Movie: War Horse (2011)

War Horse is director Steven Spielberg’s 2011 movie adaptation of a play that got favorable reception in London theatres, War Horse Joey, which was based on Michael Morpurgo’s children’s novel published in 1982 and adapted for stage by Nick Stafford in 2007. At the London premier of this movie, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Princess Catherine were in attendance. Steven Spielberg’s exquisite storytelling and flawless direction of key points for viewers to cry, as well as careful calculation of the beautiful images from start to finish reminds me of Akira Kurosawa’s ability.

People affected by the war from Britain, Germany, and France are all depicted in this movie in connection to a single horse: The horse owned by a British boy who lives on a farm is sold for use in war to a British army commander who dies in battle; German boy soldiers are executed for deserting; the farm where a young French girl and her grandfather live after her parents were killed is ransacked. To put it in another way, the movie uses the beautiful animal called a horse to its maximum potential to attract the audience, while the human characters around it just conveniently appear and die for the story.

What I thought was most interesting in this movie was the background message about the revolution in war technology; that is to say, after World War I ended, cavalry disappeared and horses became useless in war. This is interesting even though Spielberg did not make this movie to convey this message.

Historically, cavalry has been regarded as an important branch in military tactics. The high speed on horseback that allows troops to move together as well as the strong aggression of horses made them useful for a wide range of things including surprise attacks, charging in, pursuit, rear attacks, flank attacks, or surrounding the enemy. In addition, they were effectively used to scout out enemy camps. The cavalry approached the height of their prosperity during the Napoleonic Wars in the early 19th century and the charge by the cavalry running through the battlefield greatly contributed to Napoleon’s victory. However, in 1870 with the start of the Franco-Prussian War, the French cavalry was completely crushed by the Prussian army’s overwhelming firepower and the French army was defeated.

This is the background to the introduction of new weapons. The use of machine guns and rifles started with the U.S. Civil War (1861 to 1865) and trenches were dug in order to protect the body; with this, war had changed from being a battle between individual warriors to a battle between masses. Charging in on horseback made you an easy target for your opponent; furthermore, facing a war of attrition with a no man’s land between made it so that it was no longer the time to stride in on a horse. Considering the cost to maintain a horse, the cavalry had become a high cost, low success tactic. Even though knowledge of modern warfare and machine guns is hammered in, the commanding officers of the British army, being noble in origin, deep down in their hearts were still old-fashioned and still had an admiration for knights riding on horseback and bravely fighting with honor in their minds. Therefore, this movie realistically depicts the surprise attack on and annihilation of the British cavalry by the German army that had completely modernized with machine guns.

The horse, elephant, and camel have been friends of mankind from ancient times due to their ability to supply valuable manual labor. These creatures are very intelligent and, once a trust is built with their owner, they are very loyal. While normally calm, if these animals get angry, they show great strength. Horses and dogs will remain as lifelong friends for man. Although many cried over the horse in this movie, I was not drawn into the story throughout the movie. I will state the reason.

First of all, in order for the horse to be the main character, the depictions of the supporting characters are shallow or sometimes incomprehensible. The young boy’s father purchased the horse at an auction because he stubbornly did not want to be outbid by his own landlord and thus had to buy the horse at a very steep price. But this drives the family to a point where they cannot pay off their debt, and the father decides in a fit of anger to shoot and kill the horse he bought himself. Because the horse is introduced with this very unrealistic scene, it is impossible for me to feel sympathy for the horse even if the horse gives a beautiful performance. The military did not force the horse to serve in the army, but rather the father just sold the horse in order to pay off his debt. This is just one example, but throughout the movie, the characters are depicted as shallow. The scene where opposing German and British soldiers on either side of no man’s land momentarily make peace in order to rescue a horse closely resembles Joyeux Noël because of the theme. But in Joyeux Noël, this peace is the main theme of the movie and the consequences are depicted in detail, while in War Horse, this story is one of many episodes and it feels very abrupt. Even though many injured soldiers were taken to the field hospital and it was overflowing with human soldiers, the military physician says, “I will do everything I can to rescue horses,” but instead of bringing tears, I just thought, “Why?”

Secondly, this movie becomes confusing when, even though characters are from Britain, Germany, and France, everyone talks in English. The German commanding officer speaks German when yelling commands to soldiers, but the marching soldiers talk in English, which makes me think, “Oh, are these German soldiers British prisoners of war?” Since the army that pillaged the French farm also spoke English, I was surprised that they would mistreat these French people who were allies to the British army, but then according to context, I realized it must actually be a German army. The reason Spielberg let everyone speak English must have been because he aimed for this movie to be a success in America. Americans do not like foreign films with subtitles. This may be difficult for Japanese people to understand who prefer subtitles over dubbing and think that hearing the actual voice of the actors talking in foreign films helps capture the subtle meaning, but I believe this to be true after reading American movie discussion sites and seeing many Americans post the complaint, “Why don’t they dub this movie? I don’t feel like watching this movie because subtitles are annoying.” I think there is a feeling by Americans that they are number one in the world (currently) so naturally people around the world will speak English.

Hollywood movies use music effectively. In this movie, however, the music is certainly beautiful, but I feel as though Spielberg overuses it. Until now, he has successfully collaborated with John Williams and I recognize the strength of the music, but I may have to call this level excessive. Particularly after watching non-Hollywood movies where music isn’t used much, watching this Spielberg movie was almost like being told, “Yes, please cry here,” and I just felt, “Enough, overdoing it!” However, the scene where the soldiers are sent forward with bagpipe music did actually give me goosebumps. This was one moment that I think Spielberg executed very successfully.

Furthermore, I am a little annoyed by symbolic tricks. For example, the father of the young boy protagonist is an alcoholic, but, in fact, it becomes clear that he was honorably injured in the Boer War. The young boy ties the pennant for this honor to the horse and the pennant is a symbol for friendship; one after another, it is kept by the horse’s owners until the horse is reunited with the young boy. Whenever I saw the pennant, it was almost as if Spielberg was triumphantly saying, “What great symbolism I came up with.”

The audience’s response is split between something like, “Deeply emotional, moved to tears,” or, “The use of cheap tricks to get you to cry were off-putting.”

日本語→

Movie: Where Do We Go Now? (2011)

In English, there is something called a “poster child.” Originally, the phrase “poster child” came from when a child in pain was put on a poster to help raise money for a cure to a disease; nowadays, a poster child is used to describe any person who is used to promote a cause. As a simple example, during the 2008 presidential elections, Obama was called a “poster child” because he was a regarded as evidence that America had moved past racial discrimination.

Nadine Labaki of Lebanon, after international and sensational reviews of her 2007 movie Caramel, is said to be the poster child of the Middle East. She is an incredible woman in the Middle East. People may have thought that by praising this woman, they could show concern for issues of Middle Eastern women.

Obama has successfully guided America by way of four years of political achievements. He bravely addressed difficult issues that many in America wished to see resolved such as nationwide health insurance, the legalization of same-sex marriage, and the stabilization of international relations. Not many people nowadays would say that they either support or hate Obama because he is black. At least I haven’t met these kind of people. Because of his achievements, Obama is respected as a human. Now, after four years, Obama is no longer a poster child.

Alternatively, what about Nadine Labaki? Her maiden’s work Caramel is the bittersweet perspective of women’s stories of passion and love. It is an undeniably pleasant movie. Her challenge was where she could go with her second work. Her second piece Where Do We Go Now? depicts the religious antagonism of Lebanon.

Five years after her first movie, Nadine Labaki appeared in an interview after the filming of her second movie, radiantly beautiful as before. However, in five years, there was a very important change in her. She had married composer Khaled Mouzanar and become a mother, and she was full of the confidence of a woman and of a mother. “Lebanon was in pieces from the war. I made this movie to ask whether mothers can protect their children from being taken away to war,” she said.

One more difference was that her English had improved significantly. In her interview for Caramel, she spoke in broken English and seemed frustrated that she could not speak as fluently as if she were talking in Arabic or French. By this interview five years later, though, she was able to converse quite fluently. She talked 10 times or even 100 times more when presented with a question. Without Labaki’s permission, her husband Khaled Mouzanar suddenly snatched the microphone from her, saying condescendingly, “I’m sorry, my wife is a little too talkative. Moreover, somewhat schizophrenic.”

The criticism of her husband about her being “too talkative and schizophrenic” unexpectedly summarizes the shortcomings of Where Do We Go Now?. The theme in this movie is that, when men might become violent because of religious conflict, the women can use their wit to try to prevent it. The chattering of women continues through the chaos as various people appear one after another, making it hard to follow the characters; somehow romance happens, and the women bring Ukrainian dancers to the village to keep the men’s eyes from violence. The boring story digresses and keeps going on and on. When the movie is close to the end, it seems as if the director thought, “Shoot! I have to wrap it up!” The women (Christian and Muslim women on good terms) hurriedly feed the men cake with hashish (cannabis), and, while the men sleep, the women secretly hide the weapons in a hole. The women at the end of the movie hope that the violence will not happen for a while. “The women are the ones who have to grieve and bury their loved ones after the men fight” is the message of this movie. The movie was a mix of drama, tragedy, comedy, and even musical.

The theme is that the women conspire to keep the men from war, like the Ancient Greek comedy, Lysistrata. In fact, many movie critics discuss this movie in comparison with Lysistrata. Nadine Labaki said that she didn’t actually have this Greek comedy in mind, and I think this is true. I think it was a natural result of Labaki’s character when making a movie with the theme of war.

Her talent or perhaps her spirit shines fully with Caramel, where the chatter jumps among the women endlessly, but perhaps serious themes like war and religious opposition don’t suit her well. Furthermore, she doesn’t really seem to be interested in those kinds of themes. Political themes are not exactly her cup of tea. To put it most simply, this movie wants to say, “If each woman can suppress the aggression of her husband and children, who knows? Maybe we can get rid of war from this world.” At first glance, this movie seems to take the stance that war can possibly be stopped by women opposing it and that though it may be difficult, it’s worth trying. But this is not the case. This difference draws the criticism that this movie does not offer a solution. No one has a clear solution for the future direction of Lebanon. This criticism from some viewers stems from their realization of the director’s limitations with this subject. This movie is light like Caramel. This lightness is due to Labaki’s personality, for better or for worse, and not due to any restrictions by the government.

When an interviewer said, “Your song and dance in the movie was really beautiful,” she replied, modest as always, “I’m not good at singing.” Her dance is not so much of a dance nor is it artistic as she moves her body lightly. At this point, her husband who was in charge of the music of the movie, again abruptly snatched the mic and said, “I don’t like her voice, so I insisted that we find someone to dub over her. We did a lot of auditions for a woman singer, but she wasn’t satisfied with any of them and decided to use her own voice. But I had a lot of difficulty and had to use a lot of acoustic tricks so that her voice didn’t sound funny.” To which she seemed to say with her face, “You shouldn’t have exposed so much.” After hearing this, I worried, “I hope they didn’t fight over this later.”

After finishing watching this movie, I honestly wasn’t able to shake the feeling that Nadine Labaki is still a poster child. However, it isn’t that she doesn’t have talent. She is the sole renowned female director and top actress in the extremely weak film world of Lebanon. Having become such an important woman in a single swoop, it may be difficult now to take honest criticism. But I hope she listens to these critiques, gives young people opportunities, and contributes to the development of the film industry of Lebanon.

日本語→

Movie: J. Edgar (2011)

J. Edgar is a biographical film depicting J. Edgar Hoover over half his life as he served eight presidents—from Calvin Coolidge until Richard Nixon—as the first Director of the FBI. The reputation of the movie was not quite favorable, but people talked about why Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance as Edgar did not get nominated for an Academy Award.

Each movie company chooses a theme suited to win an Academy Award and then based on this theme, the company carefully selects the director, screenplay writer, cast, and staff for the movie; the movie release date is selected to avoid blockbuster times such as summer break, Thanksgiving, and Christmas, and the movie is strategically entered into movie festivals such as Venice, Cannes, Berlin, and Toronto. Academy members—actors and producers—vote to determine the award winners, so basically Academy Award winners are selected from movies that are promoted by movie companies. Therefore, the key to winning an Academy Award is that a movie has to be supported by a movie company and get respect from fellow people in the movie industry.

Renowned Clint Eastwood directed this movie and Dustin Lance Black, who earned an Academy Award for Milk, was in charge of the script; above all, this movie was a biopic. Public expectation that Leonardo would take the Academy Award this time was high.

It is probably true that the probability of winning an Academy Award for a performance based on a real person is very high. If we look at recent winners for Best Actor and Actress: Meryl Streep (as Margaret Thatcher), Sandra Bullock (as Leigh Anne Tuohy), Marion Cotillard (as Edith Piaf), Helen Mirren (as Elizabeth II), Reese Witherspoon (as June Carter), Charlize Theron (as Aileen Wuornos), Nicole Kidman (as Virginia Woolf), Julia Roberts (as Erin Brockovich), Colin Firth (as King George VI), Sean Penn (as Harvey Milk), Forest Whitaker (as Idi Amin), Philip Seymour Hoffman (as Truman Capote), Jamie Foxx (as Ray Charles)… For Best Supporting Actor or Actress: Christian Bale (as Dicky Eklund), Melissa Leo (as Alice Ward), Cate Blanchett (as Katharine Hepburn)… I think the reason why playing a real person increases the chance of winning an Oscar is that the audience knows of the real person so the actors are not judged solely on their acting ability, but also their ability to imitate the real person; therefore, the audience and Oscar voters pay close attention, and the actors that pass this close examination are rewarded with a prize.

Leonardo DiCaprio who has matured into an actor representing the present era never hides the feeling that he wants to be given an Oscar. In an interview, he answered, “I’ve wanted to win an Oscar my whole life. If there’s an actor who says they don’t want an Oscar, I think that person is lying.” In fact, it is said that when he learned there was a plan to make J. Edgar, he was determined to get himself in that movie. He thought this movie would be another chance at getting an Oscar. His performance was praised highly. But why wasn’t he nominated?

To say it briefly, this movie’s performance in the box office was not good enough due to the poor screenplay, so the movie companies did not bother to push for an Oscar for it.

Moreover, the acting ability of Leonardo DiCaprio is not the problem, but rather the difference in temperaments between him and J. Edgar. J. Edgar is a man who is accustomed to doing bad things to protect his power. He would do anything to protect himself, serving in the time of the Red Scare and assassinations, and died at the height of his political power before the citizens’ revolution in the 70s. One could see his rottenness in his eyes, as if there was putrid gas bubbling out. Historically, he was an interesting person, but I don’t think he deserves a movie on him or that we can learn anything beautiful from his life.

In contrast, Leonardo DiCaprio is a very genuine man. Despite working as a top actor in Hollywood today, he doesn’t seem to be leading an extravagant lifestyle. He doesn’t frequent parties and he donates part of his own fortune to nature conservation agencies. He does not surround himself with subordinate Hollywood actors just to show off, and he’s a loyal man because he has kept his friends since his time as a childhood actor as his best friends today—Tobey McGuire and Lukas Haas. Many influential movie directors have a mutual respect with Leonardo and want to work with him. Despite being a superstar, his relationships with women are not showy. At any rate, he’s a big-shot, but we don’t hear bad stories about him at all.

I think he naturally fits a role where he works hard in a life filled with adversity and with an element of tragedy. What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, Titanic, Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, Departed, Revolutionary Road, Blood Diamond, Shutter Island—all are sad, but the audience always feels sympathy for Leonardo DiCaprio as these protagonists. Leonardo tries too hard to play the vicious J. Edgar, and gradually his eyes fill with madness. J. Edgar can be bad with no effort, and that’s the big difference. Unfortunately, there are too many differences in the nature of the two as human beings that is beyond any acting ability.

No one is doubting Leonardo DiCaprio’s acting ability. If he is aiming for an Oscar, I think he should find a character to play that is more similar to his own temperament. Watching baby-faced Leo, Academy members may have been thinking, “Leonardo DiCaprio is still too young to win an Oscar. He must wait a little longer.” However, they may be a little surprised that Leo is already in his forties!

日本語→

Movie: The Women on the 6th Floor — Les Femmes du 6ème étage (2011)

This movie that I casually chose without knowing anything about was such an enjoyable one!! The story, images, actors, and the conversations within this movie were delicious, and I got hungry watching it.

It is Paris in the 1960s. Poor Spanish women under Franco’s oppression in Spain moved to Paris to live as maids for wealthy French people. These women earn what money they can in a foreign country to support their poor family back home, and return to their home country if they are able to save up enough money. They nostalgically think about their family they left back home, the relationships with other villagers, the warmth spreading through the air, and foods that they often ate; fellow Spanish maids in Paris help each other, go to church every Sunday, and look forward to the day they can finally return home. However, even if they miss their hometown, a few made up their mind to not return unless the reign of terror of Franco ended.

Maria is a young, beautiful, intelligent, pious, and capable Spanish maid. She is the favorite of her affluent landlord employer and his wife, but as the story develops, it becomes clear there is something hidden within Maria. Because the landlord’s wife rose to the upper class from being a poor country girl through marriage, she doesn’t have self-confidence and she tries very hard to assimilate into the superficial high society of Paris. Her husband had everything he could want—wealth, job, family—and thought he was satisfied with life, until he met Maria.

I don’t write here what happens to the two people because it is a spoiler. The landlord married his current wife without having given it much thought because, even though he is the son of a rich family, he had a feeling of being cramped in the upper class and felt more comfortable with a woman from the countryside. Maria was born with elegance and a strong mind, and is a woman who truly has the self-confidence to not feel inferior to others, even with a difference in social class. Maria is the kind of person who can make herself and the person she loves happy, while the landlord is actually quite gracious if need be when it comes to letting go of extra things, and as a viewer, I find myself wishing that the landlord and Maria somehow find happiness.

Natalia Verbeke who played Maria has a small face and good posture, somehow like a ballerina. This actress met the director’s strict standards of, “Maria must be beautiful, but not too beautiful.” Verbeke was born in Argentina in 1975, but because of the oppressive politics during the “Dirty War” when she was a child, she and her family fled Argentina and moved to Spain.

This is a digression, but Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris was another movie set in Paris released around the same time. In Allen’s movie, every scene seems to be a typical picture postcard, and by pasting all of these picture postcard scenes together, he is trying to paint Paris with brute force; but the movie shows his same New Yorker mentality and it lacks the true smells and essence of life in Paris. In contrast, The Women on the 6th Floor is set in Paris, but does not show any typical Paris scenery. For the migrant Spanish worker, most of what is seen is her working place, the market, the church, and her own loft. Living in Paris doesn’t mean visiting all the places for tourists. The lives of Maria and her friends are made up by their surroundings, and I think they really live in Paris, even though they are there just for a short time.

日本語→

Movie: In Darkness — W ciemności (2011)

This movie is based on a true story about Socha, a sewage worker in former Poland city Lviv, who hid Jews under the city in 1943 when it was ruled by Nazi Germany. Socha hid Jews in the underground sewer system to escape Nazi persecution. He helps these Jews and agrees to bring them food every day, but Socha’s actions endanger not only his own life, but the lives of his family.

As part of the drama of this movie, Socha is shown as a small criminal who steals and he starts sheltering Jews for money, to which he gets opposition from his wife for helping Jews. But over time, Socha gradually gains sympathy for the Jews he is hiding and he continues to help them free of charge after they run out of money, risking his own life to help them. However, I had a feeling that it may not be entirely accurate as I examined various facts in this movie. It is possible he was sympathetic to the Jews from the beginning and worked together with his wife and friend because of his own desire to help them. As for accepting money, Socha lived a very poor life and probably did not have extra money to buy food for other people so he may have needed the money from the Jews in order to buy them food. Later, when the Jews had used up all of their money, he used his own money to buy food to offer them. The hiding lasted for 14 months.

I don’t know which one is reality, but that is not so important. The important thing is why Socha decided to help the Jews even when it put his own life and the lives of his family in danger. This is what I wish to consider.

Socha lived in the city of Lviv in the east end of Poland, an area from ancient times under repeated contention between the Kingdom of Poland from the west and the Duchy of Kiev from the east. Until the 17th century, Lviv was caught in a series of invasions by the Ukraine Cossack or Ottoman Empire, among others, and in 1704, Swedish troops led by Charles XII during the Great Northern War captured Lviv and the town was destroyed.

Lviv was put under the control of the Austrian Empire by the First Partition of Poland in 1772. The Austrian Empire government strongly pushed for a German-ification and German was made the official language. In hatred of this, the Polish people rose up in revolt in 1848; after that, the people of Poland gradually gained self-governance of this land. Lviv was the center of Polish culture; at the same time, many Ukrainians also lived there and their culture was protected in Lviv, while other Ukrainian districts changed under Russian rule. When the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed after Austria’s defeat in World War I in 1918, the West Ukrainian People’s Republic declared its independence with Lviv as its capital.

ukrainemap_enFaced with this, the Polish population rose in revolt and the Polish-Ukrainian War began. The war ended with a landslide victory for Poland due to the complete support by the Polish army to defend their homeland, and Lviv once more came under Polish control. The Directorate of the Ukrainian People’s Republic did not support the Ukrainians in Lviv because the Directorate wanted support from Poland to fight against Russia’s Red Army; in exchange for Poland’s support, Poland was allowed to keep control of Lviv.

In 1920, the Soviet Red Army attacked Lviv. Armed citizens repelled the Red Army and Poland made a peace treaty with the Soviet Union, ignoring Ukraine’s wishes. This was a betrayal against the alliance they had with the Ukrainian People’s Republic against the Soviet Army.

Summarizing this complicated state of affairs, there was an antagonism between Polish and Ukrainian people in Lviv from long ago. Russia (as well as the Soviet Union after the revolution) was a natural enemy of Ukraine. Polish people had a hatred for German people from long ago. The Ukrainians conspired with the Germans to gain hegemony in Lviv, so conversely, the Polish allied with the Russians.

During World War II, Germany invaded Poland in September 1, 1939, and on September 14, the German army occupied Lviv. After that, Lviv was occupied for a short time by the Soviet Union, but in the end, Germany controlled that land. The goal of the German army was to annihilate all communists and Jews. The Ukrainian part of Lviv supported the anti-Soviet Union movement and so cooperated with the Nazis. During the German occupation, Poles had difficult lives. With the scene within this movie where many Poles being charged for killing a German soldier are executed, it seems that a Polish person may see the Nazi persecution of the Jews and think, “Tomorrow will be me.” There is sympathy there. Nevertheless, it’s impossible to know for sure the source of Socha’s determination to help the Jews in spite of facing grave danger.

After World War II, the whole area of Lviv was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. During that time, most of the Polish inhabitants of Lviv fled to Poland.

In 1945, immediately after the end of World War II, Socha was riding a bicycle with his daughter when a Soviet army truck approached his daughter. Socha, protecting his daughter from the truck, was hit by the truck and died. At his funeral, someone said, “He died because he triggered the anger of God by sheltering Jews.” For the sake of drama, this movie depicts Socha as someone who is petty, but I don’t believe it. I don’t care what kind of person he was. The things he did were important and people will continue to tell his story through this movie.

日本語→

Movie: My Week with Marilyn (2011)

In America, a typical review of this movie is, “Michelle Williams’s performance of Marilyn Monroe is splendid, but the movie itself is nothing great,” but I watched it despite poor reviews, and was pleasantly surprised. This movie was quite lovely and interesting, and after watching it, I was able to have various enjoyable conversations.

British director Simon Curtis wanted to make a movie about Marilyn Monroe, but when he approached producer David Parfitt about the idea, Parfitt’s reaction was, “People all around the world know Marilyn Monroe. Do you have something new to say?” Simon wished to base the movie off of the short memoirs by the late Colin Clark, a documentary movie writer, about the time Marilyn and Laurence Olivier spent together in the United Kingdom; David Parfitt liked this unique viewpoint and Adrian Hodges was hired to write the script. However, it’s hard to find a company willing to cover the production costs for a movie with such an ordinary story, so Simon went to Hollywood big-shot Harvey Weinstein for financial negotiations. Harvey had read Colin Clark’s original work, but had never thought an uneventful story like that would ever make for the subject of a movie; however, to his surprise, he thought Adrian Hodges’s screenplay was well done and he wanted to see Michelle Williams, who he already thought highly of, play Marilyn Monroe. Harvey agreed to come up with the funds to cover the movie production costs.

This movie is wonderful because it adequately contrasts the film worlds of the United Kingdom and America of those days. On one hand, there was Laurence Olivier who was trained with the fundamentals of acting at England’s Royal Shakespeare Theatre. After being knighted in 1947 and winning the American Academy Award for Best Actor in 1948 for his performance in Hamlet which he produced, directed, and acted as the lead role himself, he represented the United Kingdom as a star by both title and in reality. On the other hand, when Marilyn co-starred with Laurence Olivier in The Prince and the Showgirl in 1957, she had become the world’s most popular actress as a sex symbol. This movie depicts the contrast between Laurence Olivier who worked his way up with the classic method and Marilyn Monroe who displayed genius acting when the role was right for her, although she didn’t have any technical acting training. In addition, the inner conflict of Vivien Leigh, Laurence Olivier’s wife and the superstar of the last generation, is very interesting. In the theatre version of The Prince and the Showgirl, Vivien Leigh had played the same role of the dancer that Marilyn was playing in the movie, but had been told by her husband that she was too old for the movie. The movie shows Vivien Leigh watching Marilyn Monroe’s beautiful performance with both admiration and jealousy. This is the sad thing about actresses in the industry at this time. Even Laurence Olivier admires and is jealous of Marilyn’s aura that is beyond any acting technique. I digress now, but it is said that the producer wanted Ralph Fiennes (The Constant Gardener, English Patient) for Laurence Olivier and Catherine Zeta-Jones for Vivien Leigh. I wanted Catherine Zeta-Jones to play middle-aged Vivien Leigh by all means. But because her husband Michael Douglas was fighting against cancer at the time, Catherine was not in a condition to work and declined the offer. Regrettably, the substitute Julia Ormond wasn’t able to get Vivien’s aura of a former superstar at all.

Michelle Williams depicted Marilyn Monroe splendidly. Michelle successfully captured Marilyn’s ambiance with the way she sang and moved; even more wonderful was that she showed Marilyn Monroe to not be a dumb blond like the world is apt to think, but rather surprisingly smart and professional so as not to damage her image as an actress. Michelle’s performance showed that it was hard for Marilyn to stay at the top in Hollywood, but she was ambitious and worked very hard to maintain it. Also, she showed that it was very hard on Marilyn emotionally and that she came to rely on drugs. Marilyn wanted a man who loved her not just because she was famous. This movie also depicts how Marilyn could not give up her stardom that she had built for herself and return to a normal life.

Michelle Williams was absolutely beautiful and I think she was only actress that could’ve played Marilyn Monroe. However, still something is missing. I wonder if viewers may think the real Marilyn was even more beautiful, sexier, cuter, and sadder than how Michelle Williams presented her. The audience unexpectedly realizes through Michelle Williams’ performance how extraordinary Marilyn Monroe was. Michelle Williams did not intend to convey this message, but her great performance unintentionally demonstrated that no one can capture Marilyn Monroe who is one-of-a-kind in this world.

日本語→

Movie: Monsieur Lazhar (2011)

In an elementary school in Montreal, Canada, an Algerian immigrant, Bashir Lazhar, is hired to fill in for a female teacher who commits suicide in the classroom. He straightforwardly faces the students in the homeroom who haven’t yet recovered from the shock of their dead teacher and opens the hearts of these children. However, Lazhar carries his own sad past and secrets. Lazhar experienced the violent civil war in his home country and came to Canada as a refugee. His wife and children were killed by terrorists; he has been trying to get permanent residence in Canada as a political exile; and he didn’t actually have any qualifications as a teacher or experience teaching. When the principal finds out about Lazhar’s lack of qualifications, Lazhar is fired, but he leaves a powerful impact on the students.

This movie was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film and it was praised highly in many countries, but I was not very impressed with this movie. First of all, it seems strained that the teacher would hang herself in the classroom. Did she choose this time and place for her suicide so that the male student involved in her problem could discover her? At one point, Lazhar wonders out loud why she would commit suicide in the classroom, but a coworker who was close to her just says, “Because she seemed to be a little bit mentally ill for some time.” Since the teacher was supposedly popular with the children, why wouldn’t any of the students or surrounding people think to question her mental condition? Also, why would Lazhar who had no teaching experience suddenly apply to fill in for the teacher who committed suicide? Furthermore, it is not very convincing that Lazhar would be hired at the school to teach without permanent residence and without the school performing a background check.

At any rate, the movie seems to focus on the students that are wounded from their teacher’s suicide, and, despite his more profound injury, Lazhar is able to heal with his cheerful attitude; the story doesn’t seem to care how he got there, or maybe the intention is to make the message more moving by having a dramatic story. When a suicide happens within the school, a school must proceed very cautiously in order to avoid inadvertently causing any more trouble. Since suicide is such a serious issue, there must be a serious buildup that leads to the suicide; however, the way the movie used the suicide as a tool to move the story along without considering the background of the suicide was not convincing. It should have been the boy who drove the teacher to commit suicide who was most wounded by the teacher’s suicide, but the movie widely incorporates the whole class and the development of the story mainly relies on the particular little girl who opens up to the protagonist Lazhar. Because of all this, the message of the movie did not reach me.

This movie’s background is that Abdelaziz Bouteflika was elected as the president of Algeria in 1999 to put an end to the Algerian Civil War that had been developing over the last 10 years; he was forced to compromise with the opposing group within the country and so he acquitted the past political crimes of extremists by granting amnesties. Because Lazhar’s wife published a book that criticized this, his family was threatened by extremists and eventually his family was killed by terrorists.

Mohamed Fellag, the theatre actor and comedian that played Lazhar, also has the history of escaping from Algeria. Triggered by a bombing of his stage in 1995, he took refuge in Tunisia and, from there, France. This movie was based off of a one-man play and the play’s author—Évelyne de la Chenelière—highly recommended Mohamed Fellag for the role of Lazhar, but it is said the movie director—Philippe Falardeau—thought Fellag’s acting was too theatrical and did not immediately support the choice. However, Fellag’s training on the stage and real-life experience seemed to prove enough to persuade the director.

日本語→

Movie: In the Land of Blood and Honey (2011)

Angelina Jolie—Hollywood actress and ambassador for UNHCR, an agency that deals with refugees in the United Nations—directed her first movie; this movie set in Bosnia is a melodrama depicting the fates of two lovers—a commanding officer of the Serb army, and a Muslim and Bosniak woman—during the Bosnian War. I hear this movie will premier in Japan in 2013.

I personally like and admire actress Angelina Jolie because she always donates a lot of money to refugees or people suffering in natural disasters, and her contribution to the education of Middle Eastern women and promotion of foster parent organizations was courageous. However, I don’t have much admiration for this movie. I want to summarize my thoughts below.

First of all, English was used for this movie. This movie was largely distributed in America where people may find subtitles to be annoying. Although the actors in the movie all spoke English very well, I would’ve liked to hear Bosnian or Serbian spoken instead. I feel this reduces the authenticity of the movie.

This movie is after all a Hollywood movie. As is expected, the actress playing the protagonist begins by wearing a skirt and sweater, but gradually more skin is exposed and when she is in the hideout of her lover, the Serb commanding officer, she is wearing a dress that looks like something Angelina Jolie would wear on the red carpet… What? Isn’t this character a Muslim woman? From where would she have procured such a stunning, Western-style dress? This actress also resembles Angelina Jolie in her appearance. The actors in this movie are instructed in the Hollywood way of expressing emotion, such as throwing something when angry.

This movie portrays Serbs very one-dimensionally as scoundrels. The historical background setting up to the war is not described. One after another, cruel scenes are shown (such as the raping of a Bosniak by a Serb soldier, or a Serb soldier using a Bosniak woman as a human shield as he shoots at a Bosniak soldier). Bosniak soldiers are portrayed virtuously, but Serb soldiers are always portrayed as ugly and they laugh when they are killing their enemy. The Bosian War started because both the Bosniaks and the Serbs felt they were in danger, and both sides insisted that the other side started the war. However, this movie depicts the Serbs as the obvious bad guy. The cruel scenes serve as proof of this. I think the Hollywood movie method is to feed the audience a clear good guy and bad guy in a situation even though the conflict is very complicated.

Angelina Jolie visits countries all over the world as a goodwill ambassador. I think this movie was based on an impression she gained when she visited Bosnia-Herzegovina, and she wanted justice by conveying what she witnessed herself to the world. She was very shaken by the Serb army’s ethnic cleansing in the area of Bosniaks by not only murder, but systematic rape. Even though the Bosnian War was very complicated, it was very brave and difficult for her as a young foreigner to make this movie. When making this, she may have thought, “I don’t know anything about Bosnia, but because I know about love, I want to depict the Bosnian War with love as the main principal.” In short, this movie appears to be the story of a man and a woman who may have happily had a family if not for this war changing their fates.

However, is there true love between these two? Danijel, the Serb man, and Ajla, the Bosniak woman met just once before the war started and liked each other. Danijel doesn’t know what kind of person Ajla is or what she does. When the war begins, Ajla is taken with other Bosiak women by the Serb army and nearly raped, but the commanding officer of the soldiers that took the women is Danijel and he says to a soldier, “You’ve had enough fun,” and stops him from raping Ajla. Danijel is the son of the highest commanding officer of the Serb army. Danijel tells his subordinates that Ajla is his property and doesn’t let her get raped. On top of that, Danijel helps her escape. However, Ajla comes back to Danijel’s unit as a spy. She is given her own giant room and is brought food every day by Danijel. Danijel gets very angry and kills a subordinate when he discovers the soldier had raped Ajla under the orders of Danijel’s father; also, Danijel tells Ajla military secrets. When I watch Danijel, I get irritated and think, “Whatever the reason for war, why can’t you be responsible for your home country and your men?” In the end, Danijel discovers that Ajla is a spy; he then shoots her and surrenders himself to the UN troops by saying, “I am a war criminal.”

Although the Bosnian War looked like a civil war, the United Nations decided to intervene because the ongoing racial extermination was a crime against humanity. However, is it the best ending for Angelina Jolie to have Danijel declare himself a war criminal at the end? I wonder how the audience reacts to the one-sided blame on the Serbs in this movie. Not all Serbs are murderers and many were not aware of the massive killings being performed. Some short lines in the movie say not all Serbs are bad people, but this is lost among the endless images of brutality within this movie.

Also in this movie, Danijel’s father briefly tells the history of his time as a commissioned Serbian officer and the sad history of his nation, but he speaks in quite a monotone as if reading from a history textbook so his words regretfully do not stay in the audience’s heart.

The Balkan Peninsula was under Turkey’s control, but by the late 19th century, the Ottoman Empire declined and in 1875, the Russo-Turkish War began over this land between Turkey and Russia. After the war, through support from Great Britain who was uneasy about Russia’s policies going south, Austria strengthened their control over Bosnia and Herzegovina and in 1908, Bosnia and Herzegovina were incorporated into Austria. However, Serbia, neighboring Bosnia and Herzegovina, had the intention to expand as part of the Greater Serbia movement, and so opposed Austria for this land. This became the cause of World War I.

After World War I, because of Austria’s defeat, Serbia became the core of the Serb-Croat-Slav Empire in the Balkan Peninsula and absorbed Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, during World War II, Nazi Germany used Croatia as a puppet government to take over the Balkan Peninsula and Serbs were suppressed. By means of the Croatian nationalist organization Ustaše, Serbs were persecuted along with Jews and any anti-establishment groups, and were taken to concentration camps to be murdered. Faced with this, the Chetniks, a Serb nationalist organization, was formed and it stirred up an anti-Croatia movement.

After World War II, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was established in the Balkan Peninsula, their charismatic leader Tito able to form alliances between many ethnicities. During this time, there was little tension between ethnicities and in urban areas, many different ethnicities lived together and marriages tied them together. Yugoslavia was different from other satellite countries of the Soviet Union; movies criticizing the regime were not banned there, and in 1984 they hosted the Sarajevo Winter Olympics. But ethnic conflict resumed after the collapse of the Soviet Union when various countries within Yugoslavia declared independence in 1990. The Bosniaks and the Croatians living within the Bosnian region wanted to be independent from Yugoslavia, which was dominated by Serbs, while the Serbs in that region wanted to remain under Yugoslavia; this was the beginning of the Bosnian War. Later, a dispute between Croatians and Bosniaks started and began a three-way war.

In 1994, there was a military intervention by the United States of America and NATO; in 1995, the war ended after the signing of the Dayton Accords, the peace agreement mediated by the United Nations. In order for this movie to be accurate, Angelina Jolie was said to have asked for the details in the movie to be reviewed by Richard Holbrooke, the Assistant Secretary of State of Clinton’s administration who worked on the Dayton Accords; she also asked other diplomats involved in these negotiation efforts and reporters who covered the Bosnian War. Richard Holbrooke under Obama’s administration was appointed as the special envoy in charge settling the Afghanistan/Pakistan conflict, but in 2010, he became sick and died as a special envoy in office before the completion of this movie.

日本語→

Movie: Hævnen – In a Better World (2011)

The original title means “revenge” in Danish, but the English title is “In a Better World” and the Japanese translation is “To You Who Live in the Future”; the English and Japanese titles are not literal translations of the original title, but it is very interesting how they each seem to symbolize a different layer of the theme.

Anton is a Swedish doctor who works at a refugee camp in Africa (probably Sudan) and is separated from his wife Marianne living in Denmark. Their son Elias is bullied in school. One day, a boy named Christian transfers from London into Elias’s class. Christian’s father Claus, after his wife died, moved with his son to Denmark where Christian’s grandmother lives. Elias does not resist the bullying he faces, but Christian convinces him that the bullying will continue forever if he doesn’t fight back and beats up the leader of the bullies. The bullies notice this and stay away from Christian. Christian, having lost his mother, and Elias, possibly losing his father in a divorce, are drawn to each other and a strong friendship buds.

Christian and Elias witness Elias’s father Anton being hit one-sidedly by an unreasonable man. When the boys insist that he ought to retaliate, Anton warns them that, if you retaliate violence with violence, the violence will continue to grow. When he returns to Africa, Anton provides medical care to a young pregnant woman whose abdomen was cut open by the rebel army general, but the woman dies despite treatment. The general comes there seeking medical treatment for a wound. The camp’s medical staff refuses to provide medical treatment, but Anton treats him, feeling it is his duty as a doctor. After treatment, though, the general shows his arrogance and expresses contempt toward the dead pregnant woman, so eventually Anton’s rage peaks and he yells, “Get out of here!” Hearing Anton’s words, the refugees who had until now refrained from acting, out of respect for Anton, proceed to beat the general to death.

In Denmark, Christian decides to get revenge on the man who had hit Anton by blowing up the man’s car. Elias is skeptical of this act, but is drawn in and does it together with Christian. Just before the explosion, they see some strangers—a mother and her child—jog toward the car; Elias jumps out to rescue them and gets hit by the explosion. Christian is investigated by the police and, believing Elias had died, plans to throw himself to his death.

“Revenge” – The movie of this title depicts revenge and its consequences. Marianne could not forgive her husband Anton’s affair. Because of this, Anton goes to Africa which makes Elias feel sad; Elias finds comfort from Christian who helps him, and Elias ends up bombing the car with Christian. Christian believes his own father wished for the death of Christian’s mother suffering from terminal cancer and he can’t forgive his father for letting his mother die. With nowhere to direct his anger, Christian channels it into the revenge he seeks on the bully and the man who unreasonably hits people. Even though Anton disapproves of revenge, he can’t tolerate the rebel army general who was amused by cutting the abdomen of the young pregnant woman. The African husband of the woman who died beats the general to death. This movie expresses that people seek revenge when they are hurt, no matter how trivial or how brutal the act that hurt them is.

“In A Better World”— Perhaps this could be rephrased as “In an Ideal World” where everyone understands each other and there isn’t violence, but since this is only an ideal, this movie depicts the reality where people hurt each other. Or perhaps this title compares the irrational society of Sudan in a war to Denmark which is said to be the most calm and peaceful society among European nations; perhaps it wishes to draw attention to the violence that lurks within the peace of Denmark in various other forms. Do we fight violence with violence? Ignore it? Tolerate it? Or is there a better method? This movie ends without offering an answer.

“To You Who Live in the Future”— Adults say that violence is wrong, but perhaps this is hypocritical. Adults have their hands full dealing with their own problems. Looking at these adults, we hope that the next generation lives differently.

The strongest feeling I got from this movie was, “We don’t know what comes next in life.” There are only a few characters in this story, but at least six people nearly died. The mother and child who by chance were jogging near the car; Elias who protected them; Christian who was about to jump to his death if Anton hadn’t saved him; the bully that was punished by Christian; and Anton, having gained the animosity of the rebel army and angering the unreasonably violent man who hit him, could have been killed. Parents try very hard to raise children. However, children drift away in unexpected directions when their parents have their hands full every day with hard work and their own troubles and don’t have time to think of their children. Fortunately, these family and friends don’t die, but this movie shows how small mistakes, no matter how small, could lead to tragic consequences.

日本語→

Movie: A Dangerous Method (2011)

Most everyone is familiar with the psychologists Freud and Jung as well as Freud’s theory of dream analysis. However, the specific details of Freud and Jung’s medical treatment are not very well-known outside the actual field of psychology. I think that the relationship between the two men and the conditions of the times in which they emerged are also not well-known. This movie depicts Freud and Jung’s friendship and eventual falling out, as well as their relationship with their student, the female psychiatrist Sabina Spielrein.

Sabina lived in the city of Rostov-on-Don in western Russia, born into a wealthy Jewish family. However, she was afflicted by mental illness, and in 1904, was admitted to a Swiss mental hospital, Burghölzli, in Zurich. Here she was treated by Jung, a young psychiatrist. Jung was the son of a Lutheran pastor, and had married a woman from a wealthy family; he was sincere, faithful in marriage, and blessed with good looks and intelligence, but also had a keen perception that was akin to a sixth sense. When they meet, Jung recognizes that Sabina also possessed this same kind of perception and exceptional intellect. Through Jung’s treatment, Sabina eventually recovers from her illness and starts medical school with the aim of becoming a psychiatrist.

Jung becomes aware that Sigmund Freud is treating a patient with similar symptoms as Sabina using psychoanalysis, a method based on the theory of the subconscious that was innovative for its time, and the two become close friends around 1907. Freud is very fond of Jung and asks him to treat Otto Gross, an apprentice of Freud who was suffering from a mental illness. In the private sessions with Otto, Jung, a conformist and one who strictly adhered to monogamy, is greatly challenged by Otto’s depraved philosophy; eventually, out of the desire to be honest with himself, Jung admits his love for Sabina, and he and Sabina begin an affair. During the time of this affair, Sabina’s brilliant mind greatly influenced Jung’s theories.

However, starting from around 1913, Jung and Freud have a falling out. Freud considers Jung’s love for the psychic ability to be occult and fears he is drifting too far away from the scholastic field of psychology; on Jung’s side, he becomes skeptical of Freud’s use of dream analysis to explain the whole nature of the subconscious. After that, the two become antagonistic within their field. At the same time, Sabina, now a fully-fledged psychologist, begins asking Jung if they could be more than lovers, and this causes Jung and Sabina’s relationship to fall apart as well. After Jung, the next person Sabina chooses as a mentor is Freud. Freud tells her that, as they are both Jewish, they’re able to understand each other well. However, after Sabina, Jung begins an affair with Toni Wolff, also Jewish. The film ends just before World War I when Jung and Freud part ways.

The fact that Freud was Jewish makes the relationship between Jung and Freud very interesting. Freud and Jung were integral in the founding of the International Psychoanalytical Association in 1911, but Jung, not Freud, became the first president, and it is said Jung was chosen because the president of the association could not be a Jew. Freud was an Ashkenazi Jew (a Jew descended from Eastern Europe). In those days, it was difficult for Ashkenazi Jews to be researchers through university positions, so Freud earned a living as a common doctor of private practice while working hard on his research.

Ashkenazi refers to Jews that reside in German-speaking areas or Eastern European countries. Sephardim refers to another group of Jews that resides in the Middle East. At first, the Ashkenazi Jews were traveling merchants that linked Islam to Europe. However, since direct trade between Europe and Islam became common practice and the long trip became dangerous for Jews because of Jewish persecution, the Ashkenazi shifted to being settled merchants and moved into the finance business, which was banned for Christians. The merchant in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice is an Ashkenazi Jew. The Ashkenazi were expelled from Britain in 1290 and from France in 1394, thus immigrating to Eastern Europe. They were persecuted in the Holy Roman Empire, but since the social rights for Jews were guaranteed in the Kingdom of Poland since 1264 with the “Statute of Kalisz,” Poland was an extremely safe country for Jews to live in. The Kingdom of Poland also welcomed Jewish immigrants as skilled workers to enhance their economy. From Poland, Jewish people immigrated east to Ukraine and Russia.

When Adolf Hitler as the leader of the Nazis expelled Ashkenazi scholars from the psychiatric society in 1938, Jung, using his position as the president of this society and as a citizen of a permanently neutral country, planned to secure status for Ashkenazi doctors within Germany by accepting them into an international society. He asked Freud about his plan, but Freud rejected it by saying, “I can’t accept a favor from Jung, who is the enemy of my research.” Freud himself took refuge in London immediately after that, but the Ashkenazi doctors that were unable to take refuge lost work, and most were sent to concentration camps and murdered in gas chambers.

As for Sabina, she married Russian Jewish doctor Pavel Scheftel in 1912, and lived in Berlin. They lived in Switzerland during World War I, but after the Russian Revolution in 1923, she returned to Russia under Soviet Union control and established a kindergarten in Moscow. However, in 1942, her hometown Rostov was invaded and she was murdered by Nazis.

日本語→