Garden of Words - afterthoughts of a movie
“…you can’t disprove the existence of conscious experiences by proving that they are only an appearance disguising the underlying reality, because where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality.” - John Searle, The Construction of Social Reality
Going to skimp through any comparison between the works of Makoto Shinkai because it’s redundant to the purpose of focally understanding this movie. Skimping through the aesthetic quality of the show too which is apparent throughout the works of Shinkai.
A relationship that is conventionally stigmatised in the society they live in, a Japanese high schooler and a teacher falls in love and has to make a crucial decision on how to handle their situation. The restrains of circumstances, a theme emphasised ubiquitously throughout romance films, is creatively morphed into a unique situation that interestingly tackles issues beyond the scope of mere societal conformity. Rational decisions made by each stakeholder in this relationship are shown as fear-induced and self-serving despite its logic or, rather, because it is blinded by logic.
Despite many of his films glorifying leap of faiths as the ultimate destiny of love, this ideal is sadly, but perhaps not unfortunately, not extrapolated into reality and remains a mere fantasy to consumers. Love, which is a realm transcending logic, is increasingly mixed with rationality. Reacting with circumstantial matters of concern, original views on the survivability and sustenance of relationships metamorphoses. However, can we truly qualify this decision of ‘giving in to logic and rationality’, as a lesser of ‘taking a leap of faith’? Is it cowardice, a lack of bravery? Really, maybe its strength and courage displayed in a person’s conviction to painfully control one’s emotions and focus on greater ambitions. In this case, couldn’t it also be argued that it is self-serving for a person to demand a leap-of-faith and for the other party to compromise his ambitions to satisfy his demand?
Given the subjectivity and inconclusiveness I feel about the different considerations surrounding the subject, I think that there is no justified reason to get angry (i state this potentially obvious fact because it happens to be the case of the main character in the movie) over a decision made by the other stakeholder to decide against the progression of a relationship, and possibly self-serving on his part to demand it after rejection irregardless of whether his actions were blinded by emotions.
In the end, the teacher changed her mind to her initial decision of rejecting the main character’s expression of love and gave in to his wanton outburst of spite. It’s not wrong, nor is it right. There’s no such thing.
Ryan
