"Everyone who goes to 2046 has the same intention, they want to recapture lost memories. Because in 2046 nothing ever changes." So starts Wong Kar Wai's magnificent tale of the intersection of love, space and time, "2046." The movie focuses primarily on Chow Mo Wan, played by Tony Leung. It also shows the tangential stories of others that give his context and texture. The film is a followup to "In the Mood for Love," which was delicate look at two neighbors who find companionship and comfort in one another as they come to the realization that their own spouses are carrying on an extramarital affair with the other's.
Visually, Wong has created another powerful film using limited lighting and darker tones to infuse it with sensuality. The scenes take place in confined spaces that lend intimacy to the characters and bring us closer to them. The lack of space also suggests the confined nature of their lives where their actions are limited and movement dictated. Science fiction is a leitmotif that movie plays with, mainly due to the imaginative possibility that it holds for characters who are lacking in it.
"2046" finds Chow, no longer the cuckold, a playboy who writes by day and parties with friends by night. Bai Ling, played by Zhang Ziyi in a magnificent but largely overlooked performance, enters the story very early and quickly becomes Chow's main love interest. It is through Chow's relationship with her that we understand what he has become by this film, a man held by the past yet so scarred by it as well that his heart is no longer open.
2046 has become a metaphor for Chow's life and is the films primary leitmotif. It represents the quest for missed opportunities and moments. Characters find love in the film but they do not recognize it or embrace it typically until it is too late. And once they discover what their inaction or slow response has cost them, they try and recapture it, their lost memories, an impossibility by the very definition. But the person whose love was unrequited by the delayed response time of the object of his/her affection is equally doomed. At one point, Chow reflects, "I slowly began to doubt myself. Maybe the reason she didn't answer was not that her reactions were delayed but simply that she didn't love me. So at last, I got it. It's entirely out of my control. The only thing left for me...was to give up."
And thus we see driving forces that dictate the hopeless and endless wandering of the characters in the world that "2046" presents. One person falls in love and while the other is delaying, he/she gives up. The other slowly comes to realize what he/she had and has now lost and begins the quest to recapture it, a quest that will bear no fruit. Yet though the person who loved first has moved on, he/she hasn't really. As Chow recounts, "I once fell in love with someone. I couldn't stop wondering if she loved me back. I found an android which looked just like her. I hoped she would give me the answer." In seeking out new lovers, the person seeks to decipher the past, but this too is impossible. By the end, the film's ultimate message on moments and seizing them when they are there, rings profoundly true: "Love is all a matter of timing. It's no good meeting the right person too soon or too late. If I'd lived in another time or place...my story might have had a very different ending."
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
The Democratic Triumvirate (and the others) Debates
CNN scripted Sunday night’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire – there are the Big Three – Senator Clinton, former Senator Edwards, and Senator Obama – and then there are the rest. The three were positioned at the center of the stage and were allotted the majority of the time to respond to questions and debate issues.
Hillary handled herself quite masterfully. She displayed her policy knowledge (particularly on the question of having English as our official language) and her political agility. She cast herself as the nominee and matriarch of the Party almost, reminding the crowd that the Democratic candidates on stage were not so dissimilar, that the real differences were between the eight of them on the one side and the 10/11/12 Republican candidates and George W. Bush on the other.
John Edwards continued to antagonize his rivals, which is emerging as part of the dual strategy of his campaign – propose big ideas and take shots at the Democratic frontrunners. He chided Barack Obama on his healthcare proposal and criticized both Obama and Clinton on their lack of leadership on Iraq. Both times, however, Senator Obama rebuffed Senator Edwards quite handily. On the question of leadership on Iraq, the junior senator from Illinois reminded Edwards and all the viewers that he had opposed the War from the start, unlike Edwards who had voted to authorize it, and so Edwards was “4 ½ years late on leadership.”
Obama had a much stronger performance than he did at the first debate. He dealt with policy details well, especially on healthcare, responded forcefully when attacked, and showed some passion that has been lacking (indicative of his more reserved, contemplative Midwestern style) at times on the campaign trail. If he continues to show such improvement, Hillary had better watch out. His political skills have been a bit of a sleeping giant thus far on the campaign.
Kucinich and Biden did the best among the rest to distinguish themselves. Biden flexed his foreign policy muscles in a major way and also showed the most passion of any candidate when he addressed the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Kucinich continued to chastise Democrats for showing a lack of leadership on Iraq and healthcare. His calls for Democrats to cut off all funding did not seem totally crazy as he made a strong case for his reasoning. He still however comes off across as wimpish with his incessant calls for peace (perhaps an indictment on America and perhaps humans in general). And I still cannot decide whether his proposal for a “Department of Peace” reminds me of doublespeak or if it just seems like he is living with his queen Tinker Bell as king of the Faries along with Captain Hook, Peter Pan and the Lost Boys in Never Never Land.
Richardson continues to fail to impress, which is a problem for him. He is perhaps the one candidate who was not part of the trinity that could have broken into the top-tier. However, he also should be making a strong play for the vice president slot, but if he continues to stumble, it will become less and less likely. The good news for him is that there are still a lot of months left to pick his game up.
Hillary handled herself quite masterfully. She displayed her policy knowledge (particularly on the question of having English as our official language) and her political agility. She cast herself as the nominee and matriarch of the Party almost, reminding the crowd that the Democratic candidates on stage were not so dissimilar, that the real differences were between the eight of them on the one side and the 10/11/12 Republican candidates and George W. Bush on the other.
John Edwards continued to antagonize his rivals, which is emerging as part of the dual strategy of his campaign – propose big ideas and take shots at the Democratic frontrunners. He chided Barack Obama on his healthcare proposal and criticized both Obama and Clinton on their lack of leadership on Iraq. Both times, however, Senator Obama rebuffed Senator Edwards quite handily. On the question of leadership on Iraq, the junior senator from Illinois reminded Edwards and all the viewers that he had opposed the War from the start, unlike Edwards who had voted to authorize it, and so Edwards was “4 ½ years late on leadership.”
Obama had a much stronger performance than he did at the first debate. He dealt with policy details well, especially on healthcare, responded forcefully when attacked, and showed some passion that has been lacking (indicative of his more reserved, contemplative Midwestern style) at times on the campaign trail. If he continues to show such improvement, Hillary had better watch out. His political skills have been a bit of a sleeping giant thus far on the campaign.
Kucinich and Biden did the best among the rest to distinguish themselves. Biden flexed his foreign policy muscles in a major way and also showed the most passion of any candidate when he addressed the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Kucinich continued to chastise Democrats for showing a lack of leadership on Iraq and healthcare. His calls for Democrats to cut off all funding did not seem totally crazy as he made a strong case for his reasoning. He still however comes off across as wimpish with his incessant calls for peace (perhaps an indictment on America and perhaps humans in general). And I still cannot decide whether his proposal for a “Department of Peace” reminds me of doublespeak or if it just seems like he is living with his queen Tinker Bell as king of the Faries along with Captain Hook, Peter Pan and the Lost Boys in Never Never Land.
Richardson continues to fail to impress, which is a problem for him. He is perhaps the one candidate who was not part of the trinity that could have broken into the top-tier. However, he also should be making a strong play for the vice president slot, but if he continues to stumble, it will become less and less likely. The good news for him is that there are still a lot of months left to pick his game up.
The most important thing that needs to happen before the next debate is that the Dodd and Biden campaigns need to get together to coordinate wardrobes. If you did not catch it, both candidates were wearing the same tie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)