★ 8 / 10
More people need to see this.
Jeremy_Urquhart
There was minimal debate surrounding Oppenheimer's decision not to include any scenes set in Japan. I wouldn't call it a huge source of discourse, or a big…
There was minimal debate surrounding Oppenheimer's decision not to include any scenes set in Japan. I wouldn't call it a huge source of discourse, or a big controversy, but it popped up a little here and there, I noticed. Without going off on too much of a tangent, it was a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation, because focusing on Oppenheimer, the man (as I think the film did quite effectively) does mean the victims of his weapons aren't directly given a voice... but if Christopher Nolan had set scenes in Japan, people might have taken issue with a white filmmaker overstepping a boundary (it's happened to a small extent with Scorsese making Killers of the Flower Moon, and that might blow up even more discourse-wise when that film gets a wide release).But I think so long as people are aware that Japanese films also cover the effects of the atomic bomb while focusing on its victims, then that entirely negates the need for an American or English filmmaker to cover such a perspective. Unfortunately, not many people do seem to know about 1953's Hiroshima, as it only has about 1100 views on Letterboxd and about half of that on IMDb. It should be more well-known, though, because it's an impressively made and remarkably realistic depiction of the 1945 bombing of Hiroshima, including the aftermath and how the city grappled with the devastation following the end of World War II.The film's commendable for how grounded and intensely real it all feels. The production value is, for the most part, incredible, with the scenes set right after the bombing feeling truly authentic and harrowing. It's a very tough film to sit through, but I think much of it will stick with me, and I don't feel like there are a ton of movies 70+ years old that feel quite this visceral.I think the final act gets a little unfocused, if I was to have a complaint. I thought it all was losing me a bit towards the end, but then the final scene comes around and ties just about everything together in a haunting and effective way. It's not a film I think I'll ever rewatch, but I'm glad I've seen it now, because there's a ton to appreciate within this very hard-hitting historical drama.
Read full review
★ 8 / 10
Heartbreaking
gbill-74877
A harrowing view of hell on earth, and an absolute tragedy. The film is wisely very critical of Japanese militarism with its own atrocities, fanaticism, and…
A harrowing view of hell on earth, and an absolute tragedy. The film is wisely very critical of Japanese militarism with its own atrocities, fanaticism, and reaction in the aftermath of Hiroshima before a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The moments when the devastated people are walking around like zombies trying to get food and the official is shouting nationalistic garbage at them are brilliant. The film also asks the question whether this target, with so many civilians, was necessary, and whether it had something to do with race. It also has strong messages for peace, to avoid such events in the future, since the Atomic age had begun. Whatever your beliefs are for whether the bombs were necessary or not (there are some amazing summaries of both positions on Wikipedia btw), the human suffering is undeniable, and heartbreaking. Even if it makes for 105 brutally sad minutes, this film is as important today as it was in 1953.
Read full review
7.5/10
828
•••
@mikeymike100 only if you believe American propaganda that justifies such a horror. There is no justification.