In between the two operas, I watched The Pawnbroker, a 1964 film directed by Sidney Lumet. I learned about this movie from one of the kino-websites advertisements related to Lumet’s 100 anniversary. Then it was my usual movie story: I need to find time; the movie is so captivating that I can’t watch it as a background to anything, etc. Actually, after the first ten minutes of watching, I realized that I won’t be able to hit the stop button….
How many Holocaust movies did I watch? Many! How many books? How many photos? A lot, but still, this movie was unbearable to watch even though it shows very little of actual Nazi atrocities. We do not even know the whole story of Sol Nazerman. We only see flashbacks of past events triggered by something happening in the present. Still, it’s striking evidence of unmendable damage done to a human. When I was watching the movie, I physically felt Mr. Naserman’s suffering. I just do not have the right words to describe how I felt. A naked truth. Immense sorrow.
I finally watched The Atomic Cafe, which was on my watchlist for the past two months recommended by Michael Roman. As usual, when the movie is the one I want to pay close attention to, I watch it one small piece at a time.
To summarize my reaction in one sentence: what a horror story! I had no idea that that’s how the US propaganda worked, and I am not even sure I should use a past tense here. The scariest part for me was not even the actual propaganda films with “no worries, the hair will grow back” and “it’s safe to get out after an explosion,” but the background country songs jokingly mentioning an atomic bomb, punishing Japan and all things related. Gives you a new perspective on the “Oppenheimer” movie and life in general. It’s worth noting that there is no narration and no commentary, just interviews, tv shows, and propaganda movies clips.
I finally finished watching both movies: Nuremberg: Its Lesson for Today and Filmmakers for the Prosecution. The first one is a 2009 digital restoration of the film produced in 1948 by brothers Budd and Stuart Schulberg. In this film, they collected the evidence that would be used to convict the Nazy criminals at the Nuremberg Trail. The footage they collected was only partially included in the impressive documentary, and the second film included some footage that had never been seen before. However, a more disturbing fact is that even the original movie (without these extras) was intentionally hidden from the public by the US government.
Jean-Christophe Klotz, who directed the second movie, interviewed many of the creators of the original “Nuremberg” film or their surviving relatives and friends. He also talks about the Russian documentary by Roman Carmen and about the race between the filmmakers on which country will be the first one to tell the world about Nazi atrocities. Apparently, the main reason for the “Nuremberg” movie to disappear from the public view was that Russians were portrayed as US allies (actually, the film does not include the secret pact and Russian annexation of parts of Poland). That being said, by 1948, the US government didn’t want any mention of being allies with the Soviet Union during WWII, which shelved the movie for seventy-five years.
But that was not it. In addition, it was presumed that the wide release of a film indicting Germany on war crimes might impede political and public acceptance of the plan to rebuild Germany’s economy, a vital plank in the Marshall Plan’s approach to European recovery. So apparently, the film was viewed as anti-German, at least to the same degree as anti-Nazi.
More valuable information is available on the project website, which also reveals the search for evidence in the propaganda films made by the Nazis themselves. If any of my readers are interested, I encourage them to explore this website.
Siskel Center started a new lecture series, “Propaganda and Counterculture.” The program is incredibly interesting. However, I can hardly attend any because most of my Tuesdays are already scheduled. Because of that, I made a point to see “Nonotchka” last Tuesday.
The auditorium was packed with students who stayed for a class after the screening. I am curious to know their impressions! The movie is funny. Even with the obligatory dose of “cranberry trees,” it still captures some utterly funny details that are pretty close to reality.
Now that I think about it, maybe “funny” is exactly what feels slightly disturbing. One may say that we are not afraid of things we can laugh about, but at the same time, that exact feeling that “things are not too scary” prompts the viewers to believe that the communist regime was not so bad…
Thursday was the last day of the Siskel Center’s “Entrances and Exits” series. Each night, the Film Center presented the first and last film of an outstanding director. Yesterday, it was Larisa Shepitko Heat and The Ascent. I only went to see the first one, because I can’t spend four hours in the movies, and couldn’t be that late (my workload is absolutely insane these days).
Heat is Shepetko’s first movie, the one she directed as her graduation project, and I never saw it or heard about it (yes, there are some gaps in my education). I can’t even describe how much I loved it. It’s incredible that in 1963, she could produce a full-length film that would be so moving, deep, powerful, and with almost no traces of propaganda or obligatory Soviet reports.
While searching for any information about this movie in English, I found this video, which outlines the history of Kyrgyz cinematography and talks about the Heat in detail.
That was something incredible! A Japanese female film director, Naomi Kawase, is almost unknown in the USA despite the impressive body of work she produced and multiple international awards, and that was the first exposure to her work for most of the audience.
For me, the plot of the film was very emotionally resonating: the famous photographer gradually losing his vision, hanging to whatever vision he has left, trying to be independent. Masatoshi Nagase, who plays the main male character, displays all the typical gestures and movements of visually impaired people (the way they check their phones, work on large screens, walk around) with frightening accuracy. I can’t describe how I felt. Also, the typical reactions of others around… One person in the audience mentioned during the after-screening discussion that she worked with visually impaired people and how she was grateful for this movie… It’s amazing. The trailer does not do the movie a justice.
Saw it in Siskel Center today, and I didn’t like it. One thing is that I didn’t expect that much of the diversion of the historic image of Sisi. Another thing is that the whole story didn’t look convincing. And the third thing is that, once again, I thought about “people who have nothing to do with their lives and thereby focus on love affairs.” Recently, I have felt like this way too often; maybe it’s a part of getting older, or maybe it just plainly means that I am too old for any romance…
I went to watch it at the Siskel Center with my mom on Wednesday. I’d say it was a success in terms of that my mom didn’t complain about “how she couldn’t understand anything.’ What was even more impressive is that after I sent to her a short description of the movie, she googled it and read more information, and was very well prepared. And she was able to read the closing remarks about the later years of Widow Clicquot, so we had a meaningful discussion on our way back home. I am always glad when I can find something stimulating for her, and get some fresh reactions.
I expected a little bit more from that movie; I liked it, but I didn’t “love-love” it. Now, I am waiting for a premier of “Sisi”- it should start in a week, but the Siskel Center still didn’t announce the showtimes.
I just watched Marco Bellocchio’s Kidnapped at the Siskel Center. I am speechless. It’s an extremely powerful movie, and the director’s work, and all the actors, including children, are brilliant. I didn’t know what an amazing movie it was, and I am so glad I went! I walked out shaking… still can’t say anything legible.
Klondike was part of CIFF Summer Screenings, and Igor and I watched it today. It’s one of those movies when you can’t say, “It is a good movie.” It is shocking and disturbing, and you can’t take all the horrors in, but at the same time, you still can’t take your eyes off the screen. I can’t say “I recommend it.” If you feel that you have enough is you to sustain it, please watch it, but it’s not for everyone.
I am glad I went to that screening. It was a full house, and 95% of the audience were not Ukrainian. I guess it’s a good sign, but the panel discussion after the screening was horrible.
I don’t understand how the organizers could have no plan and no agenda for such an important discussion. I don’t understand the choice of panelists (citing the panel announcement Professor Petrovsky-Shtern from Northwestern University, and Migration Lawyer by profession and journalist by hobby – Svitlana Ugryn). To be entirely honest, Deputy Consul General of Ukraine in Chicago Yevgeniy Drobot, who was supposedly leading the discussion, wasn’t helpful either.
I am really upset about this panel, but it is difficult to me to pinpoint what exactly was so wrong. The panel was about nothing. Instead of sending a powerful message, the panelists were talking about the “authenticity” of making vegetable preserves, and the “Chekhov-style” acting when “people want to do something, but nothing happens.”
Two most disturbing episodes.
One of the audience members asked the panel, whether “separatists stil exist.” The answer from the professor was: “there are some people [in these areas]who feel like they are Ukrainian, and the are some people who feel like they are Russian, and they want to be Russian, and there are some people, who are just common people, and they do not care, they want to have their house, and their cow, and have their babies… “
Svitlana commented that “it is important that the soldiers at the end of the movie speak Chechen, because Chechnia was occupied by Russia, and now Russia sends Chechens to fight in this war, so if Russia will defeat Ukrain, it will move to invading other countries. That latter thing is true, but what is has to do with the soldiers speaking Chechen? If you ask me, that would be the only thing for which I might critisize the movie: you get an impression that all of the atrocities were done by Chechens, and Russians never committed any violence.
Maybe I will write more about it tomorrow if I will be able to arrange my thoughts.
Hettie's Reflections 