“Tora! Tora! Tora!” is the epic
retelling of the attack on Pearl Harbor told from both points of view. It is from the war epic genre that includes
The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far, and Midway .
It fits comfortably in that group, but differs from them because it is
less character driven. Of the group it
has the most documentary feel and the most fidelity to historical
accuracy. It also does not have an
all-star cast.
TTT was released in 1970. It was a joint American-Japanese project with
separate directors and production. The
two separate “films” were then intertwined to create the finisled product. The movie bounces back and forth between the
opposing sides seamlessly. The
screenplay was written by two Japanese and an American, The screenplay was based
on the eponymous nonfiction book by Gordan Prange and “The Broken Seal” by
Ladislas Farago. Prange vetted the
script. There were numerous technical
advisors including Japanese who participated in the attack. TTT strives for
authenticity, sometimes at the expense of entertainment. The Japanese dialogue is subtitled which is
helpful in understanding the Japanese psyche.
The early part of the film details
events leading up to the attack. It is
an excellent tutorial on the political and strategic machinations prior to the
attack. One flaw is the lack of a clear
time line for events before Dec. 6. The
movie offers a brass-eye view from the governmental and military levels. The main American characters are Gen. Short (Jason
Robards) and Adm. Kimmel (Martin Balsam).
We also get a large dose of Yamamoto, Hull, Stimson, and Nomura. The movie forgoes the grunt level characters
like Duhon (A Bridge Too Far) or Garth (Midway). There are no major fictional characters.
TTT fits in all the “greatest hits”
of the Pearl Harbor story. These
include: the code-breaking effort, the radar pick-up, Taylor and Welch in their
P-40s, the U.S.S. Ward versus the Jap sub, Dorie Miller, the Hull-Nomura interchanges. Any fan of the battle will not be
disappointed. Fans of faux dramatics
will be. This movie is very different
from “Pearl Harbor” in that respect.
 , |
| Dorie Miller |
The attack is spectacularly
done. It features real planes. B-17s and P-40s were available and American
planes like T-6s were mocked up to play Zeros.
The stunt flying is well done.
The dog- fighting acrobatics are commendable, but you do get the fake
looking shots from the front typical for air combat scenes from that era. The attack on Hickam Air Field is noteworthy
as is the explosion of the Arizona.
There are plenty of explosions in this movie, but that is appropriate of
course. The movie won the Academy Award
for Best Special Effects. It was a s
good as you could get pre-CGI.
 |
| the attack on Hickam Field |
TTT resembles "The Longest Day" in its
impartial treatment of both sides. In
fact, it could be argued it may be a bit too sympathetic to the Japanese. The movie was a bigger hit in Japan than in
the U.S. (where it bombed). Contrast
that with “Pearl Harbor”. Another key
theme is the rehabilitation of the reputations of Short and Kimmel who were
made scapegoats in the aftermath of the disaster. The movie makes a strong case for complacency
being the major flaw of the American leadership. not malfeasance. That plus the incredible luck the Japanese
had.
The obvious comparison is to “Pearl
Harbor” and whichever one you prefer tells
a lot about you as a viewer. If
you are like me and prefer accuracy at the expense of entertainment, you would
pick TTT. I have to say that most of my
students would prefer the more splashy (and pompous) PH and would find TTT
boring, especially in the lead-up to the attack. The best thing to do is to watch them as
companion pieces. You can avoid reading
up on the attack if you take that approach.
Some Americans over 40 (i.e., old enough to remember the actual event) were annoyed by the sympathetic treatment of the Japanese. Critic Judith Crist sarcastically said that the movie was about how the stupid Americans allowed the attack, in spite of the honorable Japanese officers' best efforts to prevent it. But the story is about the Japanese planning and carrying out the attack, so they naturally come across as proactive (and therefore seem more intelligent), while the Americans seem reactive (at best) or clueless (at worst).
ReplyDeleteWell put! I could not agree more with your last point more. When I mentioned the incredible luck the Japanese had I was mainly referring to the luck of being pitted against incompetent and clueless American leadership. BTW those are traits found commonly at the start of almost every American war so the Japanese could have factored that in to their decision to attempt a very risky attack.
DeleteAs far as sympathetic treatment, the movie very much reminds me of "The Longest Day". There are no Nazis in that movie. Yamamoto and Rommel are mirror images of each other.
Judith Crist did not know what she was talking about. Since the movie is as accurate as could be, it shows she knew little of the actual events and and wanted "Pearl Harbor" instead.
There are exceptions, but generally I hate movies that mix fiction with fact. Especially when the fictional part of the story is some silly soap opera. Pearl Harbor, Midway, and D-Day the Sixth of June all seemed to think that the historical event was not interesting enough by itself, so they had to add a love triangle or whatever. It's also a kind of bait-and-switch. Imagine the reverse: if you rented a DVD of Love Story or An Affair to Remember, you would be annoyed if the movie turned out to be more about the air raid on Pearl Harbor or the battle of Midway.
ReplyDeleteExcellent comments. You mention three outstanding examples to back up your opinion. I agree with your feelings toward these types of movies, but would argue that it is okay to overly fictionalize the plot if the goal is to bring history to the masses. A good example would be "Glory". Just don't make the extra fluff laughable like in those three movies.
DeleteI thought this was such an excellent movie, especially because it showed both sides.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this and Pearl Harbor should be compared at all. It's not fair to either one of them, their purposes are so different. This is a war movie, Pearl Harbor is a romance with a war theme.
I'm somewhat astonised that Tora!Tora!Tora! isn't on your list. It is so much better than mayn others.
I agree. I am not a huge hater of "Pearl Harbor" (although it is not a good movie). As I suggested, they make a good pair. It is amazing that "Tora" is not on the list, but "Midway" is. It is also noteworthy that "Tora" does not force a happy ending by including the Doolittle Raid like PH does.
DeleteI definitely agree on this one. One of my favorites, probably top 10. It is accurate and very well executed.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't see the point in comparing this to Pearl Harbor. It's not a war movie but a romantic drama set during war time and even then it's just awful movie.
Comparing them is another way of saying how much "Pearl Harbor" sucks. And it may have a lot of romance in it, "Pearl Harbor" is still clearly a war movie. If not, a majority of 1940s war movies would have to be removed from the genre.
DeleteThe picture of the machine gunner in the sandbags is misidentified. It is supposed to depict John Finn at NAS Kanaohe where he earned the Medal of Honor.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
DeleteThis is still THE movie on the Pearl Harbor attack. The acting, the pacing, the accuracy, the music. It's so well done.
ReplyDeleteFunnily enough, I think I can see why some criticisms the film got is that it doesn't really follow or provide any development for any specific characters in the attack itself, with the exception of Admiral Kimmel; films like "Zulu" (1964) introduce and give development to characters to increase our investment in them so when there’s actual combat, we care about the participants. In "Tora! Tora! Tora!", while the attacks are brutal and horrific, I can't say on whether audience members are for the most part personally invested in anyone who dies or fights during the movie. The "more notable heroes of Pearl Harbor" depicted are mainly introduced the morning of the seventh, or not so much introduced as just shown. Dorie Miller, who is notable for coming from below quarters and is the only black man shown in the attack scene (in real life, there was another black messmate, whose name I can't remember, who helped fellow wounded white sailors, despite being the target of abuse of several casual and brutal racist remarks from them prior to the attack; when asked by his daughter on why he helped them, despite their previous behaviour, he tearfully said that in that moment, he saw them as human beings in their worst moment of need and put their prior remarks aside), is shown firing an anti-aircraft gun, but we don’t know anything about him. Some people also wish Miller had more scenes or lines, specifically him helping carry wounded sailors to safety (in the film, we last seen Miller being knocked down to the deck, by the blast of the Arizona exploding). Although to be fair to the film, this is probably because the movie already has a lot of ground to cover, and we don’t need the back story of everyone at Pearl Harbor involved. Much like The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far, we don't need to know EVERY character. The situation carries its own inherent drama. We don’t need to know what John Finn was doing the day before–we just need to see him bleeding and firing in the middle of chaos.
ReplyDeleteMaybe not knowing who some of these people are makes it less engaging. Maybe the movie is too long, but this movie gives a lot of information and a lot of action, and much of it looks great. Funnily enough, the two P-40 pilots, George Welch and Kenneth Taylor, have some scenes prior to the attack and are notable for one of the film's best sequences, when they shoot down several Japanese planes to defend the hospital, but we last see them still fighting, and audience members (unless they read before) don't get to find out whether they survived.