for me, hong sang-soo is an enigma. i am typically drawn to to cinema that expresses via image rather than language. the films that made me truly fall in love with the art form were those of terrence malick, apichatpong weerasethakul, tsai ming-liang, david lynch and john cassavetes to name a few. i guess the one thorough-line connecting all these filmmakers is that their films encapsulate a perfect marriage of image, sound and storytelling; there is a perfect balance that strikes. another name that I often mention alongside my all time favorites is that of hong sang-soo. however, i’m not quite sure if I can pinpoint as easily exactly what about his films makes me tick. he is not as concerned with an outward cinematic expression of the image as those that I am enamored with, his films are much more dialogue heavy than practically anything else that I like, and I have a hard time choosing one specific film of his that could go in a top 5 or 10 all time favorite list alongside those from the aforementioned filmmakers. but still, the inexplicable feeling I get every time I watch or rewatch one of his films keeps me infinitely interested and inspired by his work. after my second of watch of his latest theatrical release, in our day, i’ve been pondering what it is that gives his cinema such staying power in my life.
thinking deeper into what feels attractive to me about cinema, i’ve come to the realization that beyond that perfect marriage, i am most intrigued by an artist’s whole body of work and how each piece contributes to the whole. all of the above filmmakers plus more that i’ve had a long standing relationship with have built up a body of work where all of their films have an unspoken link that elevates them beyond the films themselves, they are mirroring each other or opening new doors within a cinematic universe. the tree of life is my favorite movie of all time, but i wouldn’t be able to get across why i love malick so much by just this one movie; sure it’s about as good of a case that i can give seeing how its such an astonishing accomplishment of cinema on its own, but really it’s the lore of malick and how everything he did in the decades before led up to it and how he chose to proceed with his career onwards after that film’s success that really speaks to me on a deeper level. his less talked about films from this recent era like to the wonder and song to song, or even voyage of time, hold just as special of a place in my heart even though they may not be able to stand alone as “my favorite film of all time.” these post-tree of life films see terry experimenting further with form and even incorporating different eras of camera technology to juxtapose the beauty of his 35mm (or in some cases 65mm) film images his decades of cinema have been defined by. his newfound freedom after completing such a major film that he had been preparing for so long, seemed to have shot him into the present moment where he was making films with the approach and velocity of a youngin, perhaps even more free and daring than he was at the start of his career. without these films making up the last decade or so of his work, I can’t say that his aura would be as affecting as it is today. so beyond a film, it seems that for me cinema is a progression, it’s checking in or an ongoing conversation with an artist; the same can be said for all art forms.
song to song (malick, 2017)
in my experience, I can’t quite think of someone who is having a continuous conversation through their work more than hong. quite literally, his films are almost entirely made up of conversations. but not conversations in the way you would see with a tarantino or a linklater film, hong’s conversations feel present more than anything, they act as a portal to somewhere else. maybe it’s due to the way he holds his shots for long stretches, or the effects of the over consumption of alcohol taking a hold of the characters on screen; perhaps it’s just the fact that his writing style cuts through most premeditated tendencies and presents us with a sort of raw and in between natural and heightened dialogue that satisfies the senses in a way that is both comforting and stimulating simultaneously. hong is a very philosophical writer so his films do feel like a vehicle for ideas but the grasp he has on the naturally occurring humor of life and how he incorporates it with a light hearted approach, make his philosophical flourishes welcomed and digestible. watching a hong film ultimately feels like catching a vibe with a friend you don’t see every month, but it’s consistent enough that you have a shorthand with them; considering we get to check in with hong at least once or twice a year these days i think that’s a fair comparison. anyways, we could go on and on about why his soju soaked conversations are infatuating but it’s something that has to be experienced, to enter the portal and sit in that room with those characters and really let it all wash over you.
as with everything though, the lore starts somewhere; in the case of hong however, his beginnings aren’t the best representation of what was to come. his first two films were conceived in a manner much more in the vein of maybe emulating influences or adding to a pool of work that was reminiscent of his contemporaries. working with higher concept narratives, his early features sit more comfortably among the works of bong joon-ho or park chan-wook than hong’s own. his formal talents were already on display from the get go though, if anything his evolution would consist of stripping everything down to the bare necessities and then sprinkling in his signature eccentricities. it was then with his third feature, virgin stripped bare by her bachelors, that hong laid down the template that was to shape his ongoing project of cinema; working with a more minimalist narrative emphasizing time and perception, which he would go on to explore time and time again. with the sheer abundance of feature films to his name, it would take a while to break each one down and denis lim already did that finely in his tale of cinema book (highly recommended for any hong fan), so i’d rather just focus on a general evolution that brought him to his current era of filmmaking. this is a personal breakdown but i’d distribute his eras as follows: 1996-1998, 2000-2004, 2005-2010, 2010-2014, 2015-2018 and 2020-present. each of these blocks of time seem to represent different periods and fixations in hong’s life, bookended by standout films in his filmography, he seems self aware of when he has worked a certain style to its end point and then shifts gears; whether its with his cast of actors, his production value, tweaks in his filming style, narrative focus, etc. the films that make up these blocks bleed into each other in the mind, but it would be hard to mistake an early 2010s hong film for a late 2010s one; so there is a definite ongoing evolution or conscious departure from certain tendencies. 2005’s tale of cinema introduced the iconic zoom, which would become a staple in all his films to follow; but sometimes the shifts aren’t as jarring, there’s also a slow sculpting process at play over the years. when his cinema was once rampant with explicit sex scenes and spiraling affairs, as we grow into the later years we take notice that such concepts are only mentioned in conversation; perhaps it’s the filmmaker reflecting on his past lifestyle and the consequences to be dealt with as a result, the conversation has matured.
our sunhi (hong, 2013)
my first experience with hong was in 2013, watching his two new releases that year, nobody’s daughter haewon and our sunhi, that inexplicable feeling of connection was there immediately but more so i was impressed by how similar and different the films felt to one another simultaneously. i gravitated strongly towards our sunhi while haewon I only admired from afar and remains one of my lesser favorites; regardless both films played an equally important role in my introduction to his work. over the following years i slowly picked away at his films and stumbled upon more profound favorites. watching the yearly hong quickly became a tradition, the following year’s hill of freedom was a knockout classic that saw him operating in a breezy 66 minute runtime and still holds a special place in my heart to this day. however, nothing could prepare me for what was to come in 2015 with the release of right now, wrong then, his first collaboration with kim min-hee; who would go on to become his on screen and off screen muse and change the course of his work and life forever. while their union sparked an affair that would go on to completely destroy kim’s career within the korean film industry, it also acted as a pivotal point in both artists’ creative life that they have continuously explored in their subsequent films since. outside of the handmaiden, which was filmed ahead of her collaboration with hong, kim has not acted in any production that was not directed by hong, she has left the career of acting in the traditional sense and functions more in a creative partnership with hong than anything else. that film being the accomplishment that it was, finding its way as a sort of general consensus best hong film, it marked a turning point for the scale of his films. slowly over the following years, his productions became smaller and more humble (as if they weren’t already); the crew minimized and saw hong and kim taking up more of the production roles themselves. their relationship greatly influenced my admiration of the lore, it was this era onwards that truly made me connect with the work on a more trandscendental level. similarly to tsai’s relationship with lee kang-sheng, apichatpong’s with jenjira pongpas, sakda kaewbuadee and banlop lomnoi or the creative marriage of cassavetes and gena rowlands; i’ve realized how affected and inspired I am by these sort of cinematic unions and how strongly they work towards building a cohesive cinematic universe to explore.
on the beach at night alone (hong, 2017)
we can look to lynch’s twin peaks: the return from 2017 to see just how powerful these sorts of cinematic universes can be. 25 years after the release of twin peaks: fire walk with me, lynch brought together onscreen just about everyone he could who has worked with him on film and tv projects over the course of his career. it wasn’t a return to twin peaks as much as it was a return to his cinema as a whole, having been absent from filmmaking since 2006’s inland empire. on top of that, the feel of the project was much more reminiscent of his post-twin peaks work than it was twin peaks itself. seeing these old characters revived and placed into this new version of lynch’s cinema alongside new characters played by stars from his most iconic films, you can’t help but feel like you’re actually in a dream. these connections we form to these cinematic experiences feel authentic, they affect us in much the same way that our personal real life relationships do, so when we are given the opportunity to revisit certain connections or stay in tune with them, its a peculiarly rewarding sort of feeling. hong’s cinema doesn’t have such gaps, so we are consistently engaging with his cinematic universe year to year, the films representing scenes or parts of a bigger whole than they do individual films. working with the same gang of actors filling different roles in each piece, causing a dizzying effect when trying to recall which film contained a certain bit; which adds to their seemingly endless replay value.
hong seems to be operating at a direct to viewer level; especially so in this current era, 2020 onwards, with the apparent scaling down of production. shooting 2-3 films a year using consumer grade digital cameras and filling most of the production roles himself along with the help of kim as production manager; if it wasn’t for the fact that his films are still channelled through the traditional festival circuit due to his renowned reputation, a film’s release would feel as direct and personal as youngboy uploading a video to his youtube channel. this approach brings to mind kiarostami’s statement on the digital camera being the catalyst for a filmmaker to be an individual artist in the way a painter or poet is. his excitement came from the early consumer grade digital cameras which his use of can infamously be seen in his 1997 masterpiece, the taste of cherry, and a few years later in his project abc africa. he felt that he finally could work in a manner that best suited his vision, without the hassle of big cameras and film crews, he can shoot and edit something himself and truly convey an unfiltered cinematic expression. fast forward 20 years and we have hong at the forefront of this sort of raw expression of cinema, fully secure in himself and his movie making that he doesn’t feel the need to impress with production value, letting his humble images and narrative conceits speak for themselves. never as clear as in our day, after playing around with an out of focus aesthetic on his previous effort (in water), hong is simply trying to talk to us, perhaps pass on some wisdom but really just checking in to catch a few laughs and tune in to the present moment; because life is short and before you know it you’ll die and all that thinking and planning and wondering about the meaning of life’s purpose will be for nothing when you could just enjoy the time you have here and express yourself.
