Hong Sang-soo

À l’injonction du « il faut avoir vécu pour bien jouer » (Introduction), Juste sous vos yeux oppose le « vivre sans jouer ». À l’interrogation : « ma vie a-t-elle déjà réellement commencé ? » (Introduction), Juste sous vos yeux oppose une autre angoisse : « cette vie est-elle déjà finie ? ». Ces deux extrêmes ne cessent de se renvoyer la balle. Comme deux miroirs que l’on placerait l’un en face de l’autre, ces deux films ne cessent de se renvoyer de troublantes résonances obliques. C’est la grâce de Hong Sang-soo que de faire naître un vertige d’interrogations existentielles dans l’intervalle entre ses films. Pour autant, ce que nous voyons dans ses films, c’est un pur présent, aux teintes toujours renouvelées, qui nous dit que l’essentiel est toujours devant : devant la vie à venir, comme devant nos yeux.

Tegenover het gebod “je moet geleefd hebben om goed te kunnen spelen” uit Introduction stelt In Front of Your Face het “leven zonder te spelen”. Tegenover de vraag “is mijn leven al begonnen?” uit Introduction stelt In Front of Your Face een andere angst: “Is dit leven al voorbij?” Die twee uitersten spelen elkaar constant de bal terug. Als twee frontale spiegels blijven de twee films elkaar verontrustende echo’s toespelen. Het is Hong Sang-soo’s gave om tussen zijn films een duizelingwekkende reeks existentiële vragen op te roepen. Daarom is wat we in zijn films zien een zuiver heden, in steeds nieuwe tinten, dat ons vertelt dat het essentiële altijd voor ons ligt: zowel voor het leven dat komt als voor onze ogen.

Against the injunction that “one must have lived to act justly” (Introduction), In Front of Your Face posits a “living without acting”. Against the question, “Has my life already begun?” (Introduction), one finds a different fear: “Is this life already over?” The two extremes constantly throw the ball back to each other. Like two mirrors placed opposite one another, the two films keep reflecting distortive resonances. It is Hong Sang-soo’s gift to raise a dizzying array of existential questions in between his films. But what we see in his films is a pure present, with ever-renewing colours, informing us that the essential is always in front of us: both for the life to come and the life right before our eyes.

It’s a notorious fact: Hong Sang-soo does not write screenplays. Or, rather, the practice of scriptwriting melted away as time passed (...) The act of writing, if it takes place at all, is worth little more than as an initial impetu. Hong Sang-soo: “I do not want a scenario in which 95 percent of the elements are fixed in advance since, in the end, the rest of the creative process would be about working on details, the remaining 5%. What I do want is to find an approximate 30 to 40 percent of the elements in the treatment, 30 percent in the casting and dialogues, and the rest during the shoot.”

1987. Back to Chicago. During a seminar at the Art Institute, I see Robert Bresson’s Diary of a Country Priest. A turning point. I give up experimental video-art cinema and move on to storytelling. That is when I understand that classic cinema can bring happiness.

Hong Sang-soo zal deze referentie naar Cézanne, die hij vaak aanhaalt, kunnen waarderen, alsook mijn bedachtzaamheid als ik over hem spreek. Hij is als een geschonken boek, waarvan we ontdekken dat bepaalde bladzijdes zorgvuldig zijn uitgescheurd en dat zodoende plotseling alles ontbreekt. Zijn films hebben onze toestemming niet nodig, ze eisen een totale omarming.

Hong Sang-soo will appreciate the reference to Cézanne, whom he often quotes, and my caution when talking about him. He is like an offered book, of which we discover that certain pages have been carefully torn out and therefore everything is suddenly missing. His films don’t need our agreement; they require total rallying.

More than most, Hong’s films command attentiveness. Shots, motifs, objects, dialogue, and events return, often transmogrified in their second appearances […] come back as narrative or temporal markers, or even as consequential characters, leaving a viewer to feel like David Hemmings in Blowup, scrutinizing Hong’s every image for clandestine signifiers. Placement in the frame is also paramount, as ostensibly casual groupings turn out to be extremely deliberate in their composition – meant to signal social unease, deceit, or shifting allegiances. […] (That Cézanne, a proto-Cubist, is one of the director’s artistic touchstones is no surprise; Hong, like Bresson, another of his formative influences, is a metteur en ordre – an imposer or maker of order, a finder of hidden forms.)

Poetic by its precision, attentive to duration, to the uncertainty of the moment, to outlined movements and to what they betray or control: Hong Sang-soo’s cinema seems to consist only of details, of contingent moments that suddenly get out of hand or explode. “I never aim for generalization; there’s never a global view on society at the origin of a film or even a shot. It seems to me that reality can only appear between the cracks of discrete, hypothetic, uncertain elements. I am wary of clichés and big expressions. I do not believe, for example, that something we could call ‘the’ contemporary Korea exists. I never try to share a truth, but only approximations.”

Poétique à force de précision, attentif aux durées, aux incertitudes de l'instant, aux mouvements esquissés et à ce qu’ils trahissent ou réfrènent, le cinéma de Hong Sang-soo semble n’être constitué que de détails, de moments contingents, qui soudain dérapent ou explosent. « Je ne vise jamais la généralisation ; le point de vue global sur la société n’est jamais à l’origine d’un film, ou même d’un plan. Il me semble que la réalité ne peut apparaître qu’entre les interstices d’éléments discrets, hypothétiques, incertains. Je me méfie des clichés et des grandes phrases, je ne crois pas, par exemple, qu’il existe ce qu’on pourrait appeler “la” Corée contemporaine. Je ne cherche jamais à faire partager une vérité, mais des approximations. »

In reality, [Hong Sang-soo’s] absolute mundanity remains a decoy. Of all renowned filmmakers of the last ten years, he is without a doubt the one that has least searched for signature effects and immediate tokens of seduction, with the relative exception of the beautiful harshness of his black and white films. He remains a filmmaker of pure visual prose, all the while constructing stories whose framework is related to pure, poetic arbitrariness. So is Hong Sang-soo a filmmaker of prose or poetry? It’s a pity that Pasolini isn’t around anymore to give us the answer.

In The Day He Arrives, a soju-fueled cross between Last Year at Marienbad and Groundhog Day, Yoo Seongjun, a lapsed director self-exiled to the provinces, roams the streets and bars of Seoul much as X wanders the hallways and gardens of Marienbad, through an endless repetition of settings, characters, and incidents, each reiteration calling previous accounts into question. “I don’t remember a thing,” the bar owner Ye-jeon insists after Seongjun apologizes for what something he has just done, her protestation recalling A’s many disavowals of the past in Marienbad. Whose version does one trust: his, hers, neither?

“For me, a film is good if it provides me with new feelings and modifies my way of thinking. That is why form is so important for me. We all share the same material. But the form we use, leads to different feelings or new ways of questioning, to new desires. So I don’t think I can be defined as formalistic or realistic. These categories simplify things. My first three films could be called formalistic, the last ones a little less so. I am only conscious of my desires.”

“Imagine this rectangle is real life. I try to come as close as possible to it. How ? Using details of my life, things I’ve lived, things I heard from other people I know or I just met. I always mix different sources, and it’s never about myself, but it looks like something that happened, or looks like its about me. I want it to be like that. I realized that when I was 23 and was writing a script based on a real story. I felt too tense; I couldn’t move. I needed distance. In the same way, my films are never a parallel line to reality. What I tend to do is to follow an arrow towards reality, avoiding it at the very last second.”

[Bandwith warning: this article contains a lot of images]
Owing its unity to its variations, Hong Sang-soo’s oeuvre provokes inventory-making more than others. One will find here a collection of some of the running motifs, those called for by memory and those formed as the images were collected. Floating motifs, from plate to plate – drawing, between rigidity and woolliness, between heaven and earth, an art of posture and distance, in which any relationship and resemblance could be mere coincidence. Clinking as pleasantly, we hope, as glasses on a table.

Anne-Christine Loranger met Hong Sang-soo in Berlin the day after the screening of On the Beach at Night Alone at the 2017 Berlinale. Hong Sang-soo: “I try to minimize as much as possible. You know, making things look good visually doesn’t add value to a scene. What's important is that visually things are right. That's what I’m trying to achieve, a truth, a rightness in the scene that’s being shot.”

In Hong Sang-soo’s work there is a constant trait, which is neither really stylistic (it’s not a matter of form), nor frankly thematic (it’s not a matter of content either), and which returns, like a butterfly – and even, as its course is erratic, like a moth, the ultimate uncatchable insect. You will forgive me for calling this trait idiocy, a striking word that somehow touches the singular art, so difficult to describe in sentences, of this not exactly talkative filmmaker.