For
many people in the United States, the beginning of the year is met with wonder
and whimsy about the (seemingly) endless possibilities of the year to come.
They make plans, look forward to events, and cultivate a purposeful motivation
to get through another rotation around the sun. As someone who studies systems,
I unfortunately see every coming new year as the inevitable and consistent
bureaucratic reset button; that we must do everything all over again, just like
last year, with the possibility of being slightly easier or more difficult than
the year before. No matter what else the rest of the year brings to us, these systems,
and our place within them (usually) stays constant. It is this concept of joyful life juxtaposed
within a bureaucratic organization, that is the central theme of Akira
Kurosawa’s masterpiece Ikiru. In this paper, I will be using (primarily)
a Weberian analysis to illustrate how the film understands organizational
systems, and an individuals’ place within them; ultimately causing neither to be
“alive.”
PLOT
After being given a
terminal cancer diagnosis, a government “salaryman” Kenji Watanabe (Shimura) falls
into an existential crisis, trying to grasp at the embers of life before they
are snuffed out. He drinks, gambles, sees prostitutes, all with the same
dispassion that he held at his job. It is only when a young government employee
(Miki Odagiri) becomes his life muse, that he is finally filled with passion
and vigor. Yet, as he becomes increasingly obsessed with the vitality of her,
he struggles with finding it within himself. It is only by building a
playground for a local community, that he finally understands, for him, life is
found in the service of others.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Production
Loosely based on the
Tolstoy novella “The Death of Ivan Ilych”, Ikiru marks the first
collaboration Kurosawa had with long time writing partner Hideo Oguni, who
helped him pen the bulk of Kurosawa’s masterpieces. Oguni’s idea of having the
protagonist die halfway through the film got him the job. The film was written
relatively quickly, Feb 1952, and was release later that October. It was
initially screened at the Berlin International Film Festival which got its attention
to the international markets, releasing in New York in 1960.
Three contemporaries of
20th century Japanese Cinema were Akira Kurosawa, Yasujiro Ozu and
Kenji Mizoguchi. Each Director’s work speaks to various aspects of Japanese
culture and filmmaking of the time. Given that Kurosawa was often (unfairly)
criticized as being too western in his approach, many of Kurosawa’s films do
not often get compared to his directing peers. Instead, many film critics opt
to either compare Kurosawa’s work to his influences (Jon Ford) or those he
directly inspired (Lucas, Scorsese, Coppola and Spielberg). When Kurosawa is compared
to the others, especially Ozu, Kurosawa often ends up considered less than.
In a reprinted essay for the
Criterion collection release of Ikiru, Donald Richie (1965) states:
…to set Kurosawa next to
Ozu is to be startled by their differences. Ozu’s films are about characters
that stoically accept their duty, even if everything in them crise out against
it. Kurosawa’s …are about raging often quixotically against the system.
Many other critics have made the same comparison. Ozu
is quiet, Kurosawa is loud. Ozu is meticulous where Kurosawa is broad. And
while this bifurcated comparison is often used to didactically criticize
Kurosawa for “not being Japanese enough”, Ikiru seems to be an intersecting
point. Kurosawa blends his typical” the
raging against the system” message with an Ozuian reserved acceptance of the
other salarymen at its climax. Even Mizoguchi’s penchant for the disruption of
the patriarchy in Ugetsu, is commented on in Ikiru’s relationship
between Kenji and Toyo.
Each of these directors
in a variety of their projects have taken on western influences. Mizoguchi
began his career being influenced by Tolstoy and German expressionism while Ozu
was influenced by Welles’ Citizen Kane. The differences are that with
Ozu and Mizoguchi, their western influences were early at the beginning of
their careers, while Kurosawa leaned into the comparison throughout his. This
may have unfairly led to Kurosawa becoming more successful (internationally)
and widely more well known than his fellow masters; but it often comes across
as Kurosawa seeming like the westerly assimilated younger brother of a
traditional Japanese family, that is critical of their loss of culture. Conversely,
I find Kurosawa’s work to be a delicate balance of viewing Japanese culture
filtered through a western filmmaking style, highlighting both comparison and
criticisms. Kurosawa is not a western director, but he is a director that can
be easily more digestible to western audiences (given his influences) making
him more popular; while perceived among some traditionalists, as being less
authentic.
Adaptations
As
with many of Kurosawa’s other pictures, Ikiru has been a sought-after
project for adaptation. Surprisingly, aside from a Hindi remake in 1973 titled Anand,
the remakes of Ikiru have been sparse. The most notable adaptation
of Ikiru as of this writing, happened just last year when British
filmmakers adapted Kurosawa’s and Oguni’s script into the film Living, directed
by Oliver Humanus, and starring Bill Nighty. True to form, the ending of this western
adaptation leans into the hopeful nature of the protagonist’s accomplishments,
believing that he has made a difference, whereas in Kurosawa’s version, it is
far more ambiguous. Living is currently under consideration for best
adapted Screenplay at the 95th
Academy Awards.
Another
unlikely Ikiru adaptation, that still leans in to the hopefulness of
hopeless government bureaucracy is the Mike Schur run sitcom Parks
and Recreation. The initial pilot of the
series follows affable, but ignorant, Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler), taking on the
(seemingly) monumental task of filling in “the pit” (lot 48), and turning it
into a park, after concerned citizen, Ann Perkins (Rashida Jones), brings it to
her attention during a townhall meeting. By the second season, the series
retools Leslie to eliminate her ignorance and make her both good and successful
at her job. For the bulk of the series, Leslie mirrors Ikiru’s Watanabe
as they both skulk around government buildings hoping to get paperwork signed, city
ordinances notarized, and environmental impact reports filed.
THEORETICAL INTERLUDE
“The bureaucratization of the social order,
inherit in most western democracies, is the polar night of icy darkness”- Max Weber
According to Weber (2019), the
social structure is regulated by a certain type of authority, to maintain
order. The type of authority dictates
the order of society; and how it operates.
Traditional:
This type of authority is believed
to exist within society through “natural relationships” (authority structures
based on bloodlines/ birth order) that have been in existence from a
long-lasting system of beliefs (i.e., the belief that one’s authority is legitimated
by being ordained by a higher power). This allows generations of the same
family to remain in power because of the same indoctrinated beliefs that
solidify unequal structures. According
to Weber (2019) in traditional authority, obedience is owed to the person or
the chief who occupies the traditionally sanctioned position, and who is bound
by tradition.
Charismatic:
This type of authority draws its
legitimacy through the individual person in power; their characteristics and
abilities. These characteristics are believed to not be possessed by everyone; that
the authority figure is “special”. Because of this, the charismatic authority can:
-
Make people believe what they want
you to believe. (They’re persuasive)
-
Seemingly move people out of
complacency especially if it is a transition from something different.
However, Weber (2019) notes that the charismatic leader(s) must
prove themselves to the public. These
individuals do not derive their “right” from their own will. Rather, it is the
duty of those whom they address, to recognize the charismatic person as their
leader (usually through and election). Therefore,
much of the “specialness” of the charismatic leader is not due to something
inherent in the individual; but due to the historical, social, and political
context they are living in, and the people who define them as such. Many charismatic leaders have come to power
as an answer to the previous leadership/authority structure. In fact, the
social structure dictates the rise of different types of charismatic authority
at different times. Because this type of authority is an affront to other types
of authority, charismatic authority is often routinized by the bureaucracy; (especially
if it’s successful). Therefore,
bureaucracy can be perceived as the death of charisma.
Bureaucratic-Rational/Legal:
This type of authority is derived
from the rule of law and is legally and rationally enacted. Thus, The President of the United States
derives their power from the laws of society. This authority is often
identified as the most democratic because:
-
It treats everyone the same (like a
number)
-
Gives people equal opportunity to
access power.
However, Weber (2019) mentions that this type of authority
also seeks to increase the superiority of the professionally informed by
keeping their knowledge and intentions a secret. To this he gives the examples of secret or closed-door
sessions that solidify a dominance structure by cutting off information. This is used to create domination through
objectifying, depersonalizing, and demystifying its subjects, to make things
more stagnant, complacent, and efficient.
Yet, in operation, this authority tends to be quite inefficient for
those under its rule. It is this type of
authority that is used in the formation of bureaucratic social structures
within our society. In fact, the bureaucracy is a creation of the modern world
which leads to formal rationalization.
BUREAUCRACY
According to Weber (2019), bureaucracies have distinct
characteristics that separate it from any other type of social structure. The scope of bureaucracies, especially under
a legal rational authority, is far reaching causing many organizations and
operations to be modeled after the bureaucratic structure thereby creating
uniformity.
Characteristics
1)
Bureaucracies
function and are organized around rules (laws or administrative regulations)
that are fixed within specific offices, occupied by specific officials in jurisdictional
areas. Regular activities required for
the bureaucracy are distributed to different offices, and the authority to
carry out those tasks, is also similarly distributed. Essentially, this means
that bureaucracies are ruled over by individuals who occupy offices that have
fixed jurisdictions, and who determine what kind of behavior is regulated.
2)
Bureaucracies, and their offices, are organized into a
hierarchy which disseminates authority across
the entire structure. Each office has
authority and power over a specific set of behaviors or actions which does not
infiltrate into another’s office. But power in one office can be superseded by another
if it is placed higher in the hierarchy. This supposedly opens the lines of
communication, allowing decisions in a lower office to a higher authority; but
that does not mean that the higher authority can take over the business of the
lower completely, it can only do that when the lower offices “aren’t
functioning.”
3)
The management and communication of bureaucracies
happen via written documents (memos, letters, e-mails etc.) which are
preserved for posterity for a pre-prescribed amount of time. Therefore, there is an entire staff of
officials that scribe all communications and distribute them. This helps to maintain a distance between work
and home and regulates the types of communication that is acceptable within the
bureaucracy.
4)
Hiring and working in
a bureaucracy requires/ and presupposes expert training in the field in which
they will be working. Many of the jobs within
bureaucracies that are not physical labor, or other kinds of lower wage work,
requires advanced training in education and orientation to do specific
jobs. This means that many even mid-level
bureaucratic jobs require a BA or above.
The position/ job itself does not lie with the person; it belongs to the
structure.
5)
When the bureaucratic structure is fully formed, work for
the bureaucratic structure becomes obligatory. This causes
many private personal lives to become secondary. The staff doesn’t own the means of production,
they are only given the tools they need to do the job. We become trapped in
Bureaucracies as we move from one to another in the everyday exploration of our
lives.
6)
Management of the Bureaucracy is done with
impersonality. Because the bureaucracy is ruled by organized regulations
and specific rituals. The regulation of
behavior is not done on a personal level.
The bureaucratic structure punishes, and rewards failure and success
equally based upon structured criteria.
The bureaucracy is never out to get individuals in its operation. Where the issue lies, however, is in how
bureaucracies are implemented and constructed…by humans.
RATIONALIZATION
There are many types of rationalization that Weber (2019)
discusses throughout his work in Sociology. For our purposes, the type that
interests us the most in this analysis of Ikiru, is formal rationalization. According to Weber (2019), this type of
rationalization occurs with reference to universally applied rules, laws, and
regulations, that are enforced with a means-to-an-end calculation, upon both
the system itself, and everyone within it; to appear more efficient in its
functioning. Thus, a type of formal rationalization: bureaucratic rationalization is a type that is the most influential
and necessary for us to understand structural domination through bureaucracy.
This type of rationalization emphasizes four basic characteristics:
1)
Calculability:
This is the drive for a bureaucratic rationalization to quantify objects to the
point that quantity often takes the place of quality. There are numerical
standards by which the process and the product are judged. There is an emphasis on speed during the
process and the amount produced; thereby reducing the importance of production
and service down to just numbers, while also reducing the quality to mediocre.
That mediocrity is then obfuscated by advertising, hoping to manufacture desire
for the unnecessary.
2)
Predictability:
The unflinching unchanging structure. Predictability allows for the same
business and operation to exist in one part of the country as it does in others. This also allows for order by number
efficiency by the systemization, and formalization of routines, maintaining consistency,
and a methodical operation that, while it gives consumer’s peace of mind, it
also transforms everything into a suicide inducing repetition. Individuality is the enemy, if you do things
different, its wrong and immediately corrected. Even language is scripted (e.g.:
“Hi, welcome to…”,courtesy)
3)
Efficiency: This
means that you choose the optimum means to a given end. This is done through streamlining the
process, faster is better (e.g.: fill in boxes, “just swipe it”, self-checkout
lanes). To be clear, this speed is only good for the organization/institution
and not necessarily those who are affected by it (Weber 2019).
4)
Control: This is often
done by replacing humans with machines, or other types of technology (automation),
and more subtly, the way bureaucratic rules, regulations manuals etc. regulate
human behavior. Following these
controlling steps makes sure that human beings become a tool themselves. They
will be trained to control their behavior. But this control extends to the
product as well (many products come pre-packaged, pre sliced in fact
pre-prepared “just heat and eat”) so that less work needs to be done and
workers do not have to exercise either judgment or skill.
“THE IRON CAGE”: IRRATIONAL RATIONALITY
According to Weber (2019), this bureaucratic rationalization
will cover the globe by seeping into every institution, organization and
operation that make daily living possible. Because we move from one
rationalized structure to another through our daily lives, we become trapped by
this bureaucratic rationality in which we cannot escape. This is what Weber (2019)
calls The Iron Cage. This is where the continuation of
rational behavior, in practice, becomes increasingly irrational as basic humanity
gets denied. The irrational trap of The
Iron Cage takes 5 main forms:
1)
The absence of real(ity). This is the idea that organizations and
institutions that operate in this bureaucratic structure create environments
and/or products that either remove people from reality or take the place of it.
Disney, for example, gives consumers the idea that you can escape to a place
that is “pure magic” or “pure fun”. A place where consumers are confident it
will never change, and always be there. Secondly, other products like Mountain
Dew, has a taste that is completely synthetic (it has a taste that is not represented
in anything existing tangibly in nature). Yet, it is still seen as real and is
a part of a publicly traded company. Candy and frozen dinners have flavors
injected into them to make them taste like the food they are mimicking. Trouble is, that those synthetic flavors
become so mass produced that it is perceived as what the actual real product
should taste like. For example: Starburst cherry taffy does not taste like
eating a cherry, but when thinking of the flavor of cherry, you are more likely
to remember the candy.
2)
Depersonalization
This is the notion that within the bureaucratic structure a person becomes
a number. To the State, a person is just
their social security number, to the school, their student id number, to work,
their employee id number, at a Fast-food restaurant, a ticket number. This makes skills, thoughts, feelings, ideas,
and emotions irrelevant and distracting for the bureaucratic structure. By
assigning a number, the bureaucracy is reducing human life to something that is
expendable and ultimately replaceable; continuing to allow inhuman work in
inhuman conditions.
3)
Disenchantment This
Weberian idea resonates from the belief that in Western societies “magical
elements of thought” are gone. Anything that is seen as fantastical and or
mythical, are either routinized or destroyed.
The bureaucratic characteristic of control is an aversion to any enchanted
thoughts beyond being used as a distraction. This ultimately impacts the way
that we interact with other people. Much of our interactions, especially with
strangers in these bureaucratic structures, is disenchanted into false friendliness. Disenchantment often happens because. like
everything else, religions too, become engulfed in this bureaucratic plague,
forming and conforming so that every church within a particular ideology looks
and acts similar.
4)
Standardization: Everything
is the same. Business operations under the bureaucratic model for success, give
more similarities and few differences. Many corporate models for business
operate under the same organizational chart. Thus, this is when one thing
becomes like everything else. We get so
used to this, we admonish people who do not get or follow the standardization
process.
5)
Inefficiency:
Ironically, rationalized bureaucratic structures operate in a very
inefficient manner for those trapped within it. From the red tape of politics
to the long lines at the grocery stores, the following of a never-ending series
of rules, regulations and procedures is quite time consuming and the exact
opposite of efficiency. Consider the following examples: The Starbucks’ drive
thru: is supposed to be faster than going up to the counter. The Highway system,
especially in Southern California, is supposed to be in place so that people
can get where they are going faster, however this is only true at certain times
of day. Also, in the name of efficiency,
these organizations and companies pass some of the unpaid labor onto the
consumer (personal banking, checkout lanes etc.) which is individually inefficient.
CAPITALISM AND BUREAUCRACY
There is an interesting
comparison and confluence when talking about Capitalism and Bureaucracy; those
are the differences between a Marxian vision of Capitalism and one shared by
Weber. Weber’s work first identifies Capitalism as the “spiritual” biproduct of
Protestantism, specifically Calvinist beliefs.
Weber
According to Weber (2002)
specific Calvinist beliefs are the most important to the development of Western
Capitalism. These beliefs led to a series of behaviors that make it easier for
Capitalism to take root as an economic system.
1. Inner
Worldly Asceticism: This is the understanding that Calvinists
believe in focusing in on the present, and the tangible world. This is in
opposition to Catholics whom Protestants believed were “Outer worldly
Hedonists” who indulge in worldly pleasures, while exalting the existence of
post-mortem kingdoms of gold, and a life everlasting, easily achieved through
slight acts of contrition. Instead, what
matters to Calvinists, is their thoughts, behaviors and actions that exist in
the world that they live in. They were encouraged to be frugal and only
spend what they needed, and to not be
wasteful.
2. The
Belief in Predestination. Calvinists believe that it is already
predetermined whether an individual was “destined” for their version of
“Heaven” or “Hell”. Because of this unknown, Calvinists had to look for “Signs
of Salvation” based upon their belief system. One sign of salvation that they
decided on, was that of “Hard work.” If someone was perceived to be “working
hard” then it was more likely that they would get into “Heaven”
3. The
Belief that a person’s Job was a “Calling”. This is the
Calvinist understanding that whatever job an individual performs, that job is
perceived as a “calling from “god”. Therefore, success in a person’s career is
also success with “god.” Most occupational successes are measured by wealth.[1]
These beliefs create the social behaviors that
allow Capitalism to arise and take root in a particular society. Frugality, hard
work, and economic success are all behaviors that are favorable to the
development of Capitalism. They are “the spirit” of Capitalism that allows the
economic system to thrive. However, Weber notes that this trajectory only
happens in western/western influenced civilizations and are only valuable until
Capitalism becomes ritualistically self-sustaining, when money itself, and its
acquisition, becomes its own ethos.
Marx
Marx’s
understanding of Capitalism, more from the grass roots side of the conflict,
recognized the essential problems with capitalism, which left in its
unregulated natural state, would create several forms of exploitation through
Capitalism’s cycle of capital accumulation. The basic path model equation of
capitalism (M-C-M) introduces several fundamental flaws in its solution.
Firstly, that the valuing of Profit (the resulting M in the equation) ultimately
causes the dehumanization of people both within the workforce (labor) and outside
of it (consumers). There is a foundational axiom of “profit over people” that
Capitalism evokes which is carried out through the alienation of the workers
(through outsourcing and automation) and the exploitation of consumers (through
price gouging). This is what economist David Harvey calls “accumulation through
dispossession” that leads to privatization and the theft of intellectual
property (Chomsky and Waterstone 2021:57).
In our modern Capitalist system, we do not sell labor anymore (as we did during slavery) instead we sell labor power. The chief difference in social class is then measured by whether you can obtain income and wealth only from your own labor power, or through the labor power of other people. The bifurcated social class model that Marx introduces is clearly delineated by the ability to buy, sell, and gain wealth from other people’s labor power. The Bourgeoisie can gain wealth from the labor power of their workers and themselves because they control and hold the positions of power in the labor force. The Proletariats, on the other hand, only have their labor power to sell for their survival. According to Chomsky and Waterstone (2021), there is something nefariously bleak about this capitalist system that fosters an inability of people to be able to provide and produce for themselves. Instead, it makes workers reliant on their capacity to sell their labor power to someone else [because the job they do isn’t owned by them, just performed by them]. Then, the wages that they are “graced with”, must be used in the service of consumerism to survive. Yet, this all gets normalized and made invisible through understanding it as common sense…the capitalist realism which falsely believes that everything within society should be run like a business (Chomsky and Waterstone 2021).
Weber
Answers Marx
Marx believed that the
alienation that workers felt would eventually be so great that they would rise
in a glorious revolution that would shake the pillars of Capitalism down to its
core, developing first into socialism, and then communism. However, this
revolution never happened. This is because Marx underestimated the formation of
Bureaucracy and its ability to keep people complacent within the Iron Cage of
irrationality. It distracts them with frivolity and neurotic worries, that trap
them in a prison of their own making. This is the alliance between Capitalism
and Bureaucracy, both have benefited from the organization of the other. The
destruction of traditional levels of authority into a broader, seemingly
democratic legal structure, allows for a wider range of capitalist activity,
while bureaucratization also allows for the protection of private profit.
Bureaucracy is used as a precise instrument of economic domination (Gerth and
Mills 1958:230-231).
This is where we find the
Protagonist at the beginning of Kurosawa’s Ikiru; a shell of a man (mummy)
going through the motions of life, but never truly alive.
SOCIAL ANALYSIS
“He
is actually killing time. He has never really lived. Might as well be a corpse,
nothing left of will and passion- Narrator.
Kurosawa’s
Masterpiece Ikiru, which directly translates into “To Live”, itself a
declaration of sorts, does not shy away from the central theme of bureaucracy
explained above. From the repetitive nature of Kanji Watanabe’s movements as he
shuffles papers from one side of the desk to the other, with no other discernable
difference than his minuscule stamp of approval, to the montage of the
community following the draconian labyrinth of various government departments,
Kurosawa makes clear the disempowering nature of bureaucratic systems and the life
constricting clasp of Weber’s “Iron Cage”.
Throughout
Ikiru, Kurosawa emphasizes one of the lesser discussed components of Bureaucracies
“Iron Cage”, Disenchantment, at the micro level. Whereas Weber primarily looked
at disenchantment through the lens of religion, and the desire to control
belief, Kurosawa brings it down to a micro level analysis, illustrating how bureaucracies
can severely impact our interactions and the development and maintenance of
relationships throughout our lives, resulting in the alienation of people, and
thereby disempowering them. According to
C. Wright Mills (2002) one of these stratifying processes is the Bureaucratic
development of “The Cheerful Robot.”
As I
explained in a previous
essay:
“The Cheerful Robots” are
the apathetic individuals of a mass society who blindly and complacently accept
their life chances as determined by fate (Trevino 2012: 191). For
Mills (2002), this is the common psychological trait for those living in a
bureaucratized capitalism. There is an emptiness to the work; a lack of
fulfillment that never gets satiated, as each task gets divided down to it
minute detail, adding to this depression. The alienation of a lack of ownership
of products is obfuscated by the psychological acceptance that the amount of
labor used determines ownership. This puts workers in a state of false
consciousness, they feel emotionally invested in their work and want to
continue producing. Yet even recreation, also becomes commodified and
rationalized, so even in leisure, workers become routinized. This
gives rise to what Mills calls “Personality Markets”; where individuals would
be able to be sold the personality traits they desire through their purchasing
of products. This commodification of identity is again another step
in the creation of a “robotic” workforce. These “robots” then become
“happy” through the creation of a social interaction “mask” each worker wears,
built on stereotypical greetings, kindness, friendliness, and personalized
service (Trevino 2012). The consistent wearing of such a “mask” stifles
creativity, magnifies feelings of estrangement, and results in self alienation.
The worker learns to just go through the motions, and manufacture emotions,
solidifying their assimilation.
While few would call Kanji Watanabe, “cheerful”, he
maintains the amenable affability that is standard practice for the service
industry, and government positions that often translates to a mild neglect to
those they interact with. Thus, when he is given the cancer diagnosis, and his
existential crisis begins, Watanabe does not know how to interact with people. His
mask has alienated him from others. After withdrawing 50,000 yen from his account,
he ends up at a bar drinking alone, where he meets a vagrant. Through the
vagrant’s suggestions, Watanabe shops through the Millsian “Personality Market”
by trying to embody the societal presentation of someone who will die soon and
is short on time. He drinks heavily, gambles recklessly, and visits prostitutes.
But he soon realizes that this, too, will bring no joy. Society’s perception of
“living [it up]” is just as hollow as sitting at his desk with his government
stamp. Since no one else knows his cancer diagnosis, much of this is perceived
as a late midlife crisis, in part because they too, perceive his hedonistic
bacchanal as the pinnacle of joyful reckless abandon.
There are many things that are presented to
us, mainly through marketing, that promise to satiate our woe, alleviate our ennui,
and recalcitrate our revelry. This is Capitalism. The cause of the problem is
presented as a solution. The emptiness that Watanabe feels after indulging
himself in the behaviors that he is told to “want and experience”, is
Kurosawa’s testament to such a solution being both impractical and ineffective.
According to Mills (2002) this is a product of the bureaucracy itself, the
division of labor created between work and leisure. Because work is perceived
and constructed as both impersonal and alien, this requires that leisure be
full of the “personally familiar”, trying to fortify us with a variety of
prescribed and self-imposed medications to get us through another workday. Unfortunately,
we, like Watanabe are perpetually dissatisfied.
“Each day men sell little
pieces of themselves in order to try and by them back each night and each
weekend with the coin of ‘fun’. With amusement, with love, with movies, with
vicarious intimacy they put themselves together to some type of whole again…” (Mills
2002:237)
Kurosawa discusses this
dissatisfaction through the juxtaposition between Watanabe and Toyo Odagiri, the
government employee whom he is inspired by.
After finding no satisfaction with the cavalcade of indulgences he had
been participating in, Watanabe becomes obsessed with Toyo, a young government
employee who, in a conversation with another worker, mentioned that she had
intentions to quit because she “didn’t want to become an old mummy” like
Watanabe. Watanabe sees in her the life and vigor that he once had and seeks to
understand the source.
It is (pleasantly) surprising
that Kurosawa did not follow the trope of “young girl shows old man the meaning
of life.” All the secondary characters around Toyo and Kenji do not understand
their relationship and believe it is a self-destructive affair. Even Toyo and
Kenji realize the unhealthy nature of their companionship, with Toho realizing
that Kenji has become as parasitic as the government job that she wants to
leave. Again, unlike other stories of its ilk, Kurosawa leans away from
expectations and does not have Watanabe try to save her from becoming him, but instead,
tries to convince her to stay in her government job. He becomes a cautionary tale for her, and She
is the specter of life that he gave up so that his son could have a better one.
The concept of sacrifice
is baked into bureaucratic capitalism[2]. We are conditioned
through socialization and other mechanisms of social control, to give of
ourselves; to give time, money, energy, and effort back into the society in
which we live. This is how our society runs on labor power. We are convinced to
relinquish much of ourselves to the society at large through a variety of socially
constructed motivations. For Kenji Watanabe, and many other workers, it is
through reproductive futurism. This is the idea that the choices we make about
the future are motivated by the health and safety of the next generation.
Whether that is because we want to selfishly secure our own legacy to prove
that our life has meaning, or that we individually are emotionally invested in
the wellbeing of people that we love; on a macro level, many people are not
motivated to better their own lives outside of their progeny. Thus, people are
willing to endure, and capitulate to the system because it is “what is
required.”
In Ikiru, Watanabe
is finally able to break free from this magnificent monotonous malaise, when he
realizes that the joy he was missing was a sense of fulfilment; not at the
bottom of a bottle, or inspired by youth, but through service. When the
community comes to his office again and demand a park be created, Watanabe spends
the last four months of his life navigating the community through the red tape
and roadblocks of local government. Throwing caution, self-respect, and humility
out the window to just get one thing accomplished. A sacrifice, but rather for
himself, Watanabe’s sacrifice was for other people. Kurosawa’s point? Perhaps,
if the system is going to grind us all down, we might as well throw ourselves
into it for the betterment of others, and not just those with whom we are
emotionally invested.
Kurosawa encapsulates and
crystalizes the nature of bureaucracy in the reactions and interactions of the
other government employees at Watanabe’s funeral. As Watanabe continues to be
praised for his endeavors, his colleagues in Public Works and other local
government salarymen, try to take credit for the park and the building of the
playground with the common generalization that it was a “team effort”; even to
the point of getting angry, that they too need to be commended. This is a apart
of “The Managerial Demiurge… the societal uneasy interlocking of private and
public hierarchies, and at the bottom, more areas become objects of management
and manipulation.” (Mills 2002: 77). The lack of personhood is such that both
Watanabe’s subordinates, and superiors, can not allow for credit to be
collectively given, and only singularly received. If one is praised, then they
all should be praised.
Mills (2002) explains it
like this:
Management is not a Who
but a series of Theys and even Its…You are a cog and the beltline of the
bureaucratic machinery itself; without you the managerial demiurge could not
be.
Yet, among
middle management, white collar workers, there is a fair amount of “status
panic” in which these salarymen try to justify their existence in a transparent
display of occupational self-protection, and to keep up appearances (Mills 2002,
Veblen 1994). This is especially true in the Japanese culture where honor is an
important personal and cultural identifier, and the social pressure to maintain
at least the thin veneer of respect and dignity is very high.
Later,
when the Salarymen’s hypocrisy is exposed, they are contrite and drunkenly
prostrate themselves in front of Watanabe’s son and the townspeople. They reveal
that they too feel the Weberian “Iron Cage” draining the nuanced life from
their bodies, only leaving behind a tattered husk of routines, norms, and predictable
patterns. For other filmmakers, this would be the moment of revelation, when
the sacrifice of the protagonist leads to greater and longer lasting systemic
change; having these men see the error of their ways and feeling the same
emptiness as Watanabe, seek to change the system. Kurosawa, however, understands
the routinized nature of bureaucracies and the souls trapped within it. Once
the salarymen leave, it is pointed out that these men will do nothing. They
will go back to the office tomorrow and they will fall back into their old
habits. All the lofty platitudes that they spouted in their self-medicated
manufactured performative grief at the foot of Watanabe’s alter, are as hollow as
they are; too consumed with success and shackled within the bureaucratic prison
to realize that they are a just a living corpse waiting to rot.
CONCLUSION
Kurosawa being influenced
by western filmmakers and Russian literature (Dostoevsky) it is not surprising
that he understands the bureaucratic social order. Yet, in many other films there
is a hopeful strain that runs through them that is absent here. In Seven
Samurai, even though the Samurai cannot stop the
societal changes leading to the obsolescence of their class status, the
villagers, the lower class, still won and have a future. In High
and Low, Mr. Gondo still chooses
to go through with the ransom demands even when it is revealed that it was not
his son that was kidnapped. Ikiru is Kurosawa at his bleakest. There
is no true success within a bureaucratic social order; you get consumed by it
and become a charismatically emaciated husk, condemned to drain the life from
the next hopeful person it ensnares. Like Weber, Kurosawa has no solutions
for us. He leaves the audience with a haunting series of images. First, of Takashi
Shimura singing in the snow, and then his friend gazing upon the finished playground
before returning to work…hoping one day “to live.”
REFERENCES
Chomsky, Noam and
Marv Waterstone 2021. Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent
and Resistance Chicago: Haymarket Book
Gerth H.H. and C.
Wright Mills 1958. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology New York: Oxford
University Press
Mills C. Wright
2002. White Collar: The American Middle Classes 50th Anniversary
edition New York: Oxford University Press
Richie, Donald 1965.
“To Live” Reprinted in The Criterion Collection edition of Ikiru
Trevino, A. Javier
2012. The Social Thought of C. Wright Mills Los Angeles: Sage Publishing
Veblen, Thorstein 1994.
The Theory of the Leisure Class New York: Penguin Books
Weber, Max 2002. The
Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Other Writings New York:
Penguin Books
Weber Max 2019. Economy
and Society: A New Translation Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
[1] Is
this the excuses of rich people to not only justify their wealth but
essentially buy their way into heaven? Yes.
[2] This
concept of sacrifice is also gendered in that women, more so than men are
socialized to sacrifice their own desires for their family. They are the ones
more likely to step away from job as careers when the family is in need. To
sacrifice their own self-care time for others, and be/take on the
responsibility of being the sole proprietor of their family’s emotional labor
needs (especially their spouse). This is because the mechanism of gender socialization
value women more through their bodies and their relationships with others,
rather than their work, or their personalities.
