A strange cinematic fable that may have gone over our reviewer's
head.
I had great hopes for Air Doll (Kuuki
ningyô) by the Japanese director, Hirokazu Kore-eda, of the
wonderful
After Life(Wandâfuru
raifu) of 1998. That was
a sort of metaphysical romance, like Groundhog Day, in
which a hitherto undiscovered spirit-world inhabited by the dead
proves the locale for moving and persuasive life-lessons designed
for our world. This kind of thing is very hard to pull off,
however, and Air Doll, which is more of a parable than a
romance, doesn't quite succeed. Or at least I don't think it
does. But it should also be said that this is one of the very few
movies I have seen in 20 years of reviewing of which I don't
quite know what to make -- or even whether or not I like it. It
is possible that I am missing some important pieces of the puzzle
and need to go back and see it at least a couple of more times
before pronouncing on it.
My immediate reaction, however, is that it goes on for too
long, tries to do too much, and so ends up being too boring. The
best bit is a brilliant comic scene stranded in a sea of
philosophizing. As for the philosophizing itself, the parts that
I got were not hard to get, and, having got them, I didn't think
they needed to be dwelt on so much as they were. The parts that I
didn't get I guess had to do with a breakdown of formal
boundaries. What might have been a beautiful and moving parable
proves unwilling to remain within its parabolic boundaries and
tries instead to become a comic book fantasy of a now
too-familiar kind, a sort of feminist updating of Pinocchio for
the age of utopian sex.
A waiter named Hideo (Itsuji Itao) possesses a life-sized
plastic sex doll whom he names Nozomi. He dresses her in a maid's
uniform and sits her down at the table with him when he comes
home to eat his own humble evening meal and proceeds to talk to
her about his day at work. There ensues one quite revolting
sex-scene between them in which the authentic sounds of flesh
rubbing against plastic may be meant as comedy but only added to
the disgust, of this viewer at any rate, at such a degrading
spectacle. Yet in retrospect I think the unpleasantness of the
opening might have led into more profitable avenues than does
what actually happens next, which is that the doll comes to life
and begins talking to us in voiceover. Her first word is
"beautiful" -- addressed to the world through Hideo's window. She
also tells us that "I am air-doll, a substitute for handling
sexual desire." As if we didn't know.
As I say, this kind of thing is extremely hard to bring off
-- at least partly because, once you start off with what amounts
to a miracle, there's really no place to go from there.
Everything else is anti-climactic. Now played by the
striking-looking actress Doona Bae, Nozomi, wanders off into the
city while Hideo is at work and finds a job in a video-rental
store where she meets a young man named Junichi (Arata) and falls
in love. Junichi discovers, through an accident, that Nozomi
contains nothing but air beneath her pleasing surface and affects
a similar emptiness of his own. This turns out not to be true.
She also meets a philosophical old man, a former substitute
teacher (get it?) who proclaims such emptiness to be the normal
condition of everyone in the city, these days. Oh dear. Nozomi
returns to Hideo and resumes her doll-like form at night.
There is thus a kind of parody of a drama of love,
betrayal, and infidelity given a distinctive character by
Nozomi's dawning self-awareness and childlike wonder at the
beauty and unfamiliarity of the world, which we look at through
her eyes. But a little of this goes a long way, and we turn with
some relief to a wonderfully bizarre comic scene when Nozomi
comes home and finds Hideo in bed with a different doll. Having
found a heart, as she tells him -- the first he is aware of it --
she has also found heartbreak. "What do you like about me?" she
asks Hideo like any betrayed and reproachful wife. "You don't
know, do you? Even Nozomi is your old girlfriend's name."
"You read my blog!" cries Hideo.
"It doesn't have to be me, right?" she asks him. It's an
absurd question, coming from a doll, but one that is naturally
inseparable from the humanity that has been somehow called forth
in her. Of course, as we realize and she cannot, what Hideo likes
about her is just that it doesn't have to be her -- that
she has no identity apart from that which he projects onto her
with his sexual attentions. Similarly, when the (married) video
store proprietor (Ryo Iwamatsu) blackmails her into a sexual
encounter by threatening to tell Junichi about Hideo -- or is it
Hideo about Junichi? -- he whispers to her in medias
res: "You do this with anybody, don't you?" The dirty girl
with no heart and unlimited sexual pliancy is both attractive and
repellant and much better without the heart she doesn't know what
to do with.
Meanwhile, though Junichi assures her that, so far as he's
concerned, she's "not a substitute for anyone," he gets turned on
by deflating her and then blowing her back up. As this is for her
an act of love, she offers to do the same for him. He aspires to
doll-hood, just as she aspires to humanity. But humanity is what
everyone around her is fed up with. At the end of the last scene
with Hideo, she reproaches him for lusting after a doll, either
herself or her own substitute, in a recognizably human way:
"You're sad that I found a heart," she tells him. "I'm
annoying."
"It's not you who are annoying," he calls after her as she
runs out the door. "Humans are!"
I think the movie would have been better if it had stopped
here instead of pushing the boundaries of its limited concept to
encompass such philosophical reflections on the part of the
(literally) air-headed doll as this. "It seems life is
constructed in a way that no one can fulfill it alone. Life
contains its own absence, which only an other can fulfill. It
seems the world is the summation of others, and yet we neither
know nor are told that we will fulfill each other. We lead our
scattered lives, perfectly unaware of each other. Or at times,
allowed to find the Other's presence disagreeable Why is it, that
the world is constructed so loosely?" And why is it, I want to
ask her, that you wear a helmet when you ride on the back of
Junichi's motorbike? Both her and Mr Kore-eda's reaching after
significance like this rather spoils what is good about the
movie, in my view -- but that may only be because I cannot reach
so far myself.
About the Author
James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.
Sounds interesting, but I'll stick with Groundhog Day,
no "flesh rubbing against plastic"in that film.
Most ironic is that back in the early days of erotica (in 1969 it
suddenly became the In-Thing to disrobe) there was a fear that it
would become overstimulating, when today it appears it has become
more rote, empty, than hyperstimulating.
Today's "erotica"-- or lack thereof-- has become stylized as
mobster/pimp fantasy: simian "actors" having sex with whores,
which is what mobsters and pimps enjoy; but IMO it is celluloid
saltpeter.
I remember the night in 1968 my Mom came home after seeing the
play 'Hair' that my father had conned her into attending. She
said some of the actors and actresses removed their clothing at
one point.
"It was shocking...", she exclaimed.
But not anymore.
KyMouse| 7.9.10 @ 3:16PM
Mr. Brooks, in 1970, my parents took me to see Diana Rigg in the
London stage play "Abelard and Heloise." I wanted to see her
because I had enjoyed her role as Emma Peel in "The Avengers."
Lots of other people bought tickets because they wanted to see
her nude scene (with Keith Mitchell).
The much-anticipated scene was bathed in blindingly bright-blue
light to the extent that it was difficult to make out any, shall
we say, contours on either person. And it was over very quickly.
For the era, however, I suppose it was pretty darn daring.
One ungallant critic wrote that Ms. Rigg was "built like a brick
mausoleum with insufficient flying buttresses." Years later, she
said that among actors, the show had been known as "On-Your-Knees
and Gobble-Hard."
Tame stuff by today's standards.
Alan Brooks| 7.9.10 @ 4:35PM
Rigg could have been wearing a body sock.
After reading your comment, Ky, come to think of it, 1970 was
when the rules were dissolved; 1969 still had a thin lid on it.
At any rate, to this day Manet's Luncheon On the Grass is no less
erotic (if erotic is what someone wants) than anything since. In
other words (I can do sociology but not philosophy) no 'progress'
since Manet, you could remove all of the erotic effluvia since
then and IMO it would change little or nothing... if change is
what you want, it goes without saying.
Mr. Bowman's piece makes me want to see the film, but erotic
entertainment is merely surplus to requirements to me, not
sinful, just gratuitous. There is a novel by a well-known
Oregonian (can't remember his name) the main plot being an
airplane hijacking; a subplot is a huge landfill project wherein
all the "outdated porn is disposed of."
Another is a 1964 review of Selby's Last Exit To Brooklyn (to
paraphrase): "this book ought not be censored; it is so
revolting, reading it will turn many away from an interest in
sex."
Right on target, whomever the reviewer was..
Beer For My Horses| 7.9.10 @ 11:40AM
Can’t wait to see it. The humorous / erotic film possibilities of
blow-up dolls has intrigued ever since Otto the Autopilot made
his movie debut in “Airplane” 30 years ago. I’m still laughing
our loud.
Jocon307| 7.9.10 @ 8:52PM
Beer, then you should try "Lars and the real girl" I think that's
what it's called. It might be "lars and the real doll".
It is a recent movie about a fellow and his girl friend, one of
the very life-like sex dolls.
I don't know much about it, but it got a lot of reviews, so I
don't think it is porn. But I did think of it right away when I
saw this review.
Alan Brooks| 7.9.10 @ 10:12AM
Sounds interesting, but I'll stick with Groundhog Day,
no "flesh rubbing against plastic"in that film.
Most ironic is that back in the early days of erotica (in 1969 it suddenly became the In-Thing to disrobe) there was a fear that it would become overstimulating, when today it appears it has become more rote, empty, than hyperstimulating.
Today's "erotica"-- or lack thereof-- has become stylized as mobster/pimp fantasy: simian "actors" having sex with whores, which is what mobsters and pimps enjoy; but IMO it is celluloid saltpeter.
I remember the night in 1968 my Mom came home after seeing the play 'Hair' that my father had conned her into attending. She said some of the actors and actresses removed their clothing at one point.
"It was shocking...", she exclaimed.
But not anymore.
KyMouse| 7.9.10 @ 3:16PM
Mr. Brooks, in 1970, my parents took me to see Diana Rigg in the London stage play "Abelard and Heloise." I wanted to see her because I had enjoyed her role as Emma Peel in "The Avengers." Lots of other people bought tickets because they wanted to see her nude scene (with Keith Mitchell).
The much-anticipated scene was bathed in blindingly bright-blue light to the extent that it was difficult to make out any, shall we say, contours on either person. And it was over very quickly. For the era, however, I suppose it was pretty darn daring.
One ungallant critic wrote that Ms. Rigg was "built like a brick mausoleum with insufficient flying buttresses." Years later, she said that among actors, the show had been known as "On-Your-Knees and Gobble-Hard."
Tame stuff by today's standards.
Alan Brooks| 7.9.10 @ 4:35PM
Rigg could have been wearing a body sock.
After reading your comment, Ky, come to think of it, 1970 was when the rules were dissolved; 1969 still had a thin lid on it. At any rate, to this day Manet's Luncheon On the Grass is no less erotic (if erotic is what someone wants) than anything since. In other words (I can do sociology but not philosophy) no 'progress' since Manet, you could remove all of the erotic effluvia since then and IMO it would change little or nothing... if change is what you want, it goes without saying.
Mr. Bowman's piece makes me want to see the film, but erotic entertainment is merely surplus to requirements to me, not sinful, just gratuitous. There is a novel by a well-known Oregonian (can't remember his name) the main plot being an airplane hijacking; a subplot is a huge landfill project wherein all the "outdated porn is disposed of."
Another is a 1964 review of Selby's Last Exit To Brooklyn (to paraphrase): "this book ought not be censored; it is so revolting, reading it will turn many away from an interest in sex."
Right on target, whomever the reviewer was..
Beer For My Horses| 7.9.10 @ 11:40AM
Can’t wait to see it. The humorous / erotic film possibilities of blow-up dolls has intrigued ever since Otto the Autopilot made his movie debut in “Airplane” 30 years ago. I’m still laughing our loud.
Jocon307| 7.9.10 @ 8:52PM
Beer, then you should try "Lars and the real girl" I think that's what it's called. It might be "lars and the real doll".
It is a recent movie about a fellow and his girl friend, one of the very life-like sex dolls.
I don't know much about it, but it got a lot of reviews, so I don't think it is porn. But I did think of it right away when I saw this review.
Alan Brooks| 7.9.10 @ 4:57PM
Bah,
carnal overkill.