Did I get this right? The guy she is suppose to spy on gets a huge rock onto her finger and she forgets all about her mission? That would only make sense in a porno. I'm sure there is another explanation.
shareNo, you got it right. She did porno her life.
shareI would try taking a look at http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0808357/board/nest/98569425 - because there was a lot more going on than just her getting a large diamond.
I would ignore Hans Feldman in that thread, though. His account seems to have been suspended since (he had some serious problems)...
They are both equally irritating, denise and the feldman.
It's a tragic movie, but she is not a victim, she could have done differently, but was led astray by pure desire. Denise is acutally more or less denying female independence, basically.
Don't agree with you (about the movie).
1 - The movie make a point of describing every mention of her father as a rejection of her.
2 - Her aunt sees her as a burden (and another mouth to feed).
3 - She had the crush on the resistance leader, but he was too wrapped up in "the greater good" - and used her acting ability and her infatuation with him to join the group. If she'd slept with him she might've been able to deal with Mr Yee later, but she ends up having sex with the slimy guy.
3 - Later, she writes out her "last letter" and they burn it (although she doesn't see that, it's more proof that they're using her). She told the two of them that she couldn't deal with the situation much longer, that she was losing her identity, more less her ability to act, in the charade, and they ignore her.
Mr Yee starts by treating her just as badly, but as the situation went on became less harsh - the transition point is really in the Japanese brothel, when they talk about being Chinese. I think he suspected she might've been a spy, and he was too much of a survivalist to ever be willing to die for her, but he did feel something for her and expressed it, in the end, with the ring.
And yes, she *could've* done things differently - if she'd had something to base it on. As it was, she was trying to find some kind of acceptance, and the only acceptance she could find was pretty twisted.
This movie isn't about general female independence. It's about this one woman's life, which was never a very happy one.
But hey, we may never agree. No biggie - that's what life's about.
agree
Agreed with you.
shareThe problem is that most viewers see the group's cause as noble and her actions as a betrayal of the greater good. That's like selling out your country, which equals treason (and for an American audience and probably most audiences, WWII was a pretty clear cut conflict about who the bad guys were).
I mean, yes, she had personal and emotional issues but she does know that the man is a bad guy who is selling out his country to the aggressor. And in the end, its like not the man changed and decided to be a good guy, instead he kills everyone that the audience was rooting for the entire movie.
And it's true that the resistance leader was distant and all about the cause, but to many, that's an admirable thing. I mean, you see this in patriotic/war films all the time. Someone puts aside his personal priorities for the good of the country. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but many see that as an appealing character. If you pay any attention to American politics, you hear this from every side. When it comes to fighting for freedom or what not, that's what appeals to people.
You see the resistance movement in this film as a positive cause (comparable to the French resistance or Jews rebelling against the Nazis). And most people, if they saw a character selling out their country for a Nazi or Nazi collaborator, would feel very little sympathy for that character. People know their WWII history pretty well. They know what the Nazis did and what the Japanese did. You don't see a lot of movies that try to be nice about it. I guess I would give Ang Lee credit for attempting more nuance in this film, but I don't think it should come as a surprise that it's very off-putting to people.
I will start by saying that you've been very careful to explain things without saying you necessarily agree with them (which is how a lot of civil discourse goes %^}). So forgive me if I sound like I'm attributing things to you that aren't what you feel; I'm mainly addressing the points in your posting.
I agree with you in that I see a black-white / good-bad demarcation quite a bit on these boards. I would also say that most of the people around me in real life are a little better at handling nuance - even though they're mostly Americans, lol. (And I'd say "a number of" rather than "most" viewers in your first sentence - the movie *is* running a 7.7 rating here, as of today, so "most people" did like it.)
I don't know if you've seen The Lives of Others, about state espionage in East Germany in the 1970s/80s. It's not a perfect comparison, but the "bad" guy very much has shades of gray. It's that type of ambiguity that Lee was bringing to this film, and there are a lot of films that take a similar look at such situations.
There's nothing wrong with a good guy character who sacrifices him/herself for the great good. There are plenty of movies that portray that kind of character very well. But this wasn't that kind of movie. It's not about patriotism - although patriotism is an element of the plot.
There's a saying, which I'm sure you've heard, that "war is hell." That I think is much more what's happening, on a very local and personal level, rather than "let's all band together to save the country." Not everybody has it in them to be a hero.
* * * * * * * * * * *
It's usually pretty easy to understand the overall motivations for a given war, and pick a "good" side and "bad" side. The individual stories of war, however, aren't always so clear cut. There will always be people on the "good" side that commit atrocities, and people on the "bad" side who aren't unmitigated evil. On top of that, some situations (*some*) are more gray than anything else. Seeing and accepting that, I think, takes a certain amount of discernment - and having your head in a particular place - that not everyone will have.
We know something about Wang's background. Personally, I think she just wasn't cut out to be a spy, period. It was the resistance's mistake (and frankly, ineptitude) in thinking she could be because she was a good actress. The fog of war, yes - but they all ended up paying for it in the end.
We know next to nothing about Mr. Yee and why he decided to become a collaborator. Did he just want to make a quick buck? Did the occupation government have something over him? Did he just decide he was going to survive, no matter what it took? It's not spelled out (nor should it be).
But neither of them planned to become attracted to each other - it was something that happened despite their intentions and their common sense and something they couldn't control - like a crime of passion. So when push came to shove, because she wasn't the right "tool," she couldn't kill him (I'm thinking of the bedroom scene, but that's what happens in the jewelry store as well. In fact, she's also the only one who doesn't get actively involved when the students kill the cousin (?) in that spectacularly messy fashion). But he couldn't kill her, either - he didn't save the students but he didn't blow the whistle on them. If he hadn't been "distracted," meaning there had been no attraction, he probably would have realized what was going on and acted on it. (He'd already done it twice before.) Maybe he did know something was off and ignored it.
In fact, there's a hint that *he's* now under suspicion. There's nothing he could have done to save her or them, and any move to do that would have just gotten himself killed as well. My take is that he was determined to survive, so wouldn't have sacrificed himself; but that he still very much regretted that things turned out that way. That's why he's in her room at the end of the film.
But... I do think there's regret on his part, and some hope / expectation that the Japanese will be eventually defeated (see the brothel scene). So while he didn't suddenly switch sides and take up arms against the Japanese, his attitude towards the whole situation is different, which is probably more realistic.
The upshot: he didn't become a good guy, he may not change his behavior, but that doesn't mean he didn't change. Maybe that's all we can hope for from the situation.
I also think a huge part of this movie is the utter naivete of the students. Meaning well doesn't mean you have a clue of what you're doing.