480 The Human Condition

[FerdinandGriffon]

...it has been a number of years since I saw this film and I'm not so hot on the details. What does stay with me, however, is a general impression and one that I'm inclined to abide by...

The problem with this being that your general impression is based on specific details that simply do not exist in the film as it is in reality. I'm going to go into these specifics below...

Both directors do this, in part, because they believe it will make the film more accessible to a general audience, in particular a mainstream American audience with an untested Christian sense of morality.

But first, I find it fairly incredible to believe that Kobayashi had "a mainstream American audience with an untested Christian sense of morality" in mind for his violent, grueling and stylized 10+ hour Japanese language epic about the Americans' enemies in WW2.

Spoiler

Secondly, this is an ideological choice, a refusal to accept that human beings are not essentially 'good'.

How does allowing for the existence of a single "good" character, and one who is not necessarily "good" in the end at that, constitute this refusal?

Now the counter-argument, in the case of both films, is that, by placing 'hope' and 'goodness' at the centre of the narrative, the director fails to engage with the essential horror, the lack of hope and goodness, in the subject - the lack of absolute human morality that so clearly defines the events in question.

Kobayashi places hope and goodness at the centre of the narrative, then smashes it to bits. Kaji steals from the poor, is tempted by women other than his wife, kills, deserts, loses hope in the Japanese government, in communism, in humanism. One of his final acts is a revenge killing, brutal, unnecessarily drawn out, vicious. As an audience, we do not sympathize with Kaji when he whips a man with a chain and then drowns him in the bodily fluids of hundreds of incontinent and probably diseased POW's. We do not even sympathize with him when he kills the Russian guard when crossing the road at night. These are horrific, disgusting acts, and they make us wonder whether Kaji might not be better off ending his own life before he causes any more suffering. There is no hope, there is no goodness at the end of the film. There is only a fallen madman freezing to death in a foreign landscape.

But, of course, there is no such thing as 'inhuman' and a 'system' is comprised of individuals.

Exactly. The system, as it is in the film, is not some vast and anonymous Orwellian construction. It is a system supported and constituted by individuals, individuals who are finely drawn and highly visible in the film. Some of them are petty and stupid, others are naive or cowardly, but they are all guilty. None of the Japanese are exonerated, not even Kaji. He is a marked from part I, when he does not act in time to save all of the condemned POW's.

Far more useful then would be a film that helps us to understand - if not condone - the 'inhuman' mindset that led to these atrocities. A film that takes us into the psyche of the average Japanese soldier, or their leaders, or both, the ones who actually committed the war crimes.

Sounds like The Reader to me. Do you really think we can understand why Hitler did what he did? There are some shadows you can't penetrate, that can only be pointed at and abhorred.

He never undergoes any inner turmoil, never suffers temptation, never puts his own needs and his own survival first, even under torture and threat of death. In other words, there is never any arc whatsoever to his character.

I'm worried I'm sounding like a broken record, so just see above.

Imagine that the film begins in the same fashion but then Kagi lose his idealism. He becomes complicit, he commits war crimes himself to further his own survival and, by the end, he can kill without thinking, he is no different than those he initially despised...

You just summarized the film, although the real thing is a little bit less like Star Wars: Episode III than your synopsis. Again Nothing, please at least watch Part I again with an open mind.

[Nothing]

The problem with this being that your general impression is based on specific details that simply do not exist in the film as it is in reality.

The majority of online reviews - even many of the positive ones - express irritation at the Kaji character ("unconvincing", "saint-like", etc). I don't think I'm imagining it.

I find it fairly incredible to believe that Kobayashi had "a mainstream American audience with an untested Christian sense of morality" in mind

But this is a country that had just been under American occupation for six years. So, on the one hand, the Japanese population themselves had been shaped by an American way of thinking and, secondly, Kobayashi would have been very aware of the benefits of pleasing an American audience (and how to do so). Kurosawa, Mizoguchi and others had already broken through, ploughed the way and reaped the benefits.

How does allowing for the existence of a single "good" character, and one who is not necessarily "good" in the end at that, constitute this refusal?

Kaji remains 'good' throughout, that is the whole conceit of the film: "What happens if a morally 'good' person (in a Christian sense) enters into a war? Can he continue to act 'morally' whilst retaining his sanity / life?" The film answers this question with a "No", of course, but Kaji choses to sacrifice his sanity and life, not his morality. And, in this manner, the film seeks to 'condemn' warfare, which is all very right-on, but provides very little actual insight.

Kaji steals from the poor

Can't recall this. Does he steal some food at the point of dying? He certainly doesn't rape or kill the poor or steal unnecessarily.

...is tempted by women other than his wife Kaji

...but doesn't succumb, despite years of separation! Because there can be "no greater love" than what they have!...

...kills... One of his final acts is a revenge killing, brutal, unnecessarily drawn out, vicious.

It is a 'bad person' that he kills (and feels guilty afterwards!). Yes, when under orders / extreme pressure, he also kills a few soldiers from the opposing side, if my memory serves, although he never kills any civilians and, again, he feels guilty afterwards. He never loses his sense of morality, he never decides to kill for the fun of it, or decides that, actually, he should be defending the emperor after all. There is never any threat to his inner sense of conviction - indeed, this would undermine the entire conceit of the film.

deserts, loses hope in the Japanese government

Deserting form the Imperial Japanese Army, there's a moral crime right there.

in communism, in humanism

Loses faith in other people, but not in himself and his own righteousness.

As an audience, we do not sympathize with Kaji when he whips a man with a chain and then drowns him in the bodily fluids of hundreds of incontinent and probably diseased POW's.

You're certainly supposed to. The guy was 'bad', he deserved it (although, of course, Kaji, being the saint that he is, feels guilty afterwards).

individuals who are finely drawn... Some of them are petty and stupid, others are naive or cowardly, but they are all guilty.

Do you not sense the contradiction here?

Do you really think we can understand why Hitler did what he did? There are some shadows you can't penetrate, that can only be pointed at and abhorred.

Huh? I thought it was pretty obvious why Hitler did what he did.

Would definitely suggest you watch Fires on the Plain, from what you've been saying I imagine it will blow your mind.

[FerdinandGriffon]

The majority of online reviews - even many of the positive ones - express irritation at the Kaji character ("unconvincing", "saint-like", etc). I don't think I'm imagining it.

I gather from the quotes you use that you're getting your online reviews from that unimpeachable font of wisdom, imdb.com. More specifically, a single and very brief 7/10 star review and the only outright negative review, whose complete lack of references to the 2nd and 3rd Parts leads me to believe the author has only seen the 1st . The rest of the reviews are 9 or 10 out of tens, and most have nothing but praise for the development of Kaji's character.

Can't recall this. Does he steal some food at the point of dying?

He steals from farmers' cornfields in exchange for shelter and the company of women for him and his men in Part III.

...but doesn't succumb, despite years of separation! Because there can be "no greater love" than what they have!...

He is about to succumb to the charms of a young nurse when the head nurse walks in and immediately senses what's between the two of them. So sure is she, in fact, that she has them both transfered to different parts of the front. Kaji is not beyond temptation. Also, I would ask you to keep in mind that Kobayashi's film is an adaptation of Gomikawa Shunpei's novel, and that as such Kobayashi may not have felt he had as much control of the narrative as of an entirely original work.

It is a 'bad person' that he kills (and feels guilty afterwards!). Yes, when under orders / extreme pressure, he also kills a few soldiers from the opposing side, if my memory serves, although he never kills any civilians and, again, he feels guilty afterwards.

Where are the indications of guilt after the murder? If memory serves, the entire rest of the film consists of Kaji stumbling in delirium through Manchuria, stealing food, being beaten, raving about his wife, and, eventually, dying. And he does kill civilians, or at least individuals not part of any officially recognized army.

deserts, loses hope in the Japanese government

Deserting form the Imperial Japanese Army, there's a moral crime right there.

Do me a favor please and don't quote me in a deliberately misleading and manipulative way. That aside, deserting, the breaking of a sworn oath, is a moral crime by many common moral standards, in many religions, in the eyes of many philosophers, etc. It is obviously something that that Kaji of parts I-II considers wrong, and something he struggles with throughout the film.

You're certainly supposed to. The guy was 'bad', he deserved it (although, of course, Kaji, being the saint that he is, feels guilty afterwards).

I strongly disagree. The murder is shown in graphic, nauseating detail, and it's execution is unnecessarily cruel and drawn-out. If Kobayashi wanted us to sympathize with Kaji's action, than he would have the protagonist deliver a few well aimed blows to the head, rather than numerous lashings to the body and slow drowning in diarrhea. As to whether the guy deserved to die like that, I don't think anyone does, and I certainly don't think Kobayashi did either.

Do you not sense the contradiction here?

Do you not think a character can be finely drawn and at the same time possess some or all of these qualities? I think I'm often cowardly, but I'd still say I'm pretty well written.

Huh? I thought it was pretty obvious why Hitler did what he did.

Oh really? I personally, am completely unable to comprehend how or why anyone could do what he did, but perhaps you could enlighten me? I warn you though, weigh your words carefully, if you don't want to anger a lot of people on this forum.

[Nothing]

The murder is shown in graphic, nauseating detail, and it's execution is unnecessarily cruel and drawn-out.

Killing a human being usually requires some effort, presumably Kobayashi wants us to know this. A knock on the head and the guy falls down dead is the realm of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Nevertheless, the 'victim' has done many, many things to provoke his demise, including commiting murder himself. Perhaps from a certain extreme pacifist / religious POV then no murder can ever be justified however, in both Japan and the US, the death penalty is very active and very popular and I believe the majority of the audience would conclude that the guy 'deserved it', whatever your personal feelings on the matter.

There is certainly no comparison whatsoever between this scene and the scene in Fires on the Plain that I described before, a far greater sleight of cinema, in which the protagonist actually executes a surrendering civilian and yet somehow retains the audience's sympathy. Honestly, I think you just need to watch Ichikawa's film, it is ultimately the best evidence I can think of in regards to all the ways that Kobayashi has failed.

I warn you though, weigh your words carefully, if you don't want to anger a lot of people on this forum.

Watch out, thought police about! #-o

[FerdinandGriffon]

I wasn't suggesting that you censor yourself, just that you bring your argument about Hitler's motivations to the table with thorough consideration of it's implications and, even more importantly, the facts, something I don't think you did in your criticisms of The Human Condition. As for Fires on the Plain, it's just been bumped to the top of my Netflix queue. Is there any hope of you making a similar gesture and rewatching at least Part I or Part III of Kobayashi's film?

[Nothing]

I don't have any particular theory on Hitler but I just thought this was stuff they taught everyone at school, at least in the western world. I'd certainly studied the subject in depth by the age of 14 or 15. It is perhaps too complex a subject to get into on a film discussion forum, at least given that we're not discussing Downfall or Shoah or anything directly relevant.

[mteller]

I love Fires on the Plain and The Human Condition, I guess I'm fucked.

[Michael Kerpan]

I love Fires on the Plain and The Human Condition, I guess I'm fucked.

no discrimination whatsoever -- especially if you also love Burmese Harp.

;~}

[Nothing]

Now The Burmese Harp is even worse than The Human Condition =P~

[arigato-san]

It's interesting you find so many (Western Christian) morals in the Human Condition trilogy, Nothing. That's fine, and it must be of great concern to you. But I think most people will see the trilogy as an anti-war film (as you might know, there was a big anti-war sentiment in Japan at the time) about a man who went from idealist to realist, and from having everything he wanted at home, to wandering with nothing on a deserted field. For most people the film won't have much to do with morals, or western Christian morals, especially for the Japanese audience. To generalise the Japanese and to say they started having western morals during 6 years of occupation is too easy.(It had influence for sure, but the amount, and the influence on norms, is a far more complex question) The same goes for death penalty. Just because a country uses it doesn't mean that everyone in that country supports it.

[HerrSchreck]

Kobayashi would have been very aware of the benefits of pleasing an American audience (and how to do so).

If he was aware of those benefits he must have forgotten them very quickly: making a ten hour buttcramper isn't exactly the way into the American pocketbook.

[Nothing]

making a ten hour buttcramper isn't exactly the way into the American pocketbook.

The Seven Samurai isn't exactly Bressonian, either.

a man who went from idealist to realist

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. Just because he is disillusioned by the actions of the Soviet troops doesn't mean that Kaji ceases to be an idealist or that he goes through any kind of meaningful character transformation. To become a realist in this situation would mean...

Spoiler

well, ultimately, cannibalism...

...as seen in Fires on the Plain.

[ehimle]

Is it just me or does anyone else find it odd/ironic that nothing accuses The Human Condition for being too Christian while extolling Fires on the Plain a movie based on book, by a Japanese Christian, rife with Christian symbolism, albeit some what neutered by Ichikawa (who didn't want the Christian themes) but still had recognizable symbols in it if viewed under the lens of understanding its source material? (and is an amazing film)

Anyway, Fire on the Plain was based in the Philippines, where cannibalism happened... can anyone confirm if this happened in Manchuria by Japanese soldiers? its quite possible that this never happened with Manchurian stationed japanese soldiers and can hardly be justified as a standard of a character becoming a realist.

I have yet to see Human Condition, but can't wait. I love the other Kobayashi movies I've seen and am excited to see this one.

[mteller]

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. Just because he is disillusioned by the actions of the Soviet troops doesn't mean that Kaji ceases to be an idealist or that he goes through any kind of meaningful character transformation. To become a realist in this situation would mean...

Spoiler

well, ultimately, cannibalism...

...as seen in Fires on the Plain.

What? Now you're being silly. So, the ONLY POSSIBLE ending you would accept for Human Condition is cannibalism? I'm starting to think you've just got a fetish for people eating people.

In which case, you might get some vicarious kicks from The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On

[Nothing]

Whether it actually happened or not, the cannibalism in Fires on the Plain is a symbol for the complete absence of human morality / dignity / compassion as exposed by the war. I have little or not interest in reading the book, especially as, from what you say, Ichiawa must have made some very necessary changes.

In The Human Condition, it wouldn't be necessary for Kaji to become a cannibal, however, to truly shift from idealism to realism, he would have to start going along with the brutality of his comrades, to start murdering civilians, fragging disobedient subordinates, sleeping with comfort women, etc.

Now you're being silly.

No, now you're being silly...

[forweg]

Clearly, Kobayashi wishes to make a case, in terms of western morality, for the existence of the 'good' Japanese. To place the blame for Japanese war crimes both on the 'system' and a 'few bad apples' whilst arguing for the unswerving purity, goodness' and 'humanity' within the average Japanese individual (even the title, 'The Human Condition' is a plea across the cultural divide - "we are all human, we think and suffer just as you.")

As if Westerners cared whatsoever about general "Japanese war crimes". The great sin was Pearl Harbor and only Pearl Harbor, the attitude being "let the non-human Orientals kill each other all they like, but if they dare to hurt good, white Westerners, we'll wipe 'em off the map."

(Thus, your assertion that Kobayashi made the film solely to deny "Japanese war crimes" to Westerners is laughable, when Westerners never cared in the first place.)

[FerdinandGriffon]

Watched Fires on the Plain the other day, found it definitely worthwhile but a little underwhelming. That aside, your (Nothing's) memories of Ichikawa's film are just as warped as those of The Human Condition.

There is a scene in which Tamura encounters a civilian in a deserted village, the civilian tries to surrender and Tamura shoots the civilian dead and takes his food supplies. This is a war crime, an atrocity and, yet, immediately, Ichikawa makes us understand why Tamura has acted in this way and, indeed, challenges us, the audience, to consider whether we would really act any differently in the circumstances.

Private Tamura doesn't shoot a surrendering male civilian, he shoots a woman who is hysterically screaming for help in a town where the bodies of dozens of Japanese soldiers killed by villagers are piled at the steps of a church. He shoots to save himself, not from dying of slow starvation, but from being brutally executed by (rightfully) angry Phillipinos. Neither does he ever knowingly cannibalize. He eats some of what he's been told is "monkey meat", but when he finds out the truth about its origins he kills the man who is responsible. I would argue that Tamura comes out of Ichikawa's film with his hands far cleaner than Kaji does in Kobayashi's.
I would also argue that though Ichikawa's film is certainly a strong indictment of war in general, there is very little about this indictment that seems particular to Japan's role in WW2. The Human Condition, on the other hand, goes in depth into the Japanese Army's cruel and idiotic organization, the treatment of Chinese POW's and civilians, the existence of comfort women, the Japanese cultural mindset and devotion to the emperor, etc., etc.

[Nothing]

So he kills a woman instead of a man. Hardly 'warped', especially given the starved / androgynous nature of the victim. It's really debatable whether there were lots of other villagers that were going to appear and kill him. Tbh, I didn't think you would like it if you like The Human Condition that much. You've obviously missing the maudilin tone. And we've overlooked the most important point perhaps - Kobayashi's Christ-like treatment of Kaji, the way he is framed, the nature of the performance, the use of music to underline his 'suffering' - similar to the way Shepitko presents the resistant partisan in The Ascent (and it ruins Shepitko's film too), but at least The Ascent runs under 2 hours.

[Jun-Dai]

There is no reason for Part I to be spread over 2 discs.

I'd think that a high bitrate would be one good reason to spread it over 2 discs. Of course, whether you can comfortably transfer the film with an average bitrate of 5 Mbits (or whatever a 208-minute film would get you an a DVD9) is going to depend on the image itself, but if it's grainy or otherwise troublesome (I understand grain plays hell with compression), I'd think you'd want to give the person doing the transfer a bit more breathing room.

[CSM126]

Twitter

Stop the presses! Human Condition parts 5 & 6 stereo tracks discovered! Street date moves to 9/8/09

[Saturnome]

Yay! My birthday. Was the third film the only one in stereo, or the only one missing stereo?

[TheGodfather]

Just noticed that the street date was moved wich was a let down. But if it`s for new stereo tracks to be added, then that`s a good thing

[aox]

any chance another reason for the delay is a Blu announcement? I would blind buy this on Blu.

[FerdinandGriffon]

any chance another reason for the delay is a Blu announcement? I would blind buy this on Blu.

You know, at first it hardly registered that Criterion was making a mistake in not releasing this on Blu, I was too shell-shocked by my recent experience of seeing the entire trilogy in the theater to even consider attempting another viewing on Home-video (, he says, with a snarl of histrionic, petulant disgust). But pretty soon, when I felt ready, when I, in fact, desperately wanted to see the film again, it started to drive me a little nuts. I hardly visited this forum without getting sidetracked and sitting there, dumb as a doorknob, and fuming over this misguided decision. Though I agree with the sentiment, held by many on this forum, that any film would benefit from Blu, there are few films in the collection that would have quite as much to gain, indeed, to offer to the format. This fact, coupled with the dubiousness of cramming all three films and their (relatively scant) extras on 4 discs has me pondering whether I shouldn't wait indefinitely for a Blu release, if not from Criterion, than from another source. Some are saying that criterion has been cutting a few corners in these unquestionably hard times, but excising strong Blu-ray contenders is, in my opinion, the wrong corner to cut; it just means that many of us won't buy SD releases that we would have sprung at a year or two ago, all in the perhaps vain hope that it will be released on Blu in the future. One could, without exaggeration, say that this practice gets my goat.

On a more positive note, I was bleating like a little nanny about the announcement of Pierrot le fou on Blu-ray. I'm sure it won't be the same for all, but for me, this more than makes up for Contempt's cancellation (not that I don't love it too). (To Nothing, if you're still following this thread: Pierrot is far from a frivolous film, even if it may appear so on the surface. I'd actually say that it's the most complex and rewarding of Godard's 60's output, the closest in spirit and intellectual vigorousness to some of the more profound 80's and 90's work. Another film you may have taken at face value, and could gain much from revisiting, if I may be so bold.)

[Nothing]

I don't need to re-visit Pierrot, I've seen it countless times. It's great fun, but complex and vigorous are words I would hesitate to use - let's not forget that Godard made the film up as he went along. Weekend, Le mepris, Le gai savoir, Vivre sa vie, 2 ou 3 choses and One plus One are all superior, ultimately.

I will agree with you, however, that Criterion are in danger of losing their edge through their weak support of Blu Ray.