I was lucky enough to catch an early screening of this film as part of a benefit for SIFF. I was less lucky with respect to finding free parking at Seattle Center - but all in all it was a decent way to spend a Sunday afternoon. For those not familiar this is the new film from Ang Lee with a lot of buzz and at least one festival win under its belt. I found the visual style enjoyable and the star is certainly (very) easy on the eyes. Many of the performances were also strong. But at the end I wasn't really sure what to make of it. I'm starting to think that Ang Lee just isn't my cup of tea. Great stuff to look at on the screen, but it always seems to feel like something is missing. I remember liking the Ice Storm but after that it seemed downhill. I dozed off during Crouching Tiger. Brokeback Mountain was more interesting for sure but just didn't fall into my list of faves for that year. Of the recent ones I think I liked Lust, Caution best - though I clearly missed something key regarding the characters motivations.But (like the film) I'm starting at the end. Who would have thought joining a local theater troupe would turn out to be (just slightly) more dangerous than a love of rough sex?
We watch the story of a woman who takes part in a plot to assassinate a Chinese collaborator during the Japanese occupation of that country. As you might guess from the title it's her job to seduce him so that he lets his guard down. As you can probably also guess from the trailer the assignment takes a toll and makes her question the mission. The film has a distinctive look with some online comparing it to the works of Kar Wai Wong. I haven't seen much of his work but did see 2046 a few years ago at SIFF. Tony Leung Chiu Wai plays the official that Wei Tang must lure to his death. He was also in 2046 and might be why I was also felt there were similarities with Kar Wai Wong's work. In the end though I think the style of the film and the mannerisms of the characters does invite the comparison.Wei Tang is a Shanghai native who escapes to Hong Kong during the war. Her father has left for England leaving her alone. She takes part in a theater production of patriotic Chinese materials. You're given the distinct feel that it has more to due with an attraction for the director than anything else. Before long the acting on stage makes way to a plan to use their skills to kill a collaborator. Must say, I didn't see acting as a gateway to political violence but maybe Bill O'Riley is off somewhere nodding his head saying, "I told you so." Either way, I think the (intended or not) warning of the title applies more to this theater director than her later, more sexual relationship.
So up until know I've made it clear I was a little disappointed and hinted at some sex. The film is rated NC-17 mostly for sex I'd guess (though there's a scene with some violence as well). Nothing really more extreme than your teenage kid has seen on the internet. Assuming he didn't just stick with the tamest fair. If you love Ang Lee see it - but if you read on I may give a little more away than you'd like.
Potential spoilers below - somewhere just shy of New Yorker style badness in giving away key points
The story is told mostly through flashback with Wei Tang remembering how she found her way to Shanghai. The above mentioned plot in Hong Kong doesn't work out well, but three years later she's able to pick up her invented identity in Shanghai. The original plan was to seduce the official. When they meet again he's in an even bigger, more collaboratorish post and of course still in need of killing. He's played as a cold man who offhandedly makes reference to what his job entails (violence, torture, etc). It's hard to not side with the resistance a bit. The film really had me in the beginning. But eventually I was looking to understand why she so easily took up with the resistance. If the second half of the film hadn't taken place I'd probably have put the title to her mistake in letting unsatisfied feelings for the theater director get her mixed up in the big plot. However, at some she does succeed in capturing the interest and lust of her target. When I first saw a trailer for this film I had the impression she simply developed feelings for him because he was nicer/sweeter/better than his post would make you think. But their first physical encounter is pretty far from the warmest on film. It's direct, brutal and looks less than satisfying. To call it "rough sex" is perhaps understating what goes on. Many would interpret it as closer to a rape. Since it's not entirely consensual (given this is her assignment) I suppose that may have been intended. Either way she goes on to sleep with him a number of times more. The later scenes are somewhat explicit for a mainstream movie - though do serve a clear purpose. They're shot in an honest way - though I have a hard time calling them particularly erotic. Can't exactly put my finger on why. The best I can figure the films overall motivation - the pleasure she evidently experiences in the later encounters cause her eventual decision late in the film. Can't say I understand it, but it sure is depressing overall. I won't give away anymore. Definitely not the feel good hit of the fall, but if you don't mind a bit of tragedy it's not the worst way to spend 2.4 hours. Oh - it's subtitled in case that makes a difference. :-)
I may have some more updates later. I keep thinking I missed something and perhaps it'll come to me. Or maybe I'll read it what that is on a better blog. ;-)
Something tells me I'm still going to see the next Ang Lee movie. Maybe it's just the feeling that I want one to feel as good for me as the hype says it should...
