Movie: Closely Watched Trains — Ostře sledované vlaky (1966)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie is based on a novel by author Bohumil Hrabal—who wrote the original story of the Czech movie I Served the King of England—and was adapted into a movie by director Jiří Menzel—who also did the movie adaptation of I Served the King of England. In other words, I Served the King of England and Closely Watched Trains were written by the same original author and adapted into a movie by the same director. At first I thought that the evasive satire and dark humor seen in I Served the King of England was only possible after the communist regime collapsed, but Closely Watched Trains is equally a shamelessly satirical tragicomedy. Considering that this movie was made while Czechoslovakia was still under the Communist Party, and also that Jiří Menzel was just the young age of 28 when he made this movie, all I can say is that Jiří Menzel is amazing. Or maybe it’s Bohumil Hrabal who is amazing.

Jiří Menzel was one of the young movie writers that participated in what could be called the Czech New Wave that was emerging in the 1960s. Closely Watched Trains received the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Due to the Soviet Army suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring, which occurred soon after this award, many movie directors took refuge abroad, but Menzel stayed in Czechoslovakia. Following this, he was once again nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award in 1986 for his My Sweet Little Village, but otherwise there was a long blank in his career until 1989, when the communist regime collapsed.

This movie is about the people working at a small station in a small village in Czechoslovakia, which was occupied by Nazi Germany, during World War II. The stationmaster is crazy about keeping pigeons. Train dispatcher Hubička is envied by the stationmaster for being for some reason popular with women, but he doesn’t have any other skills. The elderly station attendant is no longer useful at all. Miloš is the protagonist of the movie. His grandfather was a hypnotist, but when he tried to defend Prague by hypnotizing the invading German army, he was crushed by a German army tank and died. Miloš’s father was a railway worker, but retired early; because of his father’s retirement, Miloš replaces his father at the station by working as an intern. Miloš secretly has a crush on a cute, young conductor, but when he is unable to become a man sexually in front of her, he is distraught and attempts suicide.

So the story goes, and on the surface it appears to be a story of quite flawed men lazily working, but actually, at that time, the shadow of the defeat of the German army was creeping in; also, trains fully loaded with dead people and weapons pass through this station every day, but this is hidden from viewers initially. And then what?!! Hubička, Miloš, and the old station attendant—three people everyone thought were incompetent—heroically blow up a heavily guarded “closely watched train” that is carrying the war equipment for the German army. However, the movie finishes with a sad ending.

Closely Watched Trains, like I Served the King of England, reveals the surrounding heavy reality as we follow the actions of the careless protagonist and laugh.

This movie is very much told from the perspective of a man. This movie shows that, in order to become a man, a man questions himself, suffers, and tries hard. For Miloš, experiencing sex and participating in resistance activities seem to be proof of his value as a man. This movie makes me cynical about the idea of a man casting away his virginity and going to war as a rite of passage because he feels that, although the unknown world is scary, he will not become a man without going through this. A woman may not understand this rite of passage completely, but she may want to say, “Relax! A woman doesn’t judge a man by that!” A woman may find herself being attracted to Miloš, who is timid and refuses to go to war, but does outrageous things as part of the resistant partisans.

The story advances by constantly balancing contradictory concepts—innocence and scheming, fun and sadness, optimistic serenity and cruelty of war, youth and maturity—and the movie makes the audience wonder, “What’s going on?” or “What happens now?” or “What on earth is true?”; by doing this, the movie hooks the audience until the very end of the film. It is incredible.

日本語→

Movie: The Tin Drum — Die Blechtrommel (1979)

Posted on by
Reply

The Tin Drum was based on the full-length novel by the German author Günter Grass that was published in 1959, and director Volker Schlöndorff adapted it into a movie in 1979. It is said that the movie leaves out the second half of the original work, but the reproduction of the first half is fairly loyal to the original. Günter Grass received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1999 for his achievements as an author, such as this book, while the movie won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes International Film Festival and the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Since I have not read the original, I wish to write only about the movie.

This movie is an unpleasant movie, like listening to a nail scratch on glass. The movie’s protagonist has for some reason stopped growing and is stuck in the body of a young child, but his mind and feelings are that of a grown adult. The catchphrase of this movie—“This movie is about the pacifism of the protagonist who stopped growing in order to oppose war”—is outrageous. To say it briefly, the protagonist of this story takes advantage of people thinking that he is a child due to his small body to do whatever he pleases, and instead of taking responsibility for his actions, he shamelessly avoids responsibility by pretending he is a child. Because of the peculiar state of the protagonist, he can easily sense when an adult lets their guard down around him or an adult’s cunning when they are trying to take advantage of him. Also, it feels like the protagonist is reflecting a part of the author Günter Grass.

Günter Grass—unlike Oskar, the protagonist of this movie/novel—is not a little person; however, like Oskar, Günter was born in the Free City of Danzig, a territory that has been fought over by Poland and Germany. Also like Oskar, Günter was born of a German, Nazi-supporting father and an oppressed minority, Kashubian mother. Oskar participates with fellow little people in a dwarf circus that entertains and is treated well by high-ranking Nazi officers; Günter Grass also actually enthusiastically took part in Nazi activity in his youth. It may be a part of his past that he does not want to talk about much publicly, but when Günter confessed it, readers around the world who had idealized Günter Grass—a Nobel Prize author and advocate for peace—were shocked.

Of course being a successful author does not equal being a perfect person, and a reader with this expectation would be being selfish. Since there were many youths who thought seriously about how to live and became captivated by communist thought as a way to change the ugly world, it is conceivable that there were also many good-intentioned people who joined the Nazis with the passion of idealism to make the world a better place. It may not be possible to judge past earnest decisions simply from a modern point of view. Because the movie ends abruptly in the middle of the novel, the audience is made to think, “I am unpleasantly dragged around to have it end here?” However, the original continues on after that, and it is said that it ends with the protagonist continuing to escape reality, but achieving some growth and looking back on the past. Compared to the movie, which ends at the height of his escapism, my guess is that the original has some depth that the movie does not when the protagonist looks back with a point of view different than his selfish and immature one.

This movie was made in the 1970s, which was a confusing time across the world. Although the Cold War was becoming more serious, the majority of people had started to become disillusioned with the notion that socialism was the only salvation to change the world. In addition to the antagonism between liberalism and socialism, there was a new antagonism sprouting between Christian and Islamic fundamentalist nations. It was a time when people were at a loss, which was very different than things starting in 1980, when America, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union chose pragmatic leaders—President Reagan, Prime Minister Thatcher, and General Secretary Gorbachev, respectively—to look for pragmatic solutions. Even Hollywood—which always chose to have pleasing happy endings—started to make movies that left the audience in desperation and provided no solutions or salvation, which the audience thought was profound and depicted reality; this movie was made during these times. Now, 40 years later, I wonder what viewers think when they watch this movie. It seems that the current audience desires more emotionally consoling movies, thoroughly entertaining movies, or informative movies that positively influence how viewers live. Due to the change in times, it is no longer easy to understand the enthusiastic response to this movie when it was released.

Danzig is a harbor city that faces the Baltic Sea, and is at the northeast edge of the Polish Corridor that divided Germany. Since ancient times, Germany and Poland fought to control the land in the Corridor, but due to Germany’s defeat in World War I, the area was separated from Germany and transferred to being under the control of the League of Nations. With the Treaty of Versailles, Danzig was incorporated as Polish tariff territory; though not physically neighboring Poland, the city developed strong ties with Poland. The Free City of Danzig’s railroad that connected it to Poland was controlled by Poland; there was a Polish naval port; and of the two post offices, one post office was the city’s while the other was Poland’s. Residents of this area were mostly Polish and German, while a small number were Kashubian and Jewish.

At first, Danzig was established with the objective to protect the interests of Poles and to extend the power of Poland; however, the influence of Germans and Nazis gradually strengthened, and after the Nazis won the election in 1933, anti-Jew and anti-Catholic laws (meant to target Poles and Kashubians) were passed. In 1939, the Nazi government in Danzig started to severely oppress Poles living in Danzig. Then on September 1, 1939, the German battleship SMS Schleswig-Holstein, which was anchored at Gdańsk Bay in Danzig, began a severe bombardment on Poland’s military base in Danzig without proclamation, and thus World War II began.

The Polish army resisted by using the Polish post office as their fort. The Polish post office was considered to be Polish territory, rather than within Danzig city limits, and there was a direct phone line to Poland. It is said that workers had received rifle training before the war started. Also, some say that Poland’s anti-Germany intelligence organization secretly operated there. Despite their hard-fought defense, the Polish civilian army in the post office could not compete with the offense of the German army, and in the end, they surrendered.

In World War II, most non-Jewish Polish citizens in Danzig were killed by German paramilitary organizations such as the Selbstschutz (“self-protection”), while the Jewish citizens were targeted by the Holocaust and were sent to concentration camps. In March of 1945, Danzig was liberated by the Soviet Union Red Army. In this movie, the way Oskar’s Kashubian mother goes back and forth between her German husband and her Polish lover seems to symbolize the race conflict in Danzig. There is a strong possibility that Oskar’s real father is the Polish man, but because he is the child of a German on the family register, Oskar barely escapes alive to Germany after the war. However, his grandmother remains in Danzig, and she is separated from Oskar for the rest of her life; since his grandmother is Kashubian, she cannot enter Germany.

Nowadays, Danzig is a Polish territory called Gdańsk. It was mostly destroyed in World War II, but it is said that due to the great efforts of current citizens, the historic streets have been rebuilt, and it prospers as a beautiful town for sightseeing.

日本語→

Movie: Outside the Law — Hors-la-loi (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

After the success of the masterpiece Days of Glory that was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film in the 2006 Academy Awards, the sequel Outside the Law was made with the hope of being another great success, but unfortunately it does not live up to the previous work at all; seeking success using the same seed did not bear fruit.

The actors who won Best Actor Awards in the Cannes Film Festival for their performances in Days of Glory, the previous work by the same director Rachid Bouchareb, appear again. Three actors that played soldiers in the previous work appear in the sequel with the same names (Messaoud, Abdelkader, Saïd), but this time the three men are brothers from Algeria. The actor who played the slightly quirky Sergeant Martinez in the previous work appears as a French police investigator who chases the three men. One key actor who won an award for Best Actor at Cannes, Samy Naceri as Yassir in the previous work, does not appear. This is probably due to the fact that before and after his appearance in Days of Glory, this actor was found guilty for the possession of cocaine a few times and at last in 2009 he was arrested on charges for assault with a knife.

When these three male actors with different facial features and body types are in the same unit as soldiers, it is believable; but when performing as brothers, it looks weird. The various events that happen to them as soldiers in the same unit are believable, but the things that happen to the three brothers one after another is too much of a coincidence. Furthermore, because this movie depicts a long period of time—from before World War II until 1962—in 2 hours, the movie gives the impression of just scratching the surface instead of digging deeper. After the success of Days of Glory, director Rachid Bouchareb seems to aim more strongly for an entertainment component, throwing in action scenes, to be a financial success. In fact, it felt like this movie was strongly influenced by the legendary Hollywood movie The Godfather. However, these action scenes are lacking something. Even though Hollywood movies may be criticized in various ways, Hollywood hasn’t spent all this time developing action movie techniques for nothing. These action scenes still have a long way to go to achieve a similar level as those in Hollywood.

This movie begins with the land that is owned by the father of the three brothers in an Algerian village being confiscated by an Algerian man with a connection to a French official. And so the family leaves their home town. The movie itself is fiction, but it draws upon actual historical events such as the Sétif massacre. On May 8, 1945, after Germany surrendered, Algerians in Sétif—where a French military base was located—and neighboring areas demanded independence and performed a demonstration, but the demonstration transformed into a riot when the police intervened and many people were killed in the process of suppression. In the movie, the brothers’ father is killed in this riot, and the second son Abdelkader is arrested and sent to a French prison.

The eldest son Messaoud is dispatched to Vietnam as a soldier of the French military. This movie shows mainly soldiers from French colonies being sent to Vietnam. The First Indochina War was fought by France primarily with people from Morocco, Algeria, Senegal, and other French colonies; the morale was low and there was a strong anti-war feeling. Eventually, France withdrew from Vietnam after the Geneva Accords in 1954.

The third son Saïd kills the Algerian landlord who stole his family’s land; he then goes with his mother to Paris where his older brother is imprisoned and devotes himself to money-making by opening a bar and boxing gym. Before long, the eldest brother returns from Vietnam, the second son is released, and the family finally reunites in Lance.

The second son Abdelkader and the eldest son Messaoud participate in the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) in Paris. The two assassinate government officials by using Messaoud’s former war comrade—an Algerian that Messaoud had met in the World War II resistance movement and Vietnam War, now working within the French government. As the FLN movement becomes more radical, the actions of the two men become more violent.

It is said that director Rachid Bouchareb decided to make a sequel because a lot of people asked him what happened afterwards to the main characters from his hit Days of Glory. It is not clear whether this movie approves or disapproves of the violence of FLN. I think he probably disapproves, but it is very difficult to keep watching these violent scenes. Also, I cannot see hope for Algeria’s future in this movie. It is regretful that the long-awaited sequel to the magnificent masterpiece was extremely violent and leaves a dark feeling after watching it. This may reflect the heavy price paid for independence and the sad reality of the current political instability in Algeria it led to. Furthermore, it is said that many people objected to how the contents of this movie are not historically impartial. This movie has received mixed reviews in many ways. This movie was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film.

日本語→

Movie: Butterfly’s Tongue — La lengua de las mariposas (1999)

Posted on by
Reply

When you watch this movie along with Belle Époque (1992) and The Spirit of the Beehive (1973), you can understand the painful and silent times after the Spanish Civil War broke out in 1936 and the fascist administration superseded the Second Spanish Republic that was established in 1931. Belle Époque depicts the establishment of the republic, while The Spirit of the Beehive depicts the silent times of the 1940s. Butterfly’s Tongue depicts the arrival of the Spanish Civil War in 1936. Because this movie was made in 1999, the Franco administration had collapsed and democracy was restored, so Spanish artists could break the silence, cast away the symbolism used to protect themselves, and express their message frankly.

The movie is set in a remote town in Galicia, Spain in 1936. Moncho is a young boy with asthma entering elementary school one year late. The teacher Gregorio is kind to Moncho, who is shy and has a hard time fitting in. Gregorio teaches the children about various things beyond the curriculum, including life, literature, and love. The teacher takes the children on a fieldtrip in order to study living things. Gregorio promises Moncho, who is interested in the story of the butterfly’s tongue, that he will show him with a microscope. Moncho’s older brother Andrés joins a town band and expands his experience by travelling around for concerts. Moncho’s father supports the Republican Party, while Moncho’s mother does not believe in the Republicans, but it does not hinder their married relationship. There is friendship and respect between the father and the teacher Gregorio.

However, the day that the town is seized by fascism at last arrives. In order to protect his family, the father, who had until then made it clear he was a supporter of Republicans, goes to the town square with other townspeople in order to participate in humiliating the arrested Republicans. In order to protect the family, the mother boos and jeers the people arrested, while the brothers watch silently; Andrés is surprised to see his bandleader who had been kind to him among the arrested, while Moncho is surprised to see his close friend’s father. At the end of the line of people who were arrested is the teacher Gregorio. The father, with pain, also starts to insult. At the urging of his mother, Moncho insults the teacher that he loves with, “Communist!” and “Atheist!” while throwing rocks.

What is most frightening in this movie is that the people who had peacefully lived together in this town completely divide into friends and enemies because of the Civil War. Before the Civil War started, there were small problems or disputes between married couples, within families, at school, or in church. However, the town was able to overcome these small differences by working together as a community. As the struggle for central power gradually becomes more extreme, however, the faces of the townspeople change, and in the end, the community is destroyed by hatred, fear, fighting, and stone throwing. The fight between Fascists and Republicans is not an abstract battle performed by the distant central government. Here, it is the terrifying reality that your neighbor yesterday becomes your persecutor today.

Another scary thing is that children sensitively notice their parents’ fear for their family’s safety, and the children’s actions become more radical than their parents. In this movie, the parents do not wish for war and don’t want to hurt others, but they know that if they support the arrested Republicans, tomorrow it could be them, so they insult the Republicans to protect themselves. However, the children sensitively perceive the fear, and go beyond their parents’ actions. It is scary that the children cannot control their actions because they don’t understand the consequences.

However, this movie doesn’t blame Moncho for throwing stones at the teacher Gregorio who cared for Moncho dearly. The times that forced the child to act in such a way are to be blamed; the child doesn’t understand what is happening, but senses that something is happening. As in China’s Cultural Revolution and with Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge, children were the ones who cruelly persecuted adults, but someone else was in the background to make the children act this way.

Franco died in 1975, and Spain established a truly stable democracy in 1981, but those who opposed Franco had to wait until 2008 for their honor to be restored. There must be many people in Spain like the teacher Gregorio who had their honor snatched away and died.

日本語→

Movie: Ivan’s Childhood — Ivanovo detstvo (1962)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie is director Andrei Tarkovsky’s movie adaptation of Russian author Vladimir Bogomolov’s short story Ivan. Ivan—a young boy who became an orphan after losing his whole family including his parents in the Eastern Front during World War II when he was 12 years old—joins the partisans out of his hatred for Germany, and he later participates in the Soviet Army as a reconnaissance soldier; in the end, he is executed by the Nazis, ending his short life. There isn’t a particularly dramatic story development, but the movie keeps making a clear contrast between the beautiful and poetic scenes that flashback to the young boy’s memories of the peaceful days, and the harsh reality of the war spreading in front of the boy.

This movie’s characteristic is the beauty of the objet d’art (art object). Neither actual battle scenes nor German soldiers appear, and war is only symbolically expressed with gunshots and lights, like toy fireworks. Every objet d’art—water, darkness, light, lamps, ruins, the swamp, the beach, the well, horses, white birch trees, birds, apples, etc—is placed effectively and sometimes in a surprising location; also, the movement of people is shot from unexpected angles.

When Stalin died in 1953, the people under Soviet Union control in those days finally gained peace of mind, and Western culture rapidly flowed into the Soviet Union; new theories on movies and art were introduced into universities, and this movie was made during the period when a new generation of movie directors was being brought up. Andrei Tarkovsky was one of the young men of this new post-war generation. It is said he fawned over America, to the point of being criticized for it; he was very interested in modern America and obsessed with jazz. Also, he enthusiastically studied the directors that were considered great by Western countries in those days such as Jean-Luc Godard, Akira Kurosawa, Federico Fellini, Orson Welles, and Ingmar Bergman.

Rather than story and subject matter, this movie seems concerned with novel objet d’art and angles for filming; it seems that it was greatly influenced by La Nouvelle Vague (“the new wave”) swelling in France at that time. La Nouvelle Vague was a movie movement that happened in France in the 50s, and was led by French movie critics who bitterly criticized existing movie directors as being “dull,” and who enthusiastically declared, “We can make more interesting movies.” François Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard were central figures.

In France, which was still scarred from the war in the 1950s and 60s, the youth tended to rebel strongly against adults and the establishment that caused the war. New movements were rising in many cultural areas, such as communism in politics, existentialism—led by Jean-Paul Sartre—followed by structuralism in the realm of philosophy, and La Nouvelle Vague within movies. The themes of these new movements included a feeling of decadence, eroticism, destructive acts, or nihilism without solutions. French culture heavily influenced Japan in the 60s, and a group called “Japan Nouvelle Vague” was even born in Japan, representative movie directors being Nagisa Oshima, Masahiro Shinoda, Shohei Imamura, Susumu Hani, Hiroshi Teshigahara, Yasuzo Masumura, and Koreyoshi Kurahara. They made movies with themes that had until then not often been the subject—such as juvenile delinquents, crimes, uninhibited sex, women living unnoticed in society, or bottom class people; also, they made movies that seemed to forsake the audience by being difficult to understand, and the audience began to consider them as “artists.”

La Nouvelle Vague movies were fresh in those times, but how are they when you watch them today? The novel techniques were imitated one after another by directors that followed after, and since everyone uses these methods now, viewers today may not understand why La Nouvelle Vague movies are considered revolutionary. Also, I wonder how many people today know the names Sartre and François Truffaut? Young Japanese people today might say about Sartre (pronounced “Sarutoru” in Japanese), “Sa-ru-to-ru, who? Is that someone who leaves (‘saru’) and takes things (‘toru’)?” But back in the 1960s, Sartre was so well-known in Japan that even a Japanese TV comedian referred to his name in a joke (“catch the monkey,” since “saru”=monkey, “toru”=catch) because the name “Sarutoru” sounds funny. I think it is certainly great that those of this movement pursued fresh methods and ideas 60 years ago, and since their methods are still kept alive in modern movies as mainstream methods, we could say that the core of La Nouvelle Vague is still alive today after all. Even now, we express the generalization, “French movies are difficult to understand, and they coldly cast aside the hearts of viewers.” Many modern French movies have a tone that is not La Nouvelle Vague, but there are also many French movies that are still based on the spirit of La Nouvelle Vague. We can say that La Nouvelle Vague was so influential that the basic tone of postwar French movies was defined by it.

As a result, this movie, Ivan’s Childhood, seems to raise interesting issues that Andrei Tarkovsky probably didn’t intend for.

Ivan is a war orphan and, due to the murder of his family, changes from an innocent young boy to nihilistic young boy. The only emotion he believes in is “hatred.” He is not scared anymore, no matter what happens. He hates German soldiers, but can’t trust any adult anymore—German or Russian—because it was adults that caused this war.

Ivan is killed in the war, but I wonder what would become of him if he survived? Maybe he would become an adult who hates the people in the generation above him. Germany and France, cruelly affected by the war, broke out in a violent anti-establishment movement in 1950s and 60s. Central to this movement was the generation who were children during the war, and this generation conveyed the feeling of hatred for the establishment to the generation born after the war. The change in the boy playing Ivan from being an innocent young boy with a happy smiling face to one with a dark face full of hatred—like an omen for the future—is very impressive in the movie.

日本語→

Movie: Sarah’s Key (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

There are two themes in Sarah’s Key. The first is the sense of duty to tell of the Jewish manhunt that happened in France; the other is the relevance of the past to the present. Therefore, the movie goes back and forth between 1942 and present day and comes together at the end.

Sarah is a ten year old girl who lives in Paris during Nazi-Germany occupation. One day, the French police come to arrest her family because they are Jewish, but Sarah quickly thinks to hide her younger brother Michel in the closet; she locks him in and instructs him, “Never come out, I’ll come back soon,” as she is taken away with her parents. They are forcibly transported to Vélodrome d’Hiver (an indoor bicycle race track) where the imprisoned Jews are in intense heat and cannot go to the bathroom. From there, they are sent to a temporary internment camp and finally to Auschwitz. Sarah escapes from the internment camp to return to Paris with the key to let her little brother out of the closet.

Julia is a skilled American journalist who lives in Paris with her French husband. She is assigned an article to cover the Vélodrome d’Hiver massive arrests in 1942 (abbreviated by many as the Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup), but during her investigation, she discovers that Jews were hidden in the condo owned by her husband’s family. She learns that the parents who lived in that condo died in Auschwitz, but their children Sarah and Michel didn’t, so her investigation turns to focusing on what became of them. However, in doing so, she causes pain to her husband’s family. Her husband’s grandfather had obtained Sarah’s vacant condo at a very low price, and, since nobody came back alive, her husband’s family has lived there in peace, unaware of its history.

The fact that French people forcibly moved Jews and sent them to Auschwitz was not publicized for a long time. However, Chirac was elected as president in 1995 and he, immediately after his presidential inauguration, recognized for the first time that the country had made a mistake with the participation of the French police in the Vel d’Hiv Roundup and Jewish persecution during World War II. But until President Chirac’s public recognition, most citizens were not aware of the incident.

During World War II, under the Vichy administration, a committee was formed to review the procedure of becoming a citizen and those who had become a citizen between 1927 and July 1940 were investigated; as a result, a law that invalidated the French citizenship of 15,000 Jews in France was proposed. The law was passed which allowed the revoking of citizenship and continued downgrading of the social class of Jews in France. Consequently, there was no governmental responsibility for French Jews and Vichy France was able to send Jews to concentration camps and Holocaust internment camps legally. After that, similar laws were passed in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia, French colonies at the time.

The attitude of, “It’s all because of the terrible Nazis. France was occupied, and so was not responsible!” isn’t true because there is evidence that Vichy France adopted these laws without being forced to by Nazi Germany.

In fact, I wonder if it is that nobody wants to talk about France’s dark past where, only 70 years ago, the country was divided into two opposing parts. Therefore, I think people want to believe that Vichy France that cooperated with the Nazis that occupied the northern half of France was not true France, and may say that they have no responsibility for what Vichy France did regarding France’s cooperation with the Nazi’s Jew hunt. Charles de Gaulle (President from 1959 to 1969), who had taken refuge from Vichy France in Britain and adamantly resisted Germany, was unable to apologize for the actions of Vichy France, his own enemy.

Both President Pompidou (1969 to 1974) and President Mitterrand (1981 to 1995) who took over after de Gaulle were fighters in the resistance and so seemed to believe they did not need to apologize for the past actions of Vichy France. In the end, President Chirac of the conservative party (president from 1995 to 2007) was the first to recognize France’s responsibility with his apology that France should’ve protected their people from their enemy.
Also of the conservative party, Jewish President Sarkozy (2007 to 2012) was against the anti-Semitism, but did not acknowledge the crime by the French government. However, left-wing Hollande defeated Sarkozy in the presidential elections and was the first left-wing president to recognize the national crime of the Vel d’Hiv Roundup.

This movie depicts the question of how a Jew overcomes oppression and lives afterwards. The life of a liberated Jew is not over even if a movie ends when the Allies win and end the war. It is a sad journey to follow what happened to Sarah afterwards. The spirit of Sarah who survived only with the motivation to rescue her younger brother is suddenly broken. There are many warm and gentle-hearted people around Sarah, but that love was not able to save Sarah. In this sense, this is a sad movie without salvation, but I think the audience can have hope at the end of this movie. Julia’s journey causes pain to her husband’s family who do not want to know about the past and Sarah’s family, but in the end the family accepts and appreciates knowing the painful past. Furthermore, Julia’s journey went beyond an investigation of another person’s life when it provided an opportunity for her to think about her own life.

日本語→

Movie: Evita (1996)

Posted on by
Reply

Because this movie that premiered in 1996 was nominated for several Academy Awards (won Best Original Song) and Madonna who played Eva Peron (Evita) won the Golden Globe for Best Actress, it got some recognition, but no one has ever recommended this movie to me in the 16 years it has been out. I watched this movie without any expectations, and was really pleasantly surprised. It is a wonderful movie. It may be too obvious, but what was most wonderful was Madonna’s skill as a singer. However, interestingly, Madonna tried very hard to market herself for the role of the protagonist Eva, but the movie company was uninterested, and the producer continued searching for another actress. In the end, no other actress was available, and it is said they reluctantly settled on Madonna for the role of Eva. However, I believe no other actress could have done as magnificent of a performance of Eva as Madonna did. I will state the reasons.

First of all, since it is a musical, the woman playing Eva must be a singer who can act, or an actress who can sing. The three components of entertainment are singing, dancing, and acting; but in the politics of American show business, singing and acting have absolute authority, and dancing is politically weak. Therefore, Natalie Portman who made use of a stunt ballerina was given an Academy Award, while Audrey Hepburn who had a voice dubbed over her for the songs in My Fair Lady was not even a candidate for an Academy Award. Conversely, Reese Witherspoon (Walk the Line) and Sissy Spacek (as Loretta in Coal Miner’s Daughter) sang in their roles and easily won the Academy Award. This shows that one’s ability as a singer is respected in Hollywood and Broadway.

Second, since this movie depicts Eva when she was in her 20s, a woman in her 20s or possibly early 30s is preferable in order to be able to do camera close-ups, and for it to seem realistic. Because stage actress Patti LuPone—who was the performer of Eva in Evita on Broadway at that time—was 47 when this movie was being made, it is said that she was offered the role of, not Eva, but rather Eva’s elderly mother!!! It goes without saying that Patti declined the offer.

Third, to play Eva, the actress had to be incredibly beautiful, elegant, ambitious, and have a tough and intense presence that didn’t shrink when she stepped onto the outdoor balcony from where she addressed a large crowd. This might be a little too difficult for an actress in her 20s.

This is the list of actresses that the director and producer seriously negotiated with:

Meryl Streep. She was in her mid-40s when this movie was being made.
Liza Minnelli. Three years older than Meryl Streep.
Barbara Streisand. Four years older than Liza Minnelli.
Cher. The same age as Liza Minnelli.
Glenn Close. Two years older than Meryl Streep.
Olivia Newton-John. One year older than Meryl Streep.
Michelle Pfeiffer. The same age as Madonna. They were both in their mid-30s at the time of filming.

Therefore, Madonna and Michelle Pfeiffer were the only ones that satisfied the second criteria; the decision was between the singer Madonna, who could act reasonably well but had charisma, and the lovely Michelle, who was decent at singing but had a reputation as a skilled actor. It was the difference in motivations between the two that became the decisive factor. At that time, Michelle Pfeiffer was starting to enjoy the life of being married and raising kids, and she didn’t want to go to the set in Argentina, even though the staff had gone through great efforts to get the rights to shoot in the official residence where Eva had lived. Even in her personal life, Michelle Pfeiffer exudes a feeling of contentment with her blessed life that has everything she needs. After all, no actress would be better than go-getter Madonna to play as the ambitious Eva. Her singing is wonderful, but also her dancing splendidly captures the essence of tango.

Also, the singing and dancing of Antonio Banderas, in the role of the narrator who looks like Che Guevara, is wonderful. He sings and dances naturally without being arrogant about his skill.

日本語→

Movie: A Farewell to Arms (1957)

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movie: Three Monkeys — Üç Maymun (2008)

Posted on by
Reply

There may not be many people who, although they know Turkey as a name of a nation, have met someone in person from the country. I have fortunately been able to make some Turkish friends. Because of them, I think I was able to gain my own image about the country of Turkey.

Turkish people have a very favorable opinion of Japanese people. Even a young child who has never actually met a Japanese person is taught by their parents, the media, and the society in general that the Japanese are respectable people. Most Westerners can’t tell Japanese and Chinese people apart, but a Turkish person who has really met a Japanese person says they can immediately tell the difference between Japanese and Chinese people. Japanese people tend to think that Turkish people are Islamic and Arabic in culture, but the country their culture is closest to is actually Greece. I have heard my Turkish friends complain that, “Europeans and Americans respect Greeks as the founders of ancient civilization, but look down on us as savage Muslims.” Most people are Muslim, but Islam does not hold a major role in the lives of the majority of the people in Turkey. Instead, they fear and oppose having the small number of fanatic Muslims gaining power and controlling the government.

Because Turkey shares its border with countries such as Iran, Iraq, and Syria, it wisely tries to maintain a friendly attitude in order to not provoke these countries. However, I think the true desire of the Turkish people is to establish strong relations with Europe and America, and live with Western standards. Turkey and Iran are two of the few countries within the Islam sphere that don’t have Arabic as their first language.

Turkey already economically and politically participates actively as a member of Europe and is classified as part of Europe by the Copenhagen Standard. Turkey government officially thinks of Turkey as a European country, belonging to Europe’s football organization and Olympics committee. Also, Turkey participates in European organizations such as NATO, Council of Europe, Western European Union, South-East European Cooperation Process, Southeast European Cooperative Initiative, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe; it signed the Declaration of Helsinki and has applied for membership in the European Union (EU). A few years ago, my Turkish friend told me about Turkey’s EU application and that there was very strong wariness about Turkey as an Islamic country among Europeans; he complained about the differential treatment by the EU towards Turkey versus other Eastern European nations that were easily admitted to the EU. Istanbul, along with Tokyo, is one of the finalists being considered to host the 2020 Olympics. This is a great opportunity to show that Turkey is a beautiful and respectable country, but it is unfortunate that the unrest in Turkey’s neighbor Syria may negatively affect the selection. Currently, Turkey who does not accept Syria’s behavior is having a skirmish with Syria at the border between Turkey and Syria. Turkey would have wanted to avoid this.

Nuri Bilge Ceylan who made Three Monkeys represents Turkey as a director and his past works have won awards at the Berlin International Film Festival award and Cannes International Film Festival Grand Prix. In particular, he became an international superstar when he won the Cannes Film Festival Best Director Award for Three Monkeys, but, unfortunately, none of his works have been released in Japan. In addition, even though he is a director in his mid-fifties, he is quite handsome and I think he would become popular with Japanese people if he were to be invited to Japan.

In Three Monkeys, politician Servet, driving home while tired from running his election campaign, accidentally hits a pedestrian and keeps driving. Afraid of a scandal, Servet convinces his driver Eyüp to take the blame for his hit-and-run crime in exchange for a monetary reward, so Eyüp is sent to prison. While Eyüp is in prison, his wife Hacer and Servet develop an intimate relationship. Eyüp’s son notices this love affair and the rough storyline of Three Monkeys is the lives of Hacer and Servet turning towards disaster as their relationship becomes serious.

What I thought was interesting when watching this movie is that it is very passive and subdued. There is no animalistic, aggressive violence commonly seen in Western movies. Even though this movie depicts a family crisis, the characters do not raise their voices, nor do they use violence. Everyone looks sad because they suppress their feelings and don’t express themselves. Also, everyone is unhappy in their own way; their foolish decisions pile up and no one seeks a constructive solution. I am urged to call out to them, “Sad? But you cannot blame anyone but you.” The music of an incoming call on the cell phone also sounds sad. It somehow resembles a Japanese enka ballad. Enka music is said to originate from Korea, but I wonder if its ancient origin might possibly be traced back to Turkey. At any rate, a subdued and sad tone is in the air throughout the movie. This director is very popular with Europe and America because of this sad tone is very unique. Although this feeling is similar to what Westerners feel about Japan, this movie is more gloomy and sad.

Another thing Nuri Bilge Ceylan is renowned for is the beauty of his images. Most of this movie is taken in a poor apartment in a poor area in Istanbul, but the cinematography is terrifyingly beautiful. You cannot understand it without actually watching it. It is really regrettable that it has not been released in Japan.

The story of this movie is not particularly noteworthy and it develops undramatically, but it made me want to see more of director Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s works. There is a mysterious charm to this movie.

日本語→

Movie: J. Edgar (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→