Paper City

More than a documentary of the WWII firebombing of Tokyo, Paper City reveals the ongoing struggle of the few remaining survivors to gain official recognition from the Government of Japan.

An intimate and personal film, Paper City weaves a gripping narrative among interviews and vignettes about the horrors of war. The stories told are powerful and authentically documented.

I would have appreciated hearing more about the government's perspective to gain a more complete understanding of the current situation. As it is,, the film leaves the viewer guessing as to how the government could possibly ignore the victims of this tragedy for decades.

Regardless, this is a must-watch documentary, as we all need to be aware of past tragedies and current transgressions in order to prevent them from happening again in the future.

Can memories fight against the violence?

3 survivors testified that the bombing against citizen was war crime. They say that the Japanese government must take the responsibility for the reckless plan of air defense and the too late surrender. There is a contrast between their patience and the shout by loudspeaker van of ultra-rightists that accuses the United States.

But do not we need to think about the way of dropping incendiary bombs, enclosing by fire the densely inhabited area of more than 180 cities? I feel the song of bombers inadequate. Rather I want to know how the American ordinary people think about bombing against ordinary people of the other countries.

Though all of the content is cruel, there is a sort of quiet like still life painting. The minimum music is impressive. But the picture of fireworks is too beautiful. May be an explanation is necessary that there were survivors who were terrified by the sound and the sight of fireworks long time after the war.

The opening footage is an Allied propaganda film followed by its result---the burnt plane that was formerly downtown Tokyo. The film thus seems to try to set a moral and political line between the white men back then and the white men now---the line b/w the bombers and the movie crew. I wasn't convinced. For example throughout the film, the director chooses to take close-up shots of aging survivors and their modest lives, which are so close that in many occasions the subjects are only partially fit within the camera frame. I get that this is supposed to be a gesture to make them feel literally close to us, so we see them as humans like us and get to sympathize with them, etc. The humanistic intention totally backfires, when we realize that they are really aging and impoverished. One of the participants even says that he feels ugly because of his age and doesn't wanna be exposed to the camera and the public. The director doesn't care, shooting the profile of another participant from the angle where his age spots are particularly visible all the time, perhaps intentionally, to take another example. Where is their dignity? I've felt the director, the producer, and the crew members of the film to be just as intrusive and cruel as the bombers. If they've really wanted to claim that they are better, they shouldn't have hidden behind the camera and told us honestly about their own views and position on and toward racism: or better yet, they should have let Japanese shoot the film and talk thru their own voices. This is another example of why the privileged shouldn't appropriate and represent others' views.