Category Archives: France

Movie: Amour (2012)

Posted on by
Reply

Amour-poster-frenchThis movie is director Michael Haneke’s newest work; it is beautiful and incredibly sad, both touching and crushing my heart. An elderly couple of retired musicians—Anne and Geroges—love each other dearly and still enjoy music. One day, Anne, who seemed perfectly healthy before, suddenly suffers from a stroke. A supposedly simple surgery to reduce her future risks goes badly, and Anne is left with half of her body paralyzed. This movie is about how this change in her health affects Anne and the people around her. This incredibly sad and well-made movie won many international film awards, including the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film and the Palm d’Or at the Cannes International Film Festival, in 2012.

I actually wish to talk about how poorly made the official trailer is. The trailer seems to try to twist this wonderful movie into something that is not—a suspenseful thriller, with a strong mystery-solving element. It is true that, typical of Haneke’s style, this movie doesn’t give you all of the answers of what exactly happens or what exactly to think. However, I believe this movie is first and foremost a story about love, and how people deal with that love in hard situations. The trailer focuses on images of the husband Georges (played by Jean-Louis Trintignant) panicking, the door being knocked down, and the daughter being upset, and it shows very little of the wife Anne (played by Emmanuelle Riva). It gives no indication of the core element of this movie: Anne suffering from a stroke, and how she and Georges—who love each other deeply—deal with the change.

amour-03The most beautiful part of this movie is the very convincing and heart-warming love Anne and Georges have for each other, even in their old days. They enjoy going to piano concerts together, fondly reminisce over shared meals, and playfully tease each other with obvious love. However, Anne is increasingly frustrated and embarrassed by her deteriorating physically state, and this pains Georges deeply. Both pains are very understandable and heart-breaking.

There is also an interesting contrast between the daughter’s and mother’s views on hospitals. Anne does not like going to the doctor, and only sees one after her stroke upon the urging of her husband Georges; the last thing Anne wants to do is spend her last days in an uncomfortable and foreign hospital, especially after a failed operation. The daughter, on the other hand, wants the best possible treatment money can buy in a hospital and does not understand why her mother refuses. The daughter’s reaction is very reasonable for a modern person with a lot of faith in the modern healthcare system, and for a daughter who deeply wishes for her mother to recover.

The fact that all of the characters’ emotions are completely normal and relatable is what makes this movie so beautiful and sad. It does not need more drama, as the trailer tries to suggest. All of the characters are very relatable to anyone who has ever experienced loss.

2012-amour-french-film-stillAs clear by the sensitive understanding of a loved one suffering presented in this movie, director Haneke was inspired to make this movie from his personal experience with his aunt’s death. He wished to address the issue of, “How do you manage the suffering of someone you love?” It is said that director and screenwriter Haneke had Jean-Louis Trintignant in mind when he wrote the script; Trintignant happily accepted the opportunity to work with Haneke, a director whom he has deep respect for. During auditions for the part of Anne, it is said that Haneke was very impressed with Emmanuelle Riva. Emmanuelle Riva was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress for her performance. Director Haneke always has a clear vision of what emotion he wants delivered in each scene, and his actors respect him for his ability to communicate to them exactly what he is looking for. I am actually surprised that Haneke would approve the official trailer, which seems to be describing a completely different movie than the beautiful one that I watched.

Sakuranbo

Movie: The Chorus — Les Choristes (2004)

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movie: War Horse (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

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: The Day of the Jackal (1973)

Posted on by
Reply

This is an extremely entertaining movie. If you were to classify this movie, it would be similar to the 007 James Bond series, the Jason Bourne trilogy, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but it is way more enjoyable. Even though the current movie industry jam-packs movies with computer graphics, showy action, and explosion scenes, I feel like this movie hasn’t been surpassed in 40 years. The Day of the Jackal is on the list of “Akira Kurosawa’s Top 100 Films.” This movie is such a perfect movie that I believe Kurosawa would have wanted to make a movie like it. Of course, I think Kurosawa had the skills to make this level of movie, but unfortunately he was not able to find as excellent raw material as the original novel written by Frederick Forsyth. This movie’s director, Fred Zinnemann, was nominated many times for an Academy Award—including The Search, High Noon, From Here to Eternity, The Nun’s Story, A Man for All Seasons, and Julia—and won 4 Academy Awards in his lifetime.

In this movie, “Jackal” is the codename for the assassin who is planning to assassinate France’s president de Gaulle. Of course, viewers that know history know that such a thing didn’t really happen. However, viewers sit at the edge of their seats until the very end, and they are completely drawn into the movie. It was reported that real, famous professional assassins read and loved the original work that this movie was based off of, and actually used it as a reference. This movie is a first-rate depiction of the international affairs France was involved in during the 1960s. Also, the attempted assassination of President de Gaulle, depicted in the first half of this movie, is a historical fact. Historical fact and fiction are skillfully combined in this movie, and this movie has magical persuasive power. At first, since it depicts Jackal’s viewpoint, the audience knows and understands what Jackal is doing, and they are captivated by Jackal’s cool charm. However, in the second half, the point of view shifts to that of the detective chasing Jackal, and we don’t know where Jackal is hiding or what he is thinking, so the amount of suspense in the movie increases. It is extremely well done. I can’t praise this movie enough.

In World War II, northern France was occupied by Germany, while Vichy France to the south was considered to be Germany’s puppet government. In spite of this, France is classified as a victorious nation, not a defeated country, in World War II; the reason is that French general Charles de Gaulle—who took refuge in Great Britain—led the Free French Forces, which joined the Allies and fought as an anti-Germany and anti-Vichy force. However, France, exhausted by World War II, nearly lost its status as one of the major powers in the world, and the colonial system from before the war became difficult to maintain. When the situation in Algeria became critical in 1954, France withdrew from Vietnam and turned their focus toward Algeria.

In Algeria, French colonization had been increasing since the 19th century, and colonists in Algeria were called Pied-Noirs. In World War II, Algeria supported Vichy France, but in 1942, Operation Torch was initiated by the Allies, and the U.S. and British armies invaded Algeria; when they landed, the Algerian admiral joined de Gaulle’s Free French Forces that supported the Allies and the headquarters of the Free French Forces was put in Algiers until the liberation of Paris. In this way, Algeria became a very important piece of land for France. Many native Algerians burned with patriotism, and participated in the French army as a French volunteer soldier.

After World War II, Algeria sought its independence, and the Algerian War began in 1954; this war became a very muddy situation, and it split French public opinion in half. The descendants of the Pied-Noir French settlers opposed Algerian independence, and right-wingers—who wanted to maintain their French glory—voiced their support for the colonists. Also, in those days, the French had deep-rooted fear and animosity regarding the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) that was responsible for extreme acts of violence. However, as a result of frequent wars, war weariness was also strong among public opinion, and so some believed that granting Algeria their independence was in the best interest of France. Even between native Algerians, there was a severe antagonism between a pro-French faction and an independence faction. During this political instability, the Fourth Republic—which had been established after World War II—was overturned, and the Fifth Republic was established upon Charles de Gaulle’s assumption as president.

Charles de Gaulle was the person who symbolized strong and glorious France, so the colonists and the soldiers in Algeria hoped de Gaulle would give them support, but on the contrary, de Gaulle announced his support for Algerian self-determination. The majority supported this in the national referendum of 1961, and in 1962, the war ended. Among the massive chaos, military personnel there and colonists fled to France, but many pro-France Arabs who were not able to escape were killed. The power that opposed Algerian independence formed the Organization of the Secret Army (OAS) during the war, and committed acts of terrorism one after another in Algeria; they also performed terrorist acts against de Gaulle to overthrow the government in France. Officer Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry failed with his attempt to assassinate de Gaulle, and he was executed by firing squad; this is where the movie begins. After the assassination attempt, the de Gaulle administration chased down the OAS with every hand they had.

However, a new enemy was born for de Gaulle: a leftist movement led by students and laborers. In order to suppress the May 1968 events caused by this movement, he needed military power, and so de Gaulle granted amnesties to major OAS members who had been arrested/fled.

As I mentioned before, this movie is absolutely incredible and praiseworthy, but this movie has one flaw. This movie is an American movie; all of the characters—including the French ones—speak English. This movie moves around many European countries—Austria, Switzerland, Britain, Italy, France, Denmark, etc.—and since all the major characters speak English, it’s hard to tell what country we are in currently. I still don’t understand why American movies insist on using only English.

日本語→

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: Ivan’s Childhood — Ivanovo detstvo (1962)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie is director Andrei Tarkovsky’s movie adaptation of Russian author Vladimir Bogomolov’s short story Ivan. Ivan—a young boy who became an orphan after losing his whole family including his parents in the Eastern Front during World War II when he was 12 years old—joins the partisans out of his hatred for Germany, and he later participates in the Soviet Army as a reconnaissance soldier; in the end, he is executed by the Nazis, ending his short life. There isn’t a particularly dramatic story development, but the movie keeps making a clear contrast between the beautiful and poetic scenes that flashback to the young boy’s memories of the peaceful days, and the harsh reality of the war spreading in front of the boy.

This movie’s characteristic is the beauty of the objet d’art (art object). Neither actual battle scenes nor German soldiers appear, and war is only symbolically expressed with gunshots and lights, like toy fireworks. Every objet d’art—water, darkness, light, lamps, ruins, the swamp, the beach, the well, horses, white birch trees, birds, apples, etc—is placed effectively and sometimes in a surprising location; also, the movement of people is shot from unexpected angles.

When Stalin died in 1953, the people under Soviet Union control in those days finally gained peace of mind, and Western culture rapidly flowed into the Soviet Union; new theories on movies and art were introduced into universities, and this movie was made during the period when a new generation of movie directors was being brought up. Andrei Tarkovsky was one of the young men of this new post-war generation. It is said he fawned over America, to the point of being criticized for it; he was very interested in modern America and obsessed with jazz. Also, he enthusiastically studied the directors that were considered great by Western countries in those days such as Jean-Luc Godard, Akira Kurosawa, Federico Fellini, Orson Welles, and Ingmar Bergman.

Rather than story and subject matter, this movie seems concerned with novel objet d’art and angles for filming; it seems that it was greatly influenced by La Nouvelle Vague (“the new wave”) swelling in France at that time. La Nouvelle Vague was a movie movement that happened in France in the 50s, and was led by French movie critics who bitterly criticized existing movie directors as being “dull,” and who enthusiastically declared, “We can make more interesting movies.” François Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard were central figures.

In France, which was still scarred from the war in the 1950s and 60s, the youth tended to rebel strongly against adults and the establishment that caused the war. New movements were rising in many cultural areas, such as communism in politics, existentialism—led by Jean-Paul Sartre—followed by structuralism in the realm of philosophy, and La Nouvelle Vague within movies. The themes of these new movements included a feeling of decadence, eroticism, destructive acts, or nihilism without solutions. French culture heavily influenced Japan in the 60s, and a group called “Japan Nouvelle Vague” was even born in Japan, representative movie directors being Nagisa Oshima, Masahiro Shinoda, Shohei Imamura, Susumu Hani, Hiroshi Teshigahara, Yasuzo Masumura, and Koreyoshi Kurahara. They made movies with themes that had until then not often been the subject—such as juvenile delinquents, crimes, uninhibited sex, women living unnoticed in society, or bottom class people; also, they made movies that seemed to forsake the audience by being difficult to understand, and the audience began to consider them as “artists.”

La Nouvelle Vague movies were fresh in those times, but how are they when you watch them today? The novel techniques were imitated one after another by directors that followed after, and since everyone uses these methods now, viewers today may not understand why La Nouvelle Vague movies are considered revolutionary. Also, I wonder how many people today know the names Sartre and François Truffaut? Young Japanese people today might say about Sartre (pronounced “Sarutoru” in Japanese), “Sa-ru-to-ru, who? Is that someone who leaves (‘saru’) and takes things (‘toru’)?” But back in the 1960s, Sartre was so well-known in Japan that even a Japanese TV comedian referred to his name in a joke (“catch the monkey,” since “saru”=monkey, “toru”=catch) because the name “Sarutoru” sounds funny. I think it is certainly great that those of this movement pursued fresh methods and ideas 60 years ago, and since their methods are still kept alive in modern movies as mainstream methods, we could say that the core of La Nouvelle Vague is still alive today after all. Even now, we express the generalization, “French movies are difficult to understand, and they coldly cast aside the hearts of viewers.” Many modern French movies have a tone that is not La Nouvelle Vague, but there are also many French movies that are still based on the spirit of La Nouvelle Vague. We can say that La Nouvelle Vague was so influential that the basic tone of postwar French movies was defined by it.

As a result, this movie, Ivan’s Childhood, seems to raise interesting issues that Andrei Tarkovsky probably didn’t intend for.

Ivan is a war orphan and, due to the murder of his family, changes from an innocent young boy to nihilistic young boy. The only emotion he believes in is “hatred.” He is not scared anymore, no matter what happens. He hates German soldiers, but can’t trust any adult anymore—German or Russian—because it was adults that caused this war.

Ivan is killed in the war, but I wonder what would become of him if he survived? Maybe he would become an adult who hates the people in the generation above him. Germany and France, cruelly affected by the war, broke out in a violent anti-establishment movement in 1950s and 60s. Central to this movement was the generation who were children during the war, and this generation conveyed the feeling of hatred for the establishment to the generation born after the war. The change in the boy playing Ivan from being an innocent young boy with a happy smiling face to one with a dark face full of hatred—like an omen for the future—is very impressive in the movie.

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: Z (1969)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie was directed by world-renowned director Costa-Gavras (Missing), who fled his home country Greece; produced by well-regarded French star actor Jacques Perrin; and performed by Yves Montand—who took the world by storm as a chanson singer (“Les Feuilles Mortes” or “Autumn Leaves”)—and Jean-Louis Trintignant—who became a top actor in France from his performance in A Man and a Woman. This is the best imaginable team, and this movie Z was nominated for both the Best Picture and Best Foreign Language Film Academy Awards in 1970—an unprecedented achievement—and ended up winning the Best Foreign Language Film Award. Even now, 40 years later, the techniques have no feeling of old-fashionedness at all, and the theme of this movie still has value today.

This is a collaborative piece between France and Algeria, and the filming was done in Algeria’s capital, Algiers. The movie’s true setting is never explicitly stated, but it becomes apparent that the setting is Greece in the 1960s. Director Costa-Gavras was chased from his homeland due to his left-wing ideology. Greek beer frequently appears in the movie. The music played throughout is beautiful Greek music. The explanatory note that appears at the beginning of the movie essentially says, “Any resemblance to real persons or events is deliberate.” This is interesting because it is different than when political movies frequently use the excuse, “This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to real persons or events is entirely coincidental.”

The story begins with an influential left-wing politician being hit in a hit-and-run after giving a speech. The investigating judge who is appointed the prosecution for the case is given the order to treat the hit-and-run accident that injured the politician as simply a drunk driving accident, and he begins his investigation from this angle; the politician dies soon after, so the judge decides to proceed with the investigation more carefully. Through the course of his investigation, he discovers a hidden scheme and receives interference from his superiors. Another key character is a journalist who also uncovers the truth of the incident as a reporter by using various methods. This is the outline of this movie. The reason this movie was a big success and it doesn’t become outdated even today is that, instead of expressing a political agenda, it focuses on the theme of what is the right thing to do as a judge, or as a reporter.

It could be said that this movie was modeled off the Greek politician Grigoris Lambrakis who was assassinated by a right-winger in 1963. Lambrakis was a doctor trained at the School of Medicine of the prestigious University of Athens. Also, as an athlete, Lambrakis was the holder of the record in long jump in Greece from 1936 to 1959, and was a champion at the international Balkan Athletic Games held between friendly neighboring nations—Greece, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey. He participated in the Greek Resistance during World War II, when Greece was occupied by Nazi Germany. He was not a communist, but he participated in anti-war—including anti-Vietnam War—movements as a pacifist. He was very popular among citizens as a politician who was gifted with both intelligence and athleticism, and had a great moral sense.

On May 22, 1963, on the way back from attending an anti-war assembly held in Thessaloniki as a guest speaker, Lambrakis was suddenly struck on his head with a club by a man in a sidecar of a motorcycle that came speeding from behind; five days after this injury, Lambrakis died from cerebral contusion. It became clear that this incident was a crime by the right wing. The reason it became clear it was a crime by the right wing is that Christos Sartzetakis—the investigator who happened to be in charge of this case—with the support of his superior—Attorney General P. Delaportas—publicly announced the truth, and prosecuted everyone involved, despite the pressure from military authorities and right-wing government officials. However, the two were hated by military authorities, and were fired after the military coup d’état occurred in 1967. Moreover, Sartzetakis was imprisoned after the coup d’état. He was tortured by the Greek police, and the criminals he prosecuted were released. Sartzetakis was finally released only because Greek citizens organized a strong movement that opposed his imprisonment.

When the Greek military dictatorship collapsed in 1974, Sartzetakis’s honor was restored, and he was able to later build up a career as a lawyer; he was elected as president of Greece in 1985. While Greece swayed between the right, left, and moderate factions, Sartzetaki belonged to no faction; since he was truly politically neutral, people agreed that he was the very best person to bring Greece out of the chaos.

Sartzetakis prosecuted the right wing for the murder of Lambakis without succumbing to political oppression, and since he was oppressed by military authorities, he is regarded as a hero by left-wing citizens. But to him, it was most important for him to carry out his own professional duties, and the prosecution of Lambakis’s offenders was simply the result of an investigation for the truth; Sartzetakis is not left-wing himself, and it is said that he always made it clear that he never prosecuted for the advantage of the left wing.

日本語→

Movie: Le goût des autres – The Taste of Others (1999)

Posted on by
Reply

In some respects, this movie resembles The Women on the 6th Floor, but neither a particularly handsome man nor a beautiful woman appears and the story is more subdued, so the movie could be overlooked. In The Women on the 6th Floor, the barrier to love is easy to understand—a difference in race and social hierarchy—but in this movie, the barrier to love is the difference in individual education within the stable middle class, or the difference in the way of enjoying life and in preferences. However, I recommend this movie from the bottom of my heart to mature adults who are quietly but greatly enjoying life.

Also, if you are fed up with the exaggerated way of expression seen in Hollywood movies—where people hit each other when they are angry or throw something when frustrated—I strongly recommend that you watch this movie. All of the characters that appear in this movie are good people in their own way. Using humor and ordinary happy and sad moments, this movie depicts the simple fact that, in order to find the person who both gives you happiness and you can make happy, it is essential to find someone who—beyond having a nice personality—aligns with your personal tastes. This philosophy of love and the good sense of humor is very French. No explanation is needed for someone who likes French movies.

Castella is the owner of a medium-sized business. He has money, but his appearance could be teased by young kids—pipsqueak, chubby, balding—and he has no education or hobbies outside of his business operation. Because he is to conduct business with an Iranian company and his business contract requires that he be protected by a bodyguard, he hires Franck, a former police officer. In order to converse with Iranians, he needs to learn English, and his contract demands that Castella take private English lessons, but he is not interested in the English lessons, and he quickly sends his English teacher Clara away.

Since his niece is an aspiring actress, he goes along with his wife to the theatre, out of an obligation to see his niece appear in a play, but Castella, who had no interest in theatre, is unexpectedly impressed by the play, and he notices that the actress who impressed him is none other than his English teacher. And so, he falls in love. And thus his passionate (so he thinks, though from the outside it looks humorous) pursuit of her begins. This movie depicts how the characters, including Castella and Clara, are attracted to the opposite sex (and to life).

Castella’s wife is an interior decorator, and she excessively decorates their home with girlish tastes, which Castella was fine with since he thought he didn’t have any aesthetic sense. However, by hanging around Clara and her friend group of artists, Castella discovers he has his own preferences. Because of this, he begins to notice that his wife has disregarded his feelings, believes that only her thoughts and preferences are right, is only concerned for her pet, and is only interested in superficial things, so his heart begins to grow distant from his wife. Castella, with his own preferences awakened, becomes gradually uncomfortable in his house littered with floral patterns.

Castella has an inferiority complex due to the oppressive attitude of the elite business consultant he works with who graduated from a top-notch university, and Castella hates him because Castella thinks the consultant is looking down on him. However, the consultant is exhausted from working with Castella, and he gives Castella his resignation letter with a look of relief; Castella then realizes that the consultant had taken a firm attitude in order to enthusiastically carry out his professional duties, and that the consultant was very important for Castella’s business, so Castella humbly requests the consultant not to resign.

Castella’s bodyguard Franck is at first glance a cool, nihilistic bad boy, and Castella’s driver Bruno is a virtuous softie, but the two become friends through their work. Bruno goes to buy tobacco at the bar where Clara and her artsy friends hang out, and thus gets to know the bartender Manie. Manie is a kind woman, and she is at first attracted to Bruno’s kind side and dates him, but from the moment that she meets Franck through Bruno, the two immediately fall in love because Franck’s nihilism and dark side and the darkness in Manie’s heart attract each other like lightning.

Franck at first glance seems nihilistic, but a sense of justice that he thought he had thrown away remains in his heart. He tries to get Manie to stop making a living off of dealing narcotic drugs, but Manie is not pleased with this. One day, he sees on the news that his former partner finally successfully arrested a big-shot who had committed crimes without punishment from the law. Franck and his partner had chased this big-shot, who had always managed to escape successfully. Franck grew jaded by the inability of the police to bring this man to justice, and so resigned as a policeman, but his partner never gave up on the investigation. This news causes Franck to reconsider his relationship with Manie.

Clara is at first annoyed by the presence of Castella, who follows her around and lacks education. On the other hand, Clara begins to be annoyed by her artsy associates, who look down on Castella’s lack of education and keep making fun of him, but accept his money as their patron. Clara gradually begins to realize that Castella has an appreciation of art, and with this discerning eye, he values her as an actress, as a person, and as a woman, so her heart begins to open to him.

Bruno is rejected by both his former girlfriend and Manie because he is too nice. He joins the town’s amateur orchestra in order to play the flute that he loves. The movie ends with a kind-looking, potentially good-fitting girl gazing at Bruno with admiring eyes. This way of ending gives the audience a very optimistic feeling.

In short, this movie depicts the mysterious process of being attracted to something. The feeling may one day come along suddenly like lightning, or it may come along slowly from an unexpected place. Although one person is made up of various characteristics and values, this movie wonderfully expresses the simple truth that, in the end, a person bases any choice—including the person they love or life opportunities they pursue—on their truly important preferences and values.

日本語→

Movie: The Sun Also Rises (1957)

Posted on by
Reply

The Japanese title—“the sun rises again”—could be taken as a Japanese translation that signifies the renewed hope of, “Even though life is painful, tomorrow could be a wonderful day”; but actually, after World War I, there was a period of time when people had an emptiness that was hard to express, and the title captures the hopeless regard for daily life of, “Oh, today I also drank, ate, loved, and then it was over. Nothing new ever happens. The earth turns regardless of what I do, and tomorrow the sun will also again uneventfully rise…”

Hemingway, who lived out in the country in America, was not well understood by others regarding his wounded body and mind from World War I, so he planned to move to Italy, which had become his second home; but a friend advised him, “If you are going to Europe anyway, go to Paris, the center of culture,” so he found work as a correspondent and lived in Paris. There were many youths like him whose lives were changed by some sort of injury during the Great War. The Sun Also Rises is the story of the protagonist, who is a projection of Hemingway, sightseeing the bullfighting and festival in Pamplona, Spain with friends, and him being charmed by the beauty of the sport of bullfighting.

To be honest, this movie—other than the bullfighting scenes and the scene when the bulls are released into the streets—lacks charm entirely; I think the biggest problem, though, is that the lost youths in their 20s are performed by actors in their 40s. In the original, the protagonists are young, disappointed for some reason, don’t know what they should do, and live a life where their love affairs have become their “full-time jobs” (the only thing they have). In contrast, the actors performing them are successful in Hollywood, their pockets are packed with money, their faces clearly show an attitude of, “let’s enjoy dinner with family and friends after filming,” and they don’t look like they have any anxiety for their lives or futures. When well-aged actors play immature youth who are impulsively moved by their hormones and can’t stop themselves from falling in love, it is a disappointing movie that makes me want to say, “You should be old enough to know better than to do these stupid things.”

There is no author that represents the merits of America as much as Hemingway. He was born in Illinois, which symbolizes the heart of America as well as honesty, faithfulness, and diligence. If I list politicians from Illinois—Abraham Lincoln, Hillary Clinton, and President Obama—you will understand the values held by Illinoisans. Hemingway was a handsome man and had a strong sense of justice, and he established a literary style that expressed his feelings in simple English that anyone could understand. He had a healthy body, and liked sports, particularly hunting, fishing, and boxing. He was an athletic man, but also had a mind capable of understanding anything from a delicate heart to a decadent lifestyle.

His experience in World War I determined his view on life. Like how the Vietnam War impacted a generation in America, his most influential experiences started and ended with World War I. The later World War II did not have as much of an impact on him as World War I did. This is because World War I occurred during his late teens, when he could best understand war and was impressionable. To America, Hemingway was an author that symbolized the “good ol’ America” from before the 1950s.

While watching American movies, I noticed movies from before the 1950s and after the 1970s are totally different. Movies before the 1950s seem to be tall tales performed by elementary school children, and there is nothing relatable in them today. In contrast, with movies made after the 1970s –if you look at movies such as The Godfather or The Deer Hunter today—there is something relevant in them today, and the themes surprisingly don’t become old. During the 1960s that bridged the 1950s and 1970, events such as the assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., the intensification of the Vietnam War, and the Watergate scandal occurred. After this, America was no longer the same. Hemingway committed suicide in 1961, which seems to symbolize the end of “good ol’ America.” Even if he had lived on, I don’t think Hemingway, having experienced World War I, would have been deeply impacted by the Vietnam War.

Bullfighting, which Hemingway loved above all else, was once the national sport of Spain, but due to animal rights arguments against killing bulls, the popularity of bullfighting has begun to decline. The first law banning bullfighting came into existence in the Canary Islands in 1991; in July 2010, Catalonia—which had a strong anti-Madrid feeling—established its first ban against bullfighting, and Catalonia had its final bullfighting show in 2011. Seventy-five percent of citizens in Spain say they are not interested in bullfighting, and now Spaniards are crazy about soccer. Once, a circus went around the countryside with a lion and an elephant, delighting people who had never seen these animals in real life, but due to opposition from the animal protection movement, this began to decline; in 2011, the last circus elephant in Great Britain was retired and transferred to an African safari park as its new home, making the news headlines. In 2012, it was widely reported that Juan Carlos I, the King of Spain, unofficially went to Botswana and hunted lions, despite the fact the King himself worked as the honorary president of the World Wide Fund for Nature; he received international criticism for hunting animals and was dismissed from his position as honorary president of the Fund. Currently, the most popular sports in the world are soccer, basketball, tennis, and track-and-field events, while the interest in boxing and hunting seem to be decreasing. The sun always rises the same way every day, but the times change.

日本語→