Spoilers Odishon (1999)

[sitenoise]

I don't think I buy this, certainly not without revisiting the scene. I don't recall even the slightest sense of relief from him at realising that it was all a dream - I thought that as she put her head on his chest, and told him about how happy she was that he had made her the heroine of his story, he was looking at her in horror, as if he knew that the nightmare was real, and being back in the hotel room was just a sick dream.

I agree it's totally possible the whole thing is reality. It's a more interesting film that way too, in a way. And that's why I think it's brilliant.

In hotel scene number two, though, he doesn't seem relieved it was a dream. He is terrified it was a dream that portends reality. (If you're a dream theorist).

 

[plsletitrain]

That's possible. So ... The golf ball scene and his partner tells him to give it a rest, not call her for a while. Then we see him sitting at his desk, reading her resume, looking at the phone. Cut to Asami with the bagged dude, waiting for a phone call. But then cut to Shigeharu in bed sleeping, he rolls over and then a cut to his wife (I think) standing by a tree in the snow. So that could be when the dream starts and it could retroactively include that first shot of Asami, making her devil aside only be in a dream--Shigeharu's partner's suspicions notwithstanding.

I think Shigeharu's partners suspicions were purposely injected to add more mystery to Asami's identity. The film was supposed to be horror/thriller after all. I wanted to draw the line as to when the dream really started but I think there's no line there, its up to us when to start thinking it was a dream. The scenes you mentioned might be a good start.

 

[plsletitrain]

Of course it happened for real (which is why, when I catch the train home from work, I avoid making eye-contact with any women. Better safe than sorry.)

What I meant is, yes well they did happen for real. But for real real? Or "real in a dream" real?

I don't recall even the slightest sense of relief from him at realising that it was all a dream

That look on his face when he checked that his feet were two and were still attached to his body?

 

[plsletitrain]

^when he checked that his feet were two sounds funny lol I mean when he checked that his two feet were still there

 

[sitenoise]

I think Shigeharu's partners suspicions were purposely injected to add more mystery to Asami's identity.

This is what film directors do to mess with us.

It's like that old saying I've said before about a gun on the table. If the director shows you a gun on the table in act I, you can bet your bippy it's going to be used in act III. But now that we all know that old saying, a director can play with it, show you a gun on the table and never use it, but it's got you thinking about how it's going to be used as you watch the film.

This is (one of the reasons) why I think the film is brilliant. It's like Spider Forest. I think @clayton-12 's take is accurate, possible, interesting, perceptive. Especially the way he describes Shigeharu re-assessing his interactions with Asami.

Those lunches/dinners were weird. I think there were four of them, correct? The first cafe with wine and white table cloth. The beers cafe. The Twin Peaks red walled steak joint. The Black walled industrial wine and meat place.

Or we can whitewash Asami (technically, I guess, but I think she really is a bad apple. We just couldn't convict her. Brilliant, I say)

 

[plsletitrain]

Those lunches/dinners were weird.

I never got them and I think if I magnified my lenses more I'd see more to it but for now I only saw of the dinners/lunches as casual dates, trying to trick us to spot possible clues on Asami's secrets.

Or we can whitewash Asami (technically, I guess, but I think she really is a bad apple. We just couldn't convict her. Brilliant, I say)

Agreed. And good call on the Spider Forest comparison. I like these films that there's technically no right or wrong answer and either interpretations could work.

 

[sitenoise]

I never got them and I think if I magnified my lenses more I'd see more to it but for now I only saw of the dinners/lunches as casual dates, trying to trick us to spot possible clues on Asami's secrets.

Yes, I didn't say that very well. They were just casual dates, etc., as you say (all before dream time). What was a little weird was the way they melted into one another. They'd show him, show her, then show him like it's the same conversation but they are in a different setting/restaurant. I guess it's a shorthand way to show they had more than one date.

And then as @clayton-12 points out the second time round they get cut up and blurred more.

 

[plsletitrain]

Yes, I didn't say that very well. They were just casual dates, etc., as you say (all before dream time). What was a little weird was the way they melted into one another. They'd show him, show her, then show him like it's the same conversation but they are in a different setting/restaurant. I guess it's a shorthand way to show they had more than one date.

And then as @clayton-12 points out the second time round they get cut up and blurred more.

Yes I do remember that scene where the same dinner set-up was shown, this time with an extended dialogue that seemed to enlighten Shigeharu more. I remember them having more than one meal date. I think they had two meal dates.

 

[clayton-12]

Those lunches/dinners were weird. I think there were four of them, correct? The first cafe with wine and white table cloth. The beers cafe. The Twin Peaks red walled steak joint. The Black walled industrial wine and meat place.

I took it to be two meals. The first one occurring at a wine and table cloth garden restaurant, the second one at the beer café, although the beer café transformed during the conversation - it started busy both inside and the street outside, then as Asami spoke of her father it became empty with a black void outside the windows, before transforming into something classier, with red and black walls, as Asami became more animated and articulate. To my mind, the transformation was part of the unreliable narrative, a representation of how Shigeharu wanted his reality to be.

Or we can whitewash Asami (technically, I guess, but I think she really is a bad apple. We just couldn't convict her. Brilliant, I say)

Of course we can! Underneath it all, she's not that different to Shigeharu. After all, he wanted to possess her, to penetrate her, to make sure she was hobbled and would never stray. Ying and Yang. Birds of a feather. It's just that Shigeharu is socially acceptable, so you've got to chip away at all the lacquer to reduce him to his base nature.

 

[clayton-12]

the second time round they get cut up and blurred more

I think the term "jump cut" that I used before isn't quite what I meant - it was like the film skips a few frames, as if it were spliced badly.

 

[plsletitrain]

Of course we can! Underneath it all, she's not that different to Shigeharu. After all, he wanted to possess her, to penetrate her, to make sure she was hobbled and would never stray. Ying and Yang. Birds of a feather. It's just that Shigeharu is socially acceptable, so you've got to chip away at all the lacquer to reduce him to his base nature.

I was under the assumption that Asami wasn't inherently evil. Although what registers to us is her sinister acts in the end, we may have forgotten her own story.

And how brilliant can the film get:

The film somehow gave us (or at least me) the illusion that Shigeharu would give her the attention and care she never had. I think this is where we are "absorbed" by the movie in that we drown by the superficial realities presented--only to brush aside the social and moral details you laid down. There's metaphor everywhere when we thought that Asami's childhood was marred with men using her for their own immoral ends and maybe, just maybe, Shigeharu would be different, that he might be the "hero" in her story only to be left with an open-ended question: was he?

 

[sitenoise]

I'm sticking to my story that the film isn't a character study, nor is it commenting on either one of them. They are puppets in a more general story about how things can go terribly wrong ... in your dreams, in your expectations, in real life--for both of them. It's all just an excuse to set up the scene of a demure young woman amputating a guy's foot.

 

[plsletitrain]

I'm sticking to my story that the film isn't a character study, nor is it commenting on either one of them. They are puppets in a more general story about how things can go terribly wrong ... in your dreams, in your expectations, in real life--for both of them. It's all just an excuse to set up the scene of a demure young woman amputating a guy's foot.

I approve of this.

 

[divemaster13]

Ok, I watched it again this week. I don't know that the below will make any sense to anyone besides me, but I'll give it a shot.

After watching the film (now, for the third time), I have to conclude that Miike has contempt for his audience.

Regardless of the explanations of dream v. reality, or whether Shigeharu was a manipulative bastard or just a lonely man trying to get a date, or somewhere in between, or whether Asami was inherently evil or a product of endless abuse, I don't think Miike cares.

I'm sticking to my story that the film isn't a character study, nor is it commenting on either one of them. They are puppets in a more general story about how things can go terribly wrong ... in your dreams, in your expectations, in real life--for both of them. It's all just an excuse to set up the scene of a demure young woman amputating a guy's foot.

I approve of this.

And I don't.

I've seen and enjoyed movies where people's legs get amputated and eaten (by the amputeur and by wolves/dogs: Sin City). and movies with other on-screen gooshiness: (Saw 1); so it's not a squeamishness factor. It's that , TO ME, the other qualities that make a good film are missing, and Miike does not seem to care.

It is a horror movie? It's not the least bit scary. Gooshy and disturbing, yes, but not, you know...scary. (Although it does have just about the best "jump scene" I've ever seen, so kudos for that at least).

Is it a social statement (misogyny or "me too" or whatever)? I don't think so.

It is a mystery a la Jacob's Ladder or Spider Forest? There's no puzzle that can be figured out, although Clayton-12 gives it a very good go (and I really enjoyed reading that interpretation).

Is it a revenge fantasy, a la Last House on the Left? If it is, Asami gets revenge on the one fellow who was committing himself to her and the relationship, best I could tell. And tries to get the boy killed as well.

Do we have an unreliable narrator? Certainly. Shigeharu of course, but even Asami. There are scenes that call into question whether her backstory is reliable/accurate. But here's the thing. If the characters are unreliable, the author or director better damn well be reliable at some point.

I'd say that if Miike were trying for any of the above, he failed. But I don't give him credit for even trying. Look at so many of the posts in this thread. "Toying with us." "An excuse to set up a [disturbing amputation scene]."

You don't get to toy with me or assault me without setting it up so that I believe the director is acting in good faith. I do not see Miike acting in good faith.

I think I mentioned this before, but the second time I watched the film was immediately after the first. Probably 15 years ago. I turned on the commentary, which, if I recall does not even start until the scene where Shigeharu falls backward in his house. At one point (I can't recall if it was during the "is it a dream or not" sequence, or the actual piano wire sequence), I figured, ok here I'll get an answer. Or at least, some insight into what the director was attempting. Miike's commentary? "Man, I don't know what's going on here. I think the screenwriter was on drugs." If that's not a verbatim quote, it's pretty damn close.

Miike doesn't know and he doesn't care. All he wants to do is provoke a reaction.

There are plenty of movies where the entire purpose is to assault the viewer. Chop up people in kewl ways with barely a plot. I don't like those movies either. There has to be more.

I honestly think if Miike read Clayton-12's thoughts, he would laugh at him. Not because they are not good and interesting thoughts (they are 100X more interesting than anything I saw on the screen), but because Miike sees us as fools who will bite at anything as long as it is "cool." Like the author who writes a sex scene, and some lit class presents a deconstructed thesis on how this act symbolizes this and the woman's reaction says something about society, blah blah blah, and the author says "you guys are whack--this one guy is fucking that girl; there's nothing more to it."

This one girl (Asami) turns a few guys into gorks. And there's nothing more to it. That sums it up for me. Well done, Miike! Well done! (How the fuck do you make a rolleyes smilie?)

 

[sitenoise]

Looks like you haven't come around on this one.

Sometimes I like to deconstruct movies and sometimes I think deconstructing movies is stupid. Both approaches are me trying to articulate some reaction. And I have random lines that when crossed accelerate my reaction in one direction or another. Was it too empty, or too attempted message-y? Too button-pushy or too chicken shit?

I mentioned my distaste for the agent character. His 'role' in the 'story' was essential, to some degree, but the way it was cast and portrayed was wrong. Another thing Miike did wrong was to let the bag dude out of the bag. So Asami could feed him her vomit? Please. It should have remained a mystery. Those were the only times I think Miike let his baser instincts take over. The amputation scene wasn't exploitative. It was modern dance! How do I articulate that difference? I have to make shit up. Draw lines. It's all so random. Wanting an answer is a false hope.

I think we all agree @clayton-12 did an outstanding job deconstructing the film. And as we all know (hehe, don't we?), deconstruction can only take place after the author has been removed from the work. As I mentioned, the most beautiful thing about @clayton-12's deconstruction was this part of his preface: "how much resonance the first half of the film would have if it was being released for the first time today". That completely rests my case that there isn't ever anything, ever, in any film, ever ... except what we bring to it.

I like these arty guys like Miike, Sono, Kim Ki-duk, and I most like them when they appear to not know what they are doing. They are just improvising. But you have to have some special sauce when you improvise. Technique alone will get you nowhere. On the other hand, I like Paul Thomas Anderson who makes films where every single frame seems to have some purpose, some 'knowing' behind it.

So I have said nothing here. I just didn't want your post to hang out there to dry.

 

[clayton-12]

Miike's commentary? "Man, I don't know what's going on here. I think the screenwriter was on drugs."

I'm guessing I wouldn't get too far with you if I was sing the praises of Miike's irreverent and absurdist commentaries

 

[plsletitrain]

I'm quite surprised, what with me and @divemaster13 tastes somehow align a lot of times, that you aren't moved by the movie at all. Or at least elicit a reaction more than what you wrote. I'm even more surprised that it was me and @sitenoise who are (kind of) on the same boat on this one. What happened?

Miike doesn't know and he doesn't care. All he wants to do is provoke a reaction.

Aren't films (or any form of art) supposed to be like that--provoke a reaction, take an effect on the recipient of the medium?

I guess this all boils down to formula. I guess Miike's formula here didn't work for you. I found his formula here to be flawless. Heck I can justify that vomit-feeding scene just because. Directors could show us vomit-inducing bloody violence everywhere and one can still appreciate it if it suited you. Or he can just place a woman on a moving vehicle while staring at the window pensively and someone will call it art . He could either wow us or we can just make the assumption that he's a talentless hack who just got lucky that his viewers are all claytonses. One can take a pick. As a stand-alone film, I think Audition uses a formula we've seen countless times. A light romance introduction turned eerie and ultimately disturbing. But why did I like it? Maybe because I'll never get tired of that formula. I don't know if the director manipulated me (how do ever define what's manipulative these days--note sitenoise's gun on the table example) or he was just plain lucky that he bagged this story and shot wonderfully executed scenes. All I know is I love the film. I guess I'm just finding an excuse to "justify" that love. Sorry. lol

 

[plsletitrain]

If I can find one spot where Miike inadvertently or purposely forgot or missed about or whatever is that secretary who was secretly in love with Shigeharu. She had so much of the spotlight at the beginning, putting us on guard of her possible vital role, only to reveal that she'll do nothing more than partake in that mysterious blow job.

 

[divemaster13]

I appreciate the feedback on my panning of a much-admired film. I know I'm the outlier here, and I probably didn't do a very good job of voicing exactly why this movie hackled me the way it did. For example, the concept of being manipulated. I LOVE being manipulated by a director. If it's done a certain way. Puzzle movies; heist movies; scam movies; etc., all rely on the director tricking you, misleading you, pulling the rug out from under you. Melodrama is nothing BUT manipulation, right? The director will stop at nothing to jerk those tears right out of you.

It's hard to explain where I draw the line between manipulation that works (A Moment to Remember) and when it doesn't (Scent of Chrysanthemums). I just go from my gut. A movie like Saw, I say "bravo." A movie like Audition, I say NO. You do NOT get to treat me that way.

I'm guessing I wouldn't get too far with you if I was sing the praises of Miike's irreverent and absurdist commentaries

LOL, yeah, I accounted that Miike was probably just playing the joker. But this was just another instance on where I felt like he was not joking with me, where we're all in on the fun; but instead saying "Ha ha, the joke's on YOU."

 

[sitenoise]

A movie like Audition, I say NO. You do NOT get to treat me that way.

Can you say more about that part? I know, as you say, "it's hard to explain where [we] draw the line between manipulation that works" and that which doesn't.

You aren't upset that Miike starts out with a traditional type rom-dram, and then one party amputates the other party's foot? On principle, or playing the "bad execution" card?

I don't think the gear shift can be objected to on principle, and it's the execution that made the film work so well, for me. So, I'm genuinely curious.