Fábrica de Loucuras

Some of the IMDb reviewers to date have noted aspects of bigotry and prejudice in this film. As one commented, the "Gung Ho" of 1986 would never be made today - in 2020. To no longer have cultural prejudices is a worthy goal. But, that we might no longer have freedom of speech and the liberties associated with that is scary.

Not having seen this film until recently, I saw another aspect of it - satire. But it seems not to have been so obvious to others. I can't find anything on the Web that says director Ron Howard intended "Gung Ho" as a satire. So, one doesn't know if he planned it that way or not. What one is left with is a typical comedy of the late 20th century. It lampoons people, places and things in the name of comedy.

So, what to make of "Gung Ho" as a comedy -- or satire? It's crude, it highly exaggerates, and it portrays bigotry. But, portraying bigotry is not the same as being bigoted. Especially where the film lampoons aspects of both Japanese and Americans, their respective cultures of the time, and their work ethics.

And, with that, the film clearly throws political correctness to the wind. For the most part, lampooning PC is good and healthy because it had been carried to such extremes by the end of the last century. The specter of a "thought police" loomed in the future. So, PC itself often clashes with aspects of freedom and liberty, as well as common sense.

Of course, the idea of devotion to the company above all else makes industry a god. And the film clearly shows how the humanity of mankind suffers then, in the families and social structure. I like the undertone of this plot that compares individualism with team work. It points out the strengths of both, and their shortcomings. Its conclusion is very appropriate for a healthy - and happy, society.

If one can see the offsetting poking of fun at the Americans and Japanese in this film, a little lesson emerges about the need for society to get along, and to accept and appreciate our many differences. There's a little of the ugly American in here in George Wendt's meanness with the Japanese manager's wife in the super market. But there's also a depiction of American failure. Again, Wendt's character, Buster, is the source when he argues with a Japanese supervisor on the auto assembly line about allowing occasional flaws to go through. That, indeed, was a striking difference that was at the heart of the Japanese recovery from World War II.

I don't know if anyone connected with this film in 1986 was familiar with that history and how the Japanese industrial supremacy came about. It started in 1950 with a Wyoming-raised American statistician and engineer by the name of W. Edwards Deming. I was fortunate to have attended a talk by Deming in the early 1970s in Washington, D.C., when he related his work with the Japanese to help their industries and economy recover after the war. For his mostly non-scientific members of the audience, Deming kept it very simple. I can never forget his ball bearings example. It was based on his actual statistical studies.

It went something like this. For every 1,000 steel ball bearings that American car makers had been using for wheels, three would be defective. They might be flattened and not perfectly rounded from a flaw at the ball bearing plant. Most wheel bearings will last 100,000 miles or more. But those cars that got wheels with faulty bearings would have wheel problems after just a few thousand miles. Deming used this example with Japanese companies to convince them to single source their suppliers and use zero defects checking up front. By applying this and other principles he used, the Japanese auto industry soon eliminated early car operating problems in all areas.

The result was automobiles that were far more efficient, trouble-free and well made than American cars that had held market sway for decades. Since the early 1980s, Japanese autos have set the standards for quality and workmanship. American and European car makers have been playing catch-up ever since.

So, there's considerably more to this film than a slangy, mocking comedy. One suspects that the director and writers knew and intended that all along. But, packaging it the way they did, it would have some appeal as raw and crude comedy that was something of a fad among many - but not all, movie buffs of that time.

As the reviewers to date indicate - indeed, as with many movies, some viewers may like "Gung Ho" while others may think it's quite bad. Those who haven't yet watched it and may be considering it, should take these things into account.

The last thing that should be mentioned as worthy of note is the acting. There's nothing above average by the American actors -- except for Michael Keaton. He nails the character of Hunt Stevenson, whether one likes him or not. And, Gedde Watanabe is superb as the perplexed, conflicted plant manager, Oishi Kazihiro. Most in the Japanese cast are very good.

Had this movie been made more clearly as a satire, it could have been very enjoyable and entertaining. By thus quashing its otherwise bigoted tone, it could have earned a couple more stars than the six I give it.

Here are some favorite lines. . Hunt Stevenson, "You know, the amazing thing is, I'm not even nervous." Audrey, "Babe?" Stevenson, "Yeah?" Audrey, "You just put your garbage in my car."

Oishi Kazihiro, "You're right! You're right!" Hunt Stevenson, "I am? Are you shittin' me?" Kazihiro, "No. You are in much more trouble than me. Ah ha, ha, ha. I feel much better."

Oishi Kazihiro, after Hunt follows him into the river, "I'm not drowning myself. I'm just freaking out."

With no laughs but with important messages, "Gung Ho" manages to be a reflexive entertainment about the cultural and economical clashes of two nations when they join forces to rise from the ashes an automobile factory that can be the only hope of saving a town. Michael Keaton plays an American executive who gets the job of rescuing such factory with a new leadership coming from Japan with a desperate executive (Gedde Watanabe) trying to save his career from potential failure. The latter's task is to command the American plant and their workers, accustomed to work in a particular way, trying impose the Oriental methods of working for long hours for the benefit of the company and such clashes with the interests of Keaton who's trying to look good before his friends who aren't used to such working journey.

But let's face it: the movie isn't funny. Babaloo Mandel and Lowell Ganz are terrific writers ("Splash", "Parenthood") but they didn't create much moments we could say they were funny, most of the time is just using of caricatures to make some amusing moments, they barely work, maybe two or three scenes. Their concentration to the more engaging aspects was what made "Gung Ho" something really worth seeing. It pokes fun on the culture comparisons between U.S., specially when it comes to both nations traditions but it also establishes a greater sense of supporting each other, one might be better than the other but only together they come up with something bigger, better and stronger. Having a movie like this made on a decade where American superiority was presented in every single movie and also in politics is something of a miracle. It basically says: "We're no longer the strongest nation in the world, neither the most efficient but we can aspire to be if we follow some other examples around the world". Sure, it doesn't paint a fair picture for both sides (Japanese as workaholics who can't contest their bosses and Americans as lazy and incompetent), often recurring to stereotypes but presents something good out of those.

Although a little sloppy, clichéd and never serious enough, "Gung Ho" can be used as a source of inspiration, at least for those who have a company and doesn't know how to bring out the best with their employs, it's always there to bring out of the best of a team, push them to the limits and show them the advantages of following new directives. I know this movie is something of a classic between Administration students in here, and most of them enjoy it. Out of this department, it might be a disappointment for Keaton and Ron Howard fans, they're not at their best. The supporting cast formed with the likes of Mimi Rogers, George Wendt, John Turturro, Rance and Clint Howard save this for a bit, but the most interesting in scene is Watanabe, the funniest in the show.

In the end, it reaches its purpose of presenting a parallel between cultures, but never takes our fully enjoyment, neither much of our laughs. Easy to watch and quite motivational though. 7/10

Sherman, set the wayback machine for... 1986. The United States was just climbing out of its worst postwar recession, while Japan was enjoying an unprecedented industrial boom. Manufacturing industries were still a significant part of the US economy, and factory workers were a good example of the "average American". The word "downsizing" hadn't entered the general vocabulary yet, but everyone knew the phenomenon. Bruce could be heard on the radio singing, "Foreman says these jobs are going, boy, and they ain't coming back to your hometown." Chrysler had just been bailed out by Uncle Sam. Bumper stickers could be seen saying "Buy American -- the job you save may be your own."

"Gung Ho" does a better job of capturing the mood of the American industrial workforce than just about any other popular movie made during that period. Certainly the movie has its flaws -- some loose plot threads and mediocre acting jobs by everyone except Michael Keaton and Gedde Watanabe. But the story really is about the meeting of East and West: Keaton's Hunt Stevenson personifies America, brash and confident on the outside yet insecure underneath. Watanabe's Kazuhiro personifies Japan, on top of the heap with a successful system, but wondering if there is more to be learned from their Western rivals. The movie's plot, flawed as it is, simply provides a framework for the conflict, and eventually synthesis, of their two personalities.

Keaton's acting overshadows everyone else's, and practically makes the movie by itself. I've always admired Keaton for his ability to deliver lines that feel improvised, no matter what script he's following. His character, Hunt Stevenson, is a likable, affable everyman, a natural leader with a wise-ass streak. But he has a fatal flaw common to many of us: he doesn't want to disappoint anyone. He'll distract the crowd with inspirational anecdotes, and even lie, rather than point out the ugly truth.

Kazuhiro is the mirror image of Stevenson: shy and introspective, but also, because of his Japanese upbringing, reluctant to be the bearer of bad news. The scene in which Stevenson first comes to Kazuhiro with the employees' grievances captures perfectly the Japanese approach to workplace conflict. Kazuhiro replies to Stevenson's complaints with "I understand what you are saying," but won't refuse his requests out loud. Stevenson misinterprets this as agreement, and goes away saying, "Okay, we've got that settled." (This is still a problem in Japanese-American business relations in the 21st century!)

Ultimately, Kazuhiro and Stevenson have the same problem: get the factory working smoothly, meet production goals, and fulfill their responsibility to the workers under them. In working towards this goal, they each have to take a page from the others' book. Kazuhiro's family becoming more "Americanized" is an obvious example. Also note that Stevenson thinks it's odd when Kazuhiro explains how he had to make a public apology to his workers for failing them -- and yet, later in the movie, Stevenson does exactly that himself.

The plot and its resolution are a little cornball, but hey, this is a comedy. If you can overlook the movie's flaws, there is a great story about self-realization and open-mindedness here.

Gung Ho is one of those movies that you will want to see over and over again. Michael Keaton is put in charge of wooing a Japanese car company to come to his town thus creating jobs for the residents of Hadleyville. What happens after that is one hilarious moment after another. The two cultures clash and it is up to Keaton to hold things together. Look for great performances from Keaton, Gedde Watanabe, George Wendt, Mimi Rogers, John Turturro, Soh Yamamura and Sab Shimomo. All are perfectly cast. Don't be fooled by the low number rating. This is a 7.5 in my book. It is interesting to note that the town name of Hadleyville was also used in High Noon. Yes, there is a real Hadleyville but in Oregon.

Having watched this movie as part of a homework assignment, it is my opinion that this film is quite honest at a lot of viable levels. By studying the communication assumptions and mistakes that each party makes in reference to the other, based on the fact that symbolic communication is a receiver-based standard, this movie is ideal to show exactly how, when people do not understand the shared symbols, how chaotic and confusing such communications can become.

Therefore, before hucking it under the pile, never to be seen again, you might want to look upon it in a most serious light and see if it doesn't share some elements of truth that you've experienced when interfacing with other cultures in your life.

Just a thought.

David I. Brager