Movie: The Queen (2006)

I think this year will be a memorable year for the people of Britain, with the 60 year celebration of the reign of Queen Elizabeth and the London Olympics. I think the past 60 years were a period of turbulence for everyone, but particularly for the Queen who had numerous difficulties over her 60-year-reign, including recovering from World War II, recovering from the economic downfall in Britain, the Cold War, the revolt of the IRA, the Falklands War, involvement in the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan, and discord within the Commonwealth of Nations.

This movie depicts the decision Queen Elizabeth makes regarding the sudden death of Diana, who was deeply loved and respected as the “people’s princess,” in 1997. The Queen considers the death of a woman who left the royal family to be a “private matter” and continues to stay in the Balmoral villa after Diana’s death. This decision is seen by the people as “coldness from the royal family,” and the approval rating of the royal family drops abruptly below 50% among the citizens. Prime Minister Blair, who defeated the Conservative Party Administration and took over the government, is quick to use the deep affection for Diana to improve his approval; at the same time, he advises the Queen that if she continues to ignore Diana’s death, it will damage the reputation of the royal family. Back when Thatcher of the Conservative Party was Prime Minister, wanting to avoid wearing something similar to the Queen, she asked the Queen, “What will Her Majesty the Queen wear?” The Queen quipped, “I’m not interested in the clothes of my subordinates!” This shows that she is such a queen that makes a clear distinction between the royal family and their subjects; she does not understand why she must treat Diana, who divorced and left the family, as part of the royal family. However, witnessing the people mourn for Diana from the bottom of their hearts, the Queen, who had decided to dedicate her whole life—24 hours a day, 365 days a year—to her nation since the moment her father George VI succeeded the throne, decides she is willing to abandon what she had believed until now if the nation saw Diana’s death as the death of a true princess.

The Queen is looking at a mountain of flowers for Diana that is piled up in front of Buckingham Palace when a girl offers her a bouquet of flowers. “Shall I give those flowers to Princess Diana?” the Queen asks, pointing at the mountain of flowers, but the girl decisively replies, “No!!” The girl with beautiful eyes replies to the surprised Queen, “These flowers are for you.” Through the facial expression of the emotionally moved Queen at that moment, the Queen and Helen Mirren, the actress playing the Queen, magically become one. The Queen, in an obituary speech for Diana from the royal family to the nation that is covered by the TV, gives a strong impression of a warm mother-in law and a grandmother concerned for Diana’s sons, the princes; with this speech, hostility from the citizens towards the Queen begins to fade.

For the generation of Queen Elizabeth, the crown princesses would have been the daughters of the royal families of other countries or at least the daughters of British aristocrats. When Prince Charles was in a relationship with Camilla, the marriage of the two was rejected; Camilla was from the British upper class, but she was not a top-ranking aristocrat. Diana was the perfect crown princess because she was the daughter of the Spencer family—the noblest family among noble families—and she quickly had the great accomplishment of bearing two sons, but the marriage ended with a divorce for various reasons. For the Queen, the messy drama during the divorce negotiation and Diana’s uninhibited behavior after the divorce “brought shame to the royal family.” Through this, the Queen also learned that the days when the crown princess was chosen based on class were gone. The young generation of crown princes in Europe—many of which were related to the British royal family—mostly have wives that are commoners, including a divorcee, a former pot smoker with children from a previous relationship, a former mistress of a drug lord, a former mistress of a high-ranking government official, the daughter of an important politician in the cabinet of a South American dictatorship that committed a massacre, and some with Asian or African heritage—such women were unthinkable in the Queen’s generation, but they have more or less gained support from the nation and carry out official business competently.

The Queen seemed to have a favorable impression of Camilla the whole time. Camilla was hated by the people for a long time as, “the ugly, detestable woman who evicted Diana,” but she didn’t defend herself with words, and as the nation watched her silently continue to accomplish very exhausting official business alongside Charles, their point of view started to change. People began to think, “She has a sense of responsibility for government affairs, and without the ‘Me! Me!’ ambition. She has overcome so many difficulties and continued to stay by Charles’s side. Perhaps it could even be called true love.” When Camilla visited America, an American journalist wrote something like the following: “In person, Camilla is much more beautiful than I had thought, and she was full of a kind humor. When I look at her, I am made to think that if Diana had lived, she may not have actually been able to grow old as beautifully and naturally as Camilla has.”

The Queen did not quite consent to the marriage between Diana’s son, Prince William, with his longtime lover, Kate Middleton. Kate’s house was a house of millionaires created in one generation—her father was middle class, but her mother was from working class and seems to possess resolute ambition. In addition, her uncle on her mother’s side was arrested for the possession and selling of narcotic drugs. However, the Queen’s concern about Kate was what others teased her of—not working after graduation as she waited to marry William—and it is said that the Queen seriously asked William, “Why doesn’t she work even though she is healthy?” In the end, the Queen approved the marriage between the two because she was convinced that there was most importantly love and trust between them. Kate as the wife of William handled government affairs very well and gained tremendous popularity among the people.

There is no sign of Queen Elizabeth’s popularity declining. Like a celebrity, the Queen jumped out of a helicopter as a Bond girl in the London Olympics opening ceremony (performed by a stunt double) and attended the opening ceremony; perhaps her intention was to contribute to the success of the Olympics and her nation. I wish the Queen many more years of health, but the people will be overwhelmed by deep sorrow upon her death. However, this sorrow will differ from Diana’s death; it will certainly be full of gratitude for her many years of service to her people and hope for the next generation.

日本語→

Movie: After the Wedding — Efter brylluppet (2006)

When I started watching After the Wedding, I thought, “Oh, this resembles In a Better World!” and it turns out that both are products of Danish female director Susanne Bier. The subject matter is different, but there is a commonality in how she makes her movies. Some sort of abstract notion comes first and then various pieces of the story are grafted together incongruently, like connecting a tree with bamboo.

Jacob, a Danish man, manages an orphanage in India, but it has fallen into a state of near bankruptcy. At this time, a corporation from his homeland Denmark offers a donation. However, it is offered on the condition that Jacob comes to Copenhagen to meet the CEO. Jacob meets Jørgen—the CEO of the corporation—in Copenhagen, but since Jørgen’s daughter Anna is getting married that weekend, Jørgen invites Jacob to the ceremony. At the wedding ceremony, Jacob is reunited with Helene, his lover from 20 years ago, but Helene is now Jørgen’s wife. Jacob then learns that Anna is actually his biological daughter and is shocked. This meeting was actually set up in order for Jørgen—who has cancer and won’t live much longer—to entrust his family to Jacob after his death; he will donate an enormous sum to Jacob’s orphanage if Jacob agrees to live in Denmark. Jacob now faces the decision of whether to choose his biological daughter or the Indian orphans he loves.

This movie depicts just the short time period of before and after Anna’s wedding weekend, but many themes are packed into it. Propaganda to not forget about the poor in India; biological parents vs. adopted parents; if one’s homeland is the country one was born in or the country one chooses; deep love being passionate vs. steady; if true kindness is telling or not telling someone the sad reality; if one should live as an immature idealist vs. a problem-solving realist; the responsibility of a person for their family… Anyway, there are various ideas and reasonings packed into this movie. As a bonus, Anna discovers her husband having an affair immediately after the wedding ceremony, which is ridiculously hasty.

Since too many ideas were crammed into a two hour movie, the story fails in various places and becomes unrealistic. Immediately after Helene separated from Jacob, she realizes she is pregnant with Anna, but it doesn’t look like she made a great effort to find Jacob. “Although I waited for you to return to Denmark, you didn’t return after all,” she says, obscuring the situation with romantic words. If the two still have some remaining feelings for each other 20 years later, why didn’t they put in more effort to get each other back? As for Jørgen who made a fortune for himself and is surrounded by many friends, there should be someone who can help his family after his death; also, he should be able to have his lawyer manage his estate for his children. But why would Jørgen want to leave his family—which includes Helene and his young twins—to the care of Jacob, someone whose trustworthiness is unknown, after his death? Also, Jørgen seems to want Jacob to be with Helene after he dies, but why should two people who walked away from each other 20 years ago suddenly be together? Helene—still beautiful, economically stable, and strongly independent—doesn’t need a spouse when she becomes a widow, and if she does want one, she should be able to choose who that is, so why should that be her lover from 20 years ago?

Above all else, however, the most questionable part was how Jørgen so easily located Jacob in India. If Jørgen knew where Jacob was and had been observing him for a long time, it would be creepy; in the movie, Jørgen, in his finals days with cancer, is (luckily) able to track down Jacob and contact him. This is unrealistic. The first thing that someone who knows they won’t live long because of cancer does, as Jørgen does, is sort out their finances so that the people left behind don’t have to worry about it. However, the next thing they think about is spending every minute and every second of the little time they have left with their family that is most important. When faced with death for the first time, everything that until now was taken for granted would look completely different and even one’s view of life would change fundamentally. The story that he suddenly opens up his heart to someone that he doesn’t know at all is too unnatural.

Susanne Bier sprinkles in Afghanistan, Sudan, and other third world countries in her works, but it is said that she herself has never been to these countries until she starts filming it. All I can say is that she is the type of person whose conscience is somewhat awakened by information she may hear about a country. This movie aimed to be a poignant melodrama and scenes such as when Anna and Jacob build feelings as a parent and daughter are quite beautiful, but, in order to conveniently tell a beautiful story, there are too many occasions in this movie where disjointed details were forced together. It is hard to feel empathy with unrealistic things happening one after another; I understand the lovely intention of the director, but regretfully it was not an emotionally touching movie.

日本語→

Movie: The Lives of Others — Das Leben der Anderen (2006)

It is said that Lenin once stated, “If you listen to Beethoven’s sonata, it will be difficult to continue a revolution.” This movie is a story of the men who listened to the sonata.

It is 1984 in East Berlin. Captain Wiesler of the Ministry of State Security (Stasi) is a talented member of this secret service. He is ordered to spy on a playwright, Dreyman, who is suspected of anti-establishment thought, and Dreyman’s lover Christa, a stage actress. Wiesler wiretaps the apartment they live in, but finds out that the real reason the wire was placed was because the Minister of Culture wants Christa for himself. Wiesler is moved by the sonata Dreyman plays. Dreyman had carefully separated himself from anti-establishment groups, but after a close friend who was oppressed as a writer by the government commits suicide and leaves behind a piece of sheet music titled, “Sonata for a Good Man,” Dreyman decides to publish a story in the West to disclose the reality of East Berlin. Meanwhile, Christa loses the favor of the Minister of Culture and is pushed into a difficult situation, so she becomes a spy to inform the authorities of Dreyman’s secrets. Wiesler, developing sympathy for the two through the wiretap, tries to help Dreyman and Christa using the information that he knows, but Christa commits suicide, and Wiesler is suspected and demoted to a dead-end job.

A while after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Dreyman discovers that he had in fact been wiretapped by the authorities, and from these surveillance records, he learns that Christa was a spy. However, the person in charge of gathering this intelligence, whom Dreyman only knows by his codename, did not report any evidence to his authorities that Dreyman was the author of the story published on the West side that revealed the reality of the establishment in East Berlin. For the first time, Dreyman discovers that this anonymous spy had protected him. After many years, Wiesler, now living a quiet life, becomes aware of the recent publishing of Dreyman’s book titled, “Sonata for a Good Man.” The movie ends with Wiesler opening up the book in the bookstore and seeing a note that said the book was dedicated to him with gratitude.

Ulrich Mühe, who splendidly plays Wiesler, at first appears to be a highly skilled and ruthless man dressed in uniform, but as he listens in with the wiretap, he is gradually transformed into an ordinary, middle-aged man with unfashionable pants and a balding head. Wonderful themes, acting ability, images, sounds and voices, and suspense make this the “perfect movie,” but if there is a criticism for this movie, it would be the following.

The historical inaccuracies within this movie may be the target of criticism. The Stasi wouldn’t have the room to produce people of kindness like Captain Wiesler. Observing each other is among the duties of a spy, and it would be impossible for a spy to help someone. Even if there were spies that were kind like Wiesler, I would think that the punishment wouldn’t be something as simple as, “doing a boring job for 20 years.” Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, who wrote the script and directed the movie, spoke of this in an interview: “The more I studied the Stasi, the more I found that what they did was too cruel to depict as it was, so I intentionally avoided cruel scenes.” The only cruel scene is the one of Christa’s death, and even in this scene, it is not clear whether it was an accidental death or a suicide. This movie poses a question that cannot be answered: when conveying a theme through art, which method has a more lasting impact on the audience, depicting cruelty as it is or abstractly?

Ulrich Mühe who played Wiesler was highly esteemed as a stage actor in East Germany, but he also participated in anti-government demonstrations and was involved in plays that criticized the system. He had two children while with his first wife, stage director Annegret Hahn, but they divorced, and he married actress Jenny Gröllmann in 1984. However, he later learned that four of his theater colleagues and his wife Jenny Gröllmann were spying on him and reporting information to authorities, and he divorced his wife in 1990. After that, he married again in 1997 to actress Susanne Lothar.

The Lives of Others won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 2007, but Mühe had to rush back to Germany immediately after in order to undergo surgery for his stomach cancer. Mühe passed away at the young age of 54, at the height of his fame due to the many prizes The Lives of Others received.

In 2006, in an interview included in his book that was related to The Lives of Others, Mühe confesses that, in the days of East Germany, his former wife Gröllmann spied on him as an “unofficial collaborator”—similar to the story of the movie—and reported to a Stasi officer who had the codename of “HA II/13.” Ex-wife Gröllmann filed a suit to the Berlin district court against what Mühe claimed, and argued that she had become a source of information on Mühe as an unofficial collaborator without her knowledge, and that the publication of the book be prohibited. The court approved this statement and prohibited the publication of the book; Mühe’s appeal was rejected and he was prohibited from denouncing Gröllmann as the source for the Stasi as an unofficial collaborator. Immediately after, Gröllmann died from an illness, and then one year later, Mühe also died. In addition, his third wife Lothar died in 2012 at the age of 51. All three certainly died prematurely.

日本語→

Movie: Uzak — Distant (2002), Iklimler – Climates (2006)

Turkish movie director Nuri Bilge Ceylan produced, wrote the screenplays for, and directed the movies Distant and Climates. Ceylan is very well-regarded internationally. Distant (2002) won the Grand Prix at the Cannes Film Festival, Climates (2006) won the Movie Critics’ Award at Cannes, Three Monkeys (2008) earned Ceylan the best director award at Cannes as well as made the shortlist for America’s Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, and Once Upon a Time In Anatolia (2011) once again won the Grand Prix at the Cannes Film Festival. In addition, Small Town won the Caligari Film Award at the Berlin Film Festival and the Silver Award at the Tokyo Film Festival and Climates won best picture at the SKIP City International Cinema Film Festival in Japan. In other words, nearly all of his works have received prestigious international awards. However, it is curious that none of his works have premiered in theatres in Japan.

The distinguishing feature of Ceylan’s movies in a few words is his cinematography that is so beautiful, it’s terrifying. His cinematography is exhaustively calculated such that each frame in his movies could be a painting. Every moment is perfectly timed and positioned—a bird flying, a fly buzzing, a cat jumping out, a person entering. The color of the clouds, the shading on the mountain, the motion of the sea waves, the color balance of the buildings and roads, the effective use of mirrors, the paint peeling on the exterior of the train, the contrast in the colors of the red mast of a scrapped boat and the snow—all truly astonishing. He pays meticulous attention to lighting. He also delicately uses sound, inserting even noise effectively.

We can understand Ceylan’s obsession over images and sounds if we take a look at his resume. He studied electrical engineering in college and also worked part-time as a photographer to support his living. Before his success in cinema, he had a career as a photographer. He produced, wrote the screenplays for, and directed his own movies, but also supervised photography and sounds and did his own film editing. He is certainly a very technical person.

He also obsesses greatly over the acting. He had several actors perform the single scene of a man simply getting out of a car and talking to someone, ten times each. Even if he reshoots it fifty times, if he is not pleased with it in the end, he might mercilessly cut it out when editing. Snow scenes play a big role in both Distant and Climates. Since snow rarely falls in Istanbul, did he happen to just be lucky? Or did he wait patiently for it to snow?

When directing, he is quite micro-managing. For a seven second scene when the actress opens the door and enters her room, he interrupts for the smallest details that happen in one second—the way she tilts her neck or the way she purses her lips. He has his own clear image and he demands that the actors produce an image that is the same as his. Some actors may think it would be a little hard to work with him or that he is quite strict.

The theme of his movies is “inner world.” He is not a political artist at all, at least from his works that I’ve seen. However, having spent his youth in the 70s, a time of turbulence across the whole world, political disturbance was something that he could not avoid. In 1976, he entered Istanbul Technical University, but in those days, Turkey was in a period of political turbulence and the university didn’t function well; in 1977, the Taksim Square massacre occurred. The facts relating to this event aren’t made very public, but that day was the nation’s Labor Day and it is said that a rally gathering socialists and illegal communists was planned. Istanbul Technical University was the center of student movements and not an environment conducive to studying, so after that, Ceylan took an entrance exam and transferred to Boğaziçi University. He finished his military service and traveled around many places; in his mid-thirties, he decided to become a full-fledged person of the cinema.

When I watch his early works Distant and Climates, I am made to think they might be an autobiography of his inner self. Depicted within these movies is a lonely man who is self-centered and unable to make a commitment to a woman or even himself. Both movies have a protagonist who is a good-looking man with a white-collar job. Women are drawn in by and attracted to such a man, but the man can’t commit to a serious relationship. He has a feeling that there are more interesting things in life than just dedicating himself to one woman so he rejects the woman. However, in the end, the man can’t find something that gives him satisfaction. He regrets parting with the woman, but he doesn’t have the passion to work hard enough to get the woman back.

The loneliness of the protagonist also comes from the loneliness of the people living in the city of Istanbul. Many of the residents living in Istanbul are from rural areas and moved there seeking work. The sense of community of people helping each other in rural areas is lost in a big city like Istanbul, but they are not true city dwellers. The protagonist is a rootless person that wanders about the city.

The loneliness of the protagonist also seems to symbolize the loneliness of Turkey as a country.

The Ottomans, after overthrowing the Byzantine Empire in the 15th century, established their great empire that reached from Azerbaijan in the east to Morocco in the west and from Ukraine in the north to Yemen in the south. However, in the 19th century, signs of decline of the empire began to show and many races in various places ruled by the empire became independent one after another. Because of Turkey’s defeat in World War I and the occupation by countries such as Britain, France, Italy, and Greece, Turkey dissolved. Facing this crisis, patriotic Turks appealed for their nation’s independence and started an armed resistance movement. Under the preeminent leadership of Mustafa Kemel (Atatürk), Turkey was successfully reestablished as the Republic of Turkey in 1922 and the Turks were able to overcome the crisis of extinction.

Turkey chose secularism, separating religion and government, and tried to modernize. After World War II, Turkey, touching the south border of the Soviet Union and in conflict with Russia throughout history, was valued by the west as an anticommunist barrier during the Cold War. Turkey was again valued as a buffer zone between Islamic countries and Western countries when the conflict between America and Islamic countries intensified after the Cold War. Perhaps Turkey wants to be included in European countries. However, an anti-Turkey feeling still remains in Europe, viewing Turkey as a friend to Islam with their anti-Islam eye. From the perspective of Islamic countries, though, Turkey is a country that has abandoned Islam.

There is also conflict within Turkey. The majority of people in Turkey support the stance to separate religion and politics, but there are also many who wish to revive Islam. There are socialists as well as a strong influence from military authorities. It is a country of gentlemen carefully trying to not cause any international problems, but the internal balance is quite delicate.

Ceylan married Ebru Ceylan, an actress much younger than him who co-starred with him in Distant and Climates; they have a child together and Ceylan appears to be a settled family man. Climates is a tribute to his own child, but I assume there was a day of loneliness before he reached his peaceful state of mind. When watching these movies, the feeling that remains in me is a deep loneliness.

日本語→

Movie: Grbavica – Land of My Dreams (2006)

While many war movies depict the soldiers who fought, people who died, and hard-fought victories, this movie depicts those who survived the Bosnian War and the children who were born during it.

During the Bosnian War—through events such as the Srebrenica massacre that occurred in 1995—the Serb army carried out a strategic “ethnic cleansing” where Bosnian Muslim men were killed and women were raped and forced to bear children. The original title “Grbavica” refers to the district in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in which the ethnic cleansing occurred.

Esma, a single mother, lives in this district with her only daughter Sara, who is 12 years old. Sara’s grade is going on a field trip, and when the teacher tells the kids that those who lost their fathers in the war get to go free of charge and those whose fathers were injured have their fee reduced, the eyes light up in the kids who have such fathers. Because Sara was told by her mother that her father died honorably in battle, she requests her father’s death certificate in order to go on the trip for free, but Esma makes up a variety of excuses and doesn’t show her the death certificate. Esma barely makes ends meet with compensation money and sewing, but also adds on a night shift as a waitress at a nightclub to earn money for Sara’s trip fees.

A man working as a bouncer and driver at this nightclub remembers Esma from when they had met while he was searching for the corpse of his father at a war morgue. Esma had also been looking for the corpse of her father there in the morgue. The man grows to like Esma. When Esma reluctantly accepts an invitation to go on a date, she finds out that this man is educated, studied economics in college, and still has a desire to study. However, he mutters that he would not be able to handle the rigorous college life anymore because he currently is living without passion and discipline; and besides there aren’t good jobs in the current situation of society, even if one graduates from college. As for Esma, before the war started, she was a medical student and was working hard to become a doctor. If not for the war, these two would’ve met as elite, possibly as a doctor and a government official, and the two of them could have built a happy home.

Sara, at the height of a rebellious age, cruelly fights against her mother who does not talk about the father. She says to her mom, “You’ll leave me,” and also, “Mom, promise me you won’t get married.” After all, though, she is an ordinary girl, delights in playing with friends, and becomes close with and tenderly cares for another boy who has no father and is living more nihilistically than herself. After Esma manages to pay the cost of the school trip with a loan, Sara questions her intensely about where her father’s death certificate is.

One day, the bouncer comes to visit Esma. Since he gained permission, he plans to immigrate to Austria. At that time, Esma’s response was not, “Are you leaving me?” or not, “I wish you happiness,” but rather, “And who will identify your father’s body if you leave?” Sara, frustrated that her mother just sadly lets this man leave, points the handgun she borrowed from her friend and threatens Esma, “Tell me about my father!” Parting with this man, her difficult relationship with Sara, economic struggles, and an unforgettable past all combine at this moment for Esma and explode; Esma then tells Sara that she is a child born from the rape by an enemy soldier.

Innumerable cruel things occurred during the Bosnian War. How does one convey these to the world and to the next generation? If someone just presents cruel events one after another, it would be a documentary. If someone presents who the bad guy is, who the victim is, and what to do to bring them to justice, it would be propaganda. However, in order to make a good movie as a form of art, it must have hope in it. The past is unalterable and the future could take any direction, so what art can do in this situation is present hope.

This movie is sad, but there is hope. This hope could be short-lived and it may vanish at the end of a tiring day, but at least there is hope. When Sara asks her mother what part of her looks like her father, Esma finally answers that Sara’s hair color was the only thing she had in common with the father who had raped Esma. After Sara learns the truth about her father, she sobs profusely and shaves her own head. On the morning of the trip, Sara hesitantly waves to her mother from the bus, while Esma smilingly waves back. Esma at first hated her baby and continued to while it was in her belly, but while breast-feeding after the birth, she accepted the baby and was determined to raise Sara. And the greatest salvation is that this movie doesn’t call the enemy “Serbs.” The movie says that the people who slaughtered and raped the Muslims of Bosnia were Chetniks (the derogatory term for Serbs who believed in the Greater Serbia ideology, fought alongside the Nazis against Tito in the past, and gathered up an anti-Muslim force in Bosnia for the Bosnian War), and never says that all Serbs are the enemy of Bosnians. The past is unalterable. However, the people involved in the making of this movie may have wanted to say that hope doesn’t come from thoughts like, “Serbs did this and that, and so they are evil.”

日本語→

Movie: The Way I Spent the End of the World – Cum mi-am petrecut sfârşitul lumii (2006)

This movie is a sketch of the life of 17-year-old Eva living in Romania’s capital Bucharest in 1989. In 1989, the General Secretary of the Communist Party in Romania, Nicolae Ceauşescu, was executed and this was the year the communist dictatorship fell. In this movie, Eva seems to be rebellious, expressionless, unsociable, irresponsible, and random (however, she looks pretty and shows a little smile when she talks with her boyfriend); even though she is going out with Alexandru, the son of an important man in the socialist administration, she shows interest in Andrei, whose parents are missing on the charge of the assassination attempt of Nicolae Ceauşescu, and the two plan to cross the Danube River to escape to Yugoslavia. But partway through, Eva says “I quit,” stops crossing of the river, and returns to Bucharest alone; her parents are angry and they ask Eva to keep a good relationship with Alexandru for the sake of the safety of their family. Eva is captivated with a cheap condominium (or it may be a high-end condo by Romanian standards) that Alexandru recently bought. In the end, an intimate relationship between the two somehow develops, and Eva returns home and declares triumphantly, “We are engaged!!” but immediately after, a bloody revolution erupts; the adults, who seemed until then to be gloomy and obedient to authority, suddenly and joyfully begin destructive activity. This movie ends after briefly depicting Alexandru’s family slipping from the upper class after the bloody revolution, Andrei safely arriving in Italy via Yugoslavia, and Eva triumphantly pursuing a career as a crew member on an international passenger ship.

Eva is expressionless and arrogant from the start to finish and her inner state isn’t depicted at all. She goes back and forth between Alexandru—who symbolizes in the movie the center of political power—and Andrei—who symbolizes anti-establishment. Despite their political differences, she is attracted to both of them with the fickle feelings of a teenager. Romania, an underdeveloped satellite country of the Soviet Union, is in a desolate state of affairs and even the capital Bucharest is in bad shape; we don’t know what the parents do, but they always look gloomy, tired, and uninterested in their children. I don’t think they are poor, but it seems that the home is also in a dismal state and their meals are just soup and bread. There is no discussion of politics because the adults are afraid to get involved with politics. This depiction of desolate everyday life aptly shows the true nature of the stagnation that resulted from the socialist dictatorship in Romania and no further words of explanation are needed.

The Romanian film world first showed signs of new activity in the late 1980s and it started getting attention from film festivals, primarily the Cannes Film Festival, in the 2000s. These movies focused on the themes of the transition from a socialist country to one with a free economy or criticisms of the Ceauşescu regime, and many seemed to have an unfinished, minimalistic, documentary feel. There is a divide on whether to call this “fresh” or “amateurism,” but after watching movies from Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary that proudly demonstrate sophisticated techniques, I have a feeling that Romanian movies have a long way to go. Perhaps because Western European countries want to support Romania, Romanian movies briefly gained praise at Cannes, and Dorotheea Petre who played Eva in this movie even won the Best Actress Award at Cannes. This movie’s story is unrefined; since winter and summer are repeated many times, it feels like many years pass in the story, but it is only one year. This movie doesn’t seem to care about these inaccuracies. In addition, Dorotheea Petre who played Eva looks like she is in her 30s and doesn’t at all resemble the actress who played her mother, who is dressed to look younger; the two look as if they are sisters or friends. Both actresses certainly are quite beautiful, but that is not enough. There is a feeling somehow that this movie was made without attention to details, in contrast to the many directors in the world that really pay attention to detail. I wonder where Romanian movies will go from here.

1989 was the year that the Tiananmen Square Massacre happened and the grip of communism was strengthened in China, but it was also the year that the communist dictatorship in Eastern Europe was ended relatively peacefully. John Paul II from Poland was inaugurated as Pope in 1978 and, even though nobody thought that this was a step towards ending the Cold War, I think Pope John Paul II greatly contributed to the ending of the Cold War. Poles felt that there was something to believe in, a kind of spiritual hope. This led to the rise of charismatic yet pragmatic, labor-union chairman Lech Wełęsa. While he was trying to change the social and political direction of Poland with the word “Solidarity,” most people in the world watching Eastern Europe thought, “Oh no, something like the Hungarian Revolution or the Prague Spring might be repeated in Poland…” However, Wełęsa’s approach was different. He who would bend but not break to pressure carefully watched Moscow’s reaction in order to advance or retreat appropriately, advocated for nonviolence, and patiently and peacefully pushed for the democratization of Poland.

Hungary was similarly a “mature country.” This is because Hungary prided itself in being an advanced country like Austria. Mikhail Gorbachev’s administration of the Soviet Union began “perestroika” in 1985, which removed what was called the “Brezhnev Doctrine” that regulated the Eastern Bloc of the communist party countries; Hungary, taking advantage of this deregulation, opened the national border between Hungary and Austria in May of 1989. A non-communist regime was elected in Poland in June and a non-communist regime was established in Hungary in October.

Now that citizens from East Germany could cross the Hungary-Austria national border and flee to West Germany by way of Austria, the Berlin Wall had lost its purpose for existing. The Berlin Wall was destroyed on November 10. This encouraged many citizens in Czechoslovakia and Romania to demand democratization. On November 17, a bloodless revolution called the Velvet Revolution began in Czechoslovakia. However, a bloody revolution in Romania resulted in the execution of the dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu.

Nicolae Ceauşescu was the dictator of Romania for 22 years, from 1967 to 1989. At the beginning, he opposed the suppression of the Prague Spring by the Soviet Union and refused to send armed forces; declared a pro-Western Bloc attitude along with Yugoslavia; and became a member of IMF and GATT and conformed to Western Bloc economics. Romania was the only satellite country of the Soviet Union that established diplomatic relations with Israel, and it participated in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics when all other Eastern Bloc countries boycotted it. Nicolae Ceauşescu gained a very favorable impression with the Western Bloc countries, and support from citizens was also high. Unfortunately, however, he seemed to have held a position of power for too long. He gradually began to turn Romania’s government structure in a direction that resembled the Workers’ Party of Korea in North Korea or the Chinese Communist Party.

The failure of Nicolae Ceauşescu’s economic policy was what decisively made him unpopular. Because Romania was popular with the Western Bloc countries, it was able to easily obtain funds from the Western Bloc, but this was a double-edged sword. Romania struggled with paying off this large sum of money that was loaned to them, causing the national economy to suffer and most Romanians to live in great poverty. Due to the food rationing system that was established in the country and the unreasonable exports that were given priority, Romanian citizens were without daily food or fuel for winter heating, and power outages became frequent. Such things are depicted in this movie.

In the “Arab Spring” of 2012, Twitter functioned as real-time communication and accelerated a revolution, while television played a big part in the “Revolutions of 1989” in Eastern Europe. Through television, Romanian citizens were able to know what happened in Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. We can see this happening in Romania extensively in this movie.

日本語→

Movie: Blame it on Fidel — La Faute à Fidel (2006)

BlameitonFidelThe period of the 1960s through the 1970s was a time of great social upheaval around the whole world. Castro declared socialism In Cuba in 1961, Indochina was bogged down with the Vietnam War, and the Cultural Revolution continued in China. A socialist administration was established in Chile by means of a democratic general election. Even in the Western Bloc, there were the May 1968 events in Paris and demonstrations against a military regime in Greece. In addition, an anti-war movement was surging in America and acts of terrorism by the Red Army and extreme leftists occurred one after another in Japan. In Spain, Franco’s dictatorship still continued since the Spanish Civil War. In short, it was a period where problems that weren’t able to be settled after World War II surfaced.

1970. Nine-year old Anna lives in Paris with her Spanish father Fernando, a lawyer, and her mother Marie, the editor of the woman magazine Marie Claire, in a magnificent mansion with a garden, and she commutes to a prestigious Catholic mission school. Anna spends her vacations in Bordeaux and is looked after every day by their maid, who fled from Cuba where Fidel Castro had established a socialist system. One day, her uncle in Spain is executed for opposing Franco’s dictatorship and the aunt who escaped Spain starts living together in Anna’s house, which triggers a change in the father’s behavior. Fernando, feeling in debt for having not done anything so far for his native country of Spain, feels his social conscience awaken and suddenly takes a trip to Chile with Marie. The two then return completely baptized with communism and start to look like hippies, and Anna is not pleased at all with the changes in her surroundings. The Cuban maid says to Anna, “Everything, blame it on Fidel.” The maid is later fired. Fernando resigns as a lawyer and works to establish Allende and a socialist administration in Chile, while the mother decides to start a movement supporting abortion to expand women’s rights. Because of the change in her parents, Anna’s life also takes a 180 degree turn. She no longer takes the classes on religion that she loved, her family moves from their big house to a small apartment, and she has a Vietnamese babysitter that comes to the apartment. Although President Allende is elected as the leader of the socialist administration, it is short-lived and President Allende is assassinated. Watching her deeply grieving father, Anna decides to visit her family’s roots; she finds that her family was high-ranking nobility in Spain, cruelly oppressed anti-royalists, and belonged to a pro-Franco faction under the Franco administration. The movie ends with the scene of Anna commuting to her first day of school after dropping out of Catholic school and deciding to attend public school.

In a word, the impression I got from this movie is “headstrong.” Headstrong might mean overly rationalistic, or stubborn, or an empty talker; this is the attitude of someone judging others using the lens of their own ideology, rather than absorbing and accepting their surroundings with an open mind and without preconceptions. Although the events of just one year are in this two hour movie, it is a very busy movie as it tries to pack in all of the problems of the world.

In the beginning, the death of Fernando’s brother-in-law happens at the same time as the younger sister’s wedding. I would think a political death is more shocking than one of natural causes, but since the wedding ceremony is carried out happily, if you are not careful, you may not notice that the uncle has been executed. The maid changes one after another from a Cuban, a Greek who fled her country, and then a Vietnamese woman. Shocked from the uncle’s death, it is fine that a political conscience that until now has been ignored is awakened, but why does the father join the reform in far-away Chile and not Spain of his own roots? Costa-Gavras, the father of this movie’s director Julie Gavras, possesed left-wing ideology and gained global fame with his Missing, which depicts the conspiracy of the American government in Chile; I can’t help but think that his daughter is exploiting this. It seems that Fernando and Marie stay in Chile for about two weeks, but after that, the two return as die-hard communists. If communist brainwashing is as simple as this, Lenin and Stalin wouldn’t have had so much difficulty. Fernando’s younger sister who married two or three months ago and should be very happy suddenly wants an abortion and Marie begins to play a big role as a feminist. What, she is already pregnant? And is she already unhappy with the married life just after getting married? This makes me want to recheck the numbers since two or three months doesn’t seem like enough time for this to happen. As an additional bonus, Marie grumbles about there being no true liberation for women even in a socialist household when Fernando angrily tells her, “You should be a good mother and give more of your attention to your family rather than having the maid look after our child,” because he is jealous of her being more famous than him with the publicity she gained from her article about the “Manifesto of the 343” demanding the lifting of the ban on abortion.

It is as if director Julie Gavras wanted to say:

“’Sorry, mommy and daddy have their hands full with their own problems, and you may suffer for it. But mommy and daddy are doing their best to pursue what they think is right. Perhaps you will understand the feeling of daddy and mommy when you are an adult,’ the mother says to her daughter.

To which the daughter responds, ‘No, daddy and mommy, you don’t have to shout about solidarity or unity to achieve it. If you lend a hand–even if you don’t say anything—you are connected to those around you. I get it.’”

This is my guess, but this movie still leaves me questioning whether making a movie that is crowded with all of the world’s problems is the best method to convey this message.

日本語→

Movie: I Served the King of England (2006)

This movie is a Czech movie, not a British movie. Neither Great Britain nor the King appear at all. The Ethiopian emperor makes just a brief appearance. Therefore, if we watch this movie expecting a movie like The King’s Speech, we might think, “Huh???”

This movie is a satirical comedy with beautiful and grotesque images. However, in a sense, it can be said that this movie allows us to understand modern history of the Czech Republic through the protagonist’s life and the times he lives in. This movie depicts the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after their defeat in World War I and the formation of the Czechoslovakia Republic in 1918; Hitler absorbing the Sudetenland region in 1939, followed by Czech becoming a German protectorate; the establishment of the communist regime with the support of the Soviet Union through the “Victorious February” of 1948; and finally ends around 1968. Based on the novel Bohumil Hrabal secretly wrote in 1970 when freedom of speech was oppressed in Czech under the control of the communist party, director Jiří Menzel, whose freedom to produce was also oppressed under the communist party, made a film adaptation in 2006 after the collapse of the communist party. In 1967, Jiří Menzel won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film for Closely Watched Trains, another film adaptation of one of Bohumil Hrabal’s works, but there was a long gap in this career after that until the communist regime collapsed in 1989.

Czechs suffered throughout the 20th century—first bullied by Germany, then dominated by the Soviet Union—so we may expect the theme of Czech movies to be about this, but this movie depicts 20th century Czech history from a different angle. The Czech region Sudetenland shows up often in this movie.

The history of the Czech Republic is complicated. Bohemia was the center of the Czech Republic, but since the 11th century, German-ification has progressed due to Germans migrating there; also, there was a long-lasting, complicated power struggle between the north part of the Kingdom of Poland and the south part of the Kingdom of Hungary over ruling the land of Bohemia. Because of the eventual defeat of the Czech nobility in the Thirty Years’ War that started in 1618, a German sovereignty was established in Bohemia, but there historically was a strong antagonism between Germans and Czechs in the Bohemia region. Czech was traditionally anti-Germany, Pan-Slav, and had a strong sense of closeness with Russia, but this area in the end became a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. There are many coalmines in Bohemia. Utilizing the abundant coal and the investment by German capitalists, Bohemia successfully partook in the Industrial Revolution and became a prominent industrial area in Central Europe.

Sudetenland was on the western edge of Bohemia and on the German border; this area had many Germans living there since ancient times and thus the most intense antagonism between Germans and Czechs. German citizens under the control of the Czech majority suffered from discrimination such as unequal hiring process. As a result of the defeat of Germany and Austria in World War I in 1918, the Austro-Hungarian Empire dissolved; Czech and Slovakia were merged and the independent nation of Czechoslovakia was formed. Anti-German thought was mainstream in Czech, but, conversely, in Slovakia near Russia, there were strong anti-Russia, pro-Germany thoughts. Czech invaded the Sudetenland and seized this land from Germany. Many scenes of Czechs bullying Germans appear in this movie. The bullying is depicted full of humor, but it is cruel when considered carefully. With a lightness and skillful movement by actors like that seen in Chaplin movies, this movie attracts the audience masterfully, but there is poison at the bottom that makes you think about various things.

For Hitler who succeeded in absorbing Austria in March of 1938, his next territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia; with the excuse that Germans living in Sudetenland were being persecuted, Hitler tried to gain sovereignty over Sudetenland. At that time, Czech was involved in conflicts with their neighbors Poland and Hungary over territory. Taking advantage of this situation, Germany gained sovereignty over Sudetenland and from there, absorbed Czech.

Mirrors are effectively used in this movie. A mirror reflects something back. This movie satirically reveals the true face of Czech through the non-mainstream Czech protagonist. The protagonist is a plain, small-statured Czech man who doesn’t attract attention from anyone and has blonde hair, which is rare for Czechs. He was a poor man when the Czech Republic was erupting in prosperity after their independence. While other Czechs bully Germans, he is the only man who helps Germans and he even marries a German women. When Nazis took control and began oppression of other Czechs, he was able to get a job at a high-end restaurant and a high-end hotel thanks to his wife. The high-end hotel looks to be the pinnacle of elegance, but the true characters of the rich people, high-salaried officers, and politicians that come here are exposed. Since the hotel employees never fail to follow, “After watching it all, pretend to see nothing,” the rich clients that come here don’t mind the eyes of the hotel employees at all. By depicting the protagonist, the movie provides a reflection of the people over different times like a mirror. Because the protagonist is an extremely wealthy person when Germany is defeated in World War II and the communist revolution comes to life, he is sentenced to 15 years in prison for this crime. After he is released, the protagonist is sent to Sudetenland and assigned to do heavy labor.

When the protagonist arrives, Sudetenland is deserted. After World War II, all Germans were forcibly deported. The movie suggests that terrible things such as being pillaged or massacred also happened and that being expelled was actually the most benign treatment. The movie ends with the protagonist in this deserted place in the middle of the mountains quietly looking back on his life. The two different actors who perform the protagonist when he was young and when he is old do not look alike. I think two actors are used to depict change in the protagonist’s personality. This movie depicts the protagonist over about 35 years, from adolescence to middle-age. It is usually enough to have one actor to perform this range of years.

This movie picks up the issue of Sudetenland, an issue not many Czechs want to touch since it is like a disgrace in the modern history of Czech. This movie is made as a comedy with beautiful images, but it is quite brave to raise the theme of the Sudetenland issue. It is especially admirable for the author of the original work Bohumil Hrabal to write a book about the Sudetenland issue back in the 1970s, long before an official resolution. Considering this, this light comedy may be asking Czechs including himself the terrifying questions of, “Did we not create the situation of becoming victims of Nazis ourselves? Are we not narrow-minded people for having held onto a hatred for a neighbor of a slightly different race?”

日本語→

Movie: Indigènes – Days of Glory (2006)

There are a great number of war movies, but this movie offers a unique point of view unlike other movies. On the surface, this movie depicts the resistance and victory against the Nazi occupation in France during World War II, but it is not simply the victory of France–“we went, we killed, we won”; it also indirectly depicts other things sprouting at the time—the independence movement in French colonies and the injustice that followed their independence.

The original title—Indigènes—means “indigenous people.” In general, these are people who lived originally on the land, but become a minority by being pushed down by another race that comes and invades, and are put into the bottom social class. American Indians, Aboriginal Australians, and the Ainu in Japan are a few examples. There are many indigenous groups in the North Saharan Africa—the most well-known of which are the Berber people—and many races ruled over them. The Berbers were pastoral people and they were often put in the bottom social class in African society. However, since they were deeply loyal, brave, and weren’t adverse to traveling, many were used as skilled mercenaries by the ruling class. Most Berbers of Algeria and Morocco who were oppressed by Arabs in North Africa felt that France, the colonist country, treated Arabs and Berbers equally, so they thought of themselves as French, believed France was their homeland, and felt ardent patriotism for France. France organized the Free French Forces based on volunteer soldiers from North Africa to shift the balance against Germany. The Free French Forces consisted of Senegal draftees, the French Foreign Legion, Moroccans, Algerians, Tahitians, etc. This movie is the story of the Berbers who volunteered for the Free French Forces and fought bravely without fearing death.

Abdelkader is an educated man and is appointed as the head of the Berber soldiers due to his top performance on the military service examination. He had an ambition to advance in the French military by studying diligently and earning merits from battle. He mediates between soldiers from an impartial standpoint and advocates for solidarity across cultures among the troops. His efforts are completely ignored, though, and a French Algerian is promoted instead of him. Though feeling humiliated, he doesn’t lose his loyalty to the French military.

Sergeant Martinez, just because he is a French Algerian, is promoted and commands the Algerian Arab troops, but he is not very good at leading the troops rationally and easily becomes violent when he is angry. He even admits to himself that Abdelkader’s leadership was superior to his own. Although he is regarded as French, his mother is in fact Arab—something he doesn’t want others to know.

Saïd is from the poorest area among Berbers. His mother would rather stop her son from volunteering and starve to death than receive the cash bonus and pension from dispatching her son with the troops, but his mother can’t keep him from volunteering and he goes to war to protect France because of his genuine patriotic feelings. Sergeant Martinez notices Saïd’s simple-minded, loyal nature that is without ambition, and so treats Saïd favorably.

Yassir, in order to earn the money to pay for his younger brother’s marriage, enlists with his younger brother. He loves his younger brother and he preaches that a man must always be honest and do the right thing.

Messaoud is a talented marksman and is given the special duty of being a sniper by Sergeant Martinez. He dreams of excelling on the battlefield, becoming a hero for his meritorious service, falling in love with a French woman attracted to his fame, marrying her, and settling down in France when the war is over.

Their first mission is to capture a fortress from Germany in Provence in southern France. The Berber unit had to walk in front on the mountain trail, completely exposed to the enemy. While the unit is being fired at by the German army, the French soldiers hiding behind the Berbers figure out where the German soldiers are hiding and start to attack the German soldiers. The battle ends with an overwhelming victory for the French forces, but this is the first experience that makes the Berber soldiers realize that they will be given the most dangerous assignments.

As the war becomes a stalemate and there are orders for the French military to return home, the Berber soldiers are delighted, but the orders to return only apply to French men; soldiers of the Free French Forces are not allowed to return and a pessimistic feeling begins to drift into the unit.

The most difficult order given to the Free French Forces is to do as much damage to the German army as possible until the main French army and American army arrive in order to capture Colmar in Alsace under Nazi occupation. Sergeant Martinez along with another commanding officer of a small unit are assigned to this dangerous mission; the soldiers under his command—Abdelkader, Saïd, Yassir and his younger brother, and Messaoud—also participate in hopes of honor and a reward. However, most of the unit dies from a bomb placed at the entrance to the German-occupied territory and Sergeant Martinez is seriously injured. Yassir, losing his younger brother, grieves that there is no point anymore of him being here; Abdelkader leads the survivors, Saïd, Yassir, and Messaoud, to a village in Alsace and they are welcomed by the villagers. However, in an intense battle with the German army, Saïd tries to protect the seriously injured Sergeant Martinez, but both are killed by the German army; Yassir and Messaoud also die in action.

This is called the Battle at Colmar Pocket. In those days, the Alsace-Lorraine district which contained Colmar was Germany territory and was a key location that guarded the bridge over the Rhine River. After an intense battle, the French and American armies succeeded in forcing the German army to retreat. The Allies had 21,000 casualties while the German army had 38,000. The Allies succeeded in crossing the Rhine River and hereby successfully started a full-scale invasion of German territory.

Abdelkader, the lone survivor, joins the French military in Colmar, but his existence as well as those of his comrades who died are completely ignored. No one thinks about the Berber soldiers that died while the victory of the French unit who only came later is praised.

Soldiers that went to war were guaranteed lifetime pension, and this was one of the motives for volunteering. However, when the struggle for independence in Algeria intensified in 1959, the French government decided to no longer pay the pensions for soldiers from French colonies that participated in the French military. Because Algeria was to eventually become independent from France, the French military did not feel it was necessary to pay money to Algerians of a different country. This movie ends with Abdelkader, 60 years after the battle at Alsace, visiting the gravesite of the soldiers who died in action on this land.

日本語→