MovieChat Forums > Ningen no jôken (1959) Discussion > Extremely disappointing movie...

Extremely disappointing movie...


Saw this a few months ago and can't believe all the great reviews it has been getting. It was okay, but I was extremely dissapointed. The film never feels real, as it seems to be way too simple and the characters usually aren't believable. And worst of all, in the film Kobayashi never makes it seem like life is terrible for the prisoners. He clearly didn't meant to do that, but that's how it seemed to me. Maybe if he made it later in his life with the maturity of something like Hara-Kiri it would have been better.

2.5/4

Does anyone else agree?

All is grace

reply

[deleted]

No I disagree entirely with your post. The Human Condition is a film that is able to show the brutality human beings are capable of, and yet also show the great nobility we are capable of.

It brings out the truth that war brings out both the best and worst in people, and that our choices can make a difference if only for a singular person.

I love Seppuku, its a masterpiece, but nothing has come close to The Human Condition from Kobayashi. Its easily his best work.

Last film seen: The Human Condition 1 10/10

reply

[deleted]

Hm, that's a spoiler for part 3...

reply

[deleted]

kill kate545. slaughter her family too. i came in here for part I and stumble onto this...

reply

[deleted]

I can't believe you spoiled part three in this message. I reported this, hopefully it'll do some good.


This post brought to you by The Yoyodyne Corporation

reply

I agree with everything kafkaesque-panda said.

And the way He(the protagonist) clashed at every opportunity, surrounding himself with enemies was unbelievable. Possibly the director wanted to show the japanese people what they should've done, or give a chance to self reflect.

Still it felt so exaggerated.
He risked so much, but all he managed was leaving his wife alone in a desolate place. I couldn't feel any compassion for this guy.

Edited

reply

I look forward to another comment from you when you've learned to watch movies for what they are, not what you want them to be.

reply

Am I offending anybody?

Reading my comment now it sounds arrogant. But if you liked the movie please don't be offended. I meant 'this could've worked better' not 'this should be this'(Although I used 'should' a few times).

I'll edit my comment, and if you feel like it give us your opinion on the movie. I don't have anything to add, I didn't like it. But part 2 was ok.

reply

Yosh, I agree about appreciating movies for what they are and not what we want them to be. However, I find some irony in that your statement could also be applied to Kaji's approach to life in general!

reply


^ It definitely could be applied to Kaji's approach but that isn't a bad thing. And it certainly isn't a bad reflection on the movie.

One of the things I like best about this is how Kaji IS wrong about just as much as he is right about. He suffers the consequences for both. The film pulls no punches. You aren't given a hero. You are given a man. This is one reason it is one of the most realistic humanist films ever made.

I'm surprised someone would not see this movie as being realistic, but everything is perspective so I am sure everyone will bring a slightly different viewpoint to a film.

In my opinion there has very rarely been a film that is even remotely close to as realistic as this. You don't want glamour, lines with style and fulfilled bravado in a film like this, otherwise it is the purest form of hypocrisy.
Hollywood isn't the human condition. Spotless and invincible isn't the human condition. Happy endings aren't the human condition.
Cruelty, bad choices, deserved and undeserved misery and fleeting moments of joy is the human condition.

.

reply

Well said.

reply

Spot on blue yoshi, spot on.

reply

[deleted]

****SPOILERS****
I wouldn't say I was "extremely" disappointed, but I did find that the third film did not deliver on the promise of the first two. I thought the first two films, with their dynamics of negotiations and interpersonal relationships, were really outstanding. Maybe a little long, maybe a little overwrought, but real.

The third film turned into a suffering fetish, especially "Part 6." Lots of long shots of people walking ... and walking ... and trudging through rough terrains. And walking ... like zombies. WE GET IT. They could have still shown this suffering with creative editing, rather than using up valuable feet of film.

I understand what they were trying to do, and I don't need a "happy ending." But I wanted an ending that befitted the story, not one that felt tacked on and unfulfilling.

If that's criticizing it for what it's not rather than what it is, then so be it. I was hoping for a more interesting ending. It felt like a cop-out, especially after the time invested.

reply

I thought the ending was very satisfying indeed. Only in death is he liberated from the shackles that society puts on people, from the inordinate compromises national duty puts on those who hold themselves accountable to their conscience. You say you wanted an ending that befitted the story, but you don't suggest what you believe would have been more fulfilling. It felt like a cop-out for you, but I thought it harmonised well with the preceding tone of the piece, apt considering the inexorable, nihilistic texture of the narrative. In fact, I think just about anything else would have been incongruous.

Apropos the comment made by imsatisfied, what was so unbelieveable about Kaji's moral objections, what was so seemingly impossible about his abortive attempts
to vindicate himself before his conscience? Clarify. History is full of people like Kaji who try to subvert authority, and like Kaji they fail. His plight is a universal one, and your observation seems a trifle obtuse, and random in the extreme. Maybe next time you should delineate just what your criticism is predicated on, because it leaves the reader far too much meaning to infer for himself/herself. The same goes for you Kafkaesque panda. What's unbelievable about the characters? It's very difficult for people to discern your meaning when you do nothing to elaborate on the logic informing that assertion.

Concerning the comment made by Bill about it feeling exaggerated, once again I feel I can only assume that you don't really know what you're talking about, as you have done nothing to substantiate your claim. Maybe you felt that the film was immoderate in regards to the bleak tone of it all, but it behooves you to remember that there was probably intent in the prevailing misery of the narrative, the almost unpunctuated desolation of the imagery, and also that Kobayashi had been in the imperial army at the time of the conflict depicted in this film, so he probably experienced the kind of barbarism and utter degradation that war engenders, therefore he wanted to make his film as uncompromising as possible to allow it's audience no escape from it's message, which might also justify the film's length, which I found only served to augment my apprehension of it. By allowing scenes to repeat as they do, he demands more attention from the viewer, and by extension of that it gives the viewer time to crystalise their emotional and intellectual understanding of what we are being confronted with, not, obviously, that the film has a slow tempo, I'm just referring to the repetitive patterns you alluded to.

As that other great humanist Jean Renoir once said, to say that a film is exaggerated is usually the commonplace response of people who find the verity of the message unpalatable, therefore they negate it. I have no reason to question the veracity of Kobayashi's vision, seeing as he has experience of these things on his side.

As for the scenes of people endlessly trudging about the place, I mean, come on, use your imagination. Maybe the next time you view it you should try to overcome your irritation and intellectualise what you see. As for the repetitivity of the images, in the third film, obviously, once again I would say it is imperative that you remember that Kobayashi was probably endeavouring to preclude any feeling of relief on the audiences behalf, to constantly shove it in our ignorant faces, to multiply the effect. I think that's what makes this one of the most imperishable statements I've seen in the cinema, the fact that Kobayashi makes no concessions to audience expectations, which is what exalts this film to the level of a work of art, to my mind anyway. It may be pure, unadulterated nihilism, apart from some of the more saccharine moments in the first part that makes it inferior to the other two, in my opinion, but it would be insincere to show it any other way.

Finally, I thought that the third film was the pinnacle of the trilogy, where Kobayashi's themes and techniques crystalised, and the abundance of low-angle shots of the crepuscular sky as the characters move endlessly over the unaccommodating plains, created some of the most portentous, apocalyptic visions I can ever recall seeing committed to celluloid, something that no amount of CGI could ever capture. Just a side note.




reply

*facepalm*

reply

I thought the ending was heartrendingly realistic.

reply

I agree with one aspect of your criticism. The Manchurian labor camps were places of unspeakable atrocities on a vast scale, yet this film (Part One) comically sanitizes the situation, so that it becomes a question of trust between prisoners and guards! And the portrait of the comfort women was ridiculous-- far, far too sanitized.

That said, the film as a whole is extremely courageous in its criticism of fascist Japan. This is especially true in 1959, but it remains true to the present day. Unlike the Germans, Japanese culture never really came to terms with what it unleashed upon the world, and often the Japanese even depict themselves as victims in the war. For all these reasons, The Human Condition must be considered an extremely brave film.

reply

I completely disagree with your post but I appreciate your negatives on the film.

reply