← Back to Directory
Strawman
Movie

Strawman

1987 • Unknown

Woke Score
2.2
out of 10

Plot

In 1940s Taiwan, during the last days of Japanese rule, an impoverished farming village is less concerned with colonial politics than with feeding their families. One day, an American bomb falls onto a field, where it lies unexploded.

Overall Series Review

Strawman is a 1987 Taiwanese black comedy that satirizes the absurdities of life under Japanese colonial rule in the 1940s, focusing on the common people's struggle for survival. The narrative follows two poor brothers in a rural village who find an unexploded American bomb and attempt to sell it to the Japanese military for a reward, only for it to eventually be thrown into the sea, resulting in a large catch of fish. The film is part of the Taiwan New Cinema movement, prioritizing local, nativist authenticity, and a poignant, non-didactic look at history. Its focus is primarily on class struggle, the resilience of family, and the common man's struggle against the indifference of occupying and foreign powers. The story is told from the unusual perspective of a scarecrow, adding to the film's satirical tone. The humor and plot are entirely driven by the characters' desperate economic situation and their human folly, not by modern ideological frameworks. It presents a world where both the colonizers (Japanese) and the 'liberators' (Americans) are sources of danger, bureaucracy, and absurdity, while the local people are resourceful survivors.

Categorical Breakdown

Identity Politics1/10

The film centers on the specific, historically authentic plight of ethnic Taiwanese tenant farmers under Japanese colonial rule. The conflict is based on colonial oppression and economic class disparity, not on Western identity politics or intersectional hierarchy. Character merit is defined by the brothers’ simple resourcefulness and their family’s resilience in the face of poverty and war. There is no 'race-swapping' or vilification of 'whiteness'; the antagonists are the Japanese colonial administrators and the distant American bombers.

Oikophobia2/10

The film belongs to the 'nativist trilogy' of Taiwanese cinema, which explicitly works to preserve and explore local Taiwanese history and cultural memory. The narrative’s focus is on the survival of the village and the family, which views their home culture as the core unit of resistance and identity against foreign/imperial influence. The critique is aimed at the external powers and authorities (Japanese and post-war American/KMT) who oppress or ignore the local people, not at the Taiwanese civilization itself. Gratitude for the home culture and respect for ancestors' sacrifices are central themes.

Feminism4/10

The main male characters, the two brothers, are depicted as 'oafish' and 'clownish' simpletons whose attempts at reward are bumbling, which aligns slightly with the emasculation trope. However, the film celebrates the protective strength of the mother, who uses a clever but crude method (smearing dung on their eyes) to ensure her sons evade conscription. Another female character, the sister, is a tragic figure, driven mad by the loss of her conscripted husband, highlighting the toll of war on women. The family is large and motherhood is presented as a vital, protective force focused on survival, not a 'prison.'

LGBTQ+1/10

The narrative is set within the confines of a traditional, impoverished 1940s Taiwanese farming village. The central relationships are those of a nuclear/extended family—mother, sons, sister, and many children. There are no elements of alternative sexualities being centered, nor is there any deconstruction of the nuclear family unit or inclusion of gender ideology lecturing. The structure is normative for the historical and regional setting.

Anti-Theism3/10

The film incorporates elements of local cultural belief, such as 'superstitious rituals,' as part of the authentic rural life. The tone is absurdist, with the film’s major plot twist (the bomb explosion resulting in a fish bounty) hinging on random chance and fortune, not a transcendent moral law. The morality of the characters is largely driven by desperate greed and survival, not an ideological rejection of a spiritual framework. The film avoids ideological hostility toward religion, especially toward Western Christianity, as it focuses on East Asian folk culture and historical context.