MovieChat Forums > 2046 (2004) Discussion > Best film of the trilogy

Best film of the trilogy


It's creative and refreshing without offering new ideas to the table. A perfect conclusion to one of the best film trilogies on love.

----------
My Top Animated: http://www.imdb.com/list/zyDiSPMGtuM/

reply

To call it a "trilogy" is overstatement.

reply

Nah, it is a trilogy alright. 2046 has direct connection to In the Mood for Love and In the Mood for Love is a sequel to Days of Being Wild (its last scene)

----------
My Top Animated: http://www.imdb.com/list/zyDiSPMGtuM/

reply

It is not precisely a "trilogy," which would require that that be the intention of the creator of the several films. That it has connection with "In the Mood for Love" -- which is tangential -- does not automagically make it part of a "trilogy".

There are those, for example, who mistake "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" as being a sequel to "Adventures of Tom Sawyer" (and that "Tom Sawyer, Detective," and "Tom Sawyer Abroad" are sequels to those two books; they are not).

They make that mistake based solely upon the fact that the four books have some of the same characters. What they haven't done is read Mark Twain's own comments on the matter.

Nor have they thought about how different in fundamental nature they are. "Adventures of Tom Sawyer" is without question a boys' book; but "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is not a book for children.

One can write any number of stories, or books, or make any number of films, with the same characters. That does not automagically make them sequels.

It's easy to force these conclusions on one's own; that has the appearance of astute intellectuality. But the author of whatever the work has first say in the matter. I don't know of any instance of Wong Kar-Wai saying that "In the Mood for Love" is the sequel to anything; or that "2046" is a sequel to that film. Or that a film so out of line with "In the Mood for Love" as "Days of Being Wild" is part of a "trilogy".

It is well known that Wong Kar-Wai is notorious for beginning a film one place, and then ending up at a wholly unexpected place -- it's the way he works: he doesn't know in advance what he's going to do in the making of a film from one day to the next; making a sequel would require conscious planning, and staying within that plan, which he does not do.


reply