I've read a lot of dismissive comments of 2046, which to me is one of the great films of the decade so far. Disparaging comments about its poor DI, overuse of closeups, strange colors, etc.
How can such a gifted bunch of cinematographers be so technically obsessed as to miss the sheer beauty of this film? What's wrong with all-closeups? Dreyer did it. And if it fits the theme of the piece--in this case, the way that particular society straightjacketed people by commodifying and yet cheapening every human interaction--then I say go for it. The film was mesemerizing to me because of its titanic closeups and use of decor as an almost spiritual component. It is every bit as thoughtfully designed as In the Mood for Love.
I despise this very prevalent camera-crew mentality, which treats all films as something to be approached with a kind of generic supercompetence (hence the crew term I equally despise: "shows"). Good coverage. Proper use of wide lenses. Mapping out the set geography in a logical manner. To hell with all that. We all got that stuff in film school, but Wong Kar-Wai, like Godard and so many others before him, understands that film art is made by reacting expressively and intimately to the distinct rhythms and concerns of the film at hand. I prefer the visual jazz he cooks up with Chris Doyle to the ice-cold virtuosity of Doyle's work in epics like "Temptress Moon" and "Hero."
No one in the audience, besides some tightly wound DP's, gives a poop about the DI or whether the wallpaper was an acceptable shade of green. We want to be moved, spontaneously, subliminally. I say "we" because a filmmaker who stops counting himself among the moviegoers is like a politician who thinks of his constituents as dupes.
