City of Life and Death - A sanitised telling of the Nanking Massacre

City of Life and Death aka Nanking! Nanking!

I must be getting jaded.

City of Life and Death is not an easy film to watch. Not because of the tragedy involved but rather and strangely enough, precisely due to the lack of it.

Let me explain. The death, devastation, looting and rape are all there; but somehow the portrayal of these crimes seem sanitised - as though the producers were withholding the whole truth behind the Nanking Massacre.

Considering that the film was quite beautifully shot in stark black and white, City of Life and Death should have had all the right ingredients and elements to rival the likes Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.

Instead, the film somehow falls well short of greatness.

Mind you, I'm not saying that it is a bad film. It is good, and for a regular audience, possibly superb even. But it can be so much better. City of Life and Death just seemed to be missing a certain something.

Hideo Nakaizumi plays the sympathetic Japanese soldier.

Gao Yuanyuan gives a stirring performance as an administrator giving her all to protect civilians in the Nanking Safety Zone.

A limited but nonetheless memorable appearance by Liu Ye.

Jiang Yiyan as the prostitute who volunteers to be a comfort woman for the Japanese.

Fan Wei plays John Rabe's secretary; Qin Lan plays his wife; and John Paisley in a strangely small role as John Rabe - the Schindler of Nanking.

So what I did was to obtain a copy of Nanking, a documentary on the tragedy - notably made by non-Chinese.

What I saw blew me away. Not because of a higher production value - it was nowhere near that of City's - but because it pulled no punches. It revealed pictures that showed the full atrocity committed by the Japanese.

And just one single eye-witness account from the documentary beats the entire film - hands down.

Comfort women being carted away after 'use' in the film - it is not shown how they died after supposedly just three days.

The real faces of the Nanking Massacre - not what you get to see in City of Life and Death.

For the uninitiated (and those from outer space), City of Life and Death tells a story of the period of several weeks immediately after the Japanese occupation of Nanjing in 1937, the then capital of the Republic of China. The events of that period had since come to be known infamously as the Nanjing (or Nanking) Massacre.

One of the major criticisms of the film directed by Lu Chuan is the over sympathetic portrayal of the Japanese soldiers in the film.

While I had no problem with the character Kadokawa (Hideo Nakaizumi), a Japanese soldier who sympathises with the plight of the Chinese (ironically, Hideo pretty much plays the main lead, though the Chinese are loathe to admit it), I do take issue with how the rest of the Japanese are portrayed more like spoilt kids fighting over cookies (which in this case refers to the women of Nanjing).

The Japanese in this film might be cruel or sadistic (as children can be), but one word that cannot be used to describe them is 'vicious'. I can barely remember any moments in the film where a Japanese soldier was actually vicious. The producers have somehow contrived to take the 'viciousness' out of the film.

The problem I suspect is that the film has the 'Made in China' label attached to it.

The Chinese film industry is still at a fledgeling stage (not counting Hong Kong and Taiwan). The rating system in China, or lack thereof, means that censorship is a major issue to contend with. A film like Schindler's List (gas chamber scene) would never have passed the Chinese censors.

Perhaps it would be better to allow someone outside China to make the film instead.

Now that would have been a spectacle.



Moometer Reading:
Moo-oo...

ANALYSIS: Red Cliff 1 & 2 - Epic commercial blockbuster or unqualified historical disaster?

Red Cliff: An epic of commercial proportions?

The following is an analysis of both Red Cliff instalments as released in Asia.

I would not normally like to touch on movies that I do not like, but there are some that are so awful that it rankles, and I feel the need to make a statement even if everyone else seems to think differently.

As a film critic and producer/director/writer wannabe, there are certain rules that one has to generally accept when reviewing a film.

The first is that movies are inherently flawed. Even with all the attention to detail and continuity, the film is bound to miss a beat somewhere. Then there is the artistic license to change the storyline and plot details to improve viewing pleasure and dramatic impact.

There is no point in scrutinising every little thing just to see if the movie makes sense. If that's what you want, you can visit online forums on the movie or just watch Mythbuster.

The other thing is that film adaptations are generally not as good as the original yarn. As such, it is common for fans and readers of a novel, manga or otherwise to find fault with their respective film adaptations.

The historical epic Red Cliff, directed by John Woo no less, is essentially such an adaptation of the Three Kingdoms' Battle of Red Cliffs.

I'm not going to mince my words. I grew up on Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and I don't like John Woo's version, but that's not the reason I'm breaking the silence.

My beef is with the incredibly flippant motivations and excuses, given by the producers of the two films, for various events written into the storyline.

First they announced that the films would adhere more closely to true historical events - a poorly disguised attempt to give Tony Leung star billing, as if he really needed that (see how well he did in Lust, Caution).

Next they threw in Romance legends of Kong Ming 'borrowing arrows' - a bona fide Mythbuster 'candidate' - effectively making that announcement moot.

Nevermind that.

They needed a stronger female presence, so they threw the beautiful Xiao Qiao (Lin Chiling) right smack into the final confrontation between Cao Cao and the allied forces.

Do we really need to insult the history of Three Kingdoms like that? I can think up a possible dozen extra appearances for Lin Chiling without her having to take centrestage and ruining one of history's great literatures, or records for that matter.

Much ado about Tony: Suddenly the role of Chou Yu takes on a higher plane of importance; though to be fair, Tony Leung plays the part excellently.

They say she can't act: In honesty, she's beautiful enough that she doesn't really need to; but then they made her act the heroine....

Worthy adversary or loyal ally? The chemistry between Takeshi Kaneshiro's Kong Ming and Chou Yu seems a little suspect and sometimes a little contrived.

Fallen at the hands of a woman: Zhang Fengyi plays a lecherous Cao Cao who allows a woman to ruin his plans.

Romance of the Three Kingdoms is originally a tale about brotherhood. In that respect, getting John Woo of Bullet in the Head fame to helm Red Cliff seems an inspirational and foolproof choice.

Which is why I find inexplicable that the roles for Liu Bei, Zhang Fei and Guan Yu are so muted, while the best lines seem to fall to Tony Leung's Chou Yu and Takeshi Kaneshiro's Kong Ming.

And it is a two-part epic mind you. No excuses for underdeveloped key characters and storylines.

Chou Yu even gets to be the one to graciously let Cao Cao go scot free. Guan Yu and Kong Ming must be turning in their graves - since it is the former who does so in Romance, while the latter wanted to execute the man who allowed Cao Cao to fight another day.

And finally, though this has more to do with production issues, I would have thought the Chinese had learnt from the failures of Chen Kaige's The Promise and Tsui Hark's The Legend of Zu. Bad CGI just don't cut it in modern blockbusters.

On an added note, wire-fu - especially bad wire-fu - need to be kept off non-wuxia films.

Red Cliff was made with the sole intention to sell popcorn, not to honour the history and tradition of The Three Kingdoms - and a lot of popcorn it did sell.

However, the discerning audience needs to recognise that The Three Kingdoms (Chronicles or Romance) is in itself an epic tale, and the film makers borrowed on that to create a predictably epic and successful two-part movie.

I feel deeply disappointed that an epic story on brotherhood bonds could be so badly reinterpreted by a director like John Woo, who once made his name precisely on films that featured such themes of brotherhood.

MooMeter Reading:
Moo-o..