John Woo
May 26, 2004 12:11 AM Subscribe
John Woo. What's the appeal? {more}
In my quest to own all of the Criterion DVD titles, I recently acquired John Woo's The Killer.
I'd seen the film in 1990 or so and didn't much care for it. However, I was young and not as film savvy as I am these days so I was quite keen to give it another watch and see what all the fuss was about.
The acting was okay and technically the film was great but the characters, relationships, dialogue, and situations were absurd from the first frame to the last. Essentially, the film was almost exactly * what I remembered, meaning all I did was laugh and roll my eyes a lot. Is this the expected reaction?
I see the plays on cinema's thematic staples (bravery, honor, friendship/buddy pictures, etc.) but think that the "point" of including such themes would be far more effective if the situations were not so over the top. Am I supposed to find his films so melodramatic that I literally laugh at them? If so, what's the appeal of the director's defining work? Or is that humor the appeal?
(Tomorrow, I'll be watching Hard Boiled, which I also haven't seen in years. However, I'm no longer looking forward to it.)
* I could have sworn that when I saw the film 14 years ago the characters called each other by USA'n superhero monikers (Superman and Spiderman or something like that)--but in the Criterion release they called each other Numb Nuts and Butt Head. Am I completely remembering this wrong?
In my quest to own all of the Criterion DVD titles, I recently acquired John Woo's The Killer.
I'd seen the film in 1990 or so and didn't much care for it. However, I was young and not as film savvy as I am these days so I was quite keen to give it another watch and see what all the fuss was about.
The acting was okay and technically the film was great but the characters, relationships, dialogue, and situations were absurd from the first frame to the last. Essentially, the film was almost exactly * what I remembered, meaning all I did was laugh and roll my eyes a lot. Is this the expected reaction?
I see the plays on cinema's thematic staples (bravery, honor, friendship/buddy pictures, etc.) but think that the "point" of including such themes would be far more effective if the situations were not so over the top. Am I supposed to find his films so melodramatic that I literally laugh at them? If so, what's the appeal of the director's defining work? Or is that humor the appeal?
(Tomorrow, I'll be watching Hard Boiled, which I also haven't seen in years. However, I'm no longer looking forward to it.)
* I could have sworn that when I saw the film 14 years ago the characters called each other by USA'n superhero monikers (Superman and Spiderman or something like that)--but in the Criterion release they called each other Numb Nuts and Butt Head. Am I completely remembering this wrong?
btw if you're capable of appreciating his films as plain gunfest action flicks, "a better tomorrow" is also better than the killer.
posted by juv3nal at 12:24 AM on May 26, 2004
posted by juv3nal at 12:24 AM on May 26, 2004
I really loved Woo's The Killer. I took it at face value. The action and pacing as I recall were incredible. Sure, there's a lot of high melodrama but for me its the same kind of melodrama you sometimes see in Leone Westerns. I suspect you're viewing it with a sort of post-ironic detachment?
I've looked over my parents shoulders sometimes as they watch Mexican soap operas, a hugely popular genre, where so-and-so finally confesses that, yes, they are the long-lost father of the murderer's baby, or whatever to a background of sweeping music. My parents gasp or nod knowingly. They've willfully bought into it wholesale. If you were standing by you might laugh but that's only because you're more focused on the delivery and structure than on the content.
on preview: yes, you're over-intellectualizing. Just enjoy the ride.
posted by vacapinta at 12:24 AM on May 26, 2004
I've looked over my parents shoulders sometimes as they watch Mexican soap operas, a hugely popular genre, where so-and-so finally confesses that, yes, they are the long-lost father of the murderer's baby, or whatever to a background of sweeping music. My parents gasp or nod knowingly. They've willfully bought into it wholesale. If you were standing by you might laugh but that's only because you're more focused on the delivery and structure than on the content.
on preview: yes, you're over-intellectualizing. Just enjoy the ride.
posted by vacapinta at 12:24 AM on May 26, 2004
When I saw it, I thought the characters called each other "Mickey Mouse" and "Dumbo". Could be another film... It was quite awhile ago.
I don't care much for Woo either. Been meaning to check out Hard Boiled eventually, just because everyone says I should, but just haven't gotten the motivation to rent it.
posted by ODiV at 3:42 AM on May 26, 2004
I don't care much for Woo either. Been meaning to check out Hard Boiled eventually, just because everyone says I should, but just haven't gotten the motivation to rent it.
posted by ODiV at 3:42 AM on May 26, 2004
The Killer rocks. Sure it's over the top melodrama, but so are the plots of a lot of Italian operas.
The Killer was the first HK movie I ever saw and like you, I was underwhelmed at first. But then after seeing God knows how many other triad films and having gone back to the Killer several more times, I can see it that it does the best job of synthesizing all the elements of HK gangster movies.
The Killer, Hard Boiled, and A Better Tomorrow are Woo's best known HK flicks, but I also have a fond place in my heart for Bullet in the Head, which was Woo's response to the Tiananmen Square massacres.
posted by alidarbac at 3:53 AM on May 26, 2004
The Killer was the first HK movie I ever saw and like you, I was underwhelmed at first. But then after seeing God knows how many other triad films and having gone back to the Killer several more times, I can see it that it does the best job of synthesizing all the elements of HK gangster movies.
The Killer, Hard Boiled, and A Better Tomorrow are Woo's best known HK flicks, but I also have a fond place in my heart for Bullet in the Head, which was Woo's response to the Tiananmen Square massacres.
posted by alidarbac at 3:53 AM on May 26, 2004
I'm just curious, but those of you that disliked the melodrama of the non-action sequences, what do you think of Kurosawa's films? I see Woo's films as trying to achieve that same sort of "super hero" non-reality that you see in those films, especially Seven Samurai
posted by nprigoda at 4:31 AM on May 26, 2004
posted by nprigoda at 4:31 AM on May 26, 2004
I think claims of absurdity, however accurate, are harsh things to throw at filmmakers. Aren't most movies absurd? Doesn't every scripted film rely on far more tidy coincidence than we would ever see in life? That it provokes you to laughter isn't a wrong reaction, per se, but it puts me in mind of my friends who just don't care for Brian De Palma — if what they're really looking for is an airtight mystery plot, well, then, fine. But I consider them to be missing the point — the cinematic point — entirely.
Now, I think De Palma is in a different class than Woo. But Woo certainly works those themes of his — brotherhood, the duality of good and evil, the Christian/pacifist imagery — like an auteur. That doesn't make him an auteur, but I likewise don't think he's a hack who knowingly manufacturers big-budget cheese. I haven't seen a Woo film in years, but I remember thinking that The Killer and Face/Off were both pretty satisfying melodrama. Even Mission: Impossible II, as obvious as it was, showed him working through those directorial obsessions.
posted by blueshammer at 6:00 AM on May 26, 2004
Now, I think De Palma is in a different class than Woo. But Woo certainly works those themes of his — brotherhood, the duality of good and evil, the Christian/pacifist imagery — like an auteur. That doesn't make him an auteur, but I likewise don't think he's a hack who knowingly manufacturers big-budget cheese. I haven't seen a Woo film in years, but I remember thinking that The Killer and Face/Off were both pretty satisfying melodrama. Even Mission: Impossible II, as obvious as it was, showed him working through those directorial obsessions.
posted by blueshammer at 6:00 AM on May 26, 2004
Yeah, you definitely should watch "Hard-Boiled" before coming to a decision on Woo. It's unfairly written off by fans who think it's too Hollywood, but it really is an incredible feat of over-the-top action from a guy trying to be like Walter Hill.
posted by inksyndicate at 9:05 AM on May 26, 2004
posted by inksyndicate at 9:05 AM on May 26, 2004
The appeal of Woo is that The Killer is full of bullets and is thrilling. After that, I'm not aware of anything really inspired that he's done that I have access to, and so in my opinion his appeal in the states is entirely from that one great movie.
posted by Hildago at 9:10 AM on May 26, 2004
posted by Hildago at 9:10 AM on May 26, 2004
I like John Woo because of all the man-on-man action. Seriously, the homoerotic elements of the stuff he does is a nice change from the uber-serious macho BS that keeps me away from Tarantino's movies.
posted by jessamyn at 9:31 AM on May 26, 2004
posted by jessamyn at 9:31 AM on May 26, 2004
It's supposed to be completely unrealistic, often funny, melodramatic in its story, and visually breathtaking. He harps on a few basic themes (mainly the symbiotic relationship between good and evil), a lot of guys kill each other, some doves fly past, and that's it.
But MI2 sucked eggs.
posted by bingo at 9:33 AM on May 26, 2004
But MI2 sucked eggs.
posted by bingo at 9:33 AM on May 26, 2004
In a great play I saw recently, Matt & Ben, Ben Affleck's hopes of adapting The Catcher In The Rye into a movie are dashed when J.D. Salinger shows up and admits that he has sold the rights to John Woo (creator of Guess Woo's Coming To Dinner.
posted by bingo at 9:41 AM on May 26, 2004
posted by bingo at 9:41 AM on May 26, 2004
Response by poster: Okay, thanks, folks.
I'm thinking the guy's stuff just isn't for me and there's no sense in trying to "get" it. I'll still give Hard Boiled another spin but I think it's pretty much gonna seem to me like a poor man's Takeshi Kitano.
posted by dobbs at 10:10 AM on May 26, 2004
I'm thinking the guy's stuff just isn't for me and there's no sense in trying to "get" it. I'll still give Hard Boiled another spin but I think it's pretty much gonna seem to me like a poor man's Takeshi Kitano.
posted by dobbs at 10:10 AM on May 26, 2004
There are plenty of reasons that justify The Killer and Hard Boiled as "important enough" to make their way into the criterion catalog - if that's what you're looking for.
First off, they're shining examples of some of the best work to come out of the third-largest movie industry in the world. Hong Kong cinema, and John Woo movies of that era in particular, have had a HUGE effect on the way action movies are made. Look at pretty much any action movie, good or bad, from the last 10 years and you'll see shades of Hong Kong. The final scene in the killer is stylized action at its finest.
But what it comes down to is that criterion doesn't really have to justify their releases. Why are there criterion editions of The Rock and Armageddon? Why Spinal Tap?
I think people read criterion's mission statement:
The Criterion Collection, a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films, is dedicated to gathering the greatest films from around the world and publishing them in editions that offer the highest technical quality and award-winning, original supplements., and get too caught up in their own definition of important.
You're not always going to agree with someone else's taste, and I'm a little surprised that anyone who specifically remembered not liking the killer or hard boiled would spend the $150-300 each that they routinely sell for.
posted by chrisege at 10:25 AM on May 26, 2004
First off, they're shining examples of some of the best work to come out of the third-largest movie industry in the world. Hong Kong cinema, and John Woo movies of that era in particular, have had a HUGE effect on the way action movies are made. Look at pretty much any action movie, good or bad, from the last 10 years and you'll see shades of Hong Kong. The final scene in the killer is stylized action at its finest.
But what it comes down to is that criterion doesn't really have to justify their releases. Why are there criterion editions of The Rock and Armageddon? Why Spinal Tap?
I think people read criterion's mission statement:
The Criterion Collection, a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films, is dedicated to gathering the greatest films from around the world and publishing them in editions that offer the highest technical quality and award-winning, original supplements., and get too caught up in their own definition of important.
You're not always going to agree with someone else's taste, and I'm a little surprised that anyone who specifically remembered not liking the killer or hard boiled would spend the $150-300 each that they routinely sell for.
posted by chrisege at 10:25 AM on May 26, 2004
Response by poster: chrisege, you're misunderstanding my intent. I'm not trying to justify its inclusion in the CC. They have plenty of films in their catalog that I don't think of as "essential" and it's the Criterion Collection, not the VS Dobbs collection. I have no difficulty appreciating Woo's "place" in international cinema. His influence, as you say, is seen in many films made since. I understand why the film is "important", I just don't think it's very good. (I'll say the same thing of The Lady Vanishes, Charade, the Bay films you mentioned, and others Criterion has released.)
However, understanding his films from an intellectual or "historical" perspective isn't what I was asking about. There are plenty of films and fillmmakers that I don't "like" but can appreciate for their influence or context, but it seems to me that most of the people who rent/like/admire Woo's films are not putting it in that context but are appreciating the films on an emotional level ("thrilling" or "great action flick"), which I can't understand because I think them too silly to be affected by. Not once during watching was I anxious about the outcome of the film or any of the scenarios. My mind was literally MST3K'ing the whole thing.
I realize I'm probably digging a bigger and bigger hole as I type, and that this is probably a better discussion had in person, but perhaps this addendum to my original post makes my question make a little more sense. I honestly meant, "What's the appeal?", not "Woo sucks. Defend."
As to your not understanding why someone would pay $300 for the DVD, I agree with you. However, I didn't pay for it. It was a gift.
posted by dobbs at 11:30 AM on May 26, 2004
However, understanding his films from an intellectual or "historical" perspective isn't what I was asking about. There are plenty of films and fillmmakers that I don't "like" but can appreciate for their influence or context, but it seems to me that most of the people who rent/like/admire Woo's films are not putting it in that context but are appreciating the films on an emotional level ("thrilling" or "great action flick"), which I can't understand because I think them too silly to be affected by. Not once during watching was I anxious about the outcome of the film or any of the scenarios. My mind was literally MST3K'ing the whole thing.
I realize I'm probably digging a bigger and bigger hole as I type, and that this is probably a better discussion had in person, but perhaps this addendum to my original post makes my question make a little more sense. I honestly meant, "What's the appeal?", not "Woo sucks. Defend."
As to your not understanding why someone would pay $300 for the DVD, I agree with you. However, I didn't pay for it. It was a gift.
posted by dobbs at 11:30 AM on May 26, 2004
Response by poster: Oops. I typed The Lady Vanishes. I meant The 39 Steps.
posted by dobbs at 11:57 AM on May 26, 2004
posted by dobbs at 11:57 AM on May 26, 2004
Woo is definitely an acquired taste, I think. It's totally over the top, but so much of HK cinema is.
What's most important to remember is that when you see all those action movie clichés in recent American cinema, Woo probably did them first.
Consider, as a counterpoint, Star Wars. Ask anyone younger than 20, and they'll probably tell you it's boring and cheesy.
posted by mkultra at 12:26 PM on May 26, 2004
What's most important to remember is that when you see all those action movie clichés in recent American cinema, Woo probably did them first.
Consider, as a counterpoint, Star Wars. Ask anyone younger than 20, and they'll probably tell you it's boring and cheesy.
posted by mkultra at 12:26 PM on May 26, 2004
dobbs, I don't know you and I don't mean to be condescending when I ask with sincerity: Have you ever watched Hong Kong film? For that matter, do you even "get" action drama in the first place?
I could probably pose the same kind of question about some arbitrary well-known Bollywood figure -- those exist, right? -- but since I don't "get" (or like, for that matter) musicals, and don't have any understanding of the context of Bollywood film, there's just no way I'd understand the appeal at a personal level.
As an American director, Woo is pretty much a dud. He's getting handed lame concepts, weak screenplays, nondescript actors, and too much budget. However throughout his HK years Woo was putting out a lot of good stuff. It's just that the "good stuff" doesn't seem to appeal to your tastes: intricately contrived action sequences, strong themes of brotherhood and loyalty, and a lot of carefully-executed elements which may very well seem cliche to you. But taken as a package, as a directorial accomplishment, The Killer, and more so Hard Boiled, are works of action flick art that stand tall among both Hollywood and Hong Kong classics.
Alas, I've no background in art or film crit to delineate just why that's the case, but as with most art the value comes from the beholder, not the artist.
posted by majick at 12:28 PM on May 26, 2004
I could probably pose the same kind of question about some arbitrary well-known Bollywood figure -- those exist, right? -- but since I don't "get" (or like, for that matter) musicals, and don't have any understanding of the context of Bollywood film, there's just no way I'd understand the appeal at a personal level.
As an American director, Woo is pretty much a dud. He's getting handed lame concepts, weak screenplays, nondescript actors, and too much budget. However throughout his HK years Woo was putting out a lot of good stuff. It's just that the "good stuff" doesn't seem to appeal to your tastes: intricately contrived action sequences, strong themes of brotherhood and loyalty, and a lot of carefully-executed elements which may very well seem cliche to you. But taken as a package, as a directorial accomplishment, The Killer, and more so Hard Boiled, are works of action flick art that stand tall among both Hollywood and Hong Kong classics.
Alas, I've no background in art or film crit to delineate just why that's the case, but as with most art the value comes from the beholder, not the artist.
posted by majick at 12:28 PM on May 26, 2004
dobbs, I'm sorry to hear you don't like Woo, since in general our tastes are pretty close, and I trust your recommendations as I do few others. I've heard similar complaints about Woo before, and my answer is that Woo isn't trying to be realistic, it's the cinematic equivalent of opera. You're not supposed to laugh at the end of The Killer (and in fact I get enraged when I see it in theaters with people who do) any more then you're supposed to laugh at Violetta's melodramatic death scene in La Traviata. If you simply can't adjust to the different aesthetics, that's OK -- some people (like my wife) can't stand opera either. But I hope you will write it off as a glitch in your own taste rather than slagging Woo, who I think is a great filmmaker.
posted by languagehat at 12:51 PM on May 26, 2004
posted by languagehat at 12:51 PM on May 26, 2004
The reason, I had heard, as to why Criterion released Armageddon and The Rock, was to sell a mainstream release to gain funds to release lesser known works. (Not that I care for those two movies.)
posted by the biscuit man at 1:28 PM on May 26, 2004
posted by the biscuit man at 1:28 PM on May 26, 2004
Response by poster: majick, I'm by no means grounded in the genre. This is one of the reasons I have been keen to see his films. I don't like feeling lost regarding it, which I definitely do. (I feel the same way about gore films.) When I watch Woo films, I just feel completely unaffected. The fact that he's so popular, and has been for so long, leads me to believe it's certainly a "fault" in me rather than the films. I don't hate the films. They don't impress me enough to feel strongly about them in any way. They seem to me to be the cinematic cousin of rap music. Not that they're similar, but rap is also something that is immensely popular that, try as I might, I can never seem to appreciate. (There are exceptions, but it's the musical genre that least intrigues me.) Anime is another thing I don't understand the appeal of, but that's a whole other discussion. :)
The weird thing, to me, is that there seems to be some sort of schism or lapse in my head. I like action movies just fine. I like melodramas. I like the samurai or swordplay movies from China. I like gangster flix mixed with surreal comedy/drama (Japanese director Takeshi Kitano's Boiling Point is among my favorite films, for instance). I just don't get Woo. :)
I've seen films by Ringo Lam, Tsui Hark and others who don't seem to be nearly as popular, and they don't leave me feeling nonplussed like Woo's films do.
languagehat, yeah, that's a sticky situation. I try not to diss films and filmmakers I don't understand. Rathan than say 'don't see X' I'll try and come up with something to see. (However, I have no problem dissing filmmakers I don't like, which is a whole other cup of java. Heh.)
Perhaps my opinion of his films will change over time. It's certainly happened with other filmmakers/films/genres.
posted by dobbs at 1:46 PM on May 26, 2004
The weird thing, to me, is that there seems to be some sort of schism or lapse in my head. I like action movies just fine. I like melodramas. I like the samurai or swordplay movies from China. I like gangster flix mixed with surreal comedy/drama (Japanese director Takeshi Kitano's Boiling Point is among my favorite films, for instance). I just don't get Woo. :)
I've seen films by Ringo Lam, Tsui Hark and others who don't seem to be nearly as popular, and they don't leave me feeling nonplussed like Woo's films do.
languagehat, yeah, that's a sticky situation. I try not to diss films and filmmakers I don't understand. Rathan than say 'don't see X' I'll try and come up with something to see. (However, I have no problem dissing filmmakers I don't like, which is a whole other cup of java. Heh.)
Perhaps my opinion of his films will change over time. It's certainly happened with other filmmakers/films/genres.
posted by dobbs at 1:46 PM on May 26, 2004
as for one of the secondary questions (from a DVDJournal review):
At their first face to face encounter, John and Li endow each other with insulting nicknames, subtitled as "Butt-Head" and "Numb-nuts," but closer in direct translation to "prawn's-head" and "big baby boy" (when The Killer was first released theatrically in the early '90s, these nicknames were subtitled as "Mickey Mouse" and "Dumbo.")
(I have it on laserdisc, I'll have to check what the subtitles are on that)
posted by milovoo at 4:20 PM on May 26, 2004
At their first face to face encounter, John and Li endow each other with insulting nicknames, subtitled as "Butt-Head" and "Numb-nuts," but closer in direct translation to "prawn's-head" and "big baby boy" (when The Killer was first released theatrically in the early '90s, these nicknames were subtitled as "Mickey Mouse" and "Dumbo.")
(I have it on laserdisc, I'll have to check what the subtitles are on that)
posted by milovoo at 4:20 PM on May 26, 2004
The Killer rocks. Sure it's over the top melodrama, but so are the plots of a lot of Italian operas.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
/opera lover & Woo careful (ie certainly not die-hard) fan
also, what L-Hat said.
I don't want to get too Pauline-Kaelish on the thread's ass, but the basic, visceral appeal of cinema is exactly that -- it is that way from day 1 -- the audience screaming, running away from the theatre and crapping their pants because they thought a train was going to run them over. it's the art of the irrational, meant to stir irrational feelings. don't listen to dour old Stanley in the corner, and enjoy the mayhem.
kiss kiss bang bang, remember?
also, dobbs, I used to really like you a lot (your comments, your kindness in sharing your extensive knowledge with other users, not to mention your Bogartesque username).
then you wrote you don't like 39 Steps. and Charade!
*shakes fist*
The Times' A.O. Scott elucidates the dichotomy between the two Mission: Impossible films rather marvelously here: "The difference in the two directors' styles may account for the weird discontinuity between the two 'Missions.' Mr. De Palma composes fugues of paranoia, while Mr. Woo prefers to present grand operas of passion and betrayal. He's a first-class action director, maybe the greatest choreographer of mayhem since Sam Peckinpah, but he doesn't care much for suspense. And so, once the basic conflict is established, the story plods along, alternating between preposterous -- in a bad way -- speeches and even more preposterous -- but in a good way -- shootouts and slugfests."
posted by matteo at 5:01 PM on May 26, 2004
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
/opera lover & Woo careful (ie certainly not die-hard) fan
also, what L-Hat said.
I don't want to get too Pauline-Kaelish on the thread's ass, but the basic, visceral appeal of cinema is exactly that -- it is that way from day 1 -- the audience screaming, running away from the theatre and crapping their pants because they thought a train was going to run them over. it's the art of the irrational, meant to stir irrational feelings. don't listen to dour old Stanley in the corner, and enjoy the mayhem.
kiss kiss bang bang, remember?
also, dobbs, I used to really like you a lot (your comments, your kindness in sharing your extensive knowledge with other users, not to mention your Bogartesque username).
then you wrote you don't like 39 Steps. and Charade!
*shakes fist*
The Times' A.O. Scott elucidates the dichotomy between the two Mission: Impossible films rather marvelously here: "The difference in the two directors' styles may account for the weird discontinuity between the two 'Missions.' Mr. De Palma composes fugues of paranoia, while Mr. Woo prefers to present grand operas of passion and betrayal. He's a first-class action director, maybe the greatest choreographer of mayhem since Sam Peckinpah, but he doesn't care much for suspense. And so, once the basic conflict is established, the story plods along, alternating between preposterous -- in a bad way -- speeches and even more preposterous -- but in a good way -- shootouts and slugfests."
posted by matteo at 5:01 PM on May 26, 2004
Response by poster: Heh. Thanks matteo. Sorry to disappoint, but yeah, I have little use for Charade. Took me 6 attempts over about 10 years to actually make it through the film from beginning to end. (Cut me some slack, though, I DID actually watch it after it let me down 5 times. No one can say I don't give these films a fair shot.) 39 Steps does have its moments though, and without it North by Northwest wouldn't be what it is so I'm a lot more forgiving of it.
And thanks, milovoo. Thought my memory was worse than I imagined it.
posted by dobbs at 7:34 PM on May 26, 2004
And thanks, milovoo. Thought my memory was worse than I imagined it.
posted by dobbs at 7:34 PM on May 26, 2004
This thread is closed to new comments.
they films are cheezy and over the top and I guess there are moments that can be appreciated in a kind of ironic-camp way, but that's besides the point. woo is all about guys diving through the air in slow-mo while firing with pistols in both hands. it's cool on a really visceral testosterone addled adolescent pulp level...and that's about it.
which is also why hardboiled is far superior to the killer since it dispenses with a lot of the hokiness and has more bullets.
posted by juv3nal at 12:22 AM on May 26, 2004