The first reviews which drew me to watch Kekexili compared it to the great American "Westerns"-- so I'll start with the DIFFERENCES. To begin with, the Region-1 DVD cover shown here on IMDb is splattered with more red/ blood than you will actually see in the film-- OTOH, the Region-3 DVD cover completely gives away the ending. Talk about cultural differences in marketing strategy-- action/ plot vs. something worthy of repeated viewing?
More importantly, American "Westerns" were generally made in 20th century about 18th-19th century, so even the most "gritty and hard-hitting" ones are full of American "romantizations" about a long-gone time and place. OTOH, Kekexili is a 2004 film about something that only happened 10 years ago-- so it is full of the kind of realism that even National Geographic may find hard to achieve (high-altitude cinematography with the sand and the cold cracking the film-stock, getting the locals to talk, etc.).
IOW, fans of the American "Westerns" are not going to enjoy this film-- the chase/ action sequences are few, short and slow (you move too fast at high altitudes-- you die) and the patrol-men don't exhibit any modern or western sense of individualism/ heroism that audiences can cheer for. Even fans of the Discovery Channel may not know how to react-- there is very little narration to tell audiences what to think, very little music to tell audiences what to feel and very little slow-motion/panning cinematography for audiences to ogle at.
What this film is, is a different kind of "docu-drama" (more Abbas Kiarostami than Akira Kurosawa)-- the kind where the director "pulls all his punches" with such minimalist scripting, plotting, acting, photography and editing, that audiences are denied any possibility of a cheap thrill (the "ah-hah" or "wow" from being given a back-story, message, climax, conclusion, etc.). This is where this film rises above the likes of "Himalaya" which tries to tuck in a conventional but awkward narrative-structure-- in the words of the director, it's very "cruel" to the audiences.
I mean, talk about letting the subject-matter "speak for itself"-- it starts out with the premise of some high action-adventure, but continually "breaks" the pace to let the realities of high-altitude patrolling intrude.... And since we are mostly "embedded" with the reporter who speaks only a little Tibetan, very little is explained to us/ the reporter (the patrol-men aren't great "talkers"...). To improve the "immersion" factor or get a sense of the wonder and confusion the reporter felt, try watching the film without the subtitles for the Tibetan dialogue. Like a backpacking/trekking trip, you might have to think about what you saw or felt after you "come back".
This film had a limited marketing and release because it didn't quite fit any of the "commercial" film genres-- but I'll be watching out for director Lu Chuan's next film about the Nanjing massacre (or "incident" as some Japanese call it).
More importantly, American "Westerns" were generally made in 20th century about 18th-19th century, so even the most "gritty and hard-hitting" ones are full of American "romantizations" about a long-gone time and place. OTOH, Kekexili is a 2004 film about something that only happened 10 years ago-- so it is full of the kind of realism that even National Geographic may find hard to achieve (high-altitude cinematography with the sand and the cold cracking the film-stock, getting the locals to talk, etc.).
IOW, fans of the American "Westerns" are not going to enjoy this film-- the chase/ action sequences are few, short and slow (you move too fast at high altitudes-- you die) and the patrol-men don't exhibit any modern or western sense of individualism/ heroism that audiences can cheer for. Even fans of the Discovery Channel may not know how to react-- there is very little narration to tell audiences what to think, very little music to tell audiences what to feel and very little slow-motion/panning cinematography for audiences to ogle at.
What this film is, is a different kind of "docu-drama" (more Abbas Kiarostami than Akira Kurosawa)-- the kind where the director "pulls all his punches" with such minimalist scripting, plotting, acting, photography and editing, that audiences are denied any possibility of a cheap thrill (the "ah-hah" or "wow" from being given a back-story, message, climax, conclusion, etc.). This is where this film rises above the likes of "Himalaya" which tries to tuck in a conventional but awkward narrative-structure-- in the words of the director, it's very "cruel" to the audiences.
I mean, talk about letting the subject-matter "speak for itself"-- it starts out with the premise of some high action-adventure, but continually "breaks" the pace to let the realities of high-altitude patrolling intrude.... And since we are mostly "embedded" with the reporter who speaks only a little Tibetan, very little is explained to us/ the reporter (the patrol-men aren't great "talkers"...). To improve the "immersion" factor or get a sense of the wonder and confusion the reporter felt, try watching the film without the subtitles for the Tibetan dialogue. Like a backpacking/trekking trip, you might have to think about what you saw or felt after you "come back".
This film had a limited marketing and release because it didn't quite fit any of the "commercial" film genres-- but I'll be watching out for director Lu Chuan's next film about the Nanjing massacre (or "incident" as some Japanese call it).