MovieChat Forums > Japanese Story (2003) Discussion > What was the deal with the pants?

What was the deal with the pants?



It makes no sense, is it an Australian thing? Is that how they do it down under? :)

reply

Hi,

I've just finished watching this movie. The pants thing puzzled me a bit I must admit.

First I quickly thought that after showing Collette's boobs and bum, they wouldn't want to go any further and she had to put the Japanese's pants before she goes and sees her lover. This thought did not convince me: there are thousands ways to avoid showing any part of someone's body on screen. Take Collette's toes for instance, we see a bit of her feet, but not the toes... (it's late when I write this reply).

Then I thought that the character Sandy might want to leave some sort of "souvenir" like her smell (many people would find that filthy, I don't... well, it depends on who does that actually...) or do something erotic with it so that those pants become special to Tachibana; or perhaps mixing her own smell with Tachibana's would be some sort of symbol, like some people who mix their blood. I can only speculate obviously... Well, all I know is that she got upset later when she learnt that the pants were cleaned without her consent.

It may also be that on the way to the motel, while driving, Sandy and Tachibana discussed a bit their fantasies after they realised they were falling in love wth each other. And either Sandy or Tachibana is a pants fetish.

Maybe Tachibana's pants were made with a fabric that is extremely pleasant to feel and touch, which give extra pleasure when used appropriately.

Maybe Japanese who are very good at and advanced with gadgetery have designed the vibrating fabric and Sandy definitely wanted to give it a try.

I guess someone outthere, well-informed, on the movie and/or Aussie's sexual habits, may give some clue.

Cheers!

H.

reply

One of many odd touches. I thought the pants were a statement that the two were trading places, that Sandi was the initiator, the teacher.

reply

[deleted]

I totally agree with you. By putting on the pants, Sandi was playing a more powerful role, which was the opposite of the traditional gender role a girl would play during sex.

reply

Boy am I 19 years out of the loop! I found it a bit strange as well, but then I think back after she finds out he is married, a little later he thanks her and replies; “now I can be a better husband”. And then thanking her. My take was they each did the other a favor by letting each other play the less traditional roll in love making. Japanese men are so expected to play the dominant roll and women in her culture are submissive. But Sandy is not submissive and he is not dominant. It was just some twisted fate that they were allowing each other to play there natural rolls, she “wore the pants” and he waited for her to take control. Afterwords he then understood why his marriage was not working and how he might fix it? Maybe? I think she had stuffed her feelings and covered it up by saying to herself she wasn’t in a relationship because there was something wrong with her. And the roll reversal was a revelation that connected them in an instantaneous bond that she equated to a deep caring. Great movie. She said that their working together was a mutual revelation.

reply

I thought I read that the Japanese have some kind of social taboo about pubic hair and thought maybe she was trying to show some respect for his culture but, who knows!

reply

I'm SO glad that other people are thinking the same thing I was when I saw her put on the pants!! I'm Australian, and as far as I know it's not an Australian thing!! I think the comment about her now being in the dominating position makes sense, but it still made the love scene weird for me.

reply

I think the pants thing links up with his letter at the end saying he's happy, the sky being wide and open in the desert and so's his heart etc. in other words, It's in the (Sandy) desert, something that dominates him by reversing his cultural expectations of what a woman should be, the immenseness of the outback rejuvenates his spirit (and marriage) by, so to speak, wearing the pants.

Forgive me, but all through it i kept wondering if she'd had a bath yet? (he looked quite clean though)

reply

[deleted]

Hello.

I'm french and I saw this movie - that had a tiny diffusion in France - because I studied one year in Australia and I'm keeping high interest about this great country.

About the pants stuff, I searched for information about sexuality and nudity in japanese culture. Actually, in Japan there is a law that blame representaion of "hairs" and sexual organs. That's why, I guess, producer decided this scene, in order wether to show it in Japan or to respect japanese tradition.
But this reality does not affect the beauty of this scene, highly sensual from my point of view.

Bye bye mates.

Ludo.

reply

"About the pants stuff, I searched for information about sexuality and nudity in japanese culture. Actually, in Japan there is a law that blame representaion of "hairs" and sexual organs. That's why, I guess, producer decided this scene, in order wether to show it in Japan or to respect japanese tradition. " by Mr/Ms ludobv
***

Oh, I awe when these types of "search" on our Japanese culture are presented as if holds some truth. I can assure you my Westener friends that there is no law that prohibits the representation of pubic hair in pornographic material; pubic hair are not deemed as sexual organs here in Japan. Although you would be arrested if you reveal yourself in the public, like elsewhere in the world. I am a law graduate so you can take my word. I'm in my 30's and as far back as I'm concerned pubic hair could be seen in most porn material since 80's. Please don't over-mystify the Asian culture. Like someone above suggested, Toni Collette wanting to mix her smell with his sounds more plausible than her "showing respect" by concealing her nether region. Actually, it makes me laugh everytime I encounter an instance of mystification of the Japanese culture. It comes in all forms unimaginable.

I wished there were more outspoken English speakers here in Japan to bust all these sorts of misinformation and bridge the gap between us. Just my two cents. No ill-intention.

reply

[deleted]

The poster never mentioned porn, and well this isn't porn.

reply

Oh, I awe when these types of "search" on our Japanese culture are presented as if holds some truth. I can assure you my Westener friends that there is no law that prohibits the representation of pubic hair in pornographic material; pubic hair are not deemed as sexual organs here in Japan.

It's funny what we learn from the internet. Besides my thoughts are that Toni's character knew very little about Japanese culture, so what the other poster said didn't make logical sense to start with.

Although, I did wonder what her putting on his pants signified. That's why I'm here reading this thread. Perhaps it's showing him that she's a dominant woman and nothing like what *she* thought he was used to.

I wished there were more outspoken English speakers here in Japan to bust all these sorts of misinformation and bridge the gap between us.

Yes, that would be extremely helpful.

The Yabbies..the handsomest team in the league.

reply

In fact ヘエアヌード (Hair Nude) where pubic hair is shown in pornography is a relatively recent development in Japan (1990s). Genitalia has the floating mosaic covering the offending parts. The porn fetish scene in Japan is also very 'accommodating' from 'rape' --outrageous-- to 'Lolita' --lots of sexualization of children.

In Japan, under Article 175 of the Criminal Code of Japan people who sell or distribute obscene materials can be punished by fines or imprisonment. Article 175 was included in the original document in 1907 and remains relatively unchanged. Showing pubic hair and adult genitalia was once considered obscene. Video pornography routinely depicts explicit sex scenes with the participants' genitalia obscured by mosaics. The amount of censorship of the penis can vary, for example, the entire penis may be blurred, or as little as part of the glans. Until the 1990s, the entire pubic region, including hair, was deemed obscene and unpublishable. The publication of Waterfruit and Santa Fe by Kishin Shinoyama marked the first widely distributed publications to feature pubic hair. Many video production companies belong to ethical associations which provide guidance on what is acceptable and what is not. The Nihon Ethics of Video Association, the Ethics Organization of Computer Software and the Contents Soft Association are examples of three such organizations. Recent controversies have frowned upon both pubic hair and even genitalia itself being displayed in works of art and in educational settings.

There is also a thriving genre of underground pornography in Japan (called urabon) that ignores these censorship laws; it has become especially prevalent on the Internet, as there are no mechanisms in place to prevent its transmission from Japanese nationals to the outside world, or vice versa. On 1 November 1999, Japan introduced laws to outlaw child pornography in an attempt to converge with the U.S. and other western countries.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

It's just a thing that they did to confuse you. Everything is flowing, and predictable, like a million other movies out there, then she puts on his pants. Then you go "Hang on a minute, that's different". This was just to prepare you for the death scene, which again was not a predicatable thing. Pretty straight forward.

reply

[deleted]

No. It's a feminist critique -- as well as a humourous expression of the obviously cliche yet perfectly idiosyncratic nature of their relationship -- her struggle for power is gained by this 'tokenistic' and playful irreverence for gender and its perceptions.

reply

[deleted]

maybe i am out in a field alone but i found the whole pants scene very erotic, when lovers first see and touch each other, a little surprise is a great sensual delight

imagine hiro watching her assume a bit of his masculine identity which only heighten the beauty of her feminine figure....plus kept a bit of mystery

keeping a bit of clothing on, to add scent and texture to coupling works for me

reply

[deleted]

i figured it was a bit of a dabble into strange sexual thing.

what boggles my mind is the phisyics involving theposition fot he zip and were everything needs to be.

reply

She put the pants on as she was taking the dominant position.

The pants prevented sexual penetration, implying that whilst they slept together they didn't actualy do everything. I also don't remember seeing them kiss with any passion.

She later tells his wife that he was an honourable man, which again comes back to her leaving the pants on which prevented the complete act.

Earlier he had commented in Japanese on the phone that she had a big but however she was able to fit into his pants, so it couldn't have been that big.

reply

"The pants prevented sexual penetration, implying that whilst they slept together they didn't actualy do everything. I also don't remember seeing them kiss with any passion."

actually, if you noticed, she did zip the pants down, they did complete the act (and did so a few times throughout the movie.)

reply

I like the idea of them not actually "doing it", in that scene.

Although there may be no penetration (I can't figure how it could actually work in that position, with some pants on), they're still having sex, and making love. May be there is a statement here : the woman has not to be penetrated. It's like a ungendered sex scene...

So apart from the status reversal that is obviously taking place (she's above, she's domanting, he lays on the bed, she touches him...), I can't stop thinking the sex they're having is to be attypical.

Moreover, I can't remember any part in the movie where they explicitly do the whole thing. She could have the pants each and single time.

reply

From the begining of the film until the end Sandy assumed the 'male' role (driving him around, loading his luggage into the car, smoking and drinking)and this was continued in the bedroom scene. He lies prone on the bed while she tenderly strokes him and then to top it all off she assumes the masculine position in the missionary pose and quite literally in this case is wearing the trousers. All a bit obvious if you ask me... Nothing subtle or mysterious about it.

reply

Why do you keep asking the same damn question? Have you even seen the film?

reply

[deleted]

This seemed to emphasise the androgynous nature of the pair (when the camera had lingered on him when he dried himself after swimming his legs seemed almost feminine). There is also something interesting in a person wearing a piece of clothing normally worn by the opposite sex.

Another thing - that he had previously said she had a big bum. This film in several places refers back to something earlier in the film and puts another slant on it.

However, it wasn't very credible that she would waste time putting on the pants, when she was aroused.

reply

According to my Australian friends, this was both a historical and regional form of contraception during the colonial era. The woman would wear her partners trousers to prevent penetration.

To this day, certain villages and hamlets in the outback used this procedure to cut back on unwanted pregnancies.

Happiness is a strawberry sundae...

reply

Thank You! I was just about to say, maybe it was a form of birth control. I mean..they were out in the desert for a couple of days or so(no stores,lol). It's nice that everybody is trying to find meaning and "symbolism" behind it but I don't think it's as complicated as everyone is making it out to be. ;)


Somebody's got to lead this revolution and I guess it's gonna be me.

reply

Well, I'm an Aussie and I've never heard about this birth control idea with pants but I have watched an interview with the producer, writer and director, all of whom are women. They said it was something unusual and who would think of putting on pants when making love... something like that anyway. Also I think it reflects their feminist views, they are all very strong minded women so perhaps this is how they represented women having more power, not too sure, its interesting though. I suppose those women did what they set out to do, make the audience think about the deeper meaning behind this small action.

reply

I'm an Aussie and I think you're Australian friends may have been 'having you on'. I've never heard of that. And they have sex later in the movie too, without pants, so I don't think its anything to do with birth control.

I think its probably more about the androgynous nature of the film and the two characters and the challenges to their perceptions of male and female roles. But I was very confused about it during the film, and am still thinking about it all so don't take my word for it.

reply