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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movie: Grbavica – Land of My Dreams (2006)

Posted on by
Reply

While many war movies depict the soldiers who fought, people who died, and hard-fought victories, this movie depicts those who survived the Bosnian War and the children who were born during it.

During the Bosnian War—through events such as the Srebrenica massacre that occurred in 1995—the Serb army carried out a strategic “ethnic cleansing” where Bosnian Muslim men were killed and women were raped and forced to bear children. The original title “Grbavica” refers to the district in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in which the ethnic cleansing occurred.

Esma, a single mother, lives in this district with her only daughter Sara, who is 12 years old. Sara’s grade is going on a field trip, and when the teacher tells the kids that those who lost their fathers in the war get to go free of charge and those whose fathers were injured have their fee reduced, the eyes light up in the kids who have such fathers. Because Sara was told by her mother that her father died honorably in battle, she requests her father’s death certificate in order to go on the trip for free, but Esma makes up a variety of excuses and doesn’t show her the death certificate. Esma barely makes ends meet with compensation money and sewing, but also adds on a night shift as a waitress at a nightclub to earn money for Sara’s trip fees.

A man working as a bouncer and driver at this nightclub remembers Esma from when they had met while he was searching for the corpse of his father at a war morgue. Esma had also been looking for the corpse of her father there in the morgue. The man grows to like Esma. When Esma reluctantly accepts an invitation to go on a date, she finds out that this man is educated, studied economics in college, and still has a desire to study. However, he mutters that he would not be able to handle the rigorous college life anymore because he currently is living without passion and discipline; and besides there aren’t good jobs in the current situation of society, even if one graduates from college. As for Esma, before the war started, she was a medical student and was working hard to become a doctor. If not for the war, these two would’ve met as elite, possibly as a doctor and a government official, and the two of them could have built a happy home.

Sara, at the height of a rebellious age, cruelly fights against her mother who does not talk about the father. She says to her mom, “You’ll leave me,” and also, “Mom, promise me you won’t get married.” After all, though, she is an ordinary girl, delights in playing with friends, and becomes close with and tenderly cares for another boy who has no father and is living more nihilistically than herself. After Esma manages to pay the cost of the school trip with a loan, Sara questions her intensely about where her father’s death certificate is.

One day, the bouncer comes to visit Esma. Since he gained permission, he plans to immigrate to Austria. At that time, Esma’s response was not, “Are you leaving me?” or not, “I wish you happiness,” but rather, “And who will identify your father’s body if you leave?” Sara, frustrated that her mother just sadly lets this man leave, points the handgun she borrowed from her friend and threatens Esma, “Tell me about my father!” Parting with this man, her difficult relationship with Sara, economic struggles, and an unforgettable past all combine at this moment for Esma and explode; Esma then tells Sara that she is a child born from the rape by an enemy soldier.

Innumerable cruel things occurred during the Bosnian War. How does one convey these to the world and to the next generation? If someone just presents cruel events one after another, it would be a documentary. If someone presents who the bad guy is, who the victim is, and what to do to bring them to justice, it would be propaganda. However, in order to make a good movie as a form of art, it must have hope in it. The past is unalterable and the future could take any direction, so what art can do in this situation is present hope.

This movie is sad, but there is hope. This hope could be short-lived and it may vanish at the end of a tiring day, but at least there is hope. When Sara asks her mother what part of her looks like her father, Esma finally answers that Sara’s hair color was the only thing she had in common with the father who had raped Esma. After Sara learns the truth about her father, she sobs profusely and shaves her own head. On the morning of the trip, Sara hesitantly waves to her mother from the bus, while Esma smilingly waves back. Esma at first hated her baby and continued to while it was in her belly, but while breast-feeding after the birth, she accepted the baby and was determined to raise Sara. And the greatest salvation is that this movie doesn’t call the enemy “Serbs.” The movie says that the people who slaughtered and raped the Muslims of Bosnia were Chetniks (the derogatory term for Serbs who believed in the Greater Serbia ideology, fought alongside the Nazis against Tito in the past, and gathered up an anti-Muslim force in Bosnia for the Bosnian War), and never says that all Serbs are the enemy of Bosnians. The past is unalterable. However, the people involved in the making of this movie may have wanted to say that hope doesn’t come from thoughts like, “Serbs did this and that, and so they are evil.”

日本語→

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movie: La Teta Asustada – The Milk of Sorrow (2009)

Posted on by
Reply

Fausta, living in the poor outskirts of Peru’s capital Lima, was raised hearing her mother sing almost every day about her experience of being raped. Her mother was descended from the Quechua people from the Incan Empire living in the Andes Mountains that experienced a violent civil war in the 80s. She took refuge in Lima after her husband was slaughtered and after her own brutal rape. Fausta seems to be around 20 years old thus her mother is likely in her 40s, but she already looks very old. This song having evoked a fear of being raped, Fausta puts a potato in her body to defend herself from being raped. The potato damages her body, but Fausta stubbornly refuses to take it out.

One day her mother dies. In order to make money to pay to have her mother’s dead body buried in her hometown in the Andes Mountains, Fausta starts working as a maid at a woman’s house in the highest class neighborhood adjacent to the poor region she lives in. The mistress listens to Fausta sing and gives Fausta one pearl for each sad song she improvises. The mistress is a world-renowned pianist and she composes a piano sonata based on the songs Fausta sings. After performing this piece of music and receiving high praise, she fires Fausta. Fausta possesses an abnormal fear of men and rejects the trustworthy gardener who likes her, but finally she undergoes the operation to have the potato removed from her body. This movie ends by depicting Fausta burying her mother’s dead body in the beautiful Andes Mountains and, at the very end, her response (probably) to the gardener’s affections.

This movie has the distant background of the civil conflict in Peru beginning in the 1980s between the Maoist group Sendero Luminoso (“Shining Path”) and the government troops trying to suppress them. The Sendero Luminoso had their power centered around the Andes Mountains area. During the conflict between the Sendero Luminoso and government troops, many villagers were murdered and raped. However, this movie is not a political drama to depict these terrible scenes. No violence appears in this movie. The audience may think that the mother was retaliated against by government troops for the crime of sheltering a guerilla of the Sendero Luminoso, but also the Sendero Luminoso is called the “South American Pol Pot” in contemporary history for exerting utmost cruelty; the movie does not speak at all of which side raped the mother.

The movie’s cinematography is extremely beautiful, but for some reason it leaves a lasting pain in your heart. Since real terror is symbolized by the potato in her body instead of visible violence, this sadness is not visible but is felt. Also, it could be said that the growing process of this young maiden is an allegory. Her mother’s lullaby about rape strongly influenced Fausta—she couldn’t laugh, and she hid behind walls when she walked the streets—until she became an adult. She bled from her nose when she was afraid, and could not love someone out of fear. However, she finally makes up her mind to live by overcoming her mother’s curse.

When this movie was one of five finalists to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, the Peru government was ecstatic; Peru expected an increase in tourism revenues after people all around the world watched this movie. The governments of each country select one movie to be considered for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. This movie depicts dark times in Peru, but I think the government approved this movie because these times were already in the past for Peru’s government, the government succeeded in achieving peace, and this movie shows that the people of Peru are happy today.

It was President Alberto Fujimori, a Japanese Peruvian, who finally ended the civil conflict that exhausted the Peru nation. At that time, the Sendero Luminoso occupied most of Peru, seized the Pan-American Highway and major roads, and surrounded Lima; there was a feeling that a revolution by the Sendero Luminoso was approaching soon. The citizens disappointed by left-wing President Alan Garcia Pérez were pressed to make a serious decision for Peru’s future in the presidential election in 1990. Mario Vargas Llosa who served as chairman of PEN International and won numerous international literary prizes was thought to be the favorite for president, but when the voting was over, dark horse Fujimori was elected. He won the election for various reasons; Japanese Peruvian Fujimori was racially neutral in the antagonism between the Spanish ruling class and the poor indigenous Peruvians, and he also received support from the rich Spanish Peruvians. Although Mario Vargas Llosa was left-wing, he was of Spanish descent so he did not receive full support from the indigenous Peruvians; also contributing to his defeat, his socialist economic policy was not considered realistic.

Mario Vargas Llosa later won the Nobel Prize in Literature. The director of this movie, Claudia Llosa, is the niece of Mario Vargas Llosa.

This movie was a big hit in the country of Peru and received international praise after winning the Golden Bear Award at the Berlin International Film Festival and being nominated for an Academy Award. However, there is criticism for this movie domestically. Fausta and her uncle’s family live in a slum, the slums in the outskirts of Lima called pueblo jóven (“young town”). Adjacent to this is the highest class housing district, where the affluent Spanish pianist lives. With an upcoming concert, the musician who had fallen into a slump performs Fausta’s songs that she heard in exchange for pearls as her own musical pieces, and then fires Fausta. This episode is reminiscent of the former ruler/ruled social structure. Director Claudia Llosa is Spanish and she did her higher education in Spain and America. That is to say, she is the status of the pianist in the movie, but she attempted to make the movie from the viewpoint of an indigenous Peruvian. However, no matter how good-intentioned and artistic the movie was, there is something in the movie that is not completely accepted by Peruvian hearts that consider themselves indigenous. This criticism may stem from the hatred remaining in indigenous advocates toward the elite Caucasian Peruvians supposedly in support of fraternity for all, like her uncle Mario Vargas Lllosa. This criticism reminds us that the nationalism of the Quechua people—which can be understood only by Quecha people who once built the Incan Empire—is still alive.

日本語→

Movie: Blame it on Fidel — La Faute à Fidel (2006)

Posted on by
Reply

BlameitonFidelThe period of the 1960s through the 1970s was a time of great social upheaval around the whole world. Castro declared socialism In Cuba in 1961, Indochina was bogged down with the Vietnam War, and the Cultural Revolution continued in China. A socialist administration was established in Chile by means of a democratic general election. Even in the Western Bloc, there were the May 1968 events in Paris and demonstrations against a military regime in Greece. In addition, an anti-war movement was surging in America and acts of terrorism by the Red Army and extreme leftists occurred one after another in Japan. In Spain, Franco’s dictatorship still continued since the Spanish Civil War. In short, it was a period where problems that weren’t able to be settled after World War II surfaced.

1970. Nine-year old Anna lives in Paris with her Spanish father Fernando, a lawyer, and her mother Marie, the editor of the woman magazine Marie Claire, in a magnificent mansion with a garden, and she commutes to a prestigious Catholic mission school. Anna spends her vacations in Bordeaux and is looked after every day by their maid, who fled from Cuba where Fidel Castro had established a socialist system. One day, her uncle in Spain is executed for opposing Franco’s dictatorship and the aunt who escaped Spain starts living together in Anna’s house, which triggers a change in the father’s behavior. Fernando, feeling in debt for having not done anything so far for his native country of Spain, feels his social conscience awaken and suddenly takes a trip to Chile with Marie. The two then return completely baptized with communism and start to look like hippies, and Anna is not pleased at all with the changes in her surroundings. The Cuban maid says to Anna, “Everything, blame it on Fidel.” The maid is later fired. Fernando resigns as a lawyer and works to establish Allende and a socialist administration in Chile, while the mother decides to start a movement supporting abortion to expand women’s rights. Because of the change in her parents, Anna’s life also takes a 180 degree turn. She no longer takes the classes on religion that she loved, her family moves from their big house to a small apartment, and she has a Vietnamese babysitter that comes to the apartment. Although President Allende is elected as the leader of the socialist administration, it is short-lived and President Allende is assassinated. Watching her deeply grieving father, Anna decides to visit her family’s roots; she finds that her family was high-ranking nobility in Spain, cruelly oppressed anti-royalists, and belonged to a pro-Franco faction under the Franco administration. The movie ends with the scene of Anna commuting to her first day of school after dropping out of Catholic school and deciding to attend public school.

In a word, the impression I got from this movie is “headstrong.” Headstrong might mean overly rationalistic, or stubborn, or an empty talker; this is the attitude of someone judging others using the lens of their own ideology, rather than absorbing and accepting their surroundings with an open mind and without preconceptions. Although the events of just one year are in this two hour movie, it is a very busy movie as it tries to pack in all of the problems of the world.

In the beginning, the death of Fernando’s brother-in-law happens at the same time as the younger sister’s wedding. I would think a political death is more shocking than one of natural causes, but since the wedding ceremony is carried out happily, if you are not careful, you may not notice that the uncle has been executed. The maid changes one after another from a Cuban, a Greek who fled her country, and then a Vietnamese woman. Shocked from the uncle’s death, it is fine that a political conscience that until now has been ignored is awakened, but why does the father join the reform in far-away Chile and not Spain of his own roots? Costa-Gavras, the father of this movie’s director Julie Gavras, possesed left-wing ideology and gained global fame with his Missing, which depicts the conspiracy of the American government in Chile; I can’t help but think that his daughter is exploiting this. It seems that Fernando and Marie stay in Chile for about two weeks, but after that, the two return as die-hard communists. If communist brainwashing is as simple as this, Lenin and Stalin wouldn’t have had so much difficulty. Fernando’s younger sister who married two or three months ago and should be very happy suddenly wants an abortion and Marie begins to play a big role as a feminist. What, she is already pregnant? And is she already unhappy with the married life just after getting married? This makes me want to recheck the numbers since two or three months doesn’t seem like enough time for this to happen. As an additional bonus, Marie grumbles about there being no true liberation for women even in a socialist household when Fernando angrily tells her, “You should be a good mother and give more of your attention to your family rather than having the maid look after our child,” because he is jealous of her being more famous than him with the publicity she gained from her article about the “Manifesto of the 343” demanding the lifting of the ban on abortion.

It is as if director Julie Gavras wanted to say:

“’Sorry, mommy and daddy have their hands full with their own problems, and you may suffer for it. But mommy and daddy are doing their best to pursue what they think is right. Perhaps you will understand the feeling of daddy and mommy when you are an adult,’ the mother says to her daughter.

To which the daughter responds, ‘No, daddy and mommy, you don’t have to shout about solidarity or unity to achieve it. If you lend a hand–even if you don’t say anything—you are connected to those around you. I get it.’”

This is my guess, but this movie still leaves me questioning whether making a movie that is crowded with all of the world’s problems is the best method to convey this message.

日本語→

Movie: I Served the King of England (2006)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie is a Czech movie, not a British movie. Neither Great Britain nor the King appear at all. The Ethiopian emperor makes just a brief appearance. Therefore, if we watch this movie expecting a movie like The King’s Speech, we might think, “Huh???”

This movie is a satirical comedy with beautiful and grotesque images. However, in a sense, it can be said that this movie allows us to understand modern history of the Czech Republic through the protagonist’s life and the times he lives in. This movie depicts the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after their defeat in World War I and the formation of the Czechoslovakia Republic in 1918; Hitler absorbing the Sudetenland region in 1939, followed by Czech becoming a German protectorate; the establishment of the communist regime with the support of the Soviet Union through the “Victorious February” of 1948; and finally ends around 1968. Based on the novel Bohumil Hrabal secretly wrote in 1970 when freedom of speech was oppressed in Czech under the control of the communist party, director Jiří Menzel, whose freedom to produce was also oppressed under the communist party, made a film adaptation in 2006 after the collapse of the communist party. In 1967, Jiří Menzel won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film for Closely Watched Trains, another film adaptation of one of Bohumil Hrabal’s works, but there was a long gap in this career after that until the communist regime collapsed in 1989.

Czechs suffered throughout the 20th century—first bullied by Germany, then dominated by the Soviet Union—so we may expect the theme of Czech movies to be about this, but this movie depicts 20th century Czech history from a different angle. The Czech region Sudetenland shows up often in this movie.

The history of the Czech Republic is complicated. Bohemia was the center of the Czech Republic, but since the 11th century, German-ification has progressed due to Germans migrating there; also, there was a long-lasting, complicated power struggle between the north part of the Kingdom of Poland and the south part of the Kingdom of Hungary over ruling the land of Bohemia. Because of the eventual defeat of the Czech nobility in the Thirty Years’ War that started in 1618, a German sovereignty was established in Bohemia, but there historically was a strong antagonism between Germans and Czechs in the Bohemia region. Czech was traditionally anti-Germany, Pan-Slav, and had a strong sense of closeness with Russia, but this area in the end became a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. There are many coalmines in Bohemia. Utilizing the abundant coal and the investment by German capitalists, Bohemia successfully partook in the Industrial Revolution and became a prominent industrial area in Central Europe.

Sudetenland was on the western edge of Bohemia and on the German border; this area had many Germans living there since ancient times and thus the most intense antagonism between Germans and Czechs. German citizens under the control of the Czech majority suffered from discrimination such as unequal hiring process. As a result of the defeat of Germany and Austria in World War I in 1918, the Austro-Hungarian Empire dissolved; Czech and Slovakia were merged and the independent nation of Czechoslovakia was formed. Anti-German thought was mainstream in Czech, but, conversely, in Slovakia near Russia, there were strong anti-Russia, pro-Germany thoughts. Czech invaded the Sudetenland and seized this land from Germany. Many scenes of Czechs bullying Germans appear in this movie. The bullying is depicted full of humor, but it is cruel when considered carefully. With a lightness and skillful movement by actors like that seen in Chaplin movies, this movie attracts the audience masterfully, but there is poison at the bottom that makes you think about various things.

For Hitler who succeeded in absorbing Austria in March of 1938, his next territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia; with the excuse that Germans living in Sudetenland were being persecuted, Hitler tried to gain sovereignty over Sudetenland. At that time, Czech was involved in conflicts with their neighbors Poland and Hungary over territory. Taking advantage of this situation, Germany gained sovereignty over Sudetenland and from there, absorbed Czech.

Mirrors are effectively used in this movie. A mirror reflects something back. This movie satirically reveals the true face of Czech through the non-mainstream Czech protagonist. The protagonist is a plain, small-statured Czech man who doesn’t attract attention from anyone and has blonde hair, which is rare for Czechs. He was a poor man when the Czech Republic was erupting in prosperity after their independence. While other Czechs bully Germans, he is the only man who helps Germans and he even marries a German women. When Nazis took control and began oppression of other Czechs, he was able to get a job at a high-end restaurant and a high-end hotel thanks to his wife. The high-end hotel looks to be the pinnacle of elegance, but the true characters of the rich people, high-salaried officers, and politicians that come here are exposed. Since the hotel employees never fail to follow, “After watching it all, pretend to see nothing,” the rich clients that come here don’t mind the eyes of the hotel employees at all. By depicting the protagonist, the movie provides a reflection of the people over different times like a mirror. Because the protagonist is an extremely wealthy person when Germany is defeated in World War II and the communist revolution comes to life, he is sentenced to 15 years in prison for this crime. After he is released, the protagonist is sent to Sudetenland and assigned to do heavy labor.

When the protagonist arrives, Sudetenland is deserted. After World War II, all Germans were forcibly deported. The movie suggests that terrible things such as being pillaged or massacred also happened and that being expelled was actually the most benign treatment. The movie ends with the protagonist in this deserted place in the middle of the mountains quietly looking back on his life. The two different actors who perform the protagonist when he was young and when he is old do not look alike. I think two actors are used to depict change in the protagonist’s personality. This movie depicts the protagonist over about 35 years, from adolescence to middle-age. It is usually enough to have one actor to perform this range of years.

This movie picks up the issue of Sudetenland, an issue not many Czechs want to touch since it is like a disgrace in the modern history of Czech. This movie is made as a comedy with beautiful images, but it is quite brave to raise the theme of the Sudetenland issue. It is especially admirable for the author of the original work Bohumil Hrabal to write a book about the Sudetenland issue back in the 1970s, long before an official resolution. Considering this, this light comedy may be asking Czechs including himself the terrifying questions of, “Did we not create the situation of becoming victims of Nazis ourselves? Are we not narrow-minded people for having held onto a hatred for a neighbor of a slightly different race?”

日本語→

Movie: In Darkness — W ciemności (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie is based on a true story about Socha, a sewage worker in former Poland city Lviv, who hid Jews under the city in 1943 when it was ruled by Nazi Germany. Socha hid Jews in the underground sewer system to escape Nazi persecution. He helps these Jews and agrees to bring them food every day, but Socha’s actions endanger not only his own life, but the lives of his family.

As part of the drama of this movie, Socha is shown as a small criminal who steals and he starts sheltering Jews for money, to which he gets opposition from his wife for helping Jews. But over time, Socha gradually gains sympathy for the Jews he is hiding and he continues to help them free of charge after they run out of money, risking his own life to help them. However, I had a feeling that it may not be entirely accurate as I examined various facts in this movie. It is possible he was sympathetic to the Jews from the beginning and worked together with his wife and friend because of his own desire to help them. As for accepting money, Socha lived a very poor life and probably did not have extra money to buy food for other people so he may have needed the money from the Jews in order to buy them food. Later, when the Jews had used up all of their money, he used his own money to buy food to offer them. The hiding lasted for 14 months.

I don’t know which one is reality, but that is not so important. The important thing is why Socha decided to help the Jews even when it put his own life and the lives of his family in danger. This is what I wish to consider.

Socha lived in the city of Lviv in the east end of Poland, an area from ancient times under repeated contention between the Kingdom of Poland from the west and the Duchy of Kiev from the east. Until the 17th century, Lviv was caught in a series of invasions by the Ukraine Cossack or Ottoman Empire, among others, and in 1704, Swedish troops led by Charles XII during the Great Northern War captured Lviv and the town was destroyed.

Lviv was put under the control of the Austrian Empire by the First Partition of Poland in 1772. The Austrian Empire government strongly pushed for a German-ification and German was made the official language. In hatred of this, the Polish people rose up in revolt in 1848; after that, the people of Poland gradually gained self-governance of this land. Lviv was the center of Polish culture; at the same time, many Ukrainians also lived there and their culture was protected in Lviv, while other Ukrainian districts changed under Russian rule. When the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed after Austria’s defeat in World War I in 1918, the West Ukrainian People’s Republic declared its independence with Lviv as its capital.

ukrainemap_enFaced with this, the Polish population rose in revolt and the Polish-Ukrainian War began. The war ended with a landslide victory for Poland due to the complete support by the Polish army to defend their homeland, and Lviv once more came under Polish control. The Directorate of the Ukrainian People’s Republic did not support the Ukrainians in Lviv because the Directorate wanted support from Poland to fight against Russia’s Red Army; in exchange for Poland’s support, Poland was allowed to keep control of Lviv.

In 1920, the Soviet Red Army attacked Lviv. Armed citizens repelled the Red Army and Poland made a peace treaty with the Soviet Union, ignoring Ukraine’s wishes. This was a betrayal against the alliance they had with the Ukrainian People’s Republic against the Soviet Army.

Summarizing this complicated state of affairs, there was an antagonism between Polish and Ukrainian people in Lviv from long ago. Russia (as well as the Soviet Union after the revolution) was a natural enemy of Ukraine. Polish people had a hatred for German people from long ago. The Ukrainians conspired with the Germans to gain hegemony in Lviv, so conversely, the Polish allied with the Russians.

During World War II, Germany invaded Poland in September 1, 1939, and on September 14, the German army occupied Lviv. After that, Lviv was occupied for a short time by the Soviet Union, but in the end, Germany controlled that land. The goal of the German army was to annihilate all communists and Jews. The Ukrainian part of Lviv supported the anti-Soviet Union movement and so cooperated with the Nazis. During the German occupation, Poles had difficult lives. With the scene within this movie where many Poles being charged for killing a German soldier are executed, it seems that a Polish person may see the Nazi persecution of the Jews and think, “Tomorrow will be me.” There is sympathy there. Nevertheless, it’s impossible to know for sure the source of Socha’s determination to help the Jews in spite of facing grave danger.

After World War II, the whole area of Lviv was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. During that time, most of the Polish inhabitants of Lviv fled to Poland.

In 1945, immediately after the end of World War II, Socha was riding a bicycle with his daughter when a Soviet army truck approached his daughter. Socha, protecting his daughter from the truck, was hit by the truck and died. At his funeral, someone said, “He died because he triggered the anger of God by sheltering Jews.” For the sake of drama, this movie depicts Socha as someone who is petty, but I don’t believe it. I don’t care what kind of person he was. The things he did were important and people will continue to tell his story through this movie.

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→

Movie: Ajami (2009)

Posted on by
Reply

Ajami is a neighborhood on the south side of Tel Aviv, Israel’s largest metropolitan area; many Arabs reside there and there is a high crime rate involving drugs and violence. This movie mainly interweaves events depicted from each of the perspectives of three young Muslim Arabs working at a restaurant in Ajami, a Christian Arab who is very influential in the community, and an Israeli police officer. Therefore, even though the same events are depicted, each person’s viewpoint of the event looks different.

Because of the conflict of nineteen-year-old Omar’s uncle with a Bedouin gang, the gang swears to get revenge by targeting the lives of Omar and his younger brother Nasri. Omar requests that Abu Elias, a friend of the boss at the restaurant Omar works at and an influential person in the Ajami neighborhood, have the conflict settled in a Bedouin courtroom, but the court demands a large sum for the settlement (about $50,000 to $100,000); Omar fears he will be killed if he can’t pay this.

Sixteen-year-old Malek is from the West Bank, an autonomous Palestinian territory adjacent to Israel, but crossed the border and is staying as an illegal laborer secretly working at the restaurant in Ajami. He needs approximately $70,000 in order to pay for his mother’s cancer treatment. Abu Elias loves him and gladly covers part of the expenses, but Malek worries how he will come up with the remaining expense.

Binj is a caring, cheerful cook in his twenties, but after his younger brother kills a Jewish citizen and runs away, Binj worries about what to do with his brother’s illegal drugs he is left with. After narrowly passing a household search by the police, Binj throws away most of the drugs and decides to put flour in the bag that held the drugs to look like drugs. However, as a result of snorting the remainder of the drugs, he overdoses and dies.

The Israeli police officer Dando discovers the dead body of his younger brother who had gone missing, and suspects that his younger brother was murdered by an Arab.

Abu Elias is Christian, a minority among Arabs. He, having helped Omar with his predicament, becomes angry when his daughter and Omar get involved romantically since he does not approve of love between a man and woman of different religions.

Malek and Omar discover white powder that they believe to be drugs in Binj’s apartment and attempt to sell the drugs to a drug dealer, but in fact the drug dealer is an undercover Israel police officer and Dando is also watching while concealed. Dando notices that Malek has a high-end watch that looks like the one that belonged to his deceased younger brother and gets very angry.

It is completely different what happens after this, depending on each viewpoint. Also, Malek and Omar have an incorrect idea regarding Binj being killed and who killed him, and this leads to tragedy.

This movie depicts the suffering of Palestinians and their society, but since they are citizens living within the Israeli area, they have different problems than Palestinians living in the autonomous Palestinian district West Bank. I think this point is uniquely depicted in this movie.

I believe there are three things necessary to live happily as a human. One, a loving family; two, friends (social support); and three, a job (economic strength).

All the families that appear in this movie are full of love in their own way. They are not perfect, but each parent wants to protect their children at any cost and the children think cherishing their parents is most important. Even if this loving feeling is universal for humans, the family is a single unit for Arabs. When one person within one family commits a crime or makes a mistake, it becomes the crime of the whole family. In addition, the mother is strong and loving within her family, but because she doesn’t understand the society that has become dominated by males, she can’t handle serious matters so all difficult decisions fall to teenagers Malek and Omar as the “patriarch”.

Social support means friendships, community support, as well as the protection by the power of the government. The Palestinians living in Palestine territories like the West Bank district are surrounded by Palestinian brothers and can fall back on the country of Palestine that is able to protect them even if there is political instability. However, Palestinians living in Ajami cannot rely on Israel, the country they live in. The gangs, even though they are Arabs, target the lives of other Arabs. Because the Israel police don’t intervene in such disputes between Arabs, these people must find a solution within their own community, but this is not easy. Unless they have relatives and friends in Palestine’s West Bank district, escaping to there is not an option. These people with nothing in common except being called Palestinian are not friends. For Palestinians living in Ajami, the only support network is made up of their relatives and any friends made there.

Even if blessed with family and friends, you can’t survive with that alone. In order to survive, you need some occupation in order to eat. Even as an Arab, there are decent opportunities to get a higher education and a job in Israel. As an extreme example, Scandar Copti, a Christian Israel citizen of Palestine descent and one of the two directors of this movie, received a higher education and was able to become a popular movie director.

When this movie was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, director Scandar Copti said, stirring up controversy, “This movie represents Israel. I am an Israeli citizen, but I don’t speak for the Israeli government because I can’t speak for a government that doesn’t represent me. I am not a team member representing Israel.”

The Israel Cabinet Minister of Culture and Sport, Limor Livnat, said in response, “He wouldn’t have been able to make this movie without Israeli financing, much less walk the red carpet of the Academy Award ceremony. All the other people involved in making this movie think of themselves as Israeli citizens.” Also, Israel’s Legal Forum insisted, “If director Copti doesn’t withdraw his remark, this nomination should be withdrawn. Director Copti should have considered more carefully before receiving money from Israel.” Israeli director Menahem Golan also stated, “I wish director Copti had more respect towards investors. He should at least respect the people who worked with him.”

Director Copti doesn’t want to lose his identity as a minority in Israel, and perhaps he didn’t want an easy solution of “just being nice” for the conflict between Israelis and Arabs. However, I hope director Copti doesn’t forget about the opportunity he has been given as a new superstar in the movie world to improve the situation of Palestinians in Israel. I hope he will not be swayed by words like, “If you hate the people of Israel, don’t accept their money,” or, “Leave if you hate this country.” I hope he can say with an artist’s enthusiasm, “I will keep getting money and keep making better work; I will change history by making movies that can improve the Arab situation.” At least I think he is blessed with talent and opportunity to do so.

日本語→