Category Archives: USA

Movie: High Noon (1952)

Posted on by
Reply

With the incredible lineup of being produced by Stanley Kramer—the director of Judgment at Nuremberg; being directed by Fred Zinnemann—who directed The Day of the Jackal; and starring Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly, High Noon may not fit in a strict sense within the genres of a Western or a shoot-out. The sheriff who appears here is not an invincible hero, but rather a middle-aged man trying—with his marriage as a turning point—to wash his hands of the life of earning money with a gun. The reason why he is drawn into a shoot-out is that, just when the wedding ceremony is held and he plans to depart to a town to the east, he receives news that a criminal who he had arrested in his former days was released, and this criminal wants to “settle the score” with the men who sent him to prison—the sheriff, the town’s courtroom judge, and probably others; he and his gang will be arriving at the town’s station at noon to kill.

Of course, the sheriff could have just continued leaving for the east, but he chooses to come back to town to face the criminal and his three companions in a showdown. His wife, whose father and older brother were killed, had converted to being a Quaker who absolutely rejects violence, and she tells her husband that she will leave for the east by herself if he chooses to fight. Since the sheriff’s replacement hasn’t arrive at the town yet, the sheriff asks the townspeople to fight with him, but the vice-sheriff, a former sheriff, the town mayor, and the townspeople all hesitate and don’t support him. The judge flees, saying, “I can probably find work somewhere else.” Although the sheriff kept the town peaceful, and people praised him as being the “best sheriff,” now the townspeople complain, “A certain degree of crime should be allowed in order to bring money into town. The sheriff completely wiped out crime.” Faced with this criticism, including, “Why did the sheriff come back to town? He should’ve just kept going east,” the sheriff is left to face the four alone in a showdown; he writes his will as he waits for the gang to arrive on the noon train, and for his lonely fight to begin.

This movie is 85 minutes long, while the movie was made to start around 10:40 a.m.; in other words, the story progresses in real-time. The shoot-out scene is just in the last five minutes, and it is not flashy. Most of the movie is the sheriff talking with the townspeople. The sheriff is played by middle-aged Gary Cooper, who was past his peak as an actor, and it is quite sad watching the long shot of his figure walking weakly alone down an empty street.

This movie was made in 1952, which was in the height of the Red Scare in the United States. Senator Joseph McCarthy of the right-wing Republican Party played a central role in the Red Scare—which was the political activity to remove people thought to be communists or communist party sympathizers—and examples of politicians who cooperated with McCarthy include Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Hollywood, which was considered to have many people with left-wing ideology, became one of the targets. Carl Foreman, who wrote the screenplay for the High Noon, was also thought to be communist, and was interrogated by the House Un-American Activities Committee. He acknowledged that he had joined the Communist Party briefly before the war, but asserted that he no longer had any connection to it. His biggest fear in the interrogation was that he’d be forced to betray Communist Party sympathizers. Carl Foreman, who refused to be an informant, felt he was in danger and fled to Great Britain. Charlie Chaplin, another cineaste, was expelled from the U.S., also due to the Red Scare prosecution.

Carl Foreman later started working for renowned British director David Lean, and won Best Adapted Screenplay at the 30th Academy Awards for The Bridge on the River Kwai directed by David Lean; however, Foreman’s name was not officially recognized due to the Red Scare at the time, and David Lean received the Best Adapted Screenplay award. Carl Foreman’s name was acknowledged and given credit for the first time after he died, and he was finally awarded the Oscar posthumously.

A similar thing happened to Dalton Trumbo, the screenwriter of Roman Holiday. Because Dalton Trumbo was expelled due to the Red Scare, he borrowed the name of his friend Ian McLellan Hunter for the job, and he wrote the screenplay for Roman Holiday under the name Hunter. This movie was a big success, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences—unaware of the circumstances—awarded Hunter the Academy Award for Best Story. It was not until the 1990s that the Academy decided to correct their errors during the Cold War due to things such as the Red Scare. Dalton Trumbo was one of the people who had his honor restored. Trumbo had already died in 1976, but the Academy decided to give Trumbo an Academy Award in 1993. However, since Hunter’s son refused to hand over the Oscar that was given to his father Hunter, the Oscar that Trumbo’s widow received was a different one made at a separate occasion. Many terrible things happened during the Cold War, but things were finally reevaluated when the Democratic Party, after 12 years, at last took control of the administration with President Clinton. It may be said that America was a very different nation before and after Clinton. Times had changed.

The Red Scare created lots of fear in Hollywood, and within this, there were many people who agreed to a plea bargain to inform on others for the security of their own work. We now know that Elia Kazan, Gary Cooper, and Walt Disney were examples of these people.

Even though High Noon is split between positive and negative opinions (“It is a Western with profound criticism that includes insights on human psychology,” versus “This is a movie made by cowardly traitors who do not believe in the righteousness of Americans.”), it was the front-runner for the Academy Award for Best Picture; however, it ended up losing to The Greatest Show on Earth. It is said that the Academy members hesitated to vote for director Fred Zinnemann and screenwriter Carl Foreman—both known to be liberal—at the height of the Red Scare. The movie has a gloomy feeling of the era of the Red Scare, but it would be an overstatement to say that the movie was a criticism of McCarthyism. It was not until the late 1950s that the fear of communism started to fade, and the 1970s that people were able to express their rejection of the Red Scare through art; however, victims had to wait until the 1990s to have their honor publicly restored.

日本語→

Movie: The Sun Also Rises (1957)

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movie: The Last Days (1998)

Posted on by
4

The Last Days is one of the documentaries of the testimonies of Holocaust survivors that was made with the financial support of a Shoah foundation; it features the testimonies of five Hungarian Jews who returned from the Holocaust alive. Tom Lantos, one of the five witnesses, later was elected as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

This Shoah foundation was founded by Steven Spielberg—who won an Academy Award for Schindler’s List—with the objective to record the testimonies of what happened to Holocaust survivors and pass on these records to the next generation. “Shoah” is the Hebrew word for “Holocaust.” Steven Spielberg’s ancestors seem to have lived in Austria around the 17th century, but he considers his family to be Ukrainian Jews. His whole family had immigrated to America early on, untouched by the Holocaust. Also, since his family lived in rural areas in Ohio and Arizona, and not in New York City where there is a large Jewish population, it seems like he didn’t have much of a connection to the Jewish community in America. However, because Schindler’s List was a success, the Holocaust has become one of his life’s works. In addition to being interested in recording the persecution of Jews, he also seems to be deeply interested in depicting the hardships of gay people as well as Africans brought to America as slaves.

Because Holocaust survivors have already become very old, their testimonies should be retained in some form or another. Spielberg’s mission is to show the truth about the Holocaust to the many people who might say, “I didn’t hear about the Holocaust during the war,” or, “The Holocaust isn’t a historical fact.” When the movie shows the photographs of Jews who had wasted away to skin and bones in the concentration camps, and photos of the remains of the very large concentration camps, you feel a realness, different than you would in a dramatized movie. For a facility that large, there must’ve been someone who designed it, people who built it, someone who managed it, and moreover there must have been a budget for it, since no project can happen without a budget.

This documentary depicts the reality of the Holocaust from the point of view of five people, but there is no explanation of why such a large-scale manhunt occurred in Europe during World War II. This is a mystery that they don’t understand either. These five people—who were surrounded by non-Jewish neighbors and friends, and brought up with the love of socially successful parents—believed that the increasingly harsh anti-Semitism legal regulations were temporary and due to the urgency of wartime, and that they could return to their regular happy life when the war ended. The Czech movie Protektor and the Polish movie In Darkness depict Jewish women who, even though others were risking their lives to shelter them, voluntarily enter Nazi concentration camps, angrily declaring something like, “I’m through with this foul and inconvenient life!!” It seems that not all, but many Jews in Europe were rich, and a woman raised in such a family is used to getting everything she wants. Perhaps these women couldn’t predict what a concentration camp would be like, and thought that it would be a safe place where they would be surrounded by fellow Jews, be able to breathe fresh air, and be more comfortable. Most Hungarian Jews thought that concentration camps were where people were forced to work, and accepted being sent to a labor camp because all their fellow Hungarians were struggling in this wartime. However, nobody would have imagined that they would be put on a train used for transporting cattle for days without bathrooms and sent to Auschwitz, and that the government of their own home country that they loved would decree it.

Compared to Hungary, Nazi-occupied Poland, Czech Republic, and France had Jews sent to concentration camps such as Auschwitz relatively early on in World War II; the Jew hunting started late in Hungary, not until 1944 when Germany’s defeat became certain. Hungary was Germany’s ally, so it was a relatively safe place for Jews. As in Divided We Fall, there were people whose business was helping Jews from the Czech Republic and Poland who had money to escape to Hungary. Even if a Jew who barely escaped alive explains what happened at a Nazi concentration camp in Poland, a Hungarian Jew may have been dubious that the German government could ever do that. They were different from Jews from Poland, the Czech Republic, or the Soviet Union, and believed they were protected by the Hungarian government.

However, anti-Semitic feelings among Hungarians seemed to gradually strengthen from 1920 through the 30s. Although Hungarian Jews made up only 5% of the entire population, most of them were in the wealthiest class. In 1921, 88% of the members of the Budapest Stock Exchange and 91% of foreign exchange brokers were Jews. It is said that Jews owned between 50 and 90% of Hungarian industry. Young Jews made up 25% of the Hungarian university students, while 43% of the students at the elite Budapest University of Technology were young Jews. It is said that in Hungary, 60% of the doctors, 51% of the lawyers, 39% of the private industry engineers and chemists, and 29% of the magazine editors were Jewish. I wonder if the Hungarian government worked with the Nazis as an outlet for the dissatisfied and struggling lower class by targeting their feelings of hatred toward the elite, affluent minority Jews.

Tom Lantos, who later became a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, escaped immediately from the concentration camp and took refuge in the hideout of Raoul Gustaf Wallenberg; from there, he performed underground anti-Nazi activities. Wallenberg was a Swedish diplomat, and he used his privileges as a diplomat to shelter escaped Jews in his office. According to some, 100,000 Jews were rescued by his efforts. However, after the retreat of Germany, Wallenberg went missing after visiting an office of the occupying Soviet Army to talk about the postwar security of Jews. It is said that he rescued Jews no matter the danger during the war, and he received the award “Righteous Among the Nations” from the Israeli government’s Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial. Some say that Wallenberg was regarded as a U.S. spy and was immediately arrested when he went to talk to the Soviet Army, and he died soon after at a Bolshevik concentration camp. Since Gorbachev took over power, such records are gradually becoming public.

For a man helping Jews in German-occupied Poland, not only he, but his whole family and at times neighbors all faced the death penalty, yet many Poles chose to help Jews regardless of the danger. 6,454 Polish people have won the “Righteous Among the Nations” award. Chiune Sugihara, a diplomat from Japan, is the sole winner of this prize from Japan.

日本語→

Movie: Tea with Mussolini (1999)

Posted on by
Reply

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: Missing (1982)

Posted on by
1

This movie depicts the pursuit for the whereabouts of the journalist Charles Horman by his wife and father after his disappearance during the chaos that followed the Chilean military coup d’état in 1973; they search for several days in the capital Santiago before arriving at the conclusion that Charles may have been executed because he knew of the secret involvement of the CIA with the coup d’état.

Charles Horman is a real person, and since he was born in 1942, he is the same generation as President Clinton and President Bush (the son), who were born in 1946. This generation is known as America’s baby boomers, and this generation was greatly influenced by the anti- Vietnam War movement and the hippie movement. In this movie, Charles Horman is depicted as a strongly curious, but slightly rash author of juvenile literature, but in reality, Charles Horman was a writer who was properly trained in journalism after graduating from Harvard. This movie is based off of Thomas Hauser’s book that was published in 1978, which investigated Charles Horman’s death.

During the American-Soviet opposition in the global Cold War, social unrest continued for a long time in Chile, where the left-wing, Popular Front supporters continued to oppose the traditional, conservative class and the right wing of military authorities. Commander-in-Chief René Schneider was among the group of military authorities of the Chilean army that advocated for a congress system and democracy, but in 1970, Schneider was assassinated by an anti-Schneider faction among military authorities. Due to his assassination, anger toward the nation’s military authorities erupted, so swing voters voted left; thus Salvador Allende of the Popular Front was elected as president, and, for the first time in the history of Chile, a socialist administration from a free election was established.

America viewed the Socialist Party administration as a major threat, and the CIA also revealed their intention to topple the Allende administration; therefore, Western countries including America implemented an economic blockade, and assisted anti-government strikes by the anticommunist, rich class within Chile. Also, due to the abrupt farmland reform and nationalization policies of the Allende administration, inflation increased, and there was societal chaos and a shortage of goods. However, the Allende administration succeeded in achieving unity with the people by explaining that this chaos was a scheme of the opposing faction, and in the 1973 general election, the People’s Unity coalition led by Allende gained even more votes.

On September 11, 1973, Commander-in-Chief Augusto Pinochet led armed forces and the police in an attack on the President’s official residence. President Allende—with shots being fired between the coup d’état forces and the President’s guards—committed suicide after giving one final speech on the radio. This was the 1973 Chilean coup d’état. As a result of the Chilean coup d’état, the coup’s leader, Commander-in-Chief Pinochet, assumed office as President, and Chile fell back into being a military dictatorship led by President Pinochet. Afterwards, in the 16 long years under this military regime, between thousands to tens of thousands of anti-establishment citizens were imprisoned and executed.

When the 1973 coup d’état occurred, Charles Horman happened to be staying at a beautiful health resort in Viña del Mar, but there actually was a secret planning for the coup d’état happening there. It is not known whether Charles Horman approached these people or what he learned in Viña del Mar, but on September 17, he was suddenly arrested by Chilean military authorities of the coup d’état faction, and taken away to the capital Santiago’s national stadium. After the coup d’état, the stadium was temporarily used as a prison. Story has it that he was tortured and executed there. The claim of the movie is that there must have been covert approval from the CIA to execute Horman as a criminal who opposed the coup d’état, even though he was American. When Chilean authorities claimed that his body was buried in the wall of the stadium, Horman’s family demanded that his body be handed over. It is said that the actual delivery of his body to his wife in America took six months; by that time, the body had decomposed so intensely that it was impossible to judge whether it was truly him. Horman’s wife later requested a DNA test, and learned that it was not Horman’s body.

The White House supported Commander-in-Chief Pinochet as a sort of fortress to protect South America from the threat of socialism; but when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Cold War ended, America determined there was no longer a reason to support a dictatorship that suppressed human rights, and they finally changed directions and withdrew support for Commander-in-Chief Pinochet in 1990.

Charles Horman’s kidnapping and execution happened when Nixon was President. Afterwards, the White House consistently denied the CIA’s involvement in the Chilean coup d’état, but the Clinton administration investigated classified official archives; in 1999, the administration acknowledged for the first time the CIA’s involvement in the Chilean coup d’état, and publicized the document of evidence. Regarding Charles Horman’s death, government officials under the Clinton administration stated, “It is very regrettable,” and suggested there was the possibility that, even though the American embassy in Chile actually made every possible effort to protect American citizens in the chaos after the coup d’état, those frantic great efforts did not reach Horman.

Charles Horman’s widow, Joyce Horman, sued Augusto Pinochet in a Chilean courtroom in 2001 for the murder of her husband. In the trial investigation process, it was revealed that Charles Horman was investigating the democratic system in Chile, and investigating the life of René Schneider—who was assassinated by opposing military authorities—and there was a possibility suggested of Horman being hated and murdered by those in Augusto Pinochet’s faction, who assassinated René Schneider. In 2011, the Chilean government made the judicial decision of charging Ray Davis, a retired military officer, for the murder of Charles Horman.

日本語→

Movie: Fiddler on the Roof (1971)

Posted on by
Reply

Jewish author Sholem Aleichem was born in 1859 in Ukraine—which was a territory of the Russian Empire in those days—and wrote the short novel Tevye the Dairyman in 1894; in 1961, the musical Fiddler on the Roof based on his stories was performed on Broadway, and it became a big hit. In the 1971 film adaptation of this musical, Norman Jewison was the director and producer, and screenwriter Joseph Stein was in charge of the screenplay. It depicts the dairyman Tevye living in a village with his five daughters, the marriage of the older three daughters, and the family being chased from their hometown and immigrating to America due to persecution by the Russian Empire.

This movie has two major themes. First, as with the original novel, there is the change of times where a Jewish family that keeps tradition and lives peacefully in the community is forced to cope with changes when the daughters want to choose their marriage partners. When director Norman Jewison was later asked in an interview about the audience’s reaction to the movie (the interviewer had New York’s reaction in mind when they asked the question), he spoke of his experience in Japan. He said the reaction of the Japanese audience was frequently, “If you change the faces and remove the western clothes, what this movie depicts is simply modern Japan,” and regarding this, he said, “The Japanese audience was wonderful and had a true understanding of this movie; I think they deeply related to this movie.” He visited Japan in 1971, and even 20 years later, his favorable impression of the reaction by the Japanese audience still remains, and he talks about this favorable impression without being prompted.

I think the generation gap depicted in this movie was a big problem for Japan in the 1960s and 70s. Those days were a time of political change worldwide. However, the idea of, “marrying someone nearby with whom you were set up by a matchmaker”—which was until then the absolute marriage principle in Japan—started crumbling in the 70s. Up until then, matching pedigrees was the main thing that was considered for a spouse, but in times of rapid economic growth, “financial strength” began to be a new factor; additionally, a woman wished to marry a man she loved. In short, the parents may be at a loss if the three factors—pedigree, financial strength, and love—contradict; in regards to financial strength, “academic background” and “occupation” have to be considered, and in regards to love, “appearance” and “personality” come into play. Thus, parents no longer had a clear standard for what out of these factors was most important. Which out of, “very respectable education, but low income,” and “not a great academic background, but fairly rich person” to choose? Or which has more value between, “a new rich family without a good pedigree” and, “a child from a declined respectable family”? Choosing this in one situation and that in a different situation is the same thing that the father Tevye does in the movie. In the end, the eldest daughter marries the poor, young man whom she loves over the “the aged, rich man who worked as a butcher, a profession considered to be lowly,” that the matchmaker was pushing for. The second daughter yearns for the son of the clergyman—who has the top social status in the village—but in the end she falls in love with her tutor who educates her; when he gets deported to Siberia for participating in the revolutionary movement, she decides to follow him to Siberia. The third daughter elopes with a man who is not Jewish, and they get married in a Greek Orthodox Church. While Tevye can one way or another forgive the eldest and second daughters for their actions, he cannot forgive the third daughter for her marriage. In Japan, the confusing marriage conditions seem to be changing today into something simpler: “three highs” (high height, high education, and high income); but it wasn’t so simple in the social transition period 50 years ago. Also, in modern times, “matchmakers” have died out, and some in the younger generation may not know of them at all.

The other theme, which is added to both the movie and musical adaptations, is the persecution of Jews that happened in the last years of the Russian Empire. The persecution of Jews is called “pogrom” in Russian. The culprits of the pogrom cannot be pinpointed, but when dissatisfied people rioted and mutinied, Jews were at times collaterally attacked; also, when Alexander II was assassinated in 1881, an anti-Semitic pogrom occurred in Russia. Even in Battleship Potemkin, we can see the deep-rooted anti-Semitism in those days. Since the government of the Russian Empire suggested the expulsion of Jews as a solution to social dissatisfaction, the pogrom was fostered and intensified from 1903 to 1906, and Jews continued to seek refuge abroad. The author of the original story, Sholem Aleichem, also fled to America in 1905. Movie director Steven Spielberg’s ancestors were also Ukrainian Jews, but they immigrated to America before World War I started. Sholem Aleichem and Steven Spielberg’s ancestors probably immigrated to America around the same time for the same reason.

It is said that the title change from Tevye the Dairyman to the charming title Fiddler on the Roof when the story was adapted into a musical was inspired by a painting by the Jewish artist Chagall. When Roman Emperor Nero massacred Jews in the Roman Empire, among the people running about trying to escape, it is said that there was a man who played the violin on a roof; the title was inspired by Chagall’s depiction of this historical incident. Marc Chagall was born in Belarus, a Russian territory at the time (currently the northern neighbor of Ukraine), in 1887. He moved to France in 1922, but in 1941, he immigrated to America to avoid persecution by the Nazis. In the end, he returned to France after World War II, and he lived there as a Frenchman for the rest of his life. When Tevye the Dairyman was changed to Fiddler on the Roof, an additional societal element was added to the original.

Fiddler_chagallThe charm of this movie is naturally the beautiful music (such as the famous song, “Sunrise, Sunset”), as well as the cinematography that wonderfully recreates the Jewish community living in Russia in those times. It is said that the movie company that financed this movie requested it to be shot in America, but Norman Jewison chose to shoot in Yugoslavia, despite the strict budget, because it still had the atmosphere of those times. However, the greatest appeal is the way Tevye lives: despite the different value systems spreading due to the changing world situation, he keeps his traditional values while accepting changes. He lives in a community that helps each other, and is determined to protect his family—as a father and as a patriarch—against whatever happens. People of different religions were able to live peacefully together as a community in this area for hundreds of years, so the tradition of helping each other was developed based on a sense of security and then passed on. Unfortunately, the times that Tevye lived in were the times when this tradition was being destroyed by political changes. It is sad that this rich tradition in the hearts of good people was trampled in those times.

日本語→

Movie: Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

Posted on by
Reply

The Nuremberg Trials are a historical fact. However, this movie is a work of fiction that instead captures the feel of history by being based on actual facts; it can be said that it aims to depict the world after World War II from the point of view of the American conscience during the Cold War.

After the end of World War II, military leaders from the victorious nations—U.S.A., Britain, France, and Russia—gathered in Nuremberg in order to judge German war criminals. In the first half of the trial that began in 1945, the highest German leaders that led the war were one-sidedly judged and sentenced severely, but this movie is set in 1948, when the global situation surrounding the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials had subtly changed. For the U.S., Britain, and France, the threat was no longer Germany, but rather the Soviet Union. The Soviet Army occupied the eastern part of Germany, and it seemed to have its eyes set on occupying all of Germany. The U.S., Britain, and France concluded that, if the Soviet Union took control of Germany, all of Europe would bit by bit be taken over by communism; therefore, the interest of the U.S., Britain, and France became to protect Germany from the Soviet Union and the spread of communism, rather than punishing Germans.

The movie begins with a U.S. district court judge, Haywood (Spencer Tracy), being appointed as the Chief Trial Judge for one of the cases in the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, and thus him going to Nuremberg. The reason he is appointed is that this case is judging some of Germany’s highest-class lawyers; in particular, since one of the defendants is Dr. Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster)—who is internationally known and acted as the Minister of Justice at the time of the Nazi’s defeat—no one wants to be the judge of the trial, so the duty is imposed on nameless, honest Judge Haywood.

Judge Haywood and the American officers staying in Nuremberg are impressed by the German traditions and the depth of the culture. After the war, even though they are poor, people drink delicious beer, enjoy a beautiful chorus in a bar, and appreciate piano and opera musical performances. People are kind, as if everyone is trying to prove that, “Germans are not beasts, like the world believes.” The officers, who came here as part of a victorious nation, make fun of themselves with, “We are like those Boy Scouts that walk around a beautiful palace with muddy shoes.” If there hadn’t been a war, I think Americans would have aspired for German culture. Judge Haywood, who is among these Americans, and prosecutor Colonel Lawson (Richard Widmark) are implicitly pressured from higher powers to quickly complete the trial, and to not give a severe sentence in order to win over Germany’s support.

The defendants’ lawyer Rolfe (Maximilian Schell, who won the Academy Award for Best Actor with this movie) refutes the claims presented by Colonel Lawson, one after another, with sharp logic. Because Colonel Lawson has personal experience liberating a Nazi concentration camp, he wants to make sure the accused lawyers, who approved the documents to have Jews rounded up, are held fully accountable. Enraged, Rolfe refutes with, “What about the war responsibility of the Soviet Union that had the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression treaty with Germany, and illegally occupied and massacred under this treaty? What of the war responsibility for Great Britain’s Churchill, who agreed with Hitler in order to hold back communism?” With this, he voices the bitterness of Germans who silently endured the tyranny of the victorious nations in the Nuremberg Trials.

The greatest focus of the trial is whether Dr. Janning committed crimes under the Nuremberg Laws. The Nuremberg Laws were laws made by the Nazis, and defined relations between Jews and Germans as a crime. As a judge, Dr. Janning sentenced an old Jewish man to death on the charges of association with a young German girl Irene Hoffman (Judy Garland), and sentenced Irene to penal servitude for perjury when she denied the charges against the old man.

Judge Haywood, contrary to everyone’s prediction, passed a guilty verdict for all of the defendants, and he sentenced them all to life imprisonment. The basis of his sentence is that the prosecution proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the crimes were truly committed, and that, although the defendants did not commit the crimes directly, the crimes could not have occurred without the order of execution documents with the defendants’ names; thus, they are legal accomplices. Against Chief Judge Haywood’s judicial decision, the American judge serving as the trial’s deputy agrees with lawyer Rolfe’s argument, and refutes that the defendants were just abiding by the Nuremberg Laws—which were Germany’s national laws—and it would have been treason against the nation for the defendants to not abide by these laws.

There is also a pattern of conflicting interpretations between common law—preferred by Britain and America—and statutory law—preferred by Germany and France. Because Judge Haywood studied law in America that uses common law, he arrives at the guilty verdict based on the principles of case law that say precedent cases are the primary source of law for judgment, and that if there are previous similar trials, current verdicts are bound by precedent verdicts. Of course, since there is statutory law in Britain and America, when there is statutory law in the domain to judge, the stipulation is that statutory law takes preference over common law. Statutory laws have clear standards, and there are laws that have been used as the standards for a long period of time, such as the Napoleonic Code; however, what about the Nuremberg Laws? I think that the Nuremberg Laws suggest that a crazy leader can make crazy statutory laws. One can make a new law in America. However, that law must be approved by the majority in Congress, and it can be rejected by the Department of Justice if it opposes the Constitution.

Judge Haywood’s conviction disappoints both Germans and Americans. People believed that the defendants were only obeying the Nuremberg Laws, and it is the laws themselves that should be blamed. Also, there is disappointment because other trials happening around the same time generally found the defendants to be not guilty, and even if the defendants were found guilty, the sentence was very light. When Rolfe meets Judge Haywood face-to-face, he remarks, “In five years, the men you sentenced to life imprisonment will be free. In the near future, Americans may be placed in the situation where they are tried by the Soviet Army for injustice, so be warned,” and then leaves. Judge Haywood, when he meets with Dr. Janning in private upon Janning’s request, states, “You are guilty. The reason why is that you had already decided guilty before facing Irene Hoffman in court.” Also I think that, since Judge Haywood’s judicial decision becomes the precedent for future cases, he wanted to avoid his verdict from being cited to find future individuals who signed the death penalty for others as not guilty, as it could be if Judge Haywood had given an acquittal.

Marlene Dietrich performs as the widow of a general who was executed in the Nuremberg Trials. Her husband was found guilty in the Nuremberg Trials in what was like a lynching by the victorious nations immediately after the war, but the movie suggests the possibility that he may have been found innocent in a trial performed in1948. The widow tries to convey the spirits of German people to Judge Haywood, who she befriends, by telling him that both she and her husband hated Hitler, her husband had fought in order to protect the people of Germany, and most German people did not know of what the Nazis were doing.

It is said that Marlene Dietrich’s life was the inspiration for the character of the general’s wife. After Marlene, a German woman, came to America, she and Jewish director Sternberg became a top Hollywood combo. Adolf Hitler liked Marlene and requested that she return to Germany, but Marlene who hated the Nazis refused, and in 1939, she acquired American citizenship; because of this, the screening of Dietrich’s movies was prohibited in Germany. During World War II, she repeatedly visited the American soldier frontline in order to give moral support.

Actress Setsuko Hara, who visited America after the war, said the following when she was introduced to Marlene Dietrich. “She looked so beautiful in her movies, but when I actually met Dietrich, she was a candid and casual person; her face was plain, and I didn’t feel that bewitching beauty seen in her movies. I didn’t get the impression of a beautiful person at all…”

I wonder if Marlene Dietrich’s beauty comes from her outstanding professionalism and determination in life. When Dietrich performs in this movie as the young and beautiful widow, she is already 60 years old. Of course Setsuko Hara suffered immense hardships during the war (like other Japanese people), but her words seem to not have much thought for how much Marlene Dietrich had to overcome.

日本語→

Movie: Lincoln (2012)

Posted on by
Reply

Lincoln was born in 1809; in 1861, he was elected as the 16th president of America and was re-elected in 1864. The Civil War started immediately after his inauguration in 1861 and his famous Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves happened in 1862. In 1865, Lincoln led the North to victory. On April 15, 1865, Lincoln was assassinated and left the world at the age of 56.

Director Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln depicts Lincoln’s tumultuous life up until his final moments in April, focusing on the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution that abolished slavery. The movie has few war scenes and focuses on the discussion of the Constitution and the opposition to slavery. Spielberg presents a story that an average American is likely to understand, but a Japanese person may have difficulty in understanding the time period here without the knowledge of American history and the U.S. Constitution. It might be hard to understand the difference between the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was not the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 but rather the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 that truly liberated a slave. I think this is why Spielberg focuses on the approval of the Thirteenth Amendment in his film Lincoln.

The U.S. Constitution can be modified through only two methods. The first method is shown in the movie where the Senate and House of Representatives of the Congress must both get two-thirds to vote in favor; then within a year, three-quarters of the states must ratify in order for the amendment to be adopted into the Constitution. Once the amendment is adopted, it is binding to all states. The Thirteenth Amendment was already approved by the Senate in April of 1864. The movie depicts the dramatic two-vote margin when the amendment was passed in the House of Representatives on January 31, 1865. After the amendment had finally passed Congress, the ratification was easy. As the Land of Lincoln, Illinois was the first to ratify in support of the amendment the next day; many states followed suit and the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted into the Constitution. The president is not supposed to be involved in this amendment process, but President Lincoln believed in the Thirteenth Amendment from the bottom of his heart and did what he could to make it happen. The biggest obstacle in the process was to get the House of Representatives to approve. Therefore, Spielberg focused on the chronicle of events with the House of Representatives in Lincoln.

So then what is the difference between the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 and passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865?

The United States had gained its independence formally in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris, but by the mid nineteenth century, there was already serious antagonism between the North and South on the direction of the country. Some scholars say that the Civil War originated from an economic conflict between the North and the South; the South was reliant on the large labor force provided by slaves for their plantations, while the North wanted free labor for industrial factories. Others think that the North believed slavery to be inhumane and wished to abolish slavery, as Europe had already. However, I believe the fundamental cause of the conflict was the tension between federal and centralized government. Another conflict was whether or not slavery was a part of the founding principles of America. Lincoln clearly says in the movie that America will never be a modern nation as long as there is slavery in America, and that slavery opposes the fundamental truth set by our Founding Fathers that all men are equal. Lincoln was running as the candidate for the Republican Party, which opposed slavery. When Lincoln was elected as President, the South (South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) withdrew from the U.S. and tensions escalated into the Civil War.

A question brought up by the Civil War was how to handle the slaves that the Union Army captured from the Confederates. Lincoln tried to solve the problem by passing a law to liberate slaves who were owned by the enemy Confederate Army. This was the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862.

A big problem still remained in this Proclamation. If either the Confederate Army won the Civil War or the Union Army did not occupy the state, slavery would continue in the South. Also, the Proclamation did not apply to the states allied to the North such as Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri, even though slavery was legal in these states. Furthermore, the 48 counties that left Virginia to become West Virginia were not targeted. (However, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and later West Virginia abolished slavery on their own volition.) Since the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862 only regarded wartime handling of enemy property, regardless of the outcome—even if the North won—it was possible slavery could still persist.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a temporary wartime countermeasure to free the slaves in the states of the Confederate Army. In contrast, the change to the U.S. Constitution with the addition of the Thirteenth Amendment made the change permanent across the whole United States. Even Lincoln was not supportive of declaring the full abolition of slavery initially. As mentioned before, there were states that supported the Union Army that still had slaves. These states fought against the Confederate Army not to fight slavery but rather to unite the nation together again as the United States. Therefore, if it was declared that they were fighting for the complete abolition of slavery, some states would’ve rescinded their alliance with the North. If that happened, the South would’ve gained the upper hand over the North in the war. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation allowed former slaves freed from the South to join the Union Army, which provided their army with 200,000 new African-American soldiers.

Some would say that Lincoln actually opposed the abolition of slavery, but I still believe that Lincoln fixed his eyes on the ultimate goal and took steps and the right method most appropriate for the time. His ultimate goal was to get rid of slavery to unify the North and South again in America. Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln was able to capture this very well. By choosing to focus on the story of getting the House of Representatives to approve of the addition of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Spielberg shows Lincoln to be an excellent politician with a clear goal and realistic, steady steps. Simultaneously, Lincoln is talkative and has a gentle humor and we find him very likable and like a trusted friend. Steven Spielberg was able to find just the right actor to capture this character, and his great performance as Lincoln shines.

日本語→

Movie: My Week with Marilyn (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

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: Invictus (2009)

Posted on by
Reply

In 1994, the Republic of South Africa abolished the apartheid that had continued for many years and Nelson Mandela was elected as president in a general election of all races. The Caucasian bureaucrats that held the major positions of the government until then feared that Mandela would seek retribution on their positions and some began to pack their belongings in anticipation of it. In response to this, Mandela gathered the staff members on his first day in governmental office and appealed to them, “You are free to resign, but I wish to cooperate in order to make a new South Africa.” He chastised the black men of his staff who spoke of “retribution” and he persuaded them that he could not build a new nation without cooperation of all races. His own team of bodyguards became a mixed team of black and white men.

Mandela zeroed in on how sports are the best way to connect to the heart of the people and used the Rugby World Cup to be held in the Republic of South Africa in 1995 as means to unify the hearts of the nation. South Africa’s rugby team—the Springboks—were in a slump in those days, but the Springboks showed an unexpected performance in that Rugby World Cup and, in the end, managed to advance to the finals. The movie ends with the scene where the Republic of South Africa defeats top-seeded New Zealand and everyone in the audience, regardless of race, embraces each other.

I hardly knew about President Mandela, but watching this movie, I was impressed with how wonderful a politician he was. His political decisions were extremely pragmatic such as the prohibition of retribution and the utilization of sports; because he knew these strategies were politically effective, he executed them with no hesitation. However, beyond being politically savvy, he has a strength backed by idealism and humanitarianism. He is an excellent coach in politics and I think the world would be a more peaceful place if all countries had a leader like Mandela.

We may understand the connection of sports and patriotism by watching the Olympics. Even if there is criticism that people will do whatever it takes to win—bribe the Olympics, drug use, etc.—without the Olympics, people wouldn’t know what it is like to compete representing their country or what humans are capable of. Without the Olympics, there would be fewer people who are interested in countries like Jamaica and Grenada. It is wonderful that Mandela used a team sports game to unify the nation. Compared to figure skating and gymnastics, a game has a clear and objective winner. However, unlike individual sports like swimming and track-and-field where the winner becomes a hero, all the team members become heroes. In order to win, you need teamwork.

Since Nelson Mandela formally expressed that Morgan Freeman perform as him if his autobiography was adapted to a movie, the friendship between the two has deepened. When Morgan Freeman was selected as the lead actor of this movie, Freeman sent the screenplay to Clint Eastwood—whom he respected having worked together in three previous movies—and requested that he direct the movie. This movie is a product of teamwork. This movie gives the impression that all the people involved in making this movie must have enjoyed their experience.

日本語→