Forum - View topic

REVIEW: BFI Film Classics: Grave of the Fireflies

It is a story of Japanese pain – children's pain. And yet it strives to be the opposite. Far from ennobling its characters, it shows them acting irrationally, selfishly, cruelly. None question the premise of the war that's causing them such distress…They aren't victims so much as their own enemy

It also suggests that children should be 100% responsible for their own actions, always act rationally and are mature enough to make those decisions.

It's almost as if the author does not comprehend that people would act irrationally in that situation, out of shock, against the fact their normal lives have been upended, and are acting out in pure survival mode. In addition to that, propaganda from the government, criminalisation of anti-war material and social pressures made sure there were few dissenters

This quite a bizarre take and oddly ignores the fact the Japanese people didn't go to war, the government did.

It also suggests that children should be 100% responsible for their own actions, always act rationally and are mature enough to make those decisions. It's almost as if the author does not comprehend that people would act irrationally in that situation, out of shock, against the fact their normal lives have been upended, and are acting out in pure survival mode.

There's also the idea that the two children should have stayed in a rather abusive household (seemingly glossed over by the book and the reviewer) and they would have been better off that way. I don't see how accepting being abused is OK.

After the international release, it has been noted that different audiences have interpreted the film differently due to differences in culture. For instance, when the film was watched by a Japanese audience, Seita's decision to not come back to his aunt was seen as an understandable decision, as they were able to understand how Seita had been raised to value pride in himself and his country. But, American and Australian audiences were more likely to perceive the decision as unwise, due to the cultural differences in order to try to save his sister and himself.

Saying that the real tragedy is that the girl's death could have been prevented if only her brother had acted more rationally is ignoring the fact that a 14 year old kid is expected to behave like a rational adult in a situation where even many adults would fail to behave in a rational way.

Whatever Takahata's intention with the movie was, I'm going to claim death of the author here, and say that as far as I'm concerned the main takeaway from it is that it's an example of how a society traumatized and devastated by war, exploited by its ruling elite and then left to fend for itself, will inevitable fail its most vulnerable members.

I think it's also fair to say the Seita holds himself responsible even if we don't;

So let me rephrase some things I said earlier: the debate shouldn't be about whether or not Seita is culpable, but about whether or not he deserves to feel culpable.

It is a story of Japanese pain – children's pain. And yet it strives to be the opposite. Far from ennobling its characters, it shows them acting irrationally, selfishly, cruelly. None question the premise of the war that's causing them such distress…They aren't victims so much as their own enemy

On the subject of the author's intentions, I don't know about Takahata, but I do know about Akiyuki Nosaka, the author of the original story. And his stance on the story is that you are NOT supposed to to sympathize with Seita. You are supposed to think of him as a prideful little brat who is responsible for what happened to him and his sister,

But do you want to know why he thinks like that? Because Seita is based on the author himself, as the story is semi-autobiographical. And the author very much believes he is responsible for the death of his little sister, and hates himself for it. In fact, the story was written as an apology to said sister.