Movie: Border Café — Café Transit (2005)

Reyhan ran a café with her husband in the northern part of Iran near the Turkish national border that served truck drivers crossing the national border. After the death of Reyhan’s husband, her brother-in-law Nasser, in accordance with this area’s custom of the widow marrying her husband’s brother, tells Reyhan to move into his house. Reyhan refuses to move into the addition to Nasser’s house he has prepared for her, and instead decides to reopen the café with her husband’s employee, Oujan. Reyhan’s café becomes popular for its delicious food with the foreign truckers that cross back and forth over the national border, and truckers line up to be served food.

A Greek driver Zakario and Reyhan grow fond of each other, and Reyhan shelters Svieta, a Russian girl whose family was murdered in the Russian Civil War; eventually, Nasser resorts to legal means to close down the café in fear that, by allowing a woman work, his family name will be damaged. In addition, Zakario is hurt by a man sent by Nasser. The movie ends with Reyhan closing her café, and we don’t know what happens to her after that, but she certainly doesn’t live under the same roof as Nasser, and she doesn’t accept Zakario’s love. At the movie’s end, Nasser sadly mutters, “Why does Reyhan hate me? I just want to protect her,” and it is suggested that Reyhan’s fate was never what Nasser wanted.

Every year for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, a governmental organization of each country can recommend only one piece from their country to be considered for nomination. For example, in Japan, the non-profit organization, Motion Picture Producers Association of Japan—under the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry—selects one movie to represent Japan. When considering the political situation of Iran after the Islamic Revolution, I am impressed with the freedom to make movies like this one that bring up social issues in Iran, and moreover, the government endorsed this movie by entering it into the competition for the Best Foreign Language Academy Award.

However, if you look carefully, this movie is not criticizing the government. From the outside, we tend to see all problems as being the fault of that country’s government, but the core of this movie is the struggle of a strong, independent-minded woman fighting against tradition and the difficulty of being economically independent. There may be no reason for a government to ban a movie that brings up such a social issue. Because this particular custom is depicted as being unique to this local area, there is nothing that damages the Iranian government. To put simply, making a movie like this is possible as long as it doesn’t criticize the Iranian government or doesn’t depict information that shouldn’t be revealed. Nasser never treats Reyhan cruelly, and he is simply trying to take care of Reyhan with good intentions, so he doesn’t understand why Reyhan doesn’t accept his good will. Regarding the financing of movies, there seem to be many companies that are willing to invest in the making of movies that depict the current life in Iran, which is a country that is known for its very interesting and sophisticated culture. In fact, this movie is a collaboration between Iran and France.

Another thing that mustn’t be overlooked in this movie is the “refugees issue.” When Reyhan accepts the young woman who is a refugee from Russia, she states that she herself is a refugee. Where did she escape from?

It is said that throughout a long chaotic period—from the invasion of Afghanistan by the former Soviet Union in ’79, to the Gulf War, to the Iraq War—as many as 4,500,000 refugees from neighboring countries to the east and the west flowed into Iran. Many of these were Afghan refugees, but there were also refugees from Iraq. Depending on where they lived, Afghan refugees escaped to either Pakistan or Iran, but most Afghan refugees that settled in Iran had lived east or south of Tehran. Guessing based on the location of this movie, it is most likely that Reyhan is a refugee from Iraq.

It isn’t clearly stated where the Russian woman came from, but it is very likely she is a refugee escaping from the civil war that occurred from 1992 to 1997 after the Republic of Tajikistan gained independence from Russia in 1991. People from Tajikistan speak Russian as well as a language close to Persian. In this movie, Reyhan is not able to converse with Svieta, but the café employee Oujan understands Svieta’s language, and acts as a translator for Reyhan. In the Republic of Tajikistan, the majority is Tajik, but there are also Russians. It is said that most Russians left due to the civil war.

While at this café, drivers are able to communicate with each other without much difficulty, even though they are from various places including Turkey (Turkey maintains fairly good relations with Iran), Hungary (there seem to be many people from Hungary that work away from home in Turkey), and Greece (Greece is Turkey’s neighbor, and their culture is very similar). Watching this movie, I felt the robustness of Iranians (and neighboring ethnicities) who can utilize their communication skills to live in the junction between the east and the west—which is very different than Japan, an island where most people can only speak Japanese.

日本語→

Movie: Tsotsi (2005)

It seems that the original book this movie was based off of was set in South Africa in the 1960s, but this movie takes place after the apartheid was abolished. The poor black community and the black people of the wealthy middle class are contrasted, and there is a brief depiction of the AIDS problem and abnormally high crime rate; South Africa was Africa’s poster child after the apartheid, but this movie depicts a different side. For people who believe that South Africa transitioned smoothly into a fair community under the leadership of President Mandela, this movie may change their view of South Africa a little.

To say it briefly, this is the story of Tsotsi—an orphaned, juvenile delinquent who robs without thinking of the consequences—maturing into a kind human through his hard struggles in raising a baby he finds in a car he stole. From the moment a parent has a baby, their instinct is to want to protect that child. However, I wonder if this instinct to protect a baby would be triggered in Tsotsi, a young boy who never really had a parent’s love and repeatedly steals and robs. This may be a wonderful movie for a person who can believe this would happen, but for those viewers who have difficulty accepting this plot point, they may find the whole movie unbelievable.

Tsotsi, having a hard time caring for the baby, uses a gun to threaten a young woman in the neighborhood raising her own baby, asks her to breastfeed the baby, and becomes close with the woman. Her husband seems to have been attacked by someone on the way home from work at a factory and is missing. It is possible that Tsotsi or some scoundrel like him murdered the husband. However, this young woman doesn’t seem to be financially struggling, and the inside of her house is tidy. Whether or not you feel this movie to be realistic may make you think it is either a believable masterpiece or a fantasy depicting Africa. Either way, though, this is very sad movie.

This movie was made with three different endings. The official ending ends with Tsotsi getting arrested when he goes to return the baby to its parents. The second ending is that Tsotsi is shot in the shoulder by a police officer and barely escapes alive. The third ending is that Tsotsi dies from a shot in the chest by a police officer. I think the official ending is the best because it has some kind of hope. The second ending leaves the audience with the feeling, “What on earth is this movie trying to say?”while the third ending is too sad.

日本語→

Movie: Joyeux Noël – Merry Christmas (2005)

On the night before Christmas in 1914, the France-Scotland allied forces face a narrow no man’s land from a trench in northern France as the occupying German army advances further onto French territory. International opera singer Nikolaus Sprink, who was enlisted by the German army, is visited by his lover, soprano Anna (Diane Kruger). The night before Christmas, Father Palmer, who is serving Scotland as a combat medic, plays a Christmas song with a bagpipe in the Scotland camp, and Nikolaus of the German camp starts to sing along to the Christmas hymn. The France-Scotland army find themselves applauding, and Nikolaus stands in the neutral no man’s land and continues to sing. Prompted by this, the commanding officers of the three countries meet in the neutral zone, and decide to suspend the combat for Christmas Eve. Father Palmer gives Christmas mass, and Anna sings a hymn. They suspend combat the next day, too, burying their dead comrades abandoned in the neutral zone, enjoying soccer, sharing chocolate and champagne, and showing each other photographs of their families. However, the time comes that these soldiers who shared a brief moment of camaraderie must resume fighting. The military authorities of each army and the upper echelon of the church are angry when they learn about this exchange of friendship, and the soldiers who exchanged friendship face severe consequences for their conduct.

It may be unbelievable that soldiers of enemy nations really shared friendship during the war, but this movie was made by connecting various real facts. The Christmas truce and the exchange of friendship between enemy nations during World War I did not make it into official records. However, the soldiers who survived the Western Front told the truth to family and friends by word of mouth and with photographs after they returned.

In 1914, it actually happened that a German tenor singer, Walter Kirchhoff, visited the German army to offer moral support and sang in the trench; on the other side of no man’s land, a French officer, recognizing Walter’s voice from a performance of his in the Paris Opera house, applauded. Walter then crossed the neutral no man’s land to greet the officer who had applauded. It also happened that a cat loved by both the German and French armies was arrested by the French army. It is said that this cat was later executed as a spy. In addition, it seems to be true that soccer and games were enjoyed between enemy armies.

This Christmas truce happened on the first Christmas after World War I started. World War I was the first ever all-out, world war, and nobody knew what direction the war would develop; at the beginning, there was an optimistic feeling that the war would be over quickly. However, as the war continued, dangerous weapons and poisonous gas were used. Also, the airplanes that were initially used for reconnaissance were transformed into terrible fighters. As the war became violent and cruel, events like the Christmas truce depicted in the movie became rare.

What brought these enemies together momentarily were the forces of music, sports, and religion. All the battling nations—Germany, France, and England—were Christian, and people’s faith was strong in those days; Christmas was really important, and it was the motivation behind the Christmas truce. It was easy to understand enemy nations that were similarly Christian. Something like the Christmas truce wouldn’t have happened if it had been a battle between Muslims and Christians, or Muslims and Jews.

It was Germany that underwent the greatest political change during World War I. Germany was still an empire in those days, and the people fought in the name of Wilhelm II, the German emperor and Prussian King. However, as the Great War continued, the war-weariness of the nation increased. On November 3, 1918, the sailors of the Kiel naval port mutinied, and, with the resulting populist uprising, the German Revolution ensued. Wilhelm II fled to the Netherlands, thus ending World War I. The Weimar Republic with the principle of parliamentary was established in Germany.

After that, the German government was unstable. After their defeat, they received economic retribution from the victorious nations, and the German people lived miserable lives. Within this dissatisfaction, the Nazis were formed in 1920, and this led to World War II. In this movie, the First Lieutenant Horstmayer, who led the German faction and agreed to the Christmas truce, was Jewish. Crown Prince Wilhelm, who was the highest commanding officer on the Western Front, was enraged when he found out about the Christmas truce, and sends First Lieutenant Horstmayer’s unit to the dangerous Eastern Front; at this time, the Crown Prince Wilhelm points with his sword at the iron cross of the German army at the chest of the First Lieutenant, and shouts, “You don’t deserve the iron cross.” This scene suggests the fates Jews met 20 years later—having their German citizenship revoked, not being able to apply for the German army, and being sent to concentration camps.

If I were to say the message of this movie in a few words, I might say, “The willingness for citizens to fight is created by the leader of the nation.” The movie starts with a scene with elementary school students in Britain, Germany, and France having patriotism hammered into their heads and being taught hostility towards their neighbors. Because citizens are made to think that soldiers of enemy nations are faceless beasts, they can fight in a war. However, through the exchange on the night of Christmas Eve, the soldiers recognized each other as human for the first time, and it became difficult to kill each other. When the First Lieutenant Audebert leading the French army received criticism for the Christmas truce, he responded, “The German soldiers are more human compared to these people shouting to kill Germans!” Also, the audience will forever remember the sentiment of the soldiers who had to return to war: “We (today only) can forget war. But the war won’t forget us.”

This movie is an impressive work that depicts beautiful details, but if I were to illuminate a fault, it is that Diane Kruger who performed as an opera singer was too obviously lip-syncing. The hymn which she sings in front of the soldiers should be a huge turning point, but her body doesn’t quiver as she sings, and her mouth was just monotonously opening and closing; there are too many moments when the lyrics and her mouth movement are out of synch. Since she looks like a beautiful picture with only her mouth opening and closing, quite a few viewers may lose empathy at this point of the movie. Diane Kruger is certainly beautiful, but for this scene, I would have preferred watching a real opera singer, such as Natalie Dessay who supplied the real singing voice in this movie. The audience may be deeply moved by the musical performance of Father Palmer of the Scottish army on the bagpipes, rather than Diane Kruger’s lip-syncing. Tea with Mussolini also features a bagpipe when the movie ends with the Scottish army entering an Italian town occupied by the Nazis. The sound of the bagpipe is joyful, optimistic, sorrowful, and poignant.

日本語→

Movie: Paradise Now (2005)

Paradise Now—a 2005 collaborative movie between France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Palestine—depicts Palestinian problems from the point of view of Palestinians, focusing on two young Palestinian suicide bombers. Director Hany Abu-Assad is a Palestinian who was born in Nazareth, Israel, and immigrated to the Netherlands when he was 19 years old.

This movie takes the stance that young suicide bombers aren’t monsters at all and that they are ordinary young people. Said and Khaled, two young men given this mission, live without hope in the West Bank in Palestine and turn to terrorism, believing that they can get to paradise by participating in terrorist activity. Khaled is a loser who keeps getting fired from his jobs, and feels that the only way to become a hero is to die as a suicide bomber. His close friend Said is smart and popular with girls, but, since he has the past of his father being executed by fellow Palestinians as a “traitor” for being part of a pro-Israeli faction, he believes he must die as a hero in order to remove the dishonor on his family name.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict originated from the United Kingdom’s three-pronged diplomatic strategy that had the purpose of strengthening the UK both during and after World War I. The first prong was the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence in 1915 against the enemy Ottoman Empire; the United Kingdom promised the Arabs under Turkish control independence in exchange for armed uprising against the Ottoman Empire. The second prong was acquiring financial support for the war from the Rothschild’s, a wealthy Jewish merchant family; to do so, the United Kingdom issued a letter of support for the establishment of a Jewish nation in 1917 through their Foreign Secretary Balfour. The third prong was the Sykes-Picot Agreement; the United Kingdom covertly negotiated with their allies, France and Russia, regarding the division of the Middle East region after the Great War. In the end, the Arab and Jewish armies, together as part of the British army, fought the Ottoman Empire in World War I, and Palestine (containing current Jordan) became mandated territory of the United Kingdom.

After World War II, the United Kingdom chose to give up Palestine, a land rife with political instability, and entrust the intermediation of this problem to the United Nations. In the United Nations General Assembly on November 29, 1947, the UN Resolution 181 that proposed that Palestine be divided—56.5% given to a Jewish nation and 43.5% toward an Arab nation—and that Jerusalem be under international control was approved with 33 for it, 13 opposed, and 10 abstentions. However, in February 1948, the Arab League nation members voted in Cairo against the founding of an Israeli nation, and the antagonism between Jews and Arabs in this land became very serious. When the United Kingdom’s mandate over Palestine ended in May 1948, the Jews, based on the UN Resolution 181, declared their independence on May 14, and the nation of Israel was formed. Simultaneously, a large army consisting of five nations of the Arab League (Egypt, Trans-Jordon, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq) invaded Palestine with the goal to prevent their independence, and the First Arab-Israeli War began. The Arab side, which was expected to be victorious, failed to wield its full power due to internal disunity. Israel, after a hard-fought battle where 1% of their population died in action, came out victorious, and 700,000 to 800,000 Arabs who lived on Palestinian land became refugees. Continuing until today, many conflicts have happened on this land including several Arab-Israeli Wars.

In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed with the objective of liberating Palestine from Israel’s control. In 1993, based on the Oslo Accords between the PLO and Israel, the Palestine Authority was established. This is an autonomous government that is split into the West Bank between Jordan and Israel, and the Gaza Strip on the northeast side of the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt.

The setting of this movie is the West Bank on the Jordan River. The future of this area is unpredictable, but currently, there are three districts in the West Bank: one district where the Palestine Authority has administrative power as well as control over the police, one where the Palestine Authority has administrative power while the Israeli army controls the police, and one where the Israeli army has administrative power as well as power over the police. Particularly in the third area, everyday life for Palestinians is highly restricted, with everything including home or school construction, well digging, and road building needing permission from the Israeli army. In all three areas, it is possible for Israel to prohibit transit for Palestinians.

It is clear that director Hany Abu-Assad, as a Palestinian, is addressing the situation Palestinians are in, but this movie is not political propaganda. His way of filming this movie is very cautious and he includes humorous scenes; his goal seems to be for the audience to know the true face of the West Bank territory. His philosophy is perhaps most like that of Suha, the fleeting love interest of the protagonist Said. She is the daughter of a hero of the independence movement, was born in Paris, raised in Morocco, and returned to the West Bank. She opposes violent conflict, and she tries to persuade Said to abandon revenge and implement peace in the Palestinian district by means of a nonviolent human rights movement, but this sentiment fails to reach Said.

At the beginning of the movie, there is a scene depicting a young Israeli soldier menacingly checking Suha’s luggage at a checkpoint on her way back to the West Bank. However, at the end of the movie, there are young Israeli soldiers, much like the one in the first scene, on the bus that Said is riding in order to suicide bomb, but the soldiers on the bus are young men with beautiful smiles and look very kind. They are really beautiful young men. However, these young men are to die soon with Said. This movie is not propaganda saying which side is right or wrong, and I feel the director’s wish for the audience to know the true face of Palestine as best as possible without prejudice.

日本語→