To backtrack--what the hell does Michael Atkinson mean when he says of Stanley Kwan: "much of his other work has merely the dubious distinction of being sublime."? Does he mean it's kitsch? Bad because the middle class likes it? (By the way, insofar as I understand the American middle class, they don't watch many foreign movies.)

When he claims Lan Yu's "homo hook" is what attracted popularity, what does Atkinson mean? Is that good or bad? Anyway, I thought the movie was alright despite the homo stuff. So there.

Meanwhile, Atkinson says of Zhang Yimou,

Seen from today's vantage�from the extremely minor key of Happy Times�it isn't a stretch to wonder if Zhang's ascendancy to Fifth Generation maestro in the late '80s/early '90s wasn't mostly due to Gong Li, well-trained cinematographers, and our fascination with historical Chinese misogyny.

This may well be true. But I don't get Atkinson's point.
Is he saying movies are supposed to limit themselves to plain or hideous actors and irritating cinematography, while omitting the social commentary? Even though like some Chinese critics, I found the misogyny especially of Raise the Red Lantern a little much, as far as I can tell, a lot of art movie viewers will only watch movies that have something about oppression of some disenfranchised group or person. I'll enjoy such movies only insofar as they have something else going for them. While I don't demand a beautiful star, the cinematography has to be at least watchable. Too bad the faux naive jiggly-camera stuff is slowly taking over.