Nanking Documentary Film Review: A Critical Analysis

Introduction and Initial Reservations

I am always somewhat on guard whenever I see a film about a historical event, because I know how large a part propaganda — and especially war propaganda and atrocity propaganda — has played in our own nation's history in modern times (Wilcox, 1940). For that reason, I approach a film like Nanking always wondering what the other side would have to say about the story. There is always another side that needs to be told, or at least heard. 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 simply my way of expressing my own discomfort with historical films that seek to produce a certain effect in the audience by emphasizing a single perspective. Having read John Hersey's Hiroshima and having seen the documentary Hellstorm, I can say that there are indeed many stories to tell about war. Nanking is one to add to the list. There are things I liked about it, but also things I did not like. The main challenge for me was simply watching it to the end.

Strengths: Archival Footage and Authentic Detail

What I did like about the film was its use of archival footage. I appreciate 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. It gives me a sense of the place, the people, what they looked like, who they might have been, and what that culture would have been like. I would have preferred even more archival footage, in fact.

I did not care much for the retelling 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 take over when you hear such stories. I am not discounting them in any way; I simply wonder what the filmmakers' motive is in presenting them in this manner. What reaction do they want from me? My view is that atrocities happen in war, during invasions, and whenever there is conflict — in every place, in every age, throughout all of human history. I do not need to hear detailed accounts of this kind to know that it happens, nor does it sway me one way or another. I know that human beings are capable of committing very evil acts — acts they might not ordinarily commit under other circumstances. It is all very regrettable. But I wonder at the purpose of this part of the film. Is it meant to make me angry? To make me sad? To feel hatred toward the Japanese? I am more inclined to try to understand what is happening and why. I want to see the bigger picture — how this war began, what the combatants were thinking, what their leaders were thinking, and why it was all taking place. And I want that not from just one side, but from multiple sides.