The Sky Crawlers: finding meaning among the skies

Or knowing it lacks thereof

As the film recently screens on Amazon Prime Japan (maybe global as well?) I figure this would be a good opportunity to write something substantial celebrating this film. 

The Sky Crawlers is the last film made by Oshii Mamoru, a director known for Ghost in the Shell, Patlabor and so on. Compared to his earlier works such as aforementioned GiTs, or films like Jin Roh the wolf brigade, The Sky Crawlers barely get any mentions, if at all. 

At this stage, however, it’s appropriate to consider The Sky Crawlers as the “late” Oshii, or the “beginning” of his late style to say the least. In Sky Crawlers, Oshii’s style shifts into a more meditative, slow cinema. Not to say that his previous films didn’t have this element, for example in Stray Dog: Kerberos Panzer Corps , he directed the film in an absolutely polar opposite of what one would expect to see from its poster or its first 10 minutes of the film. Instead of an action-packed film, Stray Dog is actually a serene, dreamlike road trip slow cinema. Considering it was also set in Taiwan, one couldn’t help but think of the big names like Hou Hsiao-Hsien or Tsai Ming-Liang in the same era.

However, this essay is not meant to talk about Stray Dog (though I do think it deserves one), but rather to connect the link between the late-style of The Sky Crawlers to his older films.

To begin with, The Sky Crawlers is about immortal pilots flying for a fictional company based in Europe, they are called “Kildren”. 

I must also add that The Sky Crawlers is actually an adaptation of a novel from the same name, and chronologically wise it is the last book for the series despite being the first book. With that being said, Oshii adapts the novel faithfully with some minor differences.

The film starts with an action packed dogfight scene, then followed by an arrival of the main character, Kannami. From here on, Kannami senses there’s something wrong with the airbase, and the people in it. As the story progresses, he slowly uncovers the truth. In the film he spends his time searching for the clues of his previous life and the identity of a deceased pilot “Jin roh”

To begin with, we already have our kernel on the subject of “Kildren”. Of course, it doesn’t take a genius to decipher "kill + children" from the term, but what does it constitute the very existence of “Kildren” that is?

As early as the film introduces Kannami to the airbase, once he meets Kusanagi, Kannami stoically answers her greeting question by saying “The sun was too bright”, prompting her to reply back amusingly “Is that Camus?” 

Naturally, this could be a nonchalant exchange between both of them, though; regardless the intention of the author may be. In my opinion, this small insignificant exchange more or less sets the film theme going forward. So, then, how is this small reference significant in any way? In order to answer this question, we first must examine the other elements of the film further.

In this fictional setting of alternative earth, there is no war as we know it. A war between nations that is. Instead of a tradition that we all understand, war is a mere stimulant for the people as a reminder of its existence. “War” is merely a game, and exercise, a “fiction” run by corporations within this alternate earth. Corporations have a duty to perpetuate the forever war going on. No side should have an overwhelming advantage, if either side suddenly gains an advantage the opposite should receive “a help” to restore the balance. 

In a dinner scene, Kusanagi explains the existence of war:

“Throughout history the human race has never been able to completely eradicate war, because its existence is essential and defines certain realities that humans want. Having actual wars at real battles, and real losses going on some more surface-specific function. It enables them to sustain the illusion of peace in their society, and it has to be real, not staged or metaphorical. Reading about wars in books isn't enough. It's no longer real to them and so it becomes fiction as if they are reading a fairytale. If people aren't able to see others dying, if miseries are not on display, we will not have a way of understanding peace, and therefore won't know how to maintain it. The significance of peace would be forgotten. People need wars because it helps them to feel alive. The same way we feel alive when we're fighting up there in the sky...

And so... because our war is really nothing really but a game that is not supposed to ever end, there needs to be several wars in place. For example, there must be an enemy, who can not be defeated.”

Given Kusanagi’s lengthy monologue of her interpretation of war, we can see where Oshii is going here. In his argument, humans need war as a reminder of human’s primal instinct. Conflict arises in need for society to function properly, or in most cases, war is merely an extension of policy by other means. If we continue by this reading then, war in itself is an illusion on two levels. Firstly, if we interpret war by Clausewitz’s theory, then war is a continuation of policy exercised by states to achieve political objectives. In this reading, war isn’t chaos nor is it an impulse act made by the state by waging war because it can. War, therefore, has logical steps and orders in itself, everything is calculated into a clear, concise political objectives framework.

However, in a reverse manner, isn’t war the most horrific absurdist concept ever? The idea of sending young men and women fighting against another human being you have absolutely no idea about, under the abstract such as “nation” and so on. But this horror reality of war is what constitutes the war being “real”.

Thus, in this alternate reality, in order to sustain the validity and the Real of war, people must die. But if the war actually never existed, and it is a mere game then how do we reinforce this real-ness then? That’s where “Kildren” comes in. 

As I have mentioned earlier, Kildrens are immortal. They never truly “die”. If they are shot down and killed, they will always come back some time later. In essence, their existence is to die, nothing more, nothing less. This inherent nature of Kildren explains the hedonistic lifestyle of various Kildren on the base. Whether that’d be drinking, engaging in sex, so on and so forth.

Hence, the earlier reference to Camus may not be totally a coincidence afterall. Which is understandable given the position of Kildrens. They are perpetually young, they can never “grow up”. Purpose and meaning seem meaningless. That’s why Kusanagi is indifferent towards living in this regard. It is no wonder why she seeks death as an escape of this never ending cycle of pain and losses. Nonetheless, Kannami is the opposite of Kusanagi, for the entire runtime; he appears to have a stoic appearance in every situation. I’d argue that Kannami is a prime example of a person who embraces the absurd according to Camus.

This opposite attitude brings forth the confrontation of the absurd nearing the end of the film. Kannami hears a gunshot. He rushes into Kusanagi’s office, seeing Mitsuya pointing a gun at Kusanagi. Kannami persuades Mitsuya into handing him the pistol, saying “I will shoot Kusanagi”.

For Kusanagi, living as a Kildren is a painful experience, it was her who was supposedly her lover, Jin Roh. Who is implied to be Kannami. Kusanagi says “It is your turn to kill me”, as she also has her gun pointing to her chin. Shot fired. It was a near miss. Cut. Reverse shot to Kannami, he was there, pistol barrel smoking hot from the recently fired round. “You’ll have to live! Until you can find a way to change things”, he said. The gun fell from his hand, he closed the distance between them in a heartbeat, wrapping her in his arms as though turning death itself into life.

So, what is the deal here? In the next scene, we get further confirmation of the earlier statement from Kannami: “You can change the side of the road that you walk down every day. Even if the road is the same, you can still see new things. Isn’t that enough to live for? Or does that mean that it isn’t enough?”

Doesn’t this passage here affirm Camus philosophy on absurdism? As Kusanagi was to the point of accepting death as the way to escape the cycle, Kannami helps her to understand this absurdity of the fundamental entity such as Kildren. An absurd being that  kills-eat-consume-die-repeat. Is Kildren a human? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps in the most strict definition, they’re perhaps non-human. Here, at Kusanagi’s very weakest moment, she has Kannami by her side, unlocking something inside of her heart. To which point, they are more human than human in this absurd world. What Kannami suggests here, is not merely to seek life's meaning by pursuing that meaning by oneself, rather, he also encourages her to revolt against the absurd, and accept the very absurd. And through this acceptance, one would be able to reach freedom, which, in turn, unbound oneself from the illusion of Kildren absurdity.

At its core, The Sky Crawlers is a romantic film disguised as an action film. Throughout the film, there are subtle hints, or even outright telling the audience of their not-so-hidden relationship. A good example of this would be the scene of them spending their evening at a restaurant, Kusanagi, who is under alcohol influence, pressing her gun against Kannami, she kisses him. Just this car scene alone, I’d argue this is somehow the most romantic film among anime as a medium. The inherent dangerous nature of a gun, forcing Kannami to wrestle her hand taking control of the hammer of the pistol, all the while engaging in a passionate kiss. What could be interpreted here is Lacan’s theory of the asymmetry of sex. In this scene here, kannami is desperately trying to take control of the gun from Kusanagi, he is operating under the phallic function; he anxiously stuck in a precarious position as he is in the situation of possible castration, a symbolic loss of authority (of a man). Whereas Kusanagi, a woman who is not-all or does not engage in the symbolic phallic logic of completeness and lack, which, in turn, makes her the completion of Kannami as a whole in this scene.

Of course, another figure that we have to talk about is the Teacher. I think there are many theories of what a Teacher is. Is he just a regular human? A robot? A kildren? A god?

Perhaps he is none of those. Or maybe he is all of those. In any case, a teacher is similar to “Avalon” from Oshii’s film of the same name. In this film, a teacher is the big Other. Here, he serves as an observing gaze, the imagined authority that judges and validates the presupposed balance of the two corporation factions. He is the unseen presence that dictates the very existence of Kildren of both sides. He is the mythical entity among Kildren, the untouchable being, the thing that is the authority within the symbolic order.

In the climax scene of the film, Kannami declares that he will kill his “father” aka Teacher. What he says here isn’t the literal meaning of parental figure, but rather rebelling the law and the authority. Or to tie in the earlier idea, Kannami is rebelling against the absurd in-itself, as the very absurdity of this alternate reality resides in the big other symbolic. And even though he fails to do so, he has at least achieved freedom through his act of rebellion. 

I could go on, and on about this film, but I think this essay has been lengthy enough. Again, this is my reading on The Sky Crawlers, and in my opinion it is an absolute masterpiece of anime that is very rarely talked about (even less than Patlabor 2!). Also, I have read the complete series of the novel series, but I don’t think talking about books would be relevant to this film. I think you could view this film from multiple angles, and there won’t be the same point that one could bring up I think. I also haven’t even brought up the Paris, Texas influence on this film, but maybe I’ll do it for the next time.

In any case, the next essay will be about Patlabor 2: The Movie, or the greatest anime movie of all time.