“Princess Mononoke”

Keep one eye on the ethics portrayed in the film, both by the characters and the filmmaker. Keep the other on the artistic elements of the film. Then consider this: Does the film have a moral vision? Should art be moral?

“Princess Mononoke” starts by giving us a moral hero, Ashitaka. In the beginning of the movie the prince proves to us his valor and moral fortitude. He protects his village, and when the monster that attacked curses him he exiles himself both to protect the people he loves and to fulfill his destiny.

At the beginning of his journey we see him struggling with his inner demon (which in this case is literally a demon, but also represents the hate in the world and Ashitaka’s hate for that, er…, hate). He kills two soldiers (who are in the middle of massacring presumably innocent villagers) and regrets it immediately. He believes all life has value, a central point in his moral code. This instance touches on the issue of capitol punishment: is it right to kill a murderer?

As the story progresses he again and again must struggle with his code. Whoever wrote this story really abuses Ashitaka, constantly throwing moral dilemmas at him that he often must deal with at the heat of the moment. At one point he is alone in a room with the cause of all his pain, Lady Eboshi. She is the leader of Iron town. Her ambitions have hurt many people and animals, creating the demons that attacked our hero. Ashitaka is faced with the opportunity to kill her, but, although his right hand (the one possessed by the demon) unsheathes his sword, he chooses not to. Ashitaka sees that Lady Eboshi means well, she is doing what she believes is best for her people.

When the war starts between the humans and the animals Ashitaka is torn. He values all life and must decide who to help and what is just in the heat of the moment. Both sides see him both as the enemy and as their ally. He is always fighting with and against his friends. His moral code is constantly challenged.

In the overall sense of the movie, there is also a theme of the industrial vs. the natural. Which begs the question, to what extent is it right to kill nature for progress. The movie seems to answer this question with “to no extent.” Although its hard to believe the world will stay at peace once the movie ends. Lady Eboshi still seems to be on her mission towards progress and Princess Mononoke (who I have neglected to mention thus far, yet is nonetheless a central character) still hates the humans.

Lady Eboshi also is an interesting character to analyze because she is a very powerful woman who has a strong opinion on gender rolls. She could easily be called a feminist, preferring a woman’s (or a leopards, for some reason lepers) handiwork to a man’s and only values men for their physical strength (which for some reason made me like her more, I think that’s the point). One of the reasons she is constructing guns is because of this, she wants to take away mans advantage (strength) with a weapon that requires nothing but accuracy to kill. This brings up interesting questions. Is she treating all her people right? To what extent does this justify the creation of these weapons? Can she truly be called a feminist? A good leader? Is her treatment of men just as unjust as unequal treatment of woman, in other words is she sexist? Is it worth it to save her life considering how unfairly she treats men and her many other flaws and cruel goals? Ext.

I would say that this film does have a moral vision. Someone thought up each moral issue that the story would have and chose the characters personalities precisely so that the moral issues would be emphasized. The question is whether or not this was on purpose. Did the writer wish to convey a story about morals or simply to throw interesting obstacles at the protagonist, which just happen to be moral? Either way they had some kind of vision which, whether purposefully or collaterally is moral.

            Does art have a moral responsibility? I would say no. Art should be morally aware, it should realize that it has more implications and often uses morals to coax a reaction out of its audience. But as long as it causes a reaction it can be considered art, regardless of whether it portrays morally right events or ideas. In this case the movie portrays arguably good morals but not all movies (or art) does. I haven’t seen clockwork orange, but I assume that the morals in that movie must be very different.