After watching Oppenheimer in theaters, I've basically made it a requirement to show both of these movies to people who have seen neither. They work so well together.
@@ThwipThwipBoom Very much. It will feel like a drag for about 20 minute after the nukes get dropped, but it will pick right back up. All star cast, well made in every way, great story.
The Wind Rises is about the world's corruption of peoples dreams, and man's inability to walk away from pursuing their dreams regardless of this corruption. The reason the film doesn't explore the character's morality, is because Miyazaki isn't interested in exploring the morality of war. His focus is on the dreamer's who just wanted to create airplanes so they could fly in the sky. The movie is a tragedy that ends in disaster for the protagonist, because he couldn't explore his dreams the way he wanted to. I think it goes without saying that the film is a reflection of Miyazaki's own career in animation. In a lot of ways he feels like he got to pursue his dream of expressing his art in the medium. But on the other hand, he isn't exactly thrilled with how animation has evolved - and how people have used the art form.
This comment needs more attention. There's a lot of people that are commenting on here that Jiro is a bad person, but I think that that's too simple of an observation. He just wanted to make airplanes. We didn't condemn the Wright Brothers for having the same dream. Humanity, for better or worse, is very complex, and unfortunately, the time period in which Jiro was living in, turned his dreams into something terrible.
howls moving castle makes allusions to the iraq war, and miyazaki makes a definitive statement on how much he disagrees with the war. he did that in a movie where war isnt even the focal point all all. and yet in a movie explicitly about the horrors of war, it's suddenly not about morality or making a statement? lol come on
also in a broader sense, i think people are too caught up with Jiro as an individual that they miss the point. Yes Jiro Benefits japans war efforts in ww2. But in a broader sense all human technological and cultural achievements eventually are twisted and used in war and towards our broader self destruction. Weather directly or indirectly our progress and ingenuity and passion as a species, in many ways the parts of us that are most admirable end up contributing to our collective suicide.
Fun fact! The release of _The Wind Rises_ caused a bit of a controversy in Japan. Not for depicting WWII, but for showing the characters constantly smoking!
It was a bit more complicated than that. The Japan's political left criticized it for the depictions of smoking. Japan's right criticized it for being left wing propaganda (Miyazaki had recently written an editorial arguing against amending the constitution to allow remilitarization) and being too anti-Japan.
Some people complain that the real-life Jiro was a non-smoker and that Miyazaki didn't portray him accurately. But the film itself is more of a historical fiction
There was no controversy regarding the release of The Wind Rises in Japan. And there are tons of Japanese films about WWII and the nuclear bombs. Anti-smoking group just criticized the smoking scene.
Nolan stated in an interview that the reason he didn't show the bombs going off was because he wanted the audience to be in the same position Oppenheimer, and the general public, were in at that time. Which was having been TOLD that the bomb worked, that it had caused mass destruction and casualties... but not being able to actually SEE those things.
@@debodatta7398... Except that is the exact point. We didn't share those photos for years. All we knew was that the bomb worked. The photos weren't shared for many years. We are supposed to experience it in real time, just like they did.
Yeah but isnt he the worlds best director? why did he never show the jappanese perspective? and i dont mean from the government, i mean from the THOUSANDS of victims, he could have found a way to show that without showing the bombs yet... doesnt?
@@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043 Because that is the point. If we layer hindsight into the project it changes the entire tone of the film. We already know what is going on. Oppenheimer didn't. If we show the suffering of the Japanese that he didn't know, it would have implied the man knew about all of the suffering. Everyone knows what happened in WW2. It doesn't need to be reiterated in the biopic of a physicist.
@@codybaker1150 No but like, he could still have included this at the end of the film or something, and just cause we know what is going on doesnt mean we have the full perspective or the feeling, and showing that actually does give it, and its nor related to the biopic of an ordirary physicist, but it is to the one who created nuclear bombs
I disagree with the conclusion of this essay. Despite the fact that the shortcomings of the protagonists aren’t fleshed out in detail, they’re still front and center in the plot. The stories are being told through the lens of the protagonist’s obsessions with their work, and thus it’s an intentional feature that we receive unreliable narration. The moral implications are apparent to the audience, and the lack of true focus on these things is meant to convey to us the protagonist’s lack of understanding towards the broader context of their lives and work. There’s a deeper more sinister message beneath that I think is very important, which is that the men who make great profound impacts on history are necessarily disconnected from the world around them. It’s a crazy notion that one person could change the world, and thus it’s usually crazy people that end up doing it.
In these two paragraphs, you managed to deliver more nuanced, insightful and less misleading analysis of both films than Nerdstaglic managed in their whole video. Very well said!
Something I also noticed in both this and the Once Upon A Time In Hollywood videos is that the narrator seems to suggest the directors' works are such clever reflections of themselves that they don't even realize it, for example that Tarantino thinks he's portraying an ideal friendship but it's really just a vessel for his own loneliness, or that Nolan and Miyazaki are both afraid to realize their protagonists were ultimately responsible for mass murder, despite the fact that they don't really try to hide it. They almost read like snarky backhanded compliments, which is why despite there being something interesting to talk about they leave me feeling weirded out and a little insulted.
I agree with you however I think the implications of the devices are explored much more effectively in the wind rises in the dream sequences. Combine this with the fact that Oppenheimers bomb is so infinitely more important it makes Oppenheimer fail in its morals, (in my eyes) it sort of just comes across as at best romanticising the nuclear bomb or at worst outright American propaganda with ZERO self awareness. Yes I understand the vague whiteout scenes and when he’s getting the applause might indicate some moral doubts but it’s never discussed except for once when the BAD GUYS say something like “ how does it feel to be responsible for 300,000 deaths.” AND HE IS in part
I think both Jiro and Oppenheimer are very complex characters in their own way, and it is unfair to judge them with the advantage of a posteriori knowledge. Jiro' took advantage or the war machine to fuel his dreams, he was very aware of how his creation was gonna be used and the results, but ultimately blamed the result on his leaders and tried to separate his creation from it. In his mind he just made a tool, and wasn't responsable of how that tool would be used. He is truly a tragic character. Oppenheimer was also in a position of creating the most destructive weapon ever made, and do it first to avoid his nation, his people, to suffer. He knew what his creation would unleash, but still proceeded knowing it was the best result. It is a very difficult position to be in, and it is hard to tell if he could have done better, specially when you realize what little power he really had in the end. We are not supposed to judge them or condone them, but to appreciate the complexity of their humanity.
Nah, Jiro's not a tragic character. Jiro's excuse was "just following orders" & "I make weapons...I will keep making them". It's like glorifying a nazi scientist. It's not unfair at all to say that sometimes the best option in his position was to look at what your government was doing and run away or protest, but instead he was selfish and tried to have it all.
@@protolanhan9824 u think Oppenheimer didn't? All we know from movie or books or the hearing is that he "supposedly" felt grief over it and theatrically presented to us but was the real person behind the face really all that or putting up a facade for the world theatre after being the progenitor for one of the biggest wmd made. Spectaclelization and idealisation of westerners in western media is a thing & truth is often simpler than fiction that is presented that doesn't necessarily mean the person was all that the media says he was.
@@protolanhan9824 just typing it here since would have been a edit in old one 😅 Not denying that Oppenheimer wasn't genuinely worried about the invention of Atomic Bomb but to some extent sceptical of it as to WHETHER if he was truly regretful of his actions since [ *westerners especially Americans and govt they elect* ]have plenty of crocodile tears for every human atrocity commited by other countries but secretly back them up by funding the same ppl as well as a WAR ECONOMY. it's not that surprising a inventor or creator would separate their creation from the misuse or consequence of it. So it's hardly a victim mentality that u are projecting it as. Since like Jiro , he was also a guy who gave a theory and obviously not happy with how it was used ( basing this on what is shown as Oppenheimer was as a man since we don't the know the real person behind the depiction)
Creo que es compleja la posición de estos creadores. Por una parte no los condenó, pues no creo que su intención era lastimar; aún así, no se puede negar que ellos no fueron obligados por nadie a actuar. Ellos decidieron. Eso implica asumir la responsabilidad. Creo que ambas películas son bellísimas pues se niegan a juzgar a sus protagonistas. Son personas con sueños grandes, pero malditos. Son personas condicionadas por la época en la que nacieron.
I think Nolan makes it very clear that the second half of Oppenheimer deals with how aware he is of the consequences and how he internalizes the weight of it, and also does confront his role as well the role of the other players in those consequences.
Yeah, I don’t agree with the point that the directors are scared to look too closely at themselves and their own impacts - I think that’s explicitly what both of those films are doing. Also, Jiro doesn’t “use the machine of war to explore his dreams”, it’s very clearly the other way around. Miyazaki is questioning the point/value of creation when everything inevitably feeds back into a system that hurts, oppresses, and kills people. He’s the one of the most cynical guys around, there’s no way he’s not aware of the impacts, positive and negative, that he and his work have on his employees, family, and media landscape as a whole. A lot of potential in this video, just wish it was taken a bit further and maybe looked at through a different lens.
Yeah I think people aren't great with nuance and aren't reading the film in concert with the rest of Miyazaki's work and philosophy. The film isn't just about a single person working in the japanese armaments industry - its about how every aspect of human creativity, every one of our best impulses, every one of our dreams and aspirations are twisted by civilization towards are own self-destruction, and more effectively killing each other in war, but also environmentally. Humans capacity for self destruction in war, isn't the result of just a few researchers at Raytheon, it wouldn't be possible without thousands of years of cumulative scientific development, most of which was done by researchers who weren't even working on anything remotely related to war directly. Nevertheless there work would be built off of to build weapons. there passion and ingenuity and insight and genuine desire to benefit the human race, would later be directed towards violent ends. I think the movie is about trying to capture that paradox, the tragedy of that contradiction. Its deeply cynical about civilization itself if you're paying attention, and if you've read some of his other statements, where he looks at a city and thinks about how peaceful it will be when humans have died off and its returned to nature.
I absolutely love the Wind Rises and it's immensely sad to see someone's passion and dreams ending up being exploited. It's a very pessimistic story told in a very positive way, like it's trying to protect itself from its own tragedy. It doesn't shrug it off, how we cope with such things is the core of the whole movie.
I don't agree with the conclusion you reached in this video at all. The reason the consequences were not directly shown in either movie is because the movies weren't about the consequences but rather, the conflict of an inventor inventing something he's passionate about, even when the inventions have disastrous consequences, and all the themes related to that. It was about the conflicts faced by these two people living out what they wanted to do. It's wrong to judge these movies based on what they were never meant to be. Also, I think each director is very aware of the consequences of their work. They just chose to focus on specifically what they wanted to explore. That's not a flaw of the movies, nor the directors. Also, quite a few of the points you made in this video are just straight up not true, twisted or misrepresented.
The father of Hayao Miyazaki was running the production of aircraft parts, his uncle owned the company, and the aircrafts made were used in WWII. No wonder how Miyazaki became obsessed with airplanes and how this story is so near to his heart. He is known for make his storytelling being about a lot of difficult themes, environmentalism, war and death, grief… I think he is impacted profoundly by what happened to the world in the past, how it shaped his life, our lives, and this story is more personal than Nolan’s Oppenheimer. That’s a big difference.
Also Miyazaki's mother suffered from spinal tuberculosis and spent the first few years in hospital before being nursed from home. So there's his inspiration for the sick mother character from My Neighbour Totoro and the sick wife from The Wind Rises. Almost every film by Miyazaki is autobiographical. In every movie he made, he put something from his life experiences.
Miyazaki didn't refuse to receive the Oscar for Spirired away due to the Iraq war for you to conclude that he's afraid to depict the horror of the war, he, a pacififist that made Princess Mononoke and howl moving castle
Another great underrated anime film on this same topic is “In this Corner of the World.” The story is told from the perspective of a native Hiroshima girl who moves out of her hometown for marriage. She isn’t involved in the war directly, but you get a beautiful sense of how the normal everyday life of a civilian was affected by the air raids, the types of jobs, and even losing family. It’s often overlooked in the West for being not from Ghibli, plus the source material it’s based on is controversially pro-Japanese. But a must-watch nonetheless for me!
A true work of art unquestionably... but these films hurt so deeply they almost leave me with a sense of true hopelessness about our world. It hurts to feel that way.
I was personally struck by Grave of the Fireflies on the personal effects of war. I've heard it the greatest movie you'll only watch once. It's so hard to get through.
You glossed over the moment in The Wind Rises, when the german/russian spy held a mirror to Jiro at the hotel where Jiro meets Naoko. "This is a good place for forgetting. It's like the magic mountain. Make a war in China, forget. Leave the league of nations, forget."
Both of them are masterpieces but for me Miyazaki managed to make something so deep and beautiful for the time that it deserves more than it got. It is truly a piece of art
The Wind Rises is a story is about the importance of passion in a fickle world. Jiro loves airplanes, and he loves Nahoko. While she's dying Nahoko leaves the sanitorium to find Jiro, to tell him that she loves him and to get married. She holds his hand and sleeps next to him as he works on his final design, and she slips away while he's testing it and dies alone, because she refuses to drag his love for airplanes down with her. Jiro loved airplanes, and in that passion he succeeded. He loved Nahoko, and in that passion he failed. But what's important is that when the wind rose, he tried to live.
Exactly it's really not that complicated and is not specifically talking about war. Personally out of all Miyazaki films's this is the most down to earth.
I think it's not just about his feelings, but more about the consequences of it and lack of its scrutiny...... And not just of him making Nukes, but of his personal life as well
The similarities are honestly uncanny, both historical biopics, both about geniuses whose passions were co-opted by the military to build weapons of mass destruction, both made by highly acclaimed and respected auteur writer-directors, and both featuring Emily Blunt playing the main character's wife
I feel that Nolan’s not using any depictions of actual war conflict helps to centralize the narrative onto oppenheimer himself, sort of an “if he wasn’t a relevant part or wasn’t there in the first place, why show it?”. This shows with the confirmation hearing, almost in the first few scenes: “If they ask about him-“ “WHEN they ask, answer them honestly.” Even though Oppenheimer isn’t there, he’s critical to that plot thread.
Nolan also stated in an interview that he didn't show the bombs going off was because he wanted the audience to experience it the same way the people did then: not being able to witness it, only hearing later that it worked and the devastation it caused. we see carnage in movies all the time, but usually as basically violence porn meant to rile up the audience, something we've trained ourselves to enjoy as flashy and fun and desensitize us to what it really means. so instead, we see the experience of making a thing, sending it off, and hearing about the aftermath. without the "fun" gratuitous visuals the audience is forced to focus on what is actually important, so the weight of it is fully understood.
I wonder if the same conclusions about The Wind Rises can be come to from the Japanese script. I've only seen the Japanese, and I didn't check all the lines, but the part shown at 6:35 is totally different. The English script seems to make it play out as he's committed to her but his work takes precedence and it's ultimately a gulf between them. The Japanese script makes it play out more like he's keeping close to her by bringing her closer to him when he works, like she's getting to be a part of it, deepening their bond.
I also didn't understand this part of the video, I'm Brazilian and the version we received in this scene is the same as the one from Japan, that he is including her in his project, staying close to her, making the bond between them stronger. It seems that in this English version, Jiro's dream is a problem for both of them, and in fact this scene was about the support that Nahoko gave to Jiro, and how Jiro included her in his dreams...
interesting, all these comments are starting to make me wonder if it's an american cultural thing embedded in the script translator for the EN version assuming that work is going to divide a couple
It's not one of Miyazaki's better movies. Way too interested in one character, not enough on themes, and not as creative as his usual fare. Plus, he takes a lot of liberties with history.
@@Aristocles22Same way you could say Howl's Moving Castle takes a lot of liberties with its source material. I consider Wind Rises to be more like his magnum opus, especially since it was _supposed_ to be his last hurrah before retiring.
@@n8pls543 I've seen it. Not really that good. Pacing isn't good. And unlike taking liberties with a book, he's taking liberties with actual history, which is much worse.
Miyazaki grow up during the world war II, almost all of his films are revolving around that. The man may not witness the horror of war himself, but all the things that happened around his life at that time is carved into his memory and now immortalized in his films.
Rather then the directors connecting with the characters and wanting to portray their obsession and regard for personal connections and consequences, I think that at least The Wind Rises is a form of catharsis for Hayao Miyazaki. Especially during the moments when Jiro and Naoko are present, these moments show the direct affect of Jiro's obsession over his personal life, and I think this is a form of self reflection for hayao Miyazaki on his relationship with his mother. With Nolan I think it is less personal and more about how his movies affect the industry, how Nolan has sacrificed for some of his movies which have not been received well. The lack of concern for the reception due to some reason could be the self reflection of Nolan in Oppenheimer? IDk if this fits that well but it is a possible alternative perspective.
I think the other studio ghibli “Grave of the Firefly” would be a great contrast to “OppenHeimer” just showing perspectives of the winning and losing sides
Couple of day ago, i was thinking of these same two movies and how they are both masterfully made without necessarily taking sides and how they portray their protagonists. One is heartbreaking and the other left me terrified about the real world
Eh, while one can definitely see obsessive elements in Oppenheimer, the more central message of the film was how the nuclear arms race began the moment the atom was split, and the inevitability of the chain reaction that would follow. After all, Oppenheimer's mission statement that is repeated frequently throughout the film is "If we don't build the bomb, someone [the Nazis] will." At one point, Oppenheimer and Einstein talk about the theoretical possibility that using a nuclear bomb would ignite the atmosphere and kill all life on Earth in a cataclysmic chain reaction, but the ending of the film drives home the point that this chain reaction is in fact a metaphorical one, born out of humanity's ever escalating drive to annihilate one's enemies and rivals (and the subplot with Lewis Strauss is how that desire to destroy a rival plays out in the political battlefield to the point of murdering whatever spirit Oppenheimer had left). In a very grim and sobering fashion, it portrays the arms race as inevitable, and Oppenheimer as a man who brought about a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oppenheimer's obsession in making the bomb really only serves to underscore his eventual shame at making a nightmare into reality.
Your interpretation makes sense, but considering the context of conversation between two scientists right before the final scene, I think Nolan's intention for that last scene is more about downfall of OP more than something about humanity
The Nazis were never going to build the bomb. They were so far behind, it was not possible before they lost the war. This disinformation campaign only exists to make us feel better for doing it ourselves, and is fallacious thinking. Truth is, would the bomb have been invented if we hadn't have done it? Probably not! The resources required are so vast, only a handful of nations were capable of it, and it truly is impossible to hide. Any of the handful of nations capable could easily have been made to stop.
My thoughts exactly. The only thing I could think about while watching Oppenheimer was The Wind Rises, and how two characters' passions turned into weapons capable of destruction. It's absolutely brilliant.
The point of both characters being obssessed is a great point. However, the point afterwards, where the characters ultimately don't understand the devastation their work has caused isn't right. Both characters understand full well. Oppenheimer realizes it after he's already built the bomb, which is why he becomes so adamant that no one else should be able to use that power. Jiro, throughout the film, struggles with the fact that his planes are going to be used for war. It's essentially what he and Caproni talk about in Jiro's dreams.
Jiro also show he know what his creation usage with Honjo before Zero first testing, which he reply "We aren't arms dealer, just someone who want to make planes."
I would say the best companion piece for Oppenheimer would be the 90'd animated film Grave of the Fireflies. One of my biggest issues with Oppenheimer is how it "others" the Japanese people by leaving them out of the story, so Grave of the Fireflies would be good to watch to understand not nessecaruly the effects of the nuclear attacks but the overall effects on the people of Japan during that time period.
I thought of Grave of the Fireflies too. I heard they made a second too which continued on the story to show that the war doesn't end just because the fighting stopps, but that the aftereffects continue on with rebuilding of the area, further food struggles, and more.
What about Empire of the Sun? one of my favorite Spielberg movies (and the one that made me a Chirs Bale fan), remember that nuclear bomb scene? they never show it, just the effects of it in the sky, with such an innocence from the protagonist's POV.
Admitting that what they were creating would be weapons of terrible destruction and reckoning them with that would force them to stop creating which as obsessive creators can't do so they ignore the moral issue and keep on creating. I think its rather telling that its only after Oppenheimer makes the bomb and is basically let with him that he begins to admit what evil he's unleashed on the world.
He didnt really. He made a thing persued a science it was those that fancied themselves leaders making the moral mistakes. We mention the catch 22 of the system.seemingly only when wete personally caught in it. Someone achieves something in that same condition and suddenly the guilt of the system gets shifted to them. I dont think jiro or oppy here had much of a choice. And as an american i always did like that lil plane actually there was a full zero at the small private airport my trade school sat next too. I saw it lift and spin. Its time of death lond sense past its true beauty finally allowed in the open. Oppy in hindsight was another scientist that helped us make nuke energy some of the safer energy to produce. Time has eroded their personal sins but the blood is still on the states hands. And thats still all the government seems to do.
@@36inc They are literally created to serve the interests of the nation. Its impossible for a government to not have blood, because other governments seek the same thing; sometimes far worse even. If the US didn't get the bomb, then the N@zis would have; and they would've used it to perpetuate an infinitely worse world than the alternative. Its understandable why Oppenheimer felt as he did, but ultimately his actions were massively beneficial for the human race.
The thing I love about these two movies is that there is enough information and ambiguity about the main characters that we can talk about them, their intentions, and their desires all day. These aren't direct biographies but they're based on real people. And real people are never completely good or completely bad. They're complex and their actions are made from layers of their desires, influences, and life happening around them. It's been pretty cool reading everyone's thoughts in the comments.
I remember having a discussion with my friends about Oppenheimer movie, and I don't remember how but we ended up talking about The Wind Rises. Ended up with the thought experiment how The Wind Rises would have felt like if Nolan made a live action of it
The beauty in each of those stories is that their goal was not to provide the instrument of destruction. It was their will to see the “obsession” become reality.
I think the statement that 'Miyazaki doesn't explore the relativism of morality in war because he is somehow afraid of what that would reflect of himself' falls short when he has made so many movies exploring war; although the protagonist and their stories are similar in both 'Oppenheimer' and 'the wind rises', I don't think it's fair to limit the artistic intentions of Miyazaki regarding war by just analyzing one of the many movies that explore in multiple ways and from multiple POVs the meaning and our relation to conflict. And I think it's important to state this because this essay doesn't limit itself in exploring only these films but also each director, and in that case and analysis of their filmography become relevant to understand what they truly think about the topic.
im glad im not the only one who walked out of oppenheimer seeing its similarities with the wind rises! these two movies have become my all-time favorites
It's so crazy I went to go see both of these movies the same day and had no ideas what The wind rises was even about. I watched that first then during Oppenheimer I kind of freaked thinking about how these 2 movies share so much
I knew that after watching Oppenheimer, The Wind Rises popped into my head because of how similar they are: both protagonists are fascinated with their own interests, to the point their dreams are used for war and destruction.
I have an obsession with marine biology and I can confirm that it drives you to the point past moral boundaries. The want to complete the things I strive for is driving in a way that is uncontrollable
I was quite glad that Nolan didn't show the destruction on screen--instead, we get character reactions to it and I think that does an excellent job of depicting the horror without parading real tragedy for spectacle. This felt like a far more respectful way to deal with the consequences of Oppenheimer's work. It keeps the narrative centralized and doesn't use images of the Japanese' graves as a plot device. I know the lack of the iconic mushroom cloud in the film is due to Nolan's desire for practical effects, but I think it also creates another layer of detachment from reality that keeps the real-life devastation from becoming entertainment.
Yes, pretty much, we enjoy the masterworks of great creators like these, but they are typically the result of them leaving their families completely aside and forcing their workforce to crunch like crazy. Mononoke is my favorite movie of all time, but I know it took a lot of people's health, physical and mental, to finish and, at least, one person's life, 😶
Seems to be a Japanese issue in the film industry. Effects people or probably other people involved in creating these movies have to work like dogs with little pay and that isn't healthy. Japanese work ethics seem to be very strict. For a long time, it has been like this: You watch any media, you praise Leonardo DiCaprio or Christopher Nolan or Taylor Swift. Yes, talented people that draw in masses. Yet without the many "little" people, they could do nothing and they wouldn't be succesful. You only see Miyazaki and say: Wow, Miyasaki is so amazing. True but why does the head get all the credit and money and respect, while the body gets paid little and almost nobody cares about the drawers, the special FX people, the costume designers, the set decorators etc.? And we people of the Western World enjoy products made in poor contries under "questionable" conditions. I seem to be spotting a pattern. Hollywood/Music industry in a sense aren't much better. The money goes to the studios and a few selected actors or singers get paid millions, while the majority of actors have to constantly look out for new paying jobs and most musicians don't get enough money to survive. So in short: Even the media industry follows the pyramid of few rich people and a lot of little people paying the price.
@@jmoneychowmang3513 Yeah, and sometimes their children have opinion about his movies, Harry Styles was casted in Dunkirk because one of Nolan's daughter saw him in audition (Nolan didn't knew anything about the guy), or the fact that one of Nolan's daughter appears in the imaginary nightmare scene in Oppenheimer.
Obsession is a doubled edged sword, capable of both immaculate wonders and horrid realties. Even though both characters started off their journeys with independent ideals and interests, it goes to show you how one’s obsession is abused to a point that it isn’t unforeseeable but more neglected. It’s there, those horrid realities, but restraint gets in the way of the plausible. What one man can achieve, the thought is interesting but the obsession is intoxicating to a point where it becomes too late to halt the advance. It’s a strange human flaw, it can’t be helped in some instances. The ability to do something no one has witnessed before and what it holds for the future, that strive for progress, the goal of achieving that dream. It truly is damning but without such obsession, where would humanity be today. Perhaps better, maybe even far worse.
I'll just say that I love this video and think it sums up almost every contention I'd had with Oppenheimer perfectly, and I, honestly, have a lot to say about the criticisms levied against it lol. before I start can I just say that war really isn't, no matter how relevant or paramount someone's place in it was, an isolated experience?? when showing war it is really really so important to do so from all perspectives involved in and affected by it. especially a war so consequential and powerful and REAL as world war 2. oppenheimer's internal conflicts and musings do not hold a candle to the lived incidence of children being incinerated where they sat and becoming nothing more than mere shadow on concrete, even if the story you're telling is through Oppenheimer's exclusive lens; as a general, universal story-telling rule of thumb. let me elaborate: Oppenheimer's life would've been given so much more meaning and his perspectives so much more substance if we could've seen the tangible, legible effects of his actions. The reason why Thanos makes for such a compelling and sympathetic villain is because even though we (and this is important) live in the marvel world of superheroes and superpowers on the verge of being purged and decimated, we are still dragged and forced to see his actions and their consequences through his perspective. we see the pain in his purple-cg eyes as he dangles the only one he truly loves in this entire world (gamora) and sacrifices her to serve his larger, more prominent goal that he believes is monumental and absolutely necessary. after seeing him massacre half of an entire population and kill and maim some of our beloved protagonists, we can still muster sympathy for him and understand his side of the story and his actions as he himself seems a puppet to his grandiose, non-sensical yet irresistible ideas and vision for rescuing, saving this universe. he is miserable, being tied to his self-imposed role as the savior of the universe and its people, alone and burdened on his quest, and so we are still awed by him, despite his grave and insidious actions actively hurting our protagonists and destroying our worlds. do you really think this kind of a connection would've really been possible had we not gotten to see either sides of the story? the movies are obviously all for the protagonists' pov and unanimously support and shadow their actions and decisions, and yet this tiny yet profound glimpse into the antagonists' mind and life was so insightful and, honestly, only further cemented our understanding of exactly why Thanos' goals were asinine and pointless in the first place- that where he was coming from did not justify what he was trying to do, lending further credibility to our heroes. Oppenheimer had been to Japan. He'd gone to tokyo for a few days for some academic event i think. he'd been bombarded by their press with questions regrading his involvement in the creation of the bomb, his guilt over its human toll and several others that he quickly dodged and did not answer. he was also met with kindness and understanding by the same people his creations had foiled: they didn't hold him accountable and contended that he was merely a scientist employed by his government to create something that's use was beyond his will or control. these could've been shown. his interaction with victims of the bombings. survivors. that could've been shown. anything that could've stoked our empathy and broadened the audience's perspective- that could've shown us what the other side looked like. that would've forced us to contend with Oppenheimer's narrow and limited perspective, and the vision we were missing. this has something to do with worldbuilding- about how developed and formed oppenheimer's surroundings in the movie really were. japan wasn't some isolated, disconnected incident, not just some cruel statistic or number on a paper. not just some slideshow. it is soo important in storytelling to realize exactly how interconnected and intersected everything actually is, especially when talking about something like a fricking war, and really highlighting exactly how (even subtextually- that's not a real word :)) every action had widespread, unintentional consequences and their exact causes. 19th century america was very racist even towards jews, and if not racism against himself (which is important context to keep in mind when talking about the bomb- germany was actively persecuting germans and oppenheimer and many of his fellow scientists on the manhattan project were themselves jew) it's kinda surprising how oppenheimer never come across any racism against even the japanese especially after the pearl harbour. he may not have cared enough about politics to actually have internalized this discrimination, but adding it even as something a fellow scientist or colleague of his had said could've given so much nuance to the world he was in and how irrevocably detached he was from it, and him as a person. parasite is a great example of this- the lady shopping and chatting about the rain when it had literally drowned the protagonist's home and displaced the entirety of his family really makes a jarring, honest point about the disconnect between the different classes. (and a poignant statement on the absurdities of class and privilige- but a poignant point was probably not what the movie intended to convey anyway so for this comment i digress-- also go watch parasite it's amazing
Im so happy you made this comparison. When I watched Oppenheimer, I couldnt help but feel that some of its sentiments were shared with The Wind Rises. "Airplanes are beautiful, cursed dreams" and all
The mention of an obsession that ignores the resulting consequences, reminds me of how Tom Lehrer musically skewered Wernher von Braun: "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun"
It’s genuinely so frustrating to see someone so completely misinterpret the intentions of both film makers, you spend 8 minutes criticizing the directors for telling the stories THEY wanted to tell instead of making the movie YOU wanted them to make.
There is also another interesting and wonderful movie named « in this corner of this world » Where we have the point of view of Suzu, a young woman that lived in hiroshima. But she get married and have to move to the city of her step family. And we see the stress and odd way they live, having to go to the black market to buy sugar as an exemple. But the scene that is interesting is where Suzu is homesick and she is going to go back to Hiroshima, but then there is a flash, then a Wilde wind. She then go to see her family later on. Her mom is gone missing, and her sister as spots on her arm. I think this movie is a great parallel with the Oppenheimer movie, in a way. We do see the « consequences of his achievement » That there is no winner. Everyone lost something in a war, a conflict. I don’t know what eles to ad Exept that you should watch this movie.
Bruh, literally right now I watched Oppenheimer in cinema last July I just literally went to Ghibli Servers and wrote a long essay about How similiar Oppenheimer to Wind Rises.
It would be interesting to see a biopic on Wernher von Braun, who was involved in the development of the V2 rocket that caused destruction during World War II, but later played a key role in the development of the Saturn rocket that helped humanity land on the moon.
Oh no! The biopic film that doesnt judge the protagonist it just depicts their life from their perapective. How shocking! How inept! How can the audience be expected to wrestle with the morality and deep significance of these characters if we dont tell them how to feel? This sounded like a high schooler who audited his first class on film.
The wind rises and Oppenheimer are at opposite ends of WW2 the Mitsubishi Zero brought the US into WW2 when it was mostly neutral , Oppenheimer and the bomb ended the war in the pacific Imperial Japan had no plans of surrendering even after both bombs were dropped and Emperor Hiro Hito accepted the Potsdam Declaration part of the army tried to over throw the government to continue fighting
When Mr. Caproni says "That’s what it means to lose a war"(netflix subtitles), it's actually closer to "that’s what it means to destroy your country" Kinda sad 国を滅ぼしたんだからな got translated wrong because it's a really heavy line
I appreciate the comparison but I think you missed some of the more subtle notes of Jiro’s struggle with the end goal of the war. In conversations with his friend and colleague (whose name escapes me) they spend time lamenting Japan’s poverty and unemployment rate, and are very self-aware of sense of responsibility their rare/unique skill sets force them to hold on behalf of their country. There’s immense pressure on Jiro to produce and work, and his cherished time with Naoko often came with a cost-slipping away from work for love. Naoko’s character and family understood this. I’d also say that Miyazaki’s general fascination with flight is apparent across all his films, and even Howl’s Moving Castle offers his own subtle commentary on the futility of war. I appreciate the attempt of this essay, but I think you missed critical nuance of Jiro’s character.
I am with both the directors for not going into the moral side of things. Morality is not a simple thing to deal with because of its subjective nature. People can debate all day long and still arrive at some sort of deadlock when dealing with morality. So it is wise to leave it out.
It might be worth mentioning that the romantic relationship between Jiro and Naoko in "The Wind Rises" comes from a very different source material. That half is inspired by the novel "The Wind Rises" written by Tatsuo Hori. The overarching theme that Miyazaki likes to include in a lot of his movies is the drive to continue living, despite all of the setbacks, hardship, and tragedy one may face in their lifetime (so much so, that the Japanese slogan for this movie is "Must Live.", simple as that), and that theme can be more closely tied back to Hori's novel than to Jiro's life.
Another Nolan film with a similar concept from an anime made by a Japanese Master director. (Satoshi Kon’s Paprika-Inception, Miyazaki’s The Wind Rises-Oppenheimer) Next time Nolan, I want a similar concept from Masaaki Yuasa’s films. That’ll fun to see :)
The difference between these two characters is one is the artist and the other is the scientist. Hiro is guilt ridden because of the knowledge that he has that all his planes are going to be instruments of war somewhat like the corruption of his dream and Oppenheimer is guilt ridden because he understands the consequences and responsibility he has in the murder of thousands of people which he justifies by doing it for his country. Wind rises focuses a lot more on the character and Oppenheimer focuses more on the morality of his actions on the world overall I would recommend both movies though I think wind rises is much more interesting.
"Even if the ship you've made could hurt somebody, even if it could bring ruin to the world... Its only parent must give it love. You mustn't deny that which you've created. The ship isn't to blame. When a man's made a ship, he makes it a part of himself with a DON!" - a ship right
It feels like the author of this piece believes that it is not possible to pursue the development of weapons and genuinely believe that it is a correct decision. Not only must the men who pursue this be blind to the outcomes, but even the men who direct films about them must also have similar blindness if their films do not unambiguously adopt this morality. In fact, many moral men have developed weapons systems with open eyes and a genuine belief that they were doing the right thing. A biopic that presents a morality that lies closer to that of the individuals depicted than that of the audience is an unquestionably good thing. If that makes you uncomfortable... isn't that the point? We don't depend on works of art to illuminate values that we already have. We look to them to show us things in new and different ways.
To add to the layers of complexity, there is still a heavy social stigma around discussing Japan’s role in the Second World War and the consequences of its actions during the conflict such as carpet bombing of major Chinese cities in the 30s, which is depicted in the Miyazaki. Similar to how Americans now are beginning to grapple with the consequences of our involvement in international conflicts, Japan still has people who refuse to believe Japan was in the wrong for what it did, and Miyazaki portraying a famous member of the Empire in a bad light could be consequential for the success of the film and his studio.
Great to see Tom Conti here. Have thought of Reuben Reuben a bit in the last little while. The Wind Rises is a masterpiece. I haven’t seen Oppenheimer - i'm sure its good
İf i am not wrong miyazaki's father was a plane mechanic in ww2 and afterwards and he grew up in hangars helping his father so there might be some parental influence there too
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
After watching Oppenheimer in theaters, I've basically made it a requirement to show both of these movies to people who have seen neither. They work so well together.
So Oppenheimer is worth a watch? I'm thinking about seeing it but i'm not sure.
@@ThwipThwipBoom Very much. It will feel like a drag for about 20 minute after the nukes get dropped, but it will pick right back up. All star cast, well made in every way, great story.
What about the Barbie movie? It's easily better than both.
@@ThwipThwipBoommaybe, but it's very overrated imo
@@weiminnThat’s subjective.
I personally like Oppenheimer way more than Barbie.
The Wind Rises is about the world's corruption of peoples dreams, and man's inability to walk away from pursuing their dreams regardless of this corruption. The reason the film doesn't explore the character's morality, is because Miyazaki isn't interested in exploring the morality of war. His focus is on the dreamer's who just wanted to create airplanes so they could fly in the sky. The movie is a tragedy that ends in disaster for the protagonist, because he couldn't explore his dreams the way he wanted to.
I think it goes without saying that the film is a reflection of Miyazaki's own career in animation. In a lot of ways he feels like he got to pursue his dream of expressing his art in the medium. But on the other hand, he isn't exactly thrilled with how animation has evolved - and how people have used the art form.
This comment needs more attention. There's a lot of people that are commenting on here that Jiro is a bad person, but I think that that's too simple of an observation. He just wanted to make airplanes. We didn't condemn the Wright Brothers for having the same dream. Humanity, for better or worse, is very complex, and unfortunately, the time period in which Jiro was living in, turned his dreams into something terrible.
howls moving castle makes allusions to the iraq war, and miyazaki makes a definitive statement on how much he disagrees with the war. he did that in a movie where war isnt even the focal point all all. and yet in a movie explicitly about the horrors of war, it's suddenly not about morality or making a statement? lol come on
also in a broader sense, i think people are too caught up with Jiro as an individual that they miss the point. Yes Jiro Benefits japans war efforts in ww2. But in a broader sense all human technological and cultural achievements eventually are twisted and used in war and towards our broader self destruction. Weather directly or indirectly our progress and ingenuity and passion as a species, in many ways the parts of us that are most admirable end up contributing to our collective suicide.
its done in a very basic & shallow way
TL;DR "Anime Was a Mistake: The Movie"
Fun Fact: Emily Blunt played the wife of J. Robert Oppenheimer (Katherine) and voiced the wife of Jiro Horikoshi (Nahoko)
Now THAT is pretty cool (I just had to search Google to confirm).
i think not! @@ang.elicaril
That’s cool!
Such coincidence
Funny coincidence isn't it
Nolan handled it through his love for physics. Miyazaki through his love of flying.
true
True aswell 👍👍👍
Well both of them are kind of physics but yeah.
But there is little to no depiction of Physics in Nolan’s Oppenheimer.
It’s more focussed on socio-political events from Mr. Robert’s perspective.
True
Fun fact! The release of _The Wind Rises_ caused a bit of a controversy in Japan. Not for depicting WWII, but for showing the characters constantly smoking!
🤣🤣 Was it because it's unappropriate for kids to watch?
Well the real person it represented DID SMOKE..... A LOT.
It was a bit more complicated than that. The Japan's political left criticized it for the depictions of smoking. Japan's right criticized it for being left wing propaganda (Miyazaki had recently written an editorial arguing against amending the constitution to allow remilitarization) and being too anti-Japan.
Some people complain that the real-life Jiro was a non-smoker and that Miyazaki didn't portray him accurately. But the film itself is more of a historical fiction
There was no controversy regarding the release of The Wind Rises in Japan. And there are tons of Japanese films about WWII and the nuclear bombs. Anti-smoking group just criticized the smoking scene.
Nolan stated in an interview that the reason he didn't show the bombs going off was because he wanted the audience to be in the same position Oppenheimer, and the general public, were in at that time. Which was having been TOLD that the bomb worked, that it had caused mass destruction and casualties... but not being able to actually SEE those things.
The problem is they took photos of the bombing drops and nuke clouds of both events, so they easily could have even shown those at least
@@debodatta7398... Except that is the exact point. We didn't share those photos for years. All we knew was that the bomb worked. The photos weren't shared for many years. We are supposed to experience it in real time, just like they did.
Yeah but isnt he the worlds best director? why did he never show the jappanese perspective? and i dont mean from the government, i mean from the THOUSANDS of victims, he could have found a way to show that without showing the bombs yet... doesnt?
@@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043 Because that is the point. If we layer hindsight into the project it changes the entire tone of the film. We already know what is going on. Oppenheimer didn't. If we show the suffering of the Japanese that he didn't know, it would have implied the man knew about all of the suffering. Everyone knows what happened in WW2. It doesn't need to be reiterated in the biopic of a physicist.
@@codybaker1150 No but like, he could still have included this at the end of the film or something, and just cause we know what is going on doesnt mean we have the full perspective or the feeling, and showing that actually does give it, and its nor related to the biopic of an ordirary physicist, but it is to the one who created nuclear bombs
I disagree with the conclusion of this essay. Despite the fact that the shortcomings of the protagonists aren’t fleshed out in detail, they’re still front and center in the plot. The stories are being told through the lens of the protagonist’s obsessions with their work, and thus it’s an intentional feature that we receive unreliable narration. The moral implications are apparent to the audience, and the lack of true focus on these things is meant to convey to us the protagonist’s lack of understanding towards the broader context of their lives and work.
There’s a deeper more sinister message beneath that I think is very important, which is that the men who make great profound impacts on history are necessarily disconnected from the world around them. It’s a crazy notion that one person could change the world, and thus it’s usually crazy people that end up doing it.
In these two paragraphs, you managed to deliver more nuanced, insightful and less misleading analysis of both films than Nerdstaglic managed in their whole video. Very well said!
Something I also noticed in both this and the Once Upon A Time In Hollywood videos is that the narrator seems to suggest the directors' works are such clever reflections of themselves that they don't even realize it, for example that Tarantino thinks he's portraying an ideal friendship but it's really just a vessel for his own loneliness, or that Nolan and Miyazaki are both afraid to realize their protagonists were ultimately responsible for mass murder, despite the fact that they don't really try to hide it. They almost read like snarky backhanded compliments, which is why despite there being something interesting to talk about they leave me feeling weirded out and a little insulted.
This comment needs more attention.
What an a amazing comment well done
I agree with you however I think the implications of the devices are explored much more effectively in the wind rises in the dream sequences. Combine this with the fact that Oppenheimers bomb is so infinitely more important it makes Oppenheimer fail in its morals, (in my eyes) it sort of just comes across as at best romanticising the nuclear bomb or at worst outright American propaganda with ZERO self awareness. Yes I understand the vague whiteout scenes and when he’s getting the applause might indicate some moral doubts but it’s never discussed except for once when the BAD GUYS say something like “ how does it feel to be responsible for 300,000 deaths.” AND HE IS in part
I think both Jiro and Oppenheimer are very complex characters in their own way, and it is unfair to judge them with the advantage of a posteriori knowledge.
Jiro' took advantage or the war machine to fuel his dreams, he was very aware of how his creation was gonna be used and the results, but ultimately blamed the result on his leaders and tried to separate his creation from it. In his mind he just made a tool, and wasn't responsable of how that tool would be used. He is truly a tragic character.
Oppenheimer was also in a position of creating the most destructive weapon ever made, and do it first to avoid his nation, his people, to suffer. He knew what his creation would unleash, but still proceeded knowing it was the best result. It is a very difficult position to be in, and it is hard to tell if he could have done better, specially when you realize what little power he really had in the end.
We are not supposed to judge them or condone them, but to appreciate the complexity of their humanity.
Well said!
Nah, Jiro's not a tragic character. Jiro's excuse was "just following orders" & "I make weapons...I will keep making them".
It's like glorifying a nazi scientist. It's not unfair at all to say that sometimes the best option in his position was to look at what your government was doing and run away or protest, but instead he was selfish and tried to have it all.
@@protolanhan9824 u think Oppenheimer didn't? All we know from movie or books or the hearing is that he "supposedly" felt grief over it and theatrically presented to us but was the real person behind the face really all that or putting up a facade for the world theatre after being the progenitor for one of the biggest wmd made.
Spectaclelization and idealisation of westerners in western media is a thing & truth is often simpler than fiction that is presented that doesn't necessarily mean the person was all that the media says he was.
@@protolanhan9824 just typing it here since would have been a edit in old one 😅
Not denying that Oppenheimer wasn't genuinely worried about the invention of Atomic Bomb but to some extent sceptical of it as to WHETHER if he was truly regretful of his actions since [ *westerners especially Americans and govt they elect* ]have plenty of crocodile tears for every human atrocity commited by other countries but secretly back them up by funding the same ppl as well as a WAR ECONOMY.
it's not that surprising a inventor or creator would separate their creation from the misuse or consequence of it.
So it's hardly a victim mentality that u are projecting it as.
Since like Jiro , he was also a guy who gave a theory and obviously not happy with how it was used ( basing this on what is shown as Oppenheimer was as a man since we don't the know the real person behind the depiction)
Creo que es compleja la posición de estos creadores. Por una parte no los condenó, pues no creo que su intención era lastimar; aún así, no se puede negar que ellos no fueron obligados por nadie a actuar. Ellos decidieron. Eso implica asumir la responsabilidad.
Creo que ambas películas son bellísimas pues se niegan a juzgar a sus protagonistas. Son personas con sueños grandes, pero malditos. Son personas condicionadas por la época en la que nacieron.
I think Nolan makes it very clear that the second half of Oppenheimer deals with how aware he is of the consequences and how he internalizes the weight of it, and also does confront his role as well the role of the other players in those consequences.
Yeah, I don’t agree with the point that the directors are scared to look too closely at themselves and their own impacts - I think that’s explicitly what both of those films are doing. Also, Jiro doesn’t “use the machine of war to explore his dreams”, it’s very clearly the other way around. Miyazaki is questioning the point/value of creation when everything inevitably feeds back into a system that hurts, oppresses, and kills people. He’s the one of the most cynical guys around, there’s no way he’s not aware of the impacts, positive and negative, that he and his work have on his employees, family, and media landscape as a whole.
A lot of potential in this video, just wish it was taken a bit further and maybe looked at through a different lens.
Yeah I think people aren't great with nuance and aren't reading the film in concert with the rest of Miyazaki's work and philosophy.
The film isn't just about a single person working in the japanese armaments industry - its about how every aspect of human creativity, every one of our best impulses, every one of our dreams and aspirations are twisted by civilization towards are own self-destruction, and more effectively killing each other in war, but also environmentally.
Humans capacity for self destruction in war, isn't the result of just a few researchers at Raytheon, it wouldn't be possible without thousands of years of cumulative scientific development, most of which was done by researchers who weren't even working on anything remotely related to war directly. Nevertheless there work would be built off of to build weapons.
there passion and ingenuity and insight and genuine desire to benefit the human race, would later be directed towards violent ends. I think the movie is about trying to capture that paradox, the tragedy of that contradiction.
Its deeply cynical about civilization itself if you're paying attention, and if you've read some of his other statements, where he looks at a city and thinks about how peaceful it will be when humans have died off and its returned to nature.
I absolutely love the Wind Rises and it's immensely sad to see someone's passion and dreams ending up being exploited.
It's a very pessimistic story told in a very positive way, like it's trying to protect itself from its own tragedy. It doesn't shrug it off, how we cope with such things is the core of the whole movie.
I don't agree with the conclusion you reached in this video at all. The reason the consequences were not directly shown in either movie is because the movies weren't about the consequences but rather, the conflict of an inventor inventing something he's passionate about, even when the inventions have disastrous consequences, and all the themes related to that. It was about the conflicts faced by these two people living out what they wanted to do. It's wrong to judge these movies based on what they were never meant to be.
Also, I think each director is very aware of the consequences of their work. They just chose to focus on specifically what they wanted to explore. That's not a flaw of the movies, nor the directors.
Also, quite a few of the points you made in this video are just straight up not true, twisted or misrepresented.
The father of Hayao Miyazaki was running the production of aircraft parts, his uncle owned the company, and the aircrafts made were used in WWII. No wonder how Miyazaki became obsessed with airplanes and how this story is so near to his heart. He is known for make his storytelling being about a lot of difficult themes, environmentalism, war and death, grief… I think he is impacted profoundly by what happened to the world in the past, how it shaped his life, our lives, and this story is more personal than Nolan’s Oppenheimer. That’s a big difference.
I am glad someone said it! Its literally spelled out in the documentary 'Kingdoms of Dreams and Madness'
Also Miyazaki's mother suffered from spinal tuberculosis and spent the first few years in hospital before being nursed from home. So there's his inspiration for the sick mother character from My Neighbour Totoro and the sick wife from The Wind Rises. Almost every film by Miyazaki is autobiographical. In every movie he made, he put something from his life experiences.
Miyazaki didn't refuse to receive the Oscar for Spirired away due to the Iraq war for you to conclude that he's afraid to depict the horror of the war, he, a pacififist that made Princess Mononoke and howl moving castle
Another great underrated anime film on this same topic is “In this Corner of the World.” The story is told from the perspective of a native Hiroshima girl who moves out of her hometown for marriage.
She isn’t involved in the war directly, but you get a beautiful sense of how the normal everyday life of a civilian was affected by the air raids, the types of jobs, and even losing family. It’s often overlooked in the West for being not from Ghibli, plus the source material it’s based on is controversially pro-Japanese. But a must-watch nonetheless for me!
in the corner of the world is so good. one of MAPPA’s best movie
That movie made me cry it's such a good movie
I remember it when it was premiered at AX.
A true work of art unquestionably... but these films hurt so deeply they almost leave me with a sense of true hopelessness about our world. It hurts to feel that way.
I was personally struck by Grave of the Fireflies on the personal effects of war. I've heard it the greatest movie you'll only watch once. It's so hard to get through.
You glossed over the moment in The Wind Rises, when the german/russian spy held a mirror to Jiro at the hotel where Jiro meets Naoko. "This is a good place for forgetting. It's like the magic mountain. Make a war in China, forget. Leave the league of nations, forget."
I think he was meant to be a Jewish man cause he already called out Germany and the regime there
@@Mystic-Midnight and it’s implied the Nazis are after him, because he leaves suddenly like he’s fleeing.
@@Ismael-kc3ry idk if it's the Nazis as much as a similar Japanese secret police cause they also rounded up engineers probably for criticizing the war
He was not a spy, but a German anti-Nazi émigré on the run from both German and Japanese authorities.
“The wind is rising! We must try to live!”
“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
Both of them are masterpieces but for me Miyazaki managed to make something so deep and beautiful for the time that it deserves more than it got. It is truly a piece of art
The Wind Rises is a story is about the importance of passion in a fickle world.
Jiro loves airplanes, and he loves Nahoko. While she's dying Nahoko leaves the sanitorium to find Jiro, to tell him that she loves him and to get married. She holds his hand and sleeps next to him as he works on his final design, and she slips away while he's testing it and dies alone, because she refuses to drag his love for airplanes down with her.
Jiro loved airplanes, and in that passion he succeeded. He loved Nahoko, and in that passion he failed.
But what's important is that when the wind rose, he tried to live.
Exactly it's really not that complicated and is not specifically talking about war. Personally out of all Miyazaki films's this is the most down to earth.
He spent 8 minutes saying the same thing over and over again with little actual information. that takes talent.
It takes an contemporary American.
I’m pretty sure Oppenheimer (the movie) was pretty clear about Oppenheimers feelings on the nukes. Pretty sure that’s what act two is all about.
I think it's not just about his feelings, but more about the consequences of it and lack of its scrutiny...... And not just of him making Nukes, but of his personal life as well
As soon as I saw Oppenheimer, I immediately thought of The Wind Rises. These two films would make a great double feature!
The similarities are honestly uncanny, both historical biopics, both about geniuses whose passions were co-opted by the military to build weapons of mass destruction, both made by highly acclaimed and respected auteur writer-directors, and both featuring Emily Blunt playing the main character's wife
Wind of Barbenheimer rises?
@@scalien225😂😂 why barbie is included ?
when i watched wind rises, i immediately thought of 2 movies. oppenheimer and shadowlands
@@christianwise637 Nolan is known for taking inspiration from Japanese animation !
I feel that Nolan’s not using any depictions of actual war conflict helps to centralize the narrative onto oppenheimer himself, sort of an “if he wasn’t a relevant part or wasn’t there in the first place, why show it?”. This shows with the confirmation hearing, almost in the first few scenes:
“If they ask about him-“
“WHEN they ask, answer them honestly.”
Even though Oppenheimer isn’t there, he’s critical to that plot thread.
Nolan also stated in an interview that he didn't show the bombs going off was because he wanted the audience to experience it the same way the people did then: not being able to witness it, only hearing later that it worked and the devastation it caused. we see carnage in movies all the time, but usually as basically violence porn meant to rile up the audience, something we've trained ourselves to enjoy as flashy and fun and desensitize us to what it really means. so instead, we see the experience of making a thing, sending it off, and hearing about the aftermath. without the "fun" gratuitous visuals the audience is forced to focus on what is actually important, so the weight of it is fully understood.
I wonder if the same conclusions about The Wind Rises can be come to from the Japanese script. I've only seen the Japanese, and I didn't check all the lines, but the part shown at 6:35 is totally different. The English script seems to make it play out as he's committed to her but his work takes precedence and it's ultimately a gulf between them. The Japanese script makes it play out more like he's keeping close to her by bringing her closer to him when he works, like she's getting to be a part of it, deepening their bond.
I know right? That's exactly what I was confused about the entire video
I also didn't understand this part of the video, I'm Brazilian and the version we received in this scene is the same as the one from Japan, that he is including her in his project, staying close to her, making the bond between them stronger. It seems that in this English version, Jiro's dream is a problem for both of them, and in fact this scene was about the support that Nahoko gave to Jiro, and how Jiro included her in his dreams...
I saw the German version and it was always about the close bond between them, savoring every moment that remains for them together.
Thank you because I just watched it and I was confused thinking how could I miss this line
interesting, all these comments are starting to make me wonder if it's an american cultural thing embedded in the script translator for the EN version assuming that work is going to divide a couple
The wind rises is criminally underrated.
Many Anime Fans just call it " oh yeah, the planes movie"
Exactly
It's not one of Miyazaki's better movies. Way too interested in one character, not enough on themes, and not as creative as his usual fare. Plus, he takes a lot of liberties with history.
@@Aristocles22Same way you could say Howl's Moving Castle takes a lot of liberties with its source material. I consider Wind Rises to be more like his magnum opus, especially since it was _supposed_ to be his last hurrah before retiring.
@@n8pls543 I've seen it. Not really that good. Pacing isn't good. And unlike taking liberties with a book, he's taking liberties with actual history, which is much worse.
@@Aristocles22 I disagree. I consider it my favourite movie because it feels personal and the main character story is very interesting and inspiring
One from Japan other from US
I like the dichotomy and similarities between the two
Yep
Miyazaki grow up during the world war II, almost all of his films are revolving around that. The man may not witness the horror of war himself, but all the things that happened around his life at that time is carved into his memory and now immortalized in his films.
I also heard that his parents owned a factory to make war planes
Rather then the directors connecting with the characters and wanting to portray their obsession and regard for personal connections and consequences, I think that at least The Wind Rises is a form of catharsis for Hayao Miyazaki. Especially during the moments when Jiro and Naoko are present, these moments show the direct affect of Jiro's obsession over his personal life, and I think this is a form of self reflection for hayao Miyazaki on his relationship with his mother. With Nolan I think it is less personal and more about how his movies affect the industry, how Nolan has sacrificed for some of his movies which have not been received well. The lack of concern for the reception due to some reason could be the self reflection of Nolan in Oppenheimer? IDk if this fits that well but it is a possible alternative perspective.
I think the other studio ghibli “Grave of the Firefly” would be a great contrast to “OppenHeimer” just showing perspectives of the winning and losing sides
Couple of day ago, i was thinking of these same two movies and how they are both masterfully made without necessarily taking sides and how they portray their protagonists. One is heartbreaking and the other left me terrified about the real world
Eh, while one can definitely see obsessive elements in Oppenheimer, the more central message of the film was how the nuclear arms race began the moment the atom was split, and the inevitability of the chain reaction that would follow. After all, Oppenheimer's mission statement that is repeated frequently throughout the film is "If we don't build the bomb, someone [the Nazis] will." At one point, Oppenheimer and Einstein talk about the theoretical possibility that using a nuclear bomb would ignite the atmosphere and kill all life on Earth in a cataclysmic chain reaction, but the ending of the film drives home the point that this chain reaction is in fact a metaphorical one, born out of humanity's ever escalating drive to annihilate one's enemies and rivals (and the subplot with Lewis Strauss is how that desire to destroy a rival plays out in the political battlefield to the point of murdering whatever spirit Oppenheimer had left). In a very grim and sobering fashion, it portrays the arms race as inevitable, and Oppenheimer as a man who brought about a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oppenheimer's obsession in making the bomb really only serves to underscore his eventual shame at making a nightmare into reality.
It literally spells that out for you in plain English in the final scene.
@@insertnamehere_262bitter much? That was a very eloquent way of putting it. I’d like to see you try to do the same
@@msushi98 I wasn't trying to be bitter. I was corroborating what this person said
Your interpretation makes sense, but considering the context of conversation between two scientists right before the final scene, I think Nolan's intention for that last scene is more about downfall of OP more than something about humanity
The Nazis were never going to build the bomb. They were so far behind, it was not possible before they lost the war. This disinformation campaign only exists to make us feel better for doing it ourselves, and is fallacious thinking. Truth is, would the bomb have been invented if we hadn't have done it? Probably not! The resources required are so vast, only a handful of nations were capable of it, and it truly is impossible to hide. Any of the handful of nations capable could easily have been made to stop.
My thoughts exactly. The only thing I could think about while watching Oppenheimer was The Wind Rises, and how two characters' passions turned into weapons capable of destruction. It's absolutely brilliant.
The point of both characters being obssessed is a great point. However, the point afterwards, where the characters ultimately don't understand the devastation their work has caused isn't right. Both characters understand full well. Oppenheimer realizes it after he's already built the bomb, which is why he becomes so adamant that no one else should be able to use that power. Jiro, throughout the film, struggles with the fact that his planes are going to be used for war. It's essentially what he and Caproni talk about in Jiro's dreams.
Jiro also show he know what his creation usage with Honjo before Zero first testing, which he reply "We aren't arms dealer, just someone who want to make planes."
I would say the best companion piece for Oppenheimer would be the 90'd animated film Grave of the Fireflies. One of my biggest issues with Oppenheimer is how it "others" the Japanese people by leaving them out of the story, so Grave of the Fireflies would be good to watch to understand not nessecaruly the effects of the nuclear attacks but the overall effects on the people of Japan during that time period.
I thought of Grave of the Fireflies too. I heard they made a second too which continued on the story to show that the war doesn't end just because the fighting stopps, but that the aftereffects continue on with rebuilding of the area, further food struggles, and more.
But GoF was not about the atomic bomb, but Tokyo airbombs IG, bit as I don't have the courage to watch the movie a 2nd time I may be wrong.
What about Empire of the Sun? one of my favorite Spielberg movies (and the one that made me a Chirs Bale fan), remember that nuclear bomb scene? they never show it, just the effects of it in the sky, with such an innocence from the protagonist's POV.
i mean the film isnt about the atomic bomb but about Oppie
Then you can make the same complaint about GOTF not showing the perspective of the Chinese and Korean people that were affected by Japans actions
Admitting that what they were creating would be weapons of terrible destruction and reckoning them with that would force them to stop creating which as obsessive creators can't do so they ignore the moral issue and keep on creating. I think its rather telling that its only after Oppenheimer makes the bomb and is basically let with him that he begins to admit what evil he's unleashed on the world.
He didnt really. He made a thing persued a science it was those that fancied themselves leaders making the moral mistakes. We mention the catch 22 of the system.seemingly only when wete personally caught in it. Someone achieves something in that same condition and suddenly the guilt of the system gets shifted to them. I dont think jiro or oppy here had much of a choice. And as an american i always did like that lil plane actually there was a full zero at the small private airport my trade school sat next too. I saw it lift and spin. Its time of death lond sense past its true beauty finally allowed in the open.
Oppy in hindsight was another scientist that helped us make nuke energy some of the safer energy to produce. Time has eroded their personal sins but the blood is still on the states hands. And thats still all the government seems to do.
@@36inc They are literally created to serve the interests of the nation. Its impossible for a government to not have blood, because other governments seek the same thing; sometimes far worse even. If the US didn't get the bomb, then the N@zis would have; and they would've used it to perpetuate an infinitely worse world than the alternative.
Its understandable why Oppenheimer felt as he did, but ultimately his actions were massively beneficial for the human race.
It reminds me of that one Britannia scientist from Code Geass He didn't care what his side was fighting for he just wanted to invent things.
Agreed
Every artist struggles with the duality of loved ones and one's love.
The thing I love about these two movies is that there is enough information and ambiguity about the main characters that we can talk about them, their intentions, and their desires all day. These aren't direct biographies but they're based on real people. And real people are never completely good or completely bad. They're complex and their actions are made from layers of their desires, influences, and life happening around them. It's been pretty cool reading everyone's thoughts in the comments.
Emily Blunt plays the wife in both too
What a rare coincidence.
March 2024. Both the iconic directors won Oscars on the same day.
I remember having a discussion with my friends about Oppenheimer movie, and I don't remember how but we ended up talking about The Wind Rises.
Ended up with the thought experiment how The Wind Rises would have felt like if Nolan made a live action of it
The beauty in each of those stories is that their goal was not to provide the instrument of destruction. It was their will to see the “obsession” become reality.
I think the statement that 'Miyazaki doesn't explore the relativism of morality in war because he is somehow afraid of what that would reflect of himself' falls short when he has made so many movies exploring war; although the protagonist and their stories are similar in both 'Oppenheimer' and 'the wind rises', I don't think it's fair to limit the artistic intentions of Miyazaki regarding war by just analyzing one of the many movies that explore in multiple ways and from multiple POVs the meaning and our relation to conflict. And I think it's important to state this because this essay doesn't limit itself in exploring only these films but also each director, and in that case and analysis of their filmography become relevant to understand what they truly think about the topic.
im glad im not the only one who walked out of oppenheimer seeing its similarities with the wind rises! these two movies have become my all-time favorites
It's so crazy I went to go see both of these movies the same day and had no ideas what The wind rises was even about. I watched that first then during Oppenheimer I kind of freaked thinking about how these 2 movies share so much
Comparing oppenheimer and the wind rises is so crazy but exactly the kind of stuff i love
I knew that after watching Oppenheimer, The Wind Rises popped into my head because of how similar they are: both protagonists are fascinated with their own interests, to the point their dreams are used for war and destruction.
I have an obsession with marine biology and I can confirm that it drives you to the point past moral boundaries. The want to complete the things I strive for is driving in a way that is uncontrollable
I was quite glad that Nolan didn't show the destruction on screen--instead, we get character reactions to it and I think that does an excellent job of depicting the horror without parading real tragedy for spectacle. This felt like a far more respectful way to deal with the consequences of Oppenheimer's work. It keeps the narrative centralized and doesn't use images of the Japanese' graves as a plot device. I know the lack of the iconic mushroom cloud in the film is due to Nolan's desire for practical effects, but I think it also creates another layer of detachment from reality that keeps the real-life devastation from becoming entertainment.
Yes, pretty much, we enjoy the masterworks of great creators like these, but they are typically the result of them leaving their families completely aside and forcing their workforce to crunch like crazy. Mononoke is my favorite movie of all time, but I know it took a lot of people's health, physical and mental, to finish and, at least, one person's life, 😶
That’s just Miyazaki lmaooo, Nolan works with his wife she’s the producer
Seems to be a Japanese issue in the film industry. Effects people or probably other people involved in creating these movies have to work like dogs with little pay and that isn't healthy. Japanese work ethics seem to be very strict.
For a long time, it has been like this: You watch any media, you praise Leonardo DiCaprio or Christopher Nolan or Taylor Swift. Yes, talented people that draw in masses. Yet without the many "little" people, they could do nothing and they wouldn't be succesful. You only see Miyazaki and say: Wow, Miyasaki is so amazing. True but why does the head get all the credit and money and respect, while the body gets paid little and almost nobody cares about the drawers, the special FX people, the costume designers, the set decorators etc.?
And we people of the Western World enjoy products made in poor contries under "questionable" conditions. I seem to be spotting a pattern. Hollywood/Music industry in a sense aren't much better. The money goes to the studios and a few selected actors or singers get paid millions, while the majority of actors have to constantly look out for new paying jobs and most musicians don't get enough money to survive. So in short: Even the media industry follows the pyramid of few rich people and a lot of little people paying the price.
@@jmoneychowmang3513 Yeah, and sometimes their children have opinion about his movies, Harry Styles was casted in Dunkirk because one of Nolan's daughter saw him in audition (Nolan didn't knew anything about the guy), or the fact that one of Nolan's daughter appears in the imaginary nightmare scene in Oppenheimer.
Hollywood needs the old-school auteurs more than ever
Why?
Not showing or point-by-point spelling out the consequences make them more haunting, more oppressing. These directors clearly trust their viewers.
Obsession is a doubled edged sword, capable of both immaculate wonders and horrid realties. Even though both characters started off their journeys with independent ideals and interests, it goes to show you how one’s obsession is abused to a point that it isn’t unforeseeable but more neglected. It’s there, those horrid realities, but restraint gets in the way of the plausible. What one man can achieve, the thought is interesting but the obsession is intoxicating to a point where it becomes too late to halt the advance. It’s a strange human flaw, it can’t be helped in some instances. The ability to do something no one has witnessed before and what it holds for the future, that strive for progress, the goal of achieving that dream. It truly is damning but without such obsession, where would humanity be today. Perhaps better, maybe even far worse.
Miyazaki is just a master at his job, I like his POV of his dream.
“My le plane…le killed people?”
I'll just say that I love this video and think it sums up almost every contention I'd had with Oppenheimer perfectly, and I, honestly, have a lot to say about the criticisms levied against it lol. before I start can I just say that war really isn't, no matter how relevant or paramount someone's place in it was, an isolated experience?? when showing war it is really really so important to do so from all perspectives involved in and affected by it. especially a war so consequential and powerful and REAL as world war 2. oppenheimer's internal conflicts and musings do not hold a candle to the lived incidence of children being incinerated where they sat and becoming nothing more than mere shadow on concrete, even if the story you're telling is through Oppenheimer's exclusive lens; as a general, universal story-telling rule of thumb.
let me elaborate: Oppenheimer's life would've been given so much more meaning and his perspectives so much more substance if we could've seen the tangible, legible effects of his actions. The reason why Thanos makes for such a compelling and sympathetic villain is because even though we (and this is important) live in the marvel world of superheroes and superpowers on the verge of being purged and decimated, we are still dragged and forced to see his actions and their consequences through his perspective. we see the pain in his purple-cg eyes as he dangles the only one he truly loves in this entire world (gamora) and sacrifices her to serve his larger, more prominent goal that he believes is monumental and absolutely necessary. after seeing him massacre half of an entire population and kill and maim some of our beloved protagonists, we can still muster sympathy for him and understand his side of the story and his actions as he himself seems a puppet to his grandiose, non-sensical yet irresistible ideas and vision for rescuing, saving this universe. he is miserable, being tied to his self-imposed role as the savior of the universe and its people, alone and burdened on his quest, and so we are still awed by him, despite his grave and insidious actions actively hurting our protagonists and destroying our worlds. do you really think this kind of a connection would've really been possible had we not gotten to see either sides of the story? the movies are obviously all for the protagonists' pov and unanimously support and shadow their actions and decisions, and yet this tiny yet profound glimpse into the antagonists' mind and life was so insightful and, honestly, only further cemented our understanding of exactly why Thanos' goals were asinine and pointless in the first place- that where he was coming from did not justify what he was trying to do, lending further credibility to our heroes.
Oppenheimer had been to Japan. He'd gone to tokyo for a few days for some academic event i think. he'd been bombarded by their press with questions regrading his involvement in the creation of the bomb, his guilt over its human toll and several others that he quickly dodged and did not answer. he was also met with kindness and understanding by the same people his creations had foiled: they didn't hold him accountable and contended that he was merely a scientist employed by his government to create something that's use was beyond his will or control. these could've been shown. his interaction with victims of the bombings. survivors. that could've been shown. anything that could've stoked our empathy and broadened the audience's perspective- that could've shown us what the other side looked like. that would've forced us to contend with Oppenheimer's narrow and limited perspective, and the vision we were missing.
this has something to do with worldbuilding- about how developed and formed oppenheimer's surroundings in the movie really were. japan wasn't some isolated, disconnected incident, not just some cruel statistic or number on a paper. not just some slideshow. it is soo important in storytelling to realize exactly how interconnected and intersected everything actually is, especially when talking about something like a fricking war, and really highlighting exactly how (even subtextually- that's not a real word :)) every action had widespread, unintentional consequences and their exact causes. 19th century america was very racist even towards jews, and if not racism against himself (which is important context to keep in mind when talking about the bomb- germany was actively persecuting germans and oppenheimer and many of his fellow scientists on the manhattan project were themselves jew) it's kinda surprising how oppenheimer never come across any racism against even the japanese especially after the pearl harbour. he may not have cared enough about politics to actually have internalized this discrimination, but adding it even as something a fellow scientist or colleague of his had said could've given so much nuance to the world he was in and how irrevocably detached he was from it, and him as a person. parasite is a great example of this- the lady shopping and chatting about the rain when it had literally drowned the protagonist's home and displaced the entirety of his family really makes a jarring, honest point about the disconnect between the different classes. (and a poignant statement on the absurdities of class and privilige- but a poignant point was probably not what the movie intended to convey anyway so for this comment i digress-- also go watch parasite it's amazing
I had never made the link between these two films. Thank you for pointing it out!
Im so happy you made this comparison. When I watched Oppenheimer, I couldnt help but feel that some of its sentiments were shared with The Wind Rises. "Airplanes are beautiful, cursed dreams" and all
finally somebody talks aboud wind rieses. its my one of the most favorite films ever, but i dont see many speaking about it
Every time someone mentions The Wind Rises, I'm reminded that it lost the Oscar to Frozen!
IT WHAT? Oh wow, what a miss from the Academy.
The mention of an obsession that ignores the resulting consequences, reminds me of how Tom Lehrer musically skewered Wernher von Braun:
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun"
Amazing. Not enough people talk about The Wind Rises.
It’s genuinely so frustrating to see someone so completely misinterpret the intentions of both film makers, you spend 8 minutes criticizing the directors for telling the stories THEY wanted to tell instead of making the movie YOU wanted them to make.
There is also another interesting and wonderful movie named « in this corner of this world »
Where we have the point of view of Suzu, a young woman that lived in hiroshima. But she get married and have to move to the city of her step family.
And we see the stress and odd way they live, having to go to the black market to buy sugar as an exemple.
But the scene that is interesting is where Suzu is homesick and she is going to go back to Hiroshima, but then there is a flash, then a Wilde wind.
She then go to see her family later on. Her mom is gone missing, and her sister as spots on her arm.
I think this movie is a great parallel with the Oppenheimer movie, in a way.
We do see the « consequences of his achievement »
That there is no winner. Everyone lost something in a war, a conflict.
I don’t know what eles to ad Exept that you should watch this movie.
Bruh, literally right now I watched Oppenheimer in cinema last July I just literally went to Ghibli Servers and wrote a long essay about How similiar Oppenheimer to Wind Rises.
I'm so glad someone else noticed this parallel
the wind rises is my favorite film ever and it’s so underrated! I’m glad it’s getting some appreciation here
It would be interesting to see a biopic on Wernher von Braun, who was involved in the development of the V2 rocket that caused destruction during World War II, but later played a key role in the development of the Saturn rocket that helped humanity land on the moon.
Emily Blunt = Jiro's wife = Oppenheimer's wife
Can we take a moment to appreciate how hard 'the wind rises' goes as a title
The wind rises is one of the best movies
I died of laughter everytime that (I hope at least) fandub was showed.
the wind rises is my top 3 ghibli movies because it’s a deeply personal story
I like that you took a anime film and took it for more then just another anime film. You took as a Direct comparison from two different Directors.
Both movies should be watched together
One of the most well know line frim the wind rises is literally the one where the Italian guy ask if the word is better place with or without pyramids
Oh no! The biopic film that doesnt judge the protagonist it just depicts their life from their perapective. How shocking! How inept! How can the audience be expected to wrestle with the morality and deep significance of these characters if we dont tell them how to feel? This sounded like a high schooler who audited his first class on film.
A bit snarky :p but definitely agree with your point.
The Grave of the Fireflies is a brilliant Japanese perspective to WWII
Only their good side. Not the full picture
The wind rises and Oppenheimer are at opposite ends of WW2 the Mitsubishi Zero brought the US into WW2 when it was mostly neutral , Oppenheimer and the bomb ended the war in the pacific Imperial Japan had no plans of surrendering even after both bombs were dropped and Emperor Hiro Hito accepted the Potsdam Declaration part of the army tried to over throw the government to continue fighting
When Mr. Caproni says "That’s what it means to lose a war"(netflix subtitles), it's actually closer to "that’s what it means to destroy your country"
Kinda sad 国を滅ぼしたんだからな got translated wrong because it's a really heavy line
Had to comment immediately to compliment that thumbnail. It's exquisite!
Jiro: My masterpiece! The Zero!
Planes named Hellcat and Cosair:
I appreciate the comparison but I think you missed some of the more subtle notes of Jiro’s struggle with the end goal of the war. In conversations with his friend and colleague (whose name escapes me) they spend time lamenting Japan’s poverty and unemployment rate, and are very self-aware of sense of responsibility their rare/unique skill sets force them to hold on behalf of their country. There’s immense pressure on Jiro to produce and work, and his cherished time with Naoko often came with a cost-slipping away from work for love. Naoko’s character and family understood this.
I’d also say that Miyazaki’s general fascination with flight is apparent across all his films, and even Howl’s Moving Castle offers his own subtle commentary on the futility of war.
I appreciate the attempt of this essay, but I think you missed critical nuance of Jiro’s character.
man im glad im not the only one who saw the parallels
I am with both the directors for not going into the moral side of things. Morality is not a simple thing to deal with because of its subjective nature. People can debate all day long and still arrive at some sort of deadlock when dealing with morality. So it is wise to leave it out.
Recently watched „When the Wind blows“, which is about nuclear strike as well.. it fucked me uuuuup
It might be worth mentioning that the romantic relationship between Jiro and Naoko in "The Wind Rises" comes from a very different source material. That half is inspired by the novel "The Wind Rises" written by Tatsuo Hori. The overarching theme that Miyazaki likes to include in a lot of his movies is the drive to continue living, despite all of the setbacks, hardship, and tragedy one may face in their lifetime (so much so, that the Japanese slogan for this movie is "Must Live.", simple as that), and that theme can be more closely tied back to Hori's novel than to Jiro's life.
Another Nolan film with a similar concept from an anime made by a Japanese Master director. (Satoshi Kon’s Paprika-Inception, Miyazaki’s The Wind Rises-Oppenheimer)
Next time Nolan, I want a similar concept from Masaaki Yuasa’s films. That’ll fun to see :)
I have become military industrial complex, generator of money.
Better compared it to grave of fireflies. So when Oppenheimer said he becomes death. You can see the actual death in the graves of fireflies.
The difference between these two characters is one is the artist and the other is the scientist. Hiro is guilt ridden because of the knowledge that he has that all his planes are going to be instruments of war somewhat like the corruption of his dream and Oppenheimer is guilt ridden because he understands the consequences and responsibility he has in the murder of thousands of people which he justifies by doing it for his country. Wind rises focuses a lot more on the character and Oppenheimer focuses more on the morality of his actions on the world overall I would recommend both movies though I think wind rises is much more interesting.
A6m0 is a damn masterpiece that gave birth to many japanese aces like the me109 for Hartman/Bakhorn/Galland/Marseille
Can't wait for Miyazaki's newest film this year, The Boy and His Heron which also tackles events in WW2.
Politely, I think you need to go back and watch both films again, and consider the parable of the sunfish while you do so
Imagine Miyazaki doing a movie set in the 1980's.
"Even if the ship you've made could hurt somebody, even if it could bring ruin to the world... Its only parent must give it love. You mustn't deny that which you've created. The ship isn't to blame. When a man's made a ship, he makes it a part of himself with a DON!" - a ship right
It feels like the author of this piece believes that it is not possible to pursue the development of weapons and genuinely believe that it is a correct decision. Not only must the men who pursue this be blind to the outcomes, but even the men who direct films about them must also have similar blindness if their films do not unambiguously adopt this morality.
In fact, many moral men have developed weapons systems with open eyes and a genuine belief that they were doing the right thing.
A biopic that presents a morality that lies closer to that of the individuals depicted than that of the audience is an unquestionably good thing. If that makes you uncomfortable... isn't that the point? We don't depend on works of art to illuminate values that we already have. We look to them to show us things in new and different ways.
To add to the layers of complexity, there is still a heavy social stigma around discussing Japan’s role in the Second World War and the consequences of its actions during the conflict such as carpet bombing of major Chinese cities in the 30s, which is depicted in the Miyazaki. Similar to how Americans now are beginning to grapple with the consequences of our involvement in international conflicts, Japan still has people who refuse to believe Japan was in the wrong for what it did, and Miyazaki portraying a famous member of the Empire in a bad light could be consequential for the success of the film and his studio.
Great to see Tom Conti here. Have thought of Reuben Reuben a bit in the last little while. The Wind Rises is a masterpiece. I haven’t seen Oppenheimer - i'm sure its good
İf i am not wrong miyazaki's father was a plane mechanic in ww2 and afterwards and he grew up in hangars helping his father so there might be some parental influence there too
Christopher Nolan, is one of the greatest film directors of all time!!!