INTRODUCTION
The sixth film in my
sociological analysis of the films of Hayao Miyazaki is the wartime action
adventure Porco Rosso. Based on
Miyazaki’s own Manga titled “The Age of the Flying Boat”, this cinematic romp
set in the post WWI Adriatic Sea, is crafted more for adults. It deals with
issues of war, masculinity, honor, and global politics; themes that Miyazaki
continues to use in his work moving forward. Porco Rosso, in fact, is
the starting pistol for a series of films that separate Miyazaki from anyone
else in animation; culminating in his magnum opus The Wind Rises.
PLOT
Set in 1930’s, Porco
Rosso is a World War I flying “Ace” who has become a bounty hunter of sea plane
pirates. Cursed to have the face and body shape of a pig, Porco, when he’s not bounty
hunting, spends most of his days reading magazines, drinking wine, and working
on his plane. At night, he has dinner and drinks with his best friend’s wife,
Gina. This simple, idyllic (albeit unconventional) life gets disrupted when the
factions of sea plane pirates hire an “Ace” themselves, Donald Curtis, to take Porco out. After Porco is ambushed, and with his plane
destroyed, he travels to Italy to have it repaired by the plucky Theo and her
family. Once the plane is rebuilt, Porco sets out to settle the score with
Curtis, and regain his reputation.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Aviation History
One of the clear thematic links that
connect Porco Rosso with The Wind Rises is a focus on aviation
history. Miyazaki, a self-confessed aviation enthusiast, begins to display his areal
fervor here in Porco with a subtle deft hand. While much of aeronautical
passion is present in Porco, it is more muted than in The Wind Rises;
which through its plot, characters and detailed animation style is a love
letter to the plane[1]
Whether you are flight fan or plane pals, Porco Rosso
is the perfect picture. It contains so many different “Easter eggs”, allusions
and references to early flight and its pioneers, that not even the most die-hard
jet junkies will recognize them all. Its not that Miyazaki makes it easy: from mentions
of Italian plan manufactures, individual pilots[2], global plane racing, the Wright
brothers, and their company, some of these “extras” seem to be there only for
Miyazaki’s whimsical amusement.
Esoteric knowledge is present in all most every fan
culture. That knowledge is used as a recruitment tool into the fandom itself,
as well as weaponized against those that do not belong. While there have been many names by which
fans have identified members and non-members of their ranks in typical In
Group (The group you have loyalty to) and Out Group (The group you
do not have loyalty to often in opposition) fashion. Recently, the term “Stan”(an
amalgam of Stalker and Fan) has been used to refer to those who are committed
to a particular topic. Miyazaki is
certainly a “Plane stan”, and you can see it with every brush stroke he uses to
emphasize the plane and its capabilities.
Throughout Porco Rosso any shot or background that
involves a plane or the flying of it is depicted with immense detail. Every
rivet, bolt and hinge are crystal clear and in focus, giving the image substance.
When you look at these images, it feels like these parts are holding together
something truly immense. Added to this are a lot of “insert” shots of hands and
feet moving gears, leavers and pedals that really conveying the physical toll
it must take to operate these flying machines under normal circumstances; let
alone during an aerial battle with another plane. The detail is so intricate
that at the end of the film you almost convince yourself that you could fly just
like Porco. This is considerably ironic given the origin of the film itself.
Porco Production and the Yugoslavian War
Originally conceived to be a short film for Japanese
Airlines to spruce up the preflight announcements, like a lot of Miyazaki
concepts, Porco Rosso expanded beyond its original scope. Yet, unlike a
lot of his other films rather than just the ambition of Miyazaki’s scope and
scale pushing the film into a full feature, the production of the film was concurrent
with the 1991 War in Yugoslavia. Since the film takes place in the region
(albeit in the 1930’s), Miyazaki wanted to use the concept to make a film that
was more serious in tone to shed light on the conflict and his anti-war,
anti-fascist positions.
The war in Yugoslavia was a series of conflicts born out
of the declaration of independence of Croatia from Yugoslavia in 1991. The Yugoslavian Government was being
influenced by the Serbian forces to retain a Serbian identity and expand the
Serbian territory. The use of Yugoslavian government in this way created a rift
with other ethnicities in the region leading to their separation.
These
series of conflicts lasted for about three years, marred by the greatest number
of war crimes (at the time) since WWII, including such crimes as rape and
genocide. The Bosnian genocide (the
first to be identified as such after the great war part II) saw the death of
8,000 Bosnian Muslims men and boys as well as the expulsion of another 30,000
civilians from the region. During the
expulsion of those civilians they had to endure the acquisition and destruction
of property, plundering of heirlooms and family wealth, the targeting and
execution of political leaders and intellectuals. In addition to those that
were directly killed, there are still around 10, 500 people who’ve been
reported missing that have yet to be found. Yet, years later, the UN acquitted
Serbian and its leaders of having any direct responsibility. Of the few
officers that were convicted, many of those convictions were overturned [3] It was this lack of convictions
(or at least ones that would stick), which gave rise to the Bosnian Genocide
denial by many authors, and pundits within Serbia, even though in the larger
global world, this atrocity is well documented and acknowledged. Yet, the
single event of the war that compelled Miyazaki to change the scope and tone of
his film was the “Siege of Dubrovnik”.
The
“Siege of Dubrovnik” was the conflict between the Yugoslavian Army and Croatian
independence fighters, who were defending the city of Dubrovnik from December
1991 to May of 1992. The Yugoslavian
army blocking escape from the city through their Adriatic blockage from which
they also firebombed the city. This action, and the advancement of the Yugoslavian
army into the city resulted in widespread looting and the complete destruction
of Old Town. This would eventually result in the global community’s support and
recognition of Croatian Independence. In
the end, Croatians saw the retreat of the Yugoslavian army but not without losing
near 200 soldiers and 90 civilians.
Because
Porco Rosso was set in the same area (sans 60 years or so) Miyazaki felt
a moral obligation to give the film an anti-war political undercurrent. When
asked about this, Miyazaki said “We felt the world was getting better, bit by
bit. So, when the Yugoslavian ethnic war happened, we were dumbfounded. Were we
just going backwards?[4] Originally conceived as whimsical and romantic
comic about sea piracy and magical transformations, after witnessing the Yugoslavian
war, and particularly the “Seige of Dubrovik”, Miyazaki added messages of anti-fascism,
anti-war and nonviolence. The film sees Porco rejecting the offer to fly for
the Mussolini regime while dodging black shirts that try to capture him. Miyazaki
also recontextualized Porco as a WWI fighter pilot with a self-actualized curse
due to PTSD and survivor’s guilt. This was illustrated beautifully in a
sequence inspired by Roald Dahl’s “They Shall not Grow Old”.
Yet,
despite its praise and success at the time, Miyazaki years later would call
this film “foolish”. Foolish not because it was a mistake to make the film, but
it was foolish to make an adult film and market it to children. He felt the
nuances were too acute for children to pick up on, and that because it was
animated, it would limit adult exposer to the film. While Miyazaki has always
been his own worst critic, going so far as to question his entire career and
the validity of his existence several times[5], there is some merit to
his words here as Porco Rosso, just like Castle
of Cagliostro , is often ignored in the
face of some of Miyazaki’s other heavy hitters.
SOCIAL ANALYSIS
When
looking at Porco Rosso the sociological intricacies are clear. Topics of
anti-war, anti-fascism as previously discussed, as well as masculinity and
femininity. While my social analysis of the majority of films I have written
about have been through the lens of Millsian sociology (there is still some
here), In the process of this review, I will be highlighting some of the work
of Zygmunt Bauman, Judith Butler and Raewyn Connell.
Bauman
and Butler: Modernity, Genocide and Grief
In
a conversation with Michaerl-Hviid-Jacobsen and Keith Tester, Bauman (2014) states
that Sociology:
“is bound to sap the foundations on which rests the
popular beliefs in necessity and the naturalness of things, actions, trends and
processes. It unmasks the irrationalities that have contributed to their
composition and continuation” (p29)
With the belief that to
study society, one needs to be of society; and outside of the thralls of any
type of institution, Bauman saw the work of Genocide to be the extreme form of
procedural rationality common in modernity (Bauman 2002). This points to a
fundamental flaw, consequences to the components of modernity is violence and
death, particularly group annihilation. [6] But as Bauman (2002)
points out, genocide is the last step, and any kind of resistance is already
too late once that point is reached.[7] Believing that the horrors
of genocide will become ‘indistinguishable” from what modern society generates
daily. The systemic organization of modernity, its continuation or its undoing
is inevitably achieved through violence.
~The
truth is that every 'ingredient' of the Holocaust - all those many things that
rendered it possible - was normal; 'normal' not in the sense of the familiar,
of one more specimen in a large class of phenomena long ago described in full,
explained and accommodated (on the contrary, the experience of the Holocaust
was new and unfamiliar») but in the sense of being fully in keeping with
everything we know about our civilization, ·ts guiding spirit, its priorities,
its immanent vision of the world - and of the proper ways to pursue human
happiness together with a perfect society (Bauman 2002, 8)
This idea supports the
Millsian notion one of the causes of World War III being the formation and
reliance of bureaucracies which is a modern construct. From the politicizing of
violence and its bureaucratization into war inevitably leads to death
(including genocide); that death and the modern components and behavior leading
up to it, start to be viewed as normal.
According to Judith Butler (2009) this normalization can
be measured by our empathetic capacity for grief. The emotion of grief is
heavily tied to one’s sense of, and display of humanity. Those that are grieved
are more valued, and a person who grieves is more human and moralistic. The problem that Butler (2009) sees is in the
way in which grief becomes weaponized and used as a political tool rather than
be available for all people. Because a conflict is boiled down to bifurcated
factions (look back at my definitions of in-groups and out groups) in which
people have loyalty to one side or the other, we do not dispense our grief
equally to all parties. We save our grief for those who are “on our side”,
thereby devaluing half the lives in the conflict. This leads us to make militaristic
and political decisions that value our soldiers’ lives over the lives of
other nations soldiers. This allows us
to maintain the Millsian military machine (Military Industrial Complex) while
putting a lot of time, research and money into the safety of those lives we
deem important through grief. To clarify, the institutions of modernity,
those that have power and those individuals that operate within them, in their
upper echelons, do not have grief for soldiers, nor patience for those that do.
That is, outside of the transparent “thoughts and prayers” speeches, the
moments of silence, or the pictures and parades three times a year (Memorial
Day, Veteran’s Day and the Fourth of July).
We
embed the notion of a soldier’s life to be one of sacrifice in our culture. We prep
the devaluing of a soldier’s life through that definition and label of
sacrifice,[8] then use that sacrifice
fueled by grief to increase militarization, weapons, and body armor in the name
of “valuing” our troops. A perfect
example of this is The US drone program where one of the big selling points was
that it would limit the number of soldiers in harm’s way, ultimately reducing our
casualties and collateral damage. To gain support for such tools of war and
death (far beyond any other country), these bureaucracies have politically
weaponized the public’s grief.
This is the reality that the character of Porco Rosso is
trying to avoid and or escape. Porco is a man (pig?) without a country and a
soldier without an army. Rather than use his grief as fuel to enter into
another conflict, to die a hero and join his friends, (a very western and
frankly American interpretation of heroism) Porco only enters into combat when
children are in danger or his pride has been besmirched. He summarily rejects any chance to
participate in war again and will not be goaded through intimidation or treasure.
And even when he has an antagonist, he still sees value in him as a person; not
wanting to shoot Curtis to kill him, only to damage his plane in the final dog
fight. Thus, through these actions,
Porco displays a more all-encompassing humanity than the humanity that is
cultivated, politicized and weaponized in the United States.
Porco
Rosso: Masculinity and Femininity
According to Raewyn Connell
(2009)
Gender is…the set of
practices that bring reproductive distinctions between bodies into social
processes…gender concerns the way that human society deals with human bodies
their continuity, and the many consequences of that ‘dealing’ in our personal
lives and our collective fate. (p 11)
Raewyn Connell’s definition of gender is encapsulated by
the depictions, choices, and resolutions of characters throughout Porco
Rosso. In the relationships between characters, Miyazaki both deconstructs
and reinforces gender stereotypes, which upon closer examination, makes Porco
the least progressive of Miyazaki films to date.
The Main Man: Porco Rosso
After his failure to save
his best friend in a deadly areal battle, Marco Rossolini self-actualizes a
curse, built upon survivor’s guilt and PTSD that transforms himself into a pig
man; disgusted by his shame. Here, Miyazaki
is his most transparent in his gender commentary. Understanding the common sexist masculine
trope that “men are pigs”, the transformation of Marco results in the now famous
“Porco” being a womanizing letch that holds sexist stereotypes and spews misogynistic
epithets. He repeatedly mentions the second-class
status of women, and comments on their bodies. While Miyazaki does pair him with
the plucky Theo (a female character much more in line with his other work) it’s
done to soften the audience’s reaction to Porco rather than teach him a
particular lesson about the benefits of gender equity or the relevancy of
feminism.[9] As Sociologist Penn Pantumsinchai from the Social Breakdown
Podcast so eloquently put it, “It’s
like giving [the violent male character] a puppy.”
Theo and the Engineers
When Porco makes the
difficult decision to fly to Italy (disregarding both the warrants out for his
arrest and the emerging fascist government) to get his plane fixed by the renowned
Piccolo; Porco meets the aforementioned Theo, granddaughter and chief engineer
for Piccolo since all the men went off to war. She is the embodiment of the
typical Miyazaki heroine. She is anachronistic (feels like a girl with modern
sensibilities dropped in a 1930’s film) and is a beacon for what a lot of
female characters can be, especially within animation. However, even with these
modern shades of her character, Miyazaki still has her be the reward/prize at
the end of Curtus and Porco’s duel. This
plays into various forms of subtle sex discrimination.
Subtle, or Covert
sexism is the forms of sexual discrimination that are normalized through language
behaviors, or roles that normalize sexist ideology. One of the more common forms of subtle sexism
is “Condescending Chivalry”. These are the types of behaviors learned through
the process of socialization that have been romanticized as “courtesy” between
men and women; clear examples being opening doors for women, or men paying for
women’s meals on a date. The reason this
is classified as subtle forms of sexism is multifaceted
Historically, these behaviors were created
because of the overall second-class status of women (especially in the Middle
ages through to the Victorian era) which seem antiquated now that women have
gained more independence. Secondly, there is a sense that a woman’s value (and
virtue) can be purchased through a meal, or culturally through the existence of
dowries.[10]
These ideas are still in place baked into the (usually) religious traditions of
marriage. The tradition of having the
bride’s family pay for the wedding functions as a modern dowry. From virtually
every princess fairy tale to the literal virtual space of the internet (and
modern gaming) women have long been the damsel in distress in which she is transformed
into a prize the hero has earned (Notable exception is Braid).
While this is slowly changing, it is a shame that Miyazaki falls back on this especially
considering his future work.
Miyazaki
also makes a commentary on war, gender and duty, with the inclusion of women in
the “rebuilding the plane sequence”. Because all of the Italian men are part of
the army and fighting wars, the only people that were left to build Porco’s
plane for him are all of the women in the town and other female members of Piccolo’s
family. In the US this conjures images of Rosie the Riveter and women led
industrial military production through WWII which unintentionally birth the
second wave feminist movement. And Yet, comparatively, this is the weakest representation
of female empowerment in any Miyazaki film before and is only dethroned by The
Wind Rises; but we’ll get there.
CONCLUSION
Porco Rosso ,
outside of the Castle of Cagliostro (which Studio Ghibli does not even
recognize) is one of the most underrated and lesser known Miyazaki film. While it muddies Miyazaki’s legacy when it
comes to the purity of his films thematic complexity with the lack of
deconstruction of Porco’s sexism and a reinforcement of tired sexist storytelling
tropes, it does make compelling arguments against violence, war, and the value
of life. Yet, to be fair, if you look at
the entirety of Miyazaki’s work, (especially in the films that come after this
where he is “throwing heat” for four straight films), it can be registered as a
slight dip in the pageantry of a filmmaker that has never made a bad film. All
in all, it is a film that is worth your time and energy to track down and can
be valued by your contemplation.
REFERENCES
Bauman, Zygmunt 2002. Modernity
and the Holocaust New York: Cornell University Press.
_________ 2014. What Use is Sociology:
Conversations with Michael-Hviid Jacobsen and Keith Tester Cambridge Polity
Press.
Butler, Judith 2009. Frames of
War: When is Life Grievable? Brooklyn, NY: Verso.
Connell, Raewyn 2009. Gender: In
World Perspective Cambridge
[2] The only WWI pilot that I was aware
of was “The Red Barron” because of the series of songs by The Royal
Guardsman
"The ICTY
Judgement in the Prosecutor vs. Momcilo Perisic case" (PDF). ICTY.
Hoare, Dr.
Marko Attila (5 March 2013). "Why was Momcilo Perisic acquitted ?".
[5] Kingdom
of Dreams and Madness (2014) and The Never Ending Man Hayao Miyazaki
(2018)
[6] As
Bauman says Genocide is the Truth of Modernity
[7]
This from a man who fled the Nazi regime in Poland.
[8]
That brings up an interesting existential question of when does a soldier’s
life end, with release from the military, on the battlefield, or when they sign
up?
[9]
This is something that is in the subtext of some of his previous films but
exclusively in his later work moving forward from this point.
[10] This
has led to the cultural existence of “dowry deaths” where fathers kill their
daughters because they do not have enough wealth to offer a “proper” dowry to
attract a husband
