Imagine a photograph capturing a beautiful sunset. Even though the sunset itself is temporary, the photo allows us to appreciate its beauty and the emotions it evokes. Similarly, Wong’s films might capture fleeting moments, but they can still hold lasting meaning and emotional impact. The brilliance of Fallen Angels [1995] comes not from its visuals or characters alone, Wong uses his characters as puppets in this grand visually stunning performance. The following reviews capture the essence and the meaning of this film’s 99 beautiful minutes, but sometimes miss the connotation of visuals over characters or characters over visuals.
Roger Ebert’s Pulitzer Prize for Criticism reflects in his nods to subtleties in Wong’s Filmmaking. He points out the clues Wong Kar-Wai leaves for audiences and shatters the idea of any meaning being attached to this film. Starting with “You enjoy it because of what you know about film, not because of what it knows about life,” [1] Ebert establishes that the film is not about finding meaning at all, but rather appreciating the grimy taste of the visuals and momentary characters choreographed by Wong Wai-Kar and Christopher Doyle. Ebert emphasises that the notion of watching film to gain wisdom is preposterous as films like Wong’s portray life as what it is, swift moments of joy followed by incessant nostalgia for the past. Ebert expands on this by comparing Wong to Jean-Luc Godard, who was known to bring a revolutionary change to filmmaking, “Wong Kar-Wai, like Godard, is oblivious to such questions and plunges into his weird, hyper style without a moment’s hesitation.” [1] The “questions” that Ebert refers to in this quote are “Will it [the audience] like it? Get it? Be bored by it?” [1] In one way, Ebert is right. The camera in Fallen Angels follows our characters through the fast-paced highways of Hong Kong and the 3AM bustle of restaurants. It zooms into their faces and observes the scene with an inhuman perspective. The 6.8mm depth of field [2] is used to make objects seem incredibly distant [3] from the audience letting extreme close-up paint the mood of the film. Wong never questions if the audience will watch a 99-minute feature of raw-looking bizarre footages, similar to Goddard. This dicey choice definitely paid off as the film’s visuals are one of its most popular features. However, Ebert’s notion of Wong being “oblivious” to the audiences’ interests withers away when you focus on the characters. Incredible performances by Takeshi Kaneshiro, Michelle Reis and Leon Lai among other serve a very human purpose. They speak of love and of heart break. They speak volumes while not speaking a word to the people they desire. Wong’s filmmaking is delicate and cares about audiences’ emotions at a deeper level than what may first seem. The visuals compliment this, as well, which will be discussed later in this essay. “His influences aren’t other filmmakers, but still photographers and video artists–the kinds of artists who do to images what rap artists are doing to music when they move the vinyl back and forth under the needle” [1] There is a still in the film where a distorted Agent of the Killer smokes a cigarette letting her thoughts sink into the viewers’ minds. Stills like this are common in Fallen Angels, they are as if “leafing through hip photo magazines very quickly.” This portrays Ebert’s idea of Wong being inspired by photographers not filmmakers. Most critics and audiences of this film, now or then, agree with this statement. The film’s texture is what draws in most audiences. However, Ebert’s idea of Fallen Angels might not stand in 2024, as the film has been altered after its adaptation in the Criterion Collection. Some of the eccentric-coloured sections of the film were decolourised into a black and white format. Although Wong claims that this is closer to the truer texture of the film he wanted to realise, Ebert would disagree as the nostalgic essence of the art is what he believes makes the film influential. Touching on the plot, Ebert wonders, “Does it matter what these people do? Not much. It is the texture of their lives that Wong is interested in, not the outcome” [1] Characters in this film are constantly in motion. They fall in love too quickly and break too often. Ebert argues that the actions and the plot of the film doesn’t really serve a purpose and that the dynamics between characters is what Wong is interested in. Abundant reviews might disagree to this sentiment, comparing the visuals of Hong Kong to also be an active character in the story along with every happening. The visuals and characters are inseparable from the meaning of the film. Ebert goes on to say that “The people in his [Wong’s] films are not characters but ingredients, or subjects”.
While Roger Ebert investigates some of the deeper, less evident realities of the film, he was limited, or rather guarded, by the boom in influence of this film. More recent reviews of this film tend to overlook the visuals and consider them only a companion in the story of these marvellous characters. Fallen Angels premiered in 1995 Toronto Film Festival [4] where it gained the focus of the event for its stunning visuals [5]. Today, the film is being analysed from a different perspective: the characters’.
Cambell Mah is a film student at the University of North Carolina. His insights in his review titled “Returning to Wong Kar-wai’s Dizzying Cinematic Nocturne” go into the depths of this film’s visual prowess, mocking it sometimes. “Visually, Fallen Angels is dizzying. Only a few static shots occur throughout the entirety of its 99-minute runtime.” [6] Mah is cautious in his comments on the film’s visual aesthetic. He talks about the specifics of this style that Doyle has crafted using references to the wide-angle lenses, as this essay as previously established: “Throughout the film, Wong and cinematographer Christopher Doyle employ extreme wide-angle lenses that give nearly every frame a slight fisheye effect.” The insights that Mah presents in his essay are novel from a film scholar’s perspective. While Ebert’s comments on the visuals were mostly positive, Mah does so in the light of today’s cinema and the recent changes to the film. The lenses give the film a rustic appearance, almost founding the film’s setting in “the past” in accordance to today’s technology. Recent admirers of the film behold its visuals as a nostalgic time travel and not in pure fantastical awe. More recent reviews reinforce this observation by completely discarding the mentions of the cinematography over the “meaning” of the film which Ebert had abolished. Meanings such as “But in Fallen Angels there is no forewarning” [7] and “Then Wong Kar-wai tosses in unrequited love, heartache, and a dash of neon for good measure.” [8] Although these critics overlook the technical marvel of Fallen Angels, they truly capture and embrace the meaning that Wong tries to convey through these outlandish characters and their collisions with each other. In conclusion, Wong Kar-wai’s Fallen Angels [1995] is a film that transcends the initial debate between prioritizing visuals or characters. It’s a tapestry woven with stunning imagery that complements the raw emotions experienced by its characters. While Roger Ebert focused on the film’s texture and questioned its narrative purpose, recent reviewers delve deeper into the characters’ struggles with love and loss. Fallen Angels offers a fleeting glimpse into the human condition, showcasing fleeting moments of joy and the lingering ache of the past. The film’s brilliance lies in its ability to capture these emotions through both its visual spectacle and the characters’ poignant journeys. Whether you’re captivated by the neon-drenched streets of Hong Kong or drawn to the characters’ vulnerabilities, Fallen Angels resonates with its ability to evoke a spectrum of emotions. This timeless quality ensures that the film’s impact will continue to be felt by audiences for years to come, regardless of whether they first appreciate the beauty of the visuals or the depth of the characters.
[References and mention of the reviews are provided in the following pages]
Works Cited
[1] Ebert, Roger. “Fallen Angels Movie Review & Film Summary (1998) | Roger Ebert.” Https://Www.rogerebert.com/, 19 June 1995, www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fallen-angels-1998.
[2] Pret, Antoine. “The Wide Angle Lens Used in Fallen Angels (1995).” Cinematography.com, 13 Jan. 2022, cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/90617-the-wide-angle-lens-used-in-fallen-angels-1995/. [3] WatchingtheAerial . “Searching for Fallen Angels’ Lost Lens.” Www.youtube.com, 25 May 2021, www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2dq_7wu0Dw&t=370s. Accessed 12 Mar. 2024.
[4] Wright, Elizabeth. “Wong Kar-Wai – Senses of Cinema.” Senses of Cinema, May 2002, www.sensesofcinema.com/2002/great-directors/wong/.
[5] “Director Wong Karwai.” En.chinaculture.org, en.chinaculture.org/library/2008-01/18/content_79112_3.htm. Accessed 12 Mar. 2024.
[6] Mah, Campbell. “Campbell Mah- Fallen Angels (1995) Review: Returning to Wong Kar-Wai’s Dizzying Cinematic Nocturne | Aspect: Journal of Film and Screen Media.” Aspectfilmjournal.web.unc.edu, Feb. 2022, aspectfilmjournal.web.unc.edu/2022/02/campbell-mah-fallen-angels-1995-review-returning-to-wong-kar-wais-dizzying-cinematic-nocturne/.
[7] reibureibu. “★★★★½ Review of Fallen Angels.” Https://Letterboxd.com, 27 Oct. 2021.
[8] pulpficat. “User-Submitted Review of “Do Lok Tin Si.”” IMDb, 12 Sept. 2023, www.imdb.com/review/rw9318786/?ref_=tt_urv. Accessed 12 Mar. 2024.
Reviews Used for this Essay
Review from the time of film release by Roger Ebert o www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fallen-angels-1998
Recent reviews consulted for this essay (referenced and not referenced)
o Fallen Angels (1995) Review: Returning to Wong Kar-wai’s Dizzying Cinematic Nocturne
https://aspectfilmjournal.web.unc.edu/2022/02/campbell-mah-fallen-angels-1995-review-returning-to-wong-kar-wais-dizzying-cinematic-nocturne/
o A review by u/GThunderhead on Reddit (Nov 5, 2021) https://www.reddit.com/r/criterionconversation/comments/qnhp8d/criterion_film_club_wong_karwai_week_68/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
o A review by bob the boo on IMdB (Jan 13, 2005) https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1000769/?ref_=tt_urv
o A review by pulpficat on IMdB (Sep 12, 2023) https://www.imdb.com/review/rw9318786/?ref_=tt_urv
o A review by reibureibu on LetterBoxd (Oct 27, 2021) [URL not available hence the entire review has been copied and pasted below] ★★★★½ Rewatched by reibureibu 27 Oct 2021 12 Wong Kar-Wai’s films are always full of sudden goodbyes. They enter into each other’s lives and promptly leave after some time. And in many of his films, they know that their time together is limited by circumstance, so they might prepare themselves for that moment of separation. A wall is built between them, before they officially part.
But in Fallen Angels there is no forewarning. People leave without saying goodbye, and so there is no wall that’s built to steel the soul. For the person left behind, it’s not upsetting, really, just… confusing. What happened? Why did they leave? Did I do something wrong? They want to feel sadness, but there’s not even that; you can’t feel sad when you don’t even know what it is to feel sad about.
And in their search for closure they rub elbows with others in the night, entering into these lonely lives whether they know it or not. They might not even realize they made a new friend. So they might not realize how much it hurts when they leave without saying goodbye.