tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4222475879097604897.post3168106409627868288..comments2023-10-31T10:21:00.796-04:00Comments on Thanks for the Use of the Hall: Bam gua nat (Night and Day)Dan Sallitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13136066978329749513noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4222475879097604897.post-56890576823125247182008-10-28T11:32:00.000-04:002008-10-28T11:32:00.000-04:00Marc - yeah, who knows, maybe some of the motion I...Marc - yeah, who knows, maybe some of the motion I'm talking about is partly motivated by Hong thinking about audience acceptance. Which is okay with me if true: whatever his motivation, I think he's finding new forms that are paying off aesthetically.Dan Sallitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13136066978329749513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4222475879097604897.post-40685249555532932212008-10-27T19:07:00.000-04:002008-10-27T19:07:00.000-04:00Dan, I don't think "hostile" is an i...Dan, I don't think "hostile" is an inappropriate word to use to describe Hong's films and their attitude to cinema. You could argue that there is a certain hostility to even art cinema audiences. For example, many attempt to "read" VIRGIN STRIPPED BARE as a typical split subjective narrative a la RASHOMON, which I think says more about the critics than the actual text itself. <br><br>I read an early interview with Hong conducted shortly before the release of his second film THE POWER OF KANGWON PROVINCE. He argues with the notion that his first film was more popular internationally than in Korea, stating that although it was not a huge commercial success, more people in Korea saw his film than every other country combined. He adds that the film's critical reception was very favourable. Interestingly, this same impression of Hong as more popular abroad continues today. <br><br>Related to this is his explanation of his unusual narrative structure: <br><br>"It's not my intention to say, 'Oh, we should be more aware of this kind of subtle interconnectedness.' For me, it's mainly a matter of keeping the audience engaged during the two hours that the film lasts ... So for me, these structural things don't really say something. They're just ways for me to arrange the scenes in a way that helps raise the audience's tolerance and pleasure in looking at all those scenes. The formal structure itself doesn't contain any 'message.'" <br><br>In some ways this is not surprising as a directorial response: most say they make their films for audiences and not critics. But the idea of a lack of "message" in the structure is intriguing in light of your comment on the films as "anti-movies". Hong also mentions in this interview that many foreign audiences simply do not get the humour in the dialogue, a point Huh Moonyung has made as well. Hong has admitted in later interviews that his later films have tried to downplay these elements so they play better to foreigners. Worth wondering if there is a connection here with your idea that the structure is becoming more cohesive. Always worth considering these questions when investigating the work of a foreign director. <br><br>Looking forward to more of your posts on Hong in the future. By the way, the reference for the interview is: <br><br>J. Scott Burgeson, "Hong Sang-soo," BUG vol. 3 (1988); reprinted in KOREA BUG: THE BEST OF THE ZINE THAT INFECTED A NATION (Seoul: Unbook, 2005): 227-239. <br><br>If you need help tracking down movies, books, etc on Korean cinema let me know since I'm located here, although I think you can order most things on-line these days.Marc Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15716565601744200287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4222475879097604897.post-72624435007548741542008-10-27T11:57:00.000-04:002008-10-27T11:57:00.000-04:00Marc – I read your very interesting blog pieces on...Marc – I read <a href="http://cinephileforeignerinkorea.blogspot.com/search/label/hong%20sang-soo" rel="nofollow">your very interesting blog pieces on Hong</a>, which I intend to bookmark and use as a reference. I notice that, though I've liked every film that Hong has made, I have a lot of trouble remembering much about any of them. I think this has a little bit to do with Hong's attitude toward narrative cohesion, which I've always suspected is more hostile than experimental: brilliant as his films are, they feel to me like anti-movies rather than movies. One of the reasons I'm so excited about <b>Night and Day</b> is that I see signs of Hong calling a truce with cinema, finding enough of a foothold there that he can allow himself a non-destructive attitude toward narrative structure. It could be that I'm reading way too much into what is, after all, a very slight shift in approach. (And perhaps also presuming, or projecting, way too much in using words like "hostile" to describe Hong's directorial approach.) But I feel as if I'm not going to have any trouble remembering <b>Night and Day</b>, or distinguishing it from the rest of Hong's oeuvre.Dan Sallitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13136066978329749513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4222475879097604897.post-87308654900695382002008-10-25T00:52:00.000-04:002008-10-25T00:52:00.000-04:00Nice review, I had many of the same thoughts on th...Nice review, I had many of the same thoughts on the film and on Hong in general. I think NIGHT AND DAY is his best film, and yet I find Hong's oeuvre one of the most difficult to evaluate. I've watched all of Hong's films over the course of the last 8 months and look forward to revisiting them in chronological order this time. I have numerous posts on Hong at my blog if you're interested in checking them out. <br><br>I actually forgot about the scene with the bird, but I agree with both the importance of these moments and the difficulty many have (myself included) in discussing them. One of my favorites is the woman on the bridge in TURNING GATE, a character we never see again (I don't believe) and yet her presence strangely hangs over the rest of the film. <br><br>And Bunuel certainly seems the main inspiration for NIGHT AND DAY, even though Bunuel was often evoked for Hong's first film, THE DAY A PIG FELL IN THE WELL, especially the dream sequence near the conclusion.Marc Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15716565601744200287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4222475879097604897.post-67982239693703280542008-10-23T11:26:00.000-04:002008-10-23T11:26:00.000-04:00Chris – I totally agree, there’s a lot more to be ...Chris – I totally agree, there’s a lot more to be said about those scenes in Hong than that they’re funny. To some extent they clearly relate to Hong’s skeptical/hostile attitude toward conventional storytelling. But he’s not just destroying the narrative: he’s taking advantage of it, rerouting that narrative energy down interesting blind alleys. The scene with the bird that I cited is remarkable in its tonal range: it captures a kind of weak force between people that films rarely explore, and probably couldn’t be observed if the grip of the narrative were stronger; it’s amazingly tender and also evokes a natural cruelty; it juxtaposes human social life with something more primitive.Dan Sallitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13136066978329749513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4222475879097604897.post-52064224256294530962008-10-20T13:48:00.000-04:002008-10-20T13:48:00.000-04:00These puzzling, beautiful tangents frequently pop ...These puzzling, beautiful tangents frequently pop up in Hong's movies, like the fish in the forest in POWER OF KANGWON PROVINCE, or the American woman with the apple in TALE OF CINEMA, and yet they never receive much discussion in consdierations of his films. I'm not sure why this is -- perhaps because such non-sequitur scenes are so bizarre that they leave most viewers perplexed, rationalizing them as mere pokerfaced comedy. But I think something much greater is at work here. These moments have always struck me as being as radical -- and, yes, violent -- as Hong's bifurcated narrative structures.C. Mason Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17777070706615537070noreply@blogger.com