Monthly Archives: June 2014

Movie: Sarah’s Key (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

There are two themes in Sarah’s Key. The first is the sense of duty to tell of the Jewish manhunt that happened in France; the other is the relevance of the past to the present. Therefore, the movie goes back and forth between 1942 and present day and comes together at the end.

Sarah is a ten year old girl who lives in Paris during Nazi-Germany occupation. One day, the French police come to arrest her family because they are Jewish, but Sarah quickly thinks to hide her younger brother Michel in the closet; she locks him in and instructs him, “Never come out, I’ll come back soon,” as she is taken away with her parents. They are forcibly transported to Vélodrome d’Hiver (an indoor bicycle race track) where the imprisoned Jews are in intense heat and cannot go to the bathroom. From there, they are sent to a temporary internment camp and finally to Auschwitz. Sarah escapes from the internment camp to return to Paris with the key to let her little brother out of the closet.

Julia is a skilled American journalist who lives in Paris with her French husband. She is assigned an article to cover the Vélodrome d’Hiver massive arrests in 1942 (abbreviated by many as the Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup), but during her investigation, she discovers that Jews were hidden in the condo owned by her husband’s family. She learns that the parents who lived in that condo died in Auschwitz, but their children Sarah and Michel didn’t, so her investigation turns to focusing on what became of them. However, in doing so, she causes pain to her husband’s family. Her husband’s grandfather had obtained Sarah’s vacant condo at a very low price, and, since nobody came back alive, her husband’s family has lived there in peace, unaware of its history.

The fact that French people forcibly moved Jews and sent them to Auschwitz was not publicized for a long time. However, Chirac was elected as president in 1995 and he, immediately after his presidential inauguration, recognized for the first time that the country had made a mistake with the participation of the French police in the Vel d’Hiv Roundup and Jewish persecution during World War II. But until President Chirac’s public recognition, most citizens were not aware of the incident.

During World War II, under the Vichy administration, a committee was formed to review the procedure of becoming a citizen and those who had become a citizen between 1927 and July 1940 were investigated; as a result, a law that invalidated the French citizenship of 15,000 Jews in France was proposed. The law was passed which allowed the revoking of citizenship and continued downgrading of the social class of Jews in France. Consequently, there was no governmental responsibility for French Jews and Vichy France was able to send Jews to concentration camps and Holocaust internment camps legally. After that, similar laws were passed in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia, French colonies at the time.

The attitude of, “It’s all because of the terrible Nazis. France was occupied, and so was not responsible!” isn’t true because there is evidence that Vichy France adopted these laws without being forced to by Nazi Germany.

In fact, I wonder if it is that nobody wants to talk about France’s dark past where, only 70 years ago, the country was divided into two opposing parts. Therefore, I think people want to believe that Vichy France that cooperated with the Nazis that occupied the northern half of France was not true France, and may say that they have no responsibility for what Vichy France did regarding France’s cooperation with the Nazi’s Jew hunt. Charles de Gaulle (President from 1959 to 1969), who had taken refuge from Vichy France in Britain and adamantly resisted Germany, was unable to apologize for the actions of Vichy France, his own enemy.

Both President Pompidou (1969 to 1974) and President Mitterrand (1981 to 1995) who took over after de Gaulle were fighters in the resistance and so seemed to believe they did not need to apologize for the past actions of Vichy France. In the end, President Chirac of the conservative party (president from 1995 to 2007) was the first to recognize France’s responsibility with his apology that France should’ve protected their people from their enemy.
Also of the conservative party, Jewish President Sarkozy (2007 to 2012) was against the anti-Semitism, but did not acknowledge the crime by the French government. However, left-wing Hollande defeated Sarkozy in the presidential elections and was the first left-wing president to recognize the national crime of the Vel d’Hiv Roundup.

This movie depicts the question of how a Jew overcomes oppression and lives afterwards. The life of a liberated Jew is not over even if a movie ends when the Allies win and end the war. It is a sad journey to follow what happened to Sarah afterwards. The spirit of Sarah who survived only with the motivation to rescue her younger brother is suddenly broken. There are many warm and gentle-hearted people around Sarah, but that love was not able to save Sarah. In this sense, this is a sad movie without salvation, but I think the audience can have hope at the end of this movie. Julia’s journey causes pain to her husband’s family who do not want to know about the past and Sarah’s family, but in the end the family accepts and appreciates knowing the painful past. Furthermore, Julia’s journey went beyond an investigation of another person’s life when it provided an opportunity for her to think about her own life.

日本語→

Movie: Evita (1996)

Posted on by
Reply

Because this movie that premiered in 1996 was nominated for several Academy Awards (won Best Original Song) and Madonna who played Eva Peron (Evita) won the Golden Globe for Best Actress, it got some recognition, but no one has ever recommended this movie to me in the 16 years it has been out. I watched this movie without any expectations, and was really pleasantly surprised. It is a wonderful movie. It may be too obvious, but what was most wonderful was Madonna’s skill as a singer. However, interestingly, Madonna tried very hard to market herself for the role of the protagonist Eva, but the movie company was uninterested, and the producer continued searching for another actress. In the end, no other actress was available, and it is said they reluctantly settled on Madonna for the role of Eva. However, I believe no other actress could have done as magnificent of a performance of Eva as Madonna did. I will state the reasons.

First of all, since it is a musical, the woman playing Eva must be a singer who can act, or an actress who can sing. The three components of entertainment are singing, dancing, and acting; but in the politics of American show business, singing and acting have absolute authority, and dancing is politically weak. Therefore, Natalie Portman who made use of a stunt ballerina was given an Academy Award, while Audrey Hepburn who had a voice dubbed over her for the songs in My Fair Lady was not even a candidate for an Academy Award. Conversely, Reese Witherspoon (Walk the Line) and Sissy Spacek (as Loretta in Coal Miner’s Daughter) sang in their roles and easily won the Academy Award. This shows that one’s ability as a singer is respected in Hollywood and Broadway.

Second, since this movie depicts Eva when she was in her 20s, a woman in her 20s or possibly early 30s is preferable in order to be able to do camera close-ups, and for it to seem realistic. Because stage actress Patti LuPone—who was the performer of Eva in Evita on Broadway at that time—was 47 when this movie was being made, it is said that she was offered the role of, not Eva, but rather Eva’s elderly mother!!! It goes without saying that Patti declined the offer.

Third, to play Eva, the actress had to be incredibly beautiful, elegant, ambitious, and have a tough and intense presence that didn’t shrink when she stepped onto the outdoor balcony from where she addressed a large crowd. This might be a little too difficult for an actress in her 20s.

This is the list of actresses that the director and producer seriously negotiated with:

Meryl Streep. She was in her mid-40s when this movie was being made.
Liza Minnelli. Three years older than Meryl Streep.
Barbara Streisand. Four years older than Liza Minnelli.
Cher. The same age as Liza Minnelli.
Glenn Close. Two years older than Meryl Streep.
Olivia Newton-John. One year older than Meryl Streep.
Michelle Pfeiffer. The same age as Madonna. They were both in their mid-30s at the time of filming.

Therefore, Madonna and Michelle Pfeiffer were the only ones that satisfied the second criteria; the decision was between the singer Madonna, who could act reasonably well but had charisma, and the lovely Michelle, who was decent at singing but had a reputation as a skilled actor. It was the difference in motivations between the two that became the decisive factor. At that time, Michelle Pfeiffer was starting to enjoy the life of being married and raising kids, and she didn’t want to go to the set in Argentina, even though the staff had gone through great efforts to get the rights to shoot in the official residence where Eva had lived. Even in her personal life, Michelle Pfeiffer exudes a feeling of contentment with her blessed life that has everything she needs. After all, no actress would be better than go-getter Madonna to play as the ambitious Eva. Her singing is wonderful, but also her dancing splendidly captures the essence of tango.

Also, the singing and dancing of Antonio Banderas, in the role of the narrator who looks like Che Guevara, is wonderful. He sings and dances naturally without being arrogant about his skill.

日本語→

Movie: A Farewell to Arms (1957)

Posted on by
Reply

Hollywood made two movie adaptations of Hemingway’s novel published in 1929, which was based on his younger days in Italy as a Red Cross volunteer in World War I in 1917. The first was made in 1932 and starred Gary Cooper; the flashy remake was made in 1957 after the war, during a prosperous time for Hollywood, and Rock Hudson performed the lead role.

Italy formed an alliance with Germany in World War II, but they were a member of the Allies in World War I –along with France, Great Britain, Russia, and the U.S.—and fought against Austria, Germany, and Turkey of the Central Powers. The protagonist Henry, a projection of Hemingway, is a soldier of the U.S. forces who serves as an ambulance driver to transport injured Italian soldiers from the battlefield to the hospital. The German and Austrian armies were dominant militarily, and Italy always felt threatened by the Central Powers’ forces because, while Italy concentrated on establishing a democracy, Germany focused on expanding their military; Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms favorably depicts Italians, who proudly hold onto and protect their republic and democracy. However, over time, Italy kept moving toward fascism, allying with Germany before World War II. Hemingway, who constantly watched Italy, may have later wondered, “Where has Italy gone?” Although Mussolini was extremely popular after World War I, it is said that Hemingway was wary of Mussolini. In this story, the Italian military police suddenly interrogate fellow Italians suspected of being spies, who are one after another shot to death without being allowed a hearing. The protagonist barely escapes alive and becomes a deserter; the interrogation scene symbolizes Italy’s path to World War II.

Let’s return to talking about the 1957 movie remake. Rock Hudson somewhat resembles London Olympics gold medal swimmer Ryan Lochte, and he has a “pretty face,” but is unable to capture Hemingway’s intellect or ruggedness. Jennifer Jones—performing as the nurse who cares for and falls in love with the protagonist when he is injured—looks as if you added the duller halves of Elizabeth Taylor and Audrey Hepburn together; she doesn’t have the alluring eye power of Elizabeth Taylor, and she also doesn’t have the sweet innocence of Audrey Hepburn. Jennifer Jones, if I say it nicely, is too sexy, but if I say it bluntly, doesn’t seem to possess the purity needed for this character. Also, the two people are supposed to be “madly in love” in the movie, but there is no spark at all between them on-screen, so the love between the two during this dangerous wartime does not emotionally move me at all.

In the hospital ward that should be packed full of sick and wounded soldiers, the protagonist is always laying there alone in a big, empty room, which makes me wonder, “What happened to the other sick and wounded soldiers?” The nurse who should be busy helping many patients instead spends all day running around an Italian town searching high and low for American food that the protagonist likes. In the protagonist’s private (so it seems!!) hospital room that nobody disturbs, the two are preoccupied with their love affair, as if the world just exists for the two of them; then the head nurse who notices this orders, “If you are so healthy, return to the battlefield!!!” Although, the head nurse is supposed to be a super-villain who obstructs the two lovers, the two lovers are so self-centered that the head nurse seems like a decent person. This movie ends with the feeling that it doesn’t really matter how the war turns out, since the world conveniently revolves around them.

It is said that Hemingway was disappointed with how each time Hollywood adapted one of his stories into a movie, the political themes in his novels got watered down and they became simple love stories; this movie makes me think that his anger was completely reasonable. The audience of Hollywood movies is not stupid. This glamorous remake had an astonishingly high budget and was filmed on the actual site, but it is said that it was a failure in the box office, and it received very low ratings compared to the 1932 movie, which was nominated in many Academy Award categories. It is said that Jennifer Jones—a big actress in those days—asked her lover, director Charles Vidor, “Can I please star in another A Farewell to Arms?” I don’t know whether or not Hemingway watched this movie, or what he thought if he did watch it, but this movie makes me feel sorry for him.

日本語→

Movie: Three Monkeys — Üç Maymun (2008)

Posted on by
Reply

There may not be many people who, although they know Turkey as a name of a nation, have met someone in person from the country. I have fortunately been able to make some Turkish friends. Because of them, I think I was able to gain my own image about the country of Turkey.

Turkish people have a very favorable opinion of Japanese people. Even a young child who has never actually met a Japanese person is taught by their parents, the media, and the society in general that the Japanese are respectable people. Most Westerners can’t tell Japanese and Chinese people apart, but a Turkish person who has really met a Japanese person says they can immediately tell the difference between Japanese and Chinese people. Japanese people tend to think that Turkish people are Islamic and Arabic in culture, but the country their culture is closest to is actually Greece. I have heard my Turkish friends complain that, “Europeans and Americans respect Greeks as the founders of ancient civilization, but look down on us as savage Muslims.” Most people are Muslim, but Islam does not hold a major role in the lives of the majority of the people in Turkey. Instead, they fear and oppose having the small number of fanatic Muslims gaining power and controlling the government.

Because Turkey shares its border with countries such as Iran, Iraq, and Syria, it wisely tries to maintain a friendly attitude in order to not provoke these countries. However, I think the true desire of the Turkish people is to establish strong relations with Europe and America, and live with Western standards. Turkey and Iran are two of the few countries within the Islam sphere that don’t have Arabic as their first language.

Turkey already economically and politically participates actively as a member of Europe and is classified as part of Europe by the Copenhagen Standard. Turkey government officially thinks of Turkey as a European country, belonging to Europe’s football organization and Olympics committee. Also, Turkey participates in European organizations such as NATO, Council of Europe, Western European Union, South-East European Cooperation Process, Southeast European Cooperative Initiative, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe; it signed the Declaration of Helsinki and has applied for membership in the European Union (EU). A few years ago, my Turkish friend told me about Turkey’s EU application and that there was very strong wariness about Turkey as an Islamic country among Europeans; he complained about the differential treatment by the EU towards Turkey versus other Eastern European nations that were easily admitted to the EU. Istanbul, along with Tokyo, is one of the finalists being considered to host the 2020 Olympics. This is a great opportunity to show that Turkey is a beautiful and respectable country, but it is unfortunate that the unrest in Turkey’s neighbor Syria may negatively affect the selection. Currently, Turkey who does not accept Syria’s behavior is having a skirmish with Syria at the border between Turkey and Syria. Turkey would have wanted to avoid this.

Nuri Bilge Ceylan who made Three Monkeys represents Turkey as a director and his past works have won awards at the Berlin International Film Festival award and Cannes International Film Festival Grand Prix. In particular, he became an international superstar when he won the Cannes Film Festival Best Director Award for Three Monkeys, but, unfortunately, none of his works have been released in Japan. In addition, even though he is a director in his mid-fifties, he is quite handsome and I think he would become popular with Japanese people if he were to be invited to Japan.

In Three Monkeys, politician Servet, driving home while tired from running his election campaign, accidentally hits a pedestrian and keeps driving. Afraid of a scandal, Servet convinces his driver Eyüp to take the blame for his hit-and-run crime in exchange for a monetary reward, so Eyüp is sent to prison. While Eyüp is in prison, his wife Hacer and Servet develop an intimate relationship. Eyüp’s son notices this love affair and the rough storyline of Three Monkeys is the lives of Hacer and Servet turning towards disaster as their relationship becomes serious.

What I thought was interesting when watching this movie is that it is very passive and subdued. There is no animalistic, aggressive violence commonly seen in Western movies. Even though this movie depicts a family crisis, the characters do not raise their voices, nor do they use violence. Everyone looks sad because they suppress their feelings and don’t express themselves. Also, everyone is unhappy in their own way; their foolish decisions pile up and no one seeks a constructive solution. I am urged to call out to them, “Sad? But you cannot blame anyone but you.” The music of an incoming call on the cell phone also sounds sad. It somehow resembles a Japanese enka ballad. Enka music is said to originate from Korea, but I wonder if its ancient origin might possibly be traced back to Turkey. At any rate, a subdued and sad tone is in the air throughout the movie. This director is very popular with Europe and America because of this sad tone is very unique. Although this feeling is similar to what Westerners feel about Japan, this movie is more gloomy and sad.

Another thing Nuri Bilge Ceylan is renowned for is the beauty of his images. Most of this movie is taken in a poor apartment in a poor area in Istanbul, but the cinematography is terrifyingly beautiful. You cannot understand it without actually watching it. It is really regrettable that it has not been released in Japan.

The story of this movie is not particularly noteworthy and it develops undramatically, but it made me want to see more of director Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s works. There is a mysterious charm to this movie.

日本語→

Movie: J. Edgar (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

J. Edgar is a biographical film depicting J. Edgar Hoover over half his life as he served eight presidents—from Calvin Coolidge until Richard Nixon—as the first Director of the FBI. The reputation of the movie was not quite favorable, but people talked about why Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance as Edgar did not get nominated for an Academy Award.

Each movie company chooses a theme suited to win an Academy Award and then based on this theme, the company carefully selects the director, screenplay writer, cast, and staff for the movie; the movie release date is selected to avoid blockbuster times such as summer break, Thanksgiving, and Christmas, and the movie is strategically entered into movie festivals such as Venice, Cannes, Berlin, and Toronto. Academy members—actors and producers—vote to determine the award winners, so basically Academy Award winners are selected from movies that are promoted by movie companies. Therefore, the key to winning an Academy Award is that a movie has to be supported by a movie company and get respect from fellow people in the movie industry.

Renowned Clint Eastwood directed this movie and Dustin Lance Black, who earned an Academy Award for Milk, was in charge of the script; above all, this movie was a biopic. Public expectation that Leonardo would take the Academy Award this time was high.

It is probably true that the probability of winning an Academy Award for a performance based on a real person is very high. If we look at recent winners for Best Actor and Actress: Meryl Streep (as Margaret Thatcher), Sandra Bullock (as Leigh Anne Tuohy), Marion Cotillard (as Edith Piaf), Helen Mirren (as Elizabeth II), Reese Witherspoon (as June Carter), Charlize Theron (as Aileen Wuornos), Nicole Kidman (as Virginia Woolf), Julia Roberts (as Erin Brockovich), Colin Firth (as King George VI), Sean Penn (as Harvey Milk), Forest Whitaker (as Idi Amin), Philip Seymour Hoffman (as Truman Capote), Jamie Foxx (as Ray Charles)… For Best Supporting Actor or Actress: Christian Bale (as Dicky Eklund), Melissa Leo (as Alice Ward), Cate Blanchett (as Katharine Hepburn)… I think the reason why playing a real person increases the chance of winning an Oscar is that the audience knows of the real person so the actors are not judged solely on their acting ability, but also their ability to imitate the real person; therefore, the audience and Oscar voters pay close attention, and the actors that pass this close examination are rewarded with a prize.

Leonardo DiCaprio who has matured into an actor representing the present era never hides the feeling that he wants to be given an Oscar. In an interview, he answered, “I’ve wanted to win an Oscar my whole life. If there’s an actor who says they don’t want an Oscar, I think that person is lying.” In fact, it is said that when he learned there was a plan to make J. Edgar, he was determined to get himself in that movie. He thought this movie would be another chance at getting an Oscar. His performance was praised highly. But why wasn’t he nominated?

To say it briefly, this movie’s performance in the box office was not good enough due to the poor screenplay, so the movie companies did not bother to push for an Oscar for it.

Moreover, the acting ability of Leonardo DiCaprio is not the problem, but rather the difference in temperaments between him and J. Edgar. J. Edgar is a man who is accustomed to doing bad things to protect his power. He would do anything to protect himself, serving in the time of the Red Scare and assassinations, and died at the height of his political power before the citizens’ revolution in the 70s. One could see his rottenness in his eyes, as if there was putrid gas bubbling out. Historically, he was an interesting person, but I don’t think he deserves a movie on him or that we can learn anything beautiful from his life.

In contrast, Leonardo DiCaprio is a very genuine man. Despite working as a top actor in Hollywood today, he doesn’t seem to be leading an extravagant lifestyle. He doesn’t frequent parties and he donates part of his own fortune to nature conservation agencies. He does not surround himself with subordinate Hollywood actors just to show off, and he’s a loyal man because he has kept his friends since his time as a childhood actor as his best friends today—Tobey McGuire and Lukas Haas. Many influential movie directors have a mutual respect with Leonardo and want to work with him. Despite being a superstar, his relationships with women are not showy. At any rate, he’s a big-shot, but we don’t hear bad stories about him at all.

I think he naturally fits a role where he works hard in a life filled with adversity and with an element of tragedy. What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, Titanic, Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, Departed, Revolutionary Road, Blood Diamond, Shutter Island—all are sad, but the audience always feels sympathy for Leonardo DiCaprio as these protagonists. Leonardo tries too hard to play the vicious J. Edgar, and gradually his eyes fill with madness. J. Edgar can be bad with no effort, and that’s the big difference. Unfortunately, there are too many differences in the nature of the two as human beings that is beyond any acting ability.

No one is doubting Leonardo DiCaprio’s acting ability. If he is aiming for an Oscar, I think he should find a character to play that is more similar to his own temperament. Watching baby-faced Leo, Academy members may have been thinking, “Leonardo DiCaprio is still too young to win an Oscar. He must wait a little longer.” However, they may be a little surprised that Leo is already in his forties!

日本語→

Movie: The White Ribbon: A German Children’s Story — Das weiße Band: Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte (2009)

Posted on by
Reply

Many of director Michael Haneke’s works—such as Funny Games and The Piano Teacher—have a common pattern where unpleasant characters one after another repeat terrible deeds over and over and it is terrible to keep watching, but the audience expects perhaps there will be some explanation at the end to bring a sense of relief; in the end, though, there is no explanation and the audience is left very emotionally upset. These kinds of movies are “not acceptable” to an audience that prefers American movies, but because all his works win the highest honors at European film festivals such as the Cannes Film Festival, his movies seem to deeply capture the hearts of an audience familiar with European movies.

Among Michael Haneke’s work, The White Ribbon seems to appeal to a relatively wide range of audiences. The monochrome cinematography is extremely beautiful and faithfully reproduces the essence of the small village in northern Germany in 1913; handsome men and beautiful women aren’t used, but the good performances of the actors—including the children actors—give a feeling of reality, and the fascinating mystery-solving story holds the hearts of the viewers until the end. However, this is not a detective drama and the movie ends without revealing the criminal, in typical “Haneke-esque” fashion.

This movie begins in 1913 with the strange fall from a horse by the doctor of the village, and ends with the suspicious disappearance of the doctor’s family and the midwife and her child living next door that occurs at the outbreak of World War I in 1914. The families that appear are the baron’s family, under which half of the village’s population is employed; the pastor’s family; the doctor’s family; the midwife, who the doctor has sexual relations with, and her young son; the family of the butler serving the baron; the family of the baron’s tenant farmer; a teacher at the village’s school; and the teacher’s lover Eva.

The events that happen to the doctor’s and midwife’s families are: the unexplained falling off the horse; contempt from the doctor towards the midwife and talk about ending their affair; the doctor’s forced sexual relations with his 14-year-old daughter; the assault of the midwife’s mentally retarded child; and the sudden disappearance of the doctor’s and midwife’s families.

To the baron’s family: the accidental death of the wife of the tenant family within their territory; the destruction of their cabbage field by the tenant farmer’s son; the kidnapping and assault and the almost drowning of their young son; and the arson of the barn.

To the tenant farmer’s family: the accidental death of the wife; the destruction of the cabbage fields as revenge taken by the son; and the father’s suicide after being fired.

To the butler’s family: the near death of the newborn baby when the window of his bedroom is left open and butler’s son’s attempt to drown the baron’s young son.

In the pastor’s house, children face severe corporal punishment for any slight mistake made, and the father who is the pastor ties a white ribbon around the eldest daughter and eldest son approaching adolescence in order to preserve their “purity”. The pastor says this is an expression of a parent’s love, but when the eldest daughter is reprimanded very severely in front of a friend, she faints and later kills the bird that her father loves. Also, the eldest son acts strangely, as if trying to commit suicide.

The teacher is from a neighboring town; he gets to know and proposes to marry the young Eva from the same town who commutes to this village to work as a nanny at the baron’s house. Strange events happen one after another and the teacher begins to suspect that the pastor’s eldest son and eldest daughter may be involved behind-the-scenes; but when he goes to talk to the pastor about it, the pastor threatens him for this slander.

At first glance, as the teacher suspects, it seems as though the eldest son and daughter who are oppressed by their hypocritical pastor father have been causing the events that develop one after another in this movie, but I think that interpretation is in the wrong direction. The only events where the culprit is clear are when the tenant farmer’s son devastates the cabbage field to get revenge for his mother, the butler’s son pushes the baron’s son into the river, and the pastor’s eldest daughter kills the pastor’s bird. With the exception of these, everything could have simply been an accident, or the villagers other than the families that appear in the movie may have done things in their hatred of the baron. When thinking about it, it is difficult to believe that children around ten years old committed arson in the night, got into another person’s house, elaborately tied wire around the trees to prevent the way of the horse, and kidnapped and assaulted the baron’s and the midwife’s sons who would recognize their faces, and it is rather unrealistic that children were the masterminds behind all these events. However, it is true that when unresolved incidents occur at the same time, distrust grows worse among villagers and curiosity for crimes grows stronger among children.

This movie depicts the process of the two powers ruling the village gradually losing power. One is the political ruler, represented by the baron. The baron owns the land, but gradually the monetary system penetrates the village and, because of this development of modern society, the baron seems to have difficulty raising money; also, feelings of resistance sprout in the tenant farmers against the ruling nobility. Socialist ideology emphasizing laborer rights steadily reached rural villages. Further, the German Empire that supported aristocracy collapsed in their defeat in World War I.

The other is Protestant asceticism, which has become disfigured; the pastor can’t save the soul of the people and he even ruins the souls of his own children. I don’t think the pastor’s eldest daughter and eldest son assisted in all the crimes, but they begin to question the corporeal punishment and the hypocritical words of “I punish because I love” that their father gives. They can do little as children, but in five years, they would be strong enough to overpower and overthrow their parents. The movie depicts such a fear.

In other words, this movie depicts the antagonism between the ruling class and the opposing social class, the hypocritical pastor’s authority and the children rebelling against it, and the autocratic man and subordinate woman.

Hitler was born in 1889, so he was 25 years old when World War I began, slightly older than the children in this movie. This means that the children in this movie would be the generation that praised Hitler and supported the Nazis during World War II. This movie does not explain the sudden rise to power by the Nazis. However, this movie gives the feeling that, if we were to peek through a telescope, we could see Nazis at the far end of the horizon. Haneke speaks nothing about this, though.

If the audience is left frustrated and irritated after watching The White Ribbon, this means they fell into Haneke’s trap. He said about his own movie, “I make my movies to counteract and criticize American-style movies, which deprive the audience of the ability to question by giving an easy answer. Instead of giving the audience an immediate (and sometimes wrong) answer, my movies stubbornly keep asking the same question. Instead of releasing the audience at the end of the movie, I want to make sure the audience feels there is still distance between them and the truth. I want the audience to keep searching after the movie ends, rather than everyone in the audience agreeing and being satisfied.”

If I paraphrase Haneke’s difficult words, it might be something like, “You search for criminals to solve 15 mysteries in this movie—thank you for your efforts. But unfortunately your answer is wrong. Or perhaps I should say that there is no real criminal that everyone will agree upon. I made this movie because I want you to think with your own head; I didn’t prepare any answer.”

日本語→