I modestly
recommend “Emperor,” a historical film about the early days of the American
occupation of Japan. Starring Matthew
Fox (“Lost”) and Tommy Lee Jones, the movie portrays an under examined topic, the
U.S. decision not to try Emperor Hirohito for war crimes after the end of the
Pacific War. While Nazi crimes have frequently drawn Hollywood’s attention from
“Judgment at Nuremberg” (1961) onward, Imperial Japan has received much less
screen time.
Fox plays Bonner
Fellers, a Japanese specialist who goes to Tokyo with General Douglas MacArthur
(Jones) following the surrender. Though
the film dramatically narrows the time frame concerning the decision to try
Hirohito from a couple of years to ten days, “Emperor” provides a reasonably
accurate portrayal of American concerns as they sought to rebuild the
country. Despite tremendous popular anger
in America toward the emperor over the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S.
government’s early planning for the occupation sought to drive a “wedge”
between Hirohito and the Japanese government, placing blame on Prime Minister
Hideki Tojo and the militarists (Dower, 278-301). As portrayed in the film, Fellers and MacArthur
were deeply concerned that communists could exploit the postwar devastation of
the country to gain a political foothold and believed preserving the monarchy would
help stabilize the country. In the movie
as in reality, the U.S. does not try Hirohito and he plays an important
symbolic rule during the occupation.
Though Fellers
concludes in the film that it isn’t possible to know the emperor’s role in
planning Pearl Harbor, Hirohito had knowledge of the attack beforehand (Dower, 292.) The film also shows Hirohito’s crucial role in
ending the war as despite the devastation wrought by the atomic bombs, the
Japanese war cabinet split on whether to surrender after Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. It required the emperor’s radio broadcast of surrender to ensure an end
to the bloody conflict.
The film
accurately shows the devastation wrought by the American aerial bombing of Japan. Fellers references the firebombing of Tokyo on
March 9—10, 1945, which killed 100,000 people, more than those killed in Hiroshima. Indeed, one reason the U.S. military chose
Hiroshima as a target for the bomb was because it was one of the few cities still
relatively intact where the United States could demonstrate the power of their
new weapon.
Though the film
focuses on Fellers, Jones captures the vainglorious nature of MacArthur, who is
seen preening for the cameras and media attention. But it also shows the general discussing his
plans to make Japan a model for transition for military rule. Indeed, the U.S. occupation became one of the
most successful in history, as MacArthur midwifed a new constitution and government
that included an elected parliament, women’s suffrage, and stronger labor
unions. The document also forbade Japan from
using its military forces abroad and the country emerged as a stable,
prosperous democracy and ally that would become strong enough to challenge American
economic supremacy by the 1980s.
As I saw the
film the week of the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq
War, it was impossible to watch without comparing the two postwar
occupations. Paul Bremer, whom President
Bush appointed head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq after the
initial invasion, was no MacArthur and made a series of disastrous decisions,
from dissolving the Iraqi Army to barring all former Baath Party members from
the new government, fueling the insurgency that would bring the country to the
brink of civil war. Granted, MacArthur
had certain advantages, as Japan was an organic country while European colonialists
carved out Iraq’s borders at Versailles.
Furthermore, despite the militarism of the 1920s, Japan’s history
included a longer tradition of democratic institutions than Iraq’s. Though Bremer may have faced a more daunting
challenge than MacArthur, the differences in the outcome of the two occupations
remains quite stark.
“Emperor” does
not delve as deeply into the issues surrounding Japanese war crimes as it could
have and is marred by a weak love story.
Still, I think it is a worthwhile film that depicts a period that has
been long been neglected in popular culture.
Sources:
John Dower, Embracing Defeat: Japan in
the Wake of World War II (New York, 1999)