The overwhelming sadness that loomed over the entire filmed reminded me of my experiences in watching Schindlers List. The movement of the camera makes me feel so uneasy and really made me feel as I was right in there with soldiers and civilians experiencing this brutality. War films in black and white always seem to be much more affecting than those in color.
Yeah, there is a real beauty to black and white photography that makes for an interesting contrast when used in films with brutal violence. I think in this film in particular, something definitely would’ve been lost had it been shot in color.
The hype around this was enormous and I looked forward to seeing it, but I was disappointed.
The good things were the first 40 minutes of battle scenes and as you noted Santino, the cinematography. The second half seemed ham-fisted with the ‘death is better than life’ theme being repeated.
Kon Ichikawa’s The Burmese Harp (1956) and Fires on the Plain (1959) are more effective in terms of the psychology of the vanquished.
“The second half seemed ham-fisted with the ‘death is better than life’ theme being repeated”
Considering what the Japanese did in that city and its inhabitants during the siege and after the fall, death is probably almost a blessing. The atrocities portrayed in the film was quite minimal in comparison to the horror that took place, and the filmmaker executed the portrayal with great restraint.
As I mentioned on the other thread, we’ve seen enough great films portraying the Japanese experience from The Human Condition, Burmese Harp, Fires On The Plain, Black Rain, Letters from Iwo Jima and others. Those are powerful works, though mostly from the psychological viewpoint of the combatants. Perhaps it’s time we look at the civilian perspective, the other victims of that global tragedy.
Overuse of shock value disrupts the ability to enter into the narrative emotionally and thus the intellectual or psychological content needed to be brought up e.g. John Rabe’s character could have been fleshed out in place of throwing the baby out the window.
The most interesting thing about Lu Chuan is how stylistically diverse he is. The Missing Gun seems miles, and miles away, formally, from Kekexili and City of Life and Death.
I think Robert’s right in that the battle scenes are what make the film. But that brings in a question (raised by one of the reviewers on this films page), “how does one aestheticize war in a film that ardently positions itself against war?” If the atrocities were so great and unspeakable they couldn’t even fit them on screen how then does one reconcile the fact that, also according to this film, war makes these people’s deaths heroic and meaningful (and not just on the part of the soldiers)?
P.S. – Black Rain is from the perspective of civilians.
“P.S. – Black Rain is from the perspective of civilians’’
I know, ( that’s why I said ‘mostly’) so is Graves Of The Fireflies, which is equally tragic.
“Overuse of shock value disrupts the ability to enter into the narrative emotionally and thus the intellectual or psychological content needed to be brought up e.g. John Rabe’s character could have been fleshed out in place of throwing the baby out the window.”
Well, that’s your opinion. I don’t know shit about film aesthetics but possibly it’s not the director’s intention to focus on John Rabe and instead show the atrocities, (however ‘minor’) committed on the Chinese.
“Overuse of shock value disrupts the ability to enter into the narrative emotionally "
Maybe. I guess it depends on your definition (or interpretation) of the word “overuse”. I didn’t find City of Life and Death" to overuse shock. In fact, quite the opposite, as Nightshift mentioned Lu Chuan’s restraint. For myself, I was completely invested emotionally in the narrative and not once did I feel that he used shock value inappropriately (for that, I would point to Angie’s new film “In the Land of Blood and Honey”, which overuses violence for the sake of shock). But in *City of Life and Death, the violence (including throwing the baby out of the window) seemed perfectly matched to the tone and world that the film creates.
In my opinion, I consider the victory parade by the Japanese as equally, even more terrifying than the other atrocities portrayed in the film- symbolizing an almost medieval code of unquestioning obedience and ruthless aggression, the sound of drums signalling what’s coming to the people of Asia.
If the atrocities were so great and unspeakable they couldn’t even fit them on screen how then does one reconcile the fact that, also according to this film, war makes these people’s deaths heroic and meaningful (and not just on the part of the soldiers)?
Yeah, that is the thing though, I’m not sure it does make them ‘heroic and meaningful’ if death is better than life.
What makes for heroic is the struggle to live – to see life go on.
Wei Fan’s character, Mr. Tang, would have been another character to flesh out. After his child is killed, he seems to go back to working both sides and then he stays behind (death is better than life).
I have to admit here that the epic format doesn’t work for me.
“After his child is killed, he seems to go back to working both sides and then he stays behind…”
But his choice to stay behind means two things:
1. He will never see his unborn child.
2. The soldier, masquerading as an “assistant,” they’re attempting to save will live.
Both of these make his choice of death mean something (and we’re told so because the score prods us on) more than just the thousands upon thousands of faceless that die that the film doesn’t aestheticize (or any of the untold millions that inevitably die in war, regardless of heroism or barbarism).
He isn’t seen on screen after that, I believe (or at least his narrative is finished) and all we’re left with is his heroism, even after collaborating. He’s a hero because war made him sacrifice life for hope. Thus, war creates hope.
That’s the kind of ideological tailspin most of these kinds of films fall into.
Mr. Tang was resigned to his fate. His value as an interpreter helped save others but it didn’t save him in the end.
I also think it was already implied in the movie that John Rabe was powerless to make any difference, with his bosses in Berlin reluctant to intervene, not wanting to strain their developing alliance with Japan.
@ Santino as Nightshift mentioned Lu Chuan’s restraint.
Not sure what you mean by restraint – content, in terms of something like blood splatter?
Or emotional restraint effecting the viewer’s impression?
For myself, I was completely invested emotionally in the narrative…
The narrative here?: Imagine the landing on Omaha Beach sequence from Saving Private Ryan but stretch it out for over two hours and that’s essentially what the experience of watching City of Life and Death is like.
1. He will never see his unborn child.
I thought he did that because he had ‘lost face’ by collaborating.
Staying didn’t seem to matter ( isn’t seen on screen after that), so I’m not sure why that was heroic.
Ha, sorry. Didn’t mean for all that to be in bold.
“Not sure what you mean by restraint – content, in terms of something like blood splatter?
Or emotional restraint effecting the viewer’s impression?”
I think what I mean is that none of the violence felt gratuitous. Restraint in terms of nothing felt cheap or unearned. So in this regard, this probably falls into “emotional” restraint?
Also, making that one Japanese character sympathetic (or maybe that’s not the right word – maybe “multi-dimensional” is a better word?) is a form of restraint, in terms of avoiding making one side seem completely cartoonish and cliched. I think it would’ve been easy, given what happened to the Chinese, to make the Japanese characters complete monsters. I mean, we see this all the time in Nazi films. But how interesting is that? Not very, in my view. So I suppose in this respect, the restraint here is content.
@NIGHTSHIFT Mr. Tang was resigned to his fate. His value as an interpreter helped save others but it didn’t save him in the end.
Well no, he wasn’t ‘resigned to his fate,’ which is why he collaborated, spoke Japanese, hid his family, and etc.
Here we have a character that could reflect the Chinese will to fight and continue on that conflicts with ‘death is better than life’. The end of his life does express something entirely different from the will to fight and continue on and does add the to the complexity depending on how it is interpreted.
I think his character and that conclusion reflects the chaotic nature of the civilians situation in that they had to deal with a chaotic Japanese force. This is shown over and over, as for example when the Japanese commander shoots the comfort girl and then turns to her Japanese lover and says she is better off dead – as if he didn’t have any control over her situation.
There are complex references in the film. We are shown almost every possible type of misery and hypocrisy, which could be the nature of the epic form. Ultimately though, it can only add up to one expository and didactic thing: ’death is better than life’
and another thing…
Dushane referenced Lu’s various styles and I was hoping for an epic in the style of some of his other films. I will refrain from using the ‘H’ word to describe the style of City of Life and Death, because we are seeing that style of film being made everywhere in the world.
If death-is-better-than-life had not been overtly mentioned in the film, we would have perhaps apprehended that feeling as an aesthetic emotion. That is a huge flaw with the ‘H’ style of film in that it makes them entertainment rather than a higher art form – in this case, subverting the serious content of City of Life and Death.
Santino
City of Life and Death is a film I first saw two years ago at AFI Fest. My friend and I left the theater completely exhausted and emotionally drained. I recall it being a very sad and depressing theater experience. This is the type of film you respect and admire but have a hard time “liking”.
I have been anxiously awaiting a US theatrical release of this film ever since. I wanted others to see this film and had several friends who desperately wanted to see this on the big screen. This past June it finally got released in theaters and several of us went to see it. I went in not remembering much about the specifics of the film other than I knew it was emotionally gut wrenching.
My friends’ reaction to the film was exactly the same as the reaction I had when I saw it two years prior at AFI Fest. Indeed even I was taken aback by the film on the second viewing. Imagine the landing on Omaha Beach sequence from Saving Private Ryan but stretch it out for over two hours and that’s essentially what the experience of watching City of Life and Death is like. Not since Apocalypse Now have I seen a war film that was this disturbing, this visually stunning, this specific in it’s details about the chaos of war. I know there was some controversy over the film in it’s (sympathetic) depiction of one of the Japanese soldiers. But I never had a problem with this – if any, it’s adds a richness and depth of humanity that prevents it from being simply a one sided account of the Nanking Massacre. Indeed even the depiction of John Rabe, who helped the Chinese and therefore we are supposed to identify with, is not so easy given his membership in the Nazi party. But this is part of what makes this film so complex – it’s not an easy good versus evil film with sides clearly drawn.
I’m disappointed this film wasn’t more widely recognized and acknowledged for it’s technical achievement (some of the black and white cinematography is just stunning) as well the larger place it sits within the genre of war films. This film should’ve easily been nominated by the Academy for Best Foreign Film (not sure if this was China’s official Oscar submission but given the controversy, my guess is probably not) and I would’ve even nominated it for Best Picture and Best Director.