The Last Emperor

The Last Emperor outlines roughly 60 years of China's political history in about 3 hours, through the experiences of emperor Pu Yi. It begins with a very charming exposition of Emperor Pu Yi's idyllic childhood in the Forbidden City of China. There is no better way to establish a character as the protagonist of a film than to introduce him to an audience with such adorable innocence. However, Pu Yi grows from an adorable toddler into an interestingly troubled and questioning teen, and then into a reclusive, reticent and boring shadow of a personality for the remaining 2 hours of the film. For someone who is not already cultured in Chinese history, the film may also grow from charming to confusing to boring as easy-to-follow history of a failing dynasty becomes a confusing mess of historical implications that skirt the edges of actual explanations.

This confusing aspect of the film, however, is partly because of one of the more successful parts of the film, which is its focus solely on Pu Yi and his family. The film does not follow story lines of Japanese characters or show other perspectives, so while the historical facts surrounding other entities become cloudy in the film, what is left is a pleasing and in-depth story of a man and his family.

Apart from the story, The last Emperor is very aesthetically pleasing. The forbidden city re-creation is wonderful and the beautifal mansions and fancy party scenes in the later section of the film interestingly contrasts the turmoil of the film's storyline.

The Last Emperor

I don't think that anyone can deny that The Last Emperor is a work of art. The opulence and gradual decay of the Forbidden City are magnificently displayed. The cinematic themes of red and gold illuminate scenes of both the decadence of his often wealthy life and the disaster of his ruby life in water of the sink. But is it a work of art that I want to look at for 3 hours? Probably not. For a movie that covers almost 50 turbulent and important years, I was left feeling like absolutely nothing was happening. Perhaps this is because Pu Yi really was doing nothing. He was a porcelain doll in his childhood and a puppet when he grew up. He yearned for power but displayed no characteristics of a good leader. He showed no proficiency in winning over others through his influence, or intelligence. Although his attitude seemed honest, his ongoing conceit and perceived self importance in the face of his utter insignificance did not encourage the viewer to see him as a leader. Although he continues to state that he wants change, he does not specify and he certainly didn't try to institute any of them during his pretend rule of Manchuquo. However, perhaps the idea of a very ordinary man in these extraordinary circumstances, expected to perform extraordinary feats is what manages to keep the story engaging, at least for some of the time.

Questions of Reliability

About 18 minutes into the second video, I have noticed that the clip seems to have failed utterly in it's goal to " explain the mind-set that led to [the Rape of Nanking]." Instead, it only describes the atrocities of the Japanese, portraying them as mindless, racist killing machines. It does nothing to explain why the Japanese felt pressured to adopt so militaristic a culture. This leaves me wondering: what was the Japanese side of the story? If we cannot trust the clip to give us an unbiased account of the Japanese story, can we trust it to accurately describe the actual atrocities?

Irony

As we all agree, the atrocities that occurred during the Rape of Nanking are so grave we all questioned how this event could have happened without any foreign retaliation. And yet, both the interview and the documentary do mention the help of foreigner John Rabe. John Rabe, member of the German Nazi party, actually help create 2 by 2 square mile safety zone for Nanking residents against the immoral acts of Japanese. During the interview, author Irene Chiang even refers to the Rape of Nanking as a “holocaust” And this is when I became perplexed. An active Nazi member was helping to prevent a holocaust? This irony seems too illogical. Do the actions of Rabe shed new light on Nazi ideology?

Mao's Massacre

When I originally began studying Chiang Kaishek, after reading, watching, and listening to his life; I was convinced that it was his fault Japan was able to so brutally occupy Nanking. I believed that he was unable to act effectively as the head of state, and that he let the Chinese down by not even putting up the slightest amount of resistance. But, after watching this documentary, I believe my mind has changed. Chiang was not the person to give up, nor would he admit defeat easily. It is so out of character for him to simply allow the other side to win. Why then did Chiang, who had the support of powerful warlords and large numbers of soldiers, just let Japan invade his country?

In my opinion, it was because of the ever growing Communist threat led by Mao Zedong. To Chiang, though Japan was a large threat, dealing with them could wait. He knew he had the resources, and though the Japanese had superior technology, he could at least hold them off until the United States declared war against the Japanese. What couldn't wait to be solved, however, was the Communist problem. He saw that as his government was weakening, the Communists were becoming more powerful. Mao was attracted more followers and brining in more supplies, and he was then able to disrupt the Nationalist's power. Chiang was forced to quell these small, Communist lead revolutions in order to keep China united during war. He couldn't allow himself to lose thousands of soldiers in Nanking if right behind him Mao lay waiting to pounce. Mao knew that Chiang needed help, he knew that what China needed was one united front against the Japanese, but he didn't care. If Nanking had to suffer so that the Nationalist government would fall, in Mao's eyes, it was worth the price.

How Hidden is the Rape of Nanking Today?

Throughout her interview, Mrs. Chang made repeated statements that the Rape of Nanking was not widely known in the rest of the world, including America. This interview was made in 1997, and that leads me to question how true her statements are today. I certainly recall being taught about the Rape of Nanking in World War last year; I am pretty certain that it is mentioned in the History 10 textbook. Has much really changed in regards to the Rape that 1997 would be much different from today? How true are Mrs. Chang's claims?