Monthly Archives: March 2014

Movie: The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988)

Posted on by
Reply

The Unbearable Lightness of Being is the film adaptation of the novel of the same name written by author Milan Kundera, who took refuge in France after the Soviet Army suppressed Czech’s freedom movement that took place in 1968 (the Prague Spring); this movie depicts the different fates of four people living through turbulent times with the Prague Spring of Czechoslovakia in the background.

Tomas lives in Prague, and is young, handsome, and a skilled surgeon. He loves women and is loved by women, and he is a man who openly has relations with several women at the same time; he has a relationship with an artist Sabina, who is the only woman Tomas acknowledges understands him. One day, Tomas goes to a small spa town in order to perform surgery, and there he meets a young woman named Tereza. Tereza is an avid reader and loves reading Tolstoy, but she feels that none of her friends in the village understand her. When Tereza sees Tomas sitting and waiting on the same bench—among the many benches available—that she always sat on, and senses Prague culture in him, she becomes deeply entranced by Tomas and later follows him to Prague. Tomas, who appeared to be set on remaining single, is attracted to Tereza, and the two end up getting married.

Tereza is inspired by Sabina and tries to become a photographer, but during this time, the Soviet Army invades Czechoslovakia in order to suppress the growing desire for freedom, and many people are murdered. Sabina, Tomas, and Tereza take refuge in Geneva. Tereza shows a Swiss magazine the photographs she took in the face of danger of the oppression by the Soviet Army, but people in Switzerland are already bored of the Prague Spring event, and she is told to bring more interesting photographs. Sabina meets a devoted, honest professor named Hans. Tereza thinks she is not a strong enough person to live in a foreign country, like Sabina and Tomas, and so she returns to Czechoslovakia. Tomas has to decide between staying in free Switzerland with Sabina and returning to his oppressed homeland Czechoslovakia to be with Tereza. Tomas decides to return to Czechoslovakia, but his passport is confiscated when he re-enters the country, so it is a one-way trip and he can’t return to free countries.

While Tomas was in Switzerland, the Soviet Army had successfully implemented oppressive measures, and Prague had become a completely different town. Tomas is categorized as an anticommunist, so he is deprived work as a surgeon and has to make a living as a custodian. Tereza is devastated by the transformation of Prague, and becomes depressed and considers suicide. The two move out to the countryside, adapt to their new life, and are able to find true happiness despite their modest lifestyle; the moment they find happiness, though, a tragedy occurs.

The appeal of this movie is that the depictions of the individual personalities and the relationships between Tomas and Tereza, as well as between Sabina and Hans, are very delicate, beautiful, and persuasive.

When Tomas and Sabina meet, a mirror is always used. This symbolizes the relationship of Tomas and Tereza as well as of Sabina and Hans. If I were to depict the relationships of the four people with a picture, Tomas and Tereza are lying in bed next to a large mirror. When Tomas looks at the mirror, Sabina—not Tomas—is reflected back. Then, Hans is lying down next to Sabina. When Tomas approaches the mirror, Sabina also approaches the mirror. When Tomas moves away from the mirror, Sabina also moves away. However, Tomas doesn’t need to break the mirror to be with Sabina. Tomas and Sabina are a man and a woman bound together like Siamese twins, tied by their souls. Even when they are apart, or even if they are both with someone else, their spirits are always joined.

However, it is only Tereza that Tomas truly loves. Tereza is like the sun and illuminates everything, and when she is around, the world and other women look beautiful; but when she is gone, the world is dark, and other women don’t enter Tomas’s field of vision at all. Tomas is light and freewheeling, but his beliefs do not waver. Before the Prague Spring, he said to his friends who excitedly talked about politics, “I am not interested in politics at all.” However, during the oppression by the Soviet Union, people rapidly switched to protecting themselves, informing on each other, and hiding what they were feeling; on the other hand, Tomas, who refused to change himself, was oppressed as someone who was against the establishment. However, even though the job that he loved is snatched away, he remains as light and unwavering as ever.

Tereza is influenced by Tomas and Sabina, who live lightly in the city (so it seems), and so makes a great effort to do so herself; she experiments with various things, but learns in the end that in order to be happy, she is the kind of person who needs to be rooted near nature. Although Tereza does not realize it, she is naturally very sexually attractive without trying, and Tomas is deeply attracted to her because of who she is naturally.

Sabina, while her and Tomas’s hearts are nearly identical, is a woman who earns a living with a paintbrush, while Tomas uses a scalpel to perform surgery. Although she is woman, she is more willing to live this vagrant lifestyle than men. She doesn’t know how or where in this large earth she will die, but she has the attitude that she’ll live holding onto her paintbrush with all her might, even if she dies by the side of the road. Honest and ethical Hans cannot help but be attracted to Sabina, who is completely different from himself.

I happened to watch The Unbearable Lightness of Being around the same time as the Norwegian Wood movie based on Haruki Murakami’s novel; although the two movies are set in the same time period (late 1960s) and depict a very similar theme, I thought it was interesting that the depiction and resolution were fundamentally different.

In Norwegian Wood, the society in Japan has peace without the fear of war, freedom, personal safety, and secure money to live a good life; yet somehow the youth have a locked up feeling, and they get wrapped up in socialism, believing it to be a ray of hope to save their society. The protagonist, who is of course the projection of Haruki Murakami, is not able to sympathize with the movement of the youth of his same generation, but his friends around him commit suicide one after another. The young people committing suicide have their parents’ love and are brought up in a blessed environment, but they heavily obsess over something, as if they are fixated on watching the hole of their stocking getting bigger and bigger every day. And so they commit suicide. The protagonist is also affected by this attitude, but after wandering, weeping until his nose dripped, and an overly dramatic journey of self-discovery, he decides, “I will live.”

In The Unbearable Lightness of Being, for the youth living in a society where freedom of speech has been snatched away and there is economic injustice, socialism is evil, and the youth wishes for Czechoslovakia to become a free nation. Tomas is not the kind of person who fixates on the negatives. Therefore, he is light, and even though he criticizes the system or another person, he doesn’t blame them. He lives life like a swan calmly floating on the surface of a turbulent lake without being affected by the waves. By doing so, he calmly finds happiness. When Sabina and Tomas meet in Geneva alone, Sabina had already decided to move further west, while Tomas had decided to return to Czechoslovakia, but they don’t say anything about this. Suddenly, Sabina utters, “This may be the last time we see each other.” Tomas’s facial expression changes just one millimeter, and he nods, saying, “That may be so.” It was indeed an eternal farewell. However, in The Unbearable Lightness of Being, nobody commits suicide. They each make every possible effort to survive through difficult times.

Both movies feature the music of the Beatles in a very important way. However, what the Beatles’ music conveys to the youth is completely different in the two movies. In The Unbearable Lightness of Being, the music of the Beatles symbolizes the desire for freedom, while in Norwegian Wood, it symbolizes the melancholia that they don’t understand the true nature of.

日本語→

Movie: Le Déclin de l’empire Américain – The Decline of the American Empire (1986)

Posted on by
Reply

The Decline of the American Empire is a grandiose title, but since the movie director Denys Arcand studied history and is knowledgeable about the Roman Empire, he used a historic concept to express his theme. The meaning of the title is not clear if you only watch the movie casually. I would say it is nearly impossible to understand what this movie wants to say if you only watch it once. If the viewer does not understand the intention of the movie, I think they may be frustrated. In fact, I read some of these frustrated thoughts after I watched the movie.

Dominique is the dean of the school of history at a university in Quebec; she published a book recently in which she proposes the theory that the strong trend happening today (1980s) of people pursuing individual happiness is correlated with the decline of the nation. Diane, a teaching assistant in the history department, works part-time at a broadcasting station as the host of an interview program. In an interview on this station, Dominique brings up as examples of the pursuit of individual happiness the free and uncontrolled lifestyle of the intelligentsia, the liberation from conventional sexual morality, and an increase in women not marrying. Dominique is of course single, and Diane is a divorcee with a daughter.

The professors in the history department led by Dominique gather at one of their houses in order to enjoy dinner. Professors Rémy, Pierre, and Claude, and graduate student Alan make up the men, while Dominique, Diane, undergraduate student Danielle, and Rémy’s wife Louise make up the women. Rémy, Pierre, Claude, Dominique, and Diane are intelligentsia, and have arguments about grand topics. Rémy is married to Louise, but is involved in all sorts of extramarital affairs. Pierre was married, but wanted freedom and so divorced, and he now dates Danielle. Claude is gay. Diane, while the other four people have developed their careers smoothly, laments that she doesn’t have a great career since she is divorced and has to spend most of her time raising her child; Louise consoles her by saying that having a child is life’s greatest accomplishment. Louise gets carried away and starts to say that Dominique, Pierre, and Claude, who don’t have children, are missing something important even though they have successful careers, and the three people, especially Dominique, get annoyed.

At the climax of the dinner party, the members listen to the later part of Dominique’s interview. She continues on in the interview to say that after Marxism-Leninism collapsed, there was no longer a principle to guide people, and society without a principle is doomed to collapse. Louise, who had not been participating in the loud argument between the intellectuals, innocently objects without hesitation, “I don’t know why you say the times we live in are bad. We may actually be living in wonderful new times full of scientific advancements.” Dominique interprets these comments as being a personal attack—scorning her work and pitying her lonely life resulting from prioritizing her career—and discloses her relations with both Pierre and Louise’s husband Rémy. To make matters worse, she cruelly notes Rémy’s excitement to have relations with a powerful and intellectual woman such as herself, Rémy’s boss. Louise learns that Diane also had relations with her husband Rémy for two years, and is shocked.

Since 99.9% of this movie is conversation, and 95% of that is each person bragging about their sexual exploits, one would think that is the focus of the movie, but I think that the focus of this movie is quite different. To say it briefly, it is the confusion people feel when their conventional value systems are collapsing. One was the value system of the Catholic Church, which always had a big influence on Quebec society. The other was Marxism-Leninism, which had captured the hearts of young people of the 1950s and 60s. I think Marxism was a bright guiding principle for those who specialized in studying history. However, it had collapsed by the 80s. As a result, pursuit of individual happiness and narcissism spread during the 80s, as seen with the trends that Dominique mentions of people preferring free love over marriage, and the thought that a family and children are burdensome and snatch away one’s freedom. Also, this sense of liberation produced a new culture in the 80s that included acceptance of interracial as well as gay relations.

This idea seems to have been very novel in 1986, and this movie received high praises. However, it seems that director Denys Arcand grew up with the times, and made a sequel, The Barbarian Invasions, addressing this theme 17 years later. I plan to talk about this movie in a separate entry.

日本語→

Movie: Of Gods and Men — Des hommes et des dieux (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

Even for someone who doesn’t know about monasteries, Christianity, Islam, or Algeria, I think this movie is a very powerful and convincing movie. Viewers feel there is more than just religion and politics in this movie.

In the rustic Catholic Notre-Dame de l’Atlas monastery in Algeria, eight French monks and doctors live as an important part of the surrounding community. However, the actions of Islamic extremists begin to affect the nearby area, and a Croatian is murdered in a wasteland less than 20 kilometers away from the monastery. The monastery is drawn into a dispute between Algerian government troops and extremists when several armed extremists break into the monastery on Christmas Eve and demand medical treatment for their injured. When the French government requests that the monks return to France, the monks debate over returning for their own safety, or staying and risk becoming martyrs.

These monks abandoned their assets and decided to leave their families in order to help people in the area and impart the teachings of God. Do those who have abandoned an ordinary life to serve God still wish to avoid death? Naturally, as humans, they have a fear of death. However, since they are giving their own lives to God, they believe they should not waste their lives and should serve God as long as they can. Therefore, remaining here while knowing danger approaches could be a waste of the life God gave them.

On the other hand, some monks think of this Algerian village as their own hometown and are determined to die there. Also, some think that they have not yet accomplished God’s mission given to them and feel they can’t leave yet. Others are unable to decide with conviction so they pray to God to hear God’s voice. However, they do not get an answer from God.

Even though the monks are divided on the question of whether to stay or retreat, no one intends to have the government army troops protect them. God’s voice is the basis for their decisions, and thus they don’t makes decisions based on the politics of either the government troops or the extremists who are killing each other. In the end, the question to be answered is, “When the wolf attacks, does a shepherd desert the sheep and run away?” Even though the villagers are Muslim, the villagers rely on the monks and are thankful for the services they provide. Therefore, the monks are able to gain the conviction that, whatever may happen, their service here was not futile and they are determined to die here in the village. This movie is based on a true story of monks that were executed by decapitation in Algeria in 1996.

North African French colonies Tunisia and Morocco declared their independence in 1956. However, unlike these two countries where the organization of the monarchy was preserved as French protectorates, Algeria was treated as a part of France and there were many Europeans living in Algeria; therefore the public opinion of France voiced strong opposition to the independence of Algeria and the French government did not allow independence. Algerians of European descent wanted to maintain their privileges as Europeans and kept refusing to cooperate with the Berbers and Arabs living in Algeria; therefore the development of a cross-ethnic, moderate independence movement toward a unified nation failed. Algeria underwent the violent Algerian War from 1954 to 1962 before gaining their independence from France and due to this, one million Algerians of European descent escaped to France en masse. The Muslim Algerians who cooperated with France and were not able to take refuge in France were massacred as retribution.

Algeria had a constitution after their independence, adopted neutral political measures, succeeded in rebuilding the economy, and seemed to be proceeding smoothly in the founding of their nation; however, in the late 1980s, inflation worsened, and food shortages and unemployment brought about social unrest. These circumstances were the backdrop for the rise of Islamic doctrine among the youth, and some Islam fundamentalists started armed opposition.

Gaining the support of the unemployed, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) won the 1990 local elections with more than half of all of the communes; the FIS carried out a strict Islam rule in the communes that they won, implementing policies such as the banning of alcohol, segregation of sexes, and criticism of the Gallicized middleclass that was the majority of Algerian society. As a result of the FIS’s overwhelming victory in the first general election held in 1991, they acquired 80% of the parliamentary seats and invalidated the constitution. Student organizations seeking liberty, women’s organizations, and socialist organizations criticized the actions of the FIS, and military authorities opposing the FIS seized power in a coup d’état the following year in 1992. European nations supported the coup d’état and Mohammed Boudiaf became the chairman of the High Council of State established in January; in March, Boudiaf illegalized and oppressed the FIS and invalidated their election. However, Boudiaf was assassinated that June.

Due to oppression from the government, Islam advocates formed the Armed Islamic Group in 1992, and started acts of terrorism targeting police, military authorities, intellectuals, and liberals. In January of 1994, Zéroual assumed office as a temporary president, but the violence of the terrorism of Islamic organizations increased during Zéroual’s time and Algeria fell into massive chaos. In the 1999 presidential elections, Bouteflika, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, was elected as the first civilian president in 34 years; he proposed disarmament and a peace settlement that gave amnesty to extremists who surrendered, and with this, the civil war started to be resolved. Two right-of-center political parties that supported the president—including the Algerian National Liberation Front—and the Movement of Society for Peace—a moderate Islam political party—formed a three-party coalition government and maintained majority in the May general election. It is said that approximately 200,000 people died in the Algerian Civil War between the government, military, and Islamic fundamentalist groups.

日本語→

Movie: Belle Époque – The Age of Beauty (1992)

Posted on by
Reply

In Spain in 1931, there was a clash between the Republican Party that aimed to abolish the monarchy and establish a Spanish Republic, and the royalist Traditionalists that opposed them; this story is about Fernando, who volunteered for the Republican army but ends up deserting, and an artist who protects Fernando and lives in a village with his four lovely daughters.

Fernando is a handsome young man, kind to women, pure-hearted, and excellent at cooking. The four daughters live in Madrid and only return to the village in the summer, but with Madrid in political turmoil, they suddenly return to the village, “tired of demonstrations.” Using beautiful images and music, wonderful humor, and smiles and family love, this movie depicts every day being a picturesque happy day—including the eldest, second, and third daughter each seducing Fernando in their own way; the third daughter being wooed by a young Traditionalist who serenades her under her balcony; having a lunch full of love with the Catholic priest who is a family friend; a carnival; an enjoyable picnic; and the mother who is an internationally successful opera singer suddenly returning home. The story ends with the victory of the Republican Party, the mother once more setting off on a world tour, the three elder sisters saying they will be back again next summer as they return to Madrid, and the youngest daughter marrying Fernando and the two leaving for America, “the land of opportunity,” to live happily ever after.

Such is the beautiful outer layer, but there is another layer hidden under the happy, humorous story.

This movie begins with a scene where Fernando, who deserted, is arrested by the Traditionalist military police. The military officers are a father and his son-in-law; the father says, “We should be kind to a Republican soldier since the Republicans may win,” and tries to let Fernando go. The angered son-in-law accidentally shoots and kills his father-in-law; the son-in-law, shaken by the sin of killing his beloved father-in-law, commits suicide in front of Fernando.

All four of the daughters are beautiful and charming. However, the eldest daughter’s husband drowned in a lake during a picnic last summer. The second daughter is a lesbian. The third daughter is confused about how to best handle her suitor, who is a Catholic from an affluent family and supports the royalists. The youngest daughter has strong feelings for Fernando, but everyone treats her like a child, so she is frustrated. When the mother thinks about the futures of her four daughters, she becomes worried. Regarding the eldest daughter, she is still as beautiful as ever, but every year she grows older, and it is hard to live as a widow. In terms of the second daughter, she has a professional job and economic stability, but will she be able to find a companion (either a man or a woman) who really loves her? The third daughter lives a transitory lifestyle, not having a job and not treating her suitor seriously. However, the mother doesn’t know if marrying that man will make the third daughter truly happy. The mother hopes the youngest daughter, who everyone treats like a child, will find a more stable life by learning from her older sisters. Even the mother has issues; although she believes she is an international opera singer, her performances are actually continuously in deficit, and the only reason she has barely kept her star status is because her lover/manager covers the financial burden from his own pocket.

Since the Republicans are winning, the third daughter’s suitor and her mother, who were stubborn royalists, quickly switch over to the Republican side. However, on the youngest daughter and Fernando’s wedding day, the Catholic priest who was a family friend hangs himself and dies. Even if Spain becomes a Republic, Fernando’s past of deserting the Republican army won’t disappear. So Fernando’s only option is to immigrate to America.

The family says, “I look forward to next summer!” and leaves, but will there really be a happy next year for them with Spain in political turmoil? Fernando and the youngest daughter who go to America together won’t be able to return to Spain for a while. Even though the mother is an opera singer, there is the possibility that she might end up dead by the roadside somewhere in South America if her manager abandons her. Anything could happen to the three daughters living in Madrid during this chaotic time, and there is the possibility that the elderly father, who is left all alone in the village, may get some illness and die tomorrow. However, the movie ends with hope that after a few years, this family may fondly look back on the short time that the deserter Fernando spent with this family, and say, “Those were beautiful times.”

The reality is that the Republic soon collapsed and Spain entered a civil war. After the Civil War, Franco’s dictatorship continued for a long time, and then after Franco’s death, the government suffered from instability. It was 1981 when Spain became truly stable as a democratic nation, while those who opposed Franco had to wait until 2008 for their honor to be restored. This movie was made in 1992, and it would have been difficult to make such a beautiful move without a stable political situation. However, even in 1992, direct criticism of fascism was probably not easy. This challenge resulted in this beautiful movie.

日本語→

Movie: Four Days in September — O Que É Isso, Companheiro? (1997)

Posted on by
Reply

Four Days in September depicts the incident when the MR-8, a radical left-wing group in Brazil, kidnapped Charles Elbrick, the American ambassador in Brazil, in September 1969, and held him hostage for four days while demanding the release of 15 of their comrades who were behind bars. The memoirs of Fernando Gabeira—who was the mastermind of this event and later became active as a journalist and politician—were published in 1979, and were the basis of this movie. He is an influential person today, serving as a congressman in Rio de Janeiro since 1995. The MR-8 was mainly formed by young and middle-class people, university students, and the intelligentsia. At first, the goals of the MR-8 were to bring down the military administration that controlled Brazil in those days, advocate for Marxism, and establish an administration that allowed freedom for the people. There is a scene in the movie where a die-hard revolutionary who fought against Franco in the Spanish Civil War is brought in to assist this shaky “wannabe revolution by inexperienced children”; you can see the connection between Spain and South America in those days.

Between the 1960s and 70s, military authorities seized power in many countries in South America. In Brazil’s neighbor Argentina, the warfare between the military regime and guerillas intensified in the 1960s. In 1973, Juan Perón, who had escaped to Spain, was re-elected as president and returned to his home country Argentina, but Argentina again fell into chaos when Perón died a year later. In 1976, General Jorge Rafael Videla rallied a coup d’état, and once again a dictatorship was established in Argentina. The Videla administration intensified oppression of the people, and severely persecuted Peron followers and left-wingers in the “Dirty War” by enlisting neighboring military regimes.

As a result of the 1970 Chilean presidential election, a socialist administration led by President Allende was born in Chile. This socialist administration was established as a result of a democratic election, but this administration was unstable. In 1973, in the midst of the social chaos, General Augusto Pinochet—who was supported by the U.S.—led a coup d’état with his military council, and Pinochet established a military dictatorship system in 1974. Pinochet’s military government aggressively suppressed any anti-establishment people, and this time is also called the “Dirty War.”

In Bolivia, the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement (MNR) led a civilian revolution in 1952, and carried out social as well as economic reformation, but in 1964, MNR fractured, and a military leader led a coup d’état and ended the revolutionist administration.

A new constitution was created in Brazil in 1946, but democracy didn’t quite take hold, and political and economic instability continued, like in other South American countries. In 1964, Colonel Castelo Branco—supported by the U.S.—established a military dictatorship by means of a coup d’état. The period of rapid economic growth during this time is known as the “Brazilian Miracle,” but the violation of human rights by the military regime became a huge problem. This is the backdrop for Four Days in September.

Earlier in history, South America, which had previously been the territory of Spain or Portugal, became independent. This happened during the time the Napoleonic Wars were happening in Europe, when France, led by Napoleon, attacked Spain and Portugal, allowing the ideas of freedom from the French Revolution to spread into South America. However, in South America, even after their independence and gradual transition to republic governments, aristocrats and big land owners still remained, and there were problems such as there being a big disparity between the rich and poor, or discrimination between Western European descendents and native people. Also, the governments often became a dictatorship or military administration. Those who opposed such autocratic governments chose Marxism as a guiding principle.

Since at that time, the U.S. was fighting the Soviet Union in the Cold War, the U.S. was very afraid of the threat of communism spreading throughout South America. Thus, the U.S. supported autocratic administrations that oppressed nationalists who tended to adopt Marxism. When choosing between communism and autocracy, America—who claimed to be an advocate for freedom—chose autocracy that oppressed the rights of the people. On the other hand, people wishing for freedom chose Marxism as their guiding principle. Nowadays it is unbelievable that Marxism could grant freedom as it claimed, but to a South American nationalist at the time, the U.S. was a symbol of the big landowner and of the capitalism that exploited the poor, and was allied to the terrible autocracy that protected the rich. The U.S., which tried to repel South American nationalists by supporting dictatorships, became hated all over the world.

In this movie, the way of depicting the diplomat Charles Elbrick is very favorable. He is prepared for the possibility that he could be killed, and so speaks out—“I as an individual”—against the U.S. government policy. He also expresses that the involvement of the U.S. in the Vietnam War was a mistake. The author Fernando Gabeira, who burned with passion for a social revolution back in 1969, later formally acknowledged the mistake he had made by kidnapping the ambassador. Fernando Gabeira was ordered to execute Charles Elbrick, but this movie shows Gabeira struggling with this order.

Before being an ambassador in Brazil, Charles Elbrick was positioned in Yugoslavia. Unlike people in South America, people in Yugoslovia—an Eastern European satellite country of the Soviet Union—believe that communism steals freedom from the people. The Soviet Union suppressed the Hungarian Revolution and the 1968 Prague Spring. When Yugoslavia’s leader Tito didn’t completely conform to the Soviet Union, it is said that he asked Charles Elbrick, the U.S. ambassador at the time, “What will the U.S. do if the same thing happens to Yugoslavia now?” It is said that Charles Elbrick replied, “We will help protect Yugoslavia’s independence and dignity. Do you need our help now?” Tito then said something like, “We do not need your help now, but thank you for your words of support.” Soon after this, Charles Elbrick moved to Rio de Janeiro and became the ambassador in Brazil, and was kidnapped by the MR-8.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in the 1980s, Marxism was no longer a threat to the U.S., and the U.S. policies toward South American countries dramatically changed. The autocratic nations in South America were no longer a necessary evil for the U.S.

日本語→

Movie: Burnt by the Sun (1994)

Posted on by
Reply

For the first two hours of this movie, the movie continues to depict a family chatting during summer in a village of artists in the countryside in the Soviet Union, as if we are gazing into the world of Chekov. While watching, we see that the father of the family is Commander Kotov, a legendary Red Army hero from the Russian Revolution, and it is likely that his young wife, because she lives in a villa with all her servants, is from a noble lineage and that the villa in this village of artists is her family’s villa. The Commander and his wife have a lovely daughter Nadia. Suddenly Dimitri—a young, handsome, aristocrat-looking artist—visits, and the wife’s family warmly welcomes him. Meanwhile, we learn that Dimitri is also noble in lineage, and that he and the wife were formerly lovers; everyone but the Commander starts conversing happily in French, and the Commander who doesn’t know French becomes slightly alienated. While viewers are wondering if this movie is story of a love triangle, in the last 20 minutes, it is revealed that Dimitri is actually part of the secret police, and that he came under Stalin’s orders to arrest Commander Kotov. Viewers must wonder why Dimitri, who should be part of the White Army because he is a noble, has the authority to arrest Red Army hero Commander Kotov.

Nikita Mikhalkov directed this movie, wrote the script, and starred in it, and the little girl who played the Commander’s daughter Nadia is Mikhalkov’s daughter. Nikita Mikhalkov’s older brother is Andrei Konchalovsky, who is close friends with Andrei Tarkovsky, the director of Ivan’s Childhood. Nikita Mikhalkov’s father, Sergei Mikhalkov, wrote the lyrics to the Soviet Union national anthem. At first, this song by Sergei Mikhalkov was an overly admiring song for Stalin, and it became the national anthem of the Soviet Union in 1944; due to criticism of Stalin, Sergei Mikhalkov modified the song lyrics in 1977, and later in 2001, he completely changed the lyrics for the sake of a new Russia.

Stalin’s Great Purge occurred in the 1930s; after Stalin’s death in 1953, formal criticism of Stalin was started by Nikita Khrushchev, the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and the cultish worship of Stalin was publically criticized. After Khrushchev was overthrown in 1964, the power of reformists temporarily weakened and fluctuated under the administration of Leonid Brezhnev —as seen with the Soviet Union’s armed suppression of the Czech Republic’s Prague Spring; but in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev resumed the criticisms of Stalin, and the honors of many victims were restored. Because this movie was made in 1994, some degree of freedom of speech must have been allowed, but the criticism against Stalin in this movie is very symbolic. The symbolism resembles that which is seen in modern Spanish movies that were made with extraordinarily beautiful images to the point of being awe-inspiring, and, out of fear of Franco’s oppression, relied on symbolism to convey criticism.

This movie also has beautiful images and mysterious symbolism that are awe-inspiring. Why does this movie keep explicit depiction of the terror of the purge to a minimum, and instead focus on fleeting beauty? I don’t know the answer since I don’t know Nikita Mikhalkov, but I feel like Nikita Mikhalkov is not a political person. For him, beautiful things—such as a beautiful heart—are most important, and he hates violence disguised as a revolution and murders under the name of the Purge because they are grotesque and not beautiful. However, if his delicate heart were to be caught up in something like politics, I don’t think it is his nature to handle it skillfully. In order to understand him more easily, I thought about Akira Kurosawa, whom Mikhalkov always considered, “a close friend, and the most important kindred spirit.” If Kurosawa made a movie about Stalin’s Great Purge, what would it be like? My answer is that Kurosawa wouldn’t make such a movie, even if he knew the truth of Stalin’s Great Purge. If hypothetically he did make such a movie, though, the movie would be very symbolic. I can understand why this movie is extremely symbolic when I think about it this way.

However, Nikita Mikhalkov is a man who expresses his feelings honestly. He supported Serbs—who were one-sidedly judged as criminals in the Bosnian War and thought of as international villains—by stating, “Don’t lose your identity as Serbs,” and supported Serbia’s policy regarding Kosovo. Also, he made clear his support for the leadership of Vladimir Putin. It seems like he is the type of person who acknowledges his feelings honestly regardless of what other people think. Based on what he has said, his political conviction might be, “Personally, I don’t recognize any government since 1917 that got their political power with violence and bloodshed as being legitimate.” Therefore, Burnt by the Sun may be dedicated to the victims who were burnt by the “fake sun” called the Revolution. People were one day unexpectedly taken away from their homes without any warning, and their family members never learned of their fate. Other people were humiliated in front of the general public in a false open court, and then later executed. Others were arrested and murdered even though they had nothing to do with politics. I think this movie is a requiem by Nikita Mikhalkov for these people.

The Great Purge was large-scale political oppression directed towards the faction that opposed the Soviet Union’s supreme leader, Joseph Stalin, in the 1930s. As a warning, anyone who was considered to be against Stalin was forced to confess to crimes such as being a spy in trial and was given a death sentence; the targets were not only core politicians, but also common party members and the public. The objectives were to kill Stalin’s political opponents and to turn the public’s dissatisfaction regarding the slow advancement in the economy into hatred for traitors. In the end, the Purge even targeted heroes of the Red Army who contributed to the success of the Revolution, respected artists, and communists who came to the Soviet Union seeking refuge.

The reasons that the Great Purge finally ended in late 1938 were that the function of the government was hindered due to the massacre of many capable people, and that, since the Nazi threat had become a reality, the government was able to turn the dissatisfaction of the people into hatred towards the Nazis. Near the end of 1938, Stalin criticized the NKVD, the secret police organization that had until then been central to the Great Purge, and oppressed them. Ironically, the officials of the secret police, who had chased so many people to their death, were killed one after another, and it is said that few people from the NKVD were able to survive the Stalin period.

日本語→

Movie: Incendies (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

Twin brother and sister Simon and Jeanne live in Quebec, Canada when their mother Nawal suddenly dies. From their mother’s will, the two children learn that not only is their father that they until now believed to be dead is alive somewhere on the earth, but also that they have an older brother. Nawal entrusted her lawyer with two sealed letters and asks her two children in her will to track down their father and older brother in order to deliver these letters to them. Jeanne sets out to the Middle East, Nawal’s birthplace, to carry out her mother’s final wish and search for the hidden past of her mother. This land seems to be Lebanon, although the movie does not specify the country. Are her father and older brother still alive? If so, where and what kind of life are they living?

In short, this is a mystery solving movie, but it gives the impression that this story was created based on facts and is close to reality or even possibly based on the author’s personal experience because of the Lebanon-like scenery and the violent confrontation between Christians and Muslims killing each other which actually happened in Lebanon’s history. However, as this story develops and goes from being simply a sad story to being an improbably terrifying story, I feel, “Come on, this shouldn’t be a Greek tragedy,” and have lost interest by the end of the movie. It would be really terrible if this story was true. In fact, I think many viewers are overwhelmed by the terror of this movie.

However, when you think about this movie calmly, many things don’t make sense and bring up many questions. To name a few… The mother and older brother are too close in age. Also, since the mother suddenly loses consciousness one day and soon dies without regaining consciousness, it is not likely there was time to contrive this mystery left behind in her will. The mother falls into situations during the civil war where she could have died many times, yet she mysteriously survives while countless people around her die one after another. Furthermore, there are too many miraculous accidental encounters that can’t possibly happen, and people remember the mother and older brother well, even though it was thirty years ago. The unconscious mother in the hospital, who fell into a coma when she learned a shocking truth, somehow seems to have enough intellectual control to write the elaborate letters given to her children. Because of these inconsistencies, the movie itself feels like it’s all a lie. Even though this movie depicts deep human tragedy, it is not believable.

After watching this movie, I learned that this movie was Denis Villeneuve’s movie adaptation of the play written by Wajdi Mouawad and finally understood. Wajdi Mouawad left Lebanon to avoid the Lebanese Civil War and immigrated to Canada in 1983 when he was 15 years old. Because he was Lebanese and knew what happened in Lebanon, this play is set in a Lebanon-like Middle East country, but the intention of the play was not, “I want to convey the tragedy of the Lebanese Civil War.”

I think the movie adaptation happened because the play was very powerful, but the original work inevitably becomes something different whenever a play is adapted to a movie. The play expresses an abstract concept by borrowing the Middle East as a stage, but, because the movie takes a very realistic approach, the movie gives an impression that it is based on what actually happened and that there is a political opinion and agenda. Of course Wajdi Mouawad who had to leave his homeland may have some kind of political agenda, but he probably wrote this play out of his ambition as an artist to carry on the tradition of Greek tragedy and to be some form of a modern Shakespeare. Or possibly he wanted to present the question of, “Who is this ‘God’ that causes Muslims and Christians who live amongst each other to kill each other?” At any rate, his goal seems to be to play an intellectual game in the Middle East, rather than communicate the truth. The answer to this game was the stylish formula “1+1=1.”

Surely “the arts” are “artificial” and the stage and movie are certainly “artificial,” but there is a subtle difference between the two. For a person watching a play, a trivial discrepancy between facts is not a problem if there is a powerful theme. The audience doesn’t demand “realism” because there are too many limitations on a stage to present reality, but the audience often demands “realism” from a movie. Certain plays are smoothly adapted to movies and the audience doesn’t have the feeling that something is not right. However, because this movie uses too much of a documentary touch and has an impression that it is based on reality, the audience cannot immediately understand it as a magnificent Greek tragedy. Anyway, even if they don’t understand it, many viewers seem to be overwhelmed by the powerfulness of the movie and are emotionally moved.

日本語→

Movie: The Women on the 6th Floor — Les Femmes du 6ème étage (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie that I casually chose without knowing anything about was such an enjoyable one!! The story, images, actors, and the conversations within this movie were delicious, and I got hungry watching it.

It is Paris in the 1960s. Poor Spanish women under Franco’s oppression in Spain moved to Paris to live as maids for wealthy French people. These women earn what money they can in a foreign country to support their poor family back home, and return to their home country if they are able to save up enough money. They nostalgically think about their family they left back home, the relationships with other villagers, the warmth spreading through the air, and foods that they often ate; fellow Spanish maids in Paris help each other, go to church every Sunday, and look forward to the day they can finally return home. However, even if they miss their hometown, a few made up their mind to not return unless the reign of terror of Franco ended.

Maria is a young, beautiful, intelligent, pious, and capable Spanish maid. She is the favorite of her affluent landlord employer and his wife, but as the story develops, it becomes clear there is something hidden within Maria. Because the landlord’s wife rose to the upper class from being a poor country girl through marriage, she doesn’t have self-confidence and she tries very hard to assimilate into the superficial high society of Paris. Her husband had everything he could want—wealth, job, family—and thought he was satisfied with life, until he met Maria.

I don’t write here what happens to the two people because it is a spoiler. The landlord married his current wife without having given it much thought because, even though he is the son of a rich family, he had a feeling of being cramped in the upper class and felt more comfortable with a woman from the countryside. Maria was born with elegance and a strong mind, and is a woman who truly has the self-confidence to not feel inferior to others, even with a difference in social class. Maria is the kind of person who can make herself and the person she loves happy, while the landlord is actually quite gracious if need be when it comes to letting go of extra things, and as a viewer, I find myself wishing that the landlord and Maria somehow find happiness.

Natalia Verbeke who played Maria has a small face and good posture, somehow like a ballerina. This actress met the director’s strict standards of, “Maria must be beautiful, but not too beautiful.” Verbeke was born in Argentina in 1975, but because of the oppressive politics during the “Dirty War” when she was a child, she and her family fled Argentina and moved to Spain.

This is a digression, but Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris was another movie set in Paris released around the same time. In Allen’s movie, every scene seems to be a typical picture postcard, and by pasting all of these picture postcard scenes together, he is trying to paint Paris with brute force; but the movie shows his same New Yorker mentality and it lacks the true smells and essence of life in Paris. In contrast, The Women on the 6th Floor is set in Paris, but does not show any typical Paris scenery. For the migrant Spanish worker, most of what is seen is her working place, the market, the church, and her own loft. Living in Paris doesn’t mean visiting all the places for tourists. The lives of Maria and her friends are made up by their surroundings, and I think they really live in Paris, even though they are there just for a short time.

日本語→

Movie: The Human Resources Manager (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie was made by Eran Rikilis, a man who jumped to being one of the top directors in Israel after his The Syrian Bride.

A female migrant worker at a large Israeli bread factory in Jerusalem dies at a market from a suicide bombing, but is left at the morgue unclaimed by any relatives. One journalist gets wind of this and threatens to write a story focusing on the inhumanity of large companies. To avoid bad PR, the female company president of the bread factory decides to bury the body in the deceased’s homeland and she orders the head of the human resources department on a business trip to take care of it. The rude reporter who got the scoop on the story accompanies in order to verify.

The head of the human resources department is in a situation where his family is on the verge of collapsing, living apart from his wife and daughter. Though he was planning on working as a field trip driver for his daughter’s school to be able to interact with his daughter, it falls through. The human resources manager and the reporter arrive together at the dead woman’s homeland, but her husband cannot take the body because they are divorced. Her teenager son, a delinquent, was driven out of his house and now lives on the streets with a group of friends. On the human resources manager’s journey accompanying the son to visit the boy’s grandmother in a village 1000 kilometers away, many unexpected things happen.

Israeli movies can be roughly divided into two categories. The first includes strongly political movies such as Waltz with Bashir, Beaufort, and Ajami, which are well known in Japan; the second depicts the life of ordinary people living in Israel, such as The Band’s Visit and Jellyfish. Jellyfish depicts the gloomy feelings of the younger generation who, separated from the founding generation who experienced the Holocaust, don’t clearly understand the significance of the founding of the nation. In this movie, the focus is on the psychology of the human resources manager who is unsatisfied with the situation of his family, human relations, and job. Like Jellyfish, the lives of foreign workers who are often neglected by the people of Israel are depicted.

Originally in Israel, low-paying manual labor jobs were left for Palestinians. However, with the increase in Palestinian suicide bombings, Palestinian segregation policies were instated that made it difficult for Palestinians to enter the country; therefore, foreign workers were hired in order to fill these manual labor jobs. The ignoring of or perhaps cold gaze toward foreign workers can be observed in any country and is not be limited to Israel, but perhaps the wariness and condescending attitude towards Palestinians from Israel carried over to these foreign workers that succeeded these jobs.

In this movie, Eran Rikilis characteristically pushes a strong theme to the front, like in The Syrian Bride. The theme here is to show the goodwill of Israel in an international context. The human resources manager sets out for the deceased employee’s native land for his job, but gradually his understanding of and sympathy for the country in which she was born deepens. As a consequence, the woman’s family wants her to be buried in Israel as the home country she chose. Also, his daughter insists that he forget about being a driver for the school field trip and instead take good care of this woman’s dead body.

What country was the victim of the suicide bombing born in? Even now, bureaucracy and bribes leftover from a socialist administration remain in the country. The capital is crumbling and lifeless, and street kids without hope hide in every corner in the neighborhood. Everyone believes in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Horse transportation still remains in poor, desolate villages. The movie doesn’t explicitly specify the country, but the audience gradually understands it is Romania. Why is it Romania?

Many Jews lived in Romania. They suffered from the Holocaust of World War II like Jews who lived in other countries, but it wasn’t as known as the Holocaust in Poland and Czech Republic. Because the Holocaust in Romania was not done by the Nazis of Germany, it was ignored by the anti-Nazi persecutions. There were massive killings of Jews in Romania by the hand of Romanians, but this was kept in absolute secrecy and denied by the socialist government over the next 40 years; in the 2000s, the topic of the Holocaust of Jews in Romania began to be officially acknowledged.

The relationship between Romania and Germany during World War II was complicated. Because they were at war with the Soviet Union over land, Romania allied with the German Axis in World War II, but an anti-Germany attitude there gradually increased over time, and Romania changed their alliance to the side of the Allies when signs of Germany’s defeat began to be seen. In 1944, Romania attacked the Czech Republic, which was occupied by Germany at that time. Jewish persecution gradually became visible around 1940, but Jewish persecution depended on the political situation of the government at that time and the severity varied over the course of World War II as well as from area to area. In addition, it is not entirely clear who spearheaded the massive killings of Jews; there was conflicting information about various local Romanian leaders, Nazis, or the Soviet Union being responsible. After the formation of a socialist government after World War II, important intelligence may have been destroyed by the secretive government. The 1941 Odessa massacre is the most well-known, but even still does not appear to have much documentation.

There were many Romanian Jews that immigrated to Israel, but, while there are many documents that have been saved and examined about the German Holocaust, the Holocaust in Romania remains as an unresolved issue. However, this movie by Eran Rikilis does not have an accusatory tone. The dead woman called her home village in Romania the “end of the earth” and left, moved to the city, pursued an engineering degree from the university, and, still not satisfied, tried a life in Israel. I think this movie wants to convey that Israel has a big heart to accept this woman who chose Israel as her home country.

His thoughts may be summarized as, “You who kill Israelis by suicide bombing, you may think you are killing an Israeli, but you are also killing non-Jewish people living in Israel. Can you stop such an act? The people of Israel are ready to stop fighting.” Internationally, Israel is sometimes criticized for harsh tactics against terrorism. However, Jews from the end of World War II up to today continue to ask, “Why weren’t we able to oppose the Nazi movement of World War II?” or, “Why did people obey the orders of Nazi internment camps without noticing such a movement?” I think what they learned from history may be to be suspicious and vigilant.

日本語→

Movie: Sunshine — Sonnenschein (1999)

Posted on by
Reply

Sunshine is a long historical drama that depicts Hungarian history from the times of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the 19th century until the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, by following five generations of a Jewish family.

The attractiveness of this movie is that it depicts Hungarian history in an understandable way. The man of the first generation of the family is the owner of a pub in a rural village during the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy. After he dies young, his eldest son (second generation) goes to Budapest for work in a factory, and greatly succeeds as the owner of a distillery that makes medicinal alcohol using a family recipe. His son (third generation) becomes a jurist, changes his Jewish surname to a surname that sounds Hungarian, and becomes a loyal judge for the emperor. However, when the Hungarian Soviet Republic is formed after Hungary is defeated in World War I, the man of the third generation lives under house arrest as a war criminal and he dies in despair.

The Hungarian Soviet Republic was overthrown by an intervention by Romania, and the imperial rule was restored; but due to both World War I and the Party of Communists in Hungary being overthrown by Romania, Hungary lost most of its territory, and bitterness turned them toward the Nazi regime. In order to recover lost territory, Hungary joined the Axis powers during World War II; however, by 1944, Hungary wanted to withdraw from the Axis, but this was prevented by the Nazi Germany army. The man of the fourth generation becomes a national champion in fencing and a gold medalist at the Berlin Olympics. In order to qualify to participate in the 1936 Berlin Olympics, he converts to Catholicism. However, in the end, he is sent to a concentration camp and is murdered.

The man of the fifth generation, having barely escaped alive from the concentration camp, participates in the secret police of the Hungarian People’s Republic that is established with the support of the Soviet Union, and starts arresting those that supported the Nazis. However, his job gradually changes to arresting patriots of anti-Stalin groups. With the outbreak of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, he is arrested and imprisoned for giving a public speech in support of the army that opposed the Soviet Union. When he is released and returns home, he is the only survivor of his family. He changes his surname back to his original Jewish surname, and swears to live as a Jew.

Another interesting thing about this movie is the reason why these Hungarian Jews stayed in Hungary without escaping, even though they noticed the anti-Semitism of the Nazis steadily descending on them. Anti-Semitism started with legal reform that partially oppressed the privileges of prosperous and high-class Jews, but the laws did not apply to the families of soldiers that fought for the emperor in World War I. Also, those who contributed to the promotion of national prestige, such as an Olympic medalist, were exceptions. In other words, these anti-Semitic laws did not initially apply to this family. In such a situation, there was no reason one had to throw away all of their assets and run away to a foreign country where they didn’t speak the language. However, in the end, all the Jews were sent to concentration camps, although this movie doesn’t explain why.

Although this movie had a lot of work put into it and it depicts a majestic theme, I feel like this movie will not be regarded as a masterpiece or even a great movie. I want to discuss why I believe this movie was not a masterpiece.

The first reason is the way the third, fourth, and fifth generation protagonists (all three of them were played by the British actor Ralph Fiennes) are depicted. These three aim for power and have a strong desire to move up, and they go through great efforts—changing their surname and religion—in order to get it. However, these men don’t hold much love for women. When aggressively approached by women, the men say, “No, I can’t,” but then eventually give in to their lust and have relations; they later coldly blame the women for seducing them, saying, “Because of you, my life was destroyed.” The relationships that develop with these women—the woman who was brought up as his little sister (third generation), the wife of his older brother (fourth generation), and the wife of his cold-blooded Stalinist boss (fifth generation)—all carry the dangerous scent of immorality. In real life, women like men who are talented yet don’t cling to power, and who are able to devote themselves to a woman deeply and unwaveringly. Because the protagonists in this movie are the complete opposite of this, dabbling in immoral behavior and only interested in sexual relations—a very unappealing character to most women—it is no wonder that a woman watching this movie is rubbed the wrong way. It is disastrous if a movie loses support from women since half of the audience for a movie is women.

The unsympathetic portrayal of these characters is quite dangerous for a movie that depicts the heavy theme of the Holocaust. In the worst case, it may raise the very dangerous argument of, “I see, let’s accept the fact that the Holocaust really happened. But aren’t Jews also responsible for what happened?” Of course nobody can be a perfect saint without any flaws. However, I think some caution is required when depicting such a heavy theme.

István Szabó, the writer and director of this movie, also directed Mephisto—which won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film—and he represents Hungary as a filmmaker. In 2006, it was broadcasted that he wrote information about his fellow directors and actors as a spy after the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. He at first denied this; in the end, though, he admitted that it was true, but it is said that many people came to his support. After the Hungarian Revolution, people were under extreme political oppression, and it certainly wasn’t easy to survive in Hungary, which had become a police state. Those were cruel times.

Another problem in this movie is that since it is a long historical drama that follows this family over five generations in 3 hours, the depiction of each individual is superficial, and I get the feeling of events one after another being patched together. However, the models that the characters are based off of are very interesting.

Hungary was very strong in fencing, and there are in fact Jews among the gold medalists. Attila Petschauer was on the fencing team that won gold in the team competition in the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics and the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics. Endre Kabos was also on the winning fencing team in the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics, as well as got a gold medal in both the individual and team competitions in fencing in the 1936 Berlin Olympics. These two also were sent to Nazi concentration camps and died. The man of the fourth generation in this movie seems to be based on both Endre Kabos, having won the individual competition at the Berlin Olympics, and Attila Petschauer, with the very cruel method depicted of being executed at the concentration camp by a fellow Hungarian.

Also, the boss of the man of the fifth generation seems to be modeled off of a real man named László Rajk. As a Jewish communist, he miraculously returned alive from Auschwitz and made every possible effort to revive his home country Hungary, but was hated by Stalin followers and was executed in 1949. Afterwards, his honor was momentarily restored during the Hungarian Revolution, but Hungary shifted into a dark period as a police state after the Revolution was quickly suppressed.

日本語→