@ Madhuban

I'd have to watch the Marker film again to write any kind of decent comments, i'm not really into reviewing though, i kind of prefer to just be inspired for my own work. I talk about the films afterwards, but don't really have the time outside work to write decent reviews. I'll try to watch it again soon though.

I like and completely agree with your comments on Happy Together, it would be my second favourite Wong Kar-Wai film. I was caught a bit off guard with the ending as i felt things were tied up a little too much and felt it was not needed. I just rate Days of Being Wild slightly higher because all in all i see at as Wong's most successful, i can't really think of elements i dislike about it and it's the only Wong film i could say that about. Plus, it started Wong's innovative career and introduced the world to the genius that is Chris Doyle.

I hated Chungking!

@ A.

I would disagree that subtlety is not a Barney trademark, all of his work (minus Cremaster 1) is wildly ambiguous and extremely subtle in terms of the implications of his symbols. It's quite hard to place specific meaning on any of it.

I feel like jumping up and down and screaming when someone moans about the "pacing" of Barney's work. They're not regular films, they're not Hitchcock films! Why do people place all this expectation on art as a moving image? on how it should be presented, how it should "paced". It's frustrating, would you criticise a painting for being to big? 

Barney's trying to encourage people to see not only the world, but the moving image in a different way. To be rid of this analytical thinking, this dissection of everything. Maybe you should send Barney a little book "Hitchcock's guide to pacing in the cinema" so he can better serve your expectations of how long an image should appear on the screen with his next film.

It's cinema as installation art, not cinema as dictation in the way it's usually used.