Movie: Fiddler on the Roof (1971)

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movie: Out of Africa (1985)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie was based on Isak Dinesen’s Out of Africa that was published in 1937. Isak Dinesen is a man’s name, but actually the author is a woman whose real name is Karen Blixen. She used her male and female names for different purposes, and published many books in Danish and English; she was the author of Babette’s Feast, the movie of which won an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Out of Africa won the Academy Award for Best Picture, but the way this movie was made isn’t perfect; sometimes viewers who have not read the original work cannot understand because there aren’t explanations of the relations between people, and the movie is a bit too long. However, the images of Kenya are wonderful, and I can feel the splendor and charm of the original work, which more than compensates for the short-comings of this movie.

The original Out of Africa is basically the author’s autobiography. The heroine in the movie (born in 1885) is adventurous, from an affluent family, and unsatisfied with her life in Denmark; she marries the son of a financially struggling baron, exchanging her money for social status, and they embark to the new world of Kenya. In real life, Karen Blixen also married a Swedish aristocrat, Bror von Blixen, in 1913, and they immigrated to Kenya together the following year. Like shown in the movie, the married couple managed a coffee plantation, but the married life soon failed; after the divorce, she continued to manage the coffee plantation alone, but failed, and returned home to Denmark in 1931.

Bror (Baron Blixen), who became Karen’s husband, was born in 1886 as a Swedish noble. He was a distant relative of Karen’s. Bror had an identical twin brother, and the movie establishes that the twin brother was Karen’s lover. The twin died in a plane crash in 1917. Since all the investment for the coffee plantation was from Karen’s parents, when the divorce happened, the plantation became Karen’s property, and Bror started working at a safari hunting company. Many European aristocrats in the beginning of 20th century, backed by economic strength and the success of their nation’s imperialism, seemed to burn with the passion to start their own business; I feel it resembled the spirit of a modern entrepreneur. It is said that many of the clients of Bror’s company were British royalty and aristocrats. After he divorced with Karen, he married explorer Eva Dickson in 1936. Because Eva died in 1938, Bror returned to his home country Sweden, where he died.

After she divorced from Bror, Karen befriended Denys Finch Hatton, the son of an Earl. Denys was born in 1887 into an aristocratic family with a very notable family lineage. When he was 23 years old, he bought land in west Kenya, and started up a safari hunting company on this land with co-investors. He, too, was a noble entrepreneur like Bror, and likewise was a close associate of Berkeley Cole, another noble entrepreneur from a notable family. These four are the key people in this movie. In 1925, after Karen and Bror divorced, Denys became closer with Karen, and started splitting time between Karen’s coffee plantation and the safari company that he founded. Many of the clients for his safari company were also British royalty and aristocrats. All of the characters are young nobles and were played by popular Hollywood actors, but their performances were a little disappointing because they looked somewhat like American cowboys from a Western trying to make a fortune in the gold mines.

In the movie, Karen and Denys’s relationship collapses due to Denys not wanting to marry and because another woman appears; this seems to also be true. From 1930, Denys became close with ranch manager Beryl Markham; the two learned how to fly airplanes, and started to fly around Kenya. In the end, Denys died in a plane accident around the same time that Karen decided to close down her farm and return home to Denmark.

What is wonderful about this movie is that it vividly depicts the pioneering spirit of fearless and carefree youth from the ruling class in Europe in those days. However, the movie also simultaneously successfully depicts an omen drifting in that their privilege will not continue forever. In this movie, these youth disregard their privilege in their homeland and jump over to Africa, and they bravely try their own fate by getting their hands dirty; this suggests that imperialism was still robust at that time. The times shown here may be the last glimmer of European imperialism.

Due to the infidelity of her husband, Karen got syphilis, and she suffered from it for her whole life; in addition, the coffee plantation that she invested everything she owned into failed, but she lived without blaming anyone. The way she lived was wonderful. I feel this spirit in Babette’s Feast as well. The human nature of the author naturally comes out.

Karen observed the subtle differences between the native tribes in Kenya, such as the Kikuyu, Maasai, and Somali. Colonists in Kenya used the Kikuyu for the colonization of Kenya in those days. The Kikuyu were adapted to farming, and the chiefs of the tribes had amicable policies toward white settlers; after having their land snatched away by white people, the Kikuyu stayed there and worked as tenant farmers and maids. Also, the youth became proficient in English because of their education in mission schools. If I use Karen’s words, the Kikuyu are described as, “These natives don’t have rebellious spirits and are patient like sheep. They survived their fates without any political power or a protector. Their ability to accept their fates has allowed them to still endure it.” Unlike with the Kikuyu, the colonists didn’t trust the Somali, who had already been converted into Muslims, and were suspicious that the Somali could rebel at any time. The Maasai had not given up on the hunting lifestyle, so chose to live in isolation. In this movie, it is depicted that even the Kikuyu people fear the strange and unfamiliar Maasai.

It was the Kikuyu that led the Kenyan independence movement because of their understanding of colonists they gained through their experience and by observing them. The Kenyan independence movement had already started with the founding of the East African Association in Nairobi in 1919 by Kikuyu Harry Thuku. In 1924, the Kikuyu Central Association (KCA) was founded with the youth as its core, and they confronted the colonial government and the chiefs who aligned with it; the radical movement of the KCA developed into the 1952 Mau Mau Uprising, and with this, white settlers began to evacuate. The nationalist/independence movement converged into becoming the Kenya African National Union, and Kenyan independence was achieved in 1963.

日本語→

Movie: The King’s Speech (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

I thought The King’s Speech was simply the story of a stuttering king who, after much effort, finally becomes good at speeches, so I didn’t really have much of a desire to watch it. But after I finished watching it, I realized “Ah, this was a work about the power of speech, and about the leadership and responsibility of a king to his people.” Wonderful. I take my hat off.

In this movie, King George VI’s daughter, the future Elizabeth II, is watching a movie with the King. In a news segment before the movie, the image of Hitler before ranks of soldiers is projected. Elizabeth, impressed, asks her father:

“What’s he saying, Papa?”
“I don’t know, but he seems to be saying it rather well.”

The King’s quivering cheek tells of his fear of the six-year-elder Hitler’s uncanny ability to manipulate people with language. If the King failed to resolutely convey his leadership to the British people with a powerful speech, he feared that Great Britain might fall under the evil control of the dangerous and eloquent Hitler. After George VI’s elder brother, Edward VIII, abruptly abdicated the throne, King George VI knew that, whether he wished it or not, he as the heir to the throne had no choice but to defend his subjects from the fascist regimes, and so he embarked on intensive training in speech. Incidentally, he was of the same generation as such dictators and despots of the time as Stalin, Mussolini, and Franco.

As the other great powers of Europe dismantled their monarchies due to the judgment that they don’t help their subjects, in the United Kingdom (as well as the countries in northern Europe relatively unaffected by the struggle for power in the rest of Europe), the “reigning but not ruling” form of monarchy was passed on. Although the King does not have the power to make decisions regarding the government, as the head of the Church of England, he serves as the people’s spiritual support; whether it’s peacetime or during times of strife and struggle, he is sought as a symbol of the spiritual unity of the British people. Although kings no longer physically have their heads cut off, if monarchs no longer serve a useful purpose, it could be that the royal family would face budget cuts or the monarchy may be discontinued. The fate of the royal family lies in the hands of Parliament.

Did the British people make the correct decision about the royal family? I want to say yes. Even if national decisions can be made by the people’s vote under a democratic system, people seek out someone who can comfort them during times of great distress, someone who can elegantly represent them on the world’s stage, and someone who always wishes for the nation’s good fortune beyond the interest of a political party. Likewise, in the U.S., which lacks a royal family, the President doesn’t just resolve political matters, but when disaster strikes, must also rush to the scene of misfortune. Also, the First Lady enjoys immense popularity if she is beautiful and takes on some issue of national interest. If a presidential candidate has scandals, gets divorced multiple times, or gives an unpleasant impression, I think that they will never be elected. Ever since President Reagan, all presidents have had a sort of charisma, and First Ladies have always kept themselves occupied thinking about national issues. I think a certain percent of the President’s job is to give courage to the people. This responsibility is exactly what the British royal family does as their full-time job. Of course, the U.S. political administration is composed of both “reigning” and “governing”, but perhaps cleanly dividing the duties is ideal.

President Obama until a few years ago was virtually unknown as a senator from Illinois, but he, more so than anyone else, had preeminent speech-making abilities. When Hillary Clinton was contesting the Democratic presidential candidacy with him, she said this regarding his popularity.

“(Comparing to her longtime contributions to national politics) What has Obama done in the past 10 years? He’s just good at giving speeches.”

We all know who between Hillary and Obama won the candidacy.

日本語→

The Top 5 Movies I Watched in 2012

Posted on by
Reply

It is a year today that Ichigo, the blog master of this site, passed away. We have translated and posted a little under half of her blog entries here on the English site. The following entry, which she wrote on her final New Year’s, represents her well. We will continue to translate and post the many other movies she wrote about.

Ichigo’s family

I started writing this blog on August 27, 2012. My motive for starting this blog was that I knew it was a blessing to still be alive after recovering from a life-threatening illness, and I wanted to express my current thoughts by weaving a tapestry of movies and people, using the history of a nation through time as the vertical threads and the interactions between nations within a time period as the horizontal threads. I chose movies as my medium because a movie, unlike a novel, must show something concrete to the audience, and therefore it is rich in information in many ways. Also, making a movie requires teamwork, which forces many people to interact with each other, and since you need money to make a movie, you need to persuade others of the value of the product; the process of making a movie alone is a human drama. To say it briefly, while writing literature can be done with one person’s mind, I think in order to make a movie, many people have to physically work together, and this results in an abundance of information.

I choose what movies to watch based on what I feel like watching that day, not “because it is a new release.” Therefore, the movies I have written about span nearly 90 years, from Battleship Potemkin in 1925 to Lincoln in 2012. Through these movies, 35 countries are depicted. I have blogged about nearly 100 movies here; I have watched about 30 more this year that I didn’t blog about. I can say that all of the movies I have posted on this blog had a strong impact on me, one way or another. The following movies are my personal Top 5 among the movies I watched in 2012.

1. The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988)

I admire Philip Kaufman’s discerning eye for discovering still-anonymous Daniel Day-Lewis and Juliette Binoche for leading roles in this movie. This movie is not flashy, but, using Day-Lewis’s and Binoche’s enchanting charms, it depicts the importance of respecting your feelings without being influenced by the times. It also depicts that wishing happiness for the person you are instinctively attracted to (including physically) will naturally lead to your own happiness; if this actually happens, this is true love. I remember reading on someone’s blog, “Generally I do not like love stories, but I really like this movie.” I understand how he feels.

2. Lincoln (2012)

There are two types of movies among Steven Spielberg’s movies: well-constructed entertaining movies, and serious movies where he wants to show that he is “not just an entertaining artist”—such as Schindler’s List, Munich, and War Horse. But Lincoln does not seem to fall under either category. To say it briefly, all of Spielberg’s works have either been financially successful or received high acclaim among critics, he has gained respect among his peers in the movie industry, and he never has to worry about financing his movies; therefore, Steven Spielberg, who no longer has anything to fear, can now make movies about whatever theme truly interests him, without any worries. What was the theme he wanted to make most? To speak honestly, I think this movie is a tribute to President Obama. To be more precise, it is paying respect to the citizens of America—a mixed nation where there has always been a serious political divide—for choosing President Obama in an election, and for both supporting and rigorously criticizing him.

Among Americans—who often have divided opinions—Lincoln and the first president, Washington, are among the few presidents who are undisputedly considered great presidents; similarities between President Obama and President Lincoln are already being pointed out. For example, both are elected presidents from Illinois in the Midwest, which is thought of as the heart of America; both were little known, not having held a powerful position as a politician, before becoming a president. Both have made excellent speeches that will remain in history, and both had to make difficult decisions one after another when the nation was badly divided.

In my blog about the movie Lincoln, I wrote “I still believe that Lincoln fixed his eyes on the ultimate goal and took steps and the right method most appropriate for the time.” Likewise, I recently read an interview with President Obama about the movie Lincoln, where he said something along the lines of, “I will not comment on the value of any of the past presidents, but what was captivating about this movie was the way it depicted a politician’s dreams and realistic methods. A politician at times, in order to reach his ideal goal, has to compromise.” I agree with what he said. Obama and Lincoln’s major common characteristic is their utilization of wise and pragmatic methods, while having their eyes fixed on the ultimate goal. I think they both understand that after all, having an ideal goal is most important. Also, many Americans genuinely believe Obama’s good personality is his natural personality instead of a constructed one, similar to how people felt about Lincoln in his days. Of course, First Lady Michelle Obama—who is pragmatic, down-to-earth, doesn’t worry about little details, and isn’t vain—is also contributing to the president’s popularity.

In this movie, Lincoln was played by Daniel Day-Lewis, whose performance was awe-inspiring. It is said that Steven Spielberg came to the studio wearing a suit and tie every day during filming because he was meeting with the President. Also, when I watched the movie in theaters, I saw quite a few dressed-up parents with their children in the theater, and when the movie was over, the audience did not leave immediately. Instead, there was big applause as if they just listened to a speech by a real president.

3. Katyń (2007)

The value of this movie is simply the quantity and quality of information it delivers. We can feel the director Andrzej Wajda’s resolution that he could not die until he made this movie and told this story.

4. A Separation (2011)

Asghar Farhadi produced, directed, and wrote the screenplay for this exemplary movie with a tightly constructed storyline. Also, the movie is informative about the life of the middle class in Iran. Iranians—who value education highly and pride themselves on their refined culture—currently haven’t reached their full potential under a religious regime, but if Iran becomes a democratic nation, I think Iran will be truly incredible.

5. Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

This movie is a timeless masterpiece by maestro Stanley Kramer, who is known for producing High Noon and directing Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. There is nothing flashy or preachy; the movie depicts the political situation in Europe and the U.S. after World War II very well, and suggests the beginning of the imminent Cold War. The movie doesn’t feel old even when we watch it today. I think Spencer Tracy, like Daniel Day-Lewis, is one of the greatest actors of our time. I should not forget to mention Z for being a movie with a similar appeal.

I wish you a Happy New Year.

日本語→

Movie: Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

日本語→

Movie: The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988)

Posted on by
Reply

The Unbearable Lightness of Being is the film adaptation of the novel of the same name written by author Milan Kundera, who took refuge in France after the Soviet Army suppressed Czech’s freedom movement that took place in 1968 (the Prague Spring); this movie depicts the different fates of four people living through turbulent times with the Prague Spring of Czechoslovakia in the background.

Tomas lives in Prague, and is young, handsome, and a skilled surgeon. He loves women and is loved by women, and he is a man who openly has relations with several women at the same time; he has a relationship with an artist Sabina, who is the only woman Tomas acknowledges understands him. One day, Tomas goes to a small spa town in order to perform surgery, and there he meets a young woman named Tereza. Tereza is an avid reader and loves reading Tolstoy, but she feels that none of her friends in the village understand her. When Tereza sees Tomas sitting and waiting on the same bench—among the many benches available—that she always sat on, and senses Prague culture in him, she becomes deeply entranced by Tomas and later follows him to Prague. Tomas, who appeared to be set on remaining single, is attracted to Tereza, and the two end up getting married.

Tereza is inspired by Sabina and tries to become a photographer, but during this time, the Soviet Army invades Czechoslovakia in order to suppress the growing desire for freedom, and many people are murdered. Sabina, Tomas, and Tereza take refuge in Geneva. Tereza shows a Swiss magazine the photographs she took in the face of danger of the oppression by the Soviet Army, but people in Switzerland are already bored of the Prague Spring event, and she is told to bring more interesting photographs. Sabina meets a devoted, honest professor named Hans. Tereza thinks she is not a strong enough person to live in a foreign country, like Sabina and Tomas, and so she returns to Czechoslovakia. Tomas has to decide between staying in free Switzerland with Sabina and returning to his oppressed homeland Czechoslovakia to be with Tereza. Tomas decides to return to Czechoslovakia, but his passport is confiscated when he re-enters the country, so it is a one-way trip and he can’t return to free countries.

While Tomas was in Switzerland, the Soviet Army had successfully implemented oppressive measures, and Prague had become a completely different town. Tomas is categorized as an anticommunist, so he is deprived work as a surgeon and has to make a living as a custodian. Tereza is devastated by the transformation of Prague, and becomes depressed and considers suicide. The two move out to the countryside, adapt to their new life, and are able to find true happiness despite their modest lifestyle; the moment they find happiness, though, a tragedy occurs.

The appeal of this movie is that the depictions of the individual personalities and the relationships between Tomas and Tereza, as well as between Sabina and Hans, are very delicate, beautiful, and persuasive.

When Tomas and Sabina meet, a mirror is always used. This symbolizes the relationship of Tomas and Tereza as well as of Sabina and Hans. If I were to depict the relationships of the four people with a picture, Tomas and Tereza are lying in bed next to a large mirror. When Tomas looks at the mirror, Sabina—not Tomas—is reflected back. Then, Hans is lying down next to Sabina. When Tomas approaches the mirror, Sabina also approaches the mirror. When Tomas moves away from the mirror, Sabina also moves away. However, Tomas doesn’t need to break the mirror to be with Sabina. Tomas and Sabina are a man and a woman bound together like Siamese twins, tied by their souls. Even when they are apart, or even if they are both with someone else, their spirits are always joined.

However, it is only Tereza that Tomas truly loves. Tereza is like the sun and illuminates everything, and when she is around, the world and other women look beautiful; but when she is gone, the world is dark, and other women don’t enter Tomas’s field of vision at all. Tomas is light and freewheeling, but his beliefs do not waver. Before the Prague Spring, he said to his friends who excitedly talked about politics, “I am not interested in politics at all.” However, during the oppression by the Soviet Union, people rapidly switched to protecting themselves, informing on each other, and hiding what they were feeling; on the other hand, Tomas, who refused to change himself, was oppressed as someone who was against the establishment. However, even though the job that he loved is snatched away, he remains as light and unwavering as ever.

Tereza is influenced by Tomas and Sabina, who live lightly in the city (so it seems), and so makes a great effort to do so herself; she experiments with various things, but learns in the end that in order to be happy, she is the kind of person who needs to be rooted near nature. Although Tereza does not realize it, she is naturally very sexually attractive without trying, and Tomas is deeply attracted to her because of who she is naturally.

Sabina, while her and Tomas’s hearts are nearly identical, is a woman who earns a living with a paintbrush, while Tomas uses a scalpel to perform surgery. Although she is woman, she is more willing to live this vagrant lifestyle than men. She doesn’t know how or where in this large earth she will die, but she has the attitude that she’ll live holding onto her paintbrush with all her might, even if she dies by the side of the road. Honest and ethical Hans cannot help but be attracted to Sabina, who is completely different from himself.

I happened to watch The Unbearable Lightness of Being around the same time as the Norwegian Wood movie based on Haruki Murakami’s novel; although the two movies are set in the same time period (late 1960s) and depict a very similar theme, I thought it was interesting that the depiction and resolution were fundamentally different.

In Norwegian Wood, the society in Japan has peace without the fear of war, freedom, personal safety, and secure money to live a good life; yet somehow the youth have a locked up feeling, and they get wrapped up in socialism, believing it to be a ray of hope to save their society. The protagonist, who is of course the projection of Haruki Murakami, is not able to sympathize with the movement of the youth of his same generation, but his friends around him commit suicide one after another. The young people committing suicide have their parents’ love and are brought up in a blessed environment, but they heavily obsess over something, as if they are fixated on watching the hole of their stocking getting bigger and bigger every day. And so they commit suicide. The protagonist is also affected by this attitude, but after wandering, weeping until his nose dripped, and an overly dramatic journey of self-discovery, he decides, “I will live.”

In The Unbearable Lightness of Being, for the youth living in a society where freedom of speech has been snatched away and there is economic injustice, socialism is evil, and the youth wishes for Czechoslovakia to become a free nation. Tomas is not the kind of person who fixates on the negatives. Therefore, he is light, and even though he criticizes the system or another person, he doesn’t blame them. He lives life like a swan calmly floating on the surface of a turbulent lake without being affected by the waves. By doing so, he calmly finds happiness. When Sabina and Tomas meet in Geneva alone, Sabina had already decided to move further west, while Tomas had decided to return to Czechoslovakia, but they don’t say anything about this. Suddenly, Sabina utters, “This may be the last time we see each other.” Tomas’s facial expression changes just one millimeter, and he nods, saying, “That may be so.” It was indeed an eternal farewell. However, in The Unbearable Lightness of Being, nobody commits suicide. They each make every possible effort to survive through difficult times.

Both movies feature the music of the Beatles in a very important way. However, what the Beatles’ music conveys to the youth is completely different in the two movies. In The Unbearable Lightness of Being, the music of the Beatles symbolizes the desire for freedom, while in Norwegian Wood, it symbolizes the melancholia that they don’t understand the true nature of.

日本語→

Movie: Le Déclin de l’empire Américain – The Decline of the American Empire (1986)

Posted on by
Reply

The Decline of the American Empire is a grandiose title, but since the movie director Denys Arcand studied history and is knowledgeable about the Roman Empire, he used a historic concept to express his theme. The meaning of the title is not clear if you only watch the movie casually. I would say it is nearly impossible to understand what this movie wants to say if you only watch it once. If the viewer does not understand the intention of the movie, I think they may be frustrated. In fact, I read some of these frustrated thoughts after I watched the movie.

Dominique is the dean of the school of history at a university in Quebec; she published a book recently in which she proposes the theory that the strong trend happening today (1980s) of people pursuing individual happiness is correlated with the decline of the nation. Diane, a teaching assistant in the history department, works part-time at a broadcasting station as the host of an interview program. In an interview on this station, Dominique brings up as examples of the pursuit of individual happiness the free and uncontrolled lifestyle of the intelligentsia, the liberation from conventional sexual morality, and an increase in women not marrying. Dominique is of course single, and Diane is a divorcee with a daughter.

The professors in the history department led by Dominique gather at one of their houses in order to enjoy dinner. Professors Rémy, Pierre, and Claude, and graduate student Alan make up the men, while Dominique, Diane, undergraduate student Danielle, and Rémy’s wife Louise make up the women. Rémy, Pierre, Claude, Dominique, and Diane are intelligentsia, and have arguments about grand topics. Rémy is married to Louise, but is involved in all sorts of extramarital affairs. Pierre was married, but wanted freedom and so divorced, and he now dates Danielle. Claude is gay. Diane, while the other four people have developed their careers smoothly, laments that she doesn’t have a great career since she is divorced and has to spend most of her time raising her child; Louise consoles her by saying that having a child is life’s greatest accomplishment. Louise gets carried away and starts to say that Dominique, Pierre, and Claude, who don’t have children, are missing something important even though they have successful careers, and the three people, especially Dominique, get annoyed.

At the climax of the dinner party, the members listen to the later part of Dominique’s interview. She continues on in the interview to say that after Marxism-Leninism collapsed, there was no longer a principle to guide people, and society without a principle is doomed to collapse. Louise, who had not been participating in the loud argument between the intellectuals, innocently objects without hesitation, “I don’t know why you say the times we live in are bad. We may actually be living in wonderful new times full of scientific advancements.” Dominique interprets these comments as being a personal attack—scorning her work and pitying her lonely life resulting from prioritizing her career—and discloses her relations with both Pierre and Louise’s husband Rémy. To make matters worse, she cruelly notes Rémy’s excitement to have relations with a powerful and intellectual woman such as herself, Rémy’s boss. Louise learns that Diane also had relations with her husband Rémy for two years, and is shocked.

Since 99.9% of this movie is conversation, and 95% of that is each person bragging about their sexual exploits, one would think that is the focus of the movie, but I think that the focus of this movie is quite different. To say it briefly, it is the confusion people feel when their conventional value systems are collapsing. One was the value system of the Catholic Church, which always had a big influence on Quebec society. The other was Marxism-Leninism, which had captured the hearts of young people of the 1950s and 60s. I think Marxism was a bright guiding principle for those who specialized in studying history. However, it had collapsed by the 80s. As a result, pursuit of individual happiness and narcissism spread during the 80s, as seen with the trends that Dominique mentions of people preferring free love over marriage, and the thought that a family and children are burdensome and snatch away one’s freedom. Also, this sense of liberation produced a new culture in the 80s that included acceptance of interracial as well as gay relations.

This idea seems to have been very novel in 1986, and this movie received high praises. However, it seems that director Denys Arcand grew up with the times, and made a sequel, The Barbarian Invasions, addressing this theme 17 years later. I plan to talk about this movie in a separate entry.

日本語→

Movie: Of Gods and Men — Des hommes et des dieux (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

Even for someone who doesn’t know about monasteries, Christianity, Islam, or Algeria, I think this movie is a very powerful and convincing movie. Viewers feel there is more than just religion and politics in this movie.

In the rustic Catholic Notre-Dame de l’Atlas monastery in Algeria, eight French monks and doctors live as an important part of the surrounding community. However, the actions of Islamic extremists begin to affect the nearby area, and a Croatian is murdered in a wasteland less than 20 kilometers away from the monastery. The monastery is drawn into a dispute between Algerian government troops and extremists when several armed extremists break into the monastery on Christmas Eve and demand medical treatment for their injured. When the French government requests that the monks return to France, the monks debate over returning for their own safety, or staying and risk becoming martyrs.

These monks abandoned their assets and decided to leave their families in order to help people in the area and impart the teachings of God. Do those who have abandoned an ordinary life to serve God still wish to avoid death? Naturally, as humans, they have a fear of death. However, since they are giving their own lives to God, they believe they should not waste their lives and should serve God as long as they can. Therefore, remaining here while knowing danger approaches could be a waste of the life God gave them.

On the other hand, some monks think of this Algerian village as their own hometown and are determined to die there. Also, some think that they have not yet accomplished God’s mission given to them and feel they can’t leave yet. Others are unable to decide with conviction so they pray to God to hear God’s voice. However, they do not get an answer from God.

Even though the monks are divided on the question of whether to stay or retreat, no one intends to have the government army troops protect them. God’s voice is the basis for their decisions, and thus they don’t makes decisions based on the politics of either the government troops or the extremists who are killing each other. In the end, the question to be answered is, “When the wolf attacks, does a shepherd desert the sheep and run away?” Even though the villagers are Muslim, the villagers rely on the monks and are thankful for the services they provide. Therefore, the monks are able to gain the conviction that, whatever may happen, their service here was not futile and they are determined to die here in the village. This movie is based on a true story of monks that were executed by decapitation in Algeria in 1996.

North African French colonies Tunisia and Morocco declared their independence in 1956. However, unlike these two countries where the organization of the monarchy was preserved as French protectorates, Algeria was treated as a part of France and there were many Europeans living in Algeria; therefore the public opinion of France voiced strong opposition to the independence of Algeria and the French government did not allow independence. Algerians of European descent wanted to maintain their privileges as Europeans and kept refusing to cooperate with the Berbers and Arabs living in Algeria; therefore the development of a cross-ethnic, moderate independence movement toward a unified nation failed. Algeria underwent the violent Algerian War from 1954 to 1962 before gaining their independence from France and due to this, one million Algerians of European descent escaped to France en masse. The Muslim Algerians who cooperated with France and were not able to take refuge in France were massacred as retribution.

Algeria had a constitution after their independence, adopted neutral political measures, succeeded in rebuilding the economy, and seemed to be proceeding smoothly in the founding of their nation; however, in the late 1980s, inflation worsened, and food shortages and unemployment brought about social unrest. These circumstances were the backdrop for the rise of Islamic doctrine among the youth, and some Islam fundamentalists started armed opposition.

Gaining the support of the unemployed, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) won the 1990 local elections with more than half of all of the communes; the FIS carried out a strict Islam rule in the communes that they won, implementing policies such as the banning of alcohol, segregation of sexes, and criticism of the Gallicized middleclass that was the majority of Algerian society. As a result of the FIS’s overwhelming victory in the first general election held in 1991, they acquired 80% of the parliamentary seats and invalidated the constitution. Student organizations seeking liberty, women’s organizations, and socialist organizations criticized the actions of the FIS, and military authorities opposing the FIS seized power in a coup d’état the following year in 1992. European nations supported the coup d’état and Mohammed Boudiaf became the chairman of the High Council of State established in January; in March, Boudiaf illegalized and oppressed the FIS and invalidated their election. However, Boudiaf was assassinated that June.

Due to oppression from the government, Islam advocates formed the Armed Islamic Group in 1992, and started acts of terrorism targeting police, military authorities, intellectuals, and liberals. In January of 1994, Zéroual assumed office as a temporary president, but the violence of the terrorism of Islamic organizations increased during Zéroual’s time and Algeria fell into massive chaos. In the 1999 presidential elections, Bouteflika, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, was elected as the first civilian president in 34 years; he proposed disarmament and a peace settlement that gave amnesty to extremists who surrendered, and with this, the civil war started to be resolved. Two right-of-center political parties that supported the president—including the Algerian National Liberation Front—and the Movement of Society for Peace—a moderate Islam political party—formed a three-party coalition government and maintained majority in the May general election. It is said that approximately 200,000 people died in the Algerian Civil War between the government, military, and Islamic fundamentalist groups.

日本語→

Movie: Belle Époque – The Age of Beauty (1992)

Posted on by
Reply

In Spain in 1931, there was a clash between the Republican Party that aimed to abolish the monarchy and establish a Spanish Republic, and the royalist Traditionalists that opposed them; this story is about Fernando, who volunteered for the Republican army but ends up deserting, and an artist who protects Fernando and lives in a village with his four lovely daughters.

Fernando is a handsome young man, kind to women, pure-hearted, and excellent at cooking. The four daughters live in Madrid and only return to the village in the summer, but with Madrid in political turmoil, they suddenly return to the village, “tired of demonstrations.” Using beautiful images and music, wonderful humor, and smiles and family love, this movie depicts every day being a picturesque happy day—including the eldest, second, and third daughter each seducing Fernando in their own way; the third daughter being wooed by a young Traditionalist who serenades her under her balcony; having a lunch full of love with the Catholic priest who is a family friend; a carnival; an enjoyable picnic; and the mother who is an internationally successful opera singer suddenly returning home. The story ends with the victory of the Republican Party, the mother once more setting off on a world tour, the three elder sisters saying they will be back again next summer as they return to Madrid, and the youngest daughter marrying Fernando and the two leaving for America, “the land of opportunity,” to live happily ever after.

Such is the beautiful outer layer, but there is another layer hidden under the happy, humorous story.

This movie begins with a scene where Fernando, who deserted, is arrested by the Traditionalist military police. The military officers are a father and his son-in-law; the father says, “We should be kind to a Republican soldier since the Republicans may win,” and tries to let Fernando go. The angered son-in-law accidentally shoots and kills his father-in-law; the son-in-law, shaken by the sin of killing his beloved father-in-law, commits suicide in front of Fernando.

All four of the daughters are beautiful and charming. However, the eldest daughter’s husband drowned in a lake during a picnic last summer. The second daughter is a lesbian. The third daughter is confused about how to best handle her suitor, who is a Catholic from an affluent family and supports the royalists. The youngest daughter has strong feelings for Fernando, but everyone treats her like a child, so she is frustrated. When the mother thinks about the futures of her four daughters, she becomes worried. Regarding the eldest daughter, she is still as beautiful as ever, but every year she grows older, and it is hard to live as a widow. In terms of the second daughter, she has a professional job and economic stability, but will she be able to find a companion (either a man or a woman) who really loves her? The third daughter lives a transitory lifestyle, not having a job and not treating her suitor seriously. However, the mother doesn’t know if marrying that man will make the third daughter truly happy. The mother hopes the youngest daughter, who everyone treats like a child, will find a more stable life by learning from her older sisters. Even the mother has issues; although she believes she is an international opera singer, her performances are actually continuously in deficit, and the only reason she has barely kept her star status is because her lover/manager covers the financial burden from his own pocket.

Since the Republicans are winning, the third daughter’s suitor and her mother, who were stubborn royalists, quickly switch over to the Republican side. However, on the youngest daughter and Fernando’s wedding day, the Catholic priest who was a family friend hangs himself and dies. Even if Spain becomes a Republic, Fernando’s past of deserting the Republican army won’t disappear. So Fernando’s only option is to immigrate to America.

The family says, “I look forward to next summer!” and leaves, but will there really be a happy next year for them with Spain in political turmoil? Fernando and the youngest daughter who go to America together won’t be able to return to Spain for a while. Even though the mother is an opera singer, there is the possibility that she might end up dead by the roadside somewhere in South America if her manager abandons her. Anything could happen to the three daughters living in Madrid during this chaotic time, and there is the possibility that the elderly father, who is left all alone in the village, may get some illness and die tomorrow. However, the movie ends with hope that after a few years, this family may fondly look back on the short time that the deserter Fernando spent with this family, and say, “Those were beautiful times.”

The reality is that the Republic soon collapsed and Spain entered a civil war. After the Civil War, Franco’s dictatorship continued for a long time, and then after Franco’s death, the government suffered from instability. It was 1981 when Spain became truly stable as a democratic nation, while those who opposed Franco had to wait until 2008 for their honor to be restored. This movie was made in 1992, and it would have been difficult to make such a beautiful move without a stable political situation. However, even in 1992, direct criticism of fascism was probably not easy. This challenge resulted in this beautiful movie.

日本語→

Movie: Four Days in September — O Que É Isso, Companheiro? (1997)

Posted on by
Reply

Four Days in September depicts the incident when the MR-8, a radical left-wing group in Brazil, kidnapped Charles Elbrick, the American ambassador in Brazil, in September 1969, and held him hostage for four days while demanding the release of 15 of their comrades who were behind bars. The memoirs of Fernando Gabeira—who was the mastermind of this event and later became active as a journalist and politician—were published in 1979, and were the basis of this movie. He is an influential person today, serving as a congressman in Rio de Janeiro since 1995. The MR-8 was mainly formed by young and middle-class people, university students, and the intelligentsia. At first, the goals of the MR-8 were to bring down the military administration that controlled Brazil in those days, advocate for Marxism, and establish an administration that allowed freedom for the people. There is a scene in the movie where a die-hard revolutionary who fought against Franco in the Spanish Civil War is brought in to assist this shaky “wannabe revolution by inexperienced children”; you can see the connection between Spain and South America in those days.

Between the 1960s and 70s, military authorities seized power in many countries in South America. In Brazil’s neighbor Argentina, the warfare between the military regime and guerillas intensified in the 1960s. In 1973, Juan Perón, who had escaped to Spain, was re-elected as president and returned to his home country Argentina, but Argentina again fell into chaos when Perón died a year later. In 1976, General Jorge Rafael Videla rallied a coup d’état, and once again a dictatorship was established in Argentina. The Videla administration intensified oppression of the people, and severely persecuted Peron followers and left-wingers in the “Dirty War” by enlisting neighboring military regimes.

As a result of the 1970 Chilean presidential election, a socialist administration led by President Allende was born in Chile. This socialist administration was established as a result of a democratic election, but this administration was unstable. In 1973, in the midst of the social chaos, General Augusto Pinochet—who was supported by the U.S.—led a coup d’état with his military council, and Pinochet established a military dictatorship system in 1974. Pinochet’s military government aggressively suppressed any anti-establishment people, and this time is also called the “Dirty War.”

In Bolivia, the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement (MNR) led a civilian revolution in 1952, and carried out social as well as economic reformation, but in 1964, MNR fractured, and a military leader led a coup d’état and ended the revolutionist administration.

A new constitution was created in Brazil in 1946, but democracy didn’t quite take hold, and political and economic instability continued, like in other South American countries. In 1964, Colonel Castelo Branco—supported by the U.S.—established a military dictatorship by means of a coup d’état. The period of rapid economic growth during this time is known as the “Brazilian Miracle,” but the violation of human rights by the military regime became a huge problem. This is the backdrop for Four Days in September.

Earlier in history, South America, which had previously been the territory of Spain or Portugal, became independent. This happened during the time the Napoleonic Wars were happening in Europe, when France, led by Napoleon, attacked Spain and Portugal, allowing the ideas of freedom from the French Revolution to spread into South America. However, in South America, even after their independence and gradual transition to republic governments, aristocrats and big land owners still remained, and there were problems such as there being a big disparity between the rich and poor, or discrimination between Western European descendents and native people. Also, the governments often became a dictatorship or military administration. Those who opposed such autocratic governments chose Marxism as a guiding principle.

Since at that time, the U.S. was fighting the Soviet Union in the Cold War, the U.S. was very afraid of the threat of communism spreading throughout South America. Thus, the U.S. supported autocratic administrations that oppressed nationalists who tended to adopt Marxism. When choosing between communism and autocracy, America—who claimed to be an advocate for freedom—chose autocracy that oppressed the rights of the people. On the other hand, people wishing for freedom chose Marxism as their guiding principle. Nowadays it is unbelievable that Marxism could grant freedom as it claimed, but to a South American nationalist at the time, the U.S. was a symbol of the big landowner and of the capitalism that exploited the poor, and was allied to the terrible autocracy that protected the rich. The U.S., which tried to repel South American nationalists by supporting dictatorships, became hated all over the world.

In this movie, the way of depicting the diplomat Charles Elbrick is very favorable. He is prepared for the possibility that he could be killed, and so speaks out—“I as an individual”—against the U.S. government policy. He also expresses that the involvement of the U.S. in the Vietnam War was a mistake. The author Fernando Gabeira, who burned with passion for a social revolution back in 1969, later formally acknowledged the mistake he had made by kidnapping the ambassador. Fernando Gabeira was ordered to execute Charles Elbrick, but this movie shows Gabeira struggling with this order.

Before being an ambassador in Brazil, Charles Elbrick was positioned in Yugoslavia. Unlike people in South America, people in Yugoslovia—an Eastern European satellite country of the Soviet Union—believe that communism steals freedom from the people. The Soviet Union suppressed the Hungarian Revolution and the 1968 Prague Spring. When Yugoslavia’s leader Tito didn’t completely conform to the Soviet Union, it is said that he asked Charles Elbrick, the U.S. ambassador at the time, “What will the U.S. do if the same thing happens to Yugoslavia now?” It is said that Charles Elbrick replied, “We will help protect Yugoslavia’s independence and dignity. Do you need our help now?” Tito then said something like, “We do not need your help now, but thank you for your words of support.” Soon after this, Charles Elbrick moved to Rio de Janeiro and became the ambassador in Brazil, and was kidnapped by the MR-8.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in the 1980s, Marxism was no longer a threat to the U.S., and the U.S. policies toward South American countries dramatically changed. The autocratic nations in South America were no longer a necessary evil for the U.S.

日本語→