In an interview with the Melbourne International Film Festival, director Jia Zhangke mentions that all of the stories are taken from real incidents reported on in newspapers and the only journal Weibo. Watching the first part of the film, which focused on the miner, I was reminded of the instances of violence in the U.S, such as the recent killings spree in California, two years ago in Colorado, Columbine, etc. In the same interview, Zhangke says, speaking of the Weibo, “There is a lot of personal discussion on the site about events in the news, particularly the increasing incidences of violence in China which reveal a lot of problems.” By this, it seems he means that violence is not random, but rather, reactionary. But what does the film see is the reasons for such violence? The same problems we have been seeing in other films in this class: corruption, greed, exploitation, the divide between the rich and poor, the unending struggle for money. The crowd at the end of the movie is asked “Do you understand your sin?” It is interesting that this question is posed upon the masses and not on any of the specific individuals who have committed murder. But what is the sin? Participating in a world that fosters violence? Endorsing it? When someone goes on a killing spree, or when a man tries to coerce a woman in prostitution by beating her with money, am I partly responsible? Society seems to be the sinner, and I’m, sadly, a part of society.
As in Demonlover, we are exposed in this film to the depths of human depravity, and, as the title suggests, this is the point of the film: to show the darkness of life, specifically, Chinese life. So much blood and so much violence. I believe that the film is trying to depict the effects of globalization on China as a country, which gives us a very grim picture of globalization. I agree with Kyle that an American viewer can identify acts of violence within our own country, and, as in this film, the roots of such violence can often be traced back to the negative aspects of globalization that we have seen in the films in this course. There is much talk about modern society's desensitization to violence. This has been explored in various films in this course, including Import/Export and Demonlover. What causes this desensitization? Is it, as these films assert, partially to do with globalization and the way in which it gives human exploitation a wider audience? Is it modern technology, which plays a big part in globalization? I believe that A Touch of Sin and other films are arguing that we all have the seeds of violence and greed within us (the very foundation of the notion of human depravity), but the effects of globalization make that violence more widespread and that it feeds and waters those seeds.
Many of the reviews for A Touch of Sin make comparisons to the work of Sergio Leone and Quentin Tarantino. I did not piece this together while watching. However, the film does have blood, violence and squirm-worthy scenes (the pleasuring of the sick man and scenes between, Zhou San and his son, horse abuse) (squirm factor related more towards Tarantino), so this makes sense. Although hard to watch at times, I would say A Touch of Sin is the most aesthetically pleasing. Even if watched without the subtitles the imagery is still very interesting, something I’m not sure I could say for The World. The film’s cinematographer Yu Lik Wai likens cinema to a “mechanical reproduction of our reality,” and many reviews note the film’s origin as actual Chinese new stories and social media mumbling (http://www.filmcomment.com/article/a-touch-of-sin-jia-zhang-ke). However can there really ever been a unification of reality and realism as Nelson Goodman points out “there is… no unique, ready-made, absolute reality apart from the independent of all versions” (1983, p. 269).
Kyle creates an interesting point in his post about the intention of the final scene in which “Do you understand your sin?” is spoken. Throughout the film we get to see a violence begets violence sort of attitude and to some extent feel the characters are vindicated when they seek vengeance (i.e. when we see a character take a swipe at her harasser or a cruel horse owner shot). But in doing so our appetite and acceptance for violence is only propelled,something Elaina notes is only multiplied by the influence of globalization.
An item to note between the two films is the depiction of seasons. A Touch of Sin starts in Winter and progresses to warmer temperatures while The World begins during a time of heat with Tao mentioning winter several times. I don’t have a supreme metaphor for the plot device other than the directors were trying to convey change (?), or that change always comes? Maybe a fellow classmate will have the answer, or it could be that the nod to seasons was just coincidence and simply a way for the audience to gauge time.
Goodman, N. (1983). Realism, Relativism, and Reality. New Literary History, 14(2), 269.
Although violent and hard to watch at times, this film was based off of four real life events that actually occurred in China – which I think is important to be noted. I don’t think Jia Zhangke made this film just as a way to get a reaction out of people – or just as a way to make money, but as a way to try to present the truth in a new light. In one interview/article it even mentions how Zhangke read up about the various events on “Weibo” – a Chinese version of Twitter. So, again it seems he really did his research here and although disturbing to watch I think Zhangke did his best to portray these events in an accurate light (although not being a citizen of China I guess I wouldn’t know what actually went on in that type of way). http://moveablefest.com/moveable_fest/2013/10/touch-sin-jia-zhangke.html This film touched on the more negative aspects of globalization (greed, lies, manipulation, corruption, death, etc.) that we saw in pretty much every other film that we watched. I’m not sure what this means other than these things are plentiful throughout the world unfortunately. I suppose globalization occurred in the first place as a means to better oneself (or country) so it’s not surprising that these things occur.
In an interview with the Melbourne International Film Festival, director Jia Zhangke mentions that all of the stories are taken from real incidents reported on in newspapers and the only journal Weibo. Watching the first part of the film, which focused on the miner, I was reminded of the instances of violence in the U.S, such as the recent killings spree in California, two years ago in Colorado, Columbine, etc. In the same interview, Zhangke says, speaking of the Weibo, “There is a lot of personal discussion on the site about events in the news, particularly the increasing incidences of violence in China which reveal a lot of problems.” By this, it seems he means that violence is not random, but rather, reactionary.
ReplyDeleteBut what does the film see is the reasons for such violence? The same problems we have been seeing in other films in this class: corruption, greed, exploitation, the divide between the rich and poor, the unending struggle for money. The crowd at the end of the movie is asked “Do you understand your sin?” It is interesting that this question is posed upon the masses and not on any of the specific individuals who have committed murder. But what is the sin? Participating in a world that fosters violence? Endorsing it? When someone goes on a killing spree, or when a man tries to coerce a woman in prostitution by beating her with money, am I partly responsible? Society seems to be the sinner, and I’m, sadly, a part of society.
As in Demonlover, we are exposed in this film to the depths of human depravity, and, as the title suggests, this is the point of the film: to show the darkness of life, specifically, Chinese life. So much blood and so much violence. I believe that the film is trying to depict the effects of globalization on China as a country, which gives us a very grim picture of globalization. I agree with Kyle that an American viewer can identify acts of violence within our own country, and, as in this film, the roots of such violence can often be traced back to the negative aspects of globalization that we have seen in the films in this course.
ReplyDeleteThere is much talk about modern society's desensitization to violence. This has been explored in various films in this course, including Import/Export and Demonlover. What causes this desensitization? Is it, as these films assert, partially to do with globalization and the way in which it gives human exploitation a wider audience? Is it modern technology, which plays a big part in globalization? I believe that A Touch of Sin and other films are arguing that we all have the seeds of violence and greed within us (the very foundation of the notion of human depravity), but the effects of globalization make that violence more widespread and that it feeds and waters those seeds.
Many of the reviews for A Touch of Sin make comparisons to the work of Sergio Leone and Quentin Tarantino. I did not piece this together while watching. However, the film does have blood, violence and squirm-worthy scenes (the pleasuring of the sick man and scenes between, Zhou San and his son, horse abuse) (squirm factor related more towards Tarantino), so this makes sense. Although hard to watch at times, I would say A Touch of Sin is the most aesthetically pleasing. Even if watched without the subtitles the imagery is still very interesting, something I’m not sure I could say for The World. The film’s cinematographer Yu Lik Wai likens cinema to a “mechanical reproduction of our reality,” and many reviews note the film’s origin as actual Chinese new stories and social media mumbling (http://www.filmcomment.com/article/a-touch-of-sin-jia-zhang-ke). However can there really ever been a unification of reality and realism as Nelson Goodman points out “there is… no unique, ready-made, absolute reality apart from the independent of all versions” (1983, p. 269).
ReplyDeleteKyle creates an interesting point in his post about the intention of the final scene in which “Do you understand your sin?” is spoken. Throughout the film we get to see a violence begets violence sort of attitude and to some extent feel the characters are vindicated when they seek vengeance (i.e. when we see a character take a swipe at her harasser or a cruel horse owner shot). But in doing so our appetite and acceptance for violence is only propelled,something Elaina notes is only multiplied by the influence of globalization.
An item to note between the two films is the depiction of seasons. A Touch of Sin starts in Winter and progresses to warmer temperatures while The World begins during a time of heat with Tao mentioning winter several times. I don’t have a supreme metaphor for the plot device other than the directors were trying to convey change (?), or that change always comes? Maybe a fellow classmate will have the answer, or it could be that the nod to seasons was just coincidence and simply a way for the audience to gauge time.
Goodman, N. (1983). Realism, Relativism, and Reality. New Literary History, 14(2), 269.
Although violent and hard to watch at times, this film was based off of four real life events that actually occurred in China – which I think is important to be noted. I don’t think Jia Zhangke made this film just as a way to get a reaction out of people – or just as a way to make money, but as a way to try to present the truth in a new light.
ReplyDeleteIn one interview/article it even mentions how Zhangke read up about the various events on “Weibo” – a Chinese version of Twitter. So, again it seems he really did his research here and although disturbing to watch I think Zhangke did his best to portray these events in an accurate light (although not being a citizen of China I guess I wouldn’t know what actually went on in that type of way).
http://moveablefest.com/moveable_fest/2013/10/touch-sin-jia-zhangke.html
This film touched on the more negative aspects of globalization (greed, lies, manipulation, corruption, death, etc.) that we saw in pretty much every other film that we watched. I’m not sure what this means other than these things are plentiful throughout the world unfortunately. I suppose globalization occurred in the first place as a means to better oneself (or country) so it’s not surprising that these things occur.