Though Mou claims he was trying to depict historical accuracy with the film,[1][2] he has been criticized by Hong Kong critics that the film's appearance as an exploitation film negates any educational value involving a historical atrocity, and Japanese critics deemed the film as anti-Japan propaganda.[3]
Because of its graphic content, the film has suffered mass controversy with censors all over the world. It was originally banned in Australia[4] and caused public outcry in Japan to such an extent that director Mou even received threats on his life.[5][2] The film was given several minutes of mandated cuts to be allowed a release in the United Kingdom.[6]
The film garnered further controversy for its use of what Mou claims to be actual autopsy footage of a young boy and also for a scene in which a live cat appears to be thrown into a room to be eaten alive by hundreds of frenzied rats.[7] Although in the 2010 documentary Black Sunshine: Conversations With T.F. Mou, Mou confessed that the cat was tired after participation in the film and got two fish as a reward, that the cat was made wet with honey and theater blood (as opposed to real blood like other scenes as the rat would attack otherwise), and that the rats were licking and eating the honey only.
The film was panned for its directionless narrative & insensitivity to historical tragedies. From contemporary reviews, "Lor." of Variety declared the film to be a "lowbrow exploitationer treating a serious subject, Japanese war atrocities." noting that "Explosive material is dramatically potent and could have been handled tastefully, as with Kon Ichikawa's classic films like Fires on the Plain" but "resorts to nauseating sensationalism, with butcher-shop depiction of autopsies on live subjects, a disgusting "decompression" experiment spewing intestines out of a victim and a horrendously realistic scene of a pussycat bloodily mauled by a room full of rats."[8]
台湾当年的国防部长郝伯村看了大陆的电影《地道战》《地雷战》很生气地说：什么地道战地雷战？打鬼子--我们有正面的战场。。。
正规军人、抗战老英雄光顾着看电影，没留意小广告，这两部电影，讲的不是真正的抗日战争历史片，而是“军事教育片”，推广了，就是爱国教育片，若是太认真地当作真正的历史纪实片来看，自然会失望，尤其是曾经身临其境的战士、将领。
美国、前苏联、欧洲各国、中国两岸，都拍了不少有关二战的电影，基本上，都以历史为背景，具体人物和事件的也往往是很有历史依据的，即使是根据真人真事改编的电影，也是经过编辑、设计的---没办法，这不是纪录片，必须经过精密的编、导、演和剪接。。。俗语说，必要的技术和艺术加工，只是力求接近真实，一旦夸张、过分渲染，就会失去真实感，流于故事片、娱乐片、甚至搞笑片。。
台湾导演牟敦沛八十年代的电影《黑桃太阳731》打的广告是“纪实历史”片、"历史记录式“、”写实历史片“。。。
这部电影当年在香港轰动了一阵，是因为被列为“三级片”---十八岁以下不准观看。
可是，因为投资方是香港的“银都”机构---那是中共领导的左派电影公司。八十年代开始搞统战，难得有个台湾的导演合作，时值台湾同胞入境大陆有八大件电器免税的优惠，真是大开绿灯时---尽管这位导演早期在台湾的电影基本都被禁演，因为他的电影重口味，获得“禽兽导演“的称号---在香港也没什么代表作---我认识的香港影视界朋友，从来没当他是香港的导演，他很有个性，不过，在香港很少朋友。八十年代钟香港电影界风生水起，各路俊杰佳作连连---此时，牟敦沛以台湾导演的身份，搭上了与内地合作的头班船----这部香港列为三级片的电影，在香港，喜欢看“核突”恐怖片的人----才进入影院。。。有的影评这么写：
（ZT)导演牟敦芾在此片中追求最大程度的写实，为此刻意摒弃了故事性，可惜的是，这些残酷生猛的情节，并未对影片本身的故事和深度有太多的提升，反而因为猎奇情节太多，导致喧宾夺主，影片有些偏离重点，最终变成了一部噱头大于内容的电影。
电影的特征，就是每个人可以从不同的角度去看、去想、去评论。
国内影片不分等级，为了达到爱国教育的目的，小学、中学还组织观看这部《731》
。。。。各种反应，可想而知，我无需在此多说了。
==============================
用电影作为历史教育的参考，无可非议。
但是，真正的近代历史教育，当然最好有纪录片、有相片--（不是图片、不是绘画）
参观过华盛顿的犹太人二战纪念馆，我没看到过一张绘画、一幅油画。
作为历史记录，呈现在眼前的是纪录片、相片、实物和文字解说---非常沉重、有力的控诉着纳粹犯下的滔天大罪，死死的将纳粹钉在历史的耻辱柱上！狠狠地惩罚了罪有应得的主谋、凶手、帮手。。。世世代代不会忘记。
但是，我看到南京大屠杀纪念馆用了大幅油画表现了日本鬼子烧杀掳掠的罪行、尸体堆成山、持杀人刀的鬼子在一边冷笑、一个小和尚在收尸（下图）。。。因为，这幅油画的作者李先生是受了台湾大和尚（又是台湾！）星云法师的委托。。。其实，冷酷的鬼子杀红了眼，和尚也有被杀的。。。
这样的爱国宣传，也是无可非议的----只不过，就像台湾导演牟敦沛的《黑太阳731》一样，只能给年轻的孩子、学生做“爱国教育”，吓哭他们，他们就不会忘记了。。。然而，（不是纪实历史）是无法呈现在国际法庭上作为罪证来指控日本鬼子的罪行的---因为法律上，证据是不能假造的（即使史匹堡的电影也不行），作伪证的话---可能会撤销原告、也可能入罪。。。
更多我的博客文章>>> 《查泰莱夫人的情人》最新版本---- 《黑太阳731》是属于“纪实历史”电影么？ 移风易俗与尊重传统 时光倒流，缅怀老友（圖） 关于“东亚人”的闲说。。。
在这里喊打倒汉奸走狗---根本就是意淫自己，无胆匪类。。。。
Controversy[edit]
Though Mou claims he was trying to depict historical accuracy with the film,[1][2] he has been criticized by Hong Kong critics that the film's appearance as an exploitation film negates any educational value involving a historical atrocity, and Japanese critics deemed the film as anti-Japan propaganda.[3]
Because of its graphic content, the film has suffered mass controversy with censors all over the world. It was originally banned in Australia[4] and caused public outcry in Japan to such an extent that director Mou even received threats on his life.[5][2] The film was given several minutes of mandated cuts to be allowed a release in the United Kingdom.[6]
The film garnered further controversy for its use of what Mou claims to be actual autopsy footage of a young boy and also for a scene in which a live cat appears to be thrown into a room to be eaten alive by hundreds of frenzied rats.[7] Although in the 2010 documentary Black Sunshine: Conversations With T.F. Mou, Mou confessed that the cat was tired after participation in the film and got two fish as a reward, that the cat was made wet with honey and theater blood (as opposed to real blood like other scenes as the rat would attack otherwise), and that the rats were licking and eating the honey only.
Reception[edit]The film was panned for its directionless narrative & insensitivity to historical tragedies. From contemporary reviews, "Lor." of Variety declared the film to be a "lowbrow exploitationer treating a serious subject, Japanese war atrocities." noting that "Explosive material is dramatically potent and could have been handled tastefully, as with Kon Ichikawa's classic films like Fires on the Plain" but "resorts to nauseating sensationalism, with butcher-shop depiction of autopsies on live subjects, a disgusting "decompression" experiment spewing intestines out of a victim and a horrendously realistic scene of a pussycat bloodily mauled by a room full of rats."[8]