There is a lot to be admired in user zetes' forward stance and bold proclamations on HHH. His is a review which casts a shadow over the film and forces a reaction from other viewers. Certainly it's better than the average mild compliment referencing long takes and restless ennui. I'll ignore the polemics, focusing on things that illuminate the film. And there we can see a fundamental disagreement with Hou's aesthetics. Zetes, and a few others like him, doesn't like the "limiting" aspect of Hou's cinema, he's tired of Hou's rigid cinematography, and in the end he's convinced that Hou's films aren't entertaining and therefore lack value. He then outlines, though he's cogent enough not to require such a spirited defense of his film cred, that he can deal with "slow" films and "loose narratives." In GSG's review he points out Hitchcock.
The problem is that he points out everything "wrong" with Hou's cinema, and does so clearly, only for it to appear that these are exactly the elements which people seem to admire most about Hou. Hou's cinema consists of more than just slow films with loose narratives, it is precisely about de-dramatization. The interest lies in the absence of drama, whereas other films give meaning to the drama.
However, I feel this discussion is considering... not a strawman, but a conceptual space with which Hou seems to overlap at times. The real HHH is a little more prosaic. And sometimes I wonder if people talking lovingly about the "bleak nihilistic ennui" of this film and its rigid formalism have seen the same film as I. GSG is very much the romantic's film. Long shots of nature and rural towns, that scene where Big Brother is lying in bed dreaming of Shanghai, old ladies getting on a train, a green shot of daytime Taipei and a lengthier connection with its nighttime lights, those points looking for keys in the dark field. By the keys scene, however, Hou is poking fun at this romanticism by introducing comic elements running through earlier scenes. The comedy substantially enriches the film: restaurant failure, the tough guys driving in on motorbikes only to quickly get roughed up by some peasant cops, and that knowing dialogue in the second party of the movie, contrasted by the first and more urbane gathering, where uncle Senator repeatedly emphasizes what a great savior he is. And finally, the keys are lost in a dark field ("Are you still playing around?") and we see another romantic landscape only to find our macho gangsters stuck in a ditch. I don't know if this is a cultural mistranslation, but it doesn't seem some bleak landscape, de-dramatized or not. Rather, it seems to me the type of implicit cheese prevalent in societies emerging unto capitalism in recent times, especially when compared with rustic cunning. Scenes like that party with uncle Senator are familiar enough and bring forth as much a warm as a cold irony.
Hou gets a lot of hemming and hawing about his naturalist aesthetics, but when it comes to substance some viewers seem to mix him up with, say, Edward Yang, who does have some colder, more tragic films. The reaction to GSG I feel is entirely too po-faced, like some Western adaptations of Russian writers. Hou's direction easily draws attention to the romanticism, but the work has roaring undercurrents of comedy which give much greater depth to the film and especially to the narrative. Once you pick up on the tension between these elements, you won't find a single dreary moment in the film.
The problem is that he points out everything "wrong" with Hou's cinema, and does so clearly, only for it to appear that these are exactly the elements which people seem to admire most about Hou. Hou's cinema consists of more than just slow films with loose narratives, it is precisely about de-dramatization. The interest lies in the absence of drama, whereas other films give meaning to the drama.
However, I feel this discussion is considering... not a strawman, but a conceptual space with which Hou seems to overlap at times. The real HHH is a little more prosaic. And sometimes I wonder if people talking lovingly about the "bleak nihilistic ennui" of this film and its rigid formalism have seen the same film as I. GSG is very much the romantic's film. Long shots of nature and rural towns, that scene where Big Brother is lying in bed dreaming of Shanghai, old ladies getting on a train, a green shot of daytime Taipei and a lengthier connection with its nighttime lights, those points looking for keys in the dark field. By the keys scene, however, Hou is poking fun at this romanticism by introducing comic elements running through earlier scenes. The comedy substantially enriches the film: restaurant failure, the tough guys driving in on motorbikes only to quickly get roughed up by some peasant cops, and that knowing dialogue in the second party of the movie, contrasted by the first and more urbane gathering, where uncle Senator repeatedly emphasizes what a great savior he is. And finally, the keys are lost in a dark field ("Are you still playing around?") and we see another romantic landscape only to find our macho gangsters stuck in a ditch. I don't know if this is a cultural mistranslation, but it doesn't seem some bleak landscape, de-dramatized or not. Rather, it seems to me the type of implicit cheese prevalent in societies emerging unto capitalism in recent times, especially when compared with rustic cunning. Scenes like that party with uncle Senator are familiar enough and bring forth as much a warm as a cold irony.
Hou gets a lot of hemming and hawing about his naturalist aesthetics, but when it comes to substance some viewers seem to mix him up with, say, Edward Yang, who does have some colder, more tragic films. The reaction to GSG I feel is entirely too po-faced, like some Western adaptations of Russian writers. Hou's direction easily draws attention to the romanticism, but the work has roaring undercurrents of comedy which give much greater depth to the film and especially to the narrative. Once you pick up on the tension between these elements, you won't find a single dreary moment in the film.