Category Archives: 1950s

Movie: Ashes and Diamonds — Popiół i diament (1958)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie is very difficult to understand. The original work was literature that praised the leader of the communist party, and it was approved by the Communist Party of Poland; but in the movie adaptation, director Andrzej Wajda made the communist party leader protagonist into a supporting role, and made a young guerilla planning an assassination—who had just a minor role in the original work—the protagonist in the movie. This protagonist is a freewheeling and unattached young man with weird-looking glasses. He falls in love with the girl at a bar—who is like a diamond in the ash—and they understand each other’s circumstances of their families being massacred by German soldiers; with this, he begins to transform—once he takes off his glasses—into a lonely handsome man resembling James Dean. I think the reason this movie is hard to understand is that the political situation at that time was complicated, and in order to pass censorship, the movie minimizes conversation and uses many metaphors.

images1There of course was severe censorship of movies by the Communist Party of Poland. Except for the protagonist in the original becoming a supporting role, the movie remains faithful to the original work that was approved by authorities, and the last scene with the young man dying in the landfill like worthless ash seems to warn, “Hahaha, that’s what happens when you rebel against the Communist Party.” However, it is said that those who were censoring felt something suspicious about this movie, and that they discussed with Moscow seriously about whether or not to approve this movie. In the end, since there wasn’t anything concrete that could be blamed, it passed censorship. However, because the movie received overwhelming praise in Western Europe when the producer put himself in danger by submitting it to the Venice Film Festival, the communist administration felt, “I don’t know what it is, but there must be anti-establishment thought inserted into this movie.” After this, director Wajda—who was already watched closely by the authorities—was completely blacklisted.

The circumstances of Poland during World War II are depicted in director Wajda’s Katyń. Even with the change in the political system, his attitude did not waver at all over the 50 year period between these movies, and he persevered through his hard times in Poland without choosing to flee his country. It is no wonder he is respected.

In this movie, a guerilla, who is targeting the life of a Communist Party politician, is a member of an anti-Germany partisan group. It may be hard to understand why these people who oppose Germany are attempting to assassinate a communist—who aligns with the Soviet Union that chased away Germany—without understanding the situation of those days.

In August 1939, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union entered the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression treaty, and a secret stipulation within that treaty was that Germany and the Soviet Union would divide Poland. That following September, they started invading Poland, with the German and Slovakian armies from the west on September 1, and the Soviet Army from east on the 17th. The Polish government escaped to London and formed the “Polish government-in-exile,” which guided partisans in Poland. For the Polish government-in-exile, the Soviet Union was the abominable country that had, with Germany, invaded Poland; but when forced to choose between the Nazis and the Soviet Union, the Polish government had to choose the Soviet Union as an ally because Great Britain had already allied to the Soviet Union. However, there was the Katyn incident, and Poland did not trust the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union established a communist puppet government in Poland—separate from the Polish government-in-exile in London—that followed orders from the Soviet Union and opposed the partisans led by the government-in-exile that was supported by Great Britain. After all, World War II was a conflict between Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union, and because of Poland’s geographical location, the true nature of the conflict became clear in Poland. Under the orders of the Polish government-in-exile, the partisans in Poland rose up against Germany several times, and the largest of these was the Warsaw Uprising in June of 1944. This uprising was actually proposed by the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Army cut off support to the revolting army at a critical time. In the end, it became a battle between the German army and the Polish resistance Home Army. Hitler, concluding that the Soviet Union Red Army had no intention at all to rescue Warsaw, ordered for the suppression of the resistance Home Army and complete destruction of Warsaw. The Polish resistance Home Army had overwhelming support from the citizens of Warsaw, and they put up a good fight, but in the end, the army failed with the uprising. Many in the Home Army died, but those who survived escaped via underground water tunnels. Warsaw was destroyed as a punitive attack by the German army; after this, participants in the uprising were considered terrorists, and about 220,000 partisans and citizens were executed. After the uprising settled, the Soviet Red Army finally resumed their attack and occupied the ruins of Warsaw in January 1945. Afterwards, the Soviet Red Army arrested partisan leaders, and oppressed partisans wishing for Poland’s independence.

Ashes and Diamonds depicts four days, over which Commissar Szczuka moves to a Polish town for his new job as the occupying commander after Germany surrendered in 1945, and partisan Maciek, who has no relatives, receives orders and plans Szcuka’s assassination. For Britain, America, and France of the Allies, Germany’s surrender was the first step toward happy days, but for Poland, it was an ominous sign for their uncertain future.

images2After the failure of the Warsaw Uprising, the partisans supported by Great Britain finally recognized the Soviet Union as their true enemy, and made the Soviet Union the target of their attacks. The few surviving anticommunist partisans hid in the forest and resisted the Soviet Union, but since it became clear that the Soviet Union would be the ruler of Poland, resistance was futile. Director Wajda modeled Maciek after James Dean, who became an international star with Rebel Without a Cause, and he asked Zbigniew Cybulski who played Maciek to study James Dean. In fact, after the success of this movie, Zbigniew Cybulski came to be called the “Polish James Dean.” James Dean and Zbigniew Cybulski were the same generation, and James Dean died in a traffic accident at the age of 24, while Zbigniew Cybulski died in an accident when he was 39. Keiichiro Akagi—said to be the Japanese James Dean—also died young in a traffic accident when he was 21 years old.

日本語→

Movie: War and Peace (1956)

Posted on by
Reply

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: 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: High Noon (1952)

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movie: The Sun Also Rises (1957)

Posted on by
Reply

The Japanese title—“the sun rises again”—could be taken as a Japanese translation that signifies the renewed hope of, “Even though life is painful, tomorrow could be a wonderful day”; but actually, after World War I, there was a period of time when people had an emptiness that was hard to express, and the title captures the hopeless regard for daily life of, “Oh, today I also drank, ate, loved, and then it was over. Nothing new ever happens. The earth turns regardless of what I do, and tomorrow the sun will also again uneventfully rise…”

Hemingway, who lived out in the country in America, was not well understood by others regarding his wounded body and mind from World War I, so he planned to move to Italy, which had become his second home; but a friend advised him, “If you are going to Europe anyway, go to Paris, the center of culture,” so he found work as a correspondent and lived in Paris. There were many youths like him whose lives were changed by some sort of injury during the Great War. The Sun Also Rises is the story of the protagonist, who is a projection of Hemingway, sightseeing the bullfighting and festival in Pamplona, Spain with friends, and him being charmed by the beauty of the sport of bullfighting.

To be honest, this movie—other than the bullfighting scenes and the scene when the bulls are released into the streets—lacks charm entirely; I think the biggest problem, though, is that the lost youths in their 20s are performed by actors in their 40s. In the original, the protagonists are young, disappointed for some reason, don’t know what they should do, and live a life where their love affairs have become their “full-time jobs” (the only thing they have). In contrast, the actors performing them are successful in Hollywood, their pockets are packed with money, their faces clearly show an attitude of, “let’s enjoy dinner with family and friends after filming,” and they don’t look like they have any anxiety for their lives or futures. When well-aged actors play immature youth who are impulsively moved by their hormones and can’t stop themselves from falling in love, it is a disappointing movie that makes me want to say, “You should be old enough to know better than to do these stupid things.”

There is no author that represents the merits of America as much as Hemingway. He was born in Illinois, which symbolizes the heart of America as well as honesty, faithfulness, and diligence. If I list politicians from Illinois—Abraham Lincoln, Hillary Clinton, and President Obama—you will understand the values held by Illinoisans. Hemingway was a handsome man and had a strong sense of justice, and he established a literary style that expressed his feelings in simple English that anyone could understand. He had a healthy body, and liked sports, particularly hunting, fishing, and boxing. He was an athletic man, but also had a mind capable of understanding anything from a delicate heart to a decadent lifestyle.

His experience in World War I determined his view on life. Like how the Vietnam War impacted a generation in America, his most influential experiences started and ended with World War I. The later World War II did not have as much of an impact on him as World War I did. This is because World War I occurred during his late teens, when he could best understand war and was impressionable. To America, Hemingway was an author that symbolized the “good ol’ America” from before the 1950s.

While watching American movies, I noticed movies from before the 1950s and after the 1970s are totally different. Movies before the 1950s seem to be tall tales performed by elementary school children, and there is nothing relatable in them today. In contrast, with movies made after the 1970s –if you look at movies such as The Godfather or The Deer Hunter today—there is something relevant in them today, and the themes surprisingly don’t become old. During the 1960s that bridged the 1950s and 1970, events such as the assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., the intensification of the Vietnam War, and the Watergate scandal occurred. After this, America was no longer the same. Hemingway committed suicide in 1961, which seems to symbolize the end of “good ol’ America.” Even if he had lived on, I don’t think Hemingway, having experienced World War I, would have been deeply impacted by the Vietnam War.

Bullfighting, which Hemingway loved above all else, was once the national sport of Spain, but due to animal rights arguments against killing bulls, the popularity of bullfighting has begun to decline. The first law banning bullfighting came into existence in the Canary Islands in 1991; in July 2010, Catalonia—which had a strong anti-Madrid feeling—established its first ban against bullfighting, and Catalonia had its final bullfighting show in 2011. Seventy-five percent of citizens in Spain say they are not interested in bullfighting, and now Spaniards are crazy about soccer. Once, a circus went around the countryside with a lion and an elephant, delighting people who had never seen these animals in real life, but due to opposition from the animal protection movement, this began to decline; in 2011, the last circus elephant in Great Britain was retired and transferred to an African safari park as its new home, making the news headlines. In 2012, it was widely reported that Juan Carlos I, the King of Spain, unofficially went to Botswana and hunted lions, despite the fact the King himself worked as the honorary president of the World Wide Fund for Nature; he received international criticism for hunting animals and was dismissed from his position as honorary president of the Fund. Currently, the most popular sports in the world are soccer, basketball, tennis, and track-and-field events, while the interest in boxing and hunting seem to be decreasing. The sun always rises the same way every day, but the times change.

日本語→