Watching the film Hiroshima, Mon Amour highlighted two major themes for me: the perception of memory, and the impossibility of creating images for some types of events (in this case, the bombing of Hiroshima). The two themes often overlap and work together throughout the film. The film shows the impossibility to truly represent the bombing and the effects of such an event, and the disrespect involved with many attempts at its re-enactment. During the beginning documentary montage, the female narrates some attempts at re-enactment (ie. The museum) and says things like, “the reconstructions were as authentic as possible,” and “the films were as authentic as possible.” The images of these reconstructions are juxtaposed with images of the event, illustrating the shortcomings and disservice of the reconstructions. “Authentic as possible” is exposed to not being good enough. The distance between present recollection of Hiroshima and the actual bombing is also highlighted by the lovers’ conversation during the beginning montage. The man asks the woman questions like, “What did Hiroshima mean to you in France?” and “What was there for you to weep over?” revealing her inability to truly understand the event as an outsider. He keeps insisting that she saw NOTHING in Hiroshima, whereas she keeps claiming she saw everything, further exposing the shortcomings and ineffectiveness of the re-enactments and replicas. She, like all society outside Hiroshima, considered these replicas as windows to truly understanding the event, but nothing even close to true understanding can be accomplished.
On a more visual level, shots of Hiroshima victims and survivors are juxtaposed with shots of the intimate lovers, exploiting the contrast between the two. At one point, we are shown a shot of a Japanese child’s disfigured hand, and then the camera cuts directly to a shot of the woman’s strong, living, perfect hand against the man’s back.
The woman’s (and our own) inability to fully comprehend the Hiroshima bombing also correlates with the film’s implication of memory. We cannot re-create the actual event of Hiroshima, but our memory of the event reconstructs it altogether as a new entity in the present tense. As we discussed in class, memory always involves RE-membering something, so history is nothing in itself, but it is reconstructed. Memory is present. In the film, the woman recalls her early life in Nevers in the present tense. She recalls her dead lover as her present one as she tells him the story. In the end, she repeatedly tells him, “Afterwards, I don’t remember anymore.” Her memory leaves her and she is left with confusion and guilt, similar to France’s present state in regards to Hiroshima’s bombings. At the end of the film, the woman tells the man she will forget him: “See how I’m forgetting you now?” This may reflect France forgetting the bombing’s true devastation and the true implications of the event, and how pathetic re-enactments do nothing to truly respect and remember the event.
i thought the balance of documentary and love story was really interesting. as these images fflash when she tells of the things she thinks she has seen, it makes you start to wonder if she really did see all those images herself. of course, you find later that she really didn't but in those moments, you start to feel for her. when he says "you saw nothing at Hiroshima" and she fights him on it, you're almost rooting for her but he says it again and you realize that newsreels and pictures will never completely translate the pain and horror of what happened. it almost covers for the movie as if to say "we can try to make you see what it was like but we can never really show you." the lines of reality get blurred just enough to keep you involved but crush you with "memories".
Watching the film Hiroshima, Mon Amour highlighted two major themes for me: the perception of memory, and the impossibility of creating images for some types of events (in this case, the bombing of Hiroshima). The two themes often overlap and work together throughout the film. The film shows the impossibility to truly represent the bombing and the effects of such an event, and the disrespect involved with many attempts at its re-enactment. During the beginning documentary montage, the female narrates some attempts at re-enactment (ie. The museum) and says things like, “the reconstructions were as authentic as possible,” and “the films were as authentic as possible.” The images of these reconstructions are juxtaposed with images of the event, illustrating the shortcomings and disservice of the reconstructions. “Authentic as possible” is exposed to not being good enough. The distance between present recollection of Hiroshima and the actual bombing is also highlighted by the lovers’ conversation during the beginning montage. The man asks the woman questions like, “What did Hiroshima mean to you in France?” and “What was there for you to weep over?” revealing her inability to truly understand the event as an outsider. He keeps insisting that she saw NOTHING in Hiroshima, whereas she keeps claiming she saw everything, further exposing the shortcomings and ineffectiveness of the re-enactments and replicas. She, like all society outside Hiroshima, considered these replicas as windows to truly understanding the event, but nothing even close to true understanding can be accomplished.
ReplyDeleteOn a more visual level, shots of Hiroshima victims and survivors are juxtaposed with shots of the intimate lovers, exploiting the contrast between the two. At one point, we are shown a shot of a Japanese child’s disfigured hand, and then the camera cuts directly to a shot of the woman’s strong, living, perfect hand against the man’s back.
The woman’s (and our own) inability to fully comprehend the Hiroshima bombing also correlates with the film’s implication of memory. We cannot re-create the actual event of Hiroshima, but our memory of the event reconstructs it altogether as a new entity in the present tense. As we discussed in class, memory always involves RE-membering something, so history is nothing in itself, but it is reconstructed. Memory is present. In the film, the woman recalls her early life in Nevers in the present tense. She recalls her dead lover as her present one as she tells him the story. In the end, she repeatedly tells him, “Afterwards, I don’t remember anymore.” Her memory leaves her and she is left with confusion and guilt, similar to France’s present state in regards to Hiroshima’s bombings. At the end of the film, the woman tells the man she will forget him: “See how I’m forgetting you now?” This may reflect France forgetting the bombing’s true devastation and the true implications of the event, and how pathetic re-enactments do nothing to truly respect and remember the event.
i thought the balance of documentary and love story was really interesting. as these images fflash when she tells of the things she thinks she has seen, it makes you start to wonder if she really did see all those images herself. of course, you find later that she really didn't but in those moments, you start to feel for her. when he says "you saw nothing at Hiroshima" and she fights him on it, you're almost rooting for her but he says it again and you realize that newsreels and pictures will never completely translate the pain and horror of what happened. it almost covers for the movie as if to say "we can try to make you see what it was like but we can never really show you." the lines of reality get blurred just enough to keep you involved but crush you with "memories".
ReplyDelete