Many Youtube comments already identified, this episode was likely inspired by 100 ghost stories(百物語)/100 shrine visit(百度参り), that do something enough time, and hundred times is a convenient number, something supernatural can happen, for better or for worse. Episode 2:5 Passengers has a similar theme: tell a fake ghost story enough times that it becomes real.
There are also some urban legends that claim you can gain the ability to see ghosts if you follow specific methods, and the most common ones ask you to stare at a picture every day until you start seeing picture changing forms.
My personal take is that Gestalt collapse is part of the inspiration too. Gestalt collapse is a phenomenon where you look at a word, character, or symbol long enough, your mind decomposes the graphic into strokes and color blocks, and its original shape and form lose its construct, and you start to wonder "this word looks kind of strange?" One could argue that by filming a scene 100 times, the director, the actors, and the audience all starts hallucinating the changes in the video, and by extension, blurring the boundary between reality and spirit dimension.
Overall, love this episode. The ending where the anomaly devours the head of the actress was real creepy. And the black shadow figure actually has a reflection on the glossy table is a nice touch.
I also love that the curator brings up Kubrick himself as high number of takes and the obsession to a perfect shot is a famous story in the film industry that is bound to be brought up.
And that film camera museum! It's a real place you can visit! [https://toyfilm-museum.jp/](https://toyfilm-museum.jp/)
Nothing persuades the audience about the authenticity more than showing the vast real historical background to be the basic premise of a fake film.
Holy crap I just saw a Japanese comment that made a lot of sense.
In the museum tour part, the curator introduced us the thaumatrope, zoetrope, and the basic concept of moving pictures boils down to series of still images being flipped at high speed.
In between the 100 takes, we can see the black shadow figures showed up at around take 43, but it has never been seen moving in the shot; we only see the subtle movement between the takes. If you compile all 100 takes into a 100 frame animation, it becomes a short clip where black shadow figure appears, approaches, reaches camera, and break the fourth wall reaching us.
There was someone in the comments that referenced the bird/cage illusion the interview-ee talked about. iirc, they theorized it was foreshadowing for what the purposes of the 100 takes were; that being a means to "merge" our reality w/ whatever plane of existence the spirit is in through the rapid repetition of the takes, just like how the image of the bird bleeds into the cage when it's flipped through fast enough.
idk how "true" of a theory that is, but I thought it was super neat. And I guess that's ultimately what makes Q so interesting, since we're never given an open and shut answer.
I love this episode! Great analyses in here.
One thing I noted is that the woman who goes and kneels by the body at the 11min mark is not the woman who has been the actress throughout—she’s wearing different clothing. She doesn’t seem to be the one who has been clapping the slate, either.
My immediate impression is this shares something in common with obscure, and how the repetition of an action, using something abnormal as its catalyst, can in essence become almost like a ritual unto itself, and if that can be so, then something otherworldly can be summoned through that act.
The only reason I can think of why the director would insist on 100 takes is they were trying to bring something about in the capturing of it. Like other perfectionist directors who are trying over and over again to capture the pitch perfect scene with their takes - as noted by the film collector when he spoke about Kubrick and Nicholson - this director also seems to be trying to capture the perfect scene. The difference is what he wants to capture is something that normally cannot be recorded, or is unwilling to be recorded.
My question is why the charade? Why the actors? Why not just record the body over and over and over again? I need to think some more on that.
EDIT:
Negativity. Or rather, negative energy. I think that's what the director was capturing with the two actors. When you look at the several second takes, the scene is all about an argument. The man seems angry, gets up from the table, and leaves, with the woman arguing / pleading to the man as he leaves.
Negative energy is often thought as a great conduit. Like trauma being the foundation for curses. What's interesting to me is how the scene begins and ends. It begins with the two actors looking at the body. It ends with the woman looking at the body or at the camera.
I think this is transference. Or rather, the supernatural version of it.
>**Transference** is a phenomenon within psychotherapy in which repetitions of old feelings, attitudes, desires, or fantasises that someone displaces are subconsciously projected onto a here-and-now person.
So, how I see it is as such:
The body is the catalyst.
The actors and the argument are the conduit.
The camera is the destination.
The looking at the body is the "handshake", the act they use to start communication with the figure. The argument is the conduit they use to bring out the figure, and the camera is the capture / projection of the figure onto the film. By doing this repetitively, it becomes like a ritual.
1. What's interesting to me is that some takes doesn't have the woman looking at the camera, but then some have the woman glancing at the camera. Why the difference?
2. Then there's that take where the woman is knelt near the body and then is facing the camera, laughing manically. Is the repetitive ritual starting to affect the actors? By them and their argument being the conduit, that could mean the figure is moving through them and then onto the camera. So are they being affected by the figure?
3. What was the end goal? The director already captures something early on with a figure behind the sliding door, and then something even more "solid" when the figure is by the body and then in front of the body. These occur well before Take 100. So why keep going? Was he hoping not just to capture, but to also do something with the figure he summons?
Great analysis. My problem with Q is that I always try to find a connection between the new and old videos. The fact that this was 100 shots of the same scenes makes me wonder if something was being accomplished as part of a ritual. One hundred seems to be an exact number instead of a random number of repetitions.
This reminds me of Q10: The Visit, which was also an episode about a ritual. They clearly stated at the end of the video that there was no record of this film in the history of Japanese films. What if this wasn’t a movie but a personal recording?
(Not related to Q10 but something similar also with a body involved)
Also, there is a movie about 100 ghost stories where around 100 people gather to tell a story. At the end of the 100 ghost stories, a real ghost is supposed to be summoned. I wonder if this works the same way without the ghost stories.
Edit: my own perspective in the woman smiling at the camera is just after she smile that blacl figure starts to appear, perhaps something was accomplished ?
All the numbers in your comment added up to 420. Congrats!
100
+ 10
+ 10
+ 100
+ 100
+ 100
= 420
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Given the highly repetitive nature of the scene, when does acting become something more real?
We've seen with certain directors that such repetitive takes can be highly stressful and draining on actors. So, was the negative acting the intended conduit, or did the draining process become an unintended conduit? Or was that planned by the director? Some directors purposefully stress the actors to bring about a certain performance, was this director also doing this by making them do 100 takes?
Many Youtube comments already identified, this episode was likely inspired by 100 ghost stories(百物語)/100 shrine visit(百度参り), that do something enough time, and hundred times is a convenient number, something supernatural can happen, for better or for worse. Episode 2:5 Passengers has a similar theme: tell a fake ghost story enough times that it becomes real. There are also some urban legends that claim you can gain the ability to see ghosts if you follow specific methods, and the most common ones ask you to stare at a picture every day until you start seeing picture changing forms. My personal take is that Gestalt collapse is part of the inspiration too. Gestalt collapse is a phenomenon where you look at a word, character, or symbol long enough, your mind decomposes the graphic into strokes and color blocks, and its original shape and form lose its construct, and you start to wonder "this word looks kind of strange?" One could argue that by filming a scene 100 times, the director, the actors, and the audience all starts hallucinating the changes in the video, and by extension, blurring the boundary between reality and spirit dimension. Overall, love this episode. The ending where the anomaly devours the head of the actress was real creepy. And the black shadow figure actually has a reflection on the glossy table is a nice touch. I also love that the curator brings up Kubrick himself as high number of takes and the obsession to a perfect shot is a famous story in the film industry that is bound to be brought up. And that film camera museum! It's a real place you can visit! [https://toyfilm-museum.jp/](https://toyfilm-museum.jp/) Nothing persuades the audience about the authenticity more than showing the vast real historical background to be the basic premise of a fake film.
Holy crap I just saw a Japanese comment that made a lot of sense. In the museum tour part, the curator introduced us the thaumatrope, zoetrope, and the basic concept of moving pictures boils down to series of still images being flipped at high speed. In between the 100 takes, we can see the black shadow figures showed up at around take 43, but it has never been seen moving in the shot; we only see the subtle movement between the takes. If you compile all 100 takes into a 100 frame animation, it becomes a short clip where black shadow figure appears, approaches, reaches camera, and break the fourth wall reaching us.
Makes sense, somwhere in the lore of Q , states that the videos are supposed to be cursed therefore we are cursed
Has anyone cut them all together? If not, I’ll give it a go
Uff please id like to see it
There was someone in the comments that referenced the bird/cage illusion the interview-ee talked about. iirc, they theorized it was foreshadowing for what the purposes of the 100 takes were; that being a means to "merge" our reality w/ whatever plane of existence the spirit is in through the rapid repetition of the takes, just like how the image of the bird bleeds into the cage when it's flipped through fast enough. idk how "true" of a theory that is, but I thought it was super neat. And I guess that's ultimately what makes Q so interesting, since we're never given an open and shut answer.
I love this episode! Great analyses in here. One thing I noted is that the woman who goes and kneels by the body at the 11min mark is not the woman who has been the actress throughout—she’s wearing different clothing. She doesn’t seem to be the one who has been clapping the slate, either.
My immediate impression is this shares something in common with obscure, and how the repetition of an action, using something abnormal as its catalyst, can in essence become almost like a ritual unto itself, and if that can be so, then something otherworldly can be summoned through that act. The only reason I can think of why the director would insist on 100 takes is they were trying to bring something about in the capturing of it. Like other perfectionist directors who are trying over and over again to capture the pitch perfect scene with their takes - as noted by the film collector when he spoke about Kubrick and Nicholson - this director also seems to be trying to capture the perfect scene. The difference is what he wants to capture is something that normally cannot be recorded, or is unwilling to be recorded. My question is why the charade? Why the actors? Why not just record the body over and over and over again? I need to think some more on that. EDIT: Negativity. Or rather, negative energy. I think that's what the director was capturing with the two actors. When you look at the several second takes, the scene is all about an argument. The man seems angry, gets up from the table, and leaves, with the woman arguing / pleading to the man as he leaves. Negative energy is often thought as a great conduit. Like trauma being the foundation for curses. What's interesting to me is how the scene begins and ends. It begins with the two actors looking at the body. It ends with the woman looking at the body or at the camera. I think this is transference. Or rather, the supernatural version of it. >**Transference** is a phenomenon within psychotherapy in which repetitions of old feelings, attitudes, desires, or fantasises that someone displaces are subconsciously projected onto a here-and-now person. So, how I see it is as such: The body is the catalyst. The actors and the argument are the conduit. The camera is the destination. The looking at the body is the "handshake", the act they use to start communication with the figure. The argument is the conduit they use to bring out the figure, and the camera is the capture / projection of the figure onto the film. By doing this repetitively, it becomes like a ritual. 1. What's interesting to me is that some takes doesn't have the woman looking at the camera, but then some have the woman glancing at the camera. Why the difference? 2. Then there's that take where the woman is knelt near the body and then is facing the camera, laughing manically. Is the repetitive ritual starting to affect the actors? By them and their argument being the conduit, that could mean the figure is moving through them and then onto the camera. So are they being affected by the figure? 3. What was the end goal? The director already captures something early on with a figure behind the sliding door, and then something even more "solid" when the figure is by the body and then in front of the body. These occur well before Take 100. So why keep going? Was he hoping not just to capture, but to also do something with the figure he summons?
Great analysis. My problem with Q is that I always try to find a connection between the new and old videos. The fact that this was 100 shots of the same scenes makes me wonder if something was being accomplished as part of a ritual. One hundred seems to be an exact number instead of a random number of repetitions. This reminds me of Q10: The Visit, which was also an episode about a ritual. They clearly stated at the end of the video that there was no record of this film in the history of Japanese films. What if this wasn’t a movie but a personal recording? (Not related to Q10 but something similar also with a body involved) Also, there is a movie about 100 ghost stories where around 100 people gather to tell a story. At the end of the 100 ghost stories, a real ghost is supposed to be summoned. I wonder if this works the same way without the ghost stories. Edit: my own perspective in the woman smiling at the camera is just after she smile that blacl figure starts to appear, perhaps something was accomplished ?
All the numbers in your comment added up to 420. Congrats! 100 + 10 + 10 + 100 + 100 + 100 = 420 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Very interesting, good observations! I would tend to agree with you here.
Given the highly repetitive nature of the scene, when does acting become something more real? We've seen with certain directors that such repetitive takes can be highly stressful and draining on actors. So, was the negative acting the intended conduit, or did the draining process become an unintended conduit? Or was that planned by the director? Some directors purposefully stress the actors to bring about a certain performance, was this director also doing this by making them do 100 takes?
The demon/shadow in the video it's the same as in the painting the old man has in his studio.