Evil Does Not Exist (Ryusuke Hamaguchi, 2023) – ****½ – Ryusuke Hamaguchi’s Evil Does Not Exist is a perplexing tale about man, nature, and the environment. Let’s begin by revisiting the conclusion and retracing our steps backward. The conclusion of the film is notably elusive; some might even describe it as quite vague. However, if one can rethink it again, it unveils a specific facet of the story and delves into a philosophical concept that has been a subject of discussion among philosophers of nature over the past decades.
Evil Does Not Exist talks about two distinct forms of evil. The first, a more relational manifestation, embodies the malevolence of greed and deception exemplified by the glamping tourism company. Such an ‘evil’ is more societal, and it can be navigated and maneuvered by people among themselves.
The second type of ‘evil’ predates its relational counterpart. It is the evil of man himself expropriating nature for his own interest. Being pre-societal, this form of ‘evil’ constitutes the central theme that Hamaguchi aims to articulate in the film—the notion of an ‘evil’ that, in essence, does not truly exist.
In the film, the character of the deer hunter, albeit being absent in the entirety of the film, embodies the second type of evil. Hamaguchi astutely conceals the hunter’s motives, aiming to normalize hunting and gathering as integral components of the rural community. The character remains veiled, with only the echoes of his gunshots reaching us. This technique is employed to not only obscure his purpose but also to seamlessly integrate the act into the natural fabric of the community.
In the movie, we hear the gunshots twice: at the beginning of the film, when the father-figure, Takumi, acknowledges the presence of hunters while gathering water from a natural spring. He then remembers that he forgot to fetch his daughter Hana from school. That scene foreshadows the next gunshot, which we hear at the latter part of the film, when Hana went missing. We begin to speculate that the gunshot might be related to Hana’s disappearance. Indeed, they are!
In between the gunshots, Hamaguchi’s first evil appears – the epitome of human greed, a company whose intent is to gain profit regardless of the pollution their project might bring to a rural community. During the consultation with the community about the glamping site, the locals were reluctant to allow the project to proceed. Hamaguchi uses this narrative to articulate a societal form of evil, the evil of unequal proportions. In the film, this is Hamaguchi’s clearest expression of evil; an evil that exists in broad daylight – a presencing of evil. But there is also the abscencing of evil, but what I mean by absenting evil does not equate to good intentions. By absencing, I mean being hidden away from human customs.
The genius of the film is Hamaguchi’s articulation of resolution for both types of evil. In the climactic ending, the convergence of the two types of evil leads to a pivotal scene where Takumi must make a decision. This decision, however, is precipitated by a circumstance in which certain elements are beyond Takumi’s control, most notably when his daughter approaches the gut-shot deer. Takumi had earlier highlighted this situation as perilous during a conversation with guests from the company. He emphasized the danger posed by gut-shot deer, particularly when accompanied by a fawn. In this critical moment, Takumi anticipates the potential consequences if his daughter interacts with the wounded deer and its fawn. The perilous situation could endanger her life but Hamaguchi does not show us what really happened, only the aftermath – the daughter lying on the ground with a nosebleed. Is she dead? We do not know. It is concealed from the film’s narrative. This first circumstance taps into the primal evil, the evil that does not exist.
The second circumstance is the guest, a man from the glamping company, who motions to intervene in the deer-daughter ordeal. Takumi must limit the interference of the guest, or else, a far graver tragedy can occur – at least, this is what I implied from the scene. This second circumstance is within the control of Takumi, and this is what manifested as the resolution of the societal evil. When Takumi takes up arms to control the situation by choking the company-man, Hamaguchi expresses the notion that conflict between men can be resolved within the purview of human action. It only means men can take up arms to destroy capitalist mode of production.
Indeed, the whole film is Hamaguchi’s articulation of the Anthropocene as the evil that does not exist. Through the gut-shot deer and the fawn, Hamaguchi brings us to the first moment of encroachment and interference of men in natural ecosystems. It is as if the film is trying to argue against Takumi who said firmly that a balance must exist in order for the community to prosper. The film argues otherwise – that indeed no balance existed in the first place. The deer hunting, the agriculture in the area, the presence of automobiles, the settler economy in general, all of these have already tipped off the balance of man and his/her immediate surroundings. Hamaguchi welcomes us to the anthropocene and there is no going back — we are all headed to an environmental catastrophe we already set-up ourselves.
###
OMNITUDO 
Great explanation !
LikeLike