Film Comment - not for another week and a half Id say...
Printable View
Film Comment - not for another week and a half Id say...
Looking forward to it. The "editor-in-chief" is certainly getting the opportunity to write lengthy reviews for Scope; he called A History of Violence one of Cronenberg's best!
The question of violence and its representation in movies is a kind of ideological parade float, so big that it obscures everything else in sight. What's interesting is that even the most elevated and morally engaged responses to the question, like Rivette's famous condemnation of Pontecorvo's innocuous pan across the electrified fence in Kapo (1959), amount to all-or-nothing propositions. One wrong move, and your film has been disqualified from serious consideration on moral grounds. Examinations of what can and cannot be represented in the cinema are eternally relevant, but they almost always lead those asking the questions down a blind alley. Not to mention a stunted form of critical thinking. When I was young, the complaint that a film or filmmaker had "glorified violence" was often heard, as was the similar, if not identical, complaint that the violence in a given film was "violence for violence's sake" (a mouthful, thus not heard quite as often). Similarly, one became used to such condemnations as "psychological," "sentimental," "sexist" "racist," "manipulative," or that old chestnut, "fascist". Such words were, and occasionally still are, carelessly thrown into the stew and just as carelessly ingested, as a kind of low calorie substitute for actual thought. Cinema studies students, born again Christians and aspiring politicians employed them with equal abandon.
I don't mean to imply that racism or sexism or even fascism have never existed in the cinema, or that filmmakers have never exploited the emotions of their customers or the potential of their subjects. What I'm getting at is the way that moviegoers fall so easily into the role of moral watchdogs, no matter what their political affiliation. There are the Michael Medveds of this world, and there are the Jean-Marie Straubs. And if Straub gets the benefit of the doubt because (a) he's a great artist and (b) he doesn't have a silly moustache, I think he's just as tone-deaf to the intricacies of movie watching and thus lovemaking - when the movie is made by someone other than himself and his wife, that is. The reactionary European communist and the reactionary North American conservative share the same core belief: that the road to perdition is paved with morally unaccountable movies, meaning movies that offer an imperfect, unfinished or skewed (consciously or not) vision of the world.
Let us now say goodbye to Mr. Medved and M. Straub (and to Armond White, in whose criticism these two extremes are improbably united), and have a chat with M. Godard. Some years ago, perhaps ten, Godard did a television broadcast in which he addressed the topic of filming war. He offered us newsreel footage, and, in contrast, sequences from Full Metal Jacket (1987)-war as filmed by a great director. Anyone familiar with Godard and his recent preoccupations will correctly guess that Kubrick came out on the losing end. It's been years since I've seen the program, and I don't recall the particulars of Godard's argument as clearly as I'd like to. If I remember correctly, it all boils down to this assertion: that the proximity Kubrick offers us with his slow motion and squibs and reconstruction of Hue in a deserted London gasworks can only be a false proximity. From there, a hop, skip, and a jump to Deleuze's false consciousness. The idea is that the creation and placement of every image, and the corresponding act of receiving those images, is a moment of truth. Ideally, every image must exist at a proper moral distance from its viewer, without promising a form of communion that can never be. Noble? Perhaps. Not to mention untenable.
And now on to Cronenberg. Whose new film, A History of Violence, offers communion and distanced reflection at the same time. It is indeed "a movie that could drive you crazy," as Jim Hoberman put it in his 'Voice' appreciation-"you" being Straub, Medved, Godard. my mother, whoever. It looks and even behaves like a fairly satisfying revenge melodrama, featuring that old Western standard, the retired gunslinger who breaks his promise to himself and avenges himself against past demons who have returned to plague him and his loved ones. It also features two quick, remarkable special effects shots that wouldn't be out of place in, say, Van Helsing (2004), not to mention an early Cronenberg movie: anatomically detailed close-ups of two faces, one half blown off and the other smashed in so far that it resembles a Francis Bacon painting. If someone were to approach me in outrage and inform me that Cronenberg had 'glorified" violence, I'm not so sure that I could find reasonable grounds on which to disagree. Come to think of it, I'm not at all sure that the film even "condemns" or "critiques" violence. Most damningly of all, it not only refuses to deny the satisfaction of violence, but it actually makes such satisfaction a focal point. It's as if Cronenberg were saying, "See how much this movie looks like other movies you know, and how much it doesn't, and then see where the difference leads."
Cronenberg is not showing us air excess of violence in order to make us see its essential ridiculousness (De Palma's Scarface, 1983), or rubbing our noses in its spectacle as a proof of how desensitized we've become (Irreversible, 2002; Funny Games, 1997). Those all seem to me to be losing or at best ineffectual strategies, variations of that old standby, shock value-always heavily dependent on the surrounding context, of which the shock element quickly becomes a constituent part. Cronenberg is actually telling us, quite reasonably, that violence is an all-too-human response, and that we would do better to understand it as such rather than waste our time condemning it or denying its satisfactions. Only Eastwood has approached the question of violence as seriously, but never with such clarity. Watching A History of Violence was, for me at least, like stepping out into the sunshine after a month of rain, and seeing the world from a fresh perspective.
[I am not including the part of his review in which he discusses the film in quite a bit of detail]
A History of Violence presents us with a vision close to Bunuel's, in which sanity and normalcy are not pure states but compromises with madness, and where everyone finds themselves trapped and dizzily looking for the escape hatch, failing to notice that the front door is wide open. As in Bunuel, the internal consistency is as extraordinary as the lack of outward signals of abnormality or aberrance is potentially disconcerting. One might place Cronenberg's film close to Wuthering Heights (1954) or Los Olvidados (1950), which, based on their plot outlines and basic imagery, can be easily dropped into the readymade categories of romantic melodrama and social conscience. But Cronenberg has his own sense of grandeur. Unlike the upper-middle-class phantoms who populate Bunuel's later films, Cronenberg's people actually have a grasp of the absurdity of their own positions, and an awareness of their inability to untangle the mess they're in. Which brings his greatest films, including A History of Violence, close to genuine tragedy.
Thanks to Amy Taubin and Nathan Lee
Cinescope Magazine
Summer 2005
Thank you for this. I hope we can get hold of Kent Jones's detailed description of the Cronenberg film by the time when History of Violence becomes available for general viewing in the fall. Nor having followed Cannes reports as closely as you and not even having read (till just now) Hoberman's (partial, Cannes-related) review, I hardly even know what the content of the film is like. One thing this excerpt seems to omit mention of: the "unexpected humor" others, including Hoberman, quoting Cronenberg himself ("It's funny") have spoken of in the film; apart from that: what the experience of watching the film is like.
Guided By Voices - Chris Chang on the sounds of Gus Van Sant's Last Days.
The cover of the latest edition adorned by Ziyi Zhang has left me speechless. Great choice, P.
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I hardly even know what the content of the film is like. what the experience of watching the film is like.
Why would you want to know about the content of the film beforehand?
Why would you want to know what the experience of watching the film was for anyone before having your own personal experience watching it?
Ha!
A trap?! Shoulda known better.
"Since its heyday—probably defined by Abbas Kiarostami’s Palme d’Or at Cannes in 1997—Iranian cinema has become increasingly repetitive, returning again and again to formulaic plots involving children, Afghan refugees or both. The filmmakers, of course, haven’t had it easy. The reform movement that loomed so promisingly a decade ago has been pretty much stymied by the increasingly entrenched clerical autocracy, and the effects of that have not filtered down into what had become Iran’s best-known cultural export, the cinema."
I couldn't agree more.
CANNES: UNEASY RIDERS
I must be fair, when you see older Iranian films there does appear to be a greater diversity but at least Kiarostami himself is showing a greater variation both in his film making and his screenplays. Perhaps others will start showing a bit more variety in their output as they mature.
I recently watched a short documentary on Irans one and only rock group "The Flying Misters" it showed it's a tough life in Iran if you want to try and do something a little different especially when it is seen as something "Western" and likely to cause excitement. We don't need a constant supply of films from the Middle East that highlight the problems of this or that group, people do live relatively normal lives in these countries as well and I'm sure there are stories to be told that don't rely on the plight and suffering of a certain group whether Kurds, Afghani's, children, women et al.
Cheers Trev.
We don't need a constant supply of films from the Middle East that highlight the problems of this or that group, people do live relatively normal lives in these countries as well and I'm sure there are stories to be told that don't rely on the plight and suffering of a certain group whether Kurds, Afghani's, children, women et al.
I'm glad to hear this line of thought which I thought was taboo. I think Kierostami overrated though I know that surely is a forbidden thought even here. I would like to see an Iranian film in which people smile and have a good time. As I've pointed out in discussing The Circle, even those women in a doomed situaition would have had some light moments; it's human nature to want to laugh, more than ever when times are grim. They made jokes in the Nazi camps. A major failing for me of Persian filmmaking is their relentless deterministic hopelessness, which is worse than the focus on disadvantaged groups.
I liked Stray Dogs with its deliberate links with Italian neorealism and De Sica/Zavattini's Bicycle Thief, but it was lightened up by my seeing it dubbed in Italian.
I'm not so sure a Palestinian filmmaker can make movies about anything but the plight of the Palestinians, but Elia Suleiman does that with a lot of irony and humor.
Chris have you seen A Taste of Cherry? It is magnificent in its afermation of life that goes beyond the religious. Also the number of great screenplays he's done is incredible. I think with Kiarostami, the more you see
his work the more you appreciate it.
Cheers Trev.
P.S Gotta be honest, I think The Circle is an excellent film and there is some wry humour in there as well.
Originally posted by arsaib4
"Since its heyday—probably defined by Abbas Kiarostami’s Palme d’Or at Cannes in 1997—Iranian cinema has become increasingly repetitive, returning again and again to formulaic plots involving children, Afghan refugees or both. The filmmakers, of course, haven’t had it easy. The reform movement that loomed so promisingly a decade ago has been pretty much stymied by the increasingly entrenched clerical autocracy, and the effects of that have not filtered down into what had become Iran’s best-known cultural export, the cinema."
I couldn't agree more.
I strongly and passionately disagree. If a number of the films below involve "children, Afghan refugees or both", the films are quite vibrant and affecting not formulaic. Below is the list of Iranian films I have watched that range from good to great, in my opinion. All were released after Kiarostami received the Golden Palm for Taste of Cherry.
THE APPLE (Samira Mahkmalbaf)
DIVORCE, ITALIAN STYLE (Ziba Mir-Hosseini)
THE SILENCE (Moshen Makhmalbaf)
THE MAY LADY (Rakhsan Bani Etemad)
THE COLOR OF PARADISE (Majid Majidi)
THE WIND WILL CARRY US (Kiarostami)
THE CIRCLE (Jafar Panahi)
THE SMELL OF CAMPHOR, THE SCENT OF JASMINE (Bahman Farmanara)
THE DAY I BECAME A WOMAN (Marziyeh Meshkini)
BLACKBOARDS (Samira Mahkmalbaf)
A TIME FOR DRUNKEN HORSES (Bahman Ghobadi)
SECRET BALLOT (Babak Payami)
KANDAHAR (Moshen Makhmalbaf)
TEN (Kiarostami)
MAROONED IN IRAK (Bahman Ghobadi)
AND ALONG CAME A SPIDER (Maziar Bahari)
AT FIVE IN THE AFTERNOON (Samira Mahkmalbaf)
CRIMSON GOLD (Jafar Pahari)
STRAY DOGS (Marziyeh Meskini)
MARMOULAK THE LIZARD (Kamal Tabrizi)
TURTLES CAN FLY (Bahman Ghobadi)
The films listed below have been highly regarded by critics and cinema enthusiasts worldwide. I hope to be able to watch them in the near future in order to form an opinion.
THE CHILD AND THE SOLDIER (Reza Mir-Karimi)
ABC AFRICA (Kiarostami)
BARAN (Majidi)
JOY OF MADNESS (Hana Makhmalbaf)
FIVE (Kiarostami)
UNDER THE SKIN OF THE CITY (Etemad)
My comments from foreignfilms.com
Lezate divanegi (2003) - Joy of Madness
Directed by Hana Makhmalbaf
Starring Samira Makhmalbaf, Mohsen Makhmalbaf
A family affair.
Well the last of the Makhmalbaf clan has directed her first film, Hana Makhmalbaf was 14 when she made this feature covering the events upto the filming of “At Five in the Afternoon” which was directed by her sister Samira.
The whole of the roughly shot film revolves around trying to get the cast together, a job that in almost any part of the world would be pretty straight forward but not in post Taliban Afghanistan. People are still scared, concerned for their safety and in some cases for their reputations, we see Samira lose her patience as she tries to cajole or even bully people into accepting parts in the film.
A gypsy family is convinced that the crew will kill their baby while making the film and a teacher writes a letter explaining why she can't take on the lead role. Kabul, once a powerful and beautiful city provides the backdrop, scarred and crumbling, a shadow of its past glory. Fear is the feeling that constantly comes across, at least from the Afghani women because even though the Taliban are finished, the threat of them still pervades the very air.
Being a film director is probably a stressful job but trying to do it in these conditions! It must be almost impossible to get anything completed, well done then to the Makhmalbaf’s and all the other directors working in the Middle East.
Rough & Ready but recommended to anyone interested in Middle Eastern life and cinema.
----------------------------
Now going back to my initial response, having recently had the pleasure of seeing Tabiate bijan - Still Life 1974 by Sohrab Shahid Saless and Gaav - The Cow 1969 by Dariush Mehrjui it made me wish that we could see films made for the sake of film rather than ones pushing a cause. Crimson Gold is a good modern example, who wrote the screenplay Abbas Kiarostami. 20 Fingers, another good example, dedicated to Abbas Kiarostami. I believe without his influence Iranian cinema would be a lot weaker.
Cheers Trev
I agree, and I propose your statement also applies to Moshen Makhmalbaf.Quote:
Originally posted by trevor826
Abbas Kiarostami. I believe without his influence Iranian cinema would be a lot weaker.
I strongly and passionately disagree with the disagreement. Many of the films above actually don't emphasize"children, Afghan refugees or both," which makes the post somewhat meaningless. Anyway, but the ones that do, including BARAN (Majidi), AT FIVE IN THE AFTERNOON (Samira Mahkmalbaf), THE COLOR OF PARADISE (Majid Majidi) etc. are quite formulaic to me.Quote:
Originally posted by oscar jubis
Originally posted by arsaib4
"Since its heyday—probably defined by Abbas Kiarostami’s Palme d’Or at Cannes in 1997—Iranian cinema has become increasingly repetitive, returning again and again to formulaic plots involving children, Afghan refugees or both. The filmmakers, of course, haven’t had it easy. The reform movement that loomed so promisingly a decade ago has been pretty much stymied by the increasingly entrenched clerical autocracy, and the effects of that have not filtered down into what had become Iran’s best-known cultural export, the cinema."
I couldn't agree more.
I strongly and passionately disagree. If a number of the films below involve "children, Afghan refugees or both", the films are quite vibrant and affecting not formulaic. Below is the list of Iranian films I have watched that range from good to great, in my opinion. All were released after Kiarostami received the Golden Palm for Taste of Cherry.
Good post. I wish that you get a chance to see Forugh Farrokhzad's The House is Black. It's one of the best Iranian films I've ever seen.
Originally posted by arsaib4
Many of the films above actually don't emphasize"children, Afghan refugees or both," which makes the post somewhat meaningless.
That's the point. That many of the post-Cherry Iranian films don't emphasize "children, Afghan refugees or both" and that the ones that do, in my humble opinion, are not the lesser because of it.
I hope I feel as enthusiastic about The House is Black as you do. If I don't get watch it tonight it's because Cristi wants to watch the longish The Big Red One. In which case I'll get to it tomorrow and post a comment on my journal.
Nice try, but I was only referring to the list above. See a few more, or actually don't, and you'll have a better idea. But as Mr. Peña stated in addition, which I also agreed with, "The filmmakers, of course, haven’t had it easy."Quote:
Originally posted by oscar jubis
That's the point. That many of the post-Cherry Iranian films don't emphasize "children, Afghan refugees or both" and that the ones that do, in my humble opinion, are not the lesser because of it.
I hope I feel as enthusiastic about The House is Black as you do. If I don't get watch it tonight it's because Cristi wants to watch the longish The Big Red One. In which case I'll get to it tomorrow and post a comment on my journal.
Money back guarantee on The House is Black! ;)
And how is that? What don't you like about him?Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I think Kiarostami is overrated....
I've seen A Taste of Cherry. If it's an "affermation of life," well, yes, deciding not to off yourself is a sort of one, but of a very downbeat kind. Kiarostami seems not to be to my taste. I found him an incredible self-satisfied bore in his film about his filmmaking, 10 on Ten, though needless to say it showed he has confidence in his own voice. He clearly agrees with his foreign admirers that he's a master. In fact I'm afraid I'm not an enthusiast of Iranian cinema, apparently not even of what you consider to be at its best. There is another side to "Middle Eastern life", whatever that means, or rather many other sides.
I haven't seen as many Iranian films as you guys, but every one of them has borne out my feeling that even the most highly regarded Iranian directors' work is relentlessly negative in a deterministic, fatalistic way that I find grating -- The Circle and The Color of Paradise are particularly good examples. They seem to be cast to appeal to the foreign arthouse audience and festivals' sense of what's profound and timely. "Roughness" -- exemplifed by something like Blackboards -- is another valued quality. Anything concerning the Oppressed, anything that is earnest rather than entertaining, is preferred. The films from this list that I've seen touch on a variety of topics, but still all seem very much of a kind. I don't think these works are representative of Iranian life in general or the life of the educated Iranian public-- though Ten and to some extent the somewhat flimsy Deserted Station (not mentioned here?) do touch on concerns of the urban middle class, if rather indirectly. Crimson Gold is one of the stronger ones, with of course an underclass glimpse of the rich, but it was badly paced and clumsily put together. In the praise being heaped on these films, too many allowances are being made. I saw one or two other Iranian films in a series put on for Iranians. Not very good either, but very different material, dealing more dramatically with the sort of issues alluded to in Ten. I'd like to see more of that, less shooting outdoors in the dust and dirt. But that's what Kiarostami said he wasn't allowed to do, women and indoors at home. Pretty severe restrictions.
But I suppose these opinions brand me as hopeless and you'd better go on hashing it out among yourselves. I don't want to become a scapegoat.
Fair enough. You've certainly been consistent with your stance on Iranian cinema. But would you prefer to be branded hopeless? It seems to me that you've already made up your mind about Kiarostami and Iranian cinema in general while acknowledging that you haven't seen many films from the region. Wouldn't you rather keep an open heart and mind?
I believe we had a few exchanges regarding this when you were writing from Italy after watching an Iranian film that you did like. I brought up Babak Payami (One More Day, Secret Ballot), a filmmaker who studied out west and has a lighter, a more subtle allegorical touch. Perhaps someone you might appreciate.
Not sure if you've seen Kiarostami's Close Up, but if you haven't, it will genuinely surprise you. Few films have interpreted "cinema" itself so sensitively and intelligently. It probably re-invented the docu-drama hybrid tradition which is now being put to use so often by European auteurs. The film is pure cinema, without any additives.
It's hard to maintain my enthusiasm when I've been so consistently disappointed, but despite my apparent condemnation, I keep trying and hoping. If I followed my feelings, I'd have given up long ago. I try to keep an "open heart and mind," but given a choice, I tend to turn naturally more often to the cinemas of other nations that beckon with new hope or have often rewarded me in the past. I appreciate your patience and will try to remember to watch for Babak Payami (One More Day, Secret Ballot). Have not seen Close Up. You seem to differ with Oscar in the debate on Iranian cinema's present state. I may not know enough it to see that it has changed. I don't feel happy with where it was; you seem unhappy with where it's going.
I just saw À tout de suite, which I loved -- for the first 40 minutes or so, anyway, which are very strong, the two lovers terrific; I'm looking forward next to Audiard's De battre mon cœur s'est arrêté , and after that Sud Pralad (I can't spell his name). Will report on À tout de suite shortly.
Hi Chris, sorry to drag you back on the subject of Iranian films, Kiarostami in particular but you mentioned the lack of humour or lightness. Have you seen any of his early short films? You would be surprised as to how funny some of them are, try and hunt them out if you can, I'm sure you would appreciate them and even if you don't at least they only last around 10 minutes each on average.
Cheers Trev.
Sorry I can't actually quote you but that's cable internet for you.
How would I find them? I'm amazed at your range of knowledge.
I think we're quite lucky in the UK, I've caught most of his shorts on the cable channel filmfour which is pretty much the best for foreign and independent films. They do have a website with a large collection of downloadable short films but I have no idea if that icludes any of Kiarostami's - filmfour.com
Cheers Trev.
Easier said than done, then. I don't even have cable though I wish I got Canal 5 the FRench one, arsaib has seen good stuff there.
THINKFilm has acquired the N. American rights to Atom Egoyan's Where the Truth Lies. The In-Competition film is said to be the most "commercial" film the Canadian master has ever directed; we'll see. The film stars Kevin Bacon, Colin Firth and Alison Lohman. It will get a limited release starting on Oct. 7th.
THINKFilm will also distribute James Marsh's The King. The film is scheduled to be released at the beginning of 2006. The King was part of this year's Un Certain Regard.
Good to know about. The King looks really different and interesting, another offbeat choice by Garcia Bernal.
Quote:
Originally posted by arsaib4
"Meanwhile, I went to my first screening at the Directors Fortnight, one of the two unofficial programs here. Despite the near-lack of air conditioning, the ringing cell phones and the two biddies in front of me who pawed through their plastic bags throughout the screening (I kicked one of their chairs a couple of times, but apparently not hard enough), I fell for the Fortnight's opening film, "Be With Me." It's from a Singaporean, Eric Khoo, and interweaves the true story of a deaf-mute woman with tales of thwarted love. I didn't have any idea what was going on for the first half hour, but was in tears by the end, which is fairly rare (big surprise)."
NY Times.
Be With Me (2005) (Singapore)
Director: Eric Khoo
Cast: Theresa Chan, Chiew Sung Ching, Seet Keng Yew, Lynn Poh, Samantha Tan, Ezann Lee
The film opened the 37ème Sélection Quinzaine des Réalisateurs (i.e., 37th Selection Directors' Fortnight) at Cannes Film Festival 2005.
The official website is here ...
http://www.zhaowei.com/bewithme.html
The trailer is here ...
http://www.shaw.com.sg/upload/bewithme/bewithme.mov
The film, inspired by the story of Theresa Chan, a blind-and-deaf woman, is a tapestry of 3 stories ...
-- "Meant To Be" features the love and loneliness of a shopkeeper (in my humble opinion, the best of the 3)
-- "Finding Love" relates the one sided love of a fat and under-achieving man
-- "So In Love" depicts the love between two teenage girls ...
What really binds the stories together is not its tangentially related characters, but its underlying theme. In a way, all 3 stories depict the quest for love, and the feeling of despair ... but the horrible feelings seem rather insignificant as to what "real" sorrow is ... and even if one feels that all is lost, the film seems to suggest that all is not the end ... there is hope in life ... and there is redemption ... and destiny/fate is so unpredictable ...
On its own, 2 of the 3 stories might be kind of "familiar" and "nothing new" ... but strung together with the common theme and message, the film had a different flavor (talking about flavor ... there are quite a number of scenes on food and eating ... how Singaporean ... ha ha ha ...)
A few thought provoking lines include ...
"I cannot see and hear the beautiful things in life ... BUT, I also do not see and hear the ugly things ..."
"'Love disappears only when you do not understand what it means ..."
My suggestion on the technicality of subtitles
-- the subtitles (in white) should be bordered with black. against the occasional bright background, some subtitles are quite difficult to read ...
-- the good thing is, the film does subtitle for those who are not familiar with SMS abbrievations ...
Conclusion:
Although I recommend the film, I am not sure if I would credit the film more to its partially "real" story than to the craft of film making ... Also, one may have to stay till the end of the film before really appreciating why the film deserves a watch ...
;)
To all those who intend to watch the film, you have to appreciate a film with few dialogues, and be patient with much "reading" (from the typewriter, computer, SMS, letters, and subtitles).
PS: It will screen at the Toronto Film Festival too.
Sounds interesting. The problem is that there are only 2 screenings scheduled for this film in Toronto and they are at 9 and 9:30 am respectively. And since I'll be coming back to Buffalo at night, it'll be difficult to leave from here next morning at around 7:00 am to make them, but I'll try (Toronto is a little more than 100 miles away).
Johann's review is here ...
http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/show...7&pagenumber=3
here is my reviewQuote:
Originally posted by hengcs
Director: Johnnie To
-- Election (English title)
-- Hei She Hui (Chinese title) (loosely translated to "Gangs/Triads" )
(edited)
Regardless of any award, I will watch the movie when it is released ...
;)
http://p219.ezboard.com/fforeignfilm...icID=210.topic
Be With Me is showing in Paris. I saw it here last week. I would not agree with johann's saying that is is a bad movie. In fact it is very well done technically. I can sympathize with his discomfort over the deaf and blind lady's speaking voice, which is grating as well as strange. Maybe we should have a thread for this movie. I will post a review of it eventually. I have notes.
Quick summary of my thoughts on it:
Very effective technically, in the Asian art-film tradition of long still takes, reserved viewpoint, slow, methodical editing, clarity.... but no particular beauty of image, perhaps too much reliance on extreme closeup. Somewhat conventional, but effective, organization into four (at least, not three) stories that eventually intersect. A weakness is that the subsidiary stories seem somehow tacked on in relation to the documentary of the deaf and blind lady. Ingenious, but artificial, and not ultimately completely convincing. The use of subtitles to give the thoughts of the lady, with no sound, was one of the most ingenious technical devices, quite original. And in French they were quite legible. Lovely, in fact.
A final, perhaps damning, weakness is a certain saccharine quality, an air of Pollyanish desperation. It struck me as a kind of love song to clinical depression. i did not buy the viewpoint at all. But very well done, very assured in its use of its material, and certainly not without memorable moments. If Singapore filmmakers have been below the radar, this is a sign that they shouldn't be.