Chihwaseon

Not sure why the other comment on this film was so negative, but I loved this movie. I am a student of Asian art with a particular love of Korean art, culture and history. I thought this movie borough a very controversial and interesting character to life. Jang Seung-up is one of the (maybe the most) famous Korean artist and continues to be revered as a master. Given the tumult of the time in which he painted and his own conflicted nature, it is amazing that he produced so much work, in so many styles and with such skill. This movie honors his talent while taking a direct look at his erratic and somewhat self-destructive personality. The cinematography in MY opinion was beautiful, many of the outdoor panoramic shots looked like Korean landscape paintings (which I found a lovely conceit rather than "overly arty") and I think that Choi Min-sik portrayed Jang Seun-up with a necessary intensity and unpredictability. I would highly recommend this film to art lovers and movie lovers alike.

Wow, What a wonderful film-making! Mr. Im has done it, again!

His last work, ChunHayang (2000) was a great film, but this one is even greater. Selected as an official feature film in the Canne Festival for the second time in a two-year row, this 66 years old director is getting better and better at what he is making of with a Korean culture.

Simply, Chihwaseon is about a great Korean painter, '(Ohwon) JANG, Seung-Up' who was considered as a prodigy in the late Nineteenth century. The basic story of this film tells the life of Jang, Seung-up, and the historical background of his time. He was an orphan, but in his teens, he was picked up by a noble man, called, Kim, Byung-Moon. This Mr.Kim becomes a mentor of Jang as well as life-long friendship, and continues to support his great talent that he knew in the first place. With Jang's great effort and natural talent, his fame grows faster and faster as the strength of his country, Korea falls down.

Jang's personality portrayed in the film is very complicated, and one of the best actors in Korea, Choi, Min-sik goes deep inside of Jang's soul. Suffering eyes reveal the struggle of a great artist's life. He is very serious sometimes, but all of sudden, he changes to a wild maniac. He drinks like an alcoholic, and sleeps with courtesans anytime. Even, he said in the movie, "without an alcohol and a woman, I can't draw. (An alcohol and women are my only inspirations)" In the peak of the fame, to develope his own style, he travels all around the country, and never gives up his pride as an artist for the authority or money. I don't want to give out every details, but I think you surely did get some ideas about the film.

The most amazing thing about this film is a cinematography. It is just so breath-taking how they captured every beauty of landscapes. Yes, each scene is like a work of Jang's painting. And the script is perfect, too. It mainly deals a deeper meaning of what makes a true artist. For example, Kim advices to Jang in the movie that 'before one holds a paintbrush, one has to set an aim in life'. This is very moving and inspiring line, and there are many more.

Go See this Film if you are going to be in the Canne Festival.

Chihwasun will be the greatest film ever made that deals with the life of a painter in film history.

What a movie! I have always liked the Asian style of shooting, and this movie does not disappoint at all! Photography is breath-taking, ranging from amazing landscapes to whirls of colours. The main actor is really realistic in representing the painter (whose paintings are astonishing). The ending is also very well chosen, very poetic. The only remark is that they should have maybe shown a bit more deeply the connection between his inspiration and his abuse of alcohol and women. But altogether this is an excellent film!

Nobody, least of all me, will argue about the visual beauty of this film. It is very well done with majestic scenes of nature as well as tight claustrophobic shots of a tormented man at work in his shuttered studio. As a period piece it comes across as very authentic, and I give it high marks for its sets & costumes. So why didn't I like "Painted Fire"? Because I feel if you're going to do a film about an artist (or musician or writer or poet), of utmost importance is to convey exactly what drove, inspired and influenced the artist.

Excellent examples include "Amadeus" (1984) which showed Mozart being propelled by arrogance and perhaps moreso by his need to please and/or escape his domineering father. Or "Frida" (2002) shows that Frida's Kahlo's grotesque, often self-deprecating sexual paintings were the result of her dysfunctional romance and sexual subversion by her husband/mentor Diego. These films seek to explain the idiosyncrasies of the artists' works by digging deep into the personality, the psychology and the philosophies that drove the artist. That's why I like to watch films about artists--to get insight that we don't learn from textbooks.

Here in "Painted Fire" it felt more like a textbook reading of the life of Ohwon. It shows his base beginnings as an orphan who, in adolescence, joins the house of an aristocrat. Abruptly jumping ahead 20 years, it shows him as a frustrated drunk. He fights hard to divest himself of his vulgar origins but always swings back to his uncooth nature (drinking, womanizing). But why? What made him act the way he did? And how did it imprint the themes of his art? Not much of a connection is made; the man is shown to suffer from demons, but we are never shown what these demons are nor how they influenced his art. There are a few scenes where a peripheral character is whispering in the background about the symbolism in Ohwon's art ("The bird symbolizes freedom..."), but that's more of a broad cultural analysis rather than an analysis of Ohwon's psyche.

I am a fan of Ohwon's paintings and have always been hypnotized by how beautifully he painted animals and the majesty of trees. In my mind I fashioned a painter who found great solace and order in nature while conspicuously avoiding human subjects. This could have been a great point to investigate in the film. Did he love animals? Did he fear humanity? None of this is in the film, and none of his paintings are explained. We just see a drunk, crass man who possesses a rare artistic talent. What a missed opportunity.

Again, contrast this against, say, a scene in "Immortal Beloved" where Beethoven's reclusive genius is exposed as the result of his shame of being deaf and struggling to keep it secret. At the same time Beethoven is shown to have a great capacity to love, but explosively bitter when love is unrequited. In a scene he loses the love of his life because his carriage gets stuck in the mud on a stormy night, and as we watch the man's torment we hear his music "Apassionata" in conjunction with the frantic beating of the horses' hooves. Every work of art has its particular motive, and it's always fun to learn what that motive is.

"Painted Fire" does not give us motive. It left all my questions about Ohwon unanswered, presenting only a visual representation of what I already read in biographies. It gives us a good feel for what it was like to be alive in Korea in the late 1800s, it paints the culture and political unrest of a nation in flux. But none of this really seems to affect Ohwon. He is just a particle awash in this cinematic sea.

I can definitely see how it would win at Cannes because, on a technical level it should wow any film connoisseur. But on a literary level--meaning the act of telling a story and theme--it did not satisfy me. For that, I return to the works of Kurosawa, Teshigahara and even modern Asian masters like Takeshi Kitano, because I love their ability to incorporate cinematic prowess with the poetry of thought. "Painted Fire" was not an unpleasant experience, but I can't say it did anything exceptionally good for me.

This movie could be a bit boring for some people, but I find this film

very interesting in terms of an attempt to reveal a tradition.

The director, Lim, has made two films about traditional music in Korea before this film. The film before this one was showing the music throughout the film, and this film is trying to achieve similar things by having backgrounds in the movie just like a painting.

Another thing is that, the story is written by both director and a philosopher, Kim who is well known scholar in Korea (holding a lot of degrees - including doctor at Havard) I'm not saying that educated people make better films but that philosopher is an expert in traditional culture in Korea, so it gives more credit on this film.