News Links - 3/27/07

[dleedlee]

Feng Xiaogang Returns With New Year Blockbuster (The Assembly Call)
http://english.cri.cn/3086/2007/03/27/63@209491.htm

Jean Lukitsh talks to kung fu legend Gordon Liu
http://www.kungfucinema.com/articles/20070326.html

Media Asia Sets Up Exiled Remake
http://www.varietyasiaonline.com/content/view/1059/1/

Song Hye-gyo in "Hwang Jin-yi"
http://english.cri.cn/3086/2007/03/27/63@209437.htm

"Sorry, This Urinal is Reserved for Yao Ming"
http://english.cri.cn/3100/2007/03/27/1261@209528.htm


Dragon lord - Chow Yun Fat
Chow Yun-fat’s latest reincarnation as a swashbuckling Oriental pirate in the third instalment of Pirates of the Caribbean is a calculated and significant career move.

CHOW Yun-fat is hoping that Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End will introduce him to a whole new audience and quite possibly signal a new direction for his remarkable career.

He has made his name, and built a considerable worldwide fan base, working alongside renowned action directors like John Woo and by starring in martial arts movies like the Oscar winning Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.


It is time, he says, for a change.


“I hate all those gun movies,” he says although his tongue may well be firmly in cheek, “because it’s not my deal now. I’m getting older. I need a change from this genre to another.


“I think Pirates is good timing and an opportunity for the audience to accept that I have moved to another stage of my life,” he said.


He may be joking, of course, which he loves to do, but there’s no doubt that he’s delighted to be joining Johnny Depp, as the lovable rogue Captain Jack Sparrow, Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Swann and Orlando Bloom as Will Turner as they reunite to complete the Pirates trilogy.


Chow will play Pirate Lord Sao Feng, a colourful gang leader who crosses paths with Jack and company as they begin a whole new set of adventures in the Far East — a fertile stomping ground for pirates for centuries.


Indeed, one of the signature sets of the film will be seen during the opening sequence, featuring the “red lantern” district of Singapore, a stunning creation of stilted houses, rivers and lakes, bridges and alleyways leading to a spice market and a bathhouse.


It’s a fantastic set and Chow, for one, appreciates the surroundings.


“I love this set,” he says. “It’s beautiful, brilliant! And it makes my job easier when you have a set like this.”


At 50, he is one of the most popular actors in the world with more than 90 films and television projects to his credit in a career spanning three decades and more.


He was born in Hong Kong and at 18 decided to try his luck at a casting call for the famous Shaw Brothers Studios.


With obvious charisma, he soon found himself with plenty of work in televisions series and small roles in films.


In 1983, he starred in his break-out role, playing the white suited crime boss in Shang Hai Tan Xu Ji. The film caught the attention of director Woo who later cast him in the gangster movie A Better Tomorrow.


His collaboration with Woo would produce some of the most acclaimed films of the Hong Kong action genre, including The Killer and Hard Boiled.


He has starred in several western films, too, including The Replacement Killers, The Corrupters and Anna and the King with Jodie Foster.


In 2000 he starred in Ang Lee’s Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon which won four Oscars including Best Foreign Language Film.


This interview was conducted during filming of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End with Chow in full make-up and costume for his character of Captain Sao Feng. He has a dragon tattoo on his neck, his head is mostly shaved, with a ponytail, and he is wearing traditional Oriental robes.

Q: How long did you spend in make-up today?

A: For the first make-up test, four hours. It’s no big deal. The second day it took at least three hours. It’s getting better and better. Today, it was two hours.

Q: Can you tell us a little bit about your character?

A: You’ve seen my look. Gorgeous! (laughs) In my 30-year acting career I’ve never had such an adventure. I am the lucky guy, the last person on board this pirate ship. The character doesn’t matter, I just hope the kids in the audience will like it. And the movie looks good. It looks awesome.

Q: Why has this been such a vivid adventure? Was making it different than all those other movies that you have done over the years?

A: I think this is good timing and an opportunity for the audience to accept that I have moved to another stage of my life. I cannot carry the guns all the way like John Wayne. And I am only focused on my acting so I must make a move, make a change.

Q: And you have enjoyed the pirate theme of the movie?

A: Positive, positive! Very much, very much.

Q: So what did you think of the first film when you saw it?

A: It’s a very exciting movie — all the visual effects, the sound effects. I went wild when I first saw it. The character is very strong, plus Johnny Depp gives a good performance. He’s amazing.

Q: This will introduce you to a whole new audience. Is that what you had in mind when you accepted this role?

A: Yes, I hope people will accept this character.

Q: And what do you think of the set of Singapore? You’ve been there many times obviously and your wife is from Singapore. Was it funny looking at the sets?

A: It’s fantastic — everything is mixed with the East-West culture. It looks amazing.

You have a very striking dragon tattoo for this part. Does it have any meaning?

It’s the gang sign for all my brothers. You know, we are the gang in this area and we are in control, so everyone has to respect me.

Q: How did you approach the fight scenes?

A: I thought it was important to stick to the Western style. I didn’t want the character, all of a sudden, to jump out in the martial arts film way. You know, flying up to the roof top and coming down through the bamboo tree. That would be odd for this kind of movie. I wanted a movie where the fighting sequences stick to the ground.

Q: How did you come to be cast in the movie?

A: I received a script before I came to Los Angeles. Then when I got here, I took a rest the first day, the second day we did a costume fitting and the next day we started shooting.

Q: So you said yes straight away?

A: Yes.

Q: And you’d seen the first one?

A: Yes: My captain (director Gore Verbinski) called me. He said, ‘Do you want to come? I’ve got a job for you. I said, “Yes!” Send me the ticket!”

Q: Is the beard real?

A: No. Half of it is, but then they use glue and extensions to make it long. Half and half. Later on I’ll put on the cap, black teeth, black mouth and the contact lenses. — Courtesy of Buena Vista International

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/ ... index_html

[duriandave]

"Exiled" is a "masterful film. The story is as compelling as Media Asia's 'Infernal Affairs' trilogy," Hadida said. "We look forward to similarly developing the 'Exiled' story into a major English-language film for the global marketplace."

Booo!!! How about distributing this a major Chinese-language film for the US marketplace.

[Brian Thibodeau]

Booo!!! How about distributing this a major Chinese-language film for the US marketplace.

Yeah, it's too bad they have to go the remake route again, considering how solid the original really is. THE DEPARTED, good as it is, was nowhere near as tightly-wound as INFERNAL AFFAIRS (and that's not just because I saw the latter first in this case). Not that a U.S. EXILED wouldn't have its own merits, I'm sure, as the story could logically be transported to just about any culture, but I have to wonder if this news will cause Magnolia—who've had a minor success with the North American theatrical release of THE HOST—to sit on EXILED for longer than they might have originally planned, or worse, release it straight to DVD to capitalize on the higher-profile release. Guess we'll have to wait and see, as always.

[Fan]

Booo!!! How about distributing this a major Chinese-language film for the US marketplace.

A local movie critic once said, in general, American audiences aren't used to watching foreign language movies, so everything has to be turned into English...how true for what he said?

[Brian Thibodeau]

how true for what he said?

Too true, unfortunately. But as Mike Thomason has often suggested, North America isn't the be all and end all of a "foreign" film's success, but it is part of it in our flattened world, and I like to think those of us who live here and go out of our way to see world cinema in the original languages will always pine for a better tomorrow! By and large, older generations over here, in particular, are still averse to "reading" their movies (as are some of the ever-coveted teens-20's demographic, sadly), but as time and these generations pass, and the culture becomes even more diverse from immigration, inroads will be made.

[duriandave]

American audiences in general are definitely parochial when it comes to global culture. And a Hollywood remake of Exiled would undoubtedly make more money than distributing the original film.

But as far as I'm concerned, what's the point of remaking it. What makes Exiled such a great film is not just the story but Johnnie To's whole aesthetic: from his use of image and music to his sense of humor and sincere emotion.

If having it English is the main issue, then I would rather see a quality-dub release of the film. But I think the real issue is that Hollywood seeks to dominate world culture by exporting its products and restricting imports from other countries.

[MrBooth]

What annoys me the most is not so much Hollywood remaking films for the American audience, but the fact they then distribute their remakes world-wide - even in their home territories. It always feels like they're saying "well, that was a good effort, but better let the professionals take it from here".

Or perhaps its the fact that the remakes generally do get much bigger audiences, even in their home territories, which annoys me the most about it...

[ewaffle]

I have to wonder if this news will cause Magnolia—who've had a minor success with the North American theatrical release of THE HOST—to sit on EXILED for longer than they might have originally planned, or worse, release it straight to DVD to capitalize on the higher-profile release. Guess we'll have to wait and see, as always.

If one is sufficiently alert and nimble it may be possible to see "Exiled" on the big screen even if Magnolia goes the direct to video route. "Direct" often means "Direct after a very short, very small release in some markets in order to get a few reviews and a bit of hype for the DVD".

For example "Infernal Affairs" was shown at one theater on one screen for one week here in the Motor City just before the DVD hit the stores.

Always chancy, of course, and an actual distributor supported release gives one a much better chance of seeing a movie.

[Brian Thibodeau]

If one is sufficiently alert and nimble it may be possible to see "Exiled" on the big screen even if Magnolia goes the direct to video route. "Direct" often means "Direct after a very short, very small release in some markets in order to get a few reviews and a bit of hype for the DVD".

So true. And in my experience, at least so far, it's largely been those "very small" releases that have been by far the most satisfying because the audiences are comprised of people who've pre-educated themselves about the film and have actually sought out that particular screening, and they aren't just there because it's the trendy thing to do.(for example, a screening of the wide-release CROUCHING TIGER at my old home city crappy-plex was filled with two separate groups of unruly early-teenagers who mocked the Mandarin language, whispered loudly throughout the movie, and were eventually thrown out, but far too late for my liking. I do not miss my old city).

This is probably the primary reason I try to go to the Toronto Film Fest every year. The inflated ticket prices are a drain, and the conversations of fellow patrons are often unbearably pretentious, but when the movie starts playing, everyone in that theatre is into it. And that's when you feel the undiluted power of cinema.

In fact, this is where I saw EXILED last September (after yet another 3+ hour drive!), in the 1000-seat Elgin Theatre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_and_Winter_Garden_Theatres), which is usually home to staged plays. They sold out that particular screening (although the pre-show appearances of Johnnie To and Josie Ho were rather brief wastes of time), and there's just something very reassuring when a crowd that big digs a movie that cool!

Big city repertory cinemas are usually quite reliable for these kinds of experiences, as well. And even the multiplexes, on rare occasions. I hate to sound like an old man (which I'm not), but I love it when a movie's Restricted (which up here means no one under 18 AT ALL) because that usually alleviates one of my biggest problems with seeing movies on the big screen: young people!

[MrBooth]

but when the movie starts playing, everyone in that theatre is into it. And that's when you feel the undiluted power of cinema.

I hate festival audiences who seem to feel compelled to demonstrate that they are 'into it' and 'get it', by (for example) laughing conspicuously loudly at things which really aren't that funny. Not as annoying as teenagers in the multiplexes making snarky comments to prove that their friends how cool they are though. Sometimes a crowd can add to an experience (e.g. when the things people are laughing at really are that funny, but most of the time I leave the cinema wishing I'd had it to myself :-p

[Brian Thibodeau]

I hate festival audiences who seem to feel compelled to demonstrate that they are 'into it' and 'get it', by (for example) laughing conspicuously loudly at things which really aren't that funny

Make no mistake, I don't like those folks either, but I've probably been lucky in my choices of film fest fare so far, or who knows, maybe the audiences I've sat in aren't as pretentious as I thought they'd be.

Perhaps the kind of festival makes the difference? Don't know.

I swear, the crowd within earshot around me at EXILED, was "into it" in a different way than my last post might have suggested: they were quiet, they watched the movie, and laughed at acceptable levels during the film's funny moments, and as I'm not one to laugh for attention, I'm very aware when other people aren't doing it around me, and these folks weren't. While I didn't take stock of the entire audience, there simply wasn't the kind of chronic retardation that all but makes me dread going to all but the largest of multiplexes (where the sound's so loud you can't hear your own thoughts, let alone the gigglers six rows away, but then you leave with your ears ringing...).

I'll still take a fest crowd anyday—even with the occasional film snobs seated within earshot—especially for something like EXILED, which was a world premiere that cost over $30/person to see. That kinda money makes you pay attention and, under the right circumstances, does indeed reveal the power of a good film. Ten bucks at the mall-plex does not.

I also saw a Chinese movie called SUMMER PALACE at last year's festival where the audience was so quiet, you could've sworn half of them were asleep. At about the two-hour mark, I was too! So perhaps it's a combination of festival type+flim type...

And then there was THE HOST, which was a Thursday midnight screening that probably started an hour late (as usual), so I was more than willing to forgive the almost-excessive laughing and screaming since everyone there was rather punchy at that point, and it genuinely didn't feel like those around me were trying to telegraph their emotions to the whole crowd; everyone was just waaaaay too susceptible at that hour.

[MrBooth]

Perhaps the kind of festival makes the difference? Don't know.

Oh, certainly... the more serious, 'artsy' SF International Film Fest is terrible for pretentious posers, but the more 'genre film'-oriented Indie Fest gets a much more genuine and agreeable bunch.

Midnight movies are generally the best to see with a crowd (at either festival) - they tend to be the sort of films that are all but asking for audience 'participation'

[Brian Thibodeau]

Sometimes a crowd can add to an experience (e.g. when the things people are laughing at really are that funny, but most of the time I leave the cinema wishing I'd had it to myself

Funny, up until about five or six years ago, the projectionist at the local multiplex I've been bitching about in this thread was my own aunt!

Every Thursday around midnight, the management would pre-screen a movie (or two) that would be opening the following night. This was ostensibly to check the print, but in reality it was more of a "freebie" for the underpaid staff. Each staff member was allowed to bring one or two guests, and since I was working the afternoon-evening shift from about 1995 to 2001, my aunt would always ring me every Thursday with an invite to that night's screening. And since I had nothing else to do and nowhere else to go at that hour, I'd see the movie on my way home to watch more movies.

Talk about having the theatre to yourself. Most of the time, there'd be about three to five other people in the theatre (most of the staff were highschoolers who couldn't stay up that late), sitting so far away from me I couldn't hear them scream if they were on fire. Other times, I'd really would have the whole place to myself (which meant I actually HAD to check the print ). Now that was watchin' movies! No teens, no phones, no crumpling snack bags, no bottles rolling down the incline, no one's stinkin' breath over my shoulder—just me and the big, beautiful screen!