+1. Even just seeing the "easter egg" in the poster of the movie that was discovered a few years back was enough to get my eyes to well up. Such an incredible movie, but not something I think I'll ever rewatch!

"‘Grave of the Fireflies’ Poster Has Heartbreaking Easter Egg Discovered 30 Years After Release": https://nextshark.com/grave-fireflies-poster-hidden/

I recently rewatched it, kind of facing my fear of being sad and depressed and oh my god what a different perspective I have now!

The shock factor is completely gone, the gory and meant to be traumatic parts aren’t that bad like I’m always waiting for the part that is triggering and it just doesn't come.

And the main characters I can basically only laugh at, the story is a cautionary tale of degeneracy and all the adults point out other choices the whole time. I completely didn’t notice the first time I saw it as a pre-teen. I just saw freedom, desperation that nobody helped and shock at the resolution. I completely missed that it starts as an anonymous homeless person dying their last breath in a subway station, and ending with it. Seeing that and how I actively avoid that specific scenario and so could these main characters, its more of a comedy at “watch this dumbass burn every bridge with the worst decisions” an expected and purely Machiavellian outcome, as its so common in the cities I live in, and everyone compassionate realizes they cant help people that cant help themselves. The story moreso shows humanizing to the dead anonymous homeless off in the corner, but not really empathy as it might be interpreted, just caution of how not to make those choices. the adults point out other choices the whole time, the writers put that in there.

I don’t think you are getting it.

Grave of the firefly is not a cautionary tale. You are failing to put it in its cultural context. Seita mostly acts or try to act as would be expected from a Japanese man at this time and the people around him are actually not really trying or failing to help because they are trying to survive the war too.

Takahata is actually extremely sympathetic to their plight.

In a lot of ways it is a reverse Hollywood war movie. There is no real heroism. Courage is pointless, people selfish in their will to survive. The protagonists are clueless and ineffective but they are touching in their humanity and try to root for each other and yet they fail and die forgotten.

It’s really a movie about how much of a waste war is. Takahata doesn’t even try to introduce suspense and plays it straight from the beginning. You know from the beginning that the protagonists struggle is pointless and that’s the point.

Quite right. The failed hero is a very deep part of Japanese culture spanning centuries. To continue to the bitter end even in the face of insurmountable odds, even beyond the point where it's become obvious you'll lose and nothing will be gained from it, is considered a very honorable act.

An American published a study of this aspect of Japanese literature in the 70s. "The nobility of failure" I think it was called.

The Nobility of Failure: Tragic Heroes in the History of Japan - Ivan Morris

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/573601.The_Nobility_of_F...

It is first and foremost a story by a man that wished he had died with his sister, instead of surviving similar events of the story. Because if he had died, he couldn't go on to regret not saving her and would know he tried his best. Dying is the courage.

> Takahata is actually extremely sympathetic to their plight.

Yes anyone willing to make a movie about homeless and the more relatable things leading up to it is going to be sympathetic.

I didn't use that word sympathetic, I agree that it does that. Its cautionary for viewers.

Everything's obvious in hindsight though, which is why watching it for the first time really hits so hard because you genuinely see none of it coming.