Rather than that, I think it is more accurate to say as someone else pointed out that nobody wants to know. Or nobody wants to face up to the situation, the concequences.
Throughout the film, outsiders of the children family unit are given insight after insight into their predicament, and yet no one intervenes. First off...
- Authorities / companies don't bother investigating why the bills are long overdue, even when there's no reply to them when they threaten to cut them off. Yet shut up as soon as it is paid.
- The kids are in full view of the public nearly all the time. No one directly enquires why four kids are alone, washing themselves and their clothes under a public tap, gathering water in a bucket day in and day out
- The convenience store employees know exactly what is going on. They see Akira time and again, becoming more dirty, clothes more ripped, begging for soon-out-of-date food and snacks. It is obvious they are being neglected which is why the female employee enquires to Akira about their mother. Unfortunately her enquiry only extends to that mere question and not for further action.
- The landlady also eventually becomes aware about what is going on. She sees a rotting appartment, a mess of a place, and children she knows weren't originally registered to live there. Yet she walks out without doing anything, probably because despite the rent being overdue as long as it is paid in the end it's not her problem, and that scenario is more welcome than chancing to let out to new people that she may not get.
- The baseball coach. Seeing a mucked out kid, sitting outside when they should be at school... Again if not obvious than at least suspect. But rather than calling anyone, the most he seems able to do, perhaps what he sees as enough is to pity the boy and allow him to play a baseball match
So you see, throughout we are given glimpses of their demise in blatant public places. People know, they just don't want to know. The most the adults want to do is take pity be it left-over snacks, a baseball match, leniancy on the rent, or a simple question. That's about the extent of them wanting to know, but no more as getting too involved is something not preferable in this time of self-indulgence and self-survival. You see, the mother of the film isn't the only self-indulgent one, indeed her self-indulgence could be the only one in the film to be understandable because the way she reacts to her children (almost child-like) might suppose she is mentally challenged in some way. Or a victim of her her own (similar to the kids) circumstance, which is why she doesn't seem to fully appreciate the extremity of the situation (when she thinks an annual 10000 yen handout is enough for a year). But perhaps it's just because she doesn't want to know.
However, it is the self-indulgence of other adults that is most shocking. Unlike the mother, these adults were seemingly brought up with the proper morals and values which is why they are holding responsible jobs, even being teachers. Yet they don't involve themselves to obvious signs of neglect.
It is an incredibly sad sign of the times, and it doesn't just extend to Japan. Here in the UK the caring of the wellbeing of others is becoming a rarity for the general public. Thirty years ago, this street I am on, it would have been seen as par for the course to know everyone who lived on it. It would be "neighbourly". Now, I have little clue who lives on this street, partly because they don't want it but also partly because I don't either.
Even when people scream in a town or city centre most do not think to enquire. Why do you think authorities suggest shouting "fire" instead of shouting out the real crime? Because people take more notice of something that could possibly come to harm themselves.
It's this lack of wellbeing of others and only wellbeing of the self and those close that makes these cases such as the film a reality. That makes the case of "Baby P" here in the UK a reality. The obvious blame is towards the person that placed the victim in that situation, however it is our responsibility (authorities, neighbours, people that see signs of neglect) to ensure the awful outcome of that situation doesn't come to pass.
Unfortunately, nobody wants to know.
reply
share
chris-potter
15 years ago
Thank you for such an in-depth analysis. A joy to read. I agree.
To whoever reads this, note that any questions in the following paragraph are rhetorical. Please do not respond angrily.
For me, the brilliance of the title lies in its irony - EVERYBODY knows. The title 誰も知らない highlights the lack of action, raising questions about responsibility: does a bystander have a responsibility to a stranger who is struggling to survive? Many of us would like to think so; we say we would go out of our way to help if we saw a child with holes in his shirt, who had just washed his hair in the park. Although the mother appears incompetent and selfish, she raises a relevant question: "Don't I deserve to be happy?" Viewers probably agree that a mother has a duty to her children, and that the mother in this film failed to fulfill that duty. Where it gets complex is with the more ambiguous relationships in the film. Does occasionally seeing someone on the street qualify as a relationship? Consider that that person is in trouble. Should you provide assistance if it will severely infringe on your own happiness or ability to survive? The theme of conflicting duties was interesting, particularly because the film was set in modern Asia.
reply
share
15 years ago
[deleted]
palhares-f
9 years ago
We also don't know the circumstances of the abandonment by the fathers. Did they reject the mother, or was it her choice to abandon them so she could keep her lifestyle?
reply
share