Kiritsugu finds his justice in Fate/Zero’s appropriately titled 19th episode, “Where Justice Is Found” – unfortunately however, his “justice” is hypocritical, and brings about his own desolation to much dismay for all.
Watching this episode, Kiritsugu’s beliefs become understandable – they do make sense, he does wish to live righteously, and his intentions are nothing but the best. Yet in spite of this – it amounts to nothing. Intention does come before words and action – yet if one repeats their the same action intentionally and continually to no avail, who has benefited from their intention? No one, not even them.
Such is the case for Kiritsugu – he selects his path within this episode, and while logical indeed it seems, where exactly did it take him many years later to the last real-time point we’ve seen?
Not very far honestly.
We were shown the start of Kiritsugu’s eventful days last episode, and here they carry on – or rather, truly kick off. The dice are rolled at this point, and the outcome gradually approaches – this chapter follows along with Kiritsugu’s life as he matures post-tragedy.
Scenes shuffle between various points of his life to contribute multiple lines to the same story – first, it is seen that part of Kiritsugu’s ribs are crushed down to make a set of 66 bullets. These, as his new guardian Natalia tells him, can stop any mage – interestingly, the projectiles respond in accordance with Kiritsugu’s name. To “sever” and “tie” – the alphabet for that pair of words is combined to make “Kiritsugu” in kanji, and incidentally, the bullets do the same.
They cut a mage’s arcane circuits and tie them together once more – albeit intentionally misaligned. Essentially, they ruin any given magus for life without exception.
Diminutive chunks of the philosophy which Kiritsugu of modern time believes are thrown at us – or in other words, the assorted points in his past which make up the man we know are exhibited all throughout, gradually being assembled into the Kiritsugu we recognize. His hands progressively stain further with blood as he aides Natalia over the years – however he hasn’t been doing it robotically without any thought.
A prominent facet to take notice of, we see where he picks up his lethal ideology – during a harsh moment on the field, a usual occurrence of death takes place before him. Kiritsugu is frustrated – he murdered his father believing that he was ending something, he assumed that by eliminating his demented progenitor, it was a means to prevent the creations of that parent of his from ravaging through the villages of others as it had his own home.
It did not of course – and Natalia tells Kiritsugu why, to actually bring a halt to iniquity around the world, one would have to slaughter not a single, but every like-minded person in that respect. While that may be true, it is impractical – she was saying it in jest, yet Kiritsugu wasn’t laughing and slapping at his knee. Right there, it goes unsaid, however it is clear – Kiritsugu’s mind transforms a bit. His thoughts aren’t explictly expressed – yet he’s been pondering this entire time, and now he has his answer.
This statement Natalia made ends up revolutionizing his very being – Kiritsugu takes it as truth, even though he says nothing of it aloud. Thoughts are kept very subtle – thus it is difficult to ascertain if anything else spirals up, yet one has to be curious if Natalia also realized something here, perhaps becoming expecting of fate.
In any case, the episode’s relatively easy movement forward jolts when it meets its main event – such an affair was anticipated to come, and nearer the end, one will already be aware of what is to occur. An inner-intensity will erupt as patience turns to anxiety by the second.
Natalia has Kiritsugu take part in her hunt for an infamous mage. With magi on a plane – all goes well, Natalia takes care of the target with relative ease, or so it initially seems. The issue comes after the target’s death – and Kiritsugu pivots over to his scheme immediately thereafter. Surely he must have plotted this prior, as when Natalia’s departure to the skies goes wrong – Kiritsugu set out to acquire a certain weapon.
An issue for Natalia arises when the magus she retired ends up having a swarm of bees escape from his body – and ultimately, infect everyone on board the flight. She starts struggling to ensure she can make a safe landing – meanwhile, Kiritsugu is in vicinity of her intended landing point, a place in New York. Over their personal line of communication, the two seem to get sentimental in reminiscence over time together – and one can feel the atmosphere get heavy.
While most of Natalia’s chatter regards Kiritsugu being family and whatnot – she mentions that he had a “special gift” of being able to pull the trigger regardless of his emotions felt. The irony here hurts worse than being engulfed in a blazing fire – as she says this, and continues to speak, we see Kiritsugu prep himself in a spot out to sea. He very carefully readies his weapon – visibly having much weighing in on his mind, and his actions are slowed by the mass of emotion crushing him, but he hesitates not.
Coming into view is Natalia’s plane – she’s having a heartwarming conversation with Kiritsugu, even saying she wishes to retire after this, though it looks that Kiritsugu takes care of that for her instead. He hoists a heat seeking, rocket propelling device over his shoulders, and with the plane getting closer, he obliterates it.
A faint smile escapes Natalia as she’s eaten alive by incineration – and subsequently, Kiritsugu breaks down into a moment of insanity. Yelling hysterically and thinking to himself of how he’s supposedly protected many from death – feeling broken for a second, but regaining himself and seemingly feeling assured in his path as the episode concludes.
Who did he actually save?
Kiritsugu’s realizes he’s doing wrong, he accepts it, and he continues with it under hopes that eventually, he will bring salvation to the world. He’s basing his life on a hypothetical ideal that he’s saving someone – although it’s unclear who he’s managed to rescue, as obviously, it wasn’t himself, nor Natalia. Everyone can’t be saved, Kiritsugu admits this himself – however it seems no matter this, he’s attempting to exceed limitations impossible, not that he’s striving to achieve something great, rather, he’s chasing after the impractical.
No matter what he does, it will never work as he’s not physically, mentally, or otherwise capable of saving everyone – and atop of that, he’s merely contributing hypocritically to what he’s trying to fight.
By being perceptive of this hypocrisy himself, that does not make it acceptable. Kiritsugu’s actions are futile – he could endlessly spend his days fighting evil like a slave working on a coal mine, yet not even a dent will he make. Even by Kiritsugu dedicating his life to fighting evil through evil – he remains incapable of such a feat, and the element in question will always be present. Its abundance is too great – but not only this, it will rain, more evil will sprout, and those locked in cells can escape.
The world will replenish what is lost – crime is a renewable resource, and Kiritsugu can’t eradicate it. Imagine the world is filled with others like himself – they’re merely snuffing out one another in that case. There’s just nothing to prosper with this regardless of how it is viewed – and with that, we await to see how this series will transpire from here. All that remains is a final conclusion to be seen.
May 12, 2012 @ 14:14 CDT
Hypocrisy, huh? That is, in and of itself, exactly where the notion called justice is found.
Holding those accountable to their actions, acting righteously and justly, determining what is correct from what is not… whatever which way one may personally choose to define it as, one must inevitably come to the realization that there are many variants of “justice” as there are human viewpoints in this world.
Bearing this in mind, it was inevitably that a boy who would seek to follow the path of justice, wishing to be a just and righteous hero, would inevitably break down as we have just seen. And as he will later come to realize, if he hasn’t already, to save one person(s) means not saving someone else.
There is no escaping this absolute truth, no matter how much one may wish to fight and/or deny it.
To follow the path of justice is to live, IMHO, just as a human should… full of contradictions, hypocrisies, and yes, even senseless suffering at times.
And yet, is there anything particularly wrong in this? While one may disagree with the actions themselves, it isn’t as though one could live without such. If one did, they would be something different than a human being.
When all is said and done, Emiya Kiritsugu’s journey as one who sought to be a hero to save the world is fascinating dissection of the eternal human dilemma… always seeking what is beyond one’s reach, yet never able to give up on reaching for it.
May 12, 2012 @ 14:33 CDT
So in other words, Kiritsugu is a hypocrite.
May 12, 2012 @ 20:40 CDT
AND if you watched this in Australia, he just killed his “mother” on Mother’s day. Not sure if Irony was intended there D:
May 12, 2012 @ 20:52 CDT
It’s a gift she’ll remember forever… in hell.
May 12, 2012 @ 21:09 CDT
But he’s also, undeniably, an upholder of justice.
May 12, 2012 @ 21:15 CDT
Under his own definition of “justice”, sure, you could say that.
May 12, 2012 @ 22:26 CDT
So too must anyone else who pursues lofty ideals like justice. One who follows a hypocritical concept can only be, by extension, a hypocrite themselves.
May 12, 2012 @ 22:46 CDT
“One who follows a hypocritical concept can only be, by extension, a hypocrite themselves.”
Like Kiritsugu.
May 12, 2012 @ 22:54 CDT
Curious. At first I thought you merely disliked Kiritsugu, but now I’m beginning to wonder if you outright despise him.
May 12, 2012 @ 22:58 CDT
You can think whatever you want.
May 13, 2012 @ 21:20 CDT
True, but speculation and coming up with hypotheses are only so amusing.
At any rate, I won’t pursue your personal feelings with respect to Kiritsugu anymore.
For me personally however, whether or not he’s a hypocrite is of little consequence. Watching him struggle from a pit of hellish despair to try and follow through with that beautiful hypocrisy is by far more worthy of attention, IMO.
May 13, 2012 @ 21:25 CDT
The most interesting aspect of Fate/Zero I’ve seen was actually in regards to Berserker, or the events following Rider and master.
Of course it’s all good – though I never felt much for Saber and her battles with Lancer, and while I’m not particularly fond of Kiritsugu, I couldn’t care less of him either.
On the other hand, I am intrigued by Kirei.
May 12, 2012 @ 15:18 CDT
A plane full of ghouls 20 minutes away from landing in an airport. I can’t say I disagree with Kiritsugu’s actions at all.
Atleast he has learned the cold truth that to save the lives of many he will need to sacrifice a couple.
May 12, 2012 @ 22:32 CDT
“At least he learned the cold truth that to save the lives of many he will need to sacrifice a couple.”
The unforgiving, cold reality behind what it means to be a savior of people, something that Saber learned in her days as a king all too well.
May 12, 2012 @ 19:01 CDT
Nearly mistook him for Caster in that last picture.
May 12, 2012 @ 21:49 CDT
Happy Mother’s Days!
May 13, 2012 @ 2:26 CDT
So basically, all 66 origin bullets had Melloi’s name on them.
I love the attention to detail, I can’t help but pause on scenes were you see the aircraft cockpit, the disassembled gun or the inside of that ambulance. Same as the meticulous F-15 cockpit in episode 14. Ufotable *really* do their homework when it comes to that.
May 13, 2012 @ 5:25 CDT
“who did he save?”
are you serious? He saved every living person in New York City. 300 ghouls unleashed would have turned that city and everything around it into Resident evil very quickly. At the very least every erson in the arport would have been killed and then turned into ghouls and then killed more… you see where this is going right? Kiritsugu saved hundreds of lives here by shooting down that plane. Im not saying it was right, since it obviously wasn’t but…
Don’t let your dislike of Kiritsugu blind you to the facts please.
May 13, 2012 @ 9:03 CDT
“Don’t let your dislike of Kiritsugu blind you to the facts please.”
Don’t let your love of Kiritsugu blind you from the article.
Though it seems too late for that.
May 13, 2012 @ 12:23 CDT
I started liking Kiritsugu when he turned out to be one huge bastard when he had Maya shoot Melloi and his wife. I sorth of agree with his actions, though I said to myself “Don’t f*cking do it you son of a..” when he was about to shoot that plane down.
So far he’s my second favorite Master, losing only to Kirei.
May 14, 2012 @ 0:27 CDT
i think you’re too critical on characterizing him as a total fool and rather than a tragic hero.
May 14, 2012 @ 0:32 CDT
I think of him as neither of those.
I think at one point he may have been a “hero”, now he’s a murderer. If you ever read MacBeth, you’d know what I mean for the most part – he’s lost sight of his original goal, even if he doesn’t think so himself.
May 14, 2012 @ 11:37 CDT
This story cements Kiritsugu as one of my favorite fictional characters ever. Needless to say, he’s one of my favorite Masters(apparently I’m part of a minority, I utterly despises Kirei) alongside Waver and Ryuunosuke.
I myself don’t consider Kiritsugu as a hero. He’s just a killer who zealously strive to follow his ideals and save as many lives as he can using the most effective way he know. His innocence as a child was taken by the realization that if only he killed his dear friend, his whole village wouldn’t have been infected and could have been saved.
In this incident, he’s faced with a similar situation, what’s different is that he has fully assess the situation and is acutely aware of the consequences if he let that plane land. His mother figure is on that plane but he had no way to save her without starting an outbreak. To save one life and let millions die or to save millions but let one die. To Kiritsugu, the answer is all too obvious, even though painful.
May 14, 2012 @ 13:31 CDT
How exactly is being a hero and a killer really all that different?
May 14, 2012 @ 13:34 CDT
Jack the Ripper was a hero?
Someone murders several wrongfully imprisoned inmates in Guantanamo, are they a hero?
May 14, 2012 @ 13:42 CDT
That all depends on your perspective.
People who shamelessly murder and slaughter others are despicable to be certain; however their actions, albeit unintentionally, continually reinforce in the rest of us the value of life and help to resolve others to do their best to stop such acts from happening again.
Those whose actions are certainly reprehensible, but bring about an unintentional, yet favorable result… someone like that is what I prefer to call an Anti-Hero.
Not a Hero that the common masses would ever prefer to see such a person as, but a Hero of sorts none the less.
May 14, 2012 @ 16:22 CDT
I think it’s all about your score.
You shouldn’t have your kill count higher than your “People saved” count if you want to be considered a hero.
May 14, 2012 @ 21:33 CDT
A murderer and a hero, weirdly enough they’re not that different. Both gained fame/infamy by taking the lives of others. Of course there are differences in intentions, purpose, and who they kill, but the fact remains that they ‘kill’. Both heroes and murderers are killers, but one is feared and despised, and the other is praised and glorified.
I just wanted to point out the insignificant distinction between a hero and a killer.
May 14, 2012 @ 21:47 CDT
“but the fact remains that they ‘kill”
At what point did killing someone become part of being a hero?
“Both heroes and murderers are killers”
According to what?
May 14, 2012 @ 22:09 CDT
The very concept of Heroic Spirits are people who are idealized and glorified for their deeds in wars and battles, that is, killing other people.
Look at the military. Soldiers are awarded medals, honored and praised as heroes for their services, bravery and heroic deeds. But what they actually do is kill other soldiers.
But they fight for a righteous cause, they take lives to preserve other lives, they won’t kill if they don’t have to, and they don’t kill the helpless and the innocent. That’s why they are lauded as heroes, not as killers.
May 14, 2012 @ 22:11 CDT
Your explanation regards war – not “heroes” in general.
A fellow pushes a girl out of the way from an oncoming truck – no death involved.
May 14, 2012 @ 23:05 CDT
If you want to make the distinction between ‘heroes’, ‘war heroes’ and ‘heroes that kill’, by all means do it. I don’t.
May 14, 2012 @ 23:15 CDT
I’m not telling you to make a distinction – I’m saying that under your apparent definition, someone who pushes a girl away from an oncoming vehicle is not a hero because they haven’t killed anyone. Since according to you, “heroes and murderers are killers”.
May 14, 2012 @ 23:27 CDT
Then I made a mistake in my phrasing. I don’t mean to say you have to kill to be a hero. ‘Killer’ and ‘Hero’ are not mutually exclusive, and you don’t have to be one to be the other. They overlap. A lot.
May 14, 2012 @ 23:30 CDT
“They overlap. A lot.”
Now this I like – perfectly said.
May 15, 2012 @ 8:33 CDT
One who would risk their life to save another from being hit by a car is admirable, no question, but I don’t consider that being a Hero.
A Hero is one who, quite simply, brings about a great, favorable change in people as a result of his/her actions.
What change does your hypothetical situation bring? What does it teach people? …How one can seemingly selflessly sacrifice themselves for another?
An admirable trait on the surface indeed, but not something you want on the forefront of your mind so much that you forget to value and hold dear to your own life.
May 15, 2012 @ 12:34 CDT
What you think “a great, favorable change” may be depends on your own personal views.
“you forget to value and hold dear to your own life.”
In what way is saving someone from an oncoming vehicle not valuing your own life?
May 15, 2012 @ 8:42 CDT
@eirei07: Rather than saying that being a killer often goes hand-in-hand with being a Hero, I prefer to think of it as death, or at least the prospect of it, that seems so irrevocably intertwined with being a Hero.
May 15, 2012 @ 14:04 CDT
“In what way is saving someone from an oncoming vehicle not valuing your own life?”
The point in question isn’t necessarily about whether or not you value your own life, but that you’re putting it at risk to save someone else; meaning that, in all likelihood, you’re holding their life in more regard than your own at the time.
This sort of mindset, while admirable to a point, is counterproductive to a Hero. Willing to sacrifice one’s self for the sake of a single person – or in your hypothetical situation’s case, willingly throwing yourself into a situation where your life is at risk for such – will not, in all likelihood, help you if you’re trying to act in the service of the majority.
Bearing this in mind however, there is another way of answering your question. For one who would live with the intent of being a Hero, putting your life at risk for the sake of a single person is, for all intents and purposes, not valuing the life to which you’ve dedicated being in the service of the greater number of people.
Obviously if you die, you cannot help those who might otherwise be helped by you, thus the life of a supposed Hero is ended by his/her indulging in the moment to save a single person.
May 15, 2012 @ 14:35 CDT
That belief is subjective – as is attempting to value a single person’s life to a group.
May 15, 2012 @ 14:48 CDT
So then, are you trying to say that not all lives are created equal?
If so, then I’m curious to know what kind of a person you hold in regard that outweighs the lives of several people.
And if not, then it should go without much argument that the lives of the many would outweigh the life of a single person. I fail to see the problem in this case.
May 15, 2012 @ 15:09 CDT
“So then, are you trying to say that not all lives are created equal?”
What gave you that idea?
“And if not, then it should go without much argument that the lives of the many would outweigh the life of a single person.”
That’s an opinion.
May 15, 2012 @ 15:14 CDT
“What gave you that idea?”
Simply the impression I had. That aside, I’d like an answer to my question as whether or not you believe that all lives are equal or not.
May 15, 2012 @ 15:28 CDT
I don’t intend to debate based on opinions without evidence since your argument is flawed to begin as it has no backing.
May 15, 2012 @ 21:17 CDT
You’re free to think that if you want, though I will say this argument is equally flawed by your apparent unwillingness to put your opinions out there with respect to my question(s).
May 15, 2012 @ 22:42 CDT
I’m not entirely sure what “this argument” is since you never evidenced it and changed the topic to a personally targeted question.
In any case, it is clear that if you only have questions, then this is not a productive debate since the starting arguments are not valid to be discussing to begin with. And if you can’t support them as they’re all opinion based, then there’s even less reason to be attempting to argue with them.
May 15, 2012 @ 23:23 CDT
It was and continues to be my opinion that this argument has been about Heroes and the circumstances surrounding them. As that has been the subject of interest for many a comment now, I wouldn’t have thought there to be a need to evidence it. Are you of a different opinion?
And with respect to the “personally targeted question,” I was under the impression that we were merely trying to resolve a difference in opinion.
“That belief is subjective – as is attempting to value a single person’s life to a group.”
Your words, verbatim. Now unless I’m mistaken, and I don’t believe I am, you are saying here that trying to compare the value of a single person’s life to that of a group of people is subjective, correct?
Now, while you’ve been saying that my argument is flawed and hasn’t been evidence, etc, all I ask is that you back up your own stated position and declare one way or the other whether or not you believe all lives to be equal in value or not.
Now you can say that this is a personally targeted question, and you would be right. However, it was from something that you yourself have said that this question was brought about in the first place, and I certainly don’t think it rude nor intrusive of me to ask you to give a simple yes or no answer with respect to what you yourself have said.
All that having been said, I myself find no sense of satisfaction nor enjoyment in arguing over semantics. Once again, I ask you only to back up your own position, simple as that.
May 15, 2012 @ 23:55 CDT
You may be of a different mindset, though I had to question whether “So then, are you trying to say that not all lives are created equal?” was still regarding “about Heroes and the circumstances surrounding them”.
I don’t see how the transition from my “That belief is subjective – as is attempting to value a single person’s life to a group.” to your “So then, are you trying to say that not all lives are created equal?” is fitting.
To restate myself differently, to put a value on any given life would be solely an opinion conjured by whomever is trying to put the value for whatever reason. Atop of not being particularly fitting, your question is narrow and nowhere near manages to contain my answer as to the value of a life – and in the case that you’re not referring to the value of a life in your question, that would likely make it irrelevant to my own statement.
“I ask you only to back up your own position, simple as that.”
You’ve made your own position clear, but you haven’t backed it up beyond personal opinion.
Tracking back:
“For one who would live with the intent of being a Hero, putting your life at risk for the sake of a single person is, for all intents and purposes, not valuing the life to which you’ve dedicated being in the service of the greater number of people.” “Obviously if you die, you cannot help those who might otherwise be helped by you, thus the life of a supposed Hero is ended by his/her indulging in the moment to save a single person.”
The debate can fly 20,000 directions depending on how you define “life” and what you view as “help” – and your explanation to “putting your life at risk for the sake of a single person is, for all intents and purposes, not valuing the life” is merely your own perspective as well as result. Now you could ask a narrow question that assumes some things are pre-defined in search of a single reply answer, yet the subject is not that simple – though if you think otherwise, that’s just another difference in opinion.
May 16, 2012 @ 9:09 CDT
“To restate myself differently, to put a value on any given life would be solely an opinion conjured by whomever is trying to put the value for whatever reason.”
Regardless of how “narrow” you might believe my question to be, it’s a simple one that requires a simple answer. Or, since you seem to be of the opinion that your particular answer can’t be contained with a simple “yes” or “no,” there’s always the middle-ground that you could’ve gone with.
Whatever the case, I can only take the irrefutable fact that you have yet to give an answer of any sort as proof that you refuse to oblige me no matter how many times I ask you, and so I won’t bother with it anymore. As such, this part of our argument is over.
However, even though I don’t have to, I’ll answer your question for you. To be precise, my answer is both yes and no. Allow me to clarify.
Yes, all people are born with an equal entitlement to life, however that initial entitlement can be taken away with respect to their actions and how they choose to live. Certainly there are those in this world that are deserving of death and that those who might mourn their loss are by far outweighed by the number of people who would benefit from it.
Be that as it may however, I don’t believe there to be a single person in this world, regardless of how vile or disgusting they are, that should give up trying to live. If one is going to live at all, they should fight for it with all they’ve got until their very last breath.
And with respect to the situation that I meant this question to resolve and your initial hypothetical situation of saving one from being hit by a car, I stay with my position in that the life of a single person cannot be compared to those in a group and that one who would willingly put their own life in risk to save such a person is not a Hero.
Now then, all that aside, this argument can certainly go any which way depending on your perspective and how you choose to view things, etc. You are unquestionably correct in that respect; however, whether you believe it or not, that is what most arguments are: a clashing of different views and seeing what comes as a result of them.
Now, to be clear, I’ve no intention whatsoever of getting into an argument about semantics with you on the nature of an argument. If, by some chance you don’t happen to agree with me, then that’s that and there’s little more to said beyond it.
However, as it has clearly been shown to be the case with respect to this small divergence – by which I mean this whole “value of life” debate – you don’t seem willing to put your honest opinion out there, instead indulging in the proverbial storm of subjective differences amongst people as your reason for doing so. Why this is, I don’t know.
At the very least I can say that I’m not afraid to put myself out there as I have no shame in what I believe. I still believe in myself so that I can do that; something which you may still not understand – something which I am honestly a bit saddened by.
At any rate, I’m officially done with respect to this part of our argument on my part. I’ve been wanting to discuss Heroes and I’ll be getting back to that now.
May 16, 2012 @ 13:11 CDT
“you don’t seem willing to put your honest opinion out there, instead indulging in the proverbial storm of subjective differences amongst people as your reason for doing so. Why this is, I don’t know.”
First, you’re attempting to turn what was once a general debate into a personal one – now secondly “this argument can certainly go any which way depending on your perspective and how you choose to view things, etc”, and so nothing productive was achieved.
If you intend to have personal arguments over personal beliefs, you’re on the wrong site – and I recommend you use Google to find something more suitable for your needs. Perhaps that may not have been your intention, however the topic has diverged well beyond an episode of Fate/Zero.
May 16, 2012 @ 13:48 CDT
Debates taken into regard, can’t we all just chill and enjoy the anime, guys? I was predicting intelligent conversation about what happened this episode with what all the comments amassing, but I click to find pages worth of cheap points scoring.