Crying and Not Crying

Thank you 

for turning this Blog into 

a provocative, 
honest, and lively conversation.

≤≥

The Angel of Peace, Hiroshima, Japan

Let me start this new post by responding to the issues of...

crying and not crying,

and of the use

superlatives 

as a practice to describe our emotions.

1. The first time I met my In-Laws, I found interesting and quite annoying that they will not finish eating their dishes until everything was gone from that plate, absolutely every single crumb.
I grew up in country which have not been invaded in 200 years or participated actively in any war in 200 years, except for an honorary regiment of air pilots in the Pacific during the Second World War. The United States of America, on the other hand, have been in and out of wars for a very long time, but have not experienced war in its own territory for a long time (meaning the Civil War). All contemporary events of war in its own territory have happened in isolated  and short-term events : the raid of Pancho Villa of Columbus, Texas during the Mexican Revolution, Pearl Harbor in WWII, and of course, 9/11.
Sometimes I feel that the American psyche has almost constructed a detached perception of the monstrosity of war. A place where soldiers go. A far-away arena where war is solved and the parade of the heroes that come back. It has been quite a different experience for other societies.
My In-Laws, well educated and lovely people, were not gluttons...they just have experienced the effects of famine and food rations, as kids, in the post Second World War era. On the other hand, both of my parents came from wealthy and powerful families, and I was taught that it would not be " in good manners" to clean up your dish that way.
My In-Laws were not lamenting at the dinner table about the past and their struggles during those years, growing up in those conditions. No, they were just being practical as defined in terms of their own experience and their past.
My sentiment of annoyance was created not out of compassion but as a result of my own ignorance to their past. I have not stop to realize that history conditions our experiences.
It is true that the common narrative in the US about the war with the Japanese has evolved almost into non-written sentiments and taboo. For example, the US government has not offered yet a public apology for the nuclear attack at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is a non-written sentiment that the Japs deserved it, and that the war would have gone on if not for the bomb. The truth is that the Japanese were already defeated without the bomb in 1945, but it served the US to warn the Germans that the race toward nuclear fusion had a winner.
It is also true that the Japanese have never expressed a public apology to the Chinese and the brutal and savage occupation they promoted.
I must say that in war there is only one loser, and that is ...humanity.

The Japanese army created the Fusen Bakudan as a revengeful 

response to the American incendiary bombs that burned their country.

2. It is interesting that the perception of Grave have been, in several posts, defined in terms of sentimentality. Or more precisely...of my own individual sentimentality...and probably how this almost melodramatic piece has turned into an irritation, based on false expectations, enhanced desires, and a pacing narrative that edges into boredom.
2.1. Sentimentality. I do not think that Grave is a melodramatic and sentimental patriotic piece by Ghibli. Although I think that the Japanese have waited for a long time to finally express their feelings of the war, but also through a FATALISTIC view, which  lacks an open sense of guilt.
2.2. Boredom. I disagree that the pacing of Grave is a mistake. It brings out boredom into fatality, which makes the down-spiral almost unbearable.

2.3 Ghibli and War. War has been a constant theme at Ghibli.

With the premiere of the most recent Miyasaki's film "The Wind Rises" several articles fueled the controversy that it created in Japan's patriotism. Here an excerpt of one of those articles (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/356487):

"Miyazaki's wife and staff would often ask him why he was interested in writing a story about a man who made weapons for war. He began to think that maybe there was some merit to this question since he himself was a man of peace, but one day, it was brought to his attention to Horitkoshi never really intended for the the aircraft to be used for violence. He had just wanted to make something beautiful. "All I had wanted to do was make something beautiful," Horikoshi had said. It was then that Miyazaki had known he had wanted to make a film about him.

Despite the film's positive message, it has sparked much controversy and criticism amongst Japan's government because of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's denial of Japan's involvement in any war crimes during World War II, and because of his "aggressive policies" on the disputed Daioyu Islands.

Miyazaki has expressed disapproval of his own country's political leaders.

Miyazaki finds it "appalling" and unfair that so many people, including Japan's top political leaders, are speaking out so harshly against him and his film without enough knowledge of the situation.

Miyazaki believes that proper acknowledgement should be given to Korean comfort women who serviced the Japanese army during World War II. He also believes the Diaoyu Islands should be split between China and Japan or controlled agreeably between the two countries.

Miyazaki's political views have garnered harsh criticism from right-wing Japanese conservatives. Many have taken to the internet to express their approval of the Prime Minister's nationalistic policies. On Yahoo Japan's comment section for the profile of the film, many have posted comments calling it "overly left wing" while others have labeled Miyazaki as "anti-Japanese" and have called the animation legend a "traitor."  

A live action remake of Grave of the Fireflies was made in 2008, 

without the same profound impact that the animated film had world-wide. 

3. Yes. Who cares about all those gregarious epithets that we use today to predict an experience. An "instant classic", "the best ... since the creation of the universe". Whatever. Contemporary Capitalist society is  a living organism (read Deleuze and Guattari) whose operating mechanism has switched from industrial production into the production of ideas, like that of money (which is only an idea)...a twenty-dollar bill has no real value. It is printed paper which promises an idea of wealth, that exists nowhere. Where are, physically, 200 trillion dollars? They are not even printed. It is the same with the adjectives that we use to judge a film. It does not define the film but the expectation of an emotion. Ideas define us. Ideas allow us to belong to a tribe. Idea is the way in which you represent yourself to others, and an Idea is the way in which others perceive you.

4. Universal Truths. Yes, What's up Doc? is not a joke anymore, because it belongs to a historical context. It has no universality.
In contrast, war is a natural force that defines humanity not through context but in terms of universal truths. Some call it Armageddon.
"For this cause, Har Magedon is the symbol of every battle in which, when the need is greatest and believers are oppressed, the Lord suddenly reveals His power in the interest of His distressed people and defeats the enemy." (William Hendriksen)

5. Do you know that the building where the atomic landed was shattered but not destroyed?

Hiroshima, Place of Impact of the Atomic Bomb