I see it's very clear-cut in the film John Rabe on the issue of historical justice in the depiction of Japanese armies, and interestingly, such a clean portrait is nuanced by a small feature on a Japanese commander, who showed humanitarian sympathy and did something against his superior's will.
My impression is such a treatment is quite proportionate as this character's inner struggle doesn't not impede against the historical judgement on what Japanese did in Nanjing, but Lu Chuan's Nanjing on the other hand does not leave me such a clear impression. I've been thinking about the ambiguity in Lu Chuan's Nanjing and why it comes into being. So many debates on the issue of its historical sense and the doubt on the director's standing point is actually originated from its ambiguous treatment of the Japanese part.
Complex enough, but a bit disproportionate if one sees it from the perspective of the film John Rabe. Simply saying it's because of Lu Chuan's all-embracing perspective might not be convincing enough, as in John Rabe, I can see such an angle from the portrait of that conscientious military commander as well. It's actually a problem of historical sense in general, and how to make it proportionate in the filmic representation.
While admitting the positive side of Lu Chuan's film from the reception side, I doubt Lu Chuan might face the similar dilemma as other Chinese have on the proper sense of historical justice, which is not only related to the Nanjing Massacre, but also to other historical issues like the cultural revolution and the June 4th movement. Many people have become cynical to the official master narratives about those events, and to a large degree Lu Chuan's vision is a direct counterpoint to such a master narrative, but the film doesn't give one a clear answer.
Again, I think it's positive from the recepiton side. But the problem of its historical justice might be more obvious in comparison with John Rabe, in which some humorous but nevertheless direct approaches are very clear-cut, from which one can sense the German director stands firmly on the historical justice, i.e. the jokes about Hitler's picture, American doctor's witty comment on Nazi. The scene that the huge flag of Nazi shielded some Chinese from air bombing does NOT confuse spectators on director's stand point, because everyone would understand immediately that saving lives under such a condition is the end, and the flag itself is just a means to do that.
Although artistically speaking, Lu Chuan's film is plausible for its bold narrative strategy, the audiences' highly diversified responses have signified that there is a lack of general concensus on the historical justice in the public sphere. I may even say that those who have been angered by his film feel that their sense of historical justice are repressed by Lu Chuan's disproportionate treatment on a Japanese soldier, which I don't think a French director would have done so in dealing with the period of German occupation of France.
Lu Chuan is adventurous on a highly sensitive historical issue, and his intention to correctify the general image about Japanese that has been reported in his interviews are quite problematic. It might be justified to say that he's also taking the hostage of history to serve such a not universal purpose.
One question fascinates me also is that why on the issue of historical justice, that the film John Rabe can be clear-cut without losing human touch on a Japanese character, but Lu Chuan's treatment becomes sticky and opaque. Is this related to the different historical education in Germany and China, thus the historical sense is cultivated differently?
No comments:
Post a Comment