Monthly Archives: May 2014

Person: President Slobodan Milošević (1941-2006)

Posted on by
Reply

map_enThere once was the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) that was hailed for, “Seven bordering countries (Italy to the west, Austria and Hungary to the north, Romania and Bulgaria to the east, and Albania and Greece to the south), six republics (Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Montenegro), five ethnicities (Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosniaks or Muslims, and Albanians), four languages (Serbian, Croatian, Slovene, Macedonian), three religions (Greek Orthodox, Catholicism, Islam), two alphabets (Latin, Cyrillic), and one nation (SFRY).” As the name demonstrates, SFRY was a very complicatedly multiethnic nation. This area fell victim to the power struggle between neighboring nations—Austria and Turkey, and later Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union—and this volatile situation was called the “Balkan Powder Keg.”

The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes—facilitated by the Kingdom of Serbia—was formed in 1918 to unify these ethnicities; in 1929, the name was changed to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. From 1945, the socialist regime led by Tito was established, and the name of the nation was changed to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Around 1990, after the death of Tito—who united Yugoslavia together with his charisma and charm—democratization advanced in the Soviet Union that was led by Gorbachev, and demands to cast away the system during Tito’s era increased in the individual states that made up Yugoslavia.

Serbia was the core of Yugoslavia, but Slovenia, which was culturally and religiously similar to the West, achieved its independence in 1991. Next to become independent after Slovenia was Macedonia; then, Croatia, which opposed Serbia through most of history, became independent by means of a violent war. Soon after in 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina also became independent. In 1992, Serbia came together with Montenegro to form the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In 2003, since the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had switched over to a loose federation of states, they renamed the nation to the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, and there was no longer a nation with the name “Yugoslavia.” In 2006, Montenegro became independent, and this State Union also dissolved.

Slobodan Milošević was born in 1941 in a suburb of Belgrade. After graduating from the University of Belgrade’s Law School, he became one of the leaders of the Belgrade League of Communists in 1978. He gained overwhelming popularity among Serbian nationalists, but on the other hand, he was criticized for fueling Serbian nationalism in order to reinforce his own power. After the resignation of Ivan Stambolić in 1987, Milošević was inaugurated as the President of the Socialist Republic of Serbia. In 1990, he took office as President of the newly-formed Republic of Serbia. After becoming President, he used the intelligence/secret services to monitor the activity of political opponents and opposing powers, and he relentlessly oppressed the democracy movement.

Milošević attempted armed interventions against the declarations of independence by Slovenia, Croatia, and Macedonia in 1991, as well as the independence movement in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992. Even after the independence of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbs continued living in both countries as a minority. Serb nationalists in these two nations, afraid of Serbs being excluded by Croats and Bosniak Muslims, formed “autonomous regions” in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina in order to resist them and started an independence movement that insisted on their self-determination of peoples; the Republic of Serbia led by President Slobodan Milošević supported this movement.

On the other hand, Kosovo—an autonomous region in Serbia—was, despite the majority being Albanians, ruled over by Serbs, which were the minority. In 1982, Albanians living in Switzerland established a left-wing party called the “People’s Movement of Kosovo”; Kosovo was influenced by it, and the Albanian independence movement there strengthened. Serbia, which wanted to prevent the independence of Kosovo, designated Kosovo as the destination for the many Serb refugees from the conflicts breaking out in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. As a result, the ethnicity balance in Kosovo tipped greatly in favor of the Serbs.

By the late 1990s—after the conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina had momentarily calmed down due to the Dayton Accords of 1995—the Kosovo Liberation Army, which sought independence from Serbia through military means, became prominent. The Kosovo Liberation Army increased its power, and it started to be reported that they attacked and killed Yugoslavian (Serbian) police and general Serbian citizens, as well as raped Serbian women. Also, according to confidential documents that a German newspaper Berliner Zeitung (dated March 4, 1999) obtained, it is said that the Kosovo Liberation Army raised funds by selling illegal narcotic drugs, such as Afghanistan heroin. In one-fourth of Kosovo, Yugoslavia lost governing power, and the Kosovo Liberation Army had complete control. As a result, the Serbian inhabitants in Kosovo began to escape from that area. Their neighbor Albania had fallen into social and economic chaos; the Kosovo Liberation Army freely came in and out of chaotic Albania, and thus was able to avoid pursuit by the Serbian side, as well as return from Albania with recruited soldiers and weapons obtained on the black market. By 1998, Serbia had no choice but to deal with the Kosovo Liberation Army. Serbia deployed a large-scale guerilla search-and-destroy operation, and the Kosovo Liberation Army leaders were assassinated by the Special Anti-Terrorist Unit of the Serbian police; the military conflict escalated across all of Kosovo. This was the beginning of the Kosovo War.

During this time, non-combatant Albanians were also being attacked, and many Albanians flowed into neighboring Macedonia, Albania, and Montenegro; the Serbian side—like the Bosnian War—again received negative attention for this “inhumane act.” The UN and EU tried to mediate an agreement between Serbia and Kosovo. NATO was pushed by international public opinion to carry out a large-scale aerial bombing of Serbia starting March of 1999. This aerial bombing continued for about three months, and Serbia, unable to take any more pressure from the international society, began to withdraw from Kosovo; by the following year, they had withdrawn all of their federal troops. With this, Kosovo was able to completely escape from the effective control of the Serbian government. In its place, the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) was established, and international forces of NATO (Kosovo Force or KFOR) started to be stationed as the military division. Hereafter, except for certain areas and certain branch offices that were occupied primarily by Serb citizens, the effective control of the Serbian government did not extend to this area.

However, even after the Serbian side withdrew and Kosovo was placed under UNMIK control, it cannot be said that the situation was completely resolved, as there were incidents such as non-Albanians being killed, kidnapped, and trafficked by former members of the Kosovo Liberation Army, as well as incidents of explosive devices being set. Moreover, many Serbian Orthodox Churches were destroyed, and there were many non-Albanians who left Kosovo in fear of persecution.

In 2000, Slobodan Milošević was elected as President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by a direct vote by the citizens, but he resigned due to protests by angered citizens of a rigged election, and he handed over his seat as President to Vojislav Koštunica of the Democratic Opposition of Serbia. Afterwards, Milošević was prosecuted for his crime against humanity as the one in charge of the genocide of Albanian citizens in the Kosovo War, and in May 2001, he was arrested on the charges of the abuse of authority and illegal amassing of wealth. July of that same year, he was transferred to the UN’s International Criminal Tribunal (The Hague in the Netherlands) for former Yugoslavia and there, a trial was conducted regarding his crimes against humanity. Included in his charges was the murder of Ivan Stambolić, the former President of the Presidency of Serbia. The trial dragged on because of Milošević’s declining physical condition, as well as the difficulty in establishing proof for the suspected offense. On the morning of March 11, 2006, Slobodan Milošević was found dead in his cell during his imprisonment. The cause of death was determined to be a heart attack.

日本語→

Movie: Divided We Fall — Musíme si pomáhat (2000)

Posted on by
Reply

“United we stand, divided we fall” means that we can rise if we work together, but we will fail if we are divided. Usually people say “united we stand” as a call for solidarity, but this movie emphasizes the “divided we fall” side, saying we are defeated if we don’t work together. The Japanese translation of the title is totally different from the original. The person who came up with the Japanese title (“What a Wonderful World”) may have had the song “What a Wonderful World”—which opposed the Vietnam War and prayed for a peaceful world—in mind. This song sung by Louis Armstrong was used in the 1987 movie Good Morning, Vietnam as background music for the impressive scene of idyllic rural landscapes in Vietnam during the war.

This movie is a Czech movie, and depicts the suffering of the people living under Nazi control, while indirectly depicting criticism of the occupation by the Soviet Union that followed. The historic background and the theme in this movie are similar to those in Želary, which premiered in 2003 (not released in Japan). Both were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, and the protagonist is forced to do unusual things—having to marry some unknown person in order to protect one’s life under Nazi oppression (Želary) or having another man impregnate one’s wife (Divided We Fall). The undercurrent in both movies is the sentiment of, “Although Germany was terrible, the Soviet Union that came after was worse.”

The Czech Republic faced a similar fate as Poland of being a victim of the conflict between Nazis and the Soviet Union in World War II, but neither initially regarded the Soviet Union as an enemy. Since imperial Russia adopted the strategy to expand their southern front in order to gain access to a sea route, Great Britain, an advanced imperialist nation, was wary of Russia. Also, Russia was in conflict with the Austro-Hungarian Empire for hegemony over the Balkan Peninsula. However, the Czech Republic and Poland may have had the feeling of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” regarding the Soviet Union who was the enemy of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that ruled over them. Russians, Czechs, and Poles are all part of the same ethnic group called Slavs.

There were many ethnic groups and nations in Europe, but in the end it was four counties—Britain, France, Italy, and Germany—that determined the fate of Europe until the end of World War II. These four countries were very wary of the Soviet Union that was created by the communist revolution. Because the Germans have fought with Russia for a long time over the Balkan Peninsula, and there were a great number of Slavs within German territories who often rebelled, Germany and the Soviet Union were naturally archenemies; because of this, England and France expected that Hitler would lead Germany against the Soviet Union, which would not be a bad situation for England and France to be in. However, Hitler was not a fool. On August 23, 1939 he entered a non-aggression treaty with the Soviet Union behind closed doors, and on the morning of September 1, the German army invaded Poland; on September 3, Britain and France declared war on Germany, and World War II began.

This movie is set in a small town under Nazi control and depicts those who cooperate with the Nazis, those who secretly become part of the partisan, and those who shelter Jews. It is a story of ordinary people in a small town where each neighbor is living with their own extraordinary and frightening conditions. It maintains a humorous tone throughout the whole movie, and it helps that there are no violent scenes, but it is still quite a strenuous situation.

Josef and Marie, who are not able to have children, unexpectedly come to shelter a Jew named David. David’s father was Josef’s boss. Josef discovers David escaping from a concentration camp and returning to town; Josef violates the law requiring him to report a Jew, and instead gives David a meal and helps plan his escape, though it fails. Since simply not reporting David’s existence is punishable by death, Josef and Marie decide to shelter David, with the resolution of, “If you eat poison, eat the whole plate.” Their friend Horst, having a German wife, is a Nazi collaborator. Reluctantly, Josef works for Horst and pretends to be a Nazi collaborator in order to avoid suspicion. Horst becomes troublesome by developing illicit feelings for Marie and suspecting Josef and Marie of hiding something, but when Nazis are to search Josef and Marie’s house, Horst uses his status to protect them.

The Nazis lose and the Soviet Army arrives. Josef is to be executed as a traitor by the partisans, but he tries to explain that he did what he did because he was sheltering a Jew. One partisan wants to meet David as proof, but it was actually that partisan who first saw David when he had come back to the town. That partisan had panicked and shouted to the Nazi army, “There’s a Jew!!!” but since the Nazi army did not hear him, David had been able to escape. When this partisan and David meet again, they do not mention this incident and just silently nod at each other. Horst is to be executed as a traitor, but Josef tries to save him by putting his own life in danger.

In this movie, there is a scene of a soldier of the Soviet Army complaining, “I don’t know who the heck to believe.” This was the first time the Soviet Army invaded a neighboring country in Europe. They didn’t know how to handle the situation. There were probably many soldiers that committed barbaric acts. Also, even though they were welcomed on the surface, there were still Nazi collaborators in the town. How could the Soviet Army find these people? Želary also depicts the village at first welcoming the Soviet Army that enters, a young soldier who starts raping women in the village, and the Soviet Army fighting with the villagers due to increasing uncertainty about who to trust. While the British-American army liberated Italy and France without problems on the Western Front, the Soviet Union’s liberation of Nazi territory was quite complicated on the Eastern Front.

Having asked David the Jew to impregnate Marie in order to protect themselves from the Nazis, the movie ends with Josef holding the baby that was safely born. This scene has the feeling of the Annunciation from the Bible. If you think about it, all of the countries that Germany fought in World War II were Christian countries, and Jesus who created Christianity was Jewish. Is the message, “please read the Bible again before starting a war”?

日本語→

Movie: Z (1969)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie was directed by world-renowned director Costa-Gavras (Missing), who fled his home country Greece; produced by well-regarded French star actor Jacques Perrin; and performed by Yves Montand—who took the world by storm as a chanson singer (“Les Feuilles Mortes” or “Autumn Leaves”)—and Jean-Louis Trintignant—who became a top actor in France from his performance in A Man and a Woman. This is the best imaginable team, and this movie Z was nominated for both the Best Picture and Best Foreign Language Film Academy Awards in 1970—an unprecedented achievement—and ended up winning the Best Foreign Language Film Award. Even now, 40 years later, the techniques have no feeling of old-fashionedness at all, and the theme of this movie still has value today.

This is a collaborative piece between France and Algeria, and the filming was done in Algeria’s capital, Algiers. The movie’s true setting is never explicitly stated, but it becomes apparent that the setting is Greece in the 1960s. Director Costa-Gavras was chased from his homeland due to his left-wing ideology. Greek beer frequently appears in the movie. The music played throughout is beautiful Greek music. The explanatory note that appears at the beginning of the movie essentially says, “Any resemblance to real persons or events is deliberate.” This is interesting because it is different than when political movies frequently use the excuse, “This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to real persons or events is entirely coincidental.”

The story begins with an influential left-wing politician being hit in a hit-and-run after giving a speech. The investigating judge who is appointed the prosecution for the case is given the order to treat the hit-and-run accident that injured the politician as simply a drunk driving accident, and he begins his investigation from this angle; the politician dies soon after, so the judge decides to proceed with the investigation more carefully. Through the course of his investigation, he discovers a hidden scheme and receives interference from his superiors. Another key character is a journalist who also uncovers the truth of the incident as a reporter by using various methods. This is the outline of this movie. The reason this movie was a big success and it doesn’t become outdated even today is that, instead of expressing a political agenda, it focuses on the theme of what is the right thing to do as a judge, or as a reporter.

It could be said that this movie was modeled off the Greek politician Grigoris Lambrakis who was assassinated by a right-winger in 1963. Lambrakis was a doctor trained at the School of Medicine of the prestigious University of Athens. Also, as an athlete, Lambrakis was the holder of the record in long jump in Greece from 1936 to 1959, and was a champion at the international Balkan Athletic Games held between friendly neighboring nations—Greece, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey. He participated in the Greek Resistance during World War II, when Greece was occupied by Nazi Germany. He was not a communist, but he participated in anti-war—including anti-Vietnam War—movements as a pacifist. He was very popular among citizens as a politician who was gifted with both intelligence and athleticism, and had a great moral sense.

On May 22, 1963, on the way back from attending an anti-war assembly held in Thessaloniki as a guest speaker, Lambrakis was suddenly struck on his head with a club by a man in a sidecar of a motorcycle that came speeding from behind; five days after this injury, Lambrakis died from cerebral contusion. It became clear that this incident was a crime by the right wing. The reason it became clear it was a crime by the right wing is that Christos Sartzetakis—the investigator who happened to be in charge of this case—with the support of his superior—Attorney General P. Delaportas—publicly announced the truth, and prosecuted everyone involved, despite the pressure from military authorities and right-wing government officials. However, the two were hated by military authorities, and were fired after the military coup d’état occurred in 1967. Moreover, Sartzetakis was imprisoned after the coup d’état. He was tortured by the Greek police, and the criminals he prosecuted were released. Sartzetakis was finally released only because Greek citizens organized a strong movement that opposed his imprisonment.

When the Greek military dictatorship collapsed in 1974, Sartzetakis’s honor was restored, and he was able to later build up a career as a lawyer; he was elected as president of Greece in 1985. While Greece swayed between the right, left, and moderate factions, Sartzetaki belonged to no faction; since he was truly politically neutral, people agreed that he was the very best person to bring Greece out of the chaos.

Sartzetakis prosecuted the right wing for the murder of Lambakis without succumbing to political oppression, and since he was oppressed by military authorities, he is regarded as a hero by left-wing citizens. But to him, it was most important for him to carry out his own professional duties, and the prosecution of Lambakis’s offenders was simply the result of an investigation for the truth; Sartzetakis is not left-wing himself, and it is said that he always made it clear that he never prosecuted for the advantage of the left wing.

日本語→

Movie: Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears — Moskva slezam ne verit (1979)

Posted on by
Reply

The title, “Moscow does not believe in tears,” seems to be a Russian saying meaning, “Even if you cry, nobody will help you.” This movie’s winning of the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 1980 represented the bright hope many countries had for the Soviet Union just before the perestroika (“restructuring”) started in the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Since it is a pretty good movie, and it depicts the lives of Russians realistically, it is understandable that this movie was warmly welcomed by viewers in Russia as well as other countries.

To state a simple summary, this movie is set in Moscow from the late 1950s until the late 1970s, and it depicts the lives of three working-class women from their twenties until their forties, who left the countryside to go to Moscow in search of their dreams, a job, and a husband. Katerina plans to succeed in life by means of education. On the way, she has a child with Rudolf, a cameraman at a television station, but she goes to college without relying on this man who doesn’t acknowledge her, and she succeeds in life as a factory director 20 years later. One of Katerina’s friends, Antonia, builds a steady life with her blue-collar worker husband. Her other friend, Lyudmila, aims to move up by marrying a rich man, and almost succeeds, but in the end, the marriage fails. Katerina meets and wants to develop a serious relationship with blue-collar worker Gosha, but Gosha learns that Katerina makes much more money than he does, and he leaves her. Old friends come together to support saddened Katerina, and work together to solve her issue. People who have worked with Russians often realize that many Russians are empathetic and full of camaraderie. This movie is a story about careers, the independence of women, and the lives of ordinary Soviet citizens, as well as a story of friendship. But the one thing this movie doesn’t have is criticism for the system.

In 2012—thirty years later—Prime Minister Putin was elected in the Russian presidential race with approximately 64% of votes; in his victory speech, Putin shed tears. This was a difficult campaign for him due to the rise of the anti-Putin movement in the middle class, but in the end, he turned out to be strong. Mr. Putin exclaimed in his speech, “We won an open, fair fight.” It seemed that tears were already on his cheek before he stepped onto the stage, but he wasn’t going to wipe them away during his speech. Afterwards, when asked, “What were those tears?” Putin responded, “Wind-stung eyes.”

The next day, anti-government demonstrators held up signs that read, “Moscow doesn’t believe in tears,” and protested the rigged election. For Russians, the existence of this movie is good because it represents optimism. However, what will the future hold for today’s Russia led by Putin? With the various unstable affairs in the current world, I think all people—not just Russians—hope that Russia grows into a strong and healthy democratic nation.

日本語→

Movie: Border Café — Café Transit (2005)

Posted on by
Reply

Reyhan ran a café with her husband in the northern part of Iran near the Turkish national border that served truck drivers crossing the national border. After the death of Reyhan’s husband, her brother-in-law Nasser, in accordance with this area’s custom of the widow marrying her husband’s brother, tells Reyhan to move into his house. Reyhan refuses to move into the addition to Nasser’s house he has prepared for her, and instead decides to reopen the café with her husband’s employee, Oujan. Reyhan’s café becomes popular for its delicious food with the foreign truckers that cross back and forth over the national border, and truckers line up to be served food.

A Greek driver Zakario and Reyhan grow fond of each other, and Reyhan shelters Svieta, a Russian girl whose family was murdered in the Russian Civil War; eventually, Nasser resorts to legal means to close down the café in fear that, by allowing a woman work, his family name will be damaged. In addition, Zakario is hurt by a man sent by Nasser. The movie ends with Reyhan closing her café, and we don’t know what happens to her after that, but she certainly doesn’t live under the same roof as Nasser, and she doesn’t accept Zakario’s love. At the movie’s end, Nasser sadly mutters, “Why does Reyhan hate me? I just want to protect her,” and it is suggested that Reyhan’s fate was never what Nasser wanted.

Every year for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, a governmental organization of each country can recommend only one piece from their country to be considered for nomination. For example, in Japan, the non-profit organization, Motion Picture Producers Association of Japan—under the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry—selects one movie to represent Japan. When considering the political situation of Iran after the Islamic Revolution, I am impressed with the freedom to make movies like this one that bring up social issues in Iran, and moreover, the government endorsed this movie by entering it into the competition for the Best Foreign Language Academy Award.

However, if you look carefully, this movie is not criticizing the government. From the outside, we tend to see all problems as being the fault of that country’s government, but the core of this movie is the struggle of a strong, independent-minded woman fighting against tradition and the difficulty of being economically independent. There may be no reason for a government to ban a movie that brings up such a social issue. Because this particular custom is depicted as being unique to this local area, there is nothing that damages the Iranian government. To put simply, making a movie like this is possible as long as it doesn’t criticize the Iranian government or doesn’t depict information that shouldn’t be revealed. Nasser never treats Reyhan cruelly, and he is simply trying to take care of Reyhan with good intentions, so he doesn’t understand why Reyhan doesn’t accept his good will. Regarding the financing of movies, there seem to be many companies that are willing to invest in the making of movies that depict the current life in Iran, which is a country that is known for its very interesting and sophisticated culture. In fact, this movie is a collaboration between Iran and France.

Another thing that mustn’t be overlooked in this movie is the “refugees issue.” When Reyhan accepts the young woman who is a refugee from Russia, she states that she herself is a refugee. Where did she escape from?

It is said that throughout a long chaotic period—from the invasion of Afghanistan by the former Soviet Union in ’79, to the Gulf War, to the Iraq War—as many as 4,500,000 refugees from neighboring countries to the east and the west flowed into Iran. Many of these were Afghan refugees, but there were also refugees from Iraq. Depending on where they lived, Afghan refugees escaped to either Pakistan or Iran, but most Afghan refugees that settled in Iran had lived east or south of Tehran. Guessing based on the location of this movie, it is most likely that Reyhan is a refugee from Iraq.

It isn’t clearly stated where the Russian woman came from, but it is very likely she is a refugee escaping from the civil war that occurred from 1992 to 1997 after the Republic of Tajikistan gained independence from Russia in 1991. People from Tajikistan speak Russian as well as a language close to Persian. In this movie, Reyhan is not able to converse with Svieta, but the café employee Oujan understands Svieta’s language, and acts as a translator for Reyhan. In the Republic of Tajikistan, the majority is Tajik, but there are also Russians. It is said that most Russians left due to the civil war.

While at this café, drivers are able to communicate with each other without much difficulty, even though they are from various places including Turkey (Turkey maintains fairly good relations with Iran), Hungary (there seem to be many people from Hungary that work away from home in Turkey), and Greece (Greece is Turkey’s neighbor, and their culture is very similar). Watching this movie, I felt the robustness of Iranians (and neighboring ethnicities) who can utilize their communication skills to live in the junction between the east and the west—which is very different than Japan, an island where most people can only speak Japanese.

日本語→

Movie: The Third Man (1949)

Posted on by
Reply

After watching The Third Man—considered to be an immortal work that will remain in film history—a quiet laugh built up inside me, and the thought that remained was, “Ah, I watched the most overrated movie in film history.” Of course, I can imagine this movie being considered to be an absolute masterpiece from the time it was made until about 30 years later. However, I think the reason this movie was considered to be a “masterpiece” is because the techniques and methods used—which were novel for the time this movie came out—surprised the audience, resulting in surprisingly high praises. This movie certainly used novel techniques—such as different filming angles, and extreme contrast between light and dark—that weren’t used at all in the 1940s. But these techniques were exhaustively imitated by younger moviemakers, and these “novel techniques” gradually became “classic,” “mainstream,” and eventually “old-fashioned”; therefore it is no longer interesting to watch a movie like this today. The techniques may have been interesting at that time, but the story is not interesting, and the underlying “concept” of the movie is superficial. I wish to write a little about this point.

The setting is after World War II, when Austria’s capital Vienna was split into four parts, ruled by four different countries—the U.S., Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. American pulp writer Holly Martins, upon being offered a job from his childhood friend Harry Lime, arrives in occupied Vienna. When Martins visits Lime’s residence, he is informed by the doorman that Lime died in a car accident. Martins attends Lime’s funeral service, where he meets Major Calloway of the British army; Martins learns from the Major that Lime traded goods through the black market and was being watched by the police. Also, Martins is attracted to the beautiful actress Anna Schmidt, who was Lime’s lover and at the funeral.

Suspicious-looking men—such as a baron who claims to have been Lime’s friend, a mysterious Romanian businessman, and a shady doctor—appear in front of Martins, who is trying to find out the truth about Lime’s death. Although there should have only been the baron and the Romanian man at the scene of the accident, Martins is told by the doorman there was actually—in addition to Lime’s two friends— an unknown “third man” at the scene of the accident. However, the doorman, who is going to give a critical testimony, is killed, and Martins is suspected as the killer.

In order to say why this movie is old, I will take figure skating as an example. Swedish Ulrich Salchow, who is considered to be a legendary skater in skating history, did the single rotation Salchow jump for the first time in history in 1909. American Theresa Weld was the first female skater to succeed with the single Salchow jump in 1920. Today, since the Salchow jump is a jump that naturally utilizes the body’s momentum, its degree of difficulty is considered to be low for a jump. In fact, American Timothy Goebel was the first male skater to succeed with the quadruple Salchow jump in 1998, while Japanese Miki Ando was the first female skater to succeed with the quadruple Salchow jump in 2002. Today, skaters don’t earn points for doing a single Salchow jump at an international competition. However, this does not diminish Ulrich Salchow’s greatness. The jump that Ulrich Salchow did in 1909 was miraculous in those days, and people who wanted to catch up to and surpass him then polished and improved his jump; thus, figure skating was able to develop.

We could say the same thing about The Third Man. Many moviemakers were clearly inspired by the new filming techniques. However, all concrete things can be imitated by other people. Moviemakers constantly study masterpieces made by their seniors, and they are always on the lookout for anything that they can incorporate. While these images were novel at that time, they have become stale from constantly being copied. So happens with movies. The important thing is to have an abstract “concept”—which cannot be copied perfectly even if you try to copy it—behind the images that can withstand the change in times. The Third Man unfortunately does not have an enduring concept.

The Third Man is supposedly a mystery, but it is obvious who the “third man” is from the beginning. Moreover, after finishing this movie, there are too many plot holes that cannot be explained. Why did Lime summon Martins—a friend he hasn’t seen in 20 years—from America? Why didn’t Major Calloway, who had the authority to investigate, confirm whether the dead body in the coffin was really Lime? Because Anna appears to believe her lover just died—even though she should have looked at his dead body—was she involved in the scheme? Who killed the man in the coffin? Who killed the doorman? The scene where Martins gives a lecture seems to be completely pointless—what possible significance does it carry? We patiently follow this and that development, but at the end, feel forsaken when left with a pile of unexplained things.

This movie uses the city of Vienna as a very attractive backdrop. I think being divided into four parts and controlled by foreign powers is a difficult situation, but because this movie is depicted from the viewpoint of the victorious nation Great Britain, it completely ignores the gloom and frustration of the Viennese citizens; it only depicts taking precautions against the intrusive Soviet Union headquarters. Also, Anna Schmidt, who is supposed to be extremely beautiful, did not impress me with her looks. As mentioned earlier, it remains a mystery whether or not she participated in Lime’s crimes. Because nothing is depicted about her character, I don’t know what kind of person she is.

Originally, it seems that the set up was that Martins and Lime are both Brits, and that in the last scene, similarly British Major Calloway watches as Martins and Anna walk away down a boulevard together, lightly arm-in-arm. However, in the process of production, Martins and Lime were changed to American, and Martins was changed into a slightly clueless American who can’t read the situation, and is rejected by Anna at the end of the movie. This ending scene is known to be “an amazing scene that will remain in movie history,” but since I can’t understand what kind of person Anna Schmidt is, I was not deeply moved. The movie depicts only Martins’s one-sided affections and not Anna having mutual feelings. Also, her switching to a new man just after her own man died would have come off as shameless; plus, if she did have a hand in the crime, it would be unsavory for her to clutch a new man’s hand with her bloodstained one. Therefore, the last scene of the two not getting together is a natural conclusion. This scene does not seem like one particularly worth mentioning. Is it really so painful that these two don’t end up together?

The theme song played with the zither—an Austrian musical instrument—was a huge hit, and it came to be considered, “a wonderful theme song that will remain in movie history,” but this song is a very cheery and optimistic song. Given the historical context of the suffering and gloomy society that is occupied by foreign countries, and since, in addition to the four people who are killed in this movie, countless babies died due to Lime’s crimes, you would think this movie would be a dark movie; but in fact, this movie, which is depicted from the viewpoint of an occupying nation, is a cool, light romance between a cool man and beautiful woman. The lightness of the theme song matches the lightness of the movie. The most important thing to the movie is how cool Martins and Lime look. In short, this is a not very convincing love story between two dandies and a beautiful woman.

To say it briefly, this movie made me tell myself, “This movie has historical value as being an important work that greatly influenced the next generation of moviemakers. But I would not join those who lightly called this an immortal masterpiece.”

日本語→

Movie: Le goût des autres – The Taste of Others (1999)

Posted on by
Reply

In some respects, this movie resembles The Women on the 6th Floor, but neither a particularly handsome man nor a beautiful woman appears and the story is more subdued, so the movie could be overlooked. In The Women on the 6th Floor, the barrier to love is easy to understand—a difference in race and social hierarchy—but in this movie, the barrier to love is the difference in individual education within the stable middle class, or the difference in the way of enjoying life and in preferences. However, I recommend this movie from the bottom of my heart to mature adults who are quietly but greatly enjoying life.

Also, if you are fed up with the exaggerated way of expression seen in Hollywood movies—where people hit each other when they are angry or throw something when frustrated—I strongly recommend that you watch this movie. All of the characters that appear in this movie are good people in their own way. Using humor and ordinary happy and sad moments, this movie depicts the simple fact that, in order to find the person who both gives you happiness and you can make happy, it is essential to find someone who—beyond having a nice personality—aligns with your personal tastes. This philosophy of love and the good sense of humor is very French. No explanation is needed for someone who likes French movies.

Castella is the owner of a medium-sized business. He has money, but his appearance could be teased by young kids—pipsqueak, chubby, balding—and he has no education or hobbies outside of his business operation. Because he is to conduct business with an Iranian company and his business contract requires that he be protected by a bodyguard, he hires Franck, a former police officer. In order to converse with Iranians, he needs to learn English, and his contract demands that Castella take private English lessons, but he is not interested in the English lessons, and he quickly sends his English teacher Clara away.

Since his niece is an aspiring actress, he goes along with his wife to the theatre, out of an obligation to see his niece appear in a play, but Castella, who had no interest in theatre, is unexpectedly impressed by the play, and he notices that the actress who impressed him is none other than his English teacher. And so, he falls in love. And thus his passionate (so he thinks, though from the outside it looks humorous) pursuit of her begins. This movie depicts how the characters, including Castella and Clara, are attracted to the opposite sex (and to life).

Castella’s wife is an interior decorator, and she excessively decorates their home with girlish tastes, which Castella was fine with since he thought he didn’t have any aesthetic sense. However, by hanging around Clara and her friend group of artists, Castella discovers he has his own preferences. Because of this, he begins to notice that his wife has disregarded his feelings, believes that only her thoughts and preferences are right, is only concerned for her pet, and is only interested in superficial things, so his heart begins to grow distant from his wife. Castella, with his own preferences awakened, becomes gradually uncomfortable in his house littered with floral patterns.

Castella has an inferiority complex due to the oppressive attitude of the elite business consultant he works with who graduated from a top-notch university, and Castella hates him because Castella thinks the consultant is looking down on him. However, the consultant is exhausted from working with Castella, and he gives Castella his resignation letter with a look of relief; Castella then realizes that the consultant had taken a firm attitude in order to enthusiastically carry out his professional duties, and that the consultant was very important for Castella’s business, so Castella humbly requests the consultant not to resign.

Castella’s bodyguard Franck is at first glance a cool, nihilistic bad boy, and Castella’s driver Bruno is a virtuous softie, but the two become friends through their work. Bruno goes to buy tobacco at the bar where Clara and her artsy friends hang out, and thus gets to know the bartender Manie. Manie is a kind woman, and she is at first attracted to Bruno’s kind side and dates him, but from the moment that she meets Franck through Bruno, the two immediately fall in love because Franck’s nihilism and dark side and the darkness in Manie’s heart attract each other like lightning.

Franck at first glance seems nihilistic, but a sense of justice that he thought he had thrown away remains in his heart. He tries to get Manie to stop making a living off of dealing narcotic drugs, but Manie is not pleased with this. One day, he sees on the news that his former partner finally successfully arrested a big-shot who had committed crimes without punishment from the law. Franck and his partner had chased this big-shot, who had always managed to escape successfully. Franck grew jaded by the inability of the police to bring this man to justice, and so resigned as a policeman, but his partner never gave up on the investigation. This news causes Franck to reconsider his relationship with Manie.

Clara is at first annoyed by the presence of Castella, who follows her around and lacks education. On the other hand, Clara begins to be annoyed by her artsy associates, who look down on Castella’s lack of education and keep making fun of him, but accept his money as their patron. Clara gradually begins to realize that Castella has an appreciation of art, and with this discerning eye, he values her as an actress, as a person, and as a woman, so her heart begins to open to him.

Bruno is rejected by both his former girlfriend and Manie because he is too nice. He joins the town’s amateur orchestra in order to play the flute that he loves. The movie ends with a kind-looking, potentially good-fitting girl gazing at Bruno with admiring eyes. This way of ending gives the audience a very optimistic feeling.

In short, this movie depicts the mysterious process of being attracted to something. The feeling may one day come along suddenly like lightning, or it may come along slowly from an unexpected place. Although one person is made up of various characteristics and values, this movie wonderfully expresses the simple truth that, in the end, a person bases any choice—including the person they love or life opportunities they pursue—on their truly important preferences and values.

日本語→

Movie: High Noon (1952)

Posted on by
Reply

With the incredible lineup of being produced by Stanley Kramer—the director of Judgment at Nuremberg; being directed by Fred Zinnemann—who directed The Day of the Jackal; and starring Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly, High Noon may not fit in a strict sense within the genres of a Western or a shoot-out. The sheriff who appears here is not an invincible hero, but rather a middle-aged man trying—with his marriage as a turning point—to wash his hands of the life of earning money with a gun. The reason why he is drawn into a shoot-out is that, just when the wedding ceremony is held and he plans to depart to a town to the east, he receives news that a criminal who he had arrested in his former days was released, and this criminal wants to “settle the score” with the men who sent him to prison—the sheriff, the town’s courtroom judge, and probably others; he and his gang will be arriving at the town’s station at noon to kill.

Of course, the sheriff could have just continued leaving for the east, but he chooses to come back to town to face the criminal and his three companions in a showdown. His wife, whose father and older brother were killed, had converted to being a Quaker who absolutely rejects violence, and she tells her husband that she will leave for the east by herself if he chooses to fight. Since the sheriff’s replacement hasn’t arrive at the town yet, the sheriff asks the townspeople to fight with him, but the vice-sheriff, a former sheriff, the town mayor, and the townspeople all hesitate and don’t support him. The judge flees, saying, “I can probably find work somewhere else.” Although the sheriff kept the town peaceful, and people praised him as being the “best sheriff,” now the townspeople complain, “A certain degree of crime should be allowed in order to bring money into town. The sheriff completely wiped out crime.” Faced with this criticism, including, “Why did the sheriff come back to town? He should’ve just kept going east,” the sheriff is left to face the four alone in a showdown; he writes his will as he waits for the gang to arrive on the noon train, and for his lonely fight to begin.

This movie is 85 minutes long, while the movie was made to start around 10:40 a.m.; in other words, the story progresses in real-time. The shoot-out scene is just in the last five minutes, and it is not flashy. Most of the movie is the sheriff talking with the townspeople. The sheriff is played by middle-aged Gary Cooper, who was past his peak as an actor, and it is quite sad watching the long shot of his figure walking weakly alone down an empty street.

This movie was made in 1952, which was in the height of the Red Scare in the United States. Senator Joseph McCarthy of the right-wing Republican Party played a central role in the Red Scare—which was the political activity to remove people thought to be communists or communist party sympathizers—and examples of politicians who cooperated with McCarthy include Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Hollywood, which was considered to have many people with left-wing ideology, became one of the targets. Carl Foreman, who wrote the screenplay for the High Noon, was also thought to be communist, and was interrogated by the House Un-American Activities Committee. He acknowledged that he had joined the Communist Party briefly before the war, but asserted that he no longer had any connection to it. His biggest fear in the interrogation was that he’d be forced to betray Communist Party sympathizers. Carl Foreman, who refused to be an informant, felt he was in danger and fled to Great Britain. Charlie Chaplin, another cineaste, was expelled from the U.S., also due to the Red Scare prosecution.

Carl Foreman later started working for renowned British director David Lean, and won Best Adapted Screenplay at the 30th Academy Awards for The Bridge on the River Kwai directed by David Lean; however, Foreman’s name was not officially recognized due to the Red Scare at the time, and David Lean received the Best Adapted Screenplay award. Carl Foreman’s name was acknowledged and given credit for the first time after he died, and he was finally awarded the Oscar posthumously.

A similar thing happened to Dalton Trumbo, the screenwriter of Roman Holiday. Because Dalton Trumbo was expelled due to the Red Scare, he borrowed the name of his friend Ian McLellan Hunter for the job, and he wrote the screenplay for Roman Holiday under the name Hunter. This movie was a big success, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences—unaware of the circumstances—awarded Hunter the Academy Award for Best Story. It was not until the 1990s that the Academy decided to correct their errors during the Cold War due to things such as the Red Scare. Dalton Trumbo was one of the people who had his honor restored. Trumbo had already died in 1976, but the Academy decided to give Trumbo an Academy Award in 1993. However, since Hunter’s son refused to hand over the Oscar that was given to his father Hunter, the Oscar that Trumbo’s widow received was a different one made at a separate occasion. Many terrible things happened during the Cold War, but things were finally reevaluated when the Democratic Party, after 12 years, at last took control of the administration with President Clinton. It may be said that America was a very different nation before and after Clinton. Times had changed.

The Red Scare created lots of fear in Hollywood, and within this, there were many people who agreed to a plea bargain to inform on others for the security of their own work. We now know that Elia Kazan, Gary Cooper, and Walt Disney were examples of these people.

Even though High Noon is split between positive and negative opinions (“It is a Western with profound criticism that includes insights on human psychology,” versus “This is a movie made by cowardly traitors who do not believe in the righteousness of Americans.”), it was the front-runner for the Academy Award for Best Picture; however, it ended up losing to The Greatest Show on Earth. It is said that the Academy members hesitated to vote for director Fred Zinnemann and screenwriter Carl Foreman—both known to be liberal—at the height of the Red Scare. The movie has a gloomy feeling of the era of the Red Scare, but it would be an overstatement to say that the movie was a criticism of McCarthyism. It was not until the late 1950s that the fear of communism started to fade, and the 1970s that people were able to express their rejection of the Red Scare through art; however, victims had to wait until the 1990s to have their honor publicly restored.

日本語→

Person: President Juan Perón (1895-1974)

Posted on by
Reply

It is easy to be confused about who was the wife of Juan Perón, who was elected as the President of Argentina in 1946. The reason is that there were actually two women who were known as Perón’s wife.

The first time he was elected as president, Perón fought the electoral campaign alongside Eva, a former actress, and he married her after being elected. Eva is depicted as the female protagonist in the Broadway musical Evita, and was deeply loved by the people of Argentina. Eva had the ambition to become Perón’s vice president, but in the end due to cancer, she died in 1952 at the young age of 33 without fulfilling her ambition. Argentina, having stayed neutral in World War II, accumulated wealth from selling food to both sides, and Perón distributed this wealth to the labor unions that supported him, gaining overwhelming support from the working class; however, after the war, once America and Canada recovered and entered the food export market, Argentina’s trading suddenly stagnated. After the death of charismatic and popular Eva, Perón faced increasing criticism, and with the naval coup d’état of 1955, Perón was forced to flee the country. The country he took refuge in was Spain, which was under the dictatorship of Generalísimo Franco. The musical Evita was made into a movie, and the singer Madonna performed as Eva.

While Perón was in exile in Spain, he married again to a nightclub singer, Isabel. Even after Perón’s exile, Perón supporters remained strongly influential in the politics of Argentina, and in the midst of a violent opposition between the left and right wings, Perón was invited back to Argentina as the only possible politician who could resolve this opposition; after returning to his home country, he was elected as president for the second time. Perón appointed his wife Isabel as his Vice President, but one year later, he suddenly died in 1974. After Perón’s death, Isabel was promoted to President, but the country was incredibly unstable, and Isabel relentlessly imprisoned and killed antigovernment groups and human rights activists. Due to a coup d’état led by an army officer—Jorge Rafael Videla—in 1976, Isabel was overthrown, and she took refuge in Spain. President Videla also kidnapped, tortured, and killed political opponents, human rights activists, and others. These times are called the “Dirty War.” An excellent Argentinean movie that indirectly depicts this period is The Secret in Their Eyes.

Máxima Zorreguieta—the daughter of Jorge Zorreguieta, who was a cabinet member of the Videla administration—fell in love with the Netherlands’ crown prince, Willem-Alexander; the Dutch were very opposed to their prince marrying the daughter of a government official involved in a massacre, but since Maxima’s father Zorreguieta was proved to have had no direct involvement in the massacre, Máxima and Willem-Alexander were able to officially get engaged in 2001, and they married the next year in 2002. Argentina and Europe, which appear to be distant, are actually quite connected.

日本語→

Movie: Pelle the Conqueror — Pelle Erobreren (1987)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie is not the story of Pelé, the renowned former Brazilian soccer player. Martin Andersen Nexø, a communist and proletarian author from Denmark, wrote the original Pelle Eroberen (Pelle the Conqueror), which was published in four parts between 1906 and 1910, and these books were adapted into a movie in 1987.

The boy Pelle and his father leave their homeland Sweden, and immigrate to Bornholm—a Danish island just a stone’s throw away from Sweden; they find work on a big farm taking care of cows while living in the farm’s barn along with the cows. Life there is incredibly harsh; the movie is filled with a persistent feeling of hopelessness from the beginning to the end, and the characters face failures one after another, as soon as any form of hope begins to sprout. Then at the very end, the movie finishes with Pelle leaving behind his father—who had given up hope for life—as he sets forth into a new world alone and at last breaks free from the farm. The movie continuously shows images of cold wind and the frozen ocean for two and a half hours, so I think many people may have a chilly feeling after they finish watching this movie. This movie makes me wonder how this boy—who doesn’t have any money in this foreign country, has no family or friends, and, if things don’t go well, could freeze overnight in this cold country—could survive. The title of Pelle “the Conqueror” seems ironic.

In my head, I thought, “Because it has a serious theme, it will be a good movie,”; the thrilling development and beautiful cinematography compelled me through two and a half hours, and I was made to think, “Since it won several awards such as the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film and the highest prize at Cannes, surely it’ll be a masterpiece.” But if someone were to look me straight in the eye and ask, “Did you really like this movie? Were you truly emotionally moved by it?” my answer about this movie would be, “Truthfully, I didn’t like this movie that much.”

Briefly what is wrong is the stereotypical and inconsistent way of depicting the characters. Regarding the stereotypes, you can compare this movie to Heneke’s The White Ribbon, which depicts the life of farmers during the same period. In Pelle the Conqueror, everything bad that happens to the farmers is due to the mid-level manager in charge of the farm. This manager gives his employees barely enough to eat, and he mentally and physically abuses his employees. This farm manager is like the devil, and the farm owner just gallivants around. Anyhow, the ruling class is depicted uniformly ugly and cruel. By contrast, when you watch The White Ribbon, the landowner isn’t exactly considerate towards the tenant farmers, but he makes every effort to improve the productivity of his farm, and is sure to keep his tenant farmers healthy and productive. Although the tenant farmers feel bitter about the difference in social status, they know it is the landowner who gave them their jobs and feeds their family, so they can respect the owner even if they don’t like him; in addition, the workers’ futures are insecure if their landlord were to disappear. So to speak, they have a symbiotic relationship. Also, The White Ribbon doesn’t depict the tenant farmers as being pure and innocent. Pelle the Conqueror claims that all of the ruling class is evil while the laborers are always the victim, and everything depicted in this movie is based on the theory of class struggle—inheriting the belief of the author Martin Anderson Nexø, who never doubted Marxism and communism until he died.

In terms of the inconsistent way of depicting the characters, the protagonist Pelle is a diligent, good boy, and he is liked well enough by the adults on the farm, but Pelle tells a boy who is poorer than him, “I’ll give you money if you let me whip you,” and then Pelle severely whips the boy until Pelle is bored and not interested in whipping anymore; there may be viewers who are sickened by watching this. The poorer child doesn’t have much going for him, but he is kind and, in one way, has skills to survive, as seen by how he teaches Pelle how to take care of the cows. At some point, this boy changes to being depicted as mentally retarded. Also, the bullying between the children is horrific. I have watched a fair number of Northern European movies, and surprisingly many of them include scenes of children bullying each other. Of course, bullying among children may exist in any time or place. However, why is it necessary to push bullying up to the front when making a movie like this? In addition, this movie shows the filthiness of the living conditions of the farm workers for two and a half hours, and this further depresses the viewers. Pelle and his father excrete their feces in the cow barn, and then sleep in a nearby stall at night. They don’t change their clothes much except into their one good suit for church, and always wear the same clothes that they don’t wash. I’m surprised they don’t also suffer from an epidemic or infectious disease. I wonder if they are particularly abused because they are immigrants.

Pelle is favored by the farmer’s wife and is selected for the position of being trained as the manager. The audience feels relieved that Pelle and his father can at last be happy, but Pelle, after hearing his father’s words—“You are finally given easy work here. You work with just words, and only have to say what to do. We are blessed,”—decides to not accept the position and runs away from the farm. In other words, the message that seems to be implied is, “By not joining and instead deciding to fight the ugly, exploiting ruling class, Pelle is the true meaning of a conqueror and a winner.” There is no message to improve your life, step-by-step, by completing your job diligently, even though it is hard. Even if the misery depicted was the reality of those times, what is the value in modern times of making this movie that is about class struggle? By 1987, Denmark and Sweden had already achieved a model welfare nation.

Perhaps the meaning of the word “conqueror” comes from the words that Erik, a coworker at the farm who loved Pelle, always said: “First, immigrate to America; then conquer the world.” Following the Industrial Revolution that happened from the 18th century until the 19th century, a series of advancements in agricultural technology occurred across Western Europe, the monetary economy spread, and big changes were happening in the European social structure. Most farmers that were operating independently to support themselves fell from being an independent farmer to being a low-wage worker. The difference between the rich and the poor became more and more severe, and Irishmen, Germans, Scandinavians, and Italians steadily immigrated to the new land of America. The reason for immigration may have differed slightly—people from France and Germany immigrated because of political persecution, while Russian Jews immigrated because of religious persecution—but all people immigrated to a new land in search for possibilities that were not available in constrictive Europe.

Perhaps life for Pelle after leaping from the island could be similar to Titanic’s Jack Dawson (played by Leonardo DiCaprio), who is similarly a fictional character of around the same age living during the same time. Jack Dawson was around 20 years old in 1912, dreamed of flourishing in America, and embarked on the Titanic. He wins a poker game of tough bidding against two Swedes who dreamed of immigrating to America, and gets a free boarding pass ticket for the Titanic.

日本語→