By comparison, Gabriele Salvatores's I'm Not Scared, which I think was the best movie that opened in the United States last year, expertly makes use of the elements of naturalism and romance in conjunction. I'm Not Scared more shrewdly begins by showing that children are very much prey to vice and then has the little boy protagonist lift himself above the vices of both his playmates and of all the adults around them by making a heroic effort to save a kidnaping victim. The movie is charged with naturalistic detail about brutally limited rural life, but it ideas about moral development in children become operative by means of the romance narrative.
In Nobody Knows, Kore-eda's technique tells you that nobody's watching these kids but you're always aware of the director's sympathy behind his aesthetically disciplined gaze. It's that sympathy that returns and so gives meaning to Yuki's uncomprehendingly pained eyes. Unfortunately, Kore-eda's sympathy is less interesting than the situation that he has transformed to generate that sympathy. (The movie is based on an actual 1988 incident in Tokyo, but Kore-eda admits to IndieWire that the movie is "almost entirely fiction.")
Something similar happens in Kore-eda's After Life (1999), the ingenious premise of which is that the dead are allowed to take a single memory with them to the next world. To determine which memory they'll keep, bureaucrats spend a week interviewing them; once the memory is selected a recreation is filmed that will play in place of the living memory of the actual event. It's not at all a cynical vision: the bureaucrats, dead men and women themselves, are competent and sensitive. With an easy prospect, like the old woman Kimiko Tatara, they may get right to her memory of a formal dance she performed for her adored older brother. A tougher prospect may have to view years and years of videotaped experience before making a decision. (Anyone who can't, or refuses to, select a memory becomes an interviewer.)
In After Life Kore-eda's technique is subjected to the rigors of the premise--the interviewers work against a deadline and each character presents a plot arc with a pre-defined endpoint. At its best moments the premise is also purified by the technique. The scene in which the old lady teaches the dance to the little girl playing her at the age she was at the time, or of a man's flight on a biplane, are both "nifty" and amazingly unforced. When his instincts are just right, Kore-eda has both the perfect technique and the perfect touch for suggesting (without explicitly defining) the immanence of human experience.
![The Children Are Watching Us [VHS]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Z9CH71BRL._SL120_.jpg)
![Forbidden Games [VHS]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KNSV58P8L._SL120_.jpg)
![Two Daughters [VHS]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/416JMW46S1L._SL120_.jpg)
![Shoot the Moon [VHS]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/216MQY0FBHL._SL120_.jpg)
Article comments
1 - Aaman
Phenomenal review - the film can also be seen as a paean to cities - silent, brooding, a main character in the film itself.
2 - Alan Dale
Thanks. An interesting idea about the city. It's sort of like nature: abundant but indifferent to your survival.
I meant to comment on something you said in the Million Dollar Baby thread, but the static got too loud.
You wrote with respect to structuralism: "The old 'there are only six stories, and seven characters' argument - a terrifying thought to any writer, if true."
First, I'd say that no critical idea is "true." They're just ways of organizing your thoughts and reactions to the primary material. And all ideas, all distinctions, break down at the edges (e.g., the distinction b/w periods, novels and romance, prose and poetry, fiction and non-fiction). Some break down at the center! The odd thing to me about the Million Dollar Baby hubbub was that I was essentially being called a pretentious, know-it-all prick by people who were insisting there's a right way and a wrong way to practice criticism, which I would never dream of saying. Criticism is just a way of prolonging the pleasure of the primary work it addresses--to each his own. (And don't get me started on the worthlessness of arguments ad hominem.)
Second, structuralism radically reduces the number of genres but not characters. I love applying to random works Northrop Frye's idea that there are only four planes of action in fiction--heaven, the earthly paradise, earth, and hell--and all storytelling involves either descent or ascent from one level to another. But even if you accept this as a premise, character, which seems to derive essentially from allegory, that is, from the personification of human virtues and vices, is far from being as limited.
Thanks again for the comment.