この映画の主役は女性だが、
個人的には男性陣がすごく印象に残った。
お笑い芸人、空気階段の水川かたまりさんは
男の持つ小さなプライドと嫉妬、
父親としての顔を見せてくれる。
工藤阿須加さんは、
男の表向きのイイ顔と、
自覚なく、悪意なく実行する狡猾さを見せる。
筒井道隆さんは、
男の持つ動じない図太さ、
間違っているはずがないという
思い込みの強さが少しだけ懐かしい。
鈴鹿央士さんは、
男の最後の良心。
今の年齢、その容姿ゆえに、説得力を持つと思う。
これからどんな役を演じるのか凄く楽しみ。
一番持っていかれたのは酒向芳さんだ。
フリからの出オチでこれ以上のものを
映画で見たことない。
それに留まらず、セリフじゃなく
表情で魅せるとはこのことかと唸ってしまった。
酒向さんなしでは後半、成り立たないと個人的には感じた。
男性、女性ともに一枚岩ではなく、
みんな良い人ではないところが
とても現実的だった。
この映画の背景の時代、
自分はちょうど就職したばかりだったので、
セクハラを取り巻く状況は、
確かにこんな感じだったと覚えている。
ここがスタートでいま30年以上経った。
少しずつだけど、映画の中で言われていた
世の中の変化は確かに起こった。
その時とは違う変化した常識になっている。
日本では、あの頃よりは女性の地位は上がったと思いたい。
それはあくまで日本でのやり方でだ。
世界は同じようには進んでいない。
国によっては30年前の日本みたいな状況の国もある。
昨今の海外からの移民への過敏な反応は、
男女観、家族観、宗教観など、
異なる時代の常識や価値観が、同時に存在しているために
引き起こされたのかもしれない。
一部の価値観や常識は、
この映画で描かれた日本すら通過していない。
下手したら半世紀くらいの差がある。
いろんなドラマで描かれ始めているけど、
日本でも時代が隔たれた人が
もし同時期に存在することがあれば摩擦を生むように。
我々の違和感の正体はこれなのかな？
と映画を見終わって考えてしまった。
The main characters in this film are women, but personally, it was the men who left the strongest impression on me.
Katamari Mizukawa of the comedy duo Kuki Kaidan shows us a man’s small pride and jealousy, as well as his face as a father.
Asuka Kudo shows us the agreeable face a man presents to the world, and the kind of cunning he can exercise without even realizing it, without any conscious malice.
Michitaka Tsutsui embodies a certain unshakable thick-skinned confidence in men—the firm conviction that they simply cannot be wrong.
There was something almost nostalgic about it.
Oji Suzuka represents the last remaining conscience among the men.
I think his current age and appearance give the role a particular credibility.
I’m really looking forward to seeing what kinds of roles he takes on from here.
But the actor who completely stole the film for me was Yoshi Sako.
I don’t think I have ever seen a better setup followed by such a perfectly timed visual punchline in a film.
And it doesn’t stop there.
Watching him captivate the audience not through dialogue, but simply through his facial expressions, made me think, So this is what it means to act with your face.
Personally, I felt that the second half of the film simply would not work without Sako.
Neither the men nor the women are presented as a monolithic group, and not everyone is a good person.
That felt very realistic.
During the period in which this film is set, I had only just started working myself.
And I remember very clearly that attitudes surrounding sexual harassment really were like this.
That was the starting point, and more than thirty years have now passed.
Little by little, the kind of social change spoken about in the film really has happened.
What was once considered normal is no longer the same.
At least in Japan, I would like to think that the position of women has improved since those days.
But that is the change that happened in Japan.
The rest of the world has not necessarily moved forward in the same way.
There are still countries where circumstances resemble Japan thirty years ago.
Perhaps some of the heightened reactions today toward immigrants from overseas are caused by the fact that different assumptions and values—about gender, family, religion, and society—belonging, in a sense, to different eras, are now existing side by side at the same time.
Some of those values and social assumptions have not even passed through the stage of Japan depicted in this film.
In some cases, the gap may be half a century.
Even within Japan, if people separated by that much historical distance were somehow made to live in the same period, friction would surely arise.
Perhaps that is the true source of the discomfort we sometimes feel.
That was what I found myself thinking about after the film ended.