Category Archives: 2010

Movie: Another Year (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

In honor of the New Year, this entry is about British director Mike Leigh’s Another Year.

another-year-cover-700-h-283x400I found Another Year—despite being a movie about people of a different generation and living in a different country than myself—to be very relevant and relatable. This movie depicts the absolute normalcy of both happiness and unhappiness. The movie begins with a depressed elderly woman in a doctor’s office asking for medication to help her with her insomnia—one of the many parts of her life that seems to be making her miserable. When we see this depressed woman (who says she is 1 out of 10 on the scale of happiness!), we wonder, “How in the world did she end up like this?? What terrible things have happened in her life?” But I believe this movie gently suggests that the difference between a happy life and a miserable one is more subtle.

In this movie, we follow the lives of two women—Gerri and Mary—over the course of a year. At the beginning, they don’t seem too different—middle-aged, working stable jobs in the same health center, often sharing a casual drink or meal together. However, over the year, it becomes clear that the two are in very different places in their lives.

another-year-2Gerri is happily married to a loving husband. Their love is apparent, though never dramatically so—a nice passing compliment, or enjoying a warm cup of tea after a day in the garden together. Most evenings are spent quietly sharing their days over a nice meal, listening to music, or reading in bed next to each other. Gerri also has a sweet son who visits regularly, works out in the garden with his parents at times, and one day brings home a nice girlfriend.

Mary, on the other hand, is single and seems to be trying to pick herself up from a recent relationship she unfortunately had with a married man. She is a pretty woman, but she says that men are disappointed when they find out she is older than they thought. She drinks and smokes a little too much when she is stressed—such as when she is reminded of her singleness or has difficulties with her new car—which of course causes her to be more sad and desperate. She seems to just be realizing that she is getting old, doesn’t like where her life is now, and is becoming increasingly discouraged by her prospects. She is simultaneously comforted by the supportiveness of Gerri as a friend and sadly reminded of her own loneliness when she sees Gerri happily with her husband and son.

Both Gerri’s happiness and Mary’s unhappiness were reached by a series of small steps. Gerri appears to have embarked on a good path years ago that led her to a happy life, while Mary’s choices appear to have led her down a path of unhappiness. Perhaps when Gerri married a man who she would be pleasantly sharing a meal with 30 or so years later, Mary got involved with a man who would later devastate her. While Gerri spends her time enjoying hobbies she was able to develop with her husband, Mary impulsively buys a car in hopes that it will empower her and make her feel less unhappy, only to find that it causes her all sorts of grief. The sad elderly woman in the first scene could be Mary in a couple of decades if Mary is not able to turn her life around and find happiness.

2010_another_year_004I fear that Mary will not be able to. Why? It is not only what choices we make—because there is no way for anyone to really predict how their choices might play out in 5, 10, 30 years—but also how we deal with what happens in life. Depression is a very dangerous and trapping cycle where every little defeat is discouraging, and that discouragement only sets one up for another defeat. For example, Mary drinks when she is upset, acts pitifully when drunk, and then is embarrassed by her actions. Also, she is disheartened by perceived failures from non-attempts, such as when the man she is eying across the bar ends up having a wife or when Gerri’s son brings home a girlfriend; neither man was actually rejecting her, but she will take it that way. On the other hand, when a clumsy and overweight friend of Gerri’s attempts to flirt with Mary, she is upset, not flattered, by this, likely because she is reminded of her own age and singleness. Mary is also quite harsh on herself, calling herself stupid and getting hung up on little mistakes she makes. This tendency to focus on failures and perceive everything negatively makes it very challenging to be happy with what happens in life. Just like happiness is found in all those ordinary moments we see in Gerri’s life, misery can also just be an accumulation of ordinary moments perceived through a negative filter.

This easily discouraged mindset is very hard to break free from and unfortunately many people today are stuck in it. When people can only think of the negative parts of life, they lose hope for their future and become detached from the people and moments around them. In the most extreme situation, this could result in suicide. Because of Mary’s focus on the negative, it seems that she does not know how to be happy with herself, and therefore seeks out external sources of happiness—such as a man or a new car. This movie also seems to critique the use of drugs as a quick-fix to unhappiness in the first scene when the depressed woman demands medication. Mary needs to figure out what she wants, have the confidence that she can achieve it, and find satisfaction with what she has. This change is challenging for depressed youths who still have most of their life ahead of them to work towards getting what they want out of life, but even more challenging for a middle-aged woman who still has very little figured out, especially compared to her happy friend next to her.

I think the title “Another Year” carries a similar meaning as discussed in “The Sun Also Rises.” On one hand, it can be an appreciation of all of the little moments that happened over the last year, and an optimism toward what the next year might bring. On the other hand, it can be a ticking clock for someone like Mary who feels her age more and more every year.

Sakuranbo

Movie: Outside the Law — Hors-la-loi (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

After the success of the masterpiece Days of Glory that was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film in the 2006 Academy Awards, the sequel Outside the Law was made with the hope of being another great success, but unfortunately it does not live up to the previous work at all; seeking success using the same seed did not bear fruit.

The actors who won Best Actor Awards in the Cannes Film Festival for their performances in Days of Glory, the previous work by the same director Rachid Bouchareb, appear again. Three actors that played soldiers in the previous work appear in the sequel with the same names (Messaoud, Abdelkader, Saïd), but this time the three men are brothers from Algeria. The actor who played the slightly quirky Sergeant Martinez in the previous work appears as a French police investigator who chases the three men. One key actor who won an award for Best Actor at Cannes, Samy Naceri as Yassir in the previous work, does not appear. This is probably due to the fact that before and after his appearance in Days of Glory, this actor was found guilty for the possession of cocaine a few times and at last in 2009 he was arrested on charges for assault with a knife.

When these three male actors with different facial features and body types are in the same unit as soldiers, it is believable; but when performing as brothers, it looks weird. The various events that happen to them as soldiers in the same unit are believable, but the things that happen to the three brothers one after another is too much of a coincidence. Furthermore, because this movie depicts a long period of time—from before World War II until 1962—in 2 hours, the movie gives the impression of just scratching the surface instead of digging deeper. After the success of Days of Glory, director Rachid Bouchareb seems to aim more strongly for an entertainment component, throwing in action scenes, to be a financial success. In fact, it felt like this movie was strongly influenced by the legendary Hollywood movie The Godfather. However, these action scenes are lacking something. Even though Hollywood movies may be criticized in various ways, Hollywood hasn’t spent all this time developing action movie techniques for nothing. These action scenes still have a long way to go to achieve a similar level as those in Hollywood.

This movie begins with the land that is owned by the father of the three brothers in an Algerian village being confiscated by an Algerian man with a connection to a French official. And so the family leaves their home town. The movie itself is fiction, but it draws upon actual historical events such as the Sétif massacre. On May 8, 1945, after Germany surrendered, Algerians in Sétif—where a French military base was located—and neighboring areas demanded independence and performed a demonstration, but the demonstration transformed into a riot when the police intervened and many people were killed in the process of suppression. In the movie, the brothers’ father is killed in this riot, and the second son Abdelkader is arrested and sent to a French prison.

The eldest son Messaoud is dispatched to Vietnam as a soldier of the French military. This movie shows mainly soldiers from French colonies being sent to Vietnam. The First Indochina War was fought by France primarily with people from Morocco, Algeria, Senegal, and other French colonies; the morale was low and there was a strong anti-war feeling. Eventually, France withdrew from Vietnam after the Geneva Accords in 1954.

The third son Saïd kills the Algerian landlord who stole his family’s land; he then goes with his mother to Paris where his older brother is imprisoned and devotes himself to money-making by opening a bar and boxing gym. Before long, the eldest brother returns from Vietnam, the second son is released, and the family finally reunites in Lance.

The second son Abdelkader and the eldest son Messaoud participate in the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) in Paris. The two assassinate government officials by using Messaoud’s former war comrade—an Algerian that Messaoud had met in the World War II resistance movement and Vietnam War, now working within the French government. As the FLN movement becomes more radical, the actions of the two men become more violent.

It is said that director Rachid Bouchareb decided to make a sequel because a lot of people asked him what happened afterwards to the main characters from his hit Days of Glory. It is not clear whether this movie approves or disapproves of the violence of FLN. I think he probably disapproves, but it is very difficult to keep watching these violent scenes. Also, I cannot see hope for Algeria’s future in this movie. It is regretful that the long-awaited sequel to the magnificent masterpiece was extremely violent and leaves a dark feeling after watching it. This may reflect the heavy price paid for independence and the sad reality of the current political instability in Algeria it led to. Furthermore, it is said that many people objected to how the contents of this movie are not historically impartial. This movie has received mixed reviews in many ways. This movie was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film.

日本語→

Movie: Sarah’s Key (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

There are two themes in Sarah’s Key. The first is the sense of duty to tell of the Jewish manhunt that happened in France; the other is the relevance of the past to the present. Therefore, the movie goes back and forth between 1942 and present day and comes together at the end.

Sarah is a ten year old girl who lives in Paris during Nazi-Germany occupation. One day, the French police come to arrest her family because they are Jewish, but Sarah quickly thinks to hide her younger brother Michel in the closet; she locks him in and instructs him, “Never come out, I’ll come back soon,” as she is taken away with her parents. They are forcibly transported to Vélodrome d’Hiver (an indoor bicycle race track) where the imprisoned Jews are in intense heat and cannot go to the bathroom. From there, they are sent to a temporary internment camp and finally to Auschwitz. Sarah escapes from the internment camp to return to Paris with the key to let her little brother out of the closet.

Julia is a skilled American journalist who lives in Paris with her French husband. She is assigned an article to cover the Vélodrome d’Hiver massive arrests in 1942 (abbreviated by many as the Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup), but during her investigation, she discovers that Jews were hidden in the condo owned by her husband’s family. She learns that the parents who lived in that condo died in Auschwitz, but their children Sarah and Michel didn’t, so her investigation turns to focusing on what became of them. However, in doing so, she causes pain to her husband’s family. Her husband’s grandfather had obtained Sarah’s vacant condo at a very low price, and, since nobody came back alive, her husband’s family has lived there in peace, unaware of its history.

The fact that French people forcibly moved Jews and sent them to Auschwitz was not publicized for a long time. However, Chirac was elected as president in 1995 and he, immediately after his presidential inauguration, recognized for the first time that the country had made a mistake with the participation of the French police in the Vel d’Hiv Roundup and Jewish persecution during World War II. But until President Chirac’s public recognition, most citizens were not aware of the incident.

During World War II, under the Vichy administration, a committee was formed to review the procedure of becoming a citizen and those who had become a citizen between 1927 and July 1940 were investigated; as a result, a law that invalidated the French citizenship of 15,000 Jews in France was proposed. The law was passed which allowed the revoking of citizenship and continued downgrading of the social class of Jews in France. Consequently, there was no governmental responsibility for French Jews and Vichy France was able to send Jews to concentration camps and Holocaust internment camps legally. After that, similar laws were passed in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia, French colonies at the time.

The attitude of, “It’s all because of the terrible Nazis. France was occupied, and so was not responsible!” isn’t true because there is evidence that Vichy France adopted these laws without being forced to by Nazi Germany.

In fact, I wonder if it is that nobody wants to talk about France’s dark past where, only 70 years ago, the country was divided into two opposing parts. Therefore, I think people want to believe that Vichy France that cooperated with the Nazis that occupied the northern half of France was not true France, and may say that they have no responsibility for what Vichy France did regarding France’s cooperation with the Nazi’s Jew hunt. Charles de Gaulle (President from 1959 to 1969), who had taken refuge from Vichy France in Britain and adamantly resisted Germany, was unable to apologize for the actions of Vichy France, his own enemy.

Both President Pompidou (1969 to 1974) and President Mitterrand (1981 to 1995) who took over after de Gaulle were fighters in the resistance and so seemed to believe they did not need to apologize for the past actions of Vichy France. In the end, President Chirac of the conservative party (president from 1995 to 2007) was the first to recognize France’s responsibility with his apology that France should’ve protected their people from their enemy.
Also of the conservative party, Jewish President Sarkozy (2007 to 2012) was against the anti-Semitism, but did not acknowledge the crime by the French government. However, left-wing Hollande defeated Sarkozy in the presidential elections and was the first left-wing president to recognize the national crime of the Vel d’Hiv Roundup.

This movie depicts the question of how a Jew overcomes oppression and lives afterwards. The life of a liberated Jew is not over even if a movie ends when the Allies win and end the war. It is a sad journey to follow what happened to Sarah afterwards. The spirit of Sarah who survived only with the motivation to rescue her younger brother is suddenly broken. There are many warm and gentle-hearted people around Sarah, but that love was not able to save Sarah. In this sense, this is a sad movie without salvation, but I think the audience can have hope at the end of this movie. Julia’s journey causes pain to her husband’s family who do not want to know about the past and Sarah’s family, but in the end the family accepts and appreciates knowing the painful past. Furthermore, Julia’s journey went beyond an investigation of another person’s life when it provided an opportunity for her to think about her own life.

日本語→

Movie: The King’s Speech (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

I thought The King’s Speech was simply the story of a stuttering king who, after much effort, finally becomes good at speeches, so I didn’t really have much of a desire to watch it. But after I finished watching it, I realized “Ah, this was a work about the power of speech, and about the leadership and responsibility of a king to his people.” Wonderful. I take my hat off.

In this movie, King George VI’s daughter, the future Elizabeth II, is watching a movie with the King. In a news segment before the movie, the image of Hitler before ranks of soldiers is projected. Elizabeth, impressed, asks her father:

“What’s he saying, Papa?”
“I don’t know, but he seems to be saying it rather well.”

The King’s quivering cheek tells of his fear of the six-year-elder Hitler’s uncanny ability to manipulate people with language. If the King failed to resolutely convey his leadership to the British people with a powerful speech, he feared that Great Britain might fall under the evil control of the dangerous and eloquent Hitler. After George VI’s elder brother, Edward VIII, abruptly abdicated the throne, King George VI knew that, whether he wished it or not, he as the heir to the throne had no choice but to defend his subjects from the fascist regimes, and so he embarked on intensive training in speech. Incidentally, he was of the same generation as such dictators and despots of the time as Stalin, Mussolini, and Franco.

As the other great powers of Europe dismantled their monarchies due to the judgment that they don’t help their subjects, in the United Kingdom (as well as the countries in northern Europe relatively unaffected by the struggle for power in the rest of Europe), the “reigning but not ruling” form of monarchy was passed on. Although the King does not have the power to make decisions regarding the government, as the head of the Church of England, he serves as the people’s spiritual support; whether it’s peacetime or during times of strife and struggle, he is sought as a symbol of the spiritual unity of the British people. Although kings no longer physically have their heads cut off, if monarchs no longer serve a useful purpose, it could be that the royal family would face budget cuts or the monarchy may be discontinued. The fate of the royal family lies in the hands of Parliament.

Did the British people make the correct decision about the royal family? I want to say yes. Even if national decisions can be made by the people’s vote under a democratic system, people seek out someone who can comfort them during times of great distress, someone who can elegantly represent them on the world’s stage, and someone who always wishes for the nation’s good fortune beyond the interest of a political party. Likewise, in the U.S., which lacks a royal family, the President doesn’t just resolve political matters, but when disaster strikes, must also rush to the scene of misfortune. Also, the First Lady enjoys immense popularity if she is beautiful and takes on some issue of national interest. If a presidential candidate has scandals, gets divorced multiple times, or gives an unpleasant impression, I think that they will never be elected. Ever since President Reagan, all presidents have had a sort of charisma, and First Ladies have always kept themselves occupied thinking about national issues. I think a certain percent of the President’s job is to give courage to the people. This responsibility is exactly what the British royal family does as their full-time job. Of course, the U.S. political administration is composed of both “reigning” and “governing”, but perhaps cleanly dividing the duties is ideal.

President Obama until a few years ago was virtually unknown as a senator from Illinois, but he, more so than anyone else, had preeminent speech-making abilities. When Hillary Clinton was contesting the Democratic presidential candidacy with him, she said this regarding his popularity.

“(Comparing to her longtime contributions to national politics) What has Obama done in the past 10 years? He’s just good at giving speeches.”

We all know who between Hillary and Obama won the candidacy.

日本語→

Movie: Of Gods and Men — Des hommes et des dieux (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

Even for someone who doesn’t know about monasteries, Christianity, Islam, or Algeria, I think this movie is a very powerful and convincing movie. Viewers feel there is more than just religion and politics in this movie.

In the rustic Catholic Notre-Dame de l’Atlas monastery in Algeria, eight French monks and doctors live as an important part of the surrounding community. However, the actions of Islamic extremists begin to affect the nearby area, and a Croatian is murdered in a wasteland less than 20 kilometers away from the monastery. The monastery is drawn into a dispute between Algerian government troops and extremists when several armed extremists break into the monastery on Christmas Eve and demand medical treatment for their injured. When the French government requests that the monks return to France, the monks debate over returning for their own safety, or staying and risk becoming martyrs.

These monks abandoned their assets and decided to leave their families in order to help people in the area and impart the teachings of God. Do those who have abandoned an ordinary life to serve God still wish to avoid death? Naturally, as humans, they have a fear of death. However, since they are giving their own lives to God, they believe they should not waste their lives and should serve God as long as they can. Therefore, remaining here while knowing danger approaches could be a waste of the life God gave them.

On the other hand, some monks think of this Algerian village as their own hometown and are determined to die there. Also, some think that they have not yet accomplished God’s mission given to them and feel they can’t leave yet. Others are unable to decide with conviction so they pray to God to hear God’s voice. However, they do not get an answer from God.

Even though the monks are divided on the question of whether to stay or retreat, no one intends to have the government army troops protect them. God’s voice is the basis for their decisions, and thus they don’t makes decisions based on the politics of either the government troops or the extremists who are killing each other. In the end, the question to be answered is, “When the wolf attacks, does a shepherd desert the sheep and run away?” Even though the villagers are Muslim, the villagers rely on the monks and are thankful for the services they provide. Therefore, the monks are able to gain the conviction that, whatever may happen, their service here was not futile and they are determined to die here in the village. This movie is based on a true story of monks that were executed by decapitation in Algeria in 1996.

North African French colonies Tunisia and Morocco declared their independence in 1956. However, unlike these two countries where the organization of the monarchy was preserved as French protectorates, Algeria was treated as a part of France and there were many Europeans living in Algeria; therefore the public opinion of France voiced strong opposition to the independence of Algeria and the French government did not allow independence. Algerians of European descent wanted to maintain their privileges as Europeans and kept refusing to cooperate with the Berbers and Arabs living in Algeria; therefore the development of a cross-ethnic, moderate independence movement toward a unified nation failed. Algeria underwent the violent Algerian War from 1954 to 1962 before gaining their independence from France and due to this, one million Algerians of European descent escaped to France en masse. The Muslim Algerians who cooperated with France and were not able to take refuge in France were massacred as retribution.

Algeria had a constitution after their independence, adopted neutral political measures, succeeded in rebuilding the economy, and seemed to be proceeding smoothly in the founding of their nation; however, in the late 1980s, inflation worsened, and food shortages and unemployment brought about social unrest. These circumstances were the backdrop for the rise of Islamic doctrine among the youth, and some Islam fundamentalists started armed opposition.

Gaining the support of the unemployed, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) won the 1990 local elections with more than half of all of the communes; the FIS carried out a strict Islam rule in the communes that they won, implementing policies such as the banning of alcohol, segregation of sexes, and criticism of the Gallicized middleclass that was the majority of Algerian society. As a result of the FIS’s overwhelming victory in the first general election held in 1991, they acquired 80% of the parliamentary seats and invalidated the constitution. Student organizations seeking liberty, women’s organizations, and socialist organizations criticized the actions of the FIS, and military authorities opposing the FIS seized power in a coup d’état the following year in 1992. European nations supported the coup d’état and Mohammed Boudiaf became the chairman of the High Council of State established in January; in March, Boudiaf illegalized and oppressed the FIS and invalidated their election. However, Boudiaf was assassinated that June.

Due to oppression from the government, Islam advocates formed the Armed Islamic Group in 1992, and started acts of terrorism targeting police, military authorities, intellectuals, and liberals. In January of 1994, Zéroual assumed office as a temporary president, but the violence of the terrorism of Islamic organizations increased during Zéroual’s time and Algeria fell into massive chaos. In the 1999 presidential elections, Bouteflika, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, was elected as the first civilian president in 34 years; he proposed disarmament and a peace settlement that gave amnesty to extremists who surrendered, and with this, the civil war started to be resolved. Two right-of-center political parties that supported the president—including the Algerian National Liberation Front—and the Movement of Society for Peace—a moderate Islam political party—formed a three-party coalition government and maintained majority in the May general election. It is said that approximately 200,000 people died in the Algerian Civil War between the government, military, and Islamic fundamentalist groups.

日本語→

Movie: Incendies (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

Twin brother and sister Simon and Jeanne live in Quebec, Canada when their mother Nawal suddenly dies. From their mother’s will, the two children learn that not only is their father that they until now believed to be dead is alive somewhere on the earth, but also that they have an older brother. Nawal entrusted her lawyer with two sealed letters and asks her two children in her will to track down their father and older brother in order to deliver these letters to them. Jeanne sets out to the Middle East, Nawal’s birthplace, to carry out her mother’s final wish and search for the hidden past of her mother. This land seems to be Lebanon, although the movie does not specify the country. Are her father and older brother still alive? If so, where and what kind of life are they living?

In short, this is a mystery solving movie, but it gives the impression that this story was created based on facts and is close to reality or even possibly based on the author’s personal experience because of the Lebanon-like scenery and the violent confrontation between Christians and Muslims killing each other which actually happened in Lebanon’s history. However, as this story develops and goes from being simply a sad story to being an improbably terrifying story, I feel, “Come on, this shouldn’t be a Greek tragedy,” and have lost interest by the end of the movie. It would be really terrible if this story was true. In fact, I think many viewers are overwhelmed by the terror of this movie.

However, when you think about this movie calmly, many things don’t make sense and bring up many questions. To name a few… The mother and older brother are too close in age. Also, since the mother suddenly loses consciousness one day and soon dies without regaining consciousness, it is not likely there was time to contrive this mystery left behind in her will. The mother falls into situations during the civil war where she could have died many times, yet she mysteriously survives while countless people around her die one after another. Furthermore, there are too many miraculous accidental encounters that can’t possibly happen, and people remember the mother and older brother well, even though it was thirty years ago. The unconscious mother in the hospital, who fell into a coma when she learned a shocking truth, somehow seems to have enough intellectual control to write the elaborate letters given to her children. Because of these inconsistencies, the movie itself feels like it’s all a lie. Even though this movie depicts deep human tragedy, it is not believable.

After watching this movie, I learned that this movie was Denis Villeneuve’s movie adaptation of the play written by Wajdi Mouawad and finally understood. Wajdi Mouawad left Lebanon to avoid the Lebanese Civil War and immigrated to Canada in 1983 when he was 15 years old. Because he was Lebanese and knew what happened in Lebanon, this play is set in a Lebanon-like Middle East country, but the intention of the play was not, “I want to convey the tragedy of the Lebanese Civil War.”

I think the movie adaptation happened because the play was very powerful, but the original work inevitably becomes something different whenever a play is adapted to a movie. The play expresses an abstract concept by borrowing the Middle East as a stage, but, because the movie takes a very realistic approach, the movie gives an impression that it is based on what actually happened and that there is a political opinion and agenda. Of course Wajdi Mouawad who had to leave his homeland may have some kind of political agenda, but he probably wrote this play out of his ambition as an artist to carry on the tradition of Greek tragedy and to be some form of a modern Shakespeare. Or possibly he wanted to present the question of, “Who is this ‘God’ that causes Muslims and Christians who live amongst each other to kill each other?” At any rate, his goal seems to be to play an intellectual game in the Middle East, rather than communicate the truth. The answer to this game was the stylish formula “1+1=1.”

Surely “the arts” are “artificial” and the stage and movie are certainly “artificial,” but there is a subtle difference between the two. For a person watching a play, a trivial discrepancy between facts is not a problem if there is a powerful theme. The audience doesn’t demand “realism” because there are too many limitations on a stage to present reality, but the audience often demands “realism” from a movie. Certain plays are smoothly adapted to movies and the audience doesn’t have the feeling that something is not right. However, because this movie uses too much of a documentary touch and has an impression that it is based on reality, the audience cannot immediately understand it as a magnificent Greek tragedy. Anyway, even if they don’t understand it, many viewers seem to be overwhelmed by the powerfulness of the movie and are emotionally moved.

日本語→

Movie: The Human Resources Manager (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie was made by Eran Rikilis, a man who jumped to being one of the top directors in Israel after his The Syrian Bride.

A female migrant worker at a large Israeli bread factory in Jerusalem dies at a market from a suicide bombing, but is left at the morgue unclaimed by any relatives. One journalist gets wind of this and threatens to write a story focusing on the inhumanity of large companies. To avoid bad PR, the female company president of the bread factory decides to bury the body in the deceased’s homeland and she orders the head of the human resources department on a business trip to take care of it. The rude reporter who got the scoop on the story accompanies in order to verify.

The head of the human resources department is in a situation where his family is on the verge of collapsing, living apart from his wife and daughter. Though he was planning on working as a field trip driver for his daughter’s school to be able to interact with his daughter, it falls through. The human resources manager and the reporter arrive together at the dead woman’s homeland, but her husband cannot take the body because they are divorced. Her teenager son, a delinquent, was driven out of his house and now lives on the streets with a group of friends. On the human resources manager’s journey accompanying the son to visit the boy’s grandmother in a village 1000 kilometers away, many unexpected things happen.

Israeli movies can be roughly divided into two categories. The first includes strongly political movies such as Waltz with Bashir, Beaufort, and Ajami, which are well known in Japan; the second depicts the life of ordinary people living in Israel, such as The Band’s Visit and Jellyfish. Jellyfish depicts the gloomy feelings of the younger generation who, separated from the founding generation who experienced the Holocaust, don’t clearly understand the significance of the founding of the nation. In this movie, the focus is on the psychology of the human resources manager who is unsatisfied with the situation of his family, human relations, and job. Like Jellyfish, the lives of foreign workers who are often neglected by the people of Israel are depicted.

Originally in Israel, low-paying manual labor jobs were left for Palestinians. However, with the increase in Palestinian suicide bombings, Palestinian segregation policies were instated that made it difficult for Palestinians to enter the country; therefore, foreign workers were hired in order to fill these manual labor jobs. The ignoring of or perhaps cold gaze toward foreign workers can be observed in any country and is not be limited to Israel, but perhaps the wariness and condescending attitude towards Palestinians from Israel carried over to these foreign workers that succeeded these jobs.

In this movie, Eran Rikilis characteristically pushes a strong theme to the front, like in The Syrian Bride. The theme here is to show the goodwill of Israel in an international context. The human resources manager sets out for the deceased employee’s native land for his job, but gradually his understanding of and sympathy for the country in which she was born deepens. As a consequence, the woman’s family wants her to be buried in Israel as the home country she chose. Also, his daughter insists that he forget about being a driver for the school field trip and instead take good care of this woman’s dead body.

What country was the victim of the suicide bombing born in? Even now, bureaucracy and bribes leftover from a socialist administration remain in the country. The capital is crumbling and lifeless, and street kids without hope hide in every corner in the neighborhood. Everyone believes in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Horse transportation still remains in poor, desolate villages. The movie doesn’t explicitly specify the country, but the audience gradually understands it is Romania. Why is it Romania?

Many Jews lived in Romania. They suffered from the Holocaust of World War II like Jews who lived in other countries, but it wasn’t as known as the Holocaust in Poland and Czech Republic. Because the Holocaust in Romania was not done by the Nazis of Germany, it was ignored by the anti-Nazi persecutions. There were massive killings of Jews in Romania by the hand of Romanians, but this was kept in absolute secrecy and denied by the socialist government over the next 40 years; in the 2000s, the topic of the Holocaust of Jews in Romania began to be officially acknowledged.

The relationship between Romania and Germany during World War II was complicated. Because they were at war with the Soviet Union over land, Romania allied with the German Axis in World War II, but an anti-Germany attitude there gradually increased over time, and Romania changed their alliance to the side of the Allies when signs of Germany’s defeat began to be seen. In 1944, Romania attacked the Czech Republic, which was occupied by Germany at that time. Jewish persecution gradually became visible around 1940, but Jewish persecution depended on the political situation of the government at that time and the severity varied over the course of World War II as well as from area to area. In addition, it is not entirely clear who spearheaded the massive killings of Jews; there was conflicting information about various local Romanian leaders, Nazis, or the Soviet Union being responsible. After the formation of a socialist government after World War II, important intelligence may have been destroyed by the secretive government. The 1941 Odessa massacre is the most well-known, but even still does not appear to have much documentation.

There were many Romanian Jews that immigrated to Israel, but, while there are many documents that have been saved and examined about the German Holocaust, the Holocaust in Romania remains as an unresolved issue. However, this movie by Eran Rikilis does not have an accusatory tone. The dead woman called her home village in Romania the “end of the earth” and left, moved to the city, pursued an engineering degree from the university, and, still not satisfied, tried a life in Israel. I think this movie wants to convey that Israel has a big heart to accept this woman who chose Israel as her home country.

His thoughts may be summarized as, “You who kill Israelis by suicide bombing, you may think you are killing an Israeli, but you are also killing non-Jewish people living in Israel. Can you stop such an act? The people of Israel are ready to stop fighting.” Internationally, Israel is sometimes criticized for harsh tactics against terrorism. However, Jews from the end of World War II up to today continue to ask, “Why weren’t we able to oppose the Nazi movement of World War II?” or, “Why did people obey the orders of Nazi internment camps without noticing such a movement?” I think what they learned from history may be to be suspicious and vigilant.

日本語→

Movie: The Last Circus (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie mostly depicts the life-or-death struggle between a cruel clown and a tormented, sad pantomime; the story is grotesque and absurd and upon finishing the movie I angrily thought, “I could not recommend this movie to anyone.” However, when thinking of this movie after one night of sleep, the cruel and grotesque scenes entirely disappeared and I saw more clearly the things that were hidden by the absurdity. This movie was an allegory about Spain’s recent history and thus naturally contained—like every allegory—cruelty, sorrow, and a lesson.

It is 1937 during the Spanish Civil War. The people in circus troupes who peacefully traveled around to rural areas to entertain people are threatened by the communist general Enrique Líster, who is supposed to be anti-fascist and fight for the people; the circus people are drafted by force and fight in the front line. In the end, the Spanish Republican Army suffers a crushing defeat; the fascists execute most of the circus troupe members and only the clown is sent to a slave labor camp. The clown’s son goes to the slave labor camp to help his father, but sees the fascist general kill his father before his own eyes; the boy crushes the general’s eye and barely escapes from the camp alive.

The story suddenly shifts to the present time in the 1970s, a time of peace under the Franco Administration. The son of the clown who died is now a crybaby pantomime full of sadness and goes to an interview to get a job at a circus. The most popular clown at the circus who conducts the interview says, “If I weren’t a clown, I would become a murderer”; to the audience’s surprise, the cowardly pantomime responds, “Me too.” For some reason the clown likes this cowardly pantomime and hires the pantomime in order to torment him. The clown is arrogant, cruel, and malicious to all the other circus people, who are afraid of him; but he is popular with children and, since spectators come to watch him, nobody including the troupe manager can complain about him and they laugh at his lame jokes, pretending the jokes are funny. The pantomime is the only one who stares blankly and frankly says he doesn’t understand the joke, offending the clown. The clown’s beautiful acrobat lover admires the attitude of the pantomime who isn’t afraid of the clown and she seduces the pantomime. The pantomime falls in love with the acrobat who, even though she is abused by the clown, cannot leave him; when the pantomime tries to rescue her from the clown, the clown explodes with anger and beats the pantomime, nearly killing him. While watching over the pantomime in his hospital room, the acrobat says she chooses the clown over the pantomime and leaves, but the pantomime gets angry and attacks the clown and ruins the clown’s face. The pantomime runs away from the police and coincidentally finds himself under the protection of the general whom he had taken the eye of. The one-eyed general treats the pantomime like a dog. The one-eyed general lives in a luxurious mansion; he invites his boss Generalísimo Franco to his home for hunting and has the pantomime offer the game in his mouth to Franco. Generalísimo Franco is depicted as a gentle and kind person within this movie, admonishing the one-eyed general with, “You mustn’t treat a human with such cruelty,” but in the next moment, the pantomime bites Franco’s hand. The pantomime destroys his own face and transforms it into a terrifying face, kills the one-eyed general, and runs away.

The clown who was once popular is now ugly, hated and feared by children. However, when the pantomime appears in front of the acrobat with unchanged love, she says to him, “You are more terrifying than the clown now.” Franco’s right-hand man Prime Minister Blanco is suddenly assassinated. In the chaos that immediately follows, the pantomime and the clown chase after the acrobat like mad men; she escapes by climbing up a ridiculously tall, skyscraper-like cross and thus the desperate struggles of these three people begin. Seeing this, a young man who was a fellow member in the circus makes up his mind to go rescue these three people. This young troupe member was shot from a cannon to a wall every day and, though people were interested and laughed for a moment, he was immediately forgotten every day. He is shot from the cannon toward the cross, but he hits the cross and really dies this time. Acrobat tells the pantomime, “I love you now,” before falling from the cross and dying.

The clown and pantomime are arrested and face each other in a paddy wagon, both of their faces now terrifying without any makeup. In the repeated life-or-death struggle, the acrobat and young troupe member died while the two men live on heartily and the movie ends with the two staring at each other and smiling as if to say, “So what happens next?”

The beautiful acrobat courted by the pantomime and the clown represents “power.” She symbolizes the target that kings, dictators, nationally elected presidents, or any person with political power desire to reach. I think the clown symbolizes fascism. He has charm to attract the hearts of the people, but is also dangerous at the same time and nobody has the power to suppress him. However, the people begin to hate the clown when he becomes ugly. The pantomime symbolizes communism or populism that becomes radicalism. Originally possessing a noble heart, existing to speak for the sorrow of other people, the pantomime gradually becomes brutal and at certain occasions is more frightening than the clown; even though the clown doesn’t get arrested for anything he does, the authorities continue to chase down the pantomime for his atrocities. The nameless circus troupe member who doesn’t attract attention from anyone and dies trying to rescue the three people may symbolize anonymous citizens. I wonder if the young troupe member represents the Spanish citizens that do their own jobs silently without drawing attention and do not know an effective method to solve the chaotic system.

In this movie, the generals of both political parties are depicted cruelly, but, curiously, Franco is depicted as a gentle and fair person. Certainly it couldn’t be that criticism of Franco is still taboo nowadays in 2010. I believe that Franco was severe with the opposing party, but as a person, was honest and seriously thought about the future of the people of Spain; the people of Spain, even those with different political standpoints, appear to appreciate and recognize him for these values. That was the impression I got from this movie.

日本語→

Movie: Shutter Island (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

The story begins with two United States Marshals going to investigate the escape of a female patient from an institution on a solitary island in the middle of the sea where mentally ill criminals are sent. The scenes on the ship, which must have been made using Hollywood’s high-tech computer graphics, somehow look fake and cheap, giving off a perplexing impression from the beginning. Somehow these two people who seem to be meeting each other for the first time partake in this dangerous mission together, though the marshal with subordinate status (performed by Mark Ruffalo) casually asks his boss (Leonardo DiCaprio!!) personal questions. The only way to get to the island is with a ferry, but when the marshals arrive on the island, they must forfeit their weapons to the institution’s official guard and enter what seems like a very dangerous place without any weapons. The institution’s courtyard is beautiful, but all the patients are chained together and stare at the two marshals with somewhat strange facial expressions. The director of the institution also appears to be acting unnaturally to the two of them. Over the course of the investigation, the protagonist marshal Leonardo realizes that not only is the female patient missing, but another male patient, who is extremely violent and dangerous, is also missing; no one in the hospital, however, informs him of this. One mentally ill patient Leonardo interviews seizes the opportunity that nobody else is watching to hand Leonardo a note saying, “Run away!” in a moment of recovered sanity. The situation becomes stranger and stranger.

The next day, for some reason, the female patient who disappeared comes back, but there is no real explanation of how she disappeared or came back. However, since Leonardo and his partner have completed the mission, they intend to leave when a hurricane suddenly attacks the island, so they decide to stay one more day on the island. The next morning, rumors spread that the ward accommodating the most dangerous patients on the island was destroyed; the marshals go to the ward, but are unable to grasp what is happening on the island and become increasingly confused. Leonardo still appears to be fearless, but finally the subordinate marshal Mark says, “We both need to work to escape from here.” However, Mark also suddenly disappears. Was he kidnapped by someone? And where does the extremely dangerous, mentally ill criminal who disappeared lurk? While desperately searching for Mark, Leonardo discovers a woman hiding in a cave. This woman tells Leonardo that she is the female patient who escaped and that the director presented a different woman in her place to make it look like she returned. Even more terrifying, she was a doctor at that institution that experimented on the mentally ill patients, but when she objected to experimenting on living people, she was locked away as a mental illness patient at the institution to keep the truth from being exposed. From that cave, Leonardo sees a lighthouse he had never visited before and guard officials carrying guns. Leonardo slips into this lighthouse and learns the surprising truth.

Inside this lighthouse, there is a great plot twist and again a feeling of, “What??” When you know the conclusion and watch the movie, you see everything from a different angle and everything down to the minor details makes sense. In other words, the audience is skillfully deceived for two hours. Maybe the director felt sorry for the audience for tricking them until now, so he puts in another twist at the very end that makes the audience question whether they were truly deceived. The movie deliberately makes it ambiguous whether the actions Leonardo takes at the end when he finally realizes he is not able to escape from the island are due to insanity or a resignation to his fate. I think director Martin Scorsese ended the movie this way to intentionally confuse the audience.

According to him, “A story that’s difficult to understand? Isn’t that wonderful? Viewers will go back to the theater in order to understand, so this movie will be financially successful.”

The main character performed by Leonardo is depicted as being haunted by the scenes of Jews whom he had liberated from Nazi camps. America did not become a battleground, but it is a historical fact that many soldiers were wounded and killed. In addition, the movie depicts lobotomy, which was an accepted medical treatment to mental illness in America during those times. For example, it is said that Rosemary Kennedy of the notable Kennedy family suffered from some kind of mental disorder. Since her violent nature and mood disorder grew worse, her father Joseph had a behind-the-scenes lobotomy operation performed on her in 1941. This operation further reduced her cognitive ability, and as a result, she lived in an institution until she died in 2005. This ominous movie may not necessarily be unrealistic.

日本語→

Movie: Norwegian Wood (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

There may be four attitudes regarding the movie adaptation of Haruki Murakami’s novel Norwegian Wood.

1) I do not know Haruki Murakami and won’t watch the movie because I’m not interested in it.
2) I won’t watch the movie because I already have a fixed vision of Haruki Murakami’s Norwegian Wood.
3) I have not read Haruki Murakami’s book, so I will watch it instead of reading it.
4) I do not want to watch the movie because I have a fixed vision of Haruki Murakami’s Norwegian Wood, but feel like something is not finished if I don’t watch it (sigh), so I will try to watch it.

In the end, people of 3) and 4) go to the movie theatre, but people of 3) will think, “Hmm, Murakami is way overrated…” while people of 4) will hang their heads and think, “That was as bad as I feared.” My honest impression is that highly ambitious director Tran Anh Hung wants a place in the international film world and he used Murakami’s name with this movie to be recognized by an international audience. Therefore, Naoko’s part had to be played by Japan’s best-known actress, Rinko Kikuchi, and she had to have a lot of screen time until the end.

Because ardent readers of Murakami already create an image of each character in their own mind before watching the movie, casting must be difficult. However, one reason that this movie disappointed the audience was that Rinko Kikuchi played the part of Naoko. It’s not because Rinko Kikuchi is a bad actress. To make my point clear, here is an extreme example: it would be like casting middle-aged Haruko Sugimura or Kirin Kiki to play Naoko simply because they are top actresses. Although Rinko Kikuchi is younger, it is still impossible to have Kikuchi who’s in her thirties play Naoko who’s a teenager. It’s only a little more than ten years, but this age difference is fatal in Norwegian Wood. Also, Rinko Kikuchi is a go-getter and a strong-willed person, while Naoko is as vulnerable as pure white, soft snow that melts in front of your eyes without a trace. Kikuchi and Naoko have completely different temperaments.

Secondly, Reiko’s depiction is totally incorrect. There is not a female protagonist in the original novel. (Naoko is not the protagonist). However, in the original novel, Reiko is a profound influence on the main character Watanabe and an extremely important character; among the female characters, the reader may have the most affinity towards Reiko when reading the novel. Her life is tragic in some regard, but she doesn’t forsake Naoko until the end and she is the one who warm-heartedly maintains the connection between Naoko and Watanabe; but in the movie, she is depicted in a way that makes me think, “Why is this person here?” The letter that Reiko writes Watanabe in the novel is beautiful. Completely ignoring the novel, Reiko is depicted as some incomprehensible, weird lady.

norwegianwood_enThe world of the novel Norwegian Wood to me is, in a few words, a big rectangle in a spacious field. Naoko is in the upper right corner. Midori is in the lower left corner. A long path extends from Naoko’s position, and Watanabe slowly walks on it with Reiko. A river flows parallel to this path and Hatsumi stands on the opposite bank of the path Reiko is walking on; Watanabe watches Hatsumi from a distance as he walks. Then Midori is waiting at the end of the long walk. Reiko gently pushes Watanabe’s back and gives him courage to cross the river. The flow of the river is violent, but Nagasawa lightly floats along like a waterfowl without being washed away. Then Watanabe approaches to greet Nagasawa, and Nagasawa says, “Cross the river. What are you waiting for? Take care,” as he gently floats down the river.

In a sense, this movie is a “rite of passage” story. Depending on the person, it may be called “the loss of youth” or perhaps “the coming of age.” Nagasawa has this maturity. Like the surgeon in the Czech movie The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Nagasawa understands the difference between love and sex in a realistic way; Nagasawa doesn’t care for those who stubbornly hold onto romantic ideals. Nagasawa has his beliefs, but does not blame others for having different opinions, and he does not make excuses or pity himself. In this movie, his true essence wasn’t depicted at all, and he was drawn simply as an arrogant man.

Midori is a girl who naturally possesses maturity within her. Her life was not easy at all, but she doesn’t pity herself and she holds herself up with two strong legs to keep on living. She never shows it off, but Watanabe picks up on it. Watanabe was taken aback by Midori’s unexpected strength and he finds himself falling in love with her. The movie does not depict this unexpectedness at all. To be honest, in the movie, Naoko repeats, “I got wet!” and Reiko abruptly says to Watanabe, “Sleep with me!” as if crazed for sex, while Midori whines, “Pretty please take me to an indecent movie.” I was really disappointed that all the important female characters were drawn with an excessive desire for sex. In the novel, sex has an important role, but it is just in the background, part of a more important story. It is not shown this way in the movie.

Reiko, like Hatsumi and Naoko, has an “obsessive” mind, but she is determined to get rid of this sense of fixation. In the movie, the actress who plays Reiko sings the Beatles’ “Norwegian Wood,” but I was surprised by how bad it was. Regardless of the skill level of her as a singer, the issue was that there was no heart in the song.

The original Norwegian Wood is the story of Watanabe crossing the river. However, this journey was not easy. He may think he must give up this beautiful shore in order to cross the river, and it feels like he must give up himself. Also, he must abandon his “sense of responsibility” to cross the river. For Watanabe, his “sense of responsibility” is not as simple as the one in an adult society of “doing your duty and keeping promises.” His version of responsibility is what makes him himself and if he abandons it, he thinks he is abandoning what is the most important to him. However, in the end, Watanabe probably crossed the river. It is implied at the beginning of the novel. But the movie does not touch on this at all.

To say it briefly, this movie cuts all the details needed in order to present the original novel’s essence, and adds unnecessary scenes. The images were fairly beautiful, but it cannot be a good movie with this alone.

日本語→