Monthly Archives: February 2014

Movie: I Served the King of England (2006)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie is a Czech movie, not a British movie. Neither Great Britain nor the King appear at all. The Ethiopian emperor makes just a brief appearance. Therefore, if we watch this movie expecting a movie like The King’s Speech, we might think, “Huh???”

This movie is a satirical comedy with beautiful and grotesque images. However, in a sense, it can be said that this movie allows us to understand modern history of the Czech Republic through the protagonist’s life and the times he lives in. This movie depicts the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after their defeat in World War I and the formation of the Czechoslovakia Republic in 1918; Hitler absorbing the Sudetenland region in 1939, followed by Czech becoming a German protectorate; the establishment of the communist regime with the support of the Soviet Union through the “Victorious February” of 1948; and finally ends around 1968. Based on the novel Bohumil Hrabal secretly wrote in 1970 when freedom of speech was oppressed in Czech under the control of the communist party, director Jiří Menzel, whose freedom to produce was also oppressed under the communist party, made a film adaptation in 2006 after the collapse of the communist party. In 1967, Jiří Menzel won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film for Closely Watched Trains, another film adaptation of one of Bohumil Hrabal’s works, but there was a long gap in this career after that until the communist regime collapsed in 1989.

Czechs suffered throughout the 20th century—first bullied by Germany, then dominated by the Soviet Union—so we may expect the theme of Czech movies to be about this, but this movie depicts 20th century Czech history from a different angle. The Czech region Sudetenland shows up often in this movie.

The history of the Czech Republic is complicated. Bohemia was the center of the Czech Republic, but since the 11th century, German-ification has progressed due to Germans migrating there; also, there was a long-lasting, complicated power struggle between the north part of the Kingdom of Poland and the south part of the Kingdom of Hungary over ruling the land of Bohemia. Because of the eventual defeat of the Czech nobility in the Thirty Years’ War that started in 1618, a German sovereignty was established in Bohemia, but there historically was a strong antagonism between Germans and Czechs in the Bohemia region. Czech was traditionally anti-Germany, Pan-Slav, and had a strong sense of closeness with Russia, but this area in the end became a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. There are many coalmines in Bohemia. Utilizing the abundant coal and the investment by German capitalists, Bohemia successfully partook in the Industrial Revolution and became a prominent industrial area in Central Europe.

Sudetenland was on the western edge of Bohemia and on the German border; this area had many Germans living there since ancient times and thus the most intense antagonism between Germans and Czechs. German citizens under the control of the Czech majority suffered from discrimination such as unequal hiring process. As a result of the defeat of Germany and Austria in World War I in 1918, the Austro-Hungarian Empire dissolved; Czech and Slovakia were merged and the independent nation of Czechoslovakia was formed. Anti-German thought was mainstream in Czech, but, conversely, in Slovakia near Russia, there were strong anti-Russia, pro-Germany thoughts. Czech invaded the Sudetenland and seized this land from Germany. Many scenes of Czechs bullying Germans appear in this movie. The bullying is depicted full of humor, but it is cruel when considered carefully. With a lightness and skillful movement by actors like that seen in Chaplin movies, this movie attracts the audience masterfully, but there is poison at the bottom that makes you think about various things.

For Hitler who succeeded in absorbing Austria in March of 1938, his next territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia; with the excuse that Germans living in Sudetenland were being persecuted, Hitler tried to gain sovereignty over Sudetenland. At that time, Czech was involved in conflicts with their neighbors Poland and Hungary over territory. Taking advantage of this situation, Germany gained sovereignty over Sudetenland and from there, absorbed Czech.

Mirrors are effectively used in this movie. A mirror reflects something back. This movie satirically reveals the true face of Czech through the non-mainstream Czech protagonist. The protagonist is a plain, small-statured Czech man who doesn’t attract attention from anyone and has blonde hair, which is rare for Czechs. He was a poor man when the Czech Republic was erupting in prosperity after their independence. While other Czechs bully Germans, he is the only man who helps Germans and he even marries a German women. When Nazis took control and began oppression of other Czechs, he was able to get a job at a high-end restaurant and a high-end hotel thanks to his wife. The high-end hotel looks to be the pinnacle of elegance, but the true characters of the rich people, high-salaried officers, and politicians that come here are exposed. Since the hotel employees never fail to follow, “After watching it all, pretend to see nothing,” the rich clients that come here don’t mind the eyes of the hotel employees at all. By depicting the protagonist, the movie provides a reflection of the people over different times like a mirror. Because the protagonist is an extremely wealthy person when Germany is defeated in World War II and the communist revolution comes to life, he is sentenced to 15 years in prison for this crime. After he is released, the protagonist is sent to Sudetenland and assigned to do heavy labor.

When the protagonist arrives, Sudetenland is deserted. After World War II, all Germans were forcibly deported. The movie suggests that terrible things such as being pillaged or massacred also happened and that being expelled was actually the most benign treatment. The movie ends with the protagonist in this deserted place in the middle of the mountains quietly looking back on his life. The two different actors who perform the protagonist when he was young and when he is old do not look alike. I think two actors are used to depict change in the protagonist’s personality. This movie depicts the protagonist over about 35 years, from adolescence to middle-age. It is usually enough to have one actor to perform this range of years.

This movie picks up the issue of Sudetenland, an issue not many Czechs want to touch since it is like a disgrace in the modern history of Czech. This movie is made as a comedy with beautiful images, but it is quite brave to raise the theme of the Sudetenland issue. It is especially admirable for the author of the original work Bohumil Hrabal to write a book about the Sudetenland issue back in the 1970s, long before an official resolution. Considering this, this light comedy may be asking Czechs including himself the terrifying questions of, “Did we not create the situation of becoming victims of Nazis ourselves? Are we not narrow-minded people for having held onto a hatred for a neighbor of a slightly different race?”

日本語→

Movie: In Darkness — W ciemności (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie is based on a true story about Socha, a sewage worker in former Poland city Lviv, who hid Jews under the city in 1943 when it was ruled by Nazi Germany. Socha hid Jews in the underground sewer system to escape Nazi persecution. He helps these Jews and agrees to bring them food every day, but Socha’s actions endanger not only his own life, but the lives of his family.

As part of the drama of this movie, Socha is shown as a small criminal who steals and he starts sheltering Jews for money, to which he gets opposition from his wife for helping Jews. But over time, Socha gradually gains sympathy for the Jews he is hiding and he continues to help them free of charge after they run out of money, risking his own life to help them. However, I had a feeling that it may not be entirely accurate as I examined various facts in this movie. It is possible he was sympathetic to the Jews from the beginning and worked together with his wife and friend because of his own desire to help them. As for accepting money, Socha lived a very poor life and probably did not have extra money to buy food for other people so he may have needed the money from the Jews in order to buy them food. Later, when the Jews had used up all of their money, he used his own money to buy food to offer them. The hiding lasted for 14 months.

I don’t know which one is reality, but that is not so important. The important thing is why Socha decided to help the Jews even when it put his own life and the lives of his family in danger. This is what I wish to consider.

Socha lived in the city of Lviv in the east end of Poland, an area from ancient times under repeated contention between the Kingdom of Poland from the west and the Duchy of Kiev from the east. Until the 17th century, Lviv was caught in a series of invasions by the Ukraine Cossack or Ottoman Empire, among others, and in 1704, Swedish troops led by Charles XII during the Great Northern War captured Lviv and the town was destroyed.

Lviv was put under the control of the Austrian Empire by the First Partition of Poland in 1772. The Austrian Empire government strongly pushed for a German-ification and German was made the official language. In hatred of this, the Polish people rose up in revolt in 1848; after that, the people of Poland gradually gained self-governance of this land. Lviv was the center of Polish culture; at the same time, many Ukrainians also lived there and their culture was protected in Lviv, while other Ukrainian districts changed under Russian rule. When the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed after Austria’s defeat in World War I in 1918, the West Ukrainian People’s Republic declared its independence with Lviv as its capital.

ukrainemap_enFaced with this, the Polish population rose in revolt and the Polish-Ukrainian War began. The war ended with a landslide victory for Poland due to the complete support by the Polish army to defend their homeland, and Lviv once more came under Polish control. The Directorate of the Ukrainian People’s Republic did not support the Ukrainians in Lviv because the Directorate wanted support from Poland to fight against Russia’s Red Army; in exchange for Poland’s support, Poland was allowed to keep control of Lviv.

In 1920, the Soviet Red Army attacked Lviv. Armed citizens repelled the Red Army and Poland made a peace treaty with the Soviet Union, ignoring Ukraine’s wishes. This was a betrayal against the alliance they had with the Ukrainian People’s Republic against the Soviet Army.

Summarizing this complicated state of affairs, there was an antagonism between Polish and Ukrainian people in Lviv from long ago. Russia (as well as the Soviet Union after the revolution) was a natural enemy of Ukraine. Polish people had a hatred for German people from long ago. The Ukrainians conspired with the Germans to gain hegemony in Lviv, so conversely, the Polish allied with the Russians.

During World War II, Germany invaded Poland in September 1, 1939, and on September 14, the German army occupied Lviv. After that, Lviv was occupied for a short time by the Soviet Union, but in the end, Germany controlled that land. The goal of the German army was to annihilate all communists and Jews. The Ukrainian part of Lviv supported the anti-Soviet Union movement and so cooperated with the Nazis. During the German occupation, Poles had difficult lives. With the scene within this movie where many Poles being charged for killing a German soldier are executed, it seems that a Polish person may see the Nazi persecution of the Jews and think, “Tomorrow will be me.” There is sympathy there. Nevertheless, it’s impossible to know for sure the source of Socha’s determination to help the Jews in spite of facing grave danger.

After World War II, the whole area of Lviv was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. During that time, most of the Polish inhabitants of Lviv fled to Poland.

In 1945, immediately after the end of World War II, Socha was riding a bicycle with his daughter when a Soviet army truck approached his daughter. Socha, protecting his daughter from the truck, was hit by the truck and died. At his funeral, someone said, “He died because he triggered the anger of God by sheltering Jews.” For the sake of drama, this movie depicts Socha as someone who is petty, but I don’t believe it. I don’t care what kind of person he was. The things he did were important and people will continue to tell his story through this movie.

日本語→

Movie: My Week with Marilyn (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

In America, a typical review of this movie is, “Michelle Williams’s performance of Marilyn Monroe is splendid, but the movie itself is nothing great,” but I watched it despite poor reviews, and was pleasantly surprised. This movie was quite lovely and interesting, and after watching it, I was able to have various enjoyable conversations.

British director Simon Curtis wanted to make a movie about Marilyn Monroe, but when he approached producer David Parfitt about the idea, Parfitt’s reaction was, “People all around the world know Marilyn Monroe. Do you have something new to say?” Simon wished to base the movie off of the short memoirs by the late Colin Clark, a documentary movie writer, about the time Marilyn and Laurence Olivier spent together in the United Kingdom; David Parfitt liked this unique viewpoint and Adrian Hodges was hired to write the script. However, it’s hard to find a company willing to cover the production costs for a movie with such an ordinary story, so Simon went to Hollywood big-shot Harvey Weinstein for financial negotiations. Harvey had read Colin Clark’s original work, but had never thought an uneventful story like that would ever make for the subject of a movie; however, to his surprise, he thought Adrian Hodges’s screenplay was well done and he wanted to see Michelle Williams, who he already thought highly of, play Marilyn Monroe. Harvey agreed to come up with the funds to cover the movie production costs.

This movie is wonderful because it adequately contrasts the film worlds of the United Kingdom and America of those days. On one hand, there was Laurence Olivier who was trained with the fundamentals of acting at England’s Royal Shakespeare Theatre. After being knighted in 1947 and winning the American Academy Award for Best Actor in 1948 for his performance in Hamlet which he produced, directed, and acted as the lead role himself, he represented the United Kingdom as a star by both title and in reality. On the other hand, when Marilyn co-starred with Laurence Olivier in The Prince and the Showgirl in 1957, she had become the world’s most popular actress as a sex symbol. This movie depicts the contrast between Laurence Olivier who worked his way up with the classic method and Marilyn Monroe who displayed genius acting when the role was right for her, although she didn’t have any technical acting training. In addition, the inner conflict of Vivien Leigh, Laurence Olivier’s wife and the superstar of the last generation, is very interesting. In the theatre version of The Prince and the Showgirl, Vivien Leigh had played the same role of the dancer that Marilyn was playing in the movie, but had been told by her husband that she was too old for the movie. The movie shows Vivien Leigh watching Marilyn Monroe’s beautiful performance with both admiration and jealousy. This is the sad thing about actresses in the industry at this time. Even Laurence Olivier admires and is jealous of Marilyn’s aura that is beyond any acting technique. I digress now, but it is said that the producer wanted Ralph Fiennes (The Constant Gardener, English Patient) for Laurence Olivier and Catherine Zeta-Jones for Vivien Leigh. I wanted Catherine Zeta-Jones to play middle-aged Vivien Leigh by all means. But because her husband Michael Douglas was fighting against cancer at the time, Catherine was not in a condition to work and declined the offer. Regrettably, the substitute Julia Ormond wasn’t able to get Vivien’s aura of a former superstar at all.

Michelle Williams depicted Marilyn Monroe splendidly. Michelle successfully captured Marilyn’s ambiance with the way she sang and moved; even more wonderful was that she showed Marilyn Monroe to not be a dumb blond like the world is apt to think, but rather surprisingly smart and professional so as not to damage her image as an actress. Michelle’s performance showed that it was hard for Marilyn to stay at the top in Hollywood, but she was ambitious and worked very hard to maintain it. Also, she showed that it was very hard on Marilyn emotionally and that she came to rely on drugs. Marilyn wanted a man who loved her not just because she was famous. This movie also depicts how Marilyn could not give up her stardom that she had built for herself and return to a normal life.

Michelle Williams was absolutely beautiful and I think she was only actress that could’ve played Marilyn Monroe. However, still something is missing. I wonder if viewers may think the real Marilyn was even more beautiful, sexier, cuter, and sadder than how Michelle Williams presented her. The audience unexpectedly realizes through Michelle Williams’ performance how extraordinary Marilyn Monroe was. Michelle Williams did not intend to convey this message, but her great performance unintentionally demonstrated that no one can capture Marilyn Monroe who is one-of-a-kind in this world.

日本語→

Movie: Invictus (2009)

Posted on by
Reply

In 1994, the Republic of South Africa abolished the apartheid that had continued for many years and Nelson Mandela was elected as president in a general election of all races. The Caucasian bureaucrats that held the major positions of the government until then feared that Mandela would seek retribution on their positions and some began to pack their belongings in anticipation of it. In response to this, Mandela gathered the staff members on his first day in governmental office and appealed to them, “You are free to resign, but I wish to cooperate in order to make a new South Africa.” He chastised the black men of his staff who spoke of “retribution” and he persuaded them that he could not build a new nation without cooperation of all races. His own team of bodyguards became a mixed team of black and white men.

Mandela zeroed in on how sports are the best way to connect to the heart of the people and used the Rugby World Cup to be held in the Republic of South Africa in 1995 as means to unify the hearts of the nation. South Africa’s rugby team—the Springboks—were in a slump in those days, but the Springboks showed an unexpected performance in that Rugby World Cup and, in the end, managed to advance to the finals. The movie ends with the scene where the Republic of South Africa defeats top-seeded New Zealand and everyone in the audience, regardless of race, embraces each other.

I hardly knew about President Mandela, but watching this movie, I was impressed with how wonderful a politician he was. His political decisions were extremely pragmatic such as the prohibition of retribution and the utilization of sports; because he knew these strategies were politically effective, he executed them with no hesitation. However, beyond being politically savvy, he has a strength backed by idealism and humanitarianism. He is an excellent coach in politics and I think the world would be a more peaceful place if all countries had a leader like Mandela.

We may understand the connection of sports and patriotism by watching the Olympics. Even if there is criticism that people will do whatever it takes to win—bribe the Olympics, drug use, etc.—without the Olympics, people wouldn’t know what it is like to compete representing their country or what humans are capable of. Without the Olympics, there would be fewer people who are interested in countries like Jamaica and Grenada. It is wonderful that Mandela used a team sports game to unify the nation. Compared to figure skating and gymnastics, a game has a clear and objective winner. However, unlike individual sports like swimming and track-and-field where the winner becomes a hero, all the team members become heroes. In order to win, you need teamwork.

Since Nelson Mandela formally expressed that Morgan Freeman perform as him if his autobiography was adapted to a movie, the friendship between the two has deepened. When Morgan Freeman was selected as the lead actor of this movie, Freeman sent the screenplay to Clint Eastwood—whom he respected having worked together in three previous movies—and requested that he direct the movie. This movie is a product of teamwork. This movie gives the impression that all the people involved in making this movie must have enjoyed their experience.

日本語→

Movie: Ajami (2009)

Posted on by
Reply

Ajami is a neighborhood on the south side of Tel Aviv, Israel’s largest metropolitan area; many Arabs reside there and there is a high crime rate involving drugs and violence. This movie mainly interweaves events depicted from each of the perspectives of three young Muslim Arabs working at a restaurant in Ajami, a Christian Arab who is very influential in the community, and an Israeli police officer. Therefore, even though the same events are depicted, each person’s viewpoint of the event looks different.

Because of the conflict of nineteen-year-old Omar’s uncle with a Bedouin gang, the gang swears to get revenge by targeting the lives of Omar and his younger brother Nasri. Omar requests that Abu Elias, a friend of the boss at the restaurant Omar works at and an influential person in the Ajami neighborhood, have the conflict settled in a Bedouin courtroom, but the court demands a large sum for the settlement (about $50,000 to $100,000); Omar fears he will be killed if he can’t pay this.

Sixteen-year-old Malek is from the West Bank, an autonomous Palestinian territory adjacent to Israel, but crossed the border and is staying as an illegal laborer secretly working at the restaurant in Ajami. He needs approximately $70,000 in order to pay for his mother’s cancer treatment. Abu Elias loves him and gladly covers part of the expenses, but Malek worries how he will come up with the remaining expense.

Binj is a caring, cheerful cook in his twenties, but after his younger brother kills a Jewish citizen and runs away, Binj worries about what to do with his brother’s illegal drugs he is left with. After narrowly passing a household search by the police, Binj throws away most of the drugs and decides to put flour in the bag that held the drugs to look like drugs. However, as a result of snorting the remainder of the drugs, he overdoses and dies.

The Israeli police officer Dando discovers the dead body of his younger brother who had gone missing, and suspects that his younger brother was murdered by an Arab.

Abu Elias is Christian, a minority among Arabs. He, having helped Omar with his predicament, becomes angry when his daughter and Omar get involved romantically since he does not approve of love between a man and woman of different religions.

Malek and Omar discover white powder that they believe to be drugs in Binj’s apartment and attempt to sell the drugs to a drug dealer, but in fact the drug dealer is an undercover Israel police officer and Dando is also watching while concealed. Dando notices that Malek has a high-end watch that looks like the one that belonged to his deceased younger brother and gets very angry.

It is completely different what happens after this, depending on each viewpoint. Also, Malek and Omar have an incorrect idea regarding Binj being killed and who killed him, and this leads to tragedy.

This movie depicts the suffering of Palestinians and their society, but since they are citizens living within the Israeli area, they have different problems than Palestinians living in the autonomous Palestinian district West Bank. I think this point is uniquely depicted in this movie.

I believe there are three things necessary to live happily as a human. One, a loving family; two, friends (social support); and three, a job (economic strength).

All the families that appear in this movie are full of love in their own way. They are not perfect, but each parent wants to protect their children at any cost and the children think cherishing their parents is most important. Even if this loving feeling is universal for humans, the family is a single unit for Arabs. When one person within one family commits a crime or makes a mistake, it becomes the crime of the whole family. In addition, the mother is strong and loving within her family, but because she doesn’t understand the society that has become dominated by males, she can’t handle serious matters so all difficult decisions fall to teenagers Malek and Omar as the “patriarch”.

Social support means friendships, community support, as well as the protection by the power of the government. The Palestinians living in Palestine territories like the West Bank district are surrounded by Palestinian brothers and can fall back on the country of Palestine that is able to protect them even if there is political instability. However, Palestinians living in Ajami cannot rely on Israel, the country they live in. The gangs, even though they are Arabs, target the lives of other Arabs. Because the Israel police don’t intervene in such disputes between Arabs, these people must find a solution within their own community, but this is not easy. Unless they have relatives and friends in Palestine’s West Bank district, escaping to there is not an option. These people with nothing in common except being called Palestinian are not friends. For Palestinians living in Ajami, the only support network is made up of their relatives and any friends made there.

Even if blessed with family and friends, you can’t survive with that alone. In order to survive, you need some occupation in order to eat. Even as an Arab, there are decent opportunities to get a higher education and a job in Israel. As an extreme example, Scandar Copti, a Christian Israel citizen of Palestine descent and one of the two directors of this movie, received a higher education and was able to become a popular movie director.

When this movie was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, director Scandar Copti said, stirring up controversy, “This movie represents Israel. I am an Israeli citizen, but I don’t speak for the Israeli government because I can’t speak for a government that doesn’t represent me. I am not a team member representing Israel.”

The Israel Cabinet Minister of Culture and Sport, Limor Livnat, said in response, “He wouldn’t have been able to make this movie without Israeli financing, much less walk the red carpet of the Academy Award ceremony. All the other people involved in making this movie think of themselves as Israeli citizens.” Also, Israel’s Legal Forum insisted, “If director Copti doesn’t withdraw his remark, this nomination should be withdrawn. Director Copti should have considered more carefully before receiving money from Israel.” Israeli director Menahem Golan also stated, “I wish director Copti had more respect towards investors. He should at least respect the people who worked with him.”

Director Copti doesn’t want to lose his identity as a minority in Israel, and perhaps he didn’t want an easy solution of “just being nice” for the conflict between Israelis and Arabs. However, I hope director Copti doesn’t forget about the opportunity he has been given as a new superstar in the movie world to improve the situation of Palestinians in Israel. I hope he will not be swayed by words like, “If you hate the people of Israel, don’t accept their money,” or, “Leave if you hate this country.” I hope he can say with an artist’s enthusiasm, “I will keep getting money and keep making better work; I will change history by making movies that can improve the Arab situation.” At least I think he is blessed with talent and opportunity to do so.

日本語→

Movie: The Last Circus (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie mostly depicts the life-or-death struggle between a cruel clown and a tormented, sad pantomime; the story is grotesque and absurd and upon finishing the movie I angrily thought, “I could not recommend this movie to anyone.” However, when thinking of this movie after one night of sleep, the cruel and grotesque scenes entirely disappeared and I saw more clearly the things that were hidden by the absurdity. This movie was an allegory about Spain’s recent history and thus naturally contained—like every allegory—cruelty, sorrow, and a lesson.

It is 1937 during the Spanish Civil War. The people in circus troupes who peacefully traveled around to rural areas to entertain people are threatened by the communist general Enrique Líster, who is supposed to be anti-fascist and fight for the people; the circus people are drafted by force and fight in the front line. In the end, the Spanish Republican Army suffers a crushing defeat; the fascists execute most of the circus troupe members and only the clown is sent to a slave labor camp. The clown’s son goes to the slave labor camp to help his father, but sees the fascist general kill his father before his own eyes; the boy crushes the general’s eye and barely escapes from the camp alive.

The story suddenly shifts to the present time in the 1970s, a time of peace under the Franco Administration. The son of the clown who died is now a crybaby pantomime full of sadness and goes to an interview to get a job at a circus. The most popular clown at the circus who conducts the interview says, “If I weren’t a clown, I would become a murderer”; to the audience’s surprise, the cowardly pantomime responds, “Me too.” For some reason the clown likes this cowardly pantomime and hires the pantomime in order to torment him. The clown is arrogant, cruel, and malicious to all the other circus people, who are afraid of him; but he is popular with children and, since spectators come to watch him, nobody including the troupe manager can complain about him and they laugh at his lame jokes, pretending the jokes are funny. The pantomime is the only one who stares blankly and frankly says he doesn’t understand the joke, offending the clown. The clown’s beautiful acrobat lover admires the attitude of the pantomime who isn’t afraid of the clown and she seduces the pantomime. The pantomime falls in love with the acrobat who, even though she is abused by the clown, cannot leave him; when the pantomime tries to rescue her from the clown, the clown explodes with anger and beats the pantomime, nearly killing him. While watching over the pantomime in his hospital room, the acrobat says she chooses the clown over the pantomime and leaves, but the pantomime gets angry and attacks the clown and ruins the clown’s face. The pantomime runs away from the police and coincidentally finds himself under the protection of the general whom he had taken the eye of. The one-eyed general treats the pantomime like a dog. The one-eyed general lives in a luxurious mansion; he invites his boss Generalísimo Franco to his home for hunting and has the pantomime offer the game in his mouth to Franco. Generalísimo Franco is depicted as a gentle and kind person within this movie, admonishing the one-eyed general with, “You mustn’t treat a human with such cruelty,” but in the next moment, the pantomime bites Franco’s hand. The pantomime destroys his own face and transforms it into a terrifying face, kills the one-eyed general, and runs away.

The clown who was once popular is now ugly, hated and feared by children. However, when the pantomime appears in front of the acrobat with unchanged love, she says to him, “You are more terrifying than the clown now.” Franco’s right-hand man Prime Minister Blanco is suddenly assassinated. In the chaos that immediately follows, the pantomime and the clown chase after the acrobat like mad men; she escapes by climbing up a ridiculously tall, skyscraper-like cross and thus the desperate struggles of these three people begin. Seeing this, a young man who was a fellow member in the circus makes up his mind to go rescue these three people. This young troupe member was shot from a cannon to a wall every day and, though people were interested and laughed for a moment, he was immediately forgotten every day. He is shot from the cannon toward the cross, but he hits the cross and really dies this time. Acrobat tells the pantomime, “I love you now,” before falling from the cross and dying.

The clown and pantomime are arrested and face each other in a paddy wagon, both of their faces now terrifying without any makeup. In the repeated life-or-death struggle, the acrobat and young troupe member died while the two men live on heartily and the movie ends with the two staring at each other and smiling as if to say, “So what happens next?”

The beautiful acrobat courted by the pantomime and the clown represents “power.” She symbolizes the target that kings, dictators, nationally elected presidents, or any person with political power desire to reach. I think the clown symbolizes fascism. He has charm to attract the hearts of the people, but is also dangerous at the same time and nobody has the power to suppress him. However, the people begin to hate the clown when he becomes ugly. The pantomime symbolizes communism or populism that becomes radicalism. Originally possessing a noble heart, existing to speak for the sorrow of other people, the pantomime gradually becomes brutal and at certain occasions is more frightening than the clown; even though the clown doesn’t get arrested for anything he does, the authorities continue to chase down the pantomime for his atrocities. The nameless circus troupe member who doesn’t attract attention from anyone and dies trying to rescue the three people may symbolize anonymous citizens. I wonder if the young troupe member represents the Spanish citizens that do their own jobs silently without drawing attention and do not know an effective method to solve the chaotic system.

In this movie, the generals of both political parties are depicted cruelly, but, curiously, Franco is depicted as a gentle and fair person. Certainly it couldn’t be that criticism of Franco is still taboo nowadays in 2010. I believe that Franco was severe with the opposing party, but as a person, was honest and seriously thought about the future of the people of Spain; the people of Spain, even those with different political standpoints, appear to appreciate and recognize him for these values. That was the impression I got from this movie.

日本語→

Movie: Monsieur Lazhar (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

In an elementary school in Montreal, Canada, an Algerian immigrant, Bashir Lazhar, is hired to fill in for a female teacher who commits suicide in the classroom. He straightforwardly faces the students in the homeroom who haven’t yet recovered from the shock of their dead teacher and opens the hearts of these children. However, Lazhar carries his own sad past and secrets. Lazhar experienced the violent civil war in his home country and came to Canada as a refugee. His wife and children were killed by terrorists; he has been trying to get permanent residence in Canada as a political exile; and he didn’t actually have any qualifications as a teacher or experience teaching. When the principal finds out about Lazhar’s lack of qualifications, Lazhar is fired, but he leaves a powerful impact on the students.

This movie was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film and it was praised highly in many countries, but I was not very impressed with this movie. First of all, it seems strained that the teacher would hang herself in the classroom. Did she choose this time and place for her suicide so that the male student involved in her problem could discover her? At one point, Lazhar wonders out loud why she would commit suicide in the classroom, but a coworker who was close to her just says, “Because she seemed to be a little bit mentally ill for some time.” Since the teacher was supposedly popular with the children, why wouldn’t any of the students or surrounding people think to question her mental condition? Also, why would Lazhar who had no teaching experience suddenly apply to fill in for the teacher who committed suicide? Furthermore, it is not very convincing that Lazhar would be hired at the school to teach without permanent residence and without the school performing a background check.

At any rate, the movie seems to focus on the students that are wounded from their teacher’s suicide, and, despite his more profound injury, Lazhar is able to heal with his cheerful attitude; the story doesn’t seem to care how he got there, or maybe the intention is to make the message more moving by having a dramatic story. When a suicide happens within the school, a school must proceed very cautiously in order to avoid inadvertently causing any more trouble. Since suicide is such a serious issue, there must be a serious buildup that leads to the suicide; however, the way the movie used the suicide as a tool to move the story along without considering the background of the suicide was not convincing. It should have been the boy who drove the teacher to commit suicide who was most wounded by the teacher’s suicide, but the movie widely incorporates the whole class and the development of the story mainly relies on the particular little girl who opens up to the protagonist Lazhar. Because of all this, the message of the movie did not reach me.

This movie’s background is that Abdelaziz Bouteflika was elected as the president of Algeria in 1999 to put an end to the Algerian Civil War that had been developing over the last 10 years; he was forced to compromise with the opposing group within the country and so he acquitted the past political crimes of extremists by granting amnesties. Because Lazhar’s wife published a book that criticized this, his family was threatened by extremists and eventually his family was killed by terrorists.

Mohamed Fellag, the theatre actor and comedian that played Lazhar, also has the history of escaping from Algeria. Triggered by a bombing of his stage in 1995, he took refuge in Tunisia and, from there, France. This movie was based off of a one-man play and the play’s author—Évelyne de la Chenelière—highly recommended Mohamed Fellag for the role of Lazhar, but it is said the movie director—Philippe Falardeau—thought Fellag’s acting was too theatrical and did not immediately support the choice. However, Fellag’s training on the stage and real-life experience seemed to prove enough to persuade the director.

日本語→

Movie: The Counterfeiters — Die Fälscher (2007)

Posted on by
Reply

The Japanese title is “Hitler’s Counterfeit Bills,” but the original title does not include the name “Hitler.” However, I feel that the name “Hitler” is packed with the additional meaning of “dictator” as well as “a dangerous man who could do unfathomably terrible things once he had political power.” By adding this single word to the Japanese translation, people will get a sinister feeling, appropriate for the story of this movie. This movie depicts the tragic struggle for survival by the Jews sent to concentration camps during the dark ages of the Nazis, but the way of depicting this is more than just Nazi (bad) versus Jews (good).

The protagonist is a Jew named Salomon, a masterful manufacturer of counterfeit money and documents. He is arrested for making counterfeit dollar bills and sent to a concentration camp because he is Jewish; because of his ability with drawing, he gains favorable treatment from the German soldiers. Before long, the skilled police officer who arrested this counterfeiter gets promoted to a major of the Nazi S.S. and makes contact with Salomon. The major gathers people among the prisoners sent to concentration camps who have talent with drawing, printing technique, and counterfeiting in order to forge money used by Allied nations such as Great Britain, and he becomes the project leader of the operation to destroy the economy of the Allies. The major appoints Salomon as the technical leader of the project and gives Salomon special treatment to complete the project successfully.

Salomon’s dilemma begins from here. By all means, he doesn’t want to help the Nazis he hates. However, his life as well as the lives of his fellow Jews are in danger if he does not obey the major. His fellow Jews are not united for one cause; some flatter the major, some want to believe that their lives are secure if they succeed with the project, while others are temporarily satisfied with the privileges and relatively comfortable living conditions given to them as an elite, and others still—like the printer Burger—urge for anti-Nazi rebellions. It isn’t easy to unite a team in a situation like that. During the project of counterfeiting British bonds—which are considered to be the most difficult to counterfeit in the world—a pride and passion for their work as counterfeiters gradually develop. When their imitation British bonds are completely accepted as genuine by British banks, there is a moment (just a moment) of shared feelings among the major and Jewish prisoners of, “We accomplished something really great together.” The prisoners of the project team are allowed to play ping-pong as a reward.

However, the state of the war gradually shifted unfavorably for the Nazis. Knowing this, the major plans to flee to Switzerland and has Salomon forge Swiss passports for all of his family members; he tells Salomon as he is about to leave, “These are difficult times now. Each of us must persevere to survive.” If he had lived in times of peace, the major may have been a good father, husband, and friend—family-oriented and capable in his job. However, the major brought Salomon into this difficult situation and unintentionally insults him by saying, “Ha ha, nobody can surpass a Jew when it comes to counterfeiting,” when he is excited by the success of the project team. In times of peace, these two men might not have had any reason to hate each other, but in this situation, Salomon acts in a twisted manner towards the major.

The Allies liberate this Nazi concentration camp; the emaciated Jews who were housed on the other side of the camp enter Salomon’s building, but they don’t believe that Salomon and the others are prisoners held captive by the Nazis because they were too healthy. Salomon and the others have to prove that they are fellow Jews and not Nazi soldiers in disguise. In addition, one of Salomon’s associates commits suicide immediately after the concentration camp is liberated. His only reason to live was to fight the terror of the Nazis, but now that the Nazis collapsed, he lost his will to live. Something had broken inside of him along with the collapse of the Nazis.

This movie was made based on the autobiography of the printer named Burger. The comparison of the actual lives of Burger and Salomon afterwards is interesting. Burger was arrested for forging Catholic baptism certificates to help Jews escape from the Nazis and was sent to a concentration camp. After being released, he became a journalist in order to convey his personal experience to the future and continues to work to impeach fascism through publications and lectures. On the other hand, Salomon continued to make counterfeit bills after World War II and was on international wanted lists. He is said to have secretly escaped to Uruguay and some say he further escaped to Brazil and spent the rest of his life there. The full details of Salomon’s life remain a mystery.

日本語→

Movie: Shutter Island (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

The story begins with two United States Marshals going to investigate the escape of a female patient from an institution on a solitary island in the middle of the sea where mentally ill criminals are sent. The scenes on the ship, which must have been made using Hollywood’s high-tech computer graphics, somehow look fake and cheap, giving off a perplexing impression from the beginning. Somehow these two people who seem to be meeting each other for the first time partake in this dangerous mission together, though the marshal with subordinate status (performed by Mark Ruffalo) casually asks his boss (Leonardo DiCaprio!!) personal questions. The only way to get to the island is with a ferry, but when the marshals arrive on the island, they must forfeit their weapons to the institution’s official guard and enter what seems like a very dangerous place without any weapons. The institution’s courtyard is beautiful, but all the patients are chained together and stare at the two marshals with somewhat strange facial expressions. The director of the institution also appears to be acting unnaturally to the two of them. Over the course of the investigation, the protagonist marshal Leonardo realizes that not only is the female patient missing, but another male patient, who is extremely violent and dangerous, is also missing; no one in the hospital, however, informs him of this. One mentally ill patient Leonardo interviews seizes the opportunity that nobody else is watching to hand Leonardo a note saying, “Run away!” in a moment of recovered sanity. The situation becomes stranger and stranger.

The next day, for some reason, the female patient who disappeared comes back, but there is no real explanation of how she disappeared or came back. However, since Leonardo and his partner have completed the mission, they intend to leave when a hurricane suddenly attacks the island, so they decide to stay one more day on the island. The next morning, rumors spread that the ward accommodating the most dangerous patients on the island was destroyed; the marshals go to the ward, but are unable to grasp what is happening on the island and become increasingly confused. Leonardo still appears to be fearless, but finally the subordinate marshal Mark says, “We both need to work to escape from here.” However, Mark also suddenly disappears. Was he kidnapped by someone? And where does the extremely dangerous, mentally ill criminal who disappeared lurk? While desperately searching for Mark, Leonardo discovers a woman hiding in a cave. This woman tells Leonardo that she is the female patient who escaped and that the director presented a different woman in her place to make it look like she returned. Even more terrifying, she was a doctor at that institution that experimented on the mentally ill patients, but when she objected to experimenting on living people, she was locked away as a mental illness patient at the institution to keep the truth from being exposed. From that cave, Leonardo sees a lighthouse he had never visited before and guard officials carrying guns. Leonardo slips into this lighthouse and learns the surprising truth.

Inside this lighthouse, there is a great plot twist and again a feeling of, “What??” When you know the conclusion and watch the movie, you see everything from a different angle and everything down to the minor details makes sense. In other words, the audience is skillfully deceived for two hours. Maybe the director felt sorry for the audience for tricking them until now, so he puts in another twist at the very end that makes the audience question whether they were truly deceived. The movie deliberately makes it ambiguous whether the actions Leonardo takes at the end when he finally realizes he is not able to escape from the island are due to insanity or a resignation to his fate. I think director Martin Scorsese ended the movie this way to intentionally confuse the audience.

According to him, “A story that’s difficult to understand? Isn’t that wonderful? Viewers will go back to the theater in order to understand, so this movie will be financially successful.”

The main character performed by Leonardo is depicted as being haunted by the scenes of Jews whom he had liberated from Nazi camps. America did not become a battleground, but it is a historical fact that many soldiers were wounded and killed. In addition, the movie depicts lobotomy, which was an accepted medical treatment to mental illness in America during those times. For example, it is said that Rosemary Kennedy of the notable Kennedy family suffered from some kind of mental disorder. Since her violent nature and mood disorder grew worse, her father Joseph had a behind-the-scenes lobotomy operation performed on her in 1941. This operation further reduced her cognitive ability, and as a result, she lived in an institution until she died in 2005. This ominous movie may not necessarily be unrealistic.

日本語→

Movie: Norwegian Wood (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

There may be four attitudes regarding the movie adaptation of Haruki Murakami’s novel Norwegian Wood.

1) I do not know Haruki Murakami and won’t watch the movie because I’m not interested in it.
2) I won’t watch the movie because I already have a fixed vision of Haruki Murakami’s Norwegian Wood.
3) I have not read Haruki Murakami’s book, so I will watch it instead of reading it.
4) I do not want to watch the movie because I have a fixed vision of Haruki Murakami’s Norwegian Wood, but feel like something is not finished if I don’t watch it (sigh), so I will try to watch it.

In the end, people of 3) and 4) go to the movie theatre, but people of 3) will think, “Hmm, Murakami is way overrated…” while people of 4) will hang their heads and think, “That was as bad as I feared.” My honest impression is that highly ambitious director Tran Anh Hung wants a place in the international film world and he used Murakami’s name with this movie to be recognized by an international audience. Therefore, Naoko’s part had to be played by Japan’s best-known actress, Rinko Kikuchi, and she had to have a lot of screen time until the end.

Because ardent readers of Murakami already create an image of each character in their own mind before watching the movie, casting must be difficult. However, one reason that this movie disappointed the audience was that Rinko Kikuchi played the part of Naoko. It’s not because Rinko Kikuchi is a bad actress. To make my point clear, here is an extreme example: it would be like casting middle-aged Haruko Sugimura or Kirin Kiki to play Naoko simply because they are top actresses. Although Rinko Kikuchi is younger, it is still impossible to have Kikuchi who’s in her thirties play Naoko who’s a teenager. It’s only a little more than ten years, but this age difference is fatal in Norwegian Wood. Also, Rinko Kikuchi is a go-getter and a strong-willed person, while Naoko is as vulnerable as pure white, soft snow that melts in front of your eyes without a trace. Kikuchi and Naoko have completely different temperaments.

Secondly, Reiko’s depiction is totally incorrect. There is not a female protagonist in the original novel. (Naoko is not the protagonist). However, in the original novel, Reiko is a profound influence on the main character Watanabe and an extremely important character; among the female characters, the reader may have the most affinity towards Reiko when reading the novel. Her life is tragic in some regard, but she doesn’t forsake Naoko until the end and she is the one who warm-heartedly maintains the connection between Naoko and Watanabe; but in the movie, she is depicted in a way that makes me think, “Why is this person here?” The letter that Reiko writes Watanabe in the novel is beautiful. Completely ignoring the novel, Reiko is depicted as some incomprehensible, weird lady.

norwegianwood_enThe world of the novel Norwegian Wood to me is, in a few words, a big rectangle in a spacious field. Naoko is in the upper right corner. Midori is in the lower left corner. A long path extends from Naoko’s position, and Watanabe slowly walks on it with Reiko. A river flows parallel to this path and Hatsumi stands on the opposite bank of the path Reiko is walking on; Watanabe watches Hatsumi from a distance as he walks. Then Midori is waiting at the end of the long walk. Reiko gently pushes Watanabe’s back and gives him courage to cross the river. The flow of the river is violent, but Nagasawa lightly floats along like a waterfowl without being washed away. Then Watanabe approaches to greet Nagasawa, and Nagasawa says, “Cross the river. What are you waiting for? Take care,” as he gently floats down the river.

In a sense, this movie is a “rite of passage” story. Depending on the person, it may be called “the loss of youth” or perhaps “the coming of age.” Nagasawa has this maturity. Like the surgeon in the Czech movie The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Nagasawa understands the difference between love and sex in a realistic way; Nagasawa doesn’t care for those who stubbornly hold onto romantic ideals. Nagasawa has his beliefs, but does not blame others for having different opinions, and he does not make excuses or pity himself. In this movie, his true essence wasn’t depicted at all, and he was drawn simply as an arrogant man.

Midori is a girl who naturally possesses maturity within her. Her life was not easy at all, but she doesn’t pity herself and she holds herself up with two strong legs to keep on living. She never shows it off, but Watanabe picks up on it. Watanabe was taken aback by Midori’s unexpected strength and he finds himself falling in love with her. The movie does not depict this unexpectedness at all. To be honest, in the movie, Naoko repeats, “I got wet!” and Reiko abruptly says to Watanabe, “Sleep with me!” as if crazed for sex, while Midori whines, “Pretty please take me to an indecent movie.” I was really disappointed that all the important female characters were drawn with an excessive desire for sex. In the novel, sex has an important role, but it is just in the background, part of a more important story. It is not shown this way in the movie.

Reiko, like Hatsumi and Naoko, has an “obsessive” mind, but she is determined to get rid of this sense of fixation. In the movie, the actress who plays Reiko sings the Beatles’ “Norwegian Wood,” but I was surprised by how bad it was. Regardless of the skill level of her as a singer, the issue was that there was no heart in the song.

The original Norwegian Wood is the story of Watanabe crossing the river. However, this journey was not easy. He may think he must give up this beautiful shore in order to cross the river, and it feels like he must give up himself. Also, he must abandon his “sense of responsibility” to cross the river. For Watanabe, his “sense of responsibility” is not as simple as the one in an adult society of “doing your duty and keeping promises.” His version of responsibility is what makes him himself and if he abandons it, he thinks he is abandoning what is the most important to him. However, in the end, Watanabe probably crossed the river. It is implied at the beginning of the novel. But the movie does not touch on this at all.

To say it briefly, this movie cuts all the details needed in order to present the original novel’s essence, and adds unnecessary scenes. The images were fairly beautiful, but it cannot be a good movie with this alone.

日本語→