Confidence Is Needed To Find Friends - Paulette's Chair (Poulette No Isu)

Paulette's Chair (Poulette No Isu) is a short film directed by Hiroyasu Ishida who is best known for his fast-paced viral short Fumiko's Confession. The short was produced at Studio Colorido, and it's almost certain to brighten your day. Paulette's chair has no dialogue so it relies heavily on the great score by Masashi Hamauzu, which evokes emotions and will be vital to its analysis. The visuals are also very charming and many have noted it has a very Ghibli-esque look. This is likely because the character designer and animation director is Yojiro Arai, who served as animator for Ghibli's From up on Poppy Hill and The Secret World of Arietty. Overall it has a very uplifting story about a girl, Paulette, and her journey through to her teenage years and her attempts to make friends in two key points in her young life. 

Although she is intially shy Paulette does show the desire to make friends. https://s3-ap-northeast-1.amazonaws.com/stores-files/monomusik-overseas/0719bb166bdce9a1ed71.png

The story is about a shy little girl, who lives in the country and seems to play alone with her doll or read books. But then when other children appear she wants to play with them as she watches them laugh and have fun whilst she is hidden from view or far away. As she sobs on her chair, it comes to life, throwing her off. After she gets back on the chair jumps about, it then gallops at a break neck pace eventually throwing the girl off so that she lands amongst the group of children. The girl then plays jump rope with her new friends and happily waves them farewell as the sun begins to set. The girl continues to play with her chair as it takes her racing with the horses in the fields, birds in the sky and the fish in the stream. She uses it read her books and to protect her from the rain. But she still has her friends from before. As she grows she breaks the leg of the chair, but is able to fix it later that night. Continuing on this as the seasons go on she tries to use it whilst she does her homework on a small table, however as Paulette continues to grow the small chair and table get too uncomfortable for her. So Paulette uses a bigger chair, but still keeps the small one. Paulette and her family then move from the country to the city and she takes her chair with her. Paulette thus also goes to a new school. She tries to make friends but is rejected. Like before, when she was too shy, Paulette goes home and sobs, this time seemingly praying. The chair comes alive and as she finds herself sat on it, paulette is rushed out of the house and down the street. It tosses her towards the new children and as she lands in a tree the chair appears under her to catch her fall. The girls Paulette had approached earlier giggle as she sits on her chair, all roughed up, and presumably become her friends. The small chair breaks under her weight just before the credits roll. 

A pictorial summary of Paulette's Chair 

So on the surface Paulette's Chair is just a very fun fantastic little tale about a girl and her magical chair. It seems to be much in the spirit of My Neighbour Totoro with a young girl experiencing life through an amalgamation of the real world with a fantasy aspect. It could also be compared to another Ghibli film The Cat Returns where elements of the real world are given an ounce of fantasy to them. Either way I believe there can be a deeper reading of this short piece if we view the chair as a manifestation of Paulette's self confidence. The story of Paulette's Chair is about our main character making friends as she grows up and how her chair empowers her to do so. This reading mainly comes from how different Paulette is when she doesn't have her chair and how she is when she does. When she is riding her chair she is happy and ready to go and do things. This is mainly shown when she is visually compared to horses in a field, birds in the sky and fish in the stream as she sits on the galloping chair. The chair gives her a sense of freedom; she is no longer confined as some caged animal, she is free to go wherever she desires at whatever pace she wants. Horses, which when galloping in an open field, are usually a symbol of freedom. So too here these horses are not in some fenced paddock but are free to run (just as the birds are free to fly and the fish are free to swim). This just symbolizes the freedom Paulette has from her self-confidence. I must note this happens after her first experiences with her friends, showing how she feels liberated from her anxiety and fear by her chair. Her chair, or (with this reading) her self confidence, gives her the freedom to do as she pleases, in this case make friends. As a child this self confidence was very easy to find as it seems to be for most children. Most young children generally don't care about how they look to others or about being judged so they often have confidence in themselves. However Paulette appears to perhaps be an introvert who is content to play alone with her doll or read books by herself, however her tears say she does want friends. However after she sits on her galloping chair, all this erodes away and she is confident enough to make friends. When she is on her chair she is happy and this means she is happy with herself When she first sits on her chair we sense a change in the mood of the piano music as it becomes less sad and meandering but happy and springing with violins coming into the fore. We can see that she now has confidence as when they play jump rope, although Paulette fails she still has a good time with the others. 

The galloping chair represents the freedom Paulette gets from self-confidence as it is compared to free animals. https://www.pigtailsinpaint.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Hiroyasi-Ishida-et-al-Paulette-s-Chair-2014-3.png

So Paulette’s chair is a manifestation of her confidence that comes alive and helps her make friends, but nothing lasts forever. After a while Paulette's chair breaks, she has started to outgrow the image she has of herself and so her self confidence (her chair) becomes more fragile. She is able to fix her chair though, in the dark of night. However as the seasons go by children become teenagers, as does Paulette. Teenagers are typically much more self conscious and embarrassed by things. Therefore just as Paulette outgrows her small chair most kids (and Paulette in this short film) outgrow their confidence in themselves as they enter their teens. No single occassion causes this, no traumatic event, just growth age and most probably puberty. Paulette moves to a new city and new location and must find new friends. During this transition her chair (self confidence) is never forgotten nor left behind as the animator(s) do just enough with the chair's placement in each shot or the thickness of its outline to keep the chair in focus of the frame. Despite her chair being physically with her, we can see with her relocation to a new school that Paulette has again become shy. Although she does ask others to be her friends (unlike before), she does not persevere and, in a parallel to her earlier self, runs off and cries by herself, this time in her room. Her chair magically comes alive again, this time going under her and picking her up, rather than imploring her to hop on it. The chair, with Paulette atop, then races out the door and down the street. The two race towards Paulette's new classmates and as they do Paulette remembers her feelings of freedom as she is reminded of galloping amongst the horses, presumably as well as with the fish and bird. She has regained her self-confidence and again has those same feelings of freedom. It is notable that her hair comes free in this process. Previously she had made herself up nicely with her attire and her pinned up hair, however when it comes free she feels happy, she is in other words happy with herself and has regained her self-confidence. Her chair allows Paulette to again have the freedom she had when she was young, notably when she didn’t have her hair tied up as well. The chair then flings Paulette head first towards her peers as it had done before. Even though this is a much long distance to go, showing the difficulty it is to make friends or put oneself as a teenager, Paulette's chair never lets her down. It shows that no matter the gap one must overcome or the route one must traverse, as long as they have self-confidence they can do anything, no matter how impossible it might seem. So too just as Paulette's chair support her through the air it also breaks her fall out of the tree she lands in. Her self confidence protects her from any fall or injury and she ends up achieving her goal in the end by making new friends. 

Although she initially outgrows her self-confidence she finds it again, letting her hair blow free when galloping down the street. https://www.pigtailsinpaint.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Hiroyasi-Ishida-et-al-Paulette-s-Chair-2014-5.jpg

If we read Paulette’s chair as a representation of her self confidence this short film shows how important and liberating having self confidence is in making friends. But there is one problem with this reading: there is no indication of how Paulette gets confidence in herself; her chair just comes alive. Although we can lose confidence in ourselves over time or as we age, especially as we hit puberty, so this needs no explanation. However, it is harder to explain how one gets comfortable in such a short time. How does Paulette, someone who hides from the other children, gain self-confidence in such a quick time? We might even wonder if the chair actually does have any magic powers of if it is just Paulette's imagination. So when she is lying on the upside down chair and it is holding her book, this could be done with an ordinary chair. Some may not have one of these but is could be suggested that the chair is Paulette’s imaginary friend. Imaginary friends theoretically are made by shy children that don’t have real friends, and in their interactions with them they gain the confidence to make friends. Furthermore imaginary friends don’t necessarily go away as one grows up; they could stay with Paulette into teenage years. Paulette’s Chair could just symbolise how imaginary friends often give kids confidence to do things they might normally not do, such as making friends as is the case with Paulette. Either way the suggested reading, of Paulette's chair representing her self-confidence (whether her chair is a manifestation of self-confidence or is an imaginary friend), has some very interesting and thought provoking ideas if one shot or two are highlighted and analysed solely. I did this a few times above noting how the journey to make friends or use ones self confidence is a much more difficult and treacherous one as a teenager than as a child, or how self-confidence gets outgrown as one comes into their teenage years. However there is some more that we can look at. I noted how when Paulette is rushed down her street in her new town and then has a feeling of freedom. It is notable at this time that her hair band gets lost and her hair blows freely in the wind as she joyfully smiles. We could speculate that this represents to have the freedom self-confidence gives us we need to be ourselves. When Paulette goes to school and even when she is moving she looks undeniably immaculate with her hair pinned up and her blue attire. During this time she looks notable subdued and as shy as the start of the short. It is almost like her hair clips, whilst holding her hair in place, are also restricting her personality. It is when she loses them thanks to the speed of her chair's movements that she regains her  her feeling of freedom, as well as the smile that makes her seem much more friendly and human (as opposed to the shy posture of just looking down with a blank expression). 

The other possibility is that the chair symbolises how important an imaginary friend can be to a child. http://40.media.tumblr.com/823fb16496df62bc5a3a984b20a159e4/tumblr_n9us37WjvZ1r67qk8o1_500.png

Therefore I would suggest that although Paullete’s Chair holds much of the youthful and fantastic charm and emotion of a Studio Ghibli classic, the short also offers a look at the importance of self confidence in a child’s life, the power of an imaginary friend in making new real friends or both of these. The main way this is shown is through the comparison that is made between her atop her animate chair and the horses freely galloping in fields. This chair, whether it be her self confidence or an imaginary friend, makes Paulette too feel free and allows her make new friends, both as a small child then as a teenager. Thus this short has a potentially interesting reading on top being a great short with impressive visuals and music.

Paulette is totally comfortable when she is with her chair (her self-confidence). https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjkQKbtCAAAhPaL.jpg:large

Thematically Korean Animation Has Potential - Leafie: A Hen into the Wild (Madangeul Naon Amtak)

Leafie: A Hen into the Wild is a South Korean animated film released in 2011. It is based on a novel of the same name in Korean (known as A Hen that Wants to Fly). After six years of production and a budget of over two and a half million US dollars, the film cam out to success, both critically and (unlike other Korean animations) commercially. Among South Korean animations it is definitely a stand out for several reasons: being based on a successful novel, it obviously has a very solid story that depended more on emotion than plot twists, as well as great characterisations; it has beautifully colourful and intricate 2D animations, of both the characters and backgrounds; and a cast of Korean stars as voice-actors, Moon So-Ri and Choi Min-Sik, that give very immersive performances. However, the most compelling part of this film was definitely the themes and issues it tackled and how it went about this. The central theme for Leafie: A Hen into the Wild is maternity and what it means to be a mother. On top of this, it also deals with harsh reality of nature and civilisation's effect on nature, especially chickens. Lastly, the film raises the possibility of an interesting historical interpretation if we look at one of the motifs within it. Notably it portrays all this in quite a Korean way.

Leafie in her cage emphasises the two main themes of the film: maternal love and civilisation vs nature. http://fims.kofic.or.kr/upload/up_img/2011/05/mov_1925B2_20110502153737_3.jpg

First and foremost I feel compelled to give a fairly brief plot overview so that when I use specifc examples within this analysis it is easy to understand their place in the overall narrative of the film. So Leafie: A Hen into the Wild is about a hen, named Leafie, who has had enough of living in a factory-like battery farm where all she does is lay eggs. In order to escape into “the yard” she starves herself, faints and is thrown out along with other dead chickens, by the emotionless farmer. Here she is attacked by a one-eyed weasel, apparently looking for fresh prey, rather than the corpses around Leafie. She is saved by a duck she later names Wanderer as he traps the weasel, named One-Eye, under a wheelbarrow. Leafie finds her way back to the farm and she assumes she can now live in “the yard”, however the rooster of the farm, along with his two hens and four white duck companions, is not as welcoming as she would have hoped. Leafie is kicked out and goes on a journey showing her the world is bigger than just the farmyard. She wanders into the wilderness and, thanks to the help of a realtor-come-mayor otter, is able to find a suitable home in a thicket near a stream that will hide her scent from the weasel. Wanderer, and his lover white duck, inhabit a nearby thicket. One night the weasel attacks their abode and kills Wanderer's partner. As he chases the weasel, Leafie investigates their house and finds an egg left over from the recent victims. Leafie is naturally drawn to sit on the egg and keeps it warm until it hatches with Wanderer bringing her the sustainable she needs as she sits over his child. The weasel returns for another meal some nights later only to be thwarted by Wanderer. However sensing he cannot keep the fight up forever, Wanderer tells Leafie to take his child (once it has hatched) to live in the Everglades, explaining she will know why when the time comes. The next night the weasel finally gets Wanderer but the egg hatches and Leafie and the newly hatched chick, she names Greenie, go off to live in the Everglades. There the seasons go on and Greenie learns how to swim from the otter and fly from an owl and a bat. However, as time goes on (and after a few more weasel attacks) Greenie disassociates himself, being a duck, from his “mother” who is a hen and can thus neither fly nor swim. He therefore runs away and finds himself in the farmyard Leafie once tried to inhabit. However, he is captured by the farmer who wants to cut off his wings to subdue him in order to cook Greenie for dinner. Leafie, along with some help from friends, storm the farmyard and save Greenie, whilst simultaneously freeing all the other chickens in the cages. Greenie then sees his mistake and makes up with his adoptive mother. But before long it is winter and now Greenie has the urge inside of him to migrate. A flock of ducks comes and Greenie wants to become the head of the flock, the Guard Duck. In order to take up this prestigious position he must win a flying contest. Greenie does of course do this, being cheered on by the ever-supportive Leafie, and wins the race and thus the position his father once held before him. Then in a final goodbye between Greenie and Leafie, they are attacked by the weasel again who pins Greenie to the ground. However, this is just outside the weasel's own den and we learn she too is a mother, hunting only to fed her young, who Leafie threatens. The two trade children and Greenie says a tear-shedding goodbye before flying off. The weasel then returns and Leafie gives herself up without a struggle to feed the weasel and thus also her pups.

Greenie's departure will start this thematic analysis. http://azzai.deviantart.com/art/goodbye-mother-335592214

The film ends as it had been throughout, an example of a mother's sacrifice to her children. Leafie's sacrifice is from one mother to another to help One-Eye feed her pups. The ending is purely emblematic of the film as a whole. The main theme of Leafie: A Hen into the Wild is obviously a mother's love and her sacrifice for her children. The reason Leafie starves herself is not only to leave the farm and be free, but it is so she can sit on one of her eggs, which are otherwise taken away by what is basically a factory line conveyor belt. Her motherly instinct is the reason she ends up taking care of Greenie in the first place. She even says this to Chirpie, her sparrow friend, when Chirpie tries to convince her the farm is safe and gives her food. Then when she sees the Wanderer's lonesome egg in his house she sits on it out of a natural desire from within her. When she does so he gets a physical sensation of pleasure, showing how much this meant to her, to sit on an egg. Admittedly Leafie is often ignorant of her position in life, but she continues to sit on this egg despite the heartbreak she must feel from her unrequited love for Wanderer. So even when her crush gets dragged away by the predator weasel, she does not run off after him, she instead remembers her duty as a mother, even if she is not the biological mother. So too she uproots her life, which had just started a short time ago, to go to the Everglades due to the dying wishes of Wanderer who tells her to go there only under the justification that she will know why when the time comes. This relocation was not for her benefit or pleasure, as she had been advised by the mayor/apartment manager to live in the brier patch bushes that were more suitable for her traits and abilities or rather a lack thereof. Notably the Otter had earlier ruled out the Everglades as a suitable place to live due to her feet not being webbed and later on he tells her to leave as her feathers are not water resistant like a duck's and this could make her sick. Therefore Leafie moves in order to give her child the best possible life for him, not for her. We realise this when the flock comes and Leafie is reminded of why they came to the Everglades, under the wishes of the Wanderer. She thus encourages Greenie to go out and make friends and then leave with the flock. Leafie is not only willing to sacrifice her livelihood for Greenie but also she would give her life for him. She is willing to fight One-Eye in scraps that could mean been eaten by her hungry weasel predator. This doesn't just happen once but several times. Leafie fights tooth and nail (or beak and claw I suppose) to save her son. The same potential sacrifice is made when Greenie finds himself on the farm, Leafie runs off to his aid with a second thought. She saves her son, this time confronting all those from her past, the animals from the farmyard and even the farmer himself. We must note that she did this after Greenie had denounced her as his real mother, saying that she is not his real mother, as she is a hen and he is a duck. It is a testament to Leafie as an adoptive mother that she helps him after this sort of an argument. She could have quite easily just walked away but her maternal instinct kicks in. In conjunction to this Leafie is willing to try and fight her limitations in order to help her son. She wants to learn how to swim despite being discouraged by the Otter. The last sacrifice any mother must make is of course to let her child go on their journey without any restrictions. So too when it comes Greenie's time to follow his destiny and take up his late father's post as Guard Duck of the flock. She supports him in the contest to take up the position and then lies to her son, so he would follow his dreams without worry. She tells him to go so that he would not stay to protect her from the weasel, even though she intends to sacrifice herself for One-Eye's pups. Thus the main theme of this film is a mother's love for her child.


The main theme is about the maternal love Leafie shows: http://whiteliolynx.deviantart.com/art/Baby-295619564

This film obviously tells a tale of an adoptive mother and her struggles in a very artistic way by sing the animal kingdom: how a mother’s instinct and the desire of women to be a mother is portrayed through a hen, a bird renown for being motherly; how the idea of maternal love being through an adoptive relationship is shown through how she adopts a duck, a different bird species; and how the mother must eventually let go of their baby is shown through Greenie’s need to migrate, which ducks are obviously known for but hens are not. However there is more than this, as symbolism plays a large piece in this storytelling of the relationship between a mother and son. Mainly it tells some of the implied parts of the relationship between Leafie and Greenie, and thus between a mother and her child. The first and most important symbol is the purple flower Leafie puts in her tail and keeps it in there until the wind blows it out. This flower symbolises her adoptive son Greenie as it is only blown out of her tail feathers, which looks like the leaves of the plant, when Greenie flies away (is taken by the wind) with the other mallards. It is notable that our protagonist's name is Leafie and even more so when we consider the way in which she introduces herself to Wanderer. She calls herself Leafie as in the things trees have, explaining her name. Now while trees have leaves so do flowers. So whilst the hen or rather mother is the leaf, the child, or duck in this case, is the flower. I think this symbolism is another extremely artistic way to metaphorically talk about a mother's relationship with her child. A leaf gives the flower what it needs to survive: the top of a leaf contains chloroplasts, which through photosynthesis, absorb sunlight and subsequently use it to make food for the flower as a whole; on the underside leaves also breathe for the flower, inhaling carbon dioxide and exhaling oxygen. Despite all this, unless it is autumn or people are looking at Sakura (cherry blossoms) no one will describe leaves as beautiful. Leaves are not the centre piece of a plant, the flowers are. This goes into the relationship within the symbolism of a child as a flower. The leaf or the mother provides the things the child needs in order for the child to go on and succeed or look beautiful. It should be noted that Leafie even says that flowers cannot bloom without leaves as she explains her name to Wanderer. We could also speculate on how flowers breed (not the leaves) but the idea of carrying on a family line is not present in the film. So this symbol, rather than focussing on the sacrifice in maternal love, highlights the aims of a mother and also implies the rewards she gets from providing the necessary means for the success. Whilst a flower is beautiful, a child can be successful too. In the case of Greenie he is successful when he learns the skills he needs to fulfill his natural role as a duck, particularly he needs to be able to swim and dive underwater, so he can catch food, and he needs to be able to fly, so that he can migrate with his flock. Greenie is able to achieve this, and more than this he becomes the flock's Guard, with the support of his mother. The film then shows a mother's reward, which is her pride in her child's success. Leafie is immensely proud of her baby when he learns to swim and fly, she shouts to anyone able to listen (even if they don't want to hear it). We might remember Leafie is mocked for having a flower in her tail, just as she is for raising her child in the way she chooses, but she perseveres and is rewarded for it with her pride. Anyway the relationship between a mother and her child is thus given other aspects through the symbol of a flower and a leaf(ie).

The main symbol of the film is the flower, representing a child of the leaf. http://taskidog.deviantart.com/art/Leafie-277363139

The second symbol main symbol of Leafie: A Hen into the Wild is the red tape that is tied around Greenie's ankle. This red cord, was forcefully attached to him in order to restrict him by the farmer, thinking he had found himself a nice dinner. Leafie removes some of it before Greenie must leave her but some of it is still there. This red tape symbolises the attachment parents, in this case a mother, has to a son. It is notable that Greenie gets this ribbon when he is trying to break ties with his adoptive mother and even more notable this mark came from a place where his mother had presumably spent a large portion of her life, the farm. During their time in the Everglades, Greenie had been teased by other ducklings. He compares his physical appearance to his other and sadly sees their differences. Greenie does yell at her about this, to which she says their differences to do matter. Greenie thus runs away to the farm, however when he is being pinned by the farmer and being tied up with this red string, that Greenie (through fear) instinctively calls for his mother, Leafie. He thus understands that this shows how much he depends on her and how much she means to him, as he apologises afterwards. He flies around with this bond on his leg and is only embarrassed about it again as other ducks won't socialise with him due to it. We might parallel this to how peers of our own age would not talk to use due to our mother's over-affectionate nature. He laments this but is not overly angry by it as he has grown to accept and cherish his mother's love. We should note here a comparison to him before when he was mocked (not for the symbolic red tape) but for the real relationship between him and his mother that influenced his decision to run away and led to the red tape being attached as in the first place. Greenie through accepting the red string on his leg also accepts his place as his Leafie's son and although he is ready to leave, he will not do so if she doesn't want him to. That night Leafie then realises that if she does not remove the red band Greenie might never fulfill his potential and it is after revelation she really pushes him on in his conquest and stops being as protective as she was when they first moved to the Everglades. In doing this it shows that she accepts that if she does not let go of her son he will never reach his full potential, he will always be pulled down by her. She pecks away as much as she can, notably leaving a band still around Greenie's leg, and tells him that it will be her mark, so he knows they know he is her baby and so she can recognise him in the flock. It ties them together but is no longer restrictive. This is her letting go of Greenie so he can become what he was born to be, but at the same time leaving a bond between them. Thus the red string too symbolises the relationship between a mother and a son, how it will never fully go away, but it is one that must be slightly severed if the child is to fulfill their dreams and potential.

The red ribbon shows Leafie must let go of her son. http://rascal4488.deviantart.com/art/Leafie-FanArt-505358304

As we have seen Leafie: A Hen into the Wild is a very artistically told story with a theme about maternal love, sacrifice and a mother's connection to their child. This however is not the only animated picture that does this. More recently, so after Leafie, there was an anime directed by the very talented Mamoru Hosoda named Wolf Children Ame and Yuki. It also artistically portrays the same themes, rather than through a natural setting with animals as characters, it has a fantastical setting with werewolf-ish children and their relationship with a real world life. It also takes into account of modern societies treatment of animals, as Leafie does, which will be discussed below, and has many of the same motifs, such as a mother letting go of their child to fulfill their role as a leader or a family relocating in order to give the child a better opportunity in life. First both have mentor characters that give the children the advice or the training the child needs that the parents cannot provide. Yuki, the younger brother werewolf, needs advice on how to get in touch with his wolf side so, without the father around (who was a werewolf) the human mother seeks guides in the form of other wolves. After she is unable to find anything Yuki finds a mentor in the forest, the forest guardian, a fox he calls his master. From this fox, who the mother deeply respects, bringing him a gift, Yuki grows into the wolf that can become the new forest guardian. So too when Greenie needs to learn skills in order to become a fully fledged duck it is not Leafie that teaches them to him, it is a goup of mentors. Namely the otter teaches Greenie to swim and dive underwater and then Greenie is taught to fly by both a bat living in a cave and an owl from the nearby forest. Although there is perhaps not as much respect given to these characters perhaps their natures as mentors are quite Korean. Korea, like Japan, has many afterschool private academies where parents pay teachers for advanced (or remedial) tuition. Yuki's mentorship allows Yuki to find his place in the world, however Greenie's mentorship pushes him to be the best as he remembers these teachings during his contest to be the Guard (the best) duck. This idea of mentorship that leads to success is a very Korean idea where child will go to numerous hagwons and have numerous teachers (mentors) to ensure they have the best marks possible in order to get into a good university. Thus Wolf Children Ame and Yuki has a distinctive Japanese feel to it, with the forest and the wolf and the stories of the wolf, and I also think that Leafie too has a Korean feel to it too that ties into the comparison of these two films. Another different aspect of the two films, which illustrates Leafie: A Hen into the Wild's Koreaness, is the way in which the single parent is treated. In Wolf Children Ame and Yuki, the single mother is helped by the whole community, but Leafie is often ridiculed and persecuted by the other families in the Everglades. It seems to be indicative of how very particular Korean culture can be about having very standardised parents. Supposedly one of the first questions a set of parents would ask a potential son or daughter in-law is what their parents' jobs are. Also maternal care is definitely a universal theme that can easily be understood but at the same time this is an especially Korean one. Korean parents are very protective, especially mothers and I think this also comes across in the film with the sacrifices Leafie makes for her children. So the way this film portrays motherhood shows it can stand up to a contemporary Japanese animated film of a very high calibre and still show it Koreaness.

The relationship between Greenie and Leafie also show the artistic storytelling and Koreaness of the film. http://bukoya.deviantart.com/art/Leafie-And-Greenie-332677661

However, Leafie: A Hen into the Wild is much more than just a mother's story, it also has a comment on modern civilisation and its relationship with animals and nature made apparent with its very poignant ending. So as Leafie literally sacrifices her life for the weasel’s children upon learning One-Eye is a starving mother with no way to feed her pups, we are given both an immensely bittersweet ending. This illustrates a point of nature that is very often ignored in animated features. Numerous animated adventures explore or take part in the world of animals. Some animated features do have a struggle between the hunter and the hunted, however, very few, if any, look into the potentially depressing story of a realistic food chain within an ecosystem. The Lion King, for example, features lions, the king predator, yet they are never seen eating any live animal, that we might want to see in a zoo (such as a zebra): perhaps the evil Scar does almost eat a mouse but Simba and his father do not do anything of the sort. In fact Simba basically either becomes a vegetarian with Timon and Pumba or he just eats the insects in the jungle, something that is very hard to sympathize with. Leafie: A Hen into the Wild does however deal with this harsh reality that animals need to eat and some of animals do it by feeding on other animals. We should note here that by the end of the film weasel is no longer a villain, she is just a mother that is doing what she must to survive. When Wanderer first saves Leafie he paints a bad picture of the weasel saying she is cruel, vicious and only like live prey. But by the end we realise One-Eye is not murdering animals for fun (although why she needs live prey leaves this up for debate), she is killing in order to give herself nutrients to pass on to her immobile young children. Although we see her as some entity to try and fight off or even kill due to her actions against Wanderer and his family, we feel emotion on the side of One-Eye in this ending for two reasons. First, the obvious twist is meant to show sympathy for the weasel and show she is not an antagonist of pure evil. She is a caring mother who is herself starving as well and yet continues to fight to feed her children. On top of this One-Eye, like Leafie, is a single mother. She has to go out and hunt for herself; she is not provided for by a male partner. She caringly licks her pups, saying she knows they are hungry and wants to be able to feed them but she needs to hunt first. We sympathise with One-Eye for the same reasons that Leafie does, and because of this we realize Leafie’s sacrifice is a reasonable decision. As an adoptive mother she has learnt to feel for children of a different species. It is notable the caring piano music that plays when Leafie first sees One-Eye's pups. Anyway, the other revelation that makes us feel some pity for One-Eye is that she cries for antagonist, much like the audience would be doing. One-Eye shows her as a mother and one that has emotions. She isn't merciless and doesn't villainously plot to kill our protagonists, she is caring for her otherwise helpless pups that Leafie also decides to help. At one point Leafie asks One-Eye she is picking on her family, to which One-Eye replies she is just hungry. Thus just as Leafie connects with One-Eye, we as an audience do too. In this we are confronted with the reality of nature: the prey and the predator, in this case the chicken and weasel, cannot live simultaneously, one must die for the other to survive. Leafie understands her role in nature, much as the audience comes to realise this too. The harshness of this reality is furthered with the last panning shot in the film. Before we see Greenie flying off with his new comrades, we are shown One-Eye dragging the limb and lifeless body of Leafie off. We are reminded and reinforced that this is part of nature, just as it is Greenie flying off was what he naturally needed to do as a mallard. Leafie’s death should be no less accepted and seen as in the same terms as Greenie’s migration, both are natural parts of the world.

The portrayal of One-Eye's pups turn the weasel's characterisation http://studio2morrow.com/bbs/bbs/board.php?bo_table=Character_mechanic&wr_id=111

However, what is quite obviously unnatural and to be contrasted against the harshness of nature is the harshness of civilisation in its interactions with nature. We can compare the death Leafie faces from One-Eye the hungry yet motherly weasel, compared to her “death” from starvation that lets her escape the farm in the start of the film. The latter death she accepts, just as we should accept the natural pecking order of animals, in order to help out a fellow single mother. It is seen as a very sad moment yet one that is ultimately necessary in some sort of circle of life. But her near death experience in the farm only emphasises the cruelty of the farm. Leafie: A Hen into the Wild, like the film Chicken Run, is shown with the farmer, his farm and how he treats birds, particularly the hens. The very start of the film shows a very clear message about battery farming. We get huge imagery with the barn where numerous hens are kept in cages not big enough to move and the hens have their necks stuck through the bars of their cage in order to be fed. These hens are also forced to lay eggs onto a moving conveyor belt that takes them away immediately. Everything about it is like an industrialised machine, but we must remember animals are not machines, they are living breathing things that can feel emotions and pain. They need room to live a proper life. If we look at the visual representations of the hens that are in the long line of cages, they look ill, not just physically with their lose of feathers, but also mentally with the way their eyes don't look in the same direction and the way they hold themselves up. Leafie is the only one that looks remotely healthy. However, after she is out of her cage and in the wild for a while she looks notably better, with a brighter colour and the worn out skin on her neck is replaced with a healthy set of feathers. Chirpie, Leafie's sparrow friend from the farm, notes such positive physical changes. Leafie too shows how her claws and her beak have gotten stronger due to being outside the farm. On top of this we can compare the clean and sparkling pond in the Everglades with the murky polluted water system in the farms that the tame white ducks are willing to swim in just after they have used it as their toilet. The method with which Leafie had to go to in order to escape further this idea of cruelty and horrors in battery farming. First of all Leafie was literally willing to starve herself for three days to escape. Such desperate measures just illustrate how oppressive this system is. Second, the farmer's lack of concern about his chickens is furthered when he takes Leafie out of her cage. She is tossed on the top of numerous other dead chickens, with no sense of lamentation for the lose of life. This pile of corpses is dumped in a hole en masse like some sort of mass grave from a war or natural disaster. There is no compassion shown for the chickens shown by the farmer, illustrating clearly what the creators think about battery farms. So why does Leafie want to escape? Of course freedom is its own reward that is very desirable, but Leafie also reasons she wants to sit on her eggs. She wants to be free in order to be a mother. Leafie is not wanting to do something unnatural, like she does in the latter parts of the film when attempting to swim, Leafie wants to do what it is natural for a hen to do, be a mother to her eggs. Freedom seems like a condition more natural than captivity but her urge to be a mother is emphasised more than anything. I have mentioned how Leafie's maternal instincts and actions are a main theme but this motherliness is portrayed as very natural from within her. In fact Leafie has such a natural urge to sit on her eggs that she even settles for sitting on an abandoned egg left by Wanderer's deceased wife. Because the farmer wants to restrict and stop these motherly urges from within Leafie and her fellow hens, the farm and human interactions with this sort of farming are seen as unnatural and just plain cruel. The way the farmer and the farm restrict and oppress Leafie's natural urges is just a representation of how civilisation destroys and tries to control nature generally. In fact if we see Leafie's inner natural voice telling her to be a mother, Greenie's inner natural voice obvious tells him to fly. It is notable then that when Greenie is caught by the farmer he wants to cut off Greenie's wings, and he rushes away to fetch some scissors. Thus I would suggest that the farm and farmer himself are depicted as taking away the natural urges of animals, to be a mother or to fly. On top of this it is shown as providing animals with substantially worse living conditions, with little to no care about these inadequacies.

The condition of the hens in the battery farm illustrate how modern society has affected nature. http://www.hancinema.net/photos/fullsizephoto354665.png

So the battery farm and thus modern civilisation, at least, are seen as detrimental to animals as it tries to take away their natural instincts. We might wonder how the characters within the farmyard society represent our modern society, because the battery farm represents civilisation. Is our inner human nature being repressed by modern civilisation? We get a view of this farmyard society as when Leafie initially escapes she goes back to live with the chickens living outside the cages. She is however told to get back into the cages and is rejected by those pompous chickens, especially the rooster that demands to be called “Boss”. There is obviously a class based society where the working class is kept in their pitiable place (the hens in the cages) whilst the upper class, the rich, live in comparative luxury and relaxation. They women are able to fulfill their dreams, sitting on their eggs. We can see this as the reason she must go back in her cage is because she disrupts his “order”, in other words his position at the top and her position under him. She refuses saying she doesn't like the rules, the society she lives in and is thus told to leave. Basically it seems like the farmyard presents a society much like a capitalist one where many suffer in a factory like job their lives depend on so that a few can live well. In this capitalist environment, the actual environment, namely the water, is polluted just so the upper class, the ducks, can relax, which they also do in the polluted water. They literally defecate in the environment before relaxing in their exploitation of it to the disgust of Greenie. We should also remember that during the flying contest the commentators note how entries are down due to pollution killing their numbers, again showing downsides of a modern society on nature. Compare this to the beautiful and serene environment the “Mayor” oversees. He is concerned with its tranquility where all the residents get together and can freely voice their concerns, even if their concerns are about some noisy neighbour (Leafie). Overall the natural environment is idyllic compared to the horrible battery farm and not just in terms of the land itself but also the way that life is portrayed for all. Outside civilisation or the farm, everyone is doing what they want and their only concern is life itself. The farm and modern civilisation is much more stressful and few make it out. It represents how the modern capitalist society has many faults, the main being that whilst many must work in pitiable conditions to enjoy very little, others life the good life all the time. It may seem alluring, just how Greenie was lured to it by the four white ducks, but ultimately one could be destroyed by it (losing their true nature) as Greenie almost is. The natural world has all on one level only concerned about living an enjoyable and pleasant life. So too the leadership offered outside the farmyard is much better than that inside. Outside the farm we have the “Mayor” Otter who, more than anything, looks to serve his residents, finding them suitable houses to live in. The “Boss” rooster on the other hand just tells Leafie to go back into her cage where she belongs, after she escapes. He only looks to serve his own enjoyment and position in the film rather than serving those he leads. Also in contrast to this is the role of the Guard Duck, who is presumably the leader duck, but (as implied by the name) we told how it finds the best places for the ducks to land and rest. He, in other words, serves those he leads. The “Boss” is also leadership based on a superficial difference. It is based entirely on the red head piece that mimics a rooster's crest, a very superficial measure of a leader. This is especially the case when this head piece falls off the rooster and onto one of the rather silly ducks. So this duck's reign does not really change anything, it is (like his new head piece) is purely cosmetic in its change as this duck also just seeks to serve his own life of good fortune. Compare this to Greenie's journey to become the Guard Duck. It is based purely on his skills for the job, whether or not he is the best equipped to serve the populace in his term in office. There is some simple antagonistic portrayals for his rivals, but it is just trying to make this contest interesting. Thus within this criticism of humanity and how it treats nature, there is also a criticism of the current political and social system, where classes are not fairly treated and leadership only serves those in power, whilst being based on superficial measures, not on the quality of that leader. It seems that modern civilisation not only is bad for the environment and nature but also for the standard of living and happiness those within as portrayed by the animals that represent the government and society within a modern capitalist society. We might wonder if how the hens escape when Leafie returns to save her son represents the flawed and ultimately doomed fate of a capitalist society because this all results in the downfall of the “boss” rooster. He then escapes to the farm to the brier patch. 

The rooster symbolises everything wrong with a capitalist society. http://www.hancinema.net/photos/fullsizephoto354670.png

Above I showed how the farm is depicted as unnatural and even as something that strips animals of their natural urges. I mentioned how death is used to show the whole nature vs civilisation debate when we compare Leafie's death at the hands of the weasel and Leafie's death at the hands of the farmer. Death is thus a strong motif in this film and is, like many other films, used to evoke emotion from the audience. It is also used in a number of themes, for example it is used to show how much of a hero Wanderer is in his sacrifice to save Leafie in order to give his son a good mother. While death is one very prominent motif, another is standing out of the crowd and accepting others. Whilst Leafie is accepted by the other hens in the cages of the farm, but they show no concern for her when she dies. Then she is not accepted when she makes it out into the yard (the upper echelons of society if we take the previous interpretation) and she is even treated with violence by the rooster. Compare this to her life amoungst others outside the farm. Although she stands out and is condemned slightly by others judging her, she is for the most part accepted by the others and treated reasonably well compared to the disdain the hens in the farmyard (not the cages) have for her. The otter helps her and is nice to her, a huge contrast to the rooster “boss”. So too the old duck chief is very accepting of Greenie when he comes into the flock, even if the other ducks aren't so receptive. We can look at this comparison and how this ties into our view of society as portrayed in the farm above, again showing the negative effects class based civilisation has on us, it breeds discrimination and non-acceptance. This theme of accepting others is also tied to a potential historical interpretation of Leafie: A Hen into the Wild. This film also has quite a historical significance to it in many aspects. For example it is artistically done in what tries to be a distinctly Korean work. In order to feature a traditional Korean ink brush painting style within the work, which would distinguish it from Hollywood and Japanese animated features, the artists took field trips out to Korean mountains, lakes and fields and made over a thousand sketches from these on-site surveys, which were then turned into the background scenes. I also already noted the Koreaness of maternal love. Either way this whole Koreaness inside the film also makes us wonder about the possibility of a historical interpretation within the film. Another animated bird film, Chicken Run, tells the true tale of The Great Escape and how Allied Prisoners of War persevered against their Nazi imprisoners through their animated chickens. So does this tale of Leafie's escape offer any insight into Korean history? One might wonder if the farm is the oppressive North where tales of common people being brainwashed in servitude to some dictator are common nowadays. We could say either or both the farmer and/or the rooster who demands to be called the “Boss” is this dictator. We could see how Leafie, once she escaped her cage and then was forced out into the wilderness, or South Korea, struggles to adapt to her new life, especially around the very conservative and keep-themselves-to-themselves ducks. This could potentially be a fairly interesting historical interpretation as most of these ideas of freedom and its benefits (such as health) as opposed to oppression and its negatives are primarily used on the theme of humanity's destructive relationship with nature, so to tie these two together would be very intriguing. However, ultimately there is little hard evidence to give this historical interpretation any weight especially with the rooster being overthrown and going to live in the region that would be interpreted as the South with no repercussions. Thus there could be a historical reading but it cannot be read to deeply. What is without doubt is how, just like many Studio Ghibli films (such as Spirited Away) ooze a Japanese feel, Leafie: A Hen into the Wild also exudes a feeling like this is a distinct film from all others, especially artistically. This is due to its Korean qualities (it just depends if audiences can recognise it or not).

A nice piece of fanart of the titular character. http://ghost-peacock.deviantart.com/art/Leafie-s-afternoon-298303131

The use of many motifs show how complex and deep this film is and how really it should be considered alongside the greats from the West and from Japan. Whether or not there is potential for a historical reading, Leafie: A Hen into the Wild, offers audiences a very heartwarming and heartbreaking journey with thematic looks at numerous aspects of human and natural life. Admittedly other films have looked at themes of oppression and freedom of chickens (Chicken Run) and the struggles of motherhood through animals (Wolf Children Ami and Yuki) but none has done it in this way, nor has either of them offered it such a way that leaves the audience in a conflict of emotions. In the way it treated a variety of themes, using animals not to appeal to kids but to illustrate some harsh realities of life, Leafie: A Hen into the Wild shows how truly different it is and (for me as a viewer) really puts Korean animation on the map. This is only further emphasised with the way it is beautifully illustrated and animated, being inspired by a traditional technique of painting. The film maybe slightly predictable but that takes nothing away from its aesthetics, its deeper narrative or the emotion it evokes in the audience. In terms of its interpretation the way it presents civilisation as opposed to nature and how this condemns modern society is the most interesting part of the film, not to mention the artistic way it shows the theme of maternal love.

A very cool piece of fanart to end this analysis. http://fainalotea.deviantart.com/art/Unconditional-495939951

A Comparison of Characters - Sword of the Stranger

There are many anime series that are set in a historical time and feature samurai. Stranger of the Sword is a fairly recent film of this type. The film is very good, filled with action, has nice animation (perhaps the colours could have been a bit more stark) and overall a well-rounded and well told story. The story seems rather archetypal with a rogue wandering samurai meeting a homeless orphaned boy and helps him in his time of need. Of course, like other samurai anime we find out the mysterious samurai that never resorts to violence is, in fact, the best swordsman around and is also the most virtuous. Thus it seems only appropriate that this samurai represents the values the film puts forward, like many other samurai flicks. In fact, the values that this film puts forward is most obvious through comparisons between other characters with our samurai, especially the antagonist.


Our main character Nanashi: http://www.zerochan.net/612204

Like most samurai, Nanashi shows all the virtues compared to his enemies, who display the polar vices. The first of these is trust and loyalty. Trust is a big theme within the movie, especially centred around the boy of the film and who he can trust and who he can't. Kotarou has major issues trusting anyone because, as we find out later in the film, he is an orphan who was taken by a monk and then transported to a foriegn land, from China to Japan. Then, shown at the start of the film, his new home, the village or temple he is staying at, is then burned down in an attempt from some Chinese soldiers to find him under the orders of the emperor. Kotarou escapes with his monk friend, who says to find him at another temple and gives him a jade tube as a tradable in case he needed it. Trust is thus understandably very hard for this boy. He is being hunted by soldiers in what is a foreign country for him. It is a great virtue then that this boy, Kotarou, is able to trust our samurai hero. The two initially agree on some sort of mercenary bodyguard escort arrangement for the jade cylinder. Kotarou thinks he cannot trust the samurai and constantly reminds him of their financial agreement and the fact his dog saved him in their previous encounter with the Ming. Kotarou even accuses his “employee” of running away or even looking for someone to buy him. We can see how his issues in trust stem from being sold into slavery. However as time goes on the boy realises more and more that he can trust the samurai, especially after his dog Tobimaru recovers and Nanashi gives him medicine to help this recovery process. At this point the boy realises he can truly trust his companion. Their relationship turns into one of friendship, from being one of an employer and his employee. At this time as well the idea of betrayal of trust comes to the fray. First the man who was giving the two accommodation, for money, goes into town to sell his crops. After being rejected and told his product was of a poor quality, he (with some help) reads a reward sign for a boy and a dog travelling together. The old man turns our protagonists in, but luckily they have already escaped, leaving a “Thank You” note. However, betrayal is more obvious and more important is when the monk, who the boy thought he could trust, betrays him. Nanashi is most notably contrasted with the monk Shouan, who helped Kotarou escape the village and is presumably the one who took him to Japan. The monk follows the orders of his superior and leads the boy of prophecy to the Ming waiting in the temple. Although the monk tries to absolve himself of guilt and blame, saying Nanashi would do the same. Nanashi still blames him, saying he still had a choice even if his superior ordered him to do so. Nanashi says he is worse than a dog (with Tobimaru another good example of loyalty in the film), and that the monk was not worthy of his holy sache, cutting it off him. The monk accepts this, committing suicide not too long afterwards. On the other hand Nanashi goes off and risks his life to save Kotarou, running beyond all endurance he shows how truly trustworthy he is. At the end of the film Nanashi, in the final exchange between himself and Luo Lang, is saved by the green stone the boy had given him for his services. This reminds us that he was doing all this for the boy; Nanashi did not help the boy for the sake of collecting some reward to sell, he did it out of trust. Thus when compared to others (other than Kotarou), particularly the monk who (physically and metaphorically) turned his back on the boy that trusted him, Nanashi shows how valuable trust is and how to be trustworthy.


The main relationship of trust: http://www.zerochan.net/612211

One of the main reasons this story becomes so interesting and is able to hold onto quite a few characters is that everyone seemingly has their own motives (even if some of these characters are fairly one dimensional). The theme of trust and betrayal is not just in relation to the boy but also in relation to leadership and following it. So whereas Nanashi showed he can be trustworthy and loyal, others show they are not, especially to their leader or political alliances. First the Japanese Lord often abuses and betrays his relationship with the Ming he aligns himself with. He captures one of their soldiers and has his subordinates torture him for information on the Chinese and why they came to his part of Asia. He then plans to take the boy for himself and make the Elixir of Immortality for his own purposes. This leads to the Lord in turn to being captured by the Chinese and used to try buy them time to complete their plan, as he is displayed in front of his troops to delay their attack. This is where further betrayal occurs. Itadori, the trainer and general of the Lord's army, backed by his second in command, then uses this force of the army, not to save his Lord, but to kill him and take over his status and position. We truly sense this as betrayal as the princess trusts him to save her father and the men of the army are shocked to see their master in such a state. The second in command, having been promised the hand of the daughter of the man he just murdered, convinces the men to join Itadori and himself afterwards. Thus the Chinese plan to delay the Japanese forces is undone by the Itadori's betrayal. So although others are disloyal to their leaders, Nanashi shows he is everything others are not to the boy. Thus loyalty and obeying others are not seen as one in the same. Kotarou does not really hold any power over Nanishi so it speaks of their relationship that such trust is held. Although it was based on a monetary-esque transaction, it became one based on friendship in the end, not some sort of servitude to be broken. It is interesting the only one who follows the orders of their superior, the monk, is seen as ultimately disloyal because he betrays the one who really deserves loyalty, the boy. We can also compare this to Nanashi's flashbacks, where he too was loyal to his superior in being ordered to kill the children of an opposing Lord. He regrets this and it leads him to becoming a ronin, a rogue samurai. Loyalty is seen as something based around virtues and values, rather than hierarchical superiority or political benefit. Thus the eldery Ming leader is somewhat correct when he says soldiers are disloyal, but this is only because they are part of a hierarchical relationship, not one of virtue and trust. This is what Nanashi embodies with his relationship with the boy. He shows the reasons for loyalty cannot be immoral or cannot be self serving, they must help the other.


This relationship is not based on a hierarchy: http://realcocker.deviantart.com/art/Sword-of-the-stranger-120856453

Largely intwined with his relationship to Kotarou (along with trust) are the samurai's virtues of compassion and willingness to stand up for the innocent. From what we learn about why the Chinese are chasing the boy down is that it has to do with the ritual they are trying to perform on behalf of the Emperor. In order to get the Elixir of Immortality, they must perform an obviously elaborate ritual that can only be completed by sacrificing a boy chosen by prophecy. Kotarou has therefore done nothing other than existing to warrant such treatment. Why should he rightfully be treated in such a manner having done nothing wrong? Nanashi obviously thinks he should not subjected to this. The samurai is willing to stand up against the Ming and has compassion on the lonesome boy. He is willing to fight all those that oppose his stance, who think the boy's purpose is to make the potion or who are not compassionate towards Kotarou. One of the reasons, I assume anyway, that the "unnamed" samurai protagonist is so compassionate to the innocent boy is presumably due the trauma of his past in war. He was a brilliant warrior in the past, as we hear from Itadori's conversations with his wife. However, he gave it all up after being ordered to kill the innocent children of a different fallen Japanese Lord. He followed his orders through and has been haunted by the event ever since. I would assume this is one reason he shows compassion to this child being hunted by grown men, well armed and trained in war. He wants to make up for the past and realises compassion must be shown to youth. Thus Nanashi does what he could not do before and turn on those who look to harm Kotarou. Nanishi's flashbacks show loyalty to his position in the military but how this sort of loyalty was wrong. He is confronted with this when the monk tries to justify how he gave Kotarou to the Ming, he says that he could not do anything else when his life is on the line. The monk then tells our protagonist how he will not save the boy as it means he himself will get killed in the process. It is here Nanishi realises he will stand up for the innocent, he will choose the right path this time. It all shows how loyalty and trust should be based on a mutual and virtuous relationship not on social ranking or any other type of hierachy. When it is based on rank nothing truly good comes from it. It also shows that a samurai is willing to hold their ideals above all else, even life, as Nanashi risks all to save his companion. The monk too realises this importance as he commits suicide, knowing he has broken the values he held true (the Buddhist values he tried to persuade his master with but ended up breaking himself). We feel much more sympathy for him after this, than the cowardly head monk who is captured by the Japanese soldiers, just as Nanashi feels compassion for the innocent boy Kotarou.


Nanashi is willing to fight to all other to protect the innocent Kotarou. http://inupii.deviantart.com/art/Sword-of-the-Stranger-406478247

This traumatic past event also had another large impact on Nanashi. This was that he generally viewed violence as immoral. He is usually reluctant to fight at all and especially to do so with his sword, as shown in his first fight when he only fights to defend the boy and does not unseath his sword. He even has a rope tied from the hilt of his sword to the sheath, so he cannot draw it. When asked about it by Kotarou he responds it is his “prayer” showing that he hopes he will never have to draw it again. One of the most striking displays of this pacifism is when he is goaded into fighting by the blonde warrior upon returning with a new saddle. During this scuffle Nanashi does not draw his sword or even try to strike his enemy. The struggle is visually compared to one between a fisherman and his potential catch, happening under the bridge the two warriors fight on. The blonde soldier is the fisherman and Nanashi the fish. As the fight ends without blood shed so too the fish escapes becoming a meal (with the line breaking). It is very illustrative of Nanashi's nature that he is compared to an animal unable to fight, only desiring to avoid conflict. The same happens when Nanashi and the boy are attacked by bandits, no one comes away seriously harmed, only the pride of the thieves are hurt. We should also notice that Itadori's wife assumes he must be kind and gentle for giving up war, after being told by the general of the warrior he knew in days gone by. Of course Nanashi does fight after eventually drawing his sword (what would a samurai movie be without any combat from the protagonist?). However, when he does unleash his ability on his enemies Nanashi first gives fair warning before leaving a trail of blood and corpses in his wake. Before this Nanashi has his final flashback in a pile of rubble in the climatic scenes. He realises violence in itself is not wrong, offensive violence is wrong. When teaching Kotarou to ride a horse, Nanashi is also asked if he will teach his pupil to fight with a sword. Before brushing off the subject Nanashi reveals he had thought, like Kotarou does at the time, fighting is used for the purpose of survival. However, being a soldier changed his view on violence, seeng it as something that could only bring destruction, death and despair. This would have especially been the case when he fought with people like Itadori who use violence to make their status match their dreams. But Nanashi realises he must use violence in order to save his friend. Violence itself is not evil, the motives behind it are often this way though. Compare him to all others we can see this is true: Itadori and his army fight for their own desires, the Ming fight for an immoral cause, whereas Nanashi fights to protect his innocent friend. We can definitely see the correct use of violence is Nanashi's.


Nanashi does eventually come back to seeing violence as a necessary means for some purposes: http://trixsr.deviantart.com/art/Sword-of-the-stranger-Nanashi-441777149

One much more novel and seemingly nuanced, aspect of a samurai's virtue is his view on drug taking and pleasure. Put simply he does not indulge use drugs or what the Chinese call “medicine”. At the end of the film, before his envitable battle with the blonde “demon”, Nanashi is offered to take some medicine to dull the pain he was feeling from previous fights. He declines, saying to numb pain is to numb the sensation of feeling alive. We could understand it just as one of many ways the red-headed samurai and the blonde warrior are contrasted but there seems to be more to this idea of drugtaking. I should note here that Itadori, another antithesis of our hero, did take the Chinese medicine into battle. If we just observe how those who take the drugs seem they obviously don't feel any pain. The Chinese warrior that was captured and tortured for information didn't even blink when burnt with a red hot metal pole. So too when the other Chinese soldiers fight they are impaled with arrows yet feel nothing, nor does the Chinese soldier who has his finger bitten off by Kotarou. The drugs perhaps seem addictive, with how the tortured man acts after the affects wear off but this could just be him wanting a release from the pain. I suggest we should see this all in contrast with Nanashi (as well as Kotarou) taking pleasure when riding on a horse at full speed. They say that they feel like they are flying and feel so alive. We can put this in stark contrast to when the last native Chinese warrior is killed with his own sword through his throat, yet he still staggers around looking for it. The message about drugs, when put in the contrast of Nanashi and his adversaries, is that while drugs can dull the pain, they also numb your sense between life and death. Nanashi is alive and feeling well with the simple pleasures, the wind rushing through his hair. The drug taking Ming are too numb to life to know that they are actually dying. Thus we can see that drugs may take away pain but also take away true life and true pleasure.

The Chinese Soldier who had a sword stuck in his throat: http://leseanthomas.tumblr.com/post/55811044078/sword-of-the-stranger-sketches-by-saito-tsunenori

Another quite new aspect of this samurai is his relationship with discrimination in the form of racism. The Chinese are generally treated with caution and fear mixed with a bit of hostility. The ordinary citizens of the town where they are staying just murmur about them and the nobles that the Lord has around him dislike their presence, questioning the need for their presence. We can imagine that they are threatened by their presence but there seems to be no sort of attempt to make friends with the Ming. Blonde hair, in quite a few anime, is used to indicate a character comes from the West and is foreign. And so the same goes for blonde warrior, Luo Lang, who is treated as something mystical, exotic and fearsome. The Japanese townsfolk call him a monster with blonde hair and blue eyes, adding he could make a fortune if put on show, not really something fitting to say about another human. So too after he throws a wooden sword at Luo Lang for no reason, Itadori makes a joke about Luo Lang's language when he comes to train with the Japanese. Another case is our protagonist. Although our main character, the samurai Nanashi appears to be Japanese, he is in fact a red-haired warrior and does not know his origins. All he knows is that he is in fact foreign to Japan, coming to the country on the back of some sort of shipwreck. He only dyes his hair black in order to blend in. He reveals this to the boy, who is also foreign (being from China) but actually takes a step back and for a very brief moment Kotarou distances himself from his savoir. Nanashi says how it is just easier to blend in rather than stand out, and presumably take abuse from others. Just as Luo Lang is called a blonde monster, Nanashi is called a red demon. The only time there is any sort of equality speech it is said by Itadori, but this only comes in a time of cruelty. When the initial tortures find it hard to get any progress from their Chinese captive, Itadori offers to have a go, saying that although his words were different he was still a human and could feel pain. This is definite an interesting line, but this topic is actually very underplayed from what it could have been. We could incorporate this with the Old Ming leader’s reaction to Luo Lang’s suggestion that they put their plan on hold for a couple of days if they cannot find the boy. Byakuran calls him a barbarian for suggesting they submit a false report to the Chinese emperor. Furthermore Luo Lang says he doesn't care about Chinese Taoist beliefs or the Emperor when he is asked about the argument the next day by his Chinese companion. It seems that the film suggests appearance and culture maybe difference, and this can cause offence or disagreement, but in the end we are all human. However, this is all not central enough to the storyline, so I would have liked to have seen more on how the creators treated the issue of racism in a film of historical Japan. The very little we get is interesting, but unfortunately doesn't really offer to much in terms of providing a moral compass for viewers, like the film does about violence or drug-taking. The film does not give any race, Japanese or Chinese, any moral superiority and the main character just seems to avoid the issue, choosing to hide his race rather than fight for his rights to be different and not be mocked for it. Maybe the film just shows race as something present in life, that is best just to avoid, but is not a means that gives any one person superiority over another. Everyone is equal in terms of morality so it is up to the individual to decide their own path.


The two prime examples of foreign people in the film: http://www.zerochan.net/612208

As we have seen Nanashi holds many idealistic values, some typical of a samurai and some slightly more novel or at least untouched by previous works. This being said all of these traits are emphasised when we compare our protagonist to the main antagonist of the film, the blonde swordsman, Luo Lang, who is fighting for the Chinese. Although this being said he does not truly fight for the emperor and for the Elixir of Immortality as he betrays the old Chinese leader of the expedition, killing him when he had run out of use for him and his cause. Like many others I have mentioned, he shows he is disloyal in relationships that are not based on his values. The blonde warrior, unlike Nanashi, is unlovable and cannot be trusted by his allies because he only values fighting. The blonde swordsman in fact fights for the sake of fighting and being the best, which he admits to Nanashi who he sees as his rival and the only good reason to stay in Japan. He seemingly loves to fight and wants to scrap whenever possible, as we see when draws his sword on Nanashi on the bridge (asking him to play) and joins in at his Japanese host's sparring facilities. Nanashi on the other hand does not like to fight and it is a big struggle for him whether to even draw his sword during the final battle. Fighting is not something to do for fun but has a real purpose, defending friends and the innocent. I noted before how during their first fight on the bridge, the blonde warrior is compared to the confrontational fisherman but Nanashi is compared to the passive and escaping fish. Nanashi has been scarred by war and has suffered in battles but the blonde fighter boasts he had never been hit before his fight with Nanashi. In other words, unlike Nanashi, Luo Lang has an unrealistic view of violence and one polarised compared to his rival. Luo Lang even challenges himself by fighting the leader of the ambush, at the start of the film, with his bare hands. So too the blonde warrior is also the film's main contrast for drug taking. After Nanashi gives his reasons for not accepting the offer of the painkilling drug, the blonde warrior takes his “medicine” anyway but admits his admiration for the stance. The contrast of these two warriors emphasises the themes and messages of loyalty and trust, the proper use of violence and drug-taking. So too these two also emphasise the theme of racism, little as it is, as these characters are the two foreign outsiders. What is notable about the two most skilled warriors of the film is how these two are the only two in the film with different coloured hair. Whereas Nanashi hides his red hair for ease and not wanting to be seen as different, the blonde haired, blue eyed enemy seemingly proudly keeps his foreign. He looks for the best swordsman in the world but in doing so mocks entire races, namely the Japanese and Chinese as inferior to himself. Simply put, they are the two main points of discrimination, as well as loyalty, trust and drug-taking.


The two most contrasted characters had to fight in the film's finale: http://paganflow.deviantart.com/art/Sword-of-the-Stranger-355729448

Before I finish this essay I would like to bring up one last topic of issue that Nanashi is actually not involved with. This is the idea of having immortality and how long life should be. This idea is mainly expressed through the comparison of the elderly Ming leader and his followers. They all work for the same goals, finding the boy and completing the ritual, however there is a difference of opinion between him and at least two of his followers about the Elixir and its value. The elderly Chinese leader, Byakuran sees the Elixir as a sort of hope for longer life now that he is facing death in the face. He is willing to go to any means for a glimmer of hope that he is able to give his Emperor the potion and in turn be granted with a small portion of it for himself. Others, mainly Lou Lang, doubt its plausibility, saying the boy's blood will not be any different if it is spilt on a different day, which angers the old man. The strongest of his Chinese warriors (excluding the blonde foreigner) is asked what he thinks of the Elixir. The Ming swordsman replies that he does not need anything like this, he does not want a long life, just a short one lived strongly. His old leader reveals that he thought the same but as he got older he realised he wanted to live longer and longer, so he now truly desires this Elixir. The blonde warrior Lou Lang also seems to hold the idea of glory above long life. When scolded for his betrayal, accused of stealing the Elixir from the emperor and using for himself, he kills denying such claims (as Luo Lang only wants a glorious fight with Nanashi, not to have him shot and killed instantly). The blonde warrior adds that the old leader has lived long enough, killing him then and there. Really this seems to boil down to a contrast of the pragmatism and realism (as realistic as one can be seeking an Elixir of Immortality) of the elderly against the idealism and valour of youth. The old, who are close to death, see life as far too short and want to extend it, whereas the young, for whom death is a place far away, are not worried by a long life, just a glorious one. So too this contrast is played out with their fighting styles. Byakuran fights for the end result, he shoots people, killing them almost instantly, with his gun. On the other hand Lou Lang wants a glorious fight with his sword. He is willing to fight the leader of the men who ambushed him at the very beginning without a sword. So too he offers Nanashi some medicine to help his wounds, wanting to fight the warrior at peak condition. Again it seems to be a matter or practical vs ideal. No one side is right but it is an interesting idea, again brought up with the contrasts of the characters within the film. I should also add that Luo Lang, when carrying the bound Kotarou off to his death, tells the boy that life is not long, that he should live to the fullest it while he can. This does just seem like a cliché, as it is, but we do view Byakuran as somewhat foregone; he does not seem entirely sane in his quest for longer life. We could thus take Luo Lang’s advice to the boy (and the other views he was on the side of) as genuine advice for the audience. It does seem to be that the film gives us the idea, through this debate of immortality, we should not be worried by extending our lives beyond limits but living our lives virtuously and as happily as possible. We even hear from Byakuran he has spend years chasing this potion, obviously in vain and presumably in not very good spirits. Immortality is obviously desirable, as the Japanese Lord's betrayal of the Ming shows, but we need only look at how complicated the ritual was (with chicken’s blood covering an enormous altar all made from a special kind of wood) to realise that our efforts could be better spent elsewhere, like being happy or living virtuously.


Luo Lang did not want immortality, only a glorious fight: http://www.zerochan.net/612207

In conclusion, Nanashi is like many other samurai in that he holds his ideals above all other things. Some of his ideals are very archetypal, such as trust, standing up for the innocent, compassion and pacifism (despite being the best fighter around). Although he has some more nuanced values as well, relating to drug-taking and potentially racism. His positive features are most often accentuated by how his rival, the blonde haired warrior, is seen in almost complete contrast to him. Luo Lang is the blonde Chinese mercenary who loves violence, takes drugs and looks out for himself only, and Nanashi is the outcast ronin who disguises his naturally red coloured hair, dislikes violence, sees drugs as bad and does all he can for his companions. The stranger of the sword is thus a samurai portrayed like many others, as the ideal sort of human. His many enemies are the bad examples with him as the shining light for exemplary behaviour throughout the film. As I pointed to before, we might expect that all the Japanese were portrayed as virtuous and the Chinese were the villians, but this is not the case as we see with Itadori's betrayal and drug-taking (as an example of Japanese vice). The only true example of a virtuous man is Nanashi, the red demon.



Nanashi is our only truly good example in the film: http://hallucination-walker.deviantart.com/art/Sword-of-the-Stranger-WP-169484030