Die Spur des Schreckens

Edward Yang is not the romantic type. In fact, The Terrorizers shows us romance as a crime. To use your partner for your own gain and thus robbing them of themselves. A man consumed by his identity as a cog in the capitalist machine has no chance of finding himself after he's used, been used and consequently drenched without him even knowing it. He no longer exists.

This movie is so philosophically sound, and its beauty lies in its loyalty to its message. The theme of terrorizing romance overlaps in every single frame of the movie. A wife leaving her oblivious, ignorant husband is the same as a hooker robbing her customer.

I think what we learn from this movie is that for a relationship not to be a crime, a collective direction is needed. The young girl knows this. Don't steal things from each other, steal together, from others.

When the protagonist's outburst was seen as natural, the cruelty of director Edward Yang was clear at a glance. It is a classic practice to use accidental events to stimulate daily conflicts, and the effect of this film is very effective. The convergent but the wonderful performance from actors matches the realist style of the story. For most of the time the film is in a state of extreme restraint, so the brief empathize in the ending was magnified. As a result, some of the slightly tardy parts of the film can actually be forgiven.

Edward Yang is one of the few filmmakers who can made the present-day seem like a dystopia. He is often compared to Antonioni: this is his 'Blow-up' - an ascetically formal, fragmented murder mystery stumbled on by a photographer. In his use of dream narrative and a character who writes a mystery novel, Yang goes beyond the Italian in narrative obscurity. 'The Terroriser' shares many themes with his more accessible masterpieces 'A Brighter Summer Day' and 'Yi-Yi' - the alienation of capitalist, urban life; the alienation of relationships and aimlessness of youth; the mind-numbing compromises and betrayals in the workplace - but in a framework that coldly precludes identification.

There's an interesting visual grammar at work in The Terrorizers, consisting of its approach to framing, movement, and pacing. The film is one of the better demonstrations of how images can serve as the basis of a conceptually rich experience. People and objects, because of how they're framed, because of the moment at which we encounter them and because of the light in which they're cast, evoke an atmosphere. In The Terrorizers, even a normally prosaic, and ignored, thing like, say, a staircase or foyer, is imbued with aching suggestiveness.

After ho-hum reactions to YI YI and BRIGHTER SUMMER DAY, this is the first Yang movie that I liked. The interwoven plot threads slowly reveal themselves in pieces, culminating in a finale that pulls everything together and yet opens up new mysteries. There is some fine cinematography, and the themes of alienation and disconnectedness give you something to chew on. However, I really can only appreciate this on an intellectual level. For me to really love a movie, I have to have some kind of emotional reaction to it. It has to be touching, or amusing, or exciting, or frightening. Like a lot of Antonioni (whose name repeatedly pops up in the reviews of this film), it only left me cold. Only one scene (when the writer weeps in her confused husband's embrace) had any kind of emotional resonance with me. I don't mind a film that makes you think, but there has to be something else to hook me in and encourage me to give it thought. For those who love cinema on a more intellectual level, however, I imagine this would be more rewarding.