This mini-series skillfully blends contemporary actors with archival footage from the two-and-a-half-year trial of members of Japan's World War II leadership, which took place in the late 1940s. For those who are not drawn in by the end of the first episode, let me say I found the end of part two to be a cliff-hanger. I am more amused by the many reviewers who want to argue with the program's point of view. I do not think it has a point of view so much as it stimulates discussion by showing all the conflicting views among Tribunal members.
You might think the filmmakers regard some of the justices as good guys and others not, but I prefer to take each character's argument on its merits, especially since each character defends his viewpoint pretty well. Surprisingly sympathetic is the Russian Justice, General Zaryanov, who only speaks to the non-Russian-speaking characters-and consequently to audience members similarly challenged-through his female translator. (Incidentally, although she is called "Russian Translator" in the cast, there is a technical distinction between a translator and an interpreter, and she is the latter.)
Although the program dramatically pulls us toward Justice Roling as the protagonist, the choice of his POV ironically might be due more to his being the most changeable of the justices rather than because the Netherlands is one of the three countries responsible for this production.
Roling starts out trying not to have any bias but soon realizes that he is attracted to Indian Justice Pal's blanket rejection of the idea that a tribunal dominated by colonialists and colonists can condemn Japan for what amounts to, well, colonialism. As the trial drags on, however, Roling realizes that he cannot go as far as Pal does, and he seeks to define a more moderate position.
As is explained in the first episode, there are three types of war crimes. 1) Conventional war crimes are easily understood: Somebody massacres civilians or prisoners, for example. 2) Crimes against humanity occur when, say, somebody starves, tortures, or exterminates people. 3) Legally more problematic is the category "crimes against peace", a.k.a., "crimes of aggression", which had been used at the earlier Nuremberg Trial. Some justices in Tokyo want to stick with that precedent while others question it. Maybe it should be a crime to start a war, but it isn't. Or is it? Here is the major sticking point, and the justices on the Tribunal disagree with each other and never stop arguing about it.
Sir William Webb, the president of the Tribunal, confronts General MacArthur early on with the question of why the Emperor is not held responsible along with the other men in the dock. MacArthur basically tells him that who is to be charged has already been decided above Webb's pay-grade, and he shouldn't worry about it. Another question that arises is why these men and not some others are on trial, but the justices can't get a fair answer to that one, either; and yet the Russian justice, General Zaryanov, is allowed to add two names to the list, apparently as a political sop to his government.
I like that the justices discuss the larger issues but remain collegial, despite the hardball tactics they often use against each other; although I think the audience should be told explicitly that some of the seemingly dry arguments are life-and-death issues. For example, if a Japanese leader is deemed responsible, but the act in question is ruled not technically a war crime, then the death penalty could be removed from the table. This is not made explicit enough.
When Justice Northcroft brings in a legal specialist, it sounds as if he is being introduced as "Quentin ... Quentin Baxter", but, no, the man is named Quentin Quentin-Baxter. (He is an actual historical person, and his full name was Robert Quentin Quentin-Baxter.)
The Russian interpreter is never given a name, but she plays a crucial role. At one point, she tells Quentin-Baxter that she cannot translate what he has just said because it would insult the Russian General; so Quentin-Baxter gives her a blander remark that she can say to Zaryanov without causing an international incident.
The relationship between Justice Roling and the German woman pianist is handled well if problematically. Was this part of the historical record? Either way, it is a nice touch that there is a platonic relationship between them. (Roling has a wife and children back home, and, in any case, a romance would be a distraction to the main story.) Their ultimate falling out is understandable if unfortunate, showing how fraught the political situation was. When Mrs. Harich-Schneider turns out to be friendly with the wife of one of the defendants, Roling cannot afford any appearance of favoritism even if it is not intended. Less tense is Roling's warm friendship with a Japanese male intellectual.
To put the Tribunal in context, this was the highest profile but hardly the only trial involving East Asian war crimes. Each Allied country put lower ranking Japanese on trial for specific, conventional war crimes, and there were many convictions and even executions. However, some individuals were exempted from prosecution along with the Emperor and his family (some imperial sons and nephews had been military officers). Forty-two potential defendants scheduled for subsequent trials in Tokyo were summarily pardoned by McArthur, possibly because of the daunting length of the first trial. (Imagine if these trials had still been going on during the Korean War in the early 1950s!)
Injustices went in both directions. On the one hand, Shiro Ishii, the Japanese Joseph Mengele, was never even charged, while on the other, the United States appears to have convicted and imprisoned the wrong woman in the Tokyo Rose case.
In a world where years and decades seem to go by without a single movie or TV drama that makes one think, this series is a welcome exception.
6 out of 7 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
