MovieChat Forums > Yume (1990) Discussion > Watermill Village -- offensive?

Watermill Village -- offensive?

posted 16 years ago by web-104
21 replies | jump to latest

I found the Watermill Village utopia extremely silly. We meet a village that supposedly celebrates nature, yet rips plants out of the ground and leaves them to die on a rock for reasons that few remember. We meet an old man who denounces scientists, while working on what would have been high technology a few centuries ago, to make their life more comfortable. He dislikes conveniences like electric light, while apparently not seeing any problem with slightly less convenient conveniences like lights based on burning fat. (If the night is supposed to be dark, why have those at all?) And wouldn't it be better to celebrate someone's achievements while they are still alive? And don't the instruments they use (tubas, horns, etc) require mining, etc, which wouldn't be all that friendly to nature?

He advocates farming methods that have repeatedly led to famine in the past. He implausibly states that everyone lives to a ripe old age because of their "natural way of life", which kind of ignores that nature is a dangerous place where people tend to die quickly. Do they have advanced medicine and hospitals? What happens when someone falls down a rock or gets cancer? (A recent paper examining people living in a jungle concluded that "not only did the jungle dwellers have the same ailments we did, they had them to an even greater degree. Also, we found that the distribution of ailments was exactly like that in modern society. Fatigue, depression, sleeplessness are all common complaints that are not solved by a hunter-gatherer lifestyle grounded by some basic agriculture". Now, the people in the dream were obviously not living in a jungle, but the point is that a lack of technology and living "in harmony with nature" doesn't imply health.)

Seriously, what's the point of this mess of a dream?

[–] surfingthechaos 16 years ago

It's a DREAM!

[–] christomacin 16 years ago

Another possible interpretation is that this is a dream utopia of the way Kurosawa thinks the world should be, but is in fact impossible in reality. Interesting that the town has no name. As in the town where "the streets have no name" (ie heaven). Just as the sequences earlier depicted a hell on earth, this is a heaven on earth. Neither of which is going to happen necessarily, but they point out idealism versus pessimism. Just a thought. This movie does have it's problems when it gets too preachy, but I liked it overall.

[–] everlastingman 16 years ago

The old man in the dream was right about people like you.

[–] guiltyascharged-1 16 years ago

Interesting observations. Though, some observations are pretty hilarious, especially the "leaving plants to die on a rock" comment.

[–] kungfulovely 16 years ago

Like the others, I have to say... It's a dream. It's about the turmoil between waking life, hope, reality, and pessimism (or perhaps the tangible results of pessimism). I haven't watched this movie for several years, but I'd hope that the people who decide to watch it for the 1st time, or give it another chance will consider the power of each scene rather than what it lacks. It isn't meant to be a blockbuster or stylistically perfect for an arthouse movie. If you are going to see a movie called "dreams," please prepare to drop your sensibility and (especially if you are a Kurosawa fan) be willing to accept somene else's creation.

[–] donbren-1 15 years ago

Yes, and a beautiful dream which invites us to slow down and appreciate what Kurasawa lifted up for us to respect.

I was very disappointed that the smiling traveler, who also was considerate enough to pay homage to a fallen traveler, nevertheless bypassed this paradise, and continued on his journey ... seeking what? It reminds me of the joke about women taking an elevator in a department store past the floors that had everything they desired, yet they went farther up in hopes of finding something more than all they desired ... only to find nothing they wanted, with no way to return to the floors below; it makes no good sense to leave behind what you are happiest with. My wife is all, everything! I desire, so I will continue to stay with her, as I have these past 46 years, and certainly not leave in hopes that some unknown woman MIGHT be even better. I'm no fool.

Simple truths remain TRUE.

There are no ordinary moments; there's never nothing going on

[–] rwsmith29456 16 years ago

Interesting but trollish remarks.

[–] kurtblirgrusom 15 years ago

I see what you mean, but I think Kurosawa is excluded from this criticism, since most of his other movies are as pessimistic\realistic as possible, and far away from this utopia. Also, there are several of his movies that show the suffering and misery of farmers and people close to nature; seven samurai (where the villagers barely have enough to eat), The hidden fortress (where the two main characters are poor farmers) and so on.

[–] kivzirrumtheranger 15 years ago

One thing I've noticed (and I could be totally wrong about this, but it's something I've observed) is that Kurosawa seemed to get less pessimistic in his old age. I mean, he was pretty old when Ran came out, which is obviously a downer, but after that he made three pretty optimistic-- or at least LESS pessimistic-- movies.

Again, I could be totally wrong, as I never met the guy, but this is what I've seen from watching his movies.

[–] j-marin1992 15 years ago

Believe it or not we are getting apart from nature, more and more every day, it's obviously not the same using electricity than using lights based on burning fat. All the Kurosawa tries to tell us is that we are affecting nature in a very considerable way, and by affecting nature we are affecting ourselves.
We just simply don't see that we are affecting everything on Earth by being so lazy.
Do you really need all the comforts of modern life, or publicity makes us think we need them?

You don't have to go to extremes, it's not about living naked in the jungle eating bananas,the thing is to find an equilibrium between human technology and nature itself.

If we could all be a little bit more like the old man, this would be a better world. I'm sure about that.

[–] TheEnigmaticRonin 15 years ago

Heheh I understand, but again its based on Kurosawa's dreams right, so it doesn't always have to make sense. Btw that rock was someone's grave.

" Look, there's two women fuc*ing a polar bear!" - Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas 1998

[–] jmpswann 14 years ago

One can also view this dream as a reflection of Kurosawa's Buddhist ideal. The wheel that the old man is fixing reflects the Darhmacakra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_wheel), representing the Noble 8 Fold Path. The old man's speech is more of a longing to live in harmony with nature, much like using the power of the river to grind grain through the watermill. There's nothing wrong with picking flowers, they grow back. Nothing wrong with burning fat at night, it's reusable. Although organic farming methods aren't optimal, they are sustainable. Balance, that's what this dream is all about.

[–] christomacin 14 years ago

my main objection to this scene is that the themes are stated so bluntly and literally. This segment would have been a lot better if it had relied less on speechifying and more on symbolism. The wheel you mentioned was a good symbol, and there were a lot of other things in that scene as well, but it all got undermined a bit by the over the top sermonizing. I still like the film, but I think AK could have toned down the public service message feel a bit.

The preceding Mount Fuji in Red Sequence and the Weeping Demon sequence both laid it on thick as well, and this episode following hot on their heels was a bit much to take. Even though I agree with the message, Kurosawa should have found a more sublte way of doing things that would have made the overall film more effective.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]