Talk:Evil Does Not Exist

Plot

Re edit by 2601:243:2080:7E40:DF4:AE79:759B:7778 (talk · contribs · WHOIS):

"The previous edit had grammar errors and did not factor the contextual filmmaking hinting that the climactic scene with Hana does NOT take place concurrently with Takumi finding her (lack of sound & sudden disappearance of the deer plus the fact that there is no reason for Takumi to let his child be attacked). Takumi did not willingly witness Hana’s fatal injury, he was rabidly reacting to its AFTERMATH, that's how the ‘gutshot deer protecting their young’ parallel works."

Per MOS:PLOT#Plot summaries of individual works: "Where there are narrative ambiguities, for example as a result of an unreliable narrator or storytelling technique, the plot summary must not present interpretations of the creators' intent. In such cases where a true narrative is not immediately obvious, this can be avoided by the use of out-of-universe language to describe the context of how the events are presented. Interpretation of the plot taken from reliable sources can be included elsewhere in the article to provide additional information."

From my own viewing of the film, I can attest that Capuchinpilates's revision of the plot correctly describes what is shown onscreen. Indeed it does not include mention of the underlying interpretation, whatever it may be. I understand the impetus to summarise the ending as you did, but it is not the appropriate way to write fiction summaries on Wikipedia. The "contextual filmmaking hinting" you speak of belongs to your analysis, which introduces bias and original research into the article. The film has been described as "masterfully ambiguous" for a reason. Οἶδα (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Although I still disagree with how the plot is currently written (https://www.polygon.com/24162032/evil-does-not-exists-ending-explained-by-director-ryusuke-hamaguchi), I of course understand that more ambiguous elements of film are tricky to write in plot synopses, but if we are to exclude personal interpretations from these plot summaries, then by that same token, we should certainly not state that the final events of the film definitively happened concurrently, correct? If it's a point of contention, shouldn't we then change the wording so it doesn't state either interpretation and presents the events as objectively as possible? I'd be happy to remove the word "flashback" and other words that suggest a specific past chronology, but I would equally encourage the removal of words that suggest a present-day occurrence as it remains now.

If not though, may I at the very least change the lackluster phrasing and grammar of the other sections of the synopsis ("till unconscious", "wounded from gunshot", etc.)? 2601:243:2080:7E40:DF4:AE79:759B:7778 (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. How would you suggest we resummarise it to be more neutral? And yes, I would not object to you altering the awkward phrasing. Οἶδα (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you as well. I'm thinking this:

"Takumi's daughter goes missing, and the village community searches all evening for Hana. Takumi and Takahashi venture deep into the forest to find her and eventually come out the other side into an open field. Hana is shown in front of a gutshot deer and her calf in the field. Hana is seen approaching the deer, but it attacks Hana off-screen, critically wounding her. Before Takahashi can run over, Takumi pulls him back and knocks him unconscious. Takumi picks up the injured Hana and runs off with her body before Takahashi comes to, struggling to get back up. The sound of labored breathing is heard over a visual of the forest as the light fades from twilight to darkness."

The language here doesn't specify the time/order of events, but still describes the film's ending as objectively as possible. 2601:243:2080:7E40:DF4:AE79:759B:7778 (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it is mostly a fine summary. But I take issue with claiming the deer attacks Hana. That is not visible to the viewer and thus an interpretation. The existing summary more accurately describes her as lying motionless with a bloody nose after we see Takumi choke Takahashi. Whether or not these events are separate, it is what the viewer sees and is rendered even more ambiguous given the characters and their actions are seen several times in the same shots. I cannot find many sources supporting the flashback or "mental reconstruction" theory besides the Polygon article you already mentioned. So I'm not sure how much we should try to balance the summary with that in mind. I have edited the current summary to clear up the grammatical errors and to more objectively summarise what the viewer sees.

Also this is a tangent, but now that I have reviewed the ending several times over it actually appears to me that the calf has been shot. If you zoom in when Hana is facing the deer, you can clearly see a red wound mark on the little one, which then appears in close-up with the same fur color as the calf. Οἶδα (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Good observation on that last point! I re-watched the scene again too and noticed a few other things. Takumi is not seen running "off toward the road", he only enters the forest and it is not stated/shown where he is specifically going. Also, as we were sort of talking about before, stating that "Takahashi moves to stop her" and that the two "see Hana in front of a deer and her calf" does heavily imply a connected present occurrence rather than a chronologically ambiguous wording.

Also, don't mean to press this further, but it was my understanding that the flashback/mental reconstruction interpretation was the most popular as most discussions/forums that talk about the ending commonly bring up that idea:

https://www.vulture.com/article/evil-does-not-exist-is-a-modest-movie-with-a-dark-ending.html

http://eriklundegaard.com/item/movie-review-evil-does-not-exist-2023

https://www.reddit.com/r/Letterboxd/comments/1butlmg/thoughts_on_ending_of_evil_does_not_exist2023/

For now, I'll just clear up some additional phrasing in the current synopsis and leave the interpretation of the ending alone before we figure it out later. 2601:243:2080:7E40:B5A2:97FC:B229:78D1 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't too sure about the running "off toward the road" part either. I will change that phrasing. The mental flashback theory is a compelling interpretation that plays off many of the events and themes. But it is one of a multitude of interpretations a viewer can make.

I read a few interviews with Ryusuke Hamaguchi in Japanese (translated) and he makes it a point to hold his tongue to keep the ending ambiguous, offering only a few restrained comments on Takumi's character and role as a father. He has only been as forthcoming to say that "The most important thing is that it simply happened. I want people to accept that" and that "this is what it must be like". But he has commented that he wanted the abrupt ending to cause the audience to reflect on what they saw and how it connects to what they know about the characters from earlier in the film, but also whether their perspective actually fits the story. It serves to "create conversations and create different interpretations" and "leaves both Takahashi and the audience asking themselves why it happened". I understand the desire for chronologically ambiguous wording, but perhaps we should be cautious to favor any single interpretation. What is shown onscreen may have a deeper visual construction beyond the immediate presentation but that is ultimately left to the viewer to deconstruct. Given the director's proven storytelling tact, it is clear to me that this difficult presentation is not shoddy filmmaking but rather deliberate and carefully handled. Οἶδα (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course I agree that Hamaguchi's chosen presentation was deliberate and careful, this film is one of my all-time favorites out of any released in the past decade, after all.

As mentioned before, I am fully willing to do away with specific interpretations (flashbacks and the like) when writing this summary, I was just explaining my thoughts with other sources above. However, I cannot help but feel that what is currently written contradicts what was discussed earlier: when you say that you "understand the desire for chronologically ambiguous wording, but perhaps we should be cautious to favor any single interpretation", you imply a contradiction in those approaches, but I thought you mentioned earlier that the film is "'masterfully ambiguous' for a reason", and that we should use "'out-of-universe language to describe the context of how the events are presented'". If we leave the plot summary as it remains, then we are willingly connecting the dots to form one single interpretation. If we carefully handle our words as the film does with the ambiguity of its presentation, then we can avoid all these issues altogether and not favor any one specific interpretation.

By deliberately including phrases such as "Takahashi moves to stop her" and "Takumi and Takahashi [...] see Hana in front of a deer and her calf", that is making a one-sided assumption in narrative time and favors one specific interpretation... Again, I am fully willing to exclude the flashback/mental reconstruction interpretation in this summary, but then we must be fair and simultaneously exclude any mention of present-time occurrences as that also presents a biased interpretation all the same.

My synopsis recommendation that I believe is highly neutral and unbiased:

"Takumi's daughter goes missing, and the village community searches all evening for Hana. Takumi and Takahashi venture into the forest to find her and eventually come out the other side, into an open field. Hana is shown in the field approaching a deer and her calf, the latter of which has been gut-shot. Before Takahashi can run over, Takumi tackles him to the ground and chokes him unconscious. Hana is seen lying motionless in the field with a bloody nose before Takumi picks up her body and runs off into the forest. Takahashi comes to, struggling to get back up and subsequently falling down. The sound of labored breathing is faintly heard over a visual of the forest as it fades to darkness." 2601:243:2080:7E40:B5A2:97FC:B229:78D1 (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have just refreshed the summary and see that you actually updated it sometime while I was typing... I should have double-checked the main page before I hit reply, haha. I still disagree with the presentation of "[...]come into a field where Hana is standing[...]" as it still implies a concurrent event, for instance, as if the two arrive at the same time which is up for interpretation as discussed. I also have other phrasing nitpicks, like using "motionless" twice in back-to-back sentences. I also might want to go back and add "sound of footsteps and labored breathing" to the last sentence as the steps are quite audible, perhaps moreso than the breathing. 2601:243:2080:7E40:B5A2:97FC:B229:78D1 (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I was planning to update it after my reply and should have indicated so. I figured you may disagree with that bit. I thought of saying "Takumi and Takahashi come into a field. Hana is standing in front of a deer..." but that felt rather clunky. And the fact is that she is indeed standing in that field and the shot shows us this with no ambiguity. Factoring in this mental reconstruction interpretation any further would frankly be inappropriate because that would imply the ending is unambiguous enough for us to favor one interpretation over another. And the further issue with this accommodation is that while we can write in out-of-universe language we will not be able to add this interpretation of the plot elsewhere in the article because there are not enough reliable sources which come to this conclusion besides the evaluation by Polygon and the brief allusion toward "dream logic" in the conclusion of Vulture's review. This leaves the interpretation rather novel and would only introduce bias and original research into the article.

But this is perhaps beside the point because I believe your revised summary is accurate and phrased well. Would you like to repost it again with the additions/corrections you alluded to? Οἶδα (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I see; of course I agree that Hana was in fact in the field, it was just a matter of the geography of the phrasing regarding when that risked complicating the description.

I'll go ahead and update the summary as soon as possible. Thank you for the discussion and for being a good sport, Οἶδα. 2601:243:2080:7E40:B5A2:97FC:B229:78D1 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course! Thank you for discussing this compelling and very moving film from Hamaguchi. I noticed your update and it reads well. Οἶδα (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)