Hiroshima

This quotation was offered by Setsuko Thurlow, a Hiroshima atomic bomb survivor herself who is a Nobel peace prize recipient and disarmament educator now, who was present at the film's screening in Toronto. She was there to speak of her first-hand experiences regarding the subject-matter and answer audience's questions. She endorsed the film and called it well-researched and correct. The only exception she offered searching her memories of the aftermath of the nuclear explosion was how Hiroshima was eerily quiet after the atomic-bomb was dropped destroying the city and maiming and massacring its citizens. The film has its stunned silent moments, but also features citizens wailing as the soundtrack to suffering. In her talk she remarked that upon being invited to the screening she had not recognized the film at first. This is because the film's title has changed since she first saw it some fifty five years ago. Having soon recognized it she was happy to speak to the audience in addition to endorsing it. She told the audience how she was just over a kilometer away when the atomic bomb dropped and would subsequently watch her sister, niece, nephew and many others either perish away or die outright. She spoke of the American "political oppression" that followed and was critical of the occupying forces that took Japan over. She recalled how dismayed she was upon discovering that the survivors' treatment centres the Americans set up were just research laboratories, with the 'patients' as research subjects, and no treatment was offered for the affected, the burnt, scarred and cancer-ridden. She spoke of the censorship the American forces brought. One Japanese newspaper was shut down for mentioning human suffering. Haiku poetry and correspondence were confiscated and all the while there were 140,000 dead and wounded.

Hiroshima, the movie, is based on a book called Children Of Atomic Bomb, which is a collection of stories by child survivors of the attack. Ninety thousand Hiroshima residents, many of them hibakusha (a term referring to the survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), labour unions and a head of university volunteered to help the pro-peace and pacifist movie to be made as no commercial entity and studio would help or touch it. The Japanese teachers' Union financed the film to promote peace. The film is now restored as best as possible following its rediscovery. It depicts the period during World War II prior to and during the atomic bombing and the physical and societal aftermath

The focus of the film is the children, in particular students from a school, one of whom we learn right away has something typical of the post-war period namely leukemia which she, her fellow students and teachers call 'atomic bomb illness.' She confesses to her friends that she doesn't want to die. The students are studious, but also in varying forms of denial, shock and ignorance. They read of the American hypocrisy of howling when Germany uses poison gas, but then itself drops atomic bombs on Japanese cities. Today's Japanese know little about the dates and details of the atomic bombs over their country, but ironically even the children of the 1950s had little factual information about what had happened. Indeed the contemporary conservative Japanese government of 2017 voted against the abolition of nuclear weapons at the United Nations. Back to the children and during the war they knew American 'B' bombers by sight and sound, yet and obviously no one expected the atomic bomb given how the technology was new and never used prior. The aftermath was unbelievable. After thinking for some time the best description of the depiction in the film is none other than 'hell.' What the viewer sees is hell. Man and woman, old and young, civilian and military are in an actual hell and no grainy sixty-year-old footage can distort, diminish or mask it. The film demonstrates the hell other films try to portray: dark, smoky, grim; devastation, rubble, piles of forlorn bodies suffering or dead everywhere with no respite or safety as black rain pours from the sky on the charred and burnt bodies and the living alike. The children are young, but injured or dying at worst and orphaned, sick, suffering, in gangs and separated from family and alone at best. In contrast, we see shots of Japanese harlots hand-in-hand with American soldiers after the war walking around in dresses or sitting and dancing with them at dance clubs. A student succumbs to cancer following her blood poisoning due to radiation in a barebones hospital. It is depressing beyond belief. The film is even-handed - if one could call anything the flip side of civilians incinerating as an atomic bomb drops from the sky fair - and the audience sees Japanese working and mobilizing during the war, practicing and child labour in the name of emperor. The Japanese army dishes out propaganda continuously and even once the atomic bomb is dropped a general is seen demanding a civilian salute him. Yet, no soldier helps the civilian rescue his trapped wife. Then the Japanese officers are seen sitting around plotting to further lie to the citizens and discussing the best way to kill the "rumours" as opposed to helping the citizens or confronting the reality on the ground.

As the world turns some things never change. Both the American war criminals and the Japanese elites - like the emperor - are in another world comfortable with full stomachs and never missing a meal as hell unfolded.

It seems that CHILDREN OF HIROSHIMA was paid for by the Teacher's Union in Japan; they apparently felt it did not get the message across they wanted, so they commissioned this film. Instead of being seen from the viewpoint of an ex-teacher, the central character is a teacher. Eiji Okada's student suffer from leukemia, general malaise, and other symptoms, some real, some imagined, of having been around when the Bomb went off. There's some discussion talking about how the US looked for any excuse to use the A-Bomb; some concern about a fear that nationalism and a longing for the Old Days would retrigger millitarism and start the whole thing over again; and a harrowing re-enactment of the survivors struggling out out of the wreckage left by the blast.

I'm not sure the Teacher's Union got what they wanted out of this movie; the trouble with directors is they go off and make the movie they want instead of the one you want. In any case, some of the sequences looked like modern 'slow zombie' movies, except they seemed much more real and terrifying. The union did not make a third movie. Perhaps they ran out of money.

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.

This movie is excellent from start to finish. Its played so authentic, the characters feels so alive. At only 312 reviews at the current time of writing this review its also the most underrated movie ever. There are low budget, unimaginitive and just plain lazy knockoff trash movies that are more popular than this movie and its very sad to think that trash like that gets more attention.

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.