Discuss Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence
Discuss → Movies → Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence → General
Way ahead of its time and Bowie's best
posted by rooprectSTAFFMOD on August 26, 2024 at 8:27 PM
This movie was ahead of its time in 1983 and even more so today. I remember seeing a Siskel & Ebert review from back in the 80s when Ebert loved the movie but Siskel got visibly angry about the way it dared to portray Japanese soldiers as human beings no different from British or American. Politically that was a red line that filmmakers couldn't cross because America was entrenched in its attitude of America = angels, America's enemies = devils. This movie plays no sides, it certainly shows the brutality of POW life, but as the epic line goes: "You are the victim of men who think they are right... Just as one day you and captain Yonoi believed absolutely that you were right. And the truth is of course that nobody is right."
Of course it would take a Japanese director (Ôshima) to make that statement. Still, it's great that this was a collaborative Japanese/UK film. I doubt there was much if any American involvement.
Separately, David Bowie's contribution was amazing. He really stole the show and not just by being the glam rockstar. This is one of my fave scenes (no spoilers, it's early in the film), when he's waiting for execution and imagining his last shave, meal & cigarette:
merry christmas mr lawrence (1983) - waiting for the execution
Reply by rooprect
on August 29, 2024 at 3:46 AM
Just finished watching the Criterion extras & interviews and wow, I like this movie 10x more. So many subtle, meaningful things went right over my head the 1st time.
In case anyone else sees this movie and ideally also watches the Criterion features, here's a really provocative idea that would be fun to discuss:
The differences between the film and the book (The Seed and the Sower by Laurence van der Post 1963) - We're lucky to get extensive interviews with the original writer Laurence as well as the screenwriter who adapted it, Paul Mayersberg. The biggest change I see is the way the movie goes deeper into Japanese spirituality (Shinto) while the book takes the more Anglocentric/Christian spiritual approach of portraying Jack Celliers as a Christ figure.
(hah... and I just realized his initials "J.C." duh).
I haven't read the book, though I really want to. But to me it makes perfect sense why the screenwriter made the change, and not just because the director and half the production crew were Japanese. He says the character Jack Celliers is a deeply flawed individual, stemming from his secret shame which we learn toward the end. With this in mind, Jack can't be a proper Christ figure as he himself is a sinner in need of salvation. So instead the film portrays Jack Celliers & Capt Yanoi as parallel, linked spirits on a journey toward enlightenment. This is where the Shinto takes over. Of course true to the book's original metaphor of the Christ figure, Jack Celliers does suffer intense torture--a sort of crucifixion Japanese style. But this torture is more reminiscent of a ritual purification (remember the fasting in the beginning).
It's mind blowing how both the book & the film deal with a spiritual salvation, with the book being Christian while the film is Shinto, and yet they arrive at the same conclusion by the same means. In other words, the 2 differing treatments of the story make the same statement of the story itself: that the English & Japanese may be on opposite sides but they are no different.
Somehow I doubt Gene Siskel bothered to read this deep into it lol