'Jin-roh' and the problem of depicting history and politics in anime/manga

So I watched Jin-roh (人狼), and what a contradictory work it is: On the one hand, its verisimilitude of real-life objects is deliberately authentic; on the other hand the story is deliberately set in an alternative universe - a Japan of the 1950s that never was.

Why bother to make animation minutely life-like in a setting that is all but a historic fantasy? The closest answer I can think of is that Jin-roh is a parable retelling of WWII and the ensuing aftermath. Ever noticed that history, when it appears in anime/manga at all, often appears as alternative history? Anime is not concerned with telling real history. Anime is concerned with telling traumatic historic events in a manipulated form that is often a recasting of characters and themes that is acceptable to the creators and that they feel comfortable expressing. (It's like flood myths around the world. The same flood happened, but different cultures have chosen different ways to explain why such a flood happened in order to digest it psychologically.)

Even then, I cannot say that I can decipher what Jin-roh is trying to say. The movie seems to speak in a muffled voice about politics in general, just as most anime/manga that tries to deal with politics seem to speak in a muffled voice. There are oblique references, vague suggestions and oh-so-elusive hints, but they just never quite say what they mean. Sex (even the most outrageous sort) is never a taboo in anime/manga. So why is politics such a taboo?

Comments

[minus-one]

sounds like you know what the "real" history is... ;-)

[Author]

Because you cannot make a trip to the bottom of the Tokyo Bay in concrete shoes if you depict sex. If you depict politics, you can.

[Wabisabi]

minus-one:

I think it is fair to say that all art involves the deception that something 'real' is being created and shown one way or other. The thing with anime is that most often they do not even bother to trick us into thinking that the historic world within is real - it's always a fantasy historic world (like the Nazi-dominated post-war Japan in Jin-roh) or a historic world with weird monsters (like Ayakashi Ayashi) that is being shown. There is seldom a plain vanilla historic setting (this we get only very rarely, like in Shigurui).

Author:

Hmm... I am not sure I get what you mean. Would you mind explaining that?

[minus-one]

maybe you've heard something about "rashomon" (wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_(film)) or "rashomon effect" (wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect)?

i think history per se is rashomon.

all historic events are psychologically speaking traumas, there are always winners and losers, and every event always has at least two interpretation. (it's not that one of them wrong, you know; it's rashomon).

imo, there is no such thing as "real" history, it's just another illusion. art makes fantasy to look real, so people begin to understand that their "hard reality" (or "plain vanilla historic setting") is not so hard in the first place... ("if even in cheap anime they can make it look so real, maybe conventional history itself nothing more than just another perspective?" - and there's nothing wrong with alternative point of view?).

i think it would be suicidal for art to choose in favor of "real" history instead of fantasy (which would be simply against its nature (and it's always just plain boring :-) )).

[w]

"all art involves the deception that something 'real' is being created and shown one way or other"

I don't think a lot of abstract art would fit into this category, but I dunno...

I just get the feeling that the lack of direct political commentary in anime is simply because as Author says, you're going to get into a lot more trouble for it as compared to depicting sex. Sex can be easily censored, or just have some rating stuck on it and left at that - but making political commentary...

Well, one personal "theory" of mine is that some creators are more afraid of criticism from other creators than from whoever may be "offended" by direct political commentary (and potentially throw a lawsuit or some such)
And for those who aren't (for there are many animators who draw in styles highly unpopular among average creators and the fans, of course, but still continue drawing like that) ... then perhaps the problem lies with the publishers.

I really wouldn't know for sure though, but perhaps it's a good question to ask on the AniPages forums - there's some people there who have directly interacted with the industry (particularly Peter Chung) who might be able to offer an explanation.

[Bonzai]

Grave of the Fireflies, its not a depiction of an alternate history, its also not on anyone in particular but the events like the fire bombings did happen. The Depiction of the children in the story are a bit disturbing but I thought I should mention it since it seems like not enough people have seen it.

[Wabi Sabi]

minus-one:

I have seen the movie 'Rashomon' and I can see your point. But I think there is a bare minimum 'real' history that we can identify - like the US did win WWII and not Germany, the Holocaust did happen etc. But sometimes anime just does not even seem interested in sticking to the bare minimum - like in Jin-roh, they go out of their way to create a Nazi-occupied Japan. What motivates the creators to create this fantasy setting? If they set it in the real Japan, then it would look more like a historic trauma resolved. But as it is, it looks to me like an unresolved historic trauma that they put into a story form in anime - knowing that they can actually get away with it. Imagine if they were to put the same story in a live-action film and the row it would make...

At any rate, it reminds me of 'The Sky Crawler' - it is obviously a tale intended for young people in Japan because the creator says as much, but the story is deliberately set in a 'country that is like Japan' but not actually Japan. Why beat about the bush like that? The good-old Japanese reluctance to criticize anyone/anything directly?

w:

I think abstract art alludes to real objects which it depicts in an abstract manner. The cup may not look like a cup because it is so abstractly drawn, but it is still supposed to be a cup. So in the end the point of reference is still 'reality' as we know it.

Interesting theory that some creators are more afraid of criticism from other creators than from whoever may be "offended" by direct political commentary...

Bonzai:

I saw Grave of the Fireflies when it first came out in the theatres a long, long time ago.

[minus-one]

@Wabi Sabi

"I think there is a bare minimum 'real' history that we can identify"…

- I for one don't think so. for me history's essentially rashomon, there is no bare minimum of "reality", it's always two-folded and conflicting. "real" history is constant process of analyzing contradictory views on some event. if you feel like knowing "bare minimum" - you're sure under the influence of some propaganda.

in journalism there is the rule of thumb: always to present at least two points of view on a subject – why in the history people always tend to jump to conclusions only because they’re learned to think about something that it was one way and not another (and even don’t try to think independently)..?

ok, war history is an easy case; winners and losers are apparent, and dominant interpretation always of winners’ ("US did win WWII" -> “US was good”, “Germany was bad”,.. ... “Hitler was Satan and ate unborn christian babies on breakfast” …); but have you ever heard alternative interpretation? people don’t even tolerate there is one! (but there are three right away.)

and what about the losers: can you imagine what people feel when all their foundations crumble and they have to adapt to whole new world-view? (can you imagine that Saddam Hussein have occupied US and all Americans have to pray Allah and stuff..?) i think in such cases psychological trauma is akin to trauma of the raped woman.

American occupation of Japan in certain way was like cultural rape for Japanese people. and you know, rape victims continue to live and often begin even to love their rapists, but their psychological state is certainly different from that of “common” people. and it starts to be difficult for them to give “common” answers to certain questions.

“What motivates the creators to create this fantasy setting?”

- what motivates rape victim to fantasize about different outcomes of her situation?

“If they set it in the real Japan, then it would look more like a historic trauma resolved.”

- if rape victim thought about actual rape as it was instead of fantasizing about it, then maybe her trauma would be resolved..? (and rubbing salt into wound would have a healing effect?) if it’d be that easy there would be no need in psychologists (and in art).

[Wabi Sabi]

I think 'bare minimum' factual history (ex. so-and-so died in year X) should be distinguished from interpretations of history (which can be a Rashomon thing). Even in the story of Rashomon, there are undeniable facts that no one disagrees on: a couple was traveling on a highway and the samurai husband died in the woods. It is not the 'what' that is in debate, it is the 'how' and 'why'. I think you would have a hard case to make that the husband is not died because there is no 'real' history when his corpse is there right before you. And if you read the testimonies of the characters involved closely, you would see that one or more of them is probably lying (deliberately out of self-interest or out of trauma or whatever). If the lies could be eliminated, the what is left must be the truth (to paraphase Sherlock Holmes) - but this is a question of evidence. We do not always have sufficient evidence to support the true 'real' history, and that is where Rashomon comes in. And 'Rashomon' is not exclusively about different and inadvertent perceptions about the same event, but also about people creating deliberate lies on purpose to protect themselves.

And in journalism - I believe the first rule of thumb is to get your facts right, and then the second rule is to present two points of views on those facts.

I think if you can honestly face a trauma without creating fantasies about it, then it is probably a sign that you have outgrown the trauma. And I think it is fair to say that people do outgrow their psychological problems eventually (though they may acquire new psychological problems).

[minus-one]

your approach to rashomon is very "western". you think there is always some "true" hard story behind the facts, it is just that witnesses are lying. if that would be so obvious it wouldn't be such a great movie (or story)...

the thing is, there's more "japanese" (buddhistic perhaps) approach to story- (and history-) telling. what if nobody's lying? what if different perceptions of the same event is in the heart of things?

"...I think if you can honestly face a trauma without creating fantasies about it, then it is probably a sign that you have outgrown the trauma..."

you're very seriously mistaken about that. haven't you heard about neurosis? they're inherently cyclic and recursive. sick person constantly relives traumatic experience, and it's exastly that what makes him/her even more sick. sometimes they really can eventually outgrow their problems (with the help of psychiatrist and through analysis), but sometimes they just kill themselves... fantasy is their only hope, it's their way to cope with reality of traumatic event. in a way, it's their true reality! (they can live only there).

so "eastern" idea of rashomon is just that in certain situations fantasy has more reality than "reality" itself. and this is indeed very buddhistic perception of the world as illusion. (i very much into it).

[Wabisabi]

I think it is fair to say that however the main characters in Rashomon/In a Grove may perceive the events differently, if the bandit says he killed the samurai, the wife says she killed the samurai and the samurai said he killed himself, some or all are most likely lying. Different perceptions of the world may entitle you to have different opinions about the world, and opinions are not the same as deeds (ie. I killed X).

Buddhism does not suggest that the world manifested before us is not real. There is in fact a hard, cold reality where the law of karma operates. The law of karma has it that if you do X, Y would happen. Even if you perceive X differently as Z, Y would still happen.

When Buddhism speaks of the world being illusory, it is speaking in a metaphoric sense that: i) from the point of view of eternity, our lives are so short and transient as though they are but phantom dreams and; ii) this brief existence and all its attractions are nevertheless a hindrance to unveiling the true Self which lies hidden.

I have done my share of reading on neurosis and I mainly agree with Jung in that respect. Fantasy is not just some means to escape from reality - if you study those fantasies closely, you would see the mythological significance behind those fantasies. Perhaps I will just point you to the wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jung%27s_theory_of_neurosis

[minus-one]

how nicely and almost mathematically you've summed up ancient buddhistic concept of karma! ^__^ but you know in reality it's not that shallow as X-Y-Z (and much more interesting); actually, all similar consepts as karma, fatum etc, which implying "irrevocability of fate" are much more about "you just can't do it other way", "you can't even imagine it differently" ("you have no choice") than "you can act as you wish — result will be the same" (can you see difference?)

"Fantasy is not just some means to escape from reality"

i'm not telling it is! i'm telling that fantasy creates NEW reality; in no way it is "escape from reality"... (you can call it "escape TO reality" perhaps).

if you can't understand such point of view, no wonder you're asking about "the problem of depicting history and politics in anime/manga"... you just can't see that art creates new reality (you don't see fantasy as different reality); well, cheap anime may does it sloppy and certainly doesn't "hypnotize you inside" of that new reality, but for me their fad for alternate settings is pretty much understandable (they're trying to realize in art form their suppressed wish to change traumatic history).

but i guess it's all about cultural differences and this discussion leads us nowhere...

[w]

Just butting in but I don't know if you meant "Self" metaphorically; but one of the core teachings of Buddhism is of non-self (anatta).
As far as I understand, I'm pretty sure there is no True Self or anything because that itself is transient as well (what do you use to define a "soul" that travels between consecutive lives from any other existence?)
Thinking of this existence as having a "Self" is precisely what leads to attachments that prevent one from attaining the ultimate goal, nirvana/nibbana.

And also, as far as I know, the "hard reality" you're talking about refers ONLY to the series of laws and relationships that govern the world, but it has little to do with your interpretation of that there must therefore be a real version of events. Sure, an action will definitely result in a reaction, but Buddhism can't tell you *who* did it or anything. You say that if X happens, Y will happen, even if you see X as Z - but it's not like you can necessarily observe Y happening. Or that you know for sure that Y happened because of X and not anything else.

I guess I'm just trying to say that at least from my understanding, Buddhism doesn't say the world is real or illusory, but either way it's not permanent so there's no point getting attached to it (as a side note, metaphysical questions like where the world started from are akin to asking where a poisoned arrow that hit you came from before first getting it out and treating the wound).

Okay, enough about me rambling off-topic, just wanted to throw in my 2 cents worth of understanding Buddhism as a Buddhist myself.

Probably has no relation to the topic at hand, but well... in one way, if anime is really about telling stories (as opposed to documentaries) perhaps they don't see "the real history" as necessary to convey what they mean, even with the political underpinnings.

Or perhaps the creators simply haven't directly experienced a lot of the historical periods they write about, and don't feel qualified to mess aroudn with a direct, "accurate" depiction of it. And there is little benefit in using actual political history (culture is different).

Personally I'm fine without all that much real-world politics (using actual names and all that) in anime; I find it distracting. But then I'm one of them shallow-minded fangirls so...

[Wabisabi]

minus-one:

I think you would have a hard case to make in respect of karma being inevitable fate in which one has no volitional choice and no responsibility in making choices in one's life. Karma is cause and effect and all living creatures are responsible for their actions and the effects of their actions. The workings of karma may extend beyond this life to the next life and hence not observable to the human eye, but whatever it is, it is certainly not a license to throw up your hands and say 'I just can't do it another way'.

When you say that fantasy creates a new reality, you may wish to qualify it by adding that such a new reality is subjective. Fantasy may create a new subjective reality (ie. not real and observable to anyone else), but the subjective reality is often built upon an objective reality (for example, a victim fantasizing to escape from the objective reality). After all, the whole point of fantasy is compensating for what something one does not have in objective reality.

w:

Yes, I think you summed up the Buddhist concept of the Self well.

[w]

Well, I'm talking about this to a Japanese friend of mine (in my awfully limited, halting Japanese) and she said somethign to the extent of how anime depicting real history and politics inevitably ends up taking some kind of stance on it, and most of the time it'll end up sounding too preachy (説教的). (It's actually not uncommon in manga, though, but it's on a different social level from anime anyway)

Aside from any Problems it would cause, it wouldn't interest many viewers - if it's a made-up country it's still okay, but I guess using real history and politics crosses an invisible line that turns off many. I would think if it wasn't handled maturely, even so-called highbrow viewers would be unimpressed as well - and *perhaps* most anime directors do not intend to take on such so much expectations by tackling politics and history (brings too much attention). It's too easy to end up sounding blatant.

She felt that for Jin-Roh, an alternate history was used because real history post-WWII couldn't sufficiently accommodate the conflict between those who had weapons and military means, and those who had none (I hope I understood her correctly). Yet real Japan was used because it's something that comes naturally to most creators' minds, and she mentioned that in Oshii's case his past as a student activist influenced his choice of setting.

You would realise that sometimes Japanese might tend to have opinions on historical events that they would insist are true although it would get them into trouble. Said friend explained about how Korea was annexed because Russia was going to control it otherwise, and that was not in the interest of Japan's safety. But obviously if they were to portray it now they'd have to say they invaded Korea for more resources and tortured the Koreans.
(History and politics from the Heian period would be A-OK though)

There's also the question of why there should be a need to depict The Real history and politics in anime - pardon me if I've missed it but I don't think you've addressed that yet. Perhaps you might find more works pertaining to what you're looking for in older works from the 80s or so?

Personally I don't think I really have a big problem with the lack of Real History/politics or whatever in anime/manga; I wouldn't expect anything too obvious (and I for one am fine with allusions and metaphors, "real history" would be more distracting than beneficial to me in most cases, IMO) What I do like are shows that deal with current social phenomena like NHK ni Youkoso.

[Wabisabi]

Noted.