The Ambiguity of "Landscapers"

I nearly stopped watching "Landscapers" after the first episode, because I found the main characters, Susan and Chris Edwards (Olivia Colman and David Thewlis) rather dull and uninteresting.  The pair are aging Brits, with a pile of annoying little neuroses, who have been hiding out in France for years due to some undisclosed crime in their pasts.  Their careful anonymity unravels when Chris makes a fatal mistake that reveals the awful truth - they were involved in the deaths of Susan's parents (Felicity Montagu and David Hayman) and a subsequent cover-up.  The first episode ends with the couple giving themselves up to the police.

However, I'm very glad I kept watching the miniseries, because once Susan and Chris are split up, and start being interrogated by a team led by DC Lancing (Kate O'Flynn), we start getting a better picture of who these two are, and how their crime is more complicated than it seems.  I don't think it's a spoiler to reveal that the Edwards were eventually convicted of murder, since the series is based on true events and the creators signal their guilt almost from the beginning.  The series spends the next three episodes humanizing Susan and Chris, and exploring the wide gulf that exists between the sensationalistic media narratives around the investigation and trial, and the more nuanced portrayal that this new dramatization offers.  

There's always some concern when a piece of media takes a more sympathetic view of people who have done something terrible, and in this case I don't know how you can get to the end of "Landscapers" without feeling some sympathy toward the Edwards.  The writers never make much of a case for their innocence, because the evidence against the Edwards is plain, but they do offer motives and background for their actions that show some of their actions in a different light.  And though the Edwards are shown to  lie and exaggerate constantly, the show argues that a major redeeming factor is that they love each other and manage to maintain that love through the whole, terrible judicial process.  

The creators are very self-aware that they're creating a narrative that subverts an existing one, and they constantly draw attention to what they're doing while criticizing the tactics of the previous storytellers - namely the law enforcement officials and lawyers responsible for building and prosecuting the case against the Edwards.  There are fourth wall breaking moments and fantasy conceits, such as Susan imagining that she's revisiting the crime scene, only inhabited by the idealized versions of her parents that the prosecution is pushing.  The last episode contains a framing device with Susan and Chris playing romantic outlaws in a Hollywood western.  Some episodes end with clips of a more typical true-crime program that paints the Edwards as monsters over the credits. 

   

This leaves us with some interesting questions about the nature of true crime stories.  Clearly, we feel more sympathetic toward the Edwards in "Landscapers" because they are being played by two of the best working British actors, and given well-written dialogue from talented writers.  The story highlights their devotion to each other and their more entertaining eccentricities, while ignoring the less savory parts of their personalities.  The portrait of the Edwards painted by the miniseries may be no more truthful than the sensationalized tabloid versions, but it's more compelling because it's more thoughtful and more well-rounded, and delivered with skill by very talented creators.

Then again, this is not a documentary, and has less of a duty to tell the truth.  Rather, it tells *a* truth, which is that despite everyone's good intentions, any attempt to impose a narrative on a set of events is going to get bungled up somewhere, and the Edwards, who got stuck in the roles of the villains, may not have deserved it.  As a piece of entertainment, I can find little to criticize about "Landscapers."  Thewlis and Colman give committed and sincere performances, particularly Colman, whose big monologue on the witness stand in the last episode might make you cry.  This is a very different take on the true crime genre, and fans should absolutely give it a watch - as a cautionary tale if nothing else.      

---

"Sonic 2" and "The Bad Guys"

Let's take a look at some recent kids' movies.  

I liked the first "Sonic the Hedgehog" movie, and the sequel is more of the same.  This installment is more comfortable with the material, letting the evil Dr. Robotnik look more like the video game villain and less like Jim Carrey, and adding a few more characters from the franchise - notably Tails the Fox (Colleen O'Shaughnessey) and Knuckles the Echidna (Idris Elba).   Sonic (Ben Schwartz) is still living in Green Hills with his human pals Sheriff Wachowski (James Marsden) and his wife Maddie (Tika Sumpter), but they're off to Hawaii for the wedding of Maddie's sister Rachel (Natasha Rothwell).  So, when Dr. Robotnik launches his latest attack, Sonic has to deal with it by himself.

"Sonic" is a very easy watch because it's calibrated to appeal to the very smallest children.  It's a lot of slapstick humor, gentle life lessons, and flashy chase sequences.  I appreciate that Sonic is a kid in these movies, full of chaotic energy and silly notions.  He gets into trouble at the drop of a hat.  The plot may be about finding a magic emerald, but the stakes are about Sonic making new friends, and cementing his bonds with his supportive found family.  There are plenty of little nods to "Sonic" lore for the fans of the franchise, but the movie is super approachable for kids on every front.  Adults, however, are not going to get much out it.  Sonic and his pals are all noise and excitement.  The human characters get their chances to be funny, but aside from Jim Carrey they stay on the sidelines.  There's a whole subplot with the wedding that the movie doesn't even bother to pay off in the end, though all due credit goes to Natasha Rothwell for being a very entertaining bridezilla.   

Now the latest Dreamworks movie, "The Bad Guys," has more for grown ups.  It's essentially a parody of heist and caper action films, starring a gang of five nefarious animal criminals, the Bad Guys: Mr. Wolf (Sam Rockwell), Mr. Snake (Marc Maron), Ms. Tarantula (Awkwafina), Mr. Piranha (Anthony Ramos), and Mr. Shark (Craig Robinson).  They exist in a world inhabited by both human beings and "Zootopia" style anthropomorphized animals, where the Chief of Police is the hot tempered human, Misty Luggins (Alex Borstein, and the governor is a fox, Diane Foxington (Zazie Beetz).  The Bad Guys are the most successful gang of criminals in operation, with a hideout full of stolen loot, and a long string of successful jobs.  Their latest target is a golden dolphin statue, intended for local do-gooder Professor Marmalade (Richard Ayoade), a guinea pig.

From the opening scene echoing "Pulp Fiction," to Mr. Snake's fashion choices, to the freeze frame jokes stuffed along the sides of the frame, this is a very self-aware movie.  However, it's also a movie that is very mindful of what it's trying to be, which is a well-rounded family picture.  There are butt and fart jokes, but not too many.  There are movie references, but nothing that gets too obtrusive.  The Bad Guys get to have fun being dastardly criminals for the first half of the movie, but soon Wolf discovers the benefits of being good, and decides to prod and poke his friends into reforming along with him.  The movie gamely embraces the absurd, and the characters have fun personalities and are allowed to interact in fun ways.  Mr. Snake is a grump who eats everything in sight.  Mr. Shark is a master of disguise and super dramatic.  Mr. Wolf is a charming rascal who knows he's the George Clooney of this bunch.

The look of the film won me over more than anything.  This is not a film that had a high budget, but it uses a tremendously appealing visual style, with 2D hand drawn animation over 3D CGI animation.  The line art adds that extra bit of oomph to facial expressions and action to sell the comedy and the silliness.  The animals are caricatured in fun ways that make use of their animal characteristics - Mr. Snake is shamelessly stealing moves from Sir Hiss from the Disney "Robin Hood," and it's fabulous.  Add the snazzy Daniel Pemberton score, and a strong cast of actors who all seem to be doing impressions of other actors, and it all adds up to a thoroughly good time.

---

The 2021 Movies I Didn't See

I write these posts every year to acknowledge some of the movies that I've made a conscious decision to skip watching.  In some cases there's a reason, and in some cases there's just a lack of enthusiasm.  I've got very strong completionist tendencies, so I hope writing about some of these films this way will help me put any lingering doubts to rest.  So, here are seven films below that didn't make the cut this year.   I reserve the right to revisit and reverse my viewing choices in the future. However, I still haven't watched anything from last year's list.

Malcolm & Marie - This came so early in the year that it was counted as part of the 2020 awards season, really taking advantage of some of those extended deadlines.  Frankly, the reviews weren't great and the material didn't appeal to me at all - its essentially a troubled couple hashing out their personality flaws, where Zendaya and John David Washington get to deliver long, emotional monologues.  A few film critic in-jokes aside, I don't feel like I'm missing anything.    

I Care a Lot - I'm all for Rosamund Pike getting more lead roles, but the subject matter for "I Care a Lot," involving grifting and elder neglect, was something I knew was going to be upsetting.  To prep myself for similar films, I often read reviews and plot synopses to get myself mentally prepared, but in this case it was totally counterproductive.  The people who love this film seem to love it for all the reasons that I would find it absolutely infuriating.  So, let's move on.  

Billie Eilish: The World's a Little Blurry - So, it's taken me a while, but I've worked out that Billie Eilish's music really isn't for me.  I'm okay with her in small doses, but the mumbly low volume singing really is her thing, and I'm not into it.  I generally like musician profiles and music docs, but I don't think an entire documentary about Eilish is something that I need to see.  I don't need to be convinced of her talent or her appeal.  She's quite simply not for me. 

Gunda - This one, along with Andrea Arnold's "Cow," are documentaries with the admirable goal of showing us life from the perspective of modern farm animals.  Gunda is the name of a mother pig, who shares screentime with cows, a one legged chicken, and others.  It's all well and good to stoke some empathy for the creatures who make our lives easier, but I don't usually do well with films like this.  I hate "Au Hasard Balthazar."  Haaaate it.     

Respect - I spent a good chunk of the awards season hoping that Jennifer Hudson wouldn't swing a nomination for playing Aretha Franklin because I was so resistant to seeing "Respect."  I don't have anything against Hudson or Franklin, but the marketing for this film has been terrible.  I've seen enough bad and middling biopics about musicians in recent years, and this one had all the red flags.  I'd honestly much rather just watch "Amazing Grace" again.  

The Many Saints of  Newark - I watched all of "The Sopranos," and never really became a fan.  The prospect of a prequel didn't interest me because I wasn't too interested in finding out more about the characters.  And we'd only see younger versions of them, so the original actors would only be appearing as cameos, if at all.  I'm a little curious as to how Michael Gandolfini fares as an actor, but if he's any good, he'll pop up somewhere else eventually.

Memoria - Finally, this is a film I'd like to see - Tilda Swinton appearing in an Apichatpong Weerasethul film! -  but the American distributor has settled on the most puzzling release strategy that I've ever heard of.  The film is only screening at one theater at a time with no planned physical media or streaming release.  That means I'm not going to have access to it for the foreseeable future - well, not in this country anyway.    

---

"Marry Me" and "I Want You Back"

It feels like an annual tradition now that I set aside a post every year for romantic comedies, which is a little depressing since this is honestly a genre I enjoy, but have little opportunity to write about.  They've declined to the point where you only get three or four good ones a year.  The highest profile romantic comedy of 2022 so far has been "Marry Me," which is notable for having two recognizable stars headlining together.  This is so rare these days, "Marry Me" feels like a throwback.  

Pop superstar Kat Valdez (Jennifer Lopez) is all set to marry her beau Bastian (Maluma) on live television, as part of a publicity stunt to promote their new single, titled "Marry Me."  Of course, right before the big moment she finds out that Bastian was cheating, so on the spur of a moment she finds a random man in the audience and marries him instead.  This is math teacher and single father Charlie Gilbert (Owen Wilson), who was only at the concert to accompany his daughter Lou (Chloe Coleman).  John Bradley plays Kat's agent and Sarah Silverman plays Charlie's fellow teacher and gal pal.  

As someone who is still miffed that Jennifer Lopez didn't get an Oscar nomination for "Hustlers," it's good to see her headlining.  However, the movie is dull, and the character of Kat Valdez is fairly empty.  The plot is essentially the same as "Notting Hill," except dumbed down and mostly devoid of charm.  I like Lopez and Wilson just fine, and they know how to handle this kind of material.  We've seen them do this so many times before.  The only wrinkle is how much more invasive and unpleasant the media scrum is in the age of social media and 24/7 news coverage.  It's immediately apparent why Charlie would have reservations about putting himself and his kid in this kind of environment.  The "Marry Me" song performed a few times during the movie is also not very memorable.  If you're the kind of fan who enjoys gawking at JLo's outfits, however, there's plenty of opportunity for that.

Now, on to "I Want You Back," which stars Charlie Day and Jenny Slate as an unlucky pair who have both just been dumped by their significant others for different partners.  Peter (Day) has been left by his longtime girlfriend Anne (Gina Rodriguez), while Emma (Jenny) has been left by Noah (Scott Eastwood).  Peter and Emma work in the same building and meet by chance, commiserate, and decide to help each other break up their exes' new relationships.  Emma will seduce Anne's new boyfriend Logan (Manny Jacinto), while Peter will befriend Noah and steer him away from new girlfriend Ginny (Clark Backo).  And you can probably work out what happens from there.

"I Want You Back" is not one of the better romantic comedies out there, but it's written and directed well, by people who clearly care about the comedy, and it has a lot of personality.  Logan is a middle school drama teacher, and a lot of the storyline with him and Emma involves staging a junior production of "Little Shop of Horrors."  At one point, Jenny Slate has to get in the Audrey outfit and belt "Suddenly Seymour."  Meanwhile Noah is a personal trainer, and Peter is forced to get into the best shape in his life to try and keep up with him.  I was constantly being caught off guard by clever little moments, like Peter tentatively asking if Emma wants to go out for a drink, and he doesn't even get the whole sentence out of his mouth before we smash cut to the two of them plastered and singing karaoke together later that night.  It is genuinely funny stuff.   

Compared to the glitz of "Marry Me," "I Want You Back" is much more grounded and realistic, with two leads who resemble normal, schlubby people who exist in a better approximation of the real world.  That isn't to say that there isn't still an element of fantasy wish fulfillment involved here, or there aren't plenty of old tropes trotted out.  However, it does them well, with impeccable timing, and lets its imperfect characters earn their happy ending.      

---

"The Spine of Night" and "Cryptozoo"

American animation for adult audiences is still a rare thing, though we've been seeing more indie projects in recent years, thanks to improvements in filmmaking technology.  2021 saw the premiere of two of these films, both low budget, painstakingly animated fantasy films with a lot of violence and a lot of nudity.  

"The Spine of Night" is the more familiar project, with visuals clearly influenced by "Heavy Metal" and Ralph Bakshi's fantasy films of the 1980s.  It's an epic story of sorcerers, witches, and warriors clashing over the control of a magical plant and the terrible power that it unleashes.  This is the world of barbaric savagery and cosmic horror, with many images that could grace the cover of heavy metal albums.  Characters with names like Tzod, the Guardian, Falconhawk, and Mongrel inhabit a harsh land that gradually morphs over the centuries from a rinky-dink medieval kingdom into a nightmarish empire of darkness.  

I want to emphasize that this is definitely a film for adults.  The violence is bloody, and the most prominent female character, the witch Tzod (Lucy Lawless), mostly appears nude throughout.  However, she's not built like the usual Frank Frazetta bimbo that you'd expect, but is instead a tough old broad who refuses to be intimidated.  In fact, there's a refreshing lack of the kind of titillating material aimed at sex-obsessed teenage boys that this kind of high fantasy is usually rife with.  All the characters are a little ugly, and a little weird.  Animator Morgen Galen King and writer Philip Gelatt let their saga of horror and woe play out seriously.  While there are moments of humor, it never strays too far into camp.  

The visuals, however, are the main event.  The excellent rotoscoped animation pays homage to Ralph Bakshi, but it also improves significantly on his output.  It often feels like "The Spine of Night" is a movie that Bakshi or his imitators would have made forty years ago if it weren't for budget and technology limitations.  The hardcore ending in particular, full of glorified images of death and destruction, embraces the most macabre side of animation with everything it's got.  It feels like "The Spine of Night" should have a soundtrack featuring every hard rock musician who ever threw demon horns, and my only real complaint about the film is that its score is not nearly as kickass as it could be.  

Then you have Dash Shaw and Jane Samborski's "Cryptozoo," which imagines a world where mythical creatures are real, but very rare.  Facing constant threats from traffickers, a group of cryptozoologists decide to try to put together a Cryptozoo as a sanctuary for the cryptids, despite serious misgivings from various participants. Most of the story follows Lauren (Lake Bell), a cryptid finder trying to track down the dream-eating Baku, with the help of a new partner, a gorgon named Phoebe (Angeliki Papoulia).  A subplot involves a naked hippie couple scaling the cryptozoo's fence and causing mayhem and destruction when they come upon the cryptids unawares.

"Cryptozoo" has some interesting concepts, the Cryptozoo being a thinly veiled allegory for the deeply troubled Utopian movements of the 1970s.   Phoebe is a great character, a cryptid who tries to pass herself off as human and hopes that social equality might be possible for her kind one day.  The visuals, however, are a mixed bag.  The painted, collage-style designs look like something out of a picture book by Eric Carle, the people all slightly grotesque, and the cryptids all vaguely familiar.  There are unicorns, dragons, griffins, and many more creatures, and most of them become involved in instances of gory violence.  The high degree of stylization helps keep some distance between the viewer and the worst of the upsetting content.  However, it also keeps the animation very static and I don't find it too appealing. 

Like "The Spine of Night," "Cryptozoo" is a fascinating film for the way it manages to conceptualize some of its ideas, and how it breaks so many of the taboos we associate with animation.  However, also like "The Spine of Night," it has a third act full of mayhem and destruction that leaves far too many of those interesting ideas by the wayside.  "The Spine of Night" was more of an exercise in aesthetics and could get away with it, while "Cryptozoo" doesn't come out quite so well.  I still enjoyed the film, and think it's worth tracking down for its highly unique approach, but it never won me over as much as I wish that it did.   

---

Rank 'Em: The Best Picture Winners of the '50s

Decade by decade, I'm ranking the winners of the Academy Award for Best Picture.  From greatest to least great, here's the '50s.

The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) - The start of David Lean's great run of epics beat out "12 Angry Men" and "Witness for the Prosecution" for Best Picture.  It remains one of the most beloved British films of all time, a gripping war drama about power struggles in a Japanese POW camp in Thailand.  "River Kwai" also gave Alec Guinness his Best Actor Oscar and revived the career of silent film star Sessue Hayakawa, who played the villain.  

Marty (1955) - I'm so glad this won, not just because it's a delightful movie, but because so many of the other nominees of that year are just lousy.  For years, "Marty" was the go-to example of the romance for the average joe, starring lovers who didn't look like movie stars, but still elicited great emotion and sympathy.  Screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky would go on to a long and successful career, while star Ernest Borgnine kept us entertained into his 90s.

All About Eve (1950) - One of the iconic show business films, which famously beat out "Sunset Boulevard" for Best Picture, but its leading ladies lost out on the acting statuettes.  And it's such a shame, because this movie is all about its fantastic performances, featuring two high-powered actresses played by Bette Davis and Anne Baxter vying for fame, and supported by Celeste Holm and Thelma Ritter.  It's on my list of films that is definitely overdue for a rewatch.  

An American in Paris (1951) - There's really no plot - just a few romantic encounters to connect Gene Kelly's spectacular song and dance sequences.  This is one of the very best of Arthur Freed's MGM musical spectaculars, with Kelly at the height of his powers, and the whole finale taken up with a dialogue-free 17 minute ballet dream sequence.  It's only real competition at the Oscars was a movie Hollywood may not have been ready for - "A Streetcar Named Desire."

On the Waterfront (1954) - Between the iffy behavior of director Elia Kazan and the excellent performances of Marlon Brando, Karl Malden, and Eva Marie Saint, this is where I landed with the gritty crime drama "On the Waterfront."  I feel like the politics have overshadowed a film that still works pretty well dramatically, and has other topics and themes on its mind, notably systemic corruption.  In hindsight, it may also be the high water mark of Brando's impressive career. 

Ben-Hur (1959) - I'm certainly not immune to spectacle, and there are few religious spectacles of this era that can match up to "Ben-Hur," with its chariot races and slave galleys, and Charlton Heston battling mightily for his Oscar statuette.  I'd have picked "The Nun's Story" for Best Picture, personally, but there was no stopping the momentum of "Ben-Hur."  It was not only a massive box office hit, but won a record eleven Oscars in a single ceremony - a feat that's never been topped.  

From Here to Eternity (1953) - I don't really understand the love for this film, which is a wartime drama set on Oahu, just before the attack on Pearl Harbor.  The soldiers being subject to the whims of a barbaric system full of sadistic individuals is all well and good - but the romances that take up so much of the story fell completely flat for me.  Still, between the work of a strong cast, and a stellar production, it still has enough strong elements to be worth a watch.

Gigi (1958) - Here's where we start getting to the winners that have aged badly.  I liked "Gigi" quite a lot when I was younger, as a musical romance, but the questionable premise just gets more uncomfortable with every passing year.  I mean, "Thank Heaven for Little Girls" comes from this movie!  The production is still gorgeous, but I think we'd all have felt a lot better if the 1958 Best Picture had gone to "The Defiant Ones," "Auntie Mame," or "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof."

Around the World in 80 Days (1956) - How this beat "The Ten Commandments," and "The King and I," I have no idea.  I don't dislike this version of "Around the World in 80 Days" at all, but it's such a frivolous comedic affair, loaded down with famous stars and cameos.  I can appreciate it as a huge logistical achievement that only Hollywood could have gotten made at the time, but its careless caricatures of different cultures and peoples make this one a curiosity at best to modern eyes.

The Greatest Show on Earth (1952) - This box office smash is widely considered one of the worst Best Picture winners, because so much of it is simply a filmed Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey show, with some stale melodrama tacked on.  This has plenty of historical value, but much less entertainment value.  "High Noon" and "The Quiet Man" are favorites that it beat out for the statuette.  

---

My Favorite Tsai Ming-Liang Film

I've had a complicated relationship with Chinese-language films and filmmakers.  I've always felt a certain obligation to watch Chinese cinema, but I've had difficulty connecting with many of the major talents.  It's taken me a long time to work through my own cultural baggage and actually explore the films of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the mainland.  Taiwanese filmmakers in particular hold a lot of interest for me, because in a not-too-alternate universe, Taiwan would be home, and its native cinema would be my own.  And Tsai Ming-Liang's films are the ones I think of when I think of life in Taiwan, capturing the feel and the rhythms of the country like no others.

I feel like I'm taking the easy way out, picking Tsai Ming-Liang's simplest, most minimalist film as my favorite.  However, he does something in "Goodbye, Dragon Inn" that I connect with very deeply.  The film captures the experience of going to a movie theater and watching a movie better than any other screen depiction I've ever seen.  This might seem strange, but most films that depict the act of movie-watching tend to mythologize or glamorize the act.  In "Goodbye," the theater is a lonely, mostly empty place.  This is the final screening, on a gloomy, rainy night, before this particular theater closes permanently.  The movie that is playing is King Hu's classic wuxia film, "Dragon Inn," which we see in glimpses as the camera follows various patrons and staff through the theater.  There only seem to be two workers, the projectionist and the ticket taker, who walks slowly using a leg brace.  They are played by Tsai regulars, Lee Kang-Sheng and Chen Shiang-Chyi respectively.  None of the characters have names, but eagle-eyed fans will notice that two of the stars of "Dragon Inn," Shih Chun and Miao Tien, are in attendance.  And the atmosphere is utterly absorbing and perfect.          

Most of Tsai Ming-Liang films are slow and unhurried, with a very loosely constructed plot if there is one at all.  He makes capital-A Art films that watch the characters live out their ordinary lives, often marked by loneliness and disconnection.  The same actors appear again and again, and it always seems to be raining.  Sometimes the mood is dark and nihilistic, and sometimes wry and funny, and sometimes brash and vulgar.  In "Goodbye, Dragon Inn," the mood is nostalgic.  Tsai set and filmed the feature in the real Fu-Ho Theater at the edge of Taipei, after learning it was set to close down.  It's shot in long, long takes where not much happens, but we get a good sense of the enormity of the space, and can glean a few things about the characters from their sparse interactions.  There's one man trying and failing to initiate a homosexual encounter.  The projectionist, holed up in his little room, coolly states that the theater is haunted.  The audience is very sparse, but largely respectful.  I'm always the most fascinated with the ticket taker, steadily thumping her way down the long hallways and navigating the stairwells.  She's the very last to leave, after the screening is over and the theater is closed up, and we see her thumping her way into the rainy night.       

I've thought about this film an awful lot during the pandemic, as many movie theaters around the world have shared the fate of the Fu-Ho Theater.  Movie theaters are magical places, where strangers convene to share a common experience.  Filmmakers are some of the biggest film fans, so I find it odd that films about movie theaters are fairly rare.  "Dragon Inn" is a favorite for a lot of Chinese filmmakers, and it's been remade multiple times.  However, seeing the silhouette of Chen Shiang-Chyi at the corner of the giant screen as "Dragon Inn" is playing, and watching the lights reflected back on the faces of the theater audience is an homage that feels so much more intimate and personal.  And it's an homage that feels so right for Tsai Ming-Liang, who ends all his films on a black screen bearing his signature, before the credits roll.      

What I've Seen - Tsai Ming-Liang

Rebels of the Neon God (1992)

Vive L'Amour (1994)

The River (1997)

The Hole (1998)

What Time Is It There? (2001)

Goodbye, Dragon Inn (2003)

The Wayward Cloud (2005)

I Don't Want to Sleep Alone (2006)

Stray Dogs (2013)

Days (2020)

---