AuteursFestivalsMovies

NYFF 2010: "Oki's Movie"

By October 1, 2010No Comments

Oki's Movie oki_022

Just as Hong-Sang Soo had got­ten into a groove of mak­ing his films so funny that I began expect­ing each suc­cess­ive one to be a little fun­ni­er than the last, than the invent­ive, pro­lif­ic Korean writer-director switches up on me. That’s not to say that Oki’s Movie does­n’t have its share of laughs, but on the whole it’s more poignant and puzz­ling than the two pri­or recent pic­tures of his that I’ve seen, the film-festival romp Like You Know It All (Hong’s answer to Stardust Memories, and quite a bit fun­ni­er and more humane, I thought, than Woody Allen’s oft-admirable but equally oft-problematic ori­gin­al), and the near epic Paris-set romantic shamble Night and Day, which I reviewed for the site then known as The Auteurs a couple years back. (I have not yet caught up with anoth­er new fea­ture, Hahaha. This guy’s got a real work ethic!)

Roman Polanski once remarked that he did­n’t think there was ever such a thing as a love tri­angle, that such stor­ies only ever had to do with two people, with the third act­ing as a sort of pre­text to launch the nar­rat­ive. If I recall cor­rectly, he said this in ref­er­ence, of course, to his own film Knife In The Water, and in that case he def­in­itely had a point, but I’m not sure the gen­er­al­iz­a­tion always holds. In any case, in the sort-of love tri­angle that gives Oki’s Movie what can finally be called its core, it’s def­in­itely about either more than two people, or it’s about just one per­son, but it’s nev­er about only the two. Oki’s Movie has an unusu­al shape. It kicks of with hand-written open­ing cred­its designed and shot in the man­ner of ama­teur video, with Elgar’s “Pomp and Circumstance” as the theme music. This cred­it motif is repeated for each of the film’s four dis­crete sec­tions. But are they sec­tions or in fact indi­vidu­al short films?  It’s dif­fi­cult to say. We under­stand we’re in an aca­dem­ic envir­on­ment in which films are made; there’s fest­iv­al com­pet­i­tion, a dir­ect­or’s Q&A (one of the most awk­ward dir­ect­or’s Q&A’s ever com­mit­ted to a screen, in fact, and one of the film’s fun­ni­est scenes) rumors of tenure-mongering, and more. With the excep­tion of the final sec­tion, the nar­ra­tion of which makes clear that it’s a film-within-a-film—or, more accur­ately, a film with­in the film-world of the char­ac­ters involved, those being two stu­dent film­makers, male and female, and a mar­ried professor—I was­n’t always on the surest foot­ing as to the par­tic­u­lar real­ity of each of the sec­tions, at how far a remove from Hong the storyteller him­self each par­tic­u­lar sec­tion was set. Which is an entirely dif­fer­ent pro­pos­i­tion from being “hard to fol­low” but which also means I’m going to need to see the thing again before I “get” it. 

Which isn’t to say that they’re aren’t a myri­ad of pleas­ures and per­plexes to be enjoyed in the pic­ture’s knotty 80 minutes. As in so many of Hong’s pic­tures, an alarm­ing amount of alco­hol is con­sumed, kiss­ing and sex are impuls­ive and sloppy, mel­an­choly obser­va­tions on the state of mod­ern film­mak­ing and mod­ern romance are delivered in oft-irresistable quasi-hangdog dead­pan, and so on. While Hong’s film’s are for the most part uncom­fort­ably acute por­traits of the emo­tion­al, intel­lec­tu­al, and sexu­al inad­equacy of its male prot­ag­on­ists, here the film­maker takes an inter­est­ing step for­ward and ends things by expli­citly identi­fy­ing with/taking on his female lead’s point of view—hence the title. It’s a bold move that pays off with an emo­tion­al impact of a sort that’s new to Hong’s work. Good stuff.

The pub­lic screen­ings of Oki’s Movie are pre­ceded with the short All Flowers In Time, by Tarnation dir­ect­or Jonathan Caouette, a film which promp­ted me to remark to my com­pan­ion, “David Lynch called. He wants David Lynch back.”

No Comments

  • Adam K says:

    Hong’s short “Lost in the Mountains” from last year’s VISITORS omni­bus (w/bits from Lav Diaz and Naomi Kawase) also has a female prot­ag­on­ist who, in a frankly ter­rif­ic end­ing, asserts her­self bluntly against two arguing examples of the *typ­ic­al* Hong prot­ag. Worth find­ing and check­ing out.

  • Adam Greene says:

    This is when film cri­ti­cism serves it’s func­tion in a Utopian fash­ion, when I read a review of a film that I was­n’t inter­ested in based on the NYFF cata­log descrip­tion, but due to the writer­’s take morphs into some­thing I must see. Well played.

  • Jaime says:

    I liked this one a lot, Glenn. Regarding OKI’S MOVIE – the eponymously-named final sec­tion, spe­cific­ally – were you reminded at all of the middle tale in Rohmer’s RENDEZVOUS IN PARIS? Given Hong’s film lit­er­acy, I would­n’t be sur­prised if this was a delib­er­ate homage.

  • cmasonwells says:

    I was think­ing about RENDEZVOUS IN PARIS, too, Jaime. And the four chapter struc­ture of FOUR ADVENTURES OF REINETTE & MIRABELLE.
    I’ll second Adam’s recom­mend­a­tion of LOST IN THE MOUNTAINS, which has a whole Hong fea­ture’s worth of com­edy and form­al inven­tion crammed into a half-hour.

  • Donald says:

    I haven’t seen “Oki’s Movie” but I know that Hong gets the Rohmer com­par­is­on quite a lot. I’ve seen at least one Q&A with Hong (more likely 2, even 3) dur­ing which someone asks him if there’s a Rohmer influ­ence – he almost shrugs/rolls his eyes, makes clear that he’s a big admirer of Rohmer, but says it’s cer­tainly not a thing he’s con­sciously doing… He’s pretty cryptic, and not, it would seem, just because he’s speak­ing in English (I think he usu­ally uses a translator).
    Personally, I think after see­ing the Paris movie I decided that how­ever tal­en­ted Hong is, I just can­’t muster up the same enthu­si­asm I used to have for his work. It seems like he sort of cres­ted with “Woman is the Future of Man” or per­haps “Woman on the Beach.” I guess I find myself always wishing/hoping he’ll do some­thing dif­fer­ent (i.e. out­side of the milieu of frus­trated Korean intellectuals/artists, total incom­pre­hen­sion between men and women, the ali­en­a­tion of the artist in soci­ety) – but he always does the same thing. I know, that’s not unusu­al for an artist (was it Joyce who said every writer just writes one book, and then re-writes it through­out the rest of his life, or some­thing to that effect?) But for me, Hong’s repe­ti­tion of theme and style has just got­ten repetitive.
    For my money, his best work remains some of the earli­er films, par­tic­u­larly “Day the Pig Fell Into the Well” and “Power of Kangwon Province.” Oh, I also love “Turning Gate” quite a lot, too.

  • Jaime says:

    He may seem like he’s doing the same movie over and over. But he’s not. Which is in itself anoth­er thing he has in com­mon with Rohmer. But you’re cor­rect that it would prob­ably take more enthu­si­asm to see this.

  • Donald says:

    I guess for me the vari­ations on a theme (i.e. the zooms, uhm, I’m draw­ing a blank on any­thing else; I guess the Parisian set­ting in Night and Day) in Hong’s work just isn’t that com­pel­ling for me anymore.
    Have you or any­one else here seen any of Jeon Soo-Il’s work? I bring it up because he too seems pretty famil­i­ar with that academic/intellectual film stud­ies world in Korea but is so obvi­ously work­ing in a dif­fer­ent mode. There was a ret­ro­spect­ive of his work early this year at UCLA that traveled a fair amount (I think to NYU, AFI in Washington, Canada)… Some of it is stun­ning, not always suc­cess­ful – but def­in­itely a dir­ect­or whose work I’m intrigued by.

  • Zach says:

    I’ve only seen one Hong fea­ture to date (Woman is the Future of Man), so maybe I should just keep my peace until I explore more, but it was a film that irrit­ated and intrigued me at the same time, and the more I hear about his work, the more inter­ested I am in see­ing some more of it. The one thing that irked me most in WIFM was the, as Donald says, total incom­pre­hen­sion between men and women. I could­n’t tell if it’s an aspect of Korean cul­ture (surely that’s at least part of the story) or meant to be received with a pinch of salt or two – some kind of exag­ger­ated com­ic affect. Really, though, it’s not just men and women – people in the movie (and in oth­ers, from what I’ve read) seem to be almost patho­lo­gic­ally incap­able of nor­mal human inter­ac­tion. I mean, how many awk­ward faux-pas moments can you cram into one exchange, nev­er mind a whole movie? Is there some­thing I’m miss­ing here, or do I just need to see more?

  • Castle Bravo says:

    I’d rather have my balls coated in honey and fire ants than to sit through anoth­er Hong Sang-soo movie. I stopped going to his NYFF screen­ings 2 movies ago.