Barefoot Gen

Film analysis no. 2, Barefoot Gen

Barefoot Gen (はだしのゲン Hadashi no Gen?) is a Japanese manga series by Keiji Nakazawa. Loosely based on Nakazawa's own experiences as a Hiroshima survivor, the series begins in 1945 in and around Hiroshima, Japan, where the six-year-old boy Gen lives with his family. After Hiroshima is destroyed by atomic bombing, Gen and other survivors are left to deal with the aftermath.

Barefoot Gen is a war drama anime based on the Japanese manga series by Keiji Nakazawa. Directed by Mori Masaki and released in 1983, it depicts World War II in Japan from a child's point of view revolving around the events surrounding the bombing of Hiroshima and the main character's first hand experience of the bomb.

Barefoot Gen 2 is a 1986 Japanese action drama anime film following the 1983 Barefoot Gen animated movie, loosely based on the Japanese manga series by Keiji Nakazawa.

Three years after the Hiroshima bombing, Gen and his adopted brother, Ryuta, befriend a group of orphans. A fierce typhoon hits the city, leaving the orphans' home flooded and beyond repair. Gen helps them build a new home on an abandoned piece of property, and brings love and encouragement to one of the children whose face has been badly scarred by radiation. Gen's mother, though, has only four more months to live...



In the filmic adaptation of Nakazawa Keiji's manga Barefoot Gen, the film director Mamoru Shinzaki used a variety of visual strategies to convey the unimaginable power of the atomic explosion that pulverized Hiroshima. Here I identify, describe, and analyze some of these strategies.

The first visual strategy that was used was how the people were going about their day to day activities. Like Gen going off to school and meeting up to talk to a friend, how Gen’s little brother was sitting and playing with his new boat, and how there was an image of some people waiting for a train. Everyone was doing their normal routines and going about their everyday life when it just hit. No warning, the siren didn’t even go off. It went from normal to terror. This shows viewers how something so terrible can just happen without knowing. These people weren’t in the military, they were civilians.

The sound was an efficient way to convey atmosphere. The normality of life happening and then an instant of silence which slowly comes back to the sounds of distress and panic. The gradual return of sound after the silence is similar to what is described during shell shock.

The use of the black and white dominating the frames in-place of the color that was used normally throughout the movie gave a dramatic contrast to the people and the environments. Adding a surreal feeling to the confusion and shock of the characters in the film. The blinding, intense light coming from the explosion would have distorted the environments and the visual sense that the people would experience would also have had a surreal feeling.

On the same note of light, it bathed the large buildings and other structures in white blinding light that was intensified at the edges of the objects. This was to created the visual effect of the objects becoming smaller and smaller as they eventually dissolve into nothing. Disintegrating all of the buildings in the ground zero area. This gave an idea of how powerful the physical blast of the bomb was.

The slow motion of the events during the moments when the bomb first detonated to the few seconds after was very dramatic. Because everything happened so quickly in reality, slowing down the film to catch all of the details of what happened during those first few seconds was very insightful to the horrors.

Most of all, the extremely graphic images of the people at ground zero melting and disintegrating in a matter of an instant, emphasized by the slow motion movements of the people. The skin of the people turning red, their bodies melting, including their eyeballs melting and dripping from their sockets. These images may be the strongest visual strategy to show the horrific effects of the bomb. Also after the first part of the aftermath, Gen goes towards his home and sees people coming away from the direction of the bomb. The people resemble what our society would see as zombie-esque creatures. The people are melting, their skin dripping off of their bodies, again, eyeballs dripping from their skulls, shards of glass sticking out of them, and other manners of grotesque deformities walking forward. Some with their arms stretched outward, walking haphazardly and almost lifelike away from the worst of the damage.

On another line of thought, the portray of the American’s flying the Enola Gay over Hiroshima right before the bomb was dropped was very unique. The animation of the Americans was in a completely different style of drawing. The image was obscure, less detailed, less color, and with more contrast. They were given a foreboding mysterious atmosphere within the short time that they were shown in the film.

Nakazawa Keiji's creation of the manga, and the director of the film, Mamoru Shinzaki not only used many types of “visual strategies to convey the unimaginable power of the atomic explosion” but also used many strategies throughout the film to convey what happened in the overall situation of the bombing and the afterward. This subject is very difficult because of its nature and emotional effects. In attempt to portray such an event, Nakazawa Keiji and Mamoru Shinzaki used the following to deliver this story.

Much of the content in the film is from a child’s perspective, Gen. Children are not able to understand the entirety of the situation. Certain social norms are not always observed, such as attempting to take or rather steal the carp for their malnourished pregnant mother, or after the bomb had detonated, when Gen says something along the lines of “why doesn’t everyone be quite so I can sleep.” Also adding the lightheartedness of playing with siblings or making jokes, comic relief.

The film centers around one particular family. Specifically how they were affected and how they coped with various trials created by this event. This helps to cut down on the overwhelming about of tragic events that are happening to everyone due to the main event of the bomb. This also connects the viewer to these people, who then become more that just those people, but this family that was affected. With a closer connection, it is more difficult for the viewer to distance themself from the event. The viewer still sees a general overlook of what is happening to others, like when Gen transports the radiation sick man to the hospital and the viewers see the calamities of what the doctors are trying to deal with. However, the specific events like when Gen’s little sister dies because she didn’t get enough milk, these are important events to the family, and effects of the war that has brought famine.

There was a parable in the beginning of the film about wheat. Gen’s Father says “Look at it boys, its life begins in the coldest season of the year. The rain pounds it, the wind blows it, its crushed beneath peoples feet, but still the wheat spreads its roots and grows. It survives. ” Later after the bombing and towards the end of the film, Gen’s “adopted” little brother comes across some wheat growing in a field and this reminds Gen of what his father had said. This then gives hope to Gen and creates a comparison between the nature of the wheat and of the Japanese people.

The narrator was an important way to convey information. He gave factual information about what was going on in the war that the main characters did not know. Such as the dates and times surrounding the bomb, the name of the plane, Enola Gay, and the number of Japanese that perished during the event.

Barefoot Gen, though animated, gave a very unique and detailed account for the bombing of Hiroshima and the afterward devastation. The perspective was unique and important in understanding the issues and tragedies of the event.

Barefoot Gen DVD Cover:



Barefoot Gen 2 DVD Cover:



Barefoot Gen Full Film Dubbed:

Barefoot Gen 2 Full Film Subbed:

Witnessing Trinity

Partner Readings:

Photographer Spellbound

Ground Zero New Mexico

Watching Trinity

Witnessing the Trinity test in person elicited a broad range of memorable responses. With reference to five individuals, including Brigadier General Thomas F. Farrell, General Leslie R. Groves, and photographer Berlyn Brixner, this will summarize their personal response to this momentous event.

The Manhattan Project Documentary

Film analysis no. 1, The Manhattan Project.

In The Manhattan Project produced in 2002 by The History Channel, the filmmakers called upon an array of leading historians and participants in the project to shed light upon one of the most secret missions ever undertaken by the US government and its military.

Five individuals who were involved and contributed to The Manhattan Project include Leo Szilard, Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves.

Leo Szilard, one of the Jewish physicists, who "usually slept late" and "soaked in the bathtub to get fresh ideas," was one of the more important scientist in the Project. He wanted to warn President Roosevelt about the potential of an atomic bomb. He wrote a letter to the president and had Albert Einstein to sign it to make sure it was not tossed away. With Szilard's warning to the President, in 1939, "Roosevelt formed the Advisory Committee on Uranium." Later at Columbia, with other scientists, he worked on "the question of whether or not a sustained chain reaction could be induced in an uranium reactor." This was an important part in whether or not a bomb could be created. Szilard "convinced scientists in U.S., whose community thrived on openness, to censor their papers so that they would not inadvertently helped the Germans." At the University of Chicago, along with other scientists, Szilard was "trying to demonstrate that the fission process could be harnessed by launching a sustained chain reaction in uranium." The group of scientists were able to build "the first primitive reactor" below "the stands of the university's football stadium." This was a huge step in the creation of the atomic bomb, leading to great advances thereafter, and sent the "bomb effort... into high gear."

Enrico Fermi, a Jewish physicist, "one of the few scientists who was talented both in theory and in practice," and "loved getting his hands dirty," was another important scientist in the Project. At Columbia, along with other scientists, including Szilard, he worked on to basic mechanics of the reactor. Again, this was an important part in the creating of the bomb even being possible. Later, at the University of Chicago, along with other scientists and again with Szilard, Fermi was working on "the fission process" and its relation to the "chain reaction in uranium." This again lead to the building of "the first primitive reactor." Later yet, Fermi was drawn in by Oppenheimer to the facility in Los Alamos to continue work on the bomb; the "process of trying to determine how much U-235 it would take to make a bomb."

Edward Teller, a Jewish theoretical physicist, later the "Hydrogen Bomb Designer," was another scientist to assist in the creation of the atomic bomb. Teller assisted his friend, Szilard, in the goal of delivering the warning letter to Roosevelt. He drove Szilard to "Einstein's summer house on Long Island" to have Einstein sign Szilard's letter. Later, Teller was also drawn in by Oppenheimer to the facility in Los Alamos to continue work on the bomb. Twenty miles away from the site of the Trinity Test at "Compania Hill with Lawrence", Teller "mostly scared everybody to death because... he was putting suntan lotion on his face and... in his hands and as a guard against the... ultraviolet from the bomb." Later, after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Teller felt that the bomb had brought scientific progress. Oppenheimer "did not agree that the arms race represented progress" and questioned Teller. Teller "testified against his former chief," Oppenheimer at the "revoking of [Oppenheimer's] security clearance at a government hearing in 1954."

J. Robert Oppenheimer, A gifted physics professor, who had a "reputation for being temperamental," and was considered "a fascinating, complicated man," was chosen to head The Manhattan Project scientists at Los Alamos. He "drew luminaries like Enrico Fermi, Hans Bethe and Edward Teller to the facility, as well as technicians fresh out of college." The facility grew enormously in a short span of time. As time went on and the experiments grew and changed with both positive and many negative outcomes, "Oppenheimer was living on coffee and martinis and cigarettes," he was "anguished" over the work. When the first test bomb was finished, "Oppenheimer had given the test of the implosion device the codename "Trinity," a reference to a devotional poem by 17th century English poet John Donne." After the bomb was released on Hiroshima, Oppenheimer had issues with Teller and his thoughts of progress in the arms race. Oppenheimer's "opposition to Edward Teller's hydrogen bomb project and questions about his communist sympathies led to the revoking of his security clearance at a government hearing in 1954." Oppenheimer's career was "brought to an end."

Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, "an expert engineer and administrator" who "was placed at the head of the Manhattan Engineer District named after the project's initial headquarters in New York City." Groves, "having just finished building the Pentagon was absolutely disgusted to be assigned in the Manhattan Project." The scientist working on the Project needed more space for testing of scientific ideas concerning the bomb. Groves chose the "bomb designed site in Los Alamos" for this next step. It was "An isolated location in the mountains at an elevation of 7,000 feet and accessible by only one road." Groves "wanted it to be inland... too far from enemy planes or submarines. He wanted it to be beautiful where he said, 'You could keep a bunch of prima donnas and muse.'" To head the facility in Los Alamos, Groves chose Oppenheimer, even after much opposition to his choice. At one point during the work at Los Alamos, when the scientist were "trying to determine how much U-235 it would take to make a bomb," The scientist tell Groves "'Well, it could a X-amount but... that's a plus or minus... by factor 10.'" Groves is "absolutely staggered" at this answer. Groves then "uses the illustration that... while you're giving a wedding and... you say it's for 100 people but maybe a thousand will turn out or maybe 10. So,... how can you make any sort of plans...with that range." Later, a new site was constructed for more scientific tests called Y-12. After some work had been done on this site, tests should have been done. However, "because of the intense time constraints, Groves could not afford to build pilot plants, facilities to test the scaling up of the laboratory processes." And so the scientist went ahead with their work without the necessary precautions and tests that should have accompanied the work. Elsewhere, Groves shut down the "electromagnetic separation plant" because of the great dangers that it was causing, such as "pull[ing] ...nails out of the wall." At Oak Ridge, "Groves used creative means to recruit" many workers. "It's hard to get construction workers during the war. [Grove's] solution was to put out an ad saying, "We can't tell you what you'll be doing but they'll be steak every night on the table."" Groves was "eating wheat and chocolate samplers and sleeping soundly" over the work and creation of the bomb. "Groves initiated the construction at Hanford on August 27th, 1943" of "three production reactors" for producing plutonium. "Groves was not content to relay on just two approaches, Y-12 and Hanford, to produce the weapon's grade fuel for the bomb" and so he began a third plant at Oak Ridge with another method. Later, during the Trinity Test, "General Groves was lying on the ground in the prone position facing away from the blast. What he said that was going through his mind was, what was he gonna do when the timer got to zero and nothing happened." However, he never needed those words, as the test was successful. "Groves returned to Washington to report the results to Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, and to make preparations for the use of the bomb against Japan. Later that day, Groves had his photograph taken for the publicity that would accompany the bombing of Hiroshima." There was a petition going around the Oak Ridge area demanding a demonstration test of the bomb on a non populated area before dropping it on Japan. Groves did not like this and in attempt to squash this petition, he "conducted a poll of atomic scientists," asking "'What do you think of a demonstration?' To his chagrin 83 percent of the people answering the poll said some sort of demonstration was preferable to bombing civilians. ...Groves saw to it that the petition was bottled up at Oak Ridge until after the bombs fell on Japan." "In the spring of 1945 , General Groves chose populated Japanese cities as potential targets to demonstrate the bomb's destructive power and end the war as quickly as possible." The final decision was made on June 1st by the President. "On August 6th, 1945 , at 8:15 a.m...., Little Boy dropped from bombay doors of the Enola Gay. Forty-three seconds later, the bomb detonated 1,900 feet above Hiroshima..." and "Three days later, a second, more powerful plutonium bomb, Fat Man, fell on Nagasaki..."

Produced by Sean Dash
Modern Marvels (New York, NY: A&E Television Networks, 2002)
43:35 mins

The Scientist Ethical Qualms

The partner reading:
The Scientist Ethical Qualms

As work progressed on the development of the A-bomb, some of the scientists working at Los Alamos, NM, began to question the ethical implications of the Manhattan project. This reading and response brings together five perspectives speaking to this issue.


It is a nice thought to know that the scientists did feel the need to talk about the implications that their work would have upon the world, that they were not just blindly creating weapons of mass destruction just for scientific reasons or monetary compensation. It is interesting that “no official records” were kept of the meetings (p 284). So what we have now is only the word of the scientist of what was actually said i8n those meetings. In this reading I did not see an issue with what was said on the debate the scientist had, however I could see this becoming an issue if one of the scientists who may have been for the use of the atomic bomb felt the need to deny their previous thoughts.

I also find it interesting that the only real argument in using the bomb was because Oppenheimer felt that the world should know about the weapons of mass destruction that “mankind” had invented. That the war could not end without this knowledge bing shared with the world. It could not be allowed to become a “military secret” that would then allow for the “next war” to be fought with atomic weapons on all sides. It was important that the delegates of the United Nations be able to discuss postwar issues with “knowledge that mankind had invented these weapons of mass destruction”. I feel that this is a good argument in the sense that the world did need to know that these weapons were being created and also that the United Nations should have this information when making post war decisions. However, I feel that this could have been done still without the physical act of dropping the bombs. What I gathered from this reading, Oppenheimer was a very charismatic man (p 286), who with the right and elegant words, and his charming personality was able to convince others of his views. Which in many ways is unfortunate. Hitler showed the world what one can do with the power of words and charisma. It is not always in the best interest for everyone. I feel that it did help that many of the scientists, including Wilson, on some level wanted to be convinced that the detonation of the bomb was the right thing.

The train of thought that I fell should have had more weight on the opposition side was “We did have a pretty intense discussion of why it was that we were continuing to make a bomb after the war had been virtually won (p 284).” Also the other idea being, “Now that it seemed so clear that the gadget would not be used on the Germans, he [Wilson] and many others in the room had doubts but on answers. ‘I [Wilson] thought we were fighting the Nazis, not the Japanese particularly’. (p 285)” I feel that if the scientists had looked at these thoughts a bit more closely and come to a conclusion that the world could know about that atomic technology without its detonation then perhaps the question of “Why?” Why is the United States still determined to drop this bomb if the war is just about over and the Japanese do not even have atomic weapons to join in this new technology war, who could then be dealt with in the “usual” or “existing” means of military tactics; then why would the United States still want to use this weapon of mass destruction?

One of the readings that shocked me the most was the “Scientists Petition the President (p 291).” The most shocking and concerning part of this was that though, 155 signatures of Manhattan Project Scientists were on the petition, “Neither Stimson nor the President saw the petition before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (p 291).” This petition was in response to a hugely important topic on the use of weapons of mass destruction. The President, being the Commander-in-chief, most certainly should have received and read this petition in time; before making the decision to detonate the bomb on Hiroshima. The petition make a great amount of logical sense as well. The scientists are saying that they would advise against the use of the bomb. However, if the president still feels its use is necessary to first give the Japanese people a chance. To wait until “the terms which will be imposed after the war on the Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender (p 292)” If then, the Japanese refused to surrender and ignore the terms, then and only then could the President, with serious consideration of the “moral responsibilities which are involved (p 293),” use the bomb as a last resort.

There are many different ideas on if and how the Atomic bomb should have been used. I feel there were many good arguments that were in opposition to the use of the bomb and I so do wish they would have taken those debates into better account, however it seems that Oppenheimer won out the debate. The bomb was sent, whether some wanted it or not.

Overview

AH 385 Seminar in Art History
Visual Representations and the Nuclear Experience


COURSE OVERVIEW

"This course investigates the nuclear era from the perspective of its global visual representation viewed through an interdisciplinary lens. From the initial testing of an atomic device in the New Mexico desert in July 1945 to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident of 2011, there exists a vast archive of visual material testifying to this unprecedented period in world history. Since the dawn of the era, diverse forms of visual communication have shaped this nuclear archive. Photography, motion picture, video games, animation, drawing, painting, even sculpture and conceptual art have all contributed in their own ways to the growth of nuclear iconography. Two complimentary frames of reference further enrich and diversify this growing archive: on the one hand, pictorial depictions of the nuclear landscape and, on the other hand, visual evidence of the impact of nuclear technology and radiation upon human beings. Furthermore, the heterogeneous nature of nuclear imagery reflects a broad range of intentions informing the work of its producers, which include scientists, military personnel, governmental agencies, medical officers, eyewitnesses, survivors, downwinders, journalists, historians, environmentalists, filmmakers, and artists of all stripes. 2 Approaching this visual material from a global, multicultural lens receptive to all points of view (e.g. victor and vanquished, allies and foes, propagandists and detractors), this course provides ample opportunities for research, reflection, and critical debate. The explored topics include the development of the Manhattan Project, the military use and medical effects of the atomic bomb in Japan, the memorialization of the atomic experience, the testing of atomic and hydrogen devices by nuclear nations throughout the Cold War, the hazards of radioactive fallout upon downwinders, the international proliferation of nuclear arsenal, the infamous accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, along with the diverse responses of postwar and contemporary artists to the atomic age, its implications, ideologies, iconic images, and continuing uncertainties."

-Claude Baillargeon
Associate Professor, Department of Art and Art History

15 Topics

The topics that will be covered include:

The Manhattan Project

The Trinity Test

The Hiroshima Bombing

The Nagasaki Bombing

Radiation Sickness and Censorship

Post A-Bomb surveys

Japanese Memorialization of Atomic Experience

Western Artists and the A-Bombing of Japan

Nuclear Testing and The Cold War

Radioactive Fallout and Downwinders

The Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Global Reflections on the Nuclear Era

Chernobyl

The Nuclear Debate

Fukushima

Each topic will have a corresponding reading and video as added content.