West 32nd (2008)
Oh, I wanted to like this film. Michael Kang's first film 'The Motel' was unsatisfying but still promising, and the casting of John Cho and Grace Park certainly peaked my interest in this one. But lord, I just didn't find it compelling whatsoever. Reflecting on exactly why it didn't do it for me though, I realized that 90% of the reasons are what frustrate me about AsAm, and frankly, indie cinema in general...
1) All Mood, No Plot - 'West 32nd' looks great. There it is. The opening DePalma shot was well executed and definitely set up the impending mood of intrigue and urban menace quite well. And that's it. The story was without any foundation, the relationships between certain characters were completely unresolved and lord, the lapses in logic were just glaring.
*warning: spoilers*
For example, why exactly did Mike find it necessary to take out the owner of the Room Salon after Lila had warned him of Suki's testimony? Killing Suki I understand but how did the owners of the Salon affect his involvement in the initial crime to begin with? And why establish that there were security cameras in the facility and then have the gratuitous and hilariously cliched shot of Mike taking off his mask, in full view of pretty much everyone? And wouldn't the Korean mob be entirely pissed that one of their upstarts just decided to murder anyone who was in their way? Wouldn't that actually alarm them? Isn't hierarchal order an essential component to effective criminality?
*end spoilers*
But really, these were the thoughts going through my head *while* I was watching the film, which is never a good sign.
2) The Acting
Seriously now, was it just me or were none of the actors actually acting? Outside of the scene where John Cho has a gun pointed at his face, he did about as much emoting as Paul Walker in 'Into the Blue'. The greatest thing about watching outstanding acting is that you can actually feel the characters move through their development (ie anything Tony Leung is in) rather than having it telegraphed to you via
3) The Pedestrian Dialogue
I mean, really, it's always a bummer when everyone in a film basically speaks the same way. Outside of the comedic relief, you get such zingers as: 'I never should have trusted you.' or 'Stay out of Queens'.
4) Trying to be Ruthless but never going far enough.
How about we all stop trying to be post-modern and knowing about plot and get back to some ol Greek tragedy happenings like 'A Simple Plan'? Now, that film shook me up...
*spoilers again*
The ending. Come on now. Who gave a crap if Suki died? And that's what sent John into the cynical end of the pool? Please. It would have made more dramatic sense, in establishing the cold ending, if Lila had died, or something like that. Then, the weight would have been felt rather than telegraphed?
And how is that Mike didn't have a smatter of blood on him after he whipped Suki to death?
*end spoilers*
Sigh.
Pretty much, what was most glaring to me is that the character of Mike, who should've exploded off the screen (ie Gary Oldman in 'State of Grace') was pretty milquetoast and bleah.
I'm determined now to do something about this. Jon, I'll be bugging you soon so best be prepared to avoid my impending pitch at all costs.
1) All Mood, No Plot - 'West 32nd' looks great. There it is. The opening DePalma shot was well executed and definitely set up the impending mood of intrigue and urban menace quite well. And that's it. The story was without any foundation, the relationships between certain characters were completely unresolved and lord, the lapses in logic were just glaring.
*warning: spoilers*
For example, why exactly did Mike find it necessary to take out the owner of the Room Salon after Lila had warned him of Suki's testimony? Killing Suki I understand but how did the owners of the Salon affect his involvement in the initial crime to begin with? And why establish that there were security cameras in the facility and then have the gratuitous and hilariously cliched shot of Mike taking off his mask, in full view of pretty much everyone? And wouldn't the Korean mob be entirely pissed that one of their upstarts just decided to murder anyone who was in their way? Wouldn't that actually alarm them? Isn't hierarchal order an essential component to effective criminality?
*end spoilers*
But really, these were the thoughts going through my head *while* I was watching the film, which is never a good sign.
2) The Acting
Seriously now, was it just me or were none of the actors actually acting? Outside of the scene where John Cho has a gun pointed at his face, he did about as much emoting as Paul Walker in 'Into the Blue'. The greatest thing about watching outstanding acting is that you can actually feel the characters move through their development (ie anything Tony Leung is in) rather than having it telegraphed to you via
3) The Pedestrian Dialogue
I mean, really, it's always a bummer when everyone in a film basically speaks the same way. Outside of the comedic relief, you get such zingers as: 'I never should have trusted you.' or 'Stay out of Queens'.
4) Trying to be Ruthless but never going far enough.
How about we all stop trying to be post-modern and knowing about plot and get back to some ol Greek tragedy happenings like 'A Simple Plan'? Now, that film shook me up...
*spoilers again*
The ending. Come on now. Who gave a crap if Suki died? And that's what sent John into the cynical end of the pool? Please. It would have made more dramatic sense, in establishing the cold ending, if Lila had died, or something like that. Then, the weight would have been felt rather than telegraphed?
And how is that Mike didn't have a smatter of blood on him after he whipped Suki to death?
*end spoilers*
Sigh.
Pretty much, what was most glaring to me is that the character of Mike, who should've exploded off the screen (ie Gary Oldman in 'State of Grace') was pretty milquetoast and bleah.
I'm determined now to do something about this. Jon, I'll be bugging you soon so best be prepared to avoid my impending pitch at all costs.
posted by Jienan @ 1:08 AM
3 Comments:
At 2:21 PM,
Jon said…
I would say that a lot of the suggestions given would make the film more classical in structure / development...which would work, I think, only if you had class-A talent all across the board and tons of bucks. Given that this is more of a quirky / low-budget film, I was more inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt.
I'm glad to see plots and characters that develop in unexpected ways, even if they're not the ideal in terms of emotional payoff. Actually I'm not even that bothered by uneven character behavior, since (unarguable tautology coming) people are complicated and don't respond programmatically to bad situations.
But it's all POV I guess and some people expect more from the art they consume, and I can't argue with that. As Jerry Seinfeld said: "If I wanted a long, boring story with no point to it, I've got my life."
At 3:03 PM,
Jienan said…
All of this would be true if I, in any way, felt that it was remotely e filmmakers' intent. But, give the precedent of 'The Motel', it's obvious that Kang just relied on style over substance. Instead of being 'Pulp Fiction', it was 'Killing Zoe'.
One thought... people don't always have the same responses to situations but if you're putting together a linear story with a really cliched plot-line, then yeah, it has to at least make *sense*. Otherwise, go more abstract and focus on the behavior itself and the plot will write itself. WKW pulls it off everytime... people go all over the place emotionally but you experience their journey with them, regardless of the situation they're in, so it still makes sense...
At 2:18 AM,
Jon said…
There's definitely a higher yardstick I wasn't holding this movie to when I saw it, but probably should if I'm to have any realistic expectation of it succeeding outside of the festival circuit.
Post a Comment
<< Home