Reviews

The historical facts are that John Smith and Pocahontas never had any kind of romantic affair and in fact she married a white man named Rolfe. There is absolutely no mention of a romance between the two in any primary source of the time. See Smith's "A Generall Historie" from 1624 for the most complete primary account. The myth of a romance was a creation of romance writers who felt the need to narrativize the relationship between the two into something that would sell. In reality, she was an ambassador for her people and even traveled to England to meet the queen, with Rolfe. So if Disney and the like want to make some movie about a white guy and native woman in love-great go for it-but that is no reason to distort history for our kids, whose parents are most likely not informed enough themselves to contradict the movie.

Praising or dismissing "Dolls" as pure aesthetics is just a banal way of labeling something that is beautiful which does not lend itself to immediate understanding. Just because any number of the meanings of the film don't jump out and bite the viewer is no reason to dismiss it as only aesthetically pleasing. We've got plenty of nature scenes and people starring blankly into space in cinema. They are not all masterpieces and "Dolls" would not be even half decent if that's all it was. If you feel the need to like this movie, then a better expression of this feeling is need than saying, "It's purdy."

As for myself I found there we several themes running through the film that merit investigation. First of all, the idea of hierarchy in relationships. In all the relationship there was a clearly dominant partner (yakuza, pop-star, groom) and a clear subservient partner (lady on bench, fan, discarder girlfriend). At the beginning of the film their supremacy is flaunted. They come and go as they please and treat the other member of the relationship flippantly and with little regard. They believe themselves to be the more powerful person in the relationship and think they are not as dependent on the so-called weaker member as the weaker member is on them. So times passes, some strange occurrences take place and whom do these people come back to? Who are the most important people in their lives? Those weaker partners. In the end, they and we realize that the stronger or more assertive member in a relationship is just as dependent on the weaker member as the weaker is on the strong. In this context they are seen as both playing roles essential to the relationship, the fact that one is more forceful than the other does not undermine the importance of the less assertive person¡¦s role. Of course this is not to be taken literally and applied to all relationships but it is a comment on or investigation of the idea of stronger and weaker partners in a relationship. The ultimate conclusion is a deconstruction of the hierarchy that shows the partners to be equal or at least codependent.

The next question is: "Why were all of these relationships unsuccessful?" My ascertation is that this plays into the strict nature of Japanese culture and Kitano's own morose sense of destiny, seen most vividly in "Sonatine". All the male characters make major life mistakes in the film. They attempt to rectify them by seeking comfort in the person they have wronged, or in the case of the blind man in the person with the closest connection. Why are they not allowed to start again? Why do they all fail? So many films are about starting over, that it's never too late to turn over a new leaf, old dogs can learn new tricks etc, etc. While I'm quite glad this is not the story of a spunky middle-aged former soccer mom who finds true love the second time around, I don't see the point in the absolute negation of the power of reconciliation. You'll have to ask Kitano about all that. I'm no Japanese cultural expert, though I have been there, but this seems to fall in line with the rather strict and unforgiving personality of Japanese society. If you've made a major mistake you have to accept it and take all the consequences willingly and bow to whatever your fate may be in response to those consequences. Kitano seems to embrace this idea of not being able to escape destiny in many films, I already mentioned "Sonatine" as a particularly poignant example of this.

I still think the ¡§Hanabai¡¨ is Kitano¡¦s best work, although watching a bunch of psychotic Japanese people run into walls and fall flailing into moats on Takeshi¡¦s Castle is good too. Dolls is interesting, worth a look and still better than 99% of films out there.

This film is what happens when you get a bunch of creepy Japanese animators with too much time on their hands. This film is utterly pointless. A girl wanders around a compound full of ghosts looking for her parents avoiding alot of gruemsome muck. The main charachter has no character. She goes from one weird place to another hardly commenting or expressing anything, outside of the stereotypical eye thing japanamation likes to do. It's full of monsters and ghosts doing vague and unusual things trying to be scary. I'm not for being spoon fed meaning in nice bite sized packages but this makes "Brazil" seem focused and straightforward. The film, like many of the charachters, just wanders and lingers around like an alztimer's patient trying to find his way out of a run down funhouse. Visually it is pleasing, but so is my blender. If you want to see a bunch of well illustrated weird stuff with no point whatsoever then this is the film for you.