Apichatpong Weerasethakul

i almost basically did the same double bill at tiff!

I saw In Between Days last night, which I liked a bit more than either.

i want to see that for sure.

I want to know how to pronounce his name.

To the average American filmgoer it could rhyme with "Short Round" for all they care.

it's why he goes by "Joe"

Ha, I was at that Syndromes screening! I wonder if this is the dude who wanted to see the copy of Cinemascope I was reading? Cinephile secret handshake.

I really liked Syndromes, it was probably the first JOE film that I've just loved from beginning to end. Some of it was ridiculously beautiful. I know that it is somewhat of a cliche to talk about architecture and filmic space, but the way he shoots the two hospital structures really impressed me, particularly the first dentist's office (both day and night!). The only film that I've seen recently that used built environments so well was...I Don't Want To Sleep Alone.

We should do another thread about architects-turned-filmmakers (and vice versa), it's sort of an obsession of mine.

Or architecture STUDENTS, at least.

well, he lost me in the 2nd half, esp after we went up that steamy vent.

b-b-b-but that was at the end! =)

From your description, Morbz, it sounds like you were bored by the porn.

After his other films I expected a more difficult second half but it was fine, perhaps a little more fractured than the first.

Meta-porn

Not quite, Adam.

You mean IBD is a year and a half old, and it's played NYC before Montreal?

I mean that wasn't quite the end (exercise in the park)

Adam, you're a Patrick Keiller, right?

Patrick Keiller FAN

YES

I AM A PATRICK KEILLER

Yes, I am. And he trained at UCL as an architect I think.

Also, Antonioni may have studied architecture, but that seems so fitting that it probably isn't true.

And Rem Koolhaas used to be a screenwriter!

RS: How did your study of architecture inform your concept of cinema?

Apichatpong: I think they’re quite the same; it’s dealing with time. When you treat your audience, in architecture, they walk into the space, they experience the space, the light and shadow, by walking through time. So you design the space to evoke certain feelings and certain reactions from the viewer. The same with film; you use time, but I think film is more forcing the audience to experience while sitting in the dark. So I think architecture gives more freedom in a way. But in terms of the filmmaker, making films has more freedom, because it’s more abstract. And you don’t have to give in much on the practical use of the space.

Wikipedia says Antonioni studied economics!

OK, fair enough. =)

Are we agreed that the likely pronounciation of "Apichatpong" has less possible variations than that of "Weerasethakul"?

Dr. Morbius said: After one viewing?

how many times do film critics see a new movie? in this months film comment, amy taubin sounds like she's seen Zodiac, like, five times.

well, I've found that in writing about films -- esp the more 'open' seminarrative ones like AW's -- one viewing is often inadequate. (For one thing, I misremember sequences, dialogue, etc.)

Dr Morbius, do you write about films?

under the radar, oui.

i could only see it once. and it's not like i was gonna be like "wow this movie totally blew me away i should see it again just in case i actually don't like it"

anyway, i almost always only see a movie once before writing about it cuz i don't got any other choice.

yeah, which is why I write notes like a motherfucker for the half-hour after the screening.

i very often write my reviews like... half an hour after the screenings anyway.

(xpost: ie, wait til yr my age)

"wow this movie totally blew me away i should see it again just in case i actually don't like it"

I think that is a desirable mindset!

it's just never practical!

and honestly... if my 2nd impression of a movie is different than my 1st i don't think it necessarily means it's more valid

It doesn't usually amplify? "Joe" takes a second look, esp Malady, I found.

i watched woody allen's Manhattan four times last week and every time i saw something new.

(this is not supposed to be shocking or sarcastic)

You didn't pay all 4x did you?

(I'm assuming you went to Film Forum)

Taking notes in the dark is the real grind, especially when you'v efound that you've written over a previous entry.

I tend to note things like actorly gestures, throwaway moments, and what used to be called "mise en scene," sprinkled with what bon mots a scene or actors inspire.

i just never take notes. i am world's worst note taker.

oh, I'd never take notes IN the theater. I've seen Gavin Smith of Film Comment doing that, tho, w/ his penlight.

and i guess i can agree that multiple screenings can deepen your appreciation or understanding of a movie. i mean, who wouldn't? but i didn't feel i needed that with "syndromes" any more than any other movie, apichatpong's peculiarities notwithstanding.

OF COURSE Gavin Smith has a penlight

i mean, who wouldn't?

Pauline "I Only See Movies Once" Kael

You didn't pay all 4x did you?

DVD from the library. Srry, film forum..

(i was sick all week)

hahaha, Gavin Smith with penlight non-shocka.

Nathan Lee is New York-based, right? I always look out for his articles..

Taking notes in the dark is the real grind, especially when you'v efound that you've written over a previous entry.

I can never read what I've written, but just the act of note-taking usually helps me remember specifics better than I normally would.

nathan lee is nyc-based, yes. also: YOWZA

(hi poortheatre! good seeing you last night.)