My take on Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon
jfun...@my-deja.com
it this weekend all and I am underwhelmed. A quick run down:
The goods:
Zhang Ziyi as the lead was very good and fierce. She is young star to
watch.
Action choreography by Yuan Ho Ping was the high point of the movie.
The score was great, particularly the drums during fights.
Landscape was beautiful and idyllistic. Michelle Yeoh was impressive,
but not enough screen time for full appreciation.
Not so good:
Chow Yun Fat, did not wow me in either acting or action department.
The story of the revenge against the villianess, ZiYi's love story and
the Chow's philosophical enlightening just didn't mingle well to me.
There is no focal point of conflict to me. The villianess Jade Fox was
more like a background charactor. And the untamable inner demon
processed by Jen did not come off compelling enough to fully engage me
into the story.
Last but not least, the actions. There are plenty of marshall art
movies that blew me away even withouth the benefit of big screen. To
name a few, Once Upon a Time in China I & II, Drunden Master II, Fists
of Legend and Swordsman II. BTW, Jet Li was orignally offered Chow's
part. He did not do due to scheduling conflict and Ang Lee had to
rewrite the charactor to tune down the action requirement. Imagine what
we would have got if Jet were to star
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Julia F N Altshuler
give much weight to special effects or action. CTHD didn't make much
sense to me. There was nothing consistent about the magic or the
characters. I couldn't see it as a grand battle between good and evil;
no one seemed adequately motivated. If the sword was supposed to
symbolize something, I couldn't tell what. I did enjoy some of the
scenery and cinematography, but mostly I was dissatisfied.
--Lia
--
"It is a strange fact of life on earth that a human being who reaches
college age under the impression that "it's" is the possessive form of
"it" cannot be disabused of that belief. No amount of red ink will wash
it out."
Louis Menand
Norman Wilner
news:92dflk$k...@nntp.seflin.org...
>
> I agree. I'm a dialog-plot-characters sort of movie
> goer who doesn't give much weight to special effects
> or action. CTHD didn't make much sense to me.
Spoilers to follow, obviously.
> There was nothing consistent about the magic or the
> characters.
There is no magic in the film -- only levels of enlightenment and skill
that the characters have learned from their Wudan training.
> I couldn't see it as a grand battle between good and evil;
It's not.
> no one seemed adequately motivated.
Perhaps you missed the parallel love stories, or Li Mu Bai's attempts to
save Jen from her own nature.
> If the sword was supposed to symbolize something, I
> couldn't tell what.
It's not a symbol of anything, but like all weapons it provides a
connection to the life of a warrior. Jen steals the sword because a mighty
warrior used it, and she wants to live that life, but doesn't think she
can. Of course, she doesn't understand what the life of a warrior really
entails, which is what Shu Lien tries to explain in their scenes together.
> I did enjoy some of the scenery and cinematography,
> but mostly I was dissatisfied.
Well, I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the film. I thought it was pretty good,
and even held up nicely on a second viewing.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
http://www.chapters.ca/wilner/
E. Lin
"Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> wrote in message
news:wSs26.29016$59.87...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
As I said before this movie is OVERATED! its a good movie but NOT great! I
think the majority of western audiences will not be too ethusiastic about
this movie.
I've seen other Chinese movies and films with action like these shown in
CTHD so I'm not impressed at all. As a matter of fact some of action
scenes seem lame here compared to other films. There are flaws in the
flight scenes as somebody mentioned before.
However, the film did have some good points too.
the cinemtography is great and the scenes were pretty stunning. The sound
score was very good.
After watching this movie I was not impressed. I kept asking myself
What does the Critics see in this film??
Maybe one reason was because they have not seen something like this
before...??? Who knows?
rboe...@my-deja.com
I think it's just more about how it works on different levels for the
audience. For some people, they can enjoy the action scenes. As for
me, I thought the film had a social commentary on the constraints and
rules in their society, and how these rules effect their choices in
life. Throughout the film, a major theme is that people have chosen to
walk a particular Path in life, and yet none seem to find true
happiness. Li Mu Bai says his life is wasted at the end of the movie,
and yet he followed the path of the warrior perfectly, as did Yeoh's
character. This theme is prevelant for all the characters, from Jade
Fox all the way to even the old friend in Peking. Yeoh's last line to
Jen is "Be true to yourself", and I think you can take it in different
ways if you really think about it. Which path is it? Anyway, I got a
lot out of it beyond the action scenes. I agree though, that it might
not take too well with the Western audience, but it's done well here in
L.A. so far.
Websurfer
Well, we would have got better action for sure but it would ruin the
overall
quality of the movie unless they changed the script. The role of Li Mu Bai
is a very matured middle-aged master trying to retire. Jet Li is too young
for the role and his acting is only so-so. I don't thinkg Jet Li would have
been
very convincing for the role. It would have made it as a more action movie
with
less dramatic and poetic or artistic feel.
Websurfer
I saw this review at Yahoo Movies and found it very interesting.:
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=MV&action=m&board=12172484&tid=crouchingtigerhiddendragon&sid=12172484&mid=266
================================================================
Complex social, sexual, and individual conflicts all bound into a movie
and beautifully executed -- kudos to Ang Lee and
his insights on philosophy, myth, legend, and history.
Some spoilers below...
IMO, Li Mu Bai's blade is a phallic symbol -- a symbol of male dominance
in an ancient society burdened by protocols,
rules, hierarchy, (female) subserviency, and individual yearning for
ascendancy.
The theft of the blade is purely the work of Jen. However, the caustic
root of this crime lies in the heavy burden of
contempt that the society places on females at that time. While Shu-Lien
(the female warrior) was tasked to secure the
blade's passage to Beijing, the sword ultimately was assigned to Sir Te
(the epitome of male loyaty and honesty) for
safekeeping. In other words, women were the means, men were the ends of
every important task and event at hand, in
that period.
Such strict social observance must had become an annoyance to Jen, who for
many years had been trained in the art of
male-hatred by Jade Fox, who herself was spurned by the zero tolerance
'no-female' standard of formal Wudan training
secrets. In short, the theft of the blade is a "hate" crime -- a mischief
of sorts aimed at embarassing the male ego. What
would a man do if he were to lose his phallus? And a rare green one at
that :)
Jen, who for years had been trained to "kick over" Wudan mountain, exacted
partial vengeance (or so she thought) by
possessing the phallic symbol of the greatest male Wudan fighter of that
time. The hatred of Wudan is however tempered
by awe and admiration of Mu Bai. A conflict within a conflict within a
conflict.
In Jen's character, we see complex soul-searching confusion and
recklessness within the tiny frame: uneasiness and fear by
surpassing her own teacher's skills, sexual escapism with Lo but less
admiration for him, envy on Shu-Lien's singlehood
and freedom to roam within a man's world but jealousy on her soul-bond
with Mu Bai, crush for Mu Bai but uncertainty
as a prospect of being his disciple. Whew! We will be talking about this
for the next couple of years. Jen's character alone
has spawned a thousand theories!
The crush on Mu Bai is unmistakable. Even men in the story and the
movie-going audience have fallen for him. He is the
epitome of every men and women's dream -- solitude, self-sufficient,
strong, retiring, secure, superlatively skilled, and still
sexually capable. Men want to be him; women want to be with him -- but not
as his disciple. This was exactly what was
going through Jen's young and impetuous mind. Lo was good for sex, but Li
was the ultimate prize for the vengeful game
of a post-pubescent girl aspiring to be "goddess" of the sword and wanting
to squash all things and traditions that had a
male origin.
By winning over the top male and possessing his phallic symbol (which he
was willing to discard due to his higher
transcendance), the ultimate and eternal war of the sexes and the
transcendance over yin and yang forces could be won.
A sexual equilibrium in the universe was at stake. A pioneer is born.
KalElFan
"Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> writes:
>There is no magic in the film -- only levels of enlightenment and
>skill that the characters have learned from their Wudan training.
On the other hand, you can't learn to defy the laws of physics,
and the characters defy the laws of physics with the "flying".
Calling it "magic" is not really unreasonable, because there
is that apparent fantasy element. Besides, it's good for for
box office! :-) (Not to mention spin-offs. Let's see those
Wudan warrior handbooks and action figures dancing
across treetops. Heck, let's have a sequel where we see
the Wudan version of Yoda.
Norman Wilner
news:20001228071353...@nso-mi.aol.com...
Wasn't that Chow?
I stand by my argument. The movie is a fantasy, absolutely, but there's no
magic in the world it creates -- it's all rooted in the Wudan training. The
characters perform extraordinary physical acts because they've learned how
to do them. There's an argument for potential, of course -- that's why Mu
Bai wants to help Jen develop her skill and keep her from becoming a
"poison dragon", rather than a force for good -- but people don't just
start casting spells of ability or anything like that.
jfun...@my-deja.com
He portrayed Master Wong to perfection. He was only 25 years old then
and played a role who was well respected wise and mature and kickass.
He was so successful that the movie spawned at least four sequels.
IMHO, the first and second are both masterpiece much better than CTHD.
>The role of Li Mu Bai
> is a very matured middle-aged master trying to retire. Jet Li is too
young
>
> for the role and his acting is only so-so. I don't thinkg Jet Li
would have
> been
> very convincing for the role. It would have made it as a more action
movie
> with
> less dramatic and poetic or artistic feel.
>
>
Wei Han
to compare CTHD with the best martial art movies in terms of martial art
effects and with the best romance movie/drama in terms of drama acting,
then to say CTHD is worse than the best martial art movie and the best
drama. The combination of two totally different genre is the unique thing
in CTHD.
Personally I would give a 9 to its martial art part and a 7 to its drama
part. But it is the first movie I saw that has pretty good performance
(maybe not the best) on both fighting and romance.
It is also non-sense to compare CTHD with Once Upon a Time in China, the
legend of drunken master, and Fist of Legend in terms of martial art
effects because actually they have different styles of fighting. There are
two types of fighting in martial art movies, one is more realistic,
hand-to-hand battle, such as Fist of Legend, the other is
defying-physics-law-style, such as New Dragon Inn, Sword Man II.
CTHD obviously belongs to the second category. People have different
tastes on the fighting styles. When you prefer the first style to the
second one, it is understandable that you don't think CTHD is good enough.
For Jet Li, frankly I don't think Jet Li showed us his acting talence yet.
I am not saying he cannot act. Maybe he can. But he didn't have a good
chance to prove it yet. Most Jet Li's movies do not have much acting
performance. Few exceptions include Jet Li's Enforcer and The Defender,
but the acting is not impressive enough to make me believe he is an acting
star instead of an action star. The most important, he never portrayed a
successful matured lover. (Think about Romeo Must Die, it could have been
better if Jet Li and Aaliyah had more chemistry. Unfortunately they
didn't. I was laughing so hard when Jet Li said "I miss you" or "I love
you" after Aaliyah found him coming from the window.)
jfun...@my-deja.com wrote:
--
Phone: 404-367-9287(H)
404-894-8791(O)
Fax: 503-217-7495(E-Fax)
404-385-1253(O)
-Wei Han (wei...@cc.gatech.edu)
KalElFan
"Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> writes:
>>Heck, let's have a sequel where we see the Wudan version of Yoda.
>
>Wasn't that Chow?
Nah, Chow can't be Yoda because Yoda didn't even show up
until the first sequel. Not to mention Chow's bigger than Yoda.
Chow's probably Obi-Wan. I say there's a little 112-year-old
guru who used to teach at that Wudan school, and he's Yoda.
He's got the secret to all the flying stuff, and has a bookshelf
with all the wuxia novels in English. Strong with the translation
is he.
Norman Wilner
> In article <D7H26.34153$59.99...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>,
> "Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> writes:
>
>>> Heck, let's have a sequel where we see the
>>> Wudan version of Yoda.
>>
>> Wasn't that Chow?
>
> Nah, Chow can't be Yoda because Yoda didn't even
> show up until the first sequel. Not to mention Chow's
> bigger than Yoda.
>
> Chow's probably Obi-Wan. I say there's a little 112-
> and he's Yoda. He's got the secret to all the flying stuff,
> and has a bookshelf with all the wuxia novels in English.
> Strong with the translation is he.
You know, I kind of like the idea of Ewan McGregor playing a young Chow.
Websurfer
They are good action films with good stories but nothing like a serious
drama in CTHD. Just like any other action stars, Jet Li's acting is only
so-so.
lord...@seed.net.tw
>
> I've seen other Chinese movies and films with action like these shown in
> CTHD so I'm not impressed at all. As a matter of fact some of action
> scenes seem lame here compared to other films. There are flaws in the
> flight scenes as somebody mentioned before.
What other films?
Those made by Hark Tsui?
Tsui is talented in expressing trascendentalism, but his films never
have enough human emotitions involved. That's why critics
are raving about CTHD. Maybe it's a matter of personal taste that you
think CTHD isn't as good as previous Chinese action films.
Action is not the key in CTHD.
Ang Lee can make any film genre great and express the same old
philosiphy universal in every culture -- interactions of human beings.
. So the Chinese subtitle really doesn't matter.
lord...@seed.net.tw
> Guess you haven't seen Once Upon a Time in China Li did ten years ago.
This kind of HK flicks reveal some level of a wrong way of dealing
racial conflict.
And the main character (which is supposed to be superior to other in
mental maturity) hold a philosiphy of "an eye for an eye" hatred. Like
previous works Jackie Chan made in HK.
In a word, no depth. India make a lot of this kind action film too.
But HK and India did make some excellent films, but small percentage.
> He portrayed Master Wong to perfection. He was only 25 years old then
> and played a role who was well respected wise and mature and kickass.
> He was so successful that the movie spawned at least four sequels.
> IMHO, the first and second are both masterpiece much better than CTHD.
I personally believe Jet Li can portray Mu Bi perfectly, but not
because of his real KungFu background, but his character in life.
He and Chow are both Taurus, which is a constrained type in real life.
Harvel Keitel and George Clooney are Taurus too, you can see
what roles they fit in their works.
It's just that Jet Li has ever been used in films this way before.
And Jackie Chan -- who has real Kungfu background -- would have the Li
Mu Bi character a complete flop. So it's not just Kungfu that matters
in CTHD.
lord...@seed.net.tw
wrote:
> > If the sword was supposed to
> > symbolize something, I couldn't tell what. --Lia
>
> I saw this review at Yahoo Movies and found it very interesting.:
> http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=MV&action=m&board=12172484&tid=crouchingtigerhiddendragon&sid=12172484&mid=266
>
>
>
>
> ================================================================
>
>
> Complex social, sexual, and individual conflicts all bound into a movie
> and beautifully executed -- kudos to Ang Lee and
> his insights on philosophy, myth, legend, and history.
>
> Some spoilers below...
>
>
>
> IMO, Li Mu Bai's blade is a phallic symbol -- a symbol of male dominance
> in an ancient society burdened by protocols,
> rules, hierarchy, (female) subserviency, and individual yearning for
> ascendancy.
Why does everything has to do with phallic symbolism.
So what symbols vagina affection in CTHD? The sheath of the Sword?
Gee...
Websurfer
I do agree the green sword represents the male dominance at that time.
If you read the whole review, it is actually a quite thoughtful review,
not a cheap horny talk that it seems to be.
Luke Croll
But what you're saying is a sheer impossibility. These people have done
Wudan for a long, long time and they are very good at it. However, no amount
of martial arts training can make you fly up walls, over roofs or through
the treetops. This is unquestionably a magical element.
--
Luke Croll
The alt.books.dean-koontz FAQ can be found at:
http://www.hildbede.freeserve.co.uk/faq.htm
John Harkness
wrote:
It's less a magical element per se than it is a genre element -- it's
what people in this style of movie do, much the way that gunfighters
in old Westerns have phenomenal accuracy with handguns that were
notoriously innacurate.
John Harkness
Mark Reichert
news:3a4cdf1d...@nntp.attcanada.ca...
> It's less a magical element per se than it is a genre element -- it's
> what people in this style of movie do, much the way that gunfighters
> in old Westerns have phenomenal accuracy with handguns that were
> notoriously innacurate.
Like in "Support Your Local Sheriff"?
--
Please respond only in the newsgroup. I will not respond
to newsgroup messages by e-mail.
Norman Wilner
news:92im8k$r44$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> wrote in message
> news:D7H26.34153$59.99...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
>> but there's no magic in the world it creates -- it's all rooted
>> in the Wudan training. The characters perform extraordinary
>> physical acts because they've learned how to do them.
>> There's an argument for potential, of course -- that's why Mu
>> Bai wants to help Jen develop her skill and keep her from
>> becoming a "poison dragon", rather than a force for good --
>> but people don't just start casting spells of ability or anything
>> like that.
>
> people have done Wudan for a long, long time and they
> are very good at it. However, no amount of martial arts
> training can make you fly up walls, over roofs or through
> the treetops. This is unquestionably a magical element.
As John has pointed out, the gravity-defying element is a factor of the
genre, the same way Jim Carrey can fall out of an airport's gangway in
"Dumb and Dumber" without shattering every bone in his body.
Soaring over rooftops is not considered magical within the reality of the
film -- it's something you can do if you've trained for it. When Shu Lien
first sees her adversary vault over her head, she observes that she must
have studied at Wudan, and that's all the movie needs to say.
Linda Yang
Altshuler) wrote:
>I couldn't see it as a grand battle between good and evil;
>no one seemed adequately motivated.
CTHD is not a film about grand battle between good and evil. That is
the common theme in Hollywood ovies.
> If the sword was supposed to
>symbolize something, I couldn't tell what. I did enjoy some of the
>scenery and cinematography, but mostly I was dissatisfied.
Sword in CTHD has two meanings: it represents the self and
development of self, and it is also a male symbol.
trotsky
Norman Wilner wrote:
>
> "KalElFan" <kale...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20001228071353...@nso-mi.aol.com...
> > In article <wSs26.29016$59.87...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>,
> > "Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> writes:
> >
> >> There is no magic in the film -- only levels of
> >> enlightenment and skill that the characters
> >> have learned from their Wudan training.
> >
> > On the other hand, you can't learn to defy the laws
> > of physics, and the characters defy the laws of
> > physics with the "flying". Calling it "magic" is not
> > really unreasonable, because there is that apparent
> > fantasy element. Besides, it's good for for box office!
> > :-) (Not to mention spin-offs. Let's see those Wudan
> > warrior handbooks and action figures dancing across
> > treetops. Heck, let's have a sequel where we see
> > the Wudan version of Yoda.
>
> Wasn't that Chow?
What the hell is a Yoda anyway? The Star Wars films had more trouble
making sense within the context of their own reality than any other
film(s) you can name.
Paul J. Adams
news:dZv26.18706$7.76...@quark.idirect.com...
>
> I've seen other Chinese movies and films with action like these shown in
> CTHD so I'm not impressed at all. As a matter of fact some of action
> scenes seem lame here compared to other films. There are flaws in the
> flight scenes as somebody mentioned before.
What "flaws" are there in the flight scenes? And what expectations did you
have regarding the action scenes, that led you to judge the action as
"lame?"
This film clearly does not attempt to persuade the viewer that what he is
seeing is real. There is no intention to dazzle the audience with
spectacular, convincing stunts.
There are films like Wing Chun that present characters performing impossible
feats, but strive to make the feats appear real, based on the philosophy
that "seeing is believing." The directors of such films do what they can to
help the audience suspend their disbelief, even while the characters seem to
reverse themselves in mid-air, or do multiple flips on the end of a spear
shaft. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is *not* such a film.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon lets us know what to expect with the very
first scene of action. The leaping from rooftop to rooftop, the flying,
the running on vertical surfaces, is all done deliberately and obviously in
defiance of any standard of "realism." The filmmaker does not attempt to
persuade us that what we are seeing is really happening before our eyes, but
rather he chooses to lay bare the conventions of the martial arts genre. If
we can see this and accept this, then we can proceed to enjoy the film on
its own terms. If we continue to demand that the film convince us of the
reality of the action, then we are bound to be disappointed, because we are
ignoring the film's own declaration of intent... the film has already told
us not to expect realism!
What we should expect from that point on is a ritualized, abstracted
representation of action that has roots in martial arts films, but also
draws on the more primary source of theater, of Peking opera. In some ways
it's also like puppet theater. It is unlike theater, in that we get to
travel across the rooftops with the characters, but it is still theatrical
in that it rejects the cinematic demand for realism in favor of
abstraction... and therefore it is a sort of hybrid. Martial arts films
generally exhibit a sort of cinema/theater hybrid... but this one is
slightly more self-aware, more conscious of its theatrical roots.
You may protest that what you are looking for is not "realism," but rather
"better" or more impressive action scenes and stunts. But I would argue
that this is still a call for the cinematic equivalent of "realism," or
perhaps we should say more convincing illusion. Martial arts films that use
wire stunts do not want to persuade the audience to believe that people can
fly, not on an intellectual level, but on an emotional/visceral level they
want us to experience the sensation of seeing someone fly regardless of our
knowledge that such a feat is impossible. On this basis, you may conclude
that the action in CTHD is "lame," but only if you ignore the fact that the
film stands in defiance of that standard. It is a push in the direction of
greater abstraction, and when judged by the standard it sets for itself, it
succeeds magnificently.
Paul J. Adams
news:3A4C0F76...@nospam.com...
> It's a bit hilarious that he used the word "phallic" however
> I do agree the green sword represents the male dominance at that time.
The phallic symbolism in this case is quite intentional. Ang Lee has said
in interview that with this film he wanted to introduce the Western
tradition of psychoanalysis into the Eastern martial arts genre, so it's
certain that he was aware of the sword/phallus association. He has also
interpreted the title "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" as a metaphor for the
suppressed animal lust that subconsciously motivates the characters.