Mal dos Trópicos

This film crushed me to the bone, exhausted my heart, and I was never again the same. It brought back faith in the uncompromised vision of cinema. Its images will forever stay in my memory; the stare of the tiger, the smell of the tropical rain...this is sensory cinema, where time is freezed and narrative is stripped, and what's left is for us to finally feel. It is utopian, but it is also sad, because we realize that there is never (and never will be) a utopia. People say love is utopian, yet according to Mr. Weerasethakul, it is also very consuming, which becomes possessive, and at the end, a burden. At the end, the soldier goes into the jungle to find what's been consuming him. The tiger. He is lost and completely hopeless; he has no purpose without the tiger, yet he cannot possibly live with the tiger because of its nature. They are co-dependent; co-exist. Is that what great love is all about?

An exhilarating, confusing adventure. The first half of the film tells a love story, leaving small hints at the ways people can never really know one another. The second half uses a mythic tale and experimental style to explore that theme. It's an attempt to use film and storytelling to portray the feelings and instincts that human beings have but can't find words for. Exciting, but not for those who want everything wrapped up and defined (the film argues against the very possibility of easy definitions). I also highly recommend his two other feature-length films: "Mysterious Object at Noon" and "Blissfully Yours." Hopefully "Tropical Malady" will be released widely enough to get the attention it deserves, and hopefully one day "Blissfully Yours" will make its way to DVD.

"Tropical Malady" by Thai film director Apichatpong Weerasethakul is a haunting film that at times seems impenetrable. The director has played a trick on the viewer by changing the mood and the pace right in the middle of the film. We are led to believe that the soldier and the young man that are clearly attracted to each other will go on to share a life together, but no, Mr. Weerasethakul takes us to the jungle where the soldier is trying to catch the elusive and beautiful tiger.

"Tropical Malady" has been promoted as a gay film, which in a way, it is, but basically it presents a mystery that is never solved, although we know that in this case, the soldier is so obsessed with his opponent that they end up respecting one another.

My only reservation with the film is the editing. It could have used a bit of cutting to make it more accessible. As a point of interest, films like this one tends to irritate viewers and one watches as how a theater empties out because people don't want to sit through any more. On the case of "Tropical Malady" no one walked out, which perhaps it's saying a lot for a film that can tax the viewer's patience.

The jungle scenes at night are magnificently executed and perhaps the director will have more success with his future undertakings as he shows a sure hand in his direction.

I agree that the film is a little disjointed - things like the very long karaoke scene (what an awful song) I found tedious and unnecessary, but rationalised to myself that the director was trying to create a lighthearted, falling-in-love-and-life-is-so-sweet kind of atmosphere - something I think was done more successfully in the scenes of the couple at the movies, in the forest, etc. This almost lulls you into a false sense of security, though the temple scene foreshadows the dramatic shift in mood that comes with the latter part of the film. The jungle scenes are powerfully spellbinding, both visually and aurally, with their long spells of darkness and almost complete absence of dialogue and they, I believe, make up for any inconsistencies in the earlier part of the film. I saw this in the afternoon, and emerged from the darkness of the cinema and the jungle feeling absolutely intoxicated. I will never forget the tiger's face in the darkness - psychedelic and haunting.

Even if the first part is pretty "straight" forward the second part left me baffled - maybe that was the point?... I am almost certain that I can interpret it somehow but anything I would say might and can be wrong, that's because I am somewhat convinced it's a very Thailand "kind of thing", it being a folk story. I think it has something to do with greed, because of the little story in the first part with the two farmers and the little monk.

I am still mesmerized by Apichatpong Weerasethakul's approach to framing and camera work. I find it fascinating and boring but in a good way. It's like therapy, it's like really absorbing the nature or the setting. It's like an optical illusion sometimes, the longer you stare at a frame, the deeper you go, it's hypnotizing.

Of to the next Weerasethakul - but not right away. I will let this one settle in first.