I watched all of "Until the T-Shirt Dries."
To conclude, I thought it was a terrible story.
It wasn't that I couldn't understand the plot. Rather, because I watched until the end, I could see what this story was trying to affirm, and it made me feel uneasy.
"You don't have to be bound by marriage."
"You can divorce even if you love each other."
"Relationships don't need names."
"Just live authentically."
On a micro level, well, there are people who live like that.
But when viewed on a macro level, it looked exactly like Japan today to me.
I became afraid: "This country will perish if it continues like this."
Dismissing sexuality,
weakening family bonds,
weakening human connections,
weakening ties to the land,
and finally deciding everything based on "whether it feels good for me."
I deeply dislike this value system.
The Sonoda Family is Too Pitiful
First, my final thought.
The Sonoda family is too pitiful.
There is a husband who lost his wife.
There are children who lost their mother.
Moreover, Azusa, who passed away, was the brightest person in the drama, the one who connected people the most, and the one who felt the most "alive."
In contrast, Mitsuru, played by Kenichi Matsuyama.
What is this habit of disappearing?
He vanishes when things get unpleasant.
He leaves without telling his wife.
He worries those around him.
And when he returns, he resumes normal relationships.
If there are mental issues or illness behind it, I think he should seek treatment first.
Having an illness and being allowed to drag others' lives into it are two different things.
Personally, he looked like nothing but a worthless jerk.
Falling in love,
getting married,
making the partner expect him as a "husband,"
and then disappearing when he gets tired of it.
I can't stand having this processed as being a "delicate person" or "clumsy person."
I'm not saying we should exclude people with mental health issues.
Quite the opposite; if you have problems, you have a responsibility to face them.
If you fall in love with someone, marry them, and connect your life with theirs, responsibility naturally arises.
This man has far too little of it.
Sakiko Makes No Sense Either
Sakiko, played by Yu Aoi, is also quite something.
I think it's fine to divorce as many times as she wants.
Divorce isn't rare, and incompatible couples don't need to stay together.
But she doesn't tell her current husband about her history of repeated marriages and divorces.
Why?
Isn't that crucial information for the partner to decide whether to marry?
And ultimately, these two divorce despite loving each other.
Moreover, they move back into the divorced home and get along well.
This is truly incomprehensible to me.
They didn't stop loving each other.
They didn't find someone else.
There was no DV.
There was no decisive clash of values.
They love each other, but
"Being in a marital form is painful, so let's stop being married."
This is depicted as a modern form of love.
No, I don't find it beautiful at all.
Doesn't Sakiko hate human society itself?
If so,
"If you're dissatisfied with the world, change yourself. If you hate that, close your eyes and ears, keep your mouth shut, and live in solitude."
— The Major (Ghost in the Shell).
It's a rough phrase, but while watching, I really felt that way.
As long as you live in human society, there is no relationship where only you remain unharmed, only you remain comfortable, and only you remain free.
Loving but Divorcing: Is That Really Maturity?
Of course,
it's not a simple matter of
"Marrying because you love each other"
or "Staying together forever once married."
But conversely, I also dislike the trend where saying
"I love you but don't want to be bound by the institution of marriage"
or "Relationships don't need names"
suddenly makes you seem like you have mature values.
Being married is tough.
So we stop being married.
But you are important to me.
We want to stay connected.
-- Isn't that convenient?
Then just date casually,
meet casually,
have sex when you want,
sleep when you want,
and do whatever you like otherwise.
No responsibility.
No obligations.
No need to carry the weight of another's life.
If this is presented as the most rational human relationship, naturally no one will marry.
After watching such a story, who would think, "Marriage sounds nice"?
Surprisingly, There is Almost No 'Sexuality' in This Drama
Something I kept noticing:
This drama surprisingly lacks "sexuality."
I'm not saying it needs sex scenes.
I'm not criticizing the lack of explicit descriptions.
It's a more fundamental issue.
Between men and women, there is almost no sexual aura.
From Mitsuru, played by Kenichi Matsuyama,
from Juki, the husband in the Sonoda family,
there is no scent of "I want this woman."
The women side leans into this, and relationships become increasingly friend-like.
Men being men and women being women.
Wanting to touch the body of someone you love.
Desiring the other sexually.
Having sex.
As a result, having children.
And creating a family unit to raise those children.
These primitive, obvious aspects of living beings are thoroughly diluted.
What exists in this drama is only psychological relationships:
"Understanding each other"
"Talking"
"Feeling comfortable"
"Not feeling comfortable"
"Being able to be oneself"
Humans appear as if they have no bodies.
Is This the Result of a Society That Made Sex Dangerous?
While watching, I thought some nasty things.
Is this the outcome of a society that has relentlessly treated "sex" as dangerous, with laws against non-consensual intercourse and such?
Of course, I don't condone non-consensual intercourse.
It goes without saying that sex without consent is wrong.
I'm not making a legal argument; I'm talking about culture.
Looking at someone sexually.
Flirting.
Desiring the body.
Sexual tension arising between men and women.
Has all of this been pushed into the background as "dangerous," "embarrassing," or "inconsiderate" without us realizing it?
At the end of that path, no one desires anyone sexually.
No one intrudes.
No one hurts anyone.
Talk gently,
respect the other,
maintain a certain distance,
and leave if you don't like it.
Extremely safe.
And extremely sterile.
That's how the men and women in this drama looked to me.
Only the Woman with 'Vitality' Died
That's why Azusa left a strong impression.
Ironically, she was the woman with the most sexual aura in the story.
The brightest woman.
The most human woman.
The woman who radiated vitality.
A woman who actually gave birth, became a mother, and built a family.
A woman who connected people.
Bottomlessly bright,
a bit erotic,
like life itself.
And only she died.
She alone was erotic,
she alone gave birth,
she alone built a family,
she alone connected people,
she alone was bottomlessly bright,
And she died.
It's the worst.
The remaining people
stop being married,
choose nameless relationships,
and each live "authentically."
To me, that didn't look beautiful at all.
Is 'Family' Such a Bad Thing?
Ultimately, what I was thinking while watching this drama was about family.
These characters are probably around 40 years old.
Their parents' generation is around 70.
Meaning, they are the children of a generation that didn't directly know war.
Their parents were raised by a generation that knew war.
Japan has, over the last few decades,
weakened the ie (household) system,
weakened local communities,
weakened ties to companies,
stopped viewing marriage as absolute,
freed up divorce,
dismantled gender roles,
essentially liberating humans from old communities.
I don't think all of that was bad.
Old families clearly had many irrationalities.
Enduring DV because you can't divorce.
Enduring because you're a woman.
Inheriting the house because you're the eldest son.
Enduring because of social appearances.
I absolutely don't want to revive those things.
But.
Does that mean swinging completely to the opposite extreme is okay?
Systems and Responsibilities Don't Exist Only to Suffer
Marriage.
Family.
Community.
Company.
Land.
These things certainly bind humans.
They are troublesome.
They take away freedom.
Sometimes they are irrational.
But not everything that binds humans is bad.
Humans are selfish if left unchecked.
When you get tired, you want to run.
When you get bored, you want to do something else.
If you're happy, that's enough.
Naturally, everyone becomes like that.
So when you marry,
even if you think "I don't want to be with this person today,"
you return to the same home.
If you have children,
even if you think "I just want to do what I like,"
you cook, drop them off, and earn money.
When parents grow old,
even if you think "It's a hassle,"
you end up taking care of them somehow.
Living in a community means dealing with neighbors.
Working at a company means working with people you dislike.
There is definitely a part where this "troublesomeness" maintained human relationships.
Systems, promises, and responsibilities don't exist solely to make humans suffer.
They also exist to restrain human selfishness.
And through that restraint, some humans are protected.
Especially children.
I Actually Prefer 'Hymns to Humanity'
Writing this much might lead to accusations like "So you like traditional family values?"
But that's slightly different.
What I like are stories that fundamentally affirm humanity itself.
I love hymns to humanity like "The Odyssey" or "Mary."
Humans make mistakes.
They are weak.
They do stupid things.
They have desires.
They suffer.
They hurt others.
They are hopelessly irrational and troublesome.
But still, they think.
They devise solutions.
They meet people.
They love someone.
They leave descendants.
They raise the next generation.
No matter how many times they fail, they aim for a happier place.
If one person fails, they join forces with others.
When difficulties arise, they solve them each time.
That is how humans have lived.
I think humans are always humans.
Born in that land,
living in that land,
thinking,
meeting people,
falling in love,
making a family,
leaving descendants,
trying to be happier.
Of course, not everyone needs to marry.
Not everyone needs to have children.
Not everyone needs to live in their hometown forever.
But looking at the species as a whole, we have passed down life, culture, and society to the next generation in this way.
Pursuing individual happiness while it ripples out to those around you.
Not just becoming happy alone.
Making your family a little happier.
Making your friends a little happier.
Working and creating something.
Helping someone.
Raising children.
Improving the community.
These micro-happinesses gradually connect to macro-happiness.
I like that image of humanity.
Therefore,
I cannot tolerate stories that shrink humanity itself in the direction of:
"Take distance so you don't get hurt"
"Dissolve relationships because it's tough"
"Don't be bound by forms"
"If you feel comfortable, that's enough"
Even if told,
"Humans are fine at this level"
"You don't have to force yourself"
"This is happiness too"
I cannot accept it.
I think humans are not that small.
More troublesome,
more greedy,
more wounded,
more desiring of others,
more prone to failure,
but still holding hands with someone,
trying to move to a slightly better place than yesterday.
Isn't that what we are?
From this drama, I felt almost no sense of "believing in humanity."
That was truly disappointing.
A Society Where 'Being Yourself' is Supreme
Perhaps this is what I disliked most about watching this drama:
The value of "living authentically" is placed above everything else.
Of course, live authentically.
But there are countless times in life when you cannot be yourself.
Becoming a parent is the prime example.
When a child is crying,
"I want to be alone right now" doesn't cut it.
When a family member is sick,
"This relationship isn't comfortable for me right now" doesn't cut it.
Sharing a life with someone means accepting that inconvenience.
Yet nowadays,
words like
"You don't have to force yourself"
"Leave if you don't like it"
"Cherish yourself"
"Relationships don't need names"
sound kindly.
All are correct.
All are correct, but
if all become the supreme principles of society simultaneously, won't human relationships become unsustainable?
Will the Country Perish if We Praise Only These Values?
I know it's exaggerated.
But after finishing it, I seriously thought so.
Family is troublesome, so I don't need it.
Marriage binds me, so I won't do it.
Having children removes freedom, so I won't.
My hometown doesn't matter.
I don't want to belong to a company.
I won't associate with people I dislike.
Meeting only people I feel comfortable with,
only when I feel comfortable,
in places I feel comfortable,
doing what I like.
For individuals, it's very rational.
But what happens if society as a whole does this?
Who will bear children?
Who will raise them?
Who will care for the elderly?
Who will maintain the community?
Who will take on "jobs that aren't profitable for me"?
Society is originally made of countless "unfair deals."
Stacking individual optimal solutions does not necessarily result in the societal optimal solution.
Rather, it seems to me that
as a result of pursuing individual happiness to the limit,
society as a whole is gradually shrinking.
Japan appears to have entered that stage.
This Story Looked Exactly Like Japan Today
That's why "Until the T-Shirt Dries" made me feel nauseous.
Not simply because I disliked the characters.
Because the way these characters lived was incredibly modern.
Dismissing sexuality,
weakening family,
making relationships fragile,
weakening human connections,
weakening ties to the land,
prioritizing emotion over institutions,
prioritizing self-determination over obligation,
and finally deciding everything
based on "whether it feels good for me."
Depicting this as "kindness," "maturity," or "a new form of love."
I cannot find beauty in it.
What I want to see are not stories that shrink humans.
Humans are foolish, greedy, hopeless, yet still live with someone.
Taking responsibility for others beyond one's own comfort.
Leaving something to the land, family, and society.
Passing something to the next generation.
Gradually making the world better within that endeavor.
I want to see that kind of human.
Who the Final 'Welcome Home' Was For Doesn't Matter
Online, there are many analyses about
who the final "welcome home" was directed at,
what the relationship between those two ended up being,
who truly loved whom.
But I thought that didn't matter.
Who hooked up with whom isn't the essence.
The fact that this story,
after dismantling
family,
marriage,
erotic love,
responsibility,
human connection,
one by one,
landed on the position of
"Names don't matter"
"Choose the relationship that feels good for you."
That is what I dislike.
I'm not saying "don't divorce."
I'm not saying "go back to old families."
I'm not saying "people with mental issues shouldn't date."
I'm not saying "having sex and making babies is the only right way."
It's not that simple.
Just,
Freedom comes with responsibility.
Connecting with someone comes with obligation.
Loving someone sometimes includes putting your own convenience aside.
Family is not just people who stay together when it's comfortable.
And humans are not
so small that they continue to distance themselves to avoid getting hurt,
select only comfortable relationships,
and live protecting only their own happiness.
Born in that land,
living,
thinking,
meeting people,
loving,
failing,
leaving something to the next generation,
trying to be a little happier.
When difficulties arise, solving them with someone.
Spreading the small happiness created at the micro-level to the surroundings.
I want to believe in that kind of human.
That's why I could never reconcile with this story until the end.
"Until the T-Shirt Dries."
I watched it all.
The actors were wonderful.
That's why I watched until the end.
And as a result of watching until the end,
I deeply dislike this story.
