Feng Gui Lai De Ren (1983) (aka All The Youthful Days)
Hou Hsiao-Hsien
Mandarin/Taiwanese
Hou Hsiao-hsien’s fourth feature stands in remarkable contrast to the banality of his previous film, The Green, Green Grass of Home (1983), and should probably be considered as the first signs of a master who is to come. Tinged with nostalgia throughout, as the title would imply, All the Youthful Days presents us the lives of a bunch of rowdy youths from the town of Fengkuei, who move to the city looking for work (in a manner very reminiscent of Goodbye South, Goodbye (1996)). Although much more restrained than the director’s previous, a few of the clichés of the genre still remain. But what really sets apart the film from its predecessor is the confidence of its approach and its formal consistency that would become characteristic of the director later on. All the Youthful Days already shows the filmmaker’s need for direct sound, which he would employ a few films later, while the visual component succeeds in capturing the rhythm of life in the city and in the town with its long and drawn-out shots, restrictive framing, use of off-screen space and employment of multiple planes of action. Hou’s camera takes a detached but ever curious gaze towards its subjects as they engage in gang wars, witness the lives of their neighbours, get cheated in the city and lead a life that is as detached from the past as it is from the future. There is much understated pathos to be found in the final passages of the film, a la I Vitelloni (1953), where the friends are forced to come to terms with the fact that they have to break up and move on with their individual lives.
[P.S: As you might have guessed, this is a new column intended to keep this blog a bit more active between reviews (and to appease my guilt of being lazy to put up longer posts). Also, although it won’t exactly take me closer to my dream of writing something about every film I’ve seen, I think it would nevertheless help me jot down my instantaneous response to films I’ve just seen]
The Seventh Art 
March 7, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Why ‘ellipsis’?
LikeLike
March 7, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Well, it’s more like ellipsis-filler. Or an ellipsis between longer posts, sort of.
LikeLike
March 8, 2010 at 2:09 am
“There is much understated pathos to be found in the final passages of the film, a la I Vitelloni (1953), where the friends are forced to come to terms with the fact that they have to break up and move on with their individual lives.”
This aspect appeals to me quite a bit, as I’m a huge fan of this realy Fellini film and of its Italian neo-realist, humanistic underpinnings. But this director is also dear to my heart, though this fine film doesn’t quite reach the depths of A TIME TO LIVE AND A TIME TO DIE (1985), a piercingly lovely evocation of childhood. But of course THE PUPPETMASTER is masterful as well.
Of course you rightly suggest here of ‘better things to come’ which is exactly the way it panned out. I like this new format, which while compromised, will surely bring in a wider audience.
Enjoy the Oscars! We’ll surely touch bases my friend!
LikeLike
March 8, 2010 at 6:59 am
Thanks Sam. Will be checking out the other Hou films soon.
Yep, already tuned in to the Oscars!
LikeLike
March 9, 2010 at 10:58 am
hi JAFB, waiting for your post on Oscar awards. I’m completely disappointed on how the Academy treated IB.
LikeLike
March 9, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Mahesh,
Wasn’t that expected? I was expecting one more award for IB, but it doesn’t really surprise me. It was their way of showing who the real IB are!
LikeLike
March 9, 2010 at 10:53 pm
JAFB,
“…while the visual component succeeds in capturing the rhythm of life in the city and in the town with its long and drawn-out shots, restrictive framing, use of off-screen space and employment of multiple planes of action. Hou’s camera takes a detached but ever curious gaze…”
That for me sums up Hou Hsiao Hsien. A very good description.
I have not yet seen this film but I too would push you (!) to see his other films. One of the great directors in my opinion.
LikeLike
March 9, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Thanks for the additional recco, Stephen. You can rest assured that if I am impressed by one film of a filmmaker, I would see all his films – whatever I can get my hands on that is.
Yes, I’m following Hou’s films in order now. Just saw the wonderful A Summer At Grandpa’s…
LikeLike
March 11, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Hi JAFB, please don’t take this question too personal I don’t have your mail ID so posting it in comments, Is there any movie which you had seen without using your cerebrum, which touches your heart in spite of its technical flaws or the technical angles.one more thing have see you seen the movie Nadodigal?
LikeLike
March 11, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Mahesh,
No problem at all. I haven’t seen Nadodigal.
Good question. I fail to see where the boundary between a cerebral watching and an emotional watching lies. I used to cry at every lost puppy movie I’ve ever seen, even though badly made. The point is that you learn, at some point or the other, to see the difference between true humanism and sick manipulation.
It’s easy to move an audience. That’s the power of cinema. It’s responsibility, on the other hand, is to make sure that there’s some truth to the emotions it evokes.
Also, it is just not possible to see form as being something alien to the content or the story. True empathy can occur only if the proper techniques, which respect the audience as humans, are used to present the content, and not while some violin strings are being played on the soundtrack.
I hope I answered your question.
Cheers!
LikeLike
March 11, 2010 at 12:38 pm
In a way, Yes you have answered my question , to add more to the question there is a regular set up for some shots(like some top angle shots, some low angle shot and some handheld shots)but some directors who don’t want to manipulate the shots by altering the angles , like showing someone’s supremacy from low angle shots, in stead leaving it to the actors performance and keeping the shot directly on the audience platform and evoking the emotions (well without the violin strings) joy or sorrow whatever it is… is there any thing wrong in it. In simple words , telling a simple story(Without manipulating the audience) in simple way.Can you tell some movies like that which attracted you like that.
If you get a chance definitely see Nadodigal it really is a worthy watch, in spite of the emotional tamil drama it never patronize the audience.
LikeLike
March 11, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Mahesh,
I am somewhat actually OK with that kind of manipulation for that implies some skill with the film medium.
Again, that depends on what a “simple story” is. Even the most basic of stories may profoundly resonate when scratched a bit. So, assuming that you are asking about films with stories that deal with simple things, I’d have to say that there are numerous films that have impressed me – Bicycle Thieves, I Vitelloni that I mentioned here and the many terrific and deceptively simple Iranian films to name some.
Cheers!
LikeLike
March 11, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Just to answer your question Mahesh, and to reiterate what Srikanth is saying, filmmaking is all about evoking. The argument occurs about how someone goes about evoking.
A shot, or a camera angle, by itself is nothing. Otherwise wouldn’t filmmaking be done straight out of the book? It is about choosing the right time to capture, and right time to edit. An edit, for example, should know that it is not interrupting the action taking place.
Simple example. Touch of Evil ? Opening tracking shot. It is quite a ridiculous shot because we don’t see what is happening and instead are focusing on the shot itself. Gomorra? The shop kid sees a little ruckus, and then sees a gun lying on the other end of balcony. The shot starts as a complete long shot as he runs from the far end of the basement, and follows him as he comes near to the camera, and then follows him as he climbs the wall. It is the sort of shot the Russians would use, especially Tarkovsky, and of late Zvyagintsev in his films. We don’t notice the shot at all, because the film so seamlessly matches the edits with each action.
So, a tilt angle alone conveys nothing but a curiosity as to what the hell is wrong with a still frame? Otherwise wouldn’t all of Ram Gopal Varma’s ridiculous stuff be masterpieces?
LikeLike
March 11, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Sathish well said, I was about to ask abt the same Ridiculous angles in RGV films, if not for your answer (I’m sorry I haven’t seen Gomorra, but that is there on top of my list) and JAFB answer on Bicycle thieves and iranian movies .. I’m going to watch The Secret in Their Eyes now. JAFB waiting eagerly for your next post. Sathish thanks for replying
LikeLike
March 12, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Thanks for giving your opinions, Satish. I agree with your points.
But I would want to defend Touch of Evil. It’s a brilliant shot whose function is not to evoke, IMO. Welles is way too assured to impress us with simple technical virtuosity (the fact that the editing of Touch of Evil has now become legendary stands witness to Welles’ deep understanding of film editing and its advantages).
One thing, if I remember correct, the duration of the shot is exactly as much as the timing on the bomb. Welles introduces a whole new way of cranking up tension. Instead of using somewhat manipulative Hitchcockian cutting, Welles preserves the integrity of space to let us actually feel the time. More importantly, again if my memory serves right, the shot spans two countries, crossing the national boundary, setting up the theme of the movie – the fluidity and flexible of boundaries, especially between good and evil.
LikeLike
March 12, 2010 at 8:03 pm
The thing is Srikanth, the shot is awesome on a purely theoretical level. I mean, I applaud the idea behind the shot, but I have watched the film with quite a few folks and none are impressed. We don’t feel no tension, we only are curious how the damn crane is moving. It is a beautiful shot, but ineffective, because I am not imagining about the story or the world or the characters. I am instead wondering how it might have been filming this thing. I don’t know if that is a success in your book, but it is one of my biggest complaints with most movies. The shots are always aware, like those numerous awful shots in Vertigo that do no more than merely distract.
That is why, I say, nobody puts a shot as attention-grabbing as a tracking shot right at the beginning. We are barely warm in our seats, forget being immersed in the illusion.
LikeLike
March 14, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Vertigo? Argh! That’s another day’s discussion. :)
Your last sentence reminds me of Contempt. But that’s another beast altogether too.
LikeLike
March 15, 2010 at 12:16 pm
I’m really happy to see that some healthy discussion is going on with question I initiated :) Carry on guys lets see where the discussion leads.
LikeLike
March 14, 2010 at 9:07 pm
[…] Hou Hsiao-hsien’s fourth feature stands in remarkable contrast to the banality of his previous film, The Green, Green Grass of Home (1983), and should probably be considered as the first signs of a master who is to come. Tinged with nostalgia throughout, as the title would imply, All the Youthful Days presents us the lives of a bunch of rowdy youths from the town of Fengkuei, who move to the city looking for work (in a manner very reminiscent of Goodbye South, Goodbye (1996)). Although much more restrained than the director’s previous, a few of the clichés of the genre still remain. But what really sets apart the film from its predecessor is the confidence of its approach and its formal consistency that would become characteristic of the director later on. All the Youthful Days already shows the filmmaker’s need for direct sound, which he would employ a few films later, while the visual component succeeds in capturing the rhythm of life in the city and in the town with its long and drawn-out shots, restrictive framing, use of off-screen space and employment of multiple planes of action. Hou’s camera takes a detached but ever curious gaze towards its subjects as they engage in gang wars, witness the lives of their neighbours, get cheated in the city and lead a life that is as detached from the past as it is from the future. There is much understated pathos to be found in the final passages of the film, a la I Vitelloni (1953), where the friends are forced to come to terms with the fact that they have to break up and move on with their individual lives. (Republished) […]
LikeLike
March 15, 2010 at 8:21 am
[…] The always fascinating ‘Just Another Film Buff’ has a capsule post up at his place on a rarely-seen film by Hsiao-Hsien, that’s a must read for cinema lovers: https://theseventhart.info/2010/03/07/ellipsis-1/ […]
LikeLike