Thoughts on the 'controversial' theme?

SharryPsi said:
I think the real controversy here is the movie promoting runaways and that gun stuff...This is the stuff no teen should try...What if someone get wrongly inspired?

SharryPsi said:
I think the real controversy here is the movie promoting runaways and that gun stuff...This is the stuff no teen should try...What if someone get wrongly inspired?

SharryPsi said:
I think the real controversy here is the movie promoting runaways and that gun stuff...This is the stuff no teen should try...What if someone get wrongly inspired?

apollojeez said:
When I first watched it, my response towards the ending was rather negative, like many others. By now I've definitely come to terms with this, even though I probably haven't accepted it fully to the point of being completely happy with it.

The reason for my initial dissatisfaction was that I tried to judge Hodaka as a protagonist by comparing him to a regular protagonist. In a regular story, Hodaka either accepts Hina's 'death', or saves her but somehow comes up with way that the eternal rain can be avoided. In these cases, the audience would see Hodaka as someone who's either somewhat mature (to accept Hina's death, thus making sure the city doesn't drown), or very smart (to find a way that he can save her without sacrificing the city). That's how a regular protagonist would be like. But Shinkai was not going for that. He establishes Hodaka as someone who is exactly what he should be: an immature kid. Shinkai displays a direct contrast between Hodaka and Suga, someone who is a lot older and a lot more mature, because of which he probably chose not to save his wife when this exact same thing happened to her.

But still, there is also the ethical side to all this. An immature kid doing immature things doesn't automatically make him a good character. There had to be some sort of an ethical dilemma, which there was, in my opinion. Is it REALLY so wrong to put an end to this supernatural cycle, because of which the sky claimed multiple lives? Hina, Suga's wife, and many others didn't deserve to die. And it's not even like their death puts an end to all this. The mantle of the weather maiden eventually just falls to someone else.

On top of this, let's also think about the reality of our world for a second. With climate change and all, major flooding of a big city is very much possible, if not inevitable. Isn't that something that the human race at large is collectively contributing towards? (I guess you might disagree if you think climate change is just a natural thing that humans can't do anything about). Is it REALLY so wrong for a kid to save the love of his life in exchange of a major flood, when something similar can very much happen as a result of something like... people burning a lot of fuel just so that they can drive a car really fast? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to prove that what Hodaka did was correct. I'm just trying to suggest that maybe it isn't as objectively horrendous of a decision as quite a few haters of the movie think it is. So as you said, OP, the ending gives us plenty to think about.

While I certainly preferred Your Name overall, I do want to give credit to Weathering With You when it comes to the characters. Think about this:

Anyway I guess that's all I had to say. Maybe I'm overthinking this. Maybe I'm giving Shinkai too much credit. I don't know and tbh I don't really care. Both of his recent works are beautiful for me.

gumrats said:
Was Hodaka’s decision selfish? Sure. He was motivated by the fact that he personally knew and loved Hina. But I don’t think that makes his choice bad writing or him a bad character. The ethical dilemma of this movie reminds me a lot of the story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, wherein a “utopia” hinges on the suffering of a single individual. It asks you the question: what is the value of a single life? What are you willing to sacrifice for comfort (and I think that sunshine and the human-altered Tokyo metropolis, built on a historic flood plain, represent comfort really well). I don’t think the answer is as cut-and-dry as some reviewers have made it out to be.

It also feels very intentional that the person being sacrificed, Hina, represents two demographics that are shown to be otherwise suffering under the current system: the homeless, and parentless children (or even children in general). The person who ends up taking care of them, Suga, is also somewhat of an outcast from society, writing “out there” supernatural articles and seeing his past self in Hodaka. All of these individuals suffer both under Japan’s society and under the ritual sacrifices of the sunshine maidens.

Another thing I found interesting about potential messages regarding modern society and capitalism, is the shift from the historical treatment of sunshine maidens to the modern one. As the priest in the movie explains, different versions of sunshine maidens varied across many cultures, were highly regarded within their societies, and were celebrated for their sacrifice. Contrast that to the modern sunshine maidens, who society reaps the benefits from without being aware of their existence. In many ways this reminds me of late-stage capitalism, where clothes appear conveniently in a store without any awareness of the sweatshop it came from, or the environmental destruction caused by the cotton it harvested, or the trash heap it will end up in after its use: it distances the product from the labor/”sacrifice” needed to make it. And maybe the customer buying the shirt does know vaguely about sweatshops and environmentalism, but they will probably choose to ignore that to buy the shirt anyways, and the guilt will be momentary and quickly forgotten and they will repeat this experience many times over. Hina’s sacrifice is deemed essential for blue skies and for modern Tokyo to keep running unimpaired, but it is also an unpleasant truth that society has purposely chosen to forget.

To me, at the end of the movie, society seems to be adjusting to the rain, which feels like a message that society can adjust to bear inconveniences equally, instead of shunting it onto only the most vulnerable people. This theme of bearing some discomfort over destructive convenience also applies to climate change, although I think it does get a little muddled by the fact that mass flooding and extreme weather will be the result of continued climate change, rather than a return to previous conditions and as some reviewers have pointed out it borders on climate change denialism (that the changes we’re seeing are part of a naturally-occurring cycle and not human-induced) which is unfortunate and probably the movie’s biggest flaw.

But in terms of Hodaka’s controversial decision, I feel like it’s the movie’s strongest point. Most stories would either have him “rationally” decide that Hina’s sacrifice is necessary, or figure out a way to save her without facing any negative consequences for it (like how Taki and Mitsuha were able to save the people of Itomori with seemingly no repercussions). But that would just make it a generic fantasy story and weaken the message it was trying to convey.

Anyways maybe I majorly misinterpreted or overthought this, but that’s what I got from the movie

apollojeez said:

Oh wow. Not sure if you read my response to this forum but seems like we share similar views on this movie. It's refreshing to see this since I've already seen many people just label this as a Kimi no na wa rip-off when in truth, these two movies tell stories that are very much different from each other, although they do share structural similarities.

One thing I would like to disagree with is your point on the message regarding climate change. Personally, the whole idea of "Tokyo going back to the way it was" was just something that Taki's grandma told Hodaka, who in return initially took it as a way to not feel too guilty about his actions. Same case with Suga telling him how "the world has always been crazy". These are just casual statements that Hodaka considers as ways to comfort himself. But then of course the movie ends with him rejecting these statements, and acknowledging the fact that this was his decision, and that he changed the world along with Hina. I don't really think it borders on climate change denialism, and would like to know more about why you believe otherwise.

gumrats said:


Actually my idea of the climate change denialism didn't come from Taki's grandmother or Suga (although they reaffirm it), but the Shinto priest's speech about the sunshine maidens, when iirc, he mentions that things like great floods are part of Earth's natural cycles that humans sought to control through the maidens. It has been a few months since I've seen the movie though so I could be misremembering, but there have also been multiple reviewers that have gotten the same vibe from the movie. Which is definitely weird, because I do think climate change as a problem is intended to be one of the movie's themes.

apollojeez said:

Ahh I see. Yeah I too watched the movie a few months ago and seems like I don't remember the Shinto priest's words very well. So fair enough I can now see why you and others think the way they do. I guess I'm at that stage of affection towards this movie that this doesn't really bother me that much, especially since Shinkai himself did an interview with UN where he:
- Praises political movements initiated to protect the climate.
- Mentions that a "humans can't control the nature" attitude can function negatively.
- Makes it clear that he had no intention of preaching about climate change, although the movie was most certainly inspired by it.

Thus implying that it's okay to not give too much importance to the world that he builds using the Shinto priest's words.

gumrats said:


Both movies are telling very different stories: Your Name is about the connectedness of people across gender, region, and time; Weathering With You is about what and who we as a society choose to value, and our responsibilities to each other and to the world.

SharryPsi said:
I think the real controversy here is the movie promoting runaways and that gun stuff...This is the stuff no teen should try...What if someone get wrongly inspired?

Comander-07 said:

@apollojeez when was it established that Suga chose to not safe his wife? I must have missed that part.

apollojeez said:

It's been a while since I watched the movie, but if I remember correctly, the part where the police officer goes into Suga's office where tears start falling from the eyes of the latter, it is implied that he lost his wife in a similar manner. This is also what adds a lot of emotion to the scene where he tries to stop Hodaka from saving Hina.

Comander-07 said:
yeah I thought you might mean that, but I didnt pick up that he had any choice there.

apollojeez said:

Oof sorry for the delayed response. You're right in saying that it wasn't a direct choice. He probably didn't know how exactly to go about saving her. I still felt like there was a choice involved somewhere. A sense of teenage rebellion that Hodaka had, whereas Suga didn't. The refusal to accept things as they are even if it might be better for the rest of the world. I'm probably not giving a very convincing response here lol.

Comander-07 said:
Dont worry
I thought it was just him seeing himself in Hodoka again, but this time with the possibility to safe his significant other which he first thought of as just a dream. He probably chased that dream himself for years without any hope of actually reaching it and wanted to save Hodoka the trouble, and later realised Hodoka has a chance which he did not.

apollojeez said:

Actually that makes more sense. I should probably rewatch the movie someday. Thanks \o/

apollojeez said:

As for the gun stuff, personally I think that the movie did enough to make it clear that using a gun is wrong and can get you in a lot of trouble. Hodaka threatening to use it later on is obviously him being rebellious, but using that to conclude that the movie promotes the use of guns sounds really harsh to me.

dashsnow2292 said:


I know this is a bit late but I just would like to add some of my personal thoughts on this :).

I think the gun was never really meant to promote the use of guns either but was more of to serve as a symbolism that represents the "heavy responsibility" that comes with when possessing one, and also to serve as a tool to show how Hodaka handles situations that pushes his mental and emotional limits. I know some countries have very lenient laws when it comes to acquiring firearms but where I am from, you have to go through tons of paperwork, tests, and clearances before you can even buy one (legally of course). Naturally, one of the main reasons for this tedious process is to ensure that the person who's trying to procure a gun is capable, able, and responsible enough to wield it. But in the case of our boy Hodaka, he was still a teenager when he came into possession of one. All throughout the movie, we'll see how in the moments he used it was always controlled by panic and intense emotions rather than calm and calculated decisions--qualities that we should really expect from someone who's a lot older and/or experienced than him and not from him who's yet to experience more harshness in life.

This is also why I think his decision to save Hina was really fitting for the movie. I think the majority of people who hated Hodaka's decision, just like you've said, was expecting something more "heroic" from a non-heroic character to begin with. But, what most of us don't immediately realize is that his thought process, his intense emotions, the things he experienced in life, and his age all justify his decisions. Suddenly burdening him with choosing between the life of the person he loves--the reason for him to finally not suffocate from life--and the life of thousands of people he doesn't even know and probably doesn't even care about him, with him also being alone in carrying a problem that everyone in the whole world (or Tokyo for this matter) should also be held liable for--all of these, just like how the gun suddenly made him bear a "heavy responsibility" that was not even his, don't you all think it's a bit too much to "let the world rest" in his "small shoulders" (as mentioned in "We'll Be Alright") and blame him for something he didn't even cause?

Well, these are just a few of my thoughts :). I've actually just realized the "heavy responsibility" thing an hour ago after I saw comments that say the presence of the gun is controversial which really made me think what is the significance of the gun in the movie. I think WWY can do away with the gun but I don't think it was placed there for no reason at all.

... or maybe this is just me overthinking things :)