Movie: King in the Wilderness (2018)

movieThis entry is about a recent documentary that focuses on Martin Luther King Jr’s final years. There was a distinct shift in the mid 60s as King expanded his efforts against poverty and violence. This pulled King in many directions and unfortunately made him some enemies. This documentary was released on HBO on April 2, 2018 in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the death of King. This documentary weaves together original footage of King’s speeches with modern interviews of some of his close friends reflecting back on the days they worked alongside King. This entry piggy-backs off of my entry about the historical drama film Selma.

pe002501The timeline in this documentary starts in 1966 when King went to live in a run-down building in Chicago. This was the beginning of his movement to End Slums in Chicago. With all the attention on demonstrations in the South, there was a common sentiment that a place in the North like Chicago didn’t have race issues. However, the dilapidated building infested with rats and sometimes lacking heat or electricity that King stayed in was not uncommon in Chicago; King was calling attention to the poor housing conditions and interrelated lack of access to education and employment in these poor and predominantly black neighborhoods in the West Side of Chicago. King patiently marched and organized community leaders to demand that folks should not be denied decent housing because of the color of their skin. King said the strong resistance he faced in Chicago by white folks showed the true colors of the U.S. Slums like the one he was staying in were being created and upheld by the system. In one speech in Chicago, King said point-blank, “We are tired of being lynched physically in Mississippi, and we are tired of being lynched spiritually and economically in the North.”

King faced many angry and violent protesters (seen in the footage holding signs like, “We Want Wallace”), yet was always resolute with his commitment to nonviolent resistance. King was calling for a restructuring of society and said this movement, “might be the biggest thing since our march in Selma.” As the third largest city in the U.S., he figured if the problems in Chicago could be solved, these problems could be solved everywhere. CKIB3YSUZJBIFEHW3ALFFH4EJUIn contrast to the amicable relationship between President Johnson and King seen in Selma a few years prior, here we hear conversations between Johnson and Robert Daly (the mayor of Chicago at the time) about how to “handle King.” Since the march on Selma, President Johnson and his administration felt that King was overstepping with his demands. This only worsened when King later spoke out against the Vietnam War.

For a while, King–as advised by his close friends–refrained from publicly taking a stand against the Vietnam War. People on his staff were wary about him getting involved in other movements because they felt he was biting off more than he could chew, and some of the protests against the Vietnam War were violent and disorganized. In addition, speaking out against the war was seen as anti-American and adversarial towards President Johnson, an ally in the Civil Rights Movement. King and his associates were already being closely surveilled by the FBI, so they feared that speaking out against this war alongside his essentially socialist empowerment of working-class people would be flagged as Communist amidst a Red Scare.

Coretta Scott King was actually vocal against the Vietnam War first, joining in some protests without her husband. Martin Luther King Jr. kept some distance from the movement, but anti-war groups continued to request his support. As an advocate for nonviolence and for all people, King felt he could not in good conscience remain silent on the war. In 1967, King gave a powerful speech at the Riverside Church where he said that he could no longer speak out against the violence and injustice within his country without also speaking out against the violence his country—“the greatest purveyor of violence in the world”—was responsible for abroad. His speech against the Vietnam War highlights the interrelatedness of everything he fought against. Poor men–disproportionately people of color–with no other choice were sent abroad and died for a country that wasn’t supporting their communities or their own liberties. King argued that these issues are all related in his movement for peace.

After this speech, the media and even some of his allies turned on him, saying things like he had “no right having an opinion on foreign affairs,” or questioned his audacity to speak out against “issues beyond civil rights.” King is rightfully celebrated for his fight against segregation and racism, but when he founded the Poor People’s Campaign and supported anti-Vietnam War protests, some people felt he was rocking too many boats. In this documentary, his friends recalled somberly how heavily the betrayal weighed on King when those around him did not support him in this decision.

Meanwhile, King was also trying to manage a significant split that was happening within the Civil Rights Movement. Stokely Carmichael, head of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and a participant in the march from Selma, felt strongly that the key was to empower Black Power to fight back. To him and a growing number of black activists, nonviolence was a tactic appropriate for some situations, but fighting back meant using violence if needed to get change. King and Carmichael in Mississippi MarchKing always advocated for only nonviolent protests, but he understood that people were frustrated. He supported the protests led by Carmichael and marched alongside him in hopes that he could keep them nonviolent. As the Black Power movement gained momentum, though, King was left trying to manage this fire among all the others.

This divide that was happening 50 years ago is still very relevant to the social justice movement today. In his famous letter from the Birmingham Jail, King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” King tirelessly fought against injustice, and he knew that the fight against racism, poverty, and war were all connected. Despite knowing that he was being spread too thin, he could not turn his back on any of these fights. Carmichael, on the other hand, believed that it was not actually possible for black people to gain power within a system made by white people. While he agreed that racism and poverty were deeply connected, he felt that rising to middle class meant assimilating into the “white world” and then turning your back on your brothers. The fear that, after helping your brothers up, they will immediately pull the ladder up behind them and leave you to suffer is common and understandable, but has always splintered working-class movements. King’s Poor People’s Campaign was a very intentional effort to unite all working-class folks, regardless of their color or background, through their shared desire for improved living conditions.

Martin Luther King Jr. was truly an inspirational leader, full of compassion and always committed to nonviolence. Even when someone threatened his life, King had no hate for them and continued to believe that all people are on the same side. He viewed racism like a sickness and preached that we mustn’t blame the sick, but try to cure the sickness. In this film, his friends talk about how he did not fear death, and even used humor to address the reality that the nature of his work would likely eventually kill him. King beautifully said, “If you truly want to be free, you must get over the love of wealth and the fear of death.”

M29374-14This film includes some footage from King’s funeral. Coretta is seen standing stoically at the funeral, which was open-casket and open to the public. It must have been very hard for the family to have to mourn publicly, but Coretta knew that his death was hard on everyone and that the people needed this funeral as a chance to mourn as well. There is a heart-wrenching moment when Martin Luther King Sr. is overcome with grief when he looks at his son’s casket.

A commemoration like this film is a good reminder of the progress we have made and how much more work needs to be done here in the U.S. I am so thankful of the progress made due to the fearless struggles by those before us and continued by people today. I attended a service at a Baptist church near me that was also in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of King’s death. The service featured three members of the church who had participated in the March on Washington. One woman talked about how she, in her twenties at the time, had marched alongside an 82-year-old woman who marched with such enthusiasm because of how important that moment was to her. Both of them looked at all the people gathered around them and were filled with hope. Reflecting back during this service, this woman was also grateful for all the progress that had been made in the past 50 years. I hope many more leaders carrying the mantle of nonviolent struggle against racism, poverty, and imperialism arise.

Movie: Selma (2014)

This entry is about Selma, a historical drama film made in 2014 depicting the events around the voting-rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, led by Martin Luther King Jr. in 1965. To be honest, I started this entry on Selma years ago when I watched it, but the themes addressed have only gotten more relevant to the current state of affairs in the U.S. that it was difficult for me to finish this entry. When I watched a recent documentary about Martin Luther King Jr. (King in the Wilderness), I felt it was time to write about them both. The two entries are very closely tied, but in order to keep each one focused and a reasonable length, I kept the entries separate.

selma-david-oyelowo-oprahSelma’s director Ava Marie DuVernay became known for her break-out film Middle of Nowhere (2012), for which she won Best Director at the Sundance Film Festival. Selma was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture, making DuVernay the first female African-American director to have her film even nominated for this Oscar. (Women still remain largely unrecognized in the Best Director Oscar category). The nomination was well-deserved, the film complete with beautiful cinematography and a powerful soundtrack. The acting was also quite solid and not overly dramatic, despite the gravity of the events being depicted.

Like Spielberg with Lincoln, it is interesting which story director DuVernay decided to focus on. Both films focus on quite short time frames that exclude some very famous moments, so perhaps benefit from some explanation of the context. Like with Lincoln, I think this choice is intentional in order to show how hard-fought these battles for change were and how things weren’t simply fixed with Lincoln abolishing slavery or King’s “I Have a Dream” speech in Washington.

The 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870, declaring it unconstitutional to deny someone the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” By the time of the march from Selma in 1965, African-Americans technically had the right to vote for nearly a century. However, methods ranging anywhere from unreasonable literacy tests, to steep poll taxes, to blatant intimidation were used to greatly limit the ability for black Americans to actually vote. Even after the abolition of slavery, the Jim Crow laws–implemented throughout the former Confederacy states of the south–were used to legally enforce racial segregation, with “separate but equal” facilities for black and white folks. jim_crow2While separate was certainly true, equal rarely was. From restrooms to schools to buses, the facilities for black people were often underfunded or sometimes even nonexistent, effectively depriving many rights and services from free black men and women. With these laws, people were still legally allowed to discriminate and deny service solely based on the color of someone’s skin, and the registrar could discriminatorily deny the right to vote through inconsistent scrutiny.

After World War II, African-Americans began to demand more rights. Many had chosen to fight alongside their fellow citizens, and justly felt they deserved full rights for their service. The Civil Rights Movement fighting against segregation and racial inequality began to gain momentum, and was enhanced in the 1960s by other groups also fighting for more rights. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed, outlawing on a federal level any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This was an important step towards finally tearing down segregation, ending the Jim Crow laws, and providing equal employment opportunities. The march from Selma depicted in this film was specifically focused on getting the government to actually enforce the 15th Amendment and crack down on the discriminatory barriers keeping blacks from voting. Selma is in a county that was and still is over 50% African-American, but, at that time, only 1% of African-Americans in the county were registered to vote. The film begins with Annie Lee Cooper (played by Oprah Winfrey) being denied once again when attempting to register to vote. We also see the tragic deaths of four young black girls in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing of 1963 by a KKK member. With this, director DuVernay successfully sets the stage.

150319-may-selma-2nd-march-tease_wgjl4zThroughout this film, we are able to see the great and pragmatic leadership of Martin Luther King Jr. King works on several fronts. With local leaders near Selma, he leads demonstrations demanding increased protection of constitutional rights–particularly voting rights–of African-Americans; meanwhile, King works with President Lyndon B. Johnson to push forward a voting rights bill at the federal level. After the unjust and violent death of Jimmie Lee Jackson during a peaceful protest, King works with leaders of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC) to organize the march from Selma to Montgomery to increase their voice for their demands. SelmaWhen Alabama Governor Wallace denounces the march and says he will use whatever means necessary to prevent it, King asks President Johnson for federal protection of this protest. During the first attempt on March 7 to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge on the way to Montgomery, the marchers are brutally beat down and tear gassed by state troopers and county police in what would later be known as “Bloody Sunday.” In the second attempt, the marchers are joined by allies—white and black—from churches and other activist groups around the country. Still without federal protection, however, King chooses to not lead the march across the bridge. With the third attempt on March 21, President Johnson promises protection, and the protesters arrive to the capital of Alabama on March 25.

By the time of the events of Selma, King was already well-respected and had received the Nobel Peace Prize for his nonviolent activism. King had the power to inspire people to rise up with his moving speeches; but with that, he remained aware of the risk he put people in by asking them to protest with him and always emphasized nonviolent protest. In the film, King at times struggles to decide how best to act and is criticized by some activists for not doing enough. However, he carefully considers how to increase the impact of each protest. He is able to direct the emotional pain of losing a loved one and the feeling of injustice to rally a community as well as any sympathizers, saying in one speech, martin4“I am appealing to men and women of God and goodwill everywhere, white, black, and otherwise… If you believe all are created equal, join our march against injustice and inhumanity.” King also harnessed the media coverage–such as the televising of the horrific violence of “Bloody Sunday”–to increase support from the people and put more pressure on the President.

There was some criticism of this film for portraying President Johnson too negatively, given that he is often respected for his work focused on eliminating poverty and racial injustice. However, I appreciated the realistic portrayal of President Johnson. In the film, he is certainly not glorified as a civil rights hero, but he is still a man led by his principles. The mutual respect between King and Johnson is shown as King is seen several times trying to convince LBJ of the need to act, both for the sake of civil rights and good politics. LBJ pushes back against King’s request for voting rights protection legislation; Johnson fears meeting a high amount of resistance, especially so soon after the hard-fought passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, President Johnson firmly condemns the violent handling of the march by Governor Wallace, telling him, “I’ll be damned to let history put me in the same place as the likes of you.” Johnson is seen as a politician trying to balance policies through turbulent times within the country as well as overseas in Vietnam. Even the sheriff and Governor Wallace–while, in no uncertain terms, are unlikeable for their role in the violence and support of segregation–aren’t portrayed as unrealistic villains, but rather as dangerously led by their segregationist ideals such that they believe they are justified in their violence.

After the march from Selma, President Johnson addressed Congress in a powerful speech appealing that this was not an issue just for the South, Democrats, or black Americans, but rather all Americans. He also reminded the country that, although slaves were freed over a century ago, the events of Selma were a reminder of how African-Americans still don’t have the rights of a free man. President Johnson was a strong voice because, as a devout Christian from the South, he argued for the moral importance for people all across the U.S. to uphold the country’s promise for freedom and opportunity to all peoples. After his moving speech, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was successfully passed, which outlawed many of these discriminatory devices that historically disenfranchised racial minorities. Since the Voting Rights Act, voter registration of African-Americans has significantly increased, as well as the number of African-Americans holding an elected position. This Act of course also helped reduce barriers for other minorities, including Hispanics and Asians.

Behind the scenes, there were a couple of things that made the production of this movie interesting. The first is that apparently the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. are copyrighted by the King estate, meaning the exact words of his speeches could not be used in Selma. Therefore, DuVernay had to write the speeches in this film that captured the essence of King without using his words. This must have been extremely difficult because King gave such strong and compelling speeches with carefully selected words. 201501-omag-selma-women-composite-949x534The original movie script was written by Paul Webb, but DuVernay made significant changes to it, including reducing the focus on President Johnson and increasing the role of female characters. (The original apparently solely consisted of one phone call from Coretta Scott King). As mentioned before, this choice resulted in some criticism, but DuVernay did not want to make a movie celebrating the accomplishments of one white politician, but rather the collective impact of many black men and women.

In an interview, DuVernay commented on her intentional choice to call upon the people of Selma for both the black and white extras in the marching scenes. She said watching everyone work through these tough scenes together was an important way for the people of Selma to address their painful past and underlined for her how important it is to keep telling these stories.

Director DuVernay has gained a lot of acclaim with her recent works. Middle of Nowhere had a budget of $200,000, while Selma had a budget of $20 million. She said the big jump in budget and crew took some getting used to. DuVernay’s newest release A Wrinkle in Time had a budget of $103 million, so I’m sure that took some getting used to as well. She created an independent film distribution company (ARRAY) as one way to encourage other African-American filmmakers.

Looking at this movie, it is wonderful to be reminded of the progress the United States has made. However, this movie is also a reminder that this fight is still happening. The Jim Crow laws have been outlawed, but the New Jim Crow (as described in author Michelle Alexander’s book) is the disproportionate incarceration and therefore disenfranchisement of black men due to the War on Drugs. Also, some states still have discriminatory legislation, such as photo ID requirements that are supposedly to reduce voter fraud, but actually disproportionately impact minorities and working-class individuals who aren’t always able to acquire one of the approved IDs.

Additionally, there has recently been more media coverage about the unwarranted violent treatment and too often death of black men and occasionally women by police officers. selma-premiere-protest-i-cant-breathe-david-oyelowo-ava-duvernayFilming for Selma started before the deaths of Mike Brown and Eric Garner, but by its release, Selma deeply resonated with the important conversations that were happening around the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The BLM protests in Ferugson are alluded to in the ending credits song (“Glory” by Common and John Legend, which won an Oscar): “This is why we walked through Ferguson with our hands up.” There is certainly a need for action—notably nonviolent action—today. The BLM movement is addressing how a deep-rooted, systemic racism—such as disproportionate incarceration rates and violence by the police force toward black people—still exists in the U.S. today.

After the death of Jimmie Lee Jackson, King gives a moving speech calling for action against the injustice that allowed his death. He makes it clear that non-action supports the problem when he says, “How many fingers were on that trigger? Every person who allows this to continue.” All the progress we have made has been due to people bravely fighting against the status quo.

Movie: Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967)

Matt Drayton (Spencer Tracy) is a publisher of a liberal newspaper in San Francisco. He loves his wife Christie (Katharine Hepburn) and daughter Joey (Katharine Houghton, a niece of Katharine Hepburn), and raised his daughter teaching against racial discrimination. While traveling Hawaii, Joey meets and falls in love with John Prentice (Sidney Poitier). Joey and John decide to marry and visit Joey’s parents to tell them of their decision. Even to the parents who oppose racial discrimination, it is not easy to embrace Joey’s decision immediately. The mother wants to accept John—who is accomplished, handsome, and a perfect gentleman—but the father isn’t ready, and his beliefs are being tested. John will leave to New York after having dinner together. He, in contrast to Joey who never doubted the support of her parents, knows the harsh reality of racism, and tells Matt that he will give up on this marriage unless both of Joey’s parents embrace it. Matt must tell them whether or not he supports their marriage by dinner in a few hours. In addition, John’s parents—without knowing John is engaged to a white girl—are coming from Los Angeles to join the dinner to celebrate their engagement.

Although the Japanese title “An Uninvited Guest” sounds good in Japanese, I think it is not a good translation that properly reflects the theme of the movie. The title comes from what excited Joey says to their cook—“Guess who’s coming to dinner! Monsignor Ryan! Please add one more”—when Monsignor Ryan, who is a close friend and advisor of the parents, hears and congratulates Joey and John on their decision, and wants to join them for dinner. Thus, the Japanese title meaning someone showed up for the dinner without an invitation is wrong. In other words, the parents’ belief against racial discrimination resulted in the dinner to which all of the guests were formally invited. If they had taught their daughter that blacks were inferior and not to be treated equally, Joey would not have talked to John, and would not have fallen in love with him because she would not have opened her heart to him. The Draytons’ life attitude invited John and his parents who wish for John’s happiness, as well as Monsignor Ryan. Although it was surely an unexpected development for the Draytons, the dinner after all was stemmed from their philosophy. The title “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” captures the not probable, but possible surprises of life. Due to their rejection of racial discrimination, Matt and Christie allowed for this rare, but possible event for the 1960s to happen.

The movie was produced and directed by Stanley Kramer, who also directed Judgment at Nuremberg and was a strong advocate of social justice. Thus, it was no surprise that he made a movie addressing the racial discrimination, one of the biggest issues in the 1960s. It may be unbelievable now, but in the year of 1967 when this movie was made, as many as 17 states prohibited interracial marriage, and those who violated this were sent to prison as criminals. I have deep respect for the courage of Stanley Kramer for making this movie during those days. Importantly, this movie, instead of being political propaganda, achieved being a high quality human drama since Kramer focused on depicting universal wisdom in life, instead of anti-racism belief.

First, the love between husband and wife is depicted. Both Joey’s and John’s parents who married more than 30 years ago still love each other and maintain mutual understanding and trust. Without the parents’ lasting marriages, the audience would feel that the excitement of Joey and John may not last once reality comes into play. The sustaining mutual love of parents gives the audience a secure feeling regarding the future of the young couple. The love between Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn, who were partners in their real life, overflows from the screen.

Next is the depiction of the love between parent and child. It is very profound and interesting. First, the child simply reflects the way of life of her parents, as seen by Joey. However, even more interesting are John’s words. John’s father says to John, “Every day, I carried a heavy load for many miles, and I raised you through great hardship. You owe me,” but John clearly states, “Father, I owe you nothing. From the day you brought me into this world, you owed me everything you could ever do for me, as I will owe my son if I ever have another.” In most societies, it may be accepted that, “Because a parent raises a child through hardships, the child should obey what the parent says and should look after the parents,” but I agree with John’s words. A person cannot select their parents, but a parent can select their child because they usually can choose whether or not to have a child. The ultimate love of a parent would be, once a parent decides to have a child, the parent does everything they can for the child without expecting any reward from the child. People should be devoted to bringing up the next generation without the expectation of compensation. However, the interesting thing is that the child who is brought up like this often gives back unconditional love to their parents without being asked.

Lastly, you don’t need someone’s approval to live. If the people around you give you approval, life is certainly easier, but the message is that, even without approval, as long as you clearly understand the height and difficulty of the hurdle, you can get through life on your own, and you should not make getting approval life’s first priority. Matt states this at the end:“There’ll be 100 million people right here in this country who will be shocked and offended and appalled, and the two of you will just have to ride that out, maybe every day for the rest of your lives… You’ll just have to cling tight to each other and say, ‘screw all those people’!”

This movie tells a five hour story in approximately two hours. The story is dense and fast-paced in a good way—much like High Noon—and the performances by the actors are wonderful. Katharine Hepburn expresses all emotions—“surprise,” “disappointment,” “giving up,” “determination,” “understanding,” “supportive,” “happiness” –with just her eyes; her “acting with eyes” is amazing, but even more amazing is Spencer Tracy. Because of his thick glasses, he is not able to use his “eye power” throughout the movie, and he never acts dramatically; yet, every change in emotion is transmitted, and it is slightly scary how much so. This movie was Spencer Tracy’s final work, and Katharine Hepburn received her second Oscar with this movie.

As mentioned before, interracial marriage was illegal in 17 states across America in 1967, but around the time this movie was being screened, the Virginia v. Richard Loving case—which was appealing for the overturning of Loving’s imprisonment for the marriage to a black woman—was being judged in the U.S. Supreme Court; the case ended with the judgment that the law prohibiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional, and interracial marriage finally became legal across the whole country. It was 102 years after the liberation of slaves was officially established with the approval of the 13th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution in 1865.

日本語→

Movie: Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors — Tini zabutykh predkiv (1964)

Once, this movie was celebrated as a masterpiece and won many awards in the West; but this movie has already slipped into obscurity, and it has become difficult to obtain it on DVD. It seems that movie director Sergei Parajanov—once regarded as an internationally renowned maestro—has also slipped into obscurity. In this movie, he used techniques that were novel for the time and astonished viewers, similar to his close friend director Andrei Tarkovsky (Ivan’s Childhood). However, because the next generation of directors in many countries imitated and often used these new techniques, it is very difficult today to see and appreciate the newness; also, the reputation of this movie within the Soviet Union was bad due to Sergei Parajanov being one of the victims who were buried under the political oppression of the Soviet Union administration.

Sergei Parajanov was born in 1924 in Georgia (in Japan, people tend to call it Grúziya in the Russian style, but the Georgian government demanded that it be internationally called Georgia in the English style), and studied cinematography at the All-Union State Institute of Cinematography in Moscow. He is ethnically Armenian.

Georgia is on the south side of the Caucasus Mountains, which connects the Black and Caspian Seas, and it has Russia to the north, Turkey to the south, and Armenia and Azerbaijan as neighbors. Since ancient times, this area was an important traffic route used by many ethnicities, and it was the focus of Russia’s plans for southern expansion; under the 1783 Treaty of Georgievsk, the eastern part of Georgia became a protectorate of Russia. Georgia, as a pious Greek Orthodox Church nation, needed Russia’s support in order to prevent Islam nations—such as Turkey and Persia, who feared Russia moving south—from invading Georgia. In other words, Georgia decided that it was necessary to rely on Russia in order to protect itself from the threat of Muslim Persia and Turkey—the Islamic power that coexisted in the Caucasus area. In 1801, Georgia—caught up in internal turmoil—was annexed into Russia. Later, in 1832, aristocrats in Georgia developed a plan to overturn Russian control, but it was soon suppressed by Russia. When the Russian Revolution broke out, Georgia declared independence from Russia, but the Soviet Union suppressed this, and Georgia became a part of the Soviet Union. Partly because Stalin was from Georgia, Georgia—until it declared its independence in 1991—was relatively obedient to the central government of the Soviet Union, and was not considered to be a problem child by the Soviet Union.

Sergei Parajanov married a Ukrainian woman and continued artistic activities in Ukraine, but gradually his avant-garde artistic style became considered to be anti-establishment, and he began to be oppressed by the Soviet Union socialist administration. In the Soviet Union, only movies that used a socialist and realistic style and praised socialism were allowed; avant-garde and surrealist movies, like those of Sergei Parajanov, were considered degenerate and dangerous movies that were hiding something. Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors was showered with high praises all over the world, but it was unpopular in the Soviet Union. Sergei Parjanov was increasingly oppressed by government authorities, and in 1974, he was imprisoned for the crime of homosexuality. Regarding his imprisonment, European directors including Federico Fellini, Roberto Rossellini, Luchino Visconti, François Truffaut, and Jean-Luc Goddard organized a protest campaign; Sergei Parajanov was released three years later, but even after that, he received relentless oppression from Soviet Union authorities, so it became impossible to make a movie. Due to this cruel situation, he later immigrated to Armenia.

Ukrainian Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky wrote the original Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky was born in 1864 in Ukraine—which was under Russian control at that time—and was part of a literature movement that focused on traditional Ukrainian culture, which was under severe oppression by the Russian Empire in those days. West Ukraine was under the control of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the time; since more Ukrainian cultural activity was allowed there than in Russia-controlled areas, he published his books in West Ukraine. Director Sergei Parajanov is not Ukrainian, but perhaps he felt a sort of commonness with Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky who was involved in the Ukrainian literature revival movement.

Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors is the Ukrainian version of the story of Romeo and Juliet, where a young boy from a mountain tribe in West Ukraine falls in love with the daughter of the rival family that killed his own parents. The movie depicts in vivid color the life of people who are Greek Orthodox—a religion that was strictly prohibited by the Soviet Union in those days; this movie suggests that religion was the standard for living, and that people lived in fear of supernatural phenomenon such as ghosts. The depiction of religion alone appears to be enough to rub socialist authorities—who banned all religions (but adhered religiously to Marxism)—the wrong way. Moreover, this movie goes beyond any possible acceptable range by depicting Ukrainians—who were hated by Soviet authorities for having been a threat to Russia, such as with the revolt of the Cossack soldiers, and attempting independence when the Soviet Union was established.

The Duchy of Kiev existed in the area of current Ukraine, but it was destroyed in the 13th century by the Mongolian Empire. After the Mongolian Empire, this area belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the north and the Kingdom of Poland to the west, but gradually a semi-military community called Cossacks developed, and they began to resist control by foreign powers. However, due to the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667, Ukraine was divided; West Ukraine was placed under the control of Poland—later the Austro-Hungarian Empire—and East Ukraine was placed under the control of Russia. Taking advantage of the collapse of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires in World War I, Ukrainians living in West Ukraine declared their independence as the West Ukrainian People’s Republic; Poland opposed this, and thus the Polish-Ukrainian War began. The Polish side was supported by France, Britain, Romania, and Hungary. Against this, West Ukraine appealed for support from the Ukrainian People’s Republic to the east. However, the Ukrainian People’s Republic government could not dispatch reinforcements since they were fighting against the Soviet Red Army; in the end, West Ukraine was occupied by Poland, and the West Ukrainian People’s Republic collapsed.

The Ukrainian People’s Republic to the east was put under Soviet Union control; the Soviet Union led by Lenin and Stalin adopted hostile policies toward Ukraine. One reason was that Ukraine was a fertile agricultural nation, so the socialist policy that was based on factory workers was not applicable to the economic system of Ukraine. Because the socialist policies that did not fit Ukraine’s reality were enforced, the agriculture of Ukraine suffered devastating damage, and a great many people died of famine. Stalin’s Great Purge also started from Ukraine.

In World War II, Ukraine—due to its close proximity to Germany—suffered enormous damage, and among the Soviet Union, Ukraine was the greatest victim of World War II. It is said that 1 in 5 Ukrainians died in the war. People’s stance during the war was also complicated in this area; there were some people who supported the Soviet Union side, while other people supported the German side. Also, there were people who joined the anti-Soviet, anti-German Ukrainian Insurgent Army, and fought for Ukraine’s independence. Ukraine, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, became a new independent nation in 1991, but Ukraine and Russia are still tied together in many ways. The government is also torn between the anti-Russia faction and the pro-Russia faction.

日本語→

Movie: Closely Watched Trains — Ostře sledované vlaky (1966)

This movie is based on a novel by author Bohumil Hrabal—who wrote the original story of the Czech movie I Served the King of England—and was adapted into a movie by director Jiří Menzel—who also did the movie adaptation of I Served the King of England. In other words, I Served the King of England and Closely Watched Trains were written by the same original author and adapted into a movie by the same director. At first I thought that the evasive satire and dark humor seen in I Served the King of England was only possible after the communist regime collapsed, but Closely Watched Trains is equally a shamelessly satirical tragicomedy. Considering that this movie was made while Czechoslovakia was still under the Communist Party, and also that Jiří Menzel was just the young age of 28 when he made this movie, all I can say is that Jiří Menzel is amazing. Or maybe it’s Bohumil Hrabal who is amazing.

Jiří Menzel was one of the young movie writers that participated in what could be called the Czech New Wave that was emerging in the 1960s. Closely Watched Trains received the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Due to the Soviet Army suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring, which occurred soon after this award, many movie directors took refuge abroad, but Menzel stayed in Czechoslovakia. Following this, he was once again nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award in 1986 for his My Sweet Little Village, but otherwise there was a long blank in his career until 1989, when the communist regime collapsed.

This movie is about the people working at a small station in a small village in Czechoslovakia, which was occupied by Nazi Germany, during World War II. The stationmaster is crazy about keeping pigeons. Train dispatcher Hubička is envied by the stationmaster for being for some reason popular with women, but he doesn’t have any other skills. The elderly station attendant is no longer useful at all. Miloš is the protagonist of the movie. His grandfather was a hypnotist, but when he tried to defend Prague by hypnotizing the invading German army, he was crushed by a German army tank and died. Miloš’s father was a railway worker, but retired early; because of his father’s retirement, Miloš replaces his father at the station by working as an intern. Miloš secretly has a crush on a cute, young conductor, but when he is unable to become a man sexually in front of her, he is distraught and attempts suicide.

So the story goes, and on the surface it appears to be a story of quite flawed men lazily working, but actually, at that time, the shadow of the defeat of the German army was creeping in; also, trains fully loaded with dead people and weapons pass through this station every day, but this is hidden from viewers initially. And then what?!! Hubička, Miloš, and the old station attendant—three people everyone thought were incompetent—heroically blow up a heavily guarded “closely watched train” that is carrying the war equipment for the German army. However, the movie finishes with a sad ending.

Closely Watched Trains, like I Served the King of England, reveals the surrounding heavy reality as we follow the actions of the careless protagonist and laugh.

This movie is very much told from the perspective of a man. This movie shows that, in order to become a man, a man questions himself, suffers, and tries hard. For Miloš, experiencing sex and participating in resistance activities seem to be proof of his value as a man. This movie makes me cynical about the idea of a man casting away his virginity and going to war as a rite of passage because he feels that, although the unknown world is scary, he will not become a man without going through this. A woman may not understand this rite of passage completely, but she may want to say, “Relax! A woman doesn’t judge a man by that!” A woman may find herself being attracted to Miloš, who is timid and refuses to go to war, but does outrageous things as part of the resistant partisans.

The story advances by constantly balancing contradictory concepts—innocence and scheming, fun and sadness, optimistic serenity and cruelty of war, youth and maturity—and the movie makes the audience wonder, “What’s going on?” or “What happens now?” or “What on earth is true?”; by doing this, the movie hooks the audience until the very end of the film. It is incredible.

日本語→

Movie: Ivan’s Childhood — Ivanovo detstvo (1962)

This movie is director Andrei Tarkovsky’s movie adaptation of Russian author Vladimir Bogomolov’s short story Ivan. Ivan—a young boy who became an orphan after losing his whole family including his parents in the Eastern Front during World War II when he was 12 years old—joins the partisans out of his hatred for Germany, and he later participates in the Soviet Army as a reconnaissance soldier; in the end, he is executed by the Nazis, ending his short life. There isn’t a particularly dramatic story development, but the movie keeps making a clear contrast between the beautiful and poetic scenes that flashback to the young boy’s memories of the peaceful days, and the harsh reality of the war spreading in front of the boy.

This movie’s characteristic is the beauty of the objet d’art (art object). Neither actual battle scenes nor German soldiers appear, and war is only symbolically expressed with gunshots and lights, like toy fireworks. Every objet d’art—water, darkness, light, lamps, ruins, the swamp, the beach, the well, horses, white birch trees, birds, apples, etc—is placed effectively and sometimes in a surprising location; also, the movement of people is shot from unexpected angles.

When Stalin died in 1953, the people under Soviet Union control in those days finally gained peace of mind, and Western culture rapidly flowed into the Soviet Union; new theories on movies and art were introduced into universities, and this movie was made during the period when a new generation of movie directors was being brought up. Andrei Tarkovsky was one of the young men of this new post-war generation. It is said he fawned over America, to the point of being criticized for it; he was very interested in modern America and obsessed with jazz. Also, he enthusiastically studied the directors that were considered great by Western countries in those days such as Jean-Luc Godard, Akira Kurosawa, Federico Fellini, Orson Welles, and Ingmar Bergman.

Rather than story and subject matter, this movie seems concerned with novel objet d’art and angles for filming; it seems that it was greatly influenced by La Nouvelle Vague (“the new wave”) swelling in France at that time. La Nouvelle Vague was a movie movement that happened in France in the 50s, and was led by French movie critics who bitterly criticized existing movie directors as being “dull,” and who enthusiastically declared, “We can make more interesting movies.” François Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard were central figures.

In France, which was still scarred from the war in the 1950s and 60s, the youth tended to rebel strongly against adults and the establishment that caused the war. New movements were rising in many cultural areas, such as communism in politics, existentialism—led by Jean-Paul Sartre—followed by structuralism in the realm of philosophy, and La Nouvelle Vague within movies. The themes of these new movements included a feeling of decadence, eroticism, destructive acts, or nihilism without solutions. French culture heavily influenced Japan in the 60s, and a group called “Japan Nouvelle Vague” was even born in Japan, representative movie directors being Nagisa Oshima, Masahiro Shinoda, Shohei Imamura, Susumu Hani, Hiroshi Teshigahara, Yasuzo Masumura, and Koreyoshi Kurahara. They made movies with themes that had until then not often been the subject—such as juvenile delinquents, crimes, uninhibited sex, women living unnoticed in society, or bottom class people; also, they made movies that seemed to forsake the audience by being difficult to understand, and the audience began to consider them as “artists.”

La Nouvelle Vague movies were fresh in those times, but how are they when you watch them today? The novel techniques were imitated one after another by directors that followed after, and since everyone uses these methods now, viewers today may not understand why La Nouvelle Vague movies are considered revolutionary. Also, I wonder how many people today know the names Sartre and François Truffaut? Young Japanese people today might say about Sartre (pronounced “Sarutoru” in Japanese), “Sa-ru-to-ru, who? Is that someone who leaves (‘saru’) and takes things (‘toru’)?” But back in the 1960s, Sartre was so well-known in Japan that even a Japanese TV comedian referred to his name in a joke (“catch the monkey,” since “saru”=monkey, “toru”=catch) because the name “Sarutoru” sounds funny. I think it is certainly great that those of this movement pursued fresh methods and ideas 60 years ago, and since their methods are still kept alive in modern movies as mainstream methods, we could say that the core of La Nouvelle Vague is still alive today after all. Even now, we express the generalization, “French movies are difficult to understand, and they coldly cast aside the hearts of viewers.” Many modern French movies have a tone that is not La Nouvelle Vague, but there are also many French movies that are still based on the spirit of La Nouvelle Vague. We can say that La Nouvelle Vague was so influential that the basic tone of postwar French movies was defined by it.

As a result, this movie, Ivan’s Childhood, seems to raise interesting issues that Andrei Tarkovsky probably didn’t intend for.

Ivan is a war orphan and, due to the murder of his family, changes from an innocent young boy to nihilistic young boy. The only emotion he believes in is “hatred.” He is not scared anymore, no matter what happens. He hates German soldiers, but can’t trust any adult anymore—German or Russian—because it was adults that caused this war.

Ivan is killed in the war, but I wonder what would become of him if he survived? Maybe he would become an adult who hates the people in the generation above him. Germany and France, cruelly affected by the war, broke out in a violent anti-establishment movement in 1950s and 60s. Central to this movement was the generation who were children during the war, and this generation conveyed the feeling of hatred for the establishment to the generation born after the war. The change in the boy playing Ivan from being an innocent young boy with a happy smiling face to one with a dark face full of hatred—like an omen for the future—is very impressive in the movie.

日本語→

Movie: Z (1969)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movie: Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→