| Just so people are aware, Seita was written to reflect the pride of Japan during WW2. This is made very clear by specific lines of his dialogue later in the film but yes, it is ultimately his pride that killed both of them. |
| Yes he's an idiot, they justify it by saying he's a child. First of all, a child is up to 12 years old. UNTIL WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO SAY THAT TEENAGERS ARE CHILDREN? Secondly, this idiot is a year younger than me, and I think he's selfish and stupid. Thirdly, the aunt was an adult woman WHO WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO TAKE CARE OF 2 MORE CHILDREN, yet she did it. But that stupid boy with his massive ego thought he could take care of himself and a little girl living on the streets xd |
 Sorry if I write something incorrect, English is not my native language. |
| I was in the 11th grade when I saw this movie for the first time, and I agreed with much of the public opinion about them dying because of their pride. Re-watched this last night and I must say that Setsuko's death was largely inevitable. The primary issue they faced was securing food, especially food nourishing enough for Setsuko who's only 4 years old. During my first watch, I asked myself, 1. Why didn't he just withdraw the money sooner to buy food? It wasn't a lot of money to begin with, and he was probably trying to save it as long as he could. Which is why he resorted to something as dangerous as looting during the air raids. It was hard to even come across food to buy in the first place considering what the farmer said. 2. Why didn't he listen to the farmer's advice and go back to his aunt? I think this is important to think about. The writers knew this would be one of the main questions asked about Seita's decision-making, so they put this scene in there. Even if he went back to his aunt, who's to say she would take them back? After all, she's the one who basically told them to go live in the shelter. And that still doesn't solve their main problem which was food, not shelter. She straight up told them that from now on they needed to make their own food and she wasn't going to feed them anymore. I don't think she's THAT cold where she would let them starve to death in her own house, but given how she's treated them up until his point and how little empathy she showed for their mom's passing, it's a reasonable assumption to make, especially from Seita's point of view. At the end of the day, he's just a 14-year-old kid who was tasked with the impossible. Taking care of himself and his 4-year-old sister during a time when many adults didn't even have the means to take care of themselves or their families. |
   |
| Personally I respectfully disagree with the other comments, and I think that Seita bears the largest responsibility for his sister's death. However, I also think that is too easy an answer and not the focus of the movie at all, so I'll try to explain it better. First let's consider the aunt's likely state-of-mind: She never asked to take full responsibility for her nephew and niece. and that one scene in the bomb shelter the other women were even commenting how surprised they were that she would take in two orphans at the height of the war. Seita even lied to her about his mother's death, so at the beginning she probably thought it was only a temporary arrangement before realizing it was permanent. It is also worth noting that the aunt was much friendlier at the beginning, but as the time wore on and things got worse she became colder and colder to Seita & Setsuko. From her POV, she had these two children placed upon her care on top of caring for her family, and she emotionally coped by being more and more passive aggressive to them. Never once did they thank her for sheltering or cooking for them, and at one scene she reacts angrily when Seita promises Setsuko something else to eat when all they had was rice. Does any of that excuse the shitty things she said to them? ABSOLUTELY NOT. But this is a woman who is a very stressful environment of a war zone who aside from taking care of her family is tasked with feeding and sheltering (whom she views as ungrateful and lazy but who probably have PTSD) children in an environment of limited resources. Next let's consider Seita's likely state-of-mind: Seita's just lost his mother, and with his father gone (and probably dead) he was not in a rational mindset. Seita had also lied about his mother's death to several people, which in all likely hood made him feel even more depressed and guilty. Seita was probably emotionally scared from the bombing and his mother's death which lead him to be overly attached to Setsuko whom he felt overly responsible for, which in turn is why there was always an emotional distance between him and his aunt and as a result he did not attempt to find work or help out in the house. When things at the house got tough he ultimately decided to leave. I think it is important to highlight that the aunt seemed rather surprised when Seita and Setsuko left, and she would have probably welcomed them back if they had asked. He is exceptionally suborn, and except for his mother, Seita never once listens to any piece of advice any adult in the movie gives him. When their situation became desperate, instead of seeking help or withdrawing their money from the bank, he stole from the farms and surrounding households who were probably just as distressed as him. He himself cannot be blamed for his mentality (which was widespread in WWII Japan) or the awful circumstances he and Setsuko had to endure, it was ultimately his decisions: leaving their aunts house, waiting to withdraw money from the bank, and only going to the doctor's when it was too late, that resulted in Setsuko's death. At the end of the day though it is easy to be a fucking Monday Morning Quarterback and say who should've done what. The point of the movie isn't to blame the aunt or Seita, it is to show that in war there are very real and tragic consequences for many innocent people, and that how hopelessly futile this proud nationalistic self-sufficient mentality that was common among the Japanese people of the day. |
| Even if he stayed in their aunt's house there was no guarantee that they would be safe. Their aunt would probably refuse to give them any food by saying ''They don't work'' or ''She is going to die anyways, she is sick''.. |
| Melysara. |
Reply to ShouyoKatsumi
Even if he stayed in their aunt's house there was no guarantee that they would be safe. Their aunt would probably refuse to give them any food by saying ''They don't work'' or ''She is going to die anyways, she is sick''..
| @ShouyoKatsumi Thats just a huge assumption with no real basis. Surely they would be more open to danger at outside than living inside a house unless you have some proof the Aunt is a murderer or something. Being safe and refusing to give food are different things by far. |
Reply to CareBear
I was in the 11th grade when I saw this movie for the first time, and I agreed with much of the public opinion about them dying because of their pride. Re-watched this last night and I must say that Setsuko's death was largely inevitable. The primary issue they faced was securing food, especially food nourishing enough for Setsuko who's only 4 years old.
During my first watch, I asked myself,
1. Why didn't he just withdraw the money sooner to buy food? It wasn't a lot of money to begin with, and he was probably trying to save it as long as he could. Which is why he resorted to something as dangerous as looting during the air raids. It was hard to even come across food to buy in the first place considering what the farmer said.
2. Why didn't he listen to the farmer's advice and go back to his aunt? I think this is important to think about. The writers knew this would be one of the main questions asked about Seita's decision-making, so they put this scene in there. Even if he went back to his aunt, who's to say she would take them back? After all, she's the one who basically told them to go live in the shelter. And that still doesn't solve their main problem which was food, not shelter. She straight up told them that from now on they needed to make their own food and she wasn't going to feed them anymore.
I don't think she's THAT cold where she would let them starve to death in her own house, but given how she's treated them up until his point and how little empathy she showed for their mom's passing, it's a reasonable assumption to make, especially from Seita's point of view.
At the end of the day, he's just a 14-year-old kid who was tasked with the impossible. Taking care of himself and his 4-year-old sister during a time when many adults didn't even have the means to take care of themselves or their families.
During my first watch, I asked myself,
1. Why didn't he just withdraw the money sooner to buy food? It wasn't a lot of money to begin with, and he was probably trying to save it as long as he could. Which is why he resorted to something as dangerous as looting during the air raids. It was hard to even come across food to buy in the first place considering what the farmer said.
2. Why didn't he listen to the farmer's advice and go back to his aunt? I think this is important to think about. The writers knew this would be one of the main questions asked about Seita's decision-making, so they put this scene in there. Even if he went back to his aunt, who's to say she would take them back? After all, she's the one who basically told them to go live in the shelter. And that still doesn't solve their main problem which was food, not shelter. She straight up told them that from now on they needed to make their own food and she wasn't going to feed them anymore.
I don't think she's THAT cold where she would let them starve to death in her own house, but given how she's treated them up until his point and how little empathy she showed for their mom's passing, it's a reasonable assumption to make, especially from Seita's point of view.
At the end of the day, he's just a 14-year-old kid who was tasked with the impossible. Taking care of himself and his 4-year-old sister during a time when many adults didn't even have the means to take care of themselves or their families.
| @CareBear That's a poor excuse for not withdrawing money when it was most needed and you are making the Aunt more of a monster than she actually is.There is no guarantee she wonT' take them back if they asked and she surely didn'T "basically told them to go live in the shelter". And please show the part where " straight up told them that from now on they needed to make their own food and she wasn't going to feed them anymore." |
Reply to JoeChip
@CareBear
That's a poor excuse for not withdrawing money when it was most needed and you are making the Aunt more of a monster than she actually is.There is no guarantee she wonT' take them back if they asked and she surely didn'T "basically told them to go live in the shelter". And please show the part where " straight up told them that from now on they needed to make their own food and she wasn't going to feed them anymore."
That's a poor excuse for not withdrawing money when it was most needed and you are making the Aunt more of a monster than she actually is.There is no guarantee she wonT' take them back if they asked and she surely didn'T "basically told them to go live in the shelter". And please show the part where " straight up told them that from now on they needed to make their own food and she wasn't going to feed them anymore."
| @JoeChip It's not a poor excuse, that money will not last forever. He withdraws the money and manages to find someone to sell food to him. Great, what about next week? The week after that? Next month? The farmer even told him it would be hard to find someone willing to sell food. It's a war time and many people have had their homes and family members lost. It's not as simple as shelves at the local supermarket being empty and needing to wait for the next restock. I never said it was guaranteed she wouldn't take them back. I said "I don't think she's that cold where she would let them starve to death in her own house". This implies a scenario where she took them back... She did not directly tell them to go live at the shelter. I said she "basically" did. She told them "you can go live at that shelter for all I care". And she clearly didn't care that they left. And lastly, I am not going to show you anything. Go rewatch the movie because you seemed to have missed quite a few scenes. She called them ungrateful and told them for now on they will have to make there own food. |
| |
Reply to CareBear
@JoeChip
It's not a poor excuse, that money will not last forever. He withdraws the money and manages to find someone to sell food to him. Great, what about next week? The week after that? Next month? The farmer even told him it would be hard to find someone willing to sell food. It's a war time and many people have had their homes and family members lost. It's not as simple as shelves at the local supermarket being empty and needing to wait for the next restock.
I never said it was guaranteed she wouldn't take them back. I said "I don't think she's that cold where she would let them starve to death in her own house". This implies a scenario where she took them back...
She did not directly tell them to go live at the shelter. I said she "basically" did. She told them "you can go live at that shelter for all I care". And she clearly didn't care that they left.
And lastly, I am not going to show you anything. Go rewatch the movie because you seemed to have missed quite a few scenes. She called them ungrateful and told them for now on they will have to make there own food.
It's not a poor excuse, that money will not last forever. He withdraws the money and manages to find someone to sell food to him. Great, what about next week? The week after that? Next month? The farmer even told him it would be hard to find someone willing to sell food. It's a war time and many people have had their homes and family members lost. It's not as simple as shelves at the local supermarket being empty and needing to wait for the next restock.
I never said it was guaranteed she wouldn't take them back. I said "I don't think she's that cold where she would let them starve to death in her own house". This implies a scenario where she took them back...
She did not directly tell them to go live at the shelter. I said she "basically" did. She told them "you can go live at that shelter for all I care". And she clearly didn't care that they left.
And lastly, I am not going to show you anything. Go rewatch the movie because you seemed to have missed quite a few scenes. She called them ungrateful and told them for now on they will have to make there own food.
| @CareBear That's a lot of coping explanation based ofn ignorant opinion. He neede to withdraw money when his sister was starving to death that should be obvious no matter how you choose to ignore it. What good is food when she is already dead since his brother was "wating for a good time to withdraw the money and find someopne to sell food". Also we never sawq the Aunt's reaction after they left so your claim of " she clearly didn't care that they left." is not a fact even though you believe it to be. Learn to sperate fact from assumption. You can't show anything because you arer making up scenes from your head to support your opinion, as ecpected from you. |
Reply to JoeChip
@CareBear
That's a lot of coping explanation based ofn ignorant opinion. He neede to withdraw money when his sister was starving to death that should be obvious no matter how you choose to ignore it. What good is food when she is already dead since his brother was "wating for a good time to withdraw the money and find someopne to sell food".
Also we never sawq the Aunt's reaction after they left so your claim of " she clearly didn't care that they left." is not a fact even though you believe it to be. Learn to sperate fact from assumption.
You can't show anything because you arer making up scenes from your head to support your opinion, as ecpected from you.
That's a lot of coping explanation based ofn ignorant opinion. He neede to withdraw money when his sister was starving to death that should be obvious no matter how you choose to ignore it. What good is food when she is already dead since his brother was "wating for a good time to withdraw the money and find someopne to sell food".
Also we never sawq the Aunt's reaction after they left so your claim of " she clearly didn't care that they left." is not a fact even though you believe it to be. Learn to sperate fact from assumption.
You can't show anything because you arer making up scenes from your head to support your opinion, as ecpected from you.
| @JoeChip CareBear said: Go rewatch the movie because you seemed to have missed quite a few scenes. I am not going to spoon feed you screenshots and time stamps because you are too lazy to do it yourself. There's really nothing more to say to you besides repeating this lol |
| |
Reply to CareBear
@JoeChip
I am not going to spoon feed you screenshots and time stamps because you are too lazy to do it yourself. There's really nothing more to say to you besides repeating this lol
CareBear said:
Go rewatch the movie because you seemed to have missed quite a few scenes.
Go rewatch the movie because you seemed to have missed quite a few scenes.
I am not going to spoon feed you screenshots and time stamps because you are too lazy to do it yourself. There's really nothing more to say to you besides repeating this lol
| @CareBear Yeah thought you wouldnT' have any smart thing to say so a lazy response was ecpected. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Hotaru No Haka Episode 1 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )yakyuu-addict - Nov 28, 2008 |
327 |
by Mdraj6996
»»
Jan 2, 6:36 PM |
|
Poll: » Did you cry after you watched this movie? (spoilers) ( 1 2 3 4 )ss4gojetanks - Jul 8, 2011 |
189 |
by Framondo
»»
Dec 19, 2024 7:39 PM |
|
» Grave of the fireflies is not that much sadIshow_suii - Nov 16, 2023 |
27 |
by onzichtbaard
»»
Oct 14, 2024 7:31 PM |
|
» ArticleGinIonSui - Oct 1, 2024 |
4 |
by SoloNecromancer
»»
Oct 5, 2024 3:21 AM |
|
» Rewatch!?!Jai_akash - Apr 22, 2024 |
22 |
by imjayhime
»»
Apr 24, 2024 7:55 PM |