Movie: The Human Resources Manager (2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movies: 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (2007), If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle (2010)

The 2000s brought in a time of extremely remarkable movies in Romania. Every year several of their movies won the highest prizes at international film festivals, and this movement is said to be the Romanian New Wave. Cristian Mungiu’s După dealuri (Beyond the Hills) made the shortlist at the end of this year to be nominated for the next Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. If nominated, it would be the first for Romania’s film industry. The Romanian New Wave is a general term for Romanian movies that have attracted international attention starting from the 2000s, but there are some commonalities between them, such as the addressing of social issues and the use techniques that are intentionally amateurish, minimalistic, and documentary-like. The generation that was in their teens and twenties when socialism collapsed is now in their thirties or forties and, with the influence of Western Europe and America, are making new movies.

Romanian movies collapsed under the socialist government so there are no older, established directors that control the younger generation, meaning this younger generation of directors can act freely when making movies. Because they experienced the societal change and overturning of their world in the very sensitive time of their teens and witnessed the difficult rebuilding of their nation, they have many themes they wish to express. In addition, there is a curiosity from the whole world about what the people of Romania feel and think about now, and there is an audience carefully listening to the voices expressed through Romanian movies. Access to movies of Western Europe steadily became available, and the freedom to travel became guaranteed after Romania became a member of the EU. Moreover, there are role models of global fame close by, such as director Nuri Bilge Ceylan from their neighbor Turkey. All of these conditions that were conducive for filmmaking had ripened. Every time a Romanian movie wins an award at the Cannes and Berlin film festivals, the country rejoices for the honor received for the country, quite like the times when someone wins a gold medal in gymnastics for Romania in the Olympics.

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days is the most internationally successful movie of the Romanian New Wave. Set in Romania during the dictatorial regime of President Ceausescu, the movie depicts one day where the heroine helps with an illegal abortion for her roommate who is pregnant. Director Cristian Mungiu is in position for a nomination in the 2013 Academy Awards for Beyond the Hills. Because Cristian Mungiu was born in 1968 and is only 44, it may be said that he is the most successful director in Romania when considering his career.

In Romania under a socialist government, abortion was illegal. Many young Romanian couples didn’t want children or at most had two or three; President Ceausescu, fearing a decrease in population, passed a law to prohibit abortions in 1968. As a result, there were women who risked getting illegal abortions and died. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days depicts the main character, a university student on the way towards elite status, rushing around to help her roommate get an abortion. The situation and the partner involved in the friend’s pregnancy are not depicted. This movie gives a glimpse into the life of intellectuals, right before the collapse of the socialist administration in Romania. For example, the protagonist searches for an illegal doctor that she heard about from word-of-mouth without consulting her friend’s parents; she walks the desolate streets of Bucharest where stray dogs are wandering around; she uses cigarettes in exchange for cash; when she enters the humble-looking apartment of her boyfriend’s family, we see the family is secretly enjoying a life of luxury (they appear to be quite rich); at the end, the main character’s boyfriend does not seriously consider what he would do if she were pregnant.

If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle is the product of newcomer director Florin Serban and veteran screenplay writer Cătălin Mitulescu and was honored with two awards from the 2010 Berlin Film Festival—the Silver Bear Prize (Jury Grand Prix) and Alfred Bauer Award. Cătălin Mitulescu was born in 1972 and is just 40 years old. He made Trafic in 2004 which won the Short Film Palme d’Or award in Cannes, and this movie is said to be what led to the surge of the Romanian New Wave. His The Way I Spent the End of the World in 2006 gained great international attention. Director Florin Serban was born in 1975 and does most of his work in America.

If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle is about an 18 year old boy who is a juvenile delinquent living in a detention facility. How he ended up in this detention facility is not explained at all. However, people of Romania know that many children were taken to orphanages due to child neglect by the parents during the time of the Ceausescu administration. These children were called “Ceausescu’s bastards” and turned into street children, which later became a very serious social problem for Romania. Furthermore, after the collapse of the socialist administration, many parents found temporary work away from home in Italy or Spain in order to earn money. These children that were left had to find some means to survive, so many committed crimes and were sent to juvenile prison, like the main character of this movie.

If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle uses long shots with a handheld camera. Therefore, the picture shakes a little and somehow gives the impression that it is a documentary taken by an amateur. Florin Serban majored in film studies at an American university and watched many sophisticated movies, and I think he could make a sophisticated movie like these if he wanted to; however, I believe he intentionally chose to use a technique that uses raw material and an amateur-looking style in this movie.

There are not many people working as actors in Romania. Nationwide auditions are held for these movies and the actors chosen are amateurs and a few acting students. However, I think middle-aged Cătălin Mitulescu and Cristian Mungiu will start to train actors and movie developers and it is just a matter of time until a new maturity begins in the Romanian New Wave.

日本語→