On 14 March, about a fortnight ago, I saw two films on Nanjing (Nanking), China, at the time when it was occupied by the Japanese troops. It was in December 1937. Even the Pal (Radha Vinod Pal) Judgment at the Tokyo Tribunal, which declared all the defendants not guilty and was as such never read at the Tribunal itself, discussed the three weeks of cruelties which followed the occupation. So it is well-known, so notorious.
The first film, Nanking-Nanking, was directed by a young Chinese, and, I am told, was faithful to the historical fact. But the second one, John Rabe, by a young German director, was, though based on Rabe's own diary and was in the main truthful, a little dramatized here and there. There was a little difference between what Rabe wrote and what was edited and got published, and the film was based on the latter. Rabe was the Siemens representative at Nanjing at the time, with a long experience with China. As is suggested by the title, he is the central figure in the second one. The second one therefore has got a consistent story centred around him. He, however, appeared a lot in the first film also. Both were made in 2009.
The first one, on the other hand, has got no such central, consistent story. In fact, it is difficult to talk about it in separation from the second. So I will write on these two in a mixed way. It will do since it is not my purpose to compare the two. They are basically on the same theme, why the Japanese troops did what they did there and then.
Both the films start from the Japanese assault on the Wall of the city. In the second, Prince Asaka, a relative of the then Emperor and a Division Commander, was unhappy that his men took as many as 4,000 POWs, and ordered they should be shot, saying he did not want to see them alive the next morning. There were some conscientious voices from among the invading army in both of the films, and some officer was courageous enough to tell Asaka that it would be against the international law, but was dismissed. In the first, by the way, a non-commissioned MP officer even committed suicide at the very end, presumably from trauma out of the massacre.
In the face of the occupation, the European community at Nanjing drew a non-armed Safety Zone in the central part of the city, and elected Rabe the Chairman to manage it, although he was about to go home as his term came to an end. His election was to a large extent because he was a member of the Nazi, though not a fanatic one. It was estimated that 100,000 people was the limit the Safety Zone could maintain, but someone said twice that number could be in the case of the Chinese, and the idea was approved. Most of the second and a considerable part of the first are on the activities of Rabe and his associates trying to protect these people in the Zone, and not outright on the massacre itself, as I had expected. But there is no dearth of those scenes also, especially in the first one.
Do the films answer the question mentioned above?
The first film, Nanking-Nanking, was directed by a young Chinese, and, I am told, was faithful to the historical fact. But the second one, John Rabe, by a young German director, was, though based on Rabe's own diary and was in the main truthful, a little dramatized here and there. There was a little difference between what Rabe wrote and what was edited and got published, and the film was based on the latter. Rabe was the Siemens representative at Nanjing at the time, with a long experience with China. As is suggested by the title, he is the central figure in the second one. The second one therefore has got a consistent story centred around him. He, however, appeared a lot in the first film also. Both were made in 2009.
The first one, on the other hand, has got no such central, consistent story. In fact, it is difficult to talk about it in separation from the second. So I will write on these two in a mixed way. It will do since it is not my purpose to compare the two. They are basically on the same theme, why the Japanese troops did what they did there and then.
Both the films start from the Japanese assault on the Wall of the city. In the second, Prince Asaka, a relative of the then Emperor and a Division Commander, was unhappy that his men took as many as 4,000 POWs, and ordered they should be shot, saying he did not want to see them alive the next morning. There were some conscientious voices from among the invading army in both of the films, and some officer was courageous enough to tell Asaka that it would be against the international law, but was dismissed. In the first, by the way, a non-commissioned MP officer even committed suicide at the very end, presumably from trauma out of the massacre.
In the face of the occupation, the European community at Nanjing drew a non-armed Safety Zone in the central part of the city, and elected Rabe the Chairman to manage it, although he was about to go home as his term came to an end. His election was to a large extent because he was a member of the Nazi, though not a fanatic one. It was estimated that 100,000 people was the limit the Safety Zone could maintain, but someone said twice that number could be in the case of the Chinese, and the idea was approved. Most of the second and a considerable part of the first are on the activities of Rabe and his associates trying to protect these people in the Zone, and not outright on the massacre itself, as I had expected. But there is no dearth of those scenes also, especially in the first one.
Do the films answer the question mentioned above?
No comments:
Post a Comment