Set mostly in Ho Chi Min Cit, in the early days of the Đổi mới (which roughly translate as the Renovation) it tells interlocking tales of people trying to find their ways to a better future.
“Three Seasons” is visually seductive. The camera leads the eye to beauty in the midst of ruin and squalor and fills the mind with colour and light and hope. Yet the situations of the people the stories centre contrast starkly with the visual mood of the film: a prostitute, selling herself to men in luxury hotels, who dreams of a single night’s sleep in air-conditioned bliss. A very young street peddler who searches relentlessly for the case he sells his wares from, which has been stolen from him. A young woman working in the growing and selling flowers for a cult run by a master who has been badly damaged. An ex-GI returing to try and find the daughter he abandoned at the end of the war.
These are tales rooted in poverty, exploitation, and dishonour.
Why then are they displayed with such beauty?
I’ve seen the arguement made that “Three Seasons” uses its cinematography to romanticise poverty and struggle and turn it into an acceptable myth.
That’s not what I saw this movie do.
I believe the cinematography helped me see what the people themselves could see: that in the midst of struggle and deprivation, there is still beauty, there is still compassion and sometimes, even love. These tales are rooted in unpleasant things but the blossom they produce, like the flowers the young woman sells, represent the hope that will luck and kindness, things can get better.
This was a movie that I drank in first with the eye. The images are still with me and so are the people.
I have never been to Vietnam and the Ho Chi Min City of this movie is long gone, yet I feel that something has been shared with me that is alien and familiar and fundamentally redemptive.