How is a good man to act in a corrupt system? This seems to be the question that haunts Masaki Kobayashi's The Human Condition. Considering that the two first films were made in the late fifties, it is surprising how critical they are of Japan and Japanese politics and traditions. The Human condition can be placed in a humanistic tradition of films that take a raw and yet humane perspective on the human lot. This tradition is one-dimensionally associated with European directors such as de Sica and Visconti but obviously this tradition gained a footing also in non-European film. The first two films in the three-part series constitute an immense outcry against cruelty defended in the name of nationalism. What still confuses me is how Kobayashi felt about Japan and nationalism - and what perspective is expressed in the films. In some segments, especially in the second film, set in the army, it seems as if the director would grant the possibility of non-fascist nationalism. Militarism is heaviliy criticized, but it is unclear whether the discipline and pennalism of army life is considered as a corruption of sound Japanese values.
The story of the first two films is a simple one despite the fact that they span more than six hours of packed drama. Even though there are some bombastic scenes (with big, grand and desolate-looking landscapes), the big gestures do not feel empty. The viewer can see a real form of anger and an attempt to reveal truth. Kaji, an engineer, is the main character, around whom the narrative revolves. Being the good man who struggles against the darkness of his times, it is the tension between Kaji's reactions and the reality of the situation that form the moral heart of the film. In the first film, the man is sent (his wife accompanies him) to work as a manager in a prison camp/mining company in Manchuria. He has written a tract on labor conditions and now he sets out to transform his humanitarian words into practice. Of course, his superiors don't let him go through with the progressive reforms, but he won't let himself be bogged down. He is a strong-willed man who cares about people as much as he also seems to care about how he perceives himself. What we see the end is both a tragedy for a human being and a tragedy in history. The conditions of the times are such that one man's moral stand won't have an impact in the long run. The structure of the story in the second film is similar. The man has departed from the mines and is now conscripted to army service, where he is first an ordinary recruit and then he leads a group of new recruits, trying to represent a more decent form of leadership than the one characterized by cruelty and sadism. His group is sent to the front and the front is not a cozy place.
One ambiguity in the film, that concerns the question about what it means to be a good person, is Kaji's moral character and how it is portayed. (Even though Kaji wants to do good, he is also shown to be slightly self-righteous.) In the worst interpretation of the first two films, it seems as if the major moral tragedy is not the cruel treatment of Chinese prisoners or the horrible deeds committed in a war, but the tragedy seems to stem fron an incongruity between principles and reality. In this reading, Kaji is above all a man of elevated principles - a man that wants to have his hands clean and to act as consistent as possible. Here, the constant tension is that between strength of character and the loss of control in an impossible situation. In another reading of the film, the director, a bit clumsily, shows how a human being's perception of reality is kept intact or how it is broken down. In the first reading, the meaning of 'reality' is neutral. Reality pops up its head and trumps over moral initiatives. In the second reading, 'reality' is moral reality so that losing one's sense of reality is also losing one's moral orientation, one's moral perception. In the first interpretation, morality is personal decency that can be retained or lost - in the second, morality is something we live with others.
For all its flaws, the Human condition is truly hard to watch because of its emotional harshness. Stylistically, it is a film that explores the catastrophe with a lofty camera perspective, so that the scene is often filmed slightly from above or from a distance. Sometimes, it is as if the characters are swallowed up by the majestic landscapes. The style of the film is well in sync with the emotional power of the story.
No comments:
Post a Comment