Movie: Nowhere in Africa — Nirgendwo in Afrika (2001)

In 1938, Regina—a Jewish girl living in Germany—goes with her mother Jettel to Kenya, a territory of Great Britain at that time, to escape Nazi persecution and join her father Walter who had already moved there. Walter was a lawyer in Germany, but he now lives in a poor house and works within the unfamiliar realm of agriculture as a farm manager of some land owned by a British colonist. Regina befriends Owuor, the family cook, and adapts to life in Kenya in no time, but Jettel can’t accept the reality and complains to her husband, so Jettel and Walter argue often. In 1939, Britain and Germany finally start fighting; Walter’s family is sent to an internment camp and Walter is fired from his job as a farm manager because he and his family are people of an enemy nation. However, the Jews in Kenya persuade the British government that the Jews being persecuted by the Nazis are not the enemy of Britain, and in the end the Jews are released from internment camps.

Regina and Jettel are sent to a high-class hotel in Nairobi being used as an internment camp; German women sent there receive top-class hospitality. I think such a thing happened because in Kenya during those days, white people and native people lived in different areas, and a white woman even of an enemy nation couldn’t be sent to a place where native people stayed; this situation suggests that Kenya had a hidden apartheid in those days.

With the help of a British officer who favors the beautiful Jettel, Walter is able to find a new British employer and his family moves to the farm. Owuor also moves with them and begins a new life under better conditions. Walter is allowed to volunteer as a British soldier, and participates in the war despite Jettel’s objection. Regina starts studying at a boarding school for Britons. While Walter is at war, Jettel starts enthusiastically working at the new farm, and Walter becomes suspicious that Jettel may have a relationship with one of his close friends, Süsskind. In fact, Süsskind was courting Jettel.

The war ends with a victory for Britain. Since Walter served in the British army, he can return to his home country as a veteran, and he receives an offer from Germany to work as a judge. While Walter wishes to return to his home country, Jettel insists on staying in Africa. The movie ends with the two making their decisions.

This movie offers an interesting point of view on how one chooses their homeland during war and when faced with racial persecution; it is a pretty good movie, but some viewers may be puzzled by and feel uncomfortable with how Jettel is depicted. When she first arrives in Kenya, she shouts at Walter, “I’d rather die than live in such a place!” Walter criticizes her attitude of looking down on Owuor, saying, “Your attitude toward Owuor is like that of a Nazi toward a Jew.” She complains that, “It is unbelievable that we can’t eat meat,” but when Walter reluctantly shoots a deer in response to this, Jettel reproaches him with, “You killed an animal!” Although she seems to hate Kenya so much, when Walter is allowed to return home and he suggests to her that they help rebuild their home country, she refuses to go saying, “The country that killed our family cannot be trusted.” However, when she learns that she is pregnant, she agrees to return home, saying that, “The people in this country are scary.” Also, wherever she goes, she is aware that she attracts the attention of men, and her daughter Regina actually sees her mother’s affair.

The inconsistency in Jettel’s personality in this movie is caused by there being three points of view: one from the eye of the original author Stefanie Zweig as a child (depicted by Regina in the movie); another from the eye of the adult Stefanie Zweig through her autobiographical writing about becoming an adult; and the last from the director Caroline Link when making the book into a movie.

It is not that Stefanie Zweig disliked her mother, but in the original autobiography, she always recollects her as something like a spoiled Jewish princess. Growing up, Zweig’s character formation was influenced by her father (Walter) who always faced life’s challenges with a positive attitude, her cook (Owuor) who had unlimited love, and the British boarding school she went to.

In the movie, the father Walter is performed by the handsome young actor Merab Ninidze, who was born in Georgia—a former Soviet Union territory—and immigrated to Austria. Stefanie Zweig extensively stated in an interview, “I was surprised because Merab looked just like my father. His physical features and the strong and ardent way of living looking forward despite having sorrow and nostalgia in his heart are exactly like my father. He has an Eastern German accent and speaks the same German as my father.” On the other hand, she simply said that the actress who played her mother “was nothing like” her mother, and she did not talk about what kind of person her mother was.

In regards to Owuor, Zweig stated that the reason she wrote her autobiography was to record the wonderful and generous person who was the model for Owuor. Although in the movie Jettel dramatically says, “I will protect the farm,” when Walter tells her, “Live in Nairobi during my military service,” it seems that Zweig’s mother actually moved to Nairobi while her father went to the battlefield. Unlike the movie, it seems that the cook left his hometown and moved to Nairobi with the mother to take care of her.

For the little girl Regina, her father and mother are such a constant part of her life, like the sun or the earth, that she would never even consider there being any story to tell about the relationship between her parents. However, director Caroline Link made this movie as a love story. Merab Ninidze who performed Walter stated the following: “One day, the director reprimanded me, saying, ‘Wrong, this movie is a love story!’ From then, I understood the interpretation of this movie and decided how to perform this role.”

In other words, Merab Ninidze at first interpreted this movie to be more political. However, Caroline Link’s intention was to reconstruct the movie to be, “a drama that depicts a princess like Jettel, who is raised by an affluent Jewish family, becoming an independent woman on African land, while mixing in some elements of a love story.” This angle is a big shift from the point of view of a little girl who open-mindedly accepts African land for what it is and enjoys her life there. The shift of the main focus to Jettel, with the intention of projecting the director’s philosophy on female independence and love relationships onto Jettel, results in the inconsistency in her character in the movie.

When I read Stefanie Zweig’s writings, it was interesting to see what various circumstances were not depicted in the movie. When asked why Jews didn’t escape Germany, Zweig suggested that it is possible that many Jews were not able to gather the large amount of money needed in those days to leave the country. There is no strong reason that her father escaped to Kenya, but rather it was likely because entry to the country cost only 50 pounds per person, Nairobi has a strong Jewish community, and Kenya is a relatively safe place.

In Kenya, the father started his new job as a middle manager within the colonial governing system already established, and didn’t have to start from scratch. In other words, he held a middle management position in the white, British organization of the colony. It is understandable for Jettel to want to remain in Kenya—as long as there is work on the farm—since income and social status are guaranteed, she can have servants, and her work is supervising the native laborers as part of the ruling class. But as for Walter, it is understandable that, rather than living out his days as an untalented farm manger in Kenya, he would want to make use of his talents in his home country. Or maybe Walter, who had the insight to predict the fate of Jews living in Germany, was able to perceive the nationalistic independence movement that was about to sweep over the peaceful and gentle Kenya.

Stefanie Zweig’s father did not have the option to immigrate to America, the Land of the Free. It is said that, since he couldn’t speak English and was over 40 years old, it was impossible for him to come to America and make a living as a lawyer, so he decided to rebuild his life in his home country Germany, no matter how difficult. He never forgot to thank Kenya, which gave him the gift of life.

The criteria one uses to choose what country to live in as their home country are, first, a country where one’s life is secure; then, an environment where one can make use of their own talents, has control of their surroundings, is surrounded by their beloved family, and can understand the language, and where the food one likes is readily available. How lucky Japanese people are to be able to choose Japan—which satisfies all of these criteria—as their home country! There are many people in the world who do not get to choose where to call home.

日本語→

Movie: Jesus of Montreal — Jésus de Montréal (1989)

Jesus of Montreal was directed by Denys Arcand, who also directed The Decline of the American Empire and The Barbarian Invasions, and some call these three movies his trilogy. Although Jesus of Montreal won the Prize of the Ecumenical Jury at the Cannes International Film Festival, compared to The Decline of the American Empire (nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award) and The Barbarian Invasions (won the Academy Award), its popularity in Japan was one step below the others, and I hear it is difficult to get it on DVD. All three works are certainly very well-made, but I feel that Jesus of Montreal is my favorite of the three. This movie intellectually explains Christianity, is a humorous love story with charming characters, has interesting story development, and is original and artistic. I think this movie has elements that appeal to Japanese people.

Quebec, as represented by Montreal, is unique within Canada. Because it was originally a French territory, the official languages even now are English and French, and the predominant religion is Catholicism. Resentment towards the federal Canadian government is strong, and they have a unique socialist system that was established by means of an election. Until recently, there was quite a violent anti-Canada independence movement, and even still, there is about equal support for the Quebec sovereignty movement and for the party in favor of staying within the Canadian government. My friend who is a lawyer from Quebec said his neighborhood when he was a kid was poor, and riots happened quite frequently.

First, Quebec intellectuals, as represented by Denys Arcand, underwent a revolution to break free from the influence of Catholicism, and chose Marxism to support their revolution. However, they gradually became disillusioned with Marxism, too. This disillusionment is symbolized by the hospital seen in The Barbarian Invasions that is run with socialist principles, where helping patients is secondary to bureaucracy and patients are always left in the hallways.

Jesus of Montreal criticizes Christianity as a religious authority, but the tone is very smart, refreshing, and full of charm. In this movie, there are two plays within the story, and the plays within the main story make up about one-third of the whole movie. I almost stopped watching this movie because the first play within the story was too absurd and boring, but I think the boringness is Denys Arcand’s criticism of some untalented artists who arrogantly smile and say, “Can you understand the greatness of this piece of art?” when they make boring piece like this one. The second play within the story was very beautiful, and I was unexpectedly drawn in.

This movie starts with Daniel—an actor who is extremely talented, but not interested in mainstream commercialism, and does underground theatre work—being asked by a priest of a big Catholic Church to produce a play that depicts the life of Jesus. The priest says, “Do it however you like,” so he seems like a very supportive, understanding, and kind person. Daniel recruits a woman who works at a homeless shelter and was an upperclassman at his drama school, an actor who works as a stand-in in pornographic movies, an actor who seems difficult and only partakes in plays that he really likes, and a young actress who appears in cheap-looking commercials that try to attract viewers using only her body and is looked down on as “someone with no acting ability”; with this crew, Daniel creates a wonderful play, and he receives high praises from the audience and critics. The actors working with him realize their talents as actors for the first time, and they are excited and happy.

However, due to Daniel’s interpretation of Jesus as, “a man with a strong and kind spirit and not the Son of God, but the child of a Roman soldier and Mary,” the priest gets pressure from a superior in the Catholic Church; worried that he may lose his position, the priest tries to discontinue the running of the play. Through this, it becomes clearer and clearer that the priest who appeared to be respectable at first glance, is in fact quite unholy. The movie ends with a tragedy that is caused by the conflict between the protesting audience and the church trying to stop the play.

I think Daniel symbolizes what Jesus would look like if he were born in modern times. The actor who performs in the boring play at the beginning of the movie, when praised, points to Daniel saying, “There is an actor better than me,” resembling John the Baptist’s prediction of the arrival of Jesus. The way the four actors cast their jobs aside to work with Daniel resembles how believers at that time threw away their assets to follow Jesus. The actress who specializes in commercials and is scornfully told, “Your acting ability is only your ass,” gives unconditional love to Daniel, who treats her with respect—particularly reminiscent of Mary Magdalene. The moment Daniel dies is like when Jesus is on the cross. The miracle of Jesus bringing back the dead and giving sight to the blind happens after Daniel’s death. Also, after Daniel’s death, there is a scene where the talented lawyer proposes that the two actors that followed Daniel closely create a theatrical company to convey Daniel’s great achievements. These two actors seem to symbolize Jesus’s apostles, such as Peter or Paul. “We are happy to start a theatrical company if it is not commercial and it has direct interaction with the audience, as was Daniel’s intention,” the two answer, demonstrating a sincere desire to carry on the spirit of Jesus; but something like, “This could be a great success,” also glimmers in their eyes. This may be an omen for what their future may hold, parallel to how the Christian church that started with a modest feeling became corrupt as a big political organization after the Roman Empire officially recognized it.

Anyhow, this movie is very enjoyable and it resonates with the heart. I’m glad I didn’t stop watching in the first 2 minutes…

日本語→

Movie: Battleship Potemkin — Bronenosets Po’tyomkin (1925)

Battleship Potemkin is a propaganda movie that depicts the sailor revolt in 1905 during the times of the Russian Empire, and it was made in 1925 under the Soviet Union administration to show the first step of the glorious Communist Revolution. I was dumbfounded by the excessive propaganda, but even more dumbfounded by the genius of the director Sergei Eisenstein for making such an original movie in 1925.

The Russian Empire wanted an ice-free harbor, and so they consistently implemented policies to expand south; due to their victory in the Russo-Turkish War in 1878, they acquired power over the Balkan Peninsula. Chancellor Bismarck of the German Empire, who was wary of Russian expansion, organized a meeting that assembled representatives of the Great Powers in Berlin, and succeeded in restraining Russia’s power. With this, Russia abandoned their policy to go south of the Balkan Peninsula, and turned their eyes towards invading into the Far East, which resulted in the Russo-Japanese War that occurred in 1904. Great Britain, with investments in Asia, feared the advancement of Russia into Asia, and gave financial and military support to Japan based on the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, but France, who had bitter thoughts towards Germany and Britain, formed the Franco-Russian Alliance in opposition. Japan requested that United States President Theodore Roosevelt—who was friendly with Japan in those days—do peace negotiations, but Russia decided to deploy their Baltic Fleet—a fleet based in the Baltic Sea that Russia claimed to be unrivaled in those days—and they refused Roosevelt’s peace negotiations.

The Baltic Fleet went around the coast of the African continent for seven months to get to Japan. They anticipated the refusal of food and fuel provisions from British and German colonies in Africa, but the support from French territories that they were relying on did not go as well as expected, and they had to continue on a very difficult voyage. The truth was that Britain and France established their Entente Cordiale (“cordial agreement”) on April 8, 1904, immediately after the Russo-Japanese War broke out. On May 27, 1905, the Baltic Fleet met and engaged in battle with the Combined Fleet of the Japanese navy in the Sea of Japan, and lost most of their ships in a naval battle; they received the devastating blow of having their Commander-in-Chief taken prisoner, and the naval battle ended with a complete landslide victory for the Japanese fleet. Because around the same time on June 14, a sailors’ mutiny erupted on the battleship Potemkin stationed on the Black Sea, it became necessary for Russia to quickly terminate the Russo-Japanese War.

Before the Russo-Turkish War, Russia supported Greece’s independence from the Ottoman Empire in the Greek War of Independence that broke out in 1821; Russia then went to war without any allies against Turkey and gained victory. Due to the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829, the coastal zones of the Black Sea were surrendered from Turkey, and Russian ships were able to pass through the Bosphorus/Dardanelles strait freely. Britain and France, in fear of Russia’s expansion south, called the Convention of London in 1840, and due to the London Straits Convention in 1841, the allowance of Russian ships through the Bosphorus/Dardanelles strait was repealed. In other words, Russian warships were internationally banned from entering the Mediterranean Sea through the strait. Therefore, the Russian fleet in the Black Sea wasn’t able to dispatch troops during the Russo-Japanese War. Potemkin was part of the Black Sea Fleet.

In this movie, an armed uprising by the sailors aboard the battleship Potemkin occurs; the rebelling sailors execute an officer and declare a revolution, turning towards the Ukrainian harbor city Odessa. The massacre of Odessa citizens by Russian government troops occurs because the people of Odessa welcomed Potemkin; the Russian fleet is dispatched in order to suppress Potemkin. The movie paints the rebellion as the glorious beginning of the Revolution by depicting the sailors of the government fleet calling the Potemkin sailors brothers with a feeling of solidarity. However, how much of reality is reflected in this movie?

First, the highly praised and famous scene in movie history of the massacre on the stairs in Odessa seems to not be a historical fact. The stairs with a strange design seen in the movie do exist in Odessa, though. If you stand at the top of the stairs and look down towards the bottom, you can only see the landings and not the stairs. However, if you stand at the bottom of the stairs and look up, you only see stairs, and don’t see the landings. When looking up at the stairs from the sea, the stairs look longer than they actually are; when looking down the stairs while on land, the stairs appear to be shorter than they actually are. Since the massacre depicted on these stairs in Odessa became a classic scene, it feels as if it is a historical fact. In truth, Odessa’s city government was against the activities of Potemkin, and did not allow the anchorage of Potemkin.

It is true that the fleet sent to suppress Potemkin did not fire at the Potemkin. Because many sailors in the suppressing fleet sympathized with the revolt of the Potemkin, Vice Admiral Krieger, who was appointed as the acting commander, felt that if he gave the order to fire at the Potemkin, not only was his life was in danger, but his whole fleet might join Potemkin’s rebellion; thus, he passed the Potemkin without doing anything. The sailors of the suppression fleet, despite being forbidden to by their superior officers, went up to the deck to cheer and greet the sailors on the Potemkin when they approached. Furthermore, the sailors of another armored warship Georgii Pobedonosets arrested their own superior officers and joined the Potemkin uprising. On another battleship, Sinop, a faction in favor of joining Potemkin argued with a faction against it; the latter won, and they did not join Potemkin.

What happened to the sailors of the Potemkin mutiny afterwards?

On the armored warship Georgii Pobedonosets that had joined Potemkin, the sailors immediately split into factions. The sailors who regretted thoughtlessly aligning with the mutiny released the captain and officers, and the next day, handed over 68 of the mutiny leaders. The Potemkin, refused anchorage by Odessa, arrived at Constanta, Romania, but the Romanian government refused to provide the necessary supplies to the Potemkin. The Potemkin sailors surrendered to Romania, and the Romanian government returned the battleship Potemkin to the Russian government. Most sailors chose to take refuge in Romania as political offenders, and remained in Romania until a communist administration was established in Russia in 1917 by means of the Russian Revolution. Also, some sailors planned to escape abroad from Romania. Some escaped to South America, such as to Argentina, while others crossed to Western Europe via Turkey.

In the movie scene of the Odessa citizens’ antigovernment demonstration, the citizens shout, “Beat the executioner, tyranny, and Jews!!”; there is even a scene of a Jew—who was trying to calm down demonstrators by saying, “Mothers and brothers! Let there not be differences or hostility among us!”—being mobbed. The Jew is depicted looking rich and having a bad character. Considering that Sergei Eisenstein, who made this movie, was Jewish, I was really surprised, but this may have been the feelings of Russians towards Jews in those days.

Due to the huge success of Battleship Potemkin, Sergei Eisenstein was invited to Hollywood, and lived in America starting from 1930; he became close friends with Walt Disney and Charlie Chaplin, but his ideas were not used by moviemakers in Hollywood, and in the end, he returned to the Soviet Union without any visible achievement. What on earth did he do in America, I wonder.

When Sergei Eisenstein returned to his home country, Stalin’s Great Purge had started, and it was the time when the Purge extended to artists. Sergei Eisenstein made movies rich in artistic taste, which did not completely comply with socialist realism, and he also stayed in America for a long time and had many American friends; because of this, he was in a situation where he could be suspected of the crime of being a spy. However, he seems to have gotten through the Purge safely, but somehow his boss Boris Shumyatsky was purged and executed. A big part of this story still remains unclear.

After World War II, because they were close friends of Sergei Eisenstein, Walt Disney and Charlie Chaplin were suspected during the “Red Scare,” which was carried out with the authority of Senator McCarthy. Walt Disney was granted innocence, but Charlie Chaplin was eventually deported.

日本語→

Movie: Good Bye Lenin! (2003)

The protagonist Alex lives with his family in East Berlin, the capital of East Germany. His mother Christiane, in reaction to her husband Robert taking refuge in West Germany by himself, has become an ardent supporter of socialism. On October 7, 1989—the 40th anniversary of the founding of East Germany—Christiane suffers from a heart attack and falls into a coma. It seems like she will never wake up again, but she miraculously wakes up in the hospital eight months later. However, by this time, the Berlin Wall had already collapsed, the socialist system had disappeared from East Germany, and it was a matter of time until the East and West were unified. Alex looks after his mother when she returns home; since the doctor says that, “she might not live if she suffers from another great shock,” Alex works desperately to continue acting as if East Germany’s socialist system is unchanged by involving everyone around. During this time, the mother confesses that Alex’s biological father did not cast them away to seek refuge, but that Christiane broke her promise to follow Robert, who escaped to the West side while she stayed in East Berlin; she also confesses that she did not show Alex and his older sister the letters their father had sent them. Christiane lives for three years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Although Alex thinks he was able to hide the truth from his mother well, the movie ends with Christiane possibly knowing the truth.

Good Bye Lenin! is a comedy with underlying satire and wit. The people who lived in East Berlin before the collapse of the Berlin Wall longed for freedom to the degree of, “I’d give my life for it.” After the collapse of the wall, they witnessed economic chaos, unemployment, social chaos, and the loss of the things that they took pride in before, and they realized the bitter truth that free society was not as rosy as they imagined. However, the undercurrent theme flowing through this movie is about how someone reacts when they realize that what they believed to be true is wrong. This movie does not show regret or blame anyone. The general citizen will believe in and live with the propaganda given by a socialist system, but when society suddenly changes, they try hard to adapt. This movie depicts with light humor how Alex and the people around him deal with the change, but also depicts a desire for his mother to die peacefully believing in old values. One reason this movie was a big hit in Germany may be the social background that, despite the sudden change in values and the chaos that came with it, Germany succeeded in unification and accomplished stability. It was painful then, but 20 years later, it has been long enough for Germans today to look back on the chaos with humor.

I admit that the use of satire and laughter to depict the sudden change in the system is a worthy approach, but unfortunately only the first half of this movie can be enjoyed without distraction; in the second half of this long movie, the story becomes boring by repeatedly trying the same thing over and over. The great efforts of Alex’s goodwill become misdirected, and his girlfriend urges, “How long will you keep this up? Honestly tell your mother the truth,” while his older sister angrily fusses that, “Continuing this lifestyle is full of stress.” As I watch Alex struggle all day long despite everything for this lie, the movie gradually loses its humor. Moreover, it becomes unclear what the director is targeting with the satire. Does he wish to express a bitter sentiment about the Cold War ending? Or in the worst case, some may think the message is, “Aw, socialism was better. East Germany was a great country, even winning as many gold medals in the Olympics as America and USSR.”

However, we should not forget that, behind the Olympic glory of East Germany, there was systematic use of drugs by the nation. Furthermore, drugs were given to athletes without their consent. A prime example is East Germany’s shot putter Heidi Krieger. The steroid hormones that she was repeatedly given without her knowledge damaged her health and forced her to retire from competition; Krieger now lives as a man by the name of Andreas Krieger after a sex-change surgery. In a 2004 interview for the New York Times, he expressed the sentiment, “I’m happy that I can live as a man in today’s society, but I am very angry that I got into this situation because I was given drugs by the government without my consent.”

I admit that sophisticated technique is required to keep the intention of the satire clear when making a comedy, but I still would have liked to see the older sister and girlfriend actually have an effect on Alex’s behavior rather than be ignored. I would guess that there are many in the audience who become fed up with Alex’s behavior by the end. This feeling stops the laughter.

日本語→

Movie: The Day of the Jackal (1973)

This is an extremely entertaining movie. If you were to classify this movie, it would be similar to the 007 James Bond series, the Jason Bourne trilogy, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but it is way more enjoyable. Even though the current movie industry jam-packs movies with computer graphics, showy action, and explosion scenes, I feel like this movie hasn’t been surpassed in 40 years. The Day of the Jackal is on the list of “Akira Kurosawa’s Top 100 Films.” This movie is such a perfect movie that I believe Kurosawa would have wanted to make a movie like it. Of course, I think Kurosawa had the skills to make this level of movie, but unfortunately he was not able to find as excellent raw material as the original novel written by Frederick Forsyth. This movie’s director, Fred Zinnemann, was nominated many times for an Academy Award—including The Search, High Noon, From Here to Eternity, The Nun’s Story, A Man for All Seasons, and Julia—and won 4 Academy Awards in his lifetime.

In this movie, “Jackal” is the codename for the assassin who is planning to assassinate France’s president de Gaulle. Of course, viewers that know history know that such a thing didn’t really happen. However, viewers sit at the edge of their seats until the very end, and they are completely drawn into the movie. It was reported that real, famous professional assassins read and loved the original work that this movie was based off of, and actually used it as a reference. This movie is a first-rate depiction of the international affairs France was involved in during the 1960s. Also, the attempted assassination of President de Gaulle, depicted in the first half of this movie, is a historical fact. Historical fact and fiction are skillfully combined in this movie, and this movie has magical persuasive power. At first, since it depicts Jackal’s viewpoint, the audience knows and understands what Jackal is doing, and they are captivated by Jackal’s cool charm. However, in the second half, the point of view shifts to that of the detective chasing Jackal, and we don’t know where Jackal is hiding or what he is thinking, so the amount of suspense in the movie increases. It is extremely well done. I can’t praise this movie enough.

In World War II, northern France was occupied by Germany, while Vichy France to the south was considered to be Germany’s puppet government. In spite of this, France is classified as a victorious nation, not a defeated country, in World War II; the reason is that French general Charles de Gaulle—who took refuge in Great Britain—led the Free French Forces, which joined the Allies and fought as an anti-Germany and anti-Vichy force. However, France, exhausted by World War II, nearly lost its status as one of the major powers in the world, and the colonial system from before the war became difficult to maintain. When the situation in Algeria became critical in 1954, France withdrew from Vietnam and turned their focus toward Algeria.

In Algeria, French colonization had been increasing since the 19th century, and colonists in Algeria were called Pied-Noirs. In World War II, Algeria supported Vichy France, but in 1942, Operation Torch was initiated by the Allies, and the U.S. and British armies invaded Algeria; when they landed, the Algerian admiral joined de Gaulle’s Free French Forces that supported the Allies and the headquarters of the Free French Forces was put in Algiers until the liberation of Paris. In this way, Algeria became a very important piece of land for France. Many native Algerians burned with patriotism, and participated in the French army as a French volunteer soldier.

After World War II, Algeria sought its independence, and the Algerian War began in 1954; this war became a very muddy situation, and it split French public opinion in half. The descendants of the Pied-Noir French settlers opposed Algerian independence, and right-wingers—who wanted to maintain their French glory—voiced their support for the colonists. Also, in those days, the French had deep-rooted fear and animosity regarding the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) that was responsible for extreme acts of violence. However, as a result of frequent wars, war weariness was also strong among public opinion, and so some believed that granting Algeria their independence was in the best interest of France. Even between native Algerians, there was a severe antagonism between a pro-French faction and an independence faction. During this political instability, the Fourth Republic—which had been established after World War II—was overturned, and the Fifth Republic was established upon Charles de Gaulle’s assumption as president.

Charles de Gaulle was the person who symbolized strong and glorious France, so the colonists and the soldiers in Algeria hoped de Gaulle would give them support, but on the contrary, de Gaulle announced his support for Algerian self-determination. The majority supported this in the national referendum of 1961, and in 1962, the war ended. Among the massive chaos, military personnel there and colonists fled to France, but many pro-France Arabs who were not able to escape were killed. The power that opposed Algerian independence formed the Organization of the Secret Army (OAS) during the war, and committed acts of terrorism one after another in Algeria; they also performed terrorist acts against de Gaulle to overthrow the government in France. Officer Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry failed with his attempt to assassinate de Gaulle, and he was executed by firing squad; this is where the movie begins. After the assassination attempt, the de Gaulle administration chased down the OAS with every hand they had.

However, a new enemy was born for de Gaulle: a leftist movement led by students and laborers. In order to suppress the May 1968 events caused by this movement, he needed military power, and so de Gaulle granted amnesties to major OAS members who had been arrested/fled.

As I mentioned before, this movie is absolutely incredible and praiseworthy, but this movie has one flaw. This movie is an American movie; all of the characters—including the French ones—speak English. This movie moves around many European countries—Austria, Switzerland, Britain, Italy, France, Denmark, etc.—and since all the major characters speak English, it’s hard to tell what country we are in currently. I still don’t understand why American movies insist on using only English.

日本語→

Movie: Where Do We Go Now? (2011)

In English, there is something called a “poster child.” Originally, the phrase “poster child” came from when a child in pain was put on a poster to help raise money for a cure to a disease; nowadays, a poster child is used to describe any person who is used to promote a cause. As a simple example, during the 2008 presidential elections, Obama was called a “poster child” because he was a regarded as evidence that America had moved past racial discrimination.

Nadine Labaki of Lebanon, after international and sensational reviews of her 2007 movie Caramel, is said to be the poster child of the Middle East. She is an incredible woman in the Middle East. People may have thought that by praising this woman, they could show concern for issues of Middle Eastern women.

Obama has successfully guided America by way of four years of political achievements. He bravely addressed difficult issues that many in America wished to see resolved such as nationwide health insurance, the legalization of same-sex marriage, and the stabilization of international relations. Not many people nowadays would say that they either support or hate Obama because he is black. At least I haven’t met these kind of people. Because of his achievements, Obama is respected as a human. Now, after four years, Obama is no longer a poster child.

Alternatively, what about Nadine Labaki? Her maiden’s work Caramel is the bittersweet perspective of women’s stories of passion and love. It is an undeniably pleasant movie. Her challenge was where she could go with her second work. Her second piece Where Do We Go Now? depicts the religious antagonism of Lebanon.

Five years after her first movie, Nadine Labaki appeared in an interview after the filming of her second movie, radiantly beautiful as before. However, in five years, there was a very important change in her. She had married composer Khaled Mouzanar and become a mother, and she was full of the confidence of a woman and of a mother. “Lebanon was in pieces from the war. I made this movie to ask whether mothers can protect their children from being taken away to war,” she said.

One more difference was that her English had improved significantly. In her interview for Caramel, she spoke in broken English and seemed frustrated that she could not speak as fluently as if she were talking in Arabic or French. By this interview five years later, though, she was able to converse quite fluently. She talked 10 times or even 100 times more when presented with a question. Without Labaki’s permission, her husband Khaled Mouzanar suddenly snatched the microphone from her, saying condescendingly, “I’m sorry, my wife is a little too talkative. Moreover, somewhat schizophrenic.”

The criticism of her husband about her being “too talkative and schizophrenic” unexpectedly summarizes the shortcomings of Where Do We Go Now?. The theme in this movie is that, when men might become violent because of religious conflict, the women can use their wit to try to prevent it. The chattering of women continues through the chaos as various people appear one after another, making it hard to follow the characters; somehow romance happens, and the women bring Ukrainian dancers to the village to keep the men’s eyes from violence. The boring story digresses and keeps going on and on. When the movie is close to the end, it seems as if the director thought, “Shoot! I have to wrap it up!” The women (Christian and Muslim women on good terms) hurriedly feed the men cake with hashish (cannabis), and, while the men sleep, the women secretly hide the weapons in a hole. The women at the end of the movie hope that the violence will not happen for a while. “The women are the ones who have to grieve and bury their loved ones after the men fight” is the message of this movie. The movie was a mix of drama, tragedy, comedy, and even musical.

The theme is that the women conspire to keep the men from war, like the Ancient Greek comedy, Lysistrata. In fact, many movie critics discuss this movie in comparison with Lysistrata. Nadine Labaki said that she didn’t actually have this Greek comedy in mind, and I think this is true. I think it was a natural result of Labaki’s character when making a movie with the theme of war.

Her talent or perhaps her spirit shines fully with Caramel, where the chatter jumps among the women endlessly, but perhaps serious themes like war and religious opposition don’t suit her well. Furthermore, she doesn’t really seem to be interested in those kinds of themes. Political themes are not exactly her cup of tea. To put it most simply, this movie wants to say, “If each woman can suppress the aggression of her husband and children, who knows? Maybe we can get rid of war from this world.” At first glance, this movie seems to take the stance that war can possibly be stopped by women opposing it and that though it may be difficult, it’s worth trying. But this is not the case. This difference draws the criticism that this movie does not offer a solution. No one has a clear solution for the future direction of Lebanon. This criticism from some viewers stems from their realization of the director’s limitations with this subject. This movie is light like Caramel. This lightness is due to Labaki’s personality, for better or for worse, and not due to any restrictions by the government.

When an interviewer said, “Your song and dance in the movie was really beautiful,” she replied, modest as always, “I’m not good at singing.” Her dance is not so much of a dance nor is it artistic as she moves her body lightly. At this point, her husband who was in charge of the music of the movie, again abruptly snatched the mic and said, “I don’t like her voice, so I insisted that we find someone to dub over her. We did a lot of auditions for a woman singer, but she wasn’t satisfied with any of them and decided to use her own voice. But I had a lot of difficulty and had to use a lot of acoustic tricks so that her voice didn’t sound funny.” To which she seemed to say with her face, “You shouldn’t have exposed so much.” After hearing this, I worried, “I hope they didn’t fight over this later.”

After finishing watching this movie, I honestly wasn’t able to shake the feeling that Nadine Labaki is still a poster child. However, it isn’t that she doesn’t have talent. She is the sole renowned female director and top actress in the extremely weak film world of Lebanon. Having become such an important woman in a single swoop, it may be difficult now to take honest criticism. But I hope she listens to these critiques, gives young people opportunities, and contributes to the development of the film industry of Lebanon.

日本語→

Person: Prime Minister Benito Mussolini (1883-1945)

mussoliniBenito Mussolini had a father who believed in socialism, anarchism, and republicanism. Like his father, Mussolini also praised Giuseppe Garibaldi for successfully overthrowing the royal family and unifying Italy. After moving to Switzerland, he got to know Lenin, who had taken refuge in Switzerland; Mussolini learned German and French from Lenin, and they built a relationship of mutual respect. In his youth, Mussolini adored Karl Marx’s ideology and believed in class struggle. After returning from Switzerland to his home country, Mussolini joined the Italian Socialist Party, but since he advocated for participation in World War I, he was expelled from the Socialist Party that insisted on staying neutral. It is said that Lenin was very disappointed with the Italian Socialist Party for expelling Mussolini, whom he believed to be smart and promising.

Mussolini enlisted in World War I; after returning from the war, he formed the National Fascist Party in 1921 with support from Great Britain, and he repeatedly battled with the Socialist and Communist Parties. Both Great Britain and America praised him, saying, “Mussolini is an ideal leader in these new times,” and American newspapers reported him favorably through the first half of the 1920s. Winston Churchill also at first held Mussolini in high esteem as “one of the great leaders of our times.” However, Ernest Hemingway had concerns about Mussolini relatively early on. On a personal level, it is said that Adolf Hitler at first respected Mussolini, but Mussolini hated Hitler. Due to the alliance between Germany and Italy that later developed, the relationship between Mussolini and Hitler gradually improved, but when it became clear Italy was losing in World War II, Hitler’s attitude towards Mussolini gradually became cold.

Mussolini, in addition to Italian, was proficient in English, German, and French, and it is said he was a cultured person who understood philosophy and the arts. After Italy’s defeat in World War II, he tried to flee to neutral Switzerland, and it is said he planned to go from there to Spain—another neutral power that was governed by Gernalísimo Franco, the only fascist administration that remained in Europe. However, on his way to Switzerland, he was discovered by partisans, and was executed with his lover Clara Petacci by shooting; his corpse was hung in Piazzale Loreto in Milan. The hanging was done by a rope from a rooftop in the piazza; since this was the same style in which those who offended the fascist administration were hung to their death in the streets, this act appeared to be the partisans’ retaliation against the fascist administration. It is said that Mussolini, who was never interested in filling his own pockets while in power, left behind barely any assets after his death. After their deaths, people in Italy did not hate Mussolini as much as those in Germany hated Hitler, and although people have some bad images of Mussolini, they still have a relatively good impression of him for completely oppressing the mafia and for his efforts to improve employment.

Mussolini had a long relationship with Rachele Guidi—the daughter of Mussolini’s father’s lover, Ana Guidi—and in 1910, Rachele had their daughter Edda. He had his first marriage ceremony with Rachele in the town hall in 1915, but after becoming famous as a politician, Mussolini had a second, Catholic-style wedding ceremony with her in 1925.

However, according to Marco Zeni’s books published in 2005, the possibility was discovered that when Mussolini got a job as a journalist and moved to Trento in 1909, he met Ida Dalser, who was from the area, and they married in 1914. Mussolini, struggling to make ends meet, got financial assistance from Ida, who supported Mussolini’s socialist ideals; in 1915, Ida bore Mussolini his first son, Albino. The reason this marriage wasn’t publically known until 2005 is that it is said that Mussolini’s administration completely destroyed all official documents regarding Ida Dalser and Mussolini, as well as destroyed the correspondence between the two of them as much as possible. Both Ida and Albino died in mental hospitals, and in particular, there is a strong possibility that Albino, who died when he was just 26 years old, was killed. This situation is depicted in Vincere.

If this is true, Mussolini seems to have had relations with Ida from 1909 to 1915, even though he was formerly involved with Rachele. Furthermore, if the marriage with Ida was official and there was no official divorce, Mussolini committed the crime of bigamy. Either way, by 1915, Mussolini had abandoned Ida—who understood and loved him as a socialist—and he chose Rachele as his wife. Mussolini had a complicated life path, but certainly around World War I, he experienced a major turning point in both his public and private life.

日本語→

Movie: Gloomy Sunday — Ein Lied von Liebe und Tod (1999)

The setting is Budapest, Hungary in the late 1930s when the shadow of the Nazis is creeping in. László is a Jew who manages an up-scale restaurant. He is involved with the beautiful waitress Ilona. They hire András as the restaurant’s pianist, but sparks fly between András and Ilona the moment they meet. However, Ilona is not able to separate from László. Also, since a friendship develops between László and András, the three fall into a weird love triangle. In addition, Ilona rejects the affections of a young German man named Hans, so he tries to commit suicide. László is the one to save him.

András composes a song called “Gloomy Sunday” for Ilona, and gives Ilona the song as her birthday present. With the help of László, this song is released as a record and becomes a big hit, but people one after another commit suicide while listening to this song. Before long, Hans comes back to Budapest as an executive officer of the Nazis, and the fates of Ilona, László, and András turn dark.

This movie is not just sentimental fiction, and is actually partly based on facts. The song “Gloomy Sunday” that is played in the movie was composed by the Hungarian composer Rezső Seress in 1930s while he was working as a pianist in the restaurant owned by László Jávor, who added the song lyrics. In addition, there is the urban legend that people one after another committed suicide while listening to this song. At one point, the song was banned from British and American broadcasting stations. Rezső Seress, like András in this movie, also committed suicide.

I think it is only an urban legend that people commit suicide when they listen to this song, but this song may reflect the darkness that Hungarians felt for 30 years through the Great Depression, losing in World War I, and being under Nazi control.

Hungary formed the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy with Austria in the late 19th century, and jumped to the top in the world economically as well as culturally; but the empire collapsed in World War I and Hungary was cut off from Austria, so Hungary lost half of its territory and had to receive humiliating economic sanctions. Due to the Trianon Treaty in 1920, Hungary lost 72% of the area of the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy and 64% of its population; around half of all Hungarians were left behind outside of the country of Hungary. I wonder if there is a nation that has faced more humiliation. On the other hand, the Czech Republic and Poland in the north—Hungary’s rivals over territory since ancient times—won their independence as republics, and were enjoying prosperity. Due to this bitterness, Hungary allied with Germany and became a member of the Axis. Backed by Germany, Hungary was able to recover land in the Slovak-Hungarian War in 1939 and avoid a fate like Poland and the Czech Republic—being conquered by Germany and disappearing from the map. However, most Hungarian people gradually came to want to withdraw from the Axis, but by that time, it was already too late and Hungary was unable to do so.

In the end, the Axis lost in World War II, but at one time Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic, Poland of Eastern Europe, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and the northern part of France were occupied, and all except Spain and Great Britain was under of the control of the Axis. Although Spain didn’t participate in the war, they were a “close friend” of Germany’s; almost all of Europe, except for Great Britain and neutral Soviet Union, fell into Hitler’s hand at that time.

I thought this movie was going to just be a soap opera. (The term “soap opera” refers to cheap-looking daytime melodramas, ever since a detergent company sponsored a sappy romantic melodrama series that broadcasted in the middle of the day in order to target the housewife market.) However, this movie is surprisingly popular among movie critics who pride themselves in (supposedly) intelligent critiques. I wondered why this was, and I realized after I watched this movie that it was because it is like a Takaratzuka (a Japanese all-female musical troupe) show. When one buys a ticket for a Takaratzuka show, one does not buy with the expectation that it will be an intellectual criticism, or reproduction of historical facts, or strange art for art’s sake. One is happy to enjoy two hours being enchanted by the beauty. This movie does just that.

However, this movie is not just sweet, but also bitter and cleverly complicated. Hans is the character in this movie that is supposed to be most hated because he sends László, who saved Hans’s life, to a Nazi concentration camp without hesitation, despite Ilona’s desperate plea. He is in a position to be able to easily save Jews. In fact, he let countless Jews escape from the country for a large amount of money or jewels. Whenever he helped Jews, he always told them, “If something happens to me, please testify that I helped you.” In other words, this man is like Schindler in Schindler’s List. Even though Schindler is depicted as the hero in Spielberg’s movie, the same character can be quite ugly when presented from a different angle. Although Hans was part of the Nazi’s SS, he lives on after the war as a hero who helped Jews, and comes back as a very successful businessman to tour Budapest with his wife.

Ilona is loved by three men, and skillfully manipulates the three of them. Well, she never thought she was manipulating the men because she thought it was just love. After András commits suicide, his large amount of royalties is inherited by Ilona. Also, in order to protect his restaurant, László hands over the rights to his restaurant to Ilona right before being sent to a concentration camp, and Ilona makes his legendary restaurant her own. In addition to being handsome and a talented pianist, András also has a good understanding of finance and has practical skills needed to negotiate financial matters. The movie clearly depicts these financial negotiations. Therefore, this movie is not just a bittersweet melodrama.

The most interesting part of the movie is Ilona’s way of raising her son. After András and László die, it is depicted that she is pregnant. Viewers hope that it is András’s child, but it seems like he died a little too early. Since we later see Ilona’s son helping his mother manage the restaurant, we are given the impression that it is László’s child. However, it is most likely Hans’s child. If this is the case, the way Ilona raised the child is wonderful. At the very end, the audience witnesses Ilona at last carrying out the revenge of the deceased László on Hans, who had betrayed László, but this is quite terrible revenge if the father of Ilona’s child is Hans.

日本語→

Movie: War and Peace (1956)

Hollywood pulled out all the stops for this 1956 drama based on literary master Tolstoy’s long historical drama written from 1865 to 1869, which weaves the invasion of the Russian Empire by the French army led by Napoleon in 1812 as the warp, and 500 characters including three Russian aristocratic families as the weft.

Omitting as much as possible of the lengthy book of four volumes, the movie mainly depicts the love entanglement of three people—Count Bezukhov’s illegitimate child Pierre (Henry Fonda), his closest friend Prince Andrei (Mel Ferrer), and the daughter of the Count Rostov family Natasha (Audrey Hepburn)—but it is still more than three hours long, and boring to watch. The feel of old Hollywood exudes from the screen, and makes me wonder where Russia’s 19th century countryside has gone. However, I think what destroyed this movie was—sorry to her fans—Audrey Hepburn’s poor performance.

Audrey Hepburn was a bit too old to play Natasha—who is like a blossoming flower—but in order to exhibit cuteness, Audrey just kept dancing around and tried to talk cutely by using a high voice. In the original, Natasha meets Prince Andrei in the vast countryside of Russia, but in the movie, the two meet at a boring ball; Natasha, who is sulking because she has not been asked to dance, becomes ecstatic when Prince Andrei asks her to dance, and she even says she wants to marry Prince Andrei. After Prince Andrei leaves for the frontline, Natasha is easily seduced by Anatole—the older brother of Pierre’s wife Helene—and they make plans to elope. In the end, after losing both Prince Andrei and Anatole, Natasha quickly snags Pierre—“tee hee hee”—when he appears before her again, and then the movie ends. Because Henry Fonda is too handsome to play Pierre, the movie makes me wonder why Natasha would ignore this handsome Pierre when he was around. I hope that the original work actually has a more profound tone of, “Due to her youth, Natasha hasn’t yet realized her own charm, nor understands what is important in life. However, she discovers the meaning of life by overcoming the difficulties of war and helping people across social classes; she grows into a strong and beautiful woman; and she realizes the true nature of Pierre’s heart, which she hadn’t noticed before; thus a love sprouts.” Otherwise, why would Tolstoy’s original work remain as a timeless masterpiece? However, this Hollywood movie is unfortunately very superficial.

Digressing from the main subject, I once heard a male American student express that there are three actresses who symbolize the charms of women. According to him, the three actresses are Grace Kelly (beauty), Marilyn Monroe (sexiness), and Audrey Hepburn (cuteness); the other men listening to this strongly agreed. These three actresses are aptly of the same generation, and Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn are the same age; Marilyn Monroe is three years older than the other two. Other women of the same generation who are also synonymous with “beautiful woman” in those days include Elizabeth Taylor (three years younger than those two), the president’s wife Jacqueline Kennedy (the same age as those two!!!), and gorgeous Sophia Loren (five years younger than those two). If Elizabeth Taylor symbolizes a vulnerable heart, Jacqueline Kennedy power, and Sophia Loren vitality, perhaps these six sparkling women of the same generation express the charm of a woman from different angles.

I heard an interesting story regarding Grace Kelly and Jacqueline Kennedy. It seems that the two happened to attend the same dinner party. Wherever Grace Kelly went, she was sure to attract men, but that night, all the men crowded around Jackie, and no man was interested in Grace. Grace was so distraught that she hid in the bathroom and cried all night long. I even think part of the reason she decided to marry the Prince of Monaco was the memory of this upsetting dinner party.

That story was a digression. All six of these women have passed away except Sophia Loren. Although I digressed from the War and Peace movie, the era of these six women was when Hollywood was robustly thriving after World War II; this movie may be considered a flashy flower that bloomed as a result of those times.

日本語→

Movie: The Queen (2006)

I think this year will be a memorable year for the people of Britain, with the 60 year celebration of the reign of Queen Elizabeth and the London Olympics. I think the past 60 years were a period of turbulence for everyone, but particularly for the Queen who had numerous difficulties over her 60-year-reign, including recovering from World War II, recovering from the economic downfall in Britain, the Cold War, the revolt of the IRA, the Falklands War, involvement in the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan, and discord within the Commonwealth of Nations.

This movie depicts the decision Queen Elizabeth makes regarding the sudden death of Diana, who was deeply loved and respected as the “people’s princess,” in 1997. The Queen considers the death of a woman who left the royal family to be a “private matter” and continues to stay in the Balmoral villa after Diana’s death. This decision is seen by the people as “coldness from the royal family,” and the approval rating of the royal family drops abruptly below 50% among the citizens. Prime Minister Blair, who defeated the Conservative Party Administration and took over the government, is quick to use the deep affection for Diana to improve his approval; at the same time, he advises the Queen that if she continues to ignore Diana’s death, it will damage the reputation of the royal family. Back when Thatcher of the Conservative Party was Prime Minister, wanting to avoid wearing something similar to the Queen, she asked the Queen, “What will Her Majesty the Queen wear?” The Queen quipped, “I’m not interested in the clothes of my subordinates!” This shows that she is such a queen that makes a clear distinction between the royal family and their subjects; she does not understand why she must treat Diana, who divorced and left the family, as part of the royal family. However, witnessing the people mourn for Diana from the bottom of their hearts, the Queen, who had decided to dedicate her whole life—24 hours a day, 365 days a year—to her nation since the moment her father George VI succeeded the throne, decides she is willing to abandon what she had believed until now if the nation saw Diana’s death as the death of a true princess.

The Queen is looking at a mountain of flowers for Diana that is piled up in front of Buckingham Palace when a girl offers her a bouquet of flowers. “Shall I give those flowers to Princess Diana?” the Queen asks, pointing at the mountain of flowers, but the girl decisively replies, “No!!” The girl with beautiful eyes replies to the surprised Queen, “These flowers are for you.” Through the facial expression of the emotionally moved Queen at that moment, the Queen and Helen Mirren, the actress playing the Queen, magically become one. The Queen, in an obituary speech for Diana from the royal family to the nation that is covered by the TV, gives a strong impression of a warm mother-in law and a grandmother concerned for Diana’s sons, the princes; with this speech, hostility from the citizens towards the Queen begins to fade.

For the generation of Queen Elizabeth, the crown princesses would have been the daughters of the royal families of other countries or at least the daughters of British aristocrats. When Prince Charles was in a relationship with Camilla, the marriage of the two was rejected; Camilla was from the British upper class, but she was not a top-ranking aristocrat. Diana was the perfect crown princess because she was the daughter of the Spencer family—the noblest family among noble families—and she quickly had the great accomplishment of bearing two sons, but the marriage ended with a divorce for various reasons. For the Queen, the messy drama during the divorce negotiation and Diana’s uninhibited behavior after the divorce “brought shame to the royal family.” Through this, the Queen also learned that the days when the crown princess was chosen based on class were gone. The young generation of crown princes in Europe—many of which were related to the British royal family—mostly have wives that are commoners, including a divorcee, a former pot smoker with children from a previous relationship, a former mistress of a drug lord, a former mistress of a high-ranking government official, the daughter of an important politician in the cabinet of a South American dictatorship that committed a massacre, and some with Asian or African heritage—such women were unthinkable in the Queen’s generation, but they have more or less gained support from the nation and carry out official business competently.

The Queen seemed to have a favorable impression of Camilla the whole time. Camilla was hated by the people for a long time as, “the ugly, detestable woman who evicted Diana,” but she didn’t defend herself with words, and as the nation watched her silently continue to accomplish very exhausting official business alongside Charles, their point of view started to change. People began to think, “She has a sense of responsibility for government affairs, and without the ‘Me! Me!’ ambition. She has overcome so many difficulties and continued to stay by Charles’s side. Perhaps it could even be called true love.” When Camilla visited America, an American journalist wrote something like the following: “In person, Camilla is much more beautiful than I had thought, and she was full of a kind humor. When I look at her, I am made to think that if Diana had lived, she may not have actually been able to grow old as beautifully and naturally as Camilla has.”

The Queen did not quite consent to the marriage between Diana’s son, Prince William, with his longtime lover, Kate Middleton. Kate’s house was a house of millionaires created in one generation—her father was middle class, but her mother was from working class and seems to possess resolute ambition. In addition, her uncle on her mother’s side was arrested for the possession and selling of narcotic drugs. However, the Queen’s concern about Kate was what others teased her of—not working after graduation as she waited to marry William—and it is said that the Queen seriously asked William, “Why doesn’t she work even though she is healthy?” In the end, the Queen approved the marriage between the two because she was convinced that there was most importantly love and trust between them. Kate as the wife of William handled government affairs very well and gained tremendous popularity among the people.

There is no sign of Queen Elizabeth’s popularity declining. Like a celebrity, the Queen jumped out of a helicopter as a Bond girl in the London Olympics opening ceremony (performed by a stunt double) and attended the opening ceremony; perhaps her intention was to contribute to the success of the Olympics and her nation. I wish the Queen many more years of health, but the people will be overwhelmed by deep sorrow upon her death. However, this sorrow will differ from Diana’s death; it will certainly be full of gratitude for her many years of service to her people and hope for the next generation.

日本語→