September 24, 2007
LUST, CAUTION
I was fortunate enough to attend a private screening of Ang Lee's upcoming Lust, Caution; his epic tale of espionage and seduction set in Japan-occupied China during WWII. Unfortunately, the film is better known for its controversial NC-17 rating than for the contents within. It is unquestionably an adult film that is candidly erotic at times; but it does not warrant the stigma that is associated with its rating.
The film opens spectacularly with a well shot and edited sequence of home-kept wives playing Mahjong. Lee captures the irony of them moving and building up set pieces as they make minor business deals with black market items, without any regard to the fact that their very lives are merely a game to them as well. They have an entitled sense of power over everything that is going on in their war-torn city while trapped within the confines of domesticity. From the onset we sense the chemistry between the out of place Mrs. Mak and Mr. Yee, the man whose household we are in. Both have reasons to leave the house and we follow Mrs. Mak to a coffee house where she is seemingly either meeting up with Mr. Yee or ordering in a hit on him. We then cut back 4 years to a surprisingly younger Mrs. Mak and quickly learn that her real name is Wong Chia Chi. Her back story unravels as Wong and her school/ theater mates are swept into the world of espionage. They are seduced by the feeling that in order to do something to support their country and cause in the ever intensifying war, they must do something that is more real than acting. The timing and pace of this film is expertly crafted. The film is almost 3 hours long but this all works to its benefit. First of all, we do not watch the well reported sex scenes until at least an hour and a half into the picture. This firmly establishes that the sex is not the important element; though at the point in time it commences, it plays a necessary and vital role. We get further exposition on Wong and her friends, a tight-knit group; and the major, and seemingly minor, reasons why she plays into the dangerous world of seduction are well justified. The exploration of these reasons is the central premise of the film and ultimately gives it a sad and powerful sentimentality of endearment and respect towards Wong. The film would not work without it. Adding to all of this, Lee somehow manages to magically grab suspense out of thin air, especially during the first half of the film.
Tang Wei is extraordinary as Wong. Rarely has a character given so much of herself to the narrative of a film literally and figuratively. She strikes a difficult balance of playing someone who juggles between having and lacking control while maintaining grace. Wong and her world are an enigma; she is an actress after all. The always wonderful Joan Chen, who plays Mr. Yee's wife, provides a wonderful contrast as a person that lives by the motto that life is just about "shopping and mahjong."
As for the infamous sex scenes, yes they are quite steamy. For the vast majority of the time, they work exceedingly well within the context of the characters and their situations. Though quite rough to watch at times, they work as sequences with deeper meanings. We cannot help but to stare at their private affair. Mr. Yee's overpowering urges directed toward Wong are understandable as they are the result of the inner turmoils of his personal life as much as they are the result of built up lust. We can believe Wong's depicted progression of losing more and more of her innocence as she lets herself go into the abyss of the carnal. The only trouble I had with this was with some of the montage elements used as they seemed a bit too much. The nimble actors are seen in almost every sexual position imaginable. It just does not work well when contrasted with strong scenes that say so much about their situation and manage to add to and move the plot along. Ultimately, there is a big difference between this and a film like In the Realm of Senses. I buy the argument that Lust, Caution is a film for adults but I do not agree with the implications a NC17 rating brings to it.
There are elements of Alfred Hitchcock's Notorious in the film that Lee is proud to spotlight, especially with posters of its stars. There is also an important theme of acting and theater that is the basis for Wong's strong espionage abilities. She has a passion for film and frequents the local theater; she seems more alive there than outside of it, in her new stage. By the end, lines are crossed and motivations are blurred.
So this is a magnificent film, but why is it not the masterpiece that it yearns to be?
There are several things that I can think of. First of all, Ang Lee is a superb director who is technically proficient and is not afraid to tackle any interesting project that comes his way, but there in lies the problem. Supporters of Lee are quick to point out that calling him a genre director is an easy excuse; if it means anything at all. However, I agree with that argument; he obviously a very knowledgeable film historian, but to me, he does not have his own language of filmmaking with its own set of rules. His films can come out clinical at times. Brokeback Mountain was terrific but I cannot fully buy it; it is not a part of Lee's soul. Despite this, I would be the first to say that this is partly an unfair attitude towards Lee. Perhaps unfortunately, he is the kind of artist that receives real and accurate critique for the level of intelligence of his filmmaking demands it. He is the student that always gets the hard earned B+ while lesser, more pompous ones sneak in an A- or A every now and then. In spite of this it is important to realize that years later it will be seen as accurate accolade since in reality masterpieces in cinema are few and far between. Fortunately for him, Lee will never be one of the ones we will be embarrassed for having overestimated so quickly. He is not Wong Kar-wai but we should take into consideration that he does not want to be him. I am sure he can sleep at night knowing that Kar-wai's ghost will probably haunt him for the rest of his career.
One of the few scenes I believe does not work is the well orchestrated one involving knife play. It comes off as too by-the-book and academic to me. I understand the implication of the participants learning something the hard way, but I feel as if the film would have benefited more from the characters never learning that lesson and remaining the bystanders they were originally depicted to be. Then of course, I am someone who cringes at the way Hollywood is ga-ga over Robert McGee's Story screenwriting book.
Another problem with the film for me is Tony Leung. This is personal, but I, like so many, have a special connection with him. Leung is one of the greatest actors working today and perhaps his previous roles have resonated too deeply to allow me to let him go into this new character. His role is more physical in this and I buy it. (I don't mean that as a pun.) Lee is smart to show his newly aging face often at the beginning of the film. By doing this, he shows us a new side of Tony that attempts to force us to abandon the image we already have of the emotional, lovestruck young man that we sympathize with. Perhaps the problem arises because he says relatively so little; his character is elusive, though intentionally so. Perhaps it is because he is despicable or perhaps because he is so empty. Perhaps it is just me. Nonetheless, it is one hell of a brave performance.
All said and done, this is arguably Ang Lee's best film and absolutely well-worth watching. It is one of the best films that will come out this year.
Posted by Fran at September 24, 2007 11:54 PM