A Brighter Summer Day (1991)

[DVD Phreak]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Yes, but I found this completely unconvincing.

It's interesting that its defenders are talking about how subtle and nuanced the film is yet it leads to such an extreme and exaggerated conclusion. To me the tone of the film was completely wrong for this kind of arc. It's something that is best suited for a more polemical film. Each to their own, but for me he picked the wrong approach to the material.

But even the shocking finale is filmed fairly subduely, with long shots galore, dispassionate onlookers, and an overall sense of that the world just doesn't care nor understand.

You need to be more open-minded than this, and accept that any style of filmmaking CAN be used for any subject. What Yang did was just a choice, and we need to evaluate HOW he did it this way instead of whether he should do it this way.

Originally Posted by malakaheso

As for your point about quoting journalists, finding the universal in the specific is a common feature of great stories across the board, regardless of the medium. It's what makes films resonate beyond cultural borders. All I ever hear is 'yeah, it's a film about the growing pains of Taiwan as a nation', but that's the only meaning they find it. The film also expresses a suspicion of authority, but in a way that seems like a hoary cliche from the 60's. The film is set in the 60's, yes, but it was made decades later. It reminded me of The White Ribbon in this respect.

In the rawest sense, ABSD does have a certain universality: troubled youths misunderstood by grown-ups and neglected by a society that is still rigid about old-fashioned traditional values but clueless about the real problems. Anyway, finding universality in specifics is not the only way in which a film can be great. Sometimes, films about another culture need to be understood "from within". It is often the western viewers' conceit that any film made about a supposedly exotic culture *should* be presented in manners "identifiable" to them, but it doesn't have to be that way. We only get that impression because these films are more "marketable" to the West, thus more likely to be seen in the West. But we need to be a bit more altruistic about this: when a foreign film has things we don't understand, it may be because we are *not supposed* to understand, and we need to learn more about that culture first before we can understand the film fully.

[Ray Jackson]

I was thinking about the running time and scenes and/or subplots that, in my opinion, didn't really add much to the story and I thought of the

[Show spoiler]movie studio and Ming's audition for the director.

I didn't feel that there was any real thematic relevance to it and it didn't really go anywhere in the end. All of that could've ended up on the cutting room floor and the film wouldn't have lost anything for me.

Not to mention the fact that the girl who played Ming wasn't terribly cute and/or charming and/or charismatic imo.

Throughout the entire movie I was thinking, "why exactly is this girl the object of so much romantic attention?"

...let alone a future movie star.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by DVD Phreak

But even the shocking finale is filmed fairly subduely, with long shots galore, dispassionate onlookers, and an overall sense of that the world just doesn't care nor understand.

It is supposed to be a 'realist' film yet people react indifferently to the killing itself, including the victim? Is it a realist film or not? Because that is not 'realistic', it is closer to a mannered symbolic device, and that gets to the heart of the problem I have with the style of the film. That mix is difficult to pull off and I don't think Yang succeeded.

Originally Posted by DVD Phreak

You need to be more open-minded than this, and accept that any style of filmmaking CAN be used for any subject. What Yang did was just a choice, and we need to evaluate HOW he did it this way instead of whether he should do it this way.

You have not presented a case for the how. The onus is on you--since we don't understand apparently--not on us. I have considered the style and felt it was unecessary for such a simplistic subject, especially over 4 hours.

Artists don't always make the right choices, even the great ones, and it isn't like Yang is an all time top 10 or 20 great. He is not infallible.

Originally Posted by DVD Phreak

Sometimes, films about another culture need to be understood "from within". It is often the western viewers' conceit that any film made about a supposedly exotic culture *should* be presented in manners "identifiable" to them, but it doesn't have to be that way. We only get that impression because these films are more "marketable" to the West, thus more likely to be seen in the West. But we need to be a bit more altruistic about this: when a foreign film has things we don't understand, it may be because we are *not supposed* to understand, and we need to learn more about that culture first before we can understand the film fully.

This sounds like a dodge mixed with a bit of condescension. I've read plenty of interviews with Yang and reviews of the film. I even listened to most of the commentary track. How much 'work' is sufficient to 'get' this film? Should I learn Mandarin as well as Shanghainese just to appreciate this great masterwork? How much do you think the average Western critic praising this to high heaven really knows about Taiwanese history?

There are probably just as many, if not more, Westerners praising these type of films for exotic reasons as there are dismissing it for the reasons you outlined above.

[joie]

I think this is a political film, and it cannot be fully appreciated without a knowledge of the Chinese civil war, the defeat of the nationalists and their "migration" to Taiwan.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by joie

I think this is a political film, and it cannot be fully appreciated without a knowledge of the Chinese civil war, the defeat of the nationalists and their "migration" to Taiwan.

Ok, but the same can be said for many other films that I find far more effective than this one, so while I appreciate your response, ignorance about domestic politics in a specific moment in time beyond a broad general level are not the only stumbling block to fully appreciating it in my view.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by joie

I think this is a political film, and it cannot be fully appreciated without a knowledge of the Chinese civil war, the defeat of the nationalists and their "migration" to Taiwan.

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Ok, but the same can be said for many other films that I find far more effective than this one, so while I appreciate your response, ignorance about domestic politics in a specific moment in time beyond a broad general level are not the only stumbling block to fully appreciating it in my view.

Sometimes for me, liking or not liking a movie comes down to the good old-fashioned nuts and bolts of filmmaking.

Symbolism and allegory aside, do I like the acting?

Do I like the dialogue?

Do I like the cinematography?

Editing, music etc.

There just wasn't enough of that in ABSD that I thought was really good.

But that's subjective.

This wasn't a film I watched and thought, "well that sucked."

It just wasn't a great viewing experience for me.

...it happens.

[joie]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Ok, but the same can be said for many other films that I find far more effective than this one, so while I appreciate your response, ignorance about domestic politics in a specific moment in time beyond a broad general level are not the only stumbling block to fully appreciating it in my view.

It's much more than a specific moment in time. The nationalist's move to Taiwan has altered the relationship between Taiwan and China to this day. The movie has tension that derives from the political relationship between the native islanders and the mainlanders.

Oh well! Politics is a forbidden topic ... .

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by joie

It's much more than a specific moment in time. The nationalist's move to Taiwan has altered the relationship between Taiwan and China to this day. The movie has tension that derives from the political relationship between the native islanders and the mainlanders.

Oh well! Politics is a forbidden topic ... .

I understand that, but the film deals with the 'fall out' at a specific moment in time. Does the film have contemporary resonance in your view? Does it tell us something about modern Taiwan? If so, what?

I'm curious. This could be a different angle on which to interpret the film

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Sometimes for me, liking or not liking a movie comes down to the good old-fashioned nuts and bolts of filmmaking.

Symbolism and allegory aside, do I like the acting?

Do I like the dialogue?

Do I like the cinematography?

Editing, music etc.

There just wasn't enough of that in ABSD that I thought was really good.

But that's subjective..

Yes. If you don't respond to the fundamentals you won't care as much about the rest. At this point I'm trying to nut out 'the rest' because I wasn't overly impressed with the film making.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by joie

I think this is a political film, and it cannot be fully appreciated without a knowledge of the Chinese civil war, the defeat of the nationalists and their "migration" to Taiwan.

I have a rudimentary knowledge of the Chinese Civil War and it didn't help me enjoy the film any more.

There are a million reasons to like or not like any given film. We need to stop looking for reasons why the other person is wrong.

[DVD Phreak]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

It is supposed to be a 'realist' film yet people react indifferently to the killing itself, including the victim? Is it a realist film or not? Because that is not 'realistic', it is closer to a mannered symbolic device, and that gets to the heart of the problem I have with the style of the film. That mix is difficult to pull off and I don't think Yang succeeded.

What I meant was that the scene does show the shocking aspect of the incident, albeit retaining the perspective of a dispassionate observer. After the killing, we see a long shot of Si'r and Ming in the street, with passersby not immediately realizing what has happened. After several seconds that seems like an eternity, passersby start to react to the tragedy. That is the kind of understated filmmaking I've been referring to. The film stays true to this style throughout. There is nothing "mannered" about it, since the film depicts what may actually happen in real life.

Originally Posted by malakaheso

You have not presented a case for the how. The onus is on you--since we don't understand apparently--not on us. I have considered the style and felt it was unecessary for such a simplistic subject, especially over 4 hours.

Artists don't always make the right choices, even the great ones, and it isn't like Yang is an all time top 10 or 20 great. He is not infallible.

"Simplistic", "don't make the right choice", "unnecessary", etc. -- This is the kind of definitive conclusion that I wish you would avoid by having a more open mind. I have been presenting a case for why Yang chooses this understated manner of filmmaking, i.e. dispassionate attitude, lack of understanding, people not realizing their own social malaise, etc. More importantly, it is a *choice*. A director must pick style closest to his heart.

Originally Posted by malakaheso

This sounds like a dodge mixed with a bit of condescension. I've read plenty of interviews with Yang and reviews of the film. I even listened to most of the commentary track. How much 'work' is sufficient to 'get' this film? Should I learn Mandarin as well as Shanghainese just to appreciate this great masterwork? How much do you think the average Western critic praising this to high heaven really knows about Taiwanese history?

There are probably just as many, if not more, Westerners praising these type of films for exotic reasons as there are dismissing it for the reasons you outlined above.

Would it be less condescending if I included myself in the group of Western viewers? I'm no expert of Taiwanese life in the 1950s and 60s, but I do understand that some filmmakers don't necessary make films for Westerners. And there is always going to be things that need to be understood "from within". For instance, why does the father treat his two sons so differently? Si'r's repeated offenses that end in bloodshed merely get a "stern talking to" from his Dad, while the elder son is beaten savagely for merely stealing a watch (which he didn't really do)? The film doesn't explain this, but maybe it has something to do with the fact that some Chinese families see elder sons as more important and discipline them more harshly. Hence, Chinese viewers may "get" this more readily, while Western viewers may find that odd.

[DVD Phreak]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Not to mention the fact that the girl who played Ming wasn't terribly cute and/or charming and/or charismatic imo.

Throughout the entire movie I was thinking, "why exactly is this girl the object of so much romantic attention?"

...let alone a future movie star.

Must you drag film criticism to such a cheap level? A girl's appearance is sometimes not what attracts guys. Maybe it's her positive attitude, her being an embodiment of goodness, etc. You get a sense of that from her dialog. Pointing out the obvious, the film presents beauty as seen from the perspective of people in a 1960s Taiwanese town with a lot of emotional and moral bankruptcy, not from that of 21st century western guys with a lot of time watching Kate Upton or Game of Thrones.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by DVD Phreak

Must you drag film criticism to such a cheap level? A girl's appearance is sometimes not what attracts guys. Maybe it's her positive attitude, her being an embodiment of goodness, etc. You get a sense of that from her dialog. Pointing out the obvious, the film presents beauty as seen from the perspective of people in a 1960s Taiwanese town with a lot of emotional and moral bankruptcy, not from that of 21st century western guys with a lot of time watching Kate Upton or Game of Thrones.

The girl's romantic magnetism pulling in multiple suitors is one of the central story lines in the film. The idea that her level of physical attractiveness is irrelevant in that context is absurd. That being said, I listed that as one of three qualities I felt she was lacking, along with charm and charisma.

So the idea that I was scrutinizing the character merely based on her appearance is simply not accurate.

Her positive attitude?

Sorry, but I don't find stringing that many boys along to be all that positive.

...I think it's a bit cold.

[DVD Phreak]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

The girl's romantic magnetism pulling in multiple suitors is one of the central story lines in the film. The idea that her level of physical attractiveness is irrelevant in that context is absurd. That being said, I listed that as one of three qualities I felt she was lacking, along with charm and charisma.

So the idea that I was scrutinizing the character merely based on her appearance is simply not accurate.

Her positive attitude?

Sorry, but I don't find stringing that many boys along to be all that positive.

...I think it's a bit cold.

But these are not your ordinary everybody people you see in the film. This is a different world in a different time. Ming is a simple, uncomplicated, unworldly girl, and the RIGHT actress with the right look was cast. In the movie, we DO see other women using their physical attractiveness or some other baser methods to lure guys, and the movie seems to see them as lower forms of attraction. Ming's attraction is clearly depicted as something loftier and more idealistic, and I don't see how it could escape you. The film clearly wants to say that men from all walks of life, be they gangsters, teachers, teenagers, etc., all seem to yearn for the same things in a companion/girlfriend/friend.

But we certainly learn something about you, don't we. You and your belief of what attraction should be.

[Scottie]

I've been thinking about this film a lot recently.

A Brighter Summer Day is an exceptional film, but I can't help but contrast it with Yi Yi, which I found to be far superior in every department.

In a lot of ways, this film is a political film, a reflection on a country's past, and a biography about one teenager who took the wrong path in life. I don't know how much replay value this will have compared to Yang's swan song, which I find to be one of the greatest films of the 2000s and one of the greatest films of all-time, for its sensitive portrayal of several generations of one family struggling with the past, present, and themselves.

[Fabs]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I've been thinking about this film a lot recently.

A Brighter Summer Day is an exceptional film, but I can't help but contrast it with Yi Yi, which I found to be far superior in every department.

Yi Yi has the most beautiful city photography of any film, ever.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Fabs

Yi Yi has the most beautiful city photography of any film, ever.

Agreed. I don't even think the cinematography in Ozu's films has the effect that Yang's in Yi Yi does.

[Markgway]

So, I watched Terrorizer. It was better than ABSD, but still too artsy and slow for my taste. Nothing really happens until the last half hour, which is quite good.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Agreed. I don't even think the cinematography in Ozu's films has the effect that Yang's in Yi Yi does.

Wow, that's quite a claim. Obviously I disagree, but I admire your boldness!

Yi Yi is full indelible moments, moments that stick in your mind for no apparent reason. Like that woman playing cello in her apartment, for example. It does hint at the loneliness of living in a big faceless city, but it's more than that.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by DVD Phreak

But these are not your ordinary everybody people you see in the film. This is a different world in a different time. Ming is a simple, uncomplicated, unworldly girl, and the RIGHT actress with the right look was cast. In the movie, we DO see other women using their physical attractiveness or some other baser methods to lure guys, and the movie seems to see them as lower forms of attraction. Ming's attraction is clearly depicted as something loftier and more idealistic, and I don't see how it could escape you. The film clearly wants to say that men from all walks of life, be they gangsters, teachers, teenagers, etc., all seem to yearn for the same things in a companion/girlfriend/friend.

This is a plausible explanation for why so many men were after her, especially 'powerful' men (in a relative sense). I seriously doubt that Yang considered her a great beauty, so there must be another reason why she was cast in that role. She has an elusive quality to her that makes her intriguing.

Originally Posted by DVD Phreak

But we certainly learn something about you, don't we. You and your belief of what attraction should be.

Again with the judgement