DOKAN 6/Dokan 06.iso/Webs/www.nausicaa.net/~miyazaki/file-archive/MandO.interview

Text File | 1998-09-06 | 33KB | 645 lines

Translation provided by Ryoko Toyama

(Many thanks to David Goldsmith San for editing.)


Miyazaki and Oshii Interview: "Around Patlabor 2: To Put an End to the
Era"

"Outstanding Cleverness"

Miyazaki (M): First, I was impressed by the graphics side.  I've decided
that I would never compete with Oshii-San in this genre.  You didn't
spend all that time in front of the computer for nothing.  To animate
such images is too complicated, so I don't even want to speculate how
you did it (laughs).  Did you use Computer Graphics?

Oshii (O): Almost all of them were so.  But, CG itself doesn't go well
with Cel anime, so it was difficult to combine CG and Cel pictures
together.

M: The style of drawing was like "Patlabor 1" and "Meikyuu Bukken"
(OVA).   I think the film's whole image had such a strange, ominous
pull.  It was very much worth seeing.  It was really outstanding in
terms of clever storytelling, too.  But, the malice of Hoba in "Patlabor
1" was more consistent, and easier to understand.  I can't understand
Tsuge's feelings in this movie.

Animage (AM): You mean, what led Tsuge to commit a crime such as a coup.

M: In the beginning, the scene in Cambodia where they went as PKO, I
thought it must be Cambodia since there was a Buddha statue of Angkor
Tom. In that scene, Tsuge, as a front commander, doesn't open fire, just
asks headquarters for permission to fire.  But that's his own fault. As
a professional military officer, it's not true that you don't say "fight
back" or "fire" when the lives of your subordinates are in danger.   By
following the orders from HQ, he got his subordinates killed.  It's a
matter of whether we think it's respectable because he followed orders,
and I thought (you?) should let (him?) open fire.  Cause it's human.
Judging from the introduction, I can interpret it (the story) as Tsuge
punishing the political system and country that, without resolving all
sorts of contradictions, sent him to the front lines with poor equipment
and then ordered him "don't fight back".  But I have a huge objection to
that.  After all, he opened fire in the end.  Then, he should've fired
from the beginning.  Before anything else, such a person should regret
the sin of letting his subordinates die because of his own misjudgment.
After that, he should openly counterargue how stupid it is to order
"Don't fire" in such a situation, in the world of politics, for example,
at a court martial.

O: I don't think today's Japanese Self Defense Force (SDF) has that kind
of professional military mind.

M: But I heard that there was someone who said "If I were shot, I
wouldn't just let myself be killed so easily", among those who went to
Cambodia as civilian policemen for PKO (Japan sent policemen and SDF to
Cambodia for Peace Keeping Operation.  I think one policeman was shot
and died -Ryo).  I can understand that better.

O: Comparing SDF and policemen, I think policemen have a far greater
(grasp of) reality.  Their work always requires them to work with
people.  An animator who did the key animation also told me "In a
situation like that, of course you fire".  But it's not whether you can
or can not fire.  That wasn't the point.  Of course, I think you can
fire with your own judgment as a front commander.  But that's a pure
militaristic situation, and the current SDF isn't made that way.  I
don't think they consider PKO as a militaristic matter.  I depicted that
as the reason why he could not fire.

M: But if you are a proper front commander, the moment you are given
your command, you should imagine every possible situation, and prepare
for what you would do in a given situation.  I think that's the
readiness of a professional soldier.  And more than that, I feel that a
modern man acts with realism.  Everyone knows the triviality of such
things as state power, the chief of staff, or the country.  When you are
ordered, if it's a choice between your position and the lives of your
subordinates, you would say "Fire".  If you don't say that, you wouldn't
volunteer to go to the war zone.  I think you would say (fire). However,
if you fire, or don't fire, whichever is the case, it's certain that
there will be a problem.  The next moment, there will be an endless,
fruitless argument about who was at fault, which wasn't in the movie,
and no one would be interested in such a thing.  And it would end up
being very confusing.

O:  There was another issue I put in.  When we ask why he didn't fire,
there is an issue of that if he could really recognize the danger to his
life.  That's why I used the cockpit of the combat robot, filled with
monitors.  (The issue is) whether you can really feel that your life is
actually in danger, in a situation where you are surrounded by such
secondary information.

M:  If that's the issue, I feel that after he quit the military and
disappeared, Tsuge would throw technology out and start a down-to-earth
life, like doing organic agriculture or something.  That's more
realistic.

O:  In terms of reality, I think you are right.


"Four Years after the Bubble"

M: But this movie doesn't just deal with the issues regarding the
Japanese SDF.  In the center of it, there is the issue of the city of
Tokyo, as well as the issue of war and peace.  During the Bubble (in
1989, when "Patlabor 1" was theater released, Japan was in the middle of
the Bubble Economy, in which the price of assets such as land went
through the roof), I myself had such a feeling of wanting to give some
punishment to Tokyo, which had enlarged superficially and kept
bulldozing over everything.  I could understand why Hoba wanted to turn
Tokyo upside down with a vengeance.  But, I could not understand Tsuge
at all.  I think Oshii-San himself is losing interest in today's Tokyo.
A person with enough organizing power to carry out a coup wouldn't
become a front-line commander to begin with, if we think about it. But,
Oshii-San made (the film) knowing such things very well.  That's why
it's difficult to talk about.  In short, it's just that Oshii-San wanted
to do it.  He wants to destroy the bridges, and he wants to blast the
missiles (laughs).  But that's something you shouldn't do.  So, there is
also an Oshii-San who says "Don't do such things" (in the movie).  And
in the end, when he was asked "So, you would die, too?", he says "Well,
I want to keep watching a bit longer".  It just means that we are pulled
into Oshii-San's inner world, so it's no use to say this or that from
(the standpoint of) realism.  We have no choice but to enjoy this time
in the Oshii world.  So, I enjoyed this movie. In that sense, Oshii-San
himself made it with a sense of fun, and I don't think it spreads an
ideological influence over the audience.  Unfortunately, I didn't think
this was that kind of stinging thought. This movie has nothing which can
match the hatred I felt in the previous movie (Patlabor 1).  Those
policemen are acting with sorrow from the start, because the enemy is a
reflection of themselves.  It was the same with Tsuge.  There wasn't
much of Tsuge's henchmen.  Just that robot which looks like a water
cleaner (laughs).  It was made by completely removing meanness,
grossness, evil, sadism, or something that make you feel such things.
And there was a white-haired man like me.... I was watching it thinking
it's awkward (laughs). And you like the woman who is said to be the most
accomplished woman in the TMPD, who seems to be tired of her busy life,
the retired old man, and those foolish young ones who Goto said were the
only thing left for him, don't you, Oshii-San?  You don't dislike the
guy who is like "Kyojin no Hoshi (The Star of Giants )" (He means Ohta -
"Kyojin no Hoshi" is a manga (and anime) which was the very example of
hot-blooded, guts-solves-all story.  Ohta still lives in this era -
Ryo).  I thought that (he?) should've stopped that absurd charge,
though.  That's stupid no matter how you think (laughs).  I watched the
movie in that way. It's been four years since "Patlabor 1", which was
released in the middle of the Bubble Economy, and once the bubble had
burst, it became clear that Tokyo isn't such a big deal, and this is a
very feeble society.

O: It shows its weakness in many aspects.

M: There was a time when Japanese society actually seemed strong and
seemed to be advancing toward a certain direction to say something, but
it's not advancing any more.  The other day, I saw a freshman LDP
congressman saying to President Kouno, "Please stop those demeaning
heckling (in the Diet).  It's unbearable to hear such things, and I
can't let children listen to such things."  (KOUNO Yoehi was the
president of the Liberal Democratic Party.  This interview was conducted
while the LDP, the Japan's ruling party for 35 years, was out of office.
 Many thought it might change Japan, but nothing happened.  Today
(2/97), the LDP is Japan's ruling party again -Ryo.)  And Mr. Kouno was
nodding.  I don't know if this changes the LDP, but it was the kind of
scene which symbolizes the turning point when the era of Japan's upward
moving ended and the era of downward moving started.  I don't know how
it will be evaluated later, though.

O: The political world changed, because they thought it didn't matter if
it changed.  It's not like they thought there would be some dramatic
development.  It could be changed, because everyone thought there
wouldn't be much difference between the LDP and the coalition
government.

M: But, the structure of the cozy relationships with the business world
will be a shaken up a bit.  Even that can make the air fresh.  We don't
have a lot of options.  I mean, what vision can this country have?
After all, they are just partial improvements.  Not even an improvement,
but it's just saying don't be so greedy, or something like that.  Even
though we want to judge the issues we have now by making them simpler,
it's not that simple.


"The era with no vision"

O: The world has no vision, either.  Not only Japan, but also America,
and Europe.  If there was (someone who has a vision), it's the Islamic
world, though it's fanatic.  It's more a blind belief than a vision, I
guess.  I think that's because the era itself has started being moved by
what comes out from the structurally weak point, rather than by a
vision. My impression is, the recapping of the era has started.

M: Rather than that we have no vision, it's that people feel they don't
need a worthless vision.

O: The only thing that remains is the desire to eat a stomach-full of
good food, and build a new house.  And it's the same all over the world.
 Even in the Islamic world, even though there is fundamentalism on the
surface, they come to Japan to make money, after all.  Of course some
come because things are desperate, but most of them come because they
want to make money to build a house.  In the end, only a sort of "desire
naturalism" remains.  I wouldn't like it, if I were forced to deal with
such a thing.  But Japan has been doing the same thing, at least after
the war, so I can't deny that.  So, I don't like it, because it
resembles myself.  Because they are doing it without any hesitation.
Dads of the post-war period had been doing the same thing, toward the
dream of a nuclear family.  (They had) the dream to be free from the
constraints of various blood relations, and to have a vision shared only
by the (immediate) family.  And that dream was realized, wasn't it?
However, the bubble has burst, and such things have all collapsed.  So,
now, we are entering into the time of recapping.  Which direction we are
going to recap it in is more important than to build a vision now.  Like
Arakawa said, the only issue is how we are going to put an end to it.
It's the same with the issue of "war".  It's not whether we are going to
have it or not, since it's already started.  Until we put an end to it,
there can't be a new vision.

M: I don't think there will be an end.

O: I mean, regardless of whether there will be an end or not, the only
thing left is to wait and see the future for a while more.  There is no
other thing to do. This movie isn't a drama in that sense.  `Cause  it
isn't dialectic at all. The conclusion was given from the beginning.

M: And if you arm yourself in such a way when making a film, there is
nothing left for me to say (laughs).  I mean, everything was well
disposed in various characters, so when I came up with some question,
(one of the characters) answers it.  But the conclusion where that
creepy SDF investigator, Arakawa, was one of the criminals wasn't
interesting.

O: That was just to end the movie...

M: That's what I thought.  But I wished that he'd just kept on going
(laughs).

O: For myself, the pedantic way of reacting, like Arakawa did, is a
possibility.  It is possible that a person who is not involved in the
situation can say the best thing at the point.  In short, knowing can
stand just as knowing, so you don't have to be asked what you are going
to do in that situation.  If you see in order to take some action, or to
search for something, it's not seeing.  You can't see things as they
are, since you have some predisposition to do something.


"In war, the winner loses"

M: About the conversation between Arakawa and Goto about the false peace
and war of justice, that enumeration of words, I thought that "Here we
go again, the Oshii tune as usual".  I thought that that's what you've
been saying all the time, but since they are fast-talking, we can not
stop and think (while watching the movie).  So, you have removed the
organic agriculture, you have removed the debate at the Diet, in short,
the most tiresome things in our daily life, the worldly nitty-gritty,
you removed all those things, and created a computer game in the Oshii
world.  I saw the movie as such.  Before I saw it, I had thought that
Oshii-San's book of thoughts might have come out, but (after I saw it),
I thought that Oshii-San was in the mental state of moving to Izu to
settle down to watch Tokyo (laughs).

O:  That's fairly close (laughs).

M:  In that sense, it was interesting until I saw your hands.  But the
minute you set up the movie with more worldly settings so that it will
have a more interesting conspiracy, such as, "it was the Clinton
government's trap to inflict economic damage on Japan, or to gain a
political compromise (from Japan)," it further loses reality.  America
is also in a fix.  If they do (fight), I feel that it will be a more
stupid, violent, simple, kids' brawl.  Such as not buying Japanese cars
anymore.  But this is complicated, too.  What about American cars with
Japanese engines? (laughs).

O: There is a gap.  Even though there is a certain structure of conflict
as a political idea, in terms of actual technology, there are some parts
in which Japan has already surpassed the US.  From games to automobiles,
it's so in Japan, and it's so outside of Japan.  Even if the
politicians' thinking becomes more radical, the structures are such that
it won't materialize as a reality of our life. If we can think of
politics as an extension of the reality of our life, no one would start
a war.  Because someone jumps the gun, war happens.  And once it's
happened, it's not good, and there is no end to it, so we have no choice
but to stop - though how we stop it is another matter.  Something like
opening up a prospect by expanding the territory by war, as in the old
days such as the era of Imperial Japan - there is no such thing anymore.

M: At any rate, if you have war, you won't gain anything even if you
win.

O: There is no win or lose, in essence.

M: Rather, the winner loses.  The military becomes overconfident and
enlarges, and people acquire a strange confidence.  I heard that some
Vietnamese said that the confidence that they beat America corrupted
Vietnam.  It's a groundless confidence.

O:  The US has no vision to bind the country other than ruling the world
well with its hegemony.  If they stop doing so, (the country) will
disintegrate.  Because they don't want that, they keep doing it, that's
all.  It is certain that the world has hit the wall, in both economic
and political sense.  The reason for this is, because we've gotten the
answer that everything we've been doing is no good.

M:  I think that once we get that answer, we'll create various other
visions.  I can not say that doing so is a mistake. For these creatures
called humans, there is no other choice than to keep going on by making
it (vision?), trying to continue to walk towards it, while saying "this
didn't work either".


"To make a movie"

O: Seen historically, the things we did in the 20th Century were huge.
But they were failures after all.

M:  They are the experiments of the 19th Century.  And all of them went
bankrupt before the end of the 20th Century.

O: Speaking of war, the nature of it has changed, and every war has
become a civil war.

M: Otherwise, I wouldn't have made a movie like "Porco Rosso" (laughs).

O: If we think that way, "There is no point in making a movie for now.
In truth, there is no value in making a movie now", I said so before.

M: That's because you speak as a thinker.  I'm not.  I am an
entertainer, so entertaining (people) with a movie, or entertaining them
by giving them a ride in my tricycle (he owns a red three-wheel car),
it's the same thing to me.  In fact, when I give two small kids a ride,
they really get delighted.  And it makes me really happy to see that.
So, I still have something I want to make.  A pig flies in a red plane,
or you seclude yourself on a mountain with a dog (in the winter of 1993,
Oshii-San was going to leave his home town, Tokyo, to move to Izu with
his family and dog), it doesn't matter, but, both Oshii-san and I would
sum that (what we've done) up as 'not good', that's for sure (laughs).

AM: For Oshii-san, was it a movie to recap the era?

M: I felt that thoughts from the time when Oshii-San joined the student
movement in the 70s are still swirling inside of him, and he is still
making a story with the desire to somehow turn things upside down,
explode them, and reveal the essence of the world.  With missiles,
Molotov cocktails, or anti-subversive law, it doesn't matter.  So, he
wants to put the SDF in the middle of the city, and wants to show that
it's a military.  And where is Oshii-San?  He is among those tankers in
tanks.  So, the movie paid so much consideration towards the ordinary
soldiers (laughs), but no consideration towards the tax payers around
there.

AM: It had more consideration towards a dog walking around the streets.

M: To start with, there is a question of whether we'd have an unchained
dog in Tokyo (laughs).  I guess it wouldn't work if a cat was meowing in
that scene.

O: Though it seems to have reality on the surface, everything is a movie
(fiction).

M:  In short, the hatred such as Hoba's in the previous movie has been
changing into something else - that's what I felt. I think that the only
way we can discuss movies is by talking about what we are to make.  A
person who hasn't retired from movie making has no choice but to make a
movie, if he has an issue to talk about.  I feel that it's not
appropriate for a movie maker to criticize a movie even though you
yourself have no plan to make a movie.  In that sense, I think I still
have movies to make.

AM: What will your next movie be?

M:  I have something I want to make, but whether I can make it next or
not depends on the situation.  Also, I want to make a love story in
straightforward way.  Regardless of whether the world loses dogma or
does whatever, love remains.  Though Oshii-San seems to think that love
doesn't exist anymore.

O:  No, I wouldn't say that (laughs).  I'm not that dry.  However,
originally, I didn't intend to make a movie like "Patlabor 2".

AM: You've said in other interviews that you made it because you
couldn't wait. What couldn't you wait for?

O:  I meant two things by saying I couldn't wait.  One is that, simply
put, I wanted to live in Izu with my dog.  So, please let me make money.
 The other is the political issues I was talking about.   I wanted to
complete what I was thinking at that time, if I have to make it anyway.
So, in terms of energy like hatred, certainly Hoba had more.

M:  I thought so.  Even the birds which you are always so particular
about did nothing more than fly in front of the airship (laughs).

O:  They are tableau-like images.  It's not a drama.  Because there is
no dialectic.


"Love and sensuality"

M: After all, a drama is "falling in love".  I've come to think that way
these days.

O:  I don't know if it's love itself, but I guess it's something close
to that.

M:  When I had an opportunity to join a conversation between SHIBA
Ryorato-San and HOTTA Yoshie-San (both are the writers whom Miyazaki-San
loves and respects a great deal -Ryo), Shiba-San said, "I think that a
novels are for writing about such affairs between a man and a woman.
What I've been doing isn't a novel.  It's a letter to myself in my
youth.  A letter to 20 year old me,  who was on a tank made of thin
steel plates, and was wondering why in the world I had to be on such a
thing."  Then Hotta-San said, "It's the same with me.  Until this age,
I've been writing an answer to myself who saw the stretch of burned
ruins during the war." If we start talking about whether it's a novel or
not, there would be bloodshed (laughs), but, there aren't so many
interesting things in this world, are there?  So, it is very important
to be excited, or to be full of life.  I still think that even today, it
is possible to make a movie to show that and to entertain.  To entertain
doesn't mean to make a service scene.  It's to carry (the audience)
well.  In that sense, this movie did very well up to the halfway point.
Whether it entertained till the end is another matter, though (laughs).

O:  I think for a human to live, we need some kind of sensuality.
During a certain period, that can be called love.  The moment when your
passion gushes out towards something other than yourself.  At that time,
if you are occupied with yourself, it won't be sensual.  As for
Shiba-San's letter to himself as a youth, while he was occupied with
himself, it probably wasn't the spurting of his passion.  The object (of
one's passion) can be a woman, child, dog, bird, or anything.  Either
for novels or movies, if you create something, you need at least
something like that.  If not for that, it might not be entertainment.  I
think in my movie, there are such things remaining, but just barely.

M:  I wish you would make something which makes people laugh, even if
you have to stretch yourself... I think it's a pity that (you don't use
it) since you have such a talent.  It's OK, you don't have to say
difficult things.

AM: We heard that you want to make that kind of movie, that makes people
laugh, as your next project.

M:  But I won't lend you my tricycle (laughs).

O:  If you lend me that car, I can make that movie.  Please lend it to
me.

M: I know how a car is treated at a movie location.

O: I will return it in perfect condition.

M: No, it's the same thing as saying, "Lend me your wife.  I'll return
her in perfect condition" (laughs).  I can't lend it that easily.

O: Well, let's put that aside (laughs).  On different note, when I
finished this movie, I came to see what I want to say a bit more
clearly. Maybe I'm repeating myself again, but I thought I had to do the
story of post-war Japan, this time properly.  Once and for all, we have
to make a movie properly about what kind of era the post-war era in
Japan, or Shouwa, was. No one has done it yet. I think it would be a
terrible situation if, without doing it, 2001 comes before we know it.


"Jostling of all the human race"

M: But on the other hand, a lot of things are becoming clear these days.
 From now on, all humans have to live while jostling each other. I went
to France the other day, and it's a rich place.  England cannot even be
compared to it.  With such abundant green.  How can flying be so cheap
there?  Drive from the town of Annecy for a while, and there is an
airport in the middle of a field.  A 30 minute charter flight cost only
10,000 yen (about $100).  Ride a Taxi in Tokyo for a while, and it costs
you the same. If you take a sidetrack, even if it's a suburb of Paris,
you see rich country scenery.  It's so unfair (laughs).

O:  Including such richness in nature, including such richness in
material things, in short, from now on, there will be jostling between
those who want to protect their vested interests and those who want
their own fair share. Regardless if Japan is really rich or not, others
see Japan as a rich country. So that has to be protected. Right now,
there is no idea that we can abandon that, is there?

M: There is an idea to share.

O: I think that sharing will fail somewhere before it's realized.

M:  The other day, I saw a TV program in which SHIONO Nanami San (a
novelist who mainly writes about Italian history) was talking with three
politicians, and it was interesting.  They were talking about whether 99
people should be sacrificed to save one person, saying that the era when
the reality of humanism will be questioned has already arrived.

O:  There is one rich person because there are 99 poor people.  I don't
think a culture can exist in any other way.  If everything is leveled
and becomes like a desert, can we as human beings deal with it?  We will
probably take the side of protecting the culture, though we don't call
it good.  Can we conclude that it's ideal for humans simply if everyone
can have enough to eat?  Can we be satisfied and ignore everything else
(if that ideal was realized)?  To say such a thing, or the feeling of
wanting to say that, is the problem.  In reality, that wouldn't be
enough.

M:  It's a problem where the answer isn't black or white.

O:  As we discussed before, that's the problem which was posed during
the 19th century, and we tried to figure out what the best solution was
during the 20th century. Socialism is the most leftist thinking among
them. We tested everything, from left to right, and everything failed.
We accomplished nothing more than confirming that the Capitalism was the
system with the least failures for now.

M:  It's not that it is succeeding as a system.  Since the poorest
countries are all Capitalist.

O:  In that sense, the problem of the market principle of Capitalism and
the problem of Democracy are mixed.  No one really thinks that Democracy
is the best system.  It's just that it's the better one.  After all,
Democracy is nothing more than (a system) which exists standing on the
sacrifice of a majority of the people on the earth.

M:  That is exactly why "Nausicaa" wouldn't proceed and still hasn't
ended (laughs).

O:  So we know that clearly to this point, but what do we do next?  We
can not get a solution so easily.  Probably we won't get a right answer
before we die.  So, I'm saying that at least we have to recap.  I don't
think we can start anything without doing that.  It's not that we have
to think together.  Recapping can actually start a war, just like the
civil war in former Yugoslavia.  We can say that they started recapping
after Tito had died.

M: Recapping is "summing up".  It means that we have to conclude what we
have had up until now.  And we know what that conclusion would be.  It's
just that we've reconfirmed the fact that humans aren't that wise.  It's
something people have been saying, for 2000 years, 4000 years.

O:  The people who understand that can see the point.


"The standpoint of non-humans"

M: That's why we've hit the wall.  Such as the harm brought by boundless
development out of desire.  The biggest thing is that the belief of
"Nature is infinite" in Marxism collapsed.  Whenever I listen to you
Oshii-San, I wonder what standpoint you have about how human creatures,
who are dependent on nature or plants, exist.  I know you feed birds at
your terrace, or plant grapes, but there is nothing about such an issue
in your movie.

O:  There is.   I put Seitaka-awadachisou (a name of plant) in my
movies.

M:  That's just that you are using Seitaka-awadachisou as a tool to
express the image that humans are stalled.

O:  In that sense, you are right.

M:  Like it or not, we will have to deal with the issues of plants or
agriculture.  Some say that we just have to produce Tomatoes and other
food at factories, but I don't think so.  You yourself have already
realized this.  Otherwise, you wouldn't move to Izu.  I don't think
that's simply because you want to live with your dog.

O:  I'll think about it well with my dog.

M:  Even Sherlock Holmes spent his last days as a bee keeper.

O:  I think there is such a reflection.  We've been focusing too much on
humans, and animation isn't the exception.  Even when two persons are
talking, probably a bird is flying over their heads, a fish is in a
pond, and a dog is watching you when you look down.  In my case, the
eyes of animals are always on my mind.

M:  There are many cooking programs on TV.   Catch a fish, and tear it
apart - very sinful.  I feel like saying "Stop it".  Let's not kill, and
eat the bare minimum.  I'm getting to be like a monk.  I guess that's
because I'm getting old. I used to watch them and think it looked tasty
until recently (laughs). But we kill too many just for fun. Is it less
cruel than eating a live monkey's brain?  It's a difference in customs,
that's all.  We'd better return once more to the place where humans and
earthworms are the same.

O:  We know it, but I don't think we can return there.


"The scenery I love"

M:  I feel that we will return there when we lose everything.  I think
that time will come when or right before the population becomes 10
billion.  Then, when everyone pauses, it's the same whether you are
black or white, or in Bosnia or in Okushiri Island (the northern island
which was devastated by earthquake in 1993).  You cry or exclaim for
your family. (I heard that) a woman ran to a house whose parents were
away, because a tidal wave was coming.  She saw three children shivering
at the entrance and they dashed to hold on her fast.  That's the only
thing she remembers, and they somehow managed to escape.  The rest of it
is probably the same anywhere.

O:  I have no objection to it at all.  As a recognition, it's definitely
so.  As I said before, the gap between the reality of our life and
politicians' thinking is widening.  I think it's the same thing as the
question of how we can close that gap.  To say you care about animals
and to say you have to reexamine postwar history properly once more -
they are actually the same thing.

M:  It's not just postwar history.

O:  But concretely, that is it.  It's the reality we've lived.  There,
we have people like Miyazaki-San, or Producer Suzuki of Ghibli (laughs).
It's the actual era in which we've been living, and I really want to
make (a film about it) properly.

M:  I cannot quite understand your adherence to Tokyo.  It's like you
are forcing yourself to make Tokyo a hypothetical enemy.  I feel that
you've lost your interest in Tokyo a long time ago.  I've lost almost
all interest in Tokyo.

O: I've been living in Tokyo for forty-some years.  It's easy to think
that this is an uninteresting city, or that you want to destroy it.  The
most frustrating thing I feel when I watch movies such as "Akira", is
that they destroy Tokyo so easily. If you depict it as a city which you
won't miss even if it were destroyed, as a fake thing made from only
steel and concrete from the beginning, destroying it won't accomplish
anything. It's far from being a real catharsis.   Even in Tokyo, if you
look carefully, if you dig up your memories, you can find some scenery
which you are very much attracted to.  It can be the evening at the
train crossing, or it can be scenery of some vacant land with
Seitaka-Awadachisou in Tokyo Bay area.

We have scenery we love inside of us.  It's related to our childhood
memories.  If you depict (Tokyo) that way, and depict it as something
you still have to destroy, I can understand that, but they (those
movies) do not. I think they don't have the right issues in mind.
Animation can do that. I still think that there is meaning to be found
in making a movie which can do it properly.

(From "Animage", October, 1993).

Translated without permission for *personal entertainment purposes
only*. The translator is solely responsible for any mistranslation or
misunderstanding due to it.

(  ) is added by the translator to supplement the words to make things
easier to understand.

This is *not*, by any means, an accurate word for word translation. The
translator simply does not have the capability, the patience, or the
dictionary for that (excuses, excuses ^^;;).