Monday, March 26, 2007

"Love Each Day" and get impaled by a metal rod


Are horror movies by definition insipid repetitions of cheap scares, where undeveloped characters you don't care about embark on meandering journeys and are then subject to arbitrary and relentless gore? If so, THE DESCENT is the perfect horror movie. Six (or five or seven, it really doesn't matter) women (some British, some American, one Asian) go on a crazy cave-diving trip in an unmarked cave in the Appalachians where they are one-by-one devoured alive by the molemen. It took about 40 minutes for the molemen to make an appearance; and only about 15 minutes into the movie, I had turned to Irwin and said, I'm not going to be able to continue watching this movie unless these girls start taking off their clothes and fucking each other or start getting killed. Unfortunately, there was no sex, except for the implied sex between the Asian chick who had been having an affair with the white-girl-protagonist's husband, who gets impaled by a metal rod in the first 5 minutes of the movie. Anyway once it gets going, it's a bit of a relief to see these obnoxious white girls get offed in the claustrophobic cave (the dyke-y girl is the first to go. because gays are immoral and deserve to die -- although this morality doesn't hold up -- why is the adulterous Asian chick who ends up accidentally murdering one of her companions one of the last ones standing? I guess to make her death that much more savory I suppose.) The cheap knee-jerk horror moments were really scary, I will give it that. At one point I got a charley horse in my calf from kicking out so suddenly and forcefully in reaction to the first moleman appearance (Still hurts today). But personally I prefer the more subdued horror movie, like The Ring, where the focus is on a given system of rules, and there is some attention to character and visual mise en scène.

Friday, March 23, 2007

Crazy Women and the Men They Ensnare

The first play I saw by Takeshi Kawamura was back in 2000. Hamlet Clone played in the Asahi Square A in Tokyo. I found this piece disorienting and incomprehensible -- like Hamlet Machine on acid. High school girls writhing around, a guy on a bicycle spouting off an unending monologue, and the director himself, perched on a high throne (I kid you not) in the middle of the audience, speaking text into a mic, like the voice of God. I had never seen such an explicit (blatant and shameless) display of artist ego weaved into the structure of a play. So when I watched his most recent offering AOI/KOMACHI on DVD I was surprised to find how accessible it was - and yet it retained the fascination, eroticism and grotesqueness of his aesthetic.

He had taken two classic noh plays and adapted them for contemporary theater. The original Aoi no Ue is a revenge story; Hikaru's lover Lady Aoi has fallen ill with a mysterious sickness. Turns out, the spirit of Hikaru's former (spurned) lover Rokujo has made Aoi sick. Kawamura sets his AOI in the salon of a karisuma biyoshi [charisma beautician] - apparently a real trend in Japan where coiffures themselves are elevated to the status of celebrity. Hikaru, the hairstylist (who has made hair not only his profession but his sexual obsession), has a young long-haired lover, Aoi, who, of late, has been prone to "seizures" and the like, and consequently has been in and out of a hospital. He suspects that the hair of his ex-lover Rokujo (who happens to be the wife of his primary patron, who also used him as a boy-toy) is at the root of this curse. Rokujo shows up and tries to implicate inextricable linked through sordid past - he helped her murder her husband and destroy the evidence (with sulfuric acid). Somehow, through re-living this event, Hikaru is able to release Aoi from the vengeful curse of Rokujo, though not without a price -- Aoi's jet-black hair (Hikaru's treasure) is completely shorn off. [Tamaki Kemmotsu, who played Aoi, told me she shaved her head just for this tour, FYI, you know who I'm talking to]. Each character seems to have his own version of reality which don't quite intersect with each other, leaving the audience in a strange space between fantasies, past and present. The story and acting style are extremely heightened and melodramatic, bordering on camp, but never quite taking the plunge.

KOMACHI is essentially a monologue; a down-and-out film director's mysterious journey through a strange dilapidated town where he discovers an abandoned movie house that screens forgotten films from the WWII era (many of them war propaganda, pro-Nazi), all starring the legendary actress Komachi, who has since disappeared from the film industry, some 40 years ago. The movie theater turns out to be inhabited (or haunted) by an aged couple, the woman (played by the butoh legend Akira Kasai) claiming to be Komachi. The film director, despite his fervent efforts to extricate himself, is sucked into the cycle of destructive love: any man who falls in love with the ageless beauty of Komachi is destined to die. In this case, the film maker seems doomed to wander endlessly in search of that "sweet primeval darkness," a precious essence of Japan that was lost in the war and through the process of forced democratization.

I feel weird writing about these plays when I am completely unbiased, having translated both of them into English and obsessively refining the subtitles for its tour here. But having had the privilege of seeing the show four times, I just wanted to express (mainly for myself to remember later) how thrilling and satisfying it is when theater works. There is nothing else like it, truly. Not that the production was totally mind-blowing or life-changing -- but they were both surprising and exciting, and the cumulative experience of watching them back to back, was a meditation on the ineffable nature of reality and the course of history. This is where Kawamura pulled strongly on noh theater: themes pertaining to the collapse of linear time, the co-existence of the flesh and spirit (and in many cases the spirit, brimming with earthly desire/attachment, living beyond the life of the body), and transformation of space all evoked the kind of excruciating mystique of noh, but presented in a much more palatable way (for a pop-audience). The film-maker's journey in KOMACHI held a magnetic fascination for me, all the way through to the last few scenes in which the aging Komachi exploded in a fiery dance that ended in her strangling the film-maker to death with unraveled film reels. I do wonder if the plays worked on the American audience on more than just a novelty entertainment level -- particularly AOI, which didn't quite land for me, either. But Kawamura insisted that these two pieces have to be performed back-to-back, with AOI first.
** On a side note: I feel like prominent modes and contemporary traditions of story-telling are making me more and more misogynist. I am much more compelled by male writers, and male protagonists. The female characters in AOI/KOMACHI are extreme antagonists with (self-)destructive traits/flaws. Which are fine and fun and all, but these days I feel more and more disturbed that there are no adult female characters that resonate with me -- if there is a play/film with an adult female protagonist, they always inevitably seem to revolve around romance (lack of, search for, loss of). Or they're totally crazy. I can't think of a story with an adult female protagonist that has really compelled me. I mean I loved Spirited Away and Pan's Labyrinth, but both of those were prepubescent girls --- It's like some kind of universally agreement that the only adventure a woman can have must take place prior to sexual awakening. I think about my favorite films and novels: all male protagonists. Is this my problem with my choices in books/films? Why do I feel this is such a void -- or rather, is this feeling justified, or have I become so misogynistic that I cannot relate to adult female protagonists? And do not cite Bridget Jones' Diary or I will smack you.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Lost in Translation

Growing up immersed (and simultaneously alienated from) both Japanese and American culture, I tend to forget sometimes just how difficult it is to bridge the gap between the two. Beyond linguistic obstacles, there are many things that are extremely difficult to convey and explain cross-culturally; the epitome of Japanese beauty lies in the subtle, the ambiguous, that which cannot be articulated whereas the American ideal is direct honesty and resounding open clarity. This fundamental discrepancy creeps into different aspects of the culture, like the sense of aesthetics, for example, or feeling, or HUMOR. Here's an example - my brother sent this youtube link to me this week. I circulated among the Japanese staff at my job, and people were literally unable to control their laughter. It's a dumb monologue of what Commodore Matthew Perry might have said to the Japanese to convince them to open up their country to foreigners after several hundred years of national seclusion.



The humor is not just in what he’s saying (which is pretty fucking hysterical) but in the timing, the tone, the negative spaces. Even if I were to translate his text faithfully, I seriously doubt a non-Japanese would find this amusing at all! (Actually I would be interested to hear what you thought of it)

Translation is the process of communicating an idea that is manifest in one system/language into another system/language. The systems are not necessarily compatible, but there is an assumption that we (the human race) have enough commonality to be able to understand one another. But what do you do when you’re trying to convey a concept that doesn’t exist in the other culture? To be more specific, in the case of theater – do you try to find an equivalent analogous relationship that the local audience can identify with, or leave it as is, faithful to the original concept, but risking alienating the local audience? Of course it’s never that black-and-white, it is a precarious balance of the two, upon which the success of cross-cultural communication rests.

On Tuesday I went to see The Play Company’s English-language premiere of The Attic, translated by Leon Ingulsrud and Keiko Tsuneda, originally written in Japanese by Yoji Sakate. Based on my prior conversations with Sakate, who happened to be in town and took part in rehearsals/production, he seemed concerned with the size of the set and the cast, which led me to have very low expectations for the American production – especially being so attached to the original Japanese production which toured the U.S. in 2005. But I was pleasantly surprised to find the show resonant and engaging, a rendition of the original that has a life of its own. The Attic is an exploration of a current Japanese phenomenon, a societal affliction called hikikomori (which literally means ‘withdrawn’), referring to a subculture of people who live their lives in total seclusion, holed up in their room without any direct contact with the outside world and stewing in their fanatic obsessions (for anime, for porn, for instant noodles, whatever). It’s not such a surprising symptom of a social disease, considering it is a reaction to a.) extremely rigid societal structures and expectations, and b.) limited physical space. I mean, we complain about the sizes of our New York apartments, but think about the land of capsule hotels. The conceit behind the play is that these isolationist have paved the way for a high demand new product called The Attic – a pre-fab, cabin-like, tent-sized structure you can stick anywhere (your bedroom, on the street) for added privacy. Buy it on-line, lock yourself in, block the rest of the world out and call yourself the king of infinite space (as long as you’ve got your wireless connection!). Multiple storylines collide through the course of 20+ vignettes: a college student is found having committed suicide in an Attic in his dorm room, and his older brother vows to get to the bottom of it by tracking down the mysterious manufacturers of the Attic; a pair of bumbling detectives/samurai/soldiers (played by the same two actors over three different scenes) find refuge in an abandoned Attic during a stakeout or on a battlefield; a mentally unstable OCD woman convinced that she is pregnant finds solace in the womb-like Attic; and a mother discovers that her violent son has been keeping a young girl locked up in an Attic – for the last 10 years (based on a true incident) – and many many more. The Attic itself becomes a metaphor, a microcosm, a macrocosm, a container that limits its contents to the darkest, most intimate secrets of the human psyche, and holds the entirety of the universe, boundless and timeless.

Sakate originally developed and wrote these 23 characters for 17 members of his company Rinko-gun. The American production featured 8 actors in multiple roles; and though the actors were up to this feat of extreme versatility, they seemed forced to make broad, and often stereotyped/caricatured character choices that resulted in less nuanced performances. Nonetheless, the strength of the original script shone through unquestionably. Perhaps the one thing that fell into the category of what could not survive the translation process was metaphysics, or sense of spirituality. The Japanese, though far from fervently religious, acknowledge the spiritual world in the day-to-day (the animist influences of Shinto): the dead, the living, the souls of animals and plants all co-exist. On the other hand, from the Western perspective, the living are living, and the dead are, well, dead, and if the dead make visitation upon the living, something is definitely awry. This difference in attitude towards the spiritual realm plays a significant role in The Attic. So what happens when a fluid concept built on ambiguity is forced into clarity? You lose the beauty of mystery.

On Wednesday, I attended a performance of they say the men are over in the Steel Tower by Hideo Tsuchida (translated by M. Cody Poulton) which was an unfortunate example of failed translation. What should have been a light-hearted yet grippingly poignant comedy about a rollicking band of schlocky vaudevillian clowns caught in a war zone on enemy territory while entertaining the troops – turned out to be an painful exercise in patience. First, the English script was in terrible shape; stuck in an academic limbo of word-for-word translation, the dialogue was stiff and clumsy. For a comic work (in which the rhythm of text is paramount in communicating playful levity) to be so stunted by strange phrasings and word choices was a shame. They kept the character names in Japanese, which is fine except for the fact that the actors could not wrap their mouths around them, let alone embrace them. The actors were also unfortunately miscast; though each actor had his own charm, they all seemed out of sync with their characters. For example, the character of Yoshimura, who from the script seems to be the most naïve, exuberant, zippy one of the bunch, is played by an actor whose strength seemed to be in playing a lumbering doofus. But truly the greatest tragedy of this comedy was that it was not funny. Not one iota. The jokes weren’t funny, the bits weren’t funny, the song & dance number, the physical schticks, nothing. Without the humor, the And the blame lay not only in the script, but in the lack of love and verve of the ensemble, and, bad direction. It was as if the director had decided she was working on Someone Who'll Watch Over Me (the Frank McGuiness play an Irishman, an Englishman and an American who are kidnapped by Arabs and held hostage in Lebanon – sound like a set-up for a joke? It’s not) or something; actually it was more like she had her humor center in her brain removed. Is this completely unfair? (as this is the third time I’m having to write this, I am quickly losing my patience.) The truth is, both Sakate and Tsuchida are writer/directors, who, like many writer/directors in the Japanese theater, are founder/artistic directors of their own small theater companies – and they write FOR their company members, who work and sweat together. Work generated from years of hard work and commitment and relationships forged over time cannot be emulated by casting the 5 best comic actors who show up to an open-call audition and rehearsing for 4 weeks. Don’t need much of a sense of humor to figure that out. They say comedy is the most difficult thing to translate, which I believe, and comdey also seems so contingent on the MOMENT -- who is in the audience, how tired they are, the mood of the day and the room, etc. No amount of intangible circumstances of the day could truly affect the accumulation of bad choices, though.

I didn’t want to end on such a down note, so I will quote Dawn who said to me after the show, “Bad theater is better than no theater.” Hey, it’s Dawn’s quote, not mine. onwards.

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Ajax & Leonidas

Though both of the two pieces I saw over the weekend invoked the names of heroes from ancient Greek times, the two could not be more completely diametrically opposed.

On Friday I accompanied Alanna to see the Butane Group's Operation Ajax (a game of skill and chance) with some trepidation. Simply because this was the first time I was seeing Noel's work (who also created/directed the Chomsky show) from the outside. Constructed in chapters from over 20 text sources, Ajax tells the story of the 1953 CIA-led coup that brought down the democratically elected secular Iranian government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, setting in motion a course of events resulting in the current religion-based government of Iran and the big mess of international politicking/warring/economics that have the American Empire all twisted around today. The visually sparse show took place in a white corner room with large windows with views of the cityscape on the 13th floor in a midtown building, with only a casino table and a barstool for a set. The play was thankfully surprisingly lucid in educating the audience to the key players of events of and surrounding Operation Ajax, but beyond the history lesson, the piece was most successful and exciting when the scenes of dramatic interaction between characters and inner monologues were juxtaposed with another set of rules. For example, CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt (played by the ever-watchable Jay Smith) and the Shah of Iran discussing the overthrow of PM Mossadegh was played as a delicate seduction scene, underneath the casino table. And the found confessional text of a compulsive gambler interwoven with Kermit's monologue about climbing up the CIA ladder. These layered compositions offered a refreshing respite from the dogmatic dialogue which portrayed characters as two-dimensionally good or evil -- after all, the most engaging characters are those who embody contradiction. The climax of Op Ajax was similar to that of the Chomsky show: a seemingly never-ending litany of overt and covert CIA operations since Operation Ajax, rattled off by the ensemble with increasing intensity and accompanied by hand gestures as Kermit ceaselessly circled the parameter of the room clockwise, to terrifying and hypnotic effect. Despite the unevenness of the show and performances, it was great to see Noel's mind and vision at work in representing such complex materials, especially for a history dummy like me.

And last night, believe it or not, Irwin and I made it to the opening weekend of 300 based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, filmed entirely on set. I would argue that though the film made every possible choice to retain the sensibility and aesthetics of Miller's novel, the lush live-action eye-candy cannot really convey the simplicity & beauty of frames on a page. What did work? The slow-fast motion battle sequences and lighting effects. Epic has never been so distilled: the heroic are heroic, the treacherous are treacherous, the ugly are ugly, and ladies are all about the nipples. The rest, well I don't need to even detail them in complete sentences. Thousands of yards of heavy blood-red fabric, metal weaponry, and leather straps to showcase a hundred waxed and oiled male torsos with rippling pecs and 6-packs. Honor, deception, obstacles, loyalty, humans trying their hand at being divine. and lots and lots of testosterone. Did I mention the pecs?

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

The Host with the Most

This is a few weeks overdue, but I guess timely, since The Host is now opening in theaters. In brief: a thinly-veiled anti-American monster/horror/family drama movie. An American military officer in a Korean base orders a Korean worker to pour about a thousand gallons of toxic formaldehyde down the drain which flows into the Han River. Years later (surprise surprise) a crazy fishy amphibious monster emerges from water to wreak havoc on young couples and families enjoying a balmy afternoon on the riverbank. Idiosyncratic plot points and awkward character development are overridden by the sheer adrenalin-inducing hunt/chase for the vicious and hungry creature who has snagged the precious youngest from a family of oddballs. Def worth seeing for weekend fun -- follow with some bulgogi, suun dubu, kimchi and a nice glass of soju.

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Wayward Wooster: (s)Wallow Watermelon

I walked out of the Wooster Group's Hamlet at St. Ann's at intermission -- even after having purchased the tickets practically 6 months in advance. I should have known better than to expect more than a barrage of layered, refracted, de/re-construction of every manifestation of Hamlet since the invention of recording devices. Maybe that's satisfying for some people? As some kind of intellectual exercise? Christ. Maybe I am just old-fashioned (?!) but honestly, may I not expect something more immediate and emotionally engaging in the theater? Why does everything need to be so goddam removed or ironic or "in quotes"? I mean, I don't mind that, in and of itself, but that must that be the be-all and end-all? So often I leave the theater saying, YES... AND?? ok that was a clever thing you just did, but I am not moved by form itself. ('Where is the "'GHOST' in the 'SHELL'"?')

Anyway what I really want to talk about is Wayward Cloud by Taiwanese director Tsai Ming-Liang which I just saw last night at Anthology Film Archives. An (un)erotic/poetic, imagistic portrayal of love in a time of drought. Water is scarce this unbearable summer in Taiwan, but abundant are watermelons -- the sweet sticky juice of which cannot really replace the cleansing purity of good old H2O. A girl recognizes the boy from whom she purchased a wristwatch many years (films) ago. Boy is now a porn star and sex for him is far from an expression of human connection. There is hardly any dialogue at all (much of the text I recall is from the TV newscaster reporting on the consequences of the rising water prices) as this delicate and uncertain relationship unfolds through home-cooked meals and midnight walks. The juxtaposition of the tedious mechanics of porn-fucking and the boy's inability to have sex with the girl he actually fancies leaves an echoey hollow in the story -- which is filled by uber-campy explosive, colorful musical dance numbers. A parade of people with watermelon umbrellas swarm inside a dragon-tunnel; boy in big plastic penis costume is chased around a public toilet by scary women with traffic cone boobs; boy as crooning glittery mer-man paddles in the rooftop water supply. The final and excruciating scene of the film shows the porn film crew shooting boy fucking unconscious Japanese co-star -- while girl peeps through a window in the wall. The fucking is sad, exhausting and disturbing, until boy makes eye contact with girl. Suddenly despite the physical obstacles and distance between them, something snaps into place -- and somehow boy and girl are (metaphysically) fucking each other passionately, and in the moment of boy's orgasm he shoves his unconscious partner and video crew away to ejaculate in girl's mouth, through the window. Then a long shot of his butt clenching and unclenching in climax, followed by profile of girl's face buried in boy's pubic hair. A tear rolls down her cheek. The music swells over the final ridiculous image of girl standing in the hallway with boy's groin up against her face through the window.

Watermelon shakes (esp in Thailand) have always been my favorite summer drink but I'll never drink it the same way again.

---> one more thing! I think sex is really tricky on film and can often go wrong. But WWC was lovely in that it depicted the sex act through a journey from titillating eroticism to panning out to show the menial side of the porn industry to a desperate burst of true passion. Compared to the very strange blow job in Vincent Gallo's The Brown Bunny that seemed an unfortunate ending to what could have been (stretch stretch) a poignant meditation on love and loss (and rape and motorcycles and bad boyfriends and the oh-so-thin line between reality and film), Wayward Cloud definitely earned its cumshots.