Post-Nuclear Era Japan | I Live In Fear

When we think of crisis we often think about personal crises, things that may ruin my life or a friend's life but not society as a whole. This generalized idea about crises comes from a place of privilege as we are lucky enough to be born in a stable country during a time of peace; however, by taking a look around the world we can see the many ongoing crises that are currently occurring. Whether it be the ongoing massacres in Sudan, or the bombings of hospitals in Gaza, there is no scarcity of horror in the world. In order to understand the way in which crises affect society it is beneficial to look into the past.

One particularly unique crisis that is still being recovered from is the atomic bombings of Japan. These bombings – along with the media control present during the US occupation – created an environment where society was forced to adapt to a crisis without having the information necessary to properly process it. One of the many examples of the effects this had on society was shown in Akira Kurosawa’s film I Live in Fear. For the sake of better understanding this particular crisis, this film acts as an effective case study of the effects that crisis can have on society. By imaging the atomic bombings through the dualities, the self, and the family, Kurosawa makes multiple claims about crisis. Most notably, that as humans we are fragile, despite this we still have an inherent desire to continue the life we deem comfortable.

One method that Kurosawa uses to communicate his claim is dualities, such as the connection between meanlessness and persistence. The existence of this duality within the post war culture is created by what John H. Dower describes as the compounding of an unprecedented disaster, lack of government support and the suppression of the struggle associated within said crisis.  With these three factors compounding for the entirety of the US occupation, Japanese citizens were forced to feign normalcy while holding the belief that their extinction was imminent. This, paired with the grief of losing family, friends, and for many their entire worldview, created a complex form of trauma that was suppressed and compounded. The feeling of meaninglessness that existed within the forced persistence of the Japanese people directly relates to the part of Kurosawa’s claim that we try to continue a life we deem comfortable. The trauma that this combination of policy and culture created leads into the second duality that Kurosawa used to communicate his message..

Denial and hope and the relationship between these two ideas highlights the contradictory nature made in Kurosawa’s claim. That is to say, as fragile beings, denial is a prominent behavior that allows us to avoid confronting reality. When you deny reality it is easier to maintain hope. Within the film we see reality defined as the absolute state in which things exist. That is to say, reality in the film is what the outside observer, the viewer, sees and is what we could expect an outside viewer of our world to see. The state that we exist in is often bleak and undesirable, especially during a crisis, confronting our reality directly means accepting death, grief and sadness without attaching it to any greater meaning. In the face of such despair is where we tend to collapse and so we often cope using ideas of purpose such as religion, nationalism and hope.

This hope pulls us into the second part of his claim being that we have a natural desire to continue and if hope is necessary for that then reality comes second to hope – this makes denial a rational and expected part of the human experience. The method used to express this in I Live in Fear is narrative. Mr. Nakajima denies the fact that a nuclear bomb could strike anywhere and he decided to place his hope in moving to Brazil where his family would be “safe.” Moving to Brazil is something that is possible, however when this hope is taken away from him he is forced to create a new one. This new hope is moving to a different planet, something impossible for him to achieve. Despite this impossibility he convinces himself that he has done it in order to maintain the only sense of comfort he can. His disregard of reality is proof of Kurosawa’s claim that people are fragile as reality is second to hope.

The connection between denial and hope is expressed visually in the final scene of the film as Dr. Harada, who has fully become aware of Mr. Nakajima’s mind, walks down the steps forced to continue about his life for those that depend on him. As he walks down the steps we can see Mr. Nakajima’s daughter and granddaughter going up to see him. The framing of this shot shows the stairs as a center point, both Dr. Harada and the daughter appear to be walking in the same direction away from the camera while one goes up and the other goes down. The visually significant aspect of this is the implication that the daughter too must come down. This particular framing is sending the message that all that goes up must come down, but going down doesn’t mean failure, it means continuing to move through a crisis. This claim relates to societies and their responses to crises. Namely, that societies will have points of success but crisis is inevitable. Even with this inevitable crisis these societies must continue down the stairs so that they can eventually come back up. Mr. Nakajima waiting at the top of the stairs implies that crisis is a cycle that will repeat indefinitely so long as society continues to move. Kurosawa made the intentional choice to focus on the directionality and motion in the frame while avoiding showing any of the characters coming to a complete stop. This symbolizes that even if we slow down or speed up, as humans we naturally keep moving.

Beyond dualties – the self is used to image crisis. Selfhood throughout I Live in Fear is the combination of rational thought and emotional thought which is present within the individual. The critical contradiction of the self in the film is the sanity of insanity. In this sense, sanity and insanity relate to one's connection to reality as it was previously defined. In terms of Kurosawa’s claim on humanity, the emotional desire to seek comfort is what maintains sanity under crisis. This is shown with the family who is well aware of the threat of the nuclear bomb yet chooses to ignore the threat for the sake of their comfort. When this emotional desire to continue as it fails to override the rational fear of extinction, humanity's fragility is revealed. 

We see both Dr. Harada and Mr. Nakajima clash between their rational self and their emotional self. In the first half of the film we see Mr. Nakajima’s “rational self.” This self is expressed with simplicity: I believe the atomic bomb could kill my family, so I should move my family somewhere safe. Initially his actions start on terms everyone could agree is rational: asking his family about their opinions. Yet, fear leads to desperation. Accordingly, we see Mr. Nakajima act more and more desperately as he attempts to hold onto some sort of hope.

Eventually Mr. Nakajima’s emotional self overshadows his rational self which is seen in the climax of the movie where he sets his foundry on fire. The use of fire was an intentional choice as the foundry represents his rational ability to maintain himself and the fire is showing just how quickly it is vanishing. When the fire is over, so is any hope that Mr. Nakajima has of escaping his fear and he is forced to live in hopeless despair. Just as fear leads to desperation, the same is true for despair. Kurosawa uses the desperation of Mr. Nakajima to express the fragility of humans – when we are forced to face reality and fail to ease our emotional selves we begin to crumble.

Imaging through the self grants the viewer a personal lens into crisis. Kurosawa expands our lens using the archetype of a troubled family which can help the viewer understand his claim from a societal lens. In the Nakajima family, one underlying assumption of Kurosawa's claim is enforced, being that as humans we struggle to face reality. The way that this claim is made is through the complete dismissal of Mr. Nakajima’s feelings. Narratively, we see this as the family's conflict being exclusively monetary and not familial. It is established that the family is mostly unconcerned with the feelings of Mr. Nakajima and instead care about their own financial wellbeing. One visual choice that supports this is how we see a stranger, Dr. Harada, get most of the screen time when visiting Mr. Nakajima in the asylum. This dedication of screen time is to show that the person who cares the most for him is not his family, but a stranger he only met recently.

In the week three lecture about Kurosawa the powerpoint states he depicts space along a single axis while having dual movement. This idea of one thing having two separate parts is consistent with how family is portrayed in this film. Under the context of crisis, we see love and fear combine together into one familial bond. Kurosawa uses family to express that in the context of crisis we struggle to face our reality. We also see another aspect of his claim in the family: the desire to continue life normally. The harsh treatment of Mr. Nakajima and the lack of aid he received is the result of these two ideas clashing. The family is too scared to face the reality of his fear but if they want to live their lives normally they must stop him from interfering. It is for those very reasons they appear so apathetic yet reasonable. They are arguing with what Kurosawa expresses as inherent human absolutes.

Through the use of the family Kurosawa depicted the innate human desire to live a life which we are emotionally comfortable with. Additionally, using the lens of the self he showed us just how fragile people actually are. These two claims were combined in his expressions of society at large through the use of dualites. Ultimately, in I Live in Fear, Kurosawa showed us that people are too weak to face reality and are willing to completely disregard it if it makes their lives more comfortable. This claim holds great weight when looking at modern crises. In the US we focus on the war in Ukraine as the white Europeans who resemble most Americans are in danger while turning a blind eye to the civilian massacres happening in Sudan which only resemble a minority of Americans. As people we focus on the things that appear to threaten our comfort and livelihoods rather than the things that actually do. We deny reality and weigh what we can relate to with greater magnitudes so that we can continue to balance the contradicting yet inherent claims that Kurosawa’s makes about humanity and its relationship with crisis.

Using I Live in Fear as a case study, crisis has been shown to impair our ability to judge reality as a result of our own weakness and fear. In the case of the atomic bombings, their effect on culture was heavily exacerbated due to both public policy and magnitude. However, as Japan as a society and culture has undergone a process of recovery it gives us hope that modern crises can also be recovered from.

• References

  Dower, John W. "Hiroshima in History and Memory." Cambridge University Press. pdf.

  Kurosawa, Akira, dir. I Live in Fear. 1955. Accessed March 28, 2025. https://www.kanopy.com/en/osu/video/113311.

  Moore, Keita. "4400_W3.2_Slides_Post.pdf." N.d. pdf.

  This is the second lecture pdf from week three. First slide title is "LIVING WITH THE BOMB.”