Category Archives: 2004

Movie: Downfall — Der Untergang (2004)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie is based on the memoirs of Traudl Junge, one of Hitler’s personal secretaries that lived with Hitler in the bunker of the Führer Headquarters in Berlin, Germany, who served Hitler until his suicide, typed Hitler’s suicide note, and witnessed Hitler’s death.

Since 1930, Hitler always used two secretaries, but due to an increase in workload, he hired a third secretary, Gerda Christian, in 1937. It is said that this woman was extremely beautiful. Since Christian took an extended vacation in order to marry Eckhard Christian, a member of the Armed Forces Command Staff and the lieutenant colonel of the Air Force, in 1942, Traudl Junge was hired to take Christian’s place. In this movie, a beautiful actress performs as Junge and it is depicted that Hitler likes her among the many applicants and hires her. One reason may be that she was from Munich, where the Nazis were formed and the headquarters for Nazi activity was located. Berlin was an area with strong sympathy for communism, as well as an area in which Nazis historically had difficulties in winning elections. After Christian returned from her honeymoon, Junge remained as Hitler’s secretary and became a loyal and close associate of Hitler’s.

Adolf Hitler had an underground bunker built into the Führer Headquarters in 1935. Later in 1943, since the war situation had deteriorated considerably, he had a new Führerbunker with increased defensive function built, and connected the two underground bunkers with stairs. The underground bunker was built with concrete walls four meters thick to tolerate attack, and was partitioned into about 30 rooms. Hitler lived here starting from January 1945, in the final stage of World War II. Hitler and his mistress Eva Braun, Nazi #2 Goebbels and his family, the SS leaders, and their secretaries and chefs lived here. Amid the final days of warfare in the streets of Berlin, Hitler committed suicide here on April 30, 1945.

After Hitler’s death, Junge was arrested by the Allies during her escape, but it is said she was soon released without being interrogated deeply. Since then, she continuously claimed that she knew nothing, so one might expect there not to be any astonishing historical truth from her memoirs. Also, as the youngest secretary, one might think she does not know much political intelligence. Thus, one might expect a movie made from her point of view to be about Hitler being a kind boss while the commissioned officers that pampered Hitler’s favorite woman were wonderful uncles, and about her not wanting to give up the life in the safe underground bunker, where they drank wine, had delicious meals, and slept in late.

When Hitler gave the order for his four secretaries to leave due to the deterioration of the war situation, the two older secretaries escaped, but Junge and Christian said, “I share life and death with the Führer until the end,” and refused the order. Junge later stated, “I don’t know why I made such a decision,” but after all, for a young person without a real feel for death, I think it is 50% pure youthful indiscretion to think, “When the time comes, I’m not afraid to die,” and 50% youthful foolishness that the man, who until now had almighty power and had given her a comfortable environment to live in, could not be defeated. Instead of being thrown into the war in Berlin without any protector or friends, I think she felt safer being surrounded by people who (she thought) will protect her.

This movie is made from the point of view of a woman who didn’t know the truth about the Nazis or the lives of people who suffered outside, yet was nevertheless a young woman in possession of good instinct. Even though she behaves amicably to everyone as a secretary, she carefully observes who will betray and who will stay loyal to her boss Hitler. This movie is 40% from her point of view, and it depicts how people behave when faced with the danger of losing their lives after the fall of absolute authority. Since that is insufficient, another 30% depicts historically significant Nazi figures at the time, and since that is not quite enough, the lives of citizens suffering from war are also depicted. Therefore, this movie doesn’t have a single protagonist, and the viewpoint of the story shifts throughout the movie. Although Junge appears many times, she doesn’t play an important role in the story. Two-thirds of this movie is Hitler repeatedly shouting about his disappointment in his close associates, and it wouldn’t be this way if Hitler were the protagonist. The profoundness of this movie starts after the death of Hitler. It vividly depicts how people behaved immediately following Hitler losing his power. Some followed Hitler to death with suicide. Some ran away, and were arrested by the Allies and executed at a trial. Some who tried to escape were executed by their comrades as a traitor to the nation, while others executed citizens for being communists as a warning to the general public before the Soviet Army entered. Commissioned officers started openly smoking—something Hitler strictly prohibited—and some drank wine and got drunk. Those who attempted to escape ran toward the south part that was occupied by the American army; their greatest fear was to be arrested by the Soviet Army.

For someone like me who doesn’t know many details about Nazis, this movie is a treasure chest of information, but the most significant piece of information was that Hitler committed suicide in the end. This after all is not surprising, although some believe in urban legends about Hitler, analogous to the theory of Yoshitsune (a famous samurai) escaping death and becoming Genghis Khan. Some believe that someone sacrificed his own body for Hitler to be burned with gasoline in order to make the burned body impossible to identify while Hitler snuck away in a secret passage. People can’t believe such a self-preserving man would choose death.

However, this movie depicts that the reason Hitler wanted his body burned was not to fake his death, but because he did not want his body displayed publicly after his death (Hitler knew Mussolini was mercilessly executed by the partisan and was hung in public) and for his clothes to be displayed in a museum exhibit. Pride was most important to him. His biggest fear was to be shamefully on display. In the movie, some of his close associates recommend, “You should do an unconditional surrender for the sake of the nation before it is too late,” but he could never permit this because of the shame it would bring. Those who recommended this are nearly shot. Because his rejection of this idea was so strong, I wonder if some people who recommended this were actually executed. He had lost the idea of “citizens” or “for the nation.” In the movie, when an officer suggests, “We must protect the citizens, especially the women and children,” Hitler declares, “With this critical battle now in our territory, the concept of citizens does not exist.” He doesn’t have the sentiments of, “I accept whatever will happen to me; I only want to save the citizens,” or, “I accept the punishment for my mistakes, but don’t punish the people who obeyed my orders.” His mind was preoccupied with figuring out how he could die with honor.

There certainly seem to be tunnels that he could have used to run away. SS Major Otto Günsche completes Hitler’s final command to have his dead body burned, and attempts to escape with SS Colonel Wilhelm Mohnke, Junge, and Christian through the underground tunnels, but they aren’t able to escape in the end. Christian gives up trying to escape and stays with Major Günsche and Colonel Mohnke. This movie does not depict when the Soviet Army arrested them, and the movie ends with a scene of Junge biking away and escaping to Munich.

Christian is given only a small part in this movie, and there is almost zero information about her. After some hardships, Christian escaped to an area occupied by America, but Major Günsche and Colonel Mohnke were taken by the Soviet army, and they each served 10 years in labor camps in USSR and East Germany, respectively. It is said that Christian called Major Günsche a “lifetime friend.” She divorced her husband soon after the war, and was able to be reunited with Major Günsche 10 years later.

日本語→

Movie: The Chorus — Les Choristes (2004)

Posted on by
Reply

World-renowned conductor Pierre Morhange hurriedly returns to his homeland France when he learns that his mother passed away during a New York performance. After his mother’s funeral service, he is visited by a man named Pépinot. The movie goes back 50 years after it is revealed that Pépinot went to the same school as Pierre, and they were taught by their teacher Clément Mathieu.

In 1949, after World War II, Clément Mathieu becomes the dormitory dean at a boarding school called Fond de l’Étang (Bottom of the Pond), where war orphans and problem children are sent. Under the direction of the principal to use severe corporal punishment to discipline the children, harsh punishment is repeatedly administered for those children that resist the teachers, and children are not encouraged to cultivate their future goals and dreams. Mathieu was a musician, bonds with the children through choir, and is able to teach the children discipline as well as the joy of music. Pierre is seen as a problem child, but Mathieu notices that the boy has a miraculous “singing voice of an angel” and tries to develop his talent.

The principal has no love for the students at all, and he is a man who aimed for fame and awards by managing an orphanage. When it is discovered that a large quantity of money is missing from the safe at the school, the worst juvenile delinquent Mondain is thought to have stolen it; after an interrogation that is near torture, Mondain does not admit to the crime, so is expelled from the school. Later, Mondain sets the boarding school on fire for the sake of revenge, but nobody dies because Mathieu happened to have taken all the students on a school trip during that time. However, the principal dismisses Mathieu, saying it is a violation of school regulations to take students any place off the premises, and doesn’t allow him to say goodbye to the students.

Because of this, Mathieu leaves the boarding school alone, and the students had no way of knowing what happened to him after this. At the end of the movie, it is revealed why Pépinot knows about Mathieu’s life after he left. The ending scene is very poignant.

Some may think that juvenile delinquents cannot be easily rehabilitated with the power of music, but the children in this movie are not evil boys with twisted minds. The children in this boarding school are mostly orphans who lost their parents in the war, or children of mothers who have to work all day long after their husband died in the war. The children here may have stolen bread from a shop in order to survive, but fundamentally, these children are just lonely and aren’t taught any direction in life. They conduct mischief, but it is because, as a result of having no parents, they aren’t taught what terrible outcomes one’s thoughtless mischief could bring. After mischief, they receive cruel corporal punishment from the principal; they gradually close their hearts and their behavior becomes worse and worse. Mondain did not steal the large amount of money from the safe. The boy who did steal the money just wanted to buy a toy blimp, but he just puts this money into his secret stash and does not use any of it.

In addition, when the boys met Mathieu, they were of the age before their voices have changed. It was within that short miraculous period of still having boy soprano voices like angels that the boys were taught the delight of singing. Since the boys were still young, they were searching for paternal affection and their rebelling was not very serious, so they responded well to Mathieu’s affection.

When Pierre’s talent was discovered, he continued on to a music academy with a prestigious scholarship, and became a world-famous conductor. He had forgotten about Mathieu and the boarding school of the remote past, but when Pépinot shows him a class photograph, he recollects fondly. When we look at Pierre’s life, we realize how important it is to meet a good teacher, especially in those younger days when growing up. Mathieu did not give Pierre preferential treatment in the relatively short time that he worked with Pierre. However, if Pierre had not met Mathieu, Pierre would not have become a world-famous musician, and in a worse case, he could’ve ended up in prison. It is rare to meet your elementary teacher again after becoming an adult. When you are busy raising children or pursuing a career, you may completely forget your elementary teacher, but when your parents die and you start to realize that life is not infinite, it would not be uncommon for you to think about a teacher from long ago, and, while you may have forgotten their name, you may fondly remember their face and their kindness.

This movie overtook the historical hit Amélie, and it became the number one biggest hit in the history of French movies; it is said that 1 in 7 French people have watched this movie. Jacques Perrin—an international star (and handsome actor) from France—produced this movie, while his nephew Christophe Barratier directed it, and Perrin’s third son, Maxence Perrin, performed as the lovely child Pépinot. Jacques Perrin played the elderly Pierre. Jacques Perrin produced and acted in the timeless masterpiece Z, and received an Academy Award for this. Although it is difficult to succeed as an actor, Jacques Perrin has both succeeded as an actor and produced movies like Z and The Chorus that will remain in history. He must have been born under an exceptionally lucky star.

日本語→

Movie: The Syrian Bride (2004)

Posted on by
Reply

Israel played the main role in the production of The Syrian Bride. Israeli Eran Riklis wrote the script with Palestinian Suha Arraf, as well as directed the movie, and most of the actors were Israelis of Palestinian descent. Director Riklis seemed to have an international audience as the target for this movie and made it from the point of view of an Israeli. In other words, even though the word “Syrian” is in the movie title, this movie was made to try to convey an Israeli sentiment to the world.

The setting of this movie is a devout Druze village in the Golan Heights at the border of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. Islam is divided into two main opposing groups, the Shia and Sunni. Sunnis are the majority, while Shiites are estimated to be 10 to 20% of Muslims. Since the birth of the Shia sect, they were generally in the position of the minority against the Sunni majority, and the Shia often formed their group in mountainous areas where enemies couldn’t easily invade in order to protect themselves from being attacked by the majority. Iran is the only country in which Shiites are the majority, but it is said there are a significant number of Shiites in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Pakistan. Over time, the Shia became more and more fragmented. The Druze originated from the Shia, but they differ in doctrine in many aspects; thus, Druze is sometimes called the third sect of Islam, while many Muslims do not consider Druze to be a part of Islam.

This area is complicated politically. In the Third Arab-Israeli War (Six-Day War)—the war between Israel and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq in 1967—Israel succeeded in a surprise attack and won by quickly occupying the West Bank district of Jordan, the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and the Golan Heights of Syria. Since 1981, Golan Heights was put under civilian governance, and Israel gave Israeli citizenship to the Syrians on this land who desired it. Since the inhabitants had a strong sense of identity with Syria, not many people applied for Israeli citizenship, and the result was that they became stateless. The people who go to Syria from Golan Heights for reasons such as marriage cannot return to their village under Israeli occupation because once they cross the national border, they automatically become Syrian. International public opinion does not approve of Israel’s occupation of Golan Heights, but Israel is not going to give up Golan Heights because Golan Heights is strategically important and the Sea of Galilee is valuable as a water source.

Since the Six-Day War ended swiftly in the blink of an eye with an Israeli victory, there were some people living in Golan Heights that were separated from their family. The set up for this movie is that the father Hammed is a pro-Syria activist and was just released from an Israeli prison. Since one of his three sons lives in Syria and can’t return to Golan Heights, when they want to talk, the father and son must go to a place called “Shouting Hill,” where people communicate with a megaphone across a short field due to the military border.

Because Hammed’s eldest son married a woman doctor that he met while studying abroad in Russia, Hammed disowns him and the Druze elders in their village banish him. Hammed’s eldest daughter married a man chosen by her father, but she grows distant from her conservative husband, and she is determined to study at an Israeli university to gain her independence. Her eldest daughter (Hammed’s granddaughter) falls in love with the son of a family that is pro-Israel. Hammed’s second daughter is arranged to marry a distant relative—a popular actor now in Syria—and is going to leave for Syria, but since she cannot return to her family once she crosses the border, she is hesitant about the marriage. The second son flies around Italy and France with a stateless passport and conducts business. He is different from the second daughter and the son in Syria in that he has the freedom to travel. Because the eldest son comes back from Russia briefly for his little sister’s wedding, he seems to also have the freedom to travel. Since he is married to a Russian woman, he may have a Russian passport. In other words, the restriction of not being able to come back once one crosses the national border seems to just be for the Syrian national border.

This movie depicts the happenings on the day of the second daughter’s wedding ceremony, and, since the inauguration of the current President al-Assad is being covered on the TV, we can tell that this story takes place in the year 2000. The movie depicts Syrians being excited for President al-Assad’s inauguration, with hope and joy because they believed President al-Assad to be a kind and educated man, unlike his father and older brother. No one at that time could have ever imagined that President al-Assad would make the list of “World’s Worst Dictators” according to American media.

This is a good movie that depicts familial love that is not easy. However, the thing that stood out most in this movie was the desire to express an Israeli sentiment. This movie does not mention the past of the Israeli occupation of Golan Heights at all, and it just depicts the warmness between the people currently living in Golan Heights, regardless of their ethnicity. The Israelis that appear are neither good nor bad guys, simply do their duty, and are just average people. Israel has often been criticized internationally, but those who have decided to live there wish greatly for Israel to be seen positively and work hard to gain international support. A movie is the very best medium to convey Israel’s present condition and the feelings and thoughts of such an Israeli to the world. Director Ari Folman who made Waltz with Bashir stated, “There is complete freedom of expression in Israel. I am permitted to say anything.” Israel’s government seems to even support the activity of moviemakers. Also, there seems to be open exchange of technology with Hollywood, where there are many prominent Jewish Americans. The movie industry of Israel is very active and has produced many good movies. If one can say anything, movies provide the rare opportunity for Israelis who tend to be criticized internationally to raise their voices and express themselves.

Hiam Abbass, the beautiful actress that played the eldest daughter, is a Palestinian from Israel, and most of her activity is in Europe. She stated clearly in an interview, “It is unproductive if we obsess over the past. The important thing is how you live from now on.” Palestinian Makram J. Khoury, who played the bride’s father Hammed, acquired Israeli citizenship after repeated deliberation. Israel respects him, and Khoury flourishes as a top actor of Israel. Israel wants to reward those who have chosen Israel.

Obsessing over the past/history is one way to think about peace in the Middle East, but another way is to look toward the future. Israeli citizens wish from the bottom of their hearts that more people will understand the situation Israel is in. I think this wish is the background of Israel’s thriving film world.

日本語→

Movies: Babettes gæstebud — Babette’s Feast (1987), Ladies in Lavender (2004)

Posted on by
Reply

I watched two very similar movies in succession recently: Babette’s Feast and Ladies in Lavender. Babette’s Feast depicts a 50-year-span around the time of the Paris Commune of 1871, while Ladies in Lavender is set in Great Britain in 1936. I thought Ladies in Lavender was borrowing ideas from the very successful Babette’s Feast because the Ladies in Lavender movie was made about 20 years after the movie Babette’s Feast, and the essence of the times depicted and the overall feeling of these two movies were very similar. The impression I got from these two movies was that they depict the atmosphere of the early 20th century in Northern Europe.

After doing some background research, I found that the author of the original Babette’s Feast, Karen Blixen, was born in 1885 and passed away in 1962, while the author of the original Ladies in Lavender, William John Locke, was born in 1863 and passed away in 1930. While I wouldn’t say they are the same generation, the time that they were alive overlapped. This explains why they share similar perceptions. The original Ladies in Lavender was published in 1916, slightly earlier than when the original Babette’s Feast was published, and the Ladies in Lavender movie actually changes the setting to 20 years later than the original story. Basically, the atmosphere that is expressed by both movies is the mindset of the people in Europe during those good times; imperialism was still going strong in Europe before World War I, people were enjoying economic prosperity, the rural parts of Northern Europe were not engulfed by big political changes, and the sense of community between neighbors was still strong and people helped each other in good faith. I think both Karen Blixen and William John Locke had the feeling that such times would disappear in the near future because both of these movies seem to give an impression of fleeting times. Since I have not read the original pieces, I wish to write about the similarities and differences between the two movies.

The first similarity between these movies is that both are stories of elderly, unmarried sisters living in the same house after their father dies. The two live in a beautiful, tiny village along the North Sea. Babette’s Feast takes place in Jutland, Denmark, while Ladies in Lavender is located in the United Kingdom, but the scenery in both movies look very similar. The maid similarly goes down the hill every day with a shopping basket to buy fish from the fisherman who rides up to the beach in his boat. There is also a similar set-up where life for the sisters is very repetitive—cherishing the memories of their fathers and thankful for their peaceful life—but then a lonesome, artistic foreigner drifts into their lives (in Babette’s Feast, it is Babette, a female chef of a first-class Paris restaurant; in Ladies in Lavender, it is Andrea, a mysterious Polish prodigy violinist) and their lives suddenly become exciting, which causes the sisters to reflect on their nearly forgotten younger days.

A similarity between the authors is that Karen Blixen and William John Locke both lived a long time in Africa. William John Locke is British, but when he was 2 years old, he immigrated to Trinidad and Tobago; in 1881, he returned to his home country of the United Kingdom to attend the University of Cambridge. On the other hand, Karen Blixen is Danish, but in 1913, she married Bror von Blixen, a Swedish aristocrat related to her father’s side of the family, and they immigrated to Kenya the following year. As a married couple, they managed a coffee plantation, but the married life soon failed and ended in a divorce; in 1931, Karen returned to her home country of Denmark. The memoir she wrote of her time living in Africa, Out of Africa, was made into a movie and won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Babette’s Feast won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film.

So then what are the differences? Since I have not read the originals, I can only compare the movie renditions, and one difference is the way the two sisters reflect on their pasts. In Babette’s Feast, the sisters do not have regret in their hearts about their past at all. There were many men who fell in love with the sisters because they were beautiful, but the sisters are still unmarried because they helped their father who had started up a church in the village, and they and all of the church-goers grew old; the sisters had made up their minds to maintain the church until they died. The sisters have no trace of avarice and don’t seek luxury, and the warm spirits of the men who fell in love with the sisters seem to be protecting them near the end of their lives. Babette, who lost all of her family when they were killed during the Paris Commune, was sent to Denmark from Paris by a man who had loved one of the sisters. Babette is thankful to be able to live with the sisters, and wants to be with the sisters until they die. Babette’s Feast depicts the calm happiness someone with a faithful heart and without greed can achieve.

In contrast, Ladies in Lavender is a story of the younger of the two elderly sisters recognizing her hidden desire for men due to the young, charming man who drifts in. The young man has feelings of gratitude for the elderly ladies who helped him when he was dying on the beach, and loves the old ladies like he loves his mother, but in the end, he carries feelings of romantic love for a woman young like himself and cannot stay in the countryside because of his ambitions for his career. The younger sister laments, “He is unobtainable. Life is unfair!!” Although others may view the feelings of this elderly lady as humorous and off-putting, from her point of view, her feelings are serious and noble.

Of the two movies, Babette’s Feast is much better, and Babette’s Feast will probably remain in movie history. In this movie, these old, but still beautiful actresses are practicing a life philosophy—one that is easier said than done—to gain happiness: not regretting, not envying, accepting, and being grateful.

In Ladies in Lavender, the elderly sisters are performed by Judi Dench and Maggie Smith. These great actresses have won Academy Awards and were granted Dame status by the Queen of the United Kingdom. However, the sisters in the original Ladies in Lavender are much younger, and the theme of the original story is a single woman in her forties—no longer young, but still a woman nonetheless—who has feelings of love triggered by a young man and pines for her lost younger days. Director Charles Dance was concerned about having Judi Dench and Maggie Smith, who are in their 70s, perform the sadness and excitation of these women in their 40s, but said this about casting the two of them: “Well, I think they can do it because these women are great actresses—like goddesses.” I think this approach to acting is sacrilege. Even an actress who is like a goddess cannot play a character in her 40s if the actress herself is in her 70s.

Since it is nearly impossible for women in their 70s to perform as women in their 40s, this movie ends up being a story of elderly women. For someone watching this movie, I think it is impossible to understand that the protagonists are in fact in their 40s. Therefore, in this movie, jealous women in their 70s try to keep a man in his 20s in their house, obstruct his contact with women of his own generation, and scheme (or perhaps I should say weakly hope) to have him stay forever. It is ironic that the director’s respect for Judi Dench and Maggie Smith resulted in the failure of this movie.

I have not read the original, but my impression of the original Ladies in Lavender is that the protagonists have remained unmarried for some reason, and that the story is about the “beauty of a transient emotional conflict” of a woman in her 40s—who is no longer young, but not old—suppressing the longing for a young man—who is not as young as her children would be, but on other hand, too young to be seen as acceptable by society. I feel that these women are single as a result of their society, perhaps because there are few suitable men since many of their generation died in the war, or there may not be many opportunities to meet people. No matter what age, there may be a feeling of yearning for a person, but with an actress in her 70s playing as a woman in her 40s, I think the movie changed the spirit of the original work. In the original stories, the backdrops are very similar, but the mindsets of the sisters are very different; however, because of the great actresses chosen for Ladies in Lavender, the movies end up looking similar.

日本語→