Apichatpong Weerasethakul

weird coincidence that you brought up interviewing him on that uwe boll thread yday though!!

very weird.

I have powers I don't even know about yet.

Ask him about bringing shame to his parents

Ask him if he's into lanky, tall redheads.

Syndromes... was my favourite of last year.

also

hi adamrl!

hello you

anthem!!!!!

yes, what a camera lap.

i just saw tropical malady.

it was good. it reminded of something my football coach used to say to me: "that's like trying to fuck a tiger with a wet noodle."

Just watched Syndromes and...well, it underwhelmed me. The transitions, such as they were, didn't make sense to me. I still got the DVD, so I may rewatch it. Anyone want to discuss their experiences with it.

?

I've only seen it once, and my reaction was a shrug:

http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/movie_review/syndromes-and-a-century.htm

i loved it. really, really loved it. i don't think i have much to say about it though.

or rather, i don't think i could adequately express why it affected me.

I have owned this movie for a while now and keep putting off the "now's the time to watch" evening. I worship Tropical Malady though and have had some correspondence with him - would pretty much work for free to be part of some of his stuff, I think he's an artist of genuine vision

SPOILERS in as much as syndromes can be spoiled:

i saw it at the pictures with a few other people and we all came out thinking totally different things - all positive, but just with so little in common in terms of how we'd received it. i kinda forget exactly what happened/didn't happen now, but so much of its consideration of family went straight over my head.

kinda comparable to one of the claire denis films of the last ten years in its lively ending too

i think they are similar in many ways. esp l'intrus.

man, he has never baffled and annoyed me the way L'intrus did.

i loved it

i thought it was beautiful - funny - strange. it made me laugh out loud. i loved the way the village settings looked, the colours, the blown-out windows and late afternoon light.

i knew i was watching something at least a little cryptic and personal, but i didn't feel shut out - i felt welcomed

i really want to see "anthem". is it a film they show in the cinemas or an installation piece?

"i felt welcomed"

so OTM

i saw anthem at the cinemthque quebecoise

"phantoms of nabua" which is AMAZING i saw in a museum

why doesn't he put these shorts on his website? (I ask not knowing if he has one)

come on morbs u of all people should understand there's a difference b/w a cinema or a gallery and a web page

yeah, but we get to see the shorts in NY every 3-5 years or so!

i was actually in toronto when "Phantoms of Nabua" was on and i didn't even know about it ;_;

I did love the use of light -- the sunlight coming through windows, coloring the actors in soft, almost pastel hues. The monks were funny.

I dunno. I'll rewatch it, but I prefered Blissfully Yours (even with its longeurs) and especially Tropical Malady.

online premiere:

http://www.theauteurs.com/notebook/posts/1406

cool. i saw that, liked "phantoms" better but it is worth seeing.

Nice! Will watch when I get home.

thinking about syndromes, which i just saw a few days ago, i think there are the dualities morbz talks about in his review above, most of which have featured in earlier films of his -- nature vs. civilization, the pagan vs. the scientific, love vs. loneliness, tradition vs. modernity -- but i think it's less about their opposition than their coexistence, and the blurriness of the boundaries between them. the doctor diagnosing the monk as the monk diagnoses the doctor, the chakra healing in a room full of artificial limbs and medical equipment, etc. and maybe the overriding or undergirding false opposition is the past vs. the present, then vs. now, which actually always inform and shape each other -- and which fits with the idea that the movie is about his own parents, whose lives in the past were necessary to produce his in the present, and that he carries their stories consciously or unconsciously inside himself.

but i've only seen it once, seeing it again would probably help rearrange some of that.

also, i think it's a really good movie. it brings together and focuses his themes and his whole personal vocabulary.

I was at Toronto's Cinematheque last night for Syndromes and...I feel bad; I slept through half of it. It wasn't the film. I should never try to see something on a worknight, especially anything subtitled. I sit down, settle back, remind myself to stay awake at all costs, then immediately start drifting. Anyway, I liked what I saw, and I'm hoping it turns up again on a weekend. Fantastic ending.

where is s1ocki's interview?

http://www.montrealmirror.com/2008/061208/film1.html

email interview so a bit blah but

ty!

"Phantoms of Nabua" is showing in the gallery at the bfi southbank for you london folk.

Anyone been lucky enough to see Uncle Boonmee?

i can't wait!

just watched "a letter to uncle boonmee" kind of couldn't really see what i was watching though (e.g. the bugs) on this screen.

OK, have just seen Uncle Boonmee. And I think dude has lost me with this one. There's no way to explain why but I just wasn't into it like I was with Tropical Malady, Blissfully Yours or Syndromes and a Century. Whereas for all his other films I can still very clearly remember some beautiful images/scenes, I feel like that won't be the case with this one (ok maybe that strange strange scene involving the princess and the catfish).
I will admit that Apichatpong Weerasethakul is still on a roll with his movie titles with this one though.

Short film about the censorship of Syndromes And A Century in Thailand by Apichatpong's assistant director:
http://thaifilmjournal.blogspot.com/2008/08/12th-thai-short-film-video-festival_30.html

Warning: this post has spoilers regarding "Uncle Boonmee" (though I don't know if you can actually spoil a movie like this)!

Those of you who have seen Uncle Boonmee, can anyone explain what's the deal with this movie? I haven't seen any other movies by Apichatpong Weerasethakul, so maybe this one makes more sense when viewed in light of his previous output, but I just don't think I got it. I've nothing against slow, arty films, weird narrative structures, nor evocative nature scenes, so it was not like I was predisposed against a movie like this, but I just didn't see what was so special about Uncle Boonmee. Here's some questions/thoughts that went through my mind while watching it...

Why did the movie end with scene with Tong and Jen living two parallel lifes, one in the restaurant and one in the hotel room? Did that have something to do with the reincarnation theme? And why did the Weerasethakul spend so much time with the dullness and lifelessness of the hotel room, or with Tong's shower routine? Was the point of that to show how gray city life is compared to the life in the jungle? (I felt like the scene where Tong the monk checked his mobile phone in the mosquito cage was trying to do something like that.) But in order for that to to work, the jungle scenes should've been colourful and full of life, and IMO most of them weren't. There was a few nice compositions of the forest, but mostly it was just lifeless, stationary shots of trees, with no particular sense of mystery or vitality. The only times the movie felt vibrant was with the ghost scenes in the beginning, but in the end it got kinda boring just seeing the ghost woman and the ghost monkeys, and nothing else. Other than that, everyone in the movie was acting laconically and speaking in monotone regardless of what happened, and I just didn't understand why it was like that.

And what in the name of god was the point of Uncle Boonmee's dream of the future with still images of soldiers and monkey men? Seriously, wtf was the deal with that? Was it supposed to be a allegory of Thailand's politics? Who were the monkey men supposed to be?

I doubt anyone can answer these questions, but I just wanted to get them out of my head, because Uncle Boonmee was seriously one of the most confusing and seemingly pointless movies I've ever seen, and I was wondering if anyone else got something out of it. I agree with Jibe that the scene with the princess and the catfish was pretty much the only memorable part of the movie, but it didn't feel like it was connected in to the rest of it, except for the vague reincarnation theme. (I guess the princess was supposed to be one of Boonmee's former incarnations?)

I haven't read your post because I haven't seen the film, but going on his other films, it's probably a little fruitless to try and make sense of everything.

Yes, AW movies are far more intuitive than cognitive.

http://www.animateprojects.org/films/by_date/2009/phantoms

but going on his other films, it's probably a little fruitless to try and make sense of everything.

I get this, and I would've been fine with the movie if it there'd been some gut-level beauty or sense of wonder in the movie, but except for a few isolated scenes (involving the ghosts and the princess), there wasn't. It felt like the movie was intentionally laconic and monotone, and I didn't understand why. Also, with all the talk of (illegal) immigrants and the still images of soldiers, it felt like there was a political angle to the movie as well, but it remained equally obscure.

i get an experience from Joe's films that i've never had from any others. i'm not entirely sure why i'm so moved by them.

Not to be a total apologist, but he might have some good reasons for making gestures towards the political rather than outright statements. I do think that there are political motivations in a lot of his films, but they're just part of the soup along with everything else. It's a strange tendency given recent events in Thailand, but I get the vague sense that this is how a lot of Thai artists roll.