Hiroshima

A harrowing view of hell on earth, and an absolute tragedy. The film is wisely very critical of Japanese militarism with its own atrocities, fanaticism, and reaction in the aftermath of Hiroshima before a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The moments when the devastated people are walking around like zombies trying to get food and the official is shouting nationalistic garbage at them are brilliant. The film also asks the question whether this target, with so many civilians, was necessary, and whether it had something to do with race. It also has strong messages for peace, to avoid such events in the future, since the Atomic age had begun. Whatever your beliefs are for whether the bombs were necessary or not (there are some amazing summaries of both positions on Wikipedia btw), the human suffering is undeniable, and heartbreaking. Even if it makes for 105 brutally sad minutes, this film is as important today as it was in 1953.

There was minimal debate surrounding Oppenheimer's decision not to include any scenes set in Japan. I wouldn't call it a huge source of discourse, or a big controversy, but it popped up a little here and there, I noticed. Without going off on too much of a tangent, it was a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation, because focusing on Oppenheimer, the man (as I think the film did quite effectively) does mean the victims of his weapons aren't directly given a voice... but if Christopher Nolan had set scenes in Japan, people might have taken issue with a white filmmaker overstepping a boundary (it's happened to a small extent with Scorsese making Killers of the Flower Moon, and that might blow up even more discourse-wise when that film gets a wide release).

But I think so long as people are aware that Japanese films also cover the effects of the atomic bomb while focusing on its victims, then that entirely negates the need for an American or English filmmaker to cover such a perspective. Unfortunately, not many people do seem to know about 1953's Hiroshima, as it only has about 1100 views on Letterboxd and about half of that on IMDb. It should be more well-known, though, because it's an impressively made and remarkably realistic depiction of the 1945 bombing of Hiroshima, including the aftermath and how the city grappled with the devastation following the end of World War II.

The film's commendable for how grounded and intensely real it all feels. The production value is, for the most part, incredible, with the scenes set right after the bombing feeling truly authentic and harrowing. It's a very tough film to sit through, but I think much of it will stick with me, and I don't feel like there are a ton of movies 70+ years old that feel quite this visceral.

I think the final act gets a little unfocused, if I was to have a complaint. I thought it all was losing me a bit towards the end, but then the final scene comes around and ties just about everything together in a haunting and effective way. It's not a film I think I'll ever rewatch, but I'm glad I've seen it now, because there's a ton to appreciate within this very hard-hitting historical drama.

This sad and strong movie, quite expressionist and reminding a documentary, was made just eigth years after USA atomic bombing of Hiroshima. It depicts the destruction of war in a so desperate and degrading way, with harsh images of tragedy and sounds of scream, that perhaps only Elem Klimov's Come and See overcane it in the history of cinema. Although pace is perhaps more sluggish than the ideal, Hideo Sekigawa has anyway an amazing sucess in using sound, working with broad spaces, and coordinating tens of thousands of extras, including many children, with remarkable and quite expressive performances of them. Hiroshima's hellscape with a multitude of dirty flabbergasted hobbling people on dispair and in tattered cloth surrounded by dead bodies reminded me not only of Come and See, but also of paintures such as Candido Portinari's Retirantes and Théodore Géricault's The Raft of the Medusa. The movie is able to cause deep emotions, by the combination of good soundtrack, striking cinenatography and very moving acring. It is one of the most important pacifist films ever made, not only for showing, without filters, the horror that is the reason for armed forces exist, but also for portraying their ridículous behavior and concerns.

Hiroshima may be a film of 1953 but exposure to it - good heavens, 'devastating', 'exposure' - has been contained for many decades, as if the film itself were radioactive. Apparently there were concerns that it was anti-American, or maybe a bit pro-communist? If it is anything it's anti-war, anti-catastrophy, anti-blind-allegiance, and of course anti-nuclear-weapons. If there's such a thing as an anti-war propaganda film then this is it.

The film's beginning is very powerful. A narrator describes the morning routine of the air crew destined to drop the bomb and obliterate Hiroshima, the sun rising, the pilot's thoughts and fears. Then we see children in a high school classroom. One cries out and the narration, which is actually playing on a record, is stopped by the teacher. Enough about the world changing event, it's time to think of the innocents on the ground. Several years have passed since the bombing but the children are succumbing to leukaemia, to the effects of radiation poisoning. Students in the class are desperate to talk about something that has scarred their world, over which a pall of silence has fallen. They visit a sick girl in hospital. They tell stories of kids who've fallen out of society. They talk about what it means to have the marks, to have witnessed the flash. Then we go back to 1945, to a city full of people living their lives, albeit under the cult of the emperor, military types making them drill and run around, and bow to his imperial majesty. And the minutes go by, and we wait...

Then it happens.

This movie is mostly a dramatisation, with some documentary footage used as well, and it was a community effort to make the movie work, on location, real artefacts from the bombing, and actual survivors acting in the movie. The movie is scored by Akira Ifukube with a dirge for orchestra and choir that is powerfully affecting, much like, for example, adagios by Shostakovich or the Memorial to Lidice by Martinu; the wordless choral part if anything makes Akira's music more emotionally intense.

I used the words devastating and exposure earlier, without intending irony, but what about the word trigger, or triggering. Someone had to pull a trigger of sorts, one presumes, or at least press a button or two, to drop the atom bomb. Makes you think how juvenile, no, how infantile people are in the 21st century who either claim victimhood for having been 'triggered', or who worry overtly about triggering someone's feelings. Watch what happens when somehwere, out of sight, the a trigger is pulled; the gawping Japanese school kids and adults look up at the sky, wondering why the alarm hasn't gone off to tell them to take shelter. Watch what it meant to be alive in the aftermath of the blast. Then see if you can use the word 'triggered' ever again and call yourself sane.

Needless to say, Hiroshima (1953) is a difficult watch. It is tough like watching The Passion of the Christ is tough. It makes you desperate. It makes you want to scream. It makes you want to cry for your own comfort. It is an audiovisual lament, a threnody for people compelled to live at a time when a few individuals had developed the power and the will to potentially destroy nations, in the blink of an eye.

But one has to decide if a movie is the best way to explore this subject. In isolation, I'd say no, one needs more. The movie is based upon the accounts given by the children of Hiroshima. The movie goes on to include the bloodymindedness of the Japanese military, attempts to suppress the truth about what had happened so as not to dent morale - and don't forget this film's circulation was viciously delimited to not upset the political class or anyone on the US side of the story - but I suppose if you want to know more about the military strategic context for dropping the bomb then you need to look elsewhere; to a documentary or two, or read a history of the war. Maybe you want to go see the new Christopher Nolan movie, Oppenheimer (2023), although given his tendency towards aggressive barrages of music and noise - there are already reports that the actors' dialogue can barely be heard - and a potentially confusing non-linear timeline, chances are you'll not come out of the movie exactly enlightened. This film, Hiroshima, is based upon lived experience, and it is terrifying.

A must-see, if you've got the stomach for it.

By victims.

relatively crudely staged but reflecting reality, even this film can't recreate the horror and suffering of the surviving residents in the aftermath of the bombing--but it tries with honesty.

a historical experience. their tale.

like a recounting of the holocaust by survivors.