Blissfully Yours

Please do not feel sorry for anyone associated with trying to make something beautiful. A film does not need to have a beginning or an ending, or an elaborate story, it can simply contain moments in time, it can be a visual sensation, this art form, like all, needs not be strictly defined. If you found Blissfully Yours boring, fair game. But this magnificent film put a smile on my face for much of the second half, because I felt what it meant for me to feel, this film is 1000% feeling, so it's great for those who can feel. When we step into nature we can truly suspend time. "Roong, what time is it?", "Wait, I'm still having fun."

The hype surrounding Apichatpong seems to me unwarranted. I am reminded of Roger Ebert's comments on Abbas Kiarostami and being utterly unconvinced of the value of his films.

First, there is no story. As soon as a story might be emerging, "Joe" (as he likes to be called these days) moves to something utterly unrelated. He has said that he conceives of nature as an opportunity for the characters to do some self-reflection. This sounds good, but there are no characters to speak of, and except for Orn, no acting whatsoever. No information is given about what they might be reflecting about, and story elements are allowed to vanish (like the distant gunshot).

The slowness itself didn't bother me, but the much-heralded Apichatpong can learn something from Tony Bui, whose first feature film "Three Seasons" is FAR better at the languid development than this. Or look at any of Ousman Sembene's films for the skillful use of dreadfully unskillful non-actors. There is just no excuse, in my mind, for such a self-important and ultimately inept use of non-actors.

User federovsky's comments are to me particularly perceptive. I give it 3; at least he is giving this some thought.

This second feature of Apichatpong Weerasethakul is more an experience than a story-dependent film. Something strange happens to your feeling for time while watching this two-hour long film: time seems suspended, absent. When 45 minutes into the film the opening credits suddenly appear, they come as a bit of a shock, because by then you are irresistibly drawn into the non-story.

The way this film treats time is reminiscent of several films by Taiwanese director Tsai Ming-Liang: long, drawn-out scenes, in real-time or almost, and with little or no dialogue. Also the relationship between the main characters brings to mind Tsai's films, more in particular 'Aiqing Wansui' with its triangular relationship.

'Blissfully Yours' is an impressionist rendering of a lazy afternoon in the mountainous border region between Thailand and Myanmar. Min is an illegal immigrant from Myanmar, who takes his girlfriend Roong for a pick-nick. They are joined later by Orn, an older woman employed by Roong to take care of Min.

One of the main ingredients in impressionism is the sun, and the sun plays an important though discrete role in this film also. It is present everywhere in the second part of the film, softly filtered through the canopy of the jungle, but also as a threat to Min who has a skin disease and was told to stay out of the sun.

What also filters through in the film is the political issue of Myanmarese immigrants in northern Thailand. The first half hour shows the three main characters consulting a doctor about Min's skin condition. Min, who has no papers, doesn't speak - perhaps because the doctor would refuse to treat him if she knew her patient was an illegal alien and not a Thai. And the doctor's refusal to give Min a 'fit-to-work' certificate unless he can produce official papers is typical of the administrative vicious circle so many illegal immigrants are caught in all around the world.

This makes for a stark contrast between the first and second part of the film, between grim reality and a dreamy, lazy afternoon that is bathed in light.

American audiences may feel uneasy seeing sex scenes that are neither censored, clinical, beautified or violent. Not recommended for viewers who require car chases and shoot-outs, or for those who don't like ants.

This is a film-school level concept with film-school level execution. Some of the scenes are so long and static I half expected a screensaver would kick in. Some people in this website have been trying to make sense of some of the scenes in this film, but I think those conclusions are illusory or wishful thinking, as is much modern art criticism. The real fact is, the film is objectively very poor.

Yes, this is certainly an art film, that is, it's meant to make us think about life rather than simply to entertain. The problem is, it is way too self-consciously an art film, the story is drearily paced (as if trying to be the most artsy film ever made by dint of its sheer slowness) and the execution is quite undistinguished (as if to say it is so artsy that it doesn't even have to try). Nothing is revealed by the film, no deep or hidden meanings - possibly no meaning at all except to show a few odd people having a rather odd sort of afternoon in the forest. Happy for some, sad for others. Nothing to make us think, except try to figure out what was the point of it all. OK it's art, but let's be straight about this: it's extremely poor art.

All of the characters are unendearing, and as we must assume that the director is not trying to disengage us from the movie completely, it must only be because the most basic elements of film-making are being eschewed (this may be done consciously, but for the most part I fear not). The acting is wooden (witness - oh deary me - the factory manager, who may well be a real factory manager, but who has obviously never been in front of a camera in his life), the dialogue is mumbled, and almost every scene is amazingly dislikeable. There is a voice-over at times from the Burmese character that adds nothing but confusion as to who (or what), the film is about. I felt nothing at all for the characters, but very sorry at times for the actors.

The whole thing finally grinds to a virtual standstill in horribly overlong scenes towards the end in which the characters emotions are summed up. The intention here seems to be to impress the images upon us by burning them physically onto our retinas, but basically, artlessness does not make good art, and these scenes just unimpress and leave us cold, as does the whole thing. I live in Thailand and watched this film with my Thai girlfriend and she can confirm that the movie did not provide any insights into the Thai character or Thai way of life. It is just a stick thrown into the air.

This cannot be what the director intended. No offense to him for having a go, but we can all do just as well with a camcorder and a few friends. The real laughing stocks are the film festival organisers who, like the modern art collectors who pay a fortune for bits of trash, were duped into thinking that this, being a slow film from an exotic country, was absolutely just the thing for us to sit and ponder over at their film festival.

Apichatpong Weerasethakul is exemplary in pointing to new ways of telling cinematic stories. Here he presents us with a beautiful canvas of cultural impressionism and profound poetic daubings.

Certainly not boring. Certainly not pretentious. And if you find it slow, then you need to readjust your perception of what 'narrative' can do. Slow is a relative term. The inference from some commentators is that slow equals languid and thus dull. But this is anything but languid or dull. It is a beautiful rumination, a poem of pace and intrigue and voluptuous sensitivity.

Sit back, relax and don't rush (where is everyone rushing too, anyway?). Be with the moment and enjoy the art of a magnificent filmmaker.