MovieChat Forums > Kaze tachinu (2014) Discussion > While a pretty picture, I'm glad it didn...

While a pretty picture, I'm glad it didn't win an Oscar, and here's why:


http://www.laweekly.com/2013-12-12/film-tv/the-wind-rises-history/

The Trouble with The Wind Rises
Hayao Miyazaki ends a brilliant career on a shameful note
By Inkoo Kang Thursday, Dec 12 2013

In today’s era of global box offices, few studio films are made for just one country, especially by a director of Hayao Miyazaki’s international stature. But the beloved animator’s latest and last work, The Wind Rises, is a film whose meaning and power vary so greatly in different cultural and geographical contexts that Miyazaki should have fought for it to never leave his homeland.

The Wind Rises is custom-made for postwar Japan, a nation that has yet to acknowledge, let alone apologize for, the brutality of its imperial past. Nearly 70 years after Emperor Hirohito’s surrender, the Japanese military and medical institutions’ greatest evils, like the orchestration of mass rape, the use of slave labor, and experimentation on live and conscious human beings, remain absent from school textbooks. Japan scholar Hanna McGaughey, a personal friend, has stated in private conversations that “pussyfooting” around war crimes is the only strategy Miyazaki had at his disposal to avoid being dismissed by his domestic audience as “silly” or “inappropriate.” Indeed, some of his fellow citizens have already accused Miyazaki of being a “traitor” and “anti-Japanese.”

But there’s no reason why critics and audiences outside of Japan should be morally complacent in the animator’s concessions to his countrymen’s egos. The Wind Rises perpetuates Japanese society’s deliberate misremembering and rewriting of history, which cast the former Empire of the Rising Sun as a victim of World War II, while glossing over — or in some cases completely ignoring — the mass death and suffering its military perpetrated. Critics who fail to observe or protest Miyazaki’s “pussyfooting” around a regime that caused more deaths than the Holocaust aid and abet Japan’s continued whitewashing of its war crimes.

In The Wind Rises, Miyazaki uses real-life aircraft engineer Jiro Horikoshi as an extreme example of ordinary Japanese citizens’ indifference to the atrocities committed in their name. Jiro, as he’s referred to in the film, finds such beauty in airplanes and flight that he feverishly pursues the next level of killing machines for Mitsubishi, justifying his work by comparing his planes to the pyramids. The reference to the pharaohs might allude to the fact that Mitsubishi used Chinese and Korean slave labor to build Jiro’s Zero planes. But the character never considers whether the slaves who died making those pyramids might not believe the results were worth their lives.

Jiro represents the moral myopia of the imperial Japanese citizenry and of the aesthete. His shortsightedness is quite literally symbolized by his Harry Potter-esque glasses, which, paired with his lavender suits, make him look perpetually youthful and innocent. (Yes, he’s animated, but his boss appears much older and his friend Honjo less boyish.) Like most biopics, The Wind Rises is guilty of a bit of hagiography. Early in the film, Jiro is a good Samaritan who rescues a little girl from a train wreck. But his goodness and innocence have a pathological purity to them, too, as illustrated by his devoted but sexless marriage to his sickly wife. It’s that dedication to an ideal of “purity” — whether it be of aesthetics, nationalism, or ethnicity — that Miyazaki subtly condemns in his film.

But The Wind Rises declines to challenge mainstream Japanese society’s distortions and denials of its wartime atrocities. Worse, it echoes Japan’s morally dishonest stance that it was a victim, rather than a perpetrator, of a global war — a whitewashed version of history that the film now imports to every country where it plays.

Consider the first scene. Jiro is a young boy; in his dreams, he heads for the skies in a wooden aircraft. A constellation of black dots appears above him, soon revealed to be a hangar’s worth of missiles and bombs. They dangle from a zeppelin embossed with the Iron Cross. The explosives fall on Jiro, reducing his plane to splinters.

The rest of the film is suffused with this fear of German aggression, and it’s an ethically mendacious choice of a bogeyman on Miyazaki’s part. In The Wind Rises, the alliance between Germany and Japan — the original Axis of Evil — is conveniently forgotten, as scene after scene shows the Japanese bombarded by Teutonic suspicion, condescension, and hostility. Reframing the Japanese as the victims of Nazi racism deflects attention from the heinousness of the Japanese Imperial Army. But Miyazaki’s elevation of his own countrymen as morally loftier to the Nazis is only credible when the viewer forgets (or is unaware) that the Japanese military justified killing 30 million people across Asia with its own ideology of ethnic superiority.

The Wind Rises continues this blame evasion throughout, evincing an ideal of pacifism while positioning Japan as the target of Chinese and American assault. We see Japanese planes downed by a Chinese foe in a mid-film reverie — a shockingly insensitive image given that Japan was invading China during this time, not the other way around. Later, an American bomber floats above a graveyard of burned-out aircraft over the defeated Japanese empire. In contrast, no Japanese pilot is ever seen shooting at an enemy, even though Jiro’s most famous invention, the Zero plane, was designed and used solely for military purposes. The consequences of his work — that is, corpses — are likewise absent. In the film, Jiro never expresses sympathy for the people his people killed. His grief is strictly reserved for the deaths of his planes. His preference to mourn his Zeros, rather than the planes’ victims, illustrates his soft-handed callousness. The bloodlessness of the film contributes to its whitewashing of an incredibly bloody history.

No surprise, then, that The Wind Rises has already created an uproar among South Koreans (who haven't yet seen the film), arguably the biggest recipients of Japan’s 40-year colonial cruelty (1905-1945). The Wind Rises’ specious pose of self-victimization will and should disgust the living survivors and their descendants in the myriad other countries Japan invaded during World War II: China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia; the list goes on.

It’s hard to believe that, were The Wind Rises set in an interwar Germany and focused on an idealistic dreamer who just wanted to design the world’s most beautiful U-boat and didn’t care a whit about the concentration camps, it would receive a similarly adoring reception here in the U.S. (At the time of writing, the film enjoys a 82 percent “fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes and has appeared on several best-of-year lists.) One would hope that critics who aren’t suffering from Japan’s culture of mass delusion about its war crimes would take into consideration the warped version of history Miyazaki has to accommodate and, to a large extent, perpetuates.

The Wind Rises is just one film, but it echoes an entire country’s obsession with misremembering a deeply painful and extraordinarily violent past. Japan’s wartime victimhood is a convenient lie its citizens have told themselves for decades. That the aging Miyazaki has misguidedly lent a patina of wistful beauty to that lie is a shame. The Wind Rises ends the illustrious career of a treasured visionary on a repellent, disgraceful note.

reply

<sigh> This review so entirely misses the point of the film.

reply

Care to explain how it misses the point?

reply

I'll give it a shot, because I agree that this LA Times review does kind of take a shallow reading of the film. Ms. Kang, the reviewer, is clearly a good writer and put thought into this, but I think the point he misses is that this movie is about a question, not its answer.

The time period was used as a set piece, not the focus of the story. It wasn't about WWII. With the exception of the very last scene WWII had not even happened, it was more of a looming cloud. The film was about responsibility and how to live one's life. Figuring out what's "important" and what's "worth it" when in actuality there is no way to know. From what I understand Miyazaki in some ways saw this story of a commentary on himself, and his own misgivings and apprehensions about misuse of his own work. I think that's something many people can relate to, and he took that scenario and put it in one of the most extreme situations in recorded history. Should Jiro continue following his passion to make planes when he knows what they will be used for? Throughout the film Jiro grapples with this, and comes to his answer, but the point of the story was not to say that his answer was the "correct" one necessarily. The ending was bittersweet at the very best. It's about one man's struggles with that question, and how it relates to the very concept of creating something.

I don't find the reviewers points about Japan white-washing their history and pussyfooting around historical atrocities off base (though frankly I think it's a mistake to imply that Japan is really that much worse about this than the United States, or any other country I'm sure). But at the same time that issue doesn't necessarily mean that the film made an unrealistic portrayal meant to suggest "Oh, Japan was nothing but a victim of war too!" It's a very real situation. Look at us Americans right now for example. Some small part of our tax dollars is going to some drone, somewhere, that will accidently kill a child. Everyone knows that happens. It may be indirect, but we are definitely in some way contributing to it. So what should we do? Leave the country? Never buy anything ever again somehow? But if everyone did that wouldn't it cause the whole country to crumble? Would it be ok if we contributed but protested against it? These may seem like silly questions to some, but in principle it's the same dilemma our protagonist finds himself in. I think the reviewer was also correct that a film about a German U-Boat engineer would not have been received nearly as well in the U.S., but personally I think there's no good reason for it not to be. Personally I'd be very interested in seeing a film like that.

TL;DR: The film wasn't about telling the audience that the Japanese people (as represented by Jiro) are not responsible for what the country did during WWII. It was a mature film that, rather than spoon-feeding messages like "War is bad, we are sorry," portrays questions about how to live life. Questions that in actuality have no solid answer at all.

reply

The time period was used as a set piece, not the focus of the story. It wasn't about WWII. With the exception of the very last scene WWII had not even happened, it was more of a looming cloud. The film was about responsibility and how to live one's life. Figuring out what's "important" and what's "worth it" when in actuality there is no way to know. From what I understand Miyazaki in some ways saw this story of a commentary on himself, and his own misgivings and apprehensions about misuse of his own work. I think that's something many people can relate to, and he took that scenario and put it in one of the most extreme situations in recorded history. Should Jiro continue following his passion to make planes when he knows what they will be used for? Throughout the film Jiro grapples with this, and comes to his answer, but the point of the story was not to say that his answer was the "correct" one necessarily. The ending was bittersweet at the very best. It's about one man's struggles with that question, and how it relates to the very concept of creating something.


Well said and it's what I would have said as well.

This movie is not about the politics of Japan's behaviour in World War 2 and the problem with Kang's opinion piece is that he is talking about a movie that he wanted it to be instead of talking about the movie that it was.

Jiro's motivations are not born out of hate or war mongering. Rather his motivations are simply born out of a need to progress. To take technology to another level. But unfortunately, as is the case with most stories like this, that progression comes at a human cost and that is what the film is wrestling with. This is repeated throughout the film. This is a film about a person with a strong aspiration to make his dream a reality, but the sad truth is that you are not always in control of your dream. Hence the ending as Jiro finds himself in a moment of bittersweet lament over what the toll of destruction that his creation has bought with it. Also, the film could be seen as a reflection of the Japanese mindset at the time and perhaps even a comment at that mindset.

There is a great story that Miyazaki has told about his father. His father supplied parts for these planes. Growing up, Miyazaki contended with his father as to "how he could have taken part in such atrocities?" His father was an interesting man in the sense that he built and profiteered from these planes but was not a hateful man. These are the questions being asked in this movie. This is the mindset being reflected in the movie. Kang's opinion piece doesn't even reflect on any of this because Kang is expecting this movie to be entirely critical of every last atrocity committed by Japanese war criminals. And the last I checked, Jiro is not a war criminal. So to expect that is incredibly naive.

But the problem here with Kang's opinion piece, whilst well written, is that Kang is almost expecting Miyazaki to tell a story that Miyazaki clearly had no interest in telling. This isn't a story about Japan's many atrocities, this is a story focused on one man. And as such, to expect the incredibly wide canvas of World War II to be filtered through one man's story is a little naive.

reply

TLDR 

reply

Fortunately, The Wind Rises is not a documentary.

Can't stop the signal.

reply

tl;dr

reply

[deleted]

how about applying this nonsense to amricans now!!! are the nazi americans and israelis any different when they justify their killing of children with lies (or even if it was true) that terrorist hide in civilians areas so we have to raise it to the ground.

reply

I live in Texas, where to this day many of my fellow Americans insist that the American Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. Wasn't about that at all. If you look at the Articles of Secession from the states which tried (and failed) to leave, you see that the people doing the seceding sure as {redacted} thought it was about slavery.

This being said, I wouldn't say that any movie set in the American South in the years leading up to the ACW would have to depict Southerners as evil, or as being utterly consumed with slavery. A character could be a white non-slave-owning Southerner who maybe doesn't care about slavery one way or the other or might even be against it, but not to the point that he sabotages things or flees his state.

Or yes, a movie could be about a German submarine engineer (or rocket engineer?) in the years leading up to WWII.



I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
- Jon Stewart

reply

I couldn't agree more. Thank you for this review.

reply

“pussyfooting” around war crimes is the only strategy Miyazaki had at his disposal to avoid being dismissed by his domestic audience as “silly” or “inappropriate.”
I rather feel that was just not the point of the movie.

It still portrays war as leading to out-of-control death and destruction.

It still portrays a rather disillusioned situation :
* The 1st encounter with the military is a cacophonic meeting.
* Mentions plane building being a privileged situation.
* Mentions Japan spending a LOT on plane tech while kids die of starvation.
* Mentions Japan being shamefully way behind.
* Mentions meddling with too many external countries, and that leading to Japan's fall.
* Highlights the plane industry has no choice, when Jiro says removing machine guns would save weight, and everybody laughs because it CAN'T be serious, and the bosses then approve of the realism.


which cast the former Empire of the Rising Sun as a victim of World War II
Now that is reading way too much into it.

Strong case of projecting one's ideas, as others have already said.

reply