Zhang Yimou: House of Flying Daggers (2004)

[Chris Knipp]

Splendid spectacle with an emotional core

House of Flying Daggers is as visually glorious and spectacular in its martial arts special effects as Zhang's 2002 Hero but smaller, warmer, and more human. In 859 , we're told, the Tang Dynasty was in decline and a Robin Hood gang with the eponymous title was abroad. Leo (Andy Lau) and Jin (Takeshi Kaneshiro) are two police captains who set out to trap Mei (Zhang Ziyi), a dancer and courtesan who they think may be the daughter of the recently killed gang leader. (Zhang Ziyi is currently also to be seen in Lou Yi's 1930's political thriller, Purple Butterfly.)

Kaneshiro goes to the posh brothel where Mei is and plays a bold and rakish customer -- he calls himself "Wind" -- who gets drunk and assaults Mei when she's called out to dance for him. The ruse is to cause a disturbance in which Mei too can be arrested. It works that way: Leo jumps in with his men and Mei is locked up in prison.

But things don't work that fast. Before that we have one of the most elaborate and stunning sequences in Chinese movies. First, to Wind's astonishment, Mei is blind. Before she's taken away, the charming Madam persuades the police to allow her to perform something called the Echo Game: the first and perhaps the most dazzling of the martial arts spectacles. It's a thing of tossed beans and flicked sleeves of robes, of a ring of drums, sounds copied in movements, a dance, a battle, a feat of memory, a feast to the eye.

Mei gets locked up just the same, but she escapes with Jin following her and at crucial times protecting her. The secret of House of Flying Daggers is that its elaborate rituals of conflict and pursuit are also emotional, because however proposterous the plot twists may be, there is a core of passion. There's a star-crossed love affair between Jin and Mei, and a three-way love conflict between them and Leo. Eventually Leo turns out to be other than what he seemed and in that revelation comes the fact that he's been long enamored of Mei.

The film begins indoors, enters a woods; the escape is through an ultra-verdant landscape, the final confrontations happen in a beautiful autumnal field beside a wood. Extraordinary use is made of a forest of bamboo trees, and the final confrontations occur in the snow. The seasons change before our eyes. So do the three principals, none of whom is what first appeared.

The myths and abstractions of Hero are replaced by passions and conflicting loyalties in Flying Daggers; both films would require a pile of thesauruses for enough superlatives to describe their beauties. Kaneshiro, a huge matinee idol in the East, less seen here (but notably on our screens in a couple of Wong Kar Wai's movies), has never seemed so large and so human, or so glamourous: he's an Asian Gregory Peck, Jean-Paul Belmondo, and Errol Flynn rolled into one. Andy Lau (another Wong veteran) is a worthy opponent of Kaneshiro, not as glamorous or youthful but more soulful and sad. Zhang Ziyi varies from little girl to gorgeous lady and combines strength, delicacy and grace in an inimitable blend.

The film's operatic as well as epic. One's left with confused feelings because it can be very touching but also preposterous or naive and above all it's simply a glorious show. Some critics regret the melodramas of Zhang Yimou's earlier days. They think he's turned all cold and aesthetic on us. Well, this is in partly true, but the results are too splendid to object. How does one respond? Is one sated or hungry when it's over? Both, really. It's simply hard to imagine where Zhang can go from here. He has turned the wuxia genre into something exquisite; he has brought us to our knees before him. Art and popular entertainment are so mixed in Daggers that the audience in the cineplex to see it is a mixture of popcorn-crunching gigglers and studious experts who glare at and shush them. And both go away satisfied, minds blown, eager for more. CInematic spectacles just don't get any better than this. A masterpiece

[hengcs]

Hi,

I am glad you like the show.
;)
My American friend whom I treated did not like the show.

Well, I have to agree on the laudable cinematography, art direction and costume. Three scenes are particularly good:
- the opening sequences in Peony Pavilion,
- the bamboo fight,
- the last scene. wow ...
By the way, the snow was indeed a nature call -- it was an early blizzard that caught the production crew by surprise, but they decided to film it! It helped in creating the mood ... wow ...

However, many Chinese found the plot weak (i.e., not convincing).

Well, to all who have not watched
-- you have to watch from a BIG screen!
;)

By the way, there are 3 "deleted" scenes in the US theater version:

* SPOILER *

(1) There was a 10 second shot missing. It features Jin (i.e., Takeshi) slitting the throat of a fellow officer during the wild flower field fight. (Since the film is released in Canada by a different distributor, it is unsure whether the Canadian release is intact or not).

(2) In addition, they also cut the part where Jin (i.e., Takeshi) gets back and finds Mei (i.e., Zhang) with a dagger in her, cradles her in his arms, and she warns him to turn around. In the movie, Jin comes back looks down at Mei and then they cut directly to a shot of Leo (i.e., Andy) attacking from behind. Maybe this was done because they didn't want Mei's dying to be too protracted. The cut was probably made to appease American audiences.

(3) Finally, there is a digital erase on the scene where Mei pulls out the dagger. In the Chinese version, blood pours out of the wound when she pulls the dagger put, but even though Jin tells her the blood will drain, in the US Version you see her pull the dagger out but the blood doesn't pour out. The scene is intact, but they erased the blood pouring out.

[Chris Knipp]

I don't think it would be just the Chinese that might find the plot unconvincing. If you are looking for some kind of naturalism you are going to be vastly disappointed. But if you think of it as a folk epic in a sophisticated modern style or as an opera, you will be delighted. 'Willing suspension of disbelief' is an essential in watching just about any fiction, and doubly so in a case like this.

You notes on the small eliminations for the queasy American audience are interesting.

Since writing my comments I have found that on metacritic the movie gets a rating of 85. Higher than Million Dollar Baby, just a string of 100's from many of the major US newspaper and online critics.

[hengcs]

Frankly, I like the movie.
I have watched it twice, and have treated my American friend to it.
;)

When I mentioned about the "unconvincing" plot, it was NOT about defying gravity, physics, etc. After all, Chinese grow up watching martial arts films and do believe in "flying about", etc.

The weakness that many of my friends complained about are:

* many spoilers *

1. The motivation behind luring Jin (i.e., Takeshi) is weak
(a) They do not have to go through so much effort if it is just to lure the officials to the House. After all, the officials have always wanted to go to the House.
(b) If it is to kill Jin, who is an official, it is even weaker. After all, he is a nobody.

2. Initially, at the dance, why did Mei (i.e., Zhang) wanted to fling the knife at Leo (i.e., Andy) and attempt to kill him? Is it simply to lure Jin?

3. The initial fight between Leo (i.e., Andy) and Mei (i.e., Zhang) when NO one is watching (e.g., at the tub). They know each other, and there is NO need to pretend. He even wants to drown her.

4. Near the end, why did the Big Sister of House NOT kill Jin, instead she asked Mei to lead him out (such that she has a chance to free him)?

5. Near the end, the House was surrounded/ambushed by officials. It made us wonder (and rewind to the beginning), why did the House or Leo or Mei did so much (and plotted so convolutedly) just to get themselves surrounded by officials?


-- Some also complain (But I do NOT) that as a blind girl, she can identify friends from foes (simply by listening), and run through the forest alone very fast without hitting anything. However, ON HINDSIGHT, if she pretends to be blind, then all these make sense.

-- Some complain (But I do NOT) that Zhang's "not dying" in the end (several times) is kind of draggy. I just think she is injured, but not dead.

-- Some also complain (But I do NOT) about Leo's knife on his back at the end. Despite being injured, Jin took so long to fight with him. To me, that shows how good his internal strength is, or how minor the injury is.

-- Some also complain (But I do NOT) about the sudden blizzard. They feel that they have been fighting for a long time, from autumn to winter. On the contrary, I like the scene VERY much, I even feel that it is SYMBOLIC ... ha ha ha ...
;)


IN SUM, I do believe that it is a very nice movie. In terms of plot wise, there are indeed many martial arts movie that have very interesting plot. But, it is not fair to compare.

[Chris Knipp]

That's what I meant by "unconvincing" too. Not the martial arts film things, but the plot elements.

I too love this movie. I want to see it again. It was the most grand and beautiful of my movie experiences of the many I saw in New York in December (about 25 or 26), along maybe with The Aviator.

But my favorite Chinese film seen during this time was one I'd already seen many times, Wong Kar Wai's Days of Being Wild, in a beautiful new print with new, better subtitles, now finally given general release in the United States, debuting at the Film Forum in NYC. Twelve years later it looked even better than originally. One critic wrote that this was when Wong Kar Wai began being Wong Kar Wai, with this film.

[oscar jubis]

Had Chris not posted his review, I'd be pointing out some of the same qualities that make House of Flying Daggers a must-see. On the other hand, I don't feel compelled to watch it again, as I did immediately after watching Hero. Yimou's 2002 film is still quite fresh on my mind because I had to wait until 2004 to watch it at a theatre. Three aspects:

*Not a debatable issue, my eyes simply found two sequences from the older film more aesthetically pleasing than any frame of House.

*The way Hero is structured sharpens one's focus. It allows for more participation because there is more material open for interpretation and because the narrative demands the viewer to piece it together. House serves a very simple love triangle. In Hero, one ponders the wisdom of a unified China. The opening titles of House tell you to deem the government as "bad and corrupt" and to view the titular revolutionary group in most romantic terms, a bunch of Robin Hoods.

*By the end of House, Leo emerges as a one-dimentional "bad" character. I would have liked to see him commit harakiri after he kills Mei. Instead we find he didn't really love her. The scene is prolonged beyond necessity.

[Chris Knipp]

Hero and House of Flying Daggers did come too close together for some US theatrical viewers, an unfortunate fault of Miramax. However I saw House of Flying Daggers six months after Hero; it was long enough. Hero is extraordinarily beautiful, and it does have large historical implications, though I found them somewhat abstract and hard to grasp, myself. For me, House of Flying Daggers, whatever its faults in verisisimilitude, has greater emotional immediacy and a greater sense of intimacy compared to the more aesthetically pure Hero, but it is not really necessary to compare and contrast the two; they are, intentionally, different approaches to the wuxia genre, and equally extraordinary films. If I may quote myself, "The myths and abstractions of Hero are replaced by passions and conflicting loyalties in Flying Daggers; both films would require a pile of thesauruses for enough superlatives to describe their beauties." Both are dazzlers, and wonderful cinematic experiences. They should be considered together as a stunning achievement by Zhang Yimou, in a sense an ultimate statement, and as I said, "It's simply hard to imagine where Zhang can go from here. "

[oscar jubis]

Zhang is currently filming Qian Li Zou Dan Ji, about a Japanese father and his ailing son traveling to China to learn opera. Kiichi Nakai (Shadows of Heaven and Earth) stars. I read somewhere that it's set in the present.

I was under the impression that you liked House significantly more than Hero because the former is on your top 10 while the latter is not listed. You know where I stand and why.

[hengcs]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
Zhang is currently filming Qian Li Zou Dan Ji, about a Japanese father and his ailing son traveling to China to learn opera. Kiichi Nakai (Shadows of Heaven and Earth) stars. I read somewhere that it's set in the present.

Kiichi Nakai and Shinobu Terajima are in ...

BUT BUT BUT Japanese actor Takakura Ken is in too!!!
http://image2.sina.com.cn/ent/m/c/2005-01-20/U92P28T3D635986F326DT20050120144140.jpg
;)

some snapshots ...
http://ent.sina.com.cn/2004-12-08/1029592999.html

[Chris Knipp]

I did like House better than Hero, and there's also the factor that in a sense Hero is a 2003 release. But I think they're both brilliant. Will look at the snapshots now.

By the way, has anybody besides me seen Purple Butterfly, also with Zhang Ziyi? It is on somebody's Ten Best List--maybe several people's. And it is an interesting departure from the kind of Chinese film we usually get in this country.

C.

[arsaib4]

Also, has anyone seen Springtime in a Small Town? which I believe was the best Chinese film released last year in the U.S.

[oscar jubis]

I bought Springtime in a Small Town on dvd and will watch it before the end of the month. I'll definitely post my comments. Have not seen Purple Butterfly.
I watched Hero in '03 and included it on my 2003 top 10 along with Weerasethakul's Blissfully Yours. There was no certainty that they'd have distribution in the US at all. Since I'm trying to list films on the year of their official North American release and both were finally released stateside in '04, I will remove them from the 2003 list and include them on the 2004 list.

[Chris Knipp]

Lou Ye: Purple Butterfly (2004)

Chris Knipp

Saw Purple Butterfly in NYC the beginning of Decenber. I missed Xiao cheng zhi chun or Springtime in a Small Town by director Tian Zhuangzhuang shown there in early May. Quite likely it's the better movie of the two by a wide margin. It's based on an earlier Chinese film according to J. Hoberman of the Village Voice:
Fei Mu's 1948 Springtime is widely regarded as a masterpiece-some consider it the greatest of all Chinese films. Never having seen it, I can only imagine how Tian may have annotated the original in his remake. The second Springtime is predicated on a sense of ’50s filmmaking (not unlike the heightened Sirkness of Todd Haynes's Far From Heaven) that could hardly have existed in the original. Even as homage, Tian's movie seems to be among the finest expressions of the Chinese new wave.

Rosenbaum describes the Fei Mu Springtime as "widely considered the nation's greatest film by Mandarin speakers but tragically neglected by almost everyone else" and ends his capsule review of the new Springtime, "This erotically charged drama may not be quite as great as the original, but it's an amazing and beautiful work just the same" I no doubt need to add this to my 2004 "Wish I'd Seen" list. Thanks, guys.

Well, it's clear to me that Purple Butterfly isn't of this magnitude but it's notably different in focusing on political conflicts in the 1930's -- which are handled in a somewhat conspiratorial and noirish way, with romance woven in. There are lots of long stares, Thirties dance songs, non-filter cigarettes pensively lighted with box matches, and events in Shanghai in the period leading up to the Sino-Japanese war involving political activist plots and counter-plots that are filmed to look rather like blurry, chaotic versions of Chicago gangster shootouts. There is a tragic star-crossed love story, and the climactic scene is rather neat. But the director, Lou Ye, isn't satisfied but has to add a disenchanted brutal sex/self doubt coda.

The director's previous film was Suzhou River, and this is just as pretty to look at -- pretty enough so you almost don't care that at first you don't know what's happening, except that couples are inarticulately in love and it's always raining. The Village Voice thumbnail review aptly commented, "part action flick, part love story, and part posh historical pageant...a fabulously morose piece of work."

Purple Butterfly calls a bit too much attention to itself to fully evoke its Thirties setting, but it manages to seem original most of the way despite occasional debts to Wong Kar Wai notable in the long pauses, languid love scenes, and incessant rain. Not a complete success, but watchable.

Metacritic score of Purple Butterfly: 66.

Metacritic score of Springtime in a Small Town: 86.

[arsaib4]

I loved Suzhou River and I was hoping to read more about it in your review of Purple Butterfly after you brought it up. The hauntingly beautiful Suzhou River is one of the best "noir" films released this decade.

Metacritic ratings aren't always perfect, but I'd agree with the grade given to Springtime in a Small Town. I've seen parts of Fei Mu's version (I borrowed an unsubtitled chinese vhs from a friend) and while the overall narrative is practically the same, Tian Zhuangzhuang (the director of the new Springtime) has removed the voice-over from the older version which had the audience sympathize with the female protagonist and instead relied on the visual element to enhance the story.

[Chris Knipp]

Of course Metacritic ratings aren't always perfect; what is? But from what I hear of Springtime, and what I know of Purple Butterfly, the relative merits of the two seemed well indicated in the two scores, an indication that the critics were accurate.

I didn't say anything more about Suzhou River because we're talking about current films here. I think you go a bit overboard about it when you call it "one of the best "noir" films released this decade." It is beautiful, moody, full of love-longing, and, like Purple Butterfly, somewhat chaotically edited and therefore confusing. One might often say the same things about Wong Kar Wai, but I consider Wong the better artist. (It seemed to me that Suzhou River showed a strong Wong influence.) It is certainly a beautiful, haunting film, I agree with you there. Threre is no lack of visual beauty in Chinese cinema; it seems a given, and sometimes it can also seem as much a distraction as an asset. I won't give the metacritic score of Suzhou River but I'll quote one of the review lines: "deliciously confusing." Well, yes. But does that a "Hitichcockian" feature?

[arsaib4]

It seemed to me that Suzhou River showed a strong Wong influence.

To me, it also showed a strong Jia Zhang-ke (Xiao Wu) influence.

I won't give the metacritic score of Suzhou River but I'll quote one of the review lines: "deliciously confusing." Well, yes. But does that a "Hitichcockian" feature?

I will, it got a 76 and to quote another mainstream critic we don't know, "Seems deeply influenced by American film noir, the Western fairy tale (in this case, mermaids) and the works of Alfred Hitchcock in particular."

[oscar jubis]

Purple Butterfly's dvd release date: 2/15/05. (Region 1)

[hengcs]

Now that House of Flying Daggers is officially out, I can tell you some well known "news".

Do you realize that House of Flying Daggers was NOT in any category for the Golden Horse Award? (which to Chinese films, is likened to Academy Awards)
http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1082

It was known in the Chinese news that they were worried that the likely failure to secure Best Film in Golden Horse Award would jeopardize their chance in Golden Globe and Oscar Award (because many Chinese have criticized the movie). So, they decided NOT to submit the movie even for other categories (which it might win). Now, it looks like they have only 1 category in Oscar -- Best Cinematography. They could have at least won a few more in the Golden Horse Awards.

[Chris Knipp]

[Knipp]It seemed to me that Suzhou River showed a strong Wong influence.

[arsaib4]To me, it also showed a strong Jia Zhang-ke (Xiao Wu) influence.
Thanks for the addition. Could you tell me a bit about Jia Zhang-ke (Xiao Wu) and how his influence shows up in Suzhou River?

hencs:

Why has House of Flying Daggers done poorly with the Chinese critics, if that's what you're saying?

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp

Thanks for the addition. Could you tell me a bit about Jia Zhang-ke (Xiao Wu) and how his influence shows up in Suzhou River?


Xiao Wu is quite possibly the best Chinese film made in the 90's after the The Blue Kite. In many ways this film started the most recent trend in Chinese auteur cinema by portraying the outsiders in the society heading fast toward modernization. Zhang-ke has focused all of his films on the youth, lost among this process. For example, the title character in Xiao Wu isn't sure where to spend his money on except call girls. Technically speaking, both films are far apart (Lou Ye chose a noirish look instead of Zhang-ke's somber approach), but thematically both films are very similar.

[oscar jubis]

I loved Platform and Unknown Pleasures but the only connection I see (and it's not a strong one) between Lou Ye and Zhang-ke is their concern with youth. Then again, it's been "ages" since I watched these films.

[hengcs]

message deleted.

[arsaib4]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1376457,00.html

[Chris Knipp]

http://en.ce.cn/subject/E-People/EP-Groups/EPG-Moviestar/200411/03/t20041103_2605000.shtml

[hengcs]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
hengcs:
Why has House of Flying Daggers done poorly with the Chinese critics, if that's what you're saying?


The following is a consolidation of many reviews/articles …

(1) Making a film to win awards or please westerners
In general, most Chinese prefer Zhang's earlier works. They feel that his recent works are "empty" (a chinese idiom would be "hua er bu shi", loosely translated to "looks grand but lacks substance"). They feel that Zhang is trying to please "westerners" or "win awards".
-- Tell tale sign 1: House of Flying Daggers has ONLY an English song at the end, NOT even a Chinese equivalent (e.g., same tune but Chinese lyrics). It is weird to watch a Chinese martial arts film only to end with an “opera” like English song.
-- Tell tale sign 2: House of Flying Daggers was NOT submitted for the various well known Academy Awards in the Chinese community (e.g., Golden Horse) for fear of losing. They are afraid it will jeopardize their chance in Golden Globe and Oscar.

(2) Apart from plot (see 3 and 4 below), other criticisms include dialogues, costumes, lightings, and casting.
-- Dialogue: (i) The dialogue mixes “period” and “contemporary” lingo (likened to half Shakespearean and half modern). (ii) A number of lines are not well crafted (often, the next person repeats the lines of the previous speaker with added words). Some find certain lines “dumb” (e.g., Mei, “I know now you are true.” A few moments later, “Are you true or fake?”). Strictly speaking, one or two lines are wrong, though the audience get the message (e.g., Leo, “Three years have passed, when I am alone, not a moment passed thinking of you.” The correct line should be, “Three years have passed, when I am alone, not a moment passed WITHOUT thinking of you.”). (iii) Familiar lines/plot (e.g., Leo, "Three Years have passed!" sounds like a line from Infernal Affairs.)
-- Costumes: Although Tang dynasty is a vibrant era with daring/outlandish costumes, some insist that the costume/fashion worn by Zhang Ziyi is not exactly typical of the period. It only appears in Qing dynasty.
-- Lightings: In the Peony Pavilion, with a completely sealed (roof and 4 walls) architecture, how can lighting be consistently bright?
-- Casting: Several oppose the casting of Big Sister (she is also the Peony Pavilion owner). Originally, it was Anita Mui who passed away. They think the current female cast is too much of a “sitcom” actress. They simply cannot associate her with the role.

(3) Most criticisms are targeted at the VERY WEAK plot …

*MAJOR spoilers *

Initially, why did Mei (i.e., Zhang) want to kill Leo (i.e., Andy)? The fight made even less sense when NO one was watching (e.g., at the tub). They knew each other, but he even wanted to drown her. Was it simply to lure Jin (i.e., Takeshi)? Why bother? After all, the officials had always wanted to track down the House. To kill Jin? Easy task, why go through all the trouble, esp. he was a nobody ... Why did Leo make the plan so complicated to allow Jin to “seduce” or “take advantage” of his girlfriend? Near the end, why did Big Sister of House NOT kill Jin, instead she asked Mei to lead him out (such that she had a chance to free him)? Near the end, the House was ambushed by officials. It made us wonder why did the House or Leo or Mei plotted so convolutedly just to get themselves ambushed (or even killed?) by officials. In the end, the entire story finally "dissolved" into a simple love triangle ...

(4) Although I found nothing very wrong with the following, some people complained about …
-- at the end, the CHINESE VERSION has Mei "not dying" 3 times! The US version has only 1 time.
-- a blind girl identifying friends from foes (simply by listening), and running through the forest alone very fast without hitting anything. My take: she is NOT really blind.
-- some people does not find it compelling she will foresake Leo (a lifetime partner) for Jin (a 3 day acquaintance). My take: love is blind!
-- Leo's knife on his back at the end. Despite being injured, Jin took so long to fight with him. My take: Leo is really tough.
-- the sudden blizzard. They feel that the two have been fighting for a long time, from autumn to winter. My take: I thought it is a very good metaphor.
-- overall, everyone is NOT who they claim they are. Mei, Leo, Big Sister, etc ... another Infernal Affairs?

In sum, most Chinese find that the movie deserves to win only technical awards and NOT the best film. It does not have sufficient DEPTH.

Many feel that Ke Ke Xi Li (aka Mountain Patrol) is more compelling in terms of realism and story. The movie won the Golden Horse Award Best Film, over 2046!

[Chris Knipp]

I thououghly understand and sympathize with the Chinese views. Your summary is excellent by the way; thanks. You're a great addition to this site.

One thought: all these detailed comments show the Chinese take Zhang seriously, even if they don't like the movie! Another: his early movies were corny, his new ones are unbelievable. I don't see that as going downhill, only change. I think the Chinese audience is partly deceived into thinking that Zhang's ealier movies were better because they were more emotionally involving and more political. They were just as false in their way, in fact their falsity was more insidious. We know Hero and House of Flying Daggers are mainly glorious spectacles, and that to me is less annoying. You can sit back and just enjoy them. And whatever the detractors say, visually they are wonderful, and if you ignore the lack of historical accuracy, etc., this new one is romantic as well, sort of like Titanic.

I prefer unbelievable to corny, but I sympathize with the Chinese concern about the historical inaccuracy of the costumes and dialogue. In both cases -- the earlier movies and the later ones -- he produced beautiful spectacles, and was careless about verisimilitude. The critics in China are right: the whole plot of House of Flying Daggers is absurd and unbelievable. I also agree with your takes on their criticisms of specifics, though, like the number of times she gets "killed" or how long the snow lasts, etc. It's poetry, not realism.

This surprises me a bit though: "Leo, “Three years have passed, when I am alone, not a moment passed thinking of you.” The correct line should be, “Three years have passed, when I am alone, not a moment passed WITHOUT thinking of you.”). " That seems incredibly careless, when so much money and skill was being lavished on the gorgeous production.

It's also very true, though we in the West need to be reminded of it: this like Hero also is a Chinese movie made for a Western audience -- and it's succeeded superbly, witness all the raves in the west, including Cannes and New York.

When you say the dialogue is like half Shakespearean and half modern, well, Shakespeare's plays themselves are mixtures like that, ancient people in renaissance dress, as is western renaissance painting we get classical Greek and Roman or Biblical figures in Venetian or Florentine or Sienese or Flemish dress. This kind of syncretism is common in art and the modern convention of historical accuracy is largely just an illusion. We feel a movie's milieu is real (for me Girl with a Pearl Earring had that feeling). It's really not. To expect House of Flying Daggers to feel real would be naive. Does the Chinese audience think Hero feels real? Hero seems to me completely abstracted from any possible reality by many degrees more than even House of Flying Daggers. But that's not a criticism of it; I think they're both rather wonderful.