チャーリーとチョコレート工場　2005米・英　ティム・バートン監督

It's a mysterious movie. I watched it twice, the dubbed version and the subtitled version.

The original is a children's novel published by Roald Dahl in 1964. I haven't read it. I like the "Testing Room" scene. "Zaratustra Talks" will be played, and the parody of "2001: A Space Odyssey" will begin. The actual movie scene is also used. Beatles parody or kiss? Parody of ..., there seems to be many more if you look for it. Apart from the Beatles, the others weren't there at the time of publication.

Charlie buys chocolate with the money he picks up. In Japanese children's literature, it would be "deliver to a police box", but there is no police box in foreign countries. What do you do with what you pick up? do not understand. Perhaps the idea of ​​"ownership" is different. Especially the way of thinking about money would be different.

It's not just about punishing a "bad boy." That factor is big.

The "feelings" for the "family" are drawn richly. Of course, it includes parent-child relationships. It is said that parents are also responsible for "bad children". This is also Western, maybe. I can't (immediately) remember the story of Japanese folk tales where parents are responsible for the "bad child." Nothing is said about the couple (that is, about "romance").

"Parent-child emotions" is also the theme of "Come Come Everybody", and I happened to see Yoko Kanda's story "Goro Masamune Takakoden" today, which makes me think about it.

Parent-child emotions are immediately linked to "mother's emotions," or "maternal instinct." In this movie, it is "Father and Son's Feelings". There is also the word "paternity instinct," but you don't often hear it. Is the feeling of parent and child, that is, "family" really necessary? If you live together, you will feel "feeling". The same is true for pets, especially for humans. Nowadays, the most important thing in the relationship between parents and children is "blood connection". Even in "Guilty Flag", "DNA paternity testing" appears. Certainly, "who is who's child and who's parent" is important in any society. However, the society in which it is a "blood connection" is not so common. Until half a century ago, "adoption" was a common system in Japan. The Civil Code has been amended to reduce the difference between "illegitimate children" and "illegitimate children", but "adopted children" are always treated the same as "illegitimate children". Evidence that "relationship" or "system" is prioritized over "blood".

If you have a man and a woman, you may have a "child". Sometimes it is said that a child is a crystal of love, but there is no direct relationship (maybe) between the love between a child and his parents. "Love" and "home" are not directly related either. A child is born without having to create a separate home. Of course, the relationship (conflict) between the two, "I and you," is important, but the "third party" that derives from it (although it can be called "another " or "super-ego"). The existence of is very important. The existence of "God" or "Snake" in the story of Adam and Eve is decisive. It is "society". In other words, the existence of the "Garden of Eden" is premised on the existence of the "God" or "Snake".

The relationship between "I and you" is premised on the existence of that "I and you". Juliet, who is in love with "Romeo, why are you Romeo?", Forgets that the existence of "Romeo" presupposes the existence of the "Montague family", and that the existence of Juliet is the existence of the "Capulet family". It comes from "forgetting (putting it aside, putting it in parentheses)" what you are assuming. Simply put, it is both Western and modern to think of love as a "relationship between two" independent "individuals," Romeo "and" Juliet. " And there is only an "independent individual", that is, a "reliance" called "self". There, "house" etc. are only "obstacles". For Romeo, everything but Juliet is an obstacle. And when it gets angry, even "Juliet" becomes an obstacle. It is sometimes said that "love that I want to kill" is the ultimate in "love". "Child abuse" and "DV", which have been talked about recently, may have been created by modern society.

When thinking about the existence of "I (Romeo)" and "You (Juliet)" with the relationship that created them in parentheses, even "You" and "I myself" are in opposition to "I". I feel that there is no choice but to appear as a thing.

It is difficult to abandon and get over it. However, a love affair with "Juliet" will itself show "overcoming oneself". And isn't "free love" for the family the same?

However, making a "lover" or "family" (or "community" or "nation") a "big (expanded) ego" always has a "potential for bankruptcy ". I think. ..