hobbled by the relentlessness of depressing information
I recently watched "Nanking" at the Seattle International Film Festival. OK, I can understand why the movie would get a high rating (as of the time of the writing of this review, it averaged 8.3/10 out of 87 votes). It has an amazing amount of details and footage about the Nanking Massacre, as well as information about the Safety Zone that I had never known about until I saw the movie. Nevertheless, I must respectfully disagree with previous voters' opinions on "Nanking".
First of all, the idea of showing the actors who read the lines was a bad move. It seemed artificial... almost conceited. Why couldn't they just show the atrocities with a voice-over? Why did they have to add extra time to the movies to show the actors? Was it just to get a feature film running time of 88 minutes? Couldn't they have added extra minutes by interviewing more Chinese people instead? There's a smattering of the Chinese point of view, and very little of the Japanese point of view. (Not there could be much for ex-Japanese soldiers to say about it that wouldn't inflame more anti-Japanese feelings.)
Secondly, I'm sure we all agree that the events were atrocious and despicable. If the rating was solely determined by the movie's content, it would get a good score from me. However, as a movie, the pacing did not let up for a moment. The audience was bombarded with image after image of atrocity. Meanwhile, a bunch of actors are reading the diaries and letters of the Westerners who observed many of the atrocities first-hand, and some of them aren't conveying much emotion (and Mariel Hemingway overacts). After a while, I got desensitized about it. I was not the only person who felt that way after the screening, either. Several others who I talked to felt the same way. I don't think this was the intended effect by the filmmakers. They wanted sympathy for the Chinese, but they ended up with a bunch of viewers who shrug their shoulders, say, "Gee, that sucked for the Chinese," shrug their shoulders, and move on. Or, at the worst, they created people who say, "Gee, that sucked for the Chinese; get over it," and actually think less of modern Chinese people for being stuck in the past.
Third... what happened after 1938? The movie doesn't explain what happens to Nanking after the Safety Zone was abolished. What happened to the Chinese people? What happened to the survivors who spoke in the movie? It's a glaring hole in the movie. It's like the fate of the city became less important after the foreigners' importance was reduced.
If it was not for these problems, I'd give the movie at least a 7/10. However, I can't give a high rating to a movie that creates the opposite effect from what is intended. You know what's going to happen? Most of the people who are unfamiliar with the Nanking Massacre and decide to watch this movie are going to pop in the DVD, watch for 15-45 minutes, and then stop the movie because they can't watch anymore. They'll remember that bad stuff happened in Nanking, and that's it.
First of all, the idea of showing the actors who read the lines was a bad move. It seemed artificial... almost conceited. Why couldn't they just show the atrocities with a voice-over? Why did they have to add extra time to the movies to show the actors? Was it just to get a feature film running time of 88 minutes? Couldn't they have added extra minutes by interviewing more Chinese people instead? There's a smattering of the Chinese point of view, and very little of the Japanese point of view. (Not there could be much for ex-Japanese soldiers to say about it that wouldn't inflame more anti-Japanese feelings.)
Secondly, I'm sure we all agree that the events were atrocious and despicable. If the rating was solely determined by the movie's content, it would get a good score from me. However, as a movie, the pacing did not let up for a moment. The audience was bombarded with image after image of atrocity. Meanwhile, a bunch of actors are reading the diaries and letters of the Westerners who observed many of the atrocities first-hand, and some of them aren't conveying much emotion (and Mariel Hemingway overacts). After a while, I got desensitized about it. I was not the only person who felt that way after the screening, either. Several others who I talked to felt the same way. I don't think this was the intended effect by the filmmakers. They wanted sympathy for the Chinese, but they ended up with a bunch of viewers who shrug their shoulders, say, "Gee, that sucked for the Chinese," shrug their shoulders, and move on. Or, at the worst, they created people who say, "Gee, that sucked for the Chinese; get over it," and actually think less of modern Chinese people for being stuck in the past.
Third... what happened after 1938? The movie doesn't explain what happens to Nanking after the Safety Zone was abolished. What happened to the Chinese people? What happened to the survivors who spoke in the movie? It's a glaring hole in the movie. It's like the fate of the city became less important after the foreigners' importance was reduced.
If it was not for these problems, I'd give the movie at least a 7/10. However, I can't give a high rating to a movie that creates the opposite effect from what is intended. You know what's going to happen? Most of the people who are unfamiliar with the Nanking Massacre and decide to watch this movie are going to pop in the DVD, watch for 15-45 minutes, and then stop the movie because they can't watch anymore. They'll remember that bad stuff happened in Nanking, and that's it.
- flailingpenguin
- Jun 3, 2007