Category Archives: 1970s

Movie: The Day of the Jackal (1973)

Posted on by
Reply

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: The Tin Drum — Die Blechtrommel (1979)

Posted on by
Reply

The Tin Drum was based on the full-length novel by the German author Günter Grass that was published in 1959, and director Volker Schlöndorff adapted it into a movie in 1979. It is said that the movie leaves out the second half of the original work, but the reproduction of the first half is fairly loyal to the original. Günter Grass received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1999 for his achievements as an author, such as this book, while the movie won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes International Film Festival and the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Since I have not read the original, I wish to write only about the movie.

This movie is an unpleasant movie, like listening to a nail scratch on glass. The movie’s protagonist has for some reason stopped growing and is stuck in the body of a young child, but his mind and feelings are that of a grown adult. The catchphrase of this movie—“This movie is about the pacifism of the protagonist who stopped growing in order to oppose war”—is outrageous. To say it briefly, the protagonist of this story takes advantage of people thinking that he is a child due to his small body to do whatever he pleases, and instead of taking responsibility for his actions, he shamelessly avoids responsibility by pretending he is a child. Because of the peculiar state of the protagonist, he can easily sense when an adult lets their guard down around him or an adult’s cunning when they are trying to take advantage of him. Also, it feels like the protagonist is reflecting a part of the author Günter Grass.

Günter Grass—unlike Oskar, the protagonist of this movie/novel—is not a little person; however, like Oskar, Günter was born in the Free City of Danzig, a territory that has been fought over by Poland and Germany. Also like Oskar, Günter was born of a German, Nazi-supporting father and an oppressed minority, Kashubian mother. Oskar participates with fellow little people in a dwarf circus that entertains and is treated well by high-ranking Nazi officers; Günter Grass also actually enthusiastically took part in Nazi activity in his youth. It may be a part of his past that he does not want to talk about much publicly, but when Günter confessed it, readers around the world who had idealized Günter Grass—a Nobel Prize author and advocate for peace—were shocked.

Of course being a successful author does not equal being a perfect person, and a reader with this expectation would be being selfish. Since there were many youths who thought seriously about how to live and became captivated by communist thought as a way to change the ugly world, it is conceivable that there were also many good-intentioned people who joined the Nazis with the passion of idealism to make the world a better place. It may not be possible to judge past earnest decisions simply from a modern point of view. Because the movie ends abruptly in the middle of the novel, the audience is made to think, “I am unpleasantly dragged around to have it end here?” However, the original continues on after that, and it is said that it ends with the protagonist continuing to escape reality, but achieving some growth and looking back on the past. Compared to the movie, which ends at the height of his escapism, my guess is that the original has some depth that the movie does not when the protagonist looks back with a point of view different than his selfish and immature one.

This movie was made in the 1970s, which was a confusing time across the world. Although the Cold War was becoming more serious, the majority of people had started to become disillusioned with the notion that socialism was the only salvation to change the world. In addition to the antagonism between liberalism and socialism, there was a new antagonism sprouting between Christian and Islamic fundamentalist nations. It was a time when people were at a loss, which was very different than things starting in 1980, when America, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union chose pragmatic leaders—President Reagan, Prime Minister Thatcher, and General Secretary Gorbachev, respectively—to look for pragmatic solutions. Even Hollywood—which always chose to have pleasing happy endings—started to make movies that left the audience in desperation and provided no solutions or salvation, which the audience thought was profound and depicted reality; this movie was made during these times. Now, 40 years later, I wonder what viewers think when they watch this movie. It seems that the current audience desires more emotionally consoling movies, thoroughly entertaining movies, or informative movies that positively influence how viewers live. Due to the change in times, it is no longer easy to understand the enthusiastic response to this movie when it was released.

Danzig is a harbor city that faces the Baltic Sea, and is at the northeast edge of the Polish Corridor that divided Germany. Since ancient times, Germany and Poland fought to control the land in the Corridor, but due to Germany’s defeat in World War I, the area was separated from Germany and transferred to being under the control of the League of Nations. With the Treaty of Versailles, Danzig was incorporated as Polish tariff territory; though not physically neighboring Poland, the city developed strong ties with Poland. The Free City of Danzig’s railroad that connected it to Poland was controlled by Poland; there was a Polish naval port; and of the two post offices, one post office was the city’s while the other was Poland’s. Residents of this area were mostly Polish and German, while a small number were Kashubian and Jewish.

At first, Danzig was established with the objective to protect the interests of Poles and to extend the power of Poland; however, the influence of Germans and Nazis gradually strengthened, and after the Nazis won the election in 1933, anti-Jew and anti-Catholic laws (meant to target Poles and Kashubians) were passed. In 1939, the Nazi government in Danzig started to severely oppress Poles living in Danzig. Then on September 1, 1939, the German battleship SMS Schleswig-Holstein, which was anchored at Gdańsk Bay in Danzig, began a severe bombardment on Poland’s military base in Danzig without proclamation, and thus World War II began.

The Polish army resisted by using the Polish post office as their fort. The Polish post office was considered to be Polish territory, rather than within Danzig city limits, and there was a direct phone line to Poland. It is said that workers had received rifle training before the war started. Also, some say that Poland’s anti-Germany intelligence organization secretly operated there. Despite their hard-fought defense, the Polish civilian army in the post office could not compete with the offense of the German army, and in the end, they surrendered.

In World War II, most non-Jewish Polish citizens in Danzig were killed by German paramilitary organizations such as the Selbstschutz (“self-protection”), while the Jewish citizens were targeted by the Holocaust and were sent to concentration camps. In March of 1945, Danzig was liberated by the Soviet Union Red Army. In this movie, the way Oskar’s Kashubian mother goes back and forth between her German husband and her Polish lover seems to symbolize the race conflict in Danzig. There is a strong possibility that Oskar’s real father is the Polish man, but because he is the child of a German on the family register, Oskar barely escapes alive to Germany after the war. However, his grandmother remains in Danzig, and she is separated from Oskar for the rest of her life; since his grandmother is Kashubian, she cannot enter Germany.

Nowadays, Danzig is a Polish territory called Gdańsk. It was mostly destroyed in World War II, but it is said that due to the great efforts of current citizens, the historic streets have been rebuilt, and it prospers as a beautiful town for sightseeing.

日本語→

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movie: The Spirit of the Beehive — El espíritu de la colmena (1973)

Posted on by
Reply

After the violent Spanish Civil War, Generalísimo Franco overthrew the left-wing Popular Front administration that was selected by a general election; this movie is set just after Franco seized power in 1939. Following this, a reign of terror continued in Spain until Franco died in 1975, and people remained silent during these times out of fear of retribution. In 1973 when this movie was made, the dictatorship was not as severe as it was initially, but movies were still strictly censored by authorities. The reason why even recent Spanish movies have many metaphors and abstractions may be that this way of expression became a part of the engrained culture of the intelligentsia, who faced 40 years of cultural oppression. In fact, there is not a single dramatic event in this movie. This is the kind of movie that makes me wonder after finishing the movie what it wanted to say.

There is only one scene in the movie that implies that a Republican soldier who escapes is shot dead, and the censors also made note of this scene; however, they figured, “Nobody will watch such a boring movie,” and the whole movie made it through the screening process uncut. During this time, moviemakers made their political agenda increasingly abstract, while authorities tried harder and harder to find the hidden political agenda, like a monkey chasing a weasel. However, when this work was finally screened, it touched people, and it established a reputation as a masterpiece. Was it because people were touched by the beautiful images in this movie, or because the Spanish audience learned the art of discovering something in the metaphors?

Since this movie is so abstract, viewers are allowed to interpret it in many possible ways. To give an example of an extreme interpretation as a political metaphor, the father who spends all his time on a trivial beehive study symbolizes the intelligentsia, who gave up their true interests in order to survive. The beehive society that he hates is a metaphor for the society under the control of Franco, which is orderly, but devoid of creativity. The mother spends her days writing letters to a former lover (I assume, based on how the movie depicts it) who is a Republican fugitive; this symbolizes the longing for freedom and the nostalgia for the past. The two daughters are in the same generation, but the older sister Isabel—who seems quite mature for her age—represents the young generation who adapted to Franco’s administration without criticism, while the younger sister Ana—who looks at the world with frightened eyes—symbolizes the idealistic youth in Spain in the 1940s. The emotionally discordant situation of the protagonist Ana’s family symbolizes the division in Spain due to the Spanish Civil War, while the ruins and the surrounding desolate scenery represent the sense of isolation felt when the Franco administration was first established. Near the end, the mother—who ignored her children and stayed in her own world—softens emotionally, and the bonds between the family members becomes stronger; this can be interpreted as hope for Spain’s future.

Another extreme interpretation is that this story has nothing to do with politics, and that it is just about the little girl Ana growing out of her child mentality that merges the real and imaginary worlds.

Therefore, everybody can appreciate the beauty of the images, but the opinions on how to interpret the movie seems to be divided. Since everyone in Spain in those days had to live life as if they were being watched by someone behind them, it is unlikely that this director had no political stance at all. This is because everybody had to internally deal with the reign of terror. However, I don’t think that the whole movie symbolizes an anti-government protest. I don’t believe this movie was so calculated in its construction.

This movie depicts the sense of fear any young child feels in an unknown world. Frankenstein’s monster, the dark, nighttime, ruins, poisonous mushrooms, ghosts, deep wells, the forest, reflections in a pond, and railways are all fears of children. However, while it is natural for a child like Ana to have these fears, she strangely lacks the parents who should hold her and say, “Don’t be afraid, it’s okay.” The reason is that the parents also have a fear—the government. During Ana’s search for Frankenstein’s monster, she meets a soldier who escaped. Since the escaped soldier is shot to death, Ana realizes—although just vaguely—that there is something in the real world that is even scarier than any fear that she came up with in her mind. Perhaps this is the criticism of the government that is hidden in this movie.

日本語→

Movie: Fiddler on the Roof (1971)

Posted on by
Reply

Jewish author Sholem Aleichem was born in 1859 in Ukraine—which was a territory of the Russian Empire in those days—and wrote the short novel Tevye the Dairyman in 1894; in 1961, the musical Fiddler on the Roof based on his stories was performed on Broadway, and it became a big hit. In the 1971 film adaptation of this musical, Norman Jewison was the director and producer, and screenwriter Joseph Stein was in charge of the screenplay. It depicts the dairyman Tevye living in a village with his five daughters, the marriage of the older three daughters, and the family being chased from their hometown and immigrating to America due to persecution by the Russian Empire.

This movie has two major themes. First, as with the original novel, there is the change of times where a Jewish family that keeps tradition and lives peacefully in the community is forced to cope with changes when the daughters want to choose their marriage partners. When director Norman Jewison was later asked in an interview about the audience’s reaction to the movie (the interviewer had New York’s reaction in mind when they asked the question), he spoke of his experience in Japan. He said the reaction of the Japanese audience was frequently, “If you change the faces and remove the western clothes, what this movie depicts is simply modern Japan,” and regarding this, he said, “The Japanese audience was wonderful and had a true understanding of this movie; I think they deeply related to this movie.” He visited Japan in 1971, and even 20 years later, his favorable impression of the reaction by the Japanese audience still remains, and he talks about this favorable impression without being prompted.

I think the generation gap depicted in this movie was a big problem for Japan in the 1960s and 70s. Those days were a time of political change worldwide. However, the idea of, “marrying someone nearby with whom you were set up by a matchmaker”—which was until then the absolute marriage principle in Japan—started crumbling in the 70s. Up until then, matching pedigrees was the main thing that was considered for a spouse, but in times of rapid economic growth, “financial strength” began to be a new factor; additionally, a woman wished to marry a man she loved. In short, the parents may be at a loss if the three factors—pedigree, financial strength, and love—contradict; in regards to financial strength, “academic background” and “occupation” have to be considered, and in regards to love, “appearance” and “personality” come into play. Thus, parents no longer had a clear standard for what out of these factors was most important. Which out of, “very respectable education, but low income,” and “not a great academic background, but fairly rich person” to choose? Or which has more value between, “a new rich family without a good pedigree” and, “a child from a declined respectable family”? Choosing this in one situation and that in a different situation is the same thing that the father Tevye does in the movie. In the end, the eldest daughter marries the poor, young man whom she loves over the “the aged, rich man who worked as a butcher, a profession considered to be lowly,” that the matchmaker was pushing for. The second daughter yearns for the son of the clergyman—who has the top social status in the village—but in the end she falls in love with her tutor who educates her; when he gets deported to Siberia for participating in the revolutionary movement, she decides to follow him to Siberia. The third daughter elopes with a man who is not Jewish, and they get married in a Greek Orthodox Church. While Tevye can one way or another forgive the eldest and second daughters for their actions, he cannot forgive the third daughter for her marriage. In Japan, the confusing marriage conditions seem to be changing today into something simpler: “three highs” (high height, high education, and high income); but it wasn’t so simple in the social transition period 50 years ago. Also, in modern times, “matchmakers” have died out, and some in the younger generation may not know of them at all.

The other theme, which is added to both the movie and musical adaptations, is the persecution of Jews that happened in the last years of the Russian Empire. The persecution of Jews is called “pogrom” in Russian. The culprits of the pogrom cannot be pinpointed, but when dissatisfied people rioted and mutinied, Jews were at times collaterally attacked; also, when Alexander II was assassinated in 1881, an anti-Semitic pogrom occurred in Russia. Even in Battleship Potemkin, we can see the deep-rooted anti-Semitism in those days. Since the government of the Russian Empire suggested the expulsion of Jews as a solution to social dissatisfaction, the pogrom was fostered and intensified from 1903 to 1906, and Jews continued to seek refuge abroad. The author of the original story, Sholem Aleichem, also fled to America in 1905. Movie director Steven Spielberg’s ancestors were also Ukrainian Jews, but they immigrated to America before World War I started. Sholem Aleichem and Steven Spielberg’s ancestors probably immigrated to America around the same time for the same reason.

It is said that the title change from Tevye the Dairyman to the charming title Fiddler on the Roof when the story was adapted into a musical was inspired by a painting by the Jewish artist Chagall. When Roman Emperor Nero massacred Jews in the Roman Empire, among the people running about trying to escape, it is said that there was a man who played the violin on a roof; the title was inspired by Chagall’s depiction of this historical incident. Marc Chagall was born in Belarus, a Russian territory at the time (currently the northern neighbor of Ukraine), in 1887. He moved to France in 1922, but in 1941, he immigrated to America to avoid persecution by the Nazis. In the end, he returned to France after World War II, and he lived there as a Frenchman for the rest of his life. When Tevye the Dairyman was changed to Fiddler on the Roof, an additional societal element was added to the original.

Fiddler_chagallThe charm of this movie is naturally the beautiful music (such as the famous song, “Sunrise, Sunset”), as well as the cinematography that wonderfully recreates the Jewish community living in Russia in those times. It is said that the movie company that financed this movie requested it to be shot in America, but Norman Jewison chose to shoot in Yugoslavia, despite the strict budget, because it still had the atmosphere of those times. However, the greatest appeal is the way Tevye lives: despite the different value systems spreading due to the changing world situation, he keeps his traditional values while accepting changes. He lives in a community that helps each other, and is determined to protect his family—as a father and as a patriarch—against whatever happens. People of different religions were able to live peacefully together as a community in this area for hundreds of years, so the tradition of helping each other was developed based on a sense of security and then passed on. Unfortunately, the times that Tevye lived in were the times when this tradition was being destroyed by political changes. It is sad that this rich tradition in the hearts of good people was trampled in those times.

日本語→