Forum - View topicShelf Life - Culture Club
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
pachy_boy
Posts: 1335 |
|
||
I hear so many people label Mononoke as morally ambiguous, but for the life of me I could never agree to that. No matter how you choose to interpret things, what the industrialists are doing to the forest creatures is genocide, wiping them out for the purpose of overtaking their homeland that wasn't originally the human race's. The forest creatures may fight back dirty in kind, but it's all for the desperate sake in protecting their world, their very existence. I've watched Mononoke three times, and try as I might I'm just unable to see the same movie that most others seem to. |
|||
|
|||
|
Echo_City
Posts: 1236 |
|
||
|
To see the moral ambiguity in Mononoke, perhaps you could try looking at it slightly differently? I'll try and elaborate on that as best I can.
First, examine who you consider the villain, Lady Eboshi. She took hundreds of women out of a life of subjugation and denigration in brothels and gave them a life where they are they their own person who is free to make their own worth through work. She likewise took in lepers, who would have been left to die in agony, or worse killed, in mainstream society and gave them a sanctuary where they could live, and better still be useful. Lady Eboshi developed technology that advanced the human race--better guns, better smelter, a more efficient extraction & refining process for metals. She orchestrated a way to efficiently feed and care for all of those in her charge. She managed to repulse the tyrannical samurai lord of the area who sought to cripple humanity's progress and subjugate people for his own shortsighted gain. Perhaps most importantly, she was not content to simply help her people cloistered in her personally city of Iron Town. No, she had aspirations to take down the corrupt emperor and supplant his corrupt rule with her own, which if Iron Town is any indication, would be infinitely superior to the rule under which the people currently suffer. In addition, she did all of these things while putting herself at great personal risk. Consider all of this, how she was a great advocate for humanity, and then ask yourself if you're still OK with painting her as a genocidal maniac. If you aren't, then you just found the moral ambiguity. If that does not work for you, please consider consider this. Lady Eboshi repeatedly stated that she did not want to go and kill all of the animals. She merely wanted to extract her iron, without going to war with the animals. She had enough enemies as things stood. However the animals never agreed to even consider a peaceable agreement with the humans. The only reason that Eboshi had to even go into the forest was that all the iron outside of the forest had already been mined. However, the animals wouldn't even countenance the humans staying in iron town, even if they never did venture into the forest. The animals wanted the humans gone, and they were willing to skip negotiations and jump right to bloodshed to obtain that end. Seems as though the animals were pretty genocidal. So even if you still consider Eboshi to be bent on genocide, if the animals were too, then both sides are equally wrong. That's moral ambiguity. So now we have 2 agreeing ways (so even if you only agree with one it still works) of establishing that neither side is truly "right". Now, I feel compelled to point out at least one thing here. The ending of the movie weakens the moral ambiguity a bit by making it fairly obvious that the animals "won", which makes it far too easy for the viewer to reaffirm any prior views that the animals were the definitive heroes, and there was thus no moral ambiguity. |
|||
|
|||
|
pachy_boy
Posts: 1335 |
|
||
|
Echo_City--You made understandable points, but regardless the forest is still the creatures' home and they have every right to not want it taken apart by people that aren't even from there, especially if they consider it so sacred. Lady Eboshi decided not to respect that and resorted to the means she did. I never intentionally implied that she was a maniac, but in all technicalities what was going on was still technically genocide.
The animals "won," really? It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but from what I recalled spoiler[the industrialists succeeded in killing the Deer god. Even though the protagonists gave the head back, the damage was done and the forest was no longer under any divine protection, leaving the forest open to whatever the industrialists want to do.] But again, maybe my memory's fuzzy because I don't care to either remember that much or even see the movie again anytime soon. |
|||
|
|||
|
Echo_City
Posts: 1236 |
|
||
|
The animals "won" in the immediate sense that the humans were shown to give up their attempts to take their trophy "deer head" back for their nefarious purposes.
In a more subtle sense, the animals won as Lady Eboshi agreed to stay out of the forest. Previously it was said that the only iron is in the forest. Therefore I see the humans as having no reason to stay there, and will be forced to leave. Considering how iron was essential to Eboshi accomplishing any of her aspirations, that looks like an utter defeat to me. Also, the movie ended on a rather bleak outlook for humanity. It was shown that Iron Town was in a remote area. The Forest God destroyed their town, so those people are stuck in the middle of nowhere, with no food, water, or shelter. The only way out is through the territory of that Samurai leader who is trying to kill Eboshi. Without Iron Town's defenses (and most of their weapons), they can't stop him should he choose to ride in with his army and massacre the Iron Towners. If he doesn't attack, the humans of Iron Town have two choices: run the gauntlet of the treacherous narrow mountain pass (Through that Samurai's territory), or stay in the Iron Town valley and starve. Doesn't sound like the humans won to me. (Additionally, the animals might break their agreement and attack the humans themselves. Those apes didn't seem very trustworthy to me.)
Yes, though the animals did not want humans anywhere at all. "The only good human is a dead human" was the motto of most. Also, like Han Solo, the animals "shot" first. It seemed as though the movie was saying that the animals didn't say "Okay humans, you can have all of the land, except this here forest", and make a magnanimous gesture. Instead they were beaten back to the forest by the humans, and considered the forest to be their "last stand". Understandable, but if the animals had come to terms with the humans in the years before the movie happened, this could have been avoided. Negotiation could have been done even during the time of the movie--the animals had the mother lode of iron. The animals didn't care about iron, but they knew that the humans did. The animals could have used their iron monopoly to achieve favorable terms with the humans. While the humans could have united and taken the iron by storm, it seemed that only Lady Eboshi had the desire and ability to acquire and work the iron (clearly that local samurai lord did not), and she really did not want to fight the animals if it could be avoided. She had more important aspirations, and she was in business--genocide isn't cheap. I picture her negotiating. I still don't think that the movie was all that well constructed though. The first 20 minutes dealing with the village of the lost tribe and the Prince's banishment are NEVER addressed again. That guy must be a sociopath, to be kicked out of his home, considered dead by everyone he ever knew, and not bat an eye or have any emotional issues about it. Especially since he was the last prince, so with him gone the Royal Line ends, and so will the tribe. What kind of prince is nonchalant about being banished by his now-moribund people? |
|||
|
|||
|
pachy_boy
Posts: 1335 |
|
||
|
Echo_City: Next time, don't forget to utilize spoiler tags. Otherwise, your point's understood.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Echo_City
Posts: 1236 |
|
||
|
With so much text, spoiler tags are a PITA to read through, unless you highlight the text
I suppose it is possible that there are people still who haven't seen the movie or heard a plot summary who read ANN. I myself had not seen the movie a year ago, but I blame that on needing a LONG time to recover from the rather underwhelming Spirited Away and the heinously bad Kiki's Delivery Service. 
|
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group