Movie: Pelle the Conqueror — Pelle Erobreren (1987)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie is not the story of Pelé, the renowned former Brazilian soccer player. Martin Andersen Nexø, a communist and proletarian author from Denmark, wrote the original Pelle Eroberen (Pelle the Conqueror), which was published in four parts between 1906 and 1910, and these books were adapted into a movie in 1987.

The boy Pelle and his father leave their homeland Sweden, and immigrate to Bornholm—a Danish island just a stone’s throw away from Sweden; they find work on a big farm taking care of cows while living in the farm’s barn along with the cows. Life there is incredibly harsh; the movie is filled with a persistent feeling of hopelessness from the beginning to the end, and the characters face failures one after another, as soon as any form of hope begins to sprout. Then at the very end, the movie finishes with Pelle leaving behind his father—who had given up hope for life—as he sets forth into a new world alone and at last breaks free from the farm. The movie continuously shows images of cold wind and the frozen ocean for two and a half hours, so I think many people may have a chilly feeling after they finish watching this movie. This movie makes me wonder how this boy—who doesn’t have any money in this foreign country, has no family or friends, and, if things don’t go well, could freeze overnight in this cold country—could survive. The title of Pelle “the Conqueror” seems ironic.

In my head, I thought, “Because it has a serious theme, it will be a good movie,”; the thrilling development and beautiful cinematography compelled me through two and a half hours, and I was made to think, “Since it won several awards such as the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film and the highest prize at Cannes, surely it’ll be a masterpiece.” But if someone were to look me straight in the eye and ask, “Did you really like this movie? Were you truly emotionally moved by it?” my answer about this movie would be, “Truthfully, I didn’t like this movie that much.”

Briefly what is wrong is the stereotypical and inconsistent way of depicting the characters. Regarding the stereotypes, you can compare this movie to Heneke’s The White Ribbon, which depicts the life of farmers during the same period. In Pelle the Conqueror, everything bad that happens to the farmers is due to the mid-level manager in charge of the farm. This manager gives his employees barely enough to eat, and he mentally and physically abuses his employees. This farm manager is like the devil, and the farm owner just gallivants around. Anyhow, the ruling class is depicted uniformly ugly and cruel. By contrast, when you watch The White Ribbon, the landowner isn’t exactly considerate towards the tenant farmers, but he makes every effort to improve the productivity of his farm, and is sure to keep his tenant farmers healthy and productive. Although the tenant farmers feel bitter about the difference in social status, they know it is the landowner who gave them their jobs and feeds their family, so they can respect the owner even if they don’t like him; in addition, the workers’ futures are insecure if their landlord were to disappear. So to speak, they have a symbiotic relationship. Also, The White Ribbon doesn’t depict the tenant farmers as being pure and innocent. Pelle the Conqueror claims that all of the ruling class is evil while the laborers are always the victim, and everything depicted in this movie is based on the theory of class struggle—inheriting the belief of the author Martin Anderson Nexø, who never doubted Marxism and communism until he died.

In terms of the inconsistent way of depicting the characters, the protagonist Pelle is a diligent, good boy, and he is liked well enough by the adults on the farm, but Pelle tells a boy who is poorer than him, “I’ll give you money if you let me whip you,” and then Pelle severely whips the boy until Pelle is bored and not interested in whipping anymore; there may be viewers who are sickened by watching this. The poorer child doesn’t have much going for him, but he is kind and, in one way, has skills to survive, as seen by how he teaches Pelle how to take care of the cows. At some point, this boy changes to being depicted as mentally retarded. Also, the bullying between the children is horrific. I have watched a fair number of Northern European movies, and surprisingly many of them include scenes of children bullying each other. Of course, bullying among children may exist in any time or place. However, why is it necessary to push bullying up to the front when making a movie like this? In addition, this movie shows the filthiness of the living conditions of the farm workers for two and a half hours, and this further depresses the viewers. Pelle and his father excrete their feces in the cow barn, and then sleep in a nearby stall at night. They don’t change their clothes much except into their one good suit for church, and always wear the same clothes that they don’t wash. I’m surprised they don’t also suffer from an epidemic or infectious disease. I wonder if they are particularly abused because they are immigrants.

Pelle is favored by the farmer’s wife and is selected for the position of being trained as the manager. The audience feels relieved that Pelle and his father can at last be happy, but Pelle, after hearing his father’s words—“You are finally given easy work here. You work with just words, and only have to say what to do. We are blessed,”—decides to not accept the position and runs away from the farm. In other words, the message that seems to be implied is, “By not joining and instead deciding to fight the ugly, exploiting ruling class, Pelle is the true meaning of a conqueror and a winner.” There is no message to improve your life, step-by-step, by completing your job diligently, even though it is hard. Even if the misery depicted was the reality of those times, what is the value in modern times of making this movie that is about class struggle? By 1987, Denmark and Sweden had already achieved a model welfare nation.

Perhaps the meaning of the word “conqueror” comes from the words that Erik, a coworker at the farm who loved Pelle, always said: “First, immigrate to America; then conquer the world.” Following the Industrial Revolution that happened from the 18th century until the 19th century, a series of advancements in agricultural technology occurred across Western Europe, the monetary economy spread, and big changes were happening in the European social structure. Most farmers that were operating independently to support themselves fell from being an independent farmer to being a low-wage worker. The difference between the rich and the poor became more and more severe, and Irishmen, Germans, Scandinavians, and Italians steadily immigrated to the new land of America. The reason for immigration may have differed slightly—people from France and Germany immigrated because of political persecution, while Russian Jews immigrated because of religious persecution—but all people immigrated to a new land in search for possibilities that were not available in constrictive Europe.

Perhaps life for Pelle after leaping from the island could be similar to Titanic’s Jack Dawson (played by Leonardo DiCaprio), who is similarly a fictional character of around the same age living during the same time. Jack Dawson was around 20 years old in 1912, dreamed of flourishing in America, and embarked on the Titanic. He wins a poker game of tough bidding against two Swedes who dreamed of immigrating to America, and gets a free boarding pass ticket for the Titanic.

日本語→

Movie: The Sun Also Rises (1957)

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movie: Les Invasions barbares – The Barbarian Invasions (2003)

Posted on by
Reply

Director Denys Arcand, who made The Decline of the American Empire in 1986, made this sequel, The Barbarian Invasions, 17 years later. Unlike how The Decline of the American Empire focused on the school dean Dominique, The Barbarian Invasions focuses on the lives of Rémy and Louise, but the main characters are Rémy and Louise’s son Sébastien and Diane’s daughter Nathalie.

Sébastien, who works vigorously and earns a lot of money as an investor in London, is informed that his father Rémy is sick with cancer, so he and his fiancée Gaëlle return to his hometown Montreal. Since his parents are divorced, Sébastien doesn’t have many memories of living with his father, but upon his mother’s request, he decides to make his father’s last days enjoyable.

This hospital that is ruled by labor unions is very inefficient, and the patients are put into the hallways even though there are many vacant hospital rooms. Utilizing the power of money, Sébastien secures a private room for Rémy; he invites his father’s former coworkers—Diane, Dominique, Pierre, and Claude—and the private room becomes something like a class reunion and a party. Pierre, who despised the idea of being married, is now married with a young wife, is working hard every day to raise a small child, and really looks happy. Claude, a gay man who had uncommitted relationships with many different men, seems to be living a stable life with a partner. Sébastien bribes former students to come to the hospital and tell Rémy how excellent of a teacher he was, which delights Rémy.

Rémy’s cancer is already terminal; it cannot be treated, and Rémy suffers from pain. Sébastien plans to ease the pain with heroin, so Diane introduces him to her daughter Nathalie, who uses heroin. Sébastien hires Nathalie to care for his father by administering him heroin. Through the course of this, Sébastien and Nathalie become attracted to each other; Nathalie decides to stop using heroin and follows through.

Since Rémy approved of the socialization of Quebec and supported the hospital’s labor union, he made up his mind to not complain about the poor medical treatment he got as a result of what he supported, but what gave him peace in his final moments was his son, who succeeded in the capitalist society that Rémy so denied. With death close at hand, he sadly realizes that, even though he tried hard and played around with many things, he didn’t accomplish anything; but he unexpectedly finds that his best achievement is his child, whom he didn’t realize until then was an achievement, and passes away peacefully.

Quebec is unique within Canada. This area was historically a French settlement in the 17th century, but it was occupied by the British army since the Seven Years’ War in the 18th century. USA, independent from Great Britain since 1776, invited Quebec to join the United States since they understood the anti-British sentiment present in Quebec, but Quebec decided to remain in Canada after careful consideration. However, Quebec continued to oppose Canadian federalism after Canada’s independence, and in Quebec, French is the only official language; even now, a little less than half the residents of Quebec insists on independence from Canada.

The socialization of Quebec that progressed since the 1960s and did not rely on violence was called the “Quiet Revolution,” and was founded on nationalism and social democracy (leftist thought); it established anti-Catholic laws, socialistic medical insurance policies, and strong labor standard laws that gave people the right to go on strike. Canada is the model child of the Commonwealth of Nations, and incorporates mild socialism, like Europe, regarding issues such as medical care and working conditions, but Quebec took it one step further.

Since director Denys Arcand was born in 1941, he was greatly influenced by the Quiet Revolution in Quebec. The characters of The Decline of the American Empire and The Barbarian Invasions are generally the same generation as or just slightly younger than director Denys Arcand, since they were in their forties in 1986. In the 1980s, this generation wondered what the doctrine for life would be, since Catholicism and capitalism were both weakening, and Marxism turned out to be disappointing; but capitalism remained healthier than they thought it would, and after all, family—which tends to be overlooked—is the core of our life. This is the point of this movie. All things considered, I am surprised that the six actors are able to star together in both movies. In 17 years, someone could have died, someone may have resigned as an actor, or the negotiation of the performance fee for the actors may not be easy due to the status of the actor having gone way up or down, but everyone seems to be in good spirits and gives a good performance. I think as actors, they recognize the value of this movie, and that director Denys Arcand has the power to attract actors.

日本語→

Movie: The Last Days (1998)

Posted on by
4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movie: Tsotsi (2005)

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that the original book this movie was based off of was set in South Africa in the 1960s, but this movie takes place after the apartheid was abolished. The poor black community and the black people of the wealthy middle class are contrasted, and there is a brief depiction of the AIDS problem and abnormally high crime rate; South Africa was Africa’s poster child after the apartheid, but this movie depicts a different side. For people who believe that South Africa transitioned smoothly into a fair community under the leadership of President Mandela, this movie may change their view of South Africa a little.

To say it briefly, this is the story of Tsotsi—an orphaned, juvenile delinquent who robs without thinking of the consequences—maturing into a kind human through his hard struggles in raising a baby he finds in a car he stole. From the moment a parent has a baby, their instinct is to want to protect that child. However, I wonder if this instinct to protect a baby would be triggered in Tsotsi, a young boy who never really had a parent’s love and repeatedly steals and robs. This may be a wonderful movie for a person who can believe this would happen, but for those viewers who have difficulty accepting this plot point, they may find the whole movie unbelievable.

Tsotsi, having a hard time caring for the baby, uses a gun to threaten a young woman in the neighborhood raising her own baby, asks her to breastfeed the baby, and becomes close with the woman. Her husband seems to have been attacked by someone on the way home from work at a factory and is missing. It is possible that Tsotsi or some scoundrel like him murdered the husband. However, this young woman doesn’t seem to be financially struggling, and the inside of her house is tidy. Whether or not you feel this movie to be realistic may make you think it is either a believable masterpiece or a fantasy depicting Africa. Either way, though, this is very sad movie.

This movie was made with three different endings. The official ending ends with Tsotsi getting arrested when he goes to return the baby to its parents. The second ending is that Tsotsi is shot in the shoulder by a police officer and barely escapes alive. The third ending is that Tsotsi dies from a shot in the chest by a police officer. I think the official ending is the best because it has some kind of hope. The second ending leaves the audience with the feeling, “What on earth is this movie trying to say?”while the third ending is too sad.

日本語→

Movie: The Spirit of the Beehive — El espíritu de la colmena (1973)

Posted on by
Reply

After the violent Spanish Civil War, Generalísimo Franco overthrew the left-wing Popular Front administration that was selected by a general election; this movie is set just after Franco seized power in 1939. Following this, a reign of terror continued in Spain until Franco died in 1975, and people remained silent during these times out of fear of retribution. In 1973 when this movie was made, the dictatorship was not as severe as it was initially, but movies were still strictly censored by authorities. The reason why even recent Spanish movies have many metaphors and abstractions may be that this way of expression became a part of the engrained culture of the intelligentsia, who faced 40 years of cultural oppression. In fact, there is not a single dramatic event in this movie. This is the kind of movie that makes me wonder after finishing the movie what it wanted to say.

There is only one scene in the movie that implies that a Republican soldier who escapes is shot dead, and the censors also made note of this scene; however, they figured, “Nobody will watch such a boring movie,” and the whole movie made it through the screening process uncut. During this time, moviemakers made their political agenda increasingly abstract, while authorities tried harder and harder to find the hidden political agenda, like a monkey chasing a weasel. However, when this work was finally screened, it touched people, and it established a reputation as a masterpiece. Was it because people were touched by the beautiful images in this movie, or because the Spanish audience learned the art of discovering something in the metaphors?

Since this movie is so abstract, viewers are allowed to interpret it in many possible ways. To give an example of an extreme interpretation as a political metaphor, the father who spends all his time on a trivial beehive study symbolizes the intelligentsia, who gave up their true interests in order to survive. The beehive society that he hates is a metaphor for the society under the control of Franco, which is orderly, but devoid of creativity. The mother spends her days writing letters to a former lover (I assume, based on how the movie depicts it) who is a Republican fugitive; this symbolizes the longing for freedom and the nostalgia for the past. The two daughters are in the same generation, but the older sister Isabel—who seems quite mature for her age—represents the young generation who adapted to Franco’s administration without criticism, while the younger sister Ana—who looks at the world with frightened eyes—symbolizes the idealistic youth in Spain in the 1940s. The emotionally discordant situation of the protagonist Ana’s family symbolizes the division in Spain due to the Spanish Civil War, while the ruins and the surrounding desolate scenery represent the sense of isolation felt when the Franco administration was first established. Near the end, the mother—who ignored her children and stayed in her own world—softens emotionally, and the bonds between the family members becomes stronger; this can be interpreted as hope for Spain’s future.

Another extreme interpretation is that this story has nothing to do with politics, and that it is just about the little girl Ana growing out of her child mentality that merges the real and imaginary worlds.

Therefore, everybody can appreciate the beauty of the images, but the opinions on how to interpret the movie seems to be divided. Since everyone in Spain in those days had to live life as if they were being watched by someone behind them, it is unlikely that this director had no political stance at all. This is because everybody had to internally deal with the reign of terror. However, I don’t think that the whole movie symbolizes an anti-government protest. I don’t believe this movie was so calculated in its construction.

This movie depicts the sense of fear any young child feels in an unknown world. Frankenstein’s monster, the dark, nighttime, ruins, poisonous mushrooms, ghosts, deep wells, the forest, reflections in a pond, and railways are all fears of children. However, while it is natural for a child like Ana to have these fears, she strangely lacks the parents who should hold her and say, “Don’t be afraid, it’s okay.” The reason is that the parents also have a fear—the government. During Ana’s search for Frankenstein’s monster, she meets a soldier who escaped. Since the escaped soldier is shot to death, Ana realizes—although just vaguely—that there is something in the real world that is even scarier than any fear that she came up with in her mind. Perhaps this is the criticism of the government that is hidden in this movie.

日本語→

Movie: The Syrian Bride (2004)

Posted on by
Reply

Israel played the main role in the production of The Syrian Bride. Israeli Eran Riklis wrote the script with Palestinian Suha Arraf, as well as directed the movie, and most of the actors were Israelis of Palestinian descent. Director Riklis seemed to have an international audience as the target for this movie and made it from the point of view of an Israeli. In other words, even though the word “Syrian” is in the movie title, this movie was made to try to convey an Israeli sentiment to the world.

The setting of this movie is a devout Druze village in the Golan Heights at the border of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. Islam is divided into two main opposing groups, the Shia and Sunni. Sunnis are the majority, while Shiites are estimated to be 10 to 20% of Muslims. Since the birth of the Shia sect, they were generally in the position of the minority against the Sunni majority, and the Shia often formed their group in mountainous areas where enemies couldn’t easily invade in order to protect themselves from being attacked by the majority. Iran is the only country in which Shiites are the majority, but it is said there are a significant number of Shiites in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Pakistan. Over time, the Shia became more and more fragmented. The Druze originated from the Shia, but they differ in doctrine in many aspects; thus, Druze is sometimes called the third sect of Islam, while many Muslims do not consider Druze to be a part of Islam.

This area is complicated politically. In the Third Arab-Israeli War (Six-Day War)—the war between Israel and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq in 1967—Israel succeeded in a surprise attack and won by quickly occupying the West Bank district of Jordan, the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and the Golan Heights of Syria. Since 1981, Golan Heights was put under civilian governance, and Israel gave Israeli citizenship to the Syrians on this land who desired it. Since the inhabitants had a strong sense of identity with Syria, not many people applied for Israeli citizenship, and the result was that they became stateless. The people who go to Syria from Golan Heights for reasons such as marriage cannot return to their village under Israeli occupation because once they cross the national border, they automatically become Syrian. International public opinion does not approve of Israel’s occupation of Golan Heights, but Israel is not going to give up Golan Heights because Golan Heights is strategically important and the Sea of Galilee is valuable as a water source.

Since the Six-Day War ended swiftly in the blink of an eye with an Israeli victory, there were some people living in Golan Heights that were separated from their family. The set up for this movie is that the father Hammed is a pro-Syria activist and was just released from an Israeli prison. Since one of his three sons lives in Syria and can’t return to Golan Heights, when they want to talk, the father and son must go to a place called “Shouting Hill,” where people communicate with a megaphone across a short field due to the military border.

Because Hammed’s eldest son married a woman doctor that he met while studying abroad in Russia, Hammed disowns him and the Druze elders in their village banish him. Hammed’s eldest daughter married a man chosen by her father, but she grows distant from her conservative husband, and she is determined to study at an Israeli university to gain her independence. Her eldest daughter (Hammed’s granddaughter) falls in love with the son of a family that is pro-Israel. Hammed’s second daughter is arranged to marry a distant relative—a popular actor now in Syria—and is going to leave for Syria, but since she cannot return to her family once she crosses the border, she is hesitant about the marriage. The second son flies around Italy and France with a stateless passport and conducts business. He is different from the second daughter and the son in Syria in that he has the freedom to travel. Because the eldest son comes back from Russia briefly for his little sister’s wedding, he seems to also have the freedom to travel. Since he is married to a Russian woman, he may have a Russian passport. In other words, the restriction of not being able to come back once one crosses the national border seems to just be for the Syrian national border.

This movie depicts the happenings on the day of the second daughter’s wedding ceremony, and, since the inauguration of the current President al-Assad is being covered on the TV, we can tell that this story takes place in the year 2000. The movie depicts Syrians being excited for President al-Assad’s inauguration, with hope and joy because they believed President al-Assad to be a kind and educated man, unlike his father and older brother. No one at that time could have ever imagined that President al-Assad would make the list of “World’s Worst Dictators” according to American media.

This is a good movie that depicts familial love that is not easy. However, the thing that stood out most in this movie was the desire to express an Israeli sentiment. This movie does not mention the past of the Israeli occupation of Golan Heights at all, and it just depicts the warmness between the people currently living in Golan Heights, regardless of their ethnicity. The Israelis that appear are neither good nor bad guys, simply do their duty, and are just average people. Israel has often been criticized internationally, but those who have decided to live there wish greatly for Israel to be seen positively and work hard to gain international support. A movie is the very best medium to convey Israel’s present condition and the feelings and thoughts of such an Israeli to the world. Director Ari Folman who made Waltz with Bashir stated, “There is complete freedom of expression in Israel. I am permitted to say anything.” Israel’s government seems to even support the activity of moviemakers. Also, there seems to be open exchange of technology with Hollywood, where there are many prominent Jewish Americans. The movie industry of Israel is very active and has produced many good movies. If one can say anything, movies provide the rare opportunity for Israelis who tend to be criticized internationally to raise their voices and express themselves.

Hiam Abbass, the beautiful actress that played the eldest daughter, is a Palestinian from Israel, and most of her activity is in Europe. She stated clearly in an interview, “It is unproductive if we obsess over the past. The important thing is how you live from now on.” Palestinian Makram J. Khoury, who played the bride’s father Hammed, acquired Israeli citizenship after repeated deliberation. Israel respects him, and Khoury flourishes as a top actor of Israel. Israel wants to reward those who have chosen Israel.

Obsessing over the past/history is one way to think about peace in the Middle East, but another way is to look toward the future. Israeli citizens wish from the bottom of their hearts that more people will understand the situation Israel is in. I think this wish is the background of Israel’s thriving film world.

日本語→

Movie: Joyeux Noël – Merry Christmas (2005)

Posted on by
Reply

On the night before Christmas in 1914, the France-Scotland allied forces face a narrow no man’s land from a trench in northern France as the occupying German army advances further onto French territory. International opera singer Nikolaus Sprink, who was enlisted by the German army, is visited by his lover, soprano Anna (Diane Kruger). The night before Christmas, Father Palmer, who is serving Scotland as a combat medic, plays a Christmas song with a bagpipe in the Scotland camp, and Nikolaus of the German camp starts to sing along to the Christmas hymn. The France-Scotland army find themselves applauding, and Nikolaus stands in the neutral no man’s land and continues to sing. Prompted by this, the commanding officers of the three countries meet in the neutral zone, and decide to suspend the combat for Christmas Eve. Father Palmer gives Christmas mass, and Anna sings a hymn. They suspend combat the next day, too, burying their dead comrades abandoned in the neutral zone, enjoying soccer, sharing chocolate and champagne, and showing each other photographs of their families. However, the time comes that these soldiers who shared a brief moment of camaraderie must resume fighting. The military authorities of each army and the upper echelon of the church are angry when they learn about this exchange of friendship, and the soldiers who exchanged friendship face severe consequences for their conduct.

It may be unbelievable that soldiers of enemy nations really shared friendship during the war, but this movie was made by connecting various real facts. The Christmas truce and the exchange of friendship between enemy nations during World War I did not make it into official records. However, the soldiers who survived the Western Front told the truth to family and friends by word of mouth and with photographs after they returned.

In 1914, it actually happened that a German tenor singer, Walter Kirchhoff, visited the German army to offer moral support and sang in the trench; on the other side of no man’s land, a French officer, recognizing Walter’s voice from a performance of his in the Paris Opera house, applauded. Walter then crossed the neutral no man’s land to greet the officer who had applauded. It also happened that a cat loved by both the German and French armies was arrested by the French army. It is said that this cat was later executed as a spy. In addition, it seems to be true that soccer and games were enjoyed between enemy armies.

This Christmas truce happened on the first Christmas after World War I started. World War I was the first ever all-out, world war, and nobody knew what direction the war would develop; at the beginning, there was an optimistic feeling that the war would be over quickly. However, as the war continued, dangerous weapons and poisonous gas were used. Also, the airplanes that were initially used for reconnaissance were transformed into terrible fighters. As the war became violent and cruel, events like the Christmas truce depicted in the movie became rare.

What brought these enemies together momentarily were the forces of music, sports, and religion. All the battling nations—Germany, France, and England—were Christian, and people’s faith was strong in those days; Christmas was really important, and it was the motivation behind the Christmas truce. It was easy to understand enemy nations that were similarly Christian. Something like the Christmas truce wouldn’t have happened if it had been a battle between Muslims and Christians, or Muslims and Jews.

It was Germany that underwent the greatest political change during World War I. Germany was still an empire in those days, and the people fought in the name of Wilhelm II, the German emperor and Prussian King. However, as the Great War continued, the war-weariness of the nation increased. On November 3, 1918, the sailors of the Kiel naval port mutinied, and, with the resulting populist uprising, the German Revolution ensued. Wilhelm II fled to the Netherlands, thus ending World War I. The Weimar Republic with the principle of parliamentary was established in Germany.

After that, the German government was unstable. After their defeat, they received economic retribution from the victorious nations, and the German people lived miserable lives. Within this dissatisfaction, the Nazis were formed in 1920, and this led to World War II. In this movie, the First Lieutenant Horstmayer, who led the German faction and agreed to the Christmas truce, was Jewish. Crown Prince Wilhelm, who was the highest commanding officer on the Western Front, was enraged when he found out about the Christmas truce, and sends First Lieutenant Horstmayer’s unit to the dangerous Eastern Front; at this time, the Crown Prince Wilhelm points with his sword at the iron cross of the German army at the chest of the First Lieutenant, and shouts, “You don’t deserve the iron cross.” This scene suggests the fates Jews met 20 years later—having their German citizenship revoked, not being able to apply for the German army, and being sent to concentration camps.

If I were to say the message of this movie in a few words, I might say, “The willingness for citizens to fight is created by the leader of the nation.” The movie starts with a scene with elementary school students in Britain, Germany, and France having patriotism hammered into their heads and being taught hostility towards their neighbors. Because citizens are made to think that soldiers of enemy nations are faceless beasts, they can fight in a war. However, through the exchange on the night of Christmas Eve, the soldiers recognized each other as human for the first time, and it became difficult to kill each other. When the First Lieutenant Audebert leading the French army received criticism for the Christmas truce, he responded, “The German soldiers are more human compared to these people shouting to kill Germans!” Also, the audience will forever remember the sentiment of the soldiers who had to return to war: “We (today only) can forget war. But the war won’t forget us.”

This movie is an impressive work that depicts beautiful details, but if I were to illuminate a fault, it is that Diane Kruger who performed as an opera singer was too obviously lip-syncing. The hymn which she sings in front of the soldiers should be a huge turning point, but her body doesn’t quiver as she sings, and her mouth was just monotonously opening and closing; there are too many moments when the lyrics and her mouth movement are out of synch. Since she looks like a beautiful picture with only her mouth opening and closing, quite a few viewers may lose empathy at this point of the movie. Diane Kruger is certainly beautiful, but for this scene, I would have preferred watching a real opera singer, such as Natalie Dessay who supplied the real singing voice in this movie. The audience may be deeply moved by the musical performance of Father Palmer of the Scottish army on the bagpipes, rather than Diane Kruger’s lip-syncing. Tea with Mussolini also features a bagpipe when the movie ends with the Scottish army entering an Italian town occupied by the Nazis. The sound of the bagpipe is joyful, optimistic, sorrowful, and poignant.

日本語→

Movie: Tea with Mussolini (1999)

Posted on by
Reply

Tea with Mussolini is a movie with a comedic touch, and it depicts the life of an Italian boy/young man named Luca who is deeply involved with the lives of some British and American women living in Florence, Italy from 1935 to 1945. The story includes the rise of fascists led by Mussolini, the lives of Britons and Americans in an internment camp after Britain and America declared war on Italy, Jews being hunted, and the partisan movement, but there are few gunshots or murders, and this curious movie never loses the elegant smell of tea and biscuits. Actually, the contents of this movie may be more true than one would think because Franco Zeffirelli, who wrote the story for and directed this movie, projected his own experience onto Luca. It is said that Zeffirelli participated in anti-war activity as an anti-fascism partisan during the time of the war.

Right before World War II, in an area populated by foreigners in Florence, there is a group of British women led by Lady Hester, the widow of a diplomat who was stationed in Italy. Elsa, an American singer, is friends with the group, but the proud and old-fashioned Hester dislikes the American and nouveau-riche Elsa. Another group member Mary is a secretary for an Italian businessman; her boss wants to raise his illegitimate son Luca as a British gentleman, so he asks Mary to educate Luca. Meanwhile, since Elsa was friends with Luca’s late mother, she sets up a fund to help educate Luca. However, since Italy breaks off its ties with Great Britain and grows closer to Germany, the father changes his plan for Luca’s education, and has Luca sent to an Austrian school to learn German. Hester worries about the rise of fascism, and in order to protect Florence’s British community, she goes to meet her acquaintance Mussolini; she returns from afternoon tea with Mussolini, relieved by his words, “I’ll protect the British, no matter what happens.” However, after Italy declares war on Great Britain, the British women are sent to an internment camp.

Elsa uses a large sum of money in order to transfer Hester and the others out of the internment camp and secure their housing in a high-class hotel. Also, she provides fake passports to Jews in Italy and helps them flee from the country. When Luca, who has grown into a lovely young man, returns home from Austria, he helps Elsa and becomes the arms and legs of her mission. Before long, due to the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, America at last joins the war, and Italy and America become enemy nations; danger approaches Elsa who is in fact Jewish. Luca asks the partisans for help with Elsa’s escape, and also Lady Hester, having found that it was not Italian Mussolini but American Elsa who had protected them, takes part in Elsa’s escape. Luca, along with Lady Hester’s grandchild, joins the partisan—which later merges with the Scottish army led by the Allies—to fight for the liberation of Italy from Nazi occupation. The movie ends with the German army hastily retreating from the Italian town that Hester and the others live in, and Luca and the others of the Scottish army arriving to town and receiving an enthusiastic welcome from the townspeople.

Although this movie is not a masterpiece that will remain in history, it is well-made, like a small gem, and there are some details that can only be told by people who lived during that time.

First, there was an amicable relationship between Britain and Italy from the end of World War I until the early 1930s. Therefore, for an Italian, proficiency in English was a big plus. Also, most British people viewed Mussolini favorably until a certain time. Furthermore, Britons seemed to believe that the war would remain local—Italy/Germany vs. the countries around Germany—and that the British government could skillfully avoid getting involved. To some degree, the war was somebody else’s problem. However, once Great Britain had no choice but to participate in the war, America’s existence became a big deal. Until then, British people had considered America—for better or for worse—to be a distant country across the ocean, but America became something like a savior for Great Britain. America’s participation in the war is received with gratitude by Hester and the others.

In addition, the interesting antagonism between England and Scotland within Great Britain is depicted. Luca, who wanders around the battlefield with the intention of joining the Allies, loudly asks some troops that look to be part of the Allies army. “American army?” “NO!” “English army?” “Never!! We aren’t those cruel people!!!” Then the soldiers roar with laughter at the dumbfounded Luca. They say, “We are Scottish! Relax!”, laugh heartily, and then welcome the relieved Luca.

The mission of the Scottish army in which Luca participated was to free the British prisoners, including Hester, and transport them to a safe place. The Scottish soldier that meets Hester in the town states, “I order everyone to gather up your luggage immediately and move to the safe place for everyone’s personal safety,” but Hester angrily says, “A Scot giving me (an English aristocrat) orders is not acceptable!!”; the movie ends with Luca and the Scottish soldier exchanging a smile that seems to say, “What can you do?”

日本語→

Movie: Missing (1982)

Posted on by
1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→