Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress (2002)

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie up until the ending. There was a fourth major character whose vital importance to the ending was ignored, a character who intruded into their menage a trois: the gynecologist/abortionist. It was extraordinarily difficult for him to make that long trip deep into the mountains. Why would he do it, and risk all? Why? Because he found an attractive 18-year-old woman who was a known goer able to keep a secret whom he wanted to make into his mistress. He bought and took away one thing Ma had that most seduced the seamstress: Ma's violin. Did the doctor also buy all the books, or maybe just the Balzacs? Without these the two boys would be less attractive, less interesting, boring even, to the dishonest little seamstress (dishonest? Whose idea was it to steal four-eyes' valise of books?). When she left the mountains at the end the seamstress' statement to Luo that her leaving was due to Balzac was not necessarily entirely true. People do not always tell everyone the truth all of the time. In her case what was she going to tell her ex-lover, that she had fallen for the sweet talk of a more worldly man? What letters she and the doctor may have exchanged, or even further meetings they may have had after the abortion we don't know. But yes, the seduction of her by the words of Balzac led to her pregnancy, and that led to her leaving.So this is the ending that should have been: A scene of her reaching town, being met in the darkness of night by the doctor and ensconced in some third-rate hovel where she would commence her temporary life as his secret mistress. Another quick scene or two showing either him or her, or both tiring of the situation and her going on to some factory in Shenzen. Then from there (different hair style and clothing) to Hong Kong. She could become a bar hostess at a Bar called Champs Elysees and, there, meet some French guy who takes her to Paris.It is beautiful irony that the money paid to Ma for his violin went to pay for the sneakers she used to walk to the doctor and her "new-and-exciting urban" life. ("Don't worry. I'll be fine in town," she said to Luo with complete confidence. Confident that there would be someone there waiting for her to make sure she was alright.).

What are you supposed to do when you film goes up against others in the Golden Globes like eventual Oscar winner Talk to Her, or The Crime of Father Amaro, or Hero? You just look at the company and console yourself with the awards you have already won.This was a beautiful film with Xun Zhou (The Emperor and the Assassin) in the title role as an uneducated villager who is exposed to banned books by two university students, Kun Chen and Ye Liu (The Promise, The Curse of the Golden Flower), who were sent to her mountain for reeducation.Besides another critical look at the reeducation program under Mao, it also provides a look at how all yearn for freedom, much like watching the second hour of the new John Adams mini-series did.One thing that was very interesting in the film was the way it demonstrated the flooding of the Yangtze to create the 650 square mile lake in China. Until this film, I had no good idea of just how great a project that was. When you see these villagers trek up many many steps to get to their homes high in the mountains, and then see those same home flooded, you begin to comprehend just how big a project that was.This was a beautiful symphony with Mozart and Balzac transforming the people.

Balzac and the little Chinese seamstress – Film review Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress is a film based on the cultural revolution of the 1970's. Two boys are sent to the country to be re-educated under Chairman Mao. The main focus of the movie is the adventures that the boys undergo while there. While they are there, Luo, one of the boys, falls in love with a local girl there, a seamstress. There is also a suitcase, belonging to one of the other boys, four-eyes, that is rumoured to hold in it secret books, illegal ones. The boys steal it, and with the help of their favourite author, Balzac, the little Chinese seamstress is changed forever from the simple girl she was.The movie itself leaves something to be desired. Although the plot of the book is simple enough, the adaptation for the movie has not been done well, and some crucial parts have been removed or replaced. There have been some major changes in the movie, and while this is to be expected of any movie adaptation, they do not suit the movie or the book, and make holes in the film.The characters, Ma (Ye Liu) and Luo (Kun Chen) are generally what you would expect them to be from the book. Their appearance is much the same, but they look too much alike to be able to tell them apart easily, especially with the cutting of one person to another. The Seamstress (Xun Zhou) has been done well, and is portrayed well. There is some difference from the book, but this is to be expected as it is an adaptation. The actors themselves have done quite well, and have settled into character much like the book, with the minor characters doing well at setting the scene for the main plot to take place. There were many minor roles, and all of them have done well in making the movie seem real and more life-like The scenery is fantastic. It has been beautifully captured by the camera, and the set of the movie has been chosen well. It fits in perfectly with the book, and is breathtaking to watch. The shots and angles used in the movie are also very well done. They accentuate the specific feeling in a particular scene to make it seem as if you are actually there. There is also very good lighting and sounds used in the movie, that are able to, again, emphasise a particular scene in the film that is of great importance. The sets are also very life-like, with the highlights being the little details that have been put into the sets, the feeling that it has been filmed during the 1970's is very much there. But the way that the camera has been able to capture it has been the most commendable achievement. It has been done in such a way that it is able to show the viewer what life was like, the details, and also to heighten a specific point in the movie.The plot of the movie, however, is not very well done at all. The storyline is jumpy and confusing, and leaves viewers still trying to work out what has happened long after an event has passed. The plot is extremely disorganised, and the adaptation has not worked out well. People would have to read the book before seeing the movie to work out which parts fitted where and what was happening. There is utter chaos when organising the scene where Ma has jumped ahead to the future. When he is reminiscing about how the little seamstress had left a while earlier (from what can be pieced together) it is very confusing trying to work out whether he is in the present or the past.The director of the movie (Sijie Dai) is also the writer of the book, so a better movie would be expected then this. But he has put the pieces of the movie together in such a way that, even though the scenes by themselves are brilliant, the movie is jumpy and hard to understand. The subtitles running too quickly didn't help. There are too many characters introduced at the same time, and eventually it gets far too complicated to understand the first time. One can only get their head around this movie if they have either read the book prior to watching the movie, or they have seen it more then once. Either way, there is too much effort required trying to understand the plot then is really necessary.The movie is shot well, with excellent scenes and camera angles used to create a great tone in the movie. The actors have done well with adapting to the parts, and the characters are not unlike the book. But the plot line is a real let-down, with the scenes being poorly placed, making the movie jumpy and unrealistic. The director has done poorly on this movie, which is confusing in itself, considering he wrote the book as well as making the movie. Maybe he should just stick to writing. Although, for those who have read the book, he isn't too good at that either. Overall, not a movie that is worth paying $4 to go and rent, and certainly not worth the time to try and understand.

I was really moved by the portrayal of the friendship of the Little Seamstress, Ma, and Luo, and how their lives were changed by their experience in the mountains in this brief span of time. The mountains were beautiful, the re-educators were not presented as monsters, and the acting, esp Xun Zho as Little Seamstress and Ye Liu as Ma was really good. Xun Zho reminded me of the young Gong Li in Red Sorghum. Most importantly, I rediscovered how lucky I am to be able to read and watch what I want when I want, and how I am almost obligated to take advantage of my freedom to read and watch movies.For me, the filming was never as strong as the better Asian movies but once the movie got going the filming became stronger as did the movie.The character of the harshness of the cultural revolution in China in the 60's was shown thru a politically soft-focus lens, but I did not mind this as there are more than enough Chinese movies that have leaned in the other direction, and for me, this was a movie about friendship and love in a political and cultural setting, not the other way around which matches my own personal preferences.