Thursday, June 3, 2004

Addicted to Malady

More followup about Tropical Malady in The Nation by correspondent Lekha J Shankar, who attended the Cannes Film Festival.

Say what you will about the love-hate debate stirred up at the Cannes Film Festival by Apichatpong “Joe” Weerasethakul’s Sud Pralad, he’s genuinely shaken people to the core, guaranteeing a global buzz for his future features and, by extension, all Thai cinema.

One phrase kept recurring in viewers’ summations of Joe’s movie: 'I didn’t understand it, but I had to stay until the end'."

Most coverage of the film during last month’s festival focused on the fact that it was booed at its Cannes media screening, yet ended up sharing this year’s Special Jury Prize, with jury chief Quentin Tarantino singling it out for generating more passion within his committee than any other festival entry.

'Staggering,' Tarantino and company called the movie.

'Artless, plotless,' ruled Time magazine.

But the dichotomy in opinion was even bigger than that. Viewers for the most part were evenly split: Sud Pralad was either poetic or puerile, brilliant or banal, stunning or stupid.

At an interview session at Cannes’ Grand Hotel, this writer listened to critics from Germany, Belgium and Slovakia in heated debate about it. The haranguing continued in the movie halls of the Grand Palais.

Many correspondents walked out of the press screening at the Salle Debussy Theatre, and one booed loudly, but there was incessant applause at the gala premiere and at the end a standing ovation.

The fiercely independent Apichatpong, who fretted that he’d made a film that might be too 'commercial', was ultimately resigned to the controversy he’d sparked.

Audiences 'will love or hate it – the reactions will be black or white', he told the press after winning the Special Jury Award.

The article then gave other film buffs’ reactions:

  • Tsui Hark, Hong Kong director and jury member: "It was a wonderful film! Of course, it was slow, it was difficult to understand, but the director shows great talent."
  • Philip Cheah, director of the Singapore Film Festival: "Structurally problematic, the film is nevertheless a kinetic cinematic experience. No other film will give you such a palpable impression of the tropical forest, of the power of legends to suspend disbelief and of natural physical intimacy."
  • Gerard Charge, Marseille International Film Festival: "It was very interesting and thought-provoking. Of course, I could not understand the two parts, but I stayed till the end because it fascinated me totally."
  • Giorgio Ginori, Rome Film Festival: "Everyone seems to be talking about the film! I found it interesting and fascinating."
  • Leonardo Garcia Tsao, Mexican festival programmer: "I liked his earlier film Blissfully Yours and found this one interesting, enchanting."
  • Derek Malcolm, The Guardian, London: "Very strange movie. Has someone told the chap that he’s made two films in one?"
  • Lisa Shackleton, Screen International magazine: "I found it interesting and intriguing. I couldn’t understand much of it, but I was glued till the end."
  • John Harkness, Toronto’s Now magazine: "It was an intriguing film, but after an hour and 20 minutes of watching the film, it was tough for me to accept that I could not understand it. This is certainly a weak point of the film."
  • Michael Wilmington, Chicago Tribune: "I know the director and enjoy his films. I liked Blissfully Yours and enjoyed this a lot too. It had tremendous feeling and drew you to another world."
  • Phillippe Piazza, France’s Le Monde newspaper: "It was slow but fascinating. I enjoyed it and so did many of my colleagues. But I admit that it was a weakness of the film that many could not understand its two different sections."
  • Cyprian Vial, French film student: "It was creative and poetic. It was about love, which I found beautiful and meaningful."
  • Yasushi Kawarabata, Japanese film critic: "It was very interesting and exciting. He was inspired by a Japanese writer, it seems. I liked the mood and culture of the people that the film evoked. I was fascinated till the very end."
  • Li Yang, China’s Movie View magazine: "I liked the film. I could not understand it, but a lot of the culture of the country came out, and also the feelings and emotions. I was fascinated till the end."
  • Francis Fan, Taiwan’s TVBS: "It was a strange film but interesting. It was slow but I stayed until the end."
  • Ekaterina Barabash, Moscow film critic: "I wanted to leave but stayed until the end because the film was interesting and intriguing. It was my first Thai film and I found it poetic though I didn’t understand much. European cinema is stagnating, so it’s nice to see these new styles and forms from Asia."
  • Meenakhshi Shedde, Indian film critic: "I was quite furiously bored, but also found myself unable to move out. What I liked was the oriental way of oral storytelling and the empathy for all living beings. What was disappointing was that it remained two films and thus seemed unfinished. The director seems to have much talent, but does not seem to have reached his full potential."
  • Yazhou Zhoukan, France’s Asia Weekly newspaper: "It was the 'shock' film of the festival and provoked everyone! I enjoyed it immensely."
  • Kim Do Hoon, South Korea’s Cine 21 magazine: "The film didn’t say anything and yet said everything. It circled round and round and pushed avante garde cinema to the ultimate. I guess it’s important in the field of Thai art-movies. It’s certainly different from any Thai film I’ve seen."

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please, no questions or comments about where to download movies or subtitle files.

Please read the FAQ about Thai films on DVD before asking about where to find a Thai movie on DVD with English subtitles.

Make your comments pertinent to the post you are commenting on. For off-topic comments, general observations or news tips, consider sending an e-mail to me at wisekwai [ a t ] g m a i l [d o t ] c o m.

All comments are moderated. Spam comments will be deleted.