Blossay Pt. 1 - Redemption

Lisa Khadaran
EAS 314 Final Pt I
5.9.2011
W.C. 1700

Redemption in the Narratives


For my topic, I decided to look at redemption in the narratives that we discussed in class. First, before I began analyzing the texts, I think it would be appropriate to discuss what redemption means versus how the characters achieve it in the texts. These are two very different concepts. The first, what redemption means, is what it means to the characters and what it means to the audience. What, as the audience, do we take from a redemption narrative? Some characters in our texts don't actively pursue their redemption, rather they achieve it through permission of a third party. And, for those that do pursue it, then what actions do they go through in order to be redeemed. Finally, are they truly redeemed? What I mean by this is, does the character accept the redemption, or does the audience need to feel like the character has been redeemed in order for them to be ultimately redeemed? I think that, as an audience, we are part of a character's redemption.

The first text that I looked at was A Cruel Story of Youth. This film was directed by Oshima Nagisa, and centers around two students in the pro-modern movement. I'd like to look at whether or not we can redeem these two main characters, Kiyoshi and Makoto. There is redemption through living and there is redemption through dying. This story, unfortunately, is of the former. In the end, can we say that these two characters are redeemed through their horrific deaths? I think I can say they can, based on my viewing experiences.

In this film, Kiyoshi and Makoto are tragic characters. The audience is almost grows to despise them because they are extreme expressions of tragic youth angst. However, I feel like they are redeemed at the end of the film because of two specific scenes in the film. The first scene(s) is where Makoto's father admits there was a lack of parenting on his end and the interference of Kiyoshi's older lover. Second, the scene where the two characters are discussing what will happen to them in the future. These two characters are the result of the generation before them, as evidenced by the poor direction they are given by the adult figures in their lives. I think that this suits them for redemption in the narrative, even though they don't actively seek out redemption, and it is forced upon them. Ironic, because almost all the other poor choices they have made in life are because they didn't want to deal with things being forced on them. I also think that the scenes where Makoto and Kiyoshi are forced to deal with the older generation are cause for redemption, because I can see them as the new Japan, fighting against the old Japan, and trying to break free from social constraints. This, I think makes them worthy of redemption too, because they are not just rebels then trying to disobey the world without reason, but they are fighters for a new age.

I think that Makoto and Kiyoshi being fighters for a new age, regardless of how unintentionally it is, helps force that these two characters not knowing what to do in their future makes them worthy of redemption. Redemption isn't something that needs to occur simply because the character is bad to begin with, but is rather a change in attitude. I think these characters not knowing what they're doing qualifies them for redemption because death technically is a new attitude, the final form of redemption. Unfortunately, while I felt that these characters are redeemable, and were redeemed through death, not everyone will feel this way. And that is fine. Redemption is defined by different ideas of what is redeemable. Because I think these two are tragic characters to begin with, based on their upbringing and what they stand for in the future, I think they are wholly redeemable characters. But, I think, what is even sadder in the film, is that besides whatever viewer acknowledgement Makoto and Kiyoshi have in a scene I consider their redemption scene, there is no visible character to acknowledge their redemption. Even though I, an audience member, finds them redeemable, there is no reason to believe that other characters in the film will find that in these two deaths there is redemption.

For another example where I think we will never know if the characters were ever redeemed, but are searching for redemption is "White Light; Black Rain." I think this film was one of the saddest texts that we went over; the dismalness of it in the visuals the audience are given makes an already horrifying event, truly even more horrifying. I think though, that there is still redemption in this text, because the characters, who are real-life people, are actively searching for it. The men that aided in dropping the bombs, in this text, contribute their sorrow at the loss of human life, and what they participated in without really comprehending the consequences. I am sad that, while I can assume that maybe Kiyoshi and Makoto are redeemed in the end, but because these are real people, I will never know if they were ever given, granted some sort of reprieve from the guilt that they felt. Real-life tragedy is different from fictional tragedy, which is why I feel we are more readily accepting to redeem those in a fictional setting, than in the former.

Trying to figure out who deserves redemption is very difficult. I mean, an audience can interpret scenes in a film as a character being redeemed, or they don't have to, and just view the text as the author's futile struggle to try and redeem what an audience member sees as an irredeemable character. I think, that if the audience cannot find reason to redeem the characters in a text, then they must look at why other characters would be willing to redeem another character. Another example of this is Fumiko's husband in Ants Swarm. He is, what I consider to be, cruel to Fumiko, and endangers her safety just by coercing her into having unsafe sex constantly, just because he has the will to not have her become pregnant. He is a cold character, in my opinion, but while I find him an irredeemable beast, I'm sure that there are others who would disagree with me. Same with Fumiko; I'm sure there are others who find her unable to find redemption, simply because she is allowing this thin-line of almost abuse to occur. However, I don't think this is a text that relies on the audience for approval for redemption, but rather on the characters redeeming themselves. In fact, their psychotic relationship is almost built on the need for redemption.

Fumiko needs to be told what a horrible wife she is, and needs to be encouraged and beaten so that she can accept her womanhood. But, Matsuda needs a willing partner to beat up, almost as if he needs it to accept his manhood. These two need each other, and while the audience reading the text may not see the redemption that these two give each other and actively seek from each other, it's there in the small detail; the ants in this story represent the bigger part of Matsuda and Fumiko's relationship. Together, they are a strong unit searching for food and cooperatively working together, and they swarm around the meat, which Matsuda used to take care of Fumiko after a hard bout of sex, and Fumiko remarks that those ants haven't tasted sugar sweetness in a long time. I feel that this is a euphemism for Fumiko and Matsuda's relationship - they are purely relying on each other to forgive each other, and not to provide the sweetness that comes from a long-term relationship.

I feel like, for the redemption in these texts, we could either choose to find some way to let a character be redeemed, but there were just some instances where we would never know, like in Cruel Story of Youth and Black Light; White Rain, or we could choose to read into possible redemption when we look at stories like Ants Swarm. I think that must be how Japanese society views redemption as well. We can't just say in certainty that a character has been redeemed, because who are we to really pass whether or not they were redeemed in the end. Sure, some of the possible acts of redemption might need an outside eye to really give a movement to a character's redeeming scene, but I think we also have to look at how other characters feel about redeeming another character. But, if an audience member doesn't believe that a character should be redeemed, then there is no forcing them to acknowledge a redemption, even if characters in the text believe another character or themselves to be redeemed. Truth is, I think that redemption is different for each person, and that is what makes us all unique individuals. I think, too, that redeeming a character is far easier to do than to not redeem one. I think that in Japanese culture, the idea of redemption is a concept that everyone can agree on or disagree on, but regardless of what side is chosen, no one is correct but is correct at the same time. I don't know how much sense this will make for everyone, but as I was examining redemption in these three texts, I could really feel the idea of Mujou. I feel like if redemption happens in the texts it happens, but if it doesn't happen, then it doesn't. Accepting that there is redemption in a story doesn't necessarily make all the characters redeemed, but not accepting redemption in a story also doesn't mean it hasn't occurred.

___________________________


Sorry about the belated post. I really came to try to understand that there were probably many different types of redemption stories in every text we discussed, but that I also think redemption means different things for people. I hope I haven't confused anyone further :/