It may be more than just a movie...

There are three significant observations that I made from the movie, Rashomon:

First, the author/director did a great job in making sure that the reader/viewer of the story/movie would have a hard time figuring out who the real killer is and the main reason for this are the different sides of the stories of the characters. A movie review that I read says that through the different sides of the story, viewers (or maybe the readers of the story also) were able to see in different eyes and feel each characters feelings because all stories seemed true, of course the cinematography adds to the effect to the viewers but still it leaves the viewers thinking and wondering which one really is true. If we think of Japanese Politics as the movie Rashomon, we can see that how different the viewers of the movie of react is just as the same on how the Japanese reacts to their politics. There are some who are proud of their politics but there are also those who thinks that there is something wrong. Everytime they change their prime ministers, there are many different response by the public. The Yasukuni representatives, for example, thinks that there is a failure in Japan's Foreign Policy regarding the enshrinement of the war criminals in Yasukuni.

Second, is that the characters have different versions of the incident. The characters relates the incident coated by his own selfishness. In every story, the character narrating it makes it look like that he is innocent and that all the wrong doings are done by the other characters and never by himself. Also, even the samurai, who was murdered, may be biased on his own welfare when he tells his narration through the medium (miko). This is why I think it is difficult to identify the murderer because the murderer himself may be seen as being truthful when he narrates his story. Japan itself and, to be specific, its politicians and bureaucrats are comparable to the characters in Rashomon. The characters in the movie are motivated by their own interests and they tell their stories for their own protections just as how the politicians and bureaucrats in Japan (and in other countries as well) acts. The only difference of Japan from other countries is that even though their politicians and bureacrats are driven by personal interests there is still a high level of nationalism in Japan which, for years, help prove that Japan is a strong country.

And third, is that the real intention of the killer is not identified since the killer is not identified. This observation reminds me of the Honne and the Tatemae because even if the murderer is identified he may state a different reason from his real intentions on why he killed the victim. For example is saying that it was "accidental" rather than "purposive". This observation also entails not admitting to one's own faults just as how Japan refuses to say "sorry" to the countries it has victimized, maybe for the reason that they have taken responsibility to most of the countries who were devastated by Japan.

Because its a Start...

...to compare is to be human.... - Todd Landman

Todd Landman, author of the book entitled Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics, mentioned that "making comparisons is a natural human activity" and I think that I and the rest of the people in the world are living proofs of this statement. I make a lot of comparisons everyday and I think everybody does because it’s basically part of decision-making. But I never really noticed the significance of comparison until it was brought up in class.

What I basically learned in reading the first chapter of Landman's book is that a comparison made by an average person in his everyday life is essentially but not exactly the same with comparing politics and that its differences are the intensiveness of how the comparison is done and how detailed the objectives are when it comes to comparing politics. Landman gave four objectives of comparing politics which are contextual description which describes politics and its concepts, classification which, according to Landman, makes the world less complex, hypothesis-testing which disproves other rival reasoning and helps build or establish general theories and prediction for future outcomes. Comparing will help distinguish the similarities and differences between politics. I strongly agree when Landman said that scholars compare in order to avoid their own ethnocentrism because I think that part of what we can get from comparing is the moral to be able to understand how other things or events came to happen with being able to give respect but we must first be open-minded to able to understand. As I was also reading the chapters, an everyday quote came into my mind which is:

“Learn from your own mistakes.”


and I thought that maybe in comparing it can also be:

“Learn from your own mistakes and others’ mistakes too.”

this came into my mind because I was reading I was trying to come up with my own example and what I imagined was two states that are experiencing exactly the same crisis (any problem, or whatsoever) and one of the leaders could make the right decision and the other one could make the wrong decision. If these were to happen then the leader of the state that made the wrong decision would be able to compare with the other state the decisions that were made. This event might not really happen exactly in the real world because even if two countries would have exactly the same crisis there would be many factors that could effect decision making such as the laws, the people themselves and so on but still, to some extent, I believe that comparing possible decisions is still of great help for the countries. Landman also mentioned that experimentation is a reason for comparing politics because unlike the natural sciences, political science could not do experimentation through having controlled factors of the matter being observed and thus comparison gives way to experimentation.

"Japan, Land of the Rising Sun"

I was in elementary when I was first interested in Japan and it eventually started with its pop culture but as I grew I started to read a lot and it gave me different kind of reactions. I am happy whenever I learn in my Japanese Language class; I feel disappointment when Japan don’t do so well in negotiations etc., I am always awed whenever I see picture of old castles, temples and other beautiful scenery in Japan and so on. I am saying these things because I expect that Japan politics would also be a source of different reactions for me.

Before I started going to college, Japan Politics was a topic that I wanted to read about but never had the courage to do so because I have always perceived that it would be very complicated . I took up Japanese history class last term and from what I have learned there has been many turning points in Japan’s history that greatly affected its present form of government. From the ruling of the emperor, to the samurais and shoguns and now the prime minister, Japan has experienced a lot when it comes to politics that is why it is very complex.

Studying Japan politics would be an opportunity to understand the relevance and irrelevance of culture to political analysis because for many years the Japanese have been observed of having a strong sense of nationality that is why they were able to preserve the culture that, in my opinion, has been greatly considered in matters of the country.