nana, i may well be interpreting too widely and not looking at the film as a film. but given that i've only seen it once, that is what i instantly thought about at first. i think what i said is about as far as i can explain it at the moment: continental interests in south-east asia (e.g. the french-indochina occupation) may have led to certain continental impressions subverting the socio-culture of south-east asia, a part of which is cinema. make sense?

comparisons? as i said, i liked the film a lot. i would find it hard to discursively compare/contrast it to his other films without segmentation and discreet analysis. it certainly seems to represent a shift, somewhat of a maturity.