« | Main | »

September 20, 2004

The item at IndieWire that I wanted to link to was this, the first review of Eros, by Peter Brunette. Check out his description of Wong Kar Wai's segment:

"Gong Li plays a courtesan in what seems to be the 1950's in what is apparently Hong Kong. Chang Chen is the new tailor who comes to take her measurements for a dress. In the process she fondles him, bringing him to climax while whispering in his ear that she wants him to remember that feeling each time he makes a dress for her. The years pass and when she falls on hard times and becomes ill, the tailor tries to take care of her. The tubercular woman, now a common street prostitute, repays him once again with all she's got left, her hand."

That sounds amazing. Unfortunately, it's the only part of the movie that this reviewer found praiseworthy. Which leads me to Deadroom. We had a meeting on it last night, which mostly consisted of talking about everything but the film (although we did spend time fantasizing at large about a possible scenario we've been giving way too much thought to the past few weeks). We also discussed an e-mail from the consultant in LA we talked to a few months back, and whom Yen's been keeping abreast of our progress. He had this to say:

It also strikes me that in America and the west, it's kind of uncommon for group efforts in art to be rewarded. This culture is so much about praising the lone genius, and supporting his (yes, usually "his") career, I suspect without being told that a work by four directors faces another hurdle by diffusing the interest that a director provokes (unless the directors are Woody Allen, Spike Lee, Mike Leigh and Jim Jarmusch; the kind of anthology film you sometimes see.)

I don't like the thought of that, but I guess I understand it. To return to that Eros review:

"It's sad to think how thrilling this kind of filmmaking once was. Now, done poorly, it forcefully reminds us how much things have changed, and in how many ways."

Not that I think our film is poorly done (nor am I judging the Soderbergh/Antonioni/Wong collaboration on that one review alone). Here's the paragraph from that e-mail that meant the most to me:

Your film is not so difficult, but it is very artificial (by design), and sort of an exercise by your own (presskit) admission. It's exquisite at many points, but eschews a lot of things that movies do, in order to concentrate on a concept, mostly through writing and acting (which clearly involves direction, but not much "action" except in the dramatic sense.) Nothing wrong with that, but in the increasingly strangulated marketplace (in the broadest sense) of film, it's a worthy question whether such a spare, stripped-down work is competitive -- which says nothing about whether it is good. I think you're probably in good company with other ambitious, idiosyncratic directors.

I agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly, and it was very encouraging to read it. There's always a wonderful sense of accomplishment when someone demonstrates that they actually get what you were trying to do (although not in a personal sense, in this case).

Posted by David Lowery at September 20, 2004 04:44 PM

Comments

Posted by: Curtis at September 21, 2004 07:37 PM