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.

Mamoru Oshii’s Alternate Possibilities: Sky Crawlers and Patlabor 2

In Sky Crawlers, action and movement is restricted and regulated by corporate control. Yuichi is a fighter pilot for a corporate compound. His labor is a representation of the movement of corporate capital because he moves in flight patterns over the outskirts of towns dominated by corporate control. His movement is prevented from going beyond the area designated by his employer. The limited space Yuichi has to move in makes his agency and ability to move always dependent on the closed decisions of the corporation. As a result of this environment, the narrative portrays characters such as Yuichi and Ksunagi as incapable of conceptualizing their actions, movement, or ideas outside of their identification as the subjects of the corporation. Its almost as if their substance boils down to a corporate credo reading: “Created by and for the interests of the corporation”. In this way, even their labor is un-liberating because there is no possibility for realizing their agency in the closed logic of the film. What this means for their labor is that it is reduced into pure simulacrum and spectacle. Their capability of possessing an agency of resistance is limited by the constraints of the film.

Oshii lets time unfolds differently in Patlabor 2 like a linear narrative; actions are seen as either responses or reactions to previous historical events. The film is introduced with Tsuge, an officer of the Japanese Defense Forces, surviving a failed U.N. mission. Tsuge fails to receive an order in time from his superiors. He is in shock when his team dies as a result of this perceived failure. This sets in motion so called “terrorist” actions from the perspective of the State, but what serve as his active response to what has become in his point of view an ineffective global policing system. The film then refocuses to 2003, four years after the failed mission in Cambodia to Japan. Tsuge forms a “rebel” group that bombs a bridge, hacks defense networks, and sets a full-scale attack against Tokyo. His actions pinpoint weaknesses within Japan’s security structure .In addition, they incite State fear or even paranoia at the prospect of unrest or possible civil war. Tsuge’s actions expose the weaknesses of Japanese police, defense, and international relations. His actions compete against the state’s message that wishes to maintain a sense of peace and control. The film progresses by following two police officers Nagumo and Gotoh, who are sent to capture Tsuge with the aid of an intelligence officer named Arkanawa, using unilateral power to capture Tsuge and end the threat of “terrorism”. In the Patlabor 2, a general says Japan “does not exist in a vacuum”. His quote ties together different understandings of agency and movement within a local, national, and global context. At the global level, this represents Japan’s relationship to other “post war” nation states. At this level, action and movement are influenced by external powers such as the U.S., exposes’ Japan’s dependence on foreign nations. However, in a local context this dependence plays out in various ways, through Tsuge’s actions and the state’s response to his action. Tsuge’s actions are seen at the global level as “terrorism”. Yet, Tsuge sees his action as a way to disrupt local patterns of movement that state and global powers govern.

In Sky crawlers, time is less linear than a narrative and leaves you hanging in a vacuum of hyperreality: there is no general sequencing of events or plot progression. All growth or development occurs in the confines of a closed space. As a result, time acts according to corporate control. Characters such as Yuichi and Ksunagi define life as “meaningful” or “productive”. They self identify in corporate terms because they are “kildren” or pseudo humans bred by the corporation as adolescents, designed to live for brief periods. As a result they perceive time as either irrelevant or unimportant. It’s as if their lives amount to continuous labor cycles. Their proximity and awareness to time acts to heighten their feelings of alienation and dislocation. These feelings are the foundation of their desire to end their own lives, which amounts to breaking the ultimate rule of trying to defeat the “undefeatable” ace pilot. The Kildren’s continuous identity follows the same capitalist logic of destructive regeneration, each accumulating the crisis of their ahistorical existence.

Oshii’s lens into Sky crawlers functions to intensify the continuous time structure by slow pacing, repetition, and sparse dialogue. The sparcitity of verbal interaction indicates the lack of meaningful or significant social interactions. The lens follows kildren, like Yuichi at his unceremonious welcoming into the corporate compound .At the welcoming, he is received with an attitude of disinterest. Yuichi flies into the compound and to be briefly introduced to his mechanic, General Officer Kusanagi, and several other pilots. The film begins by grounding what he will be doing for the remaining cycle of is life. When he lands not a single onlooker appears seems interested in his arrival, instead he receives an apathetic reception that the viewer has no way to contextualize. He must find his own way while later Officer Ksunagi, herself a kildren, later, welcomes him tiredly into her dark office space that appears to contrast the natural sunlight which streams through a window. Yuichi questions Ksunagi about the status of the pilot he is replacing and asks whether she is a Kildren. At this point Ksuangi’s expression suddenly changes and she refuses to answer Yuichi’s questions. His cold dismissal suggests a nihilistic interpretation of his arrival, where the closed-ness of daily life on the compound is repeated in every social situation and exchange. Each day the pilots fly airplanes cut from contact for the most part with the “outside” world except for limited opportunities explained later. The film asks the viewer to accept the strange world of Sky crawlers as it is, closed off and without an understanding of history.

The kildren’s own understanding of their historical connection to reality can be interpreted by what Jameson refers to as a postmodern “psychological status” in his essay Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Because the Kildren have no clear recollection of the past and are unable to attach any significance to their present moment of being or their creation or description is similar to Jameson’s schizophrenic who “suffers a breakdown of the signifying chain” (6). The fact that the dialogues between characters do not divulge details or have personal histories to tell signifies their forced to interpret their own histories for themselves. Kildren depend on material markers such as matches, repetitive movement as proof of their own “historical residues.”[1]

History is a record or memory of previous experiences When a Kildren dies, they are reborn with only vague recollections of their previous life. Literally “killing children”, their continuous life for the corporation is without the aid of historical memory. Kildren feel confused and disoriented by their surroundings. Kildren only have limited evidence of their previous lives. The film creates a sense of déjà-vu by concentrating on small details and moments of memory; the return to the same dinner, fold of a newspaper, a match thrown on the ground. These material objects function as memory devices in their repetitive and minute details offering clues without direct answers. Focusing on these moments also the viewer to interpret what objects such as a cigarette, meat pie, newspaper, or a match means to the kildren enforcing the idea that their understanding consists of by routine, control, and repetitive order (ref to images 1,2,3 below). The repetition of actions coincides with the military conflicts occurring continually in the film without a sense of purpose, reason, or an end. Only a female pilot Mitsuya summons the nerve to tell Yuichi that he is a reincarnation of Jinroh, brought back to life because of a unique “skill set”. Mitsuya is also the first person to tell Yuichi that he is indeed the reincarnation of Jinroh and that the other kildren were only “pretending” they did not know. The lifeline of a Kildren is set only to determine the needs of the corporation, replacing his sense of self for a “unique skill set”.


(Figure 1)


(Figure 2)


(Figure 3)

This lack of historical connection may also explain internal conflicts and provide a reason for their inability to form individual or collective political consciousness. Ace pilot Mitsuya suffers from this type of ahistorical crisis and cries “Why? When? And how in the world did I end up like this?” She further explains that her lack of historical understanding makes her feel as if she is “floating further and further away from reality”, rooted in intense malaise for everyday life. Jameson refers to a similar type of stress and refers to it as “wanning of affect” where a loss or lack of connection to historical purpose forces them to interpret their lives differently. Like Yuichi, Mitsuya tries to establish some frame of reference by asking the pilots, “How many flight hours have you logged? or “How many years have you been working as a pilot?”. Mitsuya is also validates Yuichi’s own feelings of confusion and disorientation when she asks “ How do you reconcile the memories with your life if it is just an endless repetition of the present? “. Although Mitsuya is the only character to express these feeling of uneasiness, there is an implication that Ksuanagi’s desire commit suicide stems from a similar “wanning of affect” her chain of signifiers is unreliable she feels “no past and no future”.

Kusanagi describes the kildren as part of a game that involves “fighting a never ending war”. By referring to “war” as a “game” Ksuanagi is also saying that their violent actions are for the interests of capital. Kusanagi understands the conditions she and her co-pilots work in and does not see an alternative to their state of detached violence. She interprets “”fighting” as a critical element of human society” but she herself is not a human or historical being. Her explanation is vague and does not justify violence. Kusanagi’s own intense feelings of hopelessness drive her towards an existential and psychological crisis. She considers suicide and assisted suicide as the only means to escape her condition, exhibiting self-destructive tendencies in her desire to kill Yuichi and herself. Part of her anxiety also comes from dealing with her agelessness and responsibility of being a mother. Because she does not physically age she doubts her own capabilities and the ethics of raising a daughter. This crisis solidifies her status as an ahistorical subject, where neither nor her body nor labor has any significant impact. Kusanagi’s daughter also functions as a trace of her material existence, a living piece of herself reminding her of her nonhuman condition.

Yuichi and his fellow pilots have peripheral connections to the outside world with limited media access, exposure to tourists, and brief encounters with other women living on the outskirts of town. Even though these exchanges and encounters happen they only operate as with brief distractions emphasizing their mundane lives. These contacts also provide kildren with clues about their previous lost self. A woman Yuichi meets through fellow pilot Tokino, tells him “The fact that you’ve come means Jinroh’s dead, isn’t it?”. Even though Yuichi does not exactly know whom she is talking about, she is suggesting that she had sex with kildren before. Their conversation also proves that different kildren have underlying levels of emotion. She also tells him that she has asked Jinroh “Where do you keeping leaving your heart?” and that he did not respond. This is because many kildren have difficulty interpreting their own lives as meaningful to maintain stable feelings of attachment. She explains she was worried about him because him because he often looked like “he was at an impasse”. This information illustrates the point that although Kildren can have sexual experiences they still feel trapped by their work. They cannot find their selves without their work. The woman thinks maybe he left his heart “in the sky” emphasizing how after sexual encounters, she could not emotionally connect with a kildren.

When tourists come to visit the compound and “support” the corporation, the Kildren express desires to “kick their faces in,” showing a general indifference towards their presence. Their visit is clearly propaganda with Yuichi putting fake smile and cheerful demeanor. These moments emphasize pure spectacle of the corporate structure . It is not until a plane crash interrupts their visit that the Kildren stop putting on a show. Kusanagi loses restraint and yells at the tourists, she yells with hypocritical pity for a pilot they did not even know, further exposing the absurdity of funded violence.

The “world” or “reality” of Kildren may be interpreted as a “real without origin or reality: a hyperreal” (Baudrillard 1). What is “real” for the kildren is that they essentially have no origin and use referential signs to simulate their own “reality”. The Kildren use these “signs” as substitutions of substitutions or simulacra as the means to understand their life as machines at war. Although Ksunagi reasons that their simulation of war is for some human historical purpose that brings war to “life” the way textbooks cannot, the news treats their battles like a spectacle. Yet the humans in the world of the Sky crawlers, such as man who works at the dinner the pilots visit, does not look interested in the television reports of the battles visible in his restaurant. Oshii’s camera shows a scene where he steps out of his dinner to sit by an anonymous man. The lens focuses on his blank and bored expression, perhaps suggesting that his own life is as boring and monotonous as the kildren. Yuichi perceives killing Teacher, the undefeatable flying ace, as a possible way to break the structure and he sacrifices himself trying to do so. The major change in the film does not come until the very end, after the viewer is left abandoned staring out into the sky, the lens returns again into Kusanagi’s office, where a she warmly tells a new pilot (assuming it is Yuichi brought back to life) “ I have been waiting for you”. The end of Sky crawlers ends the same way it beings and its cyclic structure is unattached to time unlike in Oshii’s earlier film Patlabor 2. Patlabor 2 provides a more realistic presentation of time and deals with similar issues of war, resistance, and struggle in a broader historical context.

In Patlabor 2, a general says Japan “does not exist in a vacuum”. His quote ties together different understandings of agency and movement within a local, national, and global context. At the global level, this represents Japan’s relationship to other “post war” nation states. At this level, action and movement are influenced by external powers such as the U.S., exposes’ Japan’s dependence on foreign nations. However, in a local context this dependence plays out in various ways, through Tsuge’s actions and the state’s response to his action. Tsuge’s actions are seen at the global level as “terrorism”. Yet, Tsuge sees his action as a way to disrupt local patterns of movement that state and global powers govern.

Throughout Patlabor 2 Oshii brings his lens into the public sphere of Tokyo to show the inconsistencies between the Japan Defense force’s panic and insecurity and the public’s apathetic responses to the “terrorist” attacks. Security forces and police respond to Tsuge’s “terrorist” attacks by ensuring “public safety” by increasing paramilitary presence and installing surveillance equipment throughout Tokyo to prevent more attacks. The lens shows Nagumo watching in shock as the bridge explodes; perhaps never imaging such an action was possible in her city. On the contrary, regular civilians seem undeterred taking pictures with tanks while children wave at military labors, giving the event the quality of a spectacle (images 4,5). Different factions of military and police forces are also seen prepare for a “worse case scenario” by deploying tanks, military machines, and hoarding provisions.


(Figure 4)


(Figure 5)

Oshii’s pauses his lens at a wall painted with the words “Lumiere et ombre” meaning “dark and light” in French like dark military figures standing in front of reflective corporate buildings (10,12) . These words suggest a distortion between “light” and “shadow” like the duality between “truth” and “untruth”, simulation and reality. These words in a public space allude to the influence corporate media and how it shapes public conceptions of the evolving cityscape. The media interjects into the public’s everyday life with giant television screens visible in public squares and by commuting stations and news reports audible across space (7). Oshii moves his lens to emphasize the omnipresence of the media and how it operates to naturalize military presence. The media also functions as an intermediary between the public and the state as the only source for the public to gather information. Oshii’s moves his lens through the city as a news report announces, “All provisions for martial law were dropped from the legal code. The general consensus has been…” while the “camera” shifts from the inside of taxicab, the streets, into passing traffic, and an armed helicopter flying over Tokyo (images 13, 14, 8,9,11). This screen illustrates how the state projects its authority across space and is represented as democratic, prepared, and rational.


(Figure 6)


(Figure 7)


(Figure 8)


(Figure 9)


(Figure 10)


(Figure 11)


(Figure 12)


(Figure 13)


(Figure 14)

The news report is also ironic, because the defense state is represented as a democratic and methodical structure where sound decisions are made based on a “consensus”. Yet the films shows that the state does not function democratically and that Gotoh and Nagumo are discharged for challenging its ineffective hierarchal structure. The viewer can also infer that the information the media provides is as important as what it omits. The film shows the Japanese state making decisions that includes conflating their own national interests with submission to US control. This affects Japanese citizens abilities when it comes to making public safety decisions against “terrorist” attacks. During these times of crises Gotoh and Nagumo argue for putting aside political relations in order to ensure “law and order”, but their demotion forces them to work autonomously. They form a vigilante group to capture Tsuge and take paramilitary actions against a perceived threat completely outside of public view. This proves that the media functions to legitimize a state structure as compliant with U.S. interests. The media provides the public with images of a bridge blowing up without any explanation or commentary, thereby ignoring and delegitimizing any discourse of the event.

The tensions between the local police, defense and intelligence forces erupt when different state factions start working with and against each other. They do so because they do not want the U.S. to intervene or undermine their power. Because Nagumo and Gotoh recognize these tensions as problematic they are also in a position to realize that these structural problems are not new. Initially, Tsuge’s actions are perceived as a war-like threat, but Arkawa assures Gotoh that a war has been going on for a while. Gotoh begins to interpret Tsuge’s actions as a response to the global violence of U.S.- Japanese relations.

It is also significant that even officer Gotoh attributes relative “peace” as a part of U.S. military occupation of Japan, even though he has not experienced the war preceding the occupation. Gotoh also sees any participation in global violence and capitalism as supporting the cycle of “civil war, armed conflict, and ethnic strife” and that “our economic prosperity is created by demand for those wars”. Gotoh acknowledges that Japan benefits and legitimizes it power by keeping violence out of view. If anything, Tsuge aims to challenge state power by bringing violence he is personally affected by into the public eye. Tsuge creates war like conditions to disrupt any “illusion” [s] of peace by shutting down the communications systems, bombing major bridges, and turning a fake gas attack into a spectacle. Tsuge’s blimps release a faux gas over Tokyo causing panic amongst the soldiers until they realize it is a hoax.

By staging the attack as a spectacle, the actions also take on a symbolic purpose. In contrast to “state violence” Tsuge does not intend to gain anything from his exploits other than disruption. Whether or not Tsuge intends his actions to inspire a more democratic or autonomous state is unclear. The news reports only provide the public with ambiguous or false information, such as citing the bombing as a “terrorist attack” without further explanation of who the terrorists are and why they bombed the bridge. Even when Tsuge’s clever actions give him an advantage over the state, he does not hold anyone hostage or make any kind of demands. Instead he lets the actions produce whatever potential effect on the people without concern over how it is represented. His actions are completely intentional and he does not struggle when Nagumo arrests him. Yet, when asked why he gives himself over to the state, he replies he wanted to see Tokyo’s future, implying a desire for change without indicating what that change may be.

To sum up the analysis of Patlabor 2, it is useful to reference the Gulf War as one of Mamoru Oshii’s influences for the film and particularly the work of Mark Anderson’s "Oshii Mamoru’s Patlabor 2: Terror, Theatricality, and Exceptions That Prove the Rule." In this article he analyzes Arkawa’s argument as “given the brutality that defines the international status quo, the defense of “peace” constitutes a particularly dangerous illusion” that works by “banishis[ing] war to the realm behind the [television] screen” (89). Anderson also references the U.S. state of exception in international relations with Japan, in which the 1951 U.S.-Japan Security Treaty granted the U.S. unilateral discretion in positioning U.S. military forces in Japan (89). Anderson provides interesting context of U.S. –Japan relations as an influence in Oshii’s work but I am not certain if I can agree with his argument that “ the film’s main characters nevertheless remain centrally concerned to reinstitute effective Japanese national boundaries and sovereignty” (91). Although the characters desire a more independent state, it’s not clear that arguing for a sovereign nation was the point the film was trying to make. Instead, Oshii could create these fictional characters and world to illustrate how “post-war” nation-states have benefitted from global capitalism, often imposed with violence, by intervening in foreign wars and justified by media misrepresentations.

Anderson also cites a history of internal state conflicts that includes Naomi Klein’s point that “postwar neo-liberalism is ultimately a political project grounded in destruction” (93) which is also useful for looking at Sky crawlers. The fictional world of Sky crawlers is an extreme where semiotic reductive subjectivity and disturbing ethics of war and capital is the central crisis. If Patlabor 2 did not raise questions over the ethics over “inclusion through exclusion” in international wars (89) than Sky crawlers offers an even more extreme representation of war as simulacrum. Not even the characters in the film provide a coherent argument as to why a simulated war is in the interest of corporate capital, but perhaps Oshii intends to extend Klein’s argument on neo-liberalism where the project of destruction becomes the goal. Destruction, or violence becomes the ultimate goal used to maintain a public idea of purpose and peace. Oshii seems to purposefully distort the idea of war as ultimately appropriated for the interests of control and capital. Any other interpretation in this film is propaganda as illustrated by the visiting tourists who believe the kildren are actually doing some kind of public service. Overall, Oshii creates fictional worlds to raise questions and dramatically emphasize contradictions in the ethics of violence as legitimized by state structures and media propaganda.


NOTES

1. “The exposition will take up in turn the following constitutive features of the postmodern: a new depthlessness, which finds its prolongation both in contemporary “theory” and in a whole new culture of the image or simulacrum; a consequent weakening of historicity, both in our relation to public history and in the new forms of our private temporality, whose “schizophrenic” structure (following Lacan) will determine new types of syntax….” (6)


WORKS CITED


Anderson, Mark P. D. "Oshii Mamoru's Patlabor 2: Terror, Theatricality, and Exceptions That Prove the Rule." Mechademia. 4.1 (2010): 75-109.

Baudrillard, Jean. Simulations. New York City, N.Y., U.S.A: Semiotext(e), Inc, 1983.

Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, Or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press, 1991.