Maybe one of the reasons no contemporary Asian actress has become a major star is that some of the Hong Kong actresses aren't interested. Michelle Yeoh was asked to be in one of the Matrix movies (not the first) and she turned them down. I don't think people here have a clue how famous stars are out there and the monumental amount of money they make.

When Chow Yun-Fat went to Beijing for "Crouching Tiger," they had to shut down the airport so he could shake hands with everyone. Try and imagine anyone in the US that famous.

So why should they put up with the insults of working in the American system, ie doing shitty films and sitting around in the trailer for several days waiting to work?

Obviously Jet Li and Jackie Chan want it, but from this we go from the sublime to "Around the World in 80 Days."

Like many actors in Europe some Asian artists want no part of American cinema (look what it's done for Gerard Depardieu), but unlike the Europeans they are also fabulously wealthy. I haven't read the article and I don't know Maggie Cheung's story, but I do know that she has mixed her hong kong flix with quality work in France like "Irma Vep."

Who says that Hollywood is the only indicator of a successful career?

Having said that, there are a lot of amazing Asian actresses who aren't stars and I'm sure would relish the opportunity to come here. Chiaki Kuriyama was a hundred trillion times better than Lucy Liu in "Kill Bill." It was absurd that Uma Thurman had to vanquish the truly terrifying GoGo before fighting the creampuff Liu (or her stunt double). Kuriyama is also great in "Battle Royale." And how about Alien Sun (who speaks great English) in "Ichi the Killer"?

Before I get to the awesome Sandra Oh, I'm going to stop because this is getting me too wound up.

Reid Rosefelt

As far as Dargis' piece on cinephilia is concerned, I think she's right to argue that the new cinephilia, if it can be called that, has been spurred in large part by the rise of the DVD. I have argued elsewhere that cinephilia will most likely thrive in the homes of videophiles more so than in movie theaters. In many ways, the DVD itself has been the single largest boon to movie lovers, especially as a way to fight the bludgeoning homogeneity offered by major studies.

Nevertheless, I think she glosses over an important distinction between the new cinephilia and the old. Sontag strictly defines cinephilia as a product of the late 50s and early 60s in Europe, and in particular as a cause and outgrowth of the New Wave; her implication is that cinephilia then had real revolutionary passion. By this definition (which construes cinephilia as an all-consuming love tied in with larger ideas about freedom and independence), cinephilia has declined, or, at least, is now different. For one, the social, economic, political, and cultural currents surrounding cinephilia are different than they were in the 60s. Two, the types of cinephiles Dargis examines tend to absorb movies, not try to change them (and the surrounding culture) in deeply radical ways.

At any rate, Dargis, as always, is thought-provoking (which is why I like her so much).

Catching up a bit here...

Reid, on the whole, I think you're right, particularly with this point: "Who says that Hollywood is the only indicator of a successful career?" And in the case of Maggie Cheung, at least as she comes off in this particular article, yes, she does seem pretty uninterested in trying to break into Hollywood. More power to her, of course. She's busy and rich enough as it is. But besides that, what the article makes clear is that, even if she were interested, the lack of the sort of roles readily available to her in HK and even Europe would keep her blocked out. The bottom line, it seems, is that, all questions of stardom and being able to realize your artistic goals in other parts of the world aside, Asians and Asian Americans are still underrepresented in mainstream American movies.

MS, I also agree with you (and I'm glad you dropped the URL for your site, too; duly bookmarked). I'd only add that, yes, while the element of radicalism is certainly missing from contemporary cinephilia, it's not quite the situation, either, that this new, consumerism-driven cinephilia is completely socially disengaged, either.

It may seem lazy of me, but I need to be editing, so let me just re-link to two items I've pointed to here earlier. One is Doug Cummings's entry a few days after the election, addressing, one, the drive to make global cinema more readily available, and two, the example of André Bazin. And secondly, somewhat related, Robert Koehler's piece on the work (and its lineage) of Jonathan Rosenbaum, which is, in its way, another sort of 'state of cinephilia' assessment.

In both, there are the remnants, fortunately still alive and well, if not as lively and loud as they were before 9/11, of what was beginning to be referred to as the global justice movement (as opposed to the 'anti-globalization movement,' which was always a misnomer), this urge to put the inevitability of globalization to good and decent use rather than to have it completely hijacked by multinational corporations and their interests.

So, sure, we're media junkies, but it's not all about just absorbing movies. I hope.

David,

Thanks so much for your thoughts and, as well, for the links to Cummings' and Koehlers' pieces, both of which are wonderful. I think you're entirely correct to say the new cinephilia isn't disengaged, and that it is directly tied in with concerns about globalization. I was sort of trying to summarize my reading of Dargis and Sontag; in other words, my impression of Dargis's definition of cinephilia is that she partly defines it as absorbing films, although I agree with you that we cinephiles do more than that. I should also admit that I'm often guilty of romanticizing the old cinephilia because my love for films is founded upon the movement (the French New Wave) that inspired the type of cinephilia Sontag discusses. I think much of Sontag's definition of cinephilia is directly linked to her larger criticial worldview; Sontag was a "product" (if that's the right word) of the 60s, and had radical notions of aesthetics, politics, and culture, and also believed in the importance of sensory experience (as opposed to pure intellectualism). I think this is an important element, and it would have added another dimension to Dargis' discussion. I believe there are fundamental differences between cinephilia then and now, but you're correct to suggest that we can't ignore the many nuances and similarities. All of this gives me so much food for thought, and, if I can, I hope to write more about it on my site. Many thanks.