ALERT! If you are reading this, I hope you have thought about what you're doing for your final project. I hope there is some topic that you're interested in pursuing more deeply that you will have ready by Monday or at least by next Friday. Mandatory final project you know! I sent out an email about it, so email miyazaki.decal@gmail.com if you didn't get the email.
.: . :. .: . :. .: . :. .: . :. .: . :. .: . :.
So! Discussion questions for Princess Mononoke. It's a movie that's pretty well-known among most people, and I suspect that a lot of you that had scene it came into the class with presuppositions about it. Or at least, being a fairly didactic film, you guys probably can sense a lot of themes that Miyazaki is trying to portray, and have some opinions on it. so....
Miyazaki's interview on
http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/interviews/m_on_mh.htmlA lot of you guys mentioned in your first application sheets, and in class, is that Miyazaki deals with a lot of ambiguities. Moral, social, what-have-you. We talked about the ending, (is it happy or not? Can it even be defined or categorized?), the nature of progress, etc. Here's a quote from Miyazaki that acknowledges his own understanding of the complexity - I don't think he's just condemning or judging.
When you talk about plants, or an ecological system or forest, things are very easy if you decide that bad people ruined it. But that's not what humans have been doing. It's not bad people who are destroying forests.
1) Can you identify one of these ambiguities, and lay out the arguments within it? Defend/advocate for both sides, or the many sides? Where is it difficult to judge or have a definitive answer, and why?
2) What kind of future do you think Miyazaki wants to see humanity living? (if not the indistrialized Lady Eboshi or the civilized samurai overlord life) What is he advocating for us to do here? How do you personally feel about what he seems to be saying?
3) What do you think that Miyazaki is trying to say about loss, destruction, time, and consequence? Jenny said, "What happens when we destroy the spiritual sanctuary of our imagination, when we desecrate the innermost place of purity."
4) How does Mononoke compare to Miyazaki's other films? It was the first of his films to actually use CGI :P
5) Any personal responses or other comments you wanted to say about the film?
Somebody cosplayed as San.
But then again they also dressed up as Totoro.
24 comments:
#2.. ish? There is an interesting modern parallel to something in the interview/talked about in class, about the forests where planted by man and destroying any of it was punishable by amputation. So the only reason there is a problem is because man started the forest and later lost their spiritual connection with them. The other example of this was the Amazonian Rain Forests, there are some scientists that believe they are actually man made, something like large farms to the natives that didn't require yearly work. The evidence they had was that the natural soil there is incredibly poor, but they find a lot of "Terra Preta" , which can only regrow it self in specific locations. Someone must have harvested the earth to seed and spread around what we call forests today.
Again today we are facing this issue of destroying the forest and protecting it, and it's kind of funny to imagine this was originated from a human in the first place. Again.
Miyazaki clearly doesn't think it's appropriate to just stop all human progress, stop all deforesting immediately, etc. etc., but he wants us to recognize that we may not need to be doing what we do to the extent that we are doing it. There may not be a way to "save" the planet so to say, Iron Town was going to live again, and they were not bad people, they did not "deserve" to be wiped out, human nature may be to take the earth down with us. At the end of the interview, he says we cannot begin to address this problem until we can say to as respectfully and humbly to the earth is in no way a guarantee that we can save the earth. Otherwise we will just go about it the wrong way, categorizing things as good and bad, not seeing the other side and why everything has it's reasons.
I like what he saying, but I can't read an answer either, and he probably doesn't have an answer, i guess i'm disappointed. But then again if it were so simple we wouldn't be making movies about how messed up we were in the first place.
This sort of started out like an attempt to answer one of the questions... but then it sort of just turned into a critique of Eboshi's role in the movie, as well as some thoughts on what Miyazaki is trying to say through the film in the form of his character, Ashitaka.
~~~
Eboshi is trying to create a sort of Utopia in which she is leveling out the playing field between the male and female sexes. In this sense, she seems a bit idealistic-- and yet, she still ends up working for men (she has that deal with Jigo; she is technically playing into power by catering to the Emperor and hunting down the Forest Spirit). Her idealistic dream is only possible by her sort of taking on all these "masculine" qualities--which begins to breed all sorts of contradictions. She becomes a leader whose womanly compassion leads her to care for lepers, and yet she begins to use women for war. She is trying to gain strength and freedom, however, she dismisses and disrespects the lives of the forest.
She seems to be doing this by trying to gain social power via taking over the forest, which creates an imbalance. [Okoto and the boars feel controlled, and as such, retaliate in order to gain back that power.] Isn't it weird, though, that Eboshi wants to reinstate a sort of balance by giving women power... and yet, she creates such an extreme imbalance in nature? Is Miyazaki saying that women in power disrupt the balance of nature? (--for instance, remember when the gorillas are trying to replant the mountain and make more life? They are attempting to restore the balance of the forest because all that destruction is upending all the balance between the animals and plants.)
Just some thoughts on that.
~~~
Concerning what Miyazaki wants-- I feel that he is searching for a future with harmony--a realistic harmony via Ashitaka's feelings and growth. (In his interview, he semi-identifies himself with Ashitaka).
Ashitaka's point of view wants both Ebosh and her town to live in harmony with the forest and the animals. To each side, he confuses both people and animal gods. He seems to be working for both sides. I think that Miyazaki did that because we are able to relate to Ashitaka and his story; hence, the people/animals that he affects are able to relate to us through him (as if his character were a conduit). In other words, Miyazaki is truly showing that there really are no "bad people" and that balance can come from us (via Ashitaka).
(oh, and this is Aileen, btw.)
#1. Focusing on the ending of Princess Mononoke, I feel that between the several ambiguities presented in the finale, I lean more to the side of the idea that the Forest will continue to thrive and the humans will learn some form of their lesson. Call me a sucker for happy endings, but I feel that both the animals of the forest and the people of Iron Town realized the error of their mistakes and, with the "destruction" of both of their "homes" (Iron Town for the people and the Forest Spirit's "Forest" for San and the others) finally opened their eyes to realize what fools they were being in both aspects to their conflict.
When I first saw this movie, I almost instantly thought the whole conflict of the movie was the humans' fault. And, for the first half, it was. But after witnessing Ashitaka and his people and how they lived within nature, and then Eboshi and the people of Iron Town, I suddenly couldn't blame all of the problems on the people anymore. And seeing this movie once again made me understand why. For me, people wanting to inspire to do great things is never a bad thing, at least in my eyes. However, when "progress" hurts nature, like what Eboshi was doing, it makes it difficult to see what is actually advancing human nature and what is simply destruction.
It's hard for me to defend and support either sides of the ending. I actually felt what had happened to both parties (animals and the people) were the best for them. It kinda gave them a chance at a new beginning. The forest animals' reliance on the Great Forest Spirit was destroyed, but gave them a meaning to take care of their home on the own, and not dependent on the "King of the Forest". At the same time, the people of Iron Town learned the consequences of destroying the forest previously, and, if they must, build a "better" town that-hopefully-coincide more with the forest and the animals around it. Again, this might just be my "needs to know everything is right in the world feeling speaking, but I truly think this is what Miyazaki meant as the message to the movie (or at least the message for the ending): Humans should not cease the progress they were practically inbreed to do. But at the same token, taking over another world (nature) to continue with that process is unnecessay.
About #2, what kind of future do you think Miyazaki wants to see humanity living: I focused on the era that this story took in the movie. This was during the Muromachi (around 1300~1600 I guess)period. I heard that during this period, not like in Kamakura period, civilians and farmers began getting involved to the social activities more. Some successful families appeard although they were not originated from nobility. This period was all about the downfall of old generation and the revival of new generation. By this period, a lot of conflicts occured because of this chaotic change, but agricultural and industrial industries developed; thus, Muromachi period was overall of benefit economically.
From this point, I perceived that main conflicts appeared in the movie related to the historical period. The old generation(nature, spirits etc) and new generation (Eboshi) conflict throughout the movie. Just like in Muromachi period, aspects of collapsing old generation reveal the fact that the new generation is gaining power. However, Miyazaki brings another point that is different from history also. Historically, industrialized new generation totally take control over old generation. Just to do this, numerous chaotic fights had happend. Instead focusing on conflicts, Miyazaki tended to focus on how the nature could be benevolent to everyone and this fact made Eboshi to realize that she must mutually live with the nature at the end. In future, we all know that the industurialized world will come and the forest will be collapesed. However, he at least wants to suggest that anything can live mutually with another if one can be benevolent to another.
First off, in response to number four, I personally think Mononoke Hime is Miyazaki’s best. And it is of course my personal favorite for so many different reasons.
# 2With the movie being full of ambiguities it seems fitting that the kind of future Miyazaki promotes within this movie should itself be ambiguous. Basically all the models of civilization in this movie are somehow flawed. The samurai are killing each other, the monks have no respect for the gods, the Emperor, who as ruler represents the status quo, does not respect the gods, rather he wants to become one himself by being immortal, and Lady Eboshi and her Iron Town while being somewhat progressive in the treatment of women and the disabled, have no respect for the gods either. Neither do the animals of the forest respect the forest spirit; rather than emulate it they are consumed by rage and hate and want to kill the humans who are just as much nature’s children as they are (we know humans are respected by nature by the forest spirit’s healing of Ashitaka). So, the viewer can neither say that humanity’s hope lies in advancing industry or the return to a rural past; greed, hate and disrespect of gods and all things spiritual lie in both. And what of San? She rejects her own humanity ––is that what mankind must do, cast off what makes it human? I think San is guilty too, would the forest spirit approve of her rejecting that which is natural, that is to say, the love shared between humans, particularly the romantic kind which Ashitaka wanted to share with her? I think it is significant that the forest spirit’s last act was to do something of immense beauty. In part, this act is a direct repudiation of the monk’s claim that the whole world is under a curse. The world is blessed. What else can one say about a world in which even death can bring such beauty? Rather, the forest spirit seems to be saying that Humans are cursed only if they choose to be and not by default.
So what does Miyazaki have to say about the future we must strive to obtain? It seems to me it is less about planting trees or cutting them down than it is about living for all that is beautiful ––love, peace and the like––and shrugging off avarice and hate. Both human and animal must strive to live “with eyes unclouded” by all that is evil. Whether such an existence is more rural or industrial is not all that important
As Miyazaki says, it isn't bad people that destroy forests. Many of them do it out of necessity, but it is that loss of remorse over feeling compelled to do such things in order to survive that Miyazaki is criticizing. Because of this loss of remorse, we no longer face moral dilemmas whenever we have to do what we need to survive, and perhaps that has distorted our perception of what is actually necessary. Of course, we don't destroy nature just because we can, but we must also ask ourselves how much we really need that new shopping mall or housing complex whenever we're faced with the choice of preserving nature. I think that this is the kind of future that Miyazaki wants to see humanity living: neither the industrialized Eboshi or the civilized samurai life, but a happy medium in which we do what we must to not only survive but prosper, while at teh same time maintaining that consciousness that that extra wealth is not always worth the cost that we are imposing on nature.
In comparison to Miyazaki's other films, Mononoke is definitely the most epic. Before taking this DeCal, I had only seen Mononoke and Spirited Away, and Mononoke was my favorite of the two because of how big and important it felt without being overwhelming. While I would say Nausicaa is also epic for many of the same reasons (environmentalism, harmony between humans and nature), I feel like it is overwhelming while Mononoke makes repeat viewings more accessible. Although Spirited Away is much less epic, it relates to many of Miyazaki's other films in its portrayal of a heroine, who goes on a journey that is epic in itself and emerges a much stronger and more mature individual. In that sense, Mononoke is distinct from many of Miyazaki's other films, although each one of them is also unique in its own way. After all, the last film we watched was Porco Rosso.
I think Miyazaki portrays the inevitability and impending doom of the actions of humans in Princess Mononoke. All that is lost or destroyed will have consequences with time.
The destruction of the forest, however, threw the entire local environment into chaos. Not only were animals and humans at war with each other, but the movie also depicted the disagreements between human-human and animal-animal. Everything is blown out of balance, and not even nature can survive the blow. Everyone was left with the havoc they reeked- to pick up the pieces and to carry on with their lives. I feel the movie left this a slightly bleak future, encouraging but also with some doubt as to weather they will be able to successfully live in peace. Miyazaki entangles loss, destruction, time, and consequences together.
In response to Jenny's quote, I think that people then have to face the true reality of the world. I feel like is is a loss of innocence. A persons world and outlook would change drastically. They no longer have an outlet to deal with problems and decisions, it falls directly in their hands. The happy and peaceful place begins to crumble and ceases to exist. The destruction of our spiritual sanctuary can also lead us to view thee world in a distorted way. Maybe more greedily or maybe more depressing. However, once the purity is gone, it can't be restored.
4) How does Mononoke compare to Miyazaki's other films? It was the first of his films to actually use CG.
There are so many points they are compared. I'm going to compare two interesting points. The first one is I think the theme of Mononoke is somewhat similar with Nausica. Both films describe about the relationship between human beings and nature. The anger of Okkotonushi in Mononoke really reminds me of the anger of Oumu in Nausica. The anger of nature shows us that the relationships betwee them are not good. However, both main characters, San and Nausica try to find out how human beings and nature can coexist. Second similar point is that both of the main characters are called as "hime," which means a princess. But, it is interesting that San is not called as "hime" in the story although the title of movie says "Princess of Mononoke." The reason why it happens is that she belongs to the nature side even though she is a human being. On the other hand, Nausica is often called as "hime" by many people in the story. That is because she has been in the human group for a long time comparing with San. I think comparing Mononoke with Nausica is very interesting topic, so I'd like to do the rest of points I can compare as my final project.
1) I think one of main ambiguities would be a simple question: Who is the bad guy? Of course, like most of Miyazaki’s movies, there is no bad guy and no one to blame. Problems arise just from a clash of interests, motives, and shared conflicts. One specific ambiguity would the destruction of the forest. At first, it clearly seems to be the fault of the humans. But at the same time, although some of the problems can be attributed to their greed, the humans are not entirely at fault for trying to survive and advance their own species. Meanwhile, while the forest seems entirely innocent, they can be attributed some blame for relying almost entirely on the Forest Spirit and not taking things into their own hands until the end.
2) I think Miyazaki sees humanity living a balanced life between civilization and nature. Lady Eboshi’s idealized industrial society is too radical in terms of mass production due to it being reminiscent of Westernized Societies. Meanwhile, the samurai overlord life seems to ancient and outdated. Rather, since Miyazaki seems to incorporate a lot of natural undertones in his movies, I think he’d like to see a world where technology and civilization lives side by side with nature where neither harm the other too much. I think it’s possible but would take a lot of work and change. I don’t think something like this would happen for a long time.
3) I think Miyazaki is trying to say that the following: loss, destruction, time, and consequence; are things that we can’t dwell on and move forward. And when we “destroy the spiritual sanctuary of our imagination, when we desecrate the innermost place of purity”, we kind of lose our innocence and our insight and imagination. Instead of thinking of ways to move forward, we’ll instead dwell on the past and have trouble looking forward.
4) I think Mononoke is one of his most intense films due to the war scenes and the heavy undertones of political and ecological conflicts that resonate with today’s society. It is a very epic story that feels like it’s happening on a global scale when it actually is only happening in this small part of the world.
I saw Princess Mononoke when I was a middle school student, I think, for the first time. I could know that Miyazaki tries to say something, but I didn't know what it was exactly, maybe protecting environment? I thought like that. But after discussion in class, I could learn more..I just thought that Ashitaka and San, they want to make a better, more peaceful world. But after listening to Jenny, I thought that maybe Eboshi is more trying to make some better, idealistic world for herself and others.
And as many people would do at first, I saw the whole story from the Ashitaka and San's point of view. but afterwards, I could know that either Ms. Ebosh or Ashitaka and San are not bad or good. It's just so hard and too ambiguious to talk which is better side or not for me. For me, Miyazaki seems to say that there are not better or worse side. In other words, everything has its own strengths and defects? I just thought ambiguity in his overall movie(not only princess mononoke) as like that..
In my opinion, Miyazaki wants to tell us the nature and humans have to co-exist and to do so, human beings should stop destroying the nature. The movie Mononoke Hime shows Miyazaki’s central theme, the co-existence of nature and human being, most directly and greatly. Personally, I think what he tries to show us is very important and relevant to our present. I heard that Japanese are actually trying very hard to keep the environment as it is from the humans.
The future Miyazaki wants to portrait is if human beings keep destroying the nature, we will be “revenged” by the nature. Also since humans are dependent on the nature, we need those resources available throughout our civilization.
1)
One of the ambiguities would be that we often cannot say one guy is good and the other is bad. It's not that black and white. Some people may think Eboshi is bad for killing the forest, but she does help the socially weak people by opening the Iron Town and giving them a job. Her act is justified if you stand on the Humanist point of view. On the other hand, the act of protecting the environment, led by San, is justifiable if you stand on the Ecologist point of view. In life, we always face these situations where we can never judge which one is right or wrong, because neither is completely right or completely wrong. Who are we to judge?
Miyazaki really portrays the modern day industrial era and modern era mentality through Lady Eboshi and her Irontown people. They were struggling for a livelihood and protecting their people through the production of iron, gunpowder, and guns. But in this process they cut down lots of the forest and started wars with neighboring samurai, adding to the destruction of the physical and spiritual parts of the land. This is something that has already happened and continues to happen in many countries, and it goes hand in hand with becoming more developed as a people, nation, and world. I wish that we could have both, but nevertheless there is not a balance. I think that Miyazaki shows the consequence of being greedy, wasteful, and not respecting mother nature through Princess Mononoke. In the end, Miyazaki has mother nature destroying nature and killing many until someone, Ashitaka and Sen, finally return the balance. Once this has occurred, then mother nature responds by renewing the earth and forest, almost cleansing everything including Irontown. I can see that global warming and the build up of pollutants, waste, and disease is similar to how Miyazaki portrayed the world in Princess Mononoke. But will there be someone to rectify the balance, and how will the whole world get on the same page? And will mother nature be able to bounce back after all we have put this Earth through?
There is no clear good and bad and that's what makes it so ambiguous. There are two main sides (Forest vs. Irontown or San vs. Eboshi) and each side has their own story to tell. Although San fights to protect the forest and the creatures and spirits who dwell in it, she does not consider making peace with Eboshi or compromising; her heart is only set on killing her. As for Eboshi, although she doesn't seem to care for the forest at all and wants to cut it down so she can get more iron, her actions are not completely selfish. She wants to help the lepers and give women who served in brothels a more dignified life. Her goal was to create a kind of utopia. So it's really hard to "choose a side". While I don't think that what Eboshi is doing is wrong, I don't think that her disregard for the forest is right. As for San, I think that she has a right to want to defend her home and those she cares about, I don't think that her bloodthirsty actions are right either. I think that Miyazaki's views coincide with the character Ashitaka and how he doesn't really choose a side, but takes his own asserting his views and how he wants a world of peace on both sides. As for the future of the world that the ending shows, that too is ambiguous because although the forest spirit dies to give a new beginning, the forest still has hope (as seen by the little tree spirit whose name I forgot) and so does irontown. (Eboshi wants to rebuild, but make a better irontown) The future of the forest is kind of in human hands now, and i think that Miyazaki is calling people to be careful, to take care of the forest and live in harmony.
So, I'll try to address the first two questions with this post.
Miyazaki frequently if not always deals in moral ambiguities, which is part of what makes his films so much more ambitious and satisfying than, say, Disney-stye animation, where there tends to be a clear-cut "hero" and "villain." This particular Miyazaki quote captures the sort of message he conveys through his movies: if real life were divided into heroes and villains, it would be a heck of a lot easier. But we live in a complex and ambiguous world, where the right choice can often have unforseen negative consecquences...or where there may be no "right" choice at all. Princess Mononoke is a great example of the moral complexity that exists in Miyazaki's films. Although San perceives Eboshi as evil because she and her men are destroying the forest and its gods, from Eboshi's perspective she is simply trying to create a better life for herself, her villagers, and future generations.
Miyazaki is, I think, interested in finding a middle ground. Although his films at times feel distinctly "anti-human," he seems to be searching for a way that humankind and nature can live in harmony. He opposes rampant industrialization and the horrendous damage that it causes to nature. yet at the same time he sees that there is "good" in humanity and in the societies we form, despite our obsession with "progress" at the expense of the environment. For Miyazaki, it is crucial that we humans recognize our dependence on and interconnectedness with the environment, and not allow our greed and our need for expansion to consume us.
4) I think Mononoke is really similar with Nausicaa in manga. Nausicaa in movie is little different from mononoke because of the story's ending though. All of them seem to be related with the relationship between human beings and nature. The difference is that Nausicaa in film, she was dipicted as the savior of the world. However, in Mononoke and Nausicaa in manga, there's no savior, although everyone seems to do what he believes it is justice. Miyazaki does not even mention who is in right postion in these two works. In this point, these are similar and watching Mononoke reminds me of Nausicaa in manga.
There is, like in real life, no perfect peace.
1. The best ambiguity of two unknown sides is humans (lady Eboshi in particular) against nature. On the human side, we have lady Eboshi who buys brothel girls’ contracts and give them an honest wage; feeds and cares for the people in the town; sees that women are treated as equal to men (if not better…); protects the workers of iron town against other attackers (other humans or angry animals); and even takes care of society’s discarded lepers (and gives them a rather important job as R&D). On the flip side, lady Eboishi destroys the forest, slaughters animals, leaves men behind instead of recuing them, and kills the forest god.
Nature and animals have a reason to attack man, as man is destroying nature without any regard to its beneficial effects. Numerous times, nature (particularly the forest god) heals Ashitaka of his wounds. Also, animals are no longer killed out of necessity, but they are killed out of humans showing dominance over them. Men’s destruction of nature has driven nature to fight back for survival.
There is no perfect side in this conflict. Ashitaka wants to have both sides to see their follies and end this hatred, yet he is powerless to stop or rationalize to either side to stop this conflict. Even though Ashitaka is a hero that is capable of doing anything, he is unable to stop both sides from killing each other. Ashitaka is there as an abstract viewpoint that “see[s] with eyes unclouded by hate.”(Princess Mononoke English Dub). The difficulty is assessing the pros and cons for both sides. It is even more difficult to give an answer for who was right in this conflict. In the end, it may be the fact that both sides are too foolish and too stubborn to change their ways. They would rather die before changing their ways. However, this is not the case. In the movie, both lady Eboshi and San change their ways after they both lost something of themselves, lady Eboshi’s arm and San’s wolf mother respectively. Yet, the ending shows that even though both sides are no longer fighting, there will still be no change in their ways or their hatred for one another. Though nature is dead, the possibility for another conflict will most likely occur in the future. There is, like in real life, no perfect peace.
-Michael Iseri
4. Miyazaki lays the questions of morality pretty thickly in Princess Mononoke. It's a lot like Nausicaa in that sense. Any playfulness is subdued by the keen sense of danger posed by--well, everything: nature, industrialization, greed, Ashitaka's curse. There is something at risk no matter whose perspective you take in the movie. Most of Miyazaki's characters do have to face some challenge eventually after their carefree moments (Satsuki and Mei, Kiki), but we meet Princess Mononoke's characters with their troubles well-established before the movie even starts. (It's similar to Nausicaa in this aspect, as well.) The characters are entrenched in their worries from the start, and so the audience has to dive into the deep questions very early on.
What kind of future do you think Miyazaki wants to see humanity living? (if not the indistrialized Lady Eboshi or the civilized samurai overlord life) What is he advocating for us to do here? How do you personally feel about what he seems to be saying?
Miyazaki sees that, in reality, there is no way of labeling certain things good or bad. The lines are blurred because of the fact that we all have bad in us, and it is important to take responsibility for the wrong we find in ourselves. He desires that we don't turn our eyes away from our own wrongs, and be open to the truth. I agree with his hopes for humanity, and it would be the healthiest thing to do to be open to correction because it is too easy to become blind to our own mistakes and blame others to avoid any penalties for ourselves. We tend to fear consequences and look for ways to cover up anything that make us "feel bad" or have done wrong.
Lillian Guo
Miyazaki is great with ambiguities, but at the same time, I think he's also very good with defining exactly what he believes is right or wrong. So what's up with these ambiguity? He utilizes narrative/character/thematic ambiguity does an incredibly good job to make his audience think about the grey spaces between black and white. Specifically, his ending doesn't clearly lay out the future for Eboshi, San, and Ashitaka but rather gives a series of their reactions and hints to what they were going to do with themselves. The last shot of a sprouting plant and a forest spirit implies re-birth of the forest (and perhaps the forest god). However, San talks about her inability to reconcile with the people of Irontown, which points out the strong
This is one of my favorite Miyazaki films, second to, well, Spirited Away. Obviously, Miyazaki's animating style is sharper in Mononoke compared to his earlier films. His use of CGI is pretty well-blended with the 2-D animation, but is still relatively noticeable if you're watching. However, I don't think it has the same visual richness and detail as Spirited Away. He definitely keeps up with his moral agendas in this film, but the addition of ambiguity asks the audience to think about the themes presented, rather than have it shoved down their throats. I personally liked it because of the immense amount of animals and Miyazaki's take on historical Japan.
More than any other of Miyazaki’s films, Princess Mononoke, when one really considers both sides of the central conflict to have the potential of fighting for a valid cause, is a source of moral and righteous ambiguity. Lady Eboshi, though one is tempted to call her the antagonist, is quite a reasonable person. Taken objectively, I believe modern society would choose a philanthropic, powerful, entrepreneurial woman over a violent and passionate young girl with her tag team of giant wolves. Lady Eboshi takes in and employs the sufferers of leprosy, creates a safe environment for her village, and mines iron from the area around her village to support this comfortable—albeit quite humble—lifestyle. As a side effect, the surrounding forest suffers, and the samurai in the area are having their rivers poisoned by Eboshi’s mining operations. The samurai keep to themselves, but are operating a harsh, daimyo-based class system of rule. There is no socialism, only capitalistic monarchy, and the people that live under their power are moderately happy. Negatively, however, the samurai have been encroaching on the territory of the Emishi people from which Ashitaka has come. The Emishi are threatened with extinction if further damage is done to their way of life. San is the human advocate—the voice—for the forest. She is the bastard child of giant wolves and fights the ecological side of this complex argument. San simply wants Lady Eboshi to stop cutting down trees to power her mining operations, and uses only violence to get her point across. San is, quite unfortunately, unable to listen to the other side of the argument, a component of her explosive and inconsiderate (animalistic, instinct-based) mannerisms. Progress must be made alongside environmental concern, nearly every human would say. And thus is the root of the ambiguities herein.
I guess one ambiguity involves the people of irontown. The people of irontown need to use the forest to survive and thrive so from their perspective what they're doing is right. On the other hand, from the ecologist perspective, protecting the forest is important so what San is doing is correct as well. Neither side is wrong in their belief.
As for the second question, I think that Miyazaki wants to see humans coexisting with nature. He doesn't want humans to completely overrun nature but he also doesn't want humans to stop technological progress. That would mean that there would have to be some kind of balance between the two in order for there to be harmony. Currently, I think that human progress is overrunning the forest and other natural reserves but now because of global warming awareness is being brought to nature. Thus an effort is being made to preserve it as well as coexist with it.
This ties into loss, destruction and time because Miyazaki wants to warn the world that once we have lost and destroyed something, in this case our natural reserves, then there's no turning back. We can't go back in time and change what has happened. We have to move forward. Thus we must be careful and protect that spiritual sanctuary.
In this sense Mononoke differs from Miyazaki's other movies because no side is truely right or wrong. The ending is left ambiguious so the viewer is left to ponder whether it is possible to live in harmony and protect that spiritual sanctuary and progress technologically as well. Hence, the viewer is given no answers but is forced to find the answers for him/herself. In other Miyazaki movies, I think that the viewer is given more closure.
Post a Comment