A recent new film titled “Nanjing Photo Studio” depicts a photographer who is forced to develop photos for the Japanese army, only to discover that these photos are evidence of Japanese crimes, and he decides to preserve this evidence. It seems to be about the atrocities committed by the Japanese army in Nanjing, but many characters in the film are traitors, such as the translator for the Japanese invaders—clearly a traitor, yet the film claims he had good intentions, thinking he was saving people. There is also a lot of praise for deserters, claiming that even deserters have no psychological pressure. The female lead is also a traitor, having previously performed for the Japanese, such as Mei Lanfang and Li Xianglan. Online nationalist fans are celebrating, saying this is the best film in years, highlighting the Japanese as purely evil. Promoting traitors and chauvinist nationalism has always been a characteristic of the Chinese revisionist bureaucratic bourgeoisie; most of their ancestors were traitors and sellouts, and they themselves do not care about national interests. Spreading nationalism is just a way for them to compete for dominance. Everyone is welcome to discuss this reactionary film.
This movie’s director is the same as the one who made “Jungle Strike”; it slanders the victims of scams as being greedy for money. Like the previous film “Nanjing Nanjing,” it uses nationalism to divert domestic class contradictions. I think they probably don’t analyze the historical and political facts correctly, nor do they point out the reactionary nature of the Kuomintang’s compromise and betrayal routes. Instead, they wildly showcase the massacre activities of military fascists and promote a terrifying, horror atmosphere.
This film, judging by its name and some background information, seems to be adapted (or distorted) from a real event. During the 60th anniversary of the Nanjing Massacre, I watched a documentary on TV. It told of a photo studio in Nanjing where the Japanese army demanded the film for developing, which contained photos of their brutal massacre of civilians. The Japanese ordered the studio staff not to develop or keep the negatives. However, the developer secretly made a copy of these photos and created an album documenting the Japanese atrocities. Later, while hiding from the Japanese, he hid the album, which was accidentally found by someone else. This album became one of the pieces of evidence used in the trial of war criminals to expose the Nanjing Massacre. In the 1980s, China Central Television made a film called “Blood Evidence of the City Massacre” about this event. It was probably less crazy than now; at that time, the person who made the album hadn’t been found yet, so the film said that this person was killed by the Japanese to protect the album. Now, this movie might have ‘surpassed the original,’ having bought the rights to “Blood Evidence of the City Massacre” from Nanjing Film Studio and adapted it. Perhaps it is useful to understand the real historical events and compare them with these people’s ‘artistic creations’ to see how they engaged in reactionary propaganda through their ‘art.’
This fundamentally does not discuss the class analysis method, nor does it discuss the laws of ideological struggle. Translator Wang Guanghai clearly survives by taking advantage of translation work and has become a Japanese running dog through opportunism, and is also very good at self-glorification and self-deception, thinking that he is saving people to comfort himself, but in the end, he suddenly realizes that he is a “running dog” and that his “long-suppressed emotions finally burst out.” This is very abstract; how does one go from being a servant to a rebel? This is illogical. Being a servant is because it conforms to one’s own interests; continuing to be a servant and self-deceiving in practice will also increasingly lower one’s moral standards and change one’s class stance, and it is impossible to suddenly become someone who dares to rebel. Then there is also the claim that the actor who performed for the Japanese “did not initially realize the cruelty of the massacre but only deeply understood the essence of the Japanese army”—this is similar to what was said about the translator earlier, both are promoting human nature theory, claiming that these people’s true hearts are good, but for various reasons, they went astray, and their mistakes are not critically examined. Such people in history are actually traitors.
The depiction of the deserter Song Cunyi is also like this: as a deserter, he is fundamentally very afraid of death and has likely seen the massacres and atrocities committed by the Japanese army. Baidu Baike’s account of his ideological transformation is:
“In the photography studio, Song Cunyi saw a photo of his brother’s tragic death, which became the turning point for him. His brother’s death made him realize the cruelty of war and the atrocities of the Japanese army. He began to reflect on his actions and gradually awakened. Song Cunyi decided not to escape anymore but to choose resistance.”
Why did he not feel anger at the Japanese atrocities during the war, and only began to change after seeing his brother’s tragic death? Isn’t that absurd? If so, this kind of anger is also driven by the psychology of private owners who only care about their own families. In fact, this also reflects how the bourgeois view heroic figures—they believe heroes are only concerned with trivial family matters, emphasizing brotherly loyalty, and treating family members as life itself, promoting this kind of private owner mentality, and advocating for a complex character who, although a deserter, values his brother—like glorifying gangsters who care about their families (he is not a good person, but a good father). Of course, a deserter who only cares about his own life does not change much in practice; just seeing his brother’s tragic death photo and daring to sacrifice himself is also unreasonable from the perspective of the laws of ideological struggle. An extremely selfish person also cannot care about their own family.
Furthermore, the description of the photo studio owner Kim Seung-jung indirectly exposes the purpose and stance of the Chinese revisionist bourgeoisie in making this film.
“The owner of the photo studio is a recorder of life in Nanjing. From taking photos of bustling street life and happy families to being forced to develop evidence of compatriots’ suffering.”
This actually means that before the Japanese invasion, life in Nanjing was “bustling street life and happy families,” but at that time, Nanjing was still under the decayed and dark rule of the Kuomintang, where there was no such thing as “bustling street life.” Which class could have “happy families”? The films made by the Chinese revisionist bourgeoisie about the Chinese invasion of Japan almost never mention or criticize Chiang Kai-shek’s reactionary surrender and betrayal policies, do not discuss the class struggle within the anti-Japanese national united front, and do not mention that the Nanjing Massacre was entirely caused by Chiang’s surrender and non-resistance policy. It seems that the social contradictions at that time were only between the Chinese people and the Japanese invaders; without the Japanese invasion, everything would be peaceful and beautiful. They do not discuss class struggle, only talk about an abstract China, but in the historical context, China was still under the Kuomintang, which means they are implying that the Kuomintang’s China is the normal China.
The more I studied history, the more I was puzzled. During the Franco-Prussian War, the French invaders slaughtered Chinese people; the Russian powers also committed massacres like the Hailanpo incident. Historically, Wang Yangming and Zeng Guofan also carried out large-scale massacres comparable to Japanese invasions, with no less brutality. But the Chinese revisionist propaganda never mentions these, only talks about Japanese atrocities, and even glorifies the landlord class. Is this really out of some national righteousness or stance against fascism? The Chinese revisionist bourgeoisie itself is fascist. I used to wonder why socialist China does not criticize Japan as fiercely as now, and later realized that socialist China adopts a critical attitude toward all reactionaries of the past, not just selectively criticizing some. In fact, the Chinese revisionist approach is to incite extreme nationalist sentiment, where only the Japanese and Chinese are enemies, while landlords, Chiang Kai-shek’s reactionaries, and other imperialist invaders are minimized or not mentioned at all. Doesn’t this expose its hypocrisy? Its criticism of Japan is not like Mao Zedong pointing out that Chinese and Japanese people are united, but talking abstractly about Chinese and little devils. The anti-Japanese war led by the Chinese Communist Party in the past is also vulgarized into “patriotic feelings.” The Chinese revisionist bourgeoisie glorifies traitors and invaders in their cultural works (such as in anti-American aid Korea films), because they themselves are fascists and imperialists; traitors and invaders are two sides of the same coin, a unity of opposites.
Director Shen Ao in 2023 exchanged ideas with screenwriter Zhang Ke of the film “Volunteer Army” and reviewed the 1987 film “Massacre Blood Certificate” by Nanjing Film Studio, then decided “to shoot it again in this era.” He contacted the copyright holder of “Massacre Blood Certificate,” Nanjing Film Studio, to purchase the adaptation rights, tracing the story of “bringing the crime evidence film out of Nanjing” to build a creative foundation. While the residual heat of the film “All In” had not yet dissipated, Shen Ao led the original creative team to begin work on “Nanjing Photo Studio.”
And Zeng Guofan is the guy who massacred Nanjing
When watching movies, I didn’t notice the issue of traitors, thinking that the Chinese renovation wouldn’t be filmed like that. It seems my ability to analyze social and current affairs still needs improvement.
I thought about a recent public opinion that promotes the idea that today’s society is peaceful, that the martyrs who sacrificed in the past are happy to see the current prosperity, and that we should thank the Party and the motherland. This is also an extremely shameless rhetoric.
First of all, the current Party and state are controlled by bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie, especially the current Party, which has no relation to the revolutionary Communist Party. If there is any relation, it is the result of the original revolutionary Communist Party degenerating and transforming. The victory of the Chinese people’s Anti-Japanese War was achieved through the correct line of the Chinese Communist Party defeating the Kuomintang and other opportunistic reactionary lines. The Chinese renovation shamelessly plagiarized the revolutionary achievements of the original Chinese Communist Party to adorn its own facade.
Furthermore, the current peace and prosperity are also built on exploitation and oppression. The prosperity can be well understood. Mainly, some people use peace as a propaganda tool, believing that the country allows us to live peacefully, so there is no need to resist. This promotes a slave mentality. But I am not very clear on how to criticize this peace 
.
You bought a ticket to watch it, huh
Look at critically
Ah, it was my family who took me to see it. I didn’t want to go at first. However, comrade, can you clarify my doubts about the current peace and reconstruction?
Why did Hanyue go to see the movie? Did you buy a ticket? It’s really unnecessary; you can just read the summary on Baidu Baike. Also, the idea that “Zhongxiu wouldn’t film like this” is very absurd. Zhongxiu itself is already an imperialist country, how could it possibly film from the correct standpoint? Bourgeois filmmakers definitely have their own purposes. Does Hanyue perhaps want to use a “critical viewing” attitude as an excuse to indulge in pleasure?
It was originally your family who took you there, but it’s still best to refuse, or else your family will continue to take you to see other movies in the future.
Okay, I won’t go to see it next time
Ah, I don’t enjoy watching movies, TV dramas, or novels; I prefer browsing videos. Except for this time when my family asked me to go (saying that playing on my phone is not as good as watching movies). Before, I used to watch some movies from the Cultural Revolution period.
“The revolutionary martyrs who sacrificed before are very happy to see the current prosperity,” I can’t say for sure, maybe the Chinese revisionist (中修) bought some people to do propaganda, and in fact many veterans are now poorly treated. There have been many related news reports before, and many veterans who坚持革命 (persisted in revolution) were directly persecuted during the restoration of the bourgeoisie. The propaganda released by the Chinese revisionists also only talks about Chinese people fighting Japanese devils.
And the lives of the working people are not prosperous either. Even just looking at the various domestic violence, rape, and suicide news exposed daily in society, as well as many people’s labor diaries posted on forums, can reflect this. Prosperity and peace are limited to the ruling class. How many working people would say they live happily? Even most students who are not working are under the high pressure of capitalist schools and don’t feel their days are very happy. Han Yue’s starting point is problematic; by saying this, you are implicitly accepting the existence of prosperity and peace. In fact, it is probably because you are in a parasitic state and don’t understand much about the lives of the working people that you make such an erroneous judgment.
I know prosperity only belongs to the bourgeoisie, but what about peace? It seems that now society is not at war, and the masses are not in a state of war.
Practice determines understanding. Han Yue will think that not knowing how to criticize the argument of “peace now” is also related to his practice as a full-time student. As a student who does not engage in productive labor, he is unaware of what oppression and struggle for workers look like. Even on forums, there are comrades who have been beaten and insulted for demanding wages; these are all sharp class struggles. From a societal perspective, sharp class contradictions and gender contradictions both prove that the bourgeois society is not peaceful. Looking at the world, the Russia-Ukraine war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the invasion of colonies by the bourgeoisie have always existed. Recently, I also saw news that colonial people had killed bourgeois capitalists, and then they were oppressed, searched, and executed by the bourgeoisie. There are no large-scale world wars now, not because the bourgeoisie maintains peace and order, but simply because a world war now cannot bring them as much profit as they want. A world war is inevitable because the contradictions between imperialist countries cannot be reconciled. But if a world war really breaks out, such sharp class contradictions will inevitably lead to revolution, and they will themselves perish.
Peace has never been brought about by revisionism, but rather fought for by the Chinese people under socialism in the past. Whether it was countering Soviet revisionism or India’s invasion supported by the US and USSR, etc. After the restoration of revisionism, there are no more wars with American imperialism and Soviet revisionism because it has sold out the country for bourgeoisie prosperity. The previous contradictions between socialist countries and capitalist countries have disappeared, replaced by a relationship of collusion and struggle among capitalist countries.
You are quite right; invaders and traitors of a nation have always been two sides of the same coin. The Chinese revisionists making this film are actually just promoting hatred against the Japanese, preparing public opinion for future world wars. Internally, a nation is also divided into classes, and those who represent a nation are always the exploited majority; their interests truly represent the interests of the nation. The nationalism promoted by the monopoly bourgeoisie only leads the working people of the nation to die for them and enslaves other nations, serving no real purpose. When the working people of the nation resist their exploitation, they are slaughtered more viciously than anyone else. If their strength alone cannot suppress the resistance, they will sell out the nation for personal gain, betraying national interests to let foreign invaders in. In China, the comprador bourgeoisie led by Chiang Kai-shek has committed countless massacres to suppress the workers’ resistance, such as the flooding at Guanyankou which drowned 890,000 Chinese people, and they crazily seek surrender to the Japanese imperialists externally. Today, the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie led by Xi Jinping is of the same kind—suppressing internally and giving high praise to anti-communist and anti-China elements externally. Therefore, historically, reactionary exploitative classes have always been traitors to their own nation, and the Chinese revisionists are no different.
Understood, now Chinese society is actually not peaceful, and peace itself is not necessarily correct. After all, the bourgeoisie will use the excuse of peace and order to suppress revolutionary movements.