MovieChat Forums > Ôdishon (2000) Discussion > The filmed explained

The filmed explained

posted 14 years ago by writejulia
56 replies | jump to latest

I posted this in another thread, and this is just one interpretation from my brilliant teacher and my film studies class, but it's a pretty solid one:

1. Everything in the last 20 minutes is Aoyama's dream, basically everything after they get to the hotel, she shows him the scar, they are about to have sex. The only "reality" is when he awakens. Then again, more of the film is probably subjective than it may seem, such as when it appears the man working at the restaurant and hearing the conversation about the audition is judging them. He appears later in the film, in the room with the man in the wheelchair. Aoyama fills in all the blanks about Yoshikawa in his mind. In addition, nothing in "the room" with the phone and the man in the bag is real. There are many dream sequences in the beginning, and they are meant to be jarring. As is the scene that Aoyama's friend is trying to talk him out of seeing Yoshikawa and there are tons of jump cuts.

2. Aoyama seems like the nice guy, but is he really? Think about how he speaks of women. He says he wants someone confident, but he's infatuated with the obedient, passive girl. He held an audition to pick out a wife, asking and listening (from his friend) to a number of pretty degrading questions. Then he chooses which one he "wants". Do you see the darker misogyny and misuse? It's something that's laughed about in romantic comedies, the way women are treated. But this film examines it from another angle.

3. He doesn't treat any of the women in the film well at all. He's pretty rude to them, actually. His secretary, who it's hinted he's slept with and ignored. The girlfriend of his son. Really any woman he comes in contact with.

4. The dreams, the fears, are his projections. The sickness of them...perhaps his own sadistic sexual desires. For example, When Yoshikawa opens her legs to be burned by her abusive uncle, we see her both as a little girl and as an adult. The tongs are a phallic symbol, and there is a sensuality about the way she reveals herself willingly. Several things "happen" when she is a child, then an adult, then Aoyama's late wife. And remember when the son's girlfriend is giving him a blowjob in the dream, and at first he succumbs to it, but then pulls away all "This is wrong, this is wrong"?

5. His opinions about life (Enjoy the pain, that's life...which comes back to haunt him in the dream sequence....Life is beautiful) contradict, as again do his views on the ideal woman.

I don't think the film is a warning, I think it's a reflection on the role of women in Japanese society and how they are viewed/treated, as well as the concept of the female as the monster put into question.

Who is really the monster here?

[–] sebastianwinkler1985 13 years ago

"2. Think about how he speaks of women. He says he wants someone confident, but he's infatuated with the obedient, passive girl."

"3. He doesn't treat any of the women in the film well at all. He's pretty rude to them, actually. His secretary, who it's hinted he's slept with and ignored. The girlfriend of his son. Really any woman he comes in contact with."

To 2:
Where do you get this from? This is just not true.
He says he wants a nice wife with a job and a special skill. He also says that she shouldn't be the over-achiever type (professional piano player).
This is pretty much what Yoshikawa appears to be. Also passive? Actually SHE is the one going forth, not him, so where do you get this?

To 3:
Good job making things up! Well, actually not. First of all there are only 3 women he interacts with in the movie, apart from his wife and housemaid. You named the other two, so lol @ "really any woman".
He behaves perfectly normal towards his sons gf, he sees her the first time, and is about to leave, the others are busy. What do you expect? Him being all talkative and friendly? Why would he be?

His secretary: Well, he is distanced towards her. That's about it. We don't know anything more. Maybe he just doesn't like her? Perfectly normal again.

His housemaid? I don't see where he is rude, he treats her in a friendly way, as an employee. Nothing wrong with that.

The main protagonist? Were is he rude to her? Nowhere. Stop making things up.

Point 4 is a little far fetched, too. It is nowhere indicated that he'd be that kind of person. It could be that those are actually her thoughts.

Her entering his home seemed legit, it wasn't presented as the dreamlike sequences. This speaks against the nightmare theory.

You conclusion is just absurd, he is portrait as a loving father and even waited 7 years before thinking about marriage again. To think of him as a monster you must do some really long shots.
Also, did you even see other films of Miike? He definitely doesn't strike me as the guy with a feminist message.

[–] abbycatt 13 years ago

Ummm, they actually didn't make anything up. There were major hints that Aoyama slept with his secretary and either DID totally blow her off, or feels extremely guilty about how he treated her afterward (depending on which parts you think are dream sequences). And Asami was *extremely* submissive in their first few dates. She would barely even look him in the eye when she spoke to him.

I love how you equate a male character who has degrading views towards women coming to nightmarish terms with those views as some kind of "feminist message". That's a bit of a stretch there. LOL!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blablubb-1 13 years ago

I agree with sebastianwinkler1985.

I cannot see the points the original poster made as being proofed. I find it very doubtful to argue for a "feminist" view, as this movie simply isn't feminist at all. Not the opposite, either.

Maybe this movie is not open for interpretation? Maybe we all simply have to accept it, as it is? No message?

[–] dccgemini 12 years ago

I agree with most of this, I don't see him being rude to any woman in this movie. He's perfectly nice and a loving father. If he did sleep with his secretary then so what? Is he required to then marry her because they had sex? Should he thank her daily and praise her? I don't understand, she's an adult and she could have said no or waited until she got a relationship title from him, but she didn't so she shouldn't have assumed sex means relationship. Plus she said that she was engaged, so she obviously had moved on, at least somewhat, but i guess wanted him to stop her from marrying someone else, but he chose not to.

He was super nice to his maid, they seemed like friends, they talked for like five minutes while she sat down on the job. If he was a mean person he would have said no breaks for you, keep on cleaning while you talk!

Yes it is a lil degrading to audition for wives, but the women all agree to audition so who cares? Also he clearly chose Ayomi before the auditions even started, just from her resume, and then when he called to see he at dinner, she could have said no. At the hotel, she's the one who initiated sex. He didn't mistreat her at all, he was going to marry her.

The son's girlfriend? He again was nice to her also.

None of these girl's were mistreated or used any more than they allowed themselves to be. They're all adults with choices. He should not be blamed.

[–] Yella-Yella 13 years ago

I don't agree with your overall interpretation, particularly your second and third points; why do you need to bring misogyny into this? People always seem to be ready to bring that up from the smallest things.

You said Aoyama doesnt treat women well at all but i would beg to differ.

"He doesn't treat any of the women in the film well at all. He's pretty rude to them, actually. His secretary, who it's hinted he's slept with and ignored. The girlfriend of his son. Really any woman he comes in contact with."

How is he rude to any woman? on the contrary I would say he was quite polite in general. Ok, lets say he slept with the secretary, it was clear that it must have been a one night stand but the secretary obviously thought there was more to it than that. That is not necessarily Aoyama's fault and he doesn't come across as the type of guy who leads women on or is flirtatious so I don't think you can really judge him from that instance. She seemed like a very naive type of women herself even.

How did he treat his son's girlfriend badly? He even told his son to let her have his own portion for dinner when she was at the house. Then he took the dog for a walk to let them both have time alone together, so how is that treating her badly?

The only thing he did which I would consider mysogynyst in the slightest was using the audition (which he was skeptical about and was his friends idea) to look for a woman to marry. But if that didnt happen then there would be no film to begin with.

I think even in the entire women, the only women he talked to was the housekeeper Rie, his sons girlfriend, Yamazaki (whose name you confused with Aoyama's friend Yoshikawa) and the Secretary. And as far as I could see, Aoyama did nothing wrong, at least intentionally to any of them.

Perhaps it was Miike's intention to portray Aoyama, as a very nice guy being a widower, single parent, running his own business etc only to contrast this with the somewhat cruel and unusual punishment he received in the second half of the film.

[–] srinath_r_htanirs 13 years ago

I thought this was a stright forward explanation. The outer layer of the story. I don't think this is as multi layered as Gozu is, still, any other possible explanations?

[–] justin-lnnte 13 years ago

I think the entire movie is a parallel to a divorced man's phantasms, preconceptions, expectations, interactions, and fears about his status in life in correlation with his wants/needs: in this case, his need for a relation with a female. All these facets form Side A of our protagonist.

Phantasms : He runs the audition, scamming the THIRTY girls out of a job to serve his own purpose. He asks them very controversial questions and turns them away in a whiff, obviously humiliating them in the process. '3' girls? Check again. His fetishes are turning him away from women who genuinely know and care about him.

Preconceptions : This plays deeper into his perception of the women in his life. The other women in the movie are all 'trying' to please him, but he projects them into his future and turns them down, because of his fears of how they could affect his life. He has a model woman he is striving for, to reach a sort of balance with his own preconceptions, and his standards are refined. His job allows him such a great choice of romantic interests gives him the opportunity to find a woman he desires. But he barely knows anything about her
, which leads to the next point..

Expectations : and he is trying to jam the girl into this mold he made for her. This fear of the unknown in this 'infatuation' of his, is reinforced by the scene where he wants to call her, and he imagines her kneeling next to the burlap sack, which is the manifestation of what she could be 'hiding' in that sack of hers.

Interactions : The protagonist deflects everybody in his life except his son.. It's blatant he doesn't care about the other women in his life. Not necessarily MYGONYSTIC, but definitely self-centered. These women are interacting with him openly, but he shuts them all down in a very deflective manner. Scenes: His maid says he must have a very nice girlfriend as he completely ignores her efforts to cheer him up. He weakly smiles at her and looks away. She gets a tear in her eye, stammers an answer and leaves. He also finds his boy's girlfriend attractive *linking to his phantasms*, and in his FEAR of getting into a stable relationship makes him hallucinate her giving him oral sex instead of his date.

The major scene is his meeting at the restaurant where he finally gets to know her. You can see many cuts in the conversation, even a very visible cut during her talk. This is quite revealing as you can imagine our protagonist wasn't really listening to her, because he was projecting his phantasms and only half listening to her childhood story.

Fears : The burlap sack. The fear of the unknown about this fantasy girl. The nightmare he is having. The fetishes he is having about her, knowing how wrong it is. Notice how our girl tries to seduce him acting like a very young girl. And she says 'deeper.. deeper..' just like she acts while she is torturing him. The character's sexual excitement all plays into his fears.

It also alludes to the vices into the man who is trying his hardest to really give love a chance after 7 years of single life, but is scared to fail. This is Side B (the most single emotion leading our character, or, the B side). It is reinforced by the quote he says : "I really don't want to fail at marriage again at this age." He is obviously afraid of failing to seduce this woman, while she is giving herself to him. When his boy says 'she must be hot and my age', and he proudly says 'but I'm smarter than you'. But his boy is extremely smart. His audition friend also says he doesn't see anything in our girl, and our guy answers him "so you think I'm a lousy old fool who got tricked for a one-night-stand..?" and his friend blatantly answers "yes". This makes our protagonist so angry that he hits a wall and leaves. These are just small event sthat plays into the protagonist's subconscious fears and links them to his nightmare.

This is just a psychological analysis of the main protagonist. I don't want to debate what is a dream and what is not, as I am certain the character has daydreams early into the movie and that the later part of the movie is an actual dream/nightmare, as quotes mention elsewhere in this forum.

These events will make personal conflicts lie underneath the actual actions and thought process of our protagonist. They help shape out and accurately portray our main character and the crisis he is experiencing. His love for her may be true, but it's the perversity and fetishes of the way their love comes to a climax in the scene where our female lead is replaced by the underage schoolgirl his son is dating. Our guy freaks out and says 'Stop! This is wrong!' And -Immediately after, both girls have disappeared.. And the burlap sack appears: revealing that the girl is also into older men, and it's her way of coping with the abuse she lived as a child.-

Thoughts?

[–] srinath_r_htanirs 13 years ago

It all fits in perfectly. Great read. Liked your explanations on Phantasms, Preconceptions, his fears etc., I had similar thoughts on his fears and his preconceptions(prejudices?).

I had the idea that he wasn't truly impressed by Asami, but he was only forcing himself to be impressed by her, and thereby forcing everyone to make that a success(Failing the three girls, failing the other girls in the audition, and before giving Asami a chance to reverse his impression, he started giving a long essay of her positives). Then his mind started to partly realize what he had done, and hence the hallucinations(I believe they are hallucinations, the three girls having a go at him, his fears of choosing the wrong girl reflecting his prejudice, and thereby the sack, the man from the sack, the ears, the man in the academy etc.,)

In truth, he was never capable of being impressed by a girl(I could almost sense something was wrong, when he didn't feel as much as one would expect after his wife's death, anyone could mistake this for being subtle though and I'm sure you noticed how excited he was about another marriage after his son mentioned, which is abnormal for a widower at such an age.)

[–] BillyFisher 13 years ago

Seems to me some of Aoyama's perceived lack of politeness might just be a cultural thing.

- - - - - - - -
www.davidlrattigan.com
www.dictionaryofhammer.com

[–] infinajt 13 years ago

The obvious one is still missing: you know the story about Zhuangzhi who dreamed he was a butterfly? Yeah, this is kinda like that one. Except it's about love, and fear of love, and fear of the opposite of love. And that's a dream.

[–] justinsaxena 13 years ago

the moment when his son enters the room while he was tortured ,he went into sleep and dreams if it never happened and when he sleeps back in the dream he is not going into dream but actually going back to reality where all the torture is happening.
the girl did actually torture him as because of her psychotic and possessive approach towards lovers as she mentioned they are all the same and asked him to only love her.
while before falling back on the floor after drinking we see the real moments in flashback where in all the dates she told him the reality of her life and past.

[–] william-weekes 12 years ago

[–] Mandy_Whitsands 13 years ago

Everything in the last 20 minutes is Aoyama's dream, basically everything after they get to the hotel, she shows him the scar, they are about to have sex. The only "reality" is when he awakens.

good explanation. Unfortunately it doesn't work, because of the scene where Asami waits for the telephone call next to the bag. This scene is clearly a real-life scene because (a) there is no lead-in/lead-out in previous/subsequent scene that would indicate a dream (b) the call must have existed because Asami and Aoyama meet due to this call.

If this scene was real, then everything else with regards to the bag (child abuse, etc.) must also be real, inlcuding the torture scene.

[–] AssetsonFire 12 years ago

No, it's simply foreshadowing, showing us Aoyama's latent fears. A daydream, if you like. The call can have taken place without the visualisation of Asami's room being true. The 'daydream/fantasy cut' is hardly a rare phenomenon in films.

~.~
I WANT THE TRUTH! http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

[–] john-1899 12 years ago

What happened to writers and directors explaining what the movie is about by watching there film? I dont want you to attempt it in your subject title "The Filmed Explained".

I hate films that show dream sequences or different levels of concsiousness the viewer then have to work out for themsleves or fill boards like this with a hundred different hypothesis.

Film making once used to be soley about story telling, still is but not always unfortunatley.

This movie and Shutter Island similarly flawed

[–] infinajt 12 years ago

What happened to your imagination? What happened to your capability to abstract thinking? What happened to your thirst for challenges?

If you think storytelling hasn't always been about ambiguity, you are way out of your element here. Here's a tip: it's been going on like that way before any "living pictures" existed.

[–] john-1899 12 years ago

Dont insult me me with your percieved lack of my imagination.
Oh I'm imaginative OK. The thread starter tells us all what he or she thinks the film is about because others might be less imaginative. Does that encourage imagination?

Name one pre 1970's movie or book that's ambiguous, go on name me one. Then I'll think you are right

If I've never heard of it I'll look it up.

[–] J_Ramos 12 years ago

Your argument with "infinajt" is not my business but this is: "Film making once used to be solely about story tellng..." Film making was never only about story telling, some films were only story telling some weren't, most good films aren't only about story telling.
"Name one pre 1970's movie or book that's ambiguous..." There are many, many, pre-1970's movies and books that aren't straight story telling and could be, in a way or another, considered ambiguous. Two or three come to my mind.
Films: "Un chien andalou", 1929; "8-1/2", 1963; "The seventh seal (Det sjunde inseglet)", 1957; "The exterminating angel (El angel exterminador)", 1962.
Books: "Hopscotch (Rayuela)", Julio Cortazar, 1963; "The obscene bird of night (El obsceno pajaro de la noche), Jose Donoso, published in 1970 but written between the early 60's and 1968 or so; "Pedro Paramo", Juan Rulfo, 1955; "The metamorphosis (Die Verwandlung), Franz Kafka, 1915.

[–] infinajt 12 years ago

The thread starter tells us all what he or she thinks the film ... Does that encourage imagination?

Since you phrase it that way, yes, yes it does. The movie encouraged his imagination and he shared his opinions with us. Looking at the thread, many people have posted their opinions and discuss the matter. Isn't this imagination at work? Until you came along and said something as stupid as...

Name one pre 1970's movie or book that's ambiguous, go on name me one. Then I'll think you are right

You've got to be kidding me. I don't even know where to begin, this is just too easy.

Books: Wuthering Heights, The Awakening, Turn of the Screw, pretty much everything Philip K Dick wrote, bunch of other scifi, well.. Lolita (arguably), most of Kafka, and let's not even go to modernist literature. Shakespeare wrote something called Hamlet that's considered highly ambiguous.

Movies: Rashomon, 2001, Anatomy of a Murder, 12 Angry Men, The Saragossa Manuscript (don't know if the ambiquity is in the book as well), 8 1/2 and some other Fellini stuff, Bunuel's/Resnais's/Bergman's works, Gone with the Wind ends rather ambiquously don't you think, and oh c'mon I just remembered film noir and the French New Wave and I've had just about enough of this.

edit: plus there's probably a shelf full of books written about ambiquity on paintings/art in general.

[–] john-1899 12 years ago

Leaving things up to the imagination of the viewer, listener or reader is not the same as thinking what the hell is going on here..like in this film and Shutter Island

Example is Once Upon A Time in America. Did James Woods character Max jump in the trash wagon while Noodles watched after Noodles refused the hit.

Thats up to the viewer and thats a good one to have up to the viewer. I cant see how Wuthering Heights is open to conjecture though I suspect its more like what happened in my example above.

Did Kathy get over losing Heathcliffe or not, up to the viewer I guess but I'm betting Kathy wasnt walking around dreaming, waking up and playing three or four different scenarios around for what the hell might have happened for real. I dont know I never read the book or seen the film and to tell you the truth I have no desire to.

I hope you now understand what my problem was with this film, the thread starter and his self important thread title which resulted in spouting your own view where you obviously misunderstood mine.

I agree with you 100%. Art is best when its subjective but it isn't when the viewer has no idea during the film which part of the story is imaginative dreamscape or retrospective and worse still when none of it ever happened in the first place!

[–] srikanth_rongali 12 years ago

Well said man. I felt same with "Mulholland Drive"

[–] srinath_r_htanirs 10 years ago

Mulholland Drive has a definite explanation, in case you aren't aware.

[–] srinath_r_htanirs 10 years ago

There are people who are able to come to conclusions on whatever the movie had presented on screen, in case you aren't aware. If it's 'wtf happened' for you, maybe you aren't paying enough attention.

Both Audition and Shutter Island do have enough set-ups sprayed through out their running time to arrive at plausible conclusions.

[–] john-1899 11 years ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2802850/board/thread/231189493?d=231404436#231404436

I rest my case this guys being called a troll for hypothesing what you've argued here

[–] frequency-2 11 years ago

How about, "the Innocents", 1961, "8 1/2", 1963, "Alphaville ", 1964, "Pierrot le Fou", 1965, "Contempt", 1963, " Hiroshima Mon Amour", 1959