Monthly Archives: April 2014

Movie: The Last Days (1998)

Posted on by
4

The Last Days is one of the documentaries of the testimonies of Holocaust survivors that was made with the financial support of a Shoah foundation; it features the testimonies of five Hungarian Jews who returned from the Holocaust alive. Tom Lantos, one of the five witnesses, later was elected as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

This Shoah foundation was founded by Steven Spielberg—who won an Academy Award for Schindler’s List—with the objective to record the testimonies of what happened to Holocaust survivors and pass on these records to the next generation. “Shoah” is the Hebrew word for “Holocaust.” Steven Spielberg’s ancestors seem to have lived in Austria around the 17th century, but he considers his family to be Ukrainian Jews. His whole family had immigrated to America early on, untouched by the Holocaust. Also, since his family lived in rural areas in Ohio and Arizona, and not in New York City where there is a large Jewish population, it seems like he didn’t have much of a connection to the Jewish community in America. However, because Schindler’s List was a success, the Holocaust has become one of his life’s works. In addition to being interested in recording the persecution of Jews, he also seems to be deeply interested in depicting the hardships of gay people as well as Africans brought to America as slaves.

Because Holocaust survivors have already become very old, their testimonies should be retained in some form or another. Spielberg’s mission is to show the truth about the Holocaust to the many people who might say, “I didn’t hear about the Holocaust during the war,” or, “The Holocaust isn’t a historical fact.” When the movie shows the photographs of Jews who had wasted away to skin and bones in the concentration camps, and photos of the remains of the very large concentration camps, you feel a realness, different than you would in a dramatized movie. For a facility that large, there must’ve been someone who designed it, people who built it, someone who managed it, and moreover there must have been a budget for it, since no project can happen without a budget.

This documentary depicts the reality of the Holocaust from the point of view of five people, but there is no explanation of why such a large-scale manhunt occurred in Europe during World War II. This is a mystery that they don’t understand either. These five people—who were surrounded by non-Jewish neighbors and friends, and brought up with the love of socially successful parents—believed that the increasingly harsh anti-Semitism legal regulations were temporary and due to the urgency of wartime, and that they could return to their regular happy life when the war ended. The Czech movie Protektor and the Polish movie In Darkness depict Jewish women who, even though others were risking their lives to shelter them, voluntarily enter Nazi concentration camps, angrily declaring something like, “I’m through with this foul and inconvenient life!!” It seems that not all, but many Jews in Europe were rich, and a woman raised in such a family is used to getting everything she wants. Perhaps these women couldn’t predict what a concentration camp would be like, and thought that it would be a safe place where they would be surrounded by fellow Jews, be able to breathe fresh air, and be more comfortable. Most Hungarian Jews thought that concentration camps were where people were forced to work, and accepted being sent to a labor camp because all their fellow Hungarians were struggling in this wartime. However, nobody would have imagined that they would be put on a train used for transporting cattle for days without bathrooms and sent to Auschwitz, and that the government of their own home country that they loved would decree it.

Compared to Hungary, Nazi-occupied Poland, Czech Republic, and France had Jews sent to concentration camps such as Auschwitz relatively early on in World War II; the Jew hunting started late in Hungary, not until 1944 when Germany’s defeat became certain. Hungary was Germany’s ally, so it was a relatively safe place for Jews. As in Divided We Fall, there were people whose business was helping Jews from the Czech Republic and Poland who had money to escape to Hungary. Even if a Jew who barely escaped alive explains what happened at a Nazi concentration camp in Poland, a Hungarian Jew may have been dubious that the German government could ever do that. They were different from Jews from Poland, the Czech Republic, or the Soviet Union, and believed they were protected by the Hungarian government.

However, anti-Semitic feelings among Hungarians seemed to gradually strengthen from 1920 through the 30s. Although Hungarian Jews made up only 5% of the entire population, most of them were in the wealthiest class. In 1921, 88% of the members of the Budapest Stock Exchange and 91% of foreign exchange brokers were Jews. It is said that Jews owned between 50 and 90% of Hungarian industry. Young Jews made up 25% of the Hungarian university students, while 43% of the students at the elite Budapest University of Technology were young Jews. It is said that in Hungary, 60% of the doctors, 51% of the lawyers, 39% of the private industry engineers and chemists, and 29% of the magazine editors were Jewish. I wonder if the Hungarian government worked with the Nazis as an outlet for the dissatisfied and struggling lower class by targeting their feelings of hatred toward the elite, affluent minority Jews.

Tom Lantos, who later became a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, escaped immediately from the concentration camp and took refuge in the hideout of Raoul Gustaf Wallenberg; from there, he performed underground anti-Nazi activities. Wallenberg was a Swedish diplomat, and he used his privileges as a diplomat to shelter escaped Jews in his office. According to some, 100,000 Jews were rescued by his efforts. However, after the retreat of Germany, Wallenberg went missing after visiting an office of the occupying Soviet Army to talk about the postwar security of Jews. It is said that he rescued Jews no matter the danger during the war, and he received the award “Righteous Among the Nations” from the Israeli government’s Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial. Some say that Wallenberg was regarded as a U.S. spy and was immediately arrested when he went to talk to the Soviet Army, and he died soon after at a Bolshevik concentration camp. Since Gorbachev took over power, such records are gradually becoming public.

For a man helping Jews in German-occupied Poland, not only he, but his whole family and at times neighbors all faced the death penalty, yet many Poles chose to help Jews regardless of the danger. 6,454 Polish people have won the “Righteous Among the Nations” award. Chiune Sugihara, a diplomat from Japan, is the sole winner of this prize from Japan.

日本語→

Movie: Tsotsi (2005)

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that the original book this movie was based off of was set in South Africa in the 1960s, but this movie takes place after the apartheid was abolished. The poor black community and the black people of the wealthy middle class are contrasted, and there is a brief depiction of the AIDS problem and abnormally high crime rate; South Africa was Africa’s poster child after the apartheid, but this movie depicts a different side. For people who believe that South Africa transitioned smoothly into a fair community under the leadership of President Mandela, this movie may change their view of South Africa a little.

To say it briefly, this is the story of Tsotsi—an orphaned, juvenile delinquent who robs without thinking of the consequences—maturing into a kind human through his hard struggles in raising a baby he finds in a car he stole. From the moment a parent has a baby, their instinct is to want to protect that child. However, I wonder if this instinct to protect a baby would be triggered in Tsotsi, a young boy who never really had a parent’s love and repeatedly steals and robs. This may be a wonderful movie for a person who can believe this would happen, but for those viewers who have difficulty accepting this plot point, they may find the whole movie unbelievable.

Tsotsi, having a hard time caring for the baby, uses a gun to threaten a young woman in the neighborhood raising her own baby, asks her to breastfeed the baby, and becomes close with the woman. Her husband seems to have been attacked by someone on the way home from work at a factory and is missing. It is possible that Tsotsi or some scoundrel like him murdered the husband. However, this young woman doesn’t seem to be financially struggling, and the inside of her house is tidy. Whether or not you feel this movie to be realistic may make you think it is either a believable masterpiece or a fantasy depicting Africa. Either way, though, this is very sad movie.

This movie was made with three different endings. The official ending ends with Tsotsi getting arrested when he goes to return the baby to its parents. The second ending is that Tsotsi is shot in the shoulder by a police officer and barely escapes alive. The third ending is that Tsotsi dies from a shot in the chest by a police officer. I think the official ending is the best because it has some kind of hope. The second ending leaves the audience with the feeling, “What on earth is this movie trying to say?”while the third ending is too sad.

日本語→

Movie: The Spirit of the Beehive — El espíritu de la colmena (1973)

Posted on by
Reply

After the violent Spanish Civil War, Generalísimo Franco overthrew the left-wing Popular Front administration that was selected by a general election; this movie is set just after Franco seized power in 1939. Following this, a reign of terror continued in Spain until Franco died in 1975, and people remained silent during these times out of fear of retribution. In 1973 when this movie was made, the dictatorship was not as severe as it was initially, but movies were still strictly censored by authorities. The reason why even recent Spanish movies have many metaphors and abstractions may be that this way of expression became a part of the engrained culture of the intelligentsia, who faced 40 years of cultural oppression. In fact, there is not a single dramatic event in this movie. This is the kind of movie that makes me wonder after finishing the movie what it wanted to say.

There is only one scene in the movie that implies that a Republican soldier who escapes is shot dead, and the censors also made note of this scene; however, they figured, “Nobody will watch such a boring movie,” and the whole movie made it through the screening process uncut. During this time, moviemakers made their political agenda increasingly abstract, while authorities tried harder and harder to find the hidden political agenda, like a monkey chasing a weasel. However, when this work was finally screened, it touched people, and it established a reputation as a masterpiece. Was it because people were touched by the beautiful images in this movie, or because the Spanish audience learned the art of discovering something in the metaphors?

Since this movie is so abstract, viewers are allowed to interpret it in many possible ways. To give an example of an extreme interpretation as a political metaphor, the father who spends all his time on a trivial beehive study symbolizes the intelligentsia, who gave up their true interests in order to survive. The beehive society that he hates is a metaphor for the society under the control of Franco, which is orderly, but devoid of creativity. The mother spends her days writing letters to a former lover (I assume, based on how the movie depicts it) who is a Republican fugitive; this symbolizes the longing for freedom and the nostalgia for the past. The two daughters are in the same generation, but the older sister Isabel—who seems quite mature for her age—represents the young generation who adapted to Franco’s administration without criticism, while the younger sister Ana—who looks at the world with frightened eyes—symbolizes the idealistic youth in Spain in the 1940s. The emotionally discordant situation of the protagonist Ana’s family symbolizes the division in Spain due to the Spanish Civil War, while the ruins and the surrounding desolate scenery represent the sense of isolation felt when the Franco administration was first established. Near the end, the mother—who ignored her children and stayed in her own world—softens emotionally, and the bonds between the family members becomes stronger; this can be interpreted as hope for Spain’s future.

Another extreme interpretation is that this story has nothing to do with politics, and that it is just about the little girl Ana growing out of her child mentality that merges the real and imaginary worlds.

Therefore, everybody can appreciate the beauty of the images, but the opinions on how to interpret the movie seems to be divided. Since everyone in Spain in those days had to live life as if they were being watched by someone behind them, it is unlikely that this director had no political stance at all. This is because everybody had to internally deal with the reign of terror. However, I don’t think that the whole movie symbolizes an anti-government protest. I don’t believe this movie was so calculated in its construction.

This movie depicts the sense of fear any young child feels in an unknown world. Frankenstein’s monster, the dark, nighttime, ruins, poisonous mushrooms, ghosts, deep wells, the forest, reflections in a pond, and railways are all fears of children. However, while it is natural for a child like Ana to have these fears, she strangely lacks the parents who should hold her and say, “Don’t be afraid, it’s okay.” The reason is that the parents also have a fear—the government. During Ana’s search for Frankenstein’s monster, she meets a soldier who escaped. Since the escaped soldier is shot to death, Ana realizes—although just vaguely—that there is something in the real world that is even scarier than any fear that she came up with in her mind. Perhaps this is the criticism of the government that is hidden in this movie.

日本語→

Movie: The Syrian Bride (2004)

Posted on by
Reply

Israel played the main role in the production of The Syrian Bride. Israeli Eran Riklis wrote the script with Palestinian Suha Arraf, as well as directed the movie, and most of the actors were Israelis of Palestinian descent. Director Riklis seemed to have an international audience as the target for this movie and made it from the point of view of an Israeli. In other words, even though the word “Syrian” is in the movie title, this movie was made to try to convey an Israeli sentiment to the world.

The setting of this movie is a devout Druze village in the Golan Heights at the border of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. Islam is divided into two main opposing groups, the Shia and Sunni. Sunnis are the majority, while Shiites are estimated to be 10 to 20% of Muslims. Since the birth of the Shia sect, they were generally in the position of the minority against the Sunni majority, and the Shia often formed their group in mountainous areas where enemies couldn’t easily invade in order to protect themselves from being attacked by the majority. Iran is the only country in which Shiites are the majority, but it is said there are a significant number of Shiites in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Pakistan. Over time, the Shia became more and more fragmented. The Druze originated from the Shia, but they differ in doctrine in many aspects; thus, Druze is sometimes called the third sect of Islam, while many Muslims do not consider Druze to be a part of Islam.

This area is complicated politically. In the Third Arab-Israeli War (Six-Day War)—the war between Israel and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq in 1967—Israel succeeded in a surprise attack and won by quickly occupying the West Bank district of Jordan, the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and the Golan Heights of Syria. Since 1981, Golan Heights was put under civilian governance, and Israel gave Israeli citizenship to the Syrians on this land who desired it. Since the inhabitants had a strong sense of identity with Syria, not many people applied for Israeli citizenship, and the result was that they became stateless. The people who go to Syria from Golan Heights for reasons such as marriage cannot return to their village under Israeli occupation because once they cross the national border, they automatically become Syrian. International public opinion does not approve of Israel’s occupation of Golan Heights, but Israel is not going to give up Golan Heights because Golan Heights is strategically important and the Sea of Galilee is valuable as a water source.

Since the Six-Day War ended swiftly in the blink of an eye with an Israeli victory, there were some people living in Golan Heights that were separated from their family. The set up for this movie is that the father Hammed is a pro-Syria activist and was just released from an Israeli prison. Since one of his three sons lives in Syria and can’t return to Golan Heights, when they want to talk, the father and son must go to a place called “Shouting Hill,” where people communicate with a megaphone across a short field due to the military border.

Because Hammed’s eldest son married a woman doctor that he met while studying abroad in Russia, Hammed disowns him and the Druze elders in their village banish him. Hammed’s eldest daughter married a man chosen by her father, but she grows distant from her conservative husband, and she is determined to study at an Israeli university to gain her independence. Her eldest daughter (Hammed’s granddaughter) falls in love with the son of a family that is pro-Israel. Hammed’s second daughter is arranged to marry a distant relative—a popular actor now in Syria—and is going to leave for Syria, but since she cannot return to her family once she crosses the border, she is hesitant about the marriage. The second son flies around Italy and France with a stateless passport and conducts business. He is different from the second daughter and the son in Syria in that he has the freedom to travel. Because the eldest son comes back from Russia briefly for his little sister’s wedding, he seems to also have the freedom to travel. Since he is married to a Russian woman, he may have a Russian passport. In other words, the restriction of not being able to come back once one crosses the national border seems to just be for the Syrian national border.

This movie depicts the happenings on the day of the second daughter’s wedding ceremony, and, since the inauguration of the current President al-Assad is being covered on the TV, we can tell that this story takes place in the year 2000. The movie depicts Syrians being excited for President al-Assad’s inauguration, with hope and joy because they believed President al-Assad to be a kind and educated man, unlike his father and older brother. No one at that time could have ever imagined that President al-Assad would make the list of “World’s Worst Dictators” according to American media.

This is a good movie that depicts familial love that is not easy. However, the thing that stood out most in this movie was the desire to express an Israeli sentiment. This movie does not mention the past of the Israeli occupation of Golan Heights at all, and it just depicts the warmness between the people currently living in Golan Heights, regardless of their ethnicity. The Israelis that appear are neither good nor bad guys, simply do their duty, and are just average people. Israel has often been criticized internationally, but those who have decided to live there wish greatly for Israel to be seen positively and work hard to gain international support. A movie is the very best medium to convey Israel’s present condition and the feelings and thoughts of such an Israeli to the world. Director Ari Folman who made Waltz with Bashir stated, “There is complete freedom of expression in Israel. I am permitted to say anything.” Israel’s government seems to even support the activity of moviemakers. Also, there seems to be open exchange of technology with Hollywood, where there are many prominent Jewish Americans. The movie industry of Israel is very active and has produced many good movies. If one can say anything, movies provide the rare opportunity for Israelis who tend to be criticized internationally to raise their voices and express themselves.

Hiam Abbass, the beautiful actress that played the eldest daughter, is a Palestinian from Israel, and most of her activity is in Europe. She stated clearly in an interview, “It is unproductive if we obsess over the past. The important thing is how you live from now on.” Palestinian Makram J. Khoury, who played the bride’s father Hammed, acquired Israeli citizenship after repeated deliberation. Israel respects him, and Khoury flourishes as a top actor of Israel. Israel wants to reward those who have chosen Israel.

Obsessing over the past/history is one way to think about peace in the Middle East, but another way is to look toward the future. Israeli citizens wish from the bottom of their hearts that more people will understand the situation Israel is in. I think this wish is the background of Israel’s thriving film world.

日本語→

Movie: Joyeux Noël – Merry Christmas (2005)

Posted on by
Reply

On the night before Christmas in 1914, the France-Scotland allied forces face a narrow no man’s land from a trench in northern France as the occupying German army advances further onto French territory. International opera singer Nikolaus Sprink, who was enlisted by the German army, is visited by his lover, soprano Anna (Diane Kruger). The night before Christmas, Father Palmer, who is serving Scotland as a combat medic, plays a Christmas song with a bagpipe in the Scotland camp, and Nikolaus of the German camp starts to sing along to the Christmas hymn. The France-Scotland army find themselves applauding, and Nikolaus stands in the neutral no man’s land and continues to sing. Prompted by this, the commanding officers of the three countries meet in the neutral zone, and decide to suspend the combat for Christmas Eve. Father Palmer gives Christmas mass, and Anna sings a hymn. They suspend combat the next day, too, burying their dead comrades abandoned in the neutral zone, enjoying soccer, sharing chocolate and champagne, and showing each other photographs of their families. However, the time comes that these soldiers who shared a brief moment of camaraderie must resume fighting. The military authorities of each army and the upper echelon of the church are angry when they learn about this exchange of friendship, and the soldiers who exchanged friendship face severe consequences for their conduct.

It may be unbelievable that soldiers of enemy nations really shared friendship during the war, but this movie was made by connecting various real facts. The Christmas truce and the exchange of friendship between enemy nations during World War I did not make it into official records. However, the soldiers who survived the Western Front told the truth to family and friends by word of mouth and with photographs after they returned.

In 1914, it actually happened that a German tenor singer, Walter Kirchhoff, visited the German army to offer moral support and sang in the trench; on the other side of no man’s land, a French officer, recognizing Walter’s voice from a performance of his in the Paris Opera house, applauded. Walter then crossed the neutral no man’s land to greet the officer who had applauded. It also happened that a cat loved by both the German and French armies was arrested by the French army. It is said that this cat was later executed as a spy. In addition, it seems to be true that soccer and games were enjoyed between enemy armies.

This Christmas truce happened on the first Christmas after World War I started. World War I was the first ever all-out, world war, and nobody knew what direction the war would develop; at the beginning, there was an optimistic feeling that the war would be over quickly. However, as the war continued, dangerous weapons and poisonous gas were used. Also, the airplanes that were initially used for reconnaissance were transformed into terrible fighters. As the war became violent and cruel, events like the Christmas truce depicted in the movie became rare.

What brought these enemies together momentarily were the forces of music, sports, and religion. All the battling nations—Germany, France, and England—were Christian, and people’s faith was strong in those days; Christmas was really important, and it was the motivation behind the Christmas truce. It was easy to understand enemy nations that were similarly Christian. Something like the Christmas truce wouldn’t have happened if it had been a battle between Muslims and Christians, or Muslims and Jews.

It was Germany that underwent the greatest political change during World War I. Germany was still an empire in those days, and the people fought in the name of Wilhelm II, the German emperor and Prussian King. However, as the Great War continued, the war-weariness of the nation increased. On November 3, 1918, the sailors of the Kiel naval port mutinied, and, with the resulting populist uprising, the German Revolution ensued. Wilhelm II fled to the Netherlands, thus ending World War I. The Weimar Republic with the principle of parliamentary was established in Germany.

After that, the German government was unstable. After their defeat, they received economic retribution from the victorious nations, and the German people lived miserable lives. Within this dissatisfaction, the Nazis were formed in 1920, and this led to World War II. In this movie, the First Lieutenant Horstmayer, who led the German faction and agreed to the Christmas truce, was Jewish. Crown Prince Wilhelm, who was the highest commanding officer on the Western Front, was enraged when he found out about the Christmas truce, and sends First Lieutenant Horstmayer’s unit to the dangerous Eastern Front; at this time, the Crown Prince Wilhelm points with his sword at the iron cross of the German army at the chest of the First Lieutenant, and shouts, “You don’t deserve the iron cross.” This scene suggests the fates Jews met 20 years later—having their German citizenship revoked, not being able to apply for the German army, and being sent to concentration camps.

If I were to say the message of this movie in a few words, I might say, “The willingness for citizens to fight is created by the leader of the nation.” The movie starts with a scene with elementary school students in Britain, Germany, and France having patriotism hammered into their heads and being taught hostility towards their neighbors. Because citizens are made to think that soldiers of enemy nations are faceless beasts, they can fight in a war. However, through the exchange on the night of Christmas Eve, the soldiers recognized each other as human for the first time, and it became difficult to kill each other. When the First Lieutenant Audebert leading the French army received criticism for the Christmas truce, he responded, “The German soldiers are more human compared to these people shouting to kill Germans!” Also, the audience will forever remember the sentiment of the soldiers who had to return to war: “We (today only) can forget war. But the war won’t forget us.”

This movie is an impressive work that depicts beautiful details, but if I were to illuminate a fault, it is that Diane Kruger who performed as an opera singer was too obviously lip-syncing. The hymn which she sings in front of the soldiers should be a huge turning point, but her body doesn’t quiver as she sings, and her mouth was just monotonously opening and closing; there are too many moments when the lyrics and her mouth movement are out of synch. Since she looks like a beautiful picture with only her mouth opening and closing, quite a few viewers may lose empathy at this point of the movie. Diane Kruger is certainly beautiful, but for this scene, I would have preferred watching a real opera singer, such as Natalie Dessay who supplied the real singing voice in this movie. The audience may be deeply moved by the musical performance of Father Palmer of the Scottish army on the bagpipes, rather than Diane Kruger’s lip-syncing. Tea with Mussolini also features a bagpipe when the movie ends with the Scottish army entering an Italian town occupied by the Nazis. The sound of the bagpipe is joyful, optimistic, sorrowful, and poignant.

日本語→

Movie: Tea with Mussolini (1999)

Posted on by
Reply

Tea with Mussolini is a movie with a comedic touch, and it depicts the life of an Italian boy/young man named Luca who is deeply involved with the lives of some British and American women living in Florence, Italy from 1935 to 1945. The story includes the rise of fascists led by Mussolini, the lives of Britons and Americans in an internment camp after Britain and America declared war on Italy, Jews being hunted, and the partisan movement, but there are few gunshots or murders, and this curious movie never loses the elegant smell of tea and biscuits. Actually, the contents of this movie may be more true than one would think because Franco Zeffirelli, who wrote the story for and directed this movie, projected his own experience onto Luca. It is said that Zeffirelli participated in anti-war activity as an anti-fascism partisan during the time of the war.

Right before World War II, in an area populated by foreigners in Florence, there is a group of British women led by Lady Hester, the widow of a diplomat who was stationed in Italy. Elsa, an American singer, is friends with the group, but the proud and old-fashioned Hester dislikes the American and nouveau-riche Elsa. Another group member Mary is a secretary for an Italian businessman; her boss wants to raise his illegitimate son Luca as a British gentleman, so he asks Mary to educate Luca. Meanwhile, since Elsa was friends with Luca’s late mother, she sets up a fund to help educate Luca. However, since Italy breaks off its ties with Great Britain and grows closer to Germany, the father changes his plan for Luca’s education, and has Luca sent to an Austrian school to learn German. Hester worries about the rise of fascism, and in order to protect Florence’s British community, she goes to meet her acquaintance Mussolini; she returns from afternoon tea with Mussolini, relieved by his words, “I’ll protect the British, no matter what happens.” However, after Italy declares war on Great Britain, the British women are sent to an internment camp.

Elsa uses a large sum of money in order to transfer Hester and the others out of the internment camp and secure their housing in a high-class hotel. Also, she provides fake passports to Jews in Italy and helps them flee from the country. When Luca, who has grown into a lovely young man, returns home from Austria, he helps Elsa and becomes the arms and legs of her mission. Before long, due to the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, America at last joins the war, and Italy and America become enemy nations; danger approaches Elsa who is in fact Jewish. Luca asks the partisans for help with Elsa’s escape, and also Lady Hester, having found that it was not Italian Mussolini but American Elsa who had protected them, takes part in Elsa’s escape. Luca, along with Lady Hester’s grandchild, joins the partisan—which later merges with the Scottish army led by the Allies—to fight for the liberation of Italy from Nazi occupation. The movie ends with the German army hastily retreating from the Italian town that Hester and the others live in, and Luca and the others of the Scottish army arriving to town and receiving an enthusiastic welcome from the townspeople.

Although this movie is not a masterpiece that will remain in history, it is well-made, like a small gem, and there are some details that can only be told by people who lived during that time.

First, there was an amicable relationship between Britain and Italy from the end of World War I until the early 1930s. Therefore, for an Italian, proficiency in English was a big plus. Also, most British people viewed Mussolini favorably until a certain time. Furthermore, Britons seemed to believe that the war would remain local—Italy/Germany vs. the countries around Germany—and that the British government could skillfully avoid getting involved. To some degree, the war was somebody else’s problem. However, once Great Britain had no choice but to participate in the war, America’s existence became a big deal. Until then, British people had considered America—for better or for worse—to be a distant country across the ocean, but America became something like a savior for Great Britain. America’s participation in the war is received with gratitude by Hester and the others.

In addition, the interesting antagonism between England and Scotland within Great Britain is depicted. Luca, who wanders around the battlefield with the intention of joining the Allies, loudly asks some troops that look to be part of the Allies army. “American army?” “NO!” “English army?” “Never!! We aren’t those cruel people!!!” Then the soldiers roar with laughter at the dumbfounded Luca. They say, “We are Scottish! Relax!”, laugh heartily, and then welcome the relieved Luca.

The mission of the Scottish army in which Luca participated was to free the British prisoners, including Hester, and transport them to a safe place. The Scottish soldier that meets Hester in the town states, “I order everyone to gather up your luggage immediately and move to the safe place for everyone’s personal safety,” but Hester angrily says, “A Scot giving me (an English aristocrat) orders is not acceptable!!”; the movie ends with Luca and the Scottish soldier exchanging a smile that seems to say, “What can you do?”

日本語→

Movie: Missing (1982)

Posted on by
1

This movie depicts the pursuit for the whereabouts of the journalist Charles Horman by his wife and father after his disappearance during the chaos that followed the Chilean military coup d’état in 1973; they search for several days in the capital Santiago before arriving at the conclusion that Charles may have been executed because he knew of the secret involvement of the CIA with the coup d’état.

Charles Horman is a real person, and since he was born in 1942, he is the same generation as President Clinton and President Bush (the son), who were born in 1946. This generation is known as America’s baby boomers, and this generation was greatly influenced by the anti- Vietnam War movement and the hippie movement. In this movie, Charles Horman is depicted as a strongly curious, but slightly rash author of juvenile literature, but in reality, Charles Horman was a writer who was properly trained in journalism after graduating from Harvard. This movie is based off of Thomas Hauser’s book that was published in 1978, which investigated Charles Horman’s death.

During the American-Soviet opposition in the global Cold War, social unrest continued for a long time in Chile, where the left-wing, Popular Front supporters continued to oppose the traditional, conservative class and the right wing of military authorities. Commander-in-Chief René Schneider was among the group of military authorities of the Chilean army that advocated for a congress system and democracy, but in 1970, Schneider was assassinated by an anti-Schneider faction among military authorities. Due to his assassination, anger toward the nation’s military authorities erupted, so swing voters voted left; thus Salvador Allende of the Popular Front was elected as president, and, for the first time in the history of Chile, a socialist administration from a free election was established.

America viewed the Socialist Party administration as a major threat, and the CIA also revealed their intention to topple the Allende administration; therefore, Western countries including America implemented an economic blockade, and assisted anti-government strikes by the anticommunist, rich class within Chile. Also, due to the abrupt farmland reform and nationalization policies of the Allende administration, inflation increased, and there was societal chaos and a shortage of goods. However, the Allende administration succeeded in achieving unity with the people by explaining that this chaos was a scheme of the opposing faction, and in the 1973 general election, the People’s Unity coalition led by Allende gained even more votes.

On September 11, 1973, Commander-in-Chief Augusto Pinochet led armed forces and the police in an attack on the President’s official residence. President Allende—with shots being fired between the coup d’état forces and the President’s guards—committed suicide after giving one final speech on the radio. This was the 1973 Chilean coup d’état. As a result of the Chilean coup d’état, the coup’s leader, Commander-in-Chief Pinochet, assumed office as President, and Chile fell back into being a military dictatorship led by President Pinochet. Afterwards, in the 16 long years under this military regime, between thousands to tens of thousands of anti-establishment citizens were imprisoned and executed.

When the 1973 coup d’état occurred, Charles Horman happened to be staying at a beautiful health resort in Viña del Mar, but there actually was a secret planning for the coup d’état happening there. It is not known whether Charles Horman approached these people or what he learned in Viña del Mar, but on September 17, he was suddenly arrested by Chilean military authorities of the coup d’état faction, and taken away to the capital Santiago’s national stadium. After the coup d’état, the stadium was temporarily used as a prison. Story has it that he was tortured and executed there. The claim of the movie is that there must have been covert approval from the CIA to execute Horman as a criminal who opposed the coup d’état, even though he was American. When Chilean authorities claimed that his body was buried in the wall of the stadium, Horman’s family demanded that his body be handed over. It is said that the actual delivery of his body to his wife in America took six months; by that time, the body had decomposed so intensely that it was impossible to judge whether it was truly him. Horman’s wife later requested a DNA test, and learned that it was not Horman’s body.

The White House supported Commander-in-Chief Pinochet as a sort of fortress to protect South America from the threat of socialism; but when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Cold War ended, America determined there was no longer a reason to support a dictatorship that suppressed human rights, and they finally changed directions and withdrew support for Commander-in-Chief Pinochet in 1990.

Charles Horman’s kidnapping and execution happened when Nixon was President. Afterwards, the White House consistently denied the CIA’s involvement in the Chilean coup d’état, but the Clinton administration investigated classified official archives; in 1999, the administration acknowledged for the first time the CIA’s involvement in the Chilean coup d’état, and publicized the document of evidence. Regarding Charles Horman’s death, government officials under the Clinton administration stated, “It is very regrettable,” and suggested there was the possibility that, even though the American embassy in Chile actually made every possible effort to protect American citizens in the chaos after the coup d’état, those frantic great efforts did not reach Horman.

Charles Horman’s widow, Joyce Horman, sued Augusto Pinochet in a Chilean courtroom in 2001 for the murder of her husband. In the trial investigation process, it was revealed that Charles Horman was investigating the democratic system in Chile, and investigating the life of René Schneider—who was assassinated by opposing military authorities—and there was a possibility suggested of Horman being hated and murdered by those in Augusto Pinochet’s faction, who assassinated René Schneider. In 2011, the Chilean government made the judicial decision of charging Ray Davis, a retired military officer, for the murder of Charles Horman.

日本語→

Movie: Fiddler on the Roof (1971)

Posted on by
Reply

Jewish author Sholem Aleichem was born in 1859 in Ukraine—which was a territory of the Russian Empire in those days—and wrote the short novel Tevye the Dairyman in 1894; in 1961, the musical Fiddler on the Roof based on his stories was performed on Broadway, and it became a big hit. In the 1971 film adaptation of this musical, Norman Jewison was the director and producer, and screenwriter Joseph Stein was in charge of the screenplay. It depicts the dairyman Tevye living in a village with his five daughters, the marriage of the older three daughters, and the family being chased from their hometown and immigrating to America due to persecution by the Russian Empire.

This movie has two major themes. First, as with the original novel, there is the change of times where a Jewish family that keeps tradition and lives peacefully in the community is forced to cope with changes when the daughters want to choose their marriage partners. When director Norman Jewison was later asked in an interview about the audience’s reaction to the movie (the interviewer had New York’s reaction in mind when they asked the question), he spoke of his experience in Japan. He said the reaction of the Japanese audience was frequently, “If you change the faces and remove the western clothes, what this movie depicts is simply modern Japan,” and regarding this, he said, “The Japanese audience was wonderful and had a true understanding of this movie; I think they deeply related to this movie.” He visited Japan in 1971, and even 20 years later, his favorable impression of the reaction by the Japanese audience still remains, and he talks about this favorable impression without being prompted.

I think the generation gap depicted in this movie was a big problem for Japan in the 1960s and 70s. Those days were a time of political change worldwide. However, the idea of, “marrying someone nearby with whom you were set up by a matchmaker”—which was until then the absolute marriage principle in Japan—started crumbling in the 70s. Up until then, matching pedigrees was the main thing that was considered for a spouse, but in times of rapid economic growth, “financial strength” began to be a new factor; additionally, a woman wished to marry a man she loved. In short, the parents may be at a loss if the three factors—pedigree, financial strength, and love—contradict; in regards to financial strength, “academic background” and “occupation” have to be considered, and in regards to love, “appearance” and “personality” come into play. Thus, parents no longer had a clear standard for what out of these factors was most important. Which out of, “very respectable education, but low income,” and “not a great academic background, but fairly rich person” to choose? Or which has more value between, “a new rich family without a good pedigree” and, “a child from a declined respectable family”? Choosing this in one situation and that in a different situation is the same thing that the father Tevye does in the movie. In the end, the eldest daughter marries the poor, young man whom she loves over the “the aged, rich man who worked as a butcher, a profession considered to be lowly,” that the matchmaker was pushing for. The second daughter yearns for the son of the clergyman—who has the top social status in the village—but in the end she falls in love with her tutor who educates her; when he gets deported to Siberia for participating in the revolutionary movement, she decides to follow him to Siberia. The third daughter elopes with a man who is not Jewish, and they get married in a Greek Orthodox Church. While Tevye can one way or another forgive the eldest and second daughters for their actions, he cannot forgive the third daughter for her marriage. In Japan, the confusing marriage conditions seem to be changing today into something simpler: “three highs” (high height, high education, and high income); but it wasn’t so simple in the social transition period 50 years ago. Also, in modern times, “matchmakers” have died out, and some in the younger generation may not know of them at all.

The other theme, which is added to both the movie and musical adaptations, is the persecution of Jews that happened in the last years of the Russian Empire. The persecution of Jews is called “pogrom” in Russian. The culprits of the pogrom cannot be pinpointed, but when dissatisfied people rioted and mutinied, Jews were at times collaterally attacked; also, when Alexander II was assassinated in 1881, an anti-Semitic pogrom occurred in Russia. Even in Battleship Potemkin, we can see the deep-rooted anti-Semitism in those days. Since the government of the Russian Empire suggested the expulsion of Jews as a solution to social dissatisfaction, the pogrom was fostered and intensified from 1903 to 1906, and Jews continued to seek refuge abroad. The author of the original story, Sholem Aleichem, also fled to America in 1905. Movie director Steven Spielberg’s ancestors were also Ukrainian Jews, but they immigrated to America before World War I started. Sholem Aleichem and Steven Spielberg’s ancestors probably immigrated to America around the same time for the same reason.

It is said that the title change from Tevye the Dairyman to the charming title Fiddler on the Roof when the story was adapted into a musical was inspired by a painting by the Jewish artist Chagall. When Roman Emperor Nero massacred Jews in the Roman Empire, among the people running about trying to escape, it is said that there was a man who played the violin on a roof; the title was inspired by Chagall’s depiction of this historical incident. Marc Chagall was born in Belarus, a Russian territory at the time (currently the northern neighbor of Ukraine), in 1887. He moved to France in 1922, but in 1941, he immigrated to America to avoid persecution by the Nazis. In the end, he returned to France after World War II, and he lived there as a Frenchman for the rest of his life. When Tevye the Dairyman was changed to Fiddler on the Roof, an additional societal element was added to the original.

Fiddler_chagallThe charm of this movie is naturally the beautiful music (such as the famous song, “Sunrise, Sunset”), as well as the cinematography that wonderfully recreates the Jewish community living in Russia in those times. It is said that the movie company that financed this movie requested it to be shot in America, but Norman Jewison chose to shoot in Yugoslavia, despite the strict budget, because it still had the atmosphere of those times. However, the greatest appeal is the way Tevye lives: despite the different value systems spreading due to the changing world situation, he keeps his traditional values while accepting changes. He lives in a community that helps each other, and is determined to protect his family—as a father and as a patriarch—against whatever happens. People of different religions were able to live peacefully together as a community in this area for hundreds of years, so the tradition of helping each other was developed based on a sense of security and then passed on. Unfortunately, the times that Tevye lived in were the times when this tradition was being destroyed by political changes. It is sad that this rich tradition in the hearts of good people was trampled in those times.

日本語→

Movie: Out of Africa (1985)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie was based on Isak Dinesen’s Out of Africa that was published in 1937. Isak Dinesen is a man’s name, but actually the author is a woman whose real name is Karen Blixen. She used her male and female names for different purposes, and published many books in Danish and English; she was the author of Babette’s Feast, the movie of which won an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Out of Africa won the Academy Award for Best Picture, but the way this movie was made isn’t perfect; sometimes viewers who have not read the original work cannot understand because there aren’t explanations of the relations between people, and the movie is a bit too long. However, the images of Kenya are wonderful, and I can feel the splendor and charm of the original work, which more than compensates for the short-comings of this movie.

The original Out of Africa is basically the author’s autobiography. The heroine in the movie (born in 1885) is adventurous, from an affluent family, and unsatisfied with her life in Denmark; she marries the son of a financially struggling baron, exchanging her money for social status, and they embark to the new world of Kenya. In real life, Karen Blixen also married a Swedish aristocrat, Bror von Blixen, in 1913, and they immigrated to Kenya together the following year. Like shown in the movie, the married couple managed a coffee plantation, but the married life soon failed; after the divorce, she continued to manage the coffee plantation alone, but failed, and returned home to Denmark in 1931.

Bror (Baron Blixen), who became Karen’s husband, was born in 1886 as a Swedish noble. He was a distant relative of Karen’s. Bror had an identical twin brother, and the movie establishes that the twin brother was Karen’s lover. The twin died in a plane crash in 1917. Since all the investment for the coffee plantation was from Karen’s parents, when the divorce happened, the plantation became Karen’s property, and Bror started working at a safari hunting company. Many European aristocrats in the beginning of 20th century, backed by economic strength and the success of their nation’s imperialism, seemed to burn with the passion to start their own business; I feel it resembled the spirit of a modern entrepreneur. It is said that many of the clients of Bror’s company were British royalty and aristocrats. After he divorced with Karen, he married explorer Eva Dickson in 1936. Because Eva died in 1938, Bror returned to his home country Sweden, where he died.

After she divorced from Bror, Karen befriended Denys Finch Hatton, the son of an Earl. Denys was born in 1887 into an aristocratic family with a very notable family lineage. When he was 23 years old, he bought land in west Kenya, and started up a safari hunting company on this land with co-investors. He, too, was a noble entrepreneur like Bror, and likewise was a close associate of Berkeley Cole, another noble entrepreneur from a notable family. These four are the key people in this movie. In 1925, after Karen and Bror divorced, Denys became closer with Karen, and started splitting time between Karen’s coffee plantation and the safari company that he founded. Many of the clients for his safari company were also British royalty and aristocrats. All of the characters are young nobles and were played by popular Hollywood actors, but their performances were a little disappointing because they looked somewhat like American cowboys from a Western trying to make a fortune in the gold mines.

In the movie, Karen and Denys’s relationship collapses due to Denys not wanting to marry and because another woman appears; this seems to also be true. From 1930, Denys became close with ranch manager Beryl Markham; the two learned how to fly airplanes, and started to fly around Kenya. In the end, Denys died in a plane accident around the same time that Karen decided to close down her farm and return home to Denmark.

What is wonderful about this movie is that it vividly depicts the pioneering spirit of fearless and carefree youth from the ruling class in Europe in those days. However, the movie also simultaneously successfully depicts an omen drifting in that their privilege will not continue forever. In this movie, these youth disregard their privilege in their homeland and jump over to Africa, and they bravely try their own fate by getting their hands dirty; this suggests that imperialism was still robust at that time. The times shown here may be the last glimmer of European imperialism.

Due to the infidelity of her husband, Karen got syphilis, and she suffered from it for her whole life; in addition, the coffee plantation that she invested everything she owned into failed, but she lived without blaming anyone. The way she lived was wonderful. I feel this spirit in Babette’s Feast as well. The human nature of the author naturally comes out.

Karen observed the subtle differences between the native tribes in Kenya, such as the Kikuyu, Maasai, and Somali. Colonists in Kenya used the Kikuyu for the colonization of Kenya in those days. The Kikuyu were adapted to farming, and the chiefs of the tribes had amicable policies toward white settlers; after having their land snatched away by white people, the Kikuyu stayed there and worked as tenant farmers and maids. Also, the youth became proficient in English because of their education in mission schools. If I use Karen’s words, the Kikuyu are described as, “These natives don’t have rebellious spirits and are patient like sheep. They survived their fates without any political power or a protector. Their ability to accept their fates has allowed them to still endure it.” Unlike with the Kikuyu, the colonists didn’t trust the Somali, who had already been converted into Muslims, and were suspicious that the Somali could rebel at any time. The Maasai had not given up on the hunting lifestyle, so chose to live in isolation. In this movie, it is depicted that even the Kikuyu people fear the strange and unfamiliar Maasai.

It was the Kikuyu that led the Kenyan independence movement because of their understanding of colonists they gained through their experience and by observing them. The Kenyan independence movement had already started with the founding of the East African Association in Nairobi in 1919 by Kikuyu Harry Thuku. In 1924, the Kikuyu Central Association (KCA) was founded with the youth as its core, and they confronted the colonial government and the chiefs who aligned with it; the radical movement of the KCA developed into the 1952 Mau Mau Uprising, and with this, white settlers began to evacuate. The nationalist/independence movement converged into becoming the Kenya African National Union, and Kenyan independence was achieved in 1963.

日本語→

Movie: The King’s Speech (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

I thought The King’s Speech was simply the story of a stuttering king who, after much effort, finally becomes good at speeches, so I didn’t really have much of a desire to watch it. But after I finished watching it, I realized “Ah, this was a work about the power of speech, and about the leadership and responsibility of a king to his people.” Wonderful. I take my hat off.

In this movie, King George VI’s daughter, the future Elizabeth II, is watching a movie with the King. In a news segment before the movie, the image of Hitler before ranks of soldiers is projected. Elizabeth, impressed, asks her father:

“What’s he saying, Papa?”
“I don’t know, but he seems to be saying it rather well.”

The King’s quivering cheek tells of his fear of the six-year-elder Hitler’s uncanny ability to manipulate people with language. If the King failed to resolutely convey his leadership to the British people with a powerful speech, he feared that Great Britain might fall under the evil control of the dangerous and eloquent Hitler. After George VI’s elder brother, Edward VIII, abruptly abdicated the throne, King George VI knew that, whether he wished it or not, he as the heir to the throne had no choice but to defend his subjects from the fascist regimes, and so he embarked on intensive training in speech. Incidentally, he was of the same generation as such dictators and despots of the time as Stalin, Mussolini, and Franco.

As the other great powers of Europe dismantled their monarchies due to the judgment that they don’t help their subjects, in the United Kingdom (as well as the countries in northern Europe relatively unaffected by the struggle for power in the rest of Europe), the “reigning but not ruling” form of monarchy was passed on. Although the King does not have the power to make decisions regarding the government, as the head of the Church of England, he serves as the people’s spiritual support; whether it’s peacetime or during times of strife and struggle, he is sought as a symbol of the spiritual unity of the British people. Although kings no longer physically have their heads cut off, if monarchs no longer serve a useful purpose, it could be that the royal family would face budget cuts or the monarchy may be discontinued. The fate of the royal family lies in the hands of Parliament.

Did the British people make the correct decision about the royal family? I want to say yes. Even if national decisions can be made by the people’s vote under a democratic system, people seek out someone who can comfort them during times of great distress, someone who can elegantly represent them on the world’s stage, and someone who always wishes for the nation’s good fortune beyond the interest of a political party. Likewise, in the U.S., which lacks a royal family, the President doesn’t just resolve political matters, but when disaster strikes, must also rush to the scene of misfortune. Also, the First Lady enjoys immense popularity if she is beautiful and takes on some issue of national interest. If a presidential candidate has scandals, gets divorced multiple times, or gives an unpleasant impression, I think that they will never be elected. Ever since President Reagan, all presidents have had a sort of charisma, and First Ladies have always kept themselves occupied thinking about national issues. I think a certain percent of the President’s job is to give courage to the people. This responsibility is exactly what the British royal family does as their full-time job. Of course, the U.S. political administration is composed of both “reigning” and “governing”, but perhaps cleanly dividing the duties is ideal.

President Obama until a few years ago was virtually unknown as a senator from Illinois, but he, more so than anyone else, had preeminent speech-making abilities. When Hillary Clinton was contesting the Democratic presidential candidacy with him, she said this regarding his popularity.

“(Comparing to her longtime contributions to national politics) What has Obama done in the past 10 years? He’s just good at giving speeches.”

We all know who between Hillary and Obama won the candidacy.

日本語→