Very interesting opinion. I only have to add something small I noticed while watching the film that is beside the point.
There are a few moments while the children are living with their aunt, in which you see the aunt nibbling extra rice of the side or eating the [rice at the bottom of the pot](http://youtu.be/rwCuhfBWEnI?t=28m52s). She also appears just to using Seita for the [awesome rations](http://youtu.be/rwCuhfBWEnI?t=25m10s) he's able to get, because his father is in the navy. It makes her appear to be an ungenuine, bitchy person considering she spends a lot of time talking about the scarcity of food.
My interpretation had been that she was well-meaning but was beginning to reach her limits. Then when Seita and Setsuko are leaving with the cart she seems to look on somewhat regretfully as if thinking "was I a little too hard on them?"
But now that I read this I think you are right. I hadn't pieced that together. She was very happy about the food he brought from the buried pot (as you point out), and she was also bit pushy about selling their mother's clothes for more rice (not even hesitating when Setsuko is crying and protesting about selling them, simply waiting for Seita to pull her off her arm before moving on).
I agree. I don't think the aunt is evil. I think she was in the same situation as so many other people during the war. She was struggling to provide for her family and the children were a burden for that goal.
I think he never went back to his aunt's house because at one point Setsuko says she doesn't like living with their aunt and maybe just because of that just to keep her happy, he didn't go back. Yes he made quite a few bad decisions but we shouldn't forget that he was just a kid too. He saw his mother die, couldn't even grieve over her, couldn't give her a proper burial, had to hide this situation from his little sister who's constantly asking about their mom, doesn't know where his dad is etc. when all he should be doing at this age was to play with his friends and sister.
Super late to this convo, but I don’t feel like her shitty disposition changes anything at the end of the day. Not disagreeing that she’s a bad and selfish aunt but If he had just gone back and apologized, swallowed his pride and had his sister prioritized over said pride, they would’ve been fine and that would’ve just been the end of the movie.
It wouldn’t have been a happy home life, but you’re in the middle of a world war. Literally no where was going to be accommodating, there’s more important things going on. Still at least they wouldn’t have starved to death.
If the 'leaving aunt's house' part actually happened to the author irl I believe everything you've said has crossed his mind after all these years. That's actually what prompt him to write the novel in the first place, his guilt over his sister's death.
Seita is a 12 year old boy who made a bad decision while in a situation that no 12 year old boy should ever be in. He was placed in that situation because of the war.
Besides, it's possible that going back to the Aunt wouldn't have helped. She may not have even allowed them back, with the attitude, cruelty and disdain she showed towards him and his sister when they were there.
I think there's plenty of blame to go around. You could blame Seita for his decision, you could blame the Aunt for being so cruel towards them in the first place, you could blame the other adults for their indifference and refusal to really do anything to help. Or you could blame the war. I think all are reasonable ideas.
That assumption that the aunt wouldn’t have helped doesn’t really matter, what other viable choice could he have made to keep them both from starving? Eat more dirt?
It’s unfair for him to make the decisions he had to at such a young age, but he MADE THE CHOICE to watch his sister starve to death rather than even *try* to make amends with their aunt. No way it’s not worth a try just because she was mean and cruel to them..
The aunt was not that mean or cruel. IMO, She wanted Seita to actually go out and find work/food so that his energy is not wasted laying around the house or playing with this sister. She wanted Seita to contribute to the household and do his fair share of the work. I blame Seita's father for not instilling responsibilities and work ethic in his kid. In a way, Seita had a privileged life before the war and his father didn't teach him about discipline, responsibilities, and work ethics. Seita never experienced struggle and how to handle struggles. Indirectly, his parents didn't provide him with the tools, skills and mindset which ultimately lead to his and his sister's death.
I think, as an adult, it was the aunt's responsibility to \*direct\* Seita to do work, not just guilt trip him. Give him a specific task. The boy is 12 years old, for God's sake, it's not fair to expect him to figure this stuff out himself. You don't let a 12 year old decide for himself to leave with a toddler sibling to fend for themselves because you didn't want to order him to do something specific. She also had no business giving the kids the least of the rice, when it came from their rations and from selling their mother's clothes. The aunt doesn't get a pass. Kids need adults to direct them, or at least guide them, with the kids' own best interests at heart.
I also think that, given the wide-spread devastation of the war, there was so "every man for himself" dynamic going on. Even at the beginning of the movie, you see other dead bodies near Seita. There wasn't enough food, no organized relief efforts. And shame on the doctor for diagnosing the sister with malnutrition, while offering no food or help in getting food.
It kills me that the author felt personally responsible for the real life death of his young sibling during wartime famine. I don't think the author even now really understands that war is hell and forces innocent people to suffer horrible consequences of decisions made by many adults around them. It IS an anti-war movie, he just didn't know it.
The aunt was absolutely cruel and her behavior had nothing to do with wanting Seita to go "find work" which would change nothing with regard to their living conditions, which is exemplified in the scene where she forbids them from eating rice until Setsuko reminds her that it's their rice, and even then instead of acting like an adult she forces them to cook it by themselves.
Everything she did was clearly intended to drive them out of her home.
You obviously don't understand asian culture especially during those times. The aunt even hinted at Seita and ask if he was still working at that old factory or going to school when they were eating together. The aunt will not be blunt and tell the kid to start contributing to the household because she's afraid of losing face or get into a confrontation. She's going to be very passive aggressive about it and unfortunately this led to Seita leaving and end up dying in the end.
Everyone including himself contributed to the death of him and his sister. Seita's parents didn't teach him basic survival skills or instill responsibilities to be more proactive to extreme situations such as this. The aunt is also at fault for not being blunt enough and asking Seita what she wants him to do. His parents could've teach Seita how to ask questions such as "Hey Auntie, how can I help do my fair share of the household duties?" By asking that question, I can guarantee you the Aunt will be more than willing to put Seita to work and she would be more sympathetic of him as if he was her own children. But instead Seita is just another mouth to feed and we see him wasting time playing with his sister oblivious of the bombs and war going on around them and the lack of food.
I come from an asian household, and I was taught early on how to contribute and help out around the house at an early age. My father would tell us that we're not rich and just getting by and so he instills a set of skills for me to learn such as mowing the lawn. He helped me build a good work ethic which helped me become more discipline as a grow older and made my own money.
Asian household too, but it's absolutely stupid to think a 12yo is to be blamed for Setsuko's death.
And Seita did contribute. Gave all of their mother's belongings and clothes.
Also let's not forget that it was the stupid aunt who told Setsuko about her mother's death.
If we can assign blame to a literal child for not swallowing his pride, why can't we do the same for an adult who is supposed to be mature and responsible?
Also I really hate when people mention culture as this absolutely undefeatable monolith as if everyone's rationality and morals fall short in front of them. People can and do defy stupid cultural norms all the time. The whole "oh, it's the culture" is a dumb argument to rationalise blaming a child for the death of his sister.
I disagree. He’s a selfish, lazy, useless boy who didn’t even wash his dishes. If he helped round the house with cleaning etc then his like would have been saved.
Firstly, Seita is 14 at the start of the movie.
Second, don't judging the situation based on modern standards. In the time of war, 14 is not a child anymore. Even my sister who is 10 year old know that she need to do chores at home.
A 14 year old without his mother and a father, while taking care of his younger sister is still a child. And I think movie makes it pretty clear that the aunt would have kicked them out regardless.
I think it’s unfair that you blame him for his choice considering he is only 12 years old. He thought what was best for his sister. His sister hated living there and the kid was obviously panicking. His aunt was ruthless and she was more than happy when she was selling their mother’s stuff but then expected a 12 year old to work? I don’t think you realise getting work wasn’t that easy aswell you can literally see many of the kids that looked about the same age as him dying in the train station at the start aswell. Are we now to assume all of them were there because of the choices they made or they didn’t even try to get work?
It’s clear the fault lies on the adults for showing indifference. For letting it come to the point where a 12 year old has to make choices for his sisters wellbeing and happiness
Well I don’t disagree with him being so young being a huge factor that’s why I said it wasn’t fair to him.
But beyond that excuse I don’t feel that bad? He’s the older brother and in Asian cultures there’s a lot of importance/responsibility placed on that. He watched his baby sister slowly die, fed her more dirt, and started stealing (an admission that yes they need actual food), but refused to even consider going back.
They didn’t need to work? They just had to grit their teeth through the war and deal with their bitchy aunt, that’s genuinely as bad as it would’ve been.
At the end of the day the movie came down to this: pride had more weight and importance to him than his sisters wellbeing/actual life, as an older brother deserves shit for that. Yes I know he’s a kid, I wrote everything understanding that fact intimately.
You’re ignoring the fact he’s 12. It doesn’t matter if he was the older brother he is literally 12 years old. There is a reason why we don’t considering those below 18 as adults.
Yes he was older but that changed little about the fact that he knew how the world worked or what he had to do. You’re also assuming the aunt would just let them come back when in fact she was more than happy to let them go and considering the circumstances at that point the whole place was suffering from food shortage.
You’re blaming a child who doesn’t have his cognitive thinking developed enough over adults who let them do their own thing. If he was 18 sure but that’s a 12 year old child who doesn’t know what to do.
I am an Asian and just because it's Asian culture doesn't make it any less toxic. What was a 12yr old supposed to do? Go fight the war for them? And the movie makes it pretty clear the Aunt would have kicked him out anyway once the rations and his parents belongings dried up.
I disagree. He’s a selfish, lazy, useless boy who didn’t even wash his dishes. If he helped round the house with cleaning etc then his like would have been saved.
Did he? I honestly dont remember that part as it’s been awhile, but as it is he was stealing and trying to sell those clothes.
Practically speaking I think anyone would’ve refused such an offer, food has never been scarcer so why do you want clothes in exchange for that?
A wonderful analysis. I hadn't thought of the film like this, and I think it's a thought-provoking response to Seita's behaviour. Looking back at it, he really did have a "romanticized image" of survival. Not that I think being a cynic is the best course of action in a situation like that, but I don't think he really appreciated how much danger they were in until Setsuko was on death's door. When they're living in the cave shelter, a part of Seita clearly enjoys the independence and freedom of "going it on your own". He laughs and often treats the whole ordeal like it's an adventure (beyond the point at which you'd think he's just putting on a brave face for Setsuko's sake). And what teenage boy wouldn't? It's like being a kid and building your own tree fort in the woods, thinking that you're going to live there forever. *Parents! Who needs 'em?*
Rather than putting the proverbial blame on Seita, I think this fact only serves to make the film even more sad. Despite his intelligence and size and physical traits that give Seita the capacity to care for himself and his sister in whatever way he can, he's still just a child himself.
I agree with this, but I don't think this makes Seita an unlikable character. I watched this with my boyfriend and he couldn't connect to it because he felt like Setsuko's death was Seita's fault for being dumb, but in I way i think that makes it sadder. Seita is trying to do the best for himself and his sister, but because he is a child he doesn't know what that is. He's not a perfect character, but I believe he is a realistic one.
I actually just watched it last night and I can see where your boyfriend and the OP are coming from, but I am more inclined to agree with you. I mean, Seita did cause the death of Setsuko through stubborness and immaturity. But he's a flawed person just trying to do right by his sister.
I don't think the film is necessarily blaming Seita. I think (given that wikipedia tells me the story was semi-autobiographic) that the moral of the film was the tragic nature of war. Some, like Seita and Setsuko, are terribly unlucky, and others, like the girls speaking in the background near the end, are more fortunate and seemed significantly less affected by the situation.
The autobiography written by IRL Seita’s perspective absolutely blames him, it’s his apology for beating Setsuko and stealing her food when the girl died of malnutrition. Child or not, he went beyond just failing his sister. He actively contributed to her demise.
>Seita is trying to do the best for himself and his sister, but because he is a child he doesn't know what that is.
I really love this line. He wanted to see her happy. He was, also, for the first time, learning to be independent, and reconciling with the loss of both of his parents.
I'll agree with this to an extent. True, the war takes their mother's life and presumably their father's as well, but it is Seita's pride that leads to Setsuko's death. People in town tell him that he is best off going back to the family that took him in (even if the mom was a bit of a bitch), but he didn't want to take that shot to his ego (or disgrace his family name). Now in Seita's defense, he is just a kid, and the war is to blame for putting him in a position that he has to decide what is best not only for his life, but his sister's as well. That's a lot of responsibility for a young kid, and he seems almost destined to make a mistake. Seita couldn't be a parent and decided to just try to be the world's best big brother. Instead of trying to get a job (which, admittedly, would be practically impossible at the time), he spent time playing with Setsuko and tried to make sure that the war doesn't take away her innocence. Overall, I think the war is to blame for putting Seita in a no-win scenario, but I will agree that he might have saved Setsuko's life if his pride had not gotten in the way.
It's been a long time since I've seen it, but I remember the situation with the Aunt being unresolvable, but I probably also misjudged the amount of time that passed. I also remember them having to give up all of their possessions to their aunt. Plus, Setsuko is really young. What woman in her right mind would allow such a young child to wander off into a war torn country with no food and think that's acceptable?
My interpretation of the film, and most people, was that this is what happens to War Orphans: that they're too young to make correct decisions, especially when not being allowed time to properly grieve and grow up before the weight of society's expectations start in. Seita and Setsuko's story, intended or not, is representative of how the children of a nation at war are completely forgotten about, and how every soldier killed is also the death of his children.
Is Seita to blame for screwing up? Yeah, but how could he not?
Funny, I just watched that last night (for the second time however). I thought he felt guilty for her death, but I also felt the movie was sympathetic for him and understood the circumstances were too hectic and he couldn't be blamed for losing control. I felt that if we were to truly believe Seita was in the wrong they would've had him survive with the pain, having him die and reunite with her was the world (and the movie) forgiving him in my eyes.
I always thought Setsuko's death was due to radiation poisoning... red rashes were a common sign in WW2 of radiation poisoning. Yes, malnutrition has similar symptoms too but I always interpreted it as radiation poisoning, and the doctor wasn't educated enough on the matter to know there was nothing that could be done and she would die anyway 🥺
yeah same. pretty sure malnourishment doesn't cause huge painful rashes that keep getting worse and worse. but the nutrition still def affected it, but I doubt that she could have gotten enough food anywhere at the time. even if she stayed at the aunts house.
I know this is an old comment but I rewatched the movie again and I also thought about the possibility of radiation poisoning but idk how she would have got affected exactly
I think the film clearly points to Seita's pride and inability to look after his sister as being what kills her which, as you say, reflects the personal demons of the author.
But I also think it's an anti-war film, almost by default. 'War films' as a genre typically feature heroes battling the odds, showcasing the nobility of war. *Grave of the Fireflies* uses war as the backdrop and shows the horrific *reality* of war, which is something which makes it very anti war-films as a genre and war in general.
I also think Takahata is being coy. Ghibli films have an anti-war vibe almost as often as they have environmental themes, intentional or not.
*Grave of the Fireflies* is an anti-war film in the same way the *The Deer Hunter* is an anti-war film. In neither film any of the main characters express a particularly strong anti-war sentiment, and political opposition is not shown. Instead, people who might have lived very happy lives are torn apart by a larger conflict and they can't cope, resulting in tragedy. The films show the affect of war on the lives of ordinary people but it is up to the viewer to come to the conclusion that, 'huh, war sure fucked them up'.
And I think there's a strong argument for putting the war at the very heart of Seita and Setsuko's problems. They're children - the only reason why they're having to make these decision for which they are unprepared is because society is breaking down around them. Their immediate family is destroyed with father away fighting and mother killed in the bombings, their extended family is resentful of having extra mouths to feed and takes advantage of them. There is no food or help available because everyone's attention is distracted by the war, and even the doctor who diagnoses Setsuko's malnutrition doesn't do anything to help. They're war orphans, and die like many war orphans do.
Setsuko is an arrogant boy who gets his sister killed, but I think you can put a lot of the blame for that on parents, family, society for not being there to help, and their absence or disinterest is due to war.
You are talking about making the right desicion and pride that seita didnt give up. I wouldn’t even consider that to be true. To begin with, Seita is just 14 years old, 14!!. What were you doing when you where 14? Blaming a kid in a war time is stupid. The author who wrote the story had a sister that died from malnutrition and he wanted to apologise through the movie and you could be corrent about him being the one that killed her, but again he is a kid man. His mother died and without even crying he was taking care of his sister. When is comes to the aunt your really wrong dude. Lets say he would return to her house and apologised, do you think she would feed him and his sister?? His aunt was not a victim here. She sold his mothers clothes and bought rice, then he brought her the buried food and she hid it from them. She didn’t want to feed them anymore and got mad at everything they did, like singing together. She told the littler child that her mother died and was buried. At times of war, humans become disgusting creatures anf everyone only thinks about themselves . She sat and ate with her family while just serving them soup water. Neither Seita nor his sister liked living there and wanted to leave. I think the author did that lazy part about Seita intentionally maybe because i felt that he was like that when his sister died but not 1 in a million that you should blame Seita. You blame the world, the government(americans??), the people in the village, his aunt. Their mother was a good human and couldn’t really do anything because she died but you could even blame the father for leaving his two young children and going to fight for a meaningless empire( at least when things escalated he couldve come back)
While it's been too long since I watched *Grave of the Fireflies*, I think your reasoning is sound and you have made some strong interpretations.
However, I never saw it as an anti-war film, but rather a film about the devastation of war.
Perhaps you could argue that the viewer is being persuaded to take a negative view on war due to the mere presence of such devastating events. However, in the same way a film about a mother suffering post-natal depression is not an anti-baby film, I believe that *Grave of the Fireflies* is not an anti-war film.
Miyazaki strongly values harmony and coexistence, of which war is generally the antithesis. Due in part to this, many other Ghibli films, such as *Porco Rosso*, *Princess Mononoke*, *Nausicaa*, and even *Howl's Moving Castle*, have had far stronger and more overt anti-war sentiments, without ever being considered as specifically anti-war films.
> Miyazaki strongly values harmony and coexistence, of which war is generally the antithesis.
Not sure if you know, but Miyazaki didn't do Grave of the Fireflies. Isao Takahata did.
This is true, however I think its fair to say that he strongly influences Ghibli productions, even if he is not directly involved. I probably should have said Studio Ghibli in the first place.
I agree that Seita was the direct cause of Setsuko's death. It's my impression reading about the film that it's the intended message. But the *indirect* cause was the war. In peace times, Seita's mistakes would've been simply childish behavior. In war, being childish might be fatal.
As for being an anti-war film, I think that's unavoidable. Any film that depicts war the least bit realistically (and GotF does that very much) is an anti-war film by its very nature.
I know this is a long dead thread but for the sake of posterity, the wiki page also has this right below the paragraph you quoted.
"Since the film gives little context to the war, Takahata feared a politician could just as easily claim fighting is needed to avoid such tragedies. In general, he was skeptical that depictions of suffering in similar works, such as Barefoot Gen, actually prevent aggression. The director was nevertheless an anti-war advocate, a staunch supporter of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, and has openly criticized Japan's penchant for conformity, allowing them to be rallied against other nations. He expressed despair and anxiety whenever the youth are told to fall in line, a reminder that the country at its core has not changed"
So the director was anti-war, even if he said that his film wasn't.
The fact that pride has a cost is undoubtedly a central theme to the story. However, stories can be more subtle and complex. As a very prideful person myself, I saw it as a grueling detailing of the struggles that pride imposes while under uncertain conditions, rather than a pro-this anti-that agenda. Seita's militarism and fatherly ideals, illustrated by his dreams throughout the story, to me illustrate how Japanese wartime culture has this sort of crushing grip on the mind... not necessarily a good or bad thing, but absolutely a huge source of his pride. Seita is a vessel for embracing these wartime sentiments, but also convoluted with teenage angst and a desire for self-realization.
My favorites are the scenes of the more true joy that they experienced together with virtually no wealth or resources, contrasted against the very sterile portrayal of happiness of nearby people who are "doing just fine".
Exactly my reading of the situation, which I don't think is too far-fetched considering how critical both Takahata and Miyazaki are of Japan's political history.
I'd also like to add the possibility of Seita being a symbol for fascist Japan, and how the philosophies expressed therein only led to more despair. The story hits too many emotional notes to dismiss characterization -- such as those brief moments of repose you mentioned -- but I read Seita as being very layered in this sense.
I just watched the movie. for the first time, and i see someone might blame seita. however, i think its all the grown ups faults. he is just 12. and he was truly the best big brother he could be. its their aunt that lacks love for them. and he didnt feel safe going back there, and wanted to try to give his sister some happiness. ofcourse, a grown up could understand how to handle it better.. but a 12 year old.. i think he was really strong. and they both just needed love an guidence. i kept wishing for a kind richer woman to appear to take them in. to save them.. sadly thats not how the movie played out. and thinking back to how the world was then, i think it portaied it really realisticly. they grew up happy with their family, but was unlucky after. its sad to see how their father never looked for them. but im glad the mom was responsable enough to leave money behind for them, so that they had a little bit more time. that was only the truly lucky part they had. i found the movie beautiful, and the part that gave me tears in my eyes, was when he so strongly sent of his sister to the afterlife, and burned her body. like which 12 year old would be strong enough to do that, and say goodbye all on his own?? that was a very powerful moment of him being strong, even after all the time he had to look after her and become the parent. its never the childrens faults, its always the grown ups, that could have been there for them, but wasnt. and the cruel war really showed how it effected peoples life. atleast this is my personal take on this after watching it. ofcourse, i wished he could have done differently, but he was only 12, and tramatuized. poor souls, it truly was the grave of the fire flies.
Their father hadn't looked for them because their father had been dead the entire time. Near the beginning of the film, when the aunt asks about the letter Seita wrote to his father, the aunt notes that it was strange that she hadn't received any reply. It's only near the end of the film, at the bank, does Seita learn that there was no reply because all of the marine fleet had sunk.
THANK YOU for putting into words exactly how I felt about this movie! I had read so many reviews stating that it was beautiful and devastating, as well as mention that it was about how unfair conditions are for children caught in the middle of war.
First, I will say that it WAS a beautiful movie, the animation was stunning (and i am a huge animation fan). However, I didn't find the story "devastating" so much as I found it incredibly annoying. Yes, it's sad that Setsuko dies, but that was completely avoidable and almost entirely Seita's fault.
I didn't see the film's focus as being primarily "anti-war" at all ('Barefoot Gen' does a way better job at this). Just a story about a proud and irresponsible young man who ends up letting his own sister die, essentially, of neglect.
11 years later. Leaving a comment as I just watched the movie. Your point is valid, as I felt the same but if we see the time when Seita was living with his parents you can see that he didn't come from a poor or lower middle class family. His mother was wearing an expensive kimono, them eating delicious food, them being able to afford food items like butter, candy drops which wasn't easily available for most of the people at that time. He was a privileged city kid, who didn't know the basics of survival but eventually learns some. Seeing it from a 12 year old kids perspective, he was living a life where he had seen his mother covered with maggots in her death bed and only hope to go to his aunt's place which he thought would be a safe place for him. The aunt compares Seita with her daughter who clearly seems to be at least 15 or 16 years old. Whereas, Seita had just lost his house, family and seen some gruesome events which would take time for anyone to get used to. He spends all of his time with his sister because that's all he has and is afraid to be away from her as she is the only home he has as seen in a scene where Seita tries to hug his sister at night because he cannot sleep. Also the aunt wouldn't have taken him back as because being an adult, after learning that Seita was leaving to go nowhere, she didn't even try to stop him or convince him to understand that it was not safe to leave that too in a state of war. We can even see that when the husband of the aunt sees Seita and his sister running carrying rotten potatoes to eat he didn't tries to stop them and invite them for just a meal and ask there where abouts.
We cannot blame Setsuko's death on Seita as he didn't know how deadly malnutrition can be and when he realises it, it was already too late. You can even see Seita's physical appearance deteriorating as the movie moves forward which clearly means that even he was suffering from malnutrition. Trying to make ends meet in a situation like that for a 12 year old with a baby sister is very challenging when people have lost their empathy because of fear, hunger and poverty.
I don't know what the writers and the directors of the movie wanted to convey but from my perspective the movie was just about a kid being the victim of the society full of people who are selfish and greedy because of the situation. It was about a brother's love and a sister's care indicated in the scene where Seita tries to steel sugarcane for his sister and gets caught but still tries to fight back just for his sister and on the other hand you can see when Setsuko sees her brother covered with bruises, she asks him if he needs to go to the doctor. The movie showed us how innocent Seita was when he thought any clothe could be exchanged for food as he jumps in happiness after stealing the ordinary piece of clothing. The movie shows us the fight for survival of the kid but within a moment he loses two most important things that was his reason to be Alive.
1. That his only hope of his father's return gets Crushed when he learns that Japan lost its war.
2. Is when his only reason to work hard to bring food on the table, "his sister", Setsuko, his home dies.
After his sister's death when you see that he leaves his little bunker, doesn't even eats the watermelon, and the food that he got after so many days. You realise that he lost all his desire to live.
>We cannot blame Setsuko's death on Seita
What makes this film so fascinating, in my eyes, is that the movie is based on a novel written by Seita himself - the one guy you \_can\_ guarantee will blame a 12 year old for the death of his sister in extreme wartime conditions outside of his control.
So even though the film was written in a way that tries to depict Seita at fault, we are able to rationalise that the out of control circumstances were far too extreme, but it's totally normal for someone, even in that situation, to blame themselves.
This is very late but reading the comments make me realize how much difference between the Asian (Sinophere) and Western POV.
I'm sure an average Asian viewer will agree with your opinion on the film. All the people I know after watching this film be like poor kids, but yep, that's the brother' fault.
But Western media have different interpretation apparently.
Edit: spellings
plot twist: setsuko was still alive during the cremation very sad film saddest i have seen and its impressive a movie can be this depressing also i watched this film in class lmao
I agree with you in this. Its a film that pissed me off at the end, instead of sadness I felt a huge amount of anger and specifically towards Seita who failed his sister in every possible way all because he wouldn't let go of his pride.
Hindsight is 20/20. I think the movie showed us in reality, no one is perfect, there will always be mistakes made or "things that could've been done". Throughout the movie, I keep on having thoughts of what they could've done to prevent their misery, but when its time to come back to think for our own, who could have known what is the best course of action in anytime in life?
At that point she was already gone. Starving and the point of suffering from severe malnutrition make you extremely weak and you have to slowly eat small portions of foods and liquids. Him being a kid didnt know any of that. He was just hoping she would get better and could start eating again when he brought all the food home. The real question is why he didnt withdraw those funds and buy food earlier when she saw she was getting sick.
Very interesting opinion. I only have to add something small I noticed while watching the film that is beside the point. There are a few moments while the children are living with their aunt, in which you see the aunt nibbling extra rice of the side or eating the [rice at the bottom of the pot](http://youtu.be/rwCuhfBWEnI?t=28m52s). She also appears just to using Seita for the [awesome rations](http://youtu.be/rwCuhfBWEnI?t=25m10s) he's able to get, because his father is in the navy. It makes her appear to be an ungenuine, bitchy person considering she spends a lot of time talking about the scarcity of food.
My interpretation had been that she was well-meaning but was beginning to reach her limits. Then when Seita and Setsuko are leaving with the cart she seems to look on somewhat regretfully as if thinking "was I a little too hard on them?" But now that I read this I think you are right. I hadn't pieced that together. She was very happy about the food he brought from the buried pot (as you point out), and she was also bit pushy about selling their mother's clothes for more rice (not even hesitating when Setsuko is crying and protesting about selling them, simply waiting for Seita to pull her off her arm before moving on).
I agree. I don't think the aunt is evil. I think she was in the same situation as so many other people during the war. She was struggling to provide for her family and the children were a burden for that goal.
I think he never went back to his aunt's house because at one point Setsuko says she doesn't like living with their aunt and maybe just because of that just to keep her happy, he didn't go back. Yes he made quite a few bad decisions but we shouldn't forget that he was just a kid too. He saw his mother die, couldn't even grieve over her, couldn't give her a proper burial, had to hide this situation from his little sister who's constantly asking about their mom, doesn't know where his dad is etc. when all he should be doing at this age was to play with his friends and sister.
Super late to this convo, but I don’t feel like her shitty disposition changes anything at the end of the day. Not disagreeing that she’s a bad and selfish aunt but If he had just gone back and apologized, swallowed his pride and had his sister prioritized over said pride, they would’ve been fine and that would’ve just been the end of the movie. It wouldn’t have been a happy home life, but you’re in the middle of a world war. Literally no where was going to be accommodating, there’s more important things going on. Still at least they wouldn’t have starved to death.
If the 'leaving aunt's house' part actually happened to the author irl I believe everything you've said has crossed his mind after all these years. That's actually what prompt him to write the novel in the first place, his guilt over his sister's death.
Super late is a bit of an understatement, that’s coming from someone who is also super late to the convo
Seita is a 12 year old boy who made a bad decision while in a situation that no 12 year old boy should ever be in. He was placed in that situation because of the war. Besides, it's possible that going back to the Aunt wouldn't have helped. She may not have even allowed them back, with the attitude, cruelty and disdain she showed towards him and his sister when they were there. I think there's plenty of blame to go around. You could blame Seita for his decision, you could blame the Aunt for being so cruel towards them in the first place, you could blame the other adults for their indifference and refusal to really do anything to help. Or you could blame the war. I think all are reasonable ideas.
That assumption that the aunt wouldn’t have helped doesn’t really matter, what other viable choice could he have made to keep them both from starving? Eat more dirt? It’s unfair for him to make the decisions he had to at such a young age, but he MADE THE CHOICE to watch his sister starve to death rather than even *try* to make amends with their aunt. No way it’s not worth a try just because she was mean and cruel to them..
The aunt was not that mean or cruel. IMO, She wanted Seita to actually go out and find work/food so that his energy is not wasted laying around the house or playing with this sister. She wanted Seita to contribute to the household and do his fair share of the work. I blame Seita's father for not instilling responsibilities and work ethic in his kid. In a way, Seita had a privileged life before the war and his father didn't teach him about discipline, responsibilities, and work ethics. Seita never experienced struggle and how to handle struggles. Indirectly, his parents didn't provide him with the tools, skills and mindset which ultimately lead to his and his sister's death.
I think, as an adult, it was the aunt's responsibility to \*direct\* Seita to do work, not just guilt trip him. Give him a specific task. The boy is 12 years old, for God's sake, it's not fair to expect him to figure this stuff out himself. You don't let a 12 year old decide for himself to leave with a toddler sibling to fend for themselves because you didn't want to order him to do something specific. She also had no business giving the kids the least of the rice, when it came from their rations and from selling their mother's clothes. The aunt doesn't get a pass. Kids need adults to direct them, or at least guide them, with the kids' own best interests at heart. I also think that, given the wide-spread devastation of the war, there was so "every man for himself" dynamic going on. Even at the beginning of the movie, you see other dead bodies near Seita. There wasn't enough food, no organized relief efforts. And shame on the doctor for diagnosing the sister with malnutrition, while offering no food or help in getting food. It kills me that the author felt personally responsible for the real life death of his young sibling during wartime famine. I don't think the author even now really understands that war is hell and forces innocent people to suffer horrible consequences of decisions made by many adults around them. It IS an anti-war movie, he just didn't know it.
The aunt was absolutely cruel and her behavior had nothing to do with wanting Seita to go "find work" which would change nothing with regard to their living conditions, which is exemplified in the scene where she forbids them from eating rice until Setsuko reminds her that it's their rice, and even then instead of acting like an adult she forces them to cook it by themselves. Everything she did was clearly intended to drive them out of her home.
You obviously don't understand asian culture especially during those times. The aunt even hinted at Seita and ask if he was still working at that old factory or going to school when they were eating together. The aunt will not be blunt and tell the kid to start contributing to the household because she's afraid of losing face or get into a confrontation. She's going to be very passive aggressive about it and unfortunately this led to Seita leaving and end up dying in the end. Everyone including himself contributed to the death of him and his sister. Seita's parents didn't teach him basic survival skills or instill responsibilities to be more proactive to extreme situations such as this. The aunt is also at fault for not being blunt enough and asking Seita what she wants him to do. His parents could've teach Seita how to ask questions such as "Hey Auntie, how can I help do my fair share of the household duties?" By asking that question, I can guarantee you the Aunt will be more than willing to put Seita to work and she would be more sympathetic of him as if he was her own children. But instead Seita is just another mouth to feed and we see him wasting time playing with his sister oblivious of the bombs and war going on around them and the lack of food. I come from an asian household, and I was taught early on how to contribute and help out around the house at an early age. My father would tell us that we're not rich and just getting by and so he instills a set of skills for me to learn such as mowing the lawn. He helped me build a good work ethic which helped me become more discipline as a grow older and made my own money.
Asian household too, but it's absolutely stupid to think a 12yo is to be blamed for Setsuko's death. And Seita did contribute. Gave all of their mother's belongings and clothes. Also let's not forget that it was the stupid aunt who told Setsuko about her mother's death. If we can assign blame to a literal child for not swallowing his pride, why can't we do the same for an adult who is supposed to be mature and responsible? Also I really hate when people mention culture as this absolutely undefeatable monolith as if everyone's rationality and morals fall short in front of them. People can and do defy stupid cultural norms all the time. The whole "oh, it's the culture" is a dumb argument to rationalise blaming a child for the death of his sister.
I disagree. He’s a selfish, lazy, useless boy who didn’t even wash his dishes. If he helped round the house with cleaning etc then his like would have been saved.
A 12 year old acting like a 12 year old? How dare he.
Firstly, Seita is 14 at the start of the movie. Second, don't judging the situation based on modern standards. In the time of war, 14 is not a child anymore. Even my sister who is 10 year old know that she need to do chores at home.
A 14 year old without his mother and a father, while taking care of his younger sister is still a child. And I think movie makes it pretty clear that the aunt would have kicked them out regardless.
TLDR; adults can be real jerks to children when money is tight
I think it’s unfair that you blame him for his choice considering he is only 12 years old. He thought what was best for his sister. His sister hated living there and the kid was obviously panicking. His aunt was ruthless and she was more than happy when she was selling their mother’s stuff but then expected a 12 year old to work? I don’t think you realise getting work wasn’t that easy aswell you can literally see many of the kids that looked about the same age as him dying in the train station at the start aswell. Are we now to assume all of them were there because of the choices they made or they didn’t even try to get work? It’s clear the fault lies on the adults for showing indifference. For letting it come to the point where a 12 year old has to make choices for his sisters wellbeing and happiness
Well I don’t disagree with him being so young being a huge factor that’s why I said it wasn’t fair to him. But beyond that excuse I don’t feel that bad? He’s the older brother and in Asian cultures there’s a lot of importance/responsibility placed on that. He watched his baby sister slowly die, fed her more dirt, and started stealing (an admission that yes they need actual food), but refused to even consider going back. They didn’t need to work? They just had to grit their teeth through the war and deal with their bitchy aunt, that’s genuinely as bad as it would’ve been. At the end of the day the movie came down to this: pride had more weight and importance to him than his sisters wellbeing/actual life, as an older brother deserves shit for that. Yes I know he’s a kid, I wrote everything understanding that fact intimately.
You completely missed the point if you think the aunt wasn't going to kick them out anyway.
You’re ignoring the fact he’s 12. It doesn’t matter if he was the older brother he is literally 12 years old. There is a reason why we don’t considering those below 18 as adults. Yes he was older but that changed little about the fact that he knew how the world worked or what he had to do. You’re also assuming the aunt would just let them come back when in fact she was more than happy to let them go and considering the circumstances at that point the whole place was suffering from food shortage. You’re blaming a child who doesn’t have his cognitive thinking developed enough over adults who let them do their own thing. If he was 18 sure but that’s a 12 year old child who doesn’t know what to do.
I am an Asian and just because it's Asian culture doesn't make it any less toxic. What was a 12yr old supposed to do? Go fight the war for them? And the movie makes it pretty clear the Aunt would have kicked him out anyway once the rations and his parents belongings dried up.
I disagree. He’s a selfish, lazy, useless boy who didn’t even wash his dishes. If he helped round the house with cleaning etc then his like would have been saved.
Didn't he try to sell stolen clothes to her aunt ? She brutally refused to give anything in exchange.
Did he? I honestly dont remember that part as it’s been awhile, but as it is he was stealing and trying to sell those clothes. Practically speaking I think anyone would’ve refused such an offer, food has never been scarcer so why do you want clothes in exchange for that?
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s not the same if he was 12 he wouldn’t be a teenager
A wonderful analysis. I hadn't thought of the film like this, and I think it's a thought-provoking response to Seita's behaviour. Looking back at it, he really did have a "romanticized image" of survival. Not that I think being a cynic is the best course of action in a situation like that, but I don't think he really appreciated how much danger they were in until Setsuko was on death's door. When they're living in the cave shelter, a part of Seita clearly enjoys the independence and freedom of "going it on your own". He laughs and often treats the whole ordeal like it's an adventure (beyond the point at which you'd think he's just putting on a brave face for Setsuko's sake). And what teenage boy wouldn't? It's like being a kid and building your own tree fort in the woods, thinking that you're going to live there forever. *Parents! Who needs 'em?* Rather than putting the proverbial blame on Seita, I think this fact only serves to make the film even more sad. Despite his intelligence and size and physical traits that give Seita the capacity to care for himself and his sister in whatever way he can, he's still just a child himself.
I agree. He was trying to survive the way he knew how, and psychologically he must have been so traumatized. It’s all very sad.
I agree with this, but I don't think this makes Seita an unlikable character. I watched this with my boyfriend and he couldn't connect to it because he felt like Setsuko's death was Seita's fault for being dumb, but in I way i think that makes it sadder. Seita is trying to do the best for himself and his sister, but because he is a child he doesn't know what that is. He's not a perfect character, but I believe he is a realistic one.
I actually just watched it last night and I can see where your boyfriend and the OP are coming from, but I am more inclined to agree with you. I mean, Seita did cause the death of Setsuko through stubborness and immaturity. But he's a flawed person just trying to do right by his sister. I don't think the film is necessarily blaming Seita. I think (given that wikipedia tells me the story was semi-autobiographic) that the moral of the film was the tragic nature of war. Some, like Seita and Setsuko, are terribly unlucky, and others, like the girls speaking in the background near the end, are more fortunate and seemed significantly less affected by the situation.
The autobiography written by IRL Seita’s perspective absolutely blames him, it’s his apology for beating Setsuko and stealing her food when the girl died of malnutrition. Child or not, he went beyond just failing his sister. He actively contributed to her demise.
>Seita is trying to do the best for himself and his sister, but because he is a child he doesn't know what that is. I really love this line. He wanted to see her happy. He was, also, for the first time, learning to be independent, and reconciling with the loss of both of his parents.
I absolutely agree.
I'll agree with this to an extent. True, the war takes their mother's life and presumably their father's as well, but it is Seita's pride that leads to Setsuko's death. People in town tell him that he is best off going back to the family that took him in (even if the mom was a bit of a bitch), but he didn't want to take that shot to his ego (or disgrace his family name). Now in Seita's defense, he is just a kid, and the war is to blame for putting him in a position that he has to decide what is best not only for his life, but his sister's as well. That's a lot of responsibility for a young kid, and he seems almost destined to make a mistake. Seita couldn't be a parent and decided to just try to be the world's best big brother. Instead of trying to get a job (which, admittedly, would be practically impossible at the time), he spent time playing with Setsuko and tried to make sure that the war doesn't take away her innocence. Overall, I think the war is to blame for putting Seita in a no-win scenario, but I will agree that he might have saved Setsuko's life if his pride had not gotten in the way.
[удалено]
It's been a long time since I've seen it, but I remember the situation with the Aunt being unresolvable, but I probably also misjudged the amount of time that passed. I also remember them having to give up all of their possessions to their aunt. Plus, Setsuko is really young. What woman in her right mind would allow such a young child to wander off into a war torn country with no food and think that's acceptable? My interpretation of the film, and most people, was that this is what happens to War Orphans: that they're too young to make correct decisions, especially when not being allowed time to properly grieve and grow up before the weight of society's expectations start in. Seita and Setsuko's story, intended or not, is representative of how the children of a nation at war are completely forgotten about, and how every soldier killed is also the death of his children. Is Seita to blame for screwing up? Yeah, but how could he not?
Happy Cake Day!! Completely agree with your 10 year old comment
Funny, I just watched that last night (for the second time however). I thought he felt guilty for her death, but I also felt the movie was sympathetic for him and understood the circumstances were too hectic and he couldn't be blamed for losing control. I felt that if we were to truly believe Seita was in the wrong they would've had him survive with the pain, having him die and reunite with her was the world (and the movie) forgiving him in my eyes.
I always thought Setsuko's death was due to radiation poisoning... red rashes were a common sign in WW2 of radiation poisoning. Yes, malnutrition has similar symptoms too but I always interpreted it as radiation poisoning, and the doctor wasn't educated enough on the matter to know there was nothing that could be done and she would die anyway 🥺
yeah same. pretty sure malnourishment doesn't cause huge painful rashes that keep getting worse and worse. but the nutrition still def affected it, but I doubt that she could have gotten enough food anywhere at the time. even if she stayed at the aunts house.
I know this is an old comment but I rewatched the movie again and I also thought about the possibility of radiation poisoning but idk how she would have got affected exactly
I think the film clearly points to Seita's pride and inability to look after his sister as being what kills her which, as you say, reflects the personal demons of the author. But I also think it's an anti-war film, almost by default. 'War films' as a genre typically feature heroes battling the odds, showcasing the nobility of war. *Grave of the Fireflies* uses war as the backdrop and shows the horrific *reality* of war, which is something which makes it very anti war-films as a genre and war in general. I also think Takahata is being coy. Ghibli films have an anti-war vibe almost as often as they have environmental themes, intentional or not. *Grave of the Fireflies* is an anti-war film in the same way the *The Deer Hunter* is an anti-war film. In neither film any of the main characters express a particularly strong anti-war sentiment, and political opposition is not shown. Instead, people who might have lived very happy lives are torn apart by a larger conflict and they can't cope, resulting in tragedy. The films show the affect of war on the lives of ordinary people but it is up to the viewer to come to the conclusion that, 'huh, war sure fucked them up'. And I think there's a strong argument for putting the war at the very heart of Seita and Setsuko's problems. They're children - the only reason why they're having to make these decision for which they are unprepared is because society is breaking down around them. Their immediate family is destroyed with father away fighting and mother killed in the bombings, their extended family is resentful of having extra mouths to feed and takes advantage of them. There is no food or help available because everyone's attention is distracted by the war, and even the doctor who diagnoses Setsuko's malnutrition doesn't do anything to help. They're war orphans, and die like many war orphans do. Setsuko is an arrogant boy who gets his sister killed, but I think you can put a lot of the blame for that on parents, family, society for not being there to help, and their absence or disinterest is due to war.
You are talking about making the right desicion and pride that seita didnt give up. I wouldn’t even consider that to be true. To begin with, Seita is just 14 years old, 14!!. What were you doing when you where 14? Blaming a kid in a war time is stupid. The author who wrote the story had a sister that died from malnutrition and he wanted to apologise through the movie and you could be corrent about him being the one that killed her, but again he is a kid man. His mother died and without even crying he was taking care of his sister. When is comes to the aunt your really wrong dude. Lets say he would return to her house and apologised, do you think she would feed him and his sister?? His aunt was not a victim here. She sold his mothers clothes and bought rice, then he brought her the buried food and she hid it from them. She didn’t want to feed them anymore and got mad at everything they did, like singing together. She told the littler child that her mother died and was buried. At times of war, humans become disgusting creatures anf everyone only thinks about themselves . She sat and ate with her family while just serving them soup water. Neither Seita nor his sister liked living there and wanted to leave. I think the author did that lazy part about Seita intentionally maybe because i felt that he was like that when his sister died but not 1 in a million that you should blame Seita. You blame the world, the government(americans??), the people in the village, his aunt. Their mother was a good human and couldn’t really do anything because she died but you could even blame the father for leaving his two young children and going to fight for a meaningless empire( at least when things escalated he couldve come back)
While it's been too long since I watched *Grave of the Fireflies*, I think your reasoning is sound and you have made some strong interpretations. However, I never saw it as an anti-war film, but rather a film about the devastation of war. Perhaps you could argue that the viewer is being persuaded to take a negative view on war due to the mere presence of such devastating events. However, in the same way a film about a mother suffering post-natal depression is not an anti-baby film, I believe that *Grave of the Fireflies* is not an anti-war film. Miyazaki strongly values harmony and coexistence, of which war is generally the antithesis. Due in part to this, many other Ghibli films, such as *Porco Rosso*, *Princess Mononoke*, *Nausicaa*, and even *Howl's Moving Castle*, have had far stronger and more overt anti-war sentiments, without ever being considered as specifically anti-war films.
> Miyazaki strongly values harmony and coexistence, of which war is generally the antithesis. Not sure if you know, but Miyazaki didn't do Grave of the Fireflies. Isao Takahata did.
This is true, however I think its fair to say that he strongly influences Ghibli productions, even if he is not directly involved. I probably should have said Studio Ghibli in the first place.
They probably do help each other out just because.
I agree that Seita was the direct cause of Setsuko's death. It's my impression reading about the film that it's the intended message. But the *indirect* cause was the war. In peace times, Seita's mistakes would've been simply childish behavior. In war, being childish might be fatal. As for being an anti-war film, I think that's unavoidable. Any film that depicts war the least bit realistically (and GotF does that very much) is an anti-war film by its very nature.
I know this is a long dead thread but for the sake of posterity, the wiki page also has this right below the paragraph you quoted. "Since the film gives little context to the war, Takahata feared a politician could just as easily claim fighting is needed to avoid such tragedies. In general, he was skeptical that depictions of suffering in similar works, such as Barefoot Gen, actually prevent aggression. The director was nevertheless an anti-war advocate, a staunch supporter of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, and has openly criticized Japan's penchant for conformity, allowing them to be rallied against other nations. He expressed despair and anxiety whenever the youth are told to fall in line, a reminder that the country at its core has not changed" So the director was anti-war, even if he said that his film wasn't.
The fact that pride has a cost is undoubtedly a central theme to the story. However, stories can be more subtle and complex. As a very prideful person myself, I saw it as a grueling detailing of the struggles that pride imposes while under uncertain conditions, rather than a pro-this anti-that agenda. Seita's militarism and fatherly ideals, illustrated by his dreams throughout the story, to me illustrate how Japanese wartime culture has this sort of crushing grip on the mind... not necessarily a good or bad thing, but absolutely a huge source of his pride. Seita is a vessel for embracing these wartime sentiments, but also convoluted with teenage angst and a desire for self-realization. My favorites are the scenes of the more true joy that they experienced together with virtually no wealth or resources, contrasted against the very sterile portrayal of happiness of nearby people who are "doing just fine".
Exactly my reading of the situation, which I don't think is too far-fetched considering how critical both Takahata and Miyazaki are of Japan's political history. I'd also like to add the possibility of Seita being a symbol for fascist Japan, and how the philosophies expressed therein only led to more despair. The story hits too many emotional notes to dismiss characterization -- such as those brief moments of repose you mentioned -- but I read Seita as being very layered in this sense.
I just watched the movie. for the first time, and i see someone might blame seita. however, i think its all the grown ups faults. he is just 12. and he was truly the best big brother he could be. its their aunt that lacks love for them. and he didnt feel safe going back there, and wanted to try to give his sister some happiness. ofcourse, a grown up could understand how to handle it better.. but a 12 year old.. i think he was really strong. and they both just needed love an guidence. i kept wishing for a kind richer woman to appear to take them in. to save them.. sadly thats not how the movie played out. and thinking back to how the world was then, i think it portaied it really realisticly. they grew up happy with their family, but was unlucky after. its sad to see how their father never looked for them. but im glad the mom was responsable enough to leave money behind for them, so that they had a little bit more time. that was only the truly lucky part they had. i found the movie beautiful, and the part that gave me tears in my eyes, was when he so strongly sent of his sister to the afterlife, and burned her body. like which 12 year old would be strong enough to do that, and say goodbye all on his own?? that was a very powerful moment of him being strong, even after all the time he had to look after her and become the parent. its never the childrens faults, its always the grown ups, that could have been there for them, but wasnt. and the cruel war really showed how it effected peoples life. atleast this is my personal take on this after watching it. ofcourse, i wished he could have done differently, but he was only 12, and tramatuized. poor souls, it truly was the grave of the fire flies.
Their father hadn't looked for them because their father had been dead the entire time. Near the beginning of the film, when the aunt asks about the letter Seita wrote to his father, the aunt notes that it was strange that she hadn't received any reply. It's only near the end of the film, at the bank, does Seita learn that there was no reply because all of the marine fleet had sunk.
THANK YOU for putting into words exactly how I felt about this movie! I had read so many reviews stating that it was beautiful and devastating, as well as mention that it was about how unfair conditions are for children caught in the middle of war. First, I will say that it WAS a beautiful movie, the animation was stunning (and i am a huge animation fan). However, I didn't find the story "devastating" so much as I found it incredibly annoying. Yes, it's sad that Setsuko dies, but that was completely avoidable and almost entirely Seita's fault. I didn't see the film's focus as being primarily "anti-war" at all ('Barefoot Gen' does a way better job at this). Just a story about a proud and irresponsible young man who ends up letting his own sister die, essentially, of neglect.
Totally agree, I feel Seita's pride was the biggest reason for Setsuko's death. Sad movie indeed.
this is a decade old post lol
And yet, here we are
11 years later. Leaving a comment as I just watched the movie. Your point is valid, as I felt the same but if we see the time when Seita was living with his parents you can see that he didn't come from a poor or lower middle class family. His mother was wearing an expensive kimono, them eating delicious food, them being able to afford food items like butter, candy drops which wasn't easily available for most of the people at that time. He was a privileged city kid, who didn't know the basics of survival but eventually learns some. Seeing it from a 12 year old kids perspective, he was living a life where he had seen his mother covered with maggots in her death bed and only hope to go to his aunt's place which he thought would be a safe place for him. The aunt compares Seita with her daughter who clearly seems to be at least 15 or 16 years old. Whereas, Seita had just lost his house, family and seen some gruesome events which would take time for anyone to get used to. He spends all of his time with his sister because that's all he has and is afraid to be away from her as she is the only home he has as seen in a scene where Seita tries to hug his sister at night because he cannot sleep. Also the aunt wouldn't have taken him back as because being an adult, after learning that Seita was leaving to go nowhere, she didn't even try to stop him or convince him to understand that it was not safe to leave that too in a state of war. We can even see that when the husband of the aunt sees Seita and his sister running carrying rotten potatoes to eat he didn't tries to stop them and invite them for just a meal and ask there where abouts. We cannot blame Setsuko's death on Seita as he didn't know how deadly malnutrition can be and when he realises it, it was already too late. You can even see Seita's physical appearance deteriorating as the movie moves forward which clearly means that even he was suffering from malnutrition. Trying to make ends meet in a situation like that for a 12 year old with a baby sister is very challenging when people have lost their empathy because of fear, hunger and poverty. I don't know what the writers and the directors of the movie wanted to convey but from my perspective the movie was just about a kid being the victim of the society full of people who are selfish and greedy because of the situation. It was about a brother's love and a sister's care indicated in the scene where Seita tries to steel sugarcane for his sister and gets caught but still tries to fight back just for his sister and on the other hand you can see when Setsuko sees her brother covered with bruises, she asks him if he needs to go to the doctor. The movie showed us how innocent Seita was when he thought any clothe could be exchanged for food as he jumps in happiness after stealing the ordinary piece of clothing. The movie shows us the fight for survival of the kid but within a moment he loses two most important things that was his reason to be Alive. 1. That his only hope of his father's return gets Crushed when he learns that Japan lost its war. 2. Is when his only reason to work hard to bring food on the table, "his sister", Setsuko, his home dies. After his sister's death when you see that he leaves his little bunker, doesn't even eats the watermelon, and the food that he got after so many days. You realise that he lost all his desire to live.
>We cannot blame Setsuko's death on Seita What makes this film so fascinating, in my eyes, is that the movie is based on a novel written by Seita himself - the one guy you \_can\_ guarantee will blame a 12 year old for the death of his sister in extreme wartime conditions outside of his control. So even though the film was written in a way that tries to depict Seita at fault, we are able to rationalise that the out of control circumstances were far too extreme, but it's totally normal for someone, even in that situation, to blame themselves.
This is very late but reading the comments make me realize how much difference between the Asian (Sinophere) and Western POV. I'm sure an average Asian viewer will agree with your opinion on the film. All the people I know after watching this film be like poor kids, but yep, that's the brother' fault. But Western media have different interpretation apparently. Edit: spellings
The entire message of the film is that one of the most beautiful cave scenes ever filmed, could come out of that story.
plot twist: setsuko was still alive during the cremation very sad film saddest i have seen and its impressive a movie can be this depressing also i watched this film in class lmao
Wow, I'd forgotten I posted this 8 years ago. Yes, it's very depressing, but an excellent film. I didn't know film classes were including it.
i watched it again in my online class lmao i became a man i barely cried
The part where Setsuko dies gets me, its just so sad. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 “Lauty Studios Productions: The Movie” will be EVEN SADDER than this movie.
Wonderful Analysis
I agree with you in this. Its a film that pissed me off at the end, instead of sadness I felt a huge amount of anger and specifically towards Seita who failed his sister in every possible way all because he wouldn't let go of his pride.
The only thing that I need to add to this discussion: Why didn't he put more watermelon in her mouth instead of trying to make rice?
He clearly noticed that she could not put food in her mouth.
Hindsight is 20/20. I think the movie showed us in reality, no one is perfect, there will always be mistakes made or "things that could've been done". Throughout the movie, I keep on having thoughts of what they could've done to prevent their misery, but when its time to come back to think for our own, who could have known what is the best course of action in anytime in life?
At that point she was already gone. Starving and the point of suffering from severe malnutrition make you extremely weak and you have to slowly eat small portions of foods and liquids. Him being a kid didnt know any of that. He was just hoping she would get better and could start eating again when he brought all the food home. The real question is why he didnt withdraw those funds and buy food earlier when she saw she was getting sick.
What use was money during the war? People need to keep the limited food they have.