Three Reasons: Tampopo

Three Reasons are a series of posts about films I love and the three reasons why I love them. Inspired by the Criterion Collection's own video series. I hope you check out the films in these series. If you are a lover of film, these are not to be missed!

Directed by Juzo Itami
In this humorous paean to the joys of food, the main story is about trucker Goro who rides into town like a modern Shane to help Tampopo set up the perfect fast-food noodle restaurant. Woven into this main story are a number of smaller stories about the importance of food. (Synopsis from IMDB.com)

Tampopo opens with a funny address to the audience warning us not to crumple our crisp packets while watching the movie. Food and film are meant to be given the concentration they deserve. A lovely message, they should play this clip at the beginning of every movie. I personally try not to indulge in food while watching a movie but a word of warning for this film: make sure you are within the vicinity of a ramen restaurant after seeing this. You will crave for it like nothing else. Trust me.

The majority of the film is spent in some kind of a restaurant and the scenes range from the hilariously comedic to being akin to a Western movie.

One of the final sequences is a taste test that rivals an episode of Masterchef in terms of suspense. 


What are your reasons?

Three Reasons: Bicycle Thieves

Directed by Vittoria De Sica

Italian neorealism broke the rule that movies had to be filmed in studio lots. By taking the camera and shooting on location they capture on film the lives of ordinary people and their problems and joys. Motivated with their conscience instead of potential profits, the result is a beautiful, sometimes painful look at what it is to be human.

Whenever I watch the Bicycle Thieves there are two states of mind I naturally fall into. One focuses on the social aspect of the film (poverty, class divisions, etc.) while the other is more concerned with the endearing portrayal of a father and son relationship. These two share a bond and fondness with one another that is so authentic it makes potentially banal scenes - such as crossing the street or sharing meal - so enthralling.

The film is always thoughtful of class divisions and the disparate existence of the rich and poor. It may not be subtle sometimes but then again why should it be?

What are your reasons?

Three Reasons: Zodiac

Directed by David Fincher

It's amazing how Fincher can turn the most beautiful setting and turn it into something truly terrifying.

If Mad Men was a murder mystery, it would probably look something like this, especially during the 60s-70s murders. 

A large portion of the story is set in the newspaper office of the San Francisco chronicle where two of our main protagonists work. Known for his exceptional attention to detail, Fincher creates a convincing look of what a newspaper office would have looked like during that time, from the lights right down to the smallest of props.

As a journalism student, it excites me to see a newsroom like this. Set during a time when newspapers really mattered. I don't want to get into the 'is the newspaper dying?' debate but I can't help but want to time travel back to that era. Obviously, not exactly in San Francisco when the Zodiac murders were taking place because, well, I would be scared out of my mind (I can't even get into a taxi anymore without having suspicions towards the driver).

The first half of the film is a murder mystery. The second half is a character study. Men involved in solving the defiantly unsolvable case become obsessive and create a tunnel vision in their lives - with only the Zodiac at the end of that tunnel and everyone else, including family, friends and their lives are blackened away.

What are your reasons?

Please do not reproduce images without permission.

Three Reasons: 500 Days of Summer

Directed by Marc Webb

Usually my eyes roll at an overly cute scene like this. But who doesn't want to do something like this at an Ikea store? This was beyond adorable.

Another overly cute scene that just worked. This was right after Tom and Summer just had sex and it was the perfect way to show how Tom felt afterwards. Hilarious, fun and super duper cute.

Summer is such a great character. Unexpectedly brutal but unabashedly honest. She was both the best and worst girl for him. This scene just breaks my heart every single time.

What are your reasons?

Three Reasons: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Directed by Stanley Kubrick

The cut jumps from the Dawn of Man to a futuristic Space Age - from primitivity to advancement - probably the widest gap in time to jump cut, or arguably, to match cut to in cinema. The most surprising aspect about this cut is how it comparably shows how very little human beings have changed, despite the vast differences in time and evolutionary stages. We are still both destructive and disconnected. Our technologies still used as war weapons and tools to further separate us from one another.

The film is cold, distancing, depressing and uncertain at times but it is anchored by scenes of humanistic beauty. Showing moments that are collectively familiar to us as human beings, ironically conveyed by technology and man-made objects. While Strauss' The Blue Danube plays in the background, the spaceships and space stations seem to waltz with the music as they glide across the dark, empty space.

The film will surely please and satisfy two groups of people: the philosophical types, and substance users. 

What are your reasons?

Three Reasons: In The Mood For Love

Directed by Wong Kar-Wai

Food represents so much in the film. The pair pass by each other on the way to the noodle stand - they go there when their adulterous spouses are away, when they want a lonely meal for themselves. Sesame syrup becomes a representation of romantic generosity. A touch of mustard evokes husbandly tenderness and care. When the two are eating together, it is when they are the most intimate since they never physically or sexually act on their obvious attraction for one another. 

The characters are so well-dressed and put together. There's not a hair out of place - they look like they belong in an episode of Mad Men. But their perfect outward appearance seem to magnify their inward emptiness and make their tragic circumstance seem more melancholic. 

Usually in films exploring adultery, the focus is on the adulterers. Not in this film. The camera refuses to even capture their faces and in instances when they do enter the frame, it is very brief. Wong Kar-Wai makes it clear that this is not their story.

What are your reasons?