Blood Oath1990

“You really don’t understand do you? We have to use people like Takahashi to serve our interests.” “Takahashi’s not serving our interests; you’re serving his. And you’re not working out the future of the world. You’re just preventing it from being different to the past.” What separates war from murder? Bureaucracy? Just because an order is written and verified that justifies the killing of another in cold blood?  This entire story hinges around the fact that four men, four prisoners, were ordered without cause, without a trial, to be executed. And the man who ordered the death of the four prisoners was acquitted, while one of the officers who carried out the order was found guilty.  “Lieutenant Tanaka an English speaking Christian Japanese, who gave himself up, was today sentenced to death, sentence to be carried out immediately.” This movie is about the post-war trial on the island of Ambon, where after Japan captured the island, subsequently 300 Allied prisoners were murdered. Like other Nurembergian trials, those actually responsible escape via politics or death, while the men who had no choice but to follow orders are punished.  At the end of the movie, the final remarks of the prosecution are intercut with a flashback of the execution of four Australian airmen. Followed by the execution of Tanaka after being found guilty.  Again, what is the difference between these actions? Because one is justice? Because an actual tribunal took place? War is a game where everyone loses.  “It has become increasingly obvious, sir, that the overriding fact in these proceedings is not the difference between the Japanese culture and our own or the two sides in an international war. It is the way in which power, privilege make victims of those who have neither.” P.s. this is Russell Crowes feature debut and he is decent. He doesn’t have a lot of lines so you can’t really judge his performance. But I thought it would be worth watching and it definitely was.