Why does merde only speak some weird made up language? Why does the lawyer understand it? Nothing made sense, please explain!
As for tokyo shaking, why was Yu Aoi delivering pizza if she's a hermit?? Is she a robot with those buttons?? What caused the earthquakes??
Those 2 films are so confusing!
Why does merde only speak some weird made up language?What's weird or made-up about it? Why do you type in a weird made-up language like English?
Why does the lawyer understand it?It looks as if they are very closely related.
Nothing made sense, please explain!Nothing makes sense, so nothing makes as much sense as anything.
She isn't a hermit when she delivers the pizzas. She finds out she wants to be a hermit.
As for tokyo shaking, why was Yu Aoi delivering pizza if she's a hermit??
Is she a robot with those buttons??Perhaps. Perhaps she thinks she is a robot. Perhaps she wishes she were a robot.
What caused the earthquakes??Movements of the earth's tectonic plates usually; in this film, the plot.
Are those the only things that confuse you? If so, you ought to get the Nobel Prize for everything every year for your explanations of everything else. share
Those 2 films are so confusing!
[deleted]
Allen/Roger/J, I'm intrigued to know why you felt it neccessary to reply to hkp0lice's initial comment in such a disparaging and dismissive manner. They posed some questions, they were confused, that's all. Your seem to suggest that not 'getting' the film is in some way a negative criticism of a film. I watch a lot of films, I don't understand all of them, but I don't begrudge someone else finding a film difficult.
I suspect the 'Merde' segment was meant as a comment on aspects of Japanese culture and history that Tokyo citizens wish to ignore or forget. Or not! It doesn't really matter as long as you enjoyed it.
Easy, tiger.
I was too curt with hkpolice. I was ill at the time which doesn't help with patience; all the same I think hkpolice was too quick to panic about what they couldn't immediately understand and that they look at films the wrong way if they think they should be able to "get" them immediately. The questions they asked were a mixture of the obvious and easily-answered {Why an earthquake in Tokyo?) and the unanswerable (Why does Merde's lawyer look like him? I forgot another possibility- that it's coincidence and the lawyer is lying to the court when he pretends to understand Merde).
Merde refers to aspects of Japanese history- and- as I say here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0976060/board/thread/153302627 - possibly to other Japanese films; however- a French director, with neither of the central characters Japanese, could it also refer to aspects of French culture?
[deleted]
Yes, they are confusing, they are meant to be so, but some of your questions are easily answeared (like the earthquakes and the pizza girl). and the others, well, the directors and writers wanted you to think about them and decide on your own why/what happened. and they end up all being metaphors, wich you can also decide for yourself the meanings.
sharedeep.
shareWhy does merde only speak some weird made up language? - Its Art
Is she a robot with those buttons? - No.
What caused the earthquakes? - What normally causes earth quakes?
I'd like to introduce a different perspective to Merde. These films are about the essence of modern day Tokyo.
My take on Merde is a connection with the underground gas attacks. This film depicts the psychological trauma of the Sarin gas attacks of the 90's, which is deeply entrenched in the Japanese psyche. Many authors have written about it, esp. Haruki Murakami.
Let's connect the dots. This 'terror' in the form of Merde is underground, hates the Japanese for being japanese, speaks a language no one understands (what it wants, what it represents, an alien philosophy), it creeps silently from beneath (underground), and does not reprent for the terror and mayhem it spreads. They make a feigned reference to the Aum cult while describing Merde. Aum carried out it's attack underground, without warning, on innocent civilians, were un-repentent, however the scars still tear at the Japanese psyche.
Again, this is one interpretation, there may be many perspectives to this underground terror.
Thoughts?
That sounds totally valid to me but I'm still confused about the lawyer.
Why did he look like Merde? Why could he speak his language?
Voting History: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=26598711
Pretty late reply here but oh well.
I think that the lawyer and Merde were supposed to be conjoint twins or something of that sort. They are basically mirrored versions of each other, and throughout the movie Merde has some weird patch thing on his back that it never explains, so maybe its supposed to be the part where they were attached and then seperated?
I dont know
@samari_lincon
I think you're right.
Regardless I though Merde was the weakest of the trio by far. And I don't think Tokyo Shaking was a dream. It was odd though that the earthquakes seemed to be caused by the girl, that nobody was outside, the pizza robot, the odd pizza boss, the buttons, etc.. so maybe it was all a dream. I just hate "it was all a dream" stories though.
not "it's all a dream," but "it's all a movie." and in a good way. the film isn't trying to replicate reality, it's trying to combine unrealistic elements into something that parallels the emotions of reality.
shareActually, that makes alot of sense if they were twins. Look at them though. Merde's Beard goes left and his right eye is white. Lawyer's beard goes right and left eye is white.
Though, with twins, there has always been a common rumor or myth that they can developed their own language. It's not entirely true, but, after reading the idea their twins, I think they're playing off this idea. Twins absolutely can and do learn their own words for things and could evolve into their own language, so I totally buy this idea. It's not likely, but, plausible.
As for the Merde segment itself. I think it connects more to Japans Xenophobia.
http://www.imhostfu.com/vb3/
as for Tokyo Shaking i am pretty sure it was just a dream he was having on the toilet. lot of hints in the movie and I think it was very obvious. The earthquakes (in his dream) happened when his "perfect" world took a turn.
Nevermind about maybe it is all a dream. I watched an interview by Joon-Ho and it's pretty much just continuing the theme of abstractness with a "what if most of the residents of Tokyo became recluses".
shareWhile watching a film this strange, or "confusing" as you put it, sometimes it's most useful to search for allegory over logical explanation. Especially when an exploited woman turns into a chair or an earthquake takes place right as a man's perfectly stable world is turned upside down, it might be less frustrating and more appropriate to ask "what does this mean" rather than "How/why did this happen?"
shareI think you have a valid question. I also came here to see if anyone could explain what Merde was most likely about.
Some people who responded to you were just rude. There is nothing unusual in asking a question about segment Merde. The answer that "it doesn't have to make sense" or "it is just art" does not sufficiently address the question because the first segment actually made sense pretty clearly.
In my opinion, and I still wish we'd learn this from the directors of the film to know for sure, basically Merde is about moral relativism.
It is difficult to explain this in plain sentences for me, so I'll do something like separated points.
-Merde guy looks like he is either damaged in the head or sick
-He is very different from Japanese. They almost created a sort of stereotype of a European person.
-The Japanese prosecutor questions him and attempts to accuse him based on moral grounds.
-Merde simply doesn't respond as expected because he does not understand the moral values of Japanese nor accept them. Maybe he doesn't care.
So maybe the film is made to emphasize how people from different cultures and different appearance won't understand each other fully because their views are relative.
Maybe it is also a suggestion that Americans in war on terror cannot effectively judge the Islamic terrorists because terrorists are just like beings from another planet, cannot be understood, nor do they care about morality of their victims.
Either way, I disagree either is a good point on face value if they are what director tried to say.
The other user posted a rather amusing retort. Far from rude I think it was actually very funny.
I think you are limiting a film that can have multiple readings by presuming to apply the one you recognized: the failure of moral or cultural relativity.
When I saw a few fragments of the film I anticipated the most obvious explanation would be something raising the specter of the doomsday cultists, Japanese paranoia etc.
If so what was the significance of the Japanese relics, and reference to the Nanjing massacre, if your reading or that were the 'meaning' of the film?
I was hedging more towards a "sins of of our fathers" reading when watching... or it to form some sort of accusation against Japan when he used their own ancient weapons of slaughter against them...
And the large black mark on his back suggested to me cancer or radiation or something similar, and his being underground made me think of his being 'radiation' or some other nasty buried and hidden from view, perhaps something repressed in the Japanese consciousness but lurking.
His being a 'terrorist' whose mother accepted him but others see as foul, and her as dishonest, could be related to actual terrorism, or an accusation of what you call moral or cultural relativity. His reasons for his violence being religious and based on bigotry and ignorance could be applied to any similar situation between two opposed groups.
I don't necessarily suggestion the part of the film is an accusation of moral relativity, but rather accusation of people who fail to understand the fact that other people think fundamentally differently from them. Hard to tell which one the director wants to show.
Theme of "sins of our fathers" ? Maybe, I can't tell about that one for sure. I didn't get that. But it could be directly related to relativism as in "whether we are at all responsible for sins of people before us" and "If we are not, then we have no right to blame someone else" , or maybe "Is someone guilty for the person they were in the past many years ago? Are they the same person if the time has passed?"
In my opinion it is kind of vague. I wish there was director commentary about this.