Oct. 26/28

"Hou Hsiao-Hsien reviewed"

1. "If the reviews of Hou's films did not sell Hous's films, what were they actually selling?" Since Hou's movies were hardly screened in the countries in which the magazines reviewing Hou's films came from, besides small art cinema screenings, the magazines use these reviews to to create guidelines or "manuals" of how to view these films in their domestic market. ( I had trouble finding a clear answer for this question)

3. The point Vitali is trying to prove by showing the extended Assayas example is the French filmmakers animosity towards Hollywood. Assayas is trying to portray Hollywood as a poisonous, imperialist industry taking over Taiwan just as it did after the national cinemas of France and Britain became overwhelmed with the mass global exhibition of Hollywood.

4. The term "propose injunctions not to" is very awkwardly worded, and I take it as Vitali claiming that the critics who "propose injunctions not to take into account historical references" are wrong because the majority of people do not know the historical facts which allows for a special experience for those who do know. Vitali also claims that critics falsely label Hou's style as strictly Taiwanese and untainted by foreign cinemas such as Hollywood, but in reality Hou shares the same filmic language as most filmmakers with his own unique style.

"The times of subjectivity and social reproduction"

1. Willemen does not love Hou's films complexity because he believes that even though a film may be complex it does not automatically make the film good. He says that bad films can also be complex. I agree with Willemen on this issue because I believe, as he does, if you look hard enough into any piece of art you can find meanings and "fascinating topics" that may have not originally meant to be there (I like to call them happy accidents).

2. Willemen does not love Hou's films because of their "Tawianness" because he feels that Hou only offers one glimpse of Taiwanese culture. For critics to say his films depict the identity of Taiwan is ridiculous because it is such a limited view. Willemen says if he wants to get an idea of the culture of Taiwan he isn't going to watch a Hou movie because their are many more aspects of the culture that aren't depicted in his films.

Oct. 19/21

1. After World War II Taiwan's government affairs were transfered back to China after fifty years of colonial rule by Japan. After the fifty years of colonial rule Taiwan developed more Japanese cultural traits including language. This made communication difficult between the Taiwanese citizens and their new government, and soon after the new corrupt national government disallowed native Taiwanese citizens political power. On February 27, 1947 a group of policemen and officials from the government tobacco monopoly assaulted a women while trying to confiscate her smuggled cigarettes. The native Taiwanese population was outraged, and the next day, February 28, 1947, rebellions started across Taiwan. The national government brutally smashed the rebellion and arrested and executed anyone they thought capable of leading another rebellion. Some 18-20,000 Taiwanese citizens were killed.

2. City of Sadness was criticized by a select group of film critics because they did not agree with the way Hou depicted the history of Taiwan during that time period. The way I read it was Hou danced around the historic issues of the time, and instead of using the film to sternly comment on the events of that period Hou tip-toed around it by making the film more of a melodrama. Although they criticize Hou for being "ambiguous" I don't see how he could make a historically accurate film if the public doesn't even know the extent of what happened.

3. To be continued...