I liked this movie...however, I was confused by it's politics. In fact I'm not really certain what Sukorov's intent is in the Dictator tetralogy in general.
It almost seemed like Sukorov was trying to justify the American dropping of the atom bomb in the scene where MacArthur responds to Hirohito that it was in response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Hirohito starts to make excuses that it wasn't his idea... Weird.
Any insight would be appreciated.
> It almost seemed like Sukorov was trying to justify the American dropping of the atom bomb in the scene where MacArthur responds to Hirohito that it was in response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
That is what the Americans keep saying about the A-bombs. Whether it is justifiable or not is for you to decide.
> Hirohito starts to make excuses that it wasn't his idea... Weird.
That is the excuse that Hirohito himself never made public, but nevertheless is the excuse that the majority of the Japanese public seems to be taking for granted in more or less subconscious manner.
The point is that if you want to accuse, for instance, he dropping of the A-Bomb by the Americans, cinema is not necessary the most direct way to do that. The same goes for Hitler, or the tragic last days Lenin had to endure. The primary function of cinema is to show things for the audience to think about, and most of all showing human beings. It is for the audience, by seeing these human behaviors, to understand and to think.
> In fact I'm not really certain what Sukorov's intent is in the Dictator tetralogy in general.
It is not a "dictator" trilogy, but a trilogy on history. I am not quite sure about The Sun, that after all what this film shows is more of a human representation of the mythical enigmatic figure of Hirohito and not necessary Hirohito himself at the point of 1945 (for instance, most of the peculiar mannerisms of his as depicted in the film are not from 1945, but more from the 1970's-1980's when he was very old), but with Hitler and Lenin the intention is to show them just as human beings including their failures, limitations, weakness, and not as mythical "dictators," demons, heroes, or whatever. So with Hitler Moloch extensively focuses on Hitler's extreme banality as a human being, with his paranoia, hypochondriac et all (rather enhanced with ol'Addy for sure, but they themselves are quite banal psychological shortcomings), while with Lenin it's the old age and the after-effects of cerebral infarctions, the decompositions of his abilities and characteristics caused as these symptoms, and the ultimate existential loneliness of a man who missed the chance to die. With Hirohito, it's maybe about the loneliness and solitude of a man who is destined to bare the extreme responsibility of a man considered to be a "God," when it is beyond his capacity, while nevertheless continue to do the efforts to behave as such.
And through these historical characters shown as humans, the films explore the historical/cultural, or arguably spiritual contexts within which they had to be born and function as mythical figures. In that sense, Telets, the film about Lenin, is the most profound and successful, a film which is extremely sincere about the eternal melancholy of Russia. Probably, many of the things Lenin says in his semi-delusions are actually what Sokurov himself feels about being Russian.
Hmmm...Thanks for the food for thought. I agree with you that I'm probably being overly concerned with the political concerns in the film rather than the "humanizing" of these infamous historical personas. Like you said, this is probably more of Sokurov's intent. Perhaps he considered that with people we have such strong preconcieved notions about, he could better illustrate human and perhaps cultural traits that we would otherwise not pay attention to.
Nevertheless, the Sun had a very clear narrative regarding Japan's surrender, and the American involvement. Somehow it seemed to me more than just a vehicle for Sokurov's meditation on Hirohito's loneliness. What exactly, I don't know.
It also seemed like a cheap ploy to me to cast Hitler as a raving lunatic in Moloch. It didn't feel too far from the cartoonish depictions of him from Allied propaganda reels of the time, and ever since. I feel like it was a missed opportunity to either highlight his true banality or humanize him. As it stands, it felt really forced.
I've not seen the Lenin film, but I'd like to.
Having said all that, I still think Sukorov is a fascinating artist, and this series of films certainly raises more questions than it answers, making it more interesting to discuss than most films. I do miss however the heartfelt simplicity of something like Mother and Son, which although sentimental, feels more honest to me.
> Hmmm...Thanks for the food for thought.
Please thank Alexander Sokurov for that, as the three films, the trilogy of history, provide a lot of food for thought.
> I agree with you that I'm probably being overly concerned with the political concerns in the film rather than the "humanizing" of these infamous historical personas.
First of all Lenin is "infamous" only under American propaganda, he certainly is one of the most influential figures of greatness in the 20th century and acknowledged as such, considered as a revolutionary leader, an idealist of great intellect, but never mind. Hirohito too is not at all infamous, but a highly-regarded and respected emperor to the majority of the Japanese public until his death. His own thoughts and feelings that are now finally becoming public gradually has many influences (and positive, anti-right-wingish, I must say) in the public opinion of Japan, and on its conscience.
It's not at all as simplistic as you may have thought. At least for the general understanding of the majority of the Japanese public after world war 2 is that the late emperor Showa was a man of peace, and recently there are more and more evidences of that revealed.
And the intention of Sokurov is not at all the simplistic "humanizing," but to see the situation in a human perspective, albeit, if I am allowed to explain that in a very simplistic manner, it's like "how would you have done if you were in their places?" instead of making easy (and "politically correct") judgement.
> Nevertheless, the Sun had a very clear narrative regarding Japan's surrender, and the American involvement.
Hirohito was certainly a key figure, the one who could make (and did make, though too late in my opinion) the Japanese decision of ending the war and surrender. That simply is a historical fact, and politics may be involved only in the interpretation of it. The American propaganda is totally wrong about that, simply quite incorrect. Whether you know or not, it also is a historical fact that it was the U.S. government, following the opinion of Douglas MacArthur the commander in chief of the occupation army, that insisted on leaving Hirohito as the Emperor of Japan and not prosecuting him in the The International Military Tribunal for the Far East.
The meeting with Hirohito and MacArthur did take place, as you see in the film. If you read some "politics" there, it is just because you didn't know the historical fact. Though The Sun compresses the time line, as their meeting was only a couple of months after the end of the war when in the film it looks like it's in the evening of the day that he makes the decision of the Japanese surrender, that meeting itself was factual.
As for the decision-making of the Japanese surrender, some argue that as always, he simply behaved as he always had; a puppet who signs things that was decided by his ministers. Some see that his own personal politics and thoughts had more influence, or were even crucial, in that decision making, not like previously, like in the decision-making of starting the war against the US and UK. In either cases, the question of Hirohito's responsibility about the war remains extremely complex and enigmatic, while the formal responsibility is quite clear (though Japanese conservatives still don't admit that); the war started under his name, and ended under his name as the ultimate ruler of Japan. But that is only the formal/legal interpretation, and as always the actual history is far more complex.
First of all, as I said before, Sokurov's trilogy is not a "dictator" trilogy but a trilogy on history (as he calls it), and only one of the three protagonist was a dictator. Lenin was certainly not a dictator, and neither was Hirohito. Without Hirohito making his signature the declaration of war would not be effectuated, but in return his job was to sign it when the cabinet had already made the decision of starting the war against the U.S. and U.K.
To the contrary, for the surrender, though it still is not totally clear, at least we know that the cabinet, hence his ministers, were unable to make a decision, some were for, some were against, some just couldn't express that they made their mind about the issue, so under that situation what Hirohito decided for himself may have mattered (though we ultimately don't know yet what happened, and maybe it is impossible to recognize anyway), as in the function of Japanese monarchy, the monarch is not allowed to have, or at least express, personal feelings or thoughts. What he might have been thinking could be and should be only speculated by his subjects, as the monarch is also the representation of morality and ethics that his subjects are supposed to follow. It was something more than the loyalty of the subjects to a monarch; he was supposed to be a god, hence representation of ethics and morality, of decency. This is in no way the kind of dictatorship that you may have imagined, and The Sun is very accurate, even surprising so when it was made by a Russian filmmaker, about the nature of that monarchy. Earlier in the film, Hirohito says "because I care for everybody, I cannot make the decision of stopping this war," suggesting that he himself wanted but in his function he couldn't since a) constitutionally, the role of the emperor is to aprove what is "advised" (indeed decided) by the cabinet, b) because traditionally, the Emperor must not behave according to his own desire, but have to be understanding and caring about his subjects (and normally especially the close and loyal ones, or the elected representatives of the people).
Ironic enough (for me) is that the only moment in which Hirohito really fulfilled that socio/cultural traditional function of his was in the decision making of ending the war, which he previously refused when advised by his own brother, the sole reason for his refusal was that as the Emperor should be void of personal and selfish decision, he can only listen to the advises of his cabinet, hence the elected political leaders of his people, and certainly not an advise from his own family member. I reckon that Sokurov was also aware of this when he was preparing The Sun. The brother, Prince Takamatsu, became furious and wrote in his diary that "My brother is not suitable as an emperor, but just a bureaucrat." That was in 1942, and Prince Takamatsu knew much more about what was actually happening in the battles, that Japanese Navy was almost destroyed in Midway, while Hirohito was only receiving quite a moderate version of the outcome of that battle. Even if Hirohito have guessed that what his brother said was indeed more factual than what the cabinet told him, in his position he couldn't admit that.
The Sun is rather in the tendency of portraying him positively that he himself as a human being was crucial in the decision-making for peace, that he himself decided for peace, or even have even always wanted peace, that he was himself against the war from the beginning, though it still stays enigmatic since Issey Ogata as Hirohito doesn't express his personal feelings, but just quote a song written by his grandfather The Emperor Meiji as a question to his ministers. And actually, whether he really wanted or not is not even an important question if you study the situation.
> It also seemed like a cheap ploy to me to cast Hitler as a raving lunatic in Moloch.
Maybe, as you grow older you'd realize that was not at all a raving lunatic but just a frustrated husband under heavy stress... Though in Hitler's case it was quite exaggerated, but then he being a hypocondriac is also historically true. A lot of the dialogues were also taken from the actual notes of his conversations at dinner table (and he had a secretary recording all his dinner conversations--also historical fact).