The intertwining threads of social issues often reveal uncomfortable truths about power, prejudice, and the human condition. Consider the seemingly disparate phenomena of ‘amakudari’ (the practice of retired Japanese bureaucrats taking high-paying positions in the private sector), housing discrimination, and film direction. While seemingly unrelated, these areas share a common denominator: the manipulation of power structures and the perpetuation of inequalities. Amakuri, a long-standing practice in Japan, fuels concerns about corruption and a revolving door between government and industry. Critics argue that it stifles competition, undermines fair governance, and allows for the continued influence of those who previously held public office. This system effectively creates an elite class, insulated from the consequences of their actions and shielded from true accountability. The lack of transparency exacerbates this problem, allowing deals to be struck behind closed doors, furthering the perception of systemic corruption. Housing discrimination, meanwhile, presents a different but equally insidious form of inequality. Based on factors such as race, ethnicity, or family status, it restricts access to safe and affordable housing, limiting social mobility and perpetuating cycles of poverty. This is often coupled with subtle yet effective biases that go unchecked, leaving vulnerable groups marginalized and their opportunities severely constrained. Film direction, as an art form, can serve as both a mirror and a megaphone for societal issues. While the primary goal may be artistic expression, films possess the remarkable capacity to expose injustice, challenge preconceived notions, and spark dialogue on difficult topics. Films tackling issues like amakuri and housing discrimination can illuminate the complexities of these systems and provide a platform for marginalized voices. However, the power of cinematic storytelling is also vulnerable to manipulation; it can be utilized to reinforce existing prejudices or sanitize unpleasant truths, effectively masking rather than exposing societal ills. The challenge, then, lies in navigating the complexities of these interconnected issues. How can we ensure transparency and accountability in government while also addressing deep-seated prejudices and biases? Can films serve as instruments of positive social change, or are they simply entertainment that occasionally touches on social themes? The answer requires a critical examination of power dynamics, a commitment to social justice, and the creative use of various forms of expression to illuminate the truth, however uncomfortable it might be.
1. According to the passage, what is a commonality among ‘amakudari’, housing discrimination, and film direction?
2. The passage suggests that ‘amakudari’ primarily leads to:
3. How does the passage characterize the role of film direction in addressing social issues?
4. What is the main point the author is trying to convey in the passage?