Is quirky arthouse director Hong Sang-soo South Korea's answer to Woody Allen? In terms of his overall output (which is prolific) the answer might be affirmative.
But Sang-soo is much more low budget in comparison to Allen. His films feature single shot cinematography followed by a zoom-in, improvised acting as well as plots based on mundane domestic conversations. He even encourages actors to get intoxicated while filming!
Right now, Wrong Then, is a story in two parts. The second part is a very close recapitulation of what we see in the first, except for a few differences. Some may be put off by this technique, but others might enjoy comparing the two different versions.
Sang-soo introduces us to his protagonist in Part I-arthouse film director Ham Cheon-soo (Jung Jae-Young)-based mainly on Sang-soo himself. Cheon-soo is giving a talk about his new film in a provincial town and has time to kill a day before a Q&A before a local audience.
Before the main "love interest" is introduced-the young painter Yoon Hee-jung (Kim Min-hee)- Cheon-soo runs into another woman, a "fan" who he spends a little time with at a skating rink. Why Hang-soo introduces this character I have no idea (as there are many weird things that happen in this film).
Finally, we get to the crux of the story which involves Cheon-soo's failed courtship of Hee-jung. It's one dialogue heavy scene after another as the two continue their conversation in different venues including a coffee shop, Hee-jung's studio and a Sushi bar where the two imbibe a fair amount of Soju, a traditional Korean alcoholic beverage.
We learn that Hee-jung turned to painting after becoming disenchanted with modeling. Despite being married, Cheon-soo acts like a lovesick fool continually professing his love for Hee-jung who admits she lacks confidence and claims she has no friends.
The scene then shifts to a birthday party for Hee-jung's friend where things go south fast. Hee-jung reveals to the guests at the party she was touched by Cheon-soo's compliments about her painting but Cheon-soo pours cold water on those comments by indicating he often says similar things during interviews.
After Hee-jung takes a nap in another room, Cheon-soo comes in and tries to wake her. Hee-jung then tells him to go home. The next day at Cheon-soo's film screening he has a melt down during the Q&A.
That is Part I-characterized by a paucity of intellect and the repetitious overtures of a sad sack film director.
Now in Part II, Sang-soo attempts to correct all that. But to be honest, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two versions.
If there is a difference, Cheon-soo's criticism of Hee-jung's painting is more constructive. She seems to acknowledge this. When they go to the birthday party there are fewer people there.
Despite drunkenly taking off his clothes in front of Hee-jung's friends, later she finds his actions "hilarious." In contrast to what happens in Part I, the next day at the film screening Cheon-soo is amiable with the post-screening discussion going off well.
Instead of rejecting Cheon-soo, Hee-jung expresses admiration for the quirky director and promises to follow his career in the future.
While there may have been some redemption for the randy film director, I just didn't find that the two principals (in either version) to be of much interest. Maybe you could say that the dialogue was marked by a decided lack of true intellectual discussion.
What's more the cinematography can best be described as "static," with a surfeit of dialogue and virtually no action scenes to sink one's teeth into.
I think I'll pass on seeing any more of Hong-soo's quirk fests-this "empty vessel" type of filmmaking is not my cup of tea.
But Sang-soo is much more low budget in comparison to Allen. His films feature single shot cinematography followed by a zoom-in, improvised acting as well as plots based on mundane domestic conversations. He even encourages actors to get intoxicated while filming!
Right now, Wrong Then, is a story in two parts. The second part is a very close recapitulation of what we see in the first, except for a few differences. Some may be put off by this technique, but others might enjoy comparing the two different versions.
Sang-soo introduces us to his protagonist in Part I-arthouse film director Ham Cheon-soo (Jung Jae-Young)-based mainly on Sang-soo himself. Cheon-soo is giving a talk about his new film in a provincial town and has time to kill a day before a Q&A before a local audience.
Before the main "love interest" is introduced-the young painter Yoon Hee-jung (Kim Min-hee)- Cheon-soo runs into another woman, a "fan" who he spends a little time with at a skating rink. Why Hang-soo introduces this character I have no idea (as there are many weird things that happen in this film).
Finally, we get to the crux of the story which involves Cheon-soo's failed courtship of Hee-jung. It's one dialogue heavy scene after another as the two continue their conversation in different venues including a coffee shop, Hee-jung's studio and a Sushi bar where the two imbibe a fair amount of Soju, a traditional Korean alcoholic beverage.
We learn that Hee-jung turned to painting after becoming disenchanted with modeling. Despite being married, Cheon-soo acts like a lovesick fool continually professing his love for Hee-jung who admits she lacks confidence and claims she has no friends.
The scene then shifts to a birthday party for Hee-jung's friend where things go south fast. Hee-jung reveals to the guests at the party she was touched by Cheon-soo's compliments about her painting but Cheon-soo pours cold water on those comments by indicating he often says similar things during interviews.
After Hee-jung takes a nap in another room, Cheon-soo comes in and tries to wake her. Hee-jung then tells him to go home. The next day at Cheon-soo's film screening he has a melt down during the Q&A.
That is Part I-characterized by a paucity of intellect and the repetitious overtures of a sad sack film director.
Now in Part II, Sang-soo attempts to correct all that. But to be honest, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two versions.
If there is a difference, Cheon-soo's criticism of Hee-jung's painting is more constructive. She seems to acknowledge this. When they go to the birthday party there are fewer people there.
Despite drunkenly taking off his clothes in front of Hee-jung's friends, later she finds his actions "hilarious." In contrast to what happens in Part I, the next day at the film screening Cheon-soo is amiable with the post-screening discussion going off well.
Instead of rejecting Cheon-soo, Hee-jung expresses admiration for the quirky director and promises to follow his career in the future.
While there may have been some redemption for the randy film director, I just didn't find that the two principals (in either version) to be of much interest. Maybe you could say that the dialogue was marked by a decided lack of true intellectual discussion.
What's more the cinematography can best be described as "static," with a surfeit of dialogue and virtually no action scenes to sink one's teeth into.
I think I'll pass on seeing any more of Hong-soo's quirk fests-this "empty vessel" type of filmmaking is not my cup of tea.