6 ms·

I mean, since this article is explicitly political and thoroughly interesting context I definitely have some criticism that I think should be stated here. I saw

I mean, since this article is explicitly political and thoroughly interesting context I definitely have some criticism that I think should be stated here. I saw the film and it was very well made and enjoyable. A friend invited me and I didn't know anything about it before going in. That said, there are clear problems with the political narrative in the film given it's supposed to be artwork. Making a film about redemption without in any way commenting on the evil atrocities you committed is extremely Japanese and morally dubious at best... downright propaganda at worst. Were the Japanese public and military rank and file the real victims of the war? Is it ok to pronounce the moral ambiguity of the top brass without commenting on the Holocaust-level crimes committed? These things were glaring in the theater. And I know I'm going to get the standard "doesn't matter good film" responses for having an honest appraisal of the conceptual idea. But it's bad in that way. If we want to move into a brighter future we need both redemption and brutal honesty and this was only one of those things. Good popcorn film? Absolutely. Cultural artwork on a new level? Definitely not.

KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
> Making a film about redemption without in any way commenting on the evil atrocities you committed is extremely Japanese and morally dubious at best... downright propaganda at worst. Were the Japanese public and military rank and file the real victims of the war? Is it ok to pronounce the moral ambiguity of the top brass without commenting on the Holocaust-level crimes committed? It's easy to cast them as bad guys because they were defeated. Victor's justice and everything. Be thankful for nukes else one day the shoe might be on the other foot and and history will be rewritten again.
- atticora 3y ago
  > It's easy to cast them as bad guys because they were defeated. It's also easy because they were the aggressors. The attack on Pearl Harbor when we were at peace does not leave a lot of room for nuance. We were not their oppressors, we were just in the way of their conquests.
  - aamoyg 3y ago
    Well we stopped selling them oil, so they must have framed us as oppressing their expansion
    - KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
      I am sure the middle easterns were the bad guys during the Gulf war too.
      - aamoyg 3y ago
        I should have put the /s tag in my post. And the Gulf War wasn't even our war to get involved in.
- hughesjj 3y ago
  > It's easy to cast them as bad guys because they were defeated. Real interesting response to 'holocaust level crimes' Historically the US absolutely treated our natives and African descendents to a similar level of horror, but we 1. Own that and 2. Weren't doing anything to that level en masse by the time WWII came around. I love Japan and it's people but I will absolutely throw shade at their cowardice in ignoring the sins of their past (at the cultural/national level).
aamoyg 3y ago
I think I can apply your last two paragraphs to pretty much any movie unintentionally celebrating the United States security apparatus, politics, public policy, or exploitative crony capitalism that that people lust over for whatever reason. "That said, there are clear problems with the political narrative in the film Oppenheimer, given that it's supposed to be artwork. Making a film about a nuclear weapon without in any way extensively showcasing the result of it's use on a civilian population i.e. the consequences of the development of that weapon is extremely American and morally dubious at best...downright propaganda at worst. Were the American public and military rank and file the real victims of WW2 ()? Is it ok to pronounce the moral ambiguity of the top brass without commenting on the Holocaust-level crimes committed? These things were glaring in the theater. And I know I'm going to get the standard 'MAGA move to a Commie country' for having an honest appraisal of the conceptual idea. But it's bad in that way. ..." War is a complex issue and making a film about Japan's war crimes (the first installment of the Ip Man series was good with this) is something which has to be met with approval from its government who have their hands in film finance as well. Japan is not exactly a capitalist economy-- it is culturally a command economy and everyone listens to the government (this is actually one of the critiques of Shin Godzilla and even if this Godzilla movie). There are not that many governments that are going to be thrilled about you making a movie shitting on their armed forces or speaking on their war crimes. In the United States, our first amendment protects give us tremendous leeway to do this, but there is a lot of other pressures which can be extorted to kill a film prior to release. Scorcese recently released Killers of the Flower Moon, which is not about a Holocaust, but about a limited genocide, and people are already bitching about the length, and it is as long as a "rah rah America" Avengers movie. This kind of movie was hard to make in the United States. It would be impossible to make in Japan. People there have to use metaphors to talk about getting nuked (aside from Grave of the Fireflies showing the Tokyo Firebombing, which was worse). How are you supposed to use a metaphor for an Asian Holocaust? If they did it would it come off as insensitive to a Western viewer? This is a political Godzilla movie. It's a movie about Japan dealing with post war recovery. Maybe next time, there will be a Godzilla who comes and frees all the slave labor in the Imphal India campaign (maybe involve the Indian film industry to reduce cost). Maybe you should pitch it to be developed here with US political assistance and pressure so that Japanese war crimes are addressed. It's certainly a good idea. But I would hesitate from: -- being a hypocrite. -- critiquing simplistically without seeing the larger work of this director.
OfSanguineFire 3y ago
Japanese considering themselves victims in the war is something that has been present in Japanese cinema since the moment American-occupation censorship was lifted in the early 1950s. It’s present here and there in films by Kurosawa and Ozu that are now in the canon of world cinema. It seems a bit late to be offended by it.

KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago

> Making a film about redemption without in any way commenting on the evil atrocities you committed is extremely Japanese and morally dubious at best... downright propaganda at worst. Were the Japanese public and military rank and file the real victims of the war? Is it ok to pronounce the moral ambiguity of the top brass without commenting on the Holocaust-level crimes committed? It's easy to cast them as bad guys because they were defeated. Victor's justice and everything. Be thankful for nukes else one day the shoe might be on the other foot and and history will be rewritten again.

atticora 3y ago
> It's easy to cast them as bad guys because they were defeated. It's also easy because they were the aggressors. The attack on Pearl Harbor when we were at peace does not leave a lot of room for nuance. We were not their oppressors, we were just in the way of their conquests.
- aamoyg 3y ago
  Well we stopped selling them oil, so they must have framed us as oppressing their expansion
  - KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
    I am sure the middle easterns were the bad guys during the Gulf war too.
    - aamoyg 3y ago
      I should have put the /s tag in my post. And the Gulf War wasn't even our war to get involved in.
hughesjj 3y ago
> It's easy to cast them as bad guys because they were defeated. Real interesting response to 'holocaust level crimes' Historically the US absolutely treated our natives and African descendents to a similar level of horror, but we 1. Own that and 2. Weren't doing anything to that level en masse by the time WWII came around. I love Japan and it's people but I will absolutely throw shade at their cowardice in ignoring the sins of their past (at the cultural/national level).

aamoyg 3y ago

I think I can apply your last two paragraphs to pretty much any movie unintentionally celebrating the United States security apparatus, politics, public policy, or exploitative crony capitalism that that people lust over for whatever reason. "That said, there are clear problems with the political narrative in the film Oppenheimer, given that it's supposed to be artwork. Making a film about a nuclear weapon without in any way extensively showcasing the result of it's use on a civilian population i.e. the consequences of the development of that weapon is extremely American and morally dubious at best...downright propaganda at worst. Were the American public and military rank and file the real victims of WW2 ()? Is it ok to pronounce the moral ambiguity of the top brass without commenting on the Holocaust-level crimes committed? These things were glaring in the theater. And I know I'm going to get the standard 'MAGA move to a Commie country' for having an honest appraisal of the conceptual idea. But it's bad in that way. ..." War is a complex issue and making a film about Japan's war crimes (the first installment of the Ip Man series was good with this) is something which has to be met with approval from its government who have their hands in film finance as well. Japan is not exactly a capitalist economy-- it is culturally a command economy and everyone listens to the government (this is actually one of the critiques of Shin Godzilla and even if this Godzilla movie). There are not that many governments that are going to be thrilled about you making a movie shitting on their armed forces or speaking on their war crimes. In the United States, our first amendment protects give us tremendous leeway to do this, but there is a lot of other pressures which can be extorted to kill a film prior to release. Scorcese recently released Killers of the Flower Moon, which is not about a Holocaust, but about a limited genocide, and people are already bitching about the length, and it is as long as a "rah rah America" Avengers movie. This kind of movie was hard to make in the United States. It would be impossible to make in Japan. People there have to use metaphors to talk about getting nuked (aside from Grave of the Fireflies showing the Tokyo Firebombing, which was worse). How are you supposed to use a metaphor for an Asian Holocaust? If they did it would it come off as insensitive to a Western viewer? This is a political Godzilla movie. It's a movie about Japan dealing with post war recovery. Maybe next time, there will be a Godzilla who comes and frees all the slave labor in the Imphal India campaign (maybe involve the Indian film industry to reduce cost). Maybe you should pitch it to be developed here with US political assistance and pressure so that Japanese war crimes are addressed. It's certainly a good idea. But I would hesitate from: -- being a hypocrite. -- critiquing simplistically without seeing the larger work of this director.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago

Japanese considering themselves victims in the war is something that has been present in Japanese cinema since the moment American-occupation censorship was lifted in the early 1950s. It’s present here and there in films by Kurosawa and Ozu that are now in the canon of world cinema. It seems a bit late to be offended by it.