First, the movie draws parallels between the make-up of both governments near the end of the war, beginning with U.S. President Truman and Japanese Prime Minister Suzuki. The two men took office within 5 days of each other, and had their first cabinet meetings at nearly the same time. Both meetings are in the film. You can see each man adjusting to the reins of power as he meets with the military leaders of his country. At his meeting, Suzuki chooses in a calculated way to present himself as a fierce warrior ready to die in battle, while Truman makes no such speech, yet you get the sense that the President, too, perhaps because of his lack of experience, is aware that he needs to communicate himself as a strong leader in order to earn the respect of the officers and civilians in his cabinet. Truman had the military men under his unquestioned command, though, which cannot be said for Suzuki; and Truman was the highest authority in the U.S., while in Japan that title lay, technically at least, with Emperor Hirohito. Yet very quietly, the movie draws Suzuki and Truman together as two men in a common situation, determined in their own ways to see an end to the war. The parallel is not trumpeted in an obvious manner; I did not see it myself until revisiting the movie after several years; but this is a subtle and complex film with many such finely drawn portraits.
Beyond Truman and Suzuki, we get a good sense of the general disagreements within both governments, usually but not always between the military and civilian men. In Japan, of course, the tension between the two groups became an outright struggle, unlike the more nuanced situation in the U.S., where a civilian, Secretary of State Byrnes, comes off as a hard-liner, and where scientists contribute to the civilian roles (prominently, but not completely, in opposition to the hard-liners). At one point Colonel Groves, the head of the Manhattan Project, confronts Secretary of War Stimson with the same kind of martial anger that the military leaders of Japan display so memorably throughout the film. The latter speeches feel authentic, to this particular American, who knows nothing personally of Japan; the dialogue and general portrayal of Colonel Groves can feel ham-fisted and over the top. I can't say whether the portrayals of Byrnes and Groves are historically accurate, but whatever the case, the abundance of tension makes for very interesting drama to say the least; and the drama draws out one of the most tragic facts of the Hiroshima story: the presence in both these countries, near the end of World War II, of war-weariness.
Secretary Stimson's general disposition "not to outdo Herr Hitler in committing atrocities against noncombatants", his willingness to protect the heart of Japanese culture from atomic destruction, and his old age and frailty all mirror Suzuki's old age and the softer line of all the Japanese civilian leaders toward the war.
None of these similarities are allowed to obscure the contrasts between the two countries, in both politics and culture, which are laid out in wonderful complexity -- and, as far as this amateur historian can tell, with authenticity. The movie is not against the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but, perhaps because its Canadian origins help provide some neutrality, it does not wrap Americans in protective clothing, either: they come off as human beings with both warts and strengths.
The second way in which the movie draws a common humanity is by including snippets of interviews with real-life soldiers and civilians from both sides. Dramatically these interruptions feel awkward, and they introduce the feeling of a documentary into what is essentially a docudrama. I think the movie pulls it off well enough, but there is no good way to include these interviews. If you're patient, they add to your appreciation of the story; but keep in mind that the movie is essentially not about ordinary people but rather their leaders.
Bravo to the producers for using actors and film-makers from both sides. I have always loved the Japanese sections of the film, and perhaps it means something that years after first watching it, the chief thing I remembered about it was the power of the Japanese language and the sympathetic humanity of the Japanese roles -- perhaps especially the warriors. The portrayal of Army Minister Anami is especially unforgettable.
Due to the demonic power of the supreme weapon, every human who involved in the project, from scientists to Generals and the president of the United States, were tested of their human conscience. And who sold the soul to the demon?
As this semi-documentary film has beautifully and correctly depicted, when the final decision of the atomic bombings was made, Japan had already known that she was going to be defeated at a severe cost of Japanese lives, and that was a matter of time.One question that must be asked was: How can Japan end the war with the national polity and the sovereignty of Japan, e.g. the Emperor, intact? In other words; gIf only the status of the Emperor is intact and unsullied, Japan can be reconstructed from any kind of adversity.h That was the whole nationfs hope.
So, it could have been possible for Japan to capitulate to the Allied much earlier under a single condition of assurance of the Emperorfs status, and, therefore, the atomic bombings could have been avoided; if only President Truman had not stuck that much to the word, gunconditional surrenderh; if only the Soviet Union and Stalin had not had been so ambitious to take control over the Far East and had accepted Japanfs request for the mediation; if only the State Secretary James Byrnes had not been so jingoistic and of anti-Japanese sentiment; if only Truman had listened to the poor professor Hoffmanfs explanation about the probable attitude of the Japanese when they used the word gmoku-satsuh(basically means gto ignoreh, but in this particular case, meant gI want to agree with you, but I cannot do so explicitly because of current situation.h) to respond to the Potsdam Declaration, etc. cc.
But, the bombs were dropped, and Japanfs defeat was confirmed. The Japanese were, however, still in high morale. As an American journalist reported, the Japanese were still believing; gJapan lost the war in material way but Japan Spirit never be conquered!h
I do not know if it is authentically the words of the Emperor himself, but it seems genuine for the Emperor to say that; gOne can build a palace in a few months. A great tree requires hundreds of years. But even a great tree doesnft last forever.hAnd so do those words: gIt is appropriate that we [the Emperor and the subject] share the [sufferings], [so that the Japanese nationals] will realize we are one family after all.h gHis subjects believed that within Him (sic) lived the soul of all that was Japanese cc the soul of Japan itself.hI was born 20 years after the war ended and educated by the history textbooks which the left-wing scholars wrote in the way the American occupation forces satisfied so that the Japanese think the Japanese Imperial Army was evil, therefore, they have to accept the atomic bombings and other indiscriminate incendiary bombings as the punishment for the militaristsf war crimes. Still, I strongly believe that our Emperor is the symbol for the ideal of Japanfs decency, the soul of Japan itself.
I do admire this film, gHiroshimah, that showed us broad view on political activities over the decision-making of the atomic bombings and Japanfs surrender. But it is not entirely satisfactory because it mentioned very little about the voices of the victims.
One survivor told his American friend about people who gdied in silence, with no grudge, setting their teeth to bear [the tremendous sufferings and agony]. All for the country!hgYes, people of Hiroshima died manly in the atomic bombing, believing that it was for the Emperorfs sake.h(from John Hersey's book, "Hiroshima")
There is one hiccup: the superimposed narration said g[The Japanese Imperial Army in China] left behind 8 million dead civilians.h I do not think they have good hard documented evidences which support this awful allegation other than Chinese Communist propaganda sources. Even the notoriously unfair Tokyo Trial did not go that wild and far-fetched. Apart from that, this is a good film in a decent documentary style with superb performances of the actors that I highly recommend to everyone.
