Séance (2000)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

the audience applauded

Just perfect...

Excellent but underrated film

First, I'll explain the 8. It's a plot thing. I found myself yelling at the two leads to not do something stupid, but no initial stupidity, no subsequent movie.Second, if you haven't seen "Séance on a Wet Afternoon" or "Macbeth," don't look at Kurosawa's interview on the DVD extras until after you see this movie. There are plot spoilers in the interview.Third, am I the only one who sees a parallel between both "Séance"s and "Macbeth"? All three are about power hungry women who work their will on their all too devoted spouses. Kurosawa saw it, beginning with a quote from Macbeth's "Tomorrow and tomorrow..." soliloquy and then check out the music that's playing when Kôji Yakusho's character, Satô, confronts his doppelgänger.Now for the differences among the three stories. Kurosawa states that he had not seen the original "Séance on a Wet Afternoon," but that he used the same novel as the source for his screenplay. He cited a difficulty in making a story originally taking place in 1960's England fit 21st Century Japan. One thing he cited was the difficulty of portraying a crime that might have been considered commonplace in '60's England and that would be such a rarity in present-day Japan as to be unthinkable for the average Japanese audience member. Another thing he did was to alter the way his female lead expressed her fundamental craziness. Kim Stanley's character was flamboyant, charismatic, coquettish and kittenish, disconcertingly so for a middle-aged hausfrau psychic superstar wannabe. Jun Fubki's rendering of Junko Satô is no less crazy, but she's introverted, uncharismatic, mousy, and playing older than she is. Lady Macbeth has been subjected to countless interpretations, all along the spectrum between the Stanley and Fubuki continuum. But all three have in common an implacable desire for power and husbands who will do their bidding. All three of them show more and more psychopathology as they are assailed by the ghosts they help create, but none of them consciously concedes any guilt. Their husbands, in contrast, assume more than their share of the blame. I leave it to the viewer to decide how much blame Satô should bear. To say more would be a spoiler.Another thing I love about this movie is the carpet of sound that takes the ordinary and makes it frightening without resorting to excessive distortion or trickery. The sound picture is to this movie what the lighting and cinematography were to "Séance on a Wet Afternoon." They both put me inside the story. I too found myself having to pause it because it was dragging me along for the ride to such an extent that the characters' hurts felt like my hurts too.

I am a great fan of Kurosawa's movies, yet I find this film a weak shadow of his usual work. I think this comes in large measure from his own statement that this film is a combination of a horror movie combined with a crime movie and the original 1960s story. It seems just too convoluted to succeed. On top of that, he claims that there were numerous rewritings of the 1960s story to fit it into the real world, whatever that means. The Left Elbow Index considers seven elements in film--acting, production sets, dialogue, plot, film continuity, character development, and artistry--on a scale from 10 for very good to 5 for average and to 1 for it needs some help. The acting, production sets, and dialogue are all rated average. The acting seems stilted and seems better timed to fit a soap. The production sets appear to be little more than what one sees in one's daily environs. And the dialogue seems to fit modern life, no great philosophies and no great blunders. The plot is rated weak since it appears difficult to sort out important elements of plot from trivial events in the film. The elements of plot and the emotional level of the film seem not to fit together well, even the suspense scenes appear hollow. The film continuity appears upset by the episodic TV nature of the juxtaposition of scenes, which seems to present too much clutter. I wonder why film makers tend towards putting characters in autos and driving them in and out of scenes, like Roy Rogers cowboy movies. We know how Roy got to and from where ever he was going, must he always be seen jumping on and off Trigger? There seems little character development to speak of, probably because the characters do not appear to be in a suspense, a horror story, or the real world. The artistry is rated as average, keeping in mind that average for Kurosawa is excellent for others. The close-ups are good and there are some interesting camera angles. The Left Elbow Index average is 3.3, up to a 5.0 when equated with the IMDb scale. The film is worth seeing, as any of Kurosawa's work is, but don't expect the master at his best.

There are two kinds of films in the world, my friends. Those in which it is easy to find a meaning (if possible, a moral one) and those which tell a story with such devices that you, spectator, are free to construe it. Seance is such a film. I for one do not see it as a horror or a crime movie. It has the required number of supernatural events, but what is far more frightening than that is the subtle psychological illness that affects the two hapless heroes, Junko and her husband. These two are completely hollow — the husband filled with noises, the wife with ghosts indeed ; they very simply do not live on the same physical plane as other people (colleagues, patrons... and the young girl who gets trapped in the husband's case) and it takes two extremely gifted actors, Yakusho and Fubuki, to convey this hollowness, this muted remoteness, as they are conveyed here. Kurosawa does not make any redundant comment on that stupendous hollowness : he merely shows it ; that indeed is his job as a filmmaker. The result is, in my opinion, one of his best films, together with Bright Future and Doppelgaenger. For yes : the doppelgaenger variation which one or two of the other commentators find so irksome (unfairly so, in my opinion : the eager student who mentions the apparition of a doppelgaenger in someone's life as a sign of impending demise isn't right* ; in literature the thing has been plaguing many a cheerless Romantic and postromantic hero for years) is back in Kurosawa's latest full length feature, Doppelgaenger (there is a Japanese DVD with English subtitles). No important message in that wonderfully quirky, eerily violent comedy (Yakusho again plays the double part). Let us rejoice about that fact : as long as a film puzzles more than it scares, it will never be remade in Hollywood. * And he shouldn't be believed any more than the misleading psychiatrist in Cure, should he ?

This is a movie that famed director Kiyoshi Kurosawa made by demand for a TV company, after the success of Ringu. Well, there's a kind of Sadako feeling to it, the girls looks a lot like the one in Hideo Nakata's Dark water... but this is a flawed movie. Terrible script. Not scary at all (and I scare so easy! that's why I love terror movies). Forgettable.For instance (spoiler coming) at the very beginning of it, the psychological expert tells us about how, when a person sees her or his doppelganger, double, it's an omen of death. And then, one of the main characters actually goes through this experience... and doesn't die! Why sow a seed if you ain't going to follow it to the very consequences? I really don't get what's all the fuss about this guy... I love Japanese movies, I study Japanese, so if I find a Japanese movie too boring, I just listen... but I think this guy is overrated.