TAKESHIS' I have been thinking about what exactly the apostrophe in the title is doing.
An apostrophe is used to indicate the omission of a letter or letters from a word, the possessive case, or the plurals of numbers, letters, and abbreviations. To have a plural of "Takeshi", you just add an "s". To show that Takeshi owns something, you would simply write "Takeshi's thing". Therefore, the title "Takeshis'" would be the possessive of the plural "Takeshis".
Perhaps the title isn't (incorrectly) denoting a plural, but actually means that this film belongs to "more than one Takeshi"? It belongs to all of Takeshi's personas, and characters. It COULD just be another example of misuse of the poor apostrophe, but maybe Takeshi studied hard at school, and has dedicated this self-parody to himself, and his own multiplicity.
That being said, he reportably not all of the Takeshis are happy, as one was reportably quoted as saying: "Today I saw the film again and it's terrible. 'Who the hell made this?' I thought to myself. I set out to make a strange, groundbreaking film, and I think it succeeds, but it feels like I made a car that was so fast I couldn't drive it and fell out. If I win the Grand Prix, it must mean I'm nearing death, so I don't need it. This period is over. Next time I'm going to make an orthodox film in the style of the masters and then maybe I'll win." I think he was being too hard on himself (himselves?), but perhaps it never ends for an artists such as him (them?).
OK, enough with the plural jokes, and they probably only amuse me anyway. I just finished watching the film. It had been sitting on my shelf for a while, and I needed to relax after a frustrating mêlée in Half-Life 2 (Nova Prospekt!). I had intentionally read as little as I could about this film beforehand, and I had almost no idea what to expect when the film began. However, I instantly knew that I was watching a Takeshi Kitano film - the unmistakable style of the director completely permeates this film. Besides, there was a big blue "K" at the start.
This film is like some kind of flushing out of Kitano's creative musings. It is surreal and dreamlike, free form, and has some fantastic images and compositions. The film is almost totally devoid of complex narrative, and is instead experimental and perhaps introspective for the director. Perhaps this is what his dreams are like, and if he means what he said above, maybe this film is the end of an era - the final digestive process before moving on to the next creative banquet.
I truly respect Kitano for his bold creativity in film. He seems to attack it as he does his painting. He creates for himself, and I am sure whatever his next project is, it will be unmistakably his own.
An apostrophe is used to indicate the omission of a letter or letters from a word, the possessive case, or the plurals of numbers, letters, and abbreviations. To have a plural of "Takeshi", you just add an "s". To show that Takeshi owns something, you would simply write "Takeshi's thing". Therefore, the title "Takeshis'" would be the possessive of the plural "Takeshis".
Perhaps the title isn't (incorrectly) denoting a plural, but actually means that this film belongs to "more than one Takeshi"? It belongs to all of Takeshi's personas, and characters. It COULD just be another example of misuse of the poor apostrophe, but maybe Takeshi studied hard at school, and has dedicated this self-parody to himself, and his own multiplicity.
That being said, he reportably not all of the Takeshis are happy, as one was reportably quoted as saying: "Today I saw the film again and it's terrible. 'Who the hell made this?' I thought to myself. I set out to make a strange, groundbreaking film, and I think it succeeds, but it feels like I made a car that was so fast I couldn't drive it and fell out. If I win the Grand Prix, it must mean I'm nearing death, so I don't need it. This period is over. Next time I'm going to make an orthodox film in the style of the masters and then maybe I'll win." I think he was being too hard on himself (himselves?), but perhaps it never ends for an artists such as him (them?).
OK, enough with the plural jokes, and they probably only amuse me anyway. I just finished watching the film. It had been sitting on my shelf for a while, and I needed to relax after a frustrating mêlée in Half-Life 2 (Nova Prospekt!). I had intentionally read as little as I could about this film beforehand, and I had almost no idea what to expect when the film began. However, I instantly knew that I was watching a Takeshi Kitano film - the unmistakable style of the director completely permeates this film. Besides, there was a big blue "K" at the start.
This film is like some kind of flushing out of Kitano's creative musings. It is surreal and dreamlike, free form, and has some fantastic images and compositions. The film is almost totally devoid of complex narrative, and is instead experimental and perhaps introspective for the director. Perhaps this is what his dreams are like, and if he means what he said above, maybe this film is the end of an era - the final digestive process before moving on to the next creative banquet.
I truly respect Kitano for his bold creativity in film. He seems to attack it as he does his painting. He creates for himself, and I am sure whatever his next project is, it will be unmistakably his own.