passionfly
September 2006 is destined to be a time of commemoration and remembrance, the fifth anniversary of the "9.11" incident, the 75th anniversary of the "9.18" incident, and the US National Day of Disgrace one after another It is China's National Humiliation Day, and God seems to imply that people's reflections and feelings about wars have crossed national boundaries through history.
The release of the movie "Tokyo Trial" undoubtedly adds a strong autumn flavor to this season. "Tokyo Trial", a mainstream film with the theme of law, reproducing history, and promoting patriotism, was not supported by public finances justifiably. The fundraising was careless and the ship capsized; "Tokyo Trial", a huge investment and star-studded blockbuster, was finally filmed after many twists and turns, but because of its involvement in international current affairs and political stability, it was suspected of inciting national hatred, and it has not been approved for release for a long time. It wasn't until a year later that the four-hour sample was cut into one hour before it was finally released. However, when the box office achieved impressive results and was affirmed by the audience, many theaters were still hesitant and wait-and-see. The legendary experience of such a movie is an intriguing topic in itself. Chinese filmmakers seek survival in the crevice between power and the market, like walking on thin ice or walking a tightrope; like grandchildren when financing, and daughter-in-law when being tried; only the script can be preserved and the images can see the day; the art is so difficult and the state of the world It's hot and cold, as can be seen in this case.
Having said that, sympathy returns to sympathy. Although funding difficulties have been deleted, the evaluation of the film itself and the thinking about the content and themes cannot tolerate lowering standards and emotional use. There are various references to evaluate the movie "Tokyo Trial", such as comparison with current domestic and foreign commercial films, comparison with domestic "main theme" movies, and comparison with similar literary and artistic films and so on.
First of all, compared with commercial films, in general, "Tokyo Trial" is trying to catch up with foreign commercial blockbusters in terms of production and commercial operation. For example, the selection of historical and legal themes, the international cast and star lineup, the grasp of suspense and rhythm, the effects of photography and video editing, and the background sound effects and music. These are undoubtedly compared with the traditional "main theme" movies in China. The appreciation is obviously enhanced. But if it is really compared with the top foreign commercial blockbusters, the film is obviously underweight. In the words of director Gao Qunshu, it is "fried cabbage". For example, the storyline of the branch line is very poor, almost symbolic plots and scenes, the narrative is not smooth and concentrated, the entanglement of several characters is very scattered, and the narration is too official, and the narration is very official, not comparable to Morgan Freeman. The feeling of the narration in "Shaunker's Redemption" and "Million Baby". The branch line is not only thin but also does not cross the main line. Mei Ruao is just a spectator in the branch line, which directly causes the main line to expose its repetitive and boring shortcomings. The suspense and the sudden enlightening effect of the foreshadowing and the sudden enlightenment are not obvious (such as " The oath of secrecy and the voting at the end of the film, Xiang Zhejun’s “secret weapon”, Okawa Zhouming’s madness also turned into a not-so-distant narration explanation without the following, etc.). The proof and cross-examination should be designed in advance in the branch line. Then the anaphora was reproduced in the court trial, and the result was that the film was divided into news clips and narrations to explain again and again, almost reduced to a documentary with sound effects and camera jumps. The soul of commercial legal films is "suspense" and "rhythm shift". Failure to do well in suspense is a fatal flaw. For another example, compared with a foreign commercial blockbuster, the film has almost no location. This is a huge regret. The soul of historical commercial films is "funny hunting" and "time and space sense." There is also no interactive reaction between young people and old people in the two countries today, which greatly reduces the appreciation and is far inferior to the sense of time and space in "An Unfinished Game of Chess" and "Saving Private Ryan".
Director Gao Qunshu claimed to sacrifice the film in "Tokyo Trial" to preserve the history. In other words, the lack of viewing in many parts of the film is to reproduce the original appearance of the history, and does not make artistic exaggerations and plot additions and deletions. Then, we should not only criticize the commercial film for not being good-looking, but also examine its pros and cons from the perspective of historical dramas and literary films. However, in general, the film clearly reflects the subjective tendency of the director's nationality, and there are more lyrical elements than thinking. This violates the neutrality and truthfulness of historical films, and greatly reduces their ideological height and historical connotation. For example, from a legal point of view, judges and prosecutors are not allowed to have unilateral contact during the trial, and the film repeatedly shows that Chinese judge Mei Ruao and Chinese prosecutor Xiang Zhejun drank and chatted privately, and even the judge directly blamed the prosecution. Official prosecutions and ineffective proofs are all detrimental to the image and dignity of Chinese judges. For another example, the defendant in criminal proceedings has the right to make a final statement, but the director puts the generous statement of prosecutor Joseph Jinan to the end, as the climax of the film, infecting everyone's opposition to war and inhumanity, but this is actually a big deal. It reduces the sense of justice and credibility of the common law trial procedures. Fortunately, we did not see the one-sided "counter-revolutionary suppression" trial like the one in the real Chinese "main theme" film. Gao Qunshu at least gave the Japanese defender Hirose Ichiro a little time to defend in the "Tokyo Trial". The lines of self-defense for Matsui Ishine, Itagaki Seishiro and Tojo Hideki finally left a sigh of relief for the "class enemy" so that the director can continue to have targets to tan and the audience can continue to vent their anger. Perhaps some angry youths will accuse the author of "turning his elbows out" or "speaking for Japanese devils" when they see this. But please think about it. In the film, the Japanese military officer and witness Tanaka Ryuki, who appeared in court to testify against Japan, was also reprimanded by the Japanese defender as "the elbow was abducted" and "Are you Japanese"? When we are dazzled by national sentiments, we especially need to use reason to reflect on ourselves. Will we make the same mistakes that the Japanese have made?
In fact, if we calm down a little bit, it is not difficult for us to find that, as the victims of the war, the Chinese themselves, our sorrow and anger are already in our ears, and we want to hear the Japanese defense. It's as if I have been beaten by someone, and I really want to ask why. I can't just kill the other person without knowing it, just take revenge; I want him to comment on this principle: Why on earth? How can you be so unreasonable! What is your theory? Only by asking to understand this and knowing the root cause can we know how to eradicate it and how to prevent it from being unburned; we also know how to prevent ourselves from making the same mistakes, so that we can truly feel at ease. Obviously, no matter what the rules are, just killing the Japanese will not achieve the above effect; because the forest is big and there are all kinds of birds, maybe someday Nazi ideas will grow out of our own brains and kill them. Lost ourselves. In this sense, artists and historians should transcend the feelings, standpoints, and prejudices of the Allied powers in filming court trials of war criminals in World War II, and use the thinking of jurists and philosophers more to seek war, massacre, and extermination of humanity. The moral code and the value of justice. In this sense, the "Nuremberg Trial", which is also a trial film for war criminals of World War II, is quite superior to the "Tokyo Trial".
The "Nuremberg Trial" (1945.8-1949) was based on the "Agreement on the Accusation and Punishment of the Chief War Criminals of the European Axis Countries" (London Charter) signed by the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and the United States after the end of World War II. It was established in Nuremberg, Germany by judges from four countries. The formation of the European International Military Tribunal conducted trials of Germany’s chief war criminals. Since then, civil judges in the United States have conducted as many as twelve rounds of trials on German war criminals of different levels, which lasted three years. The "Tokyo Trial" (1946.4-1948.11) is a trial of Japanese war criminals by the Tokyo Far East International Military Tribunal, composed of judges from 11 countries. These two trials confirmed the connotation of war crimes in the international law of war and established new principles for the investigation of individual criminal responsibility for war crimes. From 1946 to 1950, after the UN General Assembly confirmed, the UN International Law Commission codified these principles as the "Nuremberg Principles." The film "The Nuremberg Trial" is adapted from the historical Nuremberg third round trial (a trial of German judges and judicial officials). The true judge in this case is the Justice of the Supreme Court of Oregon, James Brand, in the film. The famous actor Spencer Tracy (Spencer Tracy) played the Haywood trial judge (Dan Haywood), he won the Oscar for best actor for this film. In addition, the film also successfully portrayed the chief prosecutor, Colonel Tad Lawson, the chief defense lawyer Hans Rolfe, and the main defendant, German jurist Judge Ernst Jenning ( Ernst Janning), and Madame Bertholt played by Marlene Dietrich, the widow of a senior German general who appeared in the branch. The film was shot in 1961 and lasts more than three hours. The screenwriter Abby Mann won the Oscar for Best Screenplay for this film, making the film a classic in legal films. The biggest difference between the film and the "Tokyo Trial" is that the prosecutor Ted Lawson and the chief defense attorney Hans Rulff are comparable in strength and pen, and even the defender finally became the protagonist. His speech Eloquence and defense charm almost conquered the entire court. The trial judge Heywood was a neutral bystander. His charm of trial did not burst out until the moment of judgment. He competed with the defendant German jurist Jenning on the justice of the judge at a higher level, and this was in line with this. The fairness and role positioning of legal trials.
"Nuremberg Trial" selected a scandalous death penalty case and a mentally handicapped sterilization case in the plot. Both cases were the result of the implementation of Nazi Germany's "Racial Purification Act". Was the trial judge at that time personally responsible for his trial? The defense lawyer put forward the following main defense opinions: (1) The judgment of the case was fair that year, and the judge had reason to believe that the defendant did have sexual impropriety and intellectual disability; (2) There was also a precedent in the United States for sterilization of a mentally handicapped person (Helme Judge Yubuck v. Bell, 1927); (3) The prosecutor’s video of the brutal massacre in concentration camps played in court has nothing to do with this case, and it should not be adopted if it hinders a fair judgment; (4) The German judge did not know about the massacre and was not at fault (5) After defendant Jenning pleaded guilty and confessed in court out of conscience and self-blame, the defense attorney did not surrender, but miraculously rebelled against the client, accusing the US arms dealer and signing the "Su The German Friendship Treaty and the Soviet Union that participated in the partition of Poland, the Holy See, who signed a religious agreement with Hitler, and Churchill, who once said in an appeasement speech that Hitler, should all bear the responsibility for the war... This last counter-examination completely defeated the prosecutor in charge. It is the climax of the whole film that makes the audience's emotions turn unexpectedly. At the end of the film, Judge Heywood’s amazing justice and determination won the court’s verdict. At this time, when the Soviet soldiers were in Berlin, the US military exerted political pressure on Judge Heywood-demanding that German officials be treated lightly in order to win. The support of the German people is unanimously anti-communist. Judge Haywood withstood political pressure and resolutely sentenced Jenning and others to jail based on the merits of the case. The defendant Jenning made a rash judgment because he could not withstand Hitler's political pressure. Judge Haywood's fair judicial decision won the respect of the defendant Jenning. At the end of the film, Judge Haywood's firm back overshadowed the climax of the defender and pushed the plot to the top again.
In the "Nuremberg Trial", the equal level of fairness and defense between the prosecution and the defense created a huge tension, which caused the ups and downs of the case, and the mood of the audience also culminated step by step as the suspense intensified. At the same time, the plot of the branch line is also remarkable. In order to protect the honor of her deceased husband, Mrs. Burholt strongly influenced Judge Heywood's view of the Germans. Through Mrs. Burholt, we can see the general mood and psychology of the German people after the war. The affectionate song "Lili Marleen" on the streets in the middle of the night melted the hearts of almost every audience, but it did not shake Heywood's judgment. . The contradictory plot makes the audience feel mixed, sympathy and sense of justice are intertwined, turning into deep thinking...
what to think about? Think about sins, our own sins, not others; think about justice, eternal and rational justice, without changing positions and emotions. This is where the "Tokyo Trial" cannot match the "Nuremberg Trial". Listening to the enemy's voice, reflecting on one's own sins, firm and fair judgments, and reporting grievances directly instead of reciprocating teeth is indeed easy to understand. Whenever discussions on the abolition of the death penalty are initiated on the Internet, those rational and humane voices are often overwhelmed by radical and impulsive shouts. Whenever there is a discussion of the outstanding national characteristics of Japanese people such as discipline, unity, and diligence, they talk about Japanese literature and music. , Movies and other excellent cultures, but by many angry young people as Japanese lackeys and traitors; even clamoring to wipe out Japan and annihilate the Japanese, and what is the theory and sentiment of Hitler’s extermination of Jews and the Japanese annihilation of the Chinese? What's the difference? "Tokyo Trial" is, as the director himself said, a historical film that showcases Chinese popularity. However, it is more about the national sentiments of the Chinese people, and lacks the Chinese people's self-critical and reflective spirit; "The Nuremberg Trial" surpasses The position of a country and a nation, however, inspires all mankind to examine their own destiny and rediscover values such as morality, rationality, and justice.
Let's look at the defense of the Chinese and Japanese in the "Tokyo Trial". The film mainly lists the following points: (1) The lawyer asked the president of the court to withdraw, and all judges' qualifications were questioned. The case should be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. (2) This court uses the principle of "the winner is king" to try the national civil servants of the defeated party performing public duties, and there is no legal basis; (3) Matsui Ishine's "Asian family, Sino-Japanese brotherhood". (4) Itagaki Seishiro’s “consistent adherence to peace, withdrawal, and armistice theory”, sent troops to the northeast because of the melee in the northeast and the people’s lack of livelihood; (5) Tojo Hideki’s “survival self-defense theory” believes that the Japanese government is acting in accordance with the Constitution and legal procedures After the overseas property was frozen on July 26, 1941, Japan had to fight to survive, so it was a war of self-defense. The Chinese government launched military-civilian resistance before they were killed, and the Chinese government should bear the responsibility. In the end of the defeat, the responsibility for the defeat is not related to the emperor, and only the Japanese cabinet and the prime minister should be borne, but there is nothing wrong with morality and law in launching a war of self-defense.
Let us analyze it carefully. First of all, the composition of the "Tokyo Trial" is indeed closer to the first round of Nuremberg trials in terms of the composition of the court, but is different from the latter twelve rounds of trials. But if it is an international trial, it should be composed of judges from countries other than the belligerent country. The victorious country should indeed avoid it. Only such an international trial can be fair. Otherwise, there is indeed a suspicion of "winners and losers" of retaliatory liquidation. In this sense, neither the Nuremberg trial nor the Tokyo trial was completely fair in procedure. Due to the inability to obtain a fair international trial, the Japanese side retreated to request the Supreme Court of the United States for trial, which is similar to the next twelve rounds of Nuremberg trials. This seems to degrade Japan’s national identity and undermine Japan’s sovereignty, but it is actually very self-consistent and reasonable. Because in a common law country like the United States, any trial will become the domestic law of the United States in the form of precedent. If the United States wants to take the opportunity to retaliate against the enemy in the war, it may destroy the rule of law in the United States. This price will undoubtedly be unpaid by the United States. This is just like Rawls's analogy, "justice" is to let A cut the cake, and then B to choose which piece. Secondly, the theories of Matsui Ishine and Itagaki Seishiro can be summed up as a "utilitarian political view", that is, Japan’s political, military, and economic control over East Asia is good for Asia-it can end the war there, disband the incompetent government, and build Public facilities, improving people’s lives, resisting Western oppression, etc. From an economic analysis, it is indeed an efficiency improvement to replace an incompetent government with an efficient government. Finally, Hideki Tojo’s "survival self-defense theory" is actually the most powerful counter-examination of the prosecution’s "humanitarian and peace theory", because he stands on the same cornerstone as the humanitarian theory. To put it bluntly, it is: "I kill," It's because I was killed." In other words, the reasons for starting a war and resisting a war are actually the same-to protect human lives. If any country can kill the invaders under the banner of defending the motherland, then Japan has reason to kill those who try to strangle him under the banner of defending the motherland. No one is more humane than others.
Speaking from the heart, in the face of such back-examination from the Japanese side, as a sensible person, a fair and conscience Chinese, how should we answer them? When we send them to the gallows, how can we convince them with sincerity? The 11 judges of the Tokyo trial said in their oath: "We will have no fear, inclination, or partiality, and rely only on our own conscience and the utmost rational judgment." Did they do it? Did we do it again? We always wonder why the Japanese do not confess their heinous war crimes; but we never ask ourselves, why do they still visit the Yasukuni Shrine today? We always wonder if the Japanese people are ignorant of history because of news regulation; but we did not ask ourselves, why are our films today subject to censorship? Why is the release of "Tokyo Trial" so difficult? We always say that the United States is still stubborn after 9/11. Instead of reflecting on ourselves, it has intensified its attacks on others; but have we reflected on ourselves after 918? Why are China and Japan, both colonized by Western powers, and China and Japan in the ruins of World War II, each time they rise, but we are endless civil wars, decay, and backwardness? We are always using Marxism-Leninism to others and liberalism to ourselves, being self-sufficient and unknowing in double standards; we always inadvertently pass the root of earthquakes in the storm of anger, and shirk the responsibility to the outside world. Torture your own heart.
After World War II, the new natural jurisprudence in the world law circle regained its vitality. The political concepts of pragmatism and utilitarianism were once again rejected by world public opinion, and the simple cut-off method of social governance was once again reflected. At the end of the "Tokyo Trial", Judge Mei Ruao said: "How can we ensure that those who provoked the war will not be revived without the death penalty? The sentence is for the dead to be able to watch and rest in peace." This is just a narrow humanity and Plain emotions; at the end of the "Nuremberg Trial," Judge Haywood said the opposite: "Killing children based on political beliefs seems so natural! Our country is still clamoring for the defense of the motherland and survival. When life and death are at stake, it can precisely reflect the fundamental value of the representative of this country-unscrupulous in order to survive! Excuse me, what is the purpose of living? Today, let the world pay attention to this: justice, truth and the value of everyone! It is the value we represent!" I think that only such a high-pitched voice is truly deafening, and only such a deep self-reflection can make the sinner on the penalty pole truly regret it. This is the brilliance of human rationality that transcends emotions. .
September 18, 2006 in Beijing
View more about Judgment at Nuremberg reviews
