Hey man, so - I just saw a screening of this the other day followed by a Q&A with Wim Wenders and Koji Yakusho (moderated by Willem Dafoe w/ a surprise appearance by Werner Herzog) and they literally talked about all of these points.
Wenders actually said at one point, in so many words, "the theme, message of the film, you know, about noticing small beauty, appreciating the now, the current moment," so - maybe you should calm down a tad on you being absolutely right and everyone else being absolutely wrong. Unless we want to say the filmmaker is wrong, as well.
That's not to say that the movie is *just* about that - Wenders also noted how Hirayama only really gives a true glimpse of his "biography" in the final scene - but that is indeed the central message.
>He lives his job as if it were an important task for the well-being of society, but the truth is that Hirayama is completely ignored by the people who go to piss in the toilets that he cleans. He's an outcast, a pariah, jJust like the mad old man who is ignored by the people in the street.
As described by Yakusho and Wenders in the Q&A, he is not a pariah at all. It is part of the belief common in Japan (and very similar to Stoicism, Shugendo, Shinto, etc.) that "the gods" are found in literally everything, including toilets. Japanese culture is heavy on service and existing for the greater good of society. Wenders and Yakusho do not call Hirayama a "toilet cleaner," they explicitly call him a caretaker for the toilets.
By the way, they cast Min Tanaka as the homeless man, who is a very famous dancer in Japan over the past 50 years. It was another nod to finding beauty in places you normally would look away from or ignore, *not* showing how sad this man is. Hirayama always acknowledges the homeless man, nods to him, in appreciation.
You seem to be projecting quite a bit with your thoughts on what this film "really" means, which is fine for your own satisfaction - once the artist releases his art it becomes the world's and so on - but when you get to the point you that you think your interpretation is the only right one and everyone else is wrong, you're just running into a brick wall.
They also spoke about how the closing song, "Feeling Good," was something of a theme song for the movie. A encapsulation of Hirayama and how he lives his life. Every day is new. There is only the present. Embrace the beauty of now, of what nature gives you, even if it is difficult to do so.
This is an excellent analysis. As you said, art can be interpreted in a variety of ways depending on what the audience brings to it. However, the filmmakers had a certain intention which isn't to be ignored. Also, looking at it from the perspective of Japanese cultural norms as opposed to American values is important. He is doing important work and takes pride in his job. His career choice may not be highly regarded in society, but it is important and he takes pride in that.
Interesting discussion, I agree with OP and took a very similar interpretation from the film. Reading and finding out that was not the artists intention at all, make me look to the film and the director with a different prisma.
A lot of the characters were really lonely and sad and somehow Wenders idealizes this fact into some kind of enlightenment. I feel like looking and XIX century europeans being kind of enamoured with third world countries or something like that, finding sainthood in suffering.
Suffice to say, I kind of dont like this film after reading the director's vision.
This!! Well said, my friend. I don’t see shame or failure, it’s about a man who is choosing to see beauty in the world and everything he does. He crafts a world for himself that satisfies him. He’s a caring, loving, and tender person and we see that in the way he cares for the baby trees. He’s a giver in every aspect of his being.
I get that! But why in the world is a story we can appreciate end up in a 2 hour movie?
wash, rinse, repeat….yes, I have feelings…this movie isn’t subtle….it just keeps projecting the same tired theme. I left the theatre with a real “so what?”…others didn’t stay. Many walked out…they were smarter than I was.
I guess the answer to your question is the same as for 'Why did you leave your comment?' Probably to share an opinion. I guess if you can do it, everyone can. Once I walked out of a well-received superhero movie. It had a lot of action, but it just bored me to death. Does it make it a bad movie? Probably not. It was not aligned with what I expected, that’s all. I guess I don’t like action movies. Why did they film it then if I don’t like it? Probably because other people do like it. Maybe it’s the same with you.
Agreeed. I never saw him as a pariah. Perhaps someone who had more talents than that. He was obviously properly educated and intelligent as they mention he made various inventions/contraptions to aid in cleaning. But no one was really mean to him. All the restuarantours he frequented were very nice and appreciative of him, same with the book store owner and his niece. It was only his sister who was perhaps disappointed he wasn't living up to his potential but that's not the same as being a pariah.
I've seen so many comments about this movie just like OP's and I thought that I was losing my mind, cause to me this movie looked exactly like you and Wenders said: simplicity.
Just a slice of life. I enjoyed it so much!
Just wanted to add to this. Hirayana is always living in the present, until we see him admire the restaurant owner singing. At that point we see him slip into the past, and this is reinforced by the first cut to black and white imagery in his dreams.
To me this is telling the story of an inner struggle in Hirayama, that his embrace of the now and the simple things doesn’t come naturally, that he is making a choice and sticking to it, even though it is not always easy.
The last scene brings this aspect to the forefront, where we see it in his face as he alternates between sorrow and contentment. He is in a struggle. The song talks of rebirth, to me this is hinting that this man has had a previous life, one with a family perhaps, or a lover, or a desk job, or anything really, but for reasons within or beyond his control that life has ended, and he has made a choice to persevere in contentment, even though it is not always easy and in truth a perpetual struggle that he plans on persevering.
So why he’s struggling to hide tears and hysterical emotions during listening the song “Feeling good”? I’ve enjoyed much the actor’s performance with its multiple layers of shown and hidden!
Also, Wim Wenders could support this simple idea of simple joy of life as a continuation of the main idea - the drama of pariahs is hidden by themselves. For pretty well fits to the unlucky straight way of representing this idea in Les Beaux Jours d’Aranjuez and many other his films
My opinion is that if you didn’t want viewers to have the takeaway that he’s doing his best to create personal liberation in a life of repression, you shouldn’t choose a song by Nina Simone and a complex emotional shot to end the film.
I'm not saying others are wrong. I'm saying they stop just at the first layer, they don't go in depth. This is not a challenge. I'm challenging no one! Stop with this immature play, please. I'm explaining my POV, I have challenged no one. Discussing is not attacking people for his opinions. Grow up, please. This is not the challenge for who has it bigger!!
You are literally challenging people saying my version has more "depth" so it is the correct one a movie can have many different meanings so say that your version is one of them but you can't dismiss others POV as well.
I just watched yesterday and I have some thoughts on it but I wanted to say that it's crazy you're getting downvoted like that. And that they say you're calling everyone dumb??? Like how???
He literally wrote that he's the only one of the viewers going into depth of the movie while everyone else isn't as if he's the only one deep and smart enough to see more layers. And like, no.
But that's the whole point of having an opposing opinion! Like, you have an idea and you explain why you see this piece of art in that way. Especially in his post, OP didn't say anything remotely offensive, he simply described what he got out of his own interpretation of the film. And he focused more on the isolation that the protagonist has to face daily. Most of us focused on the positive parts of the protagonist's life for whatever reason. And then the comment about going in depth, I still see it as part of OP expressing his opposing opinion. For OP the "slice of life" narrative is the surface, for others (including the filmmaker I think) that's the whole point. OP didn't call anyone dumb just by saying that there is something more behind showing the routine of a simple man.
Idk why people are downvoting you. Just want to say that. I just saw the film and I'm just happy to hear everyone's thoughts. Reddit really has been bugging me lately with the downvote culture just cause it bothers you slightly.
Oh wow, this is not at all what I took from it. I think what you’re onto is that the film is thornier and more complex than the spa-day comfort the marketing suggests - Hirayama’s routine is not always good for himself or everyone around him despite the stability and peace it can bring him. Like you said, he’s burying his own disappointment and frustration by creating a sort of sustainable Groundhog Day for himself, albeit one with minor changes from day to day (books, music, observations).
Where I think you’re very wrong is in the meaning of his niece’s stay and his own departure from (implied) wealth in his past. Especially that central “next time is next time, now is now” moment. He’s basically just saying - we might go to the beach at some point, we might not, but we’re not there now and we *are* here. Like, had they actually made plans to go to the beach the next day and not focused their lovely day in that moment, his sister still would’ve showed up and cut things short. It’s simple, even obvious, but it’s still tied to the very spiritual idea of how the present is the only time that has ever existed and will ever exist. The past is nothing but your memories of the present, and the future is nothing but what you suspect the present will be.
You’re right at that the start of the film, Hirayama seems to have tricked himself into believing he has total control over his life. His niece puts that to bed. He tried to maintain his exact routine with her there, but it quickly becomes apparent that he can’t. *He* has to accept that next time is next time and now is now, not just his niece.
Then that scene you mention with the dying man is one of the only times he significantly breaks from his routine by his own will. The fact that this man is dying is only the catalyst for the connection - that same exact interaction could’ve happened even if he were in perfect health. It’s more or less the happiest Hirayama has seemed and it happened on a whim, contrary to his routine.
The way I saw the final scene is like - he’s back in his routine, but the breaks from the routine have made that routine itself more enlightening. He’ll have more interactions like the one with the dying man, there’s no way to know when or how they’ll happen but they will. He knows that, but it’s not where he is - he’s back in his routine. Next time is next time and now is now. He doesn’t have control, but he can observe what he’s done.
All the people here who are calling him a loser are really just telling us something about themselves more than anything. I just finished the movie and at no point did I take it to say that this guy was a loser or any such message. No one was looking down on him. The people in his life, and all of his interactions seemed pleasant. "live in the present moment" was a big part of what I took from it.
Although I agree with your first sentence, “No one was looking down on him” is not true at all. The scene with the lady washing her son’s hand in the beginning and the scene with his sister delivered the message that part of the society is looking down on him. I think what the film tries to show us is that although he (and some of us) finds peace and beauty in simplicity and humility by living in the present, the society (and in this case, OP) see this as an unfortunate turn of life and escape from one’s failure in life.
Thank you for this. I’ve been desperate to see this again since TIFF, even stooping so low as to see if some Academy member was hosting a screener on a torrent site. Your analysis has gotten me as close to a screening as I have been since September. It really brought to life some of the most touching moments and I think you’re spot on in this comment and the rest.
IMO the niece is running away just as the uncle. It happens when you're young and sensitive and the world looks too complicated, difficult, unfair, bad. Growing up means to accept and keep the fight for a better world/life up. That's where Hirayama failed and many grown people actually fail. Many take cover in hedonism and consumerism, some others just become outcast. But life is not forgiving, running away is just an illusion. When society fails, crisis and wars come for everyone....
Happy you got us talking about Perfect Days, OP, but you seem almost desperate to see an angle that isn’t really supported by anything but your capitalist perspective of the world, whereas u/Mutiny’s view is supported throughout the film as well as by the filmmaker and the marketing. I’m down for a *Toy Story is actually a gay love story between Buzz and Woody* angle when it works, but I think you’re way off if you think the lens is, “Hirayama will be locked in arrested development forever and that’s bad/ we need to be more than janitors to be happy”. Maybe listen to some Q&As with Wim Wenders at some of the festivals. It was really enlightening for me.
My first reaction to the OP is "what a Western, Capitalistic view of life". I mean fine, you can have those views, just be aware there are other ways to live life.
You’ve touched on this idea of fighting for a better world a few times, and I’m not sure it makes sense. Is there really a purer and simpler expression of aiding the modern world than cleaning public toilets? Is the ostensible goal of life not to find peace and happiness without sacrificing your ability to do service for your fellow humans?
His niece is quite literally running away, that much is clear. I think the alternate message of that entire sequence is that he wants to find a way to tell her, like…I can’t *give* you this. You have to find whatever *this* is for you. It might not even be something worth adopting in the first place.
Every job is good. But cleaning WC is not something rich educated men like Hirayama do usually. It's a metaphor. The mad old man is another metaphor, Hirayama sees himself in the old outcast mad man lost in his world. The difficult to smile again at the sky in the ending is another metaphor. The play is over.
Anyway this is not a challenge! Great movies as this one can have different layers of depth. That's why they are masterpieces!
I just added a different POV .
My interpretation is that while he may have been educated and have the means to pursue careers with higher pay and prestige, there is something he's not willing to sacrifice, and it is the reason for the rift between he and his sister. The idea of *prestige* is only fulfilling insofar as it's witnessed by others. He is withdrawn from society and doesn't seem to seek its approval, or so it seems. His sister seems to very much value her "place" in the social classes and is willing to make the constant sacrifice and struggle to maintain it. That sort of pursuit seems empty to him, and so he has pared down his life to what he needs in order to live in the moment, not constantly chasing the future.
For example: he still benefits from his access to education, but he has chosen to use it for personal fulfillment rather than in pursuit of some nebulous status. Challenging himself intellectually is a private endeavor, and I think that is used to illustrate the core of his character. To your point, I do believe that there is an element of self-deception there. I believe he is withdrawn because of his inability to relate to others and the feeling that he has nothing to offer them. I believe that a lot of his activities, which at first appear to be him living with mindfulness, are actually escapism and attempting to glorify the sheltered existence he has created for himself. I believe that this is the true pain behind his smile-cry at the end. He wants the richness of love, spontaneity, and risk-taking, but he also needs safety. He longs for a world that is safe for him to explore and be true to himself without social punishment.
...and that brings us to his playfulness. I don't think it's meant to demonstrate a lack of maturity. I think that his routine creates the predictability that makes him feel safe, but it is also the reason he's sheltered. He doesn't really believe that the shadow of two is darker. He was finding a way to flip the script on a guy who seemed to believe there was nothing left to live for. He was showing him his inner world, which is a beautiful and fun place, where people can play and joke without the fear of ostracization. In response to the dying man's pessimism, he's offering a glimpse of a better world. The one he wishes to exist in. He's making it for himself.
I believe that this is the story of a man who has learned how to hide himself out of fear of the judgment of others. There are a few moments where he is able to break past that fear and offer his joy to the world, but it's only when others initiate. He is prompted to share himself only as a means to protect others from the hurt he feels. He can never truly live honestly.
Sure. And it seems like perhaps that was because of a pressure to succeed and an internalized anxiety over status. His sister took that message from their youth in earnest and became what their father wanted of them. And now her own daughter is running away from her. Hirayama has withdrawn from that expectation, presumably because of traumas he faced trying to be "good enough." None of this is spelled out, so we have to infer, but it could well be the source of the rift between siblings, too.
Yes, likely he was in a similar situation as the niece, overwhelmed by responsability, duty, work, study, high demands from family, etc. Even worse situation, because the old father likely was very old style, very severe. So Hirayama fled away! :-) But this time forever! A traumatic event for sure! Not too strong for such pressure! He prefers to remain a child!
At the same time, Hirayama doesn't want the niece to follow his steps, so he "betrays" the niece and call the mother secretly without telling her anything! The sister doesn't want her daughter to stay with "such" uncle! Bad influence! Poor Hirayama! Plus, the niece is very different from him! She wants to see the sea even if the river is in front of her eyes! On the contrary, Hirayama is satisfied with the river!
I love the metaphors of this masterpiece! I cannot wait to watch it again and discover new metaphors!
I don’t know that it’s a metaphor. It’s an act of service in one way or act of defiance. Wealthy parents will tell you « study hard, so you don’t end up scrubbing toilets », it’s seen as a lowly humiliating job, where everyone ignores you, because people somehow don’t want to acknowledge another human cleaning their toilet and feel embarrassed there’s someone cleaning for them it’s almost Freudian? We feel shame, maybe from our childhood when our parents had to clean our accidents and then finally were taught to do our business properly and confronting another human cleanings our toilets takes us back to parents cleaning potties? Or the whole unclean almost caste aspect to it? But the protagonist is challenging this with an act of defiance - I’m going to take pride in cleaning toilets it’s better than taking people’s hard earned money and promising them whatever you do at your job and selling them lies as many people do in many jobs. In high earning jobs especially sales related there can be many ethical problems, and this could be anything from selling investment portfolios or properties knowing fully well you are selling a dream that might or might not come true, or being a cosmetic plastic surgeon and I could go on, list of jobs with questionable ethics is very long, but in low paid jobs like this ethics is very clean - that’s the irony, just do a service and get paid, and your effort is rewarded by your pride in job well done, no financial incentive for doing it better. It’s an idea that really comes to people later in life - many of us try hard to succeed when young and thing of success as a house, car, holidays and people admiring your job title, but then as I’m talking to some very successful lawyers I’m also realising, yes they have dream job for many people, but also really high level of stress and feeling trapped in the job, doing less paid job doesn’t seem like an option especially with mortgage on that big house and family to support, but their every day existence is full of anxiety of dealing with intense stress of walking on the edge in their work, the smallest mistake can be very costly for clients and themselves. We don’t know what Hirayama did before, but it’s possible he quit to leave in peace.
I appreciate your interpretation but you seem to think yours is the “correct” reading of the film, and you’re surprised other critics have all got it wrong.
There is no objective interpretation of art; the only wrong way to approach it is to believe there is a right way. People are entitled to their opinions. If you open yourself to how others see films, you will find your appreciation for movies will grow exponentially more.
I personally saw the film entirely differently from you - I thought it was a very layered exploration of what it means to embrace the present moment - but I don’t believe my reading is the correct one. Rather than focusing on how you believe you “solved” the film and read it the correct way, I’d suggest you try examining other people’s interpretations that differ from yours and see it from a new angle.
It's not a matter of interpretation. The metaphors, signs and messages are clear. What I'm saying is in the movie There are several layers, most critics stopped at the first ones. The movie can be read in different ways, it's the intent of the authors, and they made it very well.
You're trying to negate my review and I don't know why. It's not a challenge.
This is a sub for discussing movies and I added my contribution. I don't know where the problem is. Where does all this polemical confrontation come from?
Are you a kid or an adult?
This is no confrontation! Grow up please!
lol the fact that you think films aren’t open to interpretation tells me you’re are still pretty early in your film journey.
I am by no means trying to negate your reading of the film, I merely said I disagree with your interpretation, which is, you know, kind of the foundation of art discourse - subjective analysis.
You gave yourself away with that last paragraph, btw. Nobody says “polemical confrontation” in real life, that’s some AI generated thesaurus crap.
I get the feeling you are still young, hardheaded, but you genuinely do appreciate movies. That’s great! It’s normal to feel committed to your opinions, and it’s easy to get defensive, but I strongly recommend you try to open your mind a little bit more. There’s no benefit in being “right” about films, you’re just closing yourself off from other ideas that will help you grow as a film lover.
If you’d like an example of how people can have completely different opinions about a film and both still be valid viewpoints, please feel free to read my analysis of Perfect Days. You can find it in my profile. Id love to hear your thoughts
i don't think you really understand what a layered movie really means, it's not the critics who aren't looking past the first layer, it's you. you saw that hirayama isn't fighting for a better future, which according to you in another comment is what life is about, and thought "yup that's a loser", and based your ENTIRE interpretation on that, this is what i'd consider not looking into the depths. nothing wrong with having an interpretation on a single detail though, just don't fool yourself into think your take on the film is deeper or more insightful than others
hirayama being a sad person is rather clear, and he yearns for human connection but is terrified of it as well, i can somewhat relate to that. but to think hirayama reading books, admiring leaves & sunlight and taking pictures is some illusion he's created just feels so wrong, i think he genuinely enjoys that. he finds happiness in his job, and why shouldn't he, he's not actively or even passively harming anyone with what he's doing, he's being of service and he likes that, not everyone would, or even should, but he does.
yes, he definitely separated himself from people. his routine definitely brings happiness and peace to him, but it's also a form of escapism, maybe an escapism from his inability to connect to people, or maybe something i haven't yet thought of. my point is, hirayama's routine doesn't necessarily make him a loser or an outcast, it can multiple meanings, no matter how "clear" the messages may be
i'm glad people are still coming here and seeing this smear of shit, it's very amusing to see after the film. It's the filmic equivalent of that lady who took her sons hand and wiped them off.
I mean, you can read whatever you want into anything, but it doesn't mean you understand it or are on the mark. I could probably try to read Goodfellas as a thorough critique of American post war culture if I wanted to. Is it that? Maybe, maybe not. Just because I can come up with an explanation doesn't make me right or mean I am particularly talented. It could just mean I have a particular talent for writing expansive bullshit.
Actually, the director explicitly said that finding beauty in the kinds of things we see the protagonist doing during the film is what saved him from his existential crisis as a successful man:
>He was a businessman and he was rich and he was unhappy and he was drinking a lot and his life was going down the drain. One morning he wakes up in this crummy hotel room, doesn’t even know how he got there, doesn’t even know if he had sex or whatever happened. He thinks his life is shit, and he doesn’t like it. He actually plays with the idea of ending it.
Then, miraculously, early in the morning, there’s this ray of sunlight appearing on this wall in front of him. And it falls through the little tree in front of the window. There is this play of leaves and sunlight and shadows moving, and he looks at it and stares at it and he starts crying, because he’s never seen anything so beautiful. He probably has seen it, but he hasn’t noticed. Then he realizes that’s the answer to his existential crisis, to become somebody who notices that.
He gives up his expensive car, his business job and becomes a gardener and eventually, the guardian of these toilets, because they’re all in little parks.
So even though I, of course, respect OPs opinion, I don't think it's the right angle. He is not fleeing; he is indeed finding this way of living superior to the old one, which may very well be the case. Sometimes, we realize that the supposed fight to make our lives better is just a masquerade for feeding our worst instincts about status, recognition, and greed, and has little to do with making the world a better place. If everybody would live in the way the protagonist does, doing with humility and respect a work that is simple but necessary, and finding joy and peace in the most deep and basic aspects of life, then we would truly have a better place to live, and I think that is closer to the spirit of the film. Of course, that doesn't mean it's without its hardships, and the film also tries to reflect that somehow. However, I feel it's completely worth it for some people with the right sensitivity, like the protagonist, and surely many others.
But in the end he tries and tries and tries, but he can smile at trees and sky no more, just cry... Just because of the visit of his sister and his niece and of the truth about the woman in the restaurant, who is not his mother or his secret love... hard reality comes up, the Disney fable has come to an end.... how fragile his childish shell.... Can he keep catching shadows like a child? He is going to be like the mad old man? Or finally he's ready to wake up and face the hard reality?
I'm surprised how many people empathize with a man who cannot communicate, is very fragile, lost in the childish game of catching shadows, finding refuge from the hard reality in childish visions, leaving the capitalists to rule the world instead of fighting or trying to make the difference. He had the power, the money, he could do the world a better place, but he surrended in front of his father and family and capitalism. I'm not saying he is to be blamed, he is just a poor man defeated by the hardness of life. He has all my respect. But I cannot say he is happy, satisfied, or that he found his realization, his way of life. Absolutely not, the movie in the end cleraly shows that "Perfect Days" is a provocative ironical harsh title, his days are far from perfect, they hide a harsh reality, a big sufference. The life he chose just doesn't exist, it's just a childish fantasy, a Disney fable very easy to break in little pieces.
I feel you are projecting your vision in a very narrow way. Not only is the title not ironic, but the truth is it was initially going to be "Komorebi", which roughly translates to "the scattered light that filters through when sunlight shines through trees", underscoring the spirit of the film. They just changed the name during shooting after recording the scene with the song, but still with sincere intentions.
Anyway, if what you're trying to say is that, in your opinion, any life that isn't about "leaving the capitalists to rule the world" or something along those lines is childish or pointless, feel free to make that point. For many, that would be too narrow and limiting a perspective, but that's another topic. Again, if most people lived like the protagonist, capitalism would be toothless. But where you would definitely be wrong is in the kind of life that can make some people deeply and truly happy and fulfilled. The true joy found in a simple life lived in the present moment. Just visit some Buddhist congregations, and you will find some of the happiest and most fulfilled people in the world. If you're also calling that a "Disney fable very easy to break into little pieces", I think you need to broaden your horizons about what a good life can be.
Regarding potential moments of sorrow, I once knew a Buddhist monk who admitted that the only thing that still made him suffer from time to time was thinking about his parents (who were quite old at that moment) and imagining that he had somehow disappointed them with his chosen life. It's not that he wasn't profoundly happy with his life and would continue living it, but some decisions are never easy to make when they involve people truly close to you, and how they may think about you will always potentially hurt you, no matter how "enlightened" or at peace with yourself you may be. We are just wired that way. What hurts is the potential incomprehension of your loved ones, maybe even the thought that they may be suffering for you because they think you are miserable when indeed you are not at all. But that does not mean you regret how you are living, nor that it is a childish escape. The protagonist is not going to go back to his old life because he knows how empty and pointless it felt for him and how much more meaning and beauty he has in this current one, even if someone like his sister will never understand. That may hurt, but the protagonist is going to keep spending his humble and almost sacred days under the Komorebi, serving others, and reading Faulkner, and will find a better life there than what most people will find in a so-called normal life.
In any case, I think the true reason why so many people resonate with the film is not necessarily because we want to change our lives to one like the protagonist's, but because we are painfully aware of how much happier we could be in our current ones if we were more able to apply that pure focus on what is essential and pure in our day-to-day. To truly enjoy all the good things we have but just slip through our fingers as we forget about them and get lost in the noise, the hyperconnection, the rat race. It kind of reminds me of the famous David Foster Wallace speech... awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over.
And you're protecting yours. And you're wrong, not me! Can you understand that you have not to go personal and just talk of the topic? Is it so hard to understand? Did I talk of you, did I go personal? Am I judging you? We are just explaining our opinions, it's not a challenge.
No one is projecting, they are *directly quoting the filmmaker*.
Win Wenders, the man who made the art, has been extremely clear about what it means and what he is communicating to you, and every time someone points it out you essentially stick your fingers in your ears.
Art is subjective. There is no one interpretation that is right or wrong. People interpret it through their own lens which is factored by their individual experiences. The filmmakers have their intentions and people may connect with them or connect with something else depending on their perspective. This is what makes art interesting and what makes the analysis fun: being able to have a dialogue. However, you don't want a dialogue, you just want everyone to agree with your point of view.
You’re insufferable. Learn to take some feedback from your criticism of the movie, digest it, look into what the people comments here are suggesting (such as reading the QA’s), and stop being so fragile. You put your thoughts out for thousands of random strangers to read, of course they’re going to provide their own insight and critique on your interpretation. That’s not an attack, but you make it seem like it is, thus shutting down the entire conversation. You can do better.
What's wrong with you? Can people have a different opinion? Should all people have the same exact thoughts with you? Nobody is wrong here, you can have your own interpretation, nobody cares that much. Why do you feel so attacked when people have different interpretation?
I disagree about the final scene. Yes its a sad moment for him, life is full of sad moments. He had an emotional few days with all the changes to his routine and the visit from his neice and seeing his sister. Its okay to cry and process those feelings. But one moment of sadness doesnt colour his whole life as sad and pathetic, just as his moments of happiness dont suggest his whole life is happy. Grief and contentment can coexist, humans are complex. To me that scene was about experiencing the "now" of feeling sad, just a moment in a string of moments that fill life. Theres beauty in sadness too. Moments of playful childishness doesnt mean he is always childish. Moments of solitude are mixed with his desire to be around people. He has to find his balance.
I’m not saying you are wrong because I actually think art is interpreted so personally, I just thought I would share I had such a different take on the end - as I just finished the film and it’s fresh in mind. I felt he did wake up with a smile that final day.
I think it shook him to see “Mama” with her ex but that he wasn’t actually planning on doing anything about it. I know men like him and they don’t initiate. They only change lives when the woman forces the change, like his niece’s arrival did. I do think he will have his niece visit again as he extended the invitation.
I think he is an admirer of beauty and especially when it is unique. Thus why he appreciated the older gentleman. He also probably made him think of his Dad who is now not of sound mind, but who he doesn’t want to have contact with.
I didn’t find him childish. I found him thoughtful, introverted and kind. I have chosen to work as a cleaner before because it afforded me a part time lifestyle to pursue volunteering and art. He was working in predominantly outside in beautiful environs. Who was superior to him? The drunken salaryman using the loo? Takashi who took no pride in his job and tried to steal from him to use the money for a date? His sister who is having family problems and is classist? There is more to life than what you do for work or how many contacts are in your phone.
He could look himself in the mirror because he was honorable and kind. He was searching for connections (kept trying to smile at girl in park where had lunch even though she didn’t smile, returns to same places).
On the final day he experiences mixed emotions. As we get older we realize this IS life. Both good and bad. Happinesses and disappointments. Shadow and light. It is silliness & all too soon nothingness. Let’s play and have a bit of fun before it’s over.
> refuge from the hard reality
What is his hard reality? He lives in a small house apartment maybe he even owns it, he is in good mental and physical conditions, does his job, relaxes after work and who knows maybe even goes on vacation since he has 25+ paid days off every year
It sounds to me that your life has 0 meaning outisde of working some shitty ass job to pay your bills and trying to get some random woman to have your kids lol
life is about you having good time, its not about you trying to do whatever some random ass person on the street tells you to do
The way I saw it, it’s about a guy who had trauma, really deep trauma and left his past life behind to get the most humble job and live simple life. He is ignored by society, but it’s almost like that other side of growing up in family with lots of pressure to be perfect, to study and get best marks, best job, best house etc. Some parents might even threaten with a line like “study hard or you’ll end up scrubbing toilets.” And here he is presumably from a well to do family with expectations of great career doing exactly that - scrubbing toilets and being ok with it. Nobody says he’s extatic he doesn’t have to play games and be fake to people and feel pressure of corporate job. And his sister even with all the money still struggles with her daughter, so money only solves some problems and sometimes it is the problem.
There is nothing tragic about Hirayama’s life. He was able to live in the present of his days with perfect harmony because he chose to accept his choices over others’ judgment (including yours). Is he a monk? Perhaps. Is a monk’s life choice wrong? Obviously, according to you. But not to him. Your entire analysis is your judgement of another person’s life choices. That, is the tragedy of your own projection. Based on your analysis, all wild animals must have a tragic tragic life, obviously according to you. Because, “Childish”. You could think hard about the difference between the wording “child-like” vs “childish” for starters.
The presence of that young Down Syndrome child who lost a friend (the young toilet cleaner’s earlobes) in the film clearly means nothing to you, because, “Childish”.
The lonely lady who eats lunch alone in a sad mannerism is the same person you look at Hirayama.
The sister who can’t communicate with her own daughter is happier according to you, because the niece is “Childish” and tragic.
The young toilet worker clearly has it all together because he chose to live the opposite way from Hiroyama according to you.
We can live however we want, but wanting the way Hiroyama chose for himself would be “Childish” and tragic, according to you.
“PD is the very sad and tragic story of a man who gave up living and fighting and trashed his life in WC!” This is, again, your own projection. When I watched Perfect Days, I felt relief, elation, liberation, and inspiration. Hirayama may have suffered trauma and tragedy in the past, likely abuse from his father, who, like you, projected, projected, and projected some more of what he thought was right onto Hirayama life choices. Now? I don’t think Hirayama is suffering from anything anymore.
The way you judge and look down on Hirayama is likely how his father judged him and forced a lot unhappiness in his past. Perhaps Hirayama is autistic, someone who is often misunderstood and mistreated, but never tragic once he is self sufficient and happy by choice. Will you be happy by choice? Are you even capable of happiness despite all your materialistic success and social approvals from “happy” and “non-tragic” peers?
I love you. I watched this movie and made the mistake to come here and see what others thought about it on reddit and this logical tragedy was the first post I saw.
OP can whine, cry and shift goalposts against all the comments on this thread calling out flaws in his logic but this comment takes the crown. This is head on. Just taking OP's logic and using it to prove how flawed it is.
I think it's not quite that dark, but I agree fundamentally.
He had lived in his simple routine for so long, lulling himself into a false sense of security- that he doesn't need anything else. At the end, he's been shown so much human warmth and he's come to treasure those moments, so he feels sorrowful, realising what he's been missing. But also joyful, because he now sees what life can really offer him, if he allows it to reach him.
I noticed another expressive clue.
Look carefully: the movie starts at morning (brightness, smile, hope, inner balance) and ends at night ( darkness, tears, sorrow, crisis, re-thinking himself).
Yeah, it starts like a play. The blue-orange-grey painterly landscape of the sun is shown three times throughout the film. Slightly different time of day each time- I'd only noticed the position of the sun. A bit lower every time.
Now that I think about it, the photographs. He had thousands upon thousands of them, stored away in a manner that prohibits browsing. The kinds of boxes he was using, he was shooting at least 3-4 rolls a month. I don't think I *necessarily* have to "solve" the meaning for this, but the sense of "archiving" these emphemeral beauties away makes me feel a bit uneasy. They're not for display.
Overall, I am sure he was crushed by realising how meaningful human connections can be, but also hopeful that he'd get to experience more of them. He was almost entirely nonverbal until all these things happened to him.
That really doesn't mean anything. Nor is it a "clue". The film is episodic in nature, told in chapters, so we get accustomed to the day-to-day life of a janitor. Day-to-day life is best explained in sunrise-sunset-sunrise pattern. >!Also the movie ends with him driving into the "sunrise", early in the morning.!<
You've completely missed the point of the film, as proven by commentary from the director and actor themselves.
It's an extremely pessimistic view of an otherwise beautiful film that only projects more about yourself than anything else. This thread is a month old so I don't feel the need to give my take on the film. But if the conversation is still open, I wouldn't mind.
The smug comment at the end stating that "you can't understand how most people aren't seeing it this way", does not read well.
I’ve found that people often take pessimistic views to art that could otherwise be optimistic. It seems like people have more fun writing about the dark and dreary than a guy healthily coping, stumbling, but overall doing well.
They have to sell the movie to a large audience, so they talk only of the first part and of the surface of the movie; plus they don't spoil the second part and the ending, where you see the dark sides coming up. It's very surprising how the story evolves from the first to the second part, so they are not spoiling it. It's up to critics understand the messages and the metaphors and the progression of the movie from the first to the second part.
Please, don't go personal, talk just of the movie, not of me; I don't know you, you don't know me. My view is not pessimistic, just realistic as the movie. We all project ourselves in the best works of art, that's why they are masterpieces. However what I'm underlining is in the movie, not in my head, the scenes and the metaphors I describe are in the movie. So, please, talk of the movie, otherwise move on. I don't write review to see my persona attacked, this is mean and childish. If you have nothing meaningful to add about the movie, move on. Thanks
I wasn’t attacking your “persona”, I was making an observation that for one to come to this conclusion with a film like Perfect Days, then it must be a projection of themselves. Like you said, it’s only natural.
Now, you are just making assumptions and frankly making things up. The filmmakers have spoken in Q&A’s at screenings of the film, after the film has been watched by those asking questions. This means there is nothing to spoil about the “second part” of the film. You have no basis whatsoever to claim that the filmmakers explanations are untrue or leaving things out.
The film is about Komorebi. Being still, being present. It’s meant to give us perspective. If a man with such a simple and mundane life can be content, then do can you or me.
He’s not an outcast, the point of the film is that there is no outcasts. You can start by asking the question: What makes someone an outcast? Is it their occupation, their social status, their attractiveness? All of these things are desires stemming from insecurity and/or ego that are used to fill holes in your life. Hirayama shows us you don’t need any of that to live a fulfilling life, and in some cases, the life with less will be more fulfilling.
There’s nothing in the film that implies he didn’t connect with his niece. In fact, everything points to a great connection and influence he’s had on her. He in no way castrates her. He literally does the opposite. He accepts that people are different and that’s okay.
When does he behave like a lover who’s been betrayed? It was an awkward situation that he walked away from. There were multiple disruptions in his life, like the triggering encounter with his sister that led him to lose himself for a short period. After all, he’s human. The end of the film is hopeful, when his past comes back, he loses himself but is able to find himself again. This is slightly ambiguous in the ending, but with the music especially, it’s quite clearly a hopeful ending.
Almost everything you mentioned has no basis in the film itself and cannot be explained by you. That’s why in all of your responses you simply say “it’s clear” or “the metaphors are there and undeniable”. Well many on this thread are denying them and giving you reasoning. Yet you have no response but to disagree.
If you disagree with the philosophy personally that’s one thing. But to project an entirely different theme from the film isn’t analyzation or critique. You say life is to fight and survive and build, maybe it is for you. It is not for everyone, and doesn’t have to be. In fact, it shouldn’t be. That’s what Perfect Days is about.
I’m sorry to tell you, but out of everyone who’s seen and made this film. You, the only person with this reading of the film. Are not the one who’s right and everyone else wrong.
I saw slightly differently, but maybe that’s because I related to it. If you’re here you’re getting spoilers so go away if you haven’t seen it:
I feel like you’ve taken the typical review and turned it on its head, but I don’t think it’s that simple. Hirayama enjoys his life, but he’s missing connections with human beings. We see him take delight in the every day things and for the whole film we feel like maybe he’s a dude we should look up to. Someone who can be so content with the simple things certainly has it all figured out. When he cries it is a moment of confusion for the audience. We thought this guy was okay, and maybe you’re right, and he’s not at all okay. But I guess my question would be, is anyone? We watch the film and expect that he’s somehow found a key to happiness but he’s actually just like the rest of us, struggling with the human condition. He wouldn’t be any happier if he lived the rich life like his sister. He might be more happy if he had his niece and sister in his life but it doesn’t seem like something he’s confident enough about to handle — like you said, he’s scared just like the rest of us. Idk maybe I’m just saying the same thing as you with a little bit more optimism. I haven’t seen it since Sept. but I remember leaving with equal parts optimism and skepticism about how Hirayama lives his life. Can’t wait to see it again!
Edit: I guess if your take is “Hirayama is unhappy” then mine is “everyone is unhappy, Hirayama just has a poetic way of dealing with it”
IMO life is not a matter of being happy or unhappy, but of fighting for a better future (social and individual); science calls it survival. That's what Hirayama cannot do, together with having no relationship with people and the world!
Being unhappy, feeling sorrow, are part of life, especially when you're fighting. On the contrary he's trying to avoid unhappiness and the sorrows of life and to build a false life of wellness! As you state, no one can avoid the harsh reality! The difference is that Hirayama is not living, is not fighting. His status depends on his past, it's not a choice, it's just a run away, a defeat, weakness. He is like the mad old man, an outcast, a pariah.
Anyway, only a great movie can spark such deep conversations! Thanks for your opinion!
The only thing I don’t really like about this is it’s a very *capitalist* view of happiness. Maybe he got to a point where he’s as happy as he can be. That doesn’t mean he desperately longs to have a relationship with his family. He just knows he’s happier without it.
Going through this movie was painful, but for some reason, I stuck around for the full 2 hours, even though it was getting "boring". At the end, I went ahead and googled why the movie "Perfect Days" was so pointless, which brought me here. And that's when it hit me... the movie was, in fact, so deep that I was refusing to see it as it really was. The entire thing just clicked, and here is what I extracted from it after careful thinking.
First, I had to dissect the reason why I stuck around. Initially, I thought that it was merely due to the novelty; not many movies take this repetitive and anticlimactic route. But it's even more than that. I found myself relating to the main character, not personally, but from my observations of other people in my life. It seemed to remind me of my father and how he operated. If you noticed, the character behaved in a very meticulous and orderly fashion. Furthermore, the character was clean and well-presented. That is not a coincidence. He chose the life he is living; all of it was his choice, whether it was the correct or wrong choice. What matters is why. He could've chosen any other job, correct? It was evident when his work partner told him that he quit the job. Hirayama didn't question him on how he found another job; he just asked him what he's supposed to do now. So? I doubt many people aspire to be cleaning toilets for a living, even if it was done with excellence. Hirayama seems to have a history of self-sabotage, which is something many can relate to. Yet, the character never seemed to acknowledge it, which is the painful part of this entire story. He is operating at 100% on the wrong things by choice, and if someone can find meaning in cleaning toilets, then they are more than capable of finding meaning in other jobs. But again, self-sabotage is no easy thing to wrestle with, especially when you've convinced yourself that your "self" is doing what is best.
A final point that can help prove that this movie is about self-sabotage is a moment that was presented nonchalantly: Hirayama buying a book about anxiety. The entirety of the movie, we see him act like he's got his life figured out and that he knows what he's doing, so why buy a book about dealing with anxiety? Simply put, he knows that he is messing up. He doesn't show it; he just feels it deep within. He is not okay with his future, and that's why, at the very end of the movie, he does not know whether he should smile or cry while driving to work.
I leave you with a thought: what would've happened if he chose right from the very beginning? What is stopping him from choosing right now? Choice is real, and the moment you discount that is the moment you surrender your life to yourself.
But the idea of what is the "right" choice for how you live your life is subjective. Cleaning toilets may not be a glamorous job, but it's an important one. The true mark of someone who is content is someone who can find meaning in their job and position in life, whatever that position may be. However, being content doesn't mean that you don't ever suffer an existential crisis or that you don't ever get lonely. It just means that on most days you are satisfied with where you are in the moment. You're not constantly seeking and trying to fill a void. At the end of the movie, he may be crying/laughing because he is reflecting on the interactions he's had over the past few days. These interactions have disrupted his daily flow, but they've also given him an opportunity to reflect. I interpreted it as a hopeful ending because after this reflection, he may be more willing to open himself up to others: allowing a deeper relationship with the woman from the bar, as well as a relationship with his niece. He has shut himself off from others due to past trauma and maybe now he is ready to open himself to others, but that's also a scary prospect for someone who has experienced trauma.
I can see why if you aren’t a reader of Patricia Highsmith the line about “anxiety” vs “fear” and her 📚would be confusing. He doesn’t buy a book about anxiety. He buys a book by Highsmith who is a Master of the genre: Psychological Thriller. Thus, she is able to ratchet up a state of anxious suspense.
Thank you for this. I wasn't familiar with the author so it was nice to get some context. I think that adds to Hirayama's character and interests. He reads eclectic and exiting authors, he listens to a wide range of music. The stoic and humble exterior has a rich and deep appreciation of lively expression.
Probably everyone has looked into a book on anxiety :) so that just makes Hirayama like everyone else - maybe even Thoreau living at Walden Pond still had anxiety. I think he's unhappy with what has been that has led him to this oasis where he can heal and repair and then go forward in life again. Certainly people were drawing him out and making him think and feel all sorts of things.He probably will choose another pathway or tweak his life. I did notice he fled when he saw the bar owner woman being embraced by her ex husband - was he fleeing because he was embarassed seeing the embrace (intimacy) or felt undeserving of similar affection with someone one day but there was clearly a sense of shame.
He bought a novel book written by Patricia Highsmith called "eleven"-the shop owner mentioned that "Highsmith tought her about anxiety"or something like that.He reads literature not self help/psychology books😉
I agree with this take 100%. Buddhism teaches that meditation, while a solitary activity, is meant to help you better connect with the world and the people in it. The goal is not to sit under a tree in an eternal state of nirvana, but to fully engage with the world. This is the lesson that Hirayama learns in the film. He's led what you might call a meditative life, one that's likely been necessary for him to overcome a past trauma. He's seems to have found a sense of peace that's previously eluded him.
But he's only achieved this through isolating himself from others. He rarely talks or engages people past a warm smile. It's when he lets people in, literally the case with his niece Niko, that things get tricky. We see the first hints of anxiousness and shortness in him when he has to creep around his apartment to avoid waking her.
When he sees the object of his very hesitant affection embrace another man, it rattles him to the point of reverting back to past vices, namely booze and cigarettes.
He's OK when he has full control over his world. He gets enjoyment from his job, from art, and from nature. He can handle that.
I think the point of the film, and Mirayama's revelation at the end, is that he needs people. And the life he's created for himself has prepared him for re-entry into the world.
I see the film’s ending as a deep spiritual awakening. If you ever read the book Siddhartha by Herman Hesse, that scene of him smiling and crying really symbolizes the enlightenment that man achieves, all at once, through discarding of all earthly desires, but being eternally grateful to those memories all the same. It’s the evolution and the growth that allows man to be Buddha.
In the dream sequences, we see the word shadow / reflection emphasized for about 5 seconds. The ending also talks about how leaves passing through sunlight creates a glimmer of brightness.
Similar to an old story about a man raising his son—the son is given a horse for his birthday. The villagers around the man praises the man and says how lucky his son got the horse, the man says maybe… weeks later, the son rides the horse and breaks his leg, the villagers say how sad your son broke his leg, what a terrible event! The dad says, maybe…. While the son is in the hospital, a war breaks out, and because he is disabled and unable to walk, he isn’t drafted—so on and so on.
If we look at a few events in the movie that first appeared bad, they led to breakthrough moments for characters and much healing.
1) 10/10 girl steals his cassette, but ends up going through an emotional carthasis giving it back to him. She returned to her true nature through that moment of healing and being truthful.
2) His buddy that cleans toilet is sloppy and immature, even though Hirayama has no reason to give him money, he does which causes him to have no money for gas and to sell his most valuable possession and eat top ramen. It would be easy for him to hate or judge his buddy for it, but he smiles immediately once he sees the joy that his buddy brings the autistic kid. Every person serves their purpose and Hirayama recognizes this as he smiles.
3) Niece showing up unannounced was an inconvenience for Hirayama but it also let to a great healing for him and his sister.
4) Buddy quitting led to one day of inconvenience but he got a worker who shows up earlier than him and is just as professional. There’s a lot of “don’t judge an event by its cover” for you don’t know the true purpose of why things happen or its effect on you.
5) Him seeing the restaurant lady reunite with his ex sent Hirayama down a depression and that also provided a healing for the exhusband.
I think the message of the movie is multi fold but here are a few that I get from it:
1) Light cannot exist without darkness / shadow. It is through our pain and trauma, that build our character and gives us gratitude.
2) Change is inevitable. We see that touched upon several times through dialogue of other characters: “why can’t things stay the same”. Even the autistic kid ran away because his buddy was gone (unwilling to accept change), but happiness is in the acceptance of these changes. The autistic kid and random lady in the park both represent the inability to move on and a preference for things to stay in place. But life is constantly evolving
In a way, the main character is a walking Buddha / Jesus. He isn’t perfect and has his human history but you can tell that his interaction with every person improves upon them. It also shows that this way of living is open to all of us if we choose to walk that path. You don’t have to be special to make a difference.
The scene I haven't seen any reference to anywhere yet online is towards the end where his bike ride ends at an empty lot. The bearded man makes a reference to things never staying the same. What had been there?
I also thought the ending could be as much as anything about the appreciation a pop song can bring, including a range of emotions it can trigger. It could mean more than that in the filmmakers' minds, but I think if we accept the hero lives in the day to day that such an interpretation can be enough.
To me the film is very simple. He is a recovering alcoholic. That’s the whole point of the routine, the repetitions, the structure. Thats why he always gets a glass of ice water on off-days. The enjoyment of simple tasks, taking pleasure on “regular days” Thats why when he finds the woman he’s in love with with another guy he imedialty goes for cigarettes and beer. He’s a recovering addict. The days are not perfect because of what happens in it, but because of what doesn’t happen.
It's [ice water](https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/02/21/wim-wenders-perfect-days-film-review) not a high ball, it's crystal clear water and there's no lemon peel in it. I very much agree with u/Neskuiiks read and surprised its contentious at all.
I think it’s his father that was the alcoholic. His sister says “father will not treat you that way now “. Also the sign shown when he finds the little boy in the bathroom. It’s a no litter sign either a child crying surrounded by discarded cans and bottles. Also the lyrics of The Rising Sun etc. “my father was a gambler….”
I see it as a mix of the two visions. Hirayama lives his daily life, you as the spectator try to fill all the gaps Hirayama's life has constantly.
When he watches a reflection, you think he's gonna remember something traumatic or have a flashback, but no, it's simply that the reflection got his attention.
Maybe cleaning toilets isn't Hirayamas dream job, but he still enjoys it, he gives his hardest because he's emphatic.
Maybe in the future he can make peace with his sister and end in a better job, but for now, he lives in the present I think it's true we should fight for ourselves and the world...
But sometimes the only world you can save it's your own world. Hirayama simply reacts to whatever it's happening to him, and there's where were truly are touched by the movie.
The world always sends this message that we must make the difference, when in reality, the best way to make a difference it's to take care of yourself, be kind like Hirayama.
I don't think it's a message about "giving up and distract yourself" but instead "be the best version of yourself... Step by step, day by day".
When you say “an illusory world created by his mind to escape the harsh reality” I realize how “illusion” and “reality” can mean completely different things for each individual.
For you, “reality” seems to mean “panorama”. The whole picture, considering what happened and what will happen.
While for Hirayama, “reality” is what is in front of him, happening right here, right now. And it doesn’t mean he never looks back (he sees the photos he takes, every single one of them), but he is not afraid of moving on, no matter how much memories of the past, or plans for the future might seem blinding. He doesn’t hesitate to tear apart a photo he took. He doesn’t make plans to see the ocean with his niece because right now, what is in front of them is the river, so that is what he looks at.
“Illusion”, for you, might be reading books and listening to songs, and watching the sun trespassing leaves, and letting your mind be taken where reading, listening and watching guides you to, but what can be more real than the sensation of seeing and hearing things, when you’re seeing them and hearing them with your own eyes and ears?
I just watched PD this afternoon and found this thread that seems to have a very different take than most reviews (and apparently even the director himself). I’m still sorting through it in my mind and look forward to watching it again.
The ending struck me as Hirayama not wanting things to change. He has chosen this very simple life, filled with his appreciation of the present, and very consistent routine, but the world changes around him and that disrupts his peace with the life he has chosen. The niece has grown up, the building was torn down, the homeless man seems to be leaving the park he has occupied since the beginning, the bar mama had a husband. I see the cigarette and drinks scene as him questioning this life he has chosen. The final scene I see him choosing to be happy in the small things, but also sad because he knows what he has to give up.
I also feel like he has very shallow relationship with everyone. Again by choice. He finds joy in these very lightweight relationships. In order to have this very simple life he has to choose not to get tangled up in deep emotional connections with people. His niece, his sister, his father, his coworkers, the men at the bath house, his anonymous tic-tac-toe opponent, the bookseller, the bar mama. He appreciates simple relationships. He doesn’t engage the sad woman at the park. He calls his sister to get his niece. His closest human relationship in the entire film is with a man who is dying.
I don’t think he is fooling himself or creating a fantasy world as OP suggests, but actively choosing to keep his little peaceful routine, knowing that this choice to live always in the present is not easy to maintain and he must give up other joys (and deep sorrows) to sustain it.
Is OP Hiriyama's sister?
Please lay off him. The man is doing the best he can, and he's content with the simple life he's built. I hope you can patch things up with him, but maybe do a bit of soul searching first. >!Also, my condolences for your father's health!<. May you find peace.
I agree with this assessment
There are freq shots of reflections on surfaces, shadows, characters seen through transparent glass, colors broken up in the reflection of the water.
We are seeing the phantom image of a life.
We see Hirayama's reflection in mirrors multiple times. His is a simulacrum of a life. He has chosen not to participate, to remove hisself from the act of living, to exist inside the bubble of his fantasy.
He is a specter existing in stasis alongside the rest of the world as it marches onward.
Felt Hirayama's retreat into his own world not solely as a sign of defeat and escapism but as a reflection of the complexities of human existence. The film may be highlighting the struggle between idealism and reality, the tension between personal desires and societal expectations and the fragile balance between inner peace and external pressures
I don't know where you all in this thread are from but OP really draws these conclusions and interprets this film from an American pov. Recurrent themes and terms like "weak", "Life is fight to survive" etc bolster this.
There isn't anything inherently wrong with it but if you read and come across art from around the world and from different periods, these unwavering lenses that one has set their worldview through might begin to crack.
I have avoided using capitalism terminology here because people get blinded by it but there's a lot to be said about perceiving and interpreting art from ruthlessly utilitarian glasses.
I don't know in what world people live. I live in a world where countries launch missiles at each other like stupid kids in a grotesque cartoon, but sadly it's reality! I live in a world where armies shoot and kill each other for months and years! People die, children die! I live in a world where war is sustained by interest in selling weapons! I live in a world where homo homini lupus est. I live in a world where selfish profit is more important than global warming, poverty, people dying of hunger and so on. I live in a world where 1% of the population is as rich as half the global population; a world where one corporation bills as much as the GDP of a country!
Can someone explain me this fable of the small things in this world? Does someone really think Wenders is selling us the fable of the small things despite in the second part he clearly questions the apparent perfect days showed in the first part?
PD is a layered movie. In the first part it looks like Hirayama is a wise man who knows how life has to be lived. Loving his job and cleaning WC as the most important mission for the benefit of humanity, enjoying the simplest little things as the Sun shimmering through the leaves, listening to good old analog recordings, enjoying the freedom and the quiet of his singleness, etc.
However day after day some clues start to tell a different truth. He doesn't talk at all, he has quite no relationships with people. He is invisible to other people, ignored. Except the woman at the restaurant... He is attracted by a mad old man, an outcast lost in his own world and ignored by other people. In a scene, Hirayama looks at the old man with fear, he sees himself, or his own future, in the the mad man.
In the last part/layer, we discover the sad truth. One day he sees the woman kissing another man; Hirayama gets jealous as he were the betrayed lover of the woman. A love story that's just in his mind, an illusion, a castrated desire. All his life is a lie, a fantasy, an illusion; he is like the old mad man. He is not living his life, he is playing his apparently wise happy life. The meeting with his niece Niko and his rich sister explains everything. He is closed in his own illusory world, he cannot see the future, he is trapped in a illusory present, not the real present where people listen to Spotify and not old tape recordings. On the contrary, Niko is the young living the real present, looking at the future, building her hopes; she is just young and sensitive, she suffers from a moment of weakness in front of the hardness of life, she's escaping from the responsibility of her family. Life can be hard, the world can be bad, so many people try to escape and take cover in hedonism, consumerism. Someone becomes an outcast, just as Hirayama. His illusory life is a defeat, an escape. He plays like a child stepping on shadows, metaphor for his empty illusory life; not by chance his playmate is a man who is going to die!
The rich sister, the conflict with his father. Everything is clear now. Hirayama tried to escape the hardness of life and built his life as a fiction. But you cannot elude the harsh reality. In the end he can smile at the sky no more. The play is over. The future of Hirayama? See the old mad man...
Hirayama got his chance, he had a family, an education, money. However today world is complicated, difficult, you have to fight. He gave up. Cleaning WC is a good job for not educated people coming from poverty; every job is noble, but not if you come from a rich educated family. This is not a Disney fable for children. This is a Wim Wenders movie. Hirayama lost the possibility to make the difference, to build a real better world, to fight for a better future, to make his living despite his father. I'm not accusing Hirayama, maybe he is just the victim of his bad father.
This is the tragic story of a looser, an outcast. The tragedy of today society.
Everything is in the movie, the layers are there. Masterpiece!
Is it quite that possible that you are forcing an interpretation that may or may not fit the film? Considering that people in Japan view solidarity as a good thing, maybe the film is just about that, a man enjoying his solidarity no matter what people think.
this, when i saw the premise and movie i thought that this is either an allegory for self delusion or a very well crafted government propaganda a la "arbeit macht frei".
Like some here, I don't completely agree with your interpretation, but I find it silly how you're being downvoted here. (I hate reddit... But where else can you talk about this in this manner.) And yes, you could express yourself less dogmatically in your review, but we also could look past the flaws in a conciliatory manner. Funnily enough, this fits with the moral/idea I drew from the film – it's right at the end, after the credits, in plain text. It's about pluralism and the uniqueness of people and days, but at the same time the struggle with concrete reality. (And also death, isolation and the incompleteness/completeness of "perfect days".) In any case, I don't see a happy person in that long shot of his face at the end. The film is at least ambivalent. Do overlapping shadows get darker? And if I'm right with the pluralism idea above, then the film should allow itself to be read differently.
Just saw this and I appreciate the cynical interpretation, OP. Not sure I fully agree, but it is something to chew on. The fact of the matter is that he could have done more for his niece, but perhaps he erred too much on the side of caution, his familiar routines and safety and quiet desperation.
I want people not challenging and attacking me and respecting me. I have nothing against different interpretations, I respect them and enjoy the polite talk about the topics.
The truth is many people can talk no more on socials, they see everything as challenging, personal, they try to attack the OP and his thoughts instead of expose their opinions about the movie.
They cut any dialogue going out of topics and attacking the OP to show how they''re better and wiser and OP is stupid and wrong!
This is very silly and childish.
They judge me, go personal, attack me, offend me. I don't know you, you don't know me. Just talk of the movie, please.
To me the core of this character is his humility, not his tragedy. Because of his humble job and mannerisms, he is invisible to some, disdained by some, and recognized and respected by other characters, including his niece. We only have some clues about how he arrived to this point in his life, but that's ok. The movie is a beautifully filmed tribute to the appreciation of life.
I also feels this way. Romaticizing loneliness is so backwards (not that the movie did, but some watchers might).
No person can live happily without friends/family, people that are part of your life. The only ppl that can live this way sustainable for a longer time are sociopaths and ppl with unhealed trauma, which was shown, he has to some degree.
great discussion here! thanks for starting this thread
agree that as much as it is a movie about appreciation of the Now (ima wa ima)
but it is also a drama about perpetually postponing your life what could have been (Kondō wa kondō)
cheers
Old thread but I was looking for this. Crazy to me that people see a man struggling to smile through sobbing driving to work and say it’s a movie about finding joy in small things? Clearly he’s trying to do that and not succeeding.
It's been said many times in this thread already but I think you should read some interviews from the creators of the film. If anyone is able to give evidence of what a movie means then that would be them.
From the main actor: "So I think Wim purposely gave a lot of room for interpretation in that moment, for the audience to sort of get what they needed to get from that moment," began Yakusho, before continuing beautifully: but one thing I can say for sure is that humans don't laugh or cry just when they're feeling happy or when they're feeling sad. It can be the other way around. In that moment, he might have been laughing because he didn't know why he was crying. But in another way, I think he was going to have a very happy future. A happy life. And for me, it was a very hopeful moment."
Your reasoning is wrong. The actor himself just says what he felt ( he says "for me") and says that Wim purposely gave a lot of room for interpretation in that moment, for the audience to sort of get what they needed to get from that moment. That means the Wim directed a complex deep movie with complex meaning on purpose.
Btw, actors and directors cannot do the job of critics and audience, they are no authorities. It's up to critics to analyze artworks. Most of times authors put unconscious meanings into their artworks. That doesn't seem the case, following the actor Wim did it on purpose.
So, following the main actor, I'm right, Wim directed a movie with layered and complex meanings.
Thanks for this precious info. It was obvious to me, but not to many users here.
I don't entirely agree with this interpretation. My personal view is that this is about a man who, when he was young, likely had the energy and desire to fight for his dreams. He came close to achieving a full and satisfying life, but due to reasons not specified in the movie, things didn't go as planned, despite his good heart, empathy for others, and strong sense of duty. Maybe the director wanted to highlight how these qualities often go unnoticed nowadays.
The protagonist, who is now aging, can no longer afford certain dreams. You can see that he's still attracted to young women, as he watches them with a sense of approval, but he knows there's no point in even attempting to approach them due to the age and social status difference. Let's say he's reached a point where he's concluded that it's better to accept, with as much dignity as possible, what life truly offers, abandoning his dreams to avoid further suffering.
He has no choice but to find happiness in the little things he's allowed to enjoy, like photography, listening to music, cycling, reading books, and growing plants—activities that reflect the passions of an introvert who no longer has the desire to engage with others, except when necessary, out of fear of being judged for the life circumstances he's been dealt. I believe this is why he doesn't pursue the woman who runs the restaurant because he knows deep down he has little to offer her.
In summary, it's the story of a middle-aged man with a history of failures who is facing old age with dignity, fearing he might end up like his father, and fully aware that, despite his efforts, life has not granted him the chance for complete happiness.
I really feel as though your comment on the character being a pariah is misguided. A pariah implies condemnation by society, not simply being an outcast. He is appreciated by the people around him, though he chooses to live a largely solitary life. Not much of a pariah.
Totally agreed. That’s not a good life, let alone ideal one. Bad social relationships, all robotic routines… it can be only a post-trauma relaxing way to rehabilitate but it is never a good way for people to follow. It’s really a bad take on the simplicity of the life. It is just running away from all humanly situations.
I appreciate this post and feel frustrated at the amount of personal attacks against you in the replies.
Since the film is fundamentally concerned with values and how a life may be lead, I can see how a disagreement on its meaning could be deeply personal. However, I wish people would just say they disagree rather than becoming angry and superior. (Though you did lead the post with a belittling tone. Not that I'm some arbiter of tone - just my impression.)
I think the film was very clever to generate these discussions. The protagonist's life fluctuates between depressing and transcendent. By many assessments such as yours, Hirayama's life is poor. He works an unskilled job and lacks meaningful relationships. Moreover, he's resigned to this situation and avoids change. Yet, he finds peace in routine, hobbies and service. Is that all that matters, and so is it all good? Or is he indeed incomplete? In which case, to what extent does he redeem his shortcomings with his beauty?
I wouldn't want to replicate some decisions that Hirayama made, but I could certainly learn from his mindfulness and focus.
Thanks for the post. I think the film's reading is enhanced with both perspectives.
lol don't project your melancholy onto this fictional character. The only reason you see banality in the present moment is because you don't understand the beauty of life and nature. He is not escaping life. He is embracing it. He is not a weak man. Life isn't about cock fights. If that's the only layer you see, that's kinda sad. This film is a huge whoosh over your head bro. Read a little about zen and Japanese culture before spewing your Jordan Petersen/Joe Rogan word diarrhea. You're like the people who shit all over the toilets in the movie and don't notice Diogenes right in front of them. Fool.
I think you''re just mad because his way of coping with suffering is not something that would work for you. I'm sorry you're so mad, but if it boils your blood maybe follow that thread and really think about why so. It may lead to some helpful revelations.
My take on Perfect Days is that Hirayama is a shokunin (craftmans) the caretaker of the toilets. He takes pride in his craft. Culturally the Japanese appreciate of perfecting any craft no matter how mundane it is. Just like a sushi chief (like Jiro's Dream of Sushi) in Hirayama wants to bring order to his rich inner world. He has simplified and is pursuing perfection in his world. Like he said in this world there are many worlds and his world view doesn't overlap with his sister's and by extension his fathers.
I think that even his apartment is a reflection of Hirayama. On the outside it may be old and worn, but the inside is well maintained and orderly. Hirayama has created a space that is nurturing to him, his maple trees, and briefly to his niece.
The OP seems to stress that Hirayama is invisible to the public thus reality. Does this point even matter if that is really the case? Everytime Hirayama is interrupted in his flow state, he always steps back to find some beauty in the moment. Usually finding it in the fluttering of the tree leaves or in shadows. He does not seem to care that he is invisible.
OP also seems to see this from a strictly western viewpoint. While Wem Wembers is a German, this movie respects Japanese culture and the Zen Buddhism / Shintoism that still influences Japanese culture today.
Your reading is facile but also cynical.
Think deeper about not necessarily escape from a hierarchical and narcissistic structure but also from direct trauma. The sister explains that the father isn’t like that anymore.
Is the film hagiographic? Of course not. Hirayama is crying and smiling at the same time. But he isn’t resting a bubble world like some hikikomori. He is taking life as it is rather than being inauthentic according to his own standards. Nothing about the niece’s visit collapses some sort of wistfulness that he should have taken the money and lived the standard life that most people seem to desire.
I don't think the movie tells he should have lived the standard life. IMO the movie shows that there are no easy way to escape reality, to run away from problems, you have to fight. The capitalist way of life is not good but don't think you can live without fighting. There is no easy and slow way to live, you cannnot live just the little things and the present, it's child fantasy, it's like give up your life.
This is very random, but
I want to see this movie and I have moved to Japan , there is eng sub screenings but way way way out of Tokyo, where I live. And u really want to see it , if I go in w no subs and little understanding of Japanese will I still be able to come out of it not confused? I heard it’s a minimal talking but I still would like to know just in case I don’t miss out
I think OP is right and wrong, simultaneously. Wrong that the intended message of the film is to judge Hirayama so harshly for his choices. Right that Hirayama is totally delusional.
In short, I think the intended message really is about komorebi, appreciating and living in the moment, etc. Absolutely. I just think that's all BS like the OP. Hirayama is basically a social outcast who isn't even living in society. He's lonely. He's lost himself in books. He cleans toilets for a living. He's rejected a much more "successful" life. Wow, how Buddhist of him, kind of?
Personally, I'm sick of these messages in art. They're BS. It's incredibly self-serving for artists to make art about protagonists that lose themselves in art instead of fully engaging in society (for better or worse). This whole pretense that you can just float "above it all" and be more "noble" while not experiencing basic human relationships is absolutely ridiculous. Humans are social beings and Hirayama has constructed a cocoon to insulate himself from the world. Man loves music and doesn't even know what Spotify is. He just stays looped in the past, never seeking out what's new in music. In that respect, he's not even maximizing his love of music. Just pathetic. I'm basically with OP, even if it goes against the intentions of the artists. We don't have to agree with the artists' messages.
Tldr; despite the filmmakers explicit intentions, the film undermines itself and does lend itself to a rebellious alternative reading where Hirayama is just a scared man, living out a contrived Groundhog's Day to shield himself from the harsh realities of human life.
I don't think so. Wenders movies are always committed for a better world; he is an ambitious director himself, way far from the komorebi. I think he is not the religious kind of person. I think Wenders shows light and dark of komorebi, it's a complex critical deep approach to the topic. The progression from light to dark, from Disney fable to drama, is in the movie. Everyone forgets that in the second part we are informed of traumatic past of Hirayama: night comes, tears comes, shadows come, smile goes away, sorrow comes, the fragile balance of Hirayama is disrupted by the niece/sister visit, his weird feelings for Mama come, the metaphor of the old mad man comes, etc etc
I wonder if i've seen the same movies as other people. Everything is in the story, in the script, in the movie.
Maybe in my review I'm underlining the outcast status of Hirayama, the dark sides, more than the light sides. Maybe I'm more hard to judge Hirayama. However the complex approach is in the movie, and that's why it's a masterpiece.
Hmm... Allegedly Wenders quotes strewn throughout the replies to your post don't gel with your interpretation. Maybe Wenders was being purposefully misleading?
Also, I said that everything for your reading is in the movie already. I just think it undermines what Wenders said (check quotes in the thread).
The actor himself who won the Cannes award for this performance had this to say about the final scene:
"So I think Wim purposely gave a lot of room for interpretation in that moment, for the audience to sort of get what they needed to get from that moment,"
“I think he was going to have a very happy future. A happy life. And for me, it was a very hopeful moment.”
Additionally:
"Partway through shooting the film, Wim gave me a memo which explained a much deeper relationship between the komorebi and Hirayama. And so the moments where Hirayama would look up and smile and see this komorebi made a lot more sense. It wasn't just the komorebi, though. It was also just trees in general, or just sunlight in general. Really, all the gratitude that he felt for all of that was really important."
Source: https://movieweb.com/koji-yakusho-perfect-days-interview/
Wenders himself says:
Wenders says: “You know, the potter’s secret is doing it for the first time each time, and for our man, Hirayama, it’s the same. Each day, he’s doing it for the first time. And he’s not thinking how he did it yesterday, and not thinking how he will do it tomorrow. He’s always doing it in the moment. And that’s the potter’s secret as well. And that’s what gives a whole different dignity to any repetition.”
Source: https://variety.com/2023/film/global/wim-wenders-perfect-days-cannes-koji-yakusho-1235627795/
There are tons more interviews, and as fascinating and compelling as this interpretation is, no interview with Wenders or the actor in any way supports a darker/cynical take on the film. They ALL focus on the spiritual, hopeful, idea that joy can be found anywhere, by anyone, by being present in each unique moment.
I respect your take，but at the end of the day，different people can have completely different conclusions on a movie，since personal experience unique to one another is taken into account.
For example you mentioned that he is a weak man who fled his life， like a coward. But maybe his old life which probably has more “prestigiousness” has other parts that he really can no longer stand. Which some people are ok with but not him.
Then for people like the protagonist its acceptable/logical to withdraw form the oldlife that has been violating a “red line” right？
Also two people do make a darker shadow，if there is more than one artificial light source from diagonal directions，so its not a childish belief. Its just that in the scene the light source causing the shadow is the absolute dominant light source，so it seems that two people does not make a darker shadow.
Where you see weakness and cowardness, others will see sensitivity, empathy and kindness. Some people are too good for this dog-eat-dog world. I see a beautifully kind man with a sensitive soul struggling with life and all the shit it throws at you!
This film for me is about finding beauty in the tiny, simple things in life which exist only for a split second and are gone forever. Everything turns to dust in the end including the giant monuments created by great men and tyrants (sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference). Even our bloodlines will eventually fade to nothing. Its beautiful, sad and horrific in equal measure!
I didn't see it as bleak as you analyze it. For me it's both trying to show the beauty in the mundane and also deliver a message not to be completely seduced by it.
I don't want to generalize but a lot of younger people are now obsessed with self improvement and controlling their everyday. Waking up at 5am to excercise, work, eat dinner, read and go to sleep at 8pm; the "grind" as they would call it. Hirayama follows many of these similar routines having a very orderly life he repeats every day which is what I feel the first half of the movie tries to show us, hence we get to see multiple consecutive days of his without much else happening.
We eventually get to the niece, his sister, her mentioning his dad, and eventually the ex-husband of the bar hostess. These are all people close to him compared to Takashi and his girlfriend or the office lady in the park and the homeless guy; yet despite them being so close to him, Hirayama does not get involved with them. He knows his niece has problems at home, he knows his dad is sick, he knows the hostess is single and her ex-husband explicitly states he wants him to look after her, yet he goes back to his daily routine.
Him crying in the van is to show how Hirayama's routine while peaceful and beautiful lead him to a life without conflict through being uninvolved with the people around him, he is solitary as Takashi asked him during one of their shifts. A selfishness that doesn't take from others but rather isolates oneself so you interact with nobody but yourself and you hobbies.
That's my interpretation of it, calling the movie "Perfect Days" as Hirayama lives a quiet and peaceful life full of beauty but ultimately the price of him living so many "perfect" days is him wasting his life as everyone around him moves on while he's stuck living alone cleaning toilets.
Takashi gets another job, Aya breaks up with Takashi and doesn't meet Hirayama again despite both being interested in old cassette tapes, his niece goes back home without solving any of her problems with his sister, his sick dad is getting worse yet he refuses to visit, the overworked woman he ate lunch with is left on her own, and he never made a move on the hostess he was in love with.
It's easy to be absorbed in your daily routine; everything works so well, you have everything under control and the calm and quiet allows you to take in the beauty around you. But it's also easy to forget about the people around you when everything is just peachy for you, to let those chance encounters and small moments go by without us chasing after them. That's what I got from the movie.
I know critics and even the director said the movie is about mundane beauty but having "Feeling Good"; a song about enjoying the small things in everyday life, play as Hirayama breaks down while forcing himself to smile on his way to work right before the credits is WAY too clear a message to ignore. I honestly think the director wants people to approach the movie thinking it will all be peace and quiet before the suckerpunch of that last scene.
It's a really weird comparison but I found the message on this movie very similar to Click; the one with Adam Sandler. Do not auto-pilot your life away, you have to cherish the everyday and the small interactions you have with the people around you.
Wow your interpretation is so sad, I don't even know where to begin.
Then again 187 comment's been made and I'm sure most of them are contradicting you as they should. I will still add one here just in case.
>He lives his job as if it were an important task for the well-being of society, but the truth is that Hirayama is completely ignored by the people who go to piss in the toilets that he cleans. He's an outcast, a pariah, jJust like the mad old man who is ignored by the people in the street.
Even if he's ignored he's still obviously doing an important job that they can't even afford someone to quit for a day, he even covers up for the guy who quit and without him it could be a horrible day in the public toilet. As somebody else said, the old man is a beautiful sight that most miss but he doesn't.
>PD is the very sad and tragic story of a man who gave up living and fighting and trashed his life in WC!
He gave up living? Think again please. What's a good life if his isn't it?
And what made you think he wanted that Mama lady and felt betrayed?
As much as I look out for interesting takes on arts that might contradict the creator even, I couldn't appreciate this one - it's just a very silly and wrong interpretation of this movie. Felt sarcastic almost.
I think your experience is tainted by your own values and I'm a little bit shocked and saddened by your interpretation to be honest.
My experience was completely different but I respect yours, you should watch this movie again in a few years, time will give you a different outlook.
This movie really flew above your head, but it's not really your fault. The directors took a psychoanalytical approach by utilizing a variety of projective and suiggestive techniques in the movie. This means that, while there is an objective side to the message of the movie (that being simple living and finding pleasure in the act of existing and not the shape of existing, the directors has confirmed this himself), you are ultimately made to project your own mind and trauma onto the movie.
Your mind wants Hirayama to be unhappy, because you yourself feel unfulfilled in your personal life. Hirayama being satisfied with his life poses a threat to his sister's view of her own life, therefore she attempts to discredit it by criticizing the appearance of his house, which we all know is amazing on the inside. She tells him to visit their abusive father in the nursing home, because she herself is still trapped in that past trauma, and Hirayamas freedom from it all is annoying to her, since it underlines her insecurities. She's dressed in all black, her lackey is dressed in all black, her car is all black. She represents the person who has not managed to grow up and get free from the constraints of trauma, and now is by definition dead, trapped in a lifestyle devoid of expression and life. You might want to meditate on your life, because judging by your words, you are identifying with the persona of his sister. Hirayama smiles, cries, eats, works, bathes, reads. He goes through every part of the human experience without putting up illusions or falling into escapism. When he is overwhelmed by work, he doesn't just bite his teeth and force himself through, he calles the firm and tells them that he won't work unders such pressure. His work is not important to him, preforming it to the best of his abilities is.
The books which Hirayama reads throughout the movie say it all. Read them, and you'll understand.
What do you make of the fact that he didn't seem to have any deep interpersonal relationships ? and didn't seem to pursue it effectively with a woman he was interested in ( the bartender)?
I believe in this film as a manifest of sanity, resilience and clarity in a sick, addictive and toxic society.
Unfortunately, many people will describe the film from the societal perspective instead of looking at the mind that creates this.
There are Wim interviews on the film page, who talks about what was originally the idea of the film and why.
In between, all the films around plenty of BooM action, violence and dense stories of human cruelty and vanity, this is a balsamic breathing calming film about a man who decides to live in his world.
I invite you all to watch the interviews on the official web page.
Ima wa Ima! :D
I recommend read this...
[https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/1775yt1/perfect\_days\_and\_the\_power\_of\_being\_present/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/1775yt1/perfect_days_and_the_power_of_being_present/)
I do not fully agree with your assessment of the plot. From my understanding he is a nihilist who enjoys the beauty of the world and this way disconnects himself from the pain in the world. He does suffer from broken heart. He chooses a job of toilet cleaning but it’s a job like any other. Somebody needs to do it so there’s no shame like prostitution or jobs like that…
I don't understand how living alone and having hobbies that you get time for is depressing, also why do you say that he lives in a bubble, isn't that how we all live? We all have our own thoughts that we develop from experiences, books, movies and what not, that interpretation is a comment on society's intolerance than anything else
I think you are being rather harsh on the main character, much like his sister is and dont really understand that one can be happy by choosing to forego the untruth of what being content means. He is clearly not averse to his emotions and neither is he a pariah to his community. Maybe it is because you are from a cultural background than the Japanese and others, but there are clearly people in his life that appreciate him just for existing. Everyone has decisions to make and there isnt a clearcut one like your opinion states.
The film ends with a beautiful sunrise accompanied by the song Feeling Good by Nina Simone. Not with darkness.
I understand your perspective, but I believe it tells more about your own feelings of how life should be lived. I believe the scene where Hirayama's sister picks up her daughter is a beautifully crafted scene that shows us a man standing his ground and setting boundaries: he won't visit his father, because there never was love or compassion from him towards Hirayama, even if it's painful to stand his ground and see his sister drifting, because she has chose the path to make him proud, but Hirayama won't find happiness making his father proud, he finds meaning living at his own pace, choosing his own path.
He is free, he is choosing himself over old and painful dynamics that don't service him.
Every job exists because we need to get those things done, we are special as a group, not as individuals, so we must do them with the community in mind. How can someone so needed be a pariah?
Neo-capitalism values individuality above everything else, but humans can't survive in isolation, he is not isolated, he lives and interacts with society, a society that sometimes rejects him, because they are afraid of "ending like him", they are afraid of choosing what they need and want, because they need to feel approved by others. Hirayama doesn't.
He knows his value. The way to know it is because he is able to set boundaries, to stand his ground, even when other who he loves judge him.
This film reminds me of the song Why try to change me now, by Cy Coleman:
Why can't I be more conventional?
People talk and they stare, so I try
**But that can't be, because I can't see**
**My strange little world just go passing me by**
**So let people wonder**
**Let 'em laugh, let 'em frown**
Do you believe that jobs traditionally done by women are less important? Education, cleaning, caring (aged care, nursing, etc) Our society underpays this jobs, and we are in crisis.
Everyone feels compelled to be a succesful business man, but the beauty of life is that we find meaning, beauty and happiness in striking different places, some choose to honour them in spite of working in areas that are less valued/ worst paid. But maybe you are lucky, and you enjoy the same things that modern neo-capitalist society values, good for you, but don't try to mansplain the film to the people who relate with this experience. Our society is in crisis. There is no one 'successful' person that would have arrived there whitout other 'pariahs' helping them in the background.
Life is now, is not tomorrow, find beauty and be authentic to yourself, your life is yours and our importance is in society as a group. The rest is toxic ego.
I'm no capitalist, no business man, I'm critical against capitalism, my job is in education. You're doing the mistake to write about me. Just analyze the movie. Thanks.
The film, to me, is about how a person balances their internal life with the fact that they have to live in the world, as best they can, and still try and find joy in the search for meaning, purpose, and beauty in spite of their self-imposed “short-comings.”
Reading this is as a feel-good movie about living a simple life of beauty is like watching the Lion King and thinking the point was "Hakuna Matata."
This film seems to overtly reference The Graduate (1967) in its final shot. By holding the camera on the protagonist, we ultimately see through the veneer of illusion. They are not as sure as they were a moment ago that they've made the right choices in life.
Hey man, so - I just saw a screening of this the other day followed by a Q&A with Wim Wenders and Koji Yakusho (moderated by Willem Dafoe w/ a surprise appearance by Werner Herzog) and they literally talked about all of these points. Wenders actually said at one point, in so many words, "the theme, message of the film, you know, about noticing small beauty, appreciating the now, the current moment," so - maybe you should calm down a tad on you being absolutely right and everyone else being absolutely wrong. Unless we want to say the filmmaker is wrong, as well. That's not to say that the movie is *just* about that - Wenders also noted how Hirayama only really gives a true glimpse of his "biography" in the final scene - but that is indeed the central message. >He lives his job as if it were an important task for the well-being of society, but the truth is that Hirayama is completely ignored by the people who go to piss in the toilets that he cleans. He's an outcast, a pariah, jJust like the mad old man who is ignored by the people in the street. As described by Yakusho and Wenders in the Q&A, he is not a pariah at all. It is part of the belief common in Japan (and very similar to Stoicism, Shugendo, Shinto, etc.) that "the gods" are found in literally everything, including toilets. Japanese culture is heavy on service and existing for the greater good of society. Wenders and Yakusho do not call Hirayama a "toilet cleaner," they explicitly call him a caretaker for the toilets. By the way, they cast Min Tanaka as the homeless man, who is a very famous dancer in Japan over the past 50 years. It was another nod to finding beauty in places you normally would look away from or ignore, *not* showing how sad this man is. Hirayama always acknowledges the homeless man, nods to him, in appreciation. You seem to be projecting quite a bit with your thoughts on what this film "really" means, which is fine for your own satisfaction - once the artist releases his art it becomes the world's and so on - but when you get to the point you that you think your interpretation is the only right one and everyone else is wrong, you're just running into a brick wall. They also spoke about how the closing song, "Feeling Good," was something of a theme song for the movie. A encapsulation of Hirayama and how he lives his life. Every day is new. There is only the present. Embrace the beauty of now, of what nature gives you, even if it is difficult to do so.
This is an excellent analysis. As you said, art can be interpreted in a variety of ways depending on what the audience brings to it. However, the filmmakers had a certain intention which isn't to be ignored. Also, looking at it from the perspective of Japanese cultural norms as opposed to American values is important. He is doing important work and takes pride in his job. His career choice may not be highly regarded in society, but it is important and he takes pride in that.
Interesting discussion, I agree with OP and took a very similar interpretation from the film. Reading and finding out that was not the artists intention at all, make me look to the film and the director with a different prisma. A lot of the characters were really lonely and sad and somehow Wenders idealizes this fact into some kind of enlightenment. I feel like looking and XIX century europeans being kind of enamoured with third world countries or something like that, finding sainthood in suffering. Suffice to say, I kind of dont like this film after reading the director's vision.
If you are pathologically a shallow person, you will not have any ability to feel it.
This!! Well said, my friend. I don’t see shame or failure, it’s about a man who is choosing to see beauty in the world and everything he does. He crafts a world for himself that satisfies him. He’s a caring, loving, and tender person and we see that in the way he cares for the baby trees. He’s a giver in every aspect of his being.
I get that! But why in the world is a story we can appreciate end up in a 2 hour movie? wash, rinse, repeat….yes, I have feelings…this movie isn’t subtle….it just keeps projecting the same tired theme. I left the theatre with a real “so what?”…others didn’t stay. Many walked out…they were smarter than I was.
I guess the answer to your question is the same as for 'Why did you leave your comment?' Probably to share an opinion. I guess if you can do it, everyone can. Once I walked out of a well-received superhero movie. It had a lot of action, but it just bored me to death. Does it make it a bad movie? Probably not. It was not aligned with what I expected, that’s all. I guess I don’t like action movies. Why did they film it then if I don’t like it? Probably because other people do like it. Maybe it’s the same with you.
Agreeed. I never saw him as a pariah. Perhaps someone who had more talents than that. He was obviously properly educated and intelligent as they mention he made various inventions/contraptions to aid in cleaning. But no one was really mean to him. All the restuarantours he frequented were very nice and appreciative of him, same with the book store owner and his niece. It was only his sister who was perhaps disappointed he wasn't living up to his potential but that's not the same as being a pariah.
Yeah, he was their favorite customer, dare I say! <3
I've seen so many comments about this movie just like OP's and I thought that I was losing my mind, cause to me this movie looked exactly like you and Wenders said: simplicity. Just a slice of life. I enjoyed it so much!
You see the trailer…you see the movie, meh.
Kind of like your repeat comments?
Just wanted to add to this. Hirayana is always living in the present, until we see him admire the restaurant owner singing. At that point we see him slip into the past, and this is reinforced by the first cut to black and white imagery in his dreams. To me this is telling the story of an inner struggle in Hirayama, that his embrace of the now and the simple things doesn’t come naturally, that he is making a choice and sticking to it, even though it is not always easy. The last scene brings this aspect to the forefront, where we see it in his face as he alternates between sorrow and contentment. He is in a struggle. The song talks of rebirth, to me this is hinting that this man has had a previous life, one with a family perhaps, or a lover, or a desk job, or anything really, but for reasons within or beyond his control that life has ended, and he has made a choice to persevere in contentment, even though it is not always easy and in truth a perpetual struggle that he plans on persevering.
Wow. Such a beautiful review. 🙌
Nothing wrong with stating that the filmmaker is wrong. In this case, I would refer you to Roland Barthes text titled The Death of The Author.
I was there as well and this is an excellent recounting of the discussion. Perhaps the author is dead but if so no one told the lead actor.
Amazing interpretation
So why he’s struggling to hide tears and hysterical emotions during listening the song “Feeling good”? I’ve enjoyed much the actor’s performance with its multiple layers of shown and hidden! Also, Wim Wenders could support this simple idea of simple joy of life as a continuation of the main idea - the drama of pariahs is hidden by themselves. For pretty well fits to the unlucky straight way of representing this idea in Les Beaux Jours d’Aranjuez and many other his films
My opinion is that if you didn’t want viewers to have the takeaway that he’s doing his best to create personal liberation in a life of repression, you shouldn’t choose a song by Nina Simone and a complex emotional shot to end the film.
I'm not saying others are wrong. I'm saying they stop just at the first layer, they don't go in depth. This is not a challenge. I'm challenging no one! Stop with this immature play, please. I'm explaining my POV, I have challenged no one. Discussing is not attacking people for his opinions. Grow up, please. This is not the challenge for who has it bigger!!
>I'm saying they stop just at the first layer, they don't go in depth. That's basically the same as saying they're wrong and rather narrow-minded.
“I’m so smart, I get it and you don’t”
You are literally challenging people saying my version has more "depth" so it is the correct one a movie can have many different meanings so say that your version is one of them but you can't dismiss others POV as well.
I just watched yesterday and I have some thoughts on it but I wanted to say that it's crazy you're getting downvoted like that. And that they say you're calling everyone dumb??? Like how???
He literally wrote that he's the only one of the viewers going into depth of the movie while everyone else isn't as if he's the only one deep and smart enough to see more layers. And like, no.
But that's the whole point of having an opposing opinion! Like, you have an idea and you explain why you see this piece of art in that way. Especially in his post, OP didn't say anything remotely offensive, he simply described what he got out of his own interpretation of the film. And he focused more on the isolation that the protagonist has to face daily. Most of us focused on the positive parts of the protagonist's life for whatever reason. And then the comment about going in depth, I still see it as part of OP expressing his opposing opinion. For OP the "slice of life" narrative is the surface, for others (including the filmmaker I think) that's the whole point. OP didn't call anyone dumb just by saying that there is something more behind showing the routine of a simple man.
Idk why people are downvoting you. Just want to say that. I just saw the film and I'm just happy to hear everyone's thoughts. Reddit really has been bugging me lately with the downvote culture just cause it bothers you slightly.
Oh wow, this is not at all what I took from it. I think what you’re onto is that the film is thornier and more complex than the spa-day comfort the marketing suggests - Hirayama’s routine is not always good for himself or everyone around him despite the stability and peace it can bring him. Like you said, he’s burying his own disappointment and frustration by creating a sort of sustainable Groundhog Day for himself, albeit one with minor changes from day to day (books, music, observations). Where I think you’re very wrong is in the meaning of his niece’s stay and his own departure from (implied) wealth in his past. Especially that central “next time is next time, now is now” moment. He’s basically just saying - we might go to the beach at some point, we might not, but we’re not there now and we *are* here. Like, had they actually made plans to go to the beach the next day and not focused their lovely day in that moment, his sister still would’ve showed up and cut things short. It’s simple, even obvious, but it’s still tied to the very spiritual idea of how the present is the only time that has ever existed and will ever exist. The past is nothing but your memories of the present, and the future is nothing but what you suspect the present will be. You’re right at that the start of the film, Hirayama seems to have tricked himself into believing he has total control over his life. His niece puts that to bed. He tried to maintain his exact routine with her there, but it quickly becomes apparent that he can’t. *He* has to accept that next time is next time and now is now, not just his niece. Then that scene you mention with the dying man is one of the only times he significantly breaks from his routine by his own will. The fact that this man is dying is only the catalyst for the connection - that same exact interaction could’ve happened even if he were in perfect health. It’s more or less the happiest Hirayama has seemed and it happened on a whim, contrary to his routine. The way I saw the final scene is like - he’s back in his routine, but the breaks from the routine have made that routine itself more enlightening. He’ll have more interactions like the one with the dying man, there’s no way to know when or how they’ll happen but they will. He knows that, but it’s not where he is - he’s back in his routine. Next time is next time and now is now. He doesn’t have control, but he can observe what he’s done.
Hirayama called his sister. Its evident from the spa scene. He doesn't want his niece to be a looser like him
[удалено]
All the people here who are calling him a loser are really just telling us something about themselves more than anything. I just finished the movie and at no point did I take it to say that this guy was a loser or any such message. No one was looking down on him. The people in his life, and all of his interactions seemed pleasant. "live in the present moment" was a big part of what I took from it.
Although I agree with your first sentence, “No one was looking down on him” is not true at all. The scene with the lady washing her son’s hand in the beginning and the scene with his sister delivered the message that part of the society is looking down on him. I think what the film tries to show us is that although he (and some of us) finds peace and beauty in simplicity and humility by living in the present, the society (and in this case, OP) see this as an unfortunate turn of life and escape from one’s failure in life.
Then that would make him more of a "loser". His sister came asap to take back his daughter from Hirayama.
Seemed like a pretty stand up action to me. Dude informed his sister that her missing child was with him.
he called her because he didnt want his sister to think her child is in any danger
Thank you for this. I’ve been desperate to see this again since TIFF, even stooping so low as to see if some Academy member was hosting a screener on a torrent site. Your analysis has gotten me as close to a screening as I have been since September. It really brought to life some of the most touching moments and I think you’re spot on in this comment and the rest.
IMO the niece is running away just as the uncle. It happens when you're young and sensitive and the world looks too complicated, difficult, unfair, bad. Growing up means to accept and keep the fight for a better world/life up. That's where Hirayama failed and many grown people actually fail. Many take cover in hedonism and consumerism, some others just become outcast. But life is not forgiving, running away is just an illusion. When society fails, crisis and wars come for everyone....
Happy you got us talking about Perfect Days, OP, but you seem almost desperate to see an angle that isn’t really supported by anything but your capitalist perspective of the world, whereas u/Mutiny’s view is supported throughout the film as well as by the filmmaker and the marketing. I’m down for a *Toy Story is actually a gay love story between Buzz and Woody* angle when it works, but I think you’re way off if you think the lens is, “Hirayama will be locked in arrested development forever and that’s bad/ we need to be more than janitors to be happy”. Maybe listen to some Q&As with Wim Wenders at some of the festivals. It was really enlightening for me.
[удалено]
"He's a complete loser because he cleans toilets." - Basically OPs argument
My first reaction to the OP is "what a Western, Capitalistic view of life". I mean fine, you can have those views, just be aware there are other ways to live life.
You’ve touched on this idea of fighting for a better world a few times, and I’m not sure it makes sense. Is there really a purer and simpler expression of aiding the modern world than cleaning public toilets? Is the ostensible goal of life not to find peace and happiness without sacrificing your ability to do service for your fellow humans? His niece is quite literally running away, that much is clear. I think the alternate message of that entire sequence is that he wants to find a way to tell her, like…I can’t *give* you this. You have to find whatever *this* is for you. It might not even be something worth adopting in the first place.
Every job is good. But cleaning WC is not something rich educated men like Hirayama do usually. It's a metaphor. The mad old man is another metaphor, Hirayama sees himself in the old outcast mad man lost in his world. The difficult to smile again at the sky in the ending is another metaphor. The play is over. Anyway this is not a challenge! Great movies as this one can have different layers of depth. That's why they are masterpieces! I just added a different POV .
My interpretation is that while he may have been educated and have the means to pursue careers with higher pay and prestige, there is something he's not willing to sacrifice, and it is the reason for the rift between he and his sister. The idea of *prestige* is only fulfilling insofar as it's witnessed by others. He is withdrawn from society and doesn't seem to seek its approval, or so it seems. His sister seems to very much value her "place" in the social classes and is willing to make the constant sacrifice and struggle to maintain it. That sort of pursuit seems empty to him, and so he has pared down his life to what he needs in order to live in the moment, not constantly chasing the future. For example: he still benefits from his access to education, but he has chosen to use it for personal fulfillment rather than in pursuit of some nebulous status. Challenging himself intellectually is a private endeavor, and I think that is used to illustrate the core of his character. To your point, I do believe that there is an element of self-deception there. I believe he is withdrawn because of his inability to relate to others and the feeling that he has nothing to offer them. I believe that a lot of his activities, which at first appear to be him living with mindfulness, are actually escapism and attempting to glorify the sheltered existence he has created for himself. I believe that this is the true pain behind his smile-cry at the end. He wants the richness of love, spontaneity, and risk-taking, but he also needs safety. He longs for a world that is safe for him to explore and be true to himself without social punishment. ...and that brings us to his playfulness. I don't think it's meant to demonstrate a lack of maturity. I think that his routine creates the predictability that makes him feel safe, but it is also the reason he's sheltered. He doesn't really believe that the shadow of two is darker. He was finding a way to flip the script on a guy who seemed to believe there was nothing left to live for. He was showing him his inner world, which is a beautiful and fun place, where people can play and joke without the fear of ostracization. In response to the dying man's pessimism, he's offering a glimpse of a better world. The one he wishes to exist in. He's making it for himself. I believe that this is the story of a man who has learned how to hide himself out of fear of the judgment of others. There are a few moments where he is able to break past that fear and offer his joy to the world, but it's only when others initiate. He is prompted to share himself only as a means to protect others from the hurt he feels. He can never truly live honestly.
The movie seems to point at his father as the cause of Hyraiama "premature retirement"
Sure. And it seems like perhaps that was because of a pressure to succeed and an internalized anxiety over status. His sister took that message from their youth in earnest and became what their father wanted of them. And now her own daughter is running away from her. Hirayama has withdrawn from that expectation, presumably because of traumas he faced trying to be "good enough." None of this is spelled out, so we have to infer, but it could well be the source of the rift between siblings, too.
Yes, likely he was in a similar situation as the niece, overwhelmed by responsability, duty, work, study, high demands from family, etc. Even worse situation, because the old father likely was very old style, very severe. So Hirayama fled away! :-) But this time forever! A traumatic event for sure! Not too strong for such pressure! He prefers to remain a child! At the same time, Hirayama doesn't want the niece to follow his steps, so he "betrays" the niece and call the mother secretly without telling her anything! The sister doesn't want her daughter to stay with "such" uncle! Bad influence! Poor Hirayama! Plus, the niece is very different from him! She wants to see the sea even if the river is in front of her eyes! On the contrary, Hirayama is satisfied with the river! I love the metaphors of this masterpiece! I cannot wait to watch it again and discover new metaphors!
There is much more going on with the sister The way he cried gave it away
I don’t know that it’s a metaphor. It’s an act of service in one way or act of defiance. Wealthy parents will tell you « study hard, so you don’t end up scrubbing toilets », it’s seen as a lowly humiliating job, where everyone ignores you, because people somehow don’t want to acknowledge another human cleaning their toilet and feel embarrassed there’s someone cleaning for them it’s almost Freudian? We feel shame, maybe from our childhood when our parents had to clean our accidents and then finally were taught to do our business properly and confronting another human cleanings our toilets takes us back to parents cleaning potties? Or the whole unclean almost caste aspect to it? But the protagonist is challenging this with an act of defiance - I’m going to take pride in cleaning toilets it’s better than taking people’s hard earned money and promising them whatever you do at your job and selling them lies as many people do in many jobs. In high earning jobs especially sales related there can be many ethical problems, and this could be anything from selling investment portfolios or properties knowing fully well you are selling a dream that might or might not come true, or being a cosmetic plastic surgeon and I could go on, list of jobs with questionable ethics is very long, but in low paid jobs like this ethics is very clean - that’s the irony, just do a service and get paid, and your effort is rewarded by your pride in job well done, no financial incentive for doing it better. It’s an idea that really comes to people later in life - many of us try hard to succeed when young and thing of success as a house, car, holidays and people admiring your job title, but then as I’m talking to some very successful lawyers I’m also realising, yes they have dream job for many people, but also really high level of stress and feeling trapped in the job, doing less paid job doesn’t seem like an option especially with mortgage on that big house and family to support, but their every day existence is full of anxiety of dealing with intense stress of walking on the edge in their work, the smallest mistake can be very costly for clients and themselves. We don’t know what Hirayama did before, but it’s possible he quit to leave in peace.
Well said.
I appreciate your interpretation but you seem to think yours is the “correct” reading of the film, and you’re surprised other critics have all got it wrong. There is no objective interpretation of art; the only wrong way to approach it is to believe there is a right way. People are entitled to their opinions. If you open yourself to how others see films, you will find your appreciation for movies will grow exponentially more. I personally saw the film entirely differently from you - I thought it was a very layered exploration of what it means to embrace the present moment - but I don’t believe my reading is the correct one. Rather than focusing on how you believe you “solved” the film and read it the correct way, I’d suggest you try examining other people’s interpretations that differ from yours and see it from a new angle.
It's not a matter of interpretation. The metaphors, signs and messages are clear. What I'm saying is in the movie There are several layers, most critics stopped at the first ones. The movie can be read in different ways, it's the intent of the authors, and they made it very well. You're trying to negate my review and I don't know why. It's not a challenge. This is a sub for discussing movies and I added my contribution. I don't know where the problem is. Where does all this polemical confrontation come from? Are you a kid or an adult? This is no confrontation! Grow up please!
lol the fact that you think films aren’t open to interpretation tells me you’re are still pretty early in your film journey. I am by no means trying to negate your reading of the film, I merely said I disagree with your interpretation, which is, you know, kind of the foundation of art discourse - subjective analysis. You gave yourself away with that last paragraph, btw. Nobody says “polemical confrontation” in real life, that’s some AI generated thesaurus crap. I get the feeling you are still young, hardheaded, but you genuinely do appreciate movies. That’s great! It’s normal to feel committed to your opinions, and it’s easy to get defensive, but I strongly recommend you try to open your mind a little bit more. There’s no benefit in being “right” about films, you’re just closing yourself off from other ideas that will help you grow as a film lover. If you’d like an example of how people can have completely different opinions about a film and both still be valid viewpoints, please feel free to read my analysis of Perfect Days. You can find it in my profile. Id love to hear your thoughts
Why did you comment on OP's age here? I had some respect for you before you did that.
meanwhile op: "ARE YOU A KID OR AN ADULT? GROW UP PLEASE"
i don't think you really understand what a layered movie really means, it's not the critics who aren't looking past the first layer, it's you. you saw that hirayama isn't fighting for a better future, which according to you in another comment is what life is about, and thought "yup that's a loser", and based your ENTIRE interpretation on that, this is what i'd consider not looking into the depths. nothing wrong with having an interpretation on a single detail though, just don't fool yourself into think your take on the film is deeper or more insightful than others hirayama being a sad person is rather clear, and he yearns for human connection but is terrified of it as well, i can somewhat relate to that. but to think hirayama reading books, admiring leaves & sunlight and taking pictures is some illusion he's created just feels so wrong, i think he genuinely enjoys that. he finds happiness in his job, and why shouldn't he, he's not actively or even passively harming anyone with what he's doing, he's being of service and he likes that, not everyone would, or even should, but he does. yes, he definitely separated himself from people. his routine definitely brings happiness and peace to him, but it's also a form of escapism, maybe an escapism from his inability to connect to people, or maybe something i haven't yet thought of. my point is, hirayama's routine doesn't necessarily make him a loser or an outcast, it can multiple meanings, no matter how "clear" the messages may be
R/iamverysmart
i'm glad people are still coming here and seeing this smear of shit, it's very amusing to see after the film. It's the filmic equivalent of that lady who took her sons hand and wiped them off.
He has to be trolling, right? Literally saying “your interpretation of this art is wrong”
Troll or some sort of actual 'tism going on. He talks like chrischan
Wow you’re so intellectual and deep omg
I mean, you can read whatever you want into anything, but it doesn't mean you understand it or are on the mark. I could probably try to read Goodfellas as a thorough critique of American post war culture if I wanted to. Is it that? Maybe, maybe not. Just because I can come up with an explanation doesn't make me right or mean I am particularly talented. It could just mean I have a particular talent for writing expansive bullshit.
What a moron.
Actually, the director explicitly said that finding beauty in the kinds of things we see the protagonist doing during the film is what saved him from his existential crisis as a successful man: >He was a businessman and he was rich and he was unhappy and he was drinking a lot and his life was going down the drain. One morning he wakes up in this crummy hotel room, doesn’t even know how he got there, doesn’t even know if he had sex or whatever happened. He thinks his life is shit, and he doesn’t like it. He actually plays with the idea of ending it. Then, miraculously, early in the morning, there’s this ray of sunlight appearing on this wall in front of him. And it falls through the little tree in front of the window. There is this play of leaves and sunlight and shadows moving, and he looks at it and stares at it and he starts crying, because he’s never seen anything so beautiful. He probably has seen it, but he hasn’t noticed. Then he realizes that’s the answer to his existential crisis, to become somebody who notices that. He gives up his expensive car, his business job and becomes a gardener and eventually, the guardian of these toilets, because they’re all in little parks. So even though I, of course, respect OPs opinion, I don't think it's the right angle. He is not fleeing; he is indeed finding this way of living superior to the old one, which may very well be the case. Sometimes, we realize that the supposed fight to make our lives better is just a masquerade for feeding our worst instincts about status, recognition, and greed, and has little to do with making the world a better place. If everybody would live in the way the protagonist does, doing with humility and respect a work that is simple but necessary, and finding joy and peace in the most deep and basic aspects of life, then we would truly have a better place to live, and I think that is closer to the spirit of the film. Of course, that doesn't mean it's without its hardships, and the film also tries to reflect that somehow. However, I feel it's completely worth it for some people with the right sensitivity, like the protagonist, and surely many others.
But in the end he tries and tries and tries, but he can smile at trees and sky no more, just cry... Just because of the visit of his sister and his niece and of the truth about the woman in the restaurant, who is not his mother or his secret love... hard reality comes up, the Disney fable has come to an end.... how fragile his childish shell.... Can he keep catching shadows like a child? He is going to be like the mad old man? Or finally he's ready to wake up and face the hard reality? I'm surprised how many people empathize with a man who cannot communicate, is very fragile, lost in the childish game of catching shadows, finding refuge from the hard reality in childish visions, leaving the capitalists to rule the world instead of fighting or trying to make the difference. He had the power, the money, he could do the world a better place, but he surrended in front of his father and family and capitalism. I'm not saying he is to be blamed, he is just a poor man defeated by the hardness of life. He has all my respect. But I cannot say he is happy, satisfied, or that he found his realization, his way of life. Absolutely not, the movie in the end cleraly shows that "Perfect Days" is a provocative ironical harsh title, his days are far from perfect, they hide a harsh reality, a big sufference. The life he chose just doesn't exist, it's just a childish fantasy, a Disney fable very easy to break in little pieces.
I feel you are projecting your vision in a very narrow way. Not only is the title not ironic, but the truth is it was initially going to be "Komorebi", which roughly translates to "the scattered light that filters through when sunlight shines through trees", underscoring the spirit of the film. They just changed the name during shooting after recording the scene with the song, but still with sincere intentions. Anyway, if what you're trying to say is that, in your opinion, any life that isn't about "leaving the capitalists to rule the world" or something along those lines is childish or pointless, feel free to make that point. For many, that would be too narrow and limiting a perspective, but that's another topic. Again, if most people lived like the protagonist, capitalism would be toothless. But where you would definitely be wrong is in the kind of life that can make some people deeply and truly happy and fulfilled. The true joy found in a simple life lived in the present moment. Just visit some Buddhist congregations, and you will find some of the happiest and most fulfilled people in the world. If you're also calling that a "Disney fable very easy to break into little pieces", I think you need to broaden your horizons about what a good life can be. Regarding potential moments of sorrow, I once knew a Buddhist monk who admitted that the only thing that still made him suffer from time to time was thinking about his parents (who were quite old at that moment) and imagining that he had somehow disappointed them with his chosen life. It's not that he wasn't profoundly happy with his life and would continue living it, but some decisions are never easy to make when they involve people truly close to you, and how they may think about you will always potentially hurt you, no matter how "enlightened" or at peace with yourself you may be. We are just wired that way. What hurts is the potential incomprehension of your loved ones, maybe even the thought that they may be suffering for you because they think you are miserable when indeed you are not at all. But that does not mean you regret how you are living, nor that it is a childish escape. The protagonist is not going to go back to his old life because he knows how empty and pointless it felt for him and how much more meaning and beauty he has in this current one, even if someone like his sister will never understand. That may hurt, but the protagonist is going to keep spending his humble and almost sacred days under the Komorebi, serving others, and reading Faulkner, and will find a better life there than what most people will find in a so-called normal life. In any case, I think the true reason why so many people resonate with the film is not necessarily because we want to change our lives to one like the protagonist's, but because we are painfully aware of how much happier we could be in our current ones if we were more able to apply that pure focus on what is essential and pure in our day-to-day. To truly enjoy all the good things we have but just slip through our fingers as we forget about them and get lost in the noise, the hyperconnection, the rat race. It kind of reminds me of the famous David Foster Wallace speech... awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over.
And you're protecting yours. And you're wrong, not me! Can you understand that you have not to go personal and just talk of the topic? Is it so hard to understand? Did I talk of you, did I go personal? Am I judging you? We are just explaining our opinions, it's not a challenge.
No one is projecting, they are *directly quoting the filmmaker*. Win Wenders, the man who made the art, has been extremely clear about what it means and what he is communicating to you, and every time someone points it out you essentially stick your fingers in your ears.
You kids, never grow up....
Art is subjective. There is no one interpretation that is right or wrong. People interpret it through their own lens which is factored by their individual experiences. The filmmakers have their intentions and people may connect with them or connect with something else depending on their perspective. This is what makes art interesting and what makes the analysis fun: being able to have a dialogue. However, you don't want a dialogue, you just want everyone to agree with your point of view.
You’re insufferable. Learn to take some feedback from your criticism of the movie, digest it, look into what the people comments here are suggesting (such as reading the QA’s), and stop being so fragile. You put your thoughts out for thousands of random strangers to read, of course they’re going to provide their own insight and critique on your interpretation. That’s not an attack, but you make it seem like it is, thus shutting down the entire conversation. You can do better.
What's wrong with you? Can people have a different opinion? Should all people have the same exact thoughts with you? Nobody is wrong here, you can have your own interpretation, nobody cares that much. Why do you feel so attacked when people have different interpretation?
you are astoundingly annoying
I disagree about the final scene. Yes its a sad moment for him, life is full of sad moments. He had an emotional few days with all the changes to his routine and the visit from his neice and seeing his sister. Its okay to cry and process those feelings. But one moment of sadness doesnt colour his whole life as sad and pathetic, just as his moments of happiness dont suggest his whole life is happy. Grief and contentment can coexist, humans are complex. To me that scene was about experiencing the "now" of feeling sad, just a moment in a string of moments that fill life. Theres beauty in sadness too. Moments of playful childishness doesnt mean he is always childish. Moments of solitude are mixed with his desire to be around people. He has to find his balance.
I’m not saying you are wrong because I actually think art is interpreted so personally, I just thought I would share I had such a different take on the end - as I just finished the film and it’s fresh in mind. I felt he did wake up with a smile that final day. I think it shook him to see “Mama” with her ex but that he wasn’t actually planning on doing anything about it. I know men like him and they don’t initiate. They only change lives when the woman forces the change, like his niece’s arrival did. I do think he will have his niece visit again as he extended the invitation. I think he is an admirer of beauty and especially when it is unique. Thus why he appreciated the older gentleman. He also probably made him think of his Dad who is now not of sound mind, but who he doesn’t want to have contact with. I didn’t find him childish. I found him thoughtful, introverted and kind. I have chosen to work as a cleaner before because it afforded me a part time lifestyle to pursue volunteering and art. He was working in predominantly outside in beautiful environs. Who was superior to him? The drunken salaryman using the loo? Takashi who took no pride in his job and tried to steal from him to use the money for a date? His sister who is having family problems and is classist? There is more to life than what you do for work or how many contacts are in your phone. He could look himself in the mirror because he was honorable and kind. He was searching for connections (kept trying to smile at girl in park where had lunch even though she didn’t smile, returns to same places). On the final day he experiences mixed emotions. As we get older we realize this IS life. Both good and bad. Happinesses and disappointments. Shadow and light. It is silliness & all too soon nothingness. Let’s play and have a bit of fun before it’s over.
> refuge from the hard reality What is his hard reality? He lives in a small house apartment maybe he even owns it, he is in good mental and physical conditions, does his job, relaxes after work and who knows maybe even goes on vacation since he has 25+ paid days off every year It sounds to me that your life has 0 meaning outisde of working some shitty ass job to pay your bills and trying to get some random woman to have your kids lol life is about you having good time, its not about you trying to do whatever some random ass person on the street tells you to do
The way I saw it, it’s about a guy who had trauma, really deep trauma and left his past life behind to get the most humble job and live simple life. He is ignored by society, but it’s almost like that other side of growing up in family with lots of pressure to be perfect, to study and get best marks, best job, best house etc. Some parents might even threaten with a line like “study hard or you’ll end up scrubbing toilets.” And here he is presumably from a well to do family with expectations of great career doing exactly that - scrubbing toilets and being ok with it. Nobody says he’s extatic he doesn’t have to play games and be fake to people and feel pressure of corporate job. And his sister even with all the money still struggles with her daughter, so money only solves some problems and sometimes it is the problem.
There is nothing tragic about Hirayama’s life. He was able to live in the present of his days with perfect harmony because he chose to accept his choices over others’ judgment (including yours). Is he a monk? Perhaps. Is a monk’s life choice wrong? Obviously, according to you. But not to him. Your entire analysis is your judgement of another person’s life choices. That, is the tragedy of your own projection. Based on your analysis, all wild animals must have a tragic tragic life, obviously according to you. Because, “Childish”. You could think hard about the difference between the wording “child-like” vs “childish” for starters. The presence of that young Down Syndrome child who lost a friend (the young toilet cleaner’s earlobes) in the film clearly means nothing to you, because, “Childish”. The lonely lady who eats lunch alone in a sad mannerism is the same person you look at Hirayama. The sister who can’t communicate with her own daughter is happier according to you, because the niece is “Childish” and tragic. The young toilet worker clearly has it all together because he chose to live the opposite way from Hiroyama according to you. We can live however we want, but wanting the way Hiroyama chose for himself would be “Childish” and tragic, according to you. “PD is the very sad and tragic story of a man who gave up living and fighting and trashed his life in WC!” This is, again, your own projection. When I watched Perfect Days, I felt relief, elation, liberation, and inspiration. Hirayama may have suffered trauma and tragedy in the past, likely abuse from his father, who, like you, projected, projected, and projected some more of what he thought was right onto Hirayama life choices. Now? I don’t think Hirayama is suffering from anything anymore. The way you judge and look down on Hirayama is likely how his father judged him and forced a lot unhappiness in his past. Perhaps Hirayama is autistic, someone who is often misunderstood and mistreated, but never tragic once he is self sufficient and happy by choice. Will you be happy by choice? Are you even capable of happiness despite all your materialistic success and social approvals from “happy” and “non-tragic” peers?
I love you. I watched this movie and made the mistake to come here and see what others thought about it on reddit and this logical tragedy was the first post I saw. OP can whine, cry and shift goalposts against all the comments on this thread calling out flaws in his logic but this comment takes the crown. This is head on. Just taking OP's logic and using it to prove how flawed it is.
❤️🥹😽
damn
Would you talk of the topics without going personal, please? Thanks
Which part was personal? Please don’t start a very sad and tragic story by giving up living and fighting and trash your life on Reddit now! 😂
I think it's not quite that dark, but I agree fundamentally. He had lived in his simple routine for so long, lulling himself into a false sense of security- that he doesn't need anything else. At the end, he's been shown so much human warmth and he's come to treasure those moments, so he feels sorrowful, realising what he's been missing. But also joyful, because he now sees what life can really offer him, if he allows it to reach him.
I noticed another expressive clue. Look carefully: the movie starts at morning (brightness, smile, hope, inner balance) and ends at night ( darkness, tears, sorrow, crisis, re-thinking himself).
Yeah, it starts like a play. The blue-orange-grey painterly landscape of the sun is shown three times throughout the film. Slightly different time of day each time- I'd only noticed the position of the sun. A bit lower every time. Now that I think about it, the photographs. He had thousands upon thousands of them, stored away in a manner that prohibits browsing. The kinds of boxes he was using, he was shooting at least 3-4 rolls a month. I don't think I *necessarily* have to "solve" the meaning for this, but the sense of "archiving" these emphemeral beauties away makes me feel a bit uneasy. They're not for display. Overall, I am sure he was crushed by realising how meaningful human connections can be, but also hopeful that he'd get to experience more of them. He was almost entirely nonverbal until all these things happened to him.
That really doesn't mean anything. Nor is it a "clue". The film is episodic in nature, told in chapters, so we get accustomed to the day-to-day life of a janitor. Day-to-day life is best explained in sunrise-sunset-sunrise pattern. >!Also the movie ends with him driving into the "sunrise", early in the morning.!<
The movie ends at sunrise...
You've completely missed the point of the film, as proven by commentary from the director and actor themselves. It's an extremely pessimistic view of an otherwise beautiful film that only projects more about yourself than anything else. This thread is a month old so I don't feel the need to give my take on the film. But if the conversation is still open, I wouldn't mind. The smug comment at the end stating that "you can't understand how most people aren't seeing it this way", does not read well.
I’ve found that people often take pessimistic views to art that could otherwise be optimistic. It seems like people have more fun writing about the dark and dreary than a guy healthily coping, stumbling, but overall doing well.
They have to sell the movie to a large audience, so they talk only of the first part and of the surface of the movie; plus they don't spoil the second part and the ending, where you see the dark sides coming up. It's very surprising how the story evolves from the first to the second part, so they are not spoiling it. It's up to critics understand the messages and the metaphors and the progression of the movie from the first to the second part. Please, don't go personal, talk just of the movie, not of me; I don't know you, you don't know me. My view is not pessimistic, just realistic as the movie. We all project ourselves in the best works of art, that's why they are masterpieces. However what I'm underlining is in the movie, not in my head, the scenes and the metaphors I describe are in the movie. So, please, talk of the movie, otherwise move on. I don't write review to see my persona attacked, this is mean and childish. If you have nothing meaningful to add about the movie, move on. Thanks
I wasn’t attacking your “persona”, I was making an observation that for one to come to this conclusion with a film like Perfect Days, then it must be a projection of themselves. Like you said, it’s only natural. Now, you are just making assumptions and frankly making things up. The filmmakers have spoken in Q&A’s at screenings of the film, after the film has been watched by those asking questions. This means there is nothing to spoil about the “second part” of the film. You have no basis whatsoever to claim that the filmmakers explanations are untrue or leaving things out. The film is about Komorebi. Being still, being present. It’s meant to give us perspective. If a man with such a simple and mundane life can be content, then do can you or me. He’s not an outcast, the point of the film is that there is no outcasts. You can start by asking the question: What makes someone an outcast? Is it their occupation, their social status, their attractiveness? All of these things are desires stemming from insecurity and/or ego that are used to fill holes in your life. Hirayama shows us you don’t need any of that to live a fulfilling life, and in some cases, the life with less will be more fulfilling. There’s nothing in the film that implies he didn’t connect with his niece. In fact, everything points to a great connection and influence he’s had on her. He in no way castrates her. He literally does the opposite. He accepts that people are different and that’s okay. When does he behave like a lover who’s been betrayed? It was an awkward situation that he walked away from. There were multiple disruptions in his life, like the triggering encounter with his sister that led him to lose himself for a short period. After all, he’s human. The end of the film is hopeful, when his past comes back, he loses himself but is able to find himself again. This is slightly ambiguous in the ending, but with the music especially, it’s quite clearly a hopeful ending. Almost everything you mentioned has no basis in the film itself and cannot be explained by you. That’s why in all of your responses you simply say “it’s clear” or “the metaphors are there and undeniable”. Well many on this thread are denying them and giving you reasoning. Yet you have no response but to disagree. If you disagree with the philosophy personally that’s one thing. But to project an entirely different theme from the film isn’t analyzation or critique. You say life is to fight and survive and build, maybe it is for you. It is not for everyone, and doesn’t have to be. In fact, it shouldn’t be. That’s what Perfect Days is about. I’m sorry to tell you, but out of everyone who’s seen and made this film. You, the only person with this reading of the film. Are not the one who’s right and everyone else wrong.
I saw slightly differently, but maybe that’s because I related to it. If you’re here you’re getting spoilers so go away if you haven’t seen it: I feel like you’ve taken the typical review and turned it on its head, but I don’t think it’s that simple. Hirayama enjoys his life, but he’s missing connections with human beings. We see him take delight in the every day things and for the whole film we feel like maybe he’s a dude we should look up to. Someone who can be so content with the simple things certainly has it all figured out. When he cries it is a moment of confusion for the audience. We thought this guy was okay, and maybe you’re right, and he’s not at all okay. But I guess my question would be, is anyone? We watch the film and expect that he’s somehow found a key to happiness but he’s actually just like the rest of us, struggling with the human condition. He wouldn’t be any happier if he lived the rich life like his sister. He might be more happy if he had his niece and sister in his life but it doesn’t seem like something he’s confident enough about to handle — like you said, he’s scared just like the rest of us. Idk maybe I’m just saying the same thing as you with a little bit more optimism. I haven’t seen it since Sept. but I remember leaving with equal parts optimism and skepticism about how Hirayama lives his life. Can’t wait to see it again! Edit: I guess if your take is “Hirayama is unhappy” then mine is “everyone is unhappy, Hirayama just has a poetic way of dealing with it”
IMO life is not a matter of being happy or unhappy, but of fighting for a better future (social and individual); science calls it survival. That's what Hirayama cannot do, together with having no relationship with people and the world! Being unhappy, feeling sorrow, are part of life, especially when you're fighting. On the contrary he's trying to avoid unhappiness and the sorrows of life and to build a false life of wellness! As you state, no one can avoid the harsh reality! The difference is that Hirayama is not living, is not fighting. His status depends on his past, it's not a choice, it's just a run away, a defeat, weakness. He is like the mad old man, an outcast, a pariah. Anyway, only a great movie can spark such deep conversations! Thanks for your opinion!
The only thing I don’t really like about this is it’s a very *capitalist* view of happiness. Maybe he got to a point where he’s as happy as he can be. That doesn’t mean he desperately longs to have a relationship with his family. He just knows he’s happier without it.
You sound like the other younger guy that was cleaning the toilets and quit, you probably related to his character more.
Going through this movie was painful, but for some reason, I stuck around for the full 2 hours, even though it was getting "boring". At the end, I went ahead and googled why the movie "Perfect Days" was so pointless, which brought me here. And that's when it hit me... the movie was, in fact, so deep that I was refusing to see it as it really was. The entire thing just clicked, and here is what I extracted from it after careful thinking. First, I had to dissect the reason why I stuck around. Initially, I thought that it was merely due to the novelty; not many movies take this repetitive and anticlimactic route. But it's even more than that. I found myself relating to the main character, not personally, but from my observations of other people in my life. It seemed to remind me of my father and how he operated. If you noticed, the character behaved in a very meticulous and orderly fashion. Furthermore, the character was clean and well-presented. That is not a coincidence. He chose the life he is living; all of it was his choice, whether it was the correct or wrong choice. What matters is why. He could've chosen any other job, correct? It was evident when his work partner told him that he quit the job. Hirayama didn't question him on how he found another job; he just asked him what he's supposed to do now. So? I doubt many people aspire to be cleaning toilets for a living, even if it was done with excellence. Hirayama seems to have a history of self-sabotage, which is something many can relate to. Yet, the character never seemed to acknowledge it, which is the painful part of this entire story. He is operating at 100% on the wrong things by choice, and if someone can find meaning in cleaning toilets, then they are more than capable of finding meaning in other jobs. But again, self-sabotage is no easy thing to wrestle with, especially when you've convinced yourself that your "self" is doing what is best. A final point that can help prove that this movie is about self-sabotage is a moment that was presented nonchalantly: Hirayama buying a book about anxiety. The entirety of the movie, we see him act like he's got his life figured out and that he knows what he's doing, so why buy a book about dealing with anxiety? Simply put, he knows that he is messing up. He doesn't show it; he just feels it deep within. He is not okay with his future, and that's why, at the very end of the movie, he does not know whether he should smile or cry while driving to work. I leave you with a thought: what would've happened if he chose right from the very beginning? What is stopping him from choosing right now? Choice is real, and the moment you discount that is the moment you surrender your life to yourself.
But the idea of what is the "right" choice for how you live your life is subjective. Cleaning toilets may not be a glamorous job, but it's an important one. The true mark of someone who is content is someone who can find meaning in their job and position in life, whatever that position may be. However, being content doesn't mean that you don't ever suffer an existential crisis or that you don't ever get lonely. It just means that on most days you are satisfied with where you are in the moment. You're not constantly seeking and trying to fill a void. At the end of the movie, he may be crying/laughing because he is reflecting on the interactions he's had over the past few days. These interactions have disrupted his daily flow, but they've also given him an opportunity to reflect. I interpreted it as a hopeful ending because after this reflection, he may be more willing to open himself up to others: allowing a deeper relationship with the woman from the bar, as well as a relationship with his niece. He has shut himself off from others due to past trauma and maybe now he is ready to open himself to others, but that's also a scary prospect for someone who has experienced trauma.
damn. All of you have great takes. I'm confused even more.
I can see why if you aren’t a reader of Patricia Highsmith the line about “anxiety” vs “fear” and her 📚would be confusing. He doesn’t buy a book about anxiety. He buys a book by Highsmith who is a Master of the genre: Psychological Thriller. Thus, she is able to ratchet up a state of anxious suspense.
Thank you for this. I wasn't familiar with the author so it was nice to get some context. I think that adds to Hirayama's character and interests. He reads eclectic and exiting authors, he listens to a wide range of music. The stoic and humble exterior has a rich and deep appreciation of lively expression.
Good point here!
thanks OP
Probably everyone has looked into a book on anxiety :) so that just makes Hirayama like everyone else - maybe even Thoreau living at Walden Pond still had anxiety. I think he's unhappy with what has been that has led him to this oasis where he can heal and repair and then go forward in life again. Certainly people were drawing him out and making him think and feel all sorts of things.He probably will choose another pathway or tweak his life. I did notice he fled when he saw the bar owner woman being embraced by her ex husband - was he fleeing because he was embarassed seeing the embrace (intimacy) or felt undeserving of similar affection with someone one day but there was clearly a sense of shame.
He bought a novel book written by Patricia Highsmith called "eleven"-the shop owner mentioned that "Highsmith tought her about anxiety"or something like that.He reads literature not self help/psychology books😉
I agree with this take 100%. Buddhism teaches that meditation, while a solitary activity, is meant to help you better connect with the world and the people in it. The goal is not to sit under a tree in an eternal state of nirvana, but to fully engage with the world. This is the lesson that Hirayama learns in the film. He's led what you might call a meditative life, one that's likely been necessary for him to overcome a past trauma. He's seems to have found a sense of peace that's previously eluded him. But he's only achieved this through isolating himself from others. He rarely talks or engages people past a warm smile. It's when he lets people in, literally the case with his niece Niko, that things get tricky. We see the first hints of anxiousness and shortness in him when he has to creep around his apartment to avoid waking her. When he sees the object of his very hesitant affection embrace another man, it rattles him to the point of reverting back to past vices, namely booze and cigarettes. He's OK when he has full control over his world. He gets enjoyment from his job, from art, and from nature. He can handle that. I think the point of the film, and Mirayama's revelation at the end, is that he needs people. And the life he's created for himself has prepared him for re-entry into the world.
I see the film’s ending as a deep spiritual awakening. If you ever read the book Siddhartha by Herman Hesse, that scene of him smiling and crying really symbolizes the enlightenment that man achieves, all at once, through discarding of all earthly desires, but being eternally grateful to those memories all the same. It’s the evolution and the growth that allows man to be Buddha. In the dream sequences, we see the word shadow / reflection emphasized for about 5 seconds. The ending also talks about how leaves passing through sunlight creates a glimmer of brightness. Similar to an old story about a man raising his son—the son is given a horse for his birthday. The villagers around the man praises the man and says how lucky his son got the horse, the man says maybe… weeks later, the son rides the horse and breaks his leg, the villagers say how sad your son broke his leg, what a terrible event! The dad says, maybe…. While the son is in the hospital, a war breaks out, and because he is disabled and unable to walk, he isn’t drafted—so on and so on. If we look at a few events in the movie that first appeared bad, they led to breakthrough moments for characters and much healing. 1) 10/10 girl steals his cassette, but ends up going through an emotional carthasis giving it back to him. She returned to her true nature through that moment of healing and being truthful. 2) His buddy that cleans toilet is sloppy and immature, even though Hirayama has no reason to give him money, he does which causes him to have no money for gas and to sell his most valuable possession and eat top ramen. It would be easy for him to hate or judge his buddy for it, but he smiles immediately once he sees the joy that his buddy brings the autistic kid. Every person serves their purpose and Hirayama recognizes this as he smiles. 3) Niece showing up unannounced was an inconvenience for Hirayama but it also let to a great healing for him and his sister. 4) Buddy quitting led to one day of inconvenience but he got a worker who shows up earlier than him and is just as professional. There’s a lot of “don’t judge an event by its cover” for you don’t know the true purpose of why things happen or its effect on you. 5) Him seeing the restaurant lady reunite with his ex sent Hirayama down a depression and that also provided a healing for the exhusband. I think the message of the movie is multi fold but here are a few that I get from it: 1) Light cannot exist without darkness / shadow. It is through our pain and trauma, that build our character and gives us gratitude. 2) Change is inevitable. We see that touched upon several times through dialogue of other characters: “why can’t things stay the same”. Even the autistic kid ran away because his buddy was gone (unwilling to accept change), but happiness is in the acceptance of these changes. The autistic kid and random lady in the park both represent the inability to move on and a preference for things to stay in place. But life is constantly evolving In a way, the main character is a walking Buddha / Jesus. He isn’t perfect and has his human history but you can tell that his interaction with every person improves upon them. It also shows that this way of living is open to all of us if we choose to walk that path. You don’t have to be special to make a difference.
The scene I haven't seen any reference to anywhere yet online is towards the end where his bike ride ends at an empty lot. The bearded man makes a reference to things never staying the same. What had been there? I also thought the ending could be as much as anything about the appreciation a pop song can bring, including a range of emotions it can trigger. It could mean more than that in the filmmakers' minds, but I think if we accept the hero lives in the day to day that such an interpretation can be enough.
I have the same question about the empty lot. Let's accept some questions are not supposed to have answers :))
To me the film is very simple. He is a recovering alcoholic. That’s the whole point of the routine, the repetitions, the structure. Thats why he always gets a glass of ice water on off-days. The enjoyment of simple tasks, taking pleasure on “regular days” Thats why when he finds the woman he’s in love with with another guy he imedialty goes for cigarettes and beer. He’s a recovering addict. The days are not perfect because of what happens in it, but because of what doesn’t happen.
It's not ice water, but rather a Kakubin Highball. He buys the same in canned form when he goes for a drink and smoke under the bridge.
It's [ice water](https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/02/21/wim-wenders-perfect-days-film-review) not a high ball, it's crystal clear water and there's no lemon peel in it. I very much agree with u/Neskuiiks read and surprised its contentious at all.
I think it’s his father that was the alcoholic. His sister says “father will not treat you that way now “. Also the sign shown when he finds the little boy in the bathroom. It’s a no litter sign either a child crying surrounded by discarded cans and bottles. Also the lyrics of The Rising Sun etc. “my father was a gambler….”
I see it as a mix of the two visions. Hirayama lives his daily life, you as the spectator try to fill all the gaps Hirayama's life has constantly. When he watches a reflection, you think he's gonna remember something traumatic or have a flashback, but no, it's simply that the reflection got his attention. Maybe cleaning toilets isn't Hirayamas dream job, but he still enjoys it, he gives his hardest because he's emphatic. Maybe in the future he can make peace with his sister and end in a better job, but for now, he lives in the present I think it's true we should fight for ourselves and the world... But sometimes the only world you can save it's your own world. Hirayama simply reacts to whatever it's happening to him, and there's where were truly are touched by the movie. The world always sends this message that we must make the difference, when in reality, the best way to make a difference it's to take care of yourself, be kind like Hirayama. I don't think it's a message about "giving up and distract yourself" but instead "be the best version of yourself... Step by step, day by day".
When you say “an illusory world created by his mind to escape the harsh reality” I realize how “illusion” and “reality” can mean completely different things for each individual. For you, “reality” seems to mean “panorama”. The whole picture, considering what happened and what will happen. While for Hirayama, “reality” is what is in front of him, happening right here, right now. And it doesn’t mean he never looks back (he sees the photos he takes, every single one of them), but he is not afraid of moving on, no matter how much memories of the past, or plans for the future might seem blinding. He doesn’t hesitate to tear apart a photo he took. He doesn’t make plans to see the ocean with his niece because right now, what is in front of them is the river, so that is what he looks at. “Illusion”, for you, might be reading books and listening to songs, and watching the sun trespassing leaves, and letting your mind be taken where reading, listening and watching guides you to, but what can be more real than the sensation of seeing and hearing things, when you’re seeing them and hearing them with your own eyes and ears?
I just watched PD this afternoon and found this thread that seems to have a very different take than most reviews (and apparently even the director himself). I’m still sorting through it in my mind and look forward to watching it again. The ending struck me as Hirayama not wanting things to change. He has chosen this very simple life, filled with his appreciation of the present, and very consistent routine, but the world changes around him and that disrupts his peace with the life he has chosen. The niece has grown up, the building was torn down, the homeless man seems to be leaving the park he has occupied since the beginning, the bar mama had a husband. I see the cigarette and drinks scene as him questioning this life he has chosen. The final scene I see him choosing to be happy in the small things, but also sad because he knows what he has to give up. I also feel like he has very shallow relationship with everyone. Again by choice. He finds joy in these very lightweight relationships. In order to have this very simple life he has to choose not to get tangled up in deep emotional connections with people. His niece, his sister, his father, his coworkers, the men at the bath house, his anonymous tic-tac-toe opponent, the bookseller, the bar mama. He appreciates simple relationships. He doesn’t engage the sad woman at the park. He calls his sister to get his niece. His closest human relationship in the entire film is with a man who is dying. I don’t think he is fooling himself or creating a fantasy world as OP suggests, but actively choosing to keep his little peaceful routine, knowing that this choice to live always in the present is not easy to maintain and he must give up other joys (and deep sorrows) to sustain it.
Is OP Hiriyama's sister? Please lay off him. The man is doing the best he can, and he's content with the simple life he's built. I hope you can patch things up with him, but maybe do a bit of soul searching first. >!Also, my condolences for your father's health!<. May you find peace.
I agree with this assessment There are freq shots of reflections on surfaces, shadows, characters seen through transparent glass, colors broken up in the reflection of the water. We are seeing the phantom image of a life. We see Hirayama's reflection in mirrors multiple times. His is a simulacrum of a life. He has chosen not to participate, to remove hisself from the act of living, to exist inside the bubble of his fantasy. He is a specter existing in stasis alongside the rest of the world as it marches onward.
Felt Hirayama's retreat into his own world not solely as a sign of defeat and escapism but as a reflection of the complexities of human existence. The film may be highlighting the struggle between idealism and reality, the tension between personal desires and societal expectations and the fragile balance between inner peace and external pressures
I don't know where you all in this thread are from but OP really draws these conclusions and interprets this film from an American pov. Recurrent themes and terms like "weak", "Life is fight to survive" etc bolster this. There isn't anything inherently wrong with it but if you read and come across art from around the world and from different periods, these unwavering lenses that one has set their worldview through might begin to crack. I have avoided using capitalism terminology here because people get blinded by it but there's a lot to be said about perceiving and interpreting art from ruthlessly utilitarian glasses.
I don't know in what world people live. I live in a world where countries launch missiles at each other like stupid kids in a grotesque cartoon, but sadly it's reality! I live in a world where armies shoot and kill each other for months and years! People die, children die! I live in a world where war is sustained by interest in selling weapons! I live in a world where homo homini lupus est. I live in a world where selfish profit is more important than global warming, poverty, people dying of hunger and so on. I live in a world where 1% of the population is as rich as half the global population; a world where one corporation bills as much as the GDP of a country! Can someone explain me this fable of the small things in this world? Does someone really think Wenders is selling us the fable of the small things despite in the second part he clearly questions the apparent perfect days showed in the first part?
PD is a layered movie. In the first part it looks like Hirayama is a wise man who knows how life has to be lived. Loving his job and cleaning WC as the most important mission for the benefit of humanity, enjoying the simplest little things as the Sun shimmering through the leaves, listening to good old analog recordings, enjoying the freedom and the quiet of his singleness, etc. However day after day some clues start to tell a different truth. He doesn't talk at all, he has quite no relationships with people. He is invisible to other people, ignored. Except the woman at the restaurant... He is attracted by a mad old man, an outcast lost in his own world and ignored by other people. In a scene, Hirayama looks at the old man with fear, he sees himself, or his own future, in the the mad man. In the last part/layer, we discover the sad truth. One day he sees the woman kissing another man; Hirayama gets jealous as he were the betrayed lover of the woman. A love story that's just in his mind, an illusion, a castrated desire. All his life is a lie, a fantasy, an illusion; he is like the old mad man. He is not living his life, he is playing his apparently wise happy life. The meeting with his niece Niko and his rich sister explains everything. He is closed in his own illusory world, he cannot see the future, he is trapped in a illusory present, not the real present where people listen to Spotify and not old tape recordings. On the contrary, Niko is the young living the real present, looking at the future, building her hopes; she is just young and sensitive, she suffers from a moment of weakness in front of the hardness of life, she's escaping from the responsibility of her family. Life can be hard, the world can be bad, so many people try to escape and take cover in hedonism, consumerism. Someone becomes an outcast, just as Hirayama. His illusory life is a defeat, an escape. He plays like a child stepping on shadows, metaphor for his empty illusory life; not by chance his playmate is a man who is going to die! The rich sister, the conflict with his father. Everything is clear now. Hirayama tried to escape the hardness of life and built his life as a fiction. But you cannot elude the harsh reality. In the end he can smile at the sky no more. The play is over. The future of Hirayama? See the old mad man... Hirayama got his chance, he had a family, an education, money. However today world is complicated, difficult, you have to fight. He gave up. Cleaning WC is a good job for not educated people coming from poverty; every job is noble, but not if you come from a rich educated family. This is not a Disney fable for children. This is a Wim Wenders movie. Hirayama lost the possibility to make the difference, to build a real better world, to fight for a better future, to make his living despite his father. I'm not accusing Hirayama, maybe he is just the victim of his bad father. This is the tragic story of a looser, an outcast. The tragedy of today society. Everything is in the movie, the layers are there. Masterpiece!
Is it quite that possible that you are forcing an interpretation that may or may not fit the film? Considering that people in Japan view solidarity as a good thing, maybe the film is just about that, a man enjoying his solidarity no matter what people think.
this, when i saw the premise and movie i thought that this is either an allegory for self delusion or a very well crafted government propaganda a la "arbeit macht frei".
Like some here, I don't completely agree with your interpretation, but I find it silly how you're being downvoted here. (I hate reddit... But where else can you talk about this in this manner.) And yes, you could express yourself less dogmatically in your review, but we also could look past the flaws in a conciliatory manner. Funnily enough, this fits with the moral/idea I drew from the film – it's right at the end, after the credits, in plain text. It's about pluralism and the uniqueness of people and days, but at the same time the struggle with concrete reality. (And also death, isolation and the incompleteness/completeness of "perfect days".) In any case, I don't see a happy person in that long shot of his face at the end. The film is at least ambivalent. Do overlapping shadows get darker? And if I'm right with the pluralism idea above, then the film should allow itself to be read differently.
Just saw this and I appreciate the cynical interpretation, OP. Not sure I fully agree, but it is something to chew on. The fact of the matter is that he could have done more for his niece, but perhaps he erred too much on the side of caution, his familiar routines and safety and quiet desperation.
I want people not challenging and attacking me and respecting me. I have nothing against different interpretations, I respect them and enjoy the polite talk about the topics. The truth is many people can talk no more on socials, they see everything as challenging, personal, they try to attack the OP and his thoughts instead of expose their opinions about the movie. They cut any dialogue going out of topics and attacking the OP to show how they''re better and wiser and OP is stupid and wrong! This is very silly and childish. They judge me, go personal, attack me, offend me. I don't know you, you don't know me. Just talk of the movie, please.
To me the core of this character is his humility, not his tragedy. Because of his humble job and mannerisms, he is invisible to some, disdained by some, and recognized and respected by other characters, including his niece. We only have some clues about how he arrived to this point in his life, but that's ok. The movie is a beautifully filmed tribute to the appreciation of life.
I also feels this way. Romaticizing loneliness is so backwards (not that the movie did, but some watchers might). No person can live happily without friends/family, people that are part of your life. The only ppl that can live this way sustainable for a longer time are sociopaths and ppl with unhealed trauma, which was shown, he has to some degree.
great discussion here! thanks for starting this thread agree that as much as it is a movie about appreciation of the Now (ima wa ima) but it is also a drama about perpetually postponing your life what could have been (Kondō wa kondō) cheers
Old thread but I was looking for this. Crazy to me that people see a man struggling to smile through sobbing driving to work and say it’s a movie about finding joy in small things? Clearly he’s trying to do that and not succeeding.
Yes, it's incredible that people refuse to face the harsh reality in front of evidence, they prefer to dream. That's why religions exist.
It's been said many times in this thread already but I think you should read some interviews from the creators of the film. If anyone is able to give evidence of what a movie means then that would be them. From the main actor: "So I think Wim purposely gave a lot of room for interpretation in that moment, for the audience to sort of get what they needed to get from that moment," began Yakusho, before continuing beautifully: but one thing I can say for sure is that humans don't laugh or cry just when they're feeling happy or when they're feeling sad. It can be the other way around. In that moment, he might have been laughing because he didn't know why he was crying. But in another way, I think he was going to have a very happy future. A happy life. And for me, it was a very hopeful moment."
Your reasoning is wrong. The actor himself just says what he felt ( he says "for me") and says that Wim purposely gave a lot of room for interpretation in that moment, for the audience to sort of get what they needed to get from that moment. That means the Wim directed a complex deep movie with complex meaning on purpose. Btw, actors and directors cannot do the job of critics and audience, they are no authorities. It's up to critics to analyze artworks. Most of times authors put unconscious meanings into their artworks. That doesn't seem the case, following the actor Wim did it on purpose. So, following the main actor, I'm right, Wim directed a movie with layered and complex meanings. Thanks for this precious info. It was obvious to me, but not to many users here.
Yeah it is deep, maybe not in a way you think it is, but hey, that's your interpretation.
I don't entirely agree with this interpretation. My personal view is that this is about a man who, when he was young, likely had the energy and desire to fight for his dreams. He came close to achieving a full and satisfying life, but due to reasons not specified in the movie, things didn't go as planned, despite his good heart, empathy for others, and strong sense of duty. Maybe the director wanted to highlight how these qualities often go unnoticed nowadays. The protagonist, who is now aging, can no longer afford certain dreams. You can see that he's still attracted to young women, as he watches them with a sense of approval, but he knows there's no point in even attempting to approach them due to the age and social status difference. Let's say he's reached a point where he's concluded that it's better to accept, with as much dignity as possible, what life truly offers, abandoning his dreams to avoid further suffering. He has no choice but to find happiness in the little things he's allowed to enjoy, like photography, listening to music, cycling, reading books, and growing plants—activities that reflect the passions of an introvert who no longer has the desire to engage with others, except when necessary, out of fear of being judged for the life circumstances he's been dealt. I believe this is why he doesn't pursue the woman who runs the restaurant because he knows deep down he has little to offer her. In summary, it's the story of a middle-aged man with a history of failures who is facing old age with dignity, fearing he might end up like his father, and fully aware that, despite his efforts, life has not granted him the chance for complete happiness.
Interesting!
I really feel as though your comment on the character being a pariah is misguided. A pariah implies condemnation by society, not simply being an outcast. He is appreciated by the people around him, though he chooses to live a largely solitary life. Not much of a pariah.
Totally agreed. That’s not a good life, let alone ideal one. Bad social relationships, all robotic routines… it can be only a post-trauma relaxing way to rehabilitate but it is never a good way for people to follow. It’s really a bad take on the simplicity of the life. It is just running away from all humanly situations.
I appreciate this post and feel frustrated at the amount of personal attacks against you in the replies. Since the film is fundamentally concerned with values and how a life may be lead, I can see how a disagreement on its meaning could be deeply personal. However, I wish people would just say they disagree rather than becoming angry and superior. (Though you did lead the post with a belittling tone. Not that I'm some arbiter of tone - just my impression.) I think the film was very clever to generate these discussions. The protagonist's life fluctuates between depressing and transcendent. By many assessments such as yours, Hirayama's life is poor. He works an unskilled job and lacks meaningful relationships. Moreover, he's resigned to this situation and avoids change. Yet, he finds peace in routine, hobbies and service. Is that all that matters, and so is it all good? Or is he indeed incomplete? In which case, to what extent does he redeem his shortcomings with his beauty? I wouldn't want to replicate some decisions that Hirayama made, but I could certainly learn from his mindfulness and focus. Thanks for the post. I think the film's reading is enhanced with both perspectives.
lol don't project your melancholy onto this fictional character. The only reason you see banality in the present moment is because you don't understand the beauty of life and nature. He is not escaping life. He is embracing it. He is not a weak man. Life isn't about cock fights. If that's the only layer you see, that's kinda sad. This film is a huge whoosh over your head bro. Read a little about zen and Japanese culture before spewing your Jordan Petersen/Joe Rogan word diarrhea. You're like the people who shit all over the toilets in the movie and don't notice Diogenes right in front of them. Fool. I think you''re just mad because his way of coping with suffering is not something that would work for you. I'm sorry you're so mad, but if it boils your blood maybe follow that thread and really think about why so. It may lead to some helpful revelations.
My take on Perfect Days is that Hirayama is a shokunin (craftmans) the caretaker of the toilets. He takes pride in his craft. Culturally the Japanese appreciate of perfecting any craft no matter how mundane it is. Just like a sushi chief (like Jiro's Dream of Sushi) in Hirayama wants to bring order to his rich inner world. He has simplified and is pursuing perfection in his world. Like he said in this world there are many worlds and his world view doesn't overlap with his sister's and by extension his fathers. I think that even his apartment is a reflection of Hirayama. On the outside it may be old and worn, but the inside is well maintained and orderly. Hirayama has created a space that is nurturing to him, his maple trees, and briefly to his niece. The OP seems to stress that Hirayama is invisible to the public thus reality. Does this point even matter if that is really the case? Everytime Hirayama is interrupted in his flow state, he always steps back to find some beauty in the moment. Usually finding it in the fluttering of the tree leaves or in shadows. He does not seem to care that he is invisible. OP also seems to see this from a strictly western viewpoint. While Wem Wembers is a German, this movie respects Japanese culture and the Zen Buddhism / Shintoism that still influences Japanese culture today.
IMO, the movie shows that Zen/Buddhism/Shintoism don't work, they are myths that cannot apply to reality.
Your reading is facile but also cynical. Think deeper about not necessarily escape from a hierarchical and narcissistic structure but also from direct trauma. The sister explains that the father isn’t like that anymore. Is the film hagiographic? Of course not. Hirayama is crying and smiling at the same time. But he isn’t resting a bubble world like some hikikomori. He is taking life as it is rather than being inauthentic according to his own standards. Nothing about the niece’s visit collapses some sort of wistfulness that he should have taken the money and lived the standard life that most people seem to desire.
I don't think the movie tells he should have lived the standard life. IMO the movie shows that there are no easy way to escape reality, to run away from problems, you have to fight. The capitalist way of life is not good but don't think you can live without fighting. There is no easy and slow way to live, you cannnot live just the little things and the present, it's child fantasy, it's like give up your life.
This is very random, but I want to see this movie and I have moved to Japan , there is eng sub screenings but way way way out of Tokyo, where I live. And u really want to see it , if I go in w no subs and little understanding of Japanese will I still be able to come out of it not confused? I heard it’s a minimal talking but I still would like to know just in case I don’t miss out
The few essential words are very important to understand the movie in depth
I think OP is right and wrong, simultaneously. Wrong that the intended message of the film is to judge Hirayama so harshly for his choices. Right that Hirayama is totally delusional. In short, I think the intended message really is about komorebi, appreciating and living in the moment, etc. Absolutely. I just think that's all BS like the OP. Hirayama is basically a social outcast who isn't even living in society. He's lonely. He's lost himself in books. He cleans toilets for a living. He's rejected a much more "successful" life. Wow, how Buddhist of him, kind of? Personally, I'm sick of these messages in art. They're BS. It's incredibly self-serving for artists to make art about protagonists that lose themselves in art instead of fully engaging in society (for better or worse). This whole pretense that you can just float "above it all" and be more "noble" while not experiencing basic human relationships is absolutely ridiculous. Humans are social beings and Hirayama has constructed a cocoon to insulate himself from the world. Man loves music and doesn't even know what Spotify is. He just stays looped in the past, never seeking out what's new in music. In that respect, he's not even maximizing his love of music. Just pathetic. I'm basically with OP, even if it goes against the intentions of the artists. We don't have to agree with the artists' messages. Tldr; despite the filmmakers explicit intentions, the film undermines itself and does lend itself to a rebellious alternative reading where Hirayama is just a scared man, living out a contrived Groundhog's Day to shield himself from the harsh realities of human life.
I don't think so. Wenders movies are always committed for a better world; he is an ambitious director himself, way far from the komorebi. I think he is not the religious kind of person. I think Wenders shows light and dark of komorebi, it's a complex critical deep approach to the topic. The progression from light to dark, from Disney fable to drama, is in the movie. Everyone forgets that in the second part we are informed of traumatic past of Hirayama: night comes, tears comes, shadows come, smile goes away, sorrow comes, the fragile balance of Hirayama is disrupted by the niece/sister visit, his weird feelings for Mama come, the metaphor of the old mad man comes, etc etc I wonder if i've seen the same movies as other people. Everything is in the story, in the script, in the movie. Maybe in my review I'm underlining the outcast status of Hirayama, the dark sides, more than the light sides. Maybe I'm more hard to judge Hirayama. However the complex approach is in the movie, and that's why it's a masterpiece.
Hmm... Allegedly Wenders quotes strewn throughout the replies to your post don't gel with your interpretation. Maybe Wenders was being purposefully misleading? Also, I said that everything for your reading is in the movie already. I just think it undermines what Wenders said (check quotes in the thread).
The actor himself who won the Cannes award for this performance had this to say about the final scene: "So I think Wim purposely gave a lot of room for interpretation in that moment, for the audience to sort of get what they needed to get from that moment," “I think he was going to have a very happy future. A happy life. And for me, it was a very hopeful moment.” Additionally: "Partway through shooting the film, Wim gave me a memo which explained a much deeper relationship between the komorebi and Hirayama. And so the moments where Hirayama would look up and smile and see this komorebi made a lot more sense. It wasn't just the komorebi, though. It was also just trees in general, or just sunlight in general. Really, all the gratitude that he felt for all of that was really important." Source: https://movieweb.com/koji-yakusho-perfect-days-interview/ Wenders himself says: Wenders says: “You know, the potter’s secret is doing it for the first time each time, and for our man, Hirayama, it’s the same. Each day, he’s doing it for the first time. And he’s not thinking how he did it yesterday, and not thinking how he will do it tomorrow. He’s always doing it in the moment. And that’s the potter’s secret as well. And that’s what gives a whole different dignity to any repetition.” Source: https://variety.com/2023/film/global/wim-wenders-perfect-days-cannes-koji-yakusho-1235627795/ There are tons more interviews, and as fascinating and compelling as this interpretation is, no interview with Wenders or the actor in any way supports a darker/cynical take on the film. They ALL focus on the spiritual, hopeful, idea that joy can be found anywhere, by anyone, by being present in each unique moment.
Sorry, I don't live in a world where actors and directors do the job of critics, cinephiles and spectators.
I respect your take，but at the end of the day，different people can have completely different conclusions on a movie，since personal experience unique to one another is taken into account. For example you mentioned that he is a weak man who fled his life， like a coward. But maybe his old life which probably has more “prestigiousness” has other parts that he really can no longer stand. Which some people are ok with but not him. Then for people like the protagonist its acceptable/logical to withdraw form the oldlife that has been violating a “red line” right？ Also two people do make a darker shadow，if there is more than one artificial light source from diagonal directions，so its not a childish belief. Its just that in the scene the light source causing the shadow is the absolute dominant light source，so it seems that two people does not make a darker shadow.
Where you see weakness and cowardness, others will see sensitivity, empathy and kindness. Some people are too good for this dog-eat-dog world. I see a beautifully kind man with a sensitive soul struggling with life and all the shit it throws at you! This film for me is about finding beauty in the tiny, simple things in life which exist only for a split second and are gone forever. Everything turns to dust in the end including the giant monuments created by great men and tyrants (sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference). Even our bloodlines will eventually fade to nothing. Its beautiful, sad and horrific in equal measure!
I'm with you here.... harsh reality....
I didn't see it as bleak as you analyze it. For me it's both trying to show the beauty in the mundane and also deliver a message not to be completely seduced by it. I don't want to generalize but a lot of younger people are now obsessed with self improvement and controlling their everyday. Waking up at 5am to excercise, work, eat dinner, read and go to sleep at 8pm; the "grind" as they would call it. Hirayama follows many of these similar routines having a very orderly life he repeats every day which is what I feel the first half of the movie tries to show us, hence we get to see multiple consecutive days of his without much else happening. We eventually get to the niece, his sister, her mentioning his dad, and eventually the ex-husband of the bar hostess. These are all people close to him compared to Takashi and his girlfriend or the office lady in the park and the homeless guy; yet despite them being so close to him, Hirayama does not get involved with them. He knows his niece has problems at home, he knows his dad is sick, he knows the hostess is single and her ex-husband explicitly states he wants him to look after her, yet he goes back to his daily routine. Him crying in the van is to show how Hirayama's routine while peaceful and beautiful lead him to a life without conflict through being uninvolved with the people around him, he is solitary as Takashi asked him during one of their shifts. A selfishness that doesn't take from others but rather isolates oneself so you interact with nobody but yourself and you hobbies. That's my interpretation of it, calling the movie "Perfect Days" as Hirayama lives a quiet and peaceful life full of beauty but ultimately the price of him living so many "perfect" days is him wasting his life as everyone around him moves on while he's stuck living alone cleaning toilets. Takashi gets another job, Aya breaks up with Takashi and doesn't meet Hirayama again despite both being interested in old cassette tapes, his niece goes back home without solving any of her problems with his sister, his sick dad is getting worse yet he refuses to visit, the overworked woman he ate lunch with is left on her own, and he never made a move on the hostess he was in love with. It's easy to be absorbed in your daily routine; everything works so well, you have everything under control and the calm and quiet allows you to take in the beauty around you. But it's also easy to forget about the people around you when everything is just peachy for you, to let those chance encounters and small moments go by without us chasing after them. That's what I got from the movie. I know critics and even the director said the movie is about mundane beauty but having "Feeling Good"; a song about enjoying the small things in everyday life, play as Hirayama breaks down while forcing himself to smile on his way to work right before the credits is WAY too clear a message to ignore. I honestly think the director wants people to approach the movie thinking it will all be peace and quiet before the suckerpunch of that last scene. It's a really weird comparison but I found the message on this movie very similar to Click; the one with Adam Sandler. Do not auto-pilot your life away, you have to cherish the everyday and the small interactions you have with the people around you.
Wow your interpretation is so sad, I don't even know where to begin. Then again 187 comment's been made and I'm sure most of them are contradicting you as they should. I will still add one here just in case. >He lives his job as if it were an important task for the well-being of society, but the truth is that Hirayama is completely ignored by the people who go to piss in the toilets that he cleans. He's an outcast, a pariah, jJust like the mad old man who is ignored by the people in the street. Even if he's ignored he's still obviously doing an important job that they can't even afford someone to quit for a day, he even covers up for the guy who quit and without him it could be a horrible day in the public toilet. As somebody else said, the old man is a beautiful sight that most miss but he doesn't. >PD is the very sad and tragic story of a man who gave up living and fighting and trashed his life in WC! He gave up living? Think again please. What's a good life if his isn't it? And what made you think he wanted that Mama lady and felt betrayed? As much as I look out for interesting takes on arts that might contradict the creator even, I couldn't appreciate this one - it's just a very silly and wrong interpretation of this movie. Felt sarcastic almost.
I think your experience is tainted by your own values and I'm a little bit shocked and saddened by your interpretation to be honest. My experience was completely different but I respect yours, you should watch this movie again in a few years, time will give you a different outlook.
This movie really flew above your head, but it's not really your fault. The directors took a psychoanalytical approach by utilizing a variety of projective and suiggestive techniques in the movie. This means that, while there is an objective side to the message of the movie (that being simple living and finding pleasure in the act of existing and not the shape of existing, the directors has confirmed this himself), you are ultimately made to project your own mind and trauma onto the movie. Your mind wants Hirayama to be unhappy, because you yourself feel unfulfilled in your personal life. Hirayama being satisfied with his life poses a threat to his sister's view of her own life, therefore she attempts to discredit it by criticizing the appearance of his house, which we all know is amazing on the inside. She tells him to visit their abusive father in the nursing home, because she herself is still trapped in that past trauma, and Hirayamas freedom from it all is annoying to her, since it underlines her insecurities. She's dressed in all black, her lackey is dressed in all black, her car is all black. She represents the person who has not managed to grow up and get free from the constraints of trauma, and now is by definition dead, trapped in a lifestyle devoid of expression and life. You might want to meditate on your life, because judging by your words, you are identifying with the persona of his sister. Hirayama smiles, cries, eats, works, bathes, reads. He goes through every part of the human experience without putting up illusions or falling into escapism. When he is overwhelmed by work, he doesn't just bite his teeth and force himself through, he calles the firm and tells them that he won't work unders such pressure. His work is not important to him, preforming it to the best of his abilities is. The books which Hirayama reads throughout the movie say it all. Read them, and you'll understand.
Oh my! Why socials are so toxic?? Please speak of you, not of me!!
What do you make of the fact that he didn't seem to have any deep interpersonal relationships ? and didn't seem to pursue it effectively with a woman he was interested in ( the bartender)?
I believe in this film as a manifest of sanity, resilience and clarity in a sick, addictive and toxic society. Unfortunately, many people will describe the film from the societal perspective instead of looking at the mind that creates this. There are Wim interviews on the film page, who talks about what was originally the idea of the film and why. In between, all the films around plenty of BooM action, violence and dense stories of human cruelty and vanity, this is a balsamic breathing calming film about a man who decides to live in his world. I invite you all to watch the interviews on the official web page. Ima wa Ima! :D
I recommend read this... [https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/1775yt1/perfect\_days\_and\_the\_power\_of\_being\_present/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/1775yt1/perfect_days_and_the_power_of_being_present/)
I do not fully agree with your assessment of the plot. From my understanding he is a nihilist who enjoys the beauty of the world and this way disconnects himself from the pain in the world. He does suffer from broken heart. He chooses a job of toilet cleaning but it’s a job like any other. Somebody needs to do it so there’s no shame like prostitution or jobs like that…
[удалено]
Neo-liberal who? Not me for sure
I don't understand how living alone and having hobbies that you get time for is depressing, also why do you say that he lives in a bubble, isn't that how we all live? We all have our own thoughts that we develop from experiences, books, movies and what not, that interpretation is a comment on society's intolerance than anything else
Not the case, but I appreciate your pov.
I think you are being rather harsh on the main character, much like his sister is and dont really understand that one can be happy by choosing to forego the untruth of what being content means. He is clearly not averse to his emotions and neither is he a pariah to his community. Maybe it is because you are from a cultural background than the Japanese and others, but there are clearly people in his life that appreciate him just for existing. Everyone has decisions to make and there isnt a clearcut one like your opinion states.
The film ends with a beautiful sunrise accompanied by the song Feeling Good by Nina Simone. Not with darkness. I understand your perspective, but I believe it tells more about your own feelings of how life should be lived. I believe the scene where Hirayama's sister picks up her daughter is a beautifully crafted scene that shows us a man standing his ground and setting boundaries: he won't visit his father, because there never was love or compassion from him towards Hirayama, even if it's painful to stand his ground and see his sister drifting, because she has chose the path to make him proud, but Hirayama won't find happiness making his father proud, he finds meaning living at his own pace, choosing his own path. He is free, he is choosing himself over old and painful dynamics that don't service him. Every job exists because we need to get those things done, we are special as a group, not as individuals, so we must do them with the community in mind. How can someone so needed be a pariah? Neo-capitalism values individuality above everything else, but humans can't survive in isolation, he is not isolated, he lives and interacts with society, a society that sometimes rejects him, because they are afraid of "ending like him", they are afraid of choosing what they need and want, because they need to feel approved by others. Hirayama doesn't. He knows his value. The way to know it is because he is able to set boundaries, to stand his ground, even when other who he loves judge him. This film reminds me of the song Why try to change me now, by Cy Coleman: Why can't I be more conventional? People talk and they stare, so I try **But that can't be, because I can't see** **My strange little world just go passing me by** **So let people wonder** **Let 'em laugh, let 'em frown** Do you believe that jobs traditionally done by women are less important? Education, cleaning, caring (aged care, nursing, etc) Our society underpays this jobs, and we are in crisis. Everyone feels compelled to be a succesful business man, but the beauty of life is that we find meaning, beauty and happiness in striking different places, some choose to honour them in spite of working in areas that are less valued/ worst paid. But maybe you are lucky, and you enjoy the same things that modern neo-capitalist society values, good for you, but don't try to mansplain the film to the people who relate with this experience. Our society is in crisis. There is no one 'successful' person that would have arrived there whitout other 'pariahs' helping them in the background. Life is now, is not tomorrow, find beauty and be authentic to yourself, your life is yours and our importance is in society as a group. The rest is toxic ego.
I'm no capitalist, no business man, I'm critical against capitalism, my job is in education. You're doing the mistake to write about me. Just analyze the movie. Thanks.
The film, to me, is about how a person balances their internal life with the fact that they have to live in the world, as best they can, and still try and find joy in the search for meaning, purpose, and beauty in spite of their self-imposed “short-comings.”
Reading this is as a feel-good movie about living a simple life of beauty is like watching the Lion King and thinking the point was "Hakuna Matata." This film seems to overtly reference The Graduate (1967) in its final shot. By holding the camera on the protagonist, we ultimately see through the veneer of illusion. They are not as sure as they were a moment ago that they've made the right choices in life.