Even if the first part is pretty "straight" forward the second part left me baffled - maybe that was the point?... I am almost certain that I can interpret it somehow but anything I would say might and can be wrong, that's because I am somewhat convinced it's a very Thailand "kind of thing", it being a folk story. I think it has something to do with greed, because of the little story in the first part with the two farmers and the little monk.
I am still mesmerized by Apichatpong Weerasethakul's approach to framing and camera work. I find it fascinating and boring but in a good way. It's like therapy, it's like really absorbing the nature or the setting. It's like an optical illusion sometimes, the longer you stare at a frame, the deeper you go, it's hypnotizing.
Of to the next Weerasethakul - but not right away. I will let this one settle in first.
I am still mesmerized by Apichatpong Weerasethakul's approach to framing and camera work. I find it fascinating and boring but in a good way. It's like therapy, it's like really absorbing the nature or the setting. It's like an optical illusion sometimes, the longer you stare at a frame, the deeper you go, it's hypnotizing.
Of to the next Weerasethakul - but not right away. I will let this one settle in first.