User Reviews

One thing that comes to mind on watching Arthur Harari's "Onoda: 10,000 Nights in the Jungle" is that it reminds of many war films that came before it. But, for the majority of the film, there is no war, other than the one in Onoda's (Yuya Endo, and later Kanji Tsuda) mind. Based on the true story and Hiroo Onoda's memoir "No Surrender", this is more about individual survival when the enemy no longer exists.

Onoda is a young soldier sent to the Philippines towards the end of the Second World War to help protect Japanese bases from the US. Seemingly young and wet behind the ears, he struggles to earn the respect of those he is stationed with. But with his unit quickly wiped out, leaving only him; his loyal second-in-command Kozuka (Yuya Matsuura, and later Tetsuya Chiba); farmer Shimada (Shinsuke Kato); and young, idealistic Akatsu ("Tokyo Sonata's" Kai Inowaki). Cut-off from communications on a small, remote island, the quartet have no idea as to the grand scheme of things, namely the war is now over.

It is at this point that Onoda reveals just who he is: a soldier specially trained in the art of survival, rejecting traditionally Japanese traits, such as death before dishonour and the collective over the individual. While the others are useful to him, they are less important than his end aim: stay alive at all costs.

As the years pass, their number dwindles, until Onoda is left alone, still roaming the same small island, surviving for close to three decades, inventing a war in his mind. His trained survival skills mean that he trusts no one, including various attempts from increasingly westernised Japanese to coax him out of the jungle.

The morality of war is something that will always raise its head in any war film made today, focusing less on the heroics of victory, but the pain it causes. Though Harari, a westerner, creates a fairly apolitical film, less focused on the atrocities of the Japanese in the Pacific, and more Onoda's basic struggle to survive at all costs. This is not so much a film about war, but one man's need to remain alive.

Pilfering the local farmers' crops and cattle in a time of peace is framed as an act of survival, rather than a crime of war. And in some ways, it is. Completely cut-off, with no supplies, they have to do what is necessary to survive. And this is where the role of Akatsu becomes an important one. A twenty-year-old idealist, he doesn't believe the people are their enemy. They are the aggressors there, yet when the locals use weapons to protect what's theirs, the soldiers feel justified in their acts. On Onoda's island, it is kill or be killed.

This is obviously a controversial approach, with Filipino characters on the periphery, if they survive long enough, and so their thoughts on this 'invader' are not apparent. But "Onoda" is neutral to the war in its approach, written from a foreign perspective, many years after. The funding from various sources, including France, Germany, Cambodia, Belgium, Italy, as well as Japan, means this doesn't come from one particular ideology, making Onoda continuing the war in his mind, despite evidence to the contrary, almost humorous in its absurdity.

Ultimately, Akatsu can't hack this life, and finally acts on his threats. It is good to see Inowaki in another internationally recognised role, with his pale complexion of someone not cut-out to fight, though survival instincts affect us all. The rest of the cast give good performances, though the switch of lead part way through makes the time covered feel quite sudden. Despite the long run time, you don't get the sense that they have been in the jungle for thousands of days.

Filmed largely in Cambodia, this certainly has the look of "Fires on the Plain" (both Ichikawa (1959) and Tsukamoto (2014)), and the atmosphere of "Aguirre, the Wrath of God" (1972) and "Apocalypse Now" (1979), in that the enemy appears to be all around, yet invisible.

And for much of this, the enemy simply doesn't exist. The more Onoda and Kozuka learn as they age, the more the war is in their minds alone. They are no longer Japanese against the Allies, but two men looking to survive. Everyone is the enemy.

As this looks like many that have come before it, while visually striking, it may not be as memorable in the long-term because of it. Though it's focus more on the act of survival, with even the Japanese pleading with him to give himself up, makes this more about an individual struggle than a war film, Harari 'fictionalising the myth' of Onoda.

That may not be the way some are able to view this outside of its context, but Harari creates a world that is Onoda's alone, and any attacks on that must be stopped.

Politic1983.home.blog.

Onoda is a Japanese soldier who refused to believe that World War II had ended and continued to fight on a remote Philippine island until 1974. Onoda trained as an intelligence officer and received orders to no circumstances was he to surrender or take his own life.

He took his orders so seriously that he dedicated decades of his life to defending an island from an enemy that no longer existed, in favor of his motherland that also no longer existed, at least as he knew it.

A real and unbelievable story about the power of denialism and perseverance, and how these two feelings can impact on someone's life, as well on others around them, for better or worse.

This movie did not meet expectations what so ever. Many points of the movie are very inaccurate. According to Hiroo's memoir Kozuka did not die by a river and not by fisherman. He was killed by two local police officers. There were many small details that were just plain wrong. Such as Hiroo drinking alcohol. Instead he at the red beans. Hiroo's emotions throughout the movie were also wrong. Now I understand the movie can not get everything write to a tee however the inaccuracy of this movie was just sloppy work. I read the book right before I watch the movie and was very excited to watch it and to see how poorly portrayed. I would recommend reading the book and not watching the movie.