Very beautiful post.
Nice points.
Let me say first of all that I love this movie and have for a long time so I may be biased.
This is a strange movie, I would be lying if I denied that. But I didn't focus on the bizarreness as many other viewers do, since it would be missing the point.
I like how you mention that the western audience points out the wackiness of japanese people. I think that they are only pointing out their own intollerance and fear for uncomformed elements. But I also see a sad tendency for japanese filmmakers trying to follow that stereotype cause the craziest japanese movies get selected for film festivals.
I agree with you how you say that this is a different kind of bizarre, it isn't trying to be bizarre. To exemplify: this is like a work of a crazy man who are trying to be as sane as possible. We are used to the opposite.
Why don't insane people ever make movies? Hehe.
The kick in this movie, for me, was not that it was strange but the lack of narration, so I would like to comment on that.
I am getting tired more and more tired of two things that almost all movies are constructed upon: 1. drama/conflicts (often overly done), 2. Narration/straight line (everything is happening in favor of the story). To sum it up, most movies are tied by rules of dramaturgi which is a shame, cause the combination of moving images, music, sound and words can be explored in so many ways.
After watching a certain amount of movies you feel that you are watching the same movie again and again.
Those who do not accept this movie are those who are expecting something beforehand and have tied themselves with rules.
You said that this is something very new. It does seem very original but I think that it's been done before. I've seen it in a couple other lesser known Japanese movies that are very similar to this. The swedish movie "gitarrmongot" have the same mash-up style with no narration. Or what about "Gummo" by good ol' Harmony Korine. And I saved the classic for you, look at Jacques Tati's movies! Watch "Play time", a fantastic movie with absolute no plot and on the paper there is nothing going on. But the paper where the plot should be written lies.
What I am trying to point out is that you say that this kind of movie isn't new and it may never be in favor with the critics/audiences. The last sentences of your comment is quite interesting. It may be true. But I can also identify that movies are slowly replacing books amongst the younger generation, If that is so a strong plot is needed. Who knows, movies could be a powerful learning tool in school.
You call the movie philospical which is a very nice term, and suits it. You could also (with respect to the previous mentioned movies) add the term antropological.
Here comes my shot. You call it art which I do not agree with you.
It depends on what you'll define as art but if art is hard to get then this is the opposite. This movie is understandable in so many layers even for the complete dumb.
Give this movie to aliens and they will learn more about the humans better than they could from Titanic (if the concept of cinema is strange for them).
I think anyone with an open mind would understand this movie. Can you see the difference? There is nothing to understand cause you choose what to understand. This movie is an ultimate test on how openminded people are. If someone doesn't like it it is because they expected something else.
If art is supposed to have a great meaning then this movie doesn't have any.
I know that you said that the movie is wonderful so I am not saying that it is wrong for you to call it art. But personally, I wouldn't consider it more art than any other movie.
I am not trying to nag on you or anything, I respect your comment, but I thought I may give you some perspective or show you how I feel about this.
reply
share