Movie: Another Year (2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sakuranbo

Movie: 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: The Queen (2006)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movie: The Third Man (1949)

After watching The Third Man—considered to be an immortal work that will remain in film history—a quiet laugh built up inside me, and the thought that remained was, “Ah, I watched the most overrated movie in film history.” Of course, I can imagine this movie being considered to be an absolute masterpiece from the time it was made until about 30 years later. However, I think the reason this movie was considered to be a “masterpiece” is because the techniques and methods used—which were novel for the time this movie came out—surprised the audience, resulting in surprisingly high praises. This movie certainly used novel techniques—such as different filming angles, and extreme contrast between light and dark—that weren’t used at all in the 1940s. But these techniques were exhaustively imitated by younger moviemakers, and these “novel techniques” gradually became “classic,” “mainstream,” and eventually “old-fashioned”; therefore it is no longer interesting to watch a movie like this today. The techniques may have been interesting at that time, but the story is not interesting, and the underlying “concept” of the movie is superficial. I wish to write a little about this point.

The setting is after World War II, when Austria’s capital Vienna was split into four parts, ruled by four different countries—the U.S., Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. American pulp writer Holly Martins, upon being offered a job from his childhood friend Harry Lime, arrives in occupied Vienna. When Martins visits Lime’s residence, he is informed by the doorman that Lime died in a car accident. Martins attends Lime’s funeral service, where he meets Major Calloway of the British army; Martins learns from the Major that Lime traded goods through the black market and was being watched by the police. Also, Martins is attracted to the beautiful actress Anna Schmidt, who was Lime’s lover and at the funeral.

Suspicious-looking men—such as a baron who claims to have been Lime’s friend, a mysterious Romanian businessman, and a shady doctor—appear in front of Martins, who is trying to find out the truth about Lime’s death. Although there should have only been the baron and the Romanian man at the scene of the accident, Martins is told by the doorman there was actually—in addition to Lime’s two friends— an unknown “third man” at the scene of the accident. However, the doorman, who is going to give a critical testimony, is killed, and Martins is suspected as the killer.

In order to say why this movie is old, I will take figure skating as an example. Swedish Ulrich Salchow, who is considered to be a legendary skater in skating history, did the single rotation Salchow jump for the first time in history in 1909. American Theresa Weld was the first female skater to succeed with the single Salchow jump in 1920. Today, since the Salchow jump is a jump that naturally utilizes the body’s momentum, its degree of difficulty is considered to be low for a jump. In fact, American Timothy Goebel was the first male skater to succeed with the quadruple Salchow jump in 1998, while Japanese Miki Ando was the first female skater to succeed with the quadruple Salchow jump in 2002. Today, skaters don’t earn points for doing a single Salchow jump at an international competition. However, this does not diminish Ulrich Salchow’s greatness. The jump that Ulrich Salchow did in 1909 was miraculous in those days, and people who wanted to catch up to and surpass him then polished and improved his jump; thus, figure skating was able to develop.

We could say the same thing about The Third Man. Many moviemakers were clearly inspired by the new filming techniques. However, all concrete things can be imitated by other people. Moviemakers constantly study masterpieces made by their seniors, and they are always on the lookout for anything that they can incorporate. While these images were novel at that time, they have become stale from constantly being copied. So happens with movies. The important thing is to have an abstract “concept”—which cannot be copied perfectly even if you try to copy it—behind the images that can withstand the change in times. The Third Man unfortunately does not have an enduring concept.

The Third Man is supposedly a mystery, but it is obvious who the “third man” is from the beginning. Moreover, after finishing this movie, there are too many plot holes that cannot be explained. Why did Lime summon Martins—a friend he hasn’t seen in 20 years—from America? Why didn’t Major Calloway, who had the authority to investigate, confirm whether the dead body in the coffin was really Lime? Because Anna appears to believe her lover just died—even though she should have looked at his dead body—was she involved in the scheme? Who killed the man in the coffin? Who killed the doorman? The scene where Martins gives a lecture seems to be completely pointless—what possible significance does it carry? We patiently follow this and that development, but at the end, feel forsaken when left with a pile of unexplained things.

This movie uses the city of Vienna as a very attractive backdrop. I think being divided into four parts and controlled by foreign powers is a difficult situation, but because this movie is depicted from the viewpoint of the victorious nation Great Britain, it completely ignores the gloom and frustration of the Viennese citizens; it only depicts taking precautions against the intrusive Soviet Union headquarters. Also, Anna Schmidt, who is supposed to be extremely beautiful, did not impress me with her looks. As mentioned earlier, it remains a mystery whether or not she participated in Lime’s crimes. Because nothing is depicted about her character, I don’t know what kind of person she is.

Originally, it seems that the set up was that Martins and Lime are both Brits, and that in the last scene, similarly British Major Calloway watches as Martins and Anna walk away down a boulevard together, lightly arm-in-arm. However, in the process of production, Martins and Lime were changed to American, and Martins was changed into a slightly clueless American who can’t read the situation, and is rejected by Anna at the end of the movie. This ending scene is known to be “an amazing scene that will remain in movie history,” but since I can’t understand what kind of person Anna Schmidt is, I was not deeply moved. The movie depicts only Martins’s one-sided affections and not Anna having mutual feelings. Also, her switching to a new man just after her own man died would have come off as shameless; plus, if she did have a hand in the crime, it would be unsavory for her to clutch a new man’s hand with her bloodstained one. Therefore, the last scene of the two not getting together is a natural conclusion. This scene does not seem like one particularly worth mentioning. Is it really so painful that these two don’t end up together?

The theme song played with the zither—an Austrian musical instrument—was a huge hit, and it came to be considered, “a wonderful theme song that will remain in movie history,” but this song is a very cheery and optimistic song. Given the historical context of the suffering and gloomy society that is occupied by foreign countries, and since, in addition to the four people who are killed in this movie, countless babies died due to Lime’s crimes, you would think this movie would be a dark movie; but in fact, this movie, which is depicted from the viewpoint of an occupying nation, is a cool, light romance between a cool man and beautiful woman. The lightness of the theme song matches the lightness of the movie. The most important thing to the movie is how cool Martins and Lime look. In short, this is a not very convincing love story between two dandies and a beautiful woman.

To say it briefly, this movie made me tell myself, “This movie has historical value as being an important work that greatly influenced the next generation of moviemakers. But I would not join those who lightly called this an immortal masterpiece.”

日本語→

Movie: Joyeux Noël – Merry Christmas (2005)

On the night before Christmas in 1914, the France-Scotland allied forces face a narrow no man’s land from a trench in northern France as the occupying German army advances further onto French territory. International opera singer Nikolaus Sprink, who was enlisted by the German army, is visited by his lover, soprano Anna (Diane Kruger). The night before Christmas, Father Palmer, who is serving Scotland as a combat medic, plays a Christmas song with a bagpipe in the Scotland camp, and Nikolaus of the German camp starts to sing along to the Christmas hymn. The France-Scotland army find themselves applauding, and Nikolaus stands in the neutral no man’s land and continues to sing. Prompted by this, the commanding officers of the three countries meet in the neutral zone, and decide to suspend the combat for Christmas Eve. Father Palmer gives Christmas mass, and Anna sings a hymn. They suspend combat the next day, too, burying their dead comrades abandoned in the neutral zone, enjoying soccer, sharing chocolate and champagne, and showing each other photographs of their families. However, the time comes that these soldiers who shared a brief moment of camaraderie must resume fighting. The military authorities of each army and the upper echelon of the church are angry when they learn about this exchange of friendship, and the soldiers who exchanged friendship face severe consequences for their conduct.

It may be unbelievable that soldiers of enemy nations really shared friendship during the war, but this movie was made by connecting various real facts. The Christmas truce and the exchange of friendship between enemy nations during World War I did not make it into official records. However, the soldiers who survived the Western Front told the truth to family and friends by word of mouth and with photographs after they returned.

In 1914, it actually happened that a German tenor singer, Walter Kirchhoff, visited the German army to offer moral support and sang in the trench; on the other side of no man’s land, a French officer, recognizing Walter’s voice from a performance of his in the Paris Opera house, applauded. Walter then crossed the neutral no man’s land to greet the officer who had applauded. It also happened that a cat loved by both the German and French armies was arrested by the French army. It is said that this cat was later executed as a spy. In addition, it seems to be true that soccer and games were enjoyed between enemy armies.

This Christmas truce happened on the first Christmas after World War I started. World War I was the first ever all-out, world war, and nobody knew what direction the war would develop; at the beginning, there was an optimistic feeling that the war would be over quickly. However, as the war continued, dangerous weapons and poisonous gas were used. Also, the airplanes that were initially used for reconnaissance were transformed into terrible fighters. As the war became violent and cruel, events like the Christmas truce depicted in the movie became rare.

What brought these enemies together momentarily were the forces of music, sports, and religion. All the battling nations—Germany, France, and England—were Christian, and people’s faith was strong in those days; Christmas was really important, and it was the motivation behind the Christmas truce. It was easy to understand enemy nations that were similarly Christian. Something like the Christmas truce wouldn’t have happened if it had been a battle between Muslims and Christians, or Muslims and Jews.

It was Germany that underwent the greatest political change during World War I. Germany was still an empire in those days, and the people fought in the name of Wilhelm II, the German emperor and Prussian King. However, as the Great War continued, the war-weariness of the nation increased. On November 3, 1918, the sailors of the Kiel naval port mutinied, and, with the resulting populist uprising, the German Revolution ensued. Wilhelm II fled to the Netherlands, thus ending World War I. The Weimar Republic with the principle of parliamentary was established in Germany.

After that, the German government was unstable. After their defeat, they received economic retribution from the victorious nations, and the German people lived miserable lives. Within this dissatisfaction, the Nazis were formed in 1920, and this led to World War II. In this movie, the First Lieutenant Horstmayer, who led the German faction and agreed to the Christmas truce, was Jewish. Crown Prince Wilhelm, who was the highest commanding officer on the Western Front, was enraged when he found out about the Christmas truce, and sends First Lieutenant Horstmayer’s unit to the dangerous Eastern Front; at this time, the Crown Prince Wilhelm points with his sword at the iron cross of the German army at the chest of the First Lieutenant, and shouts, “You don’t deserve the iron cross.” This scene suggests the fates Jews met 20 years later—having their German citizenship revoked, not being able to apply for the German army, and being sent to concentration camps.

If I were to say the message of this movie in a few words, I might say, “The willingness for citizens to fight is created by the leader of the nation.” The movie starts with a scene with elementary school students in Britain, Germany, and France having patriotism hammered into their heads and being taught hostility towards their neighbors. Because citizens are made to think that soldiers of enemy nations are faceless beasts, they can fight in a war. However, through the exchange on the night of Christmas Eve, the soldiers recognized each other as human for the first time, and it became difficult to kill each other. When the First Lieutenant Audebert leading the French army received criticism for the Christmas truce, he responded, “The German soldiers are more human compared to these people shouting to kill Germans!” Also, the audience will forever remember the sentiment of the soldiers who had to return to war: “We (today only) can forget war. But the war won’t forget us.”

This movie is an impressive work that depicts beautiful details, but if I were to illuminate a fault, it is that Diane Kruger who performed as an opera singer was too obviously lip-syncing. The hymn which she sings in front of the soldiers should be a huge turning point, but her body doesn’t quiver as she sings, and her mouth was just monotonously opening and closing; there are too many moments when the lyrics and her mouth movement are out of synch. Since she looks like a beautiful picture with only her mouth opening and closing, quite a few viewers may lose empathy at this point of the movie. Diane Kruger is certainly beautiful, but for this scene, I would have preferred watching a real opera singer, such as Natalie Dessay who supplied the real singing voice in this movie. The audience may be deeply moved by the musical performance of Father Palmer of the Scottish army on the bagpipes, rather than Diane Kruger’s lip-syncing. Tea with Mussolini also features a bagpipe when the movie ends with the Scottish army entering an Italian town occupied by the Nazis. The sound of the bagpipe is joyful, optimistic, sorrowful, and poignant.

日本語→

Movie: Tea with Mussolini (1999)

Tea with Mussolini is a movie with a comedic touch, and it depicts the life of an Italian boy/young man named Luca who is deeply involved with the lives of some British and American women living in Florence, Italy from 1935 to 1945. The story includes the rise of fascists led by Mussolini, the lives of Britons and Americans in an internment camp after Britain and America declared war on Italy, Jews being hunted, and the partisan movement, but there are few gunshots or murders, and this curious movie never loses the elegant smell of tea and biscuits. Actually, the contents of this movie may be more true than one would think because Franco Zeffirelli, who wrote the story for and directed this movie, projected his own experience onto Luca. It is said that Zeffirelli participated in anti-war activity as an anti-fascism partisan during the time of the war.

Right before World War II, in an area populated by foreigners in Florence, there is a group of British women led by Lady Hester, the widow of a diplomat who was stationed in Italy. Elsa, an American singer, is friends with the group, but the proud and old-fashioned Hester dislikes the American and nouveau-riche Elsa. Another group member Mary is a secretary for an Italian businessman; her boss wants to raise his illegitimate son Luca as a British gentleman, so he asks Mary to educate Luca. Meanwhile, since Elsa was friends with Luca’s late mother, she sets up a fund to help educate Luca. However, since Italy breaks off its ties with Great Britain and grows closer to Germany, the father changes his plan for Luca’s education, and has Luca sent to an Austrian school to learn German. Hester worries about the rise of fascism, and in order to protect Florence’s British community, she goes to meet her acquaintance Mussolini; she returns from afternoon tea with Mussolini, relieved by his words, “I’ll protect the British, no matter what happens.” However, after Italy declares war on Great Britain, the British women are sent to an internment camp.

Elsa uses a large sum of money in order to transfer Hester and the others out of the internment camp and secure their housing in a high-class hotel. Also, she provides fake passports to Jews in Italy and helps them flee from the country. When Luca, who has grown into a lovely young man, returns home from Austria, he helps Elsa and becomes the arms and legs of her mission. Before long, due to the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, America at last joins the war, and Italy and America become enemy nations; danger approaches Elsa who is in fact Jewish. Luca asks the partisans for help with Elsa’s escape, and also Lady Hester, having found that it was not Italian Mussolini but American Elsa who had protected them, takes part in Elsa’s escape. Luca, along with Lady Hester’s grandchild, joins the partisan—which later merges with the Scottish army led by the Allies—to fight for the liberation of Italy from Nazi occupation. The movie ends with the German army hastily retreating from the Italian town that Hester and the others live in, and Luca and the others of the Scottish army arriving to town and receiving an enthusiastic welcome from the townspeople.

Although this movie is not a masterpiece that will remain in history, it is well-made, like a small gem, and there are some details that can only be told by people who lived during that time.

First, there was an amicable relationship between Britain and Italy from the end of World War I until the early 1930s. Therefore, for an Italian, proficiency in English was a big plus. Also, most British people viewed Mussolini favorably until a certain time. Furthermore, Britons seemed to believe that the war would remain local—Italy/Germany vs. the countries around Germany—and that the British government could skillfully avoid getting involved. To some degree, the war was somebody else’s problem. However, once Great Britain had no choice but to participate in the war, America’s existence became a big deal. Until then, British people had considered America—for better or for worse—to be a distant country across the ocean, but America became something like a savior for Great Britain. America’s participation in the war is received with gratitude by Hester and the others.

In addition, the interesting antagonism between England and Scotland within Great Britain is depicted. Luca, who wanders around the battlefield with the intention of joining the Allies, loudly asks some troops that look to be part of the Allies army. “American army?” “NO!” “English army?” “Never!! We aren’t those cruel people!!!” Then the soldiers roar with laughter at the dumbfounded Luca. They say, “We are Scottish! Relax!”, laugh heartily, and then welcome the relieved Luca.

The mission of the Scottish army in which Luca participated was to free the British prisoners, including Hester, and transport them to a safe place. The Scottish soldier that meets Hester in the town states, “I order everyone to gather up your luggage immediately and move to the safe place for everyone’s personal safety,” but Hester angrily says, “A Scot giving me (an English aristocrat) orders is not acceptable!!”; the movie ends with Luca and the Scottish soldier exchanging a smile that seems to say, “What can you do?”

日本語→

Movie: The King’s Speech (2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movies: Babettes gæstebud — Babette’s Feast (1987), Ladies in Lavender (2004)

I watched two very similar movies in succession recently: Babette’s Feast and Ladies in Lavender. Babette’s Feast depicts a 50-year-span around the time of the Paris Commune of 1871, while Ladies in Lavender is set in Great Britain in 1936. I thought Ladies in Lavender was borrowing ideas from the very successful Babette’s Feast because the Ladies in Lavender movie was made about 20 years after the movie Babette’s Feast, and the essence of the times depicted and the overall feeling of these two movies were very similar. The impression I got from these two movies was that they depict the atmosphere of the early 20th century in Northern Europe.

After doing some background research, I found that the author of the original Babette’s Feast, Karen Blixen, was born in 1885 and passed away in 1962, while the author of the original Ladies in Lavender, William John Locke, was born in 1863 and passed away in 1930. While I wouldn’t say they are the same generation, the time that they were alive overlapped. This explains why they share similar perceptions. The original Ladies in Lavender was published in 1916, slightly earlier than when the original Babette’s Feast was published, and the Ladies in Lavender movie actually changes the setting to 20 years later than the original story. Basically, the atmosphere that is expressed by both movies is the mindset of the people in Europe during those good times; imperialism was still going strong in Europe before World War I, people were enjoying economic prosperity, the rural parts of Northern Europe were not engulfed by big political changes, and the sense of community between neighbors was still strong and people helped each other in good faith. I think both Karen Blixen and William John Locke had the feeling that such times would disappear in the near future because both of these movies seem to give an impression of fleeting times. Since I have not read the original pieces, I wish to write about the similarities and differences between the two movies.

The first similarity between these movies is that both are stories of elderly, unmarried sisters living in the same house after their father dies. The two live in a beautiful, tiny village along the North Sea. Babette’s Feast takes place in Jutland, Denmark, while Ladies in Lavender is located in the United Kingdom, but the scenery in both movies look very similar. The maid similarly goes down the hill every day with a shopping basket to buy fish from the fisherman who rides up to the beach in his boat. There is also a similar set-up where life for the sisters is very repetitive—cherishing the memories of their fathers and thankful for their peaceful life—but then a lonesome, artistic foreigner drifts into their lives (in Babette’s Feast, it is Babette, a female chef of a first-class Paris restaurant; in Ladies in Lavender, it is Andrea, a mysterious Polish prodigy violinist) and their lives suddenly become exciting, which causes the sisters to reflect on their nearly forgotten younger days.

A similarity between the authors is that Karen Blixen and William John Locke both lived a long time in Africa. William John Locke is British, but when he was 2 years old, he immigrated to Trinidad and Tobago; in 1881, he returned to his home country of the United Kingdom to attend the University of Cambridge. On the other hand, Karen Blixen is Danish, but in 1913, she married Bror von Blixen, a Swedish aristocrat related to her father’s side of the family, and they immigrated to Kenya the following year. As a married couple, they managed a coffee plantation, but the married life soon failed and ended in a divorce; in 1931, Karen returned to her home country of Denmark. The memoir she wrote of her time living in Africa, Out of Africa, was made into a movie and won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Babette’s Feast won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film.

So then what are the differences? Since I have not read the originals, I can only compare the movie renditions, and one difference is the way the two sisters reflect on their pasts. In Babette’s Feast, the sisters do not have regret in their hearts about their past at all. There were many men who fell in love with the sisters because they were beautiful, but the sisters are still unmarried because they helped their father who had started up a church in the village, and they and all of the church-goers grew old; the sisters had made up their minds to maintain the church until they died. The sisters have no trace of avarice and don’t seek luxury, and the warm spirits of the men who fell in love with the sisters seem to be protecting them near the end of their lives. Babette, who lost all of her family when they were killed during the Paris Commune, was sent to Denmark from Paris by a man who had loved one of the sisters. Babette is thankful to be able to live with the sisters, and wants to be with the sisters until they die. Babette’s Feast depicts the calm happiness someone with a faithful heart and without greed can achieve.

In contrast, Ladies in Lavender is a story of the younger of the two elderly sisters recognizing her hidden desire for men due to the young, charming man who drifts in. The young man has feelings of gratitude for the elderly ladies who helped him when he was dying on the beach, and loves the old ladies like he loves his mother, but in the end, he carries feelings of romantic love for a woman young like himself and cannot stay in the countryside because of his ambitions for his career. The younger sister laments, “He is unobtainable. Life is unfair!!” Although others may view the feelings of this elderly lady as humorous and off-putting, from her point of view, her feelings are serious and noble.

Of the two movies, Babette’s Feast is much better, and Babette’s Feast will probably remain in movie history. In this movie, these old, but still beautiful actresses are practicing a life philosophy—one that is easier said than done—to gain happiness: not regretting, not envying, accepting, and being grateful.

In Ladies in Lavender, the elderly sisters are performed by Judi Dench and Maggie Smith. These great actresses have won Academy Awards and were granted Dame status by the Queen of the United Kingdom. However, the sisters in the original Ladies in Lavender are much younger, and the theme of the original story is a single woman in her forties—no longer young, but still a woman nonetheless—who has feelings of love triggered by a young man and pines for her lost younger days. Director Charles Dance was concerned about having Judi Dench and Maggie Smith, who are in their 70s, perform the sadness and excitation of these women in their 40s, but said this about casting the two of them: “Well, I think they can do it because these women are great actresses—like goddesses.” I think this approach to acting is sacrilege. Even an actress who is like a goddess cannot play a character in her 40s if the actress herself is in her 70s.

Since it is nearly impossible for women in their 70s to perform as women in their 40s, this movie ends up being a story of elderly women. For someone watching this movie, I think it is impossible to understand that the protagonists are in fact in their 40s. Therefore, in this movie, jealous women in their 70s try to keep a man in his 20s in their house, obstruct his contact with women of his own generation, and scheme (or perhaps I should say weakly hope) to have him stay forever. It is ironic that the director’s respect for Judi Dench and Maggie Smith resulted in the failure of this movie.

I have not read the original, but my impression of the original Ladies in Lavender is that the protagonists have remained unmarried for some reason, and that the story is about the “beauty of a transient emotional conflict” of a woman in her 40s—who is no longer young, but not old—suppressing the longing for a young man—who is not as young as her children would be, but on other hand, too young to be seen as acceptable by society. I feel that these women are single as a result of their society, perhaps because there are few suitable men since many of their generation died in the war, or there may not be many opportunities to meet people. No matter what age, there may be a feeling of yearning for a person, but with an actress in her 70s playing as a woman in her 40s, I think the movie changed the spirit of the original work. In the original stories, the backdrops are very similar, but the mindsets of the sisters are very different; however, because of the great actresses chosen for Ladies in Lavender, the movies end up looking similar.

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: The Iron Lady (2011)

In a few words, this movie is not worth watching except for the commendable performance by Meryl Streep as Thatcher.

Jim Broadbent who played Thatcher’s husband Dennis Thatcher said something like the following:

“When I heard that an American actress was to play Thatcher, I thought, ‘Huh, is that okay?’ I didn’t have high expectations. However, when I shared supper with Meryl after we started filming and when she casually mixed a British accent into conversations, I felt that perhaps she can play Thatcher after all.”

I don’t think he said that with mean intentions. Broadbent has co-starred with many great British actresses and has received high honors as a great actor such as an Oscar and Golden Globe Awards; Broadbent did not blindly believe the praise by Hollywood of Meryl being “the best actress in the world” and seemed to have been observing her with an attitude of, “Let’s see what you can do.”

Of course Meryl is not stupid. She talks about the resolution to play Thatcher as follows:

“Yes, it was a frightening experience as an actor to perform as Thatcher. But looking at myself as one American actress thrown in among British actors, I found some commonality with Thatcher, a woman fighting alone in the political world in those days, and I gained the courage to play her.”

Scenes of Meryl looking very much like Thatcher and giving speeches are scattered throughout the movie trailer. Since Thatcher has been both criticized and praised, I was eager to see how the producer would interpret Thatcher’s great achievements in fighting the downfall of the United Kingdom and show her essence. To my dismay, unlike the trailer implies, the movie shows very little of Thatcher as a politician and the major part of the movie depicts Thatcher suffering from dementia after her retirement.

This movie should be called “The Teacup-Washing Lady” instead of “The Iron Lady”. In her younger days, Thatcher had quipped, “I will never be one of those women…I cannot die washing up a teacup!” In the final scene, Thatcher in her old age is alone in her kitchen, silently washing a teacup. Once the most known female face in the United Kingdom, no one recognizes her when she goes shopping. In essence, this movie seems to want to mean-spiritedly say, “Look at her doing what she once said she would never do. Hahaha!” and, “Washing teacups alone every day… A fitting end for not prioritizing family and neglecting the family you had.” Why must career woman Thatcher who served the United Kingdom be judged in this way? I wonder why the left-wing party, which supports the independence of women, doesn’t complain. According to Thatcher supporters, this movie is a left-wing conspiracy to undermine Thatcher’s legacy. I see.

Clever Meryl Streep said something like the following:

“I think it’s wonderful to grow old. The reason is I suddenly discover new nuances to things I didn’t understand or had overlooked until now. For example, the act of washing a teacup can be a precious moment of life, which only the aged person can understand.”

Meryl certainly plays roles in better and better movies as she ages. There is the criticism that only young and beautiful and glamorous actresses are given roles in Hollywood, but Meryl seems to be like a publicity billboard for Hollywood that says that Hollywood isn’t so narrow-minded. Because better roles go to her one after another, actresses of the same generation, such as Diane Keaton, Sally Field, and Glenn Close—especially Glenn Close who has a similar range of acting and ambiance—have their roles snatched away and it’s a pity. However, since Meryl built her secure position in Hollywood through self-restraint, politeness towards colleagues, and extraordinary efforts, I can let it slide.

日本語→