World of Wong Kar Wai

[feihong]

"I believe the sci-fi story was originally meant to be more prominent in 2046, but Wong insisted up and down that he had never actually set out to do a sci-fi movie and that was just the media extrapolating wildly from a few early photos of Kimura. The project all but originated as "another In the Mood for Love"—Wong was planning to do The Grandmaster next before the French coproducer on ITMFL proposed a sequel—and about half of it was shot during the later stages of production on ITMFL. Kimura's character and the sci-fi section was conceived as a kind of idealized self-image/future projection of Chow Mo-wan, though it's been a long time since I last saw the movie and I don't recall how much this came across in the final product."


That's interesting. I remember reading Wong saying at some point that his next project, 2046, was going to be a sci-fi film. I distinctly remember him presenting it that way––and I also remember Wong saying that mid-way through the production he decided it should be a sequel to In the Mood for Love. Of course, I don't remember where I read that, so it isn't proof of anything. I guess those statements don't preclude the situation playing out as you said; he could have been deciding that the 60s scenes would take over as the dominant narrative, rather than the meaning I interpreted from it years ago, which was that he was introducing those elements because the sci-fi ideas weren't panning out.

But I don't think it entirely invalidates my theory, either, because the sci-fi scenes in the film were, either way, meant to hold up at least part of the narrative of the movie, and those scenes really don't do that. So I think it could still represent a failure on Wong's part to realize a more vital sci-fi universe––a heretofore untested limit to Wong's imaginative scope, which he then recoils from––first by making the more familiar 60s scenario dominant in the movie, and then by going on to reconfigure Ashes of Time into a movie more in line with his then-recent 60s-period successes.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

Dug out the "Conversations with Filmmakers" volume on Wong (which is very good despite some poor translations for the Chinese-language interviews) and he gives an account closer to your recollection:

We had the idea for this around '97 during the handover because at that moment the Chinese government promised that for fifty years Hong Kong wouldn't change. 2046 is the last year of this promise, and I thought it would be interesting to use these numbers to make a film about promises. At the beginning we intended to make the film like an opera, with three short stories based on Western opera. By the time we got the financing and the production together it was already the end of 1999. At the same time we were working on In the Mood for Love, so at first it was two different projects. In the Mood for Love was a very simple story and we thought it would take two, maybe three months [to finish] and then we could start on 2046 again. But somehow In the Mood for Love took much longer than we expected, so we had to delay the production of 2046. Because the cast were very busy we had to work out the schedule again, but we also had other problems. At first we wanted to shoot in Shanghai, but we had to wait for the permits. By the time we got the permits, built the sets, got the cast ready, we had the problem with SARS.

[...]

One day when I was shooting In the Mood for Love in Bangkok in the hotel room, the room that Tony and Maggie spent their time in, I realized the room number was like 3-0-something. I said why don't we put it as 2046? At first it was like a joke, but for me, psychologically, the two films are related. Then the structure of 2046 began to change and revolved around this point. So now these two stories had something in common and the character played by Tony became the link between the two films. We didn't have this character of the writer in 2046; the original character was a postman.

In an interview given elsewhere (in Chinese) he said "Tony Leung was the protagonist from the beginning; the story is mainly about how this person feels reflecting on his past, so inside this character we have a person in his current emotional state, and then we have a person in his imagination in the future, and then we also have a person in the past." I would guess based on all this that the sci-fi story was originally to have been one of the three stories (perhaps set in three different time periods, as was one of the embryonic concepts for In the Mood for Love) and that Tony Leung played a character who would've somehow linked them together. I don't know where I read about the French coproducer specifically requesting a sequel so that might just be something else I muddled up in my memory; as I recall it, they were having issues with how long In the Mood for Love was taking and the notion of a sequel was somehow related to that.

[knives]

To play devil’s advocate as unpleasant as this is for those that love the earliest versions what Wong is doing is not unusual historically even if it is unusual in film. Literature, music, plays, and even the fine arts have always had artists continuously tinkering with their works removing old versions in favor of some new thing. There’s nothing aberrant or shocking, quality aside, about Wong’s actions.

Fair, but isn't this kind of ongoing tinkering with literature less likely to result in the original version becoming completely unavailable? If nothing else, books, unlike electronic discs, don't decay and become unreadable in a matter of 10-15 years. If a book maintains a certain stature over a long enough period, someone is likely to make its major variations available - so, for example, one can easily compare the various editions of Frankenstein or Leaves of Grass. It helps that reprinting a book is an easier task than releasing a film, even without a full-scale restoration. In cases where the originals do become almost impossible to find (it seems Marianne Moore is an example), and the originals are of sufficient interest and merit, as others have said, it's equally unfortunate as it is in cinema, but as far as I know this situation is both less common for books and more likely to be resolved eventually.

That’s certainly a possibility, but hasn’t happened in the cases I was thinking of, a bunch of medieval works and Juan Rulfo, where the originals are functionally lost or exist in only an incomplete version. Because of the corporate nature of cinema we’re not as used to this continual tinkering as with other arts, though as mentioned up thread the code, the Soviets being the Soviets, and The Shinning give us at least a few prominent examples from before home video.

My original situation was to sidestep the question of good practice by simply noting it is common practice and the idea that it is outside the artist’s right is a newer idea.


Also Blus, I haven’t forgotten you, just haven’t had the time to give a valid response.

[therewillbeblus]

Also Blus, I haven’t forgotten you, just haven’t had the time to give a valid response.

It's fine, I think this comes down to us having a disagreement in how to engage in discussions again based on different opinions of logical/illogical ties to context, so there may not be a point. Your comment, in the context of how I saw the arguments being put forth here, would be akin to someone posting that they were offended by a problematic depiction of content, and another poster coming in to say, "But other filmmakers have made (enter prejudice of choice) movies throughout history, so that's not aberrant." The reply has nothing to do with the subjective ethos being discussed, other than to invalidate it completely with objective sobriety away from philosophy and towards history, and (in my opinion) isn't fair play within the context of the argument (like, say, challenging the ethos of art belonging to everyone once created, or the nature of responsibility of an artist not appeasing to originalists, would be, for example). I don't see how a reply could validate a comment that was invalidating by design, but you're welcome to try, though I think we are simply seeing the argument in different contexts and likely to talk past each other.

[knives]

If you feel that way about it...

[Michael Kerpan]

knives -- Due to the nature of both technology and current copyright law, the possibility of effectively annihilating original versions of works is far greater today than it was in the past. No one objects to WKW's tinkering per se (even if we think it utterly stupid). The concern is that he can legally make the earlier versions basically non-seeable (other than private viewings of pre-existing copies) -- and he (and his estate's infinite -- for most practical purposes) control over the work may well ensure that only his mutilated revisions remain for posterity. In earlier eras, neither laws nor practicality made this so easy to accomplish.

[therewillbeblus]

If you feel that way about it...

I'm just being transparent about what I believe transpired, but by all means respond if you disagree with any parts of my statement. If you think responding to 'philosophy with history' is rational in this context, we simply disagree, as do we if you didn't think the argument was philosophical. My intention was to provide those possible reasons for this disagreement as likely avenues to chalk it up to a misunderstanding, but if my hypothesis is wrong and you meant something else I'm definitely interested in hearing that.

[knives]

knives -- Due to the nature of both technology and current copyright law, the possibility of effectively annihilating original versions of works is far greater today than it was in the past. No one objects to WKW's tinkering per se (even if we think it utterly stupid). The concern is that he can legally make the earlier versions basically non-seeable (other than private viewings of pre-existing copies) -- and he (and his estate's infinite -- for most practical purposes) control over the work may well ensure that only his mutilated revisions remain for posterity. In earlier eras, neither laws nor practicality made this so easy to accomplish.

I’ll have to sit on that framing of the issue, though that does remind me of the Chaplin edits that the board has also rolled its eyes to the back of its head over.

I should say that Happy Together is my favorite Chinese/ Hong Kong film do the futzing around is annoying to me as well and the availability argument is interesting to me, but I can’t muster my frustration into the outrage others seem to have because this, attempted, destruction of earlier versions in favor of new seems to me to fit within historical norms.

[The Pachyderminator]

knives -- Due to the nature of both technology and current copyright law, the possibility of effectively annihilating original versions of works is far greater today than it was in the past. No one objects to WKW's tinkering per se (even if we think it utterly stupid). The concern is that he can legally make the earlier versions basically non-seeable (other than private viewings of pre-existing copies) -- and he (and his estate's infinite -- for most practical purposes) control over the work may well ensure that only his mutilated revisions remain for posterity. In earlier eras, neither laws nor practicality made this so easy to accomplish.

At the risk of derailing the thread entirely, this is one reason I'm in favor of a much shorter copyright period. In my notion of a reasonable intellectual property regime, Wong's early films would already be in the public domain.

[knives]

Jumping into a discussion I really have no right to enter in, my understanding is that copyright of art at least partially has to do with giving the small guys, stunt men and sound recorders, something to retire on so wouldn’t that mean that reasonably it should last fifty or sixty years?

[The Pachyderminator]

If there are stunt men and sound recorders making significant royalties from 30+ year old films, that might change my view, but that sounds unlikely. As far as I know the "little guys" are usually paid a flat salary.

[knives]

I know at least actors in small parts do. I remember one of the commentaries to Mallrats featuring two very minor actors mentioning getting a check every once in a while from television showings. Not much, but ya'know every penny counts.

[Michael Kerpan]

Thanks mostly to Disney (which I hate -- despite Mandalorian), copyrights can now last for over a century. Movie/TV staff, if they get any payments due to "residuals", get them from contract rights, not due to copyright.

At this point, most of the benefit of near-eternal copyrights belong to international mega-corporations.

[senseabove]

And as an emphasis of Michael Kerpan's point, copies of the Kino Happy Together listed by enterprising collectors on eBay the morning of the box set announcement are already bid up over $100, with several days left.

[domino harvey]

To be fair, I just checked and I sold my used copy in 2016 for $49, so it’s always been going for big bux

[cowboydan]

Yeah, From what I remember, for the past few years, the copies on Amazon have been listed for $80 + and the ones on ebay aren't much cheaper. So I nearly pooped myself when I found a copy on Thriftbooks.com for $36 last year. Good find, I'll say.

[Calvin]

Nova have told me in the past that their .co.kr website isn't updated as regularly as their .com, but it's a worrying discrepency to be sure. I'll ask Nova and update with their answer if I get one.

If the English-language webpages are indeed the correct and updated ones, again, I’d be happy to be wrong in the matter, especially if it bodes well for any future English-friendly WKW releases from Nova Media and other labels. Thanks, and any updates would be appreciated.

Nova have responded to me to say that Ashes of Time has English subtitles

[barbarella satyricon]

...

[cowboydan]

Here's a couple of comparisons for the new Chungking Express restoration just using the 4k trailer.

Disclaimer: The main reason for these comparisons should be color differences. Grain and detail aren't comparable because of the different compression of the sources (streaming vs. disc).

Original (source is an old trailer. I couldn't find the timestamp on my Criterion BD. The color on the old trailer probably doesn't exactly match the Criterion, but I know it's close. Both are bluish)



4K Restoration trailer



Original (Criterion BD)



4K Restoration trailer



Ok, here's the doozy. When I was taking screenshots of Fallen Angels, I noticed one brief scene in the new restoration where I could definitively conclude that the camera take used was an alternate take than the one used in the original edit (brief shot where Blondie / Karen Mok jumps up and peers over the counter, toward the end). There were two more additional scenes where I spotted possible alternate takes (one was the killer's agent / Michelle Reis putting the coin into the jukebox; I forget the other one). This made me worry that there would be other shots in Fallen Angels and perhaps all of the other restorations where they had used alternate takes, either on purpose or without realizing it.

Even just with the limited footage on this new Chungking restoration trailer, we see an alternate take being used. I'm positive it's different than the take on the Criterion disc. I was taking these screenshots to compare colors, but I couldn't get exact frames because it's impossible since they are alternate takes. I got the closest that I could.

Original (Criterion BD)



4K Restoration trailer



Same continuous take, but a few seconds later.

Original (Criterion BD)



4K Restoration trailer



You can watch the clips here for yourself.

Original
This is from one of the Criterion extras, but I compared it to my Criterion disc and it matches:
@ 1:30
Under the Influence: Barry Jenkins on Wong Kar-wai - YouTube

4K restoration
@ 1:24
CHUNGKING EXPRESS 4K | Official Trailer (English) - YouTube

Evidence that the takes are different:

- Different angle / tilt
- The shape of Tony's hand gripping the plane is noticeably different
- The speed at which he moves the plane is different. It takes him longer to land it in one of the takes.
- His girlfriend's reaction is different. She smiles more in the original and we see her teeth. (Unfortunately the youtube video cuts away before we see her teeth, but here is a screenshot from my disc)

Spoiler

Who knows how many alternate takes they may have used in the rest of Chungking Express and quite possibly the rest of the restorations!>!>!>!?!?!?! It's 2 for 2 right now (Fallen Angels and Chungking Express)

[soundchaser]

Ok, anyone trying to argue these are the same films just with tiny color differences is fundamentally wrong. I still don't understand how more people aren't disgusted by this. Excellent detective work, cowboydan!

[feihong]

Thanks again, cowboydan. As per the usual now, this is an outrage. And generally disappointing.

I'm also struck watching that restoration trailer how dark they've chosen to restore Chungking Express. It looks so extreme, compared to any of the myriad previous sources I've seen for this movie. There's an almost Fincher level of creeping shadow tones. I don't on principal hate the title treatments they have in that trailer (I bet this will be the way they've formatted the film's credits), but they look over–designed in a clearly retrospective way, and they don't retain the character of the original titles at all, even though they retain some elements of them, like the typography of the main title card.

These are all little changes to make the film more "of the moment," I think––or more like movies Wong might have seen from recent years. It's unnecessary polish and it takes a lot away from the experience of watching a movie from an earlier time. It really mars the authenticity with which a restoration ought to present itself.

[therewillbeblus]

I feel so sorry for everyone who sold off their copies of Chungking Express a year or two ago when it was confirmed to be coming back in print. The thing is, and I know this has already been said here but I'll say it again, I'd actually be more inclined to buy this set to sample these changes as fun 'alternate experiences' *if* the original cuts were also restored. I half-want to buy this just to compare my copy of Chungking and In the Moon for Love with the new versions, because the experiences will be vastly different and it sounds like an interesting undertaking (I could definitely watch CE twice back-to-back too). But not giving that option for masterpieces like Fallen Angels is so ethically wrong in my eyes it depresses the value of this set's changes, that would really be valuable with the untouched versions in tow. It's not even like what WKW is doing in toying with his films is wrong in a vacuum, but it's wrong to omit the original art. This just doesn't feel like a particularly complicated or difficult task to let him and everyone else have their cake and eat it too.

[Boosmahn]

Why not use the original takes? Out of the many changes, this one makes the least sense to me.

[feihong]

Why not use the original takes? Out of the many changes, this one makes the least sense to me.

Guessing here, but the alternate take seems more like a modern use of hand-held camera, pushing through planes of depth to end up closer to the character. It's a little more sensual-seeming in a perfume-commercial kind of way. The original take was tracking the progress of the plane horizontally, revealing Valerie Chow's expression without making that expression the point of the shot. In the original film, the shot was about Tony the cop fantasizing and fetishizing his love for the flight attendant.

But this alternate take really brings the just-shagged sweatiness to the fore. Check out this hot babe, everybody!

At least, that's the tonal contrast I get from it.

[cowboydan]

I agree with that analysis.