Two Films, One Enduring Question
Hayao Miyazaki returned to his most deeply held themes — nature, war, and the cost of human civilization — in two films separated by more than a decade: Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (1984) and Princess Mononoke (1997). Both are considered masterpieces. Both deal with the conflict between humanity and the natural world. Yet they arrive at profoundly different places.
Comparing them reveals not just the evolution of Miyazaki's craft, but the evolution of his thinking.
Setting the Stage
Nausicaä (1984)
Set in a far-future world where civilization has largely collapsed and nature — in the form of the Toxic Jungle — has reclaimed much of the earth. Humanity clings to survival in scattered kingdoms. The story is rooted in science fiction and post-apocalyptic fantasy.
Princess Mononoke (1997)
Set in the Muromachi period of Japan (roughly 14th–16th century), during a transitional moment when iron-age industry was beginning to encroach on ancient forests and their spirit inhabitants. Firmly grounded in historical Japan, though filtered through myth and legend.
The Protagonists
| Nausicaä | Ashitaka (Mononoke) | |
|---|---|---|
| Role | Princess, healer, warrior | Exiled prince, wanderer |
| Relationship to nature | Deeply connected, near-mystical | Respectful, outsider seeking understanding |
| Moral stance | Actively mediates between factions | Refuses to take sides; seeks coexistence |
| Resolution | Becomes messianic figure | Remains human; no magical salvation |
Nausicaä is imbued with an almost prophetic quality — she is the "blue-clad one" of ancient legend. Ashitaka, by contrast, is a more grounded figure. He has no special destiny. He simply chooses, repeatedly, to act with compassion.
The Treatment of Nature
In Nausicaä, the Toxic Jungle is revealed to be nature healing itself — a long, patient process of purification. There is hope built into the biology of the world itself. Nature, given time, corrects human damage.
In Princess Mononoke, no such consolation is offered. The Forest Spirit dies. The forest is damaged, and recovery — if it comes — will be slow and painful. The ending is hopeful but not triumphant. San and Ashitaka will be together, but San cannot live among humans. The wounds between civilization and nature are real and lasting.
The Villains — Or Lack of Them
Both films are notable for refusing easy villains. Lady Eboshi of Irontown is Mononoke's most morally complex figure: she frees lepers and former sex workers, giving them dignity and purpose, while simultaneously destroying the forest. She is not a villain. She is someone making choices that serve her people at the expense of the natural world.
Similarly, the Tolmekians in Nausicaä are aggressors driven by fear and survival rather than pure malice. Miyazaki's ecological films insist that environmental destruction is not the work of monsters — it is the work of people with understandable, sometimes sympathetic motives.
Which Film Is "Better"?
This is genuinely a question of what you're looking for:
- If you want epic scope, manga depth, and a mythic female hero — start with Nausicaä
- If you want historical grounding, moral complexity with no easy answers, and stunning action — start with Princess Mononoke
- If you want the more hopeful vision — Nausicaä
- If you want the more honest vision — Princess Mononoke
Two Films, One Filmmaker's Truth
Taken together, the two films represent Miyazaki's deepest wrestling with the question of humanity's place in nature. Nausicaä offers a prophetic hope. Princess Mononoke asks us to earn that hope, painfully and without guarantee. Both are essential. Neither is complete without the other.