Category Archives: USA

Movie: The Temptations (1998)

Posted on by
1

classic5This TV miniseries about the musical group The Temptations premiered on NBC in 1998; it was made based on the autobiography of Otis Williams, who is the lone surviving member of the original Temptations and considered to be the leader of the group (though was never the lead vocal). The Temptations, a black vocals group from Detroit, Michigan, successfully rocketed to the top of the Billboards with Motown Records during the 1960s and 70s. They are known for their sweet harmonies, soulful vocals, and smooth dance steps, and the group earned the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award. This miniseries The Temptations tells the story (from the viewpoint of Otis Williams) of the group from the early days until the deaths of all of the other core members; it was produced by Otis Williams and The Temptations’ manager of many years, Shelley Berger.

temptationsFor as long as I can remember, I have loved The Temptations for their feel-good and heartfelt tunes, as well as their great group performances. I had always assumed, though, that the five sharply-dressed members that danced and sang wonderfully together in videos I had seen got along with each other as well as they harmonized, and that those five people always equaled The Temptations. However, as shown by this TV miniseries that provides an overview of The Temptations over nearly 50 years, the group members changed a lot over the years and there were tensions along their journey to the Hall of Fame.

Back in the 1950s, The Temptations were formed from two local groups that were struggling to get their names out—“Otis Williams and the Distants” and one of their rivals, “The Primes.” The combination of the two groups was important; The Primes added the dancing component (Paul Williams was the choreographer for many of their performances) as well as Edie Kendricks’s strong tenor voice featured in many of their early tracks, while The Distants had the bassline and Otis Williams was the organizer needed to establish them as a group. The five original voices of The Temptations harmonized beautifully, but they still didn’t see success on the Billboards, and even became known as “The Hitless Temptations.” Frustrated, one of the members, Al Bryant, quit in the 60s and was replaced by David Ruffin, an aspiring singer and a fan of The Temptations. Now with Ruffin, The Temptations released their first Top 20 hit (“The Way You Do the Things You Do”), and later their number-one hit “My Girl” featuring Ruffin’s vocals. These five members are considered the “Classic Five” (the five I had associated with The Temptations). Throughout the 1960s, The Temptations released hit after hit and became internationally known, mainly with David Ruffin as the lead singer.

ruffinHowever, David Ruffin expected more money, wanted the group name to be changed to “David Ruffin & The Temptations” (much like “Diana Ross & The Supremes” or “Smokey Robinson & The Miracles”), increasingly used cocaine, and began missing practices and even some performances. Ruffin was fired in 1968 and replaced with Dennis Edwards. However, on multiple occasions, Ruffin snuck into their performances and hijacked the microphone from Edwards, pleasantly surprising avid fans of the Classic Five who were critical of the new Edwards. It is said that, due to the still strong popularity of David Ruffin, Otis Williams wanted to fire Edwards and bring Ruffin back in, but due to Ruffin’s continued unreliability, Edwards was kept on. Finally, with their Top 10 hit single “Cloud Nine”—which won a Grammy—featuring lead vocals by Dennis Edwards, Edwards was beginning to be accepted as part of The Temptations. In 1989, The Temptations—the Classic Five plus Dennis Edwards—were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

In the 1970s, two more of the Classic Five—Paul Williams and Eddie Kendricks—were also replaced. Paul Williams’s health was declining so was forced to resign, while Eddie Kendricks—unhappy with the direction of The Temptations, his best friend Paul being out of the group, and the control of Otis Williams—decided to go solo. Dennis Edwards, who had replaced David Ruffin, also had ongoing tensions with Otis Williams, and was also replaced in 1976. (This miniseries shows very little about Edwards and his on-and-off participation in The Temptations). Regarding many of their hits from the 1970s, leader Otis Williams commented, “While you hear our voices weaving together so smoothly, we were actually fragmenting.” In the 1980s, The Temptations did a “reunion album,” that featured the more “classic” sound of The Temptations and brought back Ruffin, Kendricks, and Edwards. These three later did their own tour titled “Former Leads of The Temptations.”

When looking at the incredibly talented and influential Temptations over the years, there are a few interesting things I wish to highlight.

ballofconfusionFirst, the adaptation of the group to changing times. The Temptations—initially with a doo-wop, classical Motown sound that mainly sang about love—started incorporating more funk in the late 1960s and early 70s, such as the electronic wah-wah sound featured in “Cloud Nine” and “psychedelic” rhythms. Also, the lyrics began to incorporate the social and political changes that were erupting in the turbulent times of the 1970s, in contrast to their earlier characteristic love ballads. For example, their song “Ball of Confusion (That’s What the World is Today),” was about the unknown future and brings up issues such as violence and segregation. This change is also seen with other Motown hits such as Marvin Gaye’s “What’s Going On?”which addresses the Vietnam War over a funky beat. 1990Since then to the present, the contemporary Temptations have incorporated a Eurodance beat characteristic of the 80s, the slow and simple R&B beats of the 90s, and even auto-tunes—which dominates pop music today—in their most recent album. Regarding this adaptation, leader Otis Williams says that the group has to “live in the present while respecting the past.” Also, as an undercurrent in this miniseries, we see the tough transition from segregated America—where The Temptations are considered for “black audiences only”—to integrated America—where black and white people stand together in the crowds.

Second, the tragically young deaths of many of the members. Of the Classic Five, Paul Williams suffered from health issues and alcoholism, and committed suicide at the age of 34; David Ruffin died at the age of 50 from a cocaine overdose; Eddie Kendricks died at the age of 52 due to lung cancer; and Melvin Franklin—the bassist who stayed in The Temptations until right before his death—suffered from many health problems, and died at the age of 52 after a series of seizures. Al Bryant of the original five died at the age of 36 from a liver disease. Otis Williams (74 years old now) is the only surviving member of the original or Classic Five. Also, Roger Penzabene, the songwriter who wrote their hits “I Wish It Would Rain” and “I Could Never Love Another (After Loving You)” based on his own heartbreak, committed suicide. Life as an artist can be mentally and physically exhausting, and so many incredibly talented people die young. (27 Club)

Lastly, what really makes “The Temptations”? There is a musical group called The Temptations that is still active today, and it is still led by Otis Williams—who never had lead or distinctive vocals in any of The Temptations’ many hits. The tagline of The Temptations today is “55 Years & Still Going Strong,” and Otis Williams says that “reinvention is the name of the game.” The lineup has changed several more times over the years, and even some of these newer members have gone off and created their own Temptations splinter groups. Dennis Edwards—the original replacement for David Ruffin of the Classic Five, and the only other surviving of the six members that were inaugurated into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame—has his own group, The Temptations Revue. Over the years, there have been 24 people who were at least for some time considered a Temptation. As Eddie Kendricks aptly says in the dramatized miniseries when he quits The Temptations, “There’s getting to be more ex-Temptations than Temptations.” Interestingly, with the members being replaced one after another, none of the current members of The Temptations have worked with any of the original Temptations other than Otis Williams. Because of this and the gradual change in sound over the years, the original name of “Otis Williams and The Distants” seems more appropriate now. It seems that Otis Williams is clinging onto the name because of all of the respect there is for The Temptations.

Since this miniseries is based on Otis Williams’s autobiography, it is certainly biased, especially regarding the positive leadership of Otis Williams and the tensions between group members. Several people, including Otis Williams’s ex-wife and David Ruffin’s family, filed lawsuits against the miniseries for the negative and biased representation of characters, but the court ruled in favor of the defendants. Otis Williams also claimed that, although it was based on his autobiography and he is considered to be a producer, he did not have much say on how things were presented.

standing-in-the-shadow-of-motownThis miniseries, though biased, gives a good overview of the fascinating, yet turbulent history of the incredible musical group The Temptations. Watching this miniseries in combination with Standing in the Shadows of Motown—a documentary that sheds light on the Funk Brothers, the incredibly talented, but overlooked back band of many of The Temptations’ hits as well as many other Motown classics—and Get Ready: Definitive Performances—which is a collection of recordings of live performances by The Temptations during the 1960s and 70s that shows the charm of their actual dancing and stylish suits—is truly inspiring as well as informative regarding the amazing impact these musicians had on modern music.

Sakuranbo

Movie: Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967)

Posted on by
Reply

Matt Drayton (Spencer Tracy) is a publisher of a liberal newspaper in San Francisco. He loves his wife Christie (Katharine Hepburn) and daughter Joey (Katharine Houghton, a niece of Katharine Hepburn), and raised his daughter teaching against racial discrimination. While traveling Hawaii, Joey meets and falls in love with John Prentice (Sidney Poitier). Joey and John decide to marry and visit Joey’s parents to tell them of their decision. Even to the parents who oppose racial discrimination, it is not easy to embrace Joey’s decision immediately. The mother wants to accept John—who is accomplished, handsome, and a perfect gentleman—but the father isn’t ready, and his beliefs are being tested. John will leave to New York after having dinner together. He, in contrast to Joey who never doubted the support of her parents, knows the harsh reality of racism, and tells Matt that he will give up on this marriage unless both of Joey’s parents embrace it. Matt must tell them whether or not he supports their marriage by dinner in a few hours. In addition, John’s parents—without knowing John is engaged to a white girl—are coming from Los Angeles to join the dinner to celebrate their engagement.

Although the Japanese title “An Uninvited Guest” sounds good in Japanese, I think it is not a good translation that properly reflects the theme of the movie. The title comes from what excited Joey says to their cook—“Guess who’s coming to dinner! Monsignor Ryan! Please add one more”—when Monsignor Ryan, who is a close friend and advisor of the parents, hears and congratulates Joey and John on their decision, and wants to join them for dinner. Thus, the Japanese title meaning someone showed up for the dinner without an invitation is wrong. In other words, the parents’ belief against racial discrimination resulted in the dinner to which all of the guests were formally invited. If they had taught their daughter that blacks were inferior and not to be treated equally, Joey would not have talked to John, and would not have fallen in love with him because she would not have opened her heart to him. The Draytons’ life attitude invited John and his parents who wish for John’s happiness, as well as Monsignor Ryan. Although it was surely an unexpected development for the Draytons, the dinner after all was stemmed from their philosophy. The title “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” captures the not probable, but possible surprises of life. Due to their rejection of racial discrimination, Matt and Christie allowed for this rare, but possible event for the 1960s to happen.

The movie was produced and directed by Stanley Kramer, who also directed Judgment at Nuremberg and was a strong advocate of social justice. Thus, it was no surprise that he made a movie addressing the racial discrimination, one of the biggest issues in the 1960s. It may be unbelievable now, but in the year of 1967 when this movie was made, as many as 17 states prohibited interracial marriage, and those who violated this were sent to prison as criminals. I have deep respect for the courage of Stanley Kramer for making this movie during those days. Importantly, this movie, instead of being political propaganda, achieved being a high quality human drama since Kramer focused on depicting universal wisdom in life, instead of anti-racism belief.

First, the love between husband and wife is depicted. Both Joey’s and John’s parents who married more than 30 years ago still love each other and maintain mutual understanding and trust. Without the parents’ lasting marriages, the audience would feel that the excitement of Joey and John may not last once reality comes into play. The sustaining mutual love of parents gives the audience a secure feeling regarding the future of the young couple. The love between Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn, who were partners in their real life, overflows from the screen.

Next is the depiction of the love between parent and child. It is very profound and interesting. First, the child simply reflects the way of life of her parents, as seen by Joey. However, even more interesting are John’s words. John’s father says to John, “Every day, I carried a heavy load for many miles, and I raised you through great hardship. You owe me,” but John clearly states, “Father, I owe you nothing. From the day you brought me into this world, you owed me everything you could ever do for me, as I will owe my son if I ever have another.” In most societies, it may be accepted that, “Because a parent raises a child through hardships, the child should obey what the parent says and should look after the parents,” but I agree with John’s words. A person cannot select their parents, but a parent can select their child because they usually can choose whether or not to have a child. The ultimate love of a parent would be, once a parent decides to have a child, the parent does everything they can for the child without expecting any reward from the child. People should be devoted to bringing up the next generation without the expectation of compensation. However, the interesting thing is that the child who is brought up like this often gives back unconditional love to their parents without being asked.

Lastly, you don’t need someone’s approval to live. If the people around you give you approval, life is certainly easier, but the message is that, even without approval, as long as you clearly understand the height and difficulty of the hurdle, you can get through life on your own, and you should not make getting approval life’s first priority. Matt states this at the end:“There’ll be 100 million people right here in this country who will be shocked and offended and appalled, and the two of you will just have to ride that out, maybe every day for the rest of your lives… You’ll just have to cling tight to each other and say, ‘screw all those people’!”

This movie tells a five hour story in approximately two hours. The story is dense and fast-paced in a good way—much like High Noon—and the performances by the actors are wonderful. Katharine Hepburn expresses all emotions—“surprise,” “disappointment,” “giving up,” “determination,” “understanding,” “supportive,” “happiness” –with just her eyes; her “acting with eyes” is amazing, but even more amazing is Spencer Tracy. Because of his thick glasses, he is not able to use his “eye power” throughout the movie, and he never acts dramatically; yet, every change in emotion is transmitted, and it is slightly scary how much so. This movie was Spencer Tracy’s final work, and Katharine Hepburn received her second Oscar with this movie.

As mentioned before, interracial marriage was illegal in 17 states across America in 1967, but around the time this movie was being screened, the Virginia v. Richard Loving case—which was appealing for the overturning of Loving’s imprisonment for the marriage to a black woman—was being judged in the U.S. Supreme Court; the case ended with the judgment that the law prohibiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional, and interracial marriage finally became legal across the whole country. It was 102 years after the liberation of slaves was officially established with the approval of the 13th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution in 1865.

日本語→

Movie: For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943)

Posted on by
Reply

Hemingway was an “active intellectual”; he noticed whenever something was happening anywhere on earth, was instinctively attracted to that place, and actually went there. He was sent to France as a correspondent for the North American Newspaper Alliance. For Whom the Bell Tolls is a novel by Hemingway published in 1940 that depicts the Spanish Civil War (the battle between the fascist army led by Franco’s military authorities and the guerrilla army that opposed them) that was happening in the 1930s; it is told through a fictional American character who assisted the anti-fascists. This movie is the 1943 film adaptation of this novel. Gary Cooper, a close friend of Hemingway’s, was entrusted to the role after starring in A Farewell to Arms (1932), and Ingrid Bergman performed María, the protagonist’s lover.

The monarchy was overturned in Spain in 1931, and a Republic based on a constitution was established; however, the government was unstable, and soon after the military coup d’état attempt in 1932, Spain fell into a state of chaos. The official Spanish Civil War was from 1936 to 1939; this movie depicts 1937. This was not a simple civil war; volunteer armies from the Soviet Union, Mexico, and other nations supported the Republicans, while the fascists led by military leaders such as General Franco got support from Japan, Germany, Italy, and Portugal. The powers were quite evenly matched, and it is said that at least 500,000 people died in battle. The movie depicts the interaction between the partisans/guerillas of the Republican faction, who are holed up in the mountains in the Segovia province near Madrid, and the protagonist—an American professor of Spanish and explosives specialist—who assists the guerrillas under the instructions of a Soviet Union commander. The bombers of the Italian army (an army Hemingway once supported) attacking the mountain in which the American protagonist is hiding demonstrates the change in Italy over the last 20 years.

Returning to discussing the movie, when this movie was being made, many top actresses in those days expressed interest in the role of María, but in the end, a ballerina who did not have much acting experience was chosen. When filming began, the director was unsatisfied with her acting ability. It is said that before being fired from the role as María, she quit and gave up the role; Ingrid Bergman, who Hemingway was hoping for, was hurriedly chosen from the auditions, and the scenes with María were reshot. Ingrid Bergman said something like the following on this situation:

“The reason the ballerina gave up the role of María voluntarily is that the role of María is demanding; she has to go up and down cliffs where the caves are, and the ballerina was afraid she would injure her legs during filming. After all, the legs are most important for a ballerina, much like how the face is most important for an actress, I think.”

With her casual comment, she aptly says how “looks” were the most important thing in Hollywood in those days. It’s no wonder that Hollywood movies in the 1950s or earlier were little more than elementary school plays performed by handsome men and beautiful women.

Today, of course, there are some actors such as Julia Roberts, Brad Pitt, or Tom Hanks who are primarily chosen for their popularity and, if they accept the role, will receive a performance fee of multi-million (!) dollars unconditionally. But nowadays, the criteria for selecting an actor often seem to be, “How well can they perform the role realistically?” In this sense, what are most important are the background of the actor and their acting ability to realistically express the character’s historical context, age, personality, and ethnicity. Also, since filmmaking is a team project, they must be a team player who gets along with everyone, healthy, punctual, and professional so as to not waste other people’s time. Since “time is money,” you can’t waste time.

Actresses of the same generation as Ingrid Bergman include Vivien Leigh, Olivia de Havilland, Joan Fontaine, Jennifer Jones, and Loretta Young, and these women came before Hollywood’s flowers, such as Grace Kelly, Audrey Hepburn, Marilyn Monroe, and Elizabeth Taylor. These actresses of Ingrid’s generation died young and had short-lived activity as actresses, but Ingrid Bergman continued working as an actress up until she died in the 1980s, and kept her reputation as a great actress until she died. Therefore, she was an actress with more than just a beautiful face.

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: Battleship Potemkin — Bronenosets Po’tyomkin (1925)

Posted on by
Reply

Battleship Potemkin is a propaganda movie that depicts the sailor revolt in 1905 during the times of the Russian Empire, and it was made in 1925 under the Soviet Union administration to show the first step of the glorious Communist Revolution. I was dumbfounded by the excessive propaganda, but even more dumbfounded by the genius of the director Sergei Eisenstein for making such an original movie in 1925.

The Russian Empire wanted an ice-free harbor, and so they consistently implemented policies to expand south; due to their victory in the Russo-Turkish War in 1878, they acquired power over the Balkan Peninsula. Chancellor Bismarck of the German Empire, who was wary of Russian expansion, organized a meeting that assembled representatives of the Great Powers in Berlin, and succeeded in restraining Russia’s power. With this, Russia abandoned their policy to go south of the Balkan Peninsula, and turned their eyes towards invading into the Far East, which resulted in the Russo-Japanese War that occurred in 1904. Great Britain, with investments in Asia, feared the advancement of Russia into Asia, and gave financial and military support to Japan based on the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, but France, who had bitter thoughts towards Germany and Britain, formed the Franco-Russian Alliance in opposition. Japan requested that United States President Theodore Roosevelt—who was friendly with Japan in those days—do peace negotiations, but Russia decided to deploy their Baltic Fleet—a fleet based in the Baltic Sea that Russia claimed to be unrivaled in those days—and they refused Roosevelt’s peace negotiations.

The Baltic Fleet went around the coast of the African continent for seven months to get to Japan. They anticipated the refusal of food and fuel provisions from British and German colonies in Africa, but the support from French territories that they were relying on did not go as well as expected, and they had to continue on a very difficult voyage. The truth was that Britain and France established their Entente Cordiale (“cordial agreement”) on April 8, 1904, immediately after the Russo-Japanese War broke out. On May 27, 1905, the Baltic Fleet met and engaged in battle with the Combined Fleet of the Japanese navy in the Sea of Japan, and lost most of their ships in a naval battle; they received the devastating blow of having their Commander-in-Chief taken prisoner, and the naval battle ended with a complete landslide victory for the Japanese fleet. Because around the same time on June 14, a sailors’ mutiny erupted on the battleship Potemkin stationed on the Black Sea, it became necessary for Russia to quickly terminate the Russo-Japanese War.

Before the Russo-Turkish War, Russia supported Greece’s independence from the Ottoman Empire in the Greek War of Independence that broke out in 1821; Russia then went to war without any allies against Turkey and gained victory. Due to the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829, the coastal zones of the Black Sea were surrendered from Turkey, and Russian ships were able to pass through the Bosphorus/Dardanelles strait freely. Britain and France, in fear of Russia’s expansion south, called the Convention of London in 1840, and due to the London Straits Convention in 1841, the allowance of Russian ships through the Bosphorus/Dardanelles strait was repealed. In other words, Russian warships were internationally banned from entering the Mediterranean Sea through the strait. Therefore, the Russian fleet in the Black Sea wasn’t able to dispatch troops during the Russo-Japanese War. Potemkin was part of the Black Sea Fleet.

In this movie, an armed uprising by the sailors aboard the battleship Potemkin occurs; the rebelling sailors execute an officer and declare a revolution, turning towards the Ukrainian harbor city Odessa. The massacre of Odessa citizens by Russian government troops occurs because the people of Odessa welcomed Potemkin; the Russian fleet is dispatched in order to suppress Potemkin. The movie paints the rebellion as the glorious beginning of the Revolution by depicting the sailors of the government fleet calling the Potemkin sailors brothers with a feeling of solidarity. However, how much of reality is reflected in this movie?

First, the highly praised and famous scene in movie history of the massacre on the stairs in Odessa seems to not be a historical fact. The stairs with a strange design seen in the movie do exist in Odessa, though. If you stand at the top of the stairs and look down towards the bottom, you can only see the landings and not the stairs. However, if you stand at the bottom of the stairs and look up, you only see stairs, and don’t see the landings. When looking up at the stairs from the sea, the stairs look longer than they actually are; when looking down the stairs while on land, the stairs appear to be shorter than they actually are. Since the massacre depicted on these stairs in Odessa became a classic scene, it feels as if it is a historical fact. In truth, Odessa’s city government was against the activities of Potemkin, and did not allow the anchorage of Potemkin.

It is true that the fleet sent to suppress Potemkin did not fire at the Potemkin. Because many sailors in the suppressing fleet sympathized with the revolt of the Potemkin, Vice Admiral Krieger, who was appointed as the acting commander, felt that if he gave the order to fire at the Potemkin, not only was his life was in danger, but his whole fleet might join Potemkin’s rebellion; thus, he passed the Potemkin without doing anything. The sailors of the suppression fleet, despite being forbidden to by their superior officers, went up to the deck to cheer and greet the sailors on the Potemkin when they approached. Furthermore, the sailors of another armored warship Georgii Pobedonosets arrested their own superior officers and joined the Potemkin uprising. On another battleship, Sinop, a faction in favor of joining Potemkin argued with a faction against it; the latter won, and they did not join Potemkin.

What happened to the sailors of the Potemkin mutiny afterwards?

On the armored warship Georgii Pobedonosets that had joined Potemkin, the sailors immediately split into factions. The sailors who regretted thoughtlessly aligning with the mutiny released the captain and officers, and the next day, handed over 68 of the mutiny leaders. The Potemkin, refused anchorage by Odessa, arrived at Constanta, Romania, but the Romanian government refused to provide the necessary supplies to the Potemkin. The Potemkin sailors surrendered to Romania, and the Romanian government returned the battleship Potemkin to the Russian government. Most sailors chose to take refuge in Romania as political offenders, and remained in Romania until a communist administration was established in Russia in 1917 by means of the Russian Revolution. Also, some sailors planned to escape abroad from Romania. Some escaped to South America, such as to Argentina, while others crossed to Western Europe via Turkey.

In the movie scene of the Odessa citizens’ antigovernment demonstration, the citizens shout, “Beat the executioner, tyranny, and Jews!!”; there is even a scene of a Jew—who was trying to calm down demonstrators by saying, “Mothers and brothers! Let there not be differences or hostility among us!”—being mobbed. The Jew is depicted looking rich and having a bad character. Considering that Sergei Eisenstein, who made this movie, was Jewish, I was really surprised, but this may have been the feelings of Russians towards Jews in those days.

Due to the huge success of Battleship Potemkin, Sergei Eisenstein was invited to Hollywood, and lived in America starting from 1930; he became close friends with Walt Disney and Charlie Chaplin, but his ideas were not used by moviemakers in Hollywood, and in the end, he returned to the Soviet Union without any visible achievement. What on earth did he do in America, I wonder.

When Sergei Eisenstein returned to his home country, Stalin’s Great Purge had started, and it was the time when the Purge extended to artists. Sergei Eisenstein made movies rich in artistic taste, which did not completely comply with socialist realism, and he also stayed in America for a long time and had many American friends; because of this, he was in a situation where he could be suspected of the crime of being a spy. However, he seems to have gotten through the Purge safely, but somehow his boss Boris Shumyatsky was purged and executed. A big part of this story still remains unclear.

After World War II, because they were close friends of Sergei Eisenstein, Walt Disney and Charlie Chaplin were suspected during the “Red Scare,” which was carried out with the authority of Senator McCarthy. Walt Disney was granted innocence, but Charlie Chaplin was eventually deported.

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: War and Peace (1956)

Posted on by
Reply

Hollywood pulled out all the stops for this 1956 drama based on literary master Tolstoy’s long historical drama written from 1865 to 1869, which weaves the invasion of the Russian Empire by the French army led by Napoleon in 1812 as the warp, and 500 characters including three Russian aristocratic families as the weft.

Omitting as much as possible of the lengthy book of four volumes, the movie mainly depicts the love entanglement of three people—Count Bezukhov’s illegitimate child Pierre (Henry Fonda), his closest friend Prince Andrei (Mel Ferrer), and the daughter of the Count Rostov family Natasha (Audrey Hepburn)—but it is still more than three hours long, and boring to watch. The feel of old Hollywood exudes from the screen, and makes me wonder where Russia’s 19th century countryside has gone. However, I think what destroyed this movie was—sorry to her fans—Audrey Hepburn’s poor performance.

Audrey Hepburn was a bit too old to play Natasha—who is like a blossoming flower—but in order to exhibit cuteness, Audrey just kept dancing around and tried to talk cutely by using a high voice. In the original, Natasha meets Prince Andrei in the vast countryside of Russia, but in the movie, the two meet at a boring ball; Natasha, who is sulking because she has not been asked to dance, becomes ecstatic when Prince Andrei asks her to dance, and she even says she wants to marry Prince Andrei. After Prince Andrei leaves for the frontline, Natasha is easily seduced by Anatole—the older brother of Pierre’s wife Helene—and they make plans to elope. In the end, after losing both Prince Andrei and Anatole, Natasha quickly snags Pierre—“tee hee hee”—when he appears before her again, and then the movie ends. Because Henry Fonda is too handsome to play Pierre, the movie makes me wonder why Natasha would ignore this handsome Pierre when he was around. I hope that the original work actually has a more profound tone of, “Due to her youth, Natasha hasn’t yet realized her own charm, nor understands what is important in life. However, she discovers the meaning of life by overcoming the difficulties of war and helping people across social classes; she grows into a strong and beautiful woman; and she realizes the true nature of Pierre’s heart, which she hadn’t noticed before; thus a love sprouts.” Otherwise, why would Tolstoy’s original work remain as a timeless masterpiece? However, this Hollywood movie is unfortunately very superficial.

Digressing from the main subject, I once heard a male American student express that there are three actresses who symbolize the charms of women. According to him, the three actresses are Grace Kelly (beauty), Marilyn Monroe (sexiness), and Audrey Hepburn (cuteness); the other men listening to this strongly agreed. These three actresses are aptly of the same generation, and Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn are the same age; Marilyn Monroe is three years older than the other two. Other women of the same generation who are also synonymous with “beautiful woman” in those days include Elizabeth Taylor (three years younger than those two), the president’s wife Jacqueline Kennedy (the same age as those two!!!), and gorgeous Sophia Loren (five years younger than those two). If Elizabeth Taylor symbolizes a vulnerable heart, Jacqueline Kennedy power, and Sophia Loren vitality, perhaps these six sparkling women of the same generation express the charm of a woman from different angles.

I heard an interesting story regarding Grace Kelly and Jacqueline Kennedy. It seems that the two happened to attend the same dinner party. Wherever Grace Kelly went, she was sure to attract men, but that night, all the men crowded around Jackie, and no man was interested in Grace. Grace was so distraught that she hid in the bathroom and cried all night long. I even think part of the reason she decided to marry the Prince of Monaco was the memory of this upsetting dinner party.

That story was a digression. All six of these women have passed away except Sophia Loren. Although I digressed from the War and Peace movie, the era of these six women was when Hollywood was robustly thriving after World War II; this movie may be considered a flashy flower that bloomed as a result of those times.

日本語→

Movie: A Farewell to Arms (1957)

Posted on by
Reply

Hollywood made two movie adaptations of Hemingway’s novel published in 1929, which was based on his younger days in Italy as a Red Cross volunteer in World War I in 1917. The first was made in 1932 and starred Gary Cooper; the flashy remake was made in 1957 after the war, during a prosperous time for Hollywood, and Rock Hudson performed the lead role.

Italy formed an alliance with Germany in World War II, but they were a member of the Allies in World War I –along with France, Great Britain, Russia, and the U.S.—and fought against Austria, Germany, and Turkey of the Central Powers. The protagonist Henry, a projection of Hemingway, is a soldier of the U.S. forces who serves as an ambulance driver to transport injured Italian soldiers from the battlefield to the hospital. The German and Austrian armies were dominant militarily, and Italy always felt threatened by the Central Powers’ forces because, while Italy concentrated on establishing a democracy, Germany focused on expanding their military; Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms favorably depicts Italians, who proudly hold onto and protect their republic and democracy. However, over time, Italy kept moving toward fascism, allying with Germany before World War II. Hemingway, who constantly watched Italy, may have later wondered, “Where has Italy gone?” Although Mussolini was extremely popular after World War I, it is said that Hemingway was wary of Mussolini. In this story, the Italian military police suddenly interrogate fellow Italians suspected of being spies, who are one after another shot to death without being allowed a hearing. The protagonist barely escapes alive and becomes a deserter; the interrogation scene symbolizes Italy’s path to World War II.

Let’s return to talking about the 1957 movie remake. Rock Hudson somewhat resembles London Olympics gold medal swimmer Ryan Lochte, and he has a “pretty face,” but is unable to capture Hemingway’s intellect or ruggedness. Jennifer Jones—performing as the nurse who cares for and falls in love with the protagonist when he is injured—looks as if you added the duller halves of Elizabeth Taylor and Audrey Hepburn together; she doesn’t have the alluring eye power of Elizabeth Taylor, and she also doesn’t have the sweet innocence of Audrey Hepburn. Jennifer Jones, if I say it nicely, is too sexy, but if I say it bluntly, doesn’t seem to possess the purity needed for this character. Also, the two people are supposed to be “madly in love” in the movie, but there is no spark at all between them on-screen, so the love between the two during this dangerous wartime does not emotionally move me at all.

In the hospital ward that should be packed full of sick and wounded soldiers, the protagonist is always laying there alone in a big, empty room, which makes me wonder, “What happened to the other sick and wounded soldiers?” The nurse who should be busy helping many patients instead spends all day running around an Italian town searching high and low for American food that the protagonist likes. In the protagonist’s private (so it seems!!) hospital room that nobody disturbs, the two are preoccupied with their love affair, as if the world just exists for the two of them; then the head nurse who notices this orders, “If you are so healthy, return to the battlefield!!!” Although, the head nurse is supposed to be a super-villain who obstructs the two lovers, the two lovers are so self-centered that the head nurse seems like a decent person. This movie ends with the feeling that it doesn’t really matter how the war turns out, since the world conveniently revolves around them.

It is said that Hemingway was disappointed with how each time Hollywood adapted one of his stories into a movie, the political themes in his novels got watered down and they became simple love stories; this movie makes me think that his anger was completely reasonable. The audience of Hollywood movies is not stupid. This glamorous remake had an astonishingly high budget and was filmed on the actual site, but it is said that it was a failure in the box office, and it received very low ratings compared to the 1932 movie, which was nominated in many Academy Award categories. It is said that Jennifer Jones—a big actress in those days—asked her lover, director Charles Vidor, “Can I please star in another A Farewell to Arms?” I don’t know whether or not Hemingway watched this movie, or what he thought if he did watch it, but this movie makes me feel sorry for him.

日本語→

Movie: J. Edgar (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movie: The Third Man (1949)

Posted on by
Reply

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→