Movie: Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors — Tini zabutykh predkiv (1964)

Posted on by
Reply

Once, this movie was celebrated as a masterpiece and won many awards in the West; but this movie has already slipped into obscurity, and it has become difficult to obtain it on DVD. It seems that movie director Sergei Parajanov—once regarded as an internationally renowned maestro—has also slipped into obscurity. In this movie, he used techniques that were novel for the time and astonished viewers, similar to his close friend director Andrei Tarkovsky (Ivan’s Childhood). However, because the next generation of directors in many countries imitated and often used these new techniques, it is very difficult today to see and appreciate the newness; also, the reputation of this movie within the Soviet Union was bad due to Sergei Parajanov being one of the victims who were buried under the political oppression of the Soviet Union administration.

Sergei Parajanov was born in 1924 in Georgia (in Japan, people tend to call it Grúziya in the Russian style, but the Georgian government demanded that it be internationally called Georgia in the English style), and studied cinematography at the All-Union State Institute of Cinematography in Moscow. He is ethnically Armenian.

Georgia is on the south side of the Caucasus Mountains, which connects the Black and Caspian Seas, and it has Russia to the north, Turkey to the south, and Armenia and Azerbaijan as neighbors. Since ancient times, this area was an important traffic route used by many ethnicities, and it was the focus of Russia’s plans for southern expansion; under the 1783 Treaty of Georgievsk, the eastern part of Georgia became a protectorate of Russia. Georgia, as a pious Greek Orthodox Church nation, needed Russia’s support in order to prevent Islam nations—such as Turkey and Persia, who feared Russia moving south—from invading Georgia. In other words, Georgia decided that it was necessary to rely on Russia in order to protect itself from the threat of Muslim Persia and Turkey—the Islamic power that coexisted in the Caucasus area. In 1801, Georgia—caught up in internal turmoil—was annexed into Russia. Later, in 1832, aristocrats in Georgia developed a plan to overturn Russian control, but it was soon suppressed by Russia. When the Russian Revolution broke out, Georgia declared independence from Russia, but the Soviet Union suppressed this, and Georgia became a part of the Soviet Union. Partly because Stalin was from Georgia, Georgia—until it declared its independence in 1991—was relatively obedient to the central government of the Soviet Union, and was not considered to be a problem child by the Soviet Union.

Sergei Parajanov married a Ukrainian woman and continued artistic activities in Ukraine, but gradually his avant-garde artistic style became considered to be anti-establishment, and he began to be oppressed by the Soviet Union socialist administration. In the Soviet Union, only movies that used a socialist and realistic style and praised socialism were allowed; avant-garde and surrealist movies, like those of Sergei Parajanov, were considered degenerate and dangerous movies that were hiding something. Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors was showered with high praises all over the world, but it was unpopular in the Soviet Union. Sergei Parjanov was increasingly oppressed by government authorities, and in 1974, he was imprisoned for the crime of homosexuality. Regarding his imprisonment, European directors including Federico Fellini, Roberto Rossellini, Luchino Visconti, François Truffaut, and Jean-Luc Goddard organized a protest campaign; Sergei Parajanov was released three years later, but even after that, he received relentless oppression from Soviet Union authorities, so it became impossible to make a movie. Due to this cruel situation, he later immigrated to Armenia.

Ukrainian Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky wrote the original Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky was born in 1864 in Ukraine—which was under Russian control at that time—and was part of a literature movement that focused on traditional Ukrainian culture, which was under severe oppression by the Russian Empire in those days. West Ukraine was under the control of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the time; since more Ukrainian cultural activity was allowed there than in Russia-controlled areas, he published his books in West Ukraine. Director Sergei Parajanov is not Ukrainian, but perhaps he felt a sort of commonness with Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky who was involved in the Ukrainian literature revival movement.

Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors is the Ukrainian version of the story of Romeo and Juliet, where a young boy from a mountain tribe in West Ukraine falls in love with the daughter of the rival family that killed his own parents. The movie depicts in vivid color the life of people who are Greek Orthodox—a religion that was strictly prohibited by the Soviet Union in those days; this movie suggests that religion was the standard for living, and that people lived in fear of supernatural phenomenon such as ghosts. The depiction of religion alone appears to be enough to rub socialist authorities—who banned all religions (but adhered religiously to Marxism)—the wrong way. Moreover, this movie goes beyond any possible acceptable range by depicting Ukrainians—who were hated by Soviet authorities for having been a threat to Russia, such as with the revolt of the Cossack soldiers, and attempting independence when the Soviet Union was established.

The Duchy of Kiev existed in the area of current Ukraine, but it was destroyed in the 13th century by the Mongolian Empire. After the Mongolian Empire, this area belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the north and the Kingdom of Poland to the west, but gradually a semi-military community called Cossacks developed, and they began to resist control by foreign powers. However, due to the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667, Ukraine was divided; West Ukraine was placed under the control of Poland—later the Austro-Hungarian Empire—and East Ukraine was placed under the control of Russia. Taking advantage of the collapse of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires in World War I, Ukrainians living in West Ukraine declared their independence as the West Ukrainian People’s Republic; Poland opposed this, and thus the Polish-Ukrainian War began. The Polish side was supported by France, Britain, Romania, and Hungary. Against this, West Ukraine appealed for support from the Ukrainian People’s Republic to the east. However, the Ukrainian People’s Republic government could not dispatch reinforcements since they were fighting against the Soviet Red Army; in the end, West Ukraine was occupied by Poland, and the West Ukrainian People’s Republic collapsed.

The Ukrainian People’s Republic to the east was put under Soviet Union control; the Soviet Union led by Lenin and Stalin adopted hostile policies toward Ukraine. One reason was that Ukraine was a fertile agricultural nation, so the socialist policy that was based on factory workers was not applicable to the economic system of Ukraine. Because the socialist policies that did not fit Ukraine’s reality were enforced, the agriculture of Ukraine suffered devastating damage, and a great many people died of famine. Stalin’s Great Purge also started from Ukraine.

In World War II, Ukraine—due to its close proximity to Germany—suffered enormous damage, and among the Soviet Union, Ukraine was the greatest victim of World War II. It is said that 1 in 5 Ukrainians died in the war. People’s stance during the war was also complicated in this area; there were some people who supported the Soviet Union side, while other people supported the German side. Also, there were people who joined the anti-Soviet, anti-German Ukrainian Insurgent Army, and fought for Ukraine’s independence. Ukraine, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, became a new independent nation in 1991, but Ukraine and Russia are still tied together in many ways. The government is also torn between the anti-Russia faction and the pro-Russia faction.

日本語→

Movie: For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943)

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movie: Ashes and Diamonds — Popiół i diament (1958)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie is very difficult to understand. The original work was literature that praised the leader of the communist party, and it was approved by the Communist Party of Poland; but in the movie adaptation, director Andrzej Wajda made the communist party leader protagonist into a supporting role, and made a young guerilla planning an assassination—who had just a minor role in the original work—the protagonist in the movie. This protagonist is a freewheeling and unattached young man with weird-looking glasses. He falls in love with the girl at a bar—who is like a diamond in the ash—and they understand each other’s circumstances of their families being massacred by German soldiers; with this, he begins to transform—once he takes off his glasses—into a lonely handsome man resembling James Dean. I think the reason this movie is hard to understand is that the political situation at that time was complicated, and in order to pass censorship, the movie minimizes conversation and uses many metaphors.

images1There of course was severe censorship of movies by the Communist Party of Poland. Except for the protagonist in the original becoming a supporting role, the movie remains faithful to the original work that was approved by authorities, and the last scene with the young man dying in the landfill like worthless ash seems to warn, “Hahaha, that’s what happens when you rebel against the Communist Party.” However, it is said that those who were censoring felt something suspicious about this movie, and that they discussed with Moscow seriously about whether or not to approve this movie. In the end, since there wasn’t anything concrete that could be blamed, it passed censorship. However, because the movie received overwhelming praise in Western Europe when the producer put himself in danger by submitting it to the Venice Film Festival, the communist administration felt, “I don’t know what it is, but there must be anti-establishment thought inserted into this movie.” After this, director Wajda—who was already watched closely by the authorities—was completely blacklisted.

The circumstances of Poland during World War II are depicted in director Wajda’s Katyń. Even with the change in the political system, his attitude did not waver at all over the 50 year period between these movies, and he persevered through his hard times in Poland without choosing to flee his country. It is no wonder he is respected.

In this movie, a guerilla, who is targeting the life of a Communist Party politician, is a member of an anti-Germany partisan group. It may be hard to understand why these people who oppose Germany are attempting to assassinate a communist—who aligns with the Soviet Union that chased away Germany—without understanding the situation of those days.

In August 1939, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union entered the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression treaty, and a secret stipulation within that treaty was that Germany and the Soviet Union would divide Poland. That following September, they started invading Poland, with the German and Slovakian armies from the west on September 1, and the Soviet Army from east on the 17th. The Polish government escaped to London and formed the “Polish government-in-exile,” which guided partisans in Poland. For the Polish government-in-exile, the Soviet Union was the abominable country that had, with Germany, invaded Poland; but when forced to choose between the Nazis and the Soviet Union, the Polish government had to choose the Soviet Union as an ally because Great Britain had already allied to the Soviet Union. However, there was the Katyn incident, and Poland did not trust the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union established a communist puppet government in Poland—separate from the Polish government-in-exile in London—that followed orders from the Soviet Union and opposed the partisans led by the government-in-exile that was supported by Great Britain. After all, World War II was a conflict between Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union, and because of Poland’s geographical location, the true nature of the conflict became clear in Poland. Under the orders of the Polish government-in-exile, the partisans in Poland rose up against Germany several times, and the largest of these was the Warsaw Uprising in June of 1944. This uprising was actually proposed by the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Army cut off support to the revolting army at a critical time. In the end, it became a battle between the German army and the Polish resistance Home Army. Hitler, concluding that the Soviet Union Red Army had no intention at all to rescue Warsaw, ordered for the suppression of the resistance Home Army and complete destruction of Warsaw. The Polish resistance Home Army had overwhelming support from the citizens of Warsaw, and they put up a good fight, but in the end, the army failed with the uprising. Many in the Home Army died, but those who survived escaped via underground water tunnels. Warsaw was destroyed as a punitive attack by the German army; after this, participants in the uprising were considered terrorists, and about 220,000 partisans and citizens were executed. After the uprising settled, the Soviet Red Army finally resumed their attack and occupied the ruins of Warsaw in January 1945. Afterwards, the Soviet Red Army arrested partisan leaders, and oppressed partisans wishing for Poland’s independence.

Ashes and Diamonds depicts four days, over which Commissar Szczuka moves to a Polish town for his new job as the occupying commander after Germany surrendered in 1945, and partisan Maciek, who has no relatives, receives orders and plans Szcuka’s assassination. For Britain, America, and France of the Allies, Germany’s surrender was the first step toward happy days, but for Poland, it was an ominous sign for their uncertain future.

images2After the failure of the Warsaw Uprising, the partisans supported by Great Britain finally recognized the Soviet Union as their true enemy, and made the Soviet Union the target of their attacks. The few surviving anticommunist partisans hid in the forest and resisted the Soviet Union, but since it became clear that the Soviet Union would be the ruler of Poland, resistance was futile. Director Wajda modeled Maciek after James Dean, who became an international star with Rebel Without a Cause, and he asked Zbigniew Cybulski who played Maciek to study James Dean. In fact, after the success of this movie, Zbigniew Cybulski came to be called the “Polish James Dean.” James Dean and Zbigniew Cybulski were the same generation, and James Dean died in a traffic accident at the age of 24, while Zbigniew Cybulski died in an accident when he was 39. Keiichiro Akagi—said to be the Japanese James Dean—also died young in a traffic accident when he was 21 years old.

日本語→

Movie: The Chorus — Les Choristes (2004)

Posted on by
Reply

World-renowned conductor Pierre Morhange hurriedly returns to his homeland France when he learns that his mother passed away during a New York performance. After his mother’s funeral service, he is visited by a man named Pépinot. The movie goes back 50 years after it is revealed that Pépinot went to the same school as Pierre, and they were taught by their teacher Clément Mathieu.

In 1949, after World War II, Clément Mathieu becomes the dormitory dean at a boarding school called Fond de l’Étang (Bottom of the Pond), where war orphans and problem children are sent. Under the direction of the principal to use severe corporal punishment to discipline the children, harsh punishment is repeatedly administered for those children that resist the teachers, and children are not encouraged to cultivate their future goals and dreams. Mathieu was a musician, bonds with the children through choir, and is able to teach the children discipline as well as the joy of music. Pierre is seen as a problem child, but Mathieu notices that the boy has a miraculous “singing voice of an angel” and tries to develop his talent.

The principal has no love for the students at all, and he is a man who aimed for fame and awards by managing an orphanage. When it is discovered that a large quantity of money is missing from the safe at the school, the worst juvenile delinquent Mondain is thought to have stolen it; after an interrogation that is near torture, Mondain does not admit to the crime, so is expelled from the school. Later, Mondain sets the boarding school on fire for the sake of revenge, but nobody dies because Mathieu happened to have taken all the students on a school trip during that time. However, the principal dismisses Mathieu, saying it is a violation of school regulations to take students any place off the premises, and doesn’t allow him to say goodbye to the students.

Because of this, Mathieu leaves the boarding school alone, and the students had no way of knowing what happened to him after this. At the end of the movie, it is revealed why Pépinot knows about Mathieu’s life after he left. The ending scene is very poignant.

Some may think that juvenile delinquents cannot be easily rehabilitated with the power of music, but the children in this movie are not evil boys with twisted minds. The children in this boarding school are mostly orphans who lost their parents in the war, or children of mothers who have to work all day long after their husband died in the war. The children here may have stolen bread from a shop in order to survive, but fundamentally, these children are just lonely and aren’t taught any direction in life. They conduct mischief, but it is because, as a result of having no parents, they aren’t taught what terrible outcomes one’s thoughtless mischief could bring. After mischief, they receive cruel corporal punishment from the principal; they gradually close their hearts and their behavior becomes worse and worse. Mondain did not steal the large amount of money from the safe. The boy who did steal the money just wanted to buy a toy blimp, but he just puts this money into his secret stash and does not use any of it.

In addition, when the boys met Mathieu, they were of the age before their voices have changed. It was within that short miraculous period of still having boy soprano voices like angels that the boys were taught the delight of singing. Since the boys were still young, they were searching for paternal affection and their rebelling was not very serious, so they responded well to Mathieu’s affection.

When Pierre’s talent was discovered, he continued on to a music academy with a prestigious scholarship, and became a world-famous conductor. He had forgotten about Mathieu and the boarding school of the remote past, but when Pépinot shows him a class photograph, he recollects fondly. When we look at Pierre’s life, we realize how important it is to meet a good teacher, especially in those younger days when growing up. Mathieu did not give Pierre preferential treatment in the relatively short time that he worked with Pierre. However, if Pierre had not met Mathieu, Pierre would not have become a world-famous musician, and in a worse case, he could’ve ended up in prison. It is rare to meet your elementary teacher again after becoming an adult. When you are busy raising children or pursuing a career, you may completely forget your elementary teacher, but when your parents die and you start to realize that life is not infinite, it would not be uncommon for you to think about a teacher from long ago, and, while you may have forgotten their name, you may fondly remember their face and their kindness.

This movie overtook the historical hit Amélie, and it became the number one biggest hit in the history of French movies; it is said that 1 in 7 French people have watched this movie. Jacques Perrin—an international star (and handsome actor) from France—produced this movie, while his nephew Christophe Barratier directed it, and Perrin’s third son, Maxence Perrin, performed as the lovely child Pépinot. Jacques Perrin played the elderly Pierre. Jacques Perrin produced and acted in the timeless masterpiece Z, and received an Academy Award for this. Although it is difficult to succeed as an actor, Jacques Perrin has both succeeded as an actor and produced movies like Z and The Chorus that will remain in history. He must have been born under an exceptionally lucky star.

日本語→

Movie: No Man’s Land –Ničija zemlja (2001)

Posted on by
Reply

No man’s land is the area between enemy forces facing each other in a stalemate during a war, and as a general rule, no one enters no man’s land. This movie is set sometime in the Bosnian War between 1992 and 1995. It depicts half a day that includes two Bosnian soldiers that wander into the no man’s land between the trenches of the battling Serbian and Bosnian armies and are shot by the Serbian army; a Serbian soldier who is wounded in no man’s land while investigating; French sergeant Marchand of the UN forces who goes in to rescue these now three seriously wounded soldiers; a German soldier of the UN forces with a specialty in bombs who goes in to help the sergeant; and a female British reporter named Livingstone trying to get a scoop.

A novice Serbian soldier Nino along with another old soldier are given a dangerous mission by a superior officer to look into what looks like an invasion of the no man’s land by Bosnian soldiers, while the superior officer stays in a safe place. The old soldier thinks that the Bosnian soldier Cera who fell down in no man’s land is dead, and attaches a land mine under his body. The land mine is set to explode if a comrade of the Bosnian solder lifts his body. However, the old soldier is killed by another Bosnian soldier Čiki, who had been injured and hiding secretly, and Nino becomes injured. A struggle between the three people stuck in the trench—Cera who couldn’t move because of the land mine, and Čiki and Nino who are injured—inevitably ensues.

Čiki and Nino are enemies in the war, but they speak the same language, lived in the same town when there was peace, and have a mutual acquaintance. Their faces light up spontaneously when they talk about the woman they know in common. The two are trying to defeat each other and somehow escape from the trench, but when the other is in trouble, they unexpectedly show gentle sympathy towards each other.

This movie does not depict the background of the Bosnian War, but, by depicting concrete and typical individuals, this movie attempts to depict the essence of war—not only the Bosnian War—in an abstract way. At first in the trench, Čiki thinks the Serbian side started the war while Nino thinks the Bosnian side did, and they blame each other, but gradually they both start having doubts about their reasons for fighting each other, who started the war, and why they have to obey orders. Sergeant Marchand believes that the mission of a neutral UN officer is to, instead of doing nothing, help injured soldiers as much as possible, but his superior officer, who gives him orders from a distant and safe place, is indifferent and doesn’t wish to get involved in the situation. The reporter Livingstone believes it is her mission as a reporter to tell the world what is happening on the battlefield, and at the same time, is feverish in her ambition to get a scoop on the current situation that nobody else has; thus, she approaches the trench at the risk of danger. Her TV station coworkers in Great Britain receiving her footage ask of her, “Give us more juicy coverage”; when they watch the footage of the real life-and-death struggle between Čiki and Nino in the trench, though, they are stunned. When the footage of Livingstone and her crew reaches a global audience, the UN forces have to do damage control. In the end, the victims of politics are the soldiers on the front. Sergeant Marchand gazes sadly at his superior when the officer lies and leaves.

This movie depicts the different standpoints of Čiki, Nino, Cera, Sergeant Marchand, and the reporter Livingstone from the same distance so that the audience can feel sympathy for everyone. The question isn’t which side—Bosnia or Serbia—is the bad guy. One after another, moments of understanding appear—first between the soldiers of opposing armies, then between the neutral UN forces and journalist—and then disappear. This movie makes the audience pray, “I wish everyone stops fighting and can return home safely!!!” Against the audience’s prayer, the movie’s conclusion is too cruel and sad. However, the reality of the Bosnian War does not permit a simple happy ending. A simple happy ending would not honor the soldiers who were involved or died in the war. By watching this sad ending, the audience will certainly wish more deeply for peace. Such is the power of this movie.

日本語→

Movie: Kolya (1996)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie depicts the emotional bond between an aging Czech musician and a Russian boy living in then-Czechoslovakia in 1988. The time depicted is the turbulent period leading up to the Velvet Revolution, which was the relatively peaceful overthrow of the Communist Party government and one of the events marking the end of the Cold War.

Once a top cellist, Louka is now poor and makes a living with various part-time jobs. In exchange for money, he reluctantly has a sham marriage with a Russian woman in order for her to get a Czech passport, but this woman leaves behind her five-year-old son, Kolya, with his aunt and flees to West Germany. However, the aunt suddenly dies, and Louka is left to care for Kolya. At first, they feel awkward with each other, but gradually affection grows between the two. However, since Louka’s older brother also fled to the West, the secret police suspect Louka of helping the Russian woman flee the country with a fake marriage, and they start an investigation; also, a female social worker appears and is going to send Kolya to an orphanage in Russia… The story continues on, and ends with Czechoslovakia succeeding with the Velvet Revolution and overthrowing the rule of the Soviet Union.

Since the little boy who plays Kolya is too cute, and the story is filled with light humor and wit, one would think this movie is a heart-warming story of love between the little boy and the cellist, but I think this movie wants to depict the resentment of Czechs towards the rule of the Soviet Union, the day-to-day life of the people living under Soviet rule, and the emotional responses of people during turbulent times. The impression I get is that sweet Kolya is used to make the movie charming, but Kolya is just a cute child to an adult, and the depiction of the boy’s emotions is shallow. Also, Louka is depicted as an irresponsible man who chases after women. Is he just pretending to be an irresponsible womanizer in order to avoid attention after losing his former top social status, or is this his true personality? I can’t tell because Louka’s depiction is not deep enough. Perhaps the reason for depicting Louka this way is that the movie wants to draw a dramatic contrast between him at first being irresponsible and at the end being loving. However, the love that develops between the sweet-looking child and the cartoon-like adult is not very persuading. If this is a story of love, I must say it is a story made without the understanding of love.

Information provided by the radio and newspaper about the times is inserted throughout this movie, so the audience is able to understand what is happening in the outside world. Conversations between the people are frequently about how annoying Soviet Union soldiers are. In the end, this movie made after the victory of the Velvet Revolution seems to have the intention of documenting, “what life was like for people under the tyrannical rule of the Soviet Union,” and that, “Czechs hated the Nazis. But the Soviet Union that came afterwards was as bad.” First Secretary Alexander Dubček played a central role in the “Prague Spring” reformation movement in 1968, but the Warsaw Treaty Organization led by the Soviet Union later crushed it with a military intervention; Czechoslovakia became a secret police nation like East Germany, and people lived holding their breath, in fear of being informed on.

However, things have certainly changed. Hungary at last decided to open the national border with Austria in 1989. Since it was feasible for people of East Germany to make their way to Hungary, many East Germans started trying to enter Hungary; from there, they could cross the national border to Austria, then from there, move to West Germany. Also, just like Kolya’s mother in this movie, people from Russia moved to Czech territories—where entry was allowed—and planned to use a Czech passport to flee further to West Germany. Even if East Germany citizens didn’t have a Hungarian passport, countless East Germans went to Hungary in hopes of somehow crossing the national border to Austria.

In August of 1989, the Hungarian Democratic Forum held the Pan-European Picnic in Sopron, the Hungarian town nearest to Austria. Rumors saying that those who participated in this meeting could cross over the national border spread, and a great number of East Germany citizens gathered in this town; one after another, they started to cross the national border, but Hungarian authorities didn’t stop them. This news spread within East Germany, and even more citizens of East Germany gathered at the Hungary and Czechoslovakia borders in order to cross over to Austria and West Germany, respectively. Stimulated by this news, citizens in East Germany demanded more and more for freedom, and the Berlin Wall at last came down on November 10, 1989. On November 17, the Velvet Revolution broke out in Czechoslovakia, and the Communist Party administration collapsed. The Soviet Union did not intervene anymore. The humiliation of the Prague Spring was not repeated.

Zdeněk Svěrák, who played Louka in this movie, also wrote the script, while his son Jan Svěrák directed the movie. Jan Svěrák was only 30 years old when he picked up the megaphone for this movie, and he was a 23-year-old student when the Velvet Revolution happened. This movie seems to be loaded with Zdeněk’s desire to convey to the young generation, including his son, what life was like under the Soviet Union system, and the hope he has as a father for his son’s future. Zdeněk Svěrák was 32 years old when he experienced the Prague Spring.

日本語→

Movie: Beaufort (2007)

Posted on by
Reply

We all know of a country named Israel, and we are also aware of what the Nazis led by Hitler did to Jews in World War II, but it is a little hard for Japanese people to understand the complexity of what kind of country Israel is today, what is happening in Israel, and what kind of relationship Israel has with their neighbors—the Palestinian National Authority, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Therefore, when Japanese people watch this movie, it is difficult to understand what young Israeli soldiers are doing in Beaufort castle in south Lebanon. Although the Israeli soldiers do not attack anyone in this movie, missiles soar incessantly from somewhere and young soldiers die one after another.

The movie is set in 2000, but this movie is difficult to understand unless you look at the background leading up to it. Since the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli War, Jordan actively accepted the Palestinian refugees driven from Israel; but after the Six-Day War, they changed their direction and expelled Palestinian refugees from Jordan in order to maintain a more neutral alignment. These Palestinian immigrants moved to Lebanon and brought about great chaos in Lebanese politics which had been under a delicate balance between Christians and Muslims; after this, Syria became more influential over Lebanon.

In 1982, with one border secured with the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel that was mediated by the Carter administration, Israel suddenly invaded a chaotic Lebanon and besieged Lebanon’s capital, Beirut. The true intentions were to remove Syria and other Arab influence from Lebanon, convert Lebanon into a pro-Israel nation, and keep Bashir Gemayel—a charismatic, pro-Israel, anti-Syria, young Lebanese leader—in power in Lebanon’s government. Bashir was elected as president in the August 1982 elections, but was assassinated in the following September. Lebanon plunged deeper into civil war as a result of this. Beaufort is a historic castle that was built by the Crusaders in the 12th century and Israel took control of this castle during this fierce battle.

In response to the invasion of the Israel army, a military association called Hezbollah was formed in Lebanon. It was a radical Shia Islamic organization and its main objectives were to found an Iranian-style Islamic Republic in Lebanon and remove non-Islamic influence in that area. It took an anti-Western stance and supported the Israeli extermination; it is said that Iran and Syria supported this. On the other hand, Sunni nations such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt criticized the actions of Hezbollah. Since the 1980s, Hezbollah has attacked facilities associated with the West and Israel that were both within and outside of Lebanon including the suicide bombing on the American Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in 1983, the suicide bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut in 1984, and attacking the Israel Embassy in Argentina in 1992. In the movie, the Hezbollah attacks the Israel army in Beaufort with missiles from a distance.

During the Cold War, America supported Israel and adopted the strategy to make Israel the center of anti-Soviet Union politics within the Arab region, but since 1990, the world situation changed and Iraq became a threat to America. In return for Syria dispatching troops for the Gulf War, America allowed Syria to settle the civil war in Lebanon in Syria’s favor. Thus, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon did not result in what Israel envisioned and, under criticism from the whole world, they proceeded to withdraw from Lebanon. In 2000, Beaufort functioned as the only base and lookout point for Israel in Lebanon, but the Israeli government finally decided to withdraw troops from there.

This movie focuses on the Israeli soldiers who were sent here just after being drafted as teenagers and didn’t understand the international dynamics; since Israel has decided to withdraw, a counterattack is not allowed, but even though the soldiers request to leave the fortress, the reply from headquarters is to just wait. Squad members die one after another while there is no superior officer to depend on. This movie depicts soldiers who have a pessimistic feeling about how their lives are being risked to protect the fortress that will soon be abandoned, are dissatisfied with the inexperienced leadership of the commanding officer who is also young, dream of returning to Israel and being reunited with their lovers, and, through it all, have mutual friendships and encourage each other.

The undercurrent flowing through this movie is the question of, “What was the huge sacrifice of the attack of 1982 for?” With the world believing that the chaos in Lebanon was entirely because of Israel, Israel’s international standing worsened. No country wants to look back on their own past of violent acts that were criticized by other countries as historical mistakes. Hitler from Germany, Franco from Spain, the Dirty War in Argentina, and the Pacific War in Japan are a few examples. Even though these were historic disgraces, they happened and each country chose what they thought was the best option at that time. The Lebanon Civil War may have been a great mistake for Israel whose top priority has been to establish their home country. However, after watching this movie, I honestly hope that the people of Israel who have been struggling to maintain their nation under a complicated balance of power adopt the very best political measures in the future by learning from history.

日本語→

Person: Generalísmo Franco (1892-1975)

Posted on by
Reply

Around World War II, (in)famous dictators appeared one after another. To list a few, there was Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Joseph Stalin (1878-1953), and Francisco Franco (1892-1975). You could say they were all the same generation. Did the uneasiness of the people produce a dictator, or did dictators take power and cause war and uneasiness? It is the chicken and the egg, and both may be right. Another thing characteristic of this time was that these dictators took over after the collapse of an absolute monarchy. A revolution broke out in Russia in 1917, and, with the abdication of Nicholas II, the Romanov dynasty collapsed. In Austria, Charles I, the last emperor of the House of Habsburg, took refuge in 1918, and the Habsburg Empire that had ruled over Central Europe for 650 years collapsed. In Spain, as a result of a general election held in 1931, the left-wing Republicans gained power, and Alfonso XIII abdicated; the Second Spanish Republic was established, and the House of Bourbon fled to Italy. Italian history is complicated, but to say it briefly, the House of Savoy continued to rule until the end of World War II, but the House of Savoy, which supported the dictatorship of Mussolini, lost the trust of the nation; in a national referendum carried out in 1946 that questioned the continuation of the monarchy, it was decided by the narrow margin of 54% to abolish the monarchy. Umberto II was dethroned, and Italy adopted a republic, becoming the Italian Republic. Also, a long time ago, the rise of Napoleon was welcomed by the people of France—who abolished the Bourbon dynasty. All of these are very different from Great Britain, which built a democracy while using the royal families (with the idea of “reigning, but not ruling”) as a moral support for the people.

Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco tend to be discussed in the same category of being fascists, but Franco walked on a different path than the other two. In March 1939, just before the end of the Spanish Civil War, Franco joined the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan, Germany, and Italy; but when World War II broke out in September of that year, Franco decided that the nation was not strong enough to participate in the war due to the devastation in the nation from the civil war, and thus declared neutrality. However, at that time, he maintained friendly relations with Japan, Germany, and Italy. Later, when the Allies gained the upper hand around 1943, Franco firmly maintained a neutral stance, and he broke off relations with Japan, citing a conflict of interests regarding the Philippines. The United States—which had become a world leader after the war—could not entirely eliminate their suspicion of Franco. After all, Franco ruled as a dictator over Spain, which was close friends with Germany and Italy. However, it was undeniable that Spain was militarily and politically important for the U.S. With the historic meeting of President Eisenhower and Franco in 1959, the two people unexpectedly succeeded in building a deep mutual understanding, and from this, the relationship between America and Spain rapidly improved.

Looking at the surface, Franco seems to just be an opportunist, whose actions were very strange. However, I think Franco was a consistent person in his essence. Throughout his whole life, Franco was afraid of two things that he couldn’t understand. The first was communism, which succeeded in Russia; to Franco, Germany and Italy were a breakwater to keep communism from penetrating Spain. The other was a fear of activity by any ethnicity other than Caucasians. These cannot be criticized unconditionally. Everyone is afraid of things they don’t understand and that are new. Franco was an officer who had risen through the ranks, and he may have felt that he could trust President Eisenhower and President Peron, who proudly carried out their professional duties and supported their administration, even though their countries and environments were different.

Franco seems to have thought seriously about what kind of government Spain should have after his death. Since he watched the repeated failure of a parliamentary democracy in Spain, he did not seem to think that Spain could transition smoothly to a democracy when he died. He thought that switching over to a monarchy after the dictatorship he established would be the best for Spain’s future. In 1947, Franco instated a “law of succession,” which changed Spain into a “monarchy,” declared Franco the head of state as the “Regent to the King of Spain” for life, and gave Franco the power to decide the next king. This “law of succession” was established with a national referendum in July, and Franco was given the position of head of state for life.

When his health began to deteriorate in his 70s, Franco named Juan Carlos—the grandson of the former King Alfonso XIII of the House of Bourbon—as his heir in 1969; Franco died in 1975 at the age of 83. He is a man considered across the world to be a fascist and terrifying like Hitler, and was criticized by opposing factions in Spain, but he died in peace a natural death in his own bed.

日本語→

Movie: War Horse (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

War Horse is director Steven Spielberg’s 2011 movie adaptation of a play that got favorable reception in London theatres, War Horse Joey, which was based on Michael Morpurgo’s children’s novel published in 1982 and adapted for stage by Nick Stafford in 2007. At the London premier of this movie, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Princess Catherine were in attendance. Steven Spielberg’s exquisite storytelling and flawless direction of key points for viewers to cry, as well as careful calculation of the beautiful images from start to finish reminds me of Akira Kurosawa’s ability.

People affected by the war from Britain, Germany, and France are all depicted in this movie in connection to a single horse: The horse owned by a British boy who lives on a farm is sold for use in war to a British army commander who dies in battle; German boy soldiers are executed for deserting; the farm where a young French girl and her grandfather live after her parents were killed is ransacked. To put it in another way, the movie uses the beautiful animal called a horse to its maximum potential to attract the audience, while the human characters around it just conveniently appear and die for the story.

What I thought was most interesting in this movie was the background message about the revolution in war technology; that is to say, after World War I ended, cavalry disappeared and horses became useless in war. This is interesting even though Spielberg did not make this movie to convey this message.

Historically, cavalry has been regarded as an important branch in military tactics. The high speed on horseback that allows troops to move together as well as the strong aggression of horses made them useful for a wide range of things including surprise attacks, charging in, pursuit, rear attacks, flank attacks, or surrounding the enemy. In addition, they were effectively used to scout out enemy camps. The cavalry approached the height of their prosperity during the Napoleonic Wars in the early 19th century and the charge by the cavalry running through the battlefield greatly contributed to Napoleon’s victory. However, in 1870 with the start of the Franco-Prussian War, the French cavalry was completely crushed by the Prussian army’s overwhelming firepower and the French army was defeated.

This is the background to the introduction of new weapons. The use of machine guns and rifles started with the U.S. Civil War (1861 to 1865) and trenches were dug in order to protect the body; with this, war had changed from being a battle between individual warriors to a battle between masses. Charging in on horseback made you an easy target for your opponent; furthermore, facing a war of attrition with a no man’s land between made it so that it was no longer the time to stride in on a horse. Considering the cost to maintain a horse, the cavalry had become a high cost, low success tactic. Even though knowledge of modern warfare and machine guns is hammered in, the commanding officers of the British army, being noble in origin, deep down in their hearts were still old-fashioned and still had an admiration for knights riding on horseback and bravely fighting with honor in their minds. Therefore, this movie realistically depicts the surprise attack on and annihilation of the British cavalry by the German army that had completely modernized with machine guns.

The horse, elephant, and camel have been friends of mankind from ancient times due to their ability to supply valuable manual labor. These creatures are very intelligent and, once a trust is built with their owner, they are very loyal. While normally calm, if these animals get angry, they show great strength. Horses and dogs will remain as lifelong friends for man. Although many cried over the horse in this movie, I was not drawn into the story throughout the movie. I will state the reason.

First of all, in order for the horse to be the main character, the depictions of the supporting characters are shallow or sometimes incomprehensible. The young boy’s father purchased the horse at an auction because he stubbornly did not want to be outbid by his own landlord and thus had to buy the horse at a very steep price. But this drives the family to a point where they cannot pay off their debt, and the father decides in a fit of anger to shoot and kill the horse he bought himself. Because the horse is introduced with this very unrealistic scene, it is impossible for me to feel sympathy for the horse even if the horse gives a beautiful performance. The military did not force the horse to serve in the army, but rather the father just sold the horse in order to pay off his debt. This is just one example, but throughout the movie, the characters are depicted as shallow. The scene where opposing German and British soldiers on either side of no man’s land momentarily make peace in order to rescue a horse closely resembles Joyeux Noël because of the theme. But in Joyeux Noël, this peace is the main theme of the movie and the consequences are depicted in detail, while in War Horse, this story is one of many episodes and it feels very abrupt. Even though many injured soldiers were taken to the field hospital and it was overflowing with human soldiers, the military physician says, “I will do everything I can to rescue horses,” but instead of bringing tears, I just thought, “Why?”

Secondly, this movie becomes confusing when, even though characters are from Britain, Germany, and France, everyone talks in English. The German commanding officer speaks German when yelling commands to soldiers, but the marching soldiers talk in English, which makes me think, “Oh, are these German soldiers British prisoners of war?” Since the army that pillaged the French farm also spoke English, I was surprised that they would mistreat these French people who were allies to the British army, but then according to context, I realized it must actually be a German army. The reason Spielberg let everyone speak English must have been because he aimed for this movie to be a success in America. Americans do not like foreign films with subtitles. This may be difficult for Japanese people to understand who prefer subtitles over dubbing and think that hearing the actual voice of the actors talking in foreign films helps capture the subtle meaning, but I believe this to be true after reading American movie discussion sites and seeing many Americans post the complaint, “Why don’t they dub this movie? I don’t feel like watching this movie because subtitles are annoying.” I think there is a feeling by Americans that they are number one in the world (currently) so naturally people around the world will speak English.

Hollywood movies use music effectively. In this movie, however, the music is certainly beautiful, but I feel as though Spielberg overuses it. Until now, he has successfully collaborated with John Williams and I recognize the strength of the music, but I may have to call this level excessive. Particularly after watching non-Hollywood movies where music isn’t used much, watching this Spielberg movie was almost like being told, “Yes, please cry here,” and I just felt, “Enough, overdoing it!” However, the scene where the soldiers are sent forward with bagpipe music did actually give me goosebumps. This was one moment that I think Spielberg executed very successfully.

Furthermore, I am a little annoyed by symbolic tricks. For example, the father of the young boy protagonist is an alcoholic, but, in fact, it becomes clear that he was honorably injured in the Boer War. The young boy ties the pennant for this honor to the horse and the pennant is a symbol for friendship; one after another, it is kept by the horse’s owners until the horse is reunited with the young boy. Whenever I saw the pennant, it was almost as if Spielberg was triumphantly saying, “What great symbolism I came up with.”

The audience’s response is split between something like, “Deeply emotional, moved to tears,” or, “The use of cheap tricks to get you to cry were off-putting.”

日本語→

Movie: Nowhere in Africa — Nirgendwo in Afrika (2001)

Posted on by
Reply

In 1938, Regina—a Jewish girl living in Germany—goes with her mother Jettel to Kenya, a territory of Great Britain at that time, to escape Nazi persecution and join her father Walter who had already moved there. Walter was a lawyer in Germany, but he now lives in a poor house and works within the unfamiliar realm of agriculture as a farm manager of some land owned by a British colonist. Regina befriends Owuor, the family cook, and adapts to life in Kenya in no time, but Jettel can’t accept the reality and complains to her husband, so Jettel and Walter argue often. In 1939, Britain and Germany finally start fighting; Walter’s family is sent to an internment camp and Walter is fired from his job as a farm manager because he and his family are people of an enemy nation. However, the Jews in Kenya persuade the British government that the Jews being persecuted by the Nazis are not the enemy of Britain, and in the end the Jews are released from internment camps.

Regina and Jettel are sent to a high-class hotel in Nairobi being used as an internment camp; German women sent there receive top-class hospitality. I think such a thing happened because in Kenya during those days, white people and native people lived in different areas, and a white woman even of an enemy nation couldn’t be sent to a place where native people stayed; this situation suggests that Kenya had a hidden apartheid in those days.

With the help of a British officer who favors the beautiful Jettel, Walter is able to find a new British employer and his family moves to the farm. Owuor also moves with them and begins a new life under better conditions. Walter is allowed to volunteer as a British soldier, and participates in the war despite Jettel’s objection. Regina starts studying at a boarding school for Britons. While Walter is at war, Jettel starts enthusiastically working at the new farm, and Walter becomes suspicious that Jettel may have a relationship with one of his close friends, Süsskind. In fact, Süsskind was courting Jettel.

The war ends with a victory for Britain. Since Walter served in the British army, he can return to his home country as a veteran, and he receives an offer from Germany to work as a judge. While Walter wishes to return to his home country, Jettel insists on staying in Africa. The movie ends with the two making their decisions.

This movie offers an interesting point of view on how one chooses their homeland during war and when faced with racial persecution; it is a pretty good movie, but some viewers may be puzzled by and feel uncomfortable with how Jettel is depicted. When she first arrives in Kenya, she shouts at Walter, “I’d rather die than live in such a place!” Walter criticizes her attitude of looking down on Owuor, saying, “Your attitude toward Owuor is like that of a Nazi toward a Jew.” She complains that, “It is unbelievable that we can’t eat meat,” but when Walter reluctantly shoots a deer in response to this, Jettel reproaches him with, “You killed an animal!” Although she seems to hate Kenya so much, when Walter is allowed to return home and he suggests to her that they help rebuild their home country, she refuses to go saying, “The country that killed our family cannot be trusted.” However, when she learns that she is pregnant, she agrees to return home, saying that, “The people in this country are scary.” Also, wherever she goes, she is aware that she attracts the attention of men, and her daughter Regina actually sees her mother’s affair.

The inconsistency in Jettel’s personality in this movie is caused by there being three points of view: one from the eye of the original author Stefanie Zweig as a child (depicted by Regina in the movie); another from the eye of the adult Stefanie Zweig through her autobiographical writing about becoming an adult; and the last from the director Caroline Link when making the book into a movie.

It is not that Stefanie Zweig disliked her mother, but in the original autobiography, she always recollects her as something like a spoiled Jewish princess. Growing up, Zweig’s character formation was influenced by her father (Walter) who always faced life’s challenges with a positive attitude, her cook (Owuor) who had unlimited love, and the British boarding school she went to.

In the movie, the father Walter is performed by the handsome young actor Merab Ninidze, who was born in Georgia—a former Soviet Union territory—and immigrated to Austria. Stefanie Zweig extensively stated in an interview, “I was surprised because Merab looked just like my father. His physical features and the strong and ardent way of living looking forward despite having sorrow and nostalgia in his heart are exactly like my father. He has an Eastern German accent and speaks the same German as my father.” On the other hand, she simply said that the actress who played her mother “was nothing like” her mother, and she did not talk about what kind of person her mother was.

In regards to Owuor, Zweig stated that the reason she wrote her autobiography was to record the wonderful and generous person who was the model for Owuor. Although in the movie Jettel dramatically says, “I will protect the farm,” when Walter tells her, “Live in Nairobi during my military service,” it seems that Zweig’s mother actually moved to Nairobi while her father went to the battlefield. Unlike the movie, it seems that the cook left his hometown and moved to Nairobi with the mother to take care of her.

For the little girl Regina, her father and mother are such a constant part of her life, like the sun or the earth, that she would never even consider there being any story to tell about the relationship between her parents. However, director Caroline Link made this movie as a love story. Merab Ninidze who performed Walter stated the following: “One day, the director reprimanded me, saying, ‘Wrong, this movie is a love story!’ From then, I understood the interpretation of this movie and decided how to perform this role.”

In other words, Merab Ninidze at first interpreted this movie to be more political. However, Caroline Link’s intention was to reconstruct the movie to be, “a drama that depicts a princess like Jettel, who is raised by an affluent Jewish family, becoming an independent woman on African land, while mixing in some elements of a love story.” This angle is a big shift from the point of view of a little girl who open-mindedly accepts African land for what it is and enjoys her life there. The shift of the main focus to Jettel, with the intention of projecting the director’s philosophy on female independence and love relationships onto Jettel, results in the inconsistency in her character in the movie.

When I read Stefanie Zweig’s writings, it was interesting to see what various circumstances were not depicted in the movie. When asked why Jews didn’t escape Germany, Zweig suggested that it is possible that many Jews were not able to gather the large amount of money needed in those days to leave the country. There is no strong reason that her father escaped to Kenya, but rather it was likely because entry to the country cost only 50 pounds per person, Nairobi has a strong Jewish community, and Kenya is a relatively safe place.

In Kenya, the father started his new job as a middle manager within the colonial governing system already established, and didn’t have to start from scratch. In other words, he held a middle management position in the white, British organization of the colony. It is understandable for Jettel to want to remain in Kenya—as long as there is work on the farm—since income and social status are guaranteed, she can have servants, and her work is supervising the native laborers as part of the ruling class. But as for Walter, it is understandable that, rather than living out his days as an untalented farm manger in Kenya, he would want to make use of his talents in his home country. Or maybe Walter, who had the insight to predict the fate of Jews living in Germany, was able to perceive the nationalistic independence movement that was about to sweep over the peaceful and gentle Kenya.

Stefanie Zweig’s father did not have the option to immigrate to America, the Land of the Free. It is said that, since he couldn’t speak English and was over 40 years old, it was impossible for him to come to America and make a living as a lawyer, so he decided to rebuild his life in his home country Germany, no matter how difficult. He never forgot to thank Kenya, which gave him the gift of life.

The criteria one uses to choose what country to live in as their home country are, first, a country where one’s life is secure; then, an environment where one can make use of their own talents, has control of their surroundings, is surrounded by their beloved family, and can understand the language, and where the food one likes is readily available. How lucky Japanese people are to be able to choose Japan—which satisfies all of these criteria—as their home country! There are many people in the world who do not get to choose where to call home.

日本語→