Speaker 1: What kind of a show you guys putting on here today?
Speaker 1: You're not interested in armed now? No, look, we're going
Speaker 1: to do this thing. We're going to have a conversation
Speaker 1: a film spotters Adam and Josh here. You know, the
Speaker 1: Film Spotting Archive has reviews, top fivees and more going
Speaker 1: back to two thousand and five, and access to that
Speaker 1: archive is just one of the benefits you get as
Speaker 1: a Film Spotting family member. We are sharing our discussion
Speaker 1: of In the Mood for Love from our One Car
Speaker 1: Why marathon back in twenty twenty one. Why well, there
Speaker 1: are many reasons, including it's the film's twenty fifth anniversary,
Speaker 1: and Josh, it did clock in a number four on
Speaker 1: the New York Times list of the best movies of
Speaker 1: this Century so far.
Speaker 2: Heartening for me to see that, because I had it
Speaker 2: even higher Adam when we did that list on the
Speaker 2: show right there at number one. For me, my favorite
Speaker 2: film is the Century so Far. Now for Chicago listeners,
Speaker 2: Wang's film is playing at the Music Box Wednesday and
Speaker 2: Thursday this week, so that's July sixteen and seventeen if
Speaker 2: you want to see it there on the big screen.
Speaker 2: So let's get to it. Our review of In the
Speaker 2: Mood for Love.
Speaker 1: In the Mood for Love debuted at the two thousand
Speaker 1: and can Film Festival, where it was nominated for the
Speaker 1: Palm Door and start Tony Leung won the fests Best
Speaker 1: Actor Prize. It opened here in the States in March
Speaker 1: two thousand and one to pretty universal critical acclaim. But
Speaker 1: maybe this is something we can talk a little bit about, Josh.
Speaker 1: My feeling is that its reputation has only grown over
Speaker 1: the last twenty years. For example, back at the end
Speaker 1: of the last decade, in late two thousand and nine,
Speaker 1: the Guardian had In the Mood for Love as its
Speaker 1: forty eighth best film of the decade. Fast forward ten
Speaker 1: years late later, for a Best Films of the twenty
Speaker 1: first Century list, mood had moved up all the way
Speaker 1: to number five. And then in twenty sixteen, the BBC
Speaker 1: pulled over one hundred critics for a Best Movies of
Speaker 1: the twenty first Century list, and In the Mood for
Speaker 1: Love landed at number two, right behind No Real Surprise
Speaker 1: to Me, My Beloved Mulholland Drive from director David Lynch,
Speaker 1: another film that has probably only grown in esteem over
Speaker 1: the years. Quickly the plot It's set in early nineteen sixties,
Speaker 1: Hong Kong sort of picks up where Days of Being
Speaker 1: Wild left off. Josh, It's part of an informal trilogy
Speaker 1: with that film and Wong's later film twenty forty six.
Speaker 1: Tony Leung and Maggie Chung are neighbors in a cramp
Speaker 1: boarding house. They're both married, they're both lonely, and they
Speaker 1: soon realized that their spouses are having an affair with
Speaker 1: each other. Leung and Chung bond over this betrayal and
Speaker 1: eventually do get quite close, but never act on their
Speaker 1: feelings for each other, this being a wong Y movie
Speaker 1: after all, Josh, give us a little bit of your
Speaker 1: history within the Mood for Love and how did it
Speaker 1: play this time for you in the context of the marathon.
Speaker 1: I feel like you Dean Happy Together, the last movie
Speaker 1: we discussed as the high point of the marathon so far,
Speaker 1: maybe even rated it slightly higher than Chunking Express. Have
Speaker 1: we gone to yet another level here within the Mood
Speaker 1: for Love?
Speaker 2: For me?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: And I think you know, thinking back on when I
Speaker 2: first saw this, it's a little murky for me because
Speaker 2: I've seen it a handful of times since two thousand
Speaker 2: but it wouldn't have been within the first you know,
Speaker 2: six months or year of its release, probably because I've
Speaker 2: never written about it. I didn't have it on my
Speaker 2: top ten list that year, which I know. We had
Speaker 2: some fun at trivia spotting with my two thousand top
Speaker 2: ten lists. All of them are suspect, but trust me,
Speaker 2: I would not have overlooked this if I had seen
Speaker 2: it in time. Why I didn't see it within that
Speaker 2: first year, I can't remember or really explain, but I
Speaker 2: remember seeing it fairly soon after loving it then and
Speaker 2: just loving it more the time or two I saw it.
Speaker 2: Since it's been a few years now, and yeah, I think,
Speaker 2: you know, if it's reputation isn't any stronger than it
Speaker 2: was initially, it has certainly you cited those lists that
Speaker 2: it's made. It's certainly fended off a lot of comers
Speaker 2: in the years since it's been released to still stand
Speaker 2: as a monumental achievement, not only you know, for Wong,
Speaker 2: but cinema itself, and as far as Wang's filmography goes,
Speaker 2: I do think it's the pinnacle. I think at this
Speaker 2: point I only have one long film left that I
Speaker 2: need to see, my Blueberry Nights but I don't think
Speaker 2: that's going to knock this off. Maybe the Happy Together
Speaker 2: distinction for me is that it's just so assured and
Speaker 2: confident and a little I'm trying to think of the
Speaker 2: right phrase that doesn't sound like I'm dismissing the previous films,
Speaker 2: which I've loved. But a little calmer, a little less forced,
Speaker 2: isn't the right word, because if you think about restraint,
Speaker 2: it's all about restraint, and the filmmaking matches that. So
Speaker 2: if you think about, you know, what we had early
Speaker 2: on in something like Fallen Angels and the anticness of
Speaker 2: that which was really compelling or chunking express those pop
Speaker 2: song rhythms, which I loved. All of those flourishes are
Speaker 2: strengths of Wong's filmmaking and his previous films. But here
Speaker 2: you just get something that is dialed down a little bit.
Speaker 2: Even from Happy Together, I would argue, because you know,
Speaker 2: Happy Together has those black and white segments, maybe a
Speaker 2: little more ostentatious use of the camera here or there.
Speaker 2: In terms of slow motion, I think it's very familiar
Speaker 2: from Happy Together. Happy Together is the close. It's like,
Speaker 2: this is just one step further in terms of the
Speaker 2: esthetics from Happy Together, and it's a it's a perfection
Speaker 2: of what he was working on in film. I think. So,
Speaker 2: you know, I don't want to waste a lot of time,
Speaker 2: you know, saying why it's better than these other wonderful films.
Speaker 2: I just love this movie so much. On another revisit,
Speaker 2: it's one that you might think, Okay, there isn't a
Speaker 2: ton of plot here, so how many times can you
Speaker 2: watch this before there might not be enough to engage in. Well,
Speaker 2: you know, there'll be a new lamp in the background
Speaker 2: that you'll engage with this time because you have the
Speaker 2: time now to just sit and appreciate why that lamp
Speaker 2: was chosen, where it's placed in the shot, what colors
Speaker 2: it's it's reflecting or working with. How the typewriter in
Speaker 2: this scene perfectly matches Maggie Chung's dress and all this there.
Speaker 1: Maybe you just didn't pay attention to a certain dress
Speaker 1: the third six four, Yeah, yeah, there's Yeah.
Speaker 2: This is so rich that it's open endless viewings, and
Speaker 2: I certainly enjoyed this most recent one I had.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm with you, And when we do ultimately finish
Speaker 1: this marathon, we will culminate with our World of One
Speaker 1: Car Why Marathon Awards, and we were looking for a name,
Speaker 1: and a listener on Twitter responded to us, and I
Speaker 1: won't get it right. I couldn't find it, So I
Speaker 1: apologize to the listener. Maybe you can find it, Josh,
Speaker 1: who threw out this suggestion, but we will definitely mention
Speaker 1: you when we get to those awards. They said, you know,
Speaker 1: you guys keep talking about Tony Leung and how great
Speaker 1: he is and how he's the unsung kind of master
Speaker 1: collaborator of this marathon. Maybe unsung's not quite the right
Speaker 1: word because we keep talking about him. The suggestion was
Speaker 1: maybe we should call, cheekily, we should call the awards
Speaker 1: the Tony's and I know we both like that idea
Speaker 1: a lot. But of course, now you watch in the
Speaker 1: Mood for Love and I start to question whether or
Speaker 1: not it's really Tony Leong, because maybe it's Maggie Chung
Speaker 1: who's been in multiple films so far, or what about
Speaker 1: Christopher Doyle, who I think has lensed all of the
Speaker 1: movies so far. And maybe my real answer as far
Speaker 1: as who is the MVP, the MVP collaborator, the MVC
Speaker 1: will go with Josh William Chang as the costume designer
Speaker 1: and the production designer. Here I mean well, and.
Speaker 2: That's interesting because those things work so well together. As
Speaker 2: I was already hinting at that, it makes perfect sense
Speaker 2: that the same eye is behind.
Speaker 1: Both absolutely, and Chang was at least the production designer.
Speaker 1: I don't have his IMDb yet, but he was at
Speaker 1: least the production designer on every other film in this marathon.
Speaker 1: And we have talked about it a lot. I'm with you, though,
Speaker 1: this is just this is perfection. This is a perfect
Speaker 1: end to this marathon. Beyond some of those stylistic flourishes
Speaker 1: and the design and the costume design we're touching on,
Speaker 1: this is the ultimate expression of all of the key
Speaker 1: themes and concerns we've discussed so far. Loneliness. When you
Speaker 1: think about it, how this relationship, if we can really
Speaker 1: call it that, how it starts is that these are
Speaker 1: just two people who needs somebody to talk to. That's
Speaker 1: really it, right, They are so alone and this idea
Speaker 1: of having unfulfilled desire or hopeless love, whatever terminology you
Speaker 1: want to apply to his films, And we've talked about
Speaker 1: how rarely in this marathon we've actually seen sexual passion
Speaker 1: or explicit eroticism. Well, here I mentioned the whole film
Speaker 1: was about restraint. It's all built around the conceit of
Speaker 1: Chow and missus Chan not acting on their feelings right
Speaker 1: and maintaining these appearances of propriety. And I've noted that
Speaker 1: Wong seems preoccupied with the notion that love is really
Speaker 1: only good when it's not realized, or maybe to put
Speaker 1: a finer point on it, when it's not consummated. And
Speaker 1: the Chinese version, or one version of this movie's title,
Speaker 1: at least according to the Criterion Collection edition notes, is
Speaker 1: kind of like the Most Beautiful Times, And if you
Speaker 1: think about it, it's so appropriate, of course, because at
Speaker 1: the end of this movie, aren't they both trying to
Speaker 1: kind of recapture their past to an extent, or at
Speaker 1: least parts of it, even if they have no intentions
Speaker 1: of actually seeing each other again. They're romanticizing this time
Speaker 1: of their life, despite the fact that it's one in
Speaker 1: which both of their spouses were cheating on them and
Speaker 1: they had to completely withhold their feelings for each other.
Speaker 1: I also think that the title transitions perfectly to the
Speaker 1: next obsession, and it's that use of the words kind
Speaker 1: of like Wong's characters love to act, to play, pretend,
Speaker 1: to create scenarios, and to try on other roles in
Speaker 1: order to try to process their feelings and their understanding
Speaker 1: of the world. And we see these characters here actually
Speaker 1: kind of trace the steps of their spouses and they
Speaker 1: play out and discuss how he's acting like her husband,
Speaker 1: and vice versa. And that line, how devis stating and
Speaker 1: great a line is Maggie Chung's we won't be like them.
Speaker 1: She says it's so matter of factly, but it's almost
Speaker 1: as if she by saying it is making it so.
Speaker 1: It's this directive that she's putting out into the world,
Speaker 1: and there's just a little bit of hesitation maybe or
Speaker 1: her being unsure when she says that line. But it's
Speaker 1: just devastating because you immediately understand that motivation of not
Speaker 1: wanting to be like these spouses who have made them
Speaker 1: feel this way, and of course you understand the consequences
Speaker 1: of that directive as well, saying will be will be
Speaker 1: better than them, basically, even if it means we're worse off,
Speaker 1: even if it means we have to pretend this very
Speaker 1: real thing is not real, and it's just a fantasy
Speaker 1: to us. So they're driven maybe by morality to an extent,
Speaker 1: and also perhaps masochism, but that kind of masochism is real.
Speaker 1: That feeling is real and intense and maybe more intense
Speaker 1: and something more transcendent than actually succumbing to your desires.
Speaker 1: At least that's what they hope, and at least that's
Speaker 1: what it seems Wang is exploring here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know how much actual pleasure they get
Speaker 2: from it, but they are inflicting more pain on themselves
Speaker 2: than necessary, not only by just being together, but by
Speaker 2: the role plane that you're talking about. And Chung has
Speaker 2: another devastating line and we're going to be citing two
Speaker 2: lines here. Even though there isn't a lot of dialogue
Speaker 2: in this movie. I think a lot of the exquisite
Speaker 2: work is done without dialogue. But there is another role
Speaker 2: plane sequence where she's imagining her husband confessing mister Child's
Speaker 2: playing the husband here, and she just breaks down when
Speaker 2: he does and says, I didn't expect it to hurt
Speaker 2: so much. And what that reveals is that you know
Speaker 2: they've been doing this role plane as a way of
Speaker 2: building up defenses, as a way of not facing the
Speaker 2: reality and at that point it all falls apart. Oh yeah,
Speaker 2: money Kundos. I think she is so magnificent in this
Speaker 2: movie because she's she has even more reticence than Leung does,
Speaker 2: at least her character missus Chan. I love going back
Speaker 2: to the dresses here. It's it's built into the costume
Speaker 2: design because these are these I think there are Chung
Speaker 2: Sam dresses. So the neck, the very high neck, and
Speaker 2: it's it's like there's this wall actually built around her
Speaker 2: under her chin, just keeping things out. And that sequence
Speaker 2: is where it does just does all come. It invades,
Speaker 2: like the hurt invades, and we see it on her face.
Speaker 2: This is where you know, the implacable expression. We've seen
Speaker 2: her have so much, even even to mister Child. You
Speaker 2: know she only lets him in so far. It does
Speaker 2: come crashing down here, and it echoes a later scene
Speaker 2: years later where she's just standing by. She revisits the
Speaker 2: apartment complex and is just standing by a window and
Speaker 2: you see her forcing down those exact same tiers. So
Speaker 2: I think Cheung is amazing in this and it's hard
Speaker 2: to talk about them separately because this is one of
Speaker 2: those paired performances where what one does helps the other.
Speaker 2: In the performance, they have this you know, they're in
Speaker 2: perfect rhythm. Her reticence is in perfect rhythm with Leung's
Speaker 2: reserve because he is kind of tapping into something we've
Speaker 2: seen before. I think he has more of the resigned
Speaker 2: melancholy we saw as the beat cop in Chunking Express
Speaker 2: than he did in Happy Together, there was more of
Speaker 2: a spurned anger. I think here he's more back to
Speaker 2: this resigned melancholy. I like how he claims at one
Speaker 2: point that he doesn't brood over his wife's infidelities, and
Speaker 2: his friend says, well, all that means is that you're
Speaker 2: quote bottled up right, and so so this is more
Speaker 2: costume design coming into play. His immaculate suits, his perfectly
Speaker 2: combed hair that alsuggests, yeah, he's not rough armor, but
Speaker 2: it's an armor. Yeah, he's pretending not to be ruffled
Speaker 2: by this. But watch Leung's eyes and this goes back
Speaker 2: to the you know we don't need dialogue, how they
Speaker 2: change every time he looks at her, at missus chand
Speaker 2: it's like a there's some panicked longing there because he
Speaker 2: it's reminding him of what he's suffering. It's also reminding
Speaker 2: him of the pledge they made together, and how he
Speaker 2: really doesn't want to stick to that, because I think
Speaker 2: he makes more moves watching this again than she does
Speaker 2: to kind of break that pledge. He's always respectful, but
Speaker 2: he opens the door or at least knocks on the
Speaker 2: door a couple of times, and you see that in
Speaker 2: his eyes as well. So these two are just so
Speaker 2: perfectly in sync in this film that you can't imagine
Speaker 2: it working at all without one of them if you
Speaker 2: substitute a different actor.
Speaker 1: Yeah, to your point, isn't it his hand We see
Speaker 1: one or two times reaching for hers, I believe, so
Speaker 1: it's never hers reaching for his. But you mentioned that
Speaker 1: scene the role playing with the confrontation about the infidelity,
Speaker 1: and what I love about the two big scenes that
Speaker 1: I would call not just role playing scenes but rehearsal scenes,
Speaker 1: or that Wong really employs some fabulous misdirection to just
Speaker 1: add an extra bit of charge to the scene for
Speaker 1: the viewer. So in that scene, because he has made
Speaker 1: a decision from the very beginning to veil the spouses,
Speaker 1: we never see them, we hear them. They're behind closed doors,
Speaker 1: sometimes they're on the other side of a wall. We
Speaker 1: see the backs of their head, but we never actually
Speaker 1: see them. That means that when she is seated there
Speaker 1: and we're looking at her seated to the side and
Speaker 1: he is directly in front of us with his back
Speaker 1: turned to the camera as he sits, there's a second
Speaker 1: where I felt, anyway that oh, the husband's returned and
Speaker 1: she's actually she is confronting him, And of course it
Speaker 1: turns out that it's not. It's the rehearsal. It's the
Speaker 1: rehearsal of that confrontation, and she gets to act through
Speaker 1: it and see and experience those emotions with Tony Leung.
Speaker 1: And then near the end what seems to be their breakup.
Speaker 1: It's the moment where you think they have finally decided
Speaker 1: that this surely isn't going to work. What is inevitable,
Speaker 1: what they even know is inevitable, that they're never going
Speaker 1: to come together. So they say goodbye to each other,
Speaker 1: and we as viewers, at least I did, Josh Again,
Speaker 1: maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention. I was watching
Speaker 1: the thinking, oh man, this is it, this is the goodbye,
Speaker 1: and then to find that Leung basically says, no, remember
Speaker 1: that's just the rehearsal, you know, that's just the practice.
Speaker 1: We still we still get to be with each other
Speaker 1: for at least a little while longer. It's really powerful,
Speaker 1: and I think there's really something powerful to that whole
Speaker 1: notion of cinema, I think being this tool. I've argued
Speaker 1: this before, cinema being a tool for us as viewers
Speaker 1: to rehearse how we engage with the world. We see
Speaker 1: how other people act and behave in situations that we
Speaker 1: have seen ourselves in, or imagine ourselves could be in,
Speaker 1: or maybe imagine that we could never handle, and we
Speaker 1: see how they go through it, and maybe it informs
Speaker 1: our sense of the world. Well, Now, imagine if you
Speaker 1: were a filmmaker like Wankar, why who is not only
Speaker 1: a passive viewer, but you're the one who's getting to
Speaker 1: sort of act out. You're getting to rehearse, You're getting
Speaker 1: to stage these scenes and act out your deepest fears
Speaker 1: and longings through these mini plays within this larger construct.
Speaker 1: It's just something that really appeals to me. And I don't
Speaker 1: know if I've said it before in this marathon, but
Speaker 1: that infatuation with role playing, I imagine is a reason
Speaker 1: why whether he's articulated it or not, I don't know
Speaker 1: why Quentin Tarantino has always been such a fan of
Speaker 1: One Car, why because they share that same obsession.
Speaker 2: So we're both talking with you know, fair confidence about
Speaker 2: the nature of this relationship and how it ends up.
Speaker 2: And it's interesting because just before we start recording here,
Speaker 2: I had a comment from a listener on my letterbox
Speaker 2: logging of watching this movie Warner West, who basically has
Speaker 2: a question for us about the ending. So maybe we'll
Speaker 2: return to that, and it happens to involve how we
Speaker 2: understand their relationship, So remind me that we'll return to it.
Speaker 2: Speaking of listeners, yes, it was Ellen Chesher at c
Speaker 2: H E s H E l l E N on
Speaker 2: Twitter who suggested the Tonys, which is just so good, fantastic.
Speaker 2: So I think we've probably covered the performances, even though
Speaker 2: there's maybe more we could say, but definitely highlights. I
Speaker 2: want to jump back to the filmmaking and just talk
Speaker 2: about some of these mood moments that we get in
Speaker 2: this film where I'm afraid by my talking about this
Speaker 2: being a more reserved movie for someone who hasn't seen it,
Speaker 2: they might think it's more conventional than his other pictures,
Speaker 2: and it's absolutely not like this is this is pure
Speaker 2: wankhar why because we get these mood moments, including the
Speaker 2: montage of them passing each other on the way to
Speaker 2: the noodle stall maybe my favorite sequences in the film.
Speaker 2: It's something that is recurring. It kind of at first
Speaker 2: shows us their loneliness. They're going out to get dinner
Speaker 2: because they are not going to cook it for someone else.
Speaker 2: There's no one else home. They're each in this situation
Speaker 2: and they pass each other a handful of times. And
Speaker 2: this is where the slow motion comes into play. This
Speaker 2: is where that theme music, the shagiro Umbayashis Yumeggi's theme
Speaker 2: comes into play. And even that is interesting, you know
Speaker 2: how it has these lilting violins to it. It's it's
Speaker 2: somewhat similar to the tango music we heard and happy
Speaker 2: to ge other, but also it seems like even a
Speaker 2: step back from that in terms of its pace and
Speaker 2: its rhythm. And it's just the slow motion in here
Speaker 2: is also very judicious. Sometimes it's raining when they're doing this.
Speaker 2: That adds another level to it. And those I could
Speaker 2: have watched them go back and forth to get their
Speaker 2: noodles for the entire running time of this movie. Just
Speaker 2: for the little variations each time and where the camera is,
Speaker 2: how much lighting is allowed in that stairway so that
Speaker 2: they can not really see each other's faces. The next time,
Speaker 2: maybe they do see each other's faces a little bit more.
Speaker 2: And it's all these imperceptible changes that are so important,
Speaker 2: And that is where the emotional element of this just
Speaker 2: hits me the hardest. It's like you're watching these two
Speaker 2: halves of a broken heart throb when they pass each other,
Speaker 2: and it captures everything that you need to know about
Speaker 2: where they are at in that moment, and it carries
Speaker 2: through past where they even go together. So that's that's like,
Speaker 2: that's what their time together was, passing each other on
Speaker 2: those stairways, even if they do end up becoming a
Speaker 2: little closer later.
Speaker 1: I mentioned the veiling technique with the spouses. Everything is
Speaker 1: so secretive here and Wong has so much fun, I
Speaker 1: would say with that tension. As I was jotting down
Speaker 1: some notes when I noticed this the first maybe one
Speaker 1: or two times, I posed a question to myself, Josh,
Speaker 1: you're an expert film critic and note taker. Do you
Speaker 1: do you sometimes just write questions to yourself that you
Speaker 1: know you need to return to you don't know the
Speaker 1: answer to, but you know you need to return to them. Yeah, sure, sure,
Speaker 1: so I wrote down why does the camera hide?
Speaker 2: Oh? I love that, I love that touch.
Speaker 1: And as you it's always down a hall right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: as you keep watching the film, you realize even the
Speaker 1: camera in the mood for love has to steal glances.
Speaker 1: The view was always through a reflection in a mirror,
Speaker 1: or it's under the table, or it's through a window,
Speaker 1: or it's through a curtain, or it's through a curtain
Speaker 1: of smoke. Talk about a movie that makes smoking look
Speaker 1: so glamorous. The way Christopher Doyle's camera captures that haze
Speaker 1: is really pretty magnificent. And just in general, how many
Speaker 1: times do we see them obscure To go back to
Speaker 1: your point too, about the lighting and as they pass
Speaker 1: each other, it's as if you are eavesdropping on them.
Speaker 1: It's as if you are there in the hallway, that
Speaker 1: cramped hallway. Again, it's long relying on a very close technique,
Speaker 1: not a lot of master shots though, of course, when
Speaker 1: we get on the street, and there are some elements
Speaker 1: to the production design where we do kind of take
Speaker 1: in the expanse of the scene but especially when they're indoors,
Speaker 1: when they're in those apartment settings, when they're moving in together,
Speaker 1: he's really emphasizing how close they are. You're always seeing
Speaker 1: them in a medium shot or medium close up or
Speaker 1: a close up, so that eavesdropping sort of effect adds
Speaker 1: to that tension. But then how about this, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: ask you a question here, Josh, And I think the
Speaker 1: fact that there may be isn't one answer or one
Speaker 1: go to answer for one hundred people you pose this
Speaker 1: question to helps signify just how special this movie is.
Speaker 1: But if I asked you, let's skip romantic gestures for now.
Speaker 1: We're gonna get to that eventually. And there are multiple
Speaker 1: in this film, and there's one really amazing one that
Speaker 1: did in fact make your top five from this movie
Speaker 1: back in twenty thirteen. But when we do talk about eroticism,
Speaker 1: something something close to sexiness, true sultry sexiness in this film,
Speaker 1: something that actually kind of radiates some real intensity. Do
Speaker 1: you have a moment like that from this movie?
Speaker 2: That one that I jotted down? So my three seconds
Speaker 2: response is maybe a strange one. But how about when
Speaker 2: he says, then I'll spend some time with you here,
Speaker 2: Then I'll wait it out here. When she is caught
Speaker 2: in the rain in the alley under a light, doesn't
Speaker 2: want to get that dress wet, which I completely understand.
Speaker 2: So she's kind of, you know, under an awning, and
Speaker 2: he comes. It's kind of that whole sequence. Actually he's
Speaker 2: coming from another direction, sees her. He's running in his
Speaker 2: suit in the rain, ducks under the awning. Next door,
Speaker 2: offers his jacket to her. She says, we can't go
Speaker 2: in together, or if they see your jacket they'll know.
Speaker 2: He runs and gets an umbrella, brings it back. She says,
Speaker 2: I can't take your umbrella. So after all these romantic gestures,
Speaker 2: he finally just says, and I wish I could remember
Speaker 2: the words, but then I'll just be here with you
Speaker 2: and leans back against the wall. And I love the
Speaker 2: next beat silence that they don't say anything to each other,
Speaker 2: and they just that to me. I don't know why,
Speaker 2: is like credibly sexy. They're just completely comfortable sitting there.
Speaker 1: To gaxy for Josh Larson, there you go, what.
Speaker 2: What did you just say?
Speaker 1: I think you just miss character sexy. Well I just
Speaker 1: think it's yeah, I don't know why.
Speaker 2: There's just something about that shared moment that they have
Speaker 2: together where nothing else needs to be said.
Speaker 1: Okay, well I'm gonna give you mine, Okay. I think
Speaker 1: it's during the dinner that is really their first true
Speaker 1: role playing excursion, kind of a date where they are
Speaker 1: taking on the characters of their spouses or the other's spouse.
Speaker 1: And there's a moment where we see and the camera
Speaker 1: really does emphasize it because it cuts to as I recall,
Speaker 1: cuts to Tony Leung's hand as he grabs what I
Speaker 1: think is probably some hot mustard, and then it follows
Speaker 1: him as he puts it on her plate. Now, even
Speaker 1: before this, I'll just mention, when we're talking about technique,
Speaker 1: this is a movie where the camera is mostly pretty still.
Speaker 1: We've talked about how restrained overall the I where.
Speaker 2: You're going is I love this camera move.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But then all of a sudden, just in this scene,
Speaker 1: there's a couple of quick pans between them.
Speaker 2: It's almost like a slide right, It slides like from
Speaker 2: behind them right up next to them, which is exact,
Speaker 2: as you're saying, like very ostentatious compared to what we've
Speaker 2: been getting.
Speaker 1: But I think it helps just add some electricity. Yes,
Speaker 1: to a scene in a moment that seems like it
Speaker 1: otherwise might be fairly I don't know, harmless. And then
Speaker 1: we get that moment when he he dabs the mustard
Speaker 1: on her plate, and you see her considerate, and just
Speaker 1: in that consideration, in her silence, I think it's pretty
Speaker 1: clear to us that this isn't maybe something that she
Speaker 1: would normally eat. She clearly didn't grab it on her
Speaker 1: own and put it on her plate to eat with
Speaker 1: whatever she's eating. But he has put it on her
Speaker 1: plate for her, and she hesitates, and then what does
Speaker 1: she do? She dips her entree into it and then
Speaker 1: eats it as voraciously as as Maggie Chung does anything
Speaker 1: voraciously in this movie. But I swear to you, Josh,
Speaker 1: at the exact moment, I'm thinking to myself, while that
Speaker 1: was hot? He says, do you like it hot? And
Speaker 1: and let's be clear, Tony Leung is not Roger Moore.
Speaker 1: I don't know that there's any double on Tondra intended.
Speaker 1: There's nothing winking about his performance.
Speaker 2: He doesn't need he doesn't need double on Tandra's.
Speaker 1: No, he really doesn't, right, I mean, he's a walking
Speaker 1: double on Tondre. But but maybe the English translation even
Speaker 1: is sort of misleading because that's not really what he's saying,
Speaker 1: or maybe Wong is winking at us there in that moment,
Speaker 1: even if Leung isn't. But he asks her, do you
Speaker 1: like it hot? In the subtitle? And I'm telling you
Speaker 1: in that moment, before he even said it, I really
Speaker 1: was responding to how charged that scene was. I could
Speaker 1: give you the play by play and really make my point,
Speaker 1: but I think, Josh, it would make you blush, and
Speaker 1: I don't want to embarrass you here on the show.
Speaker 1: But it is undenied. It's about sexual, It's undeniably sexual
Speaker 1: because it's about it's about power. He doesn't ask, he
Speaker 1: puts it on her plate. He makes the move to
Speaker 1: put it on her plate to basically suggest that he
Speaker 1: wants her to to try that, to eat it, and
Speaker 1: she does, she submits to it. It's it's a pretty
Speaker 1: incredible scene.
Speaker 2: I'm so glad you asked this question because it clarified
Speaker 2: another important distinction between us, Adam, I prefer quiet intimacy
Speaker 2: and you like dirty talk.
Speaker 1: So dirty talk.
Speaker 2: I'm glad we know this now.
Speaker 1: And Hot Mustard, I thought you were actually gonna put
Speaker 1: it in this way that I just realized. My epiphany
Speaker 1: was you find silence sexy, I find food sexy.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, it kind of has a mixture of dirty
Speaker 2: talk and food. So I think with that we should
Speaker 2: move on for everyone's sakes.
Speaker 1: So let's go let's go to something every buddy I
Speaker 1: can see him.
Speaker 2: Let's go to something far less sexy and talk about politics,
Speaker 2: because it's something you brought up. I forget if it
Speaker 2: were was with all happy yeah, yeah, totally happy together.
Speaker 2: Maybe you brought this up and I don't have an answer,
Speaker 2: but I have it was in the back of my
Speaker 2: mind since you touched on it, and I have like
Speaker 2: just an inkling from watching this film and where it
Speaker 2: ends up. You know, we have this sequence a couple
Speaker 2: of years later. I think we're about sixty six now,
Speaker 2: and the politics kind of come into play in some
Speaker 2: oblique ways. I think, though it is interesting before this
Speaker 2: last sequence, Adam, you get that comment. I think it's
Speaker 2: when we're back at the apartment building a couple years later.
Speaker 2: It might be like sixty four at that point, and
Speaker 2: a new resident I think says people are leaving Hong
Speaker 2: Kong because things have gotten quote too chaotic, So that's
Speaker 2: kind of like a little hint of some instability. But
Speaker 2: this sequence is in Cambodia at the end nineteen sixty six,
Speaker 2: and yeah, we get this newsreel footage all of a sudden,
Speaker 2: I guess to set, you know, at first, I'm like, okay,
Speaker 2: this is setting the time and place. But it's this
Speaker 2: parade I think, with the prince and princess and French
Speaker 2: President Charles de Gaulle, and so I'm thinking, okay, this
Speaker 2: is sixty six. Did just some brief, very brief research,
Speaker 2: but it looks like that would have been just before
Speaker 2: the Vietnam War kind of destabilized Cambodia and spread into Cambodia.
Speaker 2: Then we get that final sequence in ank or Watt,
Speaker 2: where we're just with mister Chow Leung and he is
Speaker 2: maybe I don't want to spoil all of it, but
Speaker 2: this is the romantic gesture. But he's basically wandering the
Speaker 2: ruined ancient temple complex there, so a lost civilization that
Speaker 2: is no longer It's basically something that tourists go to
Speaker 2: visit at this point. And so I'm realizing that, you know,
Speaker 2: all of these things are suggestions of not only like
Speaker 2: territories that are being destabilized in Hong Kong countries in Cambodia,
Speaker 2: and then an entire civilization that has failed to last.
Speaker 2: And I'm just thinking of, you know, how could he
Speaker 2: have expected that this relationship, first of all, his own
Speaker 2: marriage to last, then this relationship to last when like
Speaker 2: these massive civilizations crumble in the face of what a
Speaker 2: long obsession time. All of these things are suggestions of
Speaker 2: time bearing down, things are about to change the way
Speaker 2: that things always change, and instability is the only constant,
Speaker 2: and as we've seen, unhappiness because of that is often
Speaker 2: the only constant. So that's just kind of a vague
Speaker 2: stab at maybe some of the political tie ins. I know,
Speaker 2: it doesn't get into any of the details of the
Speaker 2: realities of Hong Kong during this era or later, you know,
Speaker 2: eventually what thirty years later would have been transferred from
Speaker 2: colonial rule to China. But maybe that's something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you've said it very well. I think
Speaker 1: there's always a sense, at least in these six films
Speaker 1: that we've watched, of destabilization looming. It's always there, and
Speaker 1: sometimes it is more direct, sometimes it's a little more oblique.
Speaker 1: Here it is interesting that moment when all of a
Speaker 1: sudden we cut to newsreel footage is so jarring compared
Speaker 1: to everything we've seen before, this mood piece where we
Speaker 1: are just enveloped in this world and these dresses and
Speaker 1: the production design that we've touched on, and then all
Speaker 1: of a sudden we're watching Charles Degall. It's like we've
Speaker 1: all of a sudden been thrust into the real world
Speaker 1: and we've been in a fantasy up until this point.
Speaker 1: It reminded me actually in a way, in a completely
Speaker 1: different way, but it took me out of the moment
Speaker 1: in the same sort of fascinating way that the end
Speaker 1: of Kiristami's Taste of Cherry, where all of a sudden
Speaker 1: we get some whole movie footage, and if I'm remembering correctly,
Speaker 1: we see Kiristami himself like making the movie that we
Speaker 1: just watched. So again, very different, but in some ways
Speaker 1: for me, a similar effect, where you are taken out
Speaker 1: of this kind of hypnotic reverie with this movie and
Speaker 1: reminded that, oh, all of this is happening in a
Speaker 1: real world, a much larger world, where they're just one
Speaker 1: kind of tiny speck in the universe, and that of course,
Speaker 1: I think does set up ultimately the grandness of that
Speaker 1: romantic gesture. So maybe that is a nice way to
Speaker 1: get back to the question you posed. And I don't
Speaker 1: know if we want to go ahead and throw out that.
Speaker 1: If people want to not have In the Mood for
Speaker 1: Love further spoiled, they could stop listening at this point.
Speaker 1: But Warner West, I believe Warner West in Atlanta, He's
Speaker 1: in the atl Josh, what's his question? What's his query?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so again this is on letterbox. He said that
Speaker 2: In The Mood for Love is likely my favorite Wang
Speaker 2: Khawaii film. I was interested in the film spotting team's
Speaker 2: take on the ending. I believe I got the same
Speaker 2: interpretation as you in my several watches, but I know
Speaker 2: others interpret their relationship differently, particularly in regards to who
Speaker 2: we see with Maggie Cheung in her final scene. So
Speaker 2: I did not respond to him yet, so I'm just
Speaker 2: kind of guessing what he's hinting at. But towards the
Speaker 2: end is where we see her return to rent an
Speaker 2: apartment in the same complex where they were years earlier,
Speaker 2: and she has a child with her, So I'm wondering
Speaker 2: if what Werner is suggesting I haven't read others takes,
Speaker 2: but that this may be mister Chow's child that they
Speaker 2: did in fact consummate the relationship at some point.
Speaker 1: There is a.
Speaker 2: Scene where they the role playing. They even go to
Speaker 2: a hotel where they believe their respective spouses have been meeting,
Speaker 2: and we don't see anything, but they're there. There's a
Speaker 2: room there, So it could have been something that happened
Speaker 2: off screen and resulted in this child that he doesn't
Speaker 2: know about, right because he happens to be visiting either
Speaker 2: at the same time or a few scenes later, stops
Speaker 2: in front of the door, thinks about knocking but doesn't.
Speaker 2: It's another just great wangkhar WHI, like, you know, time
Speaker 2: shifting in just the wrong way moment. So yeah, I
Speaker 2: mean I definitely considered this as I was watching, is like,
Speaker 2: you know, have we just not seen them take that step.
Speaker 2: I like to think Adam, for the reasons we've been
Speaker 2: talking about that it's in keeping with all of the
Speaker 2: other films he has made that they would not have
Speaker 2: and that retains it's not even really the moral question
Speaker 2: as much as the the auturist question. You know, it
Speaker 2: retains the au tourist integrity of his filmography. But I
Speaker 2: can totally see that reading, and that in fact, would
Speaker 2: add another layer of melancholy and sadness if he did
Speaker 2: not only miss on reuniting with her, but his child potentially.
Speaker 2: But I don't know did Where did you kind of
Speaker 2: come down on that?
Speaker 1: Well? I think anybody watching, no matter the experience you're
Speaker 1: having with the film or how you're interpreting it up
Speaker 1: to that point, I think that moment where you realize
Speaker 1: that she no longer seems to have a husband but
Speaker 1: does have a child, you do instantly wonder. I mean,
Speaker 1: we've seen this trope a million times in other movies,
Speaker 1: right where a couple that had a fling, they separate
Speaker 1: and oh they had a child, and the man doesn't
Speaker 1: know about it but eventually does discover the news. For me,
Speaker 1: I just can't, I can't abide that reading of the film.
Speaker 1: I think it's it's too it's too in conflict with
Speaker 1: everything we've expressed, everything we've seen in this marathon. You're
Speaker 1: right that it does add another layer of melancholy, which
Speaker 1: would seem appropriate, So you could you could go with
Speaker 1: that argument, But for me, the idea that they ever
Speaker 1: did actually act like their spouses that they gave in
Speaker 1: In a way, maybe it makes them more human, But
Speaker 1: I don't think that's what wankar Whi is really interested
Speaker 1: in here. I think he's he's interested in the provocation
Speaker 1: of these people in the philosophical kind of consequences, the
Speaker 1: existential consequences of them making that decision. In sticking to it,
Speaker 1: we won't be like them. So I think my reading
Speaker 1: is the one where she has at some point separated
Speaker 1: from her husband or perhaps he's passed. She did get
Speaker 1: a child from that marriage, and that you imagine allows
Speaker 1: her to be a little less alone in life. But
Speaker 1: it doesn't have to be mister Chow's kid.
Speaker 2: I'm glad you know. We may not Addam, we may
Speaker 2: not agree on hot mustard as a sex toy, but
Speaker 2: I'm glad we agree on the ending of in the
Speaker 2: mood for love.
Speaker 1: Remember you can access the full film Spotting archive going
Speaker 1: back to two thousand and five. By being a film
Speaker 1: Spotting Family member, you get bonus shows, a weekly newsletter,
Speaker 1: and more. Learn more at film spotting Family dot com.
Speaker 1: Film Spotting is listeners supported. Join the film Spotting Family
Speaker 1: at Filmspotting Family dot com and get access to ad
Speaker 1: free episodes, monthly bonus shows, our weekly newsletter, and, for
Speaker 1: the first time, all in one place, the entire film
Speaker 1: Spotting archive going back to two thousand and five. That's
Speaker 1: a film Spotting family dot com panically