flora_li_2000 Most of the time when we go to see a movie, what we look for is to be entertained. So by definition those movies are entertainment. The people who make those movies, even though they call themselves artists, are actually entertainers. We look for self recognition, relaxation, amusement,... Yes, entertainment. We are used to being fed plots and emotion quickly. But some movies are actually art, and the movie makers, are truly artists. They do not entertain, they educate. They do not entertain, they inspire. They do not entertain, they lead. This is one of those movies, it is basically about desperate poor and unimportant people's life under microscope. Not an unusual story but It is told in a very distinctive and unconventional way. The director once said, why does a movie have to to have a story with beginning, peak and ending? Why does a scene have to have something happen? Weird, right? Yet if we open ourselves to the possibility that there is not a fixed way to make a movie, we may be returned to the original stage of our senses, while we were much softer and sensitive as we Do not have a box in our head. There are A lot of long takes. Some I like, some I do not, the funny thing is, when I am determined to be open and not anxiously waiting for some big movement in the scene, I find those long takes sometimes not long enough. Because I now feel the emotion of the character and my emotion flows with the scene, but the take cut short before I can switch. This is really a brand new experience. I won't talk about the splendid performance and the black humor in the move, if you are patient and open you will find them yourselves, as long as you are the kind of audience who enjoy art, in addition to entertainment.

fellini_58701 Tsai Ming-Liangs film Stray Dogs falls a bit short of being a great film but its not a disappointing one either. An existential and slow paced character study of a homeless drunk father and his two children living as the titles says "Stray Dogs". The films story reflects the desperation and misery of being homeless and a supermarket worker who becomes fond of the children and tries to rescue them from there misery. Downfall of the film is the careless editing of the long meandering scenes that seems to wear out there welcome after two minutes. This film could have been a great one if it only ran under two hours or less.

eugehet I first came across Tsai Ming Liang's film when I was watching the "walking on water" short film, part of the monk walking series. I was blown away because it was showing together with award winning directors short film across Asia. While the rest of the directors was telling stories, Tsai's unique style was distinctive. My impression was "slow" and "long" and didn't quite understand what he was telling through his short. It was not a lousy work but it did left me stumped. I did not know film could be made that way.2 years later, I heard a lot about "Stray Dogs", his latest feature length movie and watched it last night. Again you can see his unique style of slowness in this film but I began to understand what the director is trying to do. Tsai is making film without the constraint of time. Time cannot be a factor in his film. Although each take is long, I realised that the more crucial that particular scene, the longer he holds the shot. While every scene seems like a separate entity in itself, beautifully shot almost like painting but forms together to structure the story. I heard that he said this film was actually shot wider than the actual ratio we watched in cinema because he wanted the audience to see the environment around the characters. This brings me to understand why certain takes was so long. For e.g.. the scene where 2 men in ponchos in the rain holding the billboard. The director did not want us to just glance at these men but also the surrounding..how the people were driving passed them and don't even take noticed at all..how even more pathetic they are and perhaps men in this job are marginalised in the society. When all the vehicles drove away you see even more men like them in the background. Not sure if the surroundings are staged or real but I could feel a deep sense of helplessness in them. These are the thoughts that went through my mind while I was watching. if it were to be a 10-20sec scene, I would not have taken this scene seriously.The story is so simple that there really isn't a plot at all. Instead he used his characters to drive the film. His characters redefine what is acting. They bring realism to their characters that I cannot tell if they are trained actors or people that really lived through that lives. I could tell from some of the long takes that the characters are developing the emotion..they are dictating the pacing and the rhythm. Thus it is not just a long dull shot. If you walked away and come back at the same scene, it feels different already. Which I feel why no prominent music or soundtrack is used in the film is because it might actually affect the pacing of what he envisioned. He let the ambiance of the environment set the mood.While many felt the film is too long, I felt otherwise because it is precisely there are many long takes meaning lesser clips piecing the film together. I think the director faces the problem of choosing the right moment in each clip instead of choosing the right shot. For eg. the scene where the lead actor eating his lunch. The scene shows he was actually eating halfway already which i thought felt very awkward for me.Are all the female characters suppose to connect and symbolised something? Or they are playing out different scenario setup by the director in each act? It is not clear and i guess it can be either ways leaving it to open interpretation. My only concern is perhaps the significant of the painting on the wall. It is a beautiful painting though. Not sure the reason why the director did very little close up shot. Perhaps it is to create a distance between us and the characters. The only ones I remembered were with the lead actor. Every close-up shot done on him was brilliant. The long scene of him holding the billboard and singing probably is a defining moment and made me realised how good his acting is. Probably also the toughest shot for the actor himself. Most of the wide shot made me felt like i'm actually standing at a distance observing the characters much like how I observed people in my daily life. On the side note, this film won the 50th Golden Horse Award Best Director & Best Actor.We are too used to the conventional storytelling way in movies. Fast pace, fast cut and many things going on at same the time, feeding us directly the stories and emotion. You cannot be conscious of time when watching this film. Instead of telling you the moral of the story, he lets you decides your takeaway. The more acceptive you are to his film, the more you can draw.In conclusion, I think Tsai does not conform to the filmmaking industry. His approach to filmmaking can be hard to comprehend and many a times illogical and pretty random but it is beginning to stand out and open the doors to more possibilities and perception of what film can do. Having said all that, I'm looking forward to watching his future and past works!

MartinHafer As I sat and watched "Stray Dog", I felt very annoyed. Again and again and again, scenes where nothing particular is happening, the camera remained there for a VERY long time. In each case, the film could have been edited and you would have had roughly the same effect...without boring the audience. So, when you show two men in ponchos in the rain holding signs, you don't NEED to show this scene for a full minute and then return to do the same thing again-- especially when the men aren't doing anything other than holding signs!! The same goes for the introduction, as you see a lady staring at her kids as they sleep...for the longest time!! In addition, showing a guy taking a leak is another sign that this is a self-indulgent sort of film from director Ming-liang Tsai. Editing and pacing are important to most directors, but not apparently in this case! As a result, a decent story is marred unnecessarily by the direction that tends to bore and annoy many viewers. I know I sure felt both. What SHOULD have been an important film about a homeless family on the fringes instead is an interminable bore. We get it that the folks are depressed and that's why they do nothing...but think about the audience having to watch this.