Thursday, February 23, 2006
My daughter and I watched Grave of the Fireflies last night. An animated classic by Isao Takahata, it was possibly the most heart-wrenching tragedy I've ever seen on film. It's not unusual for me to cry at the movies, and I didn't until the last five minutes of this one, but when I did, I was sobbing with anguish. Utterly beautiful in the way the story is told, it's astonishing in that something drawn, as opposed to photographed, could evoke such a response. It's on Roger Ebert's list of Great Movies and in his review he talks about that aspect. I highly recommend it with the caveat that it's not for young children.
Political commentary relating to such a film naturally follows:
I read a comment on some forum where someone mentioned that it should be required viewing in the Oval Office. I think this is true, but it misses a critical point: The presumption of choice regarding war indicates that something less than survival is at stake which is sometimes not the case. When dealing with forces that are aggressively bent on one's destruction, I believe war, as tragic as it is, is the appropriate response and that the people that really should watch the film are the aggressors. It's ironic that they are, in fact, the ones least likely to be moved by such a film. It then becomes convenient to blame the ones responding to the attack because it's usually widely believed that they will be so moved. In short, civilized societies that would respond to the film aren't really the ones who need it. The ones who need it are the ones who wouldn't listen anyway.
To sharpen that point to currency: When radical Islamists worldwide loudly preach the destruction of the West, and do everything in their power to accomplish it, war is the appropriate response. The fact that they, without the West's complicity or acquiescence, do not possess the physical wherewithal to effect that destruction does not at all change their intent, and thus does not change the response.
Political commentary relating to such a film naturally follows:
I read a comment on some forum where someone mentioned that it should be required viewing in the Oval Office. I think this is true, but it misses a critical point: The presumption of choice regarding war indicates that something less than survival is at stake which is sometimes not the case. When dealing with forces that are aggressively bent on one's destruction, I believe war, as tragic as it is, is the appropriate response and that the people that really should watch the film are the aggressors. It's ironic that they are, in fact, the ones least likely to be moved by such a film. It then becomes convenient to blame the ones responding to the attack because it's usually widely believed that they will be so moved. In short, civilized societies that would respond to the film aren't really the ones who need it. The ones who need it are the ones who wouldn't listen anyway.
To sharpen that point to currency: When radical Islamists worldwide loudly preach the destruction of the West, and do everything in their power to accomplish it, war is the appropriate response. The fact that they, without the West's complicity or acquiescence, do not possess the physical wherewithal to effect that destruction does not at all change their intent, and thus does not change the response.
# posted by goldpython @ 8:25 AM 
