Jigoku no banken: akai megane

Red spectacles

I loved Avalon, I think This director has made some awesome demented visions of the future. This film however was boring pretentious crap. The opening scene showed great promise for what the cover art and description promise a surreal live action amimae style future noir. I feel I got that with Avalon.

With Red Spectacles I was only driven to feel a uncomfortable to desire to what the hell the point was. The film barely made sense to me and I could not care less about the people in it. This would all be ok if the film was effective art. While the opening scene looked interesting and the scene with the giant robot-suit person holding the giant machine gun in the rain looked cool, it did not watch the film worth watching.

Thumbs down.

I too am a big fan of Oshii's anime work, but I have to admit I went into this movie expecting an action packed movie such that it starts out as, and it ends up being something akin to Lynch's Mullhuland Dr. I was perfectly willing to accept that, and I enjoy all kinds of movies, and would particulary enjoy a very high brained live action anime type flick, and the visuals where spectacular in many scenes. However, I wish someone who saw this film would explain in depth more about what exactly was going on, as they saw it. I have to admit that I didn't get half of what happened in the last half of the film, and I would consider myself pretty versed in metaphoric interpretation of film.

According to others what was being shown is a reflection of the confusion of the character trying to find out what happened to his friends who he left and let die? Perhaps only in that the viewer is confused by what they're seeing?

I don't know, but if you consider when this movie was made, in 87, it was extremely advanced in quality of the film.

I watched the trilogy by Mamoru Oshii. The words surreal, Orwellian and Kafkaesque come to mind. However, despite all their bizarre aspects I believe they are essentially jokes. The darkness was there as a chiaroscuro backdrop to highlight the humor. The first, Red Spectacles, is about a man who can not let go of his past not matter how painful and dangerous it was because he never felt more alive that when he was facing death. The second, Stray Dog, shows that man during an interim period when he seems to be almost at peace, being brought back to that death-seeking modus operandi which precipitates the events of the first film. The third film, Talking Head, while not directly related to the events of the first two, does refer back to them as a man attempts to create truth out of illusion. The idea is that film, as an art form, is essentially an exercise in madness and that illusion is finally a higher truth, an idea that was touched on in the first film. But it is the humor that is Oshii's ultimate goal. He doesn't want to make highly significant pronouncements on the nature of humanity and reality. He just wants to tell a story, and if the story is funny, all the better. I suppose that many parallels could be drawn between Oshii's work and that of Philip K. Dick.

RED SPECTACLES starts typically enough for an Oshii film. First of all it is based on the same manga that much later inspired JIN-ROH so the power suits seen right at the beginning of SPECTACLES will look very familiar to those who've seen that later film. It is also shot in a very desaturated way, kind of similar to AVALON in how it is almost monochromatic. In a series of texts on screen we are introduced to a future world where an elite police force has just been disbanded and forced to disarm. Three officers refused to give up their weapons and it's their fate that this film will mostly be about. They hole up in a dilapidated building and are soon attacked by dozens of civilians who are out to collect the bounty that has been put on their heads. However, with their superior guns they mow them down like so much corn at the time of reaping. But still, only one of them can continue his escape as the other two (a man and a woman) are badly wounded. They make him promise that he'll eventually return and he's off.

The rest of the film is about his return and his adventures in a very changed city. But I was in for a big surprise! If I thought this would be a typically gloomy and melancholic Oshii film at the beginning I soon realized with utter amazement that this is one hell of a weird hybrid of a film. Yes, there are a lot of typical Oshii-esquire moments of philosophizing and melancholy but for every such scene you get one in which the hero suffers from diarrhea and runs around making silly faces while looking for a toilet. There are a total of 3 (!!!) scenes of that in the film and they are acted, filmed and scored (by the once again brilliant Kenji Kawai) like a post-modern Japanese take on LAUREL & HARDY. And to make things even stranger there are also entire scenes set on a theatrical stage! Oshii resorts to simply filming the actors acting like they were in a play, sometimes even resorting to pantomime! Awesome, just awesome! Then, towards the end of the film it takes a turn for the surreal that I won't spoil but it involves a girl who may or may not represent fate, BLADE RUNNER skylines and the mysterious contents of a suitcase.

Well, what can I say? When I popped in this DVD I expected Oshii's patented brand of beautiful and cultivated tedium but instead I got what could possibly be described as a bizarre hybrid of URUSEI YATSURA and GHOST IN THE SHELL with elements of the films of David Lynch thrown in for good measure. I found the film to be extremely ahead of the time it was made in. Even after 15 years RED SPECTACLES still feels fresh and intriguing and thoroughly modern. Which is only further testament to the genius of Mamoru Oshii, who is simply one of the most exciting filmmakers to emerge out of Asia in the last 2 decades.

This is, for lack of a better term, an art film. This should be said from the start, because while many of Oshii's anime films are of a philosophical bent, they hew closely enough to convention to appeal to mainstream movie fans. This film probably does not.

Judging the film as a whole, it makes some interesting philosophical points and pays off at the end. The question is whether this payoff is enough to justify what went before. I am not sure about this.

Normally one assesses a confusing film that can only be fully grasped at the end by looking at that film's secondary characteristics.

Judged as an art film, the movie's technique is expert, but it is not so innovative or visually compelling so as to justify the film by itself. There is nothing wrong with the acting in this movie, but it is not so compelling that it shifts one's focus from the film as a whole.

Judged as a more commercial or mainstream film, this movie is distinctive for its emphasis on humor. That humor is an old-fashioned form of slapstick however, and while this will make the film for some people, if you do not especially like this form of humor, then the fact that it is placed in a confusing and rather dark movie will prevent the individual bits of humor from coalescing into a funny unity greater than the sum of the parts.

The one thing that cannot be denied or dismissed, is that this film is an original one, and is philosophical without being preachy. If this is enough, then you are certain to be satisfied.