MovieChat Forums > Se, jie (2007) Discussion > Lust, Caution: an interpretation (spoile...

Lust, Caution: an interpretation (spoiler)


Spoiler level: High. If you haven't seen the movie, don't read this piece.

Why did she do it?

This is perhaps the biggest question that people asked after watching the film. Why did she do it? There are indeed several interpretations, all possibly true. A romantist would say it was love. Love is blind! Love is crazy! A biologist would say it was the hormones. Once she saw that big bling, her glands produced chemicals that disturbed her rational thinking. Whatever dude, there's a reason why I dropped my bio major.

A couple of days after watching the film, I came across the original short story in a bookstore. At the end of the story, there was an essay written by the scriptwriter answering this question. The details of his essay are quite blur, so I'm going to paraphraze like crazy. I might be misinterpreting him, but I don't give a damn. According to the scriptwriter, her act poses many questions to the audience. The audience is left puzzled, and does not clearly know her intentions. This was the precise effect the writer wanted. By depicting an unexplicable act, the author wanted to show that some things in life are just unexplicable.

for more reviews and commentary, visit joojup.blogspot.com

reply

You left off the Stockholm Syndrome explanation (which is actually the one I find most believable). %^D

Actually, I read (and own a copy of) that book. It's been awhile, and I could be misremembering, but I thought that he was pointing out that *Eileen Chang* wrote an incredibly spare story, with very little background to it (which is fine). The movie definitely added details that weren't in the original story.

The movie doesn't answer everything (nor should it - I sometimes worry about people coming onto imdb and asking for "the" answer to a movie, as if there is one); but I don't think it's so spare that you can't come up with a reasonable explanation of what's going on. "Reasonable" being the key word.

I'll try going back to the book and rereading at some point, though (I'm a little busy now). Like I said - it's been awhile, and you just might have hit on something important.

reply

It's hard to explain the reason why she did it to a foreigner who is not Chinese. No offense, it's just that traditional Chinese culture is hard for others to understand.

In my opinion, It goes sooo much beyond the ring! She wasn't into money or ring otherwise she would have been a gold digger all along...but as we all know..she wasn't. Also, let's no forget that Mr. Yee was not into diamonds at all and was mocking how women treasure diamond when it's just a formation of rock all along.

If you watch carefully...Notice that when she was being considerate and wanted to take the ring off because she felt it was too flashy, he insisted that she leaves it on because he is basically giving her the recognition that she's officially his woman, and she was moved because of that. It's the ultimate declaration of love.

I think in the beginning she was focused and was in character..but as we are human, having intimate relationship with someone cannot just simply be physical. In that scene where she sang for Mr.Yee in the Japanese restaurant (or whore house), I think she's already developed empathy for Yee and she started realize that he's a human being with emotions and that he despises Japanese eventho he was supposedly working for them.

For me, this is soo much better than that Broke back and Couching Tiger *beep* For all those ppl who can't stand nudity..seriously...you're an adult. Your kid is probably watching really gross porn...this is avant garde art! if you can't stand it...then bugger off!

reply

I find your view interesting. I enjoyed Lee's past films, but this left me quite cold and indifferent.

While I love the avant garde, particularly the sober, blunt sexuality of seventies French or Italian films that usually won that label. I also sit in awe of a good film noire. But for me, Lust, Caution took up the most incompatible portions of each genre and stitched them into one awkward script.

Lust, Caution takes place during a real war, there are hints of the world's severity of conflicts, the culture clashes, etc. The students' motivations are given as hyper patriotism and Mr. Yee's are undeveloped (perhaps opportunism). I still do not understand, even after watching the film twice, if she ever loved her country or Yee. She seems to have enjoyed acting and simply ran away every time there was the question of murder (when the student's stab the man and when Yee is about to be killed). How does this address, enlighten, or approach sexuality or caution (or war) in an avant garde rather than indecisive manner?

I don't want to disrespect art, but what is the proof this was an artistic experiment as opposed to a poorly developed set of character motivations?

Did she sacrifice her virginity for her country and then her life for her lover? Two contrasting, bizarre inspirations of the moment? Perhaps I am the wrong personality type to enjoy this film, for I felt the ending trivialized her. Crouching Tiger and Broke Back are fair to the character's motivations... and the world developed by the past 100+ minutes of those film. Lust, Caution seems to betray both the Lust and the Caution in the end. So, I am still confused.

reply

[deleted]

"It's hard to explain the reason why she did it to a foreigner who is not Chinese"
Mr. Yee is Chinese who works for Japanese during world war II.

reply

What she meant was that it's (supposedly) hard to explain to someone who isn't Chinese (like most of us reading this board), why she did what she did.

Which was a pretty arrogant comment by a proud chineseperson who likes to think no-one else can understand them. I've never been to China in my life, but it seemed pretty darn clear to me that he was choosing her as his #1 woman (as she had argued with him about the other women several times), and she, through love or diamond-blinded lust, chose to save him.

reply

Why did Ang pick up this story after winning the Oscar and make it in China?

Why there are so many RED colors in the film? Red diamond ring, Red lipstick. but the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) RED flag is NOT shown at all but the Chinese natinal party's BLUE flags are shown serval times?

Why Wong Chia Chi works for Chinese National Party (which resided at Taiwan now), not Chinese Communist Party (which take over Chinese National Party at 1949 by force)? which Chinese party did fight against Japanese?

Why did Chinese Communist Party ask Ang to modify "RUN FAST" scene before allowing it shown at China?

How amny young Chinese finally understand that Chinese National party is the one which fight against japanese for 14 years, not CCP?

Lust --> Red --> CCP
Caution --> do not be brain washed by CCP --> Run fast.

Ang is a brave Taiwanese !

reply

[deleted]

Ang is a brave Taiwanese/Chinese/American/human being.

He wants to direct 'life of pie' for his next project which may be the most important project for his career. Only Taiwanese can relate to the boat.


reply

First of all, I haven't seen the movie in a about a year, so please excuse me if this doesn't make any sense or if I misunderstood your comment.
I can understand that someone would write a character's reaction like that to perplex an audience and to get them thinking. However, although her actions might seem strange and inexplicable, it seems like a pretty common thing. How many times have people identified with their abuser, or protected their abuser? I don't simply think that it's a "literary technique," but it's also human nature. I love movies like this because it explores human nature, especially the things about human nature that we would rather not think about.
I know you said that the biological explanation is probably *beep* but women are very emotional and tend to become very emotionally attached to men that they have sex with, even when they think that it's not going to happen to them...I guess it could be an evolutionary thing, although the evolutionary explanation is used for everything nowadays. :p

reply

I think you're talking about the Stockholm Syndrome, and incorrectly assigning it to women only.

(And if you think women are significantly more emotional than men, I don't think you know a very wide range of women *or* men.)

reply

I know what Stockholm Syndrome is, and I was specifically referring to women because, in this particular case, we are talking about a woman. I never claimed that women are significantly more emotional than men, I was just making a comment based on my own observations, relating specifically to sex and emotional attachment. In my observation, I have seen women get MORE attached to their partners after sexual relations than men. Of course, men can also become emotionally attached to their partners, but I have just it happen more often with women. However, I was mostly just making the point that she ended up identifying with him through sexual relations, which was also a very emotional act for her. By the way, there's no need to be condescending with me, or to assume who I know or don't know.

reply

(1) Not being condescending; just offering my understanding of what you wrote (thus the "I think"). It's a movie board and we're exploring people's takes on the movie. That's all that's going on.

(2) You don't say "some" women, "a number of women," "a certain type of woman" - you use the term "women" with no adjective attached. That fits the definition of a generalization (which may not have been what you meant, but is what you wrote).

(3) You're right, I don't know you - so I can only take what you're saying by what you write. And what you first wrote is not what you just wrote above.

I love movies like this because it explores human nature, especially the things about human nature that we would rather not think about.


I do completely agree with you on that, though.

reply

[deleted]

I could understand her action if the ONLY reason was just the fact she really loved him. But to sacrifice the lives of her entire cell and herself clearly has no explanation.
Mountain Man

reply

crime of passion

reply

I have lived in china for over 4 years now. And I truly believe Chinese people are not patriotic at all. They ''say'' they love their country but everything they do contradicts that. They are full of it. Chinese people are obsessed with ''lao wai'' foreigners to you and me. They all want to leave and given any kind of chance they do. They are all learning English and believe Chinese Mandarin is an inferior language. People will never speak to you in Chinese as soon as you ask a question they switch to English right away. They all bitch about the government but then never do anything just complain. The whole country is divided. People in different provinces hate each other and don't even use the same language. People in the south all speak different dialects. They use Chinese characters to write but when they speak no one can understands each other cause of the 100 different dialects.

Anyway this brings me to the point I think she did it cause she doesn't love her country at all. She is like all Chinese people she says she does. But she doesn't at all. When push comes to shove and they are actually supposed to stand up and do something they always bottle it. I think this is Ang Lee's point. When the Japanese came to China the Chinese didn't really fight them they tried to make deals and truces instead of fighting. Wang Jingwei and Chiang Kai Shek and even the former emperor of China sold out and tried to use the Japanese to re-found his empire in northeast China called ''Manchukuo'' Instead of everyone uniting and fighting the invaders. I love China but watching this movie was so depressing cause it is so true and near to the bone. Chinese people don't love their country. Ang Lee himself has changed his passport to an American one. I'm not surprised the Chinese government banned this film.

reply

What you wrote is sad but very true! I didn't find the controversy lies in this part of the ending, but the difference between the novel's ending and the movie's. The original novel's ending is so cold - Mr Yee didn't feel anything about her sacrifice, just relief that he got away, and Mrs Yee went back to her mah jong game gossiping.

reply

Hi, easy! Welcome to the board for the second best movie of 2007. %^D

reply

[deleted]

Well, Chia-Chih was barely out of her teens. She was also abandoned as a child.

She has never really experienced familial love much less passion. She had nothing to compare what she thought she was feeling for Yee. Only a crush on one fellow student and a messy, awkward coupling with another.

The book is even more mysterious than the film. The majority of it is Chia-Chih remembering how this affair came into being. She is nervous and frightened about the fact that she is about to murder another human being. She also suspects that Yee's interest in her is waning which is why he wants to buy her jewelry...essentially pawning her off. She also thinks about an old philosopher's ramblings about a way to man's heart is cooking but for a woman, it is sex. Then there is the fact that Chia-Chih and her friends were a bunch of actors. They were all excited over these heroic roles they carved out for themselves. And Chia-Chih was the heroine.

Isn't the heroine supposed to fall in love?

The book ends creepily with Yee gloating over the fact that he is haunted by the spirit of a beautiful, young woman. It is a point of pride that he, an old man, made a young girl sacrifice herself for him. And that her spirit will protect him, be forced to follow him for the rest of his life.

So obviously he was NOT in love. That was the one misstep with this film. They portrayed Yee as caring about Chia-Chih when he did not.

reply

I do believe that is was a case of a Stockholm Syndrome.
Her personal and family background did help contribute to that psychological disorder.

reply

Yes you are right - the original ending was very cold and horrible, but probably more true of that wartime period of betrayal and cruelty, the debased humanity. Which is why Zhang is a truly great author, she never flinched from exposing human nature. The movie's ending is more sentimental, otherwise, the movie will truly be hated and unwatchable.

reply

A few times on this message board people wo have read the book explain the film from the point of view of the book. I don't think it's the right approach. The director's interpretation of the characters and their motivations has a right to be completely different from the book. I think Ang Lee demonstrated very persuasively that Mr. Yee was indeed in love with the girl, and his feelings towards her became increasinly tender. I don't see the cynicism that the readers of the book describe. It's in the book, but not in the movie. To me the movie is about humanity, about how deep inside people are human and vulnerable even if their official life casts them in the toughest roles imaginable. Both characters belong to the cohort of people who appear to be "made of iron", but as we see in the film, they both get the biggest surprise of their lives when they learn they are not the kind of people they thought they were.

reply

I agree with keeping books and their film adaptations separate. But I really hate when a film strays so far from the source, it ceases to be an adaptation. This film is perilously close by making the claim that Yee loved Chia Chih.

I mean, really why pull the punch? Chang certainly didn't which is why the book is legendary. I've read many of her short stories and they are frequently about relationships without love and filled with power inequalities.

We are all adults here, we can handle a film about a man who uses a young woman. It seems that Lee got cold feet in the end.

reply