Not Coming to a Theater Near You

Reviews

2046 /  China  /  2004

There is a really good 90-minute film to be fished out of the 130-minute running time of 2046. I suspect promises made to the several prominent actors and pop stars who appear in the film (and their respective managers and agents) are what kept Wong Kar-Wai from releasing the film he clearly could have (and should have). Instead of relying on the funding of vain gangsters for his films as he did in the past, Wong is now subject to the same industry bloat and excess as filmmakers in Hollywood, birthplace of the package deal. Wong has always loved to pack his films with too much story, too much detail, and too many actors. Up until the relative minimalism of In the Mood for Love it was not uncommon for Wong to run out of time and money before he got around to running out of narrative: an entire segment of story intended for Chungking Express was cut and became the basis for the follow-up, Fallen Angels.

Much disappointment followed upon the first screenings and viewings of 2046, primarily because the film was such a long time in coming. Rumors of its impending production began circulating nearly a decade ago and sets for the film sat unused for years. Actors were cast and then dropped. A legend sprang up that Wong had actually filmed a great deal of footage and then destroyed it. A victim of its own hype and protracted production, there eventually came a time when there was no conceivable way for the film to be made and released and to be considered successful. Its predecessor, In the Mood for Love was Wong’s most successful and most lauded film. 2046 was bound to frustrate.

Putting perhaps unrealistic expectations aside for a moment, 2046 is actually very much the film that would likely have followed upon the heels of In the Mood for Love. Despite the futuristic-sounding title, 2046 is as much a film about the past as Wong’s previous and is, in fact, something of a sequel. It is also a summation of Wong’s work up to this point. The themes of lost and found love and the repetition of moments of chance from his breakthrough films Chungking Express and Fallen Angels are present, the lazy atmosphere from earlier films permeates the air of the tenant hotel where room 2046 is to be found, and even the voice of Nat King Cole, such a presence in In the Mood for Love, makes an appearance. Some have found this kind of career self-review to exhibit creative exhaustion on the part of Wong, a criticism that he is now just turning out yet another “film by Wong Kar-Wai.” This may be the case; whatever film comes next will surely decide whether Wong will be inducted into the pantheon of great filmmakers or if he is destined to be remembered as a one-hit wonder.

Matt Bailey | © 2004 notcoming.com

Comments / 14 total / Submit Comment

1. Kris Kluthe / 27 November 2004 / 4:16 PM / URL

   Good review of this movie. Although the version I watched didn’t have english subtitles, based on his previous movies I could guess what was going on. Mostly I just looked at the visuals. After digesting most of Won Kar-Wai’s films, including 2046, I’ve come to the realization that what I actually like about his movies is the photography of Christopher Doyle.

2. Ikram Choudhury / 4 December 2004 / 8:31 PM

   I feel the same away about the “good 90-minute film to be fished out of the 130-minute running time”. Wong Kar Wai’s greatest foe is his folly. 2046 isn’t the work of a perfectionist, but of a severely indecisive director.

3. watch2046again / 25 December 2004 / 11:54 PM

   Hello, thanks for your review. I’ve noticed you based your review on the Guangdong mainland china DVD. In my opinion, this is a horrible edition of the movie. Not only have the voices in inappropriately dubbed, but furthermore, entire scenes have been cut out that were essential to the movie. I recommend the newly released Mei Ah edition of 2046 to all interested viewers. I also recommend watching Days of Being Wild & ITMFL again before sitting down to enjoy 2046. This will probably help to enjoy this masterpiece the way WKW meant it.

4. matt / 4 January 2005 / 6:29 AM / URL

   Thanks for that clarification. The Guangdong DVD was (as a DVD) one of the worst viewing experiences of my life. That the film made any impression at all in spite of the animated logo that appeared over the picture every few minutes is a miracle. Alas, this was the only version available to me for viewing at the time. I would strongly encourage readers to seek out the Mei Ah edition which seems to be, if not perfect, the best currently-available version. A comparison between the two is available at DVDBeaver.com.

5. pvtnineveh / 11 January 2005 / 6:52 PM

   The version rushed to be screened at Cannes was reportedly an editing nightmare plagued by incoherence and confusion. The NTSC version that was finally released on DVD in Chinatown seems to have been re-edited and cleaned up because I found it not terribly difficult to follow. A strong central theme of lost love and aching at the frayed edges intangible bliss emerges through the usual Wong Kar-Wai convolusions of plot and stunning visual style. In ITMFL, Wong explored it through restraint and minimalism. In 2046, through lust and lushly photographed abandon, he carries the common theme to its next logical step. And when considered together, it does play out like a bookending opus to the director’s own obsession with the past. But I wonder if he will ever truly leave this theme. Of course, for everyone’s benefit, I hope he will venture into new thematic territory, but I also hope he will return to it from time to time. Because the way his characters pine for the past, trapped by the bittersweet emotions of regret and lost opportunities, drenched in the colors and decor and dress of the past, produces such delicious brooding that is a pleasure to watch on film. Nostalgia by definition is longing for something unattainable, even if time travel is made a reality, because one is not the same person he/she was at the time being traveled back to. To be really one with that past, you’d either have to be regressed back psychologically and emotionally or simply accept it as something you can never have again and move beyond it. Beyond it. Interestingly, Wong uses the future as a device for getting his characters into the past via a mysterious train to an unknown destination where your lost memories are restored. He goes into the future only to get to the past. There’s something hopelessly sad about that premise. Depressing. Yeah, it could be. But I enjoyed it a lot.

6. The Third M?n / 22 January 2005 / 2:57 PM

   I just saw this in a theater in Madrid and really did like it. As flawed as though it may have been (yes, it did feel a tad longer than its actual running time), I found it to be a strikingly original and audacious work, whose greatest strengths were the exquisite aesthetic and its complex narrative. Impenetrable to a certain extent, perhaps, but truly haunting; one of the best films in recent memory.

7. SIFF / 21 May 2005 / 1:07 PM

   2046 is playing the Seattle International Film Festival. I’ve got nothing original to add — it’s a striking if flawed movie with what feels like a perfect version only a few edits away. It’s absolutely worth seeing for the visuals and performances alone, and it will leave an an emotional ache long after viewing.

8. eastriver / 4 June 2005 / 12:07 AM

   I enjoyed the movie. It seems like a study in unrequited or unfilled loves. Like a reviewer said (not here), actors sometimes play like a chanel commercial, and some parts were annoying. Beautiful cinematography, however.
   I also found it unbelievable/uncharacteristic that Tony Leung looked too stolid and unemotional in reaction Zhang Ziyi’s love, when he had so much hard luck himself (rest of the story afterall is about his unfulfilled love). He really does not show any thoughts or emotions to her, which made it seem like her story was just thrown in there. Rest of the story comes off as if he was thoughtful, but not part with Zhang. Did he thinks she was pretty but not socially worthy? He talks about bad timing, but what was the bad timing for her? Some developed explanation would have been nice. This movie was certainly ambitious, but it lacks tight editing. I am not faulting, however, the confusing storyline , which may have been intentional.

9. Studiocliche / 14 July 2005 / 10:47 PM

   He spends years crafting, thinking, obsessing over this movie, and you suggest that “whoops, maybe he would have had a good movie were he to leave a half hour on the editing floor?” You think he would just miss something like that? Are you nuts?

10. Jit / 15 July 2005 / 12:02 AM

    Yes, Matt is clinically insane because he suggests that WKW’s attempt to create a magnum opus could have been better if it had been trimmed down to a more managable length where it could have focused itself better, instead of pulling itself in too many directions. What a crazy suggestion! Absurd! Any artist who spends a great deal of time on his work must know exactly what he’s doing every single step of the way, and not be frustrated at all. Also, Matt is clearly stating that WKW simply made a careless, casual mental slip in his editing choices when determining the length of his film. Of course, since Matt is such a looney-tune, he also doesn’t offer some rational theory of why the film might have run a bit too long, like say, promises to the actors/actresses involved in the production. What a nut-case!

    Yet strangely I’ve also heard of artists who become so tied up and engrossed by the subject matter of their own work, and the process of creating itself, that their obession causes them to lose perspective on the overall project.

    2046 is a great film in my opinion, but it does wander and drift into a vast number of paths, often without a chartered course. It’s wonderful to watch, but it also shows signs of strain from bending and nearly breaking upon itself.

11. zhangxi8242 / 2 August 2005 / 8:17 AM

    i hate this movie i don’t konw

12. Jason / 2 August 2005 / 8:51 AM / URL

    Personally, I find hatred of a movie (or a book or a painting, or even a person) to be as interesting as a strong love of something. Adverse reactions to things can tell us a great deal about ourselves and whatever it is we dislike. At the risk of sounding like one of those “the more you know” ads from 80s tv, I’m serious when I say that I’ve learned as much from exploring my strong aversion to a film or filmmaker as basking in my immediate love of a newly discovered masterpiece. The first time I ever saw a Douglas Sirk movie (Magnificent Obsession), I walked out. I was an undergrad film student who had been taught that melodrama=lousy afternoon soap opera, and the experience was simply beyond my ken. In the years since, I’ve grown to adore Sirk.

    Having said this, I’m not implying that your hatred of 2046 isn’t sincere. I would suggest spending some time asking yourself why you hate the movie so much – maybe compare it to a similar movie you are fond of – if only to grow as a film viewer and better understand your taste. I’m not sure if the “i don’t know” suggested you wanted a reply to your reaction, but that’s (obviously) how I’m taking it. My apologies if you just wanted to vent.

13. jackviewer / 20 August 2005 / 4:14 AM

    I was wondering what is he longing for, does he want the hotel owners crazy daughter, why didnt he stay with the amazing good looking prostitute. What was with the lu-lu character? the old addage, if you can’t be with the one you love, love the on your with!

14. corie johnson / 8 November 2006 / 5:35 PM

    i would have to disagree with you. even though there was much hype surrouding this film, it still was a masterpiece. a beautiful narritive of memory and love.