2046: A film of glorious imagery, troubling relationships

Last updated on: September 11, 2012 at 3:00 pm by Jeffrey Overstreet

2046: A film of glorious imagery, troubling relationships 2012-09-11T15:00:35-06:00 Jeffrey Overstreet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

2046 demands to be seen if only because no film (at least, no film *I’ve* ever seen) captures the beauty of its actresses so artfully, with such spectacular style and light. I mean that Wong Kar Wai’s long-awaited follow-up to In the Mood for Love captures the subtle grace of several fine actresses in a take-your-breath-away, “aren’t-women-confoundingly-fantastic” kind of way.

Few films have ever concentrated so closely on colors and textures. Cinematographer Christopher Doyle (Hero, Last Life in the Universe) builds this film out of shots in which most of the screen is obscured by screens, walls, or curtains, so that we focus on a face or a figure framed in a narrow space, and the effect of detail contrasted with solid color or swathes of shadow is fascinating.

I will offer a precaution about a few sex scenes (filmed without explicit nudity–the film is not in any way pornographic.) 2046 is for viewers who aren’t led astray by art that is about sexual relationships. Like Mike Nichols’ Closer, the film’s characters are far from role models. They’re deeply confused about the difference between love and lust, and they’re using each other to make up for the fact that they don’t have what it takes to develop the Real Thing. Consider it a cautionary tale about settling for self-centered romance instead of cultivating true love.

Ziyi Zhang is a revelation in this film. I liked her before, especially in The Road Home, but here she nudges her way into Juliette Binoche/Audrey Hepburn territory. It’s hard to believe she’s real.

Tony Leung gives a suave, understated performance, and I can’t imagine anyone else in this role.

The otherworldly Faye Wong (Chungking Express) gets to play both a writer AND a Blade-Runner-style pleasure-android, and few actresses could play an android so convincingly. Gorgeous, in a way, and yet unnervingly plastic. She also gets to wear the coolest shoes I’ve ever seen in a film.

Did I mention that the always-dazzling Gong Li deserves praise too? After weeping over her husband’s gambling habits in To Live, now she gets to gamble herself.

It’s a film that is open to a thousand interpretations.

To me, at first viewing, it’s about our longing for heaven, for a state of unchanging love and contentment, that elusive experience with the divine that happens in romantic love only in fleeting moments. It’s about how, in this life, most of us experience the frustration of relationships that are exciting but not perfect, that seem to be puzzles missing a piece. Mr. Chow is involved with several women over the course of the film, seducing them, being seduced, manipulating them, being manipulated, occasionally bedding them, breaking up with them, being abandoned. (After the show, my friend Martin Stillion compared it to Dangerous Liaisons, and he’s right on–it’s like Dangerous Liaisons meets Blade Runner in the aesthetic of In the Mood For Love.) Each time Mr. Chow flirts with, falls for, or mourns the loss of a woman, we become increasingly aware that, at the core of these messed up relationships, he’s longing for the “one that got away.” (Wong Kar Wai fans can probably guess who that is, and yes, she does appear, but only briefly.) At the same time, he’s writing a sci-fi novel about a time and a place that is said to be unchangeably wonderful…

2046 represents an unchangeable place, an ideal, a destination (is it a year? an address? a room number? a state of being? nirvana? heaven? Or all of the above) that is difficult to reach, and that you might not be able to escape from. People who reach it never return… and thus no one’s sure if, indeed, it’s all it’s cracked up to be.

In spite of his longing for transcendance, Chow seems cursed to never reach what he desires, because he can’t get over himself. For all of his affairs, he holds on to the right to manipulate, leave, break promises, and do whatever the heck he wants. He’s an arrogant @#$%@$!, but that’s not to say we can’t learn from observing his mistakes.

I was enthralled. It does start to wear out its welcome with redundancies near the end (some say 20 minutes too long, I say maybe 10) but that didn’t bother me as much as some of the others in the crowd. I’m so caught up in Wong Kar Wai’s mastery of style and form, and Doyle’s cinematography, that the story is a secondary aspect of the film for me. I come away feeling as if I’ve been served an extravagant meal, and enjoyed it so much that I ate a few platefuls too many.

You’re going to hear a lot about Ziyi Zhang and Gong Li when Memoirs of a Geisha arrives in a couple of months. They may even earn Oscar nominations for it. I have a hunch that in 20 years, 2046 will be considered a far more significant achievement for both actresses than Geisha. It’ll be interesting to see if the Academy even acknowledges Wong Kar Wai. (Geisha is, after all, being directed by an American.)

Journal

2046

Wong Kar-wai

Previous Post

August 29, 2005

Specials: Dead Can Dance. B&C on Grimm Brothers and Donnie Darko. Dead Can Dance live.! Lanois touring. Rosenbaum on Grimm.

Next Post

September 2, 2005 "Serenity": I'm not allowed to speak.

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Blog Bloggers on "Through a Screen Darkly" Browser Coming Soon Endorsements Fiction Books Film Forum Film Reviews Inspirations Interviews Journal Kindlings Muse Movie buzz Music Reviews Non-Fiction Books radio Reviewers on "Through a Screen Darkly" The Auralia Thread Through a Screen Darkly Through a Screen Darkly - Bonus Materials Top 10 (or 20 or 100) lists Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 July 2003 May 2003 March 2003 September 1999

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was thrown into a pit by his jealous brothers?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Peter Moses Joseph David