list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around 2046 on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/2046/246062/default.aspx Title: 2046
Year: 2005
Director: Wong Kar-Wai
Plot: Hong Kong-based filmmaker Wong Kar-Wai moves back and forth in time as he reexamines and amplifies the themes from his film In the Mood for Love in this offbeat romantic drama. Opening in the year 2046, in which a man named Tak (Takuya Kimura) attempts to persuades wjw 1967 (Faye Wong) to travel back in time with him, the film soon shifts to the year 1966, in which Chow Mo-wan (Tony Leung Chiu-Wai), a struggling author, asks the woman he loves, Su Lizhen (Gong Li) to sail with him from Singapore to Hong Kong on Christmas Eve. She declines, and over the next three years, we return to Chow Mo-wan on December 24 as he finds himself with another woman each year -- lighthearted Lulu (Carina Lau) in 1967, eccentric hotel heiress Wang Jingwen (Faye Wong) in 1968, and Bai Ling (Zhang Ziyi), a high-class prostitute, in 1969. In time, Chow Mo-wan and Wang Jingwen become reacquainted, and a love affair blooms, but the fates are not on their side. 2046 had its world premiere at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. A re-edited version featuring an additional 4 minutes of footage, but minus sequences by martial arts coordinator Tung Wai) premiered in late 2004. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 66
Number of Lists: 49
Number of blog posts: 8
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:20:49 GMT20462005Wong Kar-WaiHong Kong-based filmmaker <a href="/players/P___194627/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Wong Kar-Wai</a> moves back and forth in time as he reexamines and amplifies the themes from his film <a href=/films/154755/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>In the Mood for Love</a> in this offbeat romantic drama. Opening in the year 2046, in which a man named Tak (Takuya Kimura) attempts to persuades wjw 1967 (Faye Wong) to travel back in time with him, the film soon shifts to the year 1966, in which Chow Mo-wan (<a href="/players/P___198096/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tony Leung Chiu-Wai</a>), a struggling author, asks the woman he loves, Su Lizhen (<a href="/players/P____42289/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gong Li</a>) to sail with him from Singapore to Hong Kong on Christmas Eve. She declines, and over the next three years, we return to Chow Mo-wan on December 24 as he finds himself with another woman each year -- lighthearted Lulu (Carina Lau) in 1967, eccentric hotel heiress Wang Jingwen (Faye Wong) in 1968, and Bai Ling (<a href="/players/P___280898/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Zhang Ziyi</a>), a high-class prostitute, in 1969. In time, Chow Mo-wan and Wang Jingwen become reacquainted, and a love affair blooms, but the fates are not on their side. 2046 had its world premiere at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. A re-edited version featuring an additional 4 minutes of footage, but minus sequences by martial arts coordinator Tung Wai) premiered in late 2004. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide66Tag Target (>10)49813http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t70109vmdke.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/2046/246062/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/19/35323.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/19/2008 5:01:43 PM
Body: Sometimes I really wish David Bordwell’s blog permitted comments. Mostly it’s better that it doesn’t, but the man’s last post has made me want to discuss the art of movie titles for a whole week now. And it didn’t help that coinciding in time with Bordwell’s post was another one of those sidebars in Entertainment Weekly pointing out some new movies with misleading titles. Yes, Lakeview Terrace does sound like a period romance, as do many other badly titled films (Elizabethtown and Wicker Park come to mind). This weekend also sees two new movies employing the method of borrowing song titles, which are typically not appropriate (Ghost Town seems more like a horror western hybrid, while My Best Friend’s Girl actually fits its plot). Well, fortunately for me (and hopefully you), I can bring the discussion over to SpoutBlog, though not quite as in depth as Bordwell. I’ll be more than happy to have a conversation in the comments section regarding the more general topic of movie titling, but for now I’ll kick things off with a list of what I find to be the most interesting movie titles of the past decade. It’s been a time when studios and filmmakers have been very loose with ill-fitting and overlong titles, as well as some that are too plainly literal (Snakes on a Plane), but the following selections have the benefit of featuring clever, well-chosen and more meaningful monikers. All About My Mother (Todo sobre mi madre) (1999) This Pedro Almodóvar film has a very telling title, one that goes along with Bordwell’s acknowledgment of titles that speak for the character. Yet the character spoken for here is Esteban, the kid who dies in the beginning. Or does he? The title actually refers to a story Esteban has written for school and is inspired by the film All About Eve, which he has just watched. Esteban doesn’t so much die in the film as he does in his own story, which is depicted within the film. Also, the word “Mother” in the title doesn’t so much refer to his actual mother, Manuela, as it does his (made-up) transvestite “father”, Lola, who we learn all about. Amores Perros (2000) Although improperly translated as “Love’s a Bitch,” that phrase does at least apply on some level to Alejandro González Iñárritu’s film. As does the more acceptable translation of “Love is Dogs,” which references the film’s canine companions, each of which parallels its owner. But there is also another translation that’s more like “Goodness Wretchedness,” referring to a phrase on the film’s website that basically translates as “If your story turned out well, put it down to ‘amores.’ If bad, put it to ‘perros.’” The fact that you can interpret the meaning of the title multiple ways, and therefore you can interpret its meaning to the film multiple ways, is the reason that it was so important to release the film in the U.S. with its original Mexican title. The Perfect Storm (2000) Although the title comes from Sebastian Junger’s book, the name took on a whole new meaning for the film, which is, in my opinion, completely about the attempt to perfectly create a storm on a computer. Sure, there’s a plot within the film, too, but nothing more attended to than the perfectly rendered storm. In fact, the film’s storm may have been too perfect-looking, as the film lost the Visual Effects Oscar to Gladiator. While the title was clearly not intended for such purpose, and I had planned to ignore titles that inadvertently become more ironically meaningful upon release (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed; Disaster Movie), I think the filmmakers at least meant to produce a spectacular storm more than a good story, so I believe it more qualifiable for the list at hand. Shanghai Noon (2000) This title doesn’t necessarily add anything to the meaning of the film nor does it really have multiple layers of meaning by itself. But it features the most cleverly punned title of the last ten years, in my opinion. The sequel’s title, Shanghai Knights, isn’t too bad, either. But just as the movie isn’t nearly as good as the original, neither is the title. Adaptation (2002) This title may actually be my favorite of all time due to its consisting of only a single word, which can be lent to the film in a multitude of ways. The title refers to the adaptation of a book to a film, the adaptation of a plant to its environment, the adaptation of a screenwriter character to his assignment, the adaptation of the same character to the events of his environment and, finally, the adaptation of the film itself to fit the mold of a certain kind of film that fares well in the present environment of the movie biz (ironically it’s this adaptation in the end from a smart film to a silly action movie that fails in execution, even though the joke more fittingly works perfectly on paper). Bad Company (2002) Even awful movies can have titles with multiple meanings, and this lame Joel Schumacher effort is a good example of such. Because “Company” means the CIA in addition to companionship, the title may refer to any of the following: an incapable member of the CIA (Chris Rock’s character); an incapable CIA in general (this was a time when the organization was called into question); a defective spy or untrustworthy spy; or simply the bad buddy team-up of Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock (diegetically and extradiegetically). The same title had been used previously for a bad 1995 movie dealing with the CIA, so its multilayered usage here was not that inspired, but it is nevertheless a good title, in my opinion, and perhaps it will one day be put to better use. National Treasure (2004) The same goes for this movie, which should have and could have been a lot better. The title, which is a well-played mix of figurative and literal meaning and seems more thoughtful than most blockbuster Hollywood titles, would have you believe there was once some smarter writing to be found within the film itself. Shaun of the Dead (2004) For a short while, I thought the title of this comedy didn’t really appropriately fit the film’s story. Shaun isn’t of the dead, I reasoned, because he never “dies.” I accepted the title, though, because it was a nice play on the title Dawn of the Dead. Eventually I decided that it does indeed fit, because the general theme of the movie is that Shaun has been living his life as if he were a zombie. Before the real zombies show up, the “dead” of the title refers to all the people living in this spiritless way, Shaun included. Yet while the rest of these “dead” become undead creatures, Shaun proves that he is capable of living more fully and is able to survive the (allegorical) outbreak. 2046 (2004) Wong Kar-Wai loves to play with the idea of Hong Kong’s transition from British territory to Chinese (which occurred in 1997), and the title partly refers to the final year in which Hong Kong is allowed self-regulation before becoming fully integrated into mainland China in 2047. In the film, the numerical title literally references both a hotel room and the future year, which is employed in a science fiction story being written by the main character. Some people also like to interpret the title as reading “two-oh-four-six” meaning “to owe for sex.” Though there are prostitute characters in the film, this meaning is less likely the intention of Wong. But the additional interpretation makes for a richer title anyway. There Will Be Blood (2007) Why not retain the title of Upton Sinclair’s source novel, “Oil!”? Well, besides all the changes made to the story, it could be because Paul Thomas Anderson’s new title has more possible meanings. The word “Blood” in the title may refer to the actual oil, or the blood shed for the oil (as in drilling accidents then and wars now), or family, especially actual blood relatives (of which there aren’t actually many in the film). Mostly, though, the title allows for and acknowledges a connection between the film’s setting and the current events it appears to be commenting on. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:01:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/19/2008 5:01:43 PMSometimes I really wish David Bordwell’s blog permitted comments. Mostly it’s better that it doesn’t, but the man’s last post has made me want to discuss the art of movie titles for a whole week now. And it didn’t help that coinciding in time with Bordwell’s post was another one of those sidebars in Entertainment Weekly pointing out some new movies with misleading titles. Yes, Lakeview Terrace does sound like a period romance, as do many other badly titled films (Elizabethtown and Wicker Park come to mind). This weekend also sees two new movies employing the method of borrowing song titles, which are typically not appropriate (Ghost Town seems more like a horror western hybrid, while My Best Friend’s Girl actually fits its plot). Well, fortunately for me (and hopefully you), I can bring the discussion over to SpoutBlog, though not quite as in depth as Bordwell. I’ll be more than happy to have a conversation in the comments section regarding the more general topic of movie titling, but for now I’ll kick things off with a list of what I find to be the most interesting movie titles of the past decade. It’s been a time when studios and filmmakers have been very loose with ill-fitting and overlong titles, as well as some that are too plainly literal (Snakes on a Plane), but the following selections have the benefit of featuring clever, well-chosen and more meaningful monikers. All About My Mother (Todo sobre mi madre) (1999) This Pedro Almodóvar film has a very telling title, one that goes along with Bordwell’s acknowledgment of titles that speak for the character. Yet the character spoken for here is Esteban, the kid who dies in the beginning. Or does he? The title actually refers to a story Esteban has written for school and is inspired by the film All About Eve, which he has just watched. Esteban doesn’t so much die in the film as he does in his own story, which is depicted within the film. Also, the word “Mother” in the title doesn’t so much refer to his actual mother, Manuela, as it does his (made-up) transvestite “father”, Lola, who we learn all about. Amores Perros (2000) Although improperly translated as “Love’s a Bitch,” that phrase does at least apply on some level to Alejandro González Iñárritu’s film. As does the more acceptable translation of “Love is Dogs,” which references the film’s canine companions, each of which parallels its owner. But there is also another translation that’s more like “Goodness Wretchedness,” referring to a phrase on the film’s website that basically translates as “If your story turned out well, put it down to ‘amores.’ If bad, put it to ‘perros.’” The fact that you can interpret the meaning of the title multiple ways, and therefore you can interpret its meaning to the film multiple ways, is the reason that it was so important to release the film in the U.S. with its original Mexican title. The Perfect Storm (2000) Although the title comes from Sebastian Junger’s book, the name took on a whole new meaning for the film, which is, in my opinion, completely about the attempt to perfectly create a storm on a computer. Sure, there’s a plot within the film, too, but nothing more attended to than the perfectly rendered storm. In fact, the film’s storm may have been too perfect-looking, as the film lost the Visual Effects Oscar to Gladiator. While the title was clearly not intended for such purpose, and I had planned to ignore titles that inadvertently become more ironically meaningful upon release (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed; Disaster Movie), I think the filmmakers at least meant to produce a spectacular storm more than a good story, so I believe it more qualifiable for the list at hand. Shanghai Noon (2000) This title doesn’t necessarily add anything to the meaning of the film nor does it really have multiple layers of meaning by itself. But it features the most cleverly punned title of the last ten years, in my opinion. The sequel’s title, Shanghai Knights, isn’t too bad, either. But just as the movie isn’t nearly as good as the original, neither is the title. Adaptation (2002) This title may actually be my favorite of all time due to its consisting of only a single word, which can be lent to the film in a multitude of ways. The title refers to the adaptation of a book to a film, the adaptation of a plant to its environment, the adaptation of a screenwriter character to his assignment, the adaptation of the same character to the events of his environment and, finally, the adaptation of the film itself to fit the mold of a certain kind of film that fares well in the present environment of the movie biz (ironically it’s this adaptation in the end from a smart film to a silly action movie that fails in execution, even though the joke more fittingly works perfectly on paper). Bad Company (2002) Even awful movies can have titles with multiple meanings, and this lame Joel Schumacher effort is a good example of such. Because “Company” means the CIA in addition to companionship, the title may refer to any of the following: an incapable member of the CIA (Chris Rock’s character); an incapable CIA in general (this was a time when the organization was called into question); a defective spy or untrustworthy spy; or simply the bad buddy team-up of Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock (diegetically and extradiegetically). The same title had been used previously for a bad 1995 movie dealing with the CIA, so its multilayered usage here was not that inspired, but it is nevertheless a good title, in my opinion, and perhaps it will one day be put to better use. National Treasure (2004) The same goes for this movie, which should have and could have been a lot better. The title, which is a well-played mix of figurative and literal meaning and seems more thoughtful than most blockbuster Hollywood titles, would have you believe there was once some smarter writing to be found within the film itself. Shaun of the Dead (2004) For a short while, I thought the title of this comedy didn’t really appropriately fit the film’s story. Shaun isn’t of the dead, I reasoned, because he never “dies.” I accepted the title, though, because it was a nice play on the title Dawn of the Dead. Eventually I decided that it does indeed fit, because the general theme of the movie is that Shaun has been living his life as if he were a zombie. Before the real zombies show up, the “dead” of the title refers to all the people living in this spiritless way, Shaun included. Yet while the rest of these “dead” become undead creatures, Shaun proves that he is capable of living more fully and is able to survive the (allegorical) outbreak. 2046 (2004) Wong Kar-Wai loves to play with the idea of Hong Kong’s transition from British territory to Chinese (which occurred in 1997), and the title partly refers to the final year in which Hong Kong is allowed self-regulation before becoming fully integrated into mainland China in 2047. In the film, the numerical title literally references both a hotel room and the future year, which is employed in a science fiction story being written by the main character. Some people also like to interpret the title as reading “two-oh-four-six” meaning “to owe for sex.” Though there are prostitute characters in the film, this meaning is less likely the intention of Wong. But the additional interpretation makes for a richer title anyway. There Will Be Blood (2007) Why not retain the title of Upton Sinclair’s source novel, “Oil!”? Well, besides all the changes made to the story, it could be because Paul Thomas Anderson’s new title has more possible meanings. The word “Blood” in the title may refer to the actual oil, or the blood shed for the oil (as in drilling accidents then and wars now), or family, especially actual blood relatives (of which there aren’t actually many in the film). Mostly, though, the title allows for and acknowledges a connection between the film’s setting and the current events it appears to be commenting on. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/8/4/33522.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/4/2008 3:01:15 PM
Body: It’s funny how out of control a rumor can spin on the web. The Angelina Jolie as Catwoman “news” has to be at the top of the list of most reported unconfirmed rumors ever. And it’s sad that it’s not actually true, because after seeing Jolie in the dominatrix outfit she wears at the beginning of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I’d be perfectly fine seeing her wear another tight black costume for a possible third Christopher Nolan-directed Batman movie. But who instead could play the part, if Jolie is indeed not interested, or not even offered the role (or, obviously, if Catwoman is not in the movie, as screenwriter David Goyer has apparently hinted)? One theory says that Maggie Gyllenhaal will return in the follow-up to The Dark Knight, this time donning a catsuit (Graeme at io9 strongly disputes the idea). Another terrible suggestion is to cast the too-cute Zooey Deschanel as the villainess. A far more interesting recommendation, from Catherine Bray, is Tilda Swinton. But I think the character needs to be a little sexier. Plus, I want to dismiss Bray’s idea on the principle that it’s included in the DenOfGeek list, which consists mostly of the usual hot young actress ideas that probably get thrown around for every casting decision like this. I’m actually shocked that Eva Green wasn’t anyone’s pick, as she’s one of those hot young actresses, and she’s done the “good and bad at the same time” thing in Casino Royale. She was even part of my list until a better candidate edged her out, mostly on the idea that we don’t need to see her replay Vesper Lynd in a Catwoman costume. So, who did make the cut? Check out my 10 favorites, in descending order, after the jump: 10. Halle Berry - She is a good actress, and she was a great sport in accepting her Razzie for playing the character in Catwoman, so wouldn’t it be neat if Nolan gave her a second chance at the part? It certainly fits with the nine lives thing. Plus, with a better script, better direction and, most importantly, a better outfit, the Oscar winner would do a much better job. 9. Cate Blanchett - Another Bob Dylan vs. Bob Dylan showdown! (The Dark Knight’s Christian Bale and Heath Ledger each portrayed Dylan in I’m Not There, as did Blanchett). And Nolan can round out the villain casting with Ben Whishaw as Riddler, Richard Gere as the Penguin and Marcus Carl Franklin as Anarky (or he could be Robin?). Seriously, though, after Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I’m not sure we ever need to see her as another blockbuster villain. Besides, there’s other Oscar-caliber actresses who would be more enjoyable. 8. Penélope Cruz - Like this sexy Spanish lady, who I thought of for the role based on her line from Vanilla Sky, “I’ll see you in another life, when we are both cats.” Wait, would that mean Tom Cruise would have to appear as Catman? Hell, I’d deal with that if I got to see Cruz prance around with a tail attached to a form-fitting bodysuit. 7. Maggie Cheung - It’s been 12 years since Cheung wore a tight black catsuit for Assayas’ Irma Vep, but she’d still be damn hot as Catwoman. Unfortunately, she has retired from acting, last appearing in Wong Kar-Wai’s 2046 and Assayas’ Clean back in 2004. 6. Rachel Weisz - Something about her wonky eyes makes me think she’d be a good Catwoman. I can’t quite explain what I mean by that. She did a fine job as an attractive yet ultimately evil character in Neil LaBute’s The Shape of Things, so there’s another point for her. 5. Emily Blunt - A well-meaning bitch in The Devil Wears Prada, I’d love to see Blunt do more of the same, only in a catsuit. In a way, she’s like my fill-in for the excluded Eva Green, since I continually mix up their names, and Prada costar Anne Hathaway, who too many people think is as good a choice. 4. Emily Mortimer - Basically my choice for the obscure, indie-cred slot, since I don’t agree with the Deschanel suggestion. Plus, I can see her building off her short stint as the two-faced “Phoebe” on 30 Rock in order to play a terrific villainess. 3. Emily Watson - The last of three candidates named Emily, Watson has always been my favorite love interest for Christian Bale (she’s played opposite “Batman” in Metroland and Equilibrium). Third time’s the charm, I say. 2. Marion Cotillard - I know, I’m probably including too many Oscar nominees and winners in this list, but after Ledger’s performance as The Joker, the role of Catwoman requires talent along with beauty. Besides, Michelle Pfeiffer was nominated for two Academy Awards prior to playing the part in Batman Returns and Halle Berry won an Oscar before giving her Razzie-winning performance in Catowman. So, as the most recent recipient of the Best Actress trophy, the chameleon-like star of La Vie en Rose seems the most appropriate. Oh, and some guy already did a rendering of what she’d look like. 1. Sean Young - The part she always wanted. And what fun it would be for Catwoman to be an older woman. You know, as in a cougar. Which is a kind of cat. There have been crazier ideas — though maybe not crazier actresses. However, Young’s unstable personality should make for an unpredictable and unbeatable performance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:01:15 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/4/2008 3:01:15 PMIt’s funny how out of control a rumor can spin on the web. The Angelina Jolie as Catwoman “news” has to be at the top of the list of most reported unconfirmed rumors ever. And it’s sad that it’s not actually true, because after seeing Jolie in the dominatrix outfit she wears at the beginning of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I’d be perfectly fine seeing her wear another tight black costume for a possible third Christopher Nolan-directed Batman movie. But who instead could play the part, if Jolie is indeed not interested, or not even offered the role (or, obviously, if Catwoman is not in the movie, as screenwriter David Goyer has apparently hinted)? One theory says that Maggie Gyllenhaal will return in the follow-up to The Dark Knight, this time donning a catsuit (Graeme at io9 strongly disputes the idea). Another terrible suggestion is to cast the too-cute Zooey Deschanel as the villainess. A far more interesting recommendation, from Catherine Bray, is Tilda Swinton. But I think the character needs to be a little sexier. Plus, I want to dismiss Bray’s idea on the principle that it’s included in the DenOfGeek list, which consists mostly of the usual hot young actress ideas that probably get thrown around for every casting decision like this. I’m actually shocked that Eva Green wasn’t anyone’s pick, as she’s one of those hot young actresses, and she’s done the “good and bad at the same time” thing in Casino Royale. She was even part of my list until a better candidate edged her out, mostly on the idea that we don’t need to see her replay Vesper Lynd in a Catwoman costume. So, who did make the cut? Check out my 10 favorites, in descending order, after the jump: 10. Halle Berry - She is a good actress, and she was a great sport in accepting her Razzie for playing the character in Catwoman, so wouldn’t it be neat if Nolan gave her a second chance at the part? It certainly fits with the nine lives thing. Plus, with a better script, better direction and, most importantly, a better outfit, the Oscar winner would do a much better job. 9. Cate Blanchett - Another Bob Dylan vs. Bob Dylan showdown! (The Dark Knight’s Christian Bale and Heath Ledger each portrayed Dylan in I’m Not There, as did Blanchett). And Nolan can round out the villain casting with Ben Whishaw as Riddler, Richard Gere as the Penguin and Marcus Carl Franklin as Anarky (or he could be Robin?). Seriously, though, after Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I’m not sure we ever need to see her as another blockbuster villain. Besides, there’s other Oscar-caliber actresses who would be more enjoyable. 8. Penélope Cruz - Like this sexy Spanish lady, who I thought of for the role based on her line from Vanilla Sky, “I’ll see you in another life, when we are both cats.” Wait, would that mean Tom Cruise would have to appear as Catman? Hell, I’d deal with that if I got to see Cruz prance around with a tail attached to a form-fitting bodysuit. 7. Maggie Cheung - It’s been 12 years since Cheung wore a tight black catsuit for Assayas’ Irma Vep, but she’d still be damn hot as Catwoman. Unfortunately, she has retired from acting, last appearing in Wong Kar-Wai’s 2046 and Assayas’ Clean back in 2004. 6. Rachel Weisz - Something about her wonky eyes makes me think she’d be a good Catwoman. I can’t quite explain what I mean by that. She did a fine job as an attractive yet ultimately evil character in Neil LaBute’s The Shape of Things, so there’s another point for her. 5. Emily Blunt - A well-meaning bitch in The Devil Wears Prada, I’d love to see Blunt do more of the same, only in a catsuit. In a way, she’s like my fill-in for the excluded Eva Green, since I continually mix up their names, and Prada costar Anne Hathaway, who too many people think is as good a choice. 4. Emily Mortimer - Basically my choice for the obscure, indie-cred slot, since I don’t agree with the Deschanel suggestion. Plus, I can see her building off her short stint as the two-faced “Phoebe” on 30 Rock in order to play a terrific villainess. 3. Emily Watson - The last of three candidates named Emily, Watson has always been my favorite love interest for Christian Bale (she’s played opposite “Batman” in Metroland and Equilibrium). Third time’s the charm, I say. 2. Marion Cotillard - I know, I’m probably including too many Oscar nominees and winners in this list, but after Ledger’s performance as The Joker, the role of Catwoman requires talent along with beauty. Besides, Michelle Pfeiffer was nominated for two Academy Awards prior to playing the part in Batman Returns and Halle Berry won an Oscar before giving her Razzie-winning performance in Catowman. So, as the most recent recipient of the Best Actress trophy, the chameleon-like star of La Vie en Rose seems the most appropriate. Oh, and some guy already did a rendering of what she’d look like. 1. Sean Young - The part she always wanted. And what fun it would be for Catwoman to be an older woman. You know, as in a cougar. Which is a kind of cat. There have been crazier ideas — though maybe not crazier actresses. However, Young’s unstable personality should make for an unpredictable and unbeatable performance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/4/11/27224.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 4/11/2008 4:01:22 PM
Body: A post from Big Screen Little Screen turned me onto a music video created by Kanye West’s editor, Derrick Lee, using footage of 2046 for Kanye’s “Flashing Lights.” It’s almost sacrilege to not watch this in High Definition, but the video remix still shames the original Spike Jonze helmed spot. I couldn’t say it better myself. Wong Kar Wai’s 2046 is a long, visually indulgent meditation of love in bad timing, grief and the futility of anything else in life to play love’s substitute. In some way, Derrick Lee’s editing was able to grab the essence of love lost in what you might call a world of “affluent dystopia.” A hyper-realized city, like Tokyo or LA, where lives and opportunity are crammed together so tightly it would seem that making connections would be easy, but it’s only become harder. Human intimacy is the new luxury nobody can afford, but people spin their wheels faster. They collide but never connect. In short, repurposing footage from 2046 for “Flashing Lights” brought new meaning to a song I’d normally switch off. Halfway through the video it was obvious Wong Kar Wai’s footage made the original Spike Jonze video–which Kanye and Co. probably paid a small fortune for–obsolete. I immediately tried to investigate whether or not the rights holders for 2046 had sanctioned the use of the footage, but I found nothing. If it was used “illegally,” that means an amazing music video cost Kanye the price of a smart editor’s day rate. Considering slow, visually sumptuous work, like Kar Wai’s, is relegated to the art house, it would serve pop music to repurpose more artistically outstanding footage for their videos and expose their audience to a new visual language. In turn, directors like Kar Wai would reach new audiences and fulfill Werner Herzog’s directive laid down in Werner Herzog Eats his Boot (see below). A civilization is doomed or going to die out like dinosaurs if it does not develop an adequate language or adequate images. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:01:22 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com4/11/2008 4:01:22 PM A post from Big Screen Little Screen turned me onto a music video created by Kanye West’s editor, Derrick Lee, using footage of 2046 for Kanye’s “Flashing Lights.” It’s almost sacrilege to not watch this in High Definition, but the video remix still shames the original Spike Jonze helmed spot. I couldn’t say it better myself. Wong Kar Wai’s 2046 is a long, visually indulgent meditation of love in bad timing, grief and the futility of anything else in life to play love’s substitute. In some way, Derrick Lee’s editing was able to grab the essence of love lost in what you might call a world of “affluent dystopia.” A hyper-realized city, like Tokyo or LA, where lives and opportunity are crammed together so tightly it would seem that making connections would be easy, but it’s only become harder. Human intimacy is the new luxury nobody can afford, but people spin their wheels faster. They collide but never connect. In short, repurposing footage from 2046 for “Flashing Lights” brought new meaning to a song I’d normally switch off. Halfway through the video it was obvious Wong Kar Wai’s footage made the original Spike Jonze video–which Kanye and Co. probably paid a small fortune for–obsolete. I immediately tried to investigate whether or not the rights holders for 2046 had sanctioned the use of the footage, but I found nothing. If it was used “illegally,” that means an amazing music video cost Kanye the price of a smart editor’s day rate. Considering slow, visually sumptuous work, like Kar Wai’s, is relegated to the art house, it would serve pop music to repurpose more artistically outstanding footage for their videos and expose their audience to a new visual language. In turn, directors like Kar Wai would reach new audiences and fulfill Werner Herzog’s directive laid down in Werner Herzog Eats his Boot (see below). A civilization is doomed or going to die out like dinosaurs if it does not develop an adequate language or adequate images. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/paul/archive/2008/4/11/27223.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: paul on spout.com
Post Date: 4/11/2008 4:00:47 PM
Body: A post from Big Screen Little Screen turned me onto a music video created by Kanye West’s editor, Derrick Lee, using footage of 2046 for Kanye’s “Flashing Lights.” It’s almost sacrilege to not watch this in High Definition, but the video remix still shames the original Spike Jonze helmed spot. I couldn’t say it better myself. Wong Kar Wai’s 2046 is a long, visually indulgent meditation of love in bad timing, grief and the futility of anything else in life to play love’s substitute. In some way, Derrick Lee’s editing was able to grab the essence of love lost in what you might call a world of “affluent dystopia.” A hyper-realized city, like Tokyo or LA, where lives and opportunity are crammed together so tightly it would seem that making connections would be easy, but it’s only become harder. Human intimacy is the new luxury nobody can afford, but people spin their wheels faster. They collide but never connect. In short, repurposing footage from 2046 for “Flashing Lights” brought new meaning to a song I’d normally switch off. Halfway through the video it was obvious Wong Kar Wai’s footage made the original Spike Jonze video–which Kanye and Co. probably paid a small fortune for–obsolete. I immediately tried to investigate whether or not the rights holders for 2046 had sanctioned the use of the footage, but I found nothing. If it was used “illegally,” that means an amazing music video cost Kanye the price of a smart editor’s day rate. Considering slow, visually sumptuous work, like Kar Wai’s, is relegated to the art house, it would serve pop music to repurpose more artistically outstanding footage for their videos and expose their audience to a new visual language. In turn, directors like Kar Wai would reach new audiences and fulfill Werner Herzog’s directive laid down in Werner Herzog Eats his Boot (see below). A civilization is doomed or going to die out like dinosaurs if it does not develop an adequate language or adequate images. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul Moore
]]>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:00:47 GMTpaulpaul on spout.com4/11/2008 4:00:47 PM A post from Big Screen Little Screen turned me onto a music video created by Kanye West’s editor, Derrick Lee, using footage of 2046 for Kanye’s “Flashing Lights.” It’s almost sacrilege to not watch this in High Definition, but the video remix still shames the original Spike Jonze helmed spot. I couldn’t say it better myself. Wong Kar Wai’s 2046 is a long, visually indulgent meditation of love in bad timing, grief and the futility of anything else in life to play love’s substitute. In some way, Derrick Lee’s editing was able to grab the essence of love lost in what you might call a world of “affluent dystopia.” A hyper-realized city, like Tokyo or LA, where lives and opportunity are crammed together so tightly it would seem that making connections would be easy, but it’s only become harder. Human intimacy is the new luxury nobody can afford, but people spin their wheels faster. They collide but never connect. In short, repurposing footage from 2046 for “Flashing Lights” brought new meaning to a song I’d normally switch off. Halfway through the video it was obvious Wong Kar Wai’s footage made the original Spike Jonze video–which Kanye and Co. probably paid a small fortune for–obsolete. I immediately tried to investigate whether or not the rights holders for 2046 had sanctioned the use of the footage, but I found nothing. If it was used “illegally,” that means an amazing music video cost Kanye the price of a smart editor’s day rate. Considering slow, visually sumptuous work, like Kar Wai’s, is relegated to the art house, it would serve pop music to repurpose more artistically outstanding footage for their videos and expose their audience to a new visual language. In turn, directors like Kar Wai would reach new audiences and fulfill Werner Herzog’s directive laid down in Werner Herzog Eats his Boot (see below). A civilization is doomed or going to die out like dinosaurs if it does not develop an adequate language or adequate images. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul Moore http://www.spout.com/blogs/chrismorrell/archive/2008/1/20/24126.aspx Post By: chrismorrell
Post To: chrismorrell Blog
Post Date: 1/20/2008 9:31:31 PM
Body: This is a companion film to "I'm In the Mood for Love"..I dont think the "sci-fi" / time travel ideas work at all,but i still loved it,just for the melancholic,love un-requited mood of it all... I did,in fact take the "time travel" element as being related to the "Anime" books being written by Tony Leung's character...The tally of the years being marked by the faithful reappearance of Nat "King" Cole ,just reeked of romance ,and "I'm In the Mood For Love" should either preceed or follow this in your DVD player's drawer...
]]>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:31:31 GMTchrismorrellchrismorrell Blog1/20/2008 9:31:31 PM This is a companion film to &quot;I&#39;m In the Mood for Love&quot;..I dont think the &quot;sci-fi&quot; / time travel ideas work at all,but i still loved it,just for the melancholic,love un-requited mood of it all... I did,in fact take the &quot;time travel&quot; element as being related to the &quot;Anime&quot; books being written by Tony Leung&#39;s character...The tally of the years being marked by the faithful reappearance of Nat &quot;King&quot; Cole ,just reeked of romance ,and &quot;I&#39;m In the Mood For Love&quot; should either preceed or follow this in your DVD player&#39;s drawer... http://www.spout.com/groups/Asian_Art_Cinema/Definitions_of_Art_Unclassificables_movies_Art_S/412/15454/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: tinokiev
Post To: Asian Art Cinema
Post Date: 7/20/2007 9:30:27 PM
Body: Personally I often find myself trying to classify or rate a film, specially asian ones and not finding a term or a category to put it on. It is like " a wong kar wai" film. Wong Kar Wai himself is a category of his own approach to aesthetics's, or you could said a "takashi mike" film and you know you are going to expect lots of blood. But still are hard to categorized. You cannot say "The postmen in the mountain" is a father-son movie only, or that "scent of the green papaya" is maturity. Etc. I think everyone is clear that there are just movies that do not fall into a genre and explore here and there into different categories that we recognize. And many of those movies ended up being referred to as "Art Film" or "Experimental". Anyway, I called this group "Asian Art Cinema" and while I was looking through some of the films I put in I found myself wondering. Is this and this film an "Asian art" film ?. And many people will probably argue and disagree with my concept or art. But being this an open group I kind of put any Asian film that I have watch. So please feel free to add films to the list even if you don't believe it is "Art" To take an example, we have "Oldboy" . I personally loved that movie. It was escene of extreme violence as well as what I consider to be extreme beauty (Hugging couple in the snow), It was a combination of sex and romance that i finded very well managed for being involved with "incest". There is Action, Comedy, Romance, Horror, Suspense, Dobule Personalities, and Detective like genre. But I still think this movie is an Art film, for his contemporary and different approach. Do you think that is art ? "In the realm of the senses" and "Lies"for example really makes people think what the whole film wanted to say or was about, apart from showing a lot of sex. Is that art ? Takashi Kitano Is one of the directors that mix the pure Art scenes by definition, with extreme violence, and it is not hard to classify "Hana Bi" (Fireworks) as an Art film. But will you say the same about his film "Violent Cop" ?So this discussion with myself is not going anywhere, but I hope you understand the confusion I have. To what point violence & Sex overcome a movie and tags it for it, How much until it goes in or out the "art" category. Is it ok to show extreme violence if is beautifully shot ? Or can we justify a rape scene by letting the rapist say a haiku ?Let me know what you think ! PD: I didn't mention western films with similar "dilemmas " like "irreversible " or "9 1/2 weeks". But I think the discussion can include same category of films even if they are not western. Ivan
]]>Sat, 21 Jul 2007 01:30:27 GMTtinokievAsian Art Cinema7/20/2007 9:30:27 PMPersonally I often find myself trying to classify or rate a film, specially asian ones and not finding a term or a category to put it on. It is like " a wong kar wai" film. Wong Kar Wai himself is a category of his own approach to aesthetics&#39;s, or you could said a "takashi mike" film and you know you are going to expect lots of blood. But still are hard to categorized. You cannot say "The postmen in the mountain" is a father-son movie only, or that "scent of the green papaya" is maturity. Etc. I think everyone is clear that there are just movies that do not fall into a genre and explore here and there into different categories that we recognize. And many of those movies ended up being referred to as "Art Film" or "Experimental". Anyway, I called this group "Asian Art Cinema" and while I was looking through some of the films I put in I found myself wondering. Is this and this film an "Asian art" film ?. And many people will probably argue and disagree with my concept or art. But being this an open group I kind of put any Asian film that I have watch. So please feel free to add films to the list even if you don&#39;t believe it is "Art" To take an example, we have "Oldboy" . I personally loved that movie. It was escene of extreme violence as well as what I consider to be extreme beauty (Hugging couple in the snow), It was a combination of sex and romance that i finded very well managed for being involved with "incest". There is Action, Comedy, Romance, Horror, Suspense, Dobule Personalities, and Detective like genre. But I still think this movie is an Art film, for his contemporary and different approach. Do you think that is art ? "In the realm of the senses" and "Lies"for example really makes people think what the whole film wanted to say or was about, apart from showing a lot of sex. Is that art ? Takashi Kitano Is one of the directors that mix the pure Art scenes by definition, with extreme violence, and it is not hard to classify "Hana Bi" (Fireworks) as an Art film. But will you say the same about his film "Violent Cop" ?So this discussion with myself is not going anywhere, but I hope you understand the confusion I have. To what point violence &amp; Sex overcome a movie and tags it for it, How much until it goes in or out the "art" category. Is it ok to show extreme violence if is beautifully shot ? Or can we justify a rape scene by letting the rapist say a haiku ?Let me know what you think ! PD: I didn&#39;t mention western films with similar "dilemmas " like "irreversible " or "9 1/2 weeks". But I think the discussion can include same category of films even if they are not western. Ivan http://www.spout.com/blogs/paul/archive/2006/6/21/4282.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: paul on spout.com
Post Date: 6/21/2006 12:12:57 PM
Body: There was a beautiful girl who I once was in a relationship with (although this girl is now a woman living somewhere, she exists in my memory as a girl). The only chance we had to meet was when our relationship had a slim chance of working out. I was pushing to be with her. She pushed me away. We got together anyway. We always had the same fight. Was I going to ruin her life? Keep her from her ambitions? She never pictured herself with a guy like me. Then, one day, she did. She wanted to marry me. But by that point, the argument we had over and over again had left me wanting to leave. I couldn't shake it. I was through. Every few months for years afterward she would call me and ask the same question, "Why didn't we work out?" Every time she called I tried to give her an answer that both of us knew was weak at best. The truth was I didn't know. I still don't. By the time she was ready to start a serious relationship I was finished. Bad timing. 2046 is Wong Kar Wai's latest film. It's the continuation of a story that started with In the Mood for Love. It also makes reference to his earlier film, Days of Being Wild. It's the mid 1960's, a little while after In the Mood for Love leaves off. Chow Mo Wan has not gotten over Su Li Zhen, the woman who would not give up her husband, life and reputation to be with Chow. He refers to his life in In the Mood for Love as his "previous life." Chow is now a playboy. A poor playboy who throws various birthday parties for himself to make money. He's writing a story about a place in the future called 2046. In the future a giant train system spans the globe. Everybody wants to go to 2046, it's the place to recapture lost memories. Only one man has ever wanted to leave 2046 and he is on a train with no apparent destination. As the next two hours unfold, Chow teases love with other women and let's them go. He's in a constant state of search. Love, he says, is not about who you find as much as when you find them. It's all about timing. People pass in and out of each other's lives, and if you love somebody who is at the point to receive it, then love can grow. But you may meet the perfect person at the wrong time and lose it altogether. The whole timing thing is not a romantic idea. Although we live in a time where the idea of finding a soulmate is weighted heavily by the idea of finding a best friend, there is still, I think, that hope which believes there is one person out there who perfectly fits me. Wong Kar Wai's presentation of love is less of a search for the one straight path and more like wondering through a forest. It's more about chance than destiny. More about timing than romance. I noticed that having a baby is kind of like this notion of love. A husband and wife could make love thousands of times throughout their marriage. However, a handful of times they'll make love and a baby will start to grow. It grows within the woman and then comes out. At that point, the parents discover a different kind of love for this baby. A love they never knew about and the baby keeps growing. It grows in the shadow of love from its parents. Then it finally grows into an adult who falls in love, makes love, and, someday, the cycle starts over. And it all starts in some unforeseeable way. A one time thing out of a hundred times that two people may make love. It's chance. It seems to me falling in love is much like that. We may connect with different people at different times throughout our lives. We meet each other in different places in our lives. A married woman meets a college boy, a busy man meets a woman in another country, an career minded girl meets a love struck boy; in every instance it may have been great in a different time and a different place. But then there is the chance encounter with somebody who is ready to receive you and who you are ready to receive, and it works out beautifully. Despite the percentages. It seems like destiny because the chances you two defied were so slim. It happens. Just not in a Wong Kar Wai film. Originally posted on:God in Ruins
]]>Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:12:57 GMTpaulpaul on spout.com6/21/2006 12:12:57 PMThere was a beautiful girl who I once was in a relationship with (although this girl is now a woman living somewhere, she exists in my memory as a girl). The only chance we had to meet was when our relationship had a slim chance of working out. I was pushing to be with her. She pushed me away. We got together anyway. We always had the same fight. Was I going to ruin her life? Keep her from her ambitions? She never pictured herself with a guy like me. Then, one day, she did. She wanted to marry me. But by that point, the argument we had over and over again had left me wanting to leave. I couldn't shake it. I was through. Every few months for years afterward she would call me and ask the same question, &quot;Why didn't we work out?&quot; Every time she called I tried to give her an answer that both of us knew was weak at best. The truth was I didn't know. I still don't. By the time she was ready to start a serious relationship I was finished. Bad timing. 2046 is Wong Kar Wai's latest film. It's the continuation of a story that started with In the Mood for Love. It also makes reference to his earlier film, Days of Being Wild. It's the mid 1960's, a little while after In the Mood for Love leaves off. Chow Mo Wan has not gotten over Su Li Zhen, the woman who would not give up her husband, life and reputation to be with Chow. He refers to his life in In the Mood for Love as his &quot;previous life.&quot; Chow is now a playboy. A poor playboy who throws various birthday parties for himself to make money. He's writing a story about a place in the future called 2046. In the future a giant train system spans the globe. Everybody wants to go to 2046, it's the place to recapture lost memories. Only one man has ever wanted to leave 2046 and he is on a train with no apparent destination. As the next two hours unfold, Chow teases love with other women and let's them go. He's in a constant state of search. Love, he says, is not about who you find as much as when you find them. It's all about timing. People pass in and out of each other's lives, and if you love somebody who is at the point to receive it, then love can grow. But you may meet the perfect person at the wrong time and lose it altogether. The whole timing thing is not a romantic idea. Although we live in a time where the idea of finding a soulmate is weighted heavily by the idea of finding a best friend, there is still, I think, that hope which believes there is one person out there who perfectly fits me. Wong Kar Wai's presentation of love is less of a search for the one straight path and more like wondering through a forest. It's more about chance than destiny. More about timing than romance. I noticed that having a baby is kind of like this notion of love. A husband and wife could make love thousands of times throughout their marriage. However, a handful of times they'll make love and a baby will start to grow. It grows within the woman and then comes out. At that point, the parents discover a different kind of love for this baby. A love they never knew about and the baby keeps growing. It grows in the shadow of love from its parents. Then it finally grows into an adult who falls in love, makes love, and, someday, the cycle starts over. And it all starts in some unforeseeable way. A one time thing out of a hundred times that two people may make love. It's chance. It seems to me falling in love is much like that. We may connect with different people at different times throughout our lives. We meet each other in different places in our lives. A married woman meets a college boy, a busy man meets a woman in another country, an career minded girl meets a love struck boy; in every instance it may have been great in a different time and a different place. But then there is the chance encounter with somebody who is ready to receive you and who you are ready to receive, and it works out beautifully. Despite the percentages. It seems like destiny because the chances you two defied were so slim. It happens. Just not in a Wong Kar Wai film. Originally posted on:God in Ruins http://www.spout.com/blogs/morecereal/archive/2006/4/30/1014.aspx Post By: morecereal
Post To: blaze.
Post Date: 4/30/2006 4:22:00 AM
Body: One of the most surreal films I have ever seen. Watch it over and over and over and over again.
]]>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:22:00 GMTmorecerealblaze.4/30/2006 4:22:00 AM One of the most surreal films I have ever seen. Watch it over and over and over and over again. http://www.spout.com/blogs/paul/archive/2005/12/23/38.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: paul on spout.com
Post Date: 12/23/2005 11:05:00 AM
Body: 2046 There was a beautiful girl who I once was in a relationship with (although this girl is now a woman living somewhere, she exists in my memory as a girl). The only chance we had to meet was when our relationship had a slim chance of working out. I was pushing to be with her. She pushed me away. We got together anyway. We always had the same fight. Was I going to ruin her life? Keep her from her ambitions? She never pictured herself with a guy like me. Then, one day, she did. She wanted to marry me. But by that point, the argument we had over and over again had left me wanting to leave. I couldn't shake it. I was through. Every few months for years afterward she would call me and ask the same question, "Why didn't we work out?" Every time she called I tried to give her an answer that both of us knew was weak at best. The truth was I didn't know. I still don't. By the time she was ready to start a serious relationship I was finished. Bad timing. 2046 is Wong Kar Wai's latest film. It's the continuation of a story that started with In the Mood for Love. It also makes reference to his earlier film, Days of Being Wild. It's the mid 1960's, a little while after In the Mood for Love leaves off. Chow Mo Wan has not gotten over Su Li Zhen, the woman who would not give up her husband, life and reputation to be with Chow. He refers to his life in In the Mood for Love as his "previous life." Chow is now a playboy. A poor playboy who throws various birthday parties for himself to make money. He's writing a story about a place in the future called 2046. In the future a giant train system spans the globe. Everybody wants to go to 2046, it's the place to recapture lost memories. Only one man has ever wanted to leave 2046 and he is on a train with no apparent destination. As the next two hours unfold, Chow teases love with other women and let's them go. He's in a constant state of search. Love, he says, is not about who you find as much as when you find them. It's all about timing. People pass in and out of each other's lives, and if you love somebody who is at the point to receive it, then love can grow. But you may meet the perfect person at the wrong time and lose it altogether. The whole timing thing is not a romantic idea. Although we live in a time where the idea of finding a soulmate is weighted heavily by the idea of finding a best friend, there is still, I think, that hope which believes there is one person out there who perfectly fits me. Wong Kar Wai's presentation of love is less of a search for the one straight path and more like wondering through a forest. It's more about chance than destiny. More about timing than romance. I noticed that having a baby is kind of like this notion of love. A husband and wife could make love thousands of times throughout their marriage. However, a handful of times they'll make love and a baby will start to grow. It grows within the woman and then comes out. At that point, the parents discover a different kind of love for this baby. A love they never knew about and the baby keeps growing. It grows in the shadow of love from its parents. Then it finally grows into an adult who falls in love, makes love, and, someday, the cycle starts over. And it all starts in some unforeseeable way. A one time thing out of a hundred times that two people may make love. It's chance. It seems to me falling in love is much like that. We may connect with different people at different times throughout our lives. We meet each other in different places in our lives. A married woman meets a college boy, a busy man meets a woman in another country, an career minded girl meets a love struck boy; in every instance it may have been great in a different time and a different place. But then there is the chance encounter with somebody who is ready to receive you and who you are ready to receive, and it works out beautifully. Despite the percentages. It seems like destiny because the chances you two defied were so slim. It happens. Just not in a Wong Kar Wai film. (originally posted on 11/16/05 on my godinruins.com blog)
]]>Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:05:00 GMTpaulpaul on spout.com12/23/2005 11:05:00 AM2046 There was a beautiful girl who I once was in a relationship with (although this girl is now a woman living somewhere, she exists in my memory as a girl). The only chance we had to meet was when our relationship had a slim chance of working out. I was pushing to be with her. She pushed me away. We got together anyway. We always had the same fight. Was I going to ruin her life? Keep her from her ambitions? She never pictured herself with a guy like me. Then, one day, she did. She wanted to marry me. But by that point, the argument we had over and over again had left me wanting to leave. I couldn't shake it. I was through. Every few months for years afterward she would call me and ask the same question, "Why didn't we work out?" Every time she called I tried to give her an answer that both of us knew was weak at best. The truth was I didn't know. I still don't. By the time she was ready to start a serious relationship I was finished. Bad timing. 2046 is Wong Kar Wai's latest film. It's the continuation of a story that started with In the Mood for Love. It also makes reference to his earlier film, Days of Being Wild. It's the mid 1960's, a little while after In the Mood for Love leaves off. Chow Mo Wan has not gotten over Su Li Zhen, the woman who would not give up her husband, life and reputation to be with Chow. He refers to his life in In the Mood for Love as his "previous life." Chow is now a playboy. A poor playboy who throws various birthday parties for himself to make money. He's writing a story about a place in the future called 2046. In the future a giant train system spans the globe. Everybody wants to go to 2046, it's the place to recapture lost memories. Only one man has ever wanted to leave 2046 and he is on a train with no apparent destination. As the next two hours unfold, Chow teases love with other women and let's them go. He's in a constant state of search. Love, he says, is not about who you find as much as when you find them. It's all about timing. People pass in and out of each other's lives, and if you love somebody who is at the point to receive it, then love can grow. But you may meet the perfect person at the wrong time and lose it altogether. The whole timing thing is not a romantic idea. Although we live in a time where the idea of finding a soulmate is weighted heavily by the idea of finding a best friend, there is still, I think, that hope which believes there is one person out there who perfectly fits me. Wong Kar Wai's presentation of love is less of a search for the one straight path and more like wondering through a forest. It's more about chance than destiny. More about timing than romance. I noticed that having a baby is kind of like this notion of love. A husband and wife could make love thousands of times throughout their marriage. However, a handful of times they'll make love and a baby will start to grow. It grows within the woman and then comes out. At that point, the parents discover a different kind of love for this baby. A love they never knew about and the baby keeps growing. It grows in the shadow of love from its parents. Then it finally grows into an adult who falls in love, makes love, and, someday, the cycle starts over. And it all starts in some unforeseeable way. A one time thing out of a hundred times that two people may make love. It's chance. It seems to me falling in love is much like that. We may connect with different people at different times throughout our lives. We meet each other in different places in our lives. A married woman meets a college boy, a busy man meets a woman in another country, an career minded girl meets a love struck boy; in every instance it may have been great in a different time and a different place. But then there is the chance encounter with somebody who is ready to receive you and who you are ready to receive, and it works out beautifully. Despite the percentages. It seems like destiny because the chances you two defied were so slim. It happens. Just not in a Wong Kar Wai film. (originally posted on 11/16/05 on my godinruins.com blog) http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 259

Number of people who tagged: 149

Number of times used: 416

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:08:38 GMT259149416Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/music/MemberTagFilms.aspxmusic
Number of films tagged: 4341

Number of people who tagged: 144

Number of times used: 481

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT4341144481Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sex/MemberTagFilms.aspxsex
Number of films tagged: 2414

Number of people who tagged: 126

Number of times used: 548

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:42 GMT2414126548Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Boring/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT177105207Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 525

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 624

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:39:10 GMT525102624Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sci-fi/MemberTagFilms.aspxsci-fi
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 375

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT217102375Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Crazy/MemberTagFilms.aspxCrazy
Number of films tagged: 133

Number of people who tagged: 98

Number of times used: 180

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:53:36 GMT13398180Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/christmas/MemberTagFilms.aspxchristmas
Number of films tagged: 995

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 254

]]>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:31:29 GMT99582254Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/time/MemberTagFilms.aspxtime
Number of films tagged: 310

Number of people who tagged: 79

Number of times used: 101

]]>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:27:45 GMT31079101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/japan/MemberTagFilms.aspxjapan
Number of films tagged: 745

Number of people who tagged: 73

Number of times used: 132

]]>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:35:11 GMT74573132Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cult/MemberTagFilms.aspxcult
Number of films tagged: 449

Number of people who tagged: 71

Number of times used: 162

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:20:54 GMT44971162Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/noir/MemberTagFilms.aspxnoir
Number of films tagged: 77

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 134

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:43 GMT7767134Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disappointing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisappointing
Number of films tagged: 75

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 101

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:25:18 GMT7553101Tag