liangdong

A delightful piece to watch, although small, it lacks no dramatic impact at all. It tells a kingdom of can people whose peaceful life is disturbed by frequent coup-d'¨¦tat and subsequently the policy about what kind of fruit or vegetable should be stuffed into people's mind (the can): tomato, pepper, lemon and so on. As well-known phenomena of twenty century, mass are capable of following blindly their leader's capricious mind and doing absurd things when acting in such a collective consciousness. The notorious example of this maybe fascist Germany and militarism Japan but the reign under Stalin and Mao bear same characteristics. However, we should note that it is not actually the fault of the leader who is crazy or devil or satanic. The problem should be more correctly addressed to, deep inside people's mind, some unknown psychological weaknesses of average human being. Maybe this is the reason why some people watching this film feel uneasy.

Unlike 1984, with its nostalgic style, this film is more direct and compact and hilariously straightforward. To make people laugh is maybe the only good way to let them face this human disease. And we have to say this is really a good laugh, not by abusing others, which is the commonest form of jokes people enjoy, but by depicting earnest people doing foolish things.

The idea of can people is by itself very originative and throughout the film there are proves of artistic imagination everywhere. Two scenes impressed me: one rebellious guy being beaten to flat by policeman jumping onto him and a couple of lovers being carried away prior to their sexual attempt.

The film goes as the summary tells but it is much more than that. Otherwise it would be another boring idea with no details. The major focus is on the lunch, other meals appearing to be only preface and epilogue, which is pacing faster and faster to reach a point of craziness at one time dumbfounding and mesmerizing. The contest and contrast between two diners are not on how fast we can eat but on what can be eaten and how do we eat them.

This short piece is a good example because the audience feels that it refers to something which cannot be clearly identified, thus allows for multiple explanations. You can substitute 'eat' with various other words, to see what you get there, and you are no where near the director's idea. Maybe he didn't have one at all!

This is the peak of Takeshi Kitano's film career and also an all-time favorite of my personal collection. Even if I am not watching the film, I have always been rehearsing the sequences in my brain on Joe Hisaishi's wonderful score.

Although his film has risen to such height, which means, expressing one's personal world perfectly using artistic media, Kitano is not much talked about outside Japan or Asia, compared to Woody Allen, also once a stand-up comedian and had been enthusiastically hailed by European audience especially French since 90s.

Is it probably because a lot people dislike violence and prefer New York elites talking from beginning to the end? Hardly so and most likely just the opposite. Then it must be that people are uneasy to face or comprehend those acts of violence permeated by Oriental Silence (see my comment on Brother for further discussion on this point).

It is easy to understand that Akira Kurosawa is a great director, just like Steven Spielberg in USA and ZhangYiMou in China, both happen to be big admirers of the former. But talking about auteur film, theirs are far from it. It is easier to understand their works since they are open to the extent of almost flat. On the contrary, an auteur film is not so inviting and stands in front of us like a giant monster before we have any clue where they came from.

It is like Nietzsche with all his originality and self-assurance but hard to be placed right amid European philosophy history, whose existence could only be imagined outside an institutional hierarchy.