Hong Sang-soo is concerned with a logic of juxtaposition. A categorically similar narrative presented twice with difference. A film director arrives a day early for his screening, encounters a woman who lives her life “while painting”, their awkward interactions until the night, and the next morning. A two-element set, a meditation on immutability and contingency. The fundamental immutable is the syntagmatic narrative blocks themselves (Blessing Hall – Atelier – Sushi Restaurant – Cafe – Screening). And certain character traits and speech: the relation both protagonists have toward their respective passions, “You must be a real man” from Hee-jeong (H), Cheon-soo’s (C) insistence on getting coffee, +. Contingencies on how the characters are (before the interaction) and how they are (during the interaction) – H’s abstinence from alcohol in the second act (are), C’s blunt honesty, in opposition to the sexually (?) motivated ingratiation in the first act (are).
Formally, the use of zoom is fascinating. It is not a smooth zoom, a gradual, well-sewn movement into the texture of film. A jagged zoom, a protrusion on the film surface. The zoom gives attention to the specific moment, to that subsection of the frame.
In the first act, the zoom appears: when both confess the similar way they relate to their passion, C looking at H looking at the painting, “Until then, everything went smoothly” (C), “He speaks very well” (H), the revelation that C-soo is married, H returns home, when C shits on the critic, +. During the second act: C looking out the apartment window, H talking about her non-alcoholism, H looking at the painting, H’s story of the robber who didn’t steal, “I’m the one who should pay the bill” (C), the virtuous director comments (H’s friend), +.
The texture of the narrative shaped by the formal protrusion of the zoom provides initial conditions for interpretations. For instance, the first act appears to privilege C’s gaze (the male gaze), while the second act elevates H’s gaze and critiques the male gaze (“I’m the one who should pay the bill”). It would be interesting to think about the possibilities of interpretation given a series of formal protrusions like here, and how it can assert qualitatively different cinematic valuations (maximizing the possibility space of interpretations v.s. inverting the interpretation via juxtaposition v.s. …).