Peace is War and War is Peace

In the film Patlabor 2, police officials get caught up in a struggle of authority between civil and military levels of power, during a terrorist attack. The film’s director Mamoru Oshii takes us on a journey of theoretical mind games in which he uses the antagonist Tsuge, a former Japanese military hero turned rogue, to create chaos against his own country in order for political change to occur and a new form of peace to be established. Society often looks highly upon the idea that there is such a concept as global peace; however in “Patlabor 2” Oshii metaphorically counters this idea with a theory that war is peace and peace is war, that you must have one in order to have the other. This theory goes against traditional theory that peace is accomplished by the idea that war is non-existent; Oshii uses various situations and characters in Patlabor 2 to convince his audience that “war is so called peace, and so called peace is the dormant seed in every war.” We can see evidence in both the film and political theory that supports Oshii’s theory that war and peace coincide. In the film we see Oshii use characters as a main way to depict his theories through dialogue of Arakawa and Captain Gota, as well as the character development of Tsuge. We will also be comparing the theory of Immanuel Kant with the theories/ideas presented in Patlabor 2, in order to solidify Oshii’s theory. Throughout this paper we will discuss the issues of war and peace and how they coincide with each other, and whether or not there is such a thing as a just war and an unjust peace.

War and peace are two very different things when compared with each other, the idea of peace does not usually mesh well with the idea of war; however the idea that war and peace must occur and coincide together is not an idea/theory that is widely accepted by the norm of people, because peace is usually regarded as the result of the absence of war, and war is usually regarded as the action that prevents peace. Oshii portrays his theory that war and peace are very similar and in many ways coincide with each other. We see this many times throughout the film, however one scene specifically provides dialogue that provides the viewer with evidence that war and peace are results of each other; the scene is between Arakawa and Gota when they are on the boat dock discussing the actual thing they are trying to protect:

Arakawa: “We’re a rich country. And what is our wealth built on? The bloody corpses in all these wars. They’re the foundation of our peace. We now put the same effort into indifference that our parents put into war. Other countries comfortably far away pay the price for our prosperous peace. We’ve learned very well how to ignore their suffering.”

Arakawa’s dialogue with Gota portrays a very interesting idea that peace is built on the results of war, and that the reason they have peace within their country is because there are foreign nations fighting wars in order for them to maintain their peaceful way of living; this compliments Oshii’s theory very well in which he shows his audience through this dialogue that peace is not the absence of war, but in fact the result of war. I believe that Oshii uses this dialogue as a pivotal point to show the audience that peace is built because of war; Arakawa clearly states that peace is built on the bloody corpses of war; which gives the audience an insight on what Oshii really feels about the issue of peace. The dialogue is almost a metaphorical way of portraying Oshii’s belief that peace is not always a good thing, that there could be a peace that is unjust; and that unjust peace is the direct result of a war that occurred for the wrong reasons such as: for wealth, natural resources, land, etc. Another quote from the same dialogue specifically targets the idea of just wars versus an unjust peace:

Captain Gota: “And yet it seems to me that the line between a just war and a unjust peace is very faint indeed. If the just war is a lie, is the unjust peace less of a lie? We are told there is peace but we look around us and even if we cannot give it words our lives tell us we cannot believe what we are being told. In the end every war gives way to peace so-called, and every so-called peace is the dormant seed of war.”

Once again Arakawa’s dialogue with Gota shows Oshii’s theory that war and peace coincide with each other, that every form of peace is a result of war and every war is the result of some pursuit of peace. In this portion of the dialogue Oshii presents a new idea within his theory, the idea of whether or not a just peace is actually possible. I think that this part of his theory is very interesting because society views all forms of peace as a positive and just thing; however according to Oshii all peace is the result of every war, so does that imply that every war is just? This scene is also the first time the audience is introduced to the idea that although Japan is not in war its peace is almost fake and unjust as a result of the sovereign rule of the U.S. (result of WWII). I believe that Oshii uses Tsuge’s character to answer that question in which he uses his experiences in the peacekeeping of southeast Asia (beginning scene of the film) to show his viewers what a unjust war is. I believe the opening scene depicts an unjust war. In the opening scene of Patlabor 2 Tsuge leads a platoon of Japanese labors on patrol Southeast Asia; shortly into the scene they were attacked by enemies and could not defend themselves because of direct orders from the UN, which led to the massacre of Tsuge’s men. The reason why Tsuge’s platoon could not fire back and defend themselves against an attacking enemy was a direct result of Japan’s actions during World War II. After World War II the US rewrote Japan’s constitution in which it stated that the nation could not have an organized army and could not participate in combat against other nations. This change in their constitution led to the unjust slaughter of Tsuge’s platoon; Oshii uses this incident as a pivotal way to confirm his theory by showing that peace is always a good thing, but it is not always a result of a just war. (“Peace and War from Patlabor 2”, “Japan after World War II”).

Oshii uses the main antagonist, Yukihito Tsuge, as one of his metaphorical portrayals of peace and war coinciding. The character of Yukihito Tsuge is a rogue ex-lieutenant colonel who went missing after his UN Labor platoon was attacked by armed guerrillas in the Southeast Asian forests (first scene of the film); he plotted the terrorist attacks that occurred during the film which caused the military chaos. Oshii uses Tsuge’s character as a vessel to portray this idea/theory that peace stems from war; Tsuge is the terrorist that wages internal war with his own country (Japan) in order to gain peace within him, and to create a political system that is beneficial to Japan.


(Figure 1)

Tsuge’s bitterness and desire for revenge drives him to create war; however when we analyze his character more we realize that Tsuge is not a villain in which he is naturally evil or that he hates Japan, but rather that he felt like he was done a disservice/he was betrayed by his own country, so in order to regain peace within himself for the death of his platoon he seeks revenge by attacking the soil of the authority that could have saved his men. The reason for Tsuge’s revenge can be explained in two parts; the first is the responsibility his character feels for the death of his platoon, Tsuge feels obligated to avenge the deaths of his platoon, because he felt that he should have given them the right to defend themselves against enemy attacks; the second is the unjust political rule that didn’t allow his men to protect themselves when they really needed to (result of the new constitution of Japan).

The experiences that Tsuge endured would confirm Oshii’s theory that any kind of peace just or unjust is a result of war, and that peace and war are the result of each other. Tsuge believes that the only way for Japan to understand that they need to change their constitution to better their nation is to experience the same thing he and his platoon experienced; this is the underlying reason why he wages war on his own country. Arakawa: “Tsuge's putting us in the same position he was in three years ago: no backup. No rules of engagement. That's how bitter he is.” Tsuge believed that in order for Japan to understand that it living in an unjust peace and a peace that could be threatened without defense, he literally showed them through terrorist attacks that they needed a way to defend themselves, they needed an organized army.


(Figure 2)

At this point in the movie Japan was defenseless, because they couldn’t engage in any form of war/combat with anyone outside of their own country; this is why Tsuge uses an American fighter plane to cause confusion and chaos amongst civil and military officials. Tsuge uses these terrorist attacks to show Japan that they are v[ul]nerable unless they install a form of defense; the reaction he gets is obviously portrayed in a negative way, because it is chaotic. However in the end the audience gets an idea of what Oshii uses Tsuge’s character for. Although Tsuge put Japan under high alert and chaos it was meant as more of a wake-up call to military and political officials; Tsuge uses an American fighter plane to show that Japans security is compromised by its alliance with the U.S. and is a direct result of Japan's security and safety being undermined by the U.S. Tsuge makes a point to civil and military officials that if they don’t want to see innocent lives lost then they need to change the no military engagement rule in the new form of rule. Tsuge uses this dramatic chaos to provide a political stance that would provide a better and safer Japan for the future. Oshii uses Tsuge as an antagonist, but he truly serves as an undercover protagonist, because the normal reaction of hatred towards a terrorist is not actively present, because he reveals Tsuge’s true desire. Tsuge: “Perhaps there is a part of me that wants to see a little more.” This was Tsuge’s answer to the pilot that asked him why he didn’t kill himself after all the chaos he caused. Oshii uses Tsuge’s answer to show the audience that Tsuge’s motives were to create a protected Japan, a Japan that lived off a just peace instead of an unjust war (Anderson 84).

Oshii uses Patlabor 2 into a debate amongst viewers through the topic of peace and war coinciding, and whether or not there is such a thing as a just peace. This topic can be turned into a debate, because viewers are shown both sides of the coin. On one hand it is hard not to be on the side of the UN, because there needs to be a form of global peacekeeping in order to prevent another world war from occurring; however you can’t help but sympathize with Tsuge and his goal to restore Japan to its former glory, because every country needs to have the right to defend itself, because without sovereignty over your own nation you depend on the judgment of other nations for the peace and lives of your people. The drama Oshii creates through this debate is clear in which the audience does not know exactly which side is right and which side is wrong, because although the initial response would be to side with the UN, however seeing Tsuge’s point of view makes you question whether or not the peacekeeping and restrictions the UN and US placed on Japan was legitimate or even in the benefit of the Japan as a nation.

Oshii uses a couple of scenes to reveal this debate, specifically the scene in the control room where the Japanese are confused on whether the not the American plane in pursuit is theirs or not. This scene shows that Japan was in a state of confusion, which resulted from the restrictions put on them by the U.S. They had no identity anymore and didn’t even know what planes belonged to them and what didn’t belonged to them; this shows the audience’s first hesitation on the legitimacy of Japanese defense (the exact thing Tsuge eventually tries to fix); this scene confirms the one side of the coin that supports Tsuge’s terrorist attacks in which Japan needs to break away from UN/US control in order to have a legitimate defense and maintain a just peace. A scene that Oshii uses to show the other side of the coin is the opening scene when Tsuge’s platoon comes under attack, this scene reveals the process in which the UN operates in which attacking back is the second option and waiting for reinforcements and confirmation that it is okay to attack should be the priority. The argument that Oshii provides with the drama of the two scenes is that, should global peace be considered just over an unjust war. The most pivotal scene that wraps the two together would have to be when Tsuge is arrested in the chopper and he reveals that he wants to see the changes Japan makes, because of all the chaos he caused, I believe Oshii solves this debate for us by showing his audience that peace is a result of war and not every peace is just and not every war is unjust. It can be argued over and over what Tsuge did was wrong, however if the end result turned out to help the nation of Japan, can anyone say that it was truly unjust?

Once Tsuge takes his actions against Japan, the nation as a whole is thrown into this political confusion between military and civil officials in which they have no idea whether or not the American aircraft was theirs or was this a terrorist attack from the U.S. Oshii shows chaos and panic in many ways, from the levels of civil power to the levels of military power; Oshii portrays Japan as a nation that was so consumed in their unjust peace that acknowledging an attack on their soil was unthinkable (think how the US felt after 9/11). The reactions from the characters of the film truly portray Tsuge’s actions as positive rather negative, but only after they understand Tsuge’s true motive for his terrorist attacks. Tsuge’s motives were to help Japan realize that they were living in an unjust peace and that in order for them to truly maintain a just peace they must come out of the shadow the U.S. and become a sovereign state again, with their own army and unique constitution. The audience can tell that Tsuge becomes an unordinary antagonist through Oshii’s artistic portrayal of certain scenes that Tsuge is a part of; one specific scene is when he is getting arrested and all the birds fly up in the air. This can be seen as a burden being lifted off of Tsuge in which the birds represent revenge and burden and when his task is finally done and the military and civil authority finally realize his motives the birds fly away as if his burden was gone and he is now at peace. Oshii uses this scene as a way to express his agreement Tsuge’s actions and that he acknowledges that his terrorist actions may have been wrong, but his ideology and belief that Japan needed to change the way they govern themselves is correct. Oshii uses the character of Shinobu Nagumo, a former colleague of Tsuge, to show that the characters in the film understand why he did it, but have to punish his actions because it was still wrong. The audience can see the sadness of Nagumo as she arrests Tsuge, because she knows he is right in the way he wants to better Japan, it was just the way he did it in gives her no choice as a police officer, but to put him under arrest.

The topic of an unjust peace and a just war is a topic brought up many times throughout this essay as well as seen many times throughout the film Patlabor 2; however what real evidence do we have to ensure us that Oshii’s theory is even a relevant theory? Philosopher Immanuel Kant believed in a similar theory to Oshii in which he believed that “a war is only won only by the side that is comprehensively stronger, and since victory and defeat depend solely on relative power, reason declares that war as a procedure for determining rights is absolutely condemned.” If the reason of war is already condemned before it has started then does it not make it right to wage war on a country you already know you can defeat? Kant questions the legitimacy of war and the reasoning behind it; Kant brings up a valid point throughout his writings in which he theorizes that if nations waged war against a nation they knew they could already defeat, then would it not be easier just to solve their disputes in a court of law, and was actual war really necessary? Kant and Oshii’s theory do not stray far from each other; in another part of Kant’s writing he answers his question on the legitimacy of waging war with the idea that war is necessary in order to maintain peace: “asserting that war, not only peace, is absolutely necessary, since war is linked with peace and the moral sanity of a people, he claims that perpetual peace would reduce all peoples perpetual silence”; this quote can confirm Oshii’s theory that they must exist together in order to exist at all. Kant believed that people naturally have different opinions and that war is used to express these opinions, and in order for just peace to truly occur we must go to war to make sure that the opinions of a people is heard and executed.

In Patlabor 2, we can see Kant’s philosophy relevant through the actions of Tsuge in which he felt that war was necessary in order to achieve peace; creating chaos in Japan was the underlying purpose to show that the Nation was vulnerable and that they needed to become their own sovereign nation. During post-world war II Japan was taken over by the U.S. in more ways then one, the U.S. set up military posts on Japanese soil, assimilated them to the U.S. culture, created a new constitution for them, and rebuilt and ran their country as if it was the United States. Tsuge’s actions against Japan can be seen as a people’s voice being heard through war. It is no secret that even though the U.S. was part of the reason of the destruction and reconstruction of Japan, that the way they did it was not exactly to the Japanese liking. Patlabor 2, compliments Kant’s theory really well; however there are aspects of the film that do not necessarily agree completely with his theory; Kant believed that war was necessary to keep peace amongst a people, because war acts as the voice of opinion for a people, however in Patlabor 2, Oshii shows that peace is obtained by being a sovereign nation, it is once again showed through Tsuge’s ideology that if Japan were to maintain some form of peace and be in war they must be sovereign in order to carry out their own ambitions instead of another nations (Hoffe 156, 192).

In conclusion, Oshii metaphorically theorizes that peace and war whether just or unjust must exist with each other, that in order for one to occur the other must as well. We see this theory being portrayed through the dialogue of Arakawa and Captain Gota and the character development of Tsuge; we also can confirm that Oshii’s theory is relevant because it is similar to that of philosopher Immanuel Kant. After researching the topic of peace and war, I can confidently conclude that the idea of peace can only exist as a result of war; I conclude this because we see through many modern day events such as 9/11 that peace comes as a result of war; when a nation is put under chaos and answers back with a resolution it maintains its peace once again. I understand and agree with Kant’s philosophy that war serves as a reality check amongst a people, because sometimes it takes war to show what peace really is, and whether or not a nation has obtained it. Oshii uses Tsuge’s actions of terrorism to portray Japan in a light that many didn’t really see, in which they were at peace, because they were no longer in war, however they lived in an unjust peace, because they were being controlled by the U.S. Oshii showed that sovereignty is an important part of obtaining a just peace in which he uses Tsuge to show that being controlled by another nation can result in a form of peace, but when you have no control of your own state, then this peace is irrelevant because when you are attacked and when you need to defend yourself, you have no say in it. Patlabor 2 provides viewers with an intellectual challenge of norms and average societal thinking, in which it challenges its viewers to think outside of the box, and to focus on whether or not violence (war) is the result of peace, and peace is the underlying creation of war; regardless if it is the type of war that is seen on TV between militaries, or the war with self revenge, every type of war is in the pursuit of some sort of peace, and every type of peace exists because of some action of war.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Mark. "Oshii Mamoru's Patlabor 2: Terror, Theatricality, and Exceptions That Prove the Rule." (2009): 75-109. Web. 2 June 2011.

Bolton, Christopher, Istvan Csicsery-Ronay, and Takayuki Tatsumi. "Patlabor 2 and the Phenomenology of Anime." Robot Ghosts and Wired Dreams: Japanese Science Fiction from Origins to Anime. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2007. Print.

Höffe, Otfried. Kant's Cosmopolitan Theory of Law and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. Print.

Market, Mark T. "Peace and War from Patlabor 2 « The Critical Thinker(tm)." Web. 1 May 2011. .

Patlabor 2. Dir. Mamoru Oshii. 1993. DVD.

Political Meaning in Barefoot Gen

In many anime films like Patlabor 2, Sky Crawlers, and to a degree, Metropolis, one of the most apparent motifs in anime has been the portrayal of Japan as an isolated body, which constantly faces certain disaster, destruction, and rebirth as a society. Mori Masaki’s Barefoot Gen, which is based on the semi-autobiographical manga series by Keiji Nakazawa, also employs the portrayal of Japan as an isolated body, helpless to disaster and exploitation through the eyes of a survivor of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. Although the film is littered with horrific renderings of what actually happened in Hiroshima, its seemingly hopeful ending despite near complete death and destruction seems to portray life, unity, and rebirth after the disaster. Upon further investigation and comprehension through the use of sources such as Jeff Adams, Sheng-Mei Ma, and Harry Harootunian, however, the film can be seen as both a political criticism of Japan and the United States during the Second World War by Masaki and Nakazawa as well as a bittersweet underlying portrayal of Japan’s unwaveringly traditional nationalism against foreign intrusion.

One of the most striking and memorable scenes in Barefoot Gen is the scene that portrays the bombing of Hiroshima. The sequence features various views of pain and torture caused to the people of Hiroshima by the bombing, such as a young girl holding a red balloon, a mother with a young child, and an old man vaporized by the extreme heat of the blast (Images 1, 2, 3, and 4).


(Figure 1)


(Figure 2)


(Figure 3)


(Figure 4)

The deaths of the young girl, soldier, old man, and mother and child represent not only the horrific deaths caused by the bombings, but also enunciate the disaster’s toll on civilians. Masaki’s decision to show the brutal deaths of these specific subjects intensify his political message. Rather than showing a images of massive amounts of citizens dying, which would be more realistic than showing only a handful of victims, Masaki highlights his political message that the bombs targeted and killed the citizens of Japan rather than the military. The fact that the backgrounds of the images during the bombing scene also change so drastically in color represents a sort of shift in reality from the artist’s perspective where the images may not necessarily correspond to what the atmosphere would have actually looked like during the bombing, but are rather meant to create a sort of mood in the audience toward the subject matter. Images 5 and 6, for example, show the city of Hiroshima during the initial detonation of the bomb. The colors of the buildings, sky, and general atmosphere in these images exist in order to convey more of a nightmarish view of the situation than to represent the reality of what the detonation actually would have looked like to a witness. Thus, one can see that although the bombing scene is fairly realistic in the ways it shows people dying; it also contains a large amount of political imagery from the perspective of the director which intends to illustrate the political and moral problems caused by the bombing.


(Figure 5)


(Figure 6)

Another visually striking and politically subverted aspect of the sequence portrays the Americans who flew the planes and dropped the bombs. The short sequence shows two American pilots, clearly drawn differently than the Japanese characters and meant to appear foreign to the viewer (Images 7 and 8), flying in the Enola Gay and speaking military jargon to each other while eventually pushing the button that drops the bomb. The images of the Americans are significant because they politically characterize the enemy, the United States, as essentially the “other” of Japan. The Americans clearly contrast the Japanese in terms of the ways they are represented: the ways the Americans are drawn are fundamentally very differently, they speak English (with Japanese subtitles), their eyes are never shown, and they move differently than the more traditionally “anime” Japanese characters. The “otherness” of the American soldiers can be interpreted as a vilifying of intervention in Japan from outside forces. The differences in characteristics between the Americans and the Japanese serve as a way for Masaki to clearly portray Japan’s enemy in the movie, but also to reinforce Japan’s traditional nationalistic sense of identity. The sharp difference between Japan and America in this sense later leads to the film’s departing images of Japanese nationalism and solidarity against foreign influence, which I will discuss later.


(Figure 7)


(Figure 8)

Clearly the events of the bombing scene, the way it is animated with constant shift in perspective, and the distortions of color and sound are meant to emphasize the director’s political message to the audience. The colors change drastically in a way that can only be described as hellish in order for Masaki to represent the true gravity of the events through animated drawings. The scene is so graphic that it is hard to watch and not particularly enjoyable or pleasant, but also impossible to look away. The final image in the scene is perhaps the most intriguing image of all because it seems to be a color photo of the actual Hiroshima bombing (Image 9).


(Figure 9)

In contrast to the hand-drawn images present throughout the rest of the film, the use of the actual photograph (the only photograph in the film) to end the scene is very peculiar and can only further represent the difference between Masaki’s message through the drawings and the actual reality of the situation. Thus, the use of the photo after the artistic images of death and destruction serves to separate the events and images of the film from reality, while still implying that the bombing was a huge disaster. In Jeff Adam’s article, “The pedagogy of the image text: Nakazawa, Sebald, and Spiegelman recount social traumas,” Adams discusses the use of photographic imagery to characterize traumatic events. The following passage is particularly interesting in terms of Barefoot Gen’s use of the Hiroshima bombing photo:

Photographs, drawn or otherwise, act to condition the receptivity of the reader to the possibility of a continuity with a traumatic history, existing outside of the narrative of past and present, and yet belonging to both of them…The signifier, the photograph itself, could be overlooked (invisible), or seen through to the referent – in this case straight through to the person, suggesting a direct link by virtue of the (perceived authenticity of the chemical impression, enabling its reception as a means of learning and knowing of past trauma. (Adams 41)

In Barefoot Gen, the use of the actual photograph of the Hiroshima bombing after the hand-drawn rendering of the scene embodies Adams’ idea of “a continuity with a traumatic history, existing outside of past and present, and yet belonging to both of them” (Adams 41). The photo surely exists outside of the film, which was produced in 1983, and serves as a means of connecting the reality portrayed in the photo with the political imagery conveyed in the film. The near 40 year gap between the events the film is based on and the production of the film itself leave a gap between the actual events and the meanings of Masaki’s interpretation nearly 40 years later. The destruction that can be seen in the photograph links the artist’s earlier portrayal of the events to the actual events of the bombing themselves, creating a gap between realism and artistic (and political) meaning. The ending of the film only further encourages speculation on the true political meaning of the film and why the film was produced such a long time after the events actually happened.

Like the bombing scene, the final two scenes of Barefoot Gen contain a large amount of political imagery intended to produce emotionally nationalistic feelings in the audience. Image 11 shows what maybe be the most important shot in the film in terms of Masaki’s overall message of the film. Although by this point in the plot, the family has lived through near complete death and destruction, it is clear that Gen and the rest of the family are very hopeful toward the future. Gen is portrayed as fulfilling a goal he had with his now deceased brother to float a hand-made boat (which, incidentally, has a Japanese flag on it) down the river. On one hand this shot could be interpreted as conveying Masaki’s political message of Japan’s need for solidarity and nationalism in order to overcome the events of destruction. This argument is plausible because the rest of the film points toward a bright future for Japan, as seen in Image 10 which deals with an inexplicable sprouting of the family’s wheat crop just one year after the bombing.


(Figure 10)

On the other hand, however Image 11 also appears to have some underlying darkness in terms of its message. The atmosphere of the characters, which was of extreme importance in the bombing scene, is essentially a nuclear wasteland. Although the field appears to be sprouting wheat in the previous scene (Image 10), Image 11 only shows dead trees and dust (as well as the contaminated river that kills many people earlier in the film.


(Figure 11)

The sun is also portrayed as setting throughout the final scene of the movie, which is not exactly conducive to Masaki’s idea of a seemingly bright Japanese future and the idea of Japan as “land of the rising sun.” The underlying darkness present in the final scene of the movie serves to send out two separate messages: in order to survive Japan must rely on its traditional form of solidarity and nationalism, but also that as a small and isolated country, modern Japan would be subjected to obeying the wills of larger and more powerful countries like the United States.

The inexplicable growth of wheat at on the family farm one year after the bombing raises yet another level of speculation and meaning. Obviously it is impossible that such a miracle could happen so quickly after a disaster as huge as the Hiroshima bombing, so the wheat scene and Gen’s flashback to his father can only serve as another layer of political meaning. Sheng-Mei Ma raises an interesting point about this scene in her article, “Three Views of the Rising Sun, Obliquely” when she states the following:

The never-ending search for food focuses on the staple of the Japanese diet, rice, against which is the Nakaoka icon of wheat, as if the cartoonist deliberately chooses an atypical Japanese food to embody the antiwar, dissenting spirit of the Nakaokas. The erstwhile un-Japanese sentiment comes to be embraced wholeheartedly in postwar Japan. (Ma 187).

Ma’s generalization of Gen’s family as “atypical Japanese” (187) resonates throughout the first half of the movie and can be seen when Gen’s father tells Gen, “This war can’t be right…but it’s only the cowards like me who dare say it. If there were only a few more like us. You know, sometimes it takes more courage not to fight than to fight, to not want to kill…when all around you are calling for blood. That’s real courage in my book” (Barefoot Gen). The characterization of the Nakaokas as dissidents of the government appears to make sense in terms of Masaki’s political message because of the fates of the parents. The father, who stands as the most outspoken critic of the war in the film, ultimately pays for his anti-nationalistic views by burning to death shortly after the bombing. Although the father’s beliefs may appear to be acceptable to the viewer, the fact that he is killed indicates a failed idealistic point of view. When Gen’s father appears again in the flashback and tells Gen (referring to wheat), “Its life begins in the coldest season of the year. The rain pounds it, the wind blows it…it’s crushed beneath people’s feet…but still the wheat spreads its roots and grows. It survives. Learn from it, boys” (Barefoot Gen), it can be seen as a sort of reprisal of the father’s idealism that is killed when he is killed. Although his message in the flashback is meant to encourage Gen to never give up on life, which could be interpreted as Masaki’s message on a more national level, the fact that the father is killed in such a brutal fashion suggests that his ideals of social dissent from government should not be followed by the public. Thus, the flashback differs from the original quote from the father because it endorses more of a national mantra of solidarity and nationalism than the message of dissent and individual alienation from pre-bombing society and the government.

The fact that Gen’s family represents a dissident view of the war and the Japanese government raises even more pertinent questions about Masaki’s message in the film. Although Gen’s father can be seen as a dissident through some of his remarks about the war, the seemingly loving and functional way the family is shown could suggest a separate level of “normality” in Japanese society before the nuclear attack, untrusting and cautious towards foreign wars and the policies of the government. While the idea of “normality” in this sense defined by dissidence is an interesting idea, everything about the film seeks to generalize the Nakaoka as being a political anomaly to the nationalistic society. The separation from the Nakaoaka family and the rest of society can be seen early on in the movie, when there is a parade for Japanese soldiers that chants the following:

Banzai! Banzai! Banzai! Because I swore to win bravely and left my hometown, how can I die without doing great deeds? Every time I hear the marching trumpet, my mind recalls the waves of your flags. Banzai! Banzai! Banzai! (Barefoot Gen)

This nationalistic chant by the large group of people is then undermined by Gen and his brother Shinji when they sing their own chant which goes “Don’t you hate the military? Metal bowls and metal chopsticks. I’m not Buddha. One meal a day is pathetic” (Barefoot Gen). This sequence, which is the first sequence of the film after the theme song, sets the difference between the traditional nationalistic values of Japan embodied through the parade in this case, and the more modern political views of the Nakaoaka family (through the director, Masaki) of dissidence to war and the government.

On a broader level, the wheat scene further elaborates another aspect of the film that deserves a little attention: the constant cycle of life, death, and regeneration. Ma explains the motif in the following passage:

The motif of death and rebirth repeats itself in the manner of a fugue from the wheat imagery to numerous “reincarnations.” Gen and his mother Kimie survive the blast purely by chance, protected by a concrete wall and in the attic. Having witnessed three members of her family burned to death, Kimie gives birth to Tomoko amid the rubble, yet Tomoko dies in her infancy due to either malnutrition or the radiation-caused cancer. Gen also rescues [Gen’s brother’s] lookalike, Ryuta…Regeneration graces Gen himself…when he finds a fuzz covering his bald head… This gallery of monstrocities…illustrates Gen’s picaresque journey through hell. These supporting characters around Gen emerge and vanish in the narrative without much logic, akin to the chaos in Hiroshima. (Ma 186)

The seemingly unrelenting tragedies that follow Gen throughout the second half of the film always seem to be resolved by a sort of rebirth. One example is the appearance of Ryuta, who appears shortly after Gen’s father, sister, and brother are killed in a fire shortly after the bombing. Ryuta perfectly resembles Gen’s dead brother Shinji in virtually every way. This “rebirth” of Shenji not only represents the sort of hopefulness of life illustrated in the final scene of the film, but it also further emphasizes the subverted message of hopelessly uncontrolled sovereignty. Like the final scene of the film, which at the same time represents hopefulness toward the future and helplessness to the outside world, Shenji essentially exists amidst both the hopeless and hopeful ascepts of Masaki’s message.

Researching the film and, more generally, postwar Japan brings the argument that Barefoot Gen both endorses traditional Japanese nationalism and criticizes foreign involvement in Japan even more speculation. Harry Harootunian’s article “Japan’s Long Postwar” contains a few interesting ideas that are relevant to a discussion of postwar Japan. The following passage is particularly interesting:

As a mnemonic device for recall, the memory of living through the postwar, the nation in defeat, instead of the war itself, or indeed the vast complex history before the war, was coupled with the idea of culture to construct an endless present, more spatial than temporal, much like the commodity form that colonized Japanese life before the war as thoroughly as the U.S. Occupation. What I mean is that remembering the postwar in the 1990s worked to recall not the experience of wartime Japan, which the various discourses inspired by the Occupation and the enshrinement of Hiroshima effectively displaced, but rather the experience of a time when others, notably the Americans, prevented Japanese from actually forgetting their continuing status as a defeated nation. (Harootunian, 720)

Harootunian’s argument is relevant because it deals with one central question regarding the production of Barefoot Gen: why was it produced nearly 40 years after the actual bombing occurred? Through Harootunian’s argument it can be understood that Masaki directed the film from the perspective of someone who lived through the experience of postwar Japan. The view portrayal of the bombings, the use of the actual photo of the bombings, and the inexplicably hopefully ending of the film cannot help but be told from the perspective of a person looking back upon memories rather than reporting a witness’s testimony. The discrepancy in time between when the events occurred and when the film was actually produced indicate a political message influenced by a Japan that has long been controlled by foreign and U.S. influence.

One of the most important questions that can come out of this discussion is how does the film use the events of the past to comment upon modern Japan? Personally, I believe the evidence of both hopefulness toward the future and helplessness toward outside influence in the film set the stage for the Japan of 1983, the year Barefoot Gen was produced. At that time still controlled by U.S. interests, the Japan of 1983 was essentially the Japan that the film leaves us with: a rebuilding society centered on extreme cultural isolation, social unity, and the desire to be self-governing rather than controlled by foreign influences. Although Barefoot Gen may seem deceptively simple upon the first viewing, subsequent viewings reveal layer after layer of subversive political messages and imagery. While on one hand the film seems to clearly acknowledge the American enemy and the hopeful future of Japan, on the other hand it suggests an underlying message of Japan’s helplessness to outside influence and sovereignty. The fact that the film was produced nearly 40 years after the events it is based on only further causes us to question the message of the film and how it applies to modern Japanese society. The dual meanings of the film can only lead to the interpretation of the film as a truly indefinable, enigmatic piece of anime.