Forum - View topicINTEREST: Critic Calls Out The Wind Rises For Perpetuating Historical Revisionism
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
zaphdash
 Posts: 620 Location: Brooklyn |
|
|||||||
Have you seen the movie? It's not the audience's privilege to declare what a movie should be about. The Wind Rises is a (highly fictionalized) biopic, not a war movie. That it's about a figure from the war doesn't make it a war movie. That you want it to be a war movie doesn't make it a war movie. The article that spawned this whole thread seems to miss the point, much as you do. The war is acknowledged to the extent necessary to place the movie in its proper historical context, but the movie is about a man, not the war. I'm not going to get into the other points, which address the fallacious tu quoque arguments that have been bandied about in this thread.
This is basically the same complaint as above. It is not in the least bit "mind-boggling" that the word "kamikaze" is never used. Movies are self-contained stories. Even those based in history don't tell all of history. The Wind Rises is about a man designing planes in pre-war Japan. It's not about the plane itself, it's not about the war, it's not about any of that stuff. The sorts of things that moral critics would have liked to see in this movie wouldn't have fit. References to kamikazes, to Nanking or any other massacre or mass murder, etc would have felt completely shoe-horned into a movie that is not about those things. And we already know how Miyazaki feels about those anyway, he has never been shy in expressing his views. That, in fact, is what makes this whole controversy so surprising. That Miyazaki condemns Japan's war record has never been in doubt, yet the reaction to this movie has been that because his condemnations in it were more general (and perhaps not explicit enough, although really, they were pretty explicit), he himself is now whitewashing history. The reality is just that he's addressing a different episode in history than the one his critics wish for.
This is why you should see the movie rather than reading the thread. He very explicitly acknowledges that Japan is on a path to self-destruction. This doesn't stop him from designing planes because he wants to design a beautiful plane, as Gatsu mentions. The movie doesn't ignore the relationship between Jiro's work and the war that will follow, as some people are claiming. I saw the movie about a month ago so my recollection of the conversation is a bit hazy at this point but in one of his dream meetings with Caproni this is addressed, that both men just love planes and want to build planes, but in wartime you build warplanes. Both men sort of just accept this. But the movie doesn't, as I'll get to. There's a disconnect between the single-minded pursuit of this love of planes and the destruction they can wreak, and it's true that Jiro doesn't really dwell on this disconnect, but I take issue with the argument that this detracts from the movie itself. He's a flawed man. To expect him to question the morality of his work (and, perhaps, to arrive at an answer) tacitly assumes that he's meant to be a moral man, but that isn't necessarily the case. The question is there for you the viewer to answer, even if he doesn't. I think it's easy to see Miyazaki projecting himself onto Jiro here, though. Jiro can design warplanes, and his other option seems to be (per that conversation with Caproni) that he can just not design planes at all, at least until after the war is over. If Miyazaki were operating eighty years ago, he'd have quite possibly been presented with a similar choice: make propaganda films or don't make films at all. In pursuit of the fullest expression of your art, can you overlook what uses it will be put to? Jiro never really asks himself that, or in other words he defaults to "yes." That isn't the answer the movie gives, though. Early in the movie we see Tokyo leveled by the 1923 earthquake; at the end we see similar destruction by American bombers. But to treat this as more of the same old victim mentality is utterly facile. Throughout the movie Jiro comes to realize that Japan is headed for self-destruction. This isn't just implied, other characters explicitly tell him this, and eventually he begins saying it himself to other people. I think Devin Faraci completely misses this point in the first of the columns Zac posted. He says that Miyazaki treats the war as akin to a natural disaster, but there's nothing natural about it. The destruction visited upon Japan at the end of the movie is a direct result of its imperialist/militarist aspirations. Thus when Kang says in her piece that the movie "echoes Japan’s morally dishonest stance that it was a victim, rather than a perpetrator, of a global war," she is, quite simply, wrong. The movie is essentially an elegy to a pre-war Japan that ultimately destroyed itself and this, in my opinion, is the most powerful aspect of it, the part that resonated with me most deeply. It destroyed itself because people like Jiro, who may have been basically good men (I do think we're clearly supposed to consider Jiro a good man, but as I said above, that doesn't necessarily mean he always considers and abides by his moral obligations), didn't ask themselves the hard questions while bad men were pushing the country toward oblivion. Another thing that hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread that comes up throughout the movie is that Jiro and his friends/coworkers perceive Japan as a technological backwater and a poor country, and aside from their interest specifically in designing planes, they're consumed by a desire to transform it into a wealthy, modern society. Jiro goes to Germany to see their planes and is fascinated by the more advanced German technology. That he's building a warplane can obviously not be forgotten, but his personal interest in national development and advancement is portrayed as more benign. This, of course, speaks to the disconnect between his work and how it will be used, as I already discussed. This isn't really a key point which is why I'm throwing it in at the end as something of an afterthought, but it sheds more light on his motives. He nevertheless still doesn't dwell on the gap between what he's doing and how his work will actually be used to advance the country, but as I've said, the movie itself still considers this question and delivers a powerful answer. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Tuor_of_Gondolin
 Posts: 3524 Location: Bellevue, WA |
|
|||||||
|
Thank you for your response, zaphdash, I think I understand things a little better now. But you're right: I really need to see the movie if I want to say anything substantive about it, as there are too many conflicting interpretations of what the director was trying to say. And while I'm still not sure I'll ever actually see it, I at least have a viable reason for doing so now.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15309 |
|
|||||||
|
Agent:
I think she's supposed to represent something deeper. Perhaps his optimism, maybe? zaph:
Exactly. Japan is openly criticized for its aggressive intent in the film. I'm not sure what's left to say.
That's because his family helped build warplanes, too, so he has personal experience in that arena.
That is a possible choice, but how would he survive? He can't flee to America, either, because they're rounding up people of Japanese descent for internment camps. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Panzer Vor
 Posts: 648 |
|
|||||||
As hard as it may be to believe, Władysław Szpilman and Wilm Hosenfeld really did exist. Say what you will about Polanski, but at least he was more honest with adapting Szpilman's life to film than Miyazaki was with Horikoshi. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
ikillchicken
 Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||||
When a engineer designs a military fighter plane during an ongoing war in which your country is trying to conquer others I'd say he knows full well what it will be used for.
The possibility that his behavior is justified by the consequences of refusing is debatable. Of course that has no bearing here. Saying "what he did was wrong but also excusable because he had no choice" is entirely different than saying "he did nothing wrong. Making weapons for the army is totally okay". If you want to contend that Jiro really didn't want to build war planes and would have refused if he could but had no choice in the matter then I won't disagree with you. I couldn't say whether that was the case.
That entirely depends on the situation. If his country is the conquering invader and he willingly joins the army then yeah, he is responsible.
This is a very obvious straw man argument. I never said it had to be a "war movie". That implies that I'm demanding it actually focus on the army and battles and such. And I'm not even going to address your desperate and unfounded assertion that I just "want it to be" about the war. What I said was just that you cannot simply ignore the morally dubious side of what he did by declaring that your movie isn't "about" that. To do so is precisely the kind of dishonest whitewashing that is being criticized. If you're making a biopic about a guy building war planes it behooves you to address what they were used for. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15309 |
|
|||||||
|
Panzer:
Yes, but he's basically arguing that by advocating for his cause, you wash away any guilt in his own crimes. ikillchicken:
You do know that most invading countries like to lie and perpetuate propaganda about their cause to the general public, right?
Perhaps, but the fact remains that he did nothing personally wrong in that situation.
What if that soldier has no other place to find work? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Maidenoftheredhand
 Posts: 2633 |
|
|||||||
|
i find it ironic that Miyazaki can't deal with more complex issues of war here when they would be appropriate but yet he managed to shoehorn an anti-war message in Howl's Moving Castle when it wasn't even in the book.
I guess I can say I am cautiously hopeful for this movie. Don't get me wrong I love Miyazaki for a lot of his earlier work but to me he hasn't created something truly great since Spirited Away. Personally I am more looking forward to Takahata's new film. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
zaphdash
Posts: 620 Location: Brooklyn |
|
|||||||
I'm not going to split hairs about whether "war movie" and "movie about war" are separate things. You declared that, as the movie is about a guy designing warplanes, Miyazaki "can't just decide" that it won't be "'about' the war." And, uh, yes, he can, and he did. Your assertion is that, as the movie touches on a subject related to the war, it cannot claim not to be "about" the war, which is to imply, it is about the war. If that's not what you meant, the problem is not that I'm constructing a strawman, it's that you aren't clearly conveying your thoughts. The movie doesn't "ignore the morally dubious side" at all, as I explained later in my post (a large chunk of that last part was actually originally written directly in response to your post, but then I felt it fit better in response to Tuor instead). But the war isn't the point of the movie and it doesn't receive any more (or less) attention in the movie than it's due.
Since it doesn't sound like you've seen the movie, perhaps you should refrain from passing judgment on how he handles issues of war. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
jl07045
 Posts: 1527 Location: Riga, Latvia |
|
|||||||
And the blame train extends. Let's go further. America invades Viet Nam. A professional army is a volunteer force. Does that mean every American soldier is responsible? How about the citizens? They elect the government and delegate their power to it. They also pay taxes and know that money goes to military as well, fuelling the war. Are they responsible. Or only those that actually DO know what taxes are for?
Yes, gaining air superiority so that less of Japanese soldiers get killed. Wouldn't he be to blame about such deaths if he refused to design the plane? I'm sure he knew he could design a better fighter than the Japanese had. Last edited by jl07045 on Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Wrathful
 Posts: 372 |
|
|||||||
|
Haven't seen the movie myself but I personally think Miyazaki just played the card safely. Japan being Japan there would be all sorts of accusation or harm coming his way if, only if he directed the movie with the realistic depiction. While there's so much artistic freedom, there's just as much ultra-nationalistic fervor alive unfortunately. At least one should hope this movie brings some awareness to the audience and get them to be interested in real ugliness within WW2 history.
I'm personally disappointed that the critic that calls out is Korean. They should stop calling out because that doesn't really do them any favour in the end. If they call out every little wrong, their reputation would drop dramatically. And as a movie, it hardly matters if it is heavily fictional as long as it's entertaining. The important priority of the movie is being engaging, so I don't see how it's serious not staying faithful to the real history. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15309 |
|
|||||||
|
Wrathful: Actually, the nationalists still hated The Wind Rises in Japan, because it deliberately avoided the "Rah! Rah" jingoism they get off of.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
enurtsol
 Posts: 14761 |
|
|||||||
Speaking of which, 47 Ronin is up next. 
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
ikillchicken
Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||||
If that's true then you should talk to the people defending the movie. They're the ones putting forth the suggestion that its okay for the movie to just ignore the morally dubious aspects of his life because the movie isn't "about" that. I'm just responding to that fallacious argument.
Well first off, your premise is flawed. There was a draft during Vietnam. You'd also have to give some thought to those soldiers who were enlisted before the war and never really had a chance to avoid it. If you want to talk just about free and willing volunteers though then yes, I'd say they're potentially responsible. Of course, then the question is: Is there anything for them to be responsible for? It depends on whether you consider the Vietnam war to be ethically justified. I can't speak with authority here as is isn't a subject I'm overwhelmingly familiar with but at least initially I would say yes it was. After all, it wasn't even an invasion. It was a case of the US becoming increasingly involved while lending support to one side of an existing conflict between the two sides of the country. And what's more, the US sided against the North and the Viet Cong who were the aggressors/insurgents. Of course, the underlying motives of the US were certainly somewhat dubious and there were numerous atrocities committed in specific instances. But on the face of it it is tough to say the war was inherently unjustifiable and as such, difficult to blame the American soldiers who participated in it.
Now you're just shifting the goalposts. A minute ago it was "How could he know what his planes would be used for" and now suddenly its "Well yeah, he knew they'd be used to attack other countries but he just wanted to save Japanese soldiers." It belies that you're just making up reasons as you go along to suit your pre-formed conclusion. And no, he wouldn't be to blame if Japanese soldiers died in an invasion they started. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15309 |
|
|||||||
|
ikillchicken:
It's ok to ignore it, because it makes its point that the war was wrong.
Yes, but there were people who volunteered. But if you're going by that logic, people in Japan were drafted, too.
You do know the Japanese had similar arguments for its Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, right?
Then there's no reason to attack the film. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
jl07045
Posts: 1527 Location: Riga, Latvia |
|
|||||||
I've never even had goalpoasts here, only you do, and you're willing to guard them. My assertion about what he knew comes from why an air superiority fighter is used for instead of how the General Staff was going to employ it. My point is to see if your reasoning doesn't become questionable or incoherent even to yourself. On the surface it's simplistically rigid enough to lead there, which is why I started this. For example, why wouldn't the engineer be blamed, if he knew he could save the lives of his countrymen with the plane? Your moral judgements seem to be based on the idea that people, who know what is happening or what would happen and take an action that helps to ensure the event takes place, share the responsibility for that event. Inaction is action as well, a better plane wasn't built so engineer should take part of the blame for increased military casualties. How about those who know about the agression, but choose to not try and stop it, they are responsible for their inaction. It seems the question is only about the degree of blame. How about the ignorant? Can they be blamed for not paying attention to what is happening and thus not doing something to stop it? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group