criterionforum.org

foggy eyes wrote:Another (great) short: Mobile Men.

That really is a great one. He constantly surprises with his method and take on things. On the surface there isn't much to indicate that Mobile Men is about human rights but it really starts to take shape the more you think about it. There's a good interview with Weerasethakul here that explains it a bit more.

From an interview with Tilda Swinton in Time Out:

Very long-term, the Thai filmmaker Apichatpong Weerasethakul and I are talking about making a film together.

Great, yet another woolly liberal taken in. Some of you people are journalists, even: ASK this guy about his politics - ask him whether he thinks the upper/business classes should pay tax and whether he thinks poor people should be able to vote. ](*,)

Nothing wrote:Great, yet another woolly liberal taken in. Some of you people are journalists, even: ASK this guy about his politics - ask him whether he thinks the upper/business classes should pay tax and whether he thinks poor people should be able to vote. ](*,)

LOL. You ask him!

Since some people care about these things more than others, maybe we should start a thread about filmmakers' political views? You know, David Lynch as Reaganite Republican, Michael Powell as a traditional High Tory, that kind of thing.

I saw a spectacular ding-dong between Agnieszka Holland and István Szabó onstage last year on the subject of communism vs Nazism - Holland thought there was no difference at all, while Szabó argued otherwise (essentially, Holland was arguing from a persecution and body-count perspective, while Szabó preferred to look at the underlying ideals).

Surprisingly, neither she nor anyone else brought up Szabó's track record as a police informer, something he apparently shares with Krzysztof Zanussi, though both have been understandably keen to play this down once the revelations were made.

But the thing I most remember about that encounter was Jiří Menzel, who was on the same stage and whose body language clearly said "I'm not getting involved with this - let me know when they've finished". (He was the only one speaking through an interpreter, so it was easier for him to stay on the sidelines).

It also depends on how those politics manifest themselves within the work, eg. Syndromes & a Century is as blinkered as Jud Süß and it's impossible to address it seriously without recognising that. And then, on the other hand, you have someone like Jafir Panahi who preaches one thing in the cinema and practices the exact opposite in real life. I'm not sure which is more distasteful, to be honest.

With regards to informers, I think it really depends who you are informing for and on and why. Kazan was a low-life wretch, certainly, although that was more a case of character weakness than ideological weakness and it bares very little impact on his work. In the case of Szabo, I see no reason to disagree with his own assessment: "My work for the state security services was the bravest, most courageous act of my life."

Lynch is flaky politically, sure. I'm not sure the republican claims have ever been verified, to be fair, although he was a friend of Reagan.

I heard Manoel de Oliveira voted for the Inquisition before he voted against it.

Has anybody read/heard things about the new book out about Apichatpong Weerasethakul?

nogonek wrote:Has anybody read/heard things about the new book out about Apichatpong Weerasethakul?

I got this book last week, and while I haven't had a chance to yet, I'm really looking forward to getting into it properly. Roughly the first half of the book is written by James Quandt, including chapters devoted to each of the feature films. The second half consists of essays by contributors, interviews/exchanges between James Quandt and Apichatpong, as well as three sections by Apichatpong himself - one about his life and cinema, one entitled 'The Folly and Future of Thai Cinema under Military Dictatorship' and one about his new 'Primitive' project. There's also a bibliography at the end and a lot of photos throughout, including many from his shorts / installations.
I remember reading something positive about the book which prompted me to buy it, but I'm afraid I can't remember where it was.

nogonek wrote:Has anybody read/heard things about the new book out about Apichatpong Weerasethakul?

It's ace. Just buy it.

It's reviewed by Adrian Martin in the new Sight & Sound (taking up half of page 93), and he's generally very positive, while acknowledging the challenge of adequately pinning down Apichatpong's cinema in words.

...

MichaelB wrote:Since some people care about these things more than others, maybe we should start a thread about filmmakers' political views? You know, David Lynch as Reaganite Republican, Michael Powell as a traditional High Tory, that kind of thing.

Was the thread ever started? I just finished Offside and would be sad to hear that Jafir Panahi is a male chauvinist!

is he any relation to the guy who took Bernard Dunne's World title off him tonight?

Nothing wrote:It also depends on how those politics manifest themselves within the work, eg. Syndromes & a Century is as blinkered as Jud Süß and it's impossible to address it seriously without recognising that.

I admit full ignorance to Thai politics, so can you explain this? I saw the film and found it to be an endearing poem on memory, relationships, and the rural/urban dichotomy. I'm unclear as to the political subtext, though. I'm interested.

Previously discussed here

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:Previously discussed here

Very interesting arguments. Thanks for the link.

A few great, recent interviews that merit being posted. All contain multiple observations with which Nothing is sure to find fault.

Actually, there are some pretty insightful quotes in there:

Joe wrote:I’m not a political person... I spent a year fighting and trying to make sense of the system, because it had not affected me before. It’s a very fascist system, but we cannot do much about it... It is a sad thing that we really have no voice...

This post-Syndromes anti-authority sentiment, inspired by his personal clash with the ministry of culture (a rather minor abuse of human rights in the run of things, one must say), should surely underline the naivety inherent within Syndromes and his earlier work. Only when personally slighted by the system does Weerasethakul consider that something might be wrong (or "fascist", as he puts it)... If this new awareness translates into his forthcoming work then I'm all for it, of course. I would, however, draw attention to the fatalism also expressed, the idea that nothing can be done, "we have no voice", etc. What are the UDD protests in central Bangkok doing right now if not expressing a voice? If not challenging the prevailing elite and demanding the tide of change?

Joe wrote:I want to look at the history of [the north-east], not politically, but through my own encounter with it... I'm not making a political film - it's more like a personal diary.

Wait a minute - Weerasethakul wants to make a film about the rural north-east, the heartland of the UDD movement, in the present ultra-politicised environment, that ISN'T political - really?! A film co-funded by the ministry of culture, no less (!)?

But then we have this:

Joe wrote:I did not have first-hand experience of the history of the village [that suffered violent anti-communist oppression in the 1970s], so it would have been difficult to work with the elders. The teenagers are more like me. We share some world views and listen to some of the same music.

So this is the explanation - that Weerasethakul still cannot engage with leftist ideas because he hasn't personally had his family obliterated by a US-supplied dive bomber (a bomber commanded by generals and politicians who retain positions of great power)?

Haha. I always love these little diatribes by Nothing. They remind me of an ancient Marxist theorist who is fighting against a tsunami. Weerasethakul makes great films. The idea that art and morality are one in the same is absurd. I can't imagine all the wonderful literature you miss out on just because the author may be racist, sexist or conservative.

Thanks for the interview!

heredity4me wrote:Weerasethakul makes great films.

Ah, I see. All is explained.

heredity4me wrote:The idea that art and morality are one in the same is absurd.

There is no coherent morality expressed in these interviews. Instead, he admits - literally! - to a teenage level of empathy and engagement. If great filmmaking can arise out of such fuzzy-headed naivety, it would indeed be a world first.

Not to defend Nothing, but to say point blank Weerasethakul makes great films might actually be a worse position to take than his. For example I don't like the his films that I've seen, and I believe Tex made similar statements. Despite my better judgment I think Nothing might have something similar to a point this time. While I have no problem with a filmmaker ignoring politics I do have to question his adamant refusal to engage politically. I'm not saying he has to do such, but as revealed in these interviews he comes off a bit like an ostrich. So I suppose broken clock, ect.

Perhaps it's his interest in Buddhism which makes him want to distance himself from the political conflicts. I get the impression in his interviews and films that he's a very spiritual and calm person; a totally different type of personalty to someone such as Nagisa Oshima. There are many problems in the world to be explored, I understand what you guys are saying that you almost have a duty to make films about the big terrible things happening in the world today, but surely this shouldn't be mandatory. That would be like saying all films made in America immediately post 9/11 should be about 9/11 and the reactions of the government. Where's the creative freedom?

Apichatpong has addressed Thai politics in Blissfully Yours, i'm sure he will in some of his future films too.

If it came off like I was going to into Nothing territory, I was not trying to. What I meant was that even though he is in a political environment making films about political situations and making references in this interview about political things, he still does not want to engage in his country politically. While the Buddhist thing does help, did not know that, I'm not sure in how he is representing that in these interviews exempts him from that thing I'm getting at.His films I've seen have done a much better job at that. Not necessarily in his films, but at all. I will admit to not seeing Blissfully Yours so I can't comment. (though if takes the same two story as one story structure as his other films I have seen count me out)

knives wrote:(though if takes the same two story as one story structure as his other films I have seen count me out)

Your in luck, it doesn't.