Japan in WW II

Do you similarly wring your hands about the zillion "rah rah rah USA USA USA" war-glorification movies? I thought the movie handled the issue of war well -- ie Jiro was focusing on designing planes just as a million American (or German) engineers were doing for their planes and other war toys. It is out of the engineer's hands if their leaders end up behind war mongers who start wars at the drop of a hat.....

But unless I misunderstood the time lines he was still designing once war was under way? If so that makes him entirely complicit in the murder and subjugation carried out by the Japanese nation at that time. And I cant speak for the OP but I'm not keen on USA USA war films either so I don't really see how the existence of one makes the existence of the other ok.

While I can't say I run to being 'deeply upset' by a cartoon, I have to agree that the glossing over of the horror of this era by Miyazaki strikes me as a gross error of judgement, if not of character.

I appreciate that generations of Japanese have had distorted educations with regards to the atrocities in Asia in the 30s and then later in WWII, but Miyazaki is a well read and well travelled man and should, indeed, ought, to know better.

If you're already "deeply upset" by a film not depicting a WW2 participant as the worst monsters in human history, how does Pearl Harbor's depiction of the USA make you feel?

If it helps, the historical Jiro Horikoshi the film's very loosely based on was very much against the war.

That said, I don't think it matters so much – outside of one or two brief waking dreams, actual warfare is never portrayed, and even the final two scenes of the film conveniently leave out the entirety of World War II. We go from the successful test flight of Jiro's second design straight to the aftermath of the war, with Japan once again burnt to the ground (this time by their own unchecked aggression, not a natural disaster: they literally "blew up") and the blown out metal frames of a hundred airplanes gathered on the ground.

I thought it was pretty telling what the film and filmmakers thought about Japan in WWII just from that ending alone.

It seems you are "deeply upset" for two different things:

[lack of] "depiction of the role of Japan in the war"

Short answer: this movie is not about that. It is simply out of the scope.

Longer answer: No one is denying how terrible it was, but it's largely irrelevant for the movie. To be precise, it is only part of a distant background. As such, it *is* mentioned in a few lines of dialogues here and there: in the monologue of the good-hearted foreigner at the bar ("you [can't] forget about the Manchukuo..."), and repeatedly, in the worried lines of various characters, when they wonder which power is their government planning to attack. That's more than enough.

Hatefully sarcastic answer: yes, and that's nothing! Once I've seen an American movie set in the fifties which, believe it or not, failed to depict the aftermath of the atomic bombing of two civilian cities, which as you know is the single most horrifying war crime of all times (if you can call it a "war" crime, and not just a terrorist act, when only civilians are targeted). Just like that! The characters didn't even mention that once, as if they weren't aware, and not a single shoot depicted that, even if at the very same time of the narrated events, innocent people in Japan of all genders and ages were still dying horribly, by the thousands, for radiation poisoning! The title of the movie was every single movie set in the 40s and 50s in the USA.



"character' lack of understanding of their participation"

Short answer: Well, that's just an historically accurate fact.
(Should we blame them, in hindsight? See longer answer)

Longer answer: The typical war movie will assume that (for example) every german is ipso facto a monster (naturally this applies only to countries that lost the war). That's convenient, so that they can be shot without remorse, but naturally it is a simplistic lie. The inconvenient truth is that there was good people, even wonderful people, in every nation, including "wrong" nations (note that "wrong" here effectively means "having lost the war", because all factions committed atrocities beyond any saying).

It would be reassuring to imagine that every "good person in the wrong country" was aware, and therefore at odds with its own government and maybe a subversive, a victim of persecution, or even a revolutionary against his own county. Unfortunately, that's just not always the case, and it is not even the *typical* case. It sure happened sometimes, depending on a great deal of factors, including information availability, culture, type of society, personal history, etc, but more often it didn't.

In this respect, it was really a courageous of Myjazaki to dispel the conventional lies and embrace the inconvenient truth. It would have been a lot more convenient to keep clear any such controversy, e.g. by picking any other scenario. This would have avoided the (small minded?) criticisms by people wanting to make sure that it is absolutely clear that Jap Has Been Evil, like the OP's. And yet...


[and now, my own criticism, which is exactly the opposite!]

...and yet not even Mijazaki was bold enough to go all the way! He eventually conceded a bit of the conventional, convenient, simplistic vision in his masterpiece: since Jiro was a good person and Japan Was Evil, he had, after all, to be at least a *bit* persecuted by his own country. He had to be in the Japanese gestapo back list, which menaced to make him disappear or something. For which reason, impossible to say. Why they would do such a counterproductive and un-grounded thing against what they must have seen as an exemplar citizen, unexplained. This element looks totally far fetched. The small "hiding from authority" sub-plot is totally out of place, at odds with everything else, and unneeded in the plot.

Well I'm imagining the choice to add this element must have felt painful.
Still, it's a pity. Really, the scene hinting at the persecution of a (Jew?) German engineer (in streets of the German town) would have sufficed as a tribute to the conventions, and that one is not far fetched, nor disruptive of the overall plot.

I wish Studio Gibli had been even bolder in this one, because the movie is otherwise spotless and an absolute masterpiece.

I agree that the movie is upsetting as it reveals that even Studio Ghibli and its creator are as blind to history and as determined to revise history as their ultra-nationalist government.
This really taints Studio Ghibli's reputation and it is very telling that he chose this as his "last" movie. Turns out he was simply a fascist old git all the time.
I spit on Studio Ghibli.

In response to Ricerazabu:

I think you are forgetting that this is a Japanese movie, a culture that doesn't state its points quite as clearly as most western cultures, choosing instead to hint at things (especially negative criticism), aware that people will still get it. There are no doubts about the fact that this movie criticizes Japan's role in the war, a point that won't be lost with the Japanese audience as it is hinted at many times during the film. (What I'm trying to say is that from a Japanese point-of-view this movie is very clearly anti-war, blaming the Japanese government for its actions.)

As to the characters' "understanding of their participation", I think you are again not familiar enough with Japanese culture to understand why people act like they do. It's a very group-oriented culture where people on a daily basis are forced to act against their will. I actually thought Jiro was quite un-Japanese in many senses (at least for that time) and kind of a rebel, acting as a good role-model of sorts. So I completely disagree with you.