| Feb 19 2008 |
Johnnie To's SPARROW screened at the Berlin Film Festival and the first round of American reviews hit the internet like this. Variety's Derek Elley praises it for its casual, breezy charms and calls it, "...a skittish, playful divertissement that looks set to divide his loyal fanbase." Elley also compares it to Johnnie To's THROW DOWN only without the "gravitas." Screen Daily's Lee Marshall adds more ice to the soup saying, "...in the end the plot and the characters are too thin to turn a series of delightfully stylized setpieces into a fully satisfying film."
In the face of these mostly positive but relatively lukewarm reviews, the German press is downright astounding. Timo was kind enough to send this in and do the translation so I'm using his words here:
The Berliner Morgenpost says that SPARROW resembles the innocence of the Nouvelle Vague, and even argues that Johnnie To has been unfairly criticized for aspects Wong Kar Wai is frequently lauded for.
The Tagesspiegel says the film has a phenomenal showdown and is a welcome change of pace for To; as warming and musically enjoyable SPARROW is, the next logical step for To should be a musical.
Berlin Online says the film has a very moving story whose warmth comes from its lack of psychological elements.
Popular German online magazine Film Starts argues that SPARROW is OCEAN'S ELEVEN done better, focusing on style rather than excessive production values; a fantastically shot and very charming movie.
Kino-Zeit calls it a lovely homage to french gangster comedies of the 50s, a stylistically perfect and virtuosic film that bestows the viewer with pure joy.
The latter two reviews also say that To would have deserved the Golden Bear for the film, but that's unlikely to happen since the film is arguably too easy-going and unpolitical to win a heavy and prestigious prize.
I think the Wong Kar-wai comment is particularly on the nose. Wong and To both use mood and style as valuable modes of expression, treating character psychology and narrative as just two more pieces of a singular cinematic experience they're trying to create. They use all the tools in their arsenal to make movies that are complete works of art, rather than making their movies simply vehicles to deliver a narrative. But whereas Wong has his feet in emo romance, To has his in macho genre. He's who Wong Kar-wai would have become if AS TEARS GO BY was his true starting point, rather than a false start which gave way to DAYS OF BEING WILD, the movie that Wong and critics embraced as his "real" first film.
To is also engaged in something way beyond just telling a story (not that there's anything wrong with "just" telling a story - too many filmmakers have no clue how to do even that.) He's writing a history of Hong Kong through his recent movies, trying to capture its essence before it's gone. Whereas some people regarded the triad rituals in ELECTION 1 and 2 as boring digressions or moments where the plot slowed down, to To they were essential parts of his movie: recording these real rituals was as important as telling the story of his made-up characters. I haven't seen SPARROW yet, but based on interviews with To I wouldn't be surprised if the locations and cinematography, capturing the spirit of Hong Kong during a transitional period in its history, was as important to him as the plot twists in his tale of a pickpocket crew.
But while English-speaking critics (in general, not picking particularly on the two gentlemen mentioned above) fall all over themselves to touch the hem of Wong's garment, writing more and more articles on him the more boring his movies become as if they're trying to fill up the empty spaces he's giving them in a vain attempt to justify their love, Johnnie To movies, including THROW DOWN, his own personal favorite, are constantly being underestimated and dismissed. Peddled as disposable genre flicks, bombing at the box office despite good reviews or being completely misread by critics who have no context for his movies (the UK reviews for ELECTION were particularly embarrassing for that country) To seems doomed to break out of the genre ghetto everywhere else but where English is spoken.
And, in a way, isn't that what happened to Jerry Lewis?
(A big thanks to Timo for the translations and for sending this in)
© Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.berlinale.de/en/arc...html#5663
i saw the movie and thought it was great. pure joy and really satisfying to watch.
-His unapologetically mercenary attitude towards much of his career. Sure, he's not just supporting himself when he makes anything involving Andy Lau, he's supporting his whole production company. And the straits that the HK industry is in is such that he has to do some jobs merely for the paycheck, but hey, real artists shouldn't have to lower themselves to making commercial, accessible films so they can pursue their passion projects, and they shouldn't be so blatant about being a gun for hire. Just like Steven Soderburg, or Guillermo Del Toro, or Paul Greengrass, or Alfonso Cuaron, or David Cronenburg or all those other artists who never, ever sell out... oh wait.
-He's prolific, too much so even. Anybody who clears more then 20 movies within a decade can't possibly be taken seriously, why should he? "You mean I've got to watch like, 30 flicks by the dude before I can get a fully rounded opinion about him? Eff that, I'm gonna stick to Terrence Malick and Frankie Coppola for my serious critical appraisal, who at least have the good taste and decency to space out their efforts by a decade or more." Other chronic workhorses like Woody Allen and Takashi Miike don't usually get the props they deserve either, but that's a whole nother story.
There's more to say, but I've said enough by now. Cheers all.
Your argument regarding Wong and To is interesting. I'm not sure I agree with it though. As a fan of both directors (here I'll admit liking Wong's works a bit better) I think that To doesn't want to take the same arthouse path Wong is following. He sure is more productive. I agree that most of his films are works of art and his cinema should be more highly regarded. But shouldn't that be independent from what any one says about the films of Wong?
Btw I found Thrown Down to be a very romantic film.
In my mind that speaks volumes about how To is seen in the eyes of English-speaking critics. Sure, it's partially the fault of international distributors as well, because a showpiece like Exiled is more profitable than something like Throw Down, but everytime I see To compared to Woo or just regarded as a "genre guy", I have to laugh and cry at the same time.
That being said, I think the Election films did raise eyebrows here or there - they're pretty much his critical breakthrough, and even though not universally appreciated, they got high scores at Rotten Tomatoes, showing that many English critics do like them. You could still argue that he is still only working within the constraints of genre cinema, but then, what is "genre cinema"? You can turn this into a pretty philosophical discussion at this point. But either way, thanks for posting - good to know the Germans are loving it.
Variety Asia RSS
Kaiju Shakedown RSS