Monthly Archives: January 2014

Movies: 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (2007), If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

The 2000s brought in a time of extremely remarkable movies in Romania. Every year several of their movies won the highest prizes at international film festivals, and this movement is said to be the Romanian New Wave. Cristian Mungiu’s După dealuri (Beyond the Hills) made the shortlist at the end of this year to be nominated for the next Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. If nominated, it would be the first for Romania’s film industry. The Romanian New Wave is a general term for Romanian movies that have attracted international attention starting from the 2000s, but there are some commonalities between them, such as the addressing of social issues and the use techniques that are intentionally amateurish, minimalistic, and documentary-like. The generation that was in their teens and twenties when socialism collapsed is now in their thirties or forties and, with the influence of Western Europe and America, are making new movies.

Romanian movies collapsed under the socialist government so there are no older, established directors that control the younger generation, meaning this younger generation of directors can act freely when making movies. Because they experienced the societal change and overturning of their world in the very sensitive time of their teens and witnessed the difficult rebuilding of their nation, they have many themes they wish to express. In addition, there is a curiosity from the whole world about what the people of Romania feel and think about now, and there is an audience carefully listening to the voices expressed through Romanian movies. Access to movies of Western Europe steadily became available, and the freedom to travel became guaranteed after Romania became a member of the EU. Moreover, there are role models of global fame close by, such as director Nuri Bilge Ceylan from their neighbor Turkey. All of these conditions that were conducive for filmmaking had ripened. Every time a Romanian movie wins an award at the Cannes and Berlin film festivals, the country rejoices for the honor received for the country, quite like the times when someone wins a gold medal in gymnastics for Romania in the Olympics.

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days is the most internationally successful movie of the Romanian New Wave. Set in Romania during the dictatorial regime of President Ceausescu, the movie depicts one day where the heroine helps with an illegal abortion for her roommate who is pregnant. Director Cristian Mungiu is in position for a nomination in the 2013 Academy Awards for Beyond the Hills. Because Cristian Mungiu was born in 1968 and is only 44, it may be said that he is the most successful director in Romania when considering his career.

In Romania under a socialist government, abortion was illegal. Many young Romanian couples didn’t want children or at most had two or three; President Ceausescu, fearing a decrease in population, passed a law to prohibit abortions in 1968. As a result, there were women who risked getting illegal abortions and died. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days depicts the main character, a university student on the way towards elite status, rushing around to help her roommate get an abortion. The situation and the partner involved in the friend’s pregnancy are not depicted. This movie gives a glimpse into the life of intellectuals, right before the collapse of the socialist administration in Romania. For example, the protagonist searches for an illegal doctor that she heard about from word-of-mouth without consulting her friend’s parents; she walks the desolate streets of Bucharest where stray dogs are wandering around; she uses cigarettes in exchange for cash; when she enters the humble-looking apartment of her boyfriend’s family, we see the family is secretly enjoying a life of luxury (they appear to be quite rich); at the end, the main character’s boyfriend does not seriously consider what he would do if she were pregnant.

If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle is the product of newcomer director Florin Serban and veteran screenplay writer Cătălin Mitulescu and was honored with two awards from the 2010 Berlin Film Festival—the Silver Bear Prize (Jury Grand Prix) and Alfred Bauer Award. Cătălin Mitulescu was born in 1972 and is just 40 years old. He made Trafic in 2004 which won the Short Film Palme d’Or award in Cannes, and this movie is said to be what led to the surge of the Romanian New Wave. His The Way I Spent the End of the World in 2006 gained great international attention. Director Florin Serban was born in 1975 and does most of his work in America.

If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle is about an 18 year old boy who is a juvenile delinquent living in a detention facility. How he ended up in this detention facility is not explained at all. However, people of Romania know that many children were taken to orphanages due to child neglect by the parents during the time of the Ceausescu administration. These children were called “Ceausescu’s bastards” and turned into street children, which later became a very serious social problem for Romania. Furthermore, after the collapse of the socialist administration, many parents found temporary work away from home in Italy or Spain in order to earn money. These children that were left had to find some means to survive, so many committed crimes and were sent to juvenile prison, like the main character of this movie.

If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle uses long shots with a handheld camera. Therefore, the picture shakes a little and somehow gives the impression that it is a documentary taken by an amateur. Florin Serban majored in film studies at an American university and watched many sophisticated movies, and I think he could make a sophisticated movie like these if he wanted to; however, I believe he intentionally chose to use a technique that uses raw material and an amateur-looking style in this movie.

There are not many people working as actors in Romania. Nationwide auditions are held for these movies and the actors chosen are amateurs and a few acting students. However, I think middle-aged Cătălin Mitulescu and Cristian Mungiu will start to train actors and movie developers and it is just a matter of time until a new maturity begins in the Romanian New Wave.

日本語→

Movie: Les Misérables (2012)

Posted on by
Reply

The movie rendition of the hit musical based on Victor Hugo’s original story was quite good. The movie used computer graphics well to reproduce the streets of Paris during that time—complete with the dirty, crooked teeth and stained clothing of the characters—and the beautiful cinematography provides a fresh angle to the familiar story. Furthermore, the talented actors’ singing is heartfelt. Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, and the rest of the cast sing very well, but also capture the darkness of the music, which makes this more than just a rehashing of a simple musical. Les Misérables begins after Napoleon I’s downfall in 1815 with Jean Valjean’s release from prison; before passing away in 1833, Jean Valjean witnesses the failed June Rebellion in 1832 that happens after the July Revolution in 1830.

Marius, the man who becomes the husband of Jean Valjean’s adopted daughter Cosette, is said to be the projection of author Victor Hugo, but I don’t understand this Marius very well. Marius wishes to defy his affluent grandfather by participating in the June Rebellion, but while all of his comrades died together in the revolt, Marius is rescued by Jean Valjean and he ends up marrying Cosette with a luxurious wedding supported by his grandfather and they live happily ever after. So what does it say about Victor Hugo that he is supposedly the model for the character of Marius? Which part of him is being projected?

Oppressed in the Bourbon era by noble aristocrats and clergymen, the bourgeoisie spearheaded people into a revolt, attacking the Bastille prison on July 14, 1789 and starting the French Revolution. Radical views spread and upon the execution of Louis XVI in 1792, the first republican form of government and its Reign of Terror arrived. Within this chaos, it was Napoleon Bonaparte that captured the spirit of the people and, after the coup d’etat of Brumaire in 1799, he established the autocratic Consulate. In 1804, Napoleon established an imperial system (the First Empire of France).

Victor Hugo was born in 1802, his father an officer in Napoleon’s army and his mother an ardent royalist. As a matter of course, there was a lot of discord between his parents, which cast a dark shadow on his youth. Because his parents were separated, Victor Hugo would spend most of his early childhood with his mother. When Napoleon fell in 1814, Victor’s father lost his status as a Spanish aristocrat and was demoted from being the commander of his squadron.

After the downfall of Napoleon, the other countries denied the French Revolution at the Congress of Vienna and restored the pre-revolution condition of France so as to maintain the balance of power between all the large powers. The Congress of Vienna, after all, was the way for the five Great Powers of Europe–Britain, Germany (Austria and Germany), France, Italy (and Vatican), and Russia –to come together and decide the relations of these powers , until World War II. Louis XVIII, the younger brother of Louis XVI, succeeded the throne as the next king of France. Louis XVIII had fled France at the height of the French Revolution and taken refuge in Germany, moving from place to place and condemning the French Republic. When Napoleon briefly escaped from his exile in Elba in 1815, Louis XVIII fled France again, but returned to the throne after Napoleon fell for the last time. After Louis XVIII died, his younger brother Charles X (he, like his older brother Louis XVIII, had abandoned Louis XVI in France and taken refuge in London after the French Revolution broke out) succeeded the throne and further instituted reactionary policies, such as compensation for exiled aristocrats.

This period of Bourbon restoration was the time Victor Hugo was concentrated on his family. After his mother passed away in 1821, he married his childhood friend Adèle Foucher (who is said to be the model for Cosette) and they had their first son in 1823 and their first daughter in 1824. In 1825, Hugo received the highest decoration in France—Legion d’honneur—gaining associate aristocrat status. Also, his relationship with his father, which had been estranged throughout his childhood, improved. Hugo’s understanding of Napoleon, who he had hated before, increased and he gradually began to respect Napoleon. Hugo had his second son in 1826, his third son in 1828, and his second daughter in 1830. He had pension from Louis XVIII allowing him to live a good and affluent life, but his success as a writer had already begun.

Charles X carried out reactionary politics, limiting freedom of speech, refusing most bourgeois the right to vote, and not defending the interest of the middleclass bourgeoisie, so intellectuals and the poor working-class grew unsatisfied. In addition, Charles X initiated an invasion of Algeria which resulted in political disgrace and debt. His repeated poor political decisions caused the bourgeoisie to lead a revolution in July in 1830. Victor Hugo was a conservative aristocrat, but on the other hand, he was a well-respected intellectual and he did not oppose the July Revolution; the leaders of the Revolution were essayists and close friends of his and Hugo secretly thought Charles X an incompetent king. During the July Revolution, even the government troops whose job it was to suppress the revolution didn’t have the will to fight against the revolutionary army, thus Charles X had to employ mercenary soldiers from foreign countries in a hurry. The July Revolution in France began on July 27, 1830 and went until the 29th, lasting only 3 days. This revolution caused Charles X to flee France; Louis-Philippe, a distant relative of the Bourbons and known for his liberalism, was crowned and established a constitutional monarchy (July Monarchy). Louis-Philippe lived in the United States from 1797 to 1799 and experienced the American Revolution, thus the public had high expectations for him.

Louis-Philippe was very popular with the bourgeoisie. Victor Hugo also thought highly of the king saying something to the effect of, “He is the perfect king who is superior in all ways,” and in 1845, Hugo was awarded the rank of viscount by Louis-Philippe. Because of his position as a noble, he began to show interest in politics. Hugo believed the July Monarchy resembled an ideal system of government where intellectuals support a wise monarch, such as Louis-Philippe.

However, there is a decisive difference between Victor Hugo and Marius. Marius was a poor lawyer and a member of the Republican secret society Friends of the ABC. Bourgeois in origins, his mother died when he was a child and his maternal grandfather raised him; when he was 17 years old, sparked by the death of his father who worked with Napoleon, Marius devoted himself to Bonapartism and ran away from his grandfather who supported the restoration of the monarchy. Marius of Les Misérables did not participate in the July Revolution, but the June Rebellion two years later. The June Rebellion (1832) was made of more radical students and laborers and was suppressed in only two days.
The political dynamics in France gradually switched to bourgeoisie versus workers. In 1848, the workers and peasants came together in a revolution in February; Louis-Philippe abdicated and fled to Great Britain, marking the end of the July Monarchy. With the abolishment of the monarchy, the constitution was established in 1848 and France shifted to a republican form of government (the Second Republic). In June of this year, laborers were again invoked to rise up in revolt in the June Days Uprising, not to be confused with the June Rebellion of 1832. Eventually, a presidential election was carried out in November where Napoleon’s nephew, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte was elected as president. After that, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte declared himself emperor (Napoleon III) and in 1852, France started its second imperial government.

Even after Louis-Philippe took refuge in Great Britain, Victor Hugo stubbornly advocated for the young adopted grandson of Louis-Philippe in Paris for the throne. The Second Republic gradually became a dictatorship under Napoleon III, who viewed Hugo as an enemy. After the coup by Napoleon III in 1851, Hugo, fearing for his life, took refuge in Brussels, the capital of Belgium, where he spread criticisms of Napoleon III. However, the hand of oppression spread to Belgium so Hugo decided to flee further to the remote island of Great Britain. At this time, he began to record the failure of the June Rebellion in his book Les Misérables, which would later become a best-seller across the world.

In 1870, the Franco-Prussian War broke out, which ended in a crushing defeat for France and Napoleon III was taken as a prisoner of war by the Prussian states. Because of this, Hugo was determined to return to France. After 19 years, he would step on the soil of his motherland and be welcomed by the people of France as a world-renowned literary master and national hero.

In order to get the Franco-Prussian War under control, a provisional government was established and France accepted a humiliating peace treaty proposed by German Chancellor Bismarck. Because of this, the people of France flew into a rage, rose in revolt, and formed the Paris Commune, which professed itself to be a socialist government. This Commune’s social policy included better working conditions and it is said to be the world’s first socialist administration, but the leaders of the Paris Commune were unable to resolve internal conflict and were suppressed immediately by government troops. Many members of the commune were shot down and executed by the military. Gaining political stability in France was used as justification for the suppression of the Paris Commune.

Nineteenth century in Europe was defined by royalist factions, the bourgeoisie playing a central role in republican states, military power, and revolts by armed laborer/proletariat forces that were influenced by Marxism—all of which was part of class struggle and the cycle of ideological strife. Hugo aimed for a political system with a progressive monarch supported by a wise bourgeoisie, a rational constitution, and a general election. This political system is similar to one that Great Britain sought and the July Monarchy that was established after the sacrifice of the July Revolution. However, after the time Hugo spent in exile, his political insights deepened. He felt as if in order to save his country, he must rescue “les misérables” (everybody in poverty), the people who are suffering from grave poverty. Therefore, depicting the darkness of the June Rebellion adds depth to Les Misérables, instead of just the mere rosy glory of the July Revolution.

Hugo passed away at 84 years of age in Paris on May 22, 1885 and was buried with honor in the Pantheon as a national hero and literary master.

日本語→

Movie: Katyń (2007)

Posted on by
Reply

If I were to be asked right now to choose only one movie among the movies I’ve seen that is the most worthwhile, I would choose the Polish movie Katyń without hesitation. It is quite a high quality movie and this movie offers information that I may never have known if I hadn’t watched it. I am grateful for this movie from the bottom of my heart.

Sandwiched between Russia on the east side and Germany on the west, Poland has tragically been the victim of the two countries’ power struggles throughout history. In September of 1939, Germany invaded Poland, beginning World War II, and, utilizing this chaos, the Soviet Army invaded Poland from the east. While this was going on, the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression treaty was covertly signed and Poland was occupied and divided by Germany and the Soviet Army. Poles being pursued by from the German army from the west and Poles being pursued by the Soviet Army from the east encountered each other near the Bug River in eastern Poland. Those escaping from the Soviet Army told the Poles who escaped from Germany that it was dangerous and to head back west, while those escaping from the German army said the opposite. At that moment, trapped between two armies, each individual had to decide their fate.

The Polish government escaped to London and formed a Polish government-in-exile. Polish soldiers immediately complied with the orders of both armies, honorably and peacefully surrendering to the German and Soviet armies. The German army, in accordance to international law, released their Polish soldiers, but the Soviet Army did not. Katyń depicts the fates that followed the Polish soldiers that surrendered to the Soviet Army.

After the Soviet-German War broke out in 1941, the Polish government-in-exile and the Soviet Union formed a treaty with an anti-German interest, and the Soviet Union was supposed to release all of their Polish prisoners and organize a Polish unit to attack the Nazis. However, more than 90% of the soldiers that were prisoners were unaccounted for; when the Polish government-in-exile in London pursued the Soviet Union to release all of the Polish soldiers, the Soviet Union responded that there was delay due to office work and transportation.

However, the German army violated the non-aggression treaty and invaded Soviet Union territory in April 1943; near the Katyn forest, former Soviet Union territory, they discovered the dead bodies of nearly twenty thousand Polish soldiers. Germany widely broadcasted this crime committed by the Soviet Army in 1940. After Germany was defeated and World War II ended in 1945, Poland was put under Soviet Union control as a satellite country of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union argued that, in fact, the Katyn forest massacre was an act of the German army and they carried out a grand anti-Nazi campaign; afterwards, it became taboo for Poles under Soviet Union control to mention the truth of the event.

This movie depicts the tragedy of the few families of the Katyn massacre victims that resisted the occupying Soviet Union by trying to reveal the truth of the event—after the Soviet rule started, most Poles obeyed the Soviet Union because of their hatred of Nazi Germany and for the sake of their personal safety.

Director Andrzej Wajda’s father was killed in the Katyn forest massacre. He gained international fame with works such as Kanał, Ashes and Diamonds, and Man of Marble, but because of his anti-Soviet stance, he was oppressed by the government of Poland. For over 50 long years, he had a plan to make a movie of the Katyn forest massacre, but it was impossible before the collapse of the Berlin Wall; he was already 80 years old when he was finally able to make the movie in 2007. I felt through this movie his determination of, “I can’t die until I convey what happened in the Katyn forest.” We must remember the following three points from this movie.

One, the crime. War is an abnormal, extreme situation where people kill each other, but there are universal rules in it. First, civilians must never be killed intentionally. And even soldiers must be treated humanely once they have surrendered. However, under the orders of Stalin, the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD) in charge of prisoner accommodations interrogated each Polish soldier, and any soldier that was thought to have even a trace of anti-communist belief was killed mercilessly.

Two, the lie. After Germany discovered the dead bodies near the Katyn forest, Geneva’s International Committee of the Red Cross was asked to conduct a neutral investigation, but, faced with resistance from the Soviet Union, the International Committee of the Red Cross abandoned dispatching the commission. On April 24, 1943, the Soviet Union demanded that the Polish government-in-exile, in alliance with the Soviet Union at the time, announce, “The Katyn massacre was a German scheme.” But the Polish government-in-exile refused and, in response, the Soviet Union cut off their alliance with the government-in-exile. Believing that support from the Soviet Union on the side of the Allies was needed to win World War II, direct criticism of the Soviet Union was not permitted. In 1944, American President Franklin Roosevelt appointed Navy Commander George Earle as a secret agent to gather information on the Katyn forest massacre. Earle collected information by contacting Bulgaria and Romania who were sided with the Axis and came to think that the Katyn forest massacre was an act of the Soviet Union, but Roosevelt rejected this conclusion and ordered for Earle’s report to be suppressed. Earle requested permission to release his investigation, but Roosevelt sent him a written order prohibiting him. Earle was dismissed from these duties after that and he was demoted to duties concerning Samoa. Supported by circumstances from ally countries like this, the Soviet Union was allowed to maintain the lie that Nazi Germany was responsible for the massacre for over 50 years.

Finally, I want to emphasize the arrogance of a nation that wins in war.

The crimes of Nazi Germany were judged in the Nuremberg Trials in 1946. The Soviet Union took advantage of the opportunity as a victor to accuse particular Germans as the masterminds of the Katyn forest massacre, but America and the United Kingdom drew the line at this and refused the accusation of the Soviet Union. After that, an argument on the responsibility of this event continued in both the Western Bloc and Eastern Bloc, but nobody in Poland was permitted to investigate the truth out of fear of the Soviet Union which controlled Poland then. This situation of not asking for the truth continued until the communist regime collapsed in Poland in 1989 and the young generation knew nothing of the Katyn forest massacre.

After the Soviet Union became less oppressive in 1989, the human rights of the victims of the Katyn forest massacre were finally recognized. In 1989, scholars in the Soviet Union disclosed that Stalin gave the order for the killings and Beria, the chief of the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs, signed the decree for the Katyn forest massacre. In 1990, Gorbachev admitted the Soviet Union’s People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs involvement in the killing of Polish people including in Mednoe and Pyatikhatki, where burial sites like Katyn were found. After the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1992, the Russian government finally released the official documents on the Katyn forest massacre, publicly revealing for the first time in over 50 years the lie that the Soviet Union had maintained.

日本語→

Movie: Biutiful (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

Uxbal lives a very poor life in a poor region of Barcelona, Spain that has many immigrants, and he makes money by procuring work for illegal immigrants. Also, he is able to talk to the souls of the deceased so relatives of the deceased sometimes ask him to converse with the dead at funerals as a medium. Uxbal lives with his two young children separate from his wife who is unable to raise children due to her bipolar disorder. Meanwhile, he is diagnosed with terminal cancer with only a short time left for him to live. When the husband of a family of illegal immigrants from Senegal is deported, Uxbal unexpectedly starts living with the wife of the family Ige and her baby. Watching Ige gently care and nurse her own child, Uxbal gives everything he owns to Ige and asks that she take care of his children after he dies. The movie ends on the day Ige secretly leaves the apartment with the money to return to Senegal and Uxbal dies.

The movie’s ending is extremely ambiguous. Whether or not Ige returns at the end, her voice that answers, “I’m back” may have been imagined by Uxbal, or perhaps the daughter answered in place of Ige. Another possible interpretation is that Ige was killed by a robber when carrying a large amount of money and only her dead spirit returned. I have seen the following conversation on a discussion site for this movie: “Did Ige come back in the end?” “I’m sad she stole the money since she’s a good person.” “Ige’s voice is just Uxbal’s imagination.” “No, in an interview with the director, he said that she came back.” “Oh, then I’m very glad.” “Yeah, there is no hope if she just stole everything.”

What a nice conversation. Director Alejandro González Iñárritu would surely be asked the same thing time and time again by fans with wet eyes. It must be an utmost reward for a director to make a movie that is able to capture the hearts of the audience. I also think that Ige returned to Uxbal’s home in the end.

It is said that Barcelona now ranks next to London as the second most fashionable city in the world (passing up Paris and New York!). Woody Allen’s Vicky Christina Barcelona depicts the beautiful side of the city for tourists to see, but this movie depicts the other side. Since ancient times, there has been conflict between the Catalonians living in Barcelona and the Spaniards in Madrid. In order to destroy Catalonian culture, Generalísimo Franco endorsed the immigration of Spaniards into the Catalonia district and prohibited Catalan from being spoken. Among Catalonians, the lower class was pushed into the slums of Barcelona and these people began to be called “xarnego.” Uxbal is a “xarnego”; Uxbal’s father opposed Franco’s policies and, his life in danger, he fled overseas and died young in Mexico.

This movie depicts the dark themes of cancer and the livelihood of the most extreme lower class; despite the darkness, the movie evokes a lot of sympathy and somehow provides us with a ray of hope after the movie is over. This is because Uxbal is depicted with an extremely beautiful heart and as a deeply caring person. However, he is not a perfect person. The reason the title is “Biutiful” instead of “Beautiful” is that there is something missing in him that keeps him from being a perfectly beautiful person. What he is missing is wisdom. He sympathizes with the Chinese immigrants living in the worst conditions so he buys them a heater, but the heater is poor quality and generates toxic gas so eventually all the Chinese immigrants living together in the large room die. Since he earns his money from the underworld, he can’t deposit his money in the bank, he has no health insurance to treat his cancer, he can’t decide what to do with his poor children after he dies, and can’t die in peace. The only person he can rely on is a stranger Ige so he leaves her everything he has at the end. However, this wisdom and these secrets to success are learned from parents and society. It can be said that it is the result of Franco’s suppression that there weren’t parents to grant such wisdom to Uxbal and also that the discrimination toward “xarnego” limited education and prevented them from getting proper jobs. It’s a vicious cycle in a bad system. This movie seems to criticize the societal system indirectly by depicting Uxbal with an unwise, but beautiful heart. Uxbal’s ability to communicate with the dead may be the extreme result of the combination of his pure heart and lack of education.

When I watched director Susanne Bier’s After the Wedding, I got the impression that the director used cancer as a convenient tool to move the story along, and I wasn’t able to like that movie. In contrast, I found how cancer was handled in Biutiful to be convincing. I think director Alejandro González Iñárritu understands death intellectually and emotionally. The scene where a fellow medium talks to Uxbal and she calmly tells him, “You are going to die soon. Put your affairs in order before your death,” is very impressive. Most people don’t think about their own death and most of the time death comes suddenly. However, in the case of cancer, death comes calmly and slowly. One is given time to prepare for death and reflect over their own life. Nowadays, cancer isn’t the “fatal disease” anymore. It’s possible to come back from cancer. I live in America, but have met many people who came back from cancer and many of them say that experiencing cancer was the most fortunate thing in their lives. I can understand this mindset 100%.

I’ve watched all of director Iñárritu’s movies; there is an underlying sentiment in his heart about “every encounter is unique and should be cherished” or “the cycle of death and rebirth” that a Japanese person can connect with. His thought would be that people in this world are connected endlessly in unexpected ways, and life develops from these encounters. Therefore, the human connection spreads across national borders. Director Iñárritu does not talk about what happens to a spirit after death. However, he may believe in something like a spirit that is inherited by our children and the people of the next generation after our death. Therefore, living to give to the next generation is living for oneself.

Director Iñárritu is from Mexico, but now lives together with his family in Los Angeles. This is not a betrayal of his native country Mexico at all, but rather may be for the sake of a job, due to concerns over raising children in Mexico which is becoming particularly dangerous these days, or for the benefit of gaining multiple perspectives by living in two countries. The reason I believe Ige actually came back is because Ige is in a similar situation. When her husband was deported and forced back to Senegal, he told Ige to never come back to Senegal and try hard to stay in Spain with the children. Children born in Spain are Spanish citizens, so as the child’s mother, she can stay in Spain. Compared to the poor life waiting if she returns to Senegal, life in the lowest class of Barcelona is easier and there are hopes for the future of her children. This is the determination of a parent.

This movie competed and lost against director Susanne Bier’s In a Better World in the 2010 Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. Susanne Bier said, “Humans tend to desire revenge over small things. I thought this was interesting and made this movie.” Even though In a Better World got the Academy Award, it doesn’t mean Biutiful is inferior. At least director Iñárritu won’t say, “Sure, that’s kind of interesting, so I made a movie out of it.”

日本語→

Movie: Bir Zamanlar Anadolu’da – Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

This is the newest film of world-renowned Turkish director Nuri Bilge Ceylan. This movie’s plot briefly: there is a murder in Turkey’s capital Ankara; the dead body is left somewhere in Anatolia overnight; and the next day a policeman, a prosecutor, an autopsy surgeon, the murder suspects, and an excavation crew set out to search for the body for evidence.

In this film, Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s characteristic non-dramatic plot and beautiful cinematography is pronounced and it does not betray the expectations of fans who love this about his works. However, compared to his previous works, there are more characters in this movie and lots of dialogue in order to describe each person’s character. Although it is not dramatic, the story is stronger compared to previous works and there is an element of mystery solving. While a little bit long, it keeps you captivated and guessing until the end. The movie proceeds at a relaxed tempo so that viewers can understand each person’s character, so I’m actually glad that the movie is as long as it is since each character is quite complicated. Also, very interesting metaphors are effectively inserted at critical points. There is also a long shot where an apple that fell from a tree rolls down a hill and all the way down the stream without the scene being cut. I really wonder how these kinds of scenes are done.

If I were to describe this movie’s distinction briefly I might say that, as rain comes down bit by bit into a pool of water, each raindrop gently creates a few ripples and it resonates with or cancels out another’s ripples forever; each ripple is a different character. After watching the movie, a small stone is gently thrown into the audience’s heart and it ripples forever.

The plot simply put is “went, searched, found,” but there is a multi-layered sentiment contained within this movie. The one that I felt the strongest was the melancholy of “the man who can’t make his woman happy,” and the nihilism.

The young and handsome surgeon is divorced with no children, but the policeman says this is good since it is a crime to raise children in a world with no hope. The policeman’s child has mental problems, which has become a point of tension in his marriage and he is exhausted by his relationship with his wife. The prosecutor talks about an interesting case that he handled as if he doesn’t have any problems in his own life; after an extremely beautiful woman birthed a child, she predicted her death and then she met an unnatural death on that exact day she predicted. However, the surgeon questions whether this death was a suicide. The surgeon calmly says that the human motive for suicide is revenge against someone else. At this point, the viewer can guess that the woman who left behind a 3-month-old baby after her suicide was the prosecutor’s wife. The murder suspect is being arrested for killing his friend; they were having a friendly drink together when the suspect let slip, “Your child is actually my child,” and then the ensuing fight ended with him killing his friend. This child loses his father that raised him to his biological father.

This movie has almost no female characters. The only key female character is the beautiful daughter of the chief of a poor village; the crew looking for the dead body stops and dines at this village. The daughter offers tea with the only light in the scene coming from her candle. Everyone admires her extreme beauty and each recalls the woman they were unable to make happy in their own life, but none of them actually speaks with the daughter. A fly circles around and is attracted to the light from the candle the daughter is carrying. The men say, “Beautiful women have unhappy fates,” and distance themselves from her.

This movie is an extremely clever movie. The audience may actually miss how the murder happened. Also, although depicted as kind and intelligent in the movie, the surgeon makes an unexpected decision at the end. We are left wondering what his intention was and what he feels as he gazes out his window. Was this an act of kindness from a man to a distant woman, and can he show such gentleness to the women in his own life?

Since the riddle and solution are mixed together within the story, this certainly is not a straightforward movie. Whenever I watch movies by this director, I wonder if the sense of emptiness flowing through the bottom of his movies is due to his character or the gloominess of Turkey’s society that has many complicated problems.

Turkey is geographically and culturally between the east and west, between European and Asian culture. Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor, is the gate to Eastern culture while Istanbul is the gate to Greek and Western culture. The area is very religious and many are Muslim. This area is the source of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers so a unique culture has developed here since ancient times. Considered a minority, many Kurds reside in this area now. When Turkey faced the crisis of possible disintegration as a nation after their defeat in World War I, Anatolia became the center of a nationalist movement. Therefore, Turkey’s capitol Ankara is in central Anatolia. The Anatolia area is still poor, has a severe subarctic climate, and is very religious, as compared to the picturesque and international and growing economy of Istanbul. I think the director may have a special sentiment toward Anatolia, but it is hard for me to know for sure.

Anatolia is known for the magnificence of world heritage sites like Cappadocia, but the director avoids the scenic jagged rocks and instead strictly captures the leisurely grasslands, looking for areas with winding roads. The movie is like this scenery—a grassy plain undulating forever.

日本語→

Movie: A Separation (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

After watching this movie, I was left speechless with a heavy feeling in my stomach. This kind of feeling doesn’t happen often.

This movie begins with the divorce trial of a middleclass Iranian couple. The wife Simin, thinking about the future prospects of her 11-year-old Termeh, wishes to leave the country after finally getting a visa with great difficulty. However, the husband Nader can’t leave his father who has Alzheimer’s behind, so the couple decides to file for a divorce. The couple fights over who gets custody of their daughter and during this time, Simin returns to her parents’ home.

Simin hires her friend’s little sister Razieh, a working-class woman, as a helper, but Razieh ties Nader’s father to his bed and goes out. When Nader discovers his father, he is enraged and forcibly throws Razieh out of his house. Later that night, he finds out that Razieh has a miscarriage. Hodjat—Razieh’s husband who was released from prison, has a short temper, and is violent—accuses Nader of murder and threatens Nader’s family and the female teacher who testifies for Nader in court.

Two stories are developed throughout this movie—one between Simin and Nader fighting over custody in the divorce courtroom, and the other between two couples of different social class and religious intensity. This movie has a splendid story and you can’t even take a short break as the suspense captures you from the beginning until the end. To say it briefly, this story is one that could happen to anybody, but the mystery solving component is very well made. While Turkish director Nuri Bilge Ceylan has perfect cinematography, experienced Iranian movie screenwriter Asghar Farhadi is a perfect storyteller. However, the true splendor of this movie is the profound message hidden in the plot.

Asghar Farhadi’s style, in short, places a certain amount of trust in the audience. A lot of Hollywood movies have an obvious “good guy” and “bad guy” and the plot just ends with a happy ending. The director here doesn’t spoon-feed the viewer exactly what to think in this movie. It is unclear to the viewer whether Nader settles out of court with Hodjat or is sent to prison, or what truly caused the miscarriage. The choice of parental authority comes down to Termeh, but we don’t know what she chooses. Also, we aren’t given the whole explanation of whether Razieh truly tried to steal Nader’s money, why Razieh ties down Nader’s father, who opened Nader’s father’s oxygen tank to a dangerous level, or the region Simin is trying to emigrate to. The director’s design is not to give explanations to these matters, but rather to leave it up to the viewer’s interpretation.

Asghar Farhadi answered in an interview, “A doctor has determined that one of his patients has one month left to live. An Iranian doctor would not tell the patient he is going to die and will tell the truth only to the relatives of the patient. However, a Swedish doctor will tell the patient honestly that they have one month to live to help them prepare mentally. You cannot say which doctor is right. The important thing is that you as a patient can choose which doctor to have.” He wishes for the audience to feel something by telling a story where any possible conclusion is valid. He doesn’t care if viewers reach a different conclusion than one he had envisioned. Each viewer thinks and feels with their own heart.

But what is the message he wishes to convey within the plot? I believe that he wishes to criticize how society confines women in the name of Islamic fundamentalism. Razieh is a very religious woman. When she discovers that Nader’s father is incontinent, she calls a religious authority to see if she is allowed to touch and clean the body of this old man. The movie didn’t tell how the authority answered. Perhaps the authority said no, but Razieh couldn’t leave the man as he was. Razieh’s child who is 4 years old reassures her mother, “It’s okay. I won’t tell daddy.” Razieh claimed that Nader caused the miscarriage even though she does not know 100% whether it was his fault because she fears being beaten to death by her husband. However, in the end, she tells the truth even though it could put her own life in danger because she feared that if she accepted the large amount of money from Nader to settle, God would punish her daughter for her lie. Simin also fears that her own daughter will die in obscurity in Iran so she wishes to get out of Iran, even if that means leaving behind all her assets. This movie depicts the difficult decision a mother with a girl must make. Asghar Farhadi’s daughter plays Termeh, Nader and Simin’s daughter, in this movie. This young girl won Best Actress in the Berlin Film Festival. Asghar Farhadi also wishes for the best for his daughter’s future, but I think he is not 100% sure that is possible within the current system of Iran.

People in the movie industry that criticize the present regime of Iran must take refuge outside of Iran or could end up in prison. Asghar Farhadi had in the past advocated for an artist who, with the Green Movement, opposed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s reelection in the 2009 presidential election, and Farhadi was temporarily banned from making movies. After that, he was determined to stay within the country and make movies, but has succeeded in making movies while evading government oppression. First of all, he does not explicitly criticize religion and the characters do not physically touch each other. The criticism of the system is implied through the protagonist Simin, who is depicted as a slightly selfish woman of the intellectual rank. “I do not want to raise my child in this environment!” she states boldly in front of the judge, but it is left to the interpretation of the audience whether the environment means with her stubborn husband or within Iran’s society. It is then lamented and murmured over and over again, “If Simin hadn’t the ambition to emigrate, such a case wouldn’t have happened.” However, in this movie, Simin and Razieh are two young mothers who act for their child. Simin is very intelligent and puts others’ happiness before hers, sacrificing herself as many women do. Even while Nader’s father is suffering from dementia, there is a scene where he still remembers Simin’s kindness.

This movie was nominated for and won Best Foreign Film in the 84th Academy Awards, winning over the other nominations including Footnote, a film from Israel. The people of Iran were very excited for their victory over their longtime enemy Israel. This award will make it easier for Asghar Farhadi to make movies within the system of Iran, but I hope he doesn’t become too arrogant from this award. From the splendid speech that he gave when he won his Oscar, though, I do not believe that he is this kind of person.

日本語→

Announcement

Posted on by
Reply

Dear friends and readers,

After a battle with cancer, Ichigo, the blog master of this site, passed away last year. She kept watching movies, one of many things she loved, and wrote about them until her health no longer allowed her to do so. By writing about movies, she reflected on her life, bravely faced her death, and hoped to leave something valuable to those she loved. We wish to honor her by translating her articles for her English-speaking friends. We will continue posting until all of her work is translated. After that, we will start adding new posts to carry on her spirit.

Thank you for enriching her life,

Ichigo’s Family