't usually think of him as one of my favorite filmmakers...but when I look back on his filmography, I see a lot of work I've deeply enjoyed. So what's the cause of this discrepancy in attitude? I think it's the relative distance he brings to each project. I often find myself admiring the classical beauty of his compositions, the relaxed elegance of his pacing, the terrific groupwork of his ensembles, and his lovely attention to detail as he immerses the viewer into very specific times and places. And yet I feel like Lee always remains an outsider observing, rarely interested in allowing the viewer to experience these worlds through HIS point of view.
My attitude toward Lee hasn't changed after Lust, Caution, which I think is easily one of the year's best films, but one I can't quite march for as passionately as I'd like to. There's never one moment (even amidst the bumping and grinding) that approaches the stylistic or emotional highs I expect truly great films to reach, the narrative certainly drags in the second half, and the finale's a little too pat for my taste. This is certainly the most elegantly tasteful NC-17 film of all time...exactly why I'd love to see Lee really stretch his muscles next time and tackle something a little messier, something that aimed for grandness (and maybe even risked absurdity) instead of merely competence.
That being said, saying Lust, Caution is merely competent is a bit like saying Brokeback Mountain wasn't the breakthrough it could have been: perhaps it's a true statement, but why make complaints when there's so much to celebrate? Lust, Caution may be dressed up like a pretty period piece, but it's a terrific genre piece at heart, a tense and nervy thriller that's nearly always engrossing. Sabin's right about that opening -- that card game is taut and suspenseful...and that's before we've even been introduced to any of the players. I wondered if Tang Wei's character could go from amateur actress to superspy so quickly, and yet the increasing futility of her gang's efforts offset the film's inherent narrative convenience: things may go well for Wei (at first, at least), but she and her crowd are so clearly out of their element I knew we wouldn't be seeing too many more contrivances that worked in their favor, and the film's sense of dread grows terrifyingly palpable as it goes on.
What's particularly fascinating about this film this year is its relation to Black Book, another film I quite enjoyed that took a very similar premise (young woman goes undercover to seduce an enemy leader during WWII) in a very different direction. Black Book seems to me far more interested in the way national politics define the body (with the key scene including the moment when our Jewish heroine attempts to dissuade her Nazi lover of her true identity -- "THESE breasts can't be Jewish, can they?"). Lust, Caution, on the other hand, while employing a political backdrop, focuses more on the disturbing particulars that define sexual needs -- each sex scene in the film charts a very different step in Leung and Wei's relationship, and their tricky pas de deux of control, servitude, anger, revenge, lust (of course), and (maybe?) love plays out amdist some intense but very non-gratuitous love scenes. Their relationship is one of the most peculiar in any film of the past few years, and I honestly had no idea where things were heading. That's all the more reason to be slightly disappointed by the ending (I'm trying to avoid spoilers, but the climactic action by Wei's character seemed too simplistic and obvious a development for what had been, up to that point, a very unique and complex affair.)
I'll give a shout out to the handsome cinematography, and especially to Alexandre Desplat's lush score, yet another terrific composition by film's finest new composer. And one more thing: Tang Wei should be nominated for Best Actress. Her role is quite tricky -- she must constantly make the viewer aware that she is acting, and yet must be convincing enough to make us believe her lover buys her con -- and she pulls it off effortlessly. I'm not holding my breath for a nomination anywhere (most of the subtitled votes are already going Cotillard's way), but she's certainly a dark horse I'd like to root for.
Let me start off by saying I have an interesting relationship with Ang Lee's canon. I don't usually think of him as one of my favorite filmmakers...but when I look back on his filmography, I see a lot of work I've deeply enjoyed. So what's the cause of this discrepancy in attitude? I think it's the relative distance he brings to each project. I often find myself admiring the classical beauty of his compositions, the relaxed elegance of his pacing, the terrific groupwork of his ensembles, and his lovely attention to detail as he immerses the viewer into very specific times and places. And yet I feel like Lee always remains an outsider observing, rarely interested in allowing the viewer to experience these worlds through HIS point of view.
My attitude toward Lee hasn't changed after Lust, Caution, which I think is easily one of the year's best films, but one I can't quite march for as passionately as I'd like to. There's never one moment (even amidst the bumping and grinding) that approaches the stylistic or emotional highs I expect truly great films to reach, the narrative certainly drags in the second half, and the finale's a little too pat for my taste. This is certainly the most elegantly tasteful NC-17 film of all time...exactly why I'd love to see Lee really stretch his muscles next time and tackle something a little messier, something that aimed for grandness (and maybe even risked absurdity) instead of merely competence.
That being said, saying Lust, Caution is merely competent is a bit like saying Brokeback Mountain wasn't the breakthrough it could have been: perhaps it's a true statement, but why make complaints when there's so much to celebrate? Lust, Caution may be dressed up like a pretty period piece, but it's a terrific genre piece at heart, a tense and nervy thriller that's nearly always engrossing. Sabin's right about that opening -- that card game is taut and suspenseful...and that's before we've even been introduced to any of the players. I wondered if Tang Wei's character could go from amateur actress to superspy so quickly, and yet the increasing futility of her gang's efforts offset the film's inherent narrative convenience: things may go well for Wei (at first, at least), but she and her crowd are so clearly out of their element I knew we wouldn't be seeing too many more contrivances that worked in their favor, and the film's sense of dread grows terrifyingly palpable as it goes on.
What's particularly fascinating about this film this year is its relation to Black Book, another film I quite enjoyed that took a very similar premise (young woman goes undercover to seduce an enemy leader during WWII) in a very different direction. Black Book seems to me far more interested in the way national politics define the body (with the key scene including the moment when our Jewish heroine attempts to dissuade her Nazi lover of her true identity -- "THESE breasts can't be Jewish, can they?"). Lust, Caution, on the other hand, while employing a political backdrop, focuses more on the disturbing particulars that define sexual needs -- each sex scene in the film charts a very different step in Leung and Wei's relationship, and their tricky pas de deux of control, servitude, anger, revenge, lust (of course), and (maybe?) love plays out amdist some intense but very non-gratuitous love scenes. Their relationship is one of the most peculiar in any film of the past few years, and I honestly had no idea where things were heading. That's all the more reason to be slightly disappointed by the ending (I'm trying to avoid spoilers, but the climactic action by Wei's character seemed too simplistic and obvious a development for what had been, up to that point, a very unique and complex affair.)
I'll give a shout out to the handsome cinematography, and especially to Alexandre Desplat's lush score, yet another terrific composition by film's finest new composer. And one more thing: Tang Wei should be nominated for Best Actress. Her role is quite tricky -- she must constantly make the viewer aware that she is acting, and yet must be convincing enough to make us believe her lover buys her con -- and she pulls it off effortlessly. I'm not holding my breath for a nomination anywhere (most of the subtitled votes are already going Cotillard's way), but she's certainly a dark horse I'd like to root for.
Brown Bunny.Anon wrote:Asking if the sex is real in a non-hardcore film (when it's not promoted as real as was in Shortbus) is like asking if the killing is real in a graphically violent movie.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Asking if the sex is real in a non-hardcore film (when it's not promoted as real as was in Shortbus) is like asking if the killing is real in a graphically violent movie.
Surely, if ketchup can be used to create "real" murder scenes, we can imagine all kinds of fabrications to make "sex" look real too, can't we?
Surely, if ketchup can be used to create "real" murder scenes, we can imagine all kinds of fabrications to make "sex" look real too, can't we?
A journalist friend of mine was at a roundtable interview with Lee and Tang in which one of the other questioners actually had the nerve to ask if the sex was real. Needless to say, they declined to dignify him with a response. Such are the pitfalls of press junkets, it appears...
My friend's transcription of his own questions and their responses.
My friend's transcription of his own questions and their responses.
Well, she wasn't bouncing very high, so I presume his penis was laying back against his stomach while she did her thing; and, of course, it could've been removed through CG effects.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
I find this curious. Tang Wei bouncing up and down on Tony Leung's rod and we see his testicles quite visibly. Now, is he just pulling back his cock as she bounces up and down on his shaft? That sounds ridiculously uncomfortable but I can't think of any other explanation as to the physics of the situation. They're not actually having sex, are they? But his testicles are beneath her ass as she slams down on his rod.
"How's the despair?"
18A rating in Canada, same as American Gangster.
I think that the NC-17 comes from the first sexual encounter between Tony Leung and Tang Wei. It is very aggressive and may have fallen into the 'rape' category and snagged the higher rating as a result.
And also the NC-17 could be because of Tony Leung's nuts. (God bless them)
I think that the NC-17 comes from the first sexual encounter between Tony Leung and Tang Wei. It is very aggressive and may have fallen into the 'rape' category and snagged the higher rating as a result.
And also the NC-17 could be because of Tony Leung's nuts. (God bless them)
I believe it felt classy and viable for this particular film because it all melded and was cohesive to aid in a vision by a fine director, the extensive sex scenes were not nearly as gratuitous as I'm sure most are that are eventually cut to receive the R rating.
and in the film world we live in where gratuitous violence is available in spades and sex of the same mold is kept hidden in married people's bedrooms...mainstreamity for said films will continue to look quite bleak
Saw IV made 32 million bucks over the weekend...trash
and in the film world we live in where gratuitous violence is available in spades and sex of the same mold is kept hidden in married people's bedrooms...mainstreamity for said films will continue to look quite bleak
Saw IV made 32 million bucks over the weekend...trash