What Happened in Nanking

Nanking Film Review

I am always somewhat on my guard whenever I see a film about an historical event, just because I know how big a part propaganda and especially war propaganda or atrocity propaganda has played in our own nation’s history in modern times (Wilcox, 1940). For that reason, I go into a film like Nanking always wondering about what the other side would have to say about this story. I think there is always another side that needs to be told, that should be heard at the very least. Otherwise, our sense of history is colored by a single perspective. What I found most challenging about Nanking, therefore, was the fact that it offers only a single perspective on this historical event. Yet, there may be others worth considering, as History.com points out: “Anger over the events at Nanjing continues to color Sino-Japanese relations to this day. The true nature of the massacre has been disputed and exploited for propaganda purposes by historical revisionists, apologists and Japanese nationalists. Some claim the numbers of deaths have been inflated, while others have denied that any massacre occurred” (History, 2023). Noting this is just my way of pointing out my own discomfort with approaching historical films that want to produce a certain effect in the audience by emphasizing a single perspective. Having read the book Hiroshima by John Hersey and having seen the documentary Hellstorm, I can only say that there are indeed many stories to tell about war. The film Nanking is one to add to the list. There are things I liked about but also things I did not like. The main challenge for me was simply watching it to the end.

What I did like about the film was the use of archival footage. I like anything authentic that takes me back to a time and place that truly existed. Seeing the archival footage was the best part of the film. That gives me an idea of the place, the people, what they looked like, who they might have been, what that culture would have been like. I would have preferred more archival footage, in fact. I did not care much for the re-telling of atrocity stories by survivors, now in their old age. This is the sort of thing that puts me on guard. It is very easy to let emotions get control when you hear such stories. I am not discounting them in any way; I just wonder what the motive of the filmmakers is in having them told in this manner. What reaction do they want from me? My response is that atrocities happen in war, during invasions, whenever there is conflict. It happens in every place, in every age, throughout all human history. I do not need to hear detailed stories of this type of thing to know that it happens. It does not sway me one way or another to hear of it, either. I know that human beings are capable of committing very evil acts at times—acts that they might not ordinarily commit under other circumstances. It is all very regrettable. But I wonder at the point of this part of the film. Is it meant to make me angry? To make me sad? To feel hatred towards the Japanese? I am more inclined to try to understand what is happening and why. I want to see the bigger picture. I want to know more about the conflict in the first place—how this war began and what the combatants were thinking, what their leaders were thinking, why it was all taking place. And I want that not from just one side but from multiple sides.

That is my big problem with the film. I feel like it is overall a one-sided affair. I appreciate all the stories told in it, but I want to hear the other side. There are Japanese nationalists, for instance, who say that the entire story of the Rape of Nanking is told for political purposes. I would like to hear more about that. Why do they say that? What is their argument? I know it is difficult for a two-hour film to answer so many questions or tackle so many perspectives, but in my opinion this is one of the limitations of film for conveying information on complex or complicated or controversial topics. The medium does not lend itself to rigorous examination of a story or event.

In one way, I can say that the film has enhanced my understanding of the subject. For example, I knew nothing of the stories of John Rabe and Robert Wilson. I knew nothing of the stories of the civilians involved or of the soldiers. This film helped to give me a sense of what their experiences were like. I found that to be illuminating—but also somewhat limited in terms of gaining deep insight. In my view, my understanding of the subject would be even more enhanced by getting information from multiple sources on this matter—ones that even clash. I do not like to rush in making conclusions about anything without being able to do my own research on the matter.