True, I guess my problem was when you said she was well within her rights to do everything she did, which I disagreed with. That her actions were period related, that I agreed with. Nevertheless, still something a decent person wouldn't do regardless of the era and that's why I'm not cutting her any slack.
As for the movie succeeding in its overall intent? Yes and no! I understand what you're saying and as I said before, the movie did do somethings right, my overall problem was with the execution. The director didn't make the movie interesting, at least for me. So in the end rather than being interesting and thought provoking, the characters ended up as simply annoying. I've seen many series where characters got on my nerve, but when done well I still liked them (as characters) because they were properly executed and thus delivered the proper intent. Many Gundam series come to mind as for such characters done right.
By the way, looking at your list I can see Ergo Proxy is in your Plan-to-Watch. I recommend you check it out. It's not to my tastes but based on what you liked from your list I'm sure you'd like it.
The Aunt in Grave of the Fireflies might have had my support if she hadn't forced the guy to sell his family's belongings and then decided to keep the rice because SHE deems he doesn't deserve it. That's called thievery and he was well within his right to take it back by force if he so wished. She didn't work for it either, it was his rice that he bought with his money.
His aunt was more concerned about being given what she thought was her "due respect" as an elder than she was actually earning the right to have said respect. It was also the norm back then to sell your daughter to the army when times were hard for the family, so you can understand why leaving for the army or any institution that supports the war effort was impossible for the kid, considering it would mean leaving his little sister in the hands of this monster who thoroughly believes in the nation’s ideals at the time, which morally, anyone who has a grain of decency would be disgust by. I'm sorry, but the "things like that were the norm back then." just doesn't stick with me, if something is morally bankrupt it still is and always will be no matter what the "community" of a given era or location might try to make you believe. Yes times were hard and people had to contribute, but certain acts (such as forced prostitution which happened in Japan at the time and thievery, which the aunt did with her nephew's rice) are still morally bankrupt acts that should never be accepted or forgiven.
Don't get me wrong, I understand necessities of an era or situation but there is a difference between necessities and evils that are accepted as the “norm” and thus justified as such. In any given era those who perpetrate evil and excuse it as the “the norm” are the ones maintaining such evil to persist.
Was the aunt entitled to expect gratitude for her actions in helping the boy? Yes! What she in her right to expect him to contribute? Yes, to an extent: He couldn’t return to school because it was destroyed and couldn’t go risk his life because he’s the sole provider for his sister. She could have asked him to contribute by working for her family specifically instead. But she was not within her rights to steal his rice or force him to go die in the war or in the raids/fires because this didn’t concern her family, it was his personal decision to do so or not until his country ordered him to do otherwise. Was the kid an idiot, very much so for allowing his pride to cause his sister’s death and his own. In the end I pretty much hated almost everyone in this movie. It did portray how an impossible situation can make living properly and with ethics difficult, but respect for others and morality should not be something we hang on to only when most convenient, otherwise it loses its meaning and speaks volumes on us as a species.
Anyway that’s my opinion on this, didn’t mean to write for so long though.
All Comments (2) Comments
As for the movie succeeding in its overall intent? Yes and no! I understand what you're saying and as I said before, the movie did do somethings right, my overall problem was with the execution. The director didn't make the movie interesting, at least for me. So in the end rather than being interesting and thought provoking, the characters ended up as simply annoying. I've seen many series where characters got on my nerve, but when done well I still liked them (as characters) because they were properly executed and thus delivered the proper intent. Many Gundam series come to mind as for such characters done right.
By the way, looking at your list I can see Ergo Proxy is in your Plan-to-Watch. I recommend you check it out. It's not to my tastes but based on what you liked from your list I'm sure you'd like it.
The Aunt in Grave of the Fireflies might have had my support if she hadn't forced the guy to sell his family's belongings and then decided to keep the rice because SHE deems he doesn't deserve it. That's called thievery and he was well within his right to take it back by force if he so wished. She didn't work for it either, it was his rice that he bought with his money.
His aunt was more concerned about being given what she thought was her "due respect" as an elder than she was actually earning the right to have said respect. It was also the norm back then to sell your daughter to the army when times were hard for the family, so you can understand why leaving for the army or any institution that supports the war effort was impossible for the kid, considering it would mean leaving his little sister in the hands of this monster who thoroughly believes in the nation’s ideals at the time, which morally, anyone who has a grain of decency would be disgust by. I'm sorry, but the "things like that were the norm back then." just doesn't stick with me, if something is morally bankrupt it still is and always will be no matter what the "community" of a given era or location might try to make you believe. Yes times were hard and people had to contribute, but certain acts (such as forced prostitution which happened in Japan at the time and thievery, which the aunt did with her nephew's rice) are still morally bankrupt acts that should never be accepted or forgiven.
Don't get me wrong, I understand necessities of an era or situation but there is a difference between necessities and evils that are accepted as the “norm” and thus justified as such. In any given era those who perpetrate evil and excuse it as the “the norm” are the ones maintaining such evil to persist.
Was the aunt entitled to expect gratitude for her actions in helping the boy? Yes! What she in her right to expect him to contribute? Yes, to an extent: He couldn’t return to school because it was destroyed and couldn’t go risk his life because he’s the sole provider for his sister. She could have asked him to contribute by working for her family specifically instead. But she was not within her rights to steal his rice or force him to go die in the war or in the raids/fires because this didn’t concern her family, it was his personal decision to do so or not until his country ordered him to do otherwise. Was the kid an idiot, very much so for allowing his pride to cause his sister’s death and his own. In the end I pretty much hated almost everyone in this movie. It did portray how an impossible situation can make living properly and with ethics difficult, but respect for others and morality should not be something we hang on to only when most convenient, otherwise it loses its meaning and speaks volumes on us as a species.
Anyway that’s my opinion on this, didn’t mean to write for so long though.