MovieChat Forums > Yi dai zong shi (2013) Discussion > Story is so disjointed

Story is so disjointed

posted 11 years ago by grimah
24 replies | jump to latest

Didn't anyone else feel this way?

When i look back on this as a whole it doesnt even seem to be a film about ip man yet its portrayed this way through his point of view most, yet most of his story is through text/narrative, however the main story is about gong family.

the fight scene at the start, the razor character and his fight. it doesnt fit into the story/film at all, hell it would have been a better film if they just focused on the gong, and have ip man as a cameo type character.

I feel the first starts off so well (first half) then it just breaks into so many strange subplots then just stops, as if there should be a sequel/part 2 (like red cliff).

Ip man is a greatly put together story/film and is great because it is what its trying to be, a action movie/exagerrated hong kong style biopic.

I dont even know what this movie is trying to do. Had good fight scenes and nice scenes, however the whole thing is put together in a bit of a mess.

[–] XSIV4C 11 years ago

I agree GRIMAH. I was told that this movie was originally 5 hours or so long. It had to be cut. It should have been two movies as the IP MAN movies or Red Cliff. There was too much going on.

"I don’t know when it was decided we all need a soundtrack everywhere we go". Soderbergh

[–] flickfix 11 years ago

So I guess you're not aware WKW's shooting habits? This is bound to happen.

His preproduction planning is not a script and storyboard. It's probably just a lot of talk of what it should be, and what it should not be. Story is born during postproduction. Just the way he works. He starts off with a few key scenes and allow actors to go off, on and on, or over and over, until he finds something interesting. Then, he get more ideas to try from those shots.

I don't know if anyone knows his shot-to-screen ratio, must be ridiculous. Probably higher than the 90+:1 Coppola.

He doesn't really direct in the conventional sense either. Many actors who worked with him had commented they had to just keep doing their thing, trying stuff, until something captivated him.

So, naturally, it'll not be fluid in the usual sense. But the mood of his films usually flow smoothly with good rhythm.

[–] sputnikbaby 11 years ago

even being aware of WKW's shooting habits, i was shocked by how disjointed and confusing this movie was. i LOVE his earlier work but somehow this one did not hang together very well. perhaps wong's elliptical storytelling just isn't ideal for biopics the way that it is for relationships.

When Fortuna spins you downward, go out to a movie and get more out of life

[–] flickfix 11 years ago

I don't see how his method would work well in conventional narrative.

If you notice, his films has a ton of voice over narrative over images. That, with his no script method, suggests he probably wrote those after he edited his films, and being inspired by the images. Most of his films deal with people, time, and space being misplaced or misfit; that maybe two people were meant to be together, but were never at the right place at the right time. So, fragmentation makes it more the amazing. Because it's like pieces we could see would fit well, but simply doesn't, due to fate.

Haven't seen this film yet. But I understand how it could feel disjointed, and not in a good way.

[–] Solph 11 years ago

> Most of his films deal with people, time, and space being misplaced or misfit; that maybe two people were meant to be together, but were never at the right place at the right time. So, fragmentation makes it more the amazing.

But how many times can you watch a director's movie doing the same thing? But maybe that's the only thing he is familiar with or cable of. He needs to get out of the style.

[–] flickfix 11 years ago

I have said this many times. Is anyone sick of Picasso doing the same thing? Warhol doing the same thing? Calder doing the same thing? Franck Gehry doing the same thing? It's still not the same thing as they explored their passions. They are just being honest with themselves, what they seek. They are still progressing within their own search.

And when you're sick of them, there are other filmmakers. Rely on other filmmakers to explore different venue. That's what makes it fun.

For example, Danny Boyle may seem like he's trying different genre, but he is obsessed with the same thing, giving films very raw energy. Even in a film where a guy is stuck with a rock for days, it delivered raw energy non-stop, and we never felt like being stuck in the same spot for days, or even 2 hours of the film's duration.

Ang Lee may seem like he tries different stuff, but he has empathy for characters born into wrong time, or wrong place, or both. All his protagonists are beyond the grasp of being understood by the world they were in, and gets empathy from no one except the director himself.

I'd rather have this sincere honesty than filmmakers trying to second guess the market or follow trends, or "break molds".

But I haven't seen this film. It can turn out bad. But again, being sincere in expressing, taking risks, counts more for me. If it failed, it failed. It doesn't mean he has to change just because he's doing bio-pic narrative. Does Picasso has to paint like Van Gogh if he was to do a night sky? No, he could still do it however he see fit. We can still like it or hate it.

[–] Solph 11 years ago

No I'm never tired of Picasso even if the subjects and styles are similar. The same goes with Kandisky, but much less so with Georgia O'Keeffe. So the question is Wong Picasso or O'Keeffe? I don't know. I loved Wong's earlier movies: In the Move for Love, 2046, Happy Together. But I've lost interest in seeing his recent movies especially after knowing how he works. Then there is a difference between visual art and films. So your Picaso analogy isn't convincing.

I guess if you like style over substance, you'd love Wong or Zhang Yimo's movies. If you like substance more, then it's a bit tiresome to see the same from the same director. The typical example is Zhang Yimo's movies. (I'd group Paul Thomas Anderson in the same category at least for the two I've seen - Magnolia and the Master - great technical skills, disjoined stories and emptyness). Zhang's Raise the Red Latern is super but he overused the style over the years. His Hero totally lost me and from there downhill. I almost laughed myself off the chair the first time I saw the movie and it didn't help much when I saw it the second time 8 years later. I'll eventually watch the Grandmaster and sincerely hope Wong is not going downhill like Zhang.

Also it's OK for a director to have his or her signature style. But when the Tree of Life reminded of Far from Heaven. The New World reminded me of The Tree of Life, it is not a compliment. It's often said Ang Lee's movies cross vastly different genres and settings but have recurring threads. His style is in the stories not the cinematic languages he chose to use - if it's done well, it's refreshing and his characters are humane and relatable. So you may question his choice of scripts, but I don't think you can say his protagonists get empathy from no one but Ang Lee by any objective measures.

[–] flickfix 11 years ago

Well, his long time collaborator, Christopher Boyle, has said, he believe most artists have one one things to say, and spent their entire life finding the right way to express it. And he felt WKW finally did all he could in In the Mood for Love, and that was why they had trouble finding new things to explore in 2046.

But I'm the odd guy out who love 2046 much more than In the Mood for Love.

I'm not talking about visual style or signature style. I'm talking their approach to subjects. Why they pick certain subjects, why they expressed it certain ways. It has less to do with signature brand, and more to do with honesty. They make their films. They don't second guess what audience wants. Not one frame. They are listening to what their hearts want to say, very, very closely.

It doesn't mean this is a sure way for good films. And I don't automatically like all of WkWk films.

For Ang Lee's protagonists, think hard. They are way beyond their times or place. Always. There may be characters who cared for them, but no one actually understood them. The only thing that understood them, is the film itself, and thus, us the audience. But not from anyone in their world. I'm not saying that's a fixation of style or subject. I'm stating it's obvious Ang Lee has a soft spot for characters who will never be understood in the world they live in. And he doesn't shy away from that.

I just love this type of honesty in filmmakers. I'd rather they do this and fail, than, trying to do something that's not them. And it's actually much, much harder for artists to find themselves. Which I believe is the hardest thing for artists. And it's easy to say, I'm gonna break the mold, do something different than what I did before. Because it could be different and pointless, but still different.

On the other hand, for example, Spielberg would be one who has signature style, but do make films specifically for us, or, more focused on delivering what he would guess we want, more than what he wanted. And that's why his films are somewhat inconsistent.

Again, I have not seen this film. Just stating I can see how WKW might make a biopic that doesn't work.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lixian0072000 10 years ago

I read somewhere on the chinese press, this movie actually had a script, and WKW co-wrote it with another chinese writer.

[–] riddick-danish 11 years ago

I loved the movie but I agree with this, some characters are just redundant, IP's wife is gone after few minutes and that Razor character, this movie deserves 3 hours cut then it could be the real masterpiece.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fodemo3 11 years ago

First off, it's beautifully shot which is expected from a Wong Kar Wai film but it was incredibly disjointed. The problem was he basically forced both of Wilson Yip's 'Yip Man' movies into one movie including a bunch of phoney baloney character encounters just to make it different. And was it me or was Zhang Ziyi an unnecessary main character? At one point (atleast in the Hong Kong Version) she basically took up 1/4 of the movie by herself (sans Yip Man).

Also the first 'Yip Man' film was more truthful to who he was than 'Grandmaster'. In 'Grandmaster' Yip Man isn't easy going, sarcastic or helpful to anyone, these were traits that everyone knew him for. Also Yip Man and Shi Jianqiao (the person Gong Er was based off of) never meet and she also died in the 1970s not the 50s. Regardless both 'Yip Man' and 'Grandmaster' failed to portray his casual use of Opium which some claimed he was addicted to.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bree_33 11 years ago

Apparently, despite the twenty minute difference in running times, the two cuts aren’t all that different. Completest fans will no doubt want to see the original cut, but considering that Wong Kar Wai’s first cut of the film ran four hours, it’s not like one version feels more complete than the other. Even the “long cut” feels terribly abridged, with characters wandering in and out of the film at random. One such character, an assassin called “The Razor” has apparently been almost completely removed from the Weinstein cut, and to be honest, this isn’t a bad thing, as his three scenes in the Chinese version had virtually no context, and seemed to have wandered in from another, longer cut of the film.

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/review-the-grandmaster

Wong Karwai intended to make The Grandmasters an epic film which could even be entitled “Once Upon a Time in ROC”. He told the media that the director’s cut will be 4 hours long, but the theatrical version only lasts 125 minutes. This results in a confusion in some of the scenes, for example, many audiences are completely lost with the weird barbershop scene. Let’s hope we can have the director’s cut version in the future Blu-ray release.

------- __@
----- _`\<,_
---- (*)/ (*)------- ----__@
--------------------- _`\<,_
---- -----------------(*)/ (*)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:*•.. ¤°.¸¸.•´¯`»nec spe,nec metu :*•.. ¤°.¸¸.•´¯`»

[–] moviesbest 11 years ago

This is his style. Have you watched any Wong Kar Wai movies before ?
A movie is not a story book. A good movie is one that not only good during watching but let you think about it for a long time as well as allowing you to discover something new while watching it the 2nd or 3rd time. WKK's movies always achieved that well. I have watched his "Days of being Wild" & "Ashes of Time" more than 3 times each and I enjoyed it every time.
Don't forget the tile of this movie is the The Grandmaster, NOT Ip Man, so why should it be Ip Man's story ? The character of Zhang Ziyi is important. It brings up the character of Ip Man, who was known for his philosophy beside wing chun. I believe Bruce Lee's philosophy must have been influenced from him.
I have no problem with the story and script done this way. If I want a simple and straightforward story, I should be reading story books or watching tv.

[–] cinesteam 11 years ago

Take this for example:

"A director makes only one movie in his life. Then he breaks it into pieces and makes it again."

― Jean Renoir

[–] staticdynamite 11 years ago

The film is about showing a different side of Ip Man and the people who he knew on his journey. There are tons of detailed and close up shots of faces, items and actions that are magnified in meaning too. It is like taking a closer look at all the little pieces that built the story of Ip Man. Even if some pieces did not provide closure for the audience, they provided other meanings. When we meet "Razor", Ip Man is at his lowest, he's broke, poor, lost his family and started to smoke but what the scene does is prove to us that no matter the circumstances, Ip Man still holds control over his dignity, honor and kung fu.

[–] zken 11 years ago

What are you talking about?
This is a rather simple story about a father, an adopted son and a daughter and the main character. What is complicated?

I thought this film was an absolute master piece from frame to frame and beyond perfect---a truly amazing accomplishment. And I plan to see it again, just because it is truly great.

So all the negativity on this site had no effect on me, Thank GOD!