Despite not liking Bi Gan's previous film “Long Day's Journey into Night”, I was still really looking forward to his follow-up “Resurrection”. The reason for this is because it is so obvious just how much talent Bi Gan has, particularly with his use of camera, that I am sure that he is going to make a masterpiece one day, and was hoping “Resurrection” would be it. My reason for disliking his 2019 film was I felt it was a total gimmick film, with the whole thing being shot in 3D and it containing a continuous shot that went for an hour. I felt that the whole thing was an exercise in style, and this affected my appreciation of the drama within the story. Reports that “Resurrection” was a tough watch due to both its extended running time (it runs for 160 minutes) and it's fractious narrative gave me a little concern, as did the fact that the film apparently had another long single shot in it, this time around fifty minutes, but I still went into the film feeling pretty positive.
The biggest shock I had in regards to “Resurrection” was just how little Shu Qi was actually in the film. I found it very curious that she would probably only have fifteen minutes of screen time in the entirety of the film, especially when she has featured so heavily in the marketing images of the film, and how big the news of her casting was. The film is told in six longish vignettes, which I will talk about soon, but Shu Qi only appears in the first and last of them, which is a shame because she is so great in the brief time she is in the film, and suits the aesthetic to a tea (incidentally, has Shu Qi aged at all in the past thirty years? I think not!).
It turns out that “Resurrection”, despite its length, was a very easy watch, as Bi Gan tells his story of a dreamer in six distinct parts, that also works as kind of a look back through the history of cinema itself, as each dream is a different cinematic style of film, with the first section being the silent film. It appears that Bi Gan equates dreams with cinema itself and vice-versa so every time the Fantasmer has a new dream, it is basically a new movie, with the Fantasmer himself morphing into a new character in each dream/movie. Each segment has nothing in common other than the Fantasmer himself, which is to say that “Resurrection” does not have one continuous narrative, rather many and these do not have beginnings or endings, rather we are plonked right into the middle of a new story whenever the Fantasmer begins a new dream. Whilst it may sound confusing, it actually is not, and the short stories of each segment have been so well made and put together, that you as the viewer, are intrigued the whole time, even though we know we will most likely not get any closure in regards to each story. As I mentioned, the first segment plays out like a silent film, free of dialogue with information told to the audience on inter-titles, and works as a prologue for “Resurrection”, before the Fantasmer is allowed to have a few more dreams before his eventual death (thanks to his Big Other). These next four segments are the Fantasmer's final dreams, with the first one taking the form of a film noir or suspense type film, where he is immediately accused of murder. This segment involves the introduction of a mysterious suitcase, the contents of which we never learn, and an amazing shoot out in a shop of mirrors. There is also the cryptic line of dialogue “if I lose my hearing, I will be able to go to the other side of the mirror”, which again we never learn the truth about, but it is so damn intriguing. The style of this segment is all about darkness and shadows, with a huge focus also on reflections in objects. It looks absolutely stunning, but then I guess the whole film does, but I think I loved the visuals of this segment so much because of how stylised it was. The following two segments see a hero situated at a Buddhist monastery during a snowy winter where he begins a dialogue with a person who may or may not be the tooth he just removed from his mouth (it's the weirdest segment for sure), followed by a grifter training a young girl in the art of the grift involving playing cards to become his partner at ripping off a mob boss. This leads us to the final, and most substantial segment, and the crowning achievement of “Resurrection”, a vampire tale that is told in almost one single continuous take, which is simply incredible to say the least.
Originally, Bi Gan had no intention of including another one of his now trademark extreme long-takes in “Resurrection”, but found that the dock locations of the vampire segment lent themselves perfectly to the technique, and pivoted quickly, where he has said that shooting became much easier for this segment once he decided to do it all in (almost) one-take. And it is absolutely glorious and a marvel to behold. Whilst it is not as complex as the shot seen in “Long Day's Journey Into Night”, I actually prefer it because it seems less like an exercise in showing off, with the camera supporting the narrative rather than being the main focus itself. To say that the shot isn't complex though is ridiculous because the way the camera moves and swoops between characters is incredible, with the camera sometimes portraying a subjective point-of-view before changing to an objective point-of-view, and it is done in such an invisible fashion that feels true to the story. Probably the most incredible moment in the shot though is when the entire colour pallet changes in the shot, the exact moment our hero breaks through a glass window, with everything going from red to blue. It is “the” moment of this already mind-boggling shot, and something I have never seen before, at least done at this level of craft. Whilst I do not know the exact length of this shot, as I have read different times from half an hour to fifty minutes, it is incredibly fluid and impeccably done and the highlight of “Resurrection”. However, Dong Jingsong's cinematography is special throughout the whole film as he is able to recreate the looks of six different cinematic eras without it feeling like pastiche or theft. He accurately creates images that feel they could have legitimately come from these earlier eras without being direct copies of anything that already exists. The level of craft in “Resurrection” is just extraordinary.
So what does it all mean, and what is Bi Gan trying to get across in the complete story in “Resurrection”? This is when it starts to get a little vague, and you have to ask yourself whether the level of storytelling in the film matches the brilliance of the craft on display seen in “Resurrection”. Sadly, this is where I think the film falls down. Personally I think the whole wraparound concept of the Fantasmers and the Big One needed fleshing out a whole lot more, because as it is now, it doesn't make that much sense and comes across more as a means to tie the unconnected stories together rather than making it feel like a true part of the complete whole. Another aspect that I did not pick up on at all while watching “Resurrection”, but learnt reading interviews with Bi Gan, is that each of the segments has to do with one of the five senses (sight, hear, smell, touch, taste), with the sixth one to do with the mind. Apparently, after each of these segments finishes, the Fantasmer loses that sense, getting closer to death.......but without reading about this, I wouldn't have known any of this because it just is not clear in the movie at all. I am not even sure what Bi Gan is actually trying to see with “Resurrection” either. My take is he is talking about the death of cinema, and wanting to bring it back to its past glory. By recreating dead genres or styles of cinema that were popular in their day, but hardly exist now, I think this is his chance to resurrect the grandness of cinema past. Is there any merit to my theory, well I do not know, but the fact that the film ends on a cinema filled with patrons, which is all made out of wax and melts down to nothing, I think it means I am at least on the right path.
Overall, there is no denying the impeccable craft that is on display in Bi Gan's “Resurrection”. It is a stunning looking film, with some truly incredible cinematography, where each story is shot in a different film style. The complex nature of some of the shots cannot be undersold, and it culminates in a one-take wonder that needs to be seen to be believed. Each of these six short stories are all very engaging to watch which makes watching “Resurrection” a joy, despite its lengthy run time, but unfortunately I think though when you look at the film as a whole, it does not make a huge amount of sense and it is hard to understand what Gan is really trying to say. It is so obvious how much talent Bi Gan has, and I am sure that one day he is going to make an out-and-out masterpiece, but unfortunately “Resurrection” is not it. It is a brilliantly crafted film, that is entertaining to watch, but sadly, it is not as great as the sum of its parts.
3 Stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment