Watching the films in the Spoken Silence program makes me wonder how many auteurs are working in the Thai independent cinema? Because many films in this program really reflect the distinct styles of each director, though they make films under the same theme. I don’t really know what ‘auteur’ means. So here in my blog I will give my own meaning to it. The word ‘auteur’ I use here means ‘a director who has distinct styles of his/her own’. I hope you understand that the meaning of the word ‘auteur’ I use here might differ from the real meaning of the word ‘auteur’ used by other persons.
What I write here is a question. I just wonder about it and think you might want to think about it, might want to answer it, provide more information about it, or discuss it. I don’t declare that the following directors are auteurs. I just ask, “Do you think they are auteurs or not?”. It’s you who can answer, not me.
I’m just an ordinary audience, so I can’t analyze deeply the distinct styles of each director. I can’t analyze how uniquely they compose a shot, or how uniquely they edit the scenes. I just think most of these directors repeatedly make films under the same themes. Some of them keep making films about lovely children. Some of them keep making films about politics. Some of them don’t really have to put their names in the films’ opening credits, because many viewers can guess by themselves like this-- “With this kind of scenes, with this kind of topics, with this way to tell a story, with this way to create atmosphere, with this style to film an object, or film a person, this must be the work of this one and only Thai director.”
THE THAI DIRECTORS WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE AUTEURS INCLUDE:
(in alphabetical order)
1.Anocha Suwichakornpong
Female trouble
2.Chulayarnnon Siriphol
Camera as observer
3.Kullachat Jitkajornwanit
Cult films
4.Manussak Dokmai
Essay films, social issues with personal opinions, non-linear narrative
5.Michael Shaowanasai
Gay manic
6.Nathan Homsup + Dhan Lhaow
Cult films, non-linear narrative
7.Nuttorn Kungwanklai
Lovely children, absence of evil
8.Pimpaka Towira
Feminine cinema
9.Prap Boonpan
Essay films, political records with his personal opinions
10.Punlop Horharin
I think many of his images are not obviously surreal—the forest in EVERYTHING WILL FLOW, the views from a train in A HALF LIFE OF CARBON 14, the views in Bangkok in SILENCE WILL SPEAK--but he can make great surreal feelings out of them.
11.Sasithorn Ariyavicha
Indescribably atmospheric, extremely slow
12.Sathit Sattarasart
Atmospheric
13.Tanwarin Sukhapisit
Gay romantic
14.Thunska Pansittivorakul
Gay erotic, friendship, hybrid between fiction and documentary
15.Tosaporn Mongkol
Non-linear narrative
16.Tossapol Boonsinsukh
Loneliness, atmospheric, extremely slow. Some of his films are non-linear narratives.
17.Tulapop Saenjaroen
Semi-abstract
18.Uruphong Raksasad
Rural lifestyles
19.Zart Tancharoen
Atmospheric, romantic, non-linear narrative
I just put my questions here because I think it’s interesting. However, I want to point out that:
1.I’m not an expert in any directors above. So please correct me if I write anything wrong or understand anything wrong.
2.Many directors above don’t make films in one style. For example, Uruphong Raksasad also directed an animation and a romantic film shot by a mobile phone (if I remember it correctly.) Tanwarin Sukhapisit also directed experimental films.
3. I ask questions here just because I am curious. I don’t mean to encourage any directors to create a distinct style of his/her own, or stick to only one style of filmmaking. I think every director should make a film they feel happy to make, which may or may not mean the same style of films they used to make. It differs on each director and each situation in life.
I think each human being has many aspects inside oneself, so in order to express oneself, some of us might have to show these many aspects by making many different styles of films. It’s only the director who knows if he/she is really happy to stick with the same style of filmmaking at any time or not.
Many directors are great though they seem to have no obvious styles of their own—Louis Malle, Olivier Assayas.
Some directors seem to have distinct styles of their own—Poj Arnon, Yuthlert Sippapak. But I don’t know if they are great or not.
In conclusion, my questions about Thai auteurs are not important at all. It doesn’t matter to me if they are auteurs or not. I just want all of them to keep on making great films for us to see. And it doesn’t matter to me if they will or will not change their styles. I just want them to be happy in what they choose to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It's an interesting question.
I don't think that making cult films (Kullachat) or feminist films (Pimpaka) qualifies as auteurism, though.
I think of it as more about aesthetic rather than genre or even theme. A good definition would be your comment that "viewers can guess [the director] by themselves" - if the visual style is unmistakable.
For feature directors, I'd add the over-saturated colours of Wisit (though not in The Unseeable) and the (difficult to describe) meditative style of Apichatpong.
Thank you very much for your comment, Mat. Your comment is very useful for me and it is thought-provoking.
As for Thai directors who keep making films in the same genre, another one that I think is very interesting is Panu Aree. He directed many wonderful documentaries. But I can't figure out what is his unique filmic style, if he has one. His documentaries range from the straightforward, such as IN BETWEEN (2006, A), to the experimental, such as MAGIC WATER (A+). But as I said above, I'm glad enough that he keeps making good documentaries. It doesn't matter if he has unique filmic styles or not.
There are also some other Thai directors that I wonder if they are auteurs or not, such as Araya Rasdjarmrearnsook, Montri Toemsombat, or Santiphap Inkong-ngam. I have seen very few films of these artists-directors, so I can't figure out what may be their unique filmic styles.
Talking about this topic also makes me think about some great directors who make films which are very different from each other. For example, I have to confess that if no one tells me the name of the director, I would never have guessed by myself that THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW (1964, A+) and SALO OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM (1975, A+) are directed by the same person.
Of the artist-directors you mention, I'm only familiar with Araya. Of the video works by her I've seen (only a few), they all have the same long takes and no close-ups, but regardless I'd probably define her as a video artist rather than a film director.
The auteur theory was an attempt to validate the best film directors as artists, to upgrade their status. But Araya already is an artist.
The two Pasolini films you mention are certainly different in subject, but they both share a verite-style realism.
As a further example, consider Stanley Kubrick, who made films in many different genres yet whose style is clear in each film (slow zooms, long tracking shots, non-naturalistic performances).
--I have seen only two Kubrick films—A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and THE SHINING. I like them very much, but I saw THE SHINING when I was too young. I have to see it again to be able to fully appreciate it.
There is a shot of Kubrick that I like very much. It is in BARRY LYNDON (1975). I haven’t seen this film, but I saw a scene of this film in the documentary A PERSONAL JOURNEY WITH MARTIN SCORSESE THROUGH AMERICAN MOVIES (1995). It is a scene of a lady walking slowly. This scene is very impressive.
--As for directors who work in many different genres, I’m interested in Howard Hawks. I have seen only ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS (1939) and THE BIG SLEEP (1946). I have heard that he was admired very much as an American auteur, though I don’t know what is the important characteristic of his films.
--Thank you very much for your comment on Pasolini. I also like his ARABIAN NIGHTS (1974, A+) very much. I always think there’s something unique in ARABIAN NIGHTS, something which makes it very different from other films dealing with myths or fairy tales, but I can’t figure out what it is. I think it might be what you said. There’s a verite-style realism in it, though most directors wouldn’t have chosen this style for a story like that. Pasolini might be one of very few directors who choose this style to film such a story as ARABIAN NIGHTS, and can do it successfully. This kind of style wouldn’t be strange if used in a film like ACCATTONE (1961), which deals with working class people. But it looks strange to me when used in a film like ARABIAN NIGHTS. Strange means good in this case, though.
--Thank you very much for your comment on Araya. I like her works very much. I really agree with you that Araya is a video artist. I think Montri Toemsombat is, too.
I apologize if my writing confuses my readers. I hope all of you don’t mind that in my writing I usually don’t differentiate between video artists and film directors, nor differentiate between video arts and films. It is because differentiating between them will give me a great headache. I think it’s very good and totally right for other people to differentiate between them, but I can’t do it because I can’t tell by myself if this or that piece of work is a video art or an experimental film, or this piece of work is shot on video or shot on film, or something like that. So I call all of them ‘films’ just for my convenience, laziness, and stupidity.
Talking about video arts and Thai artists-directors also lead me to think about many things, including:
--I don’t know if I should call Sathit Sattarasart a video artist or a film director. I only know that I love his works.
--The Thai video artist that makes me very excited this year is Arin Rungjang with his video installation NEVER CONGREGATE, NEVER DISREGARD.
--I regret that I didn’t go to see CLOSET, which is the video installation of Wasan Riaoklang at Whitespace Gallery near Lido Theatre in late August. Did anyone go to see it? Is it good or not? I saw some short films by Wasan Riaoklang many years ago. He directed THE TREE (2003). His films are not my type, but I’m still interested to see what his video installation would be like.
http://www.whitespaceasia.com/gallery/work.html
A video of Wasan Riaoklang can be watched from the link below:
http://www.matraksiyon.com/izle,wasan_boom_performance,XRX8js3seNs.html
--Though I think of Michael Shaowanasai as one of my most favorite directors, I guess he can be called a video artist, too. He directed many films/videos in late 1990’s. But unfortunately in 2000’s I have seen very few films/videos by him. I think he directed a video satiring consumerism in 2001. I don’t know the name of this video, but I remember that it is very funny. It portrays three girls smiling and walking back and forth in a market. One of the girls has a broken neck and her neck has to be supported by a medical device or something like that. This video is a part of a video installation in Siam Discovery. I also saw PLAYGIRL (2005, Michael Shaowanasai, A+), which is a film/video specifically made to be shown at PLAYGROUND department store. I don’t know if this is an experimental film or a video art. I also saw NANG KWAK: EQUAL OPPORTUNITY? (2006, Sakarin Krue-On + Michael Shaowanasai, A+), which is a video installation.
--Some Thai films that I love are a bit like video arts, such as TWILIGHT VIDEO IN AFTERNOON (2007, Rachawadee Komolsut, A+) and LIVING DOLL OR A DEAD (2006, Kamolpan Chotvichai, A+). My most favorite film of Apichatpong Weerasethakul, WINDOWS (1999, A+), is also a bit like video art.
--I think some artists are not as successful in directing films as doing their own kind of works. For example, I think Cindy Sherman is a great artist in photography, but I think the film OFFICE KILLER (1997, Cindy Sherman, A-) is not as great as her photography.
--Another Thai artist who directed film is Kosit Juntaratip. I love his film very much. It’s called WHEN KOSIT WENT TO DEATH (2001, A+). I saw it only once and can’t remember any details in the film now. But I remember that the film is very very powerful. However, unlike Araya, Montri, or Santiphap, Kosit doesn’t make many films/videos that get to be shown in Bangkok. WHEN KOSIT WENT TO DEATH is still the only film of his that I’ve seen.
Apart from directing a film, Kosit creates many interesting pieces of art, such as
1.COPULATE WITH LOVE (1994), which is ejaculation on canvas.
http://www.khm.de/~kosit/html/copuB1_1.html
2.LOVE GARDEN (1996)
http://www.khm.de/~kosit/html/garden1_1.html
3.BODY TALKING (1998)
http://www.khm.de/~kosit/html/body1_1.html
More information on Kosit can be found here:
http://www.khm.de/~kosit/
Post a Comment