I really tried to understand this movie. I am a movie buff but never got it. I tried, I really did. I think at times the image on the screen frozen didn't do it for me. I kept waiting to see what it was all about. I thought it was a very depressing movie, nobody was happy, there was nothing redeeming, not even when NJ rekindled his relationship with his old flame.
share[deleted]
(in reference to people who call themselves movie buffs [what a cliche])sometimes those in need of a perspective shift, seem to be incapable of comprehending the signals required to initiate that shift in perspective.
Long? I guess so.... but, boring? definetely not. I think YiYi, although lack of hyperdrama, is a well balanced film about typical living souls in Taipei. Certainly not a cheerful movie reflecting a not cheerful lifestyle, and yet, emotional,empathetic and even warm sometimes. I asked myself does it take a Taiwanese to appreciate the film and the answer is no although it helps. The twisted value on money, relationships are pretty universal, and the humanity flows through the film is certainly recognizable by viewers all over the world.
shareit sure did start out boring enough, but it got good!
I like the movie.
I don't love it.
I would never watch this like twice in sucession or anything.
If I were to watch it again it would have to be after a long stretch, but it's still a very good movie.
As a resident in Taipei, I relate to the story greatly. Characters onscreen are familiar as ever to me. I know people exactly like NJ, or students like Ting Ting. The isolation, modernization collision with traditional Chinese values are problems I face everyday. The pace, then, is of no problem for me since everything onscreen is a reflection of my daily life.
This film reminds me very much of Ang Lee's Eat Drink Man Woman which i think is a good warm up film for Yiyi if you have problems understanding the movie, or uncomfortable with the atmosphere of the movie. Eat Drink Man Woman deals with similar issues but the pace is faster and tone much lighter.
It's the one that says BAD *beep*
It's perfectly understandable that many people would find this movie too long and too boring, even though I find it a great movie myself. The choices of style made by the director have led to a movie that is intentionally slow-paced and does not engage the viewer forcibly; it's easy to lose interest, and I don't think you'd automatically be a philistine if you did.
Firstly, it's a simple fact that some scenes are way too long. At some points I really felt as if the director took me for an idiot who needed ages to figure out the very obvious event or emotion that was being shown. After a few seconds of people staring at each other or our the window of a subway train, it's completely clear that they are not talking, that they are struggling with their personal issues, or simply that they are moving forward in time; there's no need to stretch that single impression to a 30-second scene. Unfortunately, the director felt a need to do this not once or twice but dozens of times. And then there's the walking scenes - it's a funny gimmick to have someone traverse the four different screens of a surveillance camera system, but it's hardly relevant to see people walking down corridors or across streets when it is already obvious where they're coming from and where they're going (in every sense of those words). I'm convinced that it's possible to cut at least half an hour off this film without losing any of its powerful message or its bittersweet recounting of reality.
Secondly, the cold, distant camera angle pushes the audience so far away from what's going on that it's hard to stay focused on and engaged in a scene for as long as Yang wants us to. When real, gruelling emotions are being thrown out by the main characters, the wide angle shot barely leaves any room for the actors to act, because we can only just make out their faces - sometimes so far in the distance or obscured by reflections and layers of glass that their mouths can't be seen to move while they speak. Of course, it makes sense for as intimate a plot as this one to be told from some distance, but failing to show what characters are going through by allowing us to look at them seems to me a lost opportunity.
Thirdly, specific scene elements get repeated until they lose their meaning and become filler. The endless scenes in which a reflection of city life on a window is as prominent as what goes on behind the glass carry a solid meaning, but after two of them the point has been made in full. After that, it just becomes tedious to find yet another scene in which you can barely see the actors, in which all sounds and dialogue are obscured, and in which your attention is allowed to wander off to anything on screen because nothing draws specific attention to itself. Establishing shots that end up lasting an entire scene also get quite annoying when you're desperate to see more, to see motion and emotion, but the camera stands and stays where it is.
For these reasons I think it's legitimate to say that the movie is too long and too boring despite its accurate representation of Taiwanese life, its deep emotional storylines and the beautiful ending of the whole thing. I'm glad I sat through the first two and a half hours of this movie, because it's the last few scenes, and only the last few scenes, that make it well worth watching.
Dessek, you nailed it for me. I didn't hate the movie but found myself wondering, why is this same device being used over and over? I get it already. Here, I just felt sort of exhausted with the reflections and the voyeurism without really learning anything new.
shareI think you are completely missing the point. It is not a film made according to your habitual hollywood or even television esthetics (alas; Hollywood is now invaded by television non-esthetics), which reduces human beings into characters which are nothing more than a series of easily-recognizable signs. What the film observes is human beings, and no "characters," it's how they live we are observing, and not a collection of the cliche recognizable signs that your pre-concieved system of the television language that you identify as "emotion."
It spends a lot of time on its people because the filmmaker is inviting to spend some time with them, to really understand them as human beings, and not a series of signs which meanings you already know from Television.
Exactly..
I admit getting used to this style of editting is at first difficult, but, after seeing 9 or 10 taiwanese films in a class, I can tell all my fellow westerners that their is hope to enjoying films with such slow editing, but it takes time.
I agree conductor.
I never had a problem identifying emotions of the characters because of the lack of close-ups, I very much enjoyed how the movie was shot.
Thank you so much Desske, we need more reviewers, or at least commentors, like you. You did not trash the movie at all, and now I'm curious to see it. However, I admit it, my attention span is short, I'm not really one for drama's, and when a drama uses long 30 second scene's where we just sit there and stare at the face of the character trying to feel what they are feeling, etc, I just get bored. Many of you might will probably just call me your typical stupid hollywood-head. Fine, suit yourself. But I appreciate the honestly of your post. As much as I'd appreciate this movie, living in China myself and a student of Chinese language and culture, movie's that exhibit just about every point of your review will surely make me fall asleep (or at least i could have better spent my time doing other things). However, I would defintly recommend it to those who appreciate this sort of work. Thanks. To everyone else who says "If you dont like this movie your too shallow/stupid/not a real movie buff/dont understand the world" etc.... Just let it go, quit being so judgemental. We're here to give our opinions and reviews on the movie, not on OTHER people.
shareEdward Yang (God rest his soul) has made a film which is unlike anything I have ever seen before. Since I think it is a remarkable achievement to make a film wherein the entire experience of watching it makes me feel as if LIFE WAS BEING LIVED right there on that sucky 1994 tube tv. But I suggest that people should really watch this movie no matter what, even if it matters if I have to push someone here to watch it. This film changed my life. So Spixe I do not care if after watching Yi Yi you will not like it but at least you have watched it. But to say like what Dessek says that the shot last too long which makes it boring is a complete wrong generalization. Yang (like his contempary Hou Hsiao-hsien) uses long distanced takes. Yang uses them not to make us feel what they are feeling for 50 seconds because life in my interpretation doesn't make up 3 second shots simuntaneously Yang wants us to watch and wait like real 365 day life. Dessek's second point on camera distance is also generalized. Camera distance challenges us to focus on whatever grabs our attention, this is artistic, it is like the same way Citizen Kane used staging in depth. Also camera distance becomes sincere psychologically in Yang's film because we can never know what the characters thoughts are, so we remain distanced yet the characters become more full and human. One of the reasons I like Yi Yi is Yang's subtle use of style to suggest the family's unhappiness.
Dessek's third point is a matter of prefrence, but the shots of urban Taipei reflected on windows is not merely a statement but as a way of simply showing where the characters live in urban Taipei. It would be like in Gus Van Sant's masterpiece Elephant where we should get tired of the school environment or in Star Wars where it would be meaningless to repeat the scenes of intergalactic space. OK, point in taken I like that Dessek admires this film but it should be wrong to warn other viewers on the long takes and generalize it to make it seem boring. I think audiences should CHALLENGE their normal expectation on what a great film should be. That is the way to appreciate and understand the great arts: Jazz, Conrad, Goya, and Kubrick. So Spixe don't be afraid on what this film's got to offer it is just a new adventure in watching a masterpiece like Yi Yi and I hope through this film you may be able to view more enshrined cinema treasures (Tarkovsky's "Solaris", Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon", Murnau's "Sunrise and especially Godard's "Pierrot Le Fou").
So enjoy Yi Yi.
"Charlie don't surf"
Here is the thing the film actually may seem to verge on soap opera, I mean really if you try to think about the entire plot it wouldn't seem implausible for a soap opera, but its precisely that Yang's shots keep distance that it stops the film from going over the top on the emotion. While indeed the camera shots are slow but I think they work in favor of the film again as it seems apparent that the shots aren't just there to gloss over the emotions rather it takes a shot of the whole environment that the characters are in and how their emotions or actions seem so small or isolated in the surroundings. Moreover, I didn't have qualms about the films length as Yang brilliantly interweaves the scenes together that it brings another dimension to the previous scenes, my interest was always there as the story interweaves with one another.
shareThis is a great post. I'm struggling to get through it now but find the dialogue unrealistic. It's trying to be profound but it just feels forced.
shareThen go and watch Star Wars or any other american crap you moron!!!!
What da' hell!! the only depressing thing is your comment.
Long sad movies do not have to be void of intrigue. If you feel the movie was great, tell me then what I missed?
"I promise to start growin' dope again and get my life back on track."
I did start to feel the length of the movie about halfway through, but it's not like I was dreading having to watch the rest. It's a bit slow, but I wasn't expecting an action flick or anything. I liked it, but didn't love it - it was good, but I didn't see a lot of greatness. There were some neat scenes and some intriguing themes/suggestions.
shareThis film is flawless. When a film is this good it doesn't matter how long it is. Beautifully structured and delivered.
shareThe director throws a challenge to the audience to de-program themselves from the usual expectations of close ups, quick cuts, overly-dramatic cliched dialogue and immerse yourself in something different. If you can overcome your programming, you will realize you are watching a masterpiece.
share[deleted]
boring = subjective
why do people think they can use "boring" as constructive critism?
I can stare at a brick wall longer than I can watch a star wars film before falling asleep....thats just me
boring is too based on personal taste to be used as general critism
I concur actually. This movie isn't something new. It's another version of many other introspective movies.
But I give it 7/10. It is still a good movie. But nothing out of ordinary.
Can't believe this was voted as top 10 movies by Sound and Sights.
The majority of people who said this movie is long and boring must have been reared on Hollywood formulae. Everything must have a conflict, climax and resolution. Everything must be cut using the 180 degrees rule and Hollywood-style editing, otherwise it is boring. Like so many non-Hollywood directors have shown (Ozu, Tarkovsky, Yang, Hou, Wellers, Rohmer, Bresson, Herzog, to name but a few), you don't have to conform to the great Hollywood conventions for a film to work. Hollywood may be the most powerful filmmaking center in the world, that doesn't mean a film has to be done in the American way.
What has Yang done? He has appropriated the pace of life with a longer take and a longer shot to show us how life is lived in turn-of-millenium Taipei. If it's boring it's because life sometimes does drift around a bit: people don't act "to the camera" in close-ups, if you get what I mean. Yang and Hou are very different from Ang Lee, who is the Western flavor of the month and who is taught by American film schools. Yang, like Satyajit Ray and Antonioni, is entirely self-taught. People who has no grounding in Hollywood movies (like the older generations of Taiwan) have no difficulty understanding this film; are you saying some of you don't even have the attention span of an under-educated sixty-something who hasn't even heard of Orson Welles or Steven Spielberg?
Oh yeah, I forgot to add, the lack of a film score to cue emotions, something which is done in Hollywood movies nowadays, isn't in here as often. We don't hear this sort of music in real life of course. Refreshing to me - but probably not to lovers of present-day Hollywood cinema.
It could've been shorter but still is a good movie...
Million Dollar Baby Academy Award® Winner for Best Picture of 2004