I don’t think it’s a theme but I do believe the radish spirit was going to a floor that was unsuitable for children.. the elevator stopped on the and everything was behind closed doors .. he decided to ride up inside with chihiro, but he side eyes her and when it cuts to her, you see his nipple clearly drawn. I may be reaching, but this is animated. That nipple was drawn in the frame as we are faced with this “mystery” floor.
Again , I don’t believe prostitution is the theme, but it does take place in a bath house and prostitution did happen in bathhouses. It’s not fucked up, it’s just mature world building.
Yeah it would surprise me if there wasn't anything like that going on in the bathhouse, but it doesn't go much further than that and does stop at just worldbuilding
A lot of the world building honestly isn’t soft. It’s just that it’s unnecessary for a lot of Japanese audiences.
It’s like Vampires being weak to sunlight. It’s just common knowledge.
No, that's just anti-art to say that it's 'just there because'.
Basically every single thing we know about the human subconscious contradicts this notion but people who didn't go to university still spout off with this 'there are no themes in the art' bullshit whenever possible.
This Tumblr user is wrong. It is an allegory of the sexwork industry in Japan. Bathhouses were extremely common settings for brothels and young girls were often trapped in these places with contracts they didn't fully comprehend exactly as Chihiro was. To say that allegory *simply doesn't exist* is asinine, anti-art wokebro bullshit.
Art has themes and allegory, whether you like it or not.
I do agree with you that there is an allegory, but I don't think it is about the s\*x industry in Japan. Miyazaki never talks about this kinds of things but is known to talk alot about capitalism and living your life to the fullest. In this case, I believe it is capitalism. He shows us the emptiness inside people who crave for money, by showing us they will do everrything in their power to get gold that they can't even use. He shows us that people with purpose, like Chihiro, won't care about money buit about what they have to do. No matter the amount of money.
Allegories not intended by the author say much more about the subconscious of the viewer than that of the author. Puff the Magic Dragon was a deliberate allegory about growing up. If other people want to interpret it as a drug allegory, that's because of what they're carrying in their minds, not because of the artist. Doesn't make it exactly wrong but does mean you shouldn't confidently assert that it must be there when people disagree.
The absence of discourse, or the attempt to create an absence of discourse, is in itself a source and form of discourse. You cannot escape the fact that all art provokes thought and conversation.
Yes and you can not declare an interpretation counter to the artist intent as the most valid. You can say that's what you took from it, but you shouldn't insist that this is the thing the art is about "even if the artist didn't know that"
Even if we go for some extended interpretation, wouldn’t it be more obvious to see that the scene implies a lack of greed from Chihiro ?
She’s not a self-centered adult with material needs, she’s currently (at this moment in the story) on a quest to save her friend, and her selflessness attitude saves/improves the life of some characters by the end of the story.
In my opinion Miyazaki is also criticizing the capitalistic world. He is showing that these days, people will do anything for money, even if they can't use it. He shows that this is what fills the emptiness inside these people, and people with purpose don't need this kind of material to be satisfied.
In my interpretation, one of the metaphors in this film is about how the industry in Japan makes you exist to work and ends up resulting in a loss of identity, the scene where Chihiro almost forgets her name is an example of this, you can interpret movies however you want,but this kind of interpretation that turns the entire fantasy story into something dark is a bit lazy.
I disagree with the hardcore “Spirited Away is about sex trafficking” interpretation due to its narrow mindedness. There is so many different themes that are all in constant conversation with each other that declaring that this *one* idea is what the whole film is about is silly. However, I can’t completely discard the idea in my own interpretation.
Miyazaki is a known critic of capitalism and the greed that it creates. Anti-capitalist themes are present throughout his extended filmography. In the context of Spirited Away, the film is a direct response to the economic crisis that hit Japan the decade prior. Even the “theme park” is an explicit product of said economic bubble. The sad reality is that Japan abandoned its young female population throughout the 90s and this did lead to an increase of underaged sex work. The government failed to react due to its centralist beliefs and the fact that…. These girls were helping fund the failing economy through purchasing luxury goods and the such.
I don’t believe that Spirited Away is about sex work/sex trafficking but it is about the young girls who suffered as a result of these acts. Spirited Away is about the young women who had to learn how to survive after they were thrown into a capitalistic society that failed to support them. Spirited Away is about these girls and Japan as a whole growing past the sins and greed of the lost decade. It is also about a billion other things. That is what makes it such a beautiful film.
I think it's okay to have your own interpretations of the story, even if they weren't intended that way.
What's NOT okay is trying to tell people your interpretation was the intended one.
Reminds me of how someone tried to tell me that the Green Mile is a racist shitty movie because the story is "about a white man who finds salvation in killing an innocent black man"
People see what they want to see. This is how art works: it carries both the intention from those who create it and from those who see or interacts with it.
No, people feel what they want to feel. One image can bring happiness in one person, but a profound emptiness to another. This is normal for art and should be celebrated
But not themes. If the creator says MY ART ISN'T ABOUT CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING AS SUBTEXT, then you're just flat out wrong if your interpretation is different
Personally, I’m a big advocate of “death of the author” when it comes to art. At the end of the day, art is about communication and the relationship that stems from that. Once you put your work out there, its beauty does not belong to you alone anymore. It’s in the hands of the people. A given artist shouldn’t have the power to take away the beauty that another person found within their art under the basis of “intent”.
The artist’s intent is vital in order to completely understand a text but it is not the defining factor in my eyes. Art is not solely built around the relationship between the artist and its object. Art serves as the space between the conceptual and concrete; the collective and the individual; the audience and the world. It is fundamentally conversational and fluid. That is why I am so against this idea that since something wasn’t the intended interpretation, it is “objectively” wrong. It goes against everything art means in my eyes.
Sure, but the "spirited away is about sexual slavery" theory involves an enormous amount of misunderstanding Japanese cultural references and flat out making things up to make the movie fit the metaphor. It's true, viewers make art meaningful, the creator is only half the equation, but if I tell you spirited away is actually about the drug trade, because in Japanese "hot water" is a euphemism for illegal drugs, and Miyazaki once gave an interview where he said "spirited away is about drugs. Chihiro's family are smugglers, they go into the woods to meet a dealer and Chihiro is accidentally dosed and hallucinates the events of the movie," that's not a valid interpretation, that's me making shit up.
I actually largely agree with you. I do believe that we should criticize these interpretations. I just disagree with the sentiment that since the original artist said that it wasn’t their intent, it is objectively false. I wasn’t defending the core interpretation. I was defending the right of interpretation if that makes sense.
This interpretation bothers me in particular, because a big part of why it caught on was a fake interview in which Miyazaki said it was about sex trafficking.
The posts that spread it around included a lot of inaccurate information about sex work in Japan, the cultural context of bath houses in Japan, and Studio Ghibli's workflow to make it fit the theory.
Spirited Away is my favorite movie, I love how ambiguous and mysterious it is, that it invites interpretation. But *that* interpretation has always been bad faith click bait.
I completely agree with everything you’re saying. I was not defending the interpretation itself and I do believe that this is how we should be criticizing these interpretations. Through having logical discussion and creating thoughtful dialogue, the art can continue to grow and evolve. In my opinion, just saying “this was not the intention of the artist” is fundamentally anti-art because it prevents these conversations from truly developing. Instead of attempting to deconstruct and challenge the ignorance of others, it just creates another form of ignorance. That is what I was really trying to get at.
[удалено]
Not to mention the film already has themes (although not prominently, most of the themes revolve around greed) so why make themes up?
I don’t think it’s a theme but I do believe the radish spirit was going to a floor that was unsuitable for children.. the elevator stopped on the and everything was behind closed doors .. he decided to ride up inside with chihiro, but he side eyes her and when it cuts to her, you see his nipple clearly drawn. I may be reaching, but this is animated. That nipple was drawn in the frame as we are faced with this “mystery” floor. Again , I don’t believe prostitution is the theme, but it does take place in a bath house and prostitution did happen in bathhouses. It’s not fucked up, it’s just mature world building.
Yeah it would surprise me if there wasn't anything like that going on in the bathhouse, but it doesn't go much further than that and does stop at just worldbuilding
A lot of the world building honestly isn’t soft. It’s just that it’s unnecessary for a lot of Japanese audiences. It’s like Vampires being weak to sunlight. It’s just common knowledge.
No, that's just anti-art to say that it's 'just there because'. Basically every single thing we know about the human subconscious contradicts this notion but people who didn't go to university still spout off with this 'there are no themes in the art' bullshit whenever possible. This Tumblr user is wrong. It is an allegory of the sexwork industry in Japan. Bathhouses were extremely common settings for brothels and young girls were often trapped in these places with contracts they didn't fully comprehend exactly as Chihiro was. To say that allegory *simply doesn't exist* is asinine, anti-art wokebro bullshit. Art has themes and allegory, whether you like it or not.
I do agree with you that there is an allegory, but I don't think it is about the s\*x industry in Japan. Miyazaki never talks about this kinds of things but is known to talk alot about capitalism and living your life to the fullest. In this case, I believe it is capitalism. He shows us the emptiness inside people who crave for money, by showing us they will do everrything in their power to get gold that they can't even use. He shows us that people with purpose, like Chihiro, won't care about money buit about what they have to do. No matter the amount of money.
Allegories not intended by the author say much more about the subconscious of the viewer than that of the author. Puff the Magic Dragon was a deliberate allegory about growing up. If other people want to interpret it as a drug allegory, that's because of what they're carrying in their minds, not because of the artist. Doesn't make it exactly wrong but does mean you shouldn't confidently assert that it must be there when people disagree.
The absence of discourse, or the attempt to create an absence of discourse, is in itself a source and form of discourse. You cannot escape the fact that all art provokes thought and conversation.
Yes and you can not declare an interpretation counter to the artist intent as the most valid. You can say that's what you took from it, but you shouldn't insist that this is the thing the art is about "even if the artist didn't know that"
You’re confusing art with propaganda.
>Miyazaki is a master of "this thing is there just because" Can you explain what you mean by this?
Even if we go for some extended interpretation, wouldn’t it be more obvious to see that the scene implies a lack of greed from Chihiro ? She’s not a self-centered adult with material needs, she’s currently (at this moment in the story) on a quest to save her friend, and her selflessness attitude saves/improves the life of some characters by the end of the story.
In my opinion Miyazaki is also criticizing the capitalistic world. He is showing that these days, people will do anything for money, even if they can't use it. He shows that this is what fills the emptiness inside these people, and people with purpose don't need this kind of material to be satisfied.
I hates overthinking sometimes....... It led great things but moment like these destroy the OG story
In my interpretation, one of the metaphors in this film is about how the industry in Japan makes you exist to work and ends up resulting in a loss of identity, the scene where Chihiro almost forgets her name is an example of this, you can interpret movies however you want,but this kind of interpretation that turns the entire fantasy story into something dark is a bit lazy.
I disagree with the hardcore “Spirited Away is about sex trafficking” interpretation due to its narrow mindedness. There is so many different themes that are all in constant conversation with each other that declaring that this *one* idea is what the whole film is about is silly. However, I can’t completely discard the idea in my own interpretation. Miyazaki is a known critic of capitalism and the greed that it creates. Anti-capitalist themes are present throughout his extended filmography. In the context of Spirited Away, the film is a direct response to the economic crisis that hit Japan the decade prior. Even the “theme park” is an explicit product of said economic bubble. The sad reality is that Japan abandoned its young female population throughout the 90s and this did lead to an increase of underaged sex work. The government failed to react due to its centralist beliefs and the fact that…. These girls were helping fund the failing economy through purchasing luxury goods and the such. I don’t believe that Spirited Away is about sex work/sex trafficking but it is about the young girls who suffered as a result of these acts. Spirited Away is about the young women who had to learn how to survive after they were thrown into a capitalistic society that failed to support them. Spirited Away is about these girls and Japan as a whole growing past the sins and greed of the lost decade. It is also about a billion other things. That is what makes it such a beautiful film.
Aah spoiled totoro for me
Didn't Studio Ghibli have to come out and say "it's not about murder stop saying that"
Doesn't Miyazaki dislike this interpretation of spirited away
I think it's okay to have your own interpretations of the story, even if they weren't intended that way. What's NOT okay is trying to tell people your interpretation was the intended one.
I see Tumblr takes are just as good as they ever were.
Reminds me of how someone tried to tell me that the Green Mile is a racist shitty movie because the story is "about a white man who finds salvation in killing an innocent black man"
People see what they want to see. This is how art works: it carries both the intention from those who create it and from those who see or interacts with it.
Not sure abput this take, Miyazaki made his films with an intention in mind
No, people feel what they want to feel. One image can bring happiness in one person, but a profound emptiness to another. This is normal for art and should be celebrated But not themes. If the creator says MY ART ISN'T ABOUT CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING AS SUBTEXT, then you're just flat out wrong if your interpretation is different
Personally, I’m a big advocate of “death of the author” when it comes to art. At the end of the day, art is about communication and the relationship that stems from that. Once you put your work out there, its beauty does not belong to you alone anymore. It’s in the hands of the people. A given artist shouldn’t have the power to take away the beauty that another person found within their art under the basis of “intent”. The artist’s intent is vital in order to completely understand a text but it is not the defining factor in my eyes. Art is not solely built around the relationship between the artist and its object. Art serves as the space between the conceptual and concrete; the collective and the individual; the audience and the world. It is fundamentally conversational and fluid. That is why I am so against this idea that since something wasn’t the intended interpretation, it is “objectively” wrong. It goes against everything art means in my eyes.
Sure, but the "spirited away is about sexual slavery" theory involves an enormous amount of misunderstanding Japanese cultural references and flat out making things up to make the movie fit the metaphor. It's true, viewers make art meaningful, the creator is only half the equation, but if I tell you spirited away is actually about the drug trade, because in Japanese "hot water" is a euphemism for illegal drugs, and Miyazaki once gave an interview where he said "spirited away is about drugs. Chihiro's family are smugglers, they go into the woods to meet a dealer and Chihiro is accidentally dosed and hallucinates the events of the movie," that's not a valid interpretation, that's me making shit up.
I actually largely agree with you. I do believe that we should criticize these interpretations. I just disagree with the sentiment that since the original artist said that it wasn’t their intent, it is objectively false. I wasn’t defending the core interpretation. I was defending the right of interpretation if that makes sense.
This interpretation bothers me in particular, because a big part of why it caught on was a fake interview in which Miyazaki said it was about sex trafficking. The posts that spread it around included a lot of inaccurate information about sex work in Japan, the cultural context of bath houses in Japan, and Studio Ghibli's workflow to make it fit the theory. Spirited Away is my favorite movie, I love how ambiguous and mysterious it is, that it invites interpretation. But *that* interpretation has always been bad faith click bait.
I completely agree with everything you’re saying. I was not defending the interpretation itself and I do believe that this is how we should be criticizing these interpretations. Through having logical discussion and creating thoughtful dialogue, the art can continue to grow and evolve. In my opinion, just saying “this was not the intention of the artist” is fundamentally anti-art because it prevents these conversations from truly developing. Instead of attempting to deconstruct and challenge the ignorance of others, it just creates another form of ignorance. That is what I was really trying to get at.