Nihon no ichiban nagai hi

All historical adaptations take a certain artistic license with their source material. JAPAN'S LONGEST DAY is no exception, but for a variety of reasons, this film rises above the norm.

The black and white photography, framed conservatively, has the feeling of reality, as if it were almost documentary. There are distinct emotional highs and lows as Japan's high command wrestles with the concepts of unconditional surrender (the Potsdam agreement) and the army's hopes of keeping the war going indefinitely; but the drama seems more real than posed. And despite that the events depicted here really happened, there's a palpable sense of tension in the narrative.

JAPAN'S LONGEST DAY covers that short period just before the Allied bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Japan's surrender in August 1945. But the attention to detail is almost documentary in feel, as bureaucrats and politicos spar with each other to save what they feel is the spirit of Japan. This kind of film doesn't get much more compelling, and does a superior job at balancing accuracy with drama.

Okamoto Kihachi's "Nihon no ichiban nagai hi" (Japan's Longest Day, 1967) is an epic film made to honor the 35th anniversary of the Toho Studios. Based on actual history, the film relates the ending of World War II from the Japanese perspective: the final 24 hours before Hirohito's famous radio speech. With a running time of 157 minutes, the film takes its time to paint a thorough portrait of this important day, and the Japanese mentality at the time. We are introduced to dozens and dozens of characters, and the star-studded cast includes many of Japan's most famous actors.

There is a lot of merit to this film. At times, it feels almost like a documentary, and the audience gets a very detailed look into the discussions surrounding Japan's decision to surrender. Though the film is long, it is never boring, and Okamoto never loses his grip on the narrative either. This director sometimes - especially in chambara films - has trouble keeping his films cohesive in style: many of Okamoto's films juxtapose entertainment and serious subject matters, and this does not always work for him, as it can lead to the films becoming inconsistent viewing experiences. That does not happen here. Okamoto is serious through and through, but also manages to abstain from preaching. The number of different perspectives in the film is admirable, and also increases its resemblance of the similar-sounding predecessor "The Longest Day" (1962), which was about the Allied invasion of Normandy.

However, the film's Japanese perspective also translates itself into subjectivity, which makes some elements of the film thematically misleading. In the aftermath of the war, during the American occupation, the Japanese could not make war films. When they returned to the subject in the 1960's, it was a bit of a challenge. Like any nation, Japan wanted to honor their fallen soldiers, but also to denounce the war. After the war, the Japanese majority started to believe, that the war had been caused by a small group of militarists within the country's leadership. This eased the atmosphere, as it was viewed that the majority of Japanese people had nothing to feel guilty about. This kind of black and white division neglects the general attitudes held by the people before the war, the heavy nationalism that lead to imperialism, and the Japanese way of considering themselves better than their surrounding nations and thus entitled to annex territories from them. The division into good characters and bad ones is very much visible in "Japan's Longest Day". Much of the government officials in the film are portrayed as sensible and yearning for peace. The prime minister Suzuki - who was anti-war in real life, as well - is portrayed by Ryu Chishu, actor known for his roles as wise father figures in the films of Ozu. The government is shown to be clean, and thinking what is best for the people. To counter this, there is a small group of militarists who oppose the notion of surrendering. They are shown to be hot-headed, and dumb. I know the film is based on reality, but this kind of a divide between good and bad characters does not feel realistic. The film's finest performance is by Mifune Toshiro as Japan's minister of war, because his character is shown to be nuanced. He is torn between his loyalty to the emperor and his worry about the soldiers coping to the situation. In the scenes between Mifune and Ryu, the general atmosphere of defeat gets its finest presentation.

Another issue with the subjectivity is one that plagues many Japanese war films. The film shows us the suffering of the Japanese people during the war, but fails to mention the suffering caused by them. Also, in the narration by Nakadai Tatsuya, it is noted that the peace enjoyed by Japan in the present day, was earned by the soldiers who died in the war. Again, this is a nice sentiment for the fallen, but it would ring more true to the international audience, had Japan not been the aggressor who initiated the war.

All in all, the flaws are minor, and are pretty understandable: of course a Japanese film is going to be Japanese with its perspective. The film is admirably anti-war, as are most Japanese war films. And as it should be.

What is a soldier, who has been told from first day of his enlistment that surrender is not only unacceptable but is treason, to do when he learns that his government, including his own military superiors, are going to surrender? This movie pulls no punches in showing what happened when that exact scenario occurred in Japan in the closing days of World War Two. The two words that can best describe how the Japanese soldiers must have felt are betrayal and despair. The movie further underscores the essential hypocrisy of the Japanese imperial leadership and the sudden realization that everything they had been spouting about the Bushido spirit was just hot air, mere hyperbole. As the movie so graphically shows, the junior Japanese officers who revered their generals simply could not accept what seemed to them a shameless repudiation of principles that they were told were sacrosanct. The movie is excellent for several reasons: first, it tells a compelling story; second, it has an all-star cast; third, it is structured as a documentary; fourth, the story is candidly and forthrightly portrayed; fifth, the movie has excellent continuity; sixth, it avoids becoming moralistic; and seventh, it educates the audience about a critical event in history.

I had thought the title of this one was an American invention to capitalize off of the American film The Longest Day, but I do believe "Japan's Longest Day" is the actual title. It has nothing to do with the other film. It, in fact, depicts perhaps the most tense day in modern Japanese history, the 24 hours between August 14th and 15th, 1945. The simplified version of WWII history has the Japanese quickly surrendering with their tales between their legs after the Allies dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but a nation so wound up in nationalistic and militaristic pride wasn't ready to give up that easily. The film doesn't depict the citizenry – one could imagine they would be mostly sick of war. But the military certainly was ready to go all the way, to have every person in Japan martyred. Emperor Hirohito, who is supposed to be looked upon as divine by his people, decided that his empire must surrender. Many of the heads of military only agree grudgingly. Many of their underlings rebel. Hirohito makes a recording of his surrender message, to be played at noon on the 15th. A group of soldiers tries to rally others not to listen, and they attempt a coup and try to steal the record. The film is long – 2 hours and 37 minutes. We are given the names of every single character in the film – I would venture to guess that over 100 names are thrown at us over the film, right up until the end. It's difficult to follow, but I don't believe it's necessary to understand every nuance of what was happening. The previous year, Kihachi Okamoto made what is probably his best (and best-known) film, Sword of Doom. Why choose him for this project? Well, there is at least one scene where that is pretty much answered (just remember that the Japanese soldiers still had samurai swords). Really, though, I don't think the direction is that impressive. As a film, it's nothing fantastic. But for the depiction of the minutiae of history, it's well worth watching. Toshiro Mifune, Takashi Shimura and Chishu Ryu all have large roles, but I honestly didn't even recognize them. They fade into these historical characters perfectly.

First off I would say you will want to watch this movie more than once for a couple of reasons. Main one for me is in reading the sub-titles etc. I missed out on a lot of the action and byplay of the various actors. Unless you are fluent in Japanese, you have to read to follow the plots, of which there are many. The subtitles pass so quickly that I was just getting the gist of the dialog in some spots, so I will need to watch again now that I have it down fairly well. There are so many roles to follow and all of them are interesting, so you don't want to let anyone fall away as he returns later in the film and you will want to remember what he was doing earlier in the movie. All are based on real people of the times, and very real events. As the story progresses I was caught up in the increasing action and urgency of the rebellion. The young officer who is so deeply involved and is such a zealot for the army continuing to fight is truly frightening as you can see some of this rabid resolve right now in some of these Jihad warriors in the mid-east. Just goes to show that Berserkers are not only from the days of Viking raiders. By the way this movie is not suitable for young viewers, it is matter of fact, but graphic in various death scenes.