Sensual masterpiece--but wait, there's more

Rating: Null/10 (30 November 2004)

Two continents and two epic movies in as many days. Perhaps I was a little too jetlagged to enjoy "Alexander"? Nope it's because I'd been spoiled by "Hero". I first saw this in Australia because I thought it might have left US theaters (Nov 2004). Luckily it hadn't and I got to see it again--but under severely strained circumstances: the theatre did NOT turn the lights off because they needed to "watch the audience" (huh? I complained to the manager and that was his
reason) and so the full effect of the glorious cinematography was lost. Thank you Aussie Chris Doyle for thrilling my eyes and providing me with material for my film classes for years to come (Explore film symbolism with reference to
colour, Chinese symbolism, and how they are deployed in "Hero"?). Thanks to
the costumer (Wada) for feeding my frock-flick appetite ("In the Mood for Love" was my last feasting). Thanks to the auditory inclusions (the drop of rain, the * musical* first battle). The battle scenes are masterfully filmed, they must have been a choreographer's nightmare (I kept wondering--how do they NOT step on
each other's toes and all start tumbling down the bloody steps?) Sigh, the film is simply a sensual masterpiece: the sounds of battle, the swish of a blade
through water, the ballet of a duel. The many many minor details that will drive my students mad for the next few semesters (heh heh heh). Also thanks for the kick-ass female role/s (and not a nipple in sight, see my review of 'Alexander').
Now we've done with the narrative, let's turn to plot. Certainly the warrior/ emperor framework was a little stilted but the flickering candles diverted me enough not to make this a serious flaw. The film is not difficult to follow (say like "Momento" which I love for its 'wait a second' plot); we simply have at least one unreliable narrator (but who is it ?) . The film is emotionally engaging--as English reviewer Williamson noted in the potential symbolism of the calligraphy school and the tumbling scrolls. Some claim it's politically devious? The
philosophy is humanist rather than communist-the film does not preach-- viewers have to develop their own interpretations. What puzzles me is why
some commend Oliver Stone but condemn Yimou Zhang.
Lastly--I still don't get the Tarentino reference--credits claim him as 'presenter' but he wasn't in either version I watched. BTW, I saw the 109 Aussie version and the supposedly shorter US one --couldn't pick the differences but I was too
peeved by the theatre lighting. Next day I saw "Alexander" not my usual pick but "Hero" inspired me to consider it--what was I thinking