From the mere title alone, The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On is the true-life documentary of obsessive, army-in-one war veteran, Kenzo Okuzaki, and his march to unclothe the truth of certain events during World War II. Okuzaki is a severely committed, subservient, even violent disciple of truth. Thirty years after the war and having been in and out of prison, he travels great lengths to reveal the facts and hold responsible the men who unlawfully executed several soldiers in the regiment he served in during the war. With the victims parent's at his side, he travels to the homes of ex-military leaders who he believes are responsible for the deaths of innocent soldiers, essentially corners and interrogates them, tries to get them to fess up and take responsibility for their misdeeds, and resorts to violence when they refuse to apologize or speak.
In several scenes, Okuzaki is seen beating up elderly war veterans like himself, trying to squeeze the truth out of their reluctant, scared, and emaciated minds. He basically acts as a sort of pseudo-God. He's on "God's errand" to punish the wicked by either inflicting guilt upon their consciences, or using physical force to stir them up to repentance. In the true sense of the word, his tactics are amazing to watch, yet very disturbing. Though I do not fully agree with his tactics, I couldn't help but admire how dedicated and faithful he was in revealing the "truth" and serving what he believed was justice. He really believed in what he was doing, even if it made him appear like some religious zealot inebriated on fanaticism. However, his devotion to truth causes him to contradict himself. When the parents of one of the victims refuse to embark with Okuzaki on his journey to discover the truth about their son, Okuzaki finds pseudo-parents who act as the victim's son, yet are lying in order to emotionally stir up the military leaders (or 'pretending' if you want to give it a euphemism). It's ironic, then, that Okuzaki is the so-called orator, defender of truth just as long as you play by his rules. After all, he feels privileged to bend the rules, even to the extent of using violence or lying tactics if it means acquiring the truth from others. In essence, he's his own God.
At one point in the film, Okuzaki declares that violence is only good if it leads to a greater end. The end that Okuzaki desired was for war to never perpetuate again into the future. Thus, by using violence to get others to reveal the truth of their sins, he believed that wars would terminate, people would remember the past, and violence would be abolished. It seems a bit contradictory though: does violence stop violence? I'm torn on this issue. On one hand I look at what violence has done throughout history, and no matter how hard we try, violence has not ended violence, but has begot it. Perhaps we need to take a more Gandhian approach and use kindness to inflict hot coals upon wicked minds. On the other hand, I think of my religious convictions: If there is a God who doesn't intend for his children to behave violently, is there such a thing as Godly violence? Justified warfare? According to scriptural texts, there is: Deuteronomy 20, Section 98, 1Nephi 4. Yet to have God's stamp of approval, or better yet, commandment, to take or physically abuse another human life seems a burden I wish to never have thrust upon me. Was Okuzaki right for behaving the way he did? I can answer yes or no. Yes, that God sometimes uses the wicked to scourge the righteous up to repentance, as well as using the wicked to destroy the wicked. No, that I know God doesn't want me to behave that way.
To speak of war presupposes that violence is involved. War is violence (and vice versa). The film tries to be as objective as possible in showing the aftermath of what war does to people. It leads them to hell/prison. Okuzaki is on a mission to send unrighteous people to hell, uncaring of the negative consequences it may have upon himself. He demonstrated this courage when attacking the Emperor with a sling for denying responsibility of the murdered soldiers. The film ends the same way it started: Okuzaki has been released from prison only to find himself back in prison. The interesting point is that he always takes full responsibility for his actions, unlike those around him. He even full-heartedly admits at the beginning that he intends to go back to prison after inflicting "justice" upon the war-criminals. That he takes this responsibility is proof that people sentence themselves to their own private, hellish prisons, whether they admit to it or not.
In several scenes, Okuzaki is seen beating up elderly war veterans like himself, trying to squeeze the truth out of their reluctant, scared, and emaciated minds. He basically acts as a sort of pseudo-God. He's on "God's errand" to punish the wicked by either inflicting guilt upon their consciences, or using physical force to stir them up to repentance. In the true sense of the word, his tactics are amazing to watch, yet very disturbing. Though I do not fully agree with his tactics, I couldn't help but admire how dedicated and faithful he was in revealing the "truth" and serving what he believed was justice. He really believed in what he was doing, even if it made him appear like some religious zealot inebriated on fanaticism. However, his devotion to truth causes him to contradict himself. When the parents of one of the victims refuse to embark with Okuzaki on his journey to discover the truth about their son, Okuzaki finds pseudo-parents who act as the victim's son, yet are lying in order to emotionally stir up the military leaders (or 'pretending' if you want to give it a euphemism). It's ironic, then, that Okuzaki is the so-called orator, defender of truth just as long as you play by his rules. After all, he feels privileged to bend the rules, even to the extent of using violence or lying tactics if it means acquiring the truth from others. In essence, he's his own God.
At one point in the film, Okuzaki declares that violence is only good if it leads to a greater end. The end that Okuzaki desired was for war to never perpetuate again into the future. Thus, by using violence to get others to reveal the truth of their sins, he believed that wars would terminate, people would remember the past, and violence would be abolished. It seems a bit contradictory though: does violence stop violence? I'm torn on this issue. On one hand I look at what violence has done throughout history, and no matter how hard we try, violence has not ended violence, but has begot it. Perhaps we need to take a more Gandhian approach and use kindness to inflict hot coals upon wicked minds. On the other hand, I think of my religious convictions: If there is a God who doesn't intend for his children to behave violently, is there such a thing as Godly violence? Justified warfare? According to scriptural texts, there is: Deuteronomy 20, Section 98, 1Nephi 4. Yet to have God's stamp of approval, or better yet, commandment, to take or physically abuse another human life seems a burden I wish to never have thrust upon me. Was Okuzaki right for behaving the way he did? I can answer yes or no. Yes, that God sometimes uses the wicked to scourge the righteous up to repentance, as well as using the wicked to destroy the wicked. No, that I know God doesn't want me to behave that way.
To speak of war presupposes that violence is involved. War is violence (and vice versa). The film tries to be as objective as possible in showing the aftermath of what war does to people. It leads them to hell/prison. Okuzaki is on a mission to send unrighteous people to hell, uncaring of the negative consequences it may have upon himself. He demonstrated this courage when attacking the Emperor with a sling for denying responsibility of the murdered soldiers. The film ends the same way it started: Okuzaki has been released from prison only to find himself back in prison. The interesting point is that he always takes full responsibility for his actions, unlike those around him. He even full-heartedly admits at the beginning that he intends to go back to prison after inflicting "justice" upon the war-criminals. That he takes this responsibility is proof that people sentence themselves to their own private, hellish prisons, whether they admit to it or not.