Afterthoughts on Evil Does Not Exist

[Connor McMorran]

Hi everyone,

Thank you, as always, for the showing last night. I think the post-film discussion did a lot to emphasise the multiplicities of readings in response to a particular text – especially concerning how certain actions and visuals are understood, both as static things and as part of a wider continuity with both the rest of the film and extra-filmic elements, such as the title, place of production, dominant ideological attitudes, and so on. So this ending can be read simultaneously as a father’s attempt to protect his daughter and as his desire to be free from his daughter. At the same time, and given my bias towards the metaphysical this is probably unsurprising, we might also read in the conclusion an attempt to grapple with notions of morality beyond human reason, where nature, or something more abstract, like balance, comes to be the legislating source of moral value. We might also consider it as a culmination, a conflict, between the interests of capital and the drive to prevent nature from becoming commodified. The film’s title prompts an ethical consideration of what occurs, and its ultimate ambiguity led to a varied and interesting range of understandings and, I hope, fruitful discussion.  

A few thoughts I had that I didn’t get around to sharing:

This idea of natural metabolism I brought up in the introduction I think provides one way to consider the style and pace of the film, which is very much concerned with capturing duration. We might read this as the film depicting a mode of living which aligns with the metabolic processes found in nature, for example, the picking of the wild wasabi is about extracting what is necessary from already existing natural processes.

There is a rather significant gesture which occurs twice within the film, this being the removal of the hat. Takumi (whose name, incidentally, means 'skillful') does this during his speech at the community meeting, at the point that he begins to discuss balance, and at the end Hana (meaning 'flower') removes her hat as she approaches the deer. There is something to this gesture, be it a kind of acknowledgement, or perhaps even an enlightenment, that finds its significance in its repetition between father and daughter.

Finally, some consideration for the deer, both the wounded deer and the other deer who rests at their side (which could possibly be calling back to the corpse in the forest). The way in which the wounded deer is shown to us is, I feel, a deeply uncanny experience. It aligned with Schelling’s notion of the uncanny, namely that it evoked a feeling that what is being witnessed is something hidden that has been brought into the light, and become perceptible. Something old and forgotten, or repressed. This of course helps my more metaphysical, symbolic reading of the film’s end, where what we, and the characters, see is not a literal encounter with the deer, but rather an apparition or vision. The deer could therefore be seen as alluding to nature, balance, a spectre of non-anthropocentric moral order, something like that.

Thanks again, and best wishes to you all,

Connor

[Julie McMorran]

Hi Everyone

I had more thoughts as well. While watching the film, I was reminded of two quite disparate films: for the general feeling of it and the rather mystical ending, I thought of Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives, and for the environmental subject matter and the battle between preserving nature, versus the development of land, the Alexander Payne film The Descendants! Like I said, quite different films ;- )

Another thought was about the ending, in that perhaps the father's actions were purely frustration and anger and a redirection of those feelings onto the one 'being' nearby who he could hurt. Linking that to the title is perhaps oversimplifying it, but perhaps even 'nice' people can commit evil acts when pushed to the brink of their negative emotions? 

Similar to Connor's point about the deer, I found the deer at the end to look quite unlike deer - there was something surreal about the scene, but especially the injured deer. I'm sure this was deliberate and intended for us to attempt to fathom the more mystical aspects of the film.

The apparent 'freedom' of the deer was in sharp contrast to the farmed cows, who had a life of sheer misery. Throughout the film, we saw Hana at one with nature, however the glimpse of the cows' restricted lives was clearly disturbing to her - and to the viewer. There was also the clear environmental problem of effluent contamination of the land and water. I think this was important, given the director's lingering shot of the steaming dung. For me, there was a clear link between that and the environmental issue of the film being septic tanks that wouldn't be large enough for the number of people 'glamping', and thus the resulting contamination of the water.

The two hat scenes that Connor mentions are really interesting, particularly as they both removed their hats in an identical manner. Why would they do that?

It was an interesting film and one I'll watch again sometime to try and glean more 'answers' from it. The discussion was intriguing, with plenty of insights about what may have just happened!

Best wishes

Julie

 

---

From: monday-nigh...@googlegroups.com <monday-nigh...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Connor McMorran <connorm...@gmail.com>
Sent: 30 April 2024 09:31
To: monday-nigh...@googlegroups.com <monday-nigh...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Afterthoughts on Evil Does Not Exist

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Robert Burns Centre Monday Night Film Club" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to monday-night-film...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/monday-night-film-club/CADBOnof3tNyFsknQEpO-6vSwZt%3DFsEeRum%2B30CwyHOH6n57-AQ%40mail.gmail.com.