Rhapsody in August (Hachigatsu no kyoshikyoko, 1991)
Kurosawa Akira
Japan
98 mins, color, Japanese (English subtitles)
This film is one of remembering: four main stories along with many beautiful, but incongruous, scenes in between. Unlike his jidai-geki, or his social commentaries, or even his film noir, Kurosawa's RHAPSODY IN AUGUST is a somber, elegiac, and deliberately paced. This is a moody film that needs to be experienced in silence.
The story of remembering is the leitmotif, and is traced in all four groups. The Grandmother, who has survived the Nagasaki bombing on August 9, but whose husband was killed there, is at peace with her memories; she has forgiven all and perhaps forgotten all. She can tell stories to her grandchildren but there is little of the drama that was her life, the stories sound mostly like fairy-tales. The news of her only surviving brother's death in Hawaii (whom she refused to visit at first and then put off until it was too late), triggers a wave of recall. She slowly regresses back in time toward 1945 until one afternoon the clouds and the impending thunderstorm make her believe that the destruction is near. The old woman rushes through the rain toward Nagasaki, this time determined to perish there with the rest.
The other story of remembering, or knowing, is through the eyes of the children. They have all studied history in school, and they all "know" about the bomb in some academic sense. Their Grandma's stories, however, quicken their interest and they decide to find out more about everything she's told them, the bombing being one of many stories (the others are about her younger brother, the water-imp in the waterfall, and the cedars that had committed double suicide). The children visit the school where their Grandfather had taught and died and see the memorial, which is a humble garden with the charred twisted remains of a metal climbing structure. Then the children visit the international memorial, where all countries had sent monuments (they show the Bulgarian one as well; one can't help but notice that Kurosawa insists on displaying mostly socialist ones, with few exceptions). There's naturally no such monument from America, who had dropped the bomb. The children are helpless because they realize they cannot even imagine the horror of the event. Their reaction is correspondingly weak, and somewhat predictable: they begin to resent America, although not to the extent that they stop wearing jeans and US T-shirts. The irony is complete: throughout the entire film, all children continue wearing US shirts. The children are finally straightened out by Grandma, who tells them that "war is to blame," not the Americans (although one is hard-pressed to see the reasoning here).
The third story of remembering is that of the middle generation, the parents of the children, and the children of the victims. The two siblings, who have just been to Hawaii to visit their rich relatives, scheme about ways to extract maximum benefit from their American cousins. They are upset with Grandma about reminding the relatives about the bomb because they know "how sensitive Japanese-Americans are about it." Of course, they are wrong, as it turns out that their cousins are more understanding. The two siblings are shamed but it is not clear that they change their "modern" thinking. Unlike the children, they are not that impressionable. It would seem that this generation is lost, neither having experienced the horror, nor able to feel it.
Finally, there is the (very brief) story of an American remembering the event. The characterization here is quite weak, there's virtually no conflict of the sort that other characters expected, Clark (Gere) shows up, apologizes for not realizing that his Uncle had died in the blast, and mends fences with Grandmother. Upon hearing of his father's death, he hurries back to Hawaii (without even offering to take Grandmother along with him). This is the least developed, although potentially the most interesting, story in the film. I do not know how Americans deal with the fact that their country is the only one in the world (thus far) to nuke people to oblivion. They cannot still possibly believe the propaganda crap about the bombs being necessary to end the war. The alternative is horrifying: killing thousands upon thousands for strategic reasons. The story of THIS remembrance would be something.
There are other, unexplained and mysterious, scenes that make the most beautiful and haunting parts of the film. For example, the scene when the old lady visits Grandmother "to chat" and they spend an hour simply sitting, facing each other, never uttering a word. They still communicate and understand each other perfectly, only because they have lived through the A-bomb and their husbands did not. Another poignant scene involves the ants at the memorial service, when the smallest kid watches them busily hurrying in their unknown tasks, and gathering among the petals of a red rose, all under the sound of Buddhist sutras. There's also the story of infidelity and the "double suicide" of the cedars. Tateo and his niece go to see that burnt trees and he gets carried away by the moment so much that he tries to kiss her (unsuccessfully). The grandchildren are easily mesmerized, scared, and impressed.
Then there's the story of the old organ, almost hopelessly out of tune and out of time. Grandmother declares that they two have aged together. Tateo, however, does not give up and throughout the entire film tries to fix the instrument, until in the end he succeeds and the organ plays beautifully again. There is, however, no such fix for old people.
The one scene that was somewhat disturbing was the last one, when the old woman struggles through the thunderstorm. A sudden gust of wind turns her umbrella inside out, the sound of the storm's raging fury disappears to be replaced by the Schubert song performed by a children choir. We still see the family running, stumbling, falling into the mud, and the old woman going forth. But why the childlike music? It seems wrong, out of place, anticlimactic. Is it optimism? I do not know.
I should mention that Yoshimoto's chapter on this film is infinitely better than the usual US reviews (cf. Richie's treatment for example). One point is especially relevant. The outrage many Americans express about the supposedly ahistorical treatment of the bomb, which the film depicts entirely as the responsibility of the US. Note that although the Grandmother insists that war is to blame, the fact remains that it was the US that dropped the bomb. That the A-bomb was not necessary for victory is beyond doubt, that is was directed primarily as a signal to Stalin is also true. In that respect, the film is entirely correct: the Japanese truly were victims here. One must not forget, however, that it was Japan who bombed Pearl Harbor and precipitated the war against itself. History is not as straightforward as Yoshimoto would have us believe.
March 10, 2001. BLS