About nine months ago, my fellow reviewer Particle Man began a review of Fearless with the sentence: "I don't like martial arts movies." He then went on to explain how he could hold this view and yet like the movie Fearless by saying, "Fearless is not a martial arts movie. It’s a movie with martial arts in it."
I'd like to do that one better. Hero is not just a martial arts movie. It's also not just a movie with martial arts. It's a beautiful, timeless, epic tale that just so happens to be a movie and just so happens to contain martial arts. And it's the best martial arts movie I've ever seen.
Epic. I guess that's the best place to begin. There are a number of words you can use to try (and fail) to accurately describe the movie Hero, but I'll try to do my best with the word "epic."
At the risk of sounding like a reluctant high school student writing a term paper, the American Heritage dictionary defines "epic" as "an extended narrative poem in elevated or dignified language, celebrating the feats of a legendary or traditional hero." Perhaps by explaining how the definition of this term fits the movie Hero, I can give you, the reader, a better understanding of the film.
I'll start from the end, with the word that the definition shares with the movie's title: Hero. To look merely at the poster, you'd assume that Jet Li's character is the eponymous hero, and that his martial arts wizardry and derring-do lead to the saving of someone or something. But that only begins to tell the story. In an odd way, every person in this film is a hero. Each makes a decision to give up something very valuable--in several cases, their own life--in pursuit of a loftier goal.
Moving backward from there, the next section of the definition reads "legendary or traditional." The story here isn't traditional to us, but (as I understand it) it is to the Chinese people--it's the origin story of their nation. As such, legend is an appropriate accompanying word. As a legend, the events chronicled in Hero are based upon actual events, but the events have been embellished over the course of time so as to contain and correspond to the values of the people who cherish it.
As far as "celebrating the feats" goes, that's an easy one to see. As one might expect, the movie spends a fair chunk of it's running time displaying Jet Li's nameless character's many feats of physical prowess. Hero, like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, employs magic realism to show off the skills of its warriors. As such, characters float through the air, dance along treetops, and even stage an entire fight sequence on the surface of a lake. The fact that the film is working within the framework of a legend allows an audience to suspend their incredulity at these impossible acts.
Working ever backward through our definition, we next come across "elevated or dignified language." Well, the film is in Chinese, but that's not at all what I mean. No, the film's visual language, more than its dialogue, is what is elevated or dignified. The cinematography is absolutely breathtaking--art on the level of any of the great masters--and the filmmakers make very interesting, very purposeful, and very conspicuous decisions regarding color to add to the language of the film.
Finally, we reach the phrase "an extended narrative poem." It's a narrative extended over ninety-nine minutes that is told in a poetic style--both visually and orally. The framework for the narrative is one of a series of unfolding flashbacks, as Nameless wins an audience with the king of the Chinese province of Qin and explains to him how he managed to dispatch three dangerous assassins. Rather than being simply a vehicle for the story, however, the discussion between Nameless and the king is an important element of the plot, and is given extra levels of subtlety and nuance as the king senses that Nameless' stories are not completely on the level.
I'd tell you more, but I'd much rather allow your viewing of this film unfold naturally, unfettered by the clues given away by the careless critic.
In any case, it's not really possible to adequately describe a film like Hero. As a reviewer, the best I can hope to do is evoke it. It's foreign, yet familiar. It's confusing but rewarding. It's specific and universal. But perhaps most importantly, it's a bona-fide work of art.
So what of a rating? Well, directly after finishing the film, the number 11 seemed most appropriate to me. It's an unfamiliar story told in unfamiliar style, and I think the challenges of seeing through the film's caveats caused me to underestimate it. In the twenty-four or so hours since I watched the film, however, its themes and scenes have flitted intermittently through my mind, and each time I'm struck anew by the masterpiece of it all. So I'm upping my rating an unprecedented six points to 17, and it may yet rise from there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
How would you rate when compared to House of Flying Daggers? Both are pretty similar. I would say Hero is better on the story side but Daggers is better on the visuals (as hard as that may be given how good Hero is there).
Hmm... good question. It's hard to say without having watched them back-to-back, but I think you're right about Daggers having slightly better visuals. Hero was, for me, a much better story, though.
I agree. I think Daggers is a much more beautiful film, but Hero is more meaningful.
Honestly, I'm not sure why, but I wasn't thrilled with Hero. Especially early on. It didn't feel natural to me. I felt as though the filmmaker's were trying too hard, and that it was a bit overdone and melodramatic.
I will agree with DW that it improves as time passes. I also gave it an 11 initially and it has moved up to a 12 or 13. But I liked Crouching Tiger and Daggers more.
Oh, it also confused me a bit more than I would have liked. When 3/4 of the way through a movie you still don't know a character, it's a little frustrating.
It's frustrating but it's also interesting, being something I'm not used to.
As for Crouching Tiger, I think it's much better than either Hero or Daggers (not that it matters being that the films are not really in any form of contention with one another).
Anyway, director Zhang has a newer film called Curse of the Golden Flower now out for DVD rental and I'm quite eager to see it: as far as I understand it's not a martial arts film, but the visuals are supposed to be quite striking.
I remember not being particularly blown away by Crouching Tigerwhen I saw it, but that was back in 2000, I believe, when my experience as a film viewer was light years away from where it is now. It might also be that seeing Crouching Tiger first gave me a familiarity with the visual style that allowed me to enjoy Daggers and Hero more.
In any case, I mentioned this to WLC already, but I'd love to have a day to watch all three back-to-back-to-back. And perhaps I should add Curse of the Golden Flower to that marathon of movie watching as well.
In my experience with three straight film marathons (established mainly with Star Wars (the real thing original three) and with Indiana Jones), you lose the plot somewhere in the middle of the second film.
I would never even think of doing it with the Lord of the Rings's...
I did it with LOTR on Trilogy Tuesday, the day before ROTK was released in America.....they showed the extended versions of the first two, then ROTK. My brain was mushified when all was said and done, though.
I like Hero, but some moronic friend of mine claimed it was "better then Lord of the Rings, and that I had to watch it". It's a good film, but nowhere near as good as LOTR. There are new wave kung fu flicks that aren't quite so stylized, with good stories. Iron Monkey. Drunken Master II. The first 3 Once Upon A Time In China films.
Post a Comment