World of Wong Kar Wai

[therewillbeblus]

I'm not an expert in this area, but I wonder to what degree it has to due with rights or resources. Can WKW bar Criterion from releasing a version if he's involved in changing it to the way he wants it to be presented? Is the extra work in restoring previous versions and working with the director on the new ones (especially if he's against the former being released) feasible? Naturally I agree that they should include both purely on ethical grounds (hell, I'll absolutely watch WKW's meddling versions for an amusing vacation as long as I can depend on the originals) but there may be other factors prohibiting a neutral plate of options.

It probably doesn't help that the "will they, won't they" anxiety in Criterion's consumer base pertaining to the contents of the set has gone untreated with silence throughout the last year. I'm not saying I expect Criterion to come outright and alleviate anxiety on whether 2046 or Ashes of Time will be included, but it's been a sketchy road without the usual signposts and doesn't seem to be letting up in that dept.

[soundchaser]

The only precedent I can really think of for this is Criterion including the silent version of The Gold Rush against the Chaplin estate's wishes, but in that case the director is long-dead.

[mhofmann]

I also heard a rumor that Wong replaced 'California Dreamin'' in Chungking Express with 'Dani California' for, you know, reasons of modernization. Needed a new sound!

Kidding aside, I'm mentally preparing for a set without Ashes of Time or 2046, and with a meddled-only version of Fallen Angels... helps keep the disappointment in check. All probably due to licensing rights issues and being contractually bound.

[therewillbeblus]

I also heard a rumor that Wong replaced 'California Dreamin'' in Chungking Express with 'Dani California' for, you know, reasons of modernization. Needed a new sound!

I was laughing at this nervously until I accepted that it was definitively a joke, which is incredibly sad that there could be any doubts there

[Calvin]

Wong's director's statement. The restoration note regarding Happy Together is particularly jarring. "As a result, I had to shorten some of Tony Leung’s monologues" ...couldn't he have just subbed in the footage from an inferior source. It's already had a Blu-Ray release!

[soundchaser]

If I were a big fan (I'm not, at least not yet), I'd be most upset about the "Credits" section of those notes. His justification elsewhere seems at least philosophically consistent, but if the originals aren't available alongside these "restored" versions then what is the point of reminding the audience that both exist?

[cowboydan]

This is looking like a disaster from the standpoint of film preservation. Way too many changes with Fallen Angels, Ashes of Time, In the Mood For Love (color grade), and now Happy Together too. I wasn't worried before about As Tears Go By, Chungking Express, Days of Being Wild, or 2046, but now I'm bracing myself for more negative changes. I really hope at least some of these restorations can come through unscathed. Remember when restorations made film presentations better instead of worse? I'm bitter because Fallen Angels is literally my favorite film.

[therewillbeblus]

I join you in the anger over Fallen Angels specifically. I'm usually cool as a cucumber when this kinda stuff happens, but man, what an invalidating statement that asks the audience to cater to his changes as a filmmaker. I firmly believe that ethically when art is released, it becomes a communal product, where it's as much mine as it is the filmmaker's (which is a big reason why I don't care about consuming media made by a canceled person), and here is WKW asking us to meet him where he's at, rather than engage in a reciprocal, compassionate compromise. I'm glad I hung onto my copy of Chungking Express, but I'm not sure I can support this release.

[mhofmann]

Oh my, this is much worse that I had thought, all jokes aside. Wong is literally disrespecting his own works from a film preservation perspective.

[The Pachyderminator]

The one that just seems completely nonsensical to me is Happy Together. That footage is available, even if it would have to be taken from a release print or even just ripped from the previous Blu-ray. When your best source for a restoration is incomplete, obviously you go to the second-best source for the remainder, not just make random cuts.

[soundchaser]

Of course, it's still possible that the originals will be available in the set as well. I don't see how Criterion could justify presenting a version of Happy Together that's missing scenes present on a previous release. If they do, let me direct them to their own mission statement.

[swo17]

You mean the part where it says "as its maker would want it seen"?

[therewillbeblus]

Of course, it's still possible that the originals will be available in the set as well

I'm not optimistic since those were clearly not restored with WKW's help, so unless Criterion shove on unrestored versions or go behind his back to do the work independently, it just doesn't feel to be an act within the rhythm of the ethos he's putting forth.

[soundchaser]

You mean the part where it says "as its maker would want it seen"?

I thought about that, but to go further down this rabbit hole: Wong is arguing that he is not the same person who made the films originally, so he therefore shouldn’t have any say in how they’re presented.

[lucky_cloud]

Glad I have my Kino blus for Fallen Angels and Happy Together!

And what's this someone mentioned about the color grade for In the Mood for Love? Should I buy the 2012 Criterion standalone disc now rather than risk further disappointment?

Overall it's a shame that this highly-anticipated release may turn out to be such a letdown and missed opportunity. I am keeping my fingers crossed for no changes to 2046 at least...

[black&huge]

instead of writing out a longwinded reply of points which many of you already touched on and will toucn on I will simply say regarding WKW's statement about making changes:

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[dwk]

Since WKW is the licensor he'll have the final say on what is included for reasons beyond just honoring the filmmaker's wishes. So there is no chance of going behind his back and including the original versions if he doesn't want them included.

[whaleallright]

You mean the part where it says "as its maker would want it seen"?

I thought about that, but to go further down this rabbit hole: Wong is arguing that he is not the same person who made the films originally, so he therefore shouldn’t have any say in how they’re presented.

yeah, WKW's statement contradicts itself. he's both insisting that these new versions represent "how he originally envisioned" the films but also that the new versions represent a rethinking from "a different vantage point in my career" (i.e., now).

it's also disingenuous of him to imply that people's disappointment with Ashes of Time Redux was due to having previously seen the film only in "pirated copies" and/or "suboptimal exhibition venues" (sad lol). (as opposed, I guess, to the digital effects rendered in 720p in Redux?)


I look forward to the year 2046, when the AI bot responsible for programming the WKW retro at the Lights Camera Jackson Memorial Cinémathèque (on a small man-made island among the ruins of submerged Manhattan, accessible only by the private Tesla Bridge) boasts of the films having been "restored to their original versions"—rejecting the infamously botched versions the director made near the end of the first Trump administration.

[swo17]

Wong says they were caught in a dilemma but it really comes down to two options:

1. You present both versions. Fans approach your revisions with curiosity and may even come to prefer some or all of them on their own terms. They probably end up watching both versions more often than they would otherwise to compare and contrast, providing a richer experience. There is lively debate among fans as to which versions are better and in which ways.

2. You bury the original versions. Fans resent you and your changes. They probably don't even give them much of a chance. You've planted a seed saying that the original versions lack merit and it eventually bears fruit in a devaluation of both you and your work.

[Luke M]

I ordered a copy of the Artificial Eye Fallen Angels blu-ray. I just can't see the original versions being included. Hoping Chungking has the least amount of changes cause I sold my Criterion a long time ago.

[feihong]

I firmly believe that ethically when art is released, it becomes a communal product, where it's as much mine as it is the filmmaker's (which is a big reason why I don't care about consuming media made by a canceled person), and here is WKW asking us to meet him where he's at, rather than engage in a reciprocal, compassionate compromise. I'm glad I hung onto my copy of Chungking Express, but I'm not sure I can support this release.

What you've said here really reflects so many of the things I'm feeling about all of this. At this point the art belongs to the viewers as much as the artist, and the preservation of what people saw originally should have some bearing on how this restoration is undertaken. But I also want to say that the current WKW, who made these changes to the original films, has developed exceptional bad taste:

https://twitter.com/Nick_Newman/status/ ... 6527531008

Newman references the first shot of Fallen Angels here, now with uncomfortably tight framing and with the kind of color they put on a "vintage engraving" Christmas card. The frame is not just cropped, either; I overlayed the two images, and could only match them by horizontally stretching the original. It looks to me like even the cropped frames have the horizontal stretching applied.

So the stark, striking opening of Fallen Angels has been softened and really deprived of its effect. Now we'll see the figures at the visual remove created by the cinemascope frame, the grainy sharpness of the black and white muted by the attempt at color, but also weirded by the stretching. I guess it will still be a jarring opening, but for none of the deliberate reasons it initially was. More than the change of the meaning of this opening, what hits me first is the bad taste to colorize the film, to stretch and crop...so what he thinks he wanted at the time was an elegant, full-color, cinemascope version of this scene? Maybe it was a mistake to have black-and-white film in the camera at the time.

Also, it occurs to me that standardizing all of the credits on the films could mean a host of unhappy new changes. I wonder if the palm trees at the opening and closing credits of Days of Being Wild have been changed by this.

The Happy Together note is a second case of Wong saying the original material was damaged, so he's changing the way the film is cut (the first being Ashes of Time Redux). Apparently, the WKW original negatives are kept in the worst conditions available––but on both occasions this seems more like an excuse for changes than something real. As others have said on this thread, there are secondary sources for the missing parts of the Happy Together negative––and they should have been used in this case. This just smells to me like Wong trimming his film after-the-fact. The more wordy, poetic values of 90s cinema of the time giving way to a sort of slicker, "show-don't-tell" modern ethos. Rather than letting modern audiences adjust to the values of an earlier cinematic era as they watch movies shot at that time, Wong wants to adapt the films to what he perceives to be the general viewing values of modern-day viewers.

That's what it seems like to me, anyway. All of Wong's writing on the material seems disingenuous. All these "original desires" he had for certain shots and scenes are things he compromised on or abandoned during the shooting and editing phase of each film. Now the auteur has new digital toys in the restoration process, he wants to use these toys to bring the films in line with his original desires, his impulses and his visions before the scenes were shot––assuming he authentically remembers what those desires were. But the films weren't shot that way, or those ideas were abandoned in editing. The films are necessarily different from what he originally intended––as are all films every director makes, auteur or jobber––and making these changes robs the films of so much of their original energy, impact, verve, and value. Ashes of Time has literally never been the same since Wong revisited it, and it's been far the worse for it. People used to talk about Ashes of Time in the same breath as Days of Being Wild and Chungking Express. The movie as it stands now––with only the redux available––is generally a footnote in Wong's career. It's status has diminished, and it's my belief that's because the original version is so hard to see, and the revised version is a much inferior cut––one which makes the movie a lesser experience through and through.

I'm in the process of editing a graphic novel I mostly drew about 3 years ago. The drawing in the book reflects what I could draw at the time, and I've really changed and improved my skills in the last few years. So I am tempted to change things throughout the book, to reflect my better ability to draw perspective, my better ability to draw anatomy, etc. And in all fairness, I have redrawn a few panels of the piece, here and there, when the action of the panel wasn't clear, and I felt I could realize it more clearly. So I can understand Wong's impulse, as (he feels) a more sophisticated filmmaker, looking back on his previous attempts and feeling as if they don't represent his personal artistic potential. I could even say that these panels I'm altering better reflect my original vision for the pages, that was hampered 3 years ago by the fact that I couldn't draw this panel or that panel as I meant to do. But I'm also reminded of an art teacher's advice, when I told him I wanted redraw about 3/4s of the book, since I was a demonstrably better artist now. He replied that it wouldn't have the same energy as it did at the time. He implied it would be a lesser book for being transmuted in that way, and when I imagine the redrawn book I think he's exactly right about that. It's something I think applies to WKW's films as well; when first released, they had a slapdash 90s energy to them, and their beauty was casual. Wong's "Final Word" on the restorations is so maddeningly insulting, implying that we all saw inferior versions of his films in the past, and that the past can't be recaptured, so why even bother––just look at these movies as new movies, and it'll all come clear. Wong saw Sin City, so in the new Fallen Angels he colored the jukebox only in some of the black-and-white footage. Great. But those decisions aren't in great taste, and by changing the aesthetics of the originally released versions of the films, they take some of the energy and verve the films had at the time and repackage them as...really as contemporary manipulation. It's hard to see these changes as more or less than that. And to go back to my graphic novel for a bit, and the changes and revisions I'm making now––I haven't published the book yet. When it is published, I understand that to be a cut-off point, where the art is what it is, and the writing is what it is. It reflects my mindset at the time of making, pretty much. It retains that energy, as far as I can see. After the book is published, I won't go back to it and rewrite it, no matter how much "better" an artist I feel I've become. It's strange to me that Wong doesn't recognize that cutoff point––I mean, he clearly does, which is why he brings up the idea in the "Final Word" section that everyone saw Ashes of Time on bootleg, or in some crappy theater where they'd...recut the movie? And so none of those viewing experiences were "authentic" to his auteurist vision for the movie. Why encase his reason for recutting in all that bull if he doesn't understand the notion that the film has, in fact, passed into popular lore in its previous form? Wong seems to me blinded by the digital toys at his disposal now; the choices he's making on these restorations are blatantly inauthentic revisionism, but he's decided to couch that in the language of "original intent," which to my mind is pretty cowardly. It seems to me insecurity is driving his choices in these restorations, along with the new freedom to basically do whatever to the footage during the restoration phase. It's a shame that only voice that matters in the preservation of these films seems to be Wong's.

[Michael Kerpan]

Feihong -- Thanks for your rant. While WKW is (or was) definitely a "genius" -- he has (almost always) aggravated me to some extent -- and this irritation has only increased over time. Your comments, thankfully, are far more comprehensive and useful than any I could write nowadays.

[hearthesilence]

1. You present both versions. Fans approach your revisions with curiosity and may even come to prefer some or all of them on their own terms. They probably end up watching both versions more often than they would otherwise to compare and contrast, providing a richer experience. There is lively debate among fans as to which versions are better and in which ways.

And Criterion has been done this in other similar situations - Mr. Arkadin comes to mind - but there's nothing in Wong's statement that makes me think he'll let them do that.

[Big Ben]

I suppose the one question that should also be raised is what happens when these new versions become the only versions readily available and people's collective experiences of these films come from these new versions? Not something I like thinking about all that much.

[hanshotfirst1138]

In a post Lucas/Cameron world, I am now much more reticent to accept “director approved” changes to much of anything. I’m not as sure about this set as I was. I may still buy it, but I’ll wait for reviews first.