Lust, Caution
I watched this film, directed by Ang Lee, last Friday night. The hot sex, which earned it a NC-17 rating, was much anticipated. But it was a long time coming. First we had to get through dry and mechanical sex between our heroine, Wang Jiazhi and a fellow resistance fighter. Then we had to endure Jiazhi's rape at the hand's of Mr. Yee, the Japanese collaborator whom she and the resistance had targeted to assassinate. Only after all that -- and many games of Mahjong -- did we finally get to the hot sex. And hot it was. Undeterred by the rape, Jiazhi went at it with Mr. Yee in subsequent liaisons, all lust and no caution. One wondered if they'd ever tire. One speculated that something besides sex was driving them. One came to understand that their physical connection was more real than any other facet of their lives, though Jiazhi remained loyal to her cause and Mr. Yee deeply distrusted her. In a penultimate scene, Jiazhi confessed to a resistance leader -- with candor that should have been heeded -- that every time she and Mr. Yee met for another sex assignation, they carried on until she bled. He used his body like a snake, she said. He would work his way into her soul. But it was she who was charged with that task. Would she be able to accomplish it before he did? Who would win?
Ultimately, they both lost. Mr. Yee gave Jiazhi a card and told her to drop by a certain shop to speak directly with the man whose name was on the card. "If he gives you something, take it," he said. It all sounded rather ominous. It appeared that Mr. Yee was testing Jiazhi, by enlisting her services as a runner for the collaborators. But instead, when Jiazhi presented Mr. Yee's card at the shop, she was taken into a private room and asked to choose which stone and which setting she would prefer for the ring Mr. Yee wished her to have. Astonished at this turn of events -- and recognizing that he was softening -- she made her selection. She then promptly advised the resistance that she could at last identify a time and place to complete the assassination: when she returned to the shop with Mr. Yee to collect the ring.
At the appointed time, with resistance agents in place at every corner and in every surrounding vestibule, Mr. Yee and Jiazhi entered the shop. When the jeweler presented the ring to her, Jiazhi was stunned by its beauty. She asked Mr. Yee if he approved her selection. Mr. Yee responded that he cared nothing for the ring, but only wished to see it on her. He then gently slid the ring on her finger. They locked eyes, and she said, very softly, "Go now." Almost like an afterthought. He was puzzled. She repeated, "Go now." His face changed as he apprehended her meaning, and he fled.
That evening, Mr. Yee signed Jiazhi's death warrant, and she and her fellow resistance agents were shot in the back of the head while kneeling at the edge of a quarry. Mr. Yee did not bother to interrogate her, and when the ring that he'd bought her was returned to him, he denied that it was his. Yet he returned to the room where she had stayed at his home, and his desolation was palpable as he contemplated the emptiness that lay before him.
Jiazhi may well have regretted her "go now" in those moments before the bullet ended her consciousness. But should she have? Wasn't she right to be guided by the immediacy of her connection with Mr. Yee when he finally bared himself to her, without defense? Isn't there something inhuman and immoral in a person who can elevate loyalty to a cause -- however justified -- above that? Yet had she done so, she would have saved her own life, the lives of her fellow fighters, and the lives of countless Chinese people resisting the brutal occupation of their country by Japan.
I nevertheless tend to think that hers was the more moral choice.
5 comments:
It sounds like more of an momentary impulse choice than a moral decision to me. Maybe he had her shot because she betrayed him in her plot to have him killed while he was loving her as wholly as he was capable. She merely deviated in a moment of weakness. Who knows whether she would have killed him after the heart wrenching beauty of the ring wore off. And what about the morality of selling out her cause for the hot sexy man with the penetrating words?
You should just watch porn next time. It's less confusing.
OK, if I had seen the movie I might feel differently, but this one is not a close call for me. She should have had him shot when she had the chance. The Japanese occupation and accompanying atrocities were not abstractions. She should have done her part to protect her people. Of course, knowing your duty and performing it are two different things.
"Wasn't she right to be guided by the immediacy of her connection with Mr. Yee when he finally bared himself to her, without defense? Isn't there something inhuman and immoral in a person who can elevate loyalty to a cause -- however justified -- above that? . . . I nevertheless tend to think hers was the more moral choice"
So we see a powerful emotional bond created by nothing more than pure, raw, rough, physical sex. What's insightful or moral about that? More to the point, what's immoral or inhuman about taking out a murderous, traitorous tyrant who has been killing hundreds, or thousands, of your friends and countrymen all to further his own self-interest.
No, there was nothing "moral" about Jiazhi's choice. This movie was purely and simply about weakness of character and personal discipline (hers that is). Our false heroine sold out herself, her friends and her countrymen in a weak (but admittedly human) moment created by the bond of good sex and Mr. Yee dropping his own guard (another human moment). Perhaps there is something a bit cold, calculating, even inhuman, about someone who can finish their murderous plan just as the victim lets his guard down and reveals a human side. But can there be any question what Mr. Yee would have done were the roles reversed. In fact, the film immediately answers question as Yee quickly signs the death warrants with only a momentary (but human) wisp of regret as the clock strikes the designated execution hour.
I saw this movie as a reinforcement of unflattering, and inaccurate, archetypes. Specifically, a strong woman, but one who in the end sells out herself and others over emotional bonds created by sex. In contrast, Mr Yee (the archetypal man strong of will and self-discipline) has no such internal debate or hesitation as he immediately abandons Jiazhi in furtherance of his own cause (i.e. his own self interest). Yes he has a human moment but it is he who lives, who survives and she who die's. For the entire movie I thought she was the consumate strong and intelligent woman, incredibly disciplined and believable (to Yee) as she slowly gains Yee's trust in multiple "tests" where a weaker woman couldn't have pulled it off. And then she gets all sentimental and sells out over sexually created bonds. No man would consciously sell out his brothers, sisters, cause, or soul for sex. And in fact, more true to strong women throughout history is the ability to use sex to their advantage (but not sell out over it) in the pursuit of a bigger causes.
Much more interesting would have been an ending where Jiazhi says "go now," but instead of repeating it again (thereby saving Yee), she instead finds a way to cover up her wispy moment and successfully finish her mission/betrayal of Yee. Then, after Yee's death (not her and her friends), she could be allowed the human moment of sorrow/sadness as she reflects on the good sex, and human, connection she felt with Yee. That ending would have been not only more interesting, but more true to her character and strength - or was in fact that character and strength an illusion?
I'm definitely outnumbered here, but I'm nevertheless at least going to attempt to explain my thinking. And I'll start with acknowledging jupee's observation that it may be a stretch to call what Jiazhi did a "moral choice." It was a voluntary action, certainly, but it was not something she thought out in advice. I think it is probably fairly characterized as a "momentary impulse." My guess is she probably regretted it. Nevertheless, my view is that she was the better person for having done it than she would have been had she not done it. And while mike says her conduct was "admittedly human" he equates this with weakness. I don't necessarily disagree; humanness can be characterized as weakness. But humanness is nevertheless the foundation of morality, in my mind. "Strength" is not.
sanford's point is that she should have done her part to protect her people. I agree with this, but that begs the question, Who were her people? Mr. Yee was Chinese. A scene in the film that I neglected to summarize, but which was pivotal, was a scene in which they meet at restaurant in the Japanese quarter. While there, surrounded by drunken Japanese men and their geisha girls in cordoned off rooms, Jiazhi sings a simple Chinese love song to Mr. Yee that moves him to tears. This scene demonstrates that these two shared a common heritage that was far deeper than their ideological divide. And further, the scene (and others) demonstrates that Mr. Yee was not a monster. Jiazhi had access to those parts of Mr. Yee that were not monstrous and had not been corrupted by his fear and whatever it was that had gotten him to where he was. While it can be presumed, I believe, that every human being has more to them than pure evil -- no matter what acts they have committed -- in this case Jiazhi didn't have to presume it; she knew it because she had seen it firsthand. I draw the analogy of mother to child. One's child can grow up to be a monster in the eyes of the world, as for instance, the kid who shot everyone at Virginia Tech. But my guess is that that kid's mother does not view him that way. And while a mother may take steps to protect innocent people from a child she knows to be dangerous, I would think that we could agree that those steps should not include conspiring in the child's murder.
Which brings me to the last point. Jiazhi was in an impossible situation. She had agreed to participate in the resistance in a way that may have seemed right at the outset, but in fact was not. No matter how right one's cause may seem -- and certainly resistance against the invasion of one's country by brutal occupier's would qualify in most people's minds as a rightful cause -- I think it is wrong to engage in tactics in pursuit of that cause that would otherwise be immoral. In other words, the ends do not justify the means, no matter what the ends. So strip away the cause, and look at what she was doing. She was engaging in a kind of psychic brutality that I suspect had more power to extinguish whatever humanity was left in Mr. Yee than anything else that he had encountered. Emotional violence, so to speak. She was also engaged in physical violence, i.e., the willingness to participate in the taking of his life. In a moment of what I would call clarity -- but what you all define as weakness -- she could not do it any longer.
Does it matter in the moral calculation, that Mr. Yee likely would not have had such a moment of clarity? I don't think so. He clearly did not have the strength to do anything but carry on in his role as collaborator. My question was about the choices that Jiazhi had. Mr. Yee's choices are a wholly different subject matter. And the fact that he signed her death warrant is only evidence that he was a corrupt and brutal man -- something we already knew. He was nevertheless a human being with whom Jiazhi had developed an intimate bond. I believe that she demonstrated her essential morality by, in the end, being unable to ruthlessly destroy him. That's all.
To clarify first - my view of "humanness" is not limited to weakness, but covers the entire spectrum of human behavior including weakness, strength, compassion, morality, immorality and on and on. Our human nature (and conduct) includes not either good or bad, but rather both good and bad and everything in between from Ghengis Khan to Ghandi. Thus, I would not characterize humanness as the foundation of morality, but rather that morality is a learned and cultural foundation for our good (human) side.
As Yee shows us, even while he is murdering hundreds of "his" people as a collaborator, he also has a warm, human side to him. [And as an aside, does it really matter whose people are being murdered?] However, Yee's having a human side does not in my mind excuse the fact that he was a murderer. Don't all mass murders have a human side and a mother who probably still loves them? Isn't it also human to be jealous, greedy, petty, vengeful, imperfect in so many ways and to include even the killing of others (whether "justified" or not).
While I greatly admire the Ghandi's of our world who really can "walk-the-walk" of non-violence, can a killing in self-defense of one's self or others be "justified," and if so, where is the line between moral to immoral? Is killing another person always unjustified and immoral? How about the killing of sentient animals? Obviously a killing in self-defense has not been "immoral" in our present culture nor has it been for the vast majority of humankind throughout human history. If any of us were required to kill someone attempting to kill us, our spouses, our parents, our children, would we do it and would such a killing be immoral?
In any case, if you start with the presumption that plotting to kill a mass murderer, and the necessary deceptions to carry out the plot, was immoral per se, then, as you note, Jiazhi was in an impossible situation. But given that impossible choice after having begun the plot, she sells out her buds instead of the murderer. And although she may not have known that saving Yee would lead to their deaths, she certainly should have because real clarity would have thought through her actions and tough choices long before the moment of truth. And even if she didn't know she and her buds would get caught/executed, how about the hundreds/thousands of Yee's past/future victims whose lives were the reason for the plot in the first place? What would have been these victim's view of Jiazhi's moral choice?
Having said that, you make an excellent point that this was not about Yee, but rather Jiazhi when you say "He was nevertheless a human being with whom Jiazhi had developed an intimate bond. I believe that she demonstrated her essential morality by, in the end, being unable to ruthlessly destroy him. That's all." The only problem was that in not destroying Yee, her actions resulted in the ongoing death's of many others who might have lived if Yee had died. Do you think Jiazhi felt at peace with herself knowing she made the "moral" choice and would have done the same thing over again knowing the consequences? Or was it just a moment of weakness, albeit "human?"
And finally, a question for the blog; would, or could, good sex (and let's be clear that the only connection in the movie between Jiazhi and Yee is sexual) really create a connection strong enough for Jiazhi to have a weak/human moment after her having dedicated several years of her life to the cause (taking out collaborators). Although we all know sex is a powerful, powerful drive leading many (mostly men) to engage in thoughtless, short-sighted, uncharacteristic behavior, it's hard to believe a short-term sexual bond would supersede the long-term bonds of comrades engaged in a cause. Except for it's human to have a human moment I suppose. However, inserting "morality" into the equation is an entirely separate issue.
Post a Comment