いい映画です。
「家族とはなにか」が主題だが、家族とは血縁関係で成り立つものではない。ひとりひとりの個性が様々な家族を作る。血縁関係があっても、DVや児童虐待が起きる家族もある。大切なのは一人ひとりが認め合って、自分の居場所を作ることだ。地域社会が崩壊した現在、自分の居場所は家族か、ホームレスだ。「一人暮らし」も家はあるが、地域との関わりがなければホームレス以下だ。
こういう底辺の社会は目立たない。だから、東南アジアでは普通で、日本では特殊だと思ってはいけない。日本にも底辺で生きている人は大勢いる。その人達はゆるいネットワークで、あるいは強いネットワークで繋がっている。繋がれない人は孤独死する。
社会の表面にいても、過労死する労働者がいる社会より、彼らのほうが「自由」で「平等」で「博愛」を実現しているのではないだろうか。ただし、そのためには個人が強くなければならない。同時に個々人は弱い存在だ。だから人と結びつかなければならない。問題は結びつき方、関係性だ。自分たちが日常接している関係性をもう一度見つめ直してほしい。
⟨impressions⟩
Good movie.
The theme is "what is a family", but it is not a family relationship. Individual personalities create various families. Some families have DV and child abuse, even if they are related. The important thing is that each person recognizes each other and creates their own place. Now that your community has collapsed, you are either home or homeless. "Living alone" has a house, but if there is no connection with the area, it is less than homeless.
Such a society at the bottom is inconspicuous. So don't think it's normal in Southeast Asia and special in Japan. There are many people living in the bottom of Japan. They are connected by loose or strong networks. Unconnected people die lonely.
Even on the surface of society, I suppose they realize "freedom", "equality" and "philanthropy" more than a society with workers who are overworked. However, for that, the individual must be strong. At the same time, individuals are weak. So you have to connect with people. The problem is how to connect and how to relate. I want you to reconsider the relationships we are dealing with everyday.
Good movie.
The theme is "what is a family", but it is not a family relationship. Individual personalities create various families. Some families have DV and child abuse, even if they are related. The important thing is that each person recognizes each other and creates their own place. Now that your community has collapsed, you are either home or homeless. "Living alone" has a house, but if there is no connection with the area, it is less than homeless.
Such a society at the bottom is inconspicuous. So don't think it's normal in Southeast Asia and special in Japan. There are many people living in the bottom of Japan. They are connected by loose or strong networks. Unconnected people die lonely.
Even on the surface of society, I suppose they realize "freedom", "equality" and "philanthropy" more than a society with workers who are overworked. However, for that, the individual must be strong. At the same time, individuals are weak. So you have to connect with people. The problem is how to connect and how to relate. I want you to reconsider the relationships we are dealing with everyday.
[スタッフ・キャスト等]
監督：是枝裕和
製作：石原隆 依田巽 中江康人
プロデューサー：松崎薫 代情明彦 田口聖
アソシエイトプロデューサー：大澤恵 小竹里美
脚本：是枝裕和
撮影：近藤龍人
セットデザイン：郡司英雄
美術：三ツ松けいこ
衣裳：黒澤和子
編集：是枝裕和
キャスティング：田端利江
音響効果：岡瀬晶彦
音楽：細野晴臣
照明：藤井勇
録音：冨田和彦
装飾：松葉明子
ヘアメイク：酒井夢月
助監督：森本晶一
＜出演＞
リリー・フランキー 治
安藤サクラ 信代
樹木希林 初枝
松岡茉優 亜紀
城桧吏 祥太
佐々木みゆ ゆり
池松壮亮 ４番さん
山田裕貴
片山萌美
黒田大輔
清水一彰
松岡依都美
毎熊克哉
井上肇
蒔田彩珠
柄本明 駄菓子屋店主
堀春菜
溝口奈菜
安藤輪子
逢沢一夏
宮内桃子
橋本真実
まりゑ
瑛蓮
高木直子
松浦慎一郎
友咲まどか
結城さなえ
森本のぶ
足立智充
笠井信輔
三上真奈
緒形直人
森口瑤子
高良健吾 警察官
池脇千鶴 警察官
高層マンションの谷間にポツンと取り残された今にも壊れそうな平屋に、治と信代の夫婦、息子の祥太、信代の妹の亜紀の4人が転がり込んで暮らしている。彼らの目当ては、この家の持ち主である初枝の年金だ。足りない生活品は、万引きで賄っていた。社会という海の底を這うような家族だが、なぜかいつも笑いが絶えず、互いに口は悪いが仲よく暮らしていた。
冬のある日、近隣の団地の廊下で震えていた幼い女の子を、見かねた治が家に連れ帰る。体中傷だらけの彼女の境遇を思いやり、信代は娘として育てることにする。だが、ある事件をきっかけに家族はバラバラに引き裂かれ、それぞれが抱える秘密と切なる願いが次々と明らかになっていく──。
冬のある日、近隣の団地の廊下で震えていた幼い女の子を、見かねた治が家に連れ帰る。体中傷だらけの彼女の境遇を思いやり、信代は娘として育てることにする。だが、ある事件をきっかけに家族はバラバラに引き裂かれ、それぞれが抱える秘密と切なる願いが次々と明らかになっていく──。
SHOPLIFTERS
映画
ドラマ
日本 Color 120分
初公開日： 2018/06/08 公開情報：ギャガ 映倫：PG12
[拡大] 追記
テレビで、「実写版 万引き家族」という再現ものをやってました（短いものです）。制作側の意図は「ひどい家族だな」と思わせるものだろうし、映画の「万引き家族」を観た人は、可愛そうだな、と思うかも知れません。
私は全然違います。彼らは現代の都市に住む狩猟民族です。獲物（商品）がそこにあるから盗る（捕る、採る）のです。
彼らも、生まれたときから「盗みはいけないことだよ」と教えられてきたんじゃないかな。そして「ひどい状況」に追い込まれたとき、狩りを始めたんだと思います。多分方法はイチから自分で考えて。獲物はそこにある。一つ間違えれば自分が狩られてしまうけど。
それは紙一重です。森にある果物と都会にある商品は何が違うのでしょう。誰かのもの（所有物）であるということですが、何も所有していない（借金はあるかも知れないけど）人にとって、所有は無意味じゃないかな。その所有は暴力（警察等）によって守られていますが。商品が持つ幻想（物神性）が一度破られたとき、後戻りはできません。識字によって、口承文化に戻れないように。その逆ですね。
彼らは、きっと再犯すると思います。「ブルシット・ジョブ（クソどうでもいい仕事）」より、ずっと生きがいを感じられると思うから。
詐欺も、獲物を探してかるということでは同じだと思います。商品を売るのも似た構造があるんじゃないかな（「ターゲット」という獲物、「マーケット」という網、罠）。刑法や商法もそういう視点から見直すべきかも知れません。
Sun Dec 13 2020 17:48:15 (JST)
⟨impressions⟩
Postscript
A reproduction called "Live-action version of the shoplifting family" was broadcast on TV (it is short). The intention of the producer may be to make them think "they are a terrible family", and those who watched the movie "Shoplifters" may feel sorry.
I'm totally different. They are a hunting people living in modern cities. Because the prey (commodity) is there, it steals (catch, pick).
I think they have been taught from the time they were born that they shouldn't steal. And when I was forced into a "terrible situation," I think I started hunting. Maybe I'll think about the method myself. The prey is there. If I make a mistake, I will be hunted.
It's a single piece of paper. What is the difference between fruits in the forest and products in the city? It means that it belongs to someone (property), but for someone who doesn't own anything (though they may have debt), possession is meaningless. Its possession is protected by violence (police, etc.). Once the illusion (divinity) of a product is broken, there is no turning back. Don't go back to oral culture by literacy. The opposite is true.
I'm sure they will re-offend. I think it's much more rewarding than a "bulsit job".
I think fraud is the same as looking for prey. I think there is a similar structure for selling products (prey called "target", net called "market", trap). The criminal law and commercial law may need to be reviewed from that perspective.
Sun Dec 13 2020 17:48:15 (JST)
Postscript
A reproduction called "Live-action version of the shoplifting family" was broadcast on TV (it is short). The intention of the producer may be to make them think "they are a terrible family", and those who watched the movie "Shoplifters" may feel sorry.
I'm totally different. They are a hunting people living in modern cities. Because the prey (commodity) is there, it steals (catch, pick).
I think they have been taught from the time they were born that they shouldn't steal. And when I was forced into a "terrible situation," I think I started hunting. Maybe I'll think about the method myself. The prey is there. If I make a mistake, I will be hunted.
It's a single piece of paper. What is the difference between fruits in the forest and products in the city? It means that it belongs to someone (property), but for someone who doesn't own anything (though they may have debt), possession is meaningless. Its possession is protected by violence (police, etc.). Once the illusion (divinity) of a product is broken, there is no turning back. Don't go back to oral culture by literacy. The opposite is true.
I'm sure they will re-offend. I think it's much more rewarding than a "bulsit job".
I think fraud is the same as looking for prey. I think there is a similar structure for selling products (prey called "target", net called "market", trap). The criminal law and commercial law may need to be reviewed from that perspective.
Sun Dec 13 2020 17:48:15 (JST)
[]
