Monthly Archives: April 2014

The Top 5 Movies I Watched in 2012

Posted on by
Reply

It is a year today that Ichigo, the blog master of this site, passed away. We have translated and posted a little under half of her blog entries here on the English site. The following entry, which she wrote on her final New Year’s, represents her well. We will continue to translate and post the many other movies she wrote about.

Ichigo’s family

I started writing this blog on August 27, 2012. My motive for starting this blog was that I knew it was a blessing to still be alive after recovering from a life-threatening illness, and I wanted to express my current thoughts by weaving a tapestry of movies and people, using the history of a nation through time as the vertical threads and the interactions between nations within a time period as the horizontal threads. I chose movies as my medium because a movie, unlike a novel, must show something concrete to the audience, and therefore it is rich in information in many ways. Also, making a movie requires teamwork, which forces many people to interact with each other, and since you need money to make a movie, you need to persuade others of the value of the product; the process of making a movie alone is a human drama. To say it briefly, while writing literature can be done with one person’s mind, I think in order to make a movie, many people have to physically work together, and this results in an abundance of information.

I choose what movies to watch based on what I feel like watching that day, not “because it is a new release.” Therefore, the movies I have written about span nearly 90 years, from Battleship Potemkin in 1925 to Lincoln in 2012. Through these movies, 35 countries are depicted. I have blogged about nearly 100 movies here; I have watched about 30 more this year that I didn’t blog about. I can say that all of the movies I have posted on this blog had a strong impact on me, one way or another. The following movies are my personal Top 5 among the movies I watched in 2012.

1. The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988)

I admire Philip Kaufman’s discerning eye for discovering still-anonymous Daniel Day-Lewis and Juliette Binoche for leading roles in this movie. This movie is not flashy, but, using Day-Lewis’s and Binoche’s enchanting charms, it depicts the importance of respecting your feelings without being influenced by the times. It also depicts that wishing happiness for the person you are instinctively attracted to (including physically) will naturally lead to your own happiness; if this actually happens, this is true love. I remember reading on someone’s blog, “Generally I do not like love stories, but I really like this movie.” I understand how he feels.

2. Lincoln (2012)

There are two types of movies among Steven Spielberg’s movies: well-constructed entertaining movies, and serious movies where he wants to show that he is “not just an entertaining artist”—such as Schindler’s List, Munich, and War Horse. But Lincoln does not seem to fall under either category. To say it briefly, all of Spielberg’s works have either been financially successful or received high acclaim among critics, he has gained respect among his peers in the movie industry, and he never has to worry about financing his movies; therefore, Steven Spielberg, who no longer has anything to fear, can now make movies about whatever theme truly interests him, without any worries. What was the theme he wanted to make most? To speak honestly, I think this movie is a tribute to President Obama. To be more precise, it is paying respect to the citizens of America—a mixed nation where there has always been a serious political divide—for choosing President Obama in an election, and for both supporting and rigorously criticizing him.

Among Americans—who often have divided opinions—Lincoln and the first president, Washington, are among the few presidents who are undisputedly considered great presidents; similarities between President Obama and President Lincoln are already being pointed out. For example, both are elected presidents from Illinois in the Midwest, which is thought of as the heart of America; both were little known, not having held a powerful position as a politician, before becoming a president. Both have made excellent speeches that will remain in history, and both had to make difficult decisions one after another when the nation was badly divided.

In my blog about the movie Lincoln, I wrote “I still believe that Lincoln fixed his eyes on the ultimate goal and took steps and the right method most appropriate for the time.” Likewise, I recently read an interview with President Obama about the movie Lincoln, where he said something along the lines of, “I will not comment on the value of any of the past presidents, but what was captivating about this movie was the way it depicted a politician’s dreams and realistic methods. A politician at times, in order to reach his ideal goal, has to compromise.” I agree with what he said. Obama and Lincoln’s major common characteristic is their utilization of wise and pragmatic methods, while having their eyes fixed on the ultimate goal. I think they both understand that after all, having an ideal goal is most important. Also, many Americans genuinely believe Obama’s good personality is his natural personality instead of a constructed one, similar to how people felt about Lincoln in his days. Of course, First Lady Michelle Obama—who is pragmatic, down-to-earth, doesn’t worry about little details, and isn’t vain—is also contributing to the president’s popularity.

In this movie, Lincoln was played by Daniel Day-Lewis, whose performance was awe-inspiring. It is said that Steven Spielberg came to the studio wearing a suit and tie every day during filming because he was meeting with the President. Also, when I watched the movie in theaters, I saw quite a few dressed-up parents with their children in the theater, and when the movie was over, the audience did not leave immediately. Instead, there was big applause as if they just listened to a speech by a real president.

3. Katyń (2007)

The value of this movie is simply the quantity and quality of information it delivers. We can feel the director Andrzej Wajda’s resolution that he could not die until he made this movie and told this story.

4. A Separation (2011)

Asghar Farhadi produced, directed, and wrote the screenplay for this exemplary movie with a tightly constructed storyline. Also, the movie is informative about the life of the middle class in Iran. Iranians—who value education highly and pride themselves on their refined culture—currently haven’t reached their full potential under a religious regime, but if Iran becomes a democratic nation, I think Iran will be truly incredible.

5. Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

This movie is a timeless masterpiece by maestro Stanley Kramer, who is known for producing High Noon and directing Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. There is nothing flashy or preachy; the movie depicts the political situation in Europe and the U.S. after World War II very well, and suggests the beginning of the imminent Cold War. The movie doesn’t feel old even when we watch it today. I think Spencer Tracy, like Daniel Day-Lewis, is one of the greatest actors of our time. I should not forget to mention Z for being a movie with a similar appeal.

I wish you a Happy New Year.

日本語→

Movie: Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

Posted on by
Reply

The Nuremberg Trials are a historical fact. However, this movie is a work of fiction that instead captures the feel of history by being based on actual facts; it can be said that it aims to depict the world after World War II from the point of view of the American conscience during the Cold War.

After the end of World War II, military leaders from the victorious nations—U.S.A., Britain, France, and Russia—gathered in Nuremberg in order to judge German war criminals. In the first half of the trial that began in 1945, the highest German leaders that led the war were one-sidedly judged and sentenced severely, but this movie is set in 1948, when the global situation surrounding the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials had subtly changed. For the U.S., Britain, and France, the threat was no longer Germany, but rather the Soviet Union. The Soviet Army occupied the eastern part of Germany, and it seemed to have its eyes set on occupying all of Germany. The U.S., Britain, and France concluded that, if the Soviet Union took control of Germany, all of Europe would bit by bit be taken over by communism; therefore, the interest of the U.S., Britain, and France became to protect Germany from the Soviet Union and the spread of communism, rather than punishing Germans.

The movie begins with a U.S. district court judge, Haywood (Spencer Tracy), being appointed as the Chief Trial Judge for one of the cases in the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, and thus him going to Nuremberg. The reason he is appointed is that this case is judging some of Germany’s highest-class lawyers; in particular, since one of the defendants is Dr. Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster)—who is internationally known and acted as the Minister of Justice at the time of the Nazi’s defeat—no one wants to be the judge of the trial, so the duty is imposed on nameless, honest Judge Haywood.

Judge Haywood and the American officers staying in Nuremberg are impressed by the German traditions and the depth of the culture. After the war, even though they are poor, people drink delicious beer, enjoy a beautiful chorus in a bar, and appreciate piano and opera musical performances. People are kind, as if everyone is trying to prove that, “Germans are not beasts, like the world believes.” The officers, who came here as part of a victorious nation, make fun of themselves with, “We are like those Boy Scouts that walk around a beautiful palace with muddy shoes.” If there hadn’t been a war, I think Americans would have aspired for German culture. Judge Haywood, who is among these Americans, and prosecutor Colonel Lawson (Richard Widmark) are implicitly pressured from higher powers to quickly complete the trial, and to not give a severe sentence in order to win over Germany’s support.

The defendants’ lawyer Rolfe (Maximilian Schell, who won the Academy Award for Best Actor with this movie) refutes the claims presented by Colonel Lawson, one after another, with sharp logic. Because Colonel Lawson has personal experience liberating a Nazi concentration camp, he wants to make sure the accused lawyers, who approved the documents to have Jews rounded up, are held fully accountable. Enraged, Rolfe refutes with, “What about the war responsibility of the Soviet Union that had the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression treaty with Germany, and illegally occupied and massacred under this treaty? What of the war responsibility for Great Britain’s Churchill, who agreed with Hitler in order to hold back communism?” With this, he voices the bitterness of Germans who silently endured the tyranny of the victorious nations in the Nuremberg Trials.

The greatest focus of the trial is whether Dr. Janning committed crimes under the Nuremberg Laws. The Nuremberg Laws were laws made by the Nazis, and defined relations between Jews and Germans as a crime. As a judge, Dr. Janning sentenced an old Jewish man to death on the charges of association with a young German girl Irene Hoffman (Judy Garland), and sentenced Irene to penal servitude for perjury when she denied the charges against the old man.

Judge Haywood, contrary to everyone’s prediction, passed a guilty verdict for all of the defendants, and he sentenced them all to life imprisonment. The basis of his sentence is that the prosecution proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the crimes were truly committed, and that, although the defendants did not commit the crimes directly, the crimes could not have occurred without the order of execution documents with the defendants’ names; thus, they are legal accomplices. Against Chief Judge Haywood’s judicial decision, the American judge serving as the trial’s deputy agrees with lawyer Rolfe’s argument, and refutes that the defendants were just abiding by the Nuremberg Laws—which were Germany’s national laws—and it would have been treason against the nation for the defendants to not abide by these laws.

There is also a pattern of conflicting interpretations between common law—preferred by Britain and America—and statutory law—preferred by Germany and France. Because Judge Haywood studied law in America that uses common law, he arrives at the guilty verdict based on the principles of case law that say precedent cases are the primary source of law for judgment, and that if there are previous similar trials, current verdicts are bound by precedent verdicts. Of course, since there is statutory law in Britain and America, when there is statutory law in the domain to judge, the stipulation is that statutory law takes preference over common law. Statutory laws have clear standards, and there are laws that have been used as the standards for a long period of time, such as the Napoleonic Code; however, what about the Nuremberg Laws? I think that the Nuremberg Laws suggest that a crazy leader can make crazy statutory laws. One can make a new law in America. However, that law must be approved by the majority in Congress, and it can be rejected by the Department of Justice if it opposes the Constitution.

Judge Haywood’s conviction disappoints both Germans and Americans. People believed that the defendants were only obeying the Nuremberg Laws, and it is the laws themselves that should be blamed. Also, there is disappointment because other trials happening around the same time generally found the defendants to be not guilty, and even if the defendants were found guilty, the sentence was very light. When Rolfe meets Judge Haywood face-to-face, he remarks, “In five years, the men you sentenced to life imprisonment will be free. In the near future, Americans may be placed in the situation where they are tried by the Soviet Army for injustice, so be warned,” and then leaves. Judge Haywood, when he meets with Dr. Janning in private upon Janning’s request, states, “You are guilty. The reason why is that you had already decided guilty before facing Irene Hoffman in court.” Also I think that, since Judge Haywood’s judicial decision becomes the precedent for future cases, he wanted to avoid his verdict from being cited to find future individuals who signed the death penalty for others as not guilty, as it could be if Judge Haywood had given an acquittal.

Marlene Dietrich performs as the widow of a general who was executed in the Nuremberg Trials. Her husband was found guilty in the Nuremberg Trials in what was like a lynching by the victorious nations immediately after the war, but the movie suggests the possibility that he may have been found innocent in a trial performed in1948. The widow tries to convey the spirits of German people to Judge Haywood, who she befriends, by telling him that both she and her husband hated Hitler, her husband had fought in order to protect the people of Germany, and most German people did not know of what the Nazis were doing.

It is said that Marlene Dietrich’s life was the inspiration for the character of the general’s wife. After Marlene, a German woman, came to America, she and Jewish director Sternberg became a top Hollywood combo. Adolf Hitler liked Marlene and requested that she return to Germany, but Marlene who hated the Nazis refused, and in 1939, she acquired American citizenship; because of this, the screening of Dietrich’s movies was prohibited in Germany. During World War II, she repeatedly visited the American soldier frontline in order to give moral support.

Actress Setsuko Hara, who visited America after the war, said the following when she was introduced to Marlene Dietrich. “She looked so beautiful in her movies, but when I actually met Dietrich, she was a candid and casual person; her face was plain, and I didn’t feel that bewitching beauty seen in her movies. I didn’t get the impression of a beautiful person at all…”

I wonder if Marlene Dietrich’s beauty comes from her outstanding professionalism and determination in life. When Dietrich performs in this movie as the young and beautiful widow, she is already 60 years old. Of course Setsuko Hara suffered immense hardships during the war (like other Japanese people), but her words seem to not have much thought for how much Marlene Dietrich had to overcome.

日本語→