Tuesday, April 21, 2009


Coming of Age in the Time of Revolution
There are always years that leave marks upon our lives. Someone important teaching us something, or a pivotal event happening to our life, either way we remember it. La Lengua delas Mariposas follows young Moncho as he is introduced to the world around him. Various mysteries catch Moncho’s eye and those that he grows up with. However, underneath the happy coming of age story is a brewing issue. The story is set in 1936, shortly before the Spanish Civil War between the republicans and the nationalists. This movie takes a bit of a different take on revolutions. Many movies make the revolution the main point of the movie, in this one however it just happens to be another one of the pivotal events in Moncho’s life. Throughout the movie there are many references to the building political tension in the country, but we only see the revolution truly play a factor in the movie towards the end. These tensions are juxtaposed with the happiness that Moncho feels as he learns new subjects and ideas. 

As is with any coming of age story, La Lengua de las Mariposas falls under the certain sterotypes that are required. Moncho is a very young shy child with asthma. He has been sheltered from the world and is just starting his first year of school. On his first day, he is so nervous that he begins to urinate in his pants in front of the entire class and proceeds to run back home in shame. It is at this point that we are introduced to his teacher and hero Don Gregario. Don Gregario seems like the teacher every student wishes they had. Calm, patient, friendly, unselfish and willing to go out on a limb just to see his students learn everything he wishes to convey to them. Many coming of age films don’t’ have a Don Gregario figure, or a mentor, to keep the main character on the right track. Don Gregario follows Moncho all the way back to Moncho’s house in order to apologize and ask for Moncho to return to class. He shows his patience and understanding during the conversation with Moncho’s mother, a quality not seen by some of the older men shown in the movie. However, we find that Moncho’s mother believes that Don Gregario is an atheist which is a big deal in that time period. People who weren’t religious might as well have been blaspheming against the state itself. Don Gregario acts as the light that Moncho follows when he is stuck in the darkness of the confusing new world. He teaches Moncho of the tongue of a butterfly which Is like the trunk of an elephant and is able to extend out of the butterfly in order to suck the nectar out of flowers. Lessons such as these catch Moncho’s mind and he feels the need to share with anyone that will listen, showing that Don Gregario was able to remove some of the shyness seen in Moncho in the beginning of the movie. This new found confidence is seen when Moncho gives the flower to the girl he likes while they are swimming. Don Gregario convinces Moncho to do it by relating Moncho to one of the animals that they have learned about during their natural history classes.

In addition to him being taught educational things by Don Gregario, he is introduced into the real world by his best friend Roque, who “shit in [his] pants” on his first day in school. In addition to Roque, his older brother allows him to tag along during various outings and confides in Moncho during their nights together. Roque shows Moncho the sexual desires of a young boy just starting puberty. He takes young Moncho, who is unaware of what Is in store for him, to watch a young girl have sex with a man. Moncho is unable to process what is going on while Roque is enjoying himself. Later, Moncho ask his brother about old people humping. Moncho’s brother confides in him about their half sister from another mother, Carmina. Moncho realizes that Carmina is the young girl who he watched have sex with the man. However, these things do not click to him as being taboo in society and he asks his brother about them. 

However, in the end with the start of the civil war, Moncho’s family must change their views on the people that they like just to stay safe from the new government. Moncho’s father used to be a republican much like Don Gregario. He is active in the political scene, but when the announcement that the people against the government were being rounded up, Moncho’s mother had the papers burned and ties cut with those against the government. This saddens his father very much, and his father is unable to participate in yelling at the traitors towards the government. Moncho’s mother attempts to get Moncho to yell the same words at the prisoners in order to show that they all gagree with the current government in place. We see young Moncho running after the truck containing all the prisoners, including Don Gregario. Moncho begins to yell derogatory terms towards the truck and Don Gregario in a show of patriotism forced upon by his mother. However, Moncho throws in a few words of his own, taught to him by Don Greagario to show that he is not serious with what he is screaming and is just doing it because all those around him are doing the same. 
This movie is a great coming of age story. Many stories that are told like this seem to missing elements that this movie has, and utilizes well. Don Gregario is quite possibly the best mentor and friend that I have seen in any movie. A mentor that is as calm and patient as he is can do nothing but good. However, he is found to be against the state and must be hated and taken away by the government. This is where we see the war conflicts tying into the movie. The current war is able to tear apart the friends that were created through Moncho. Moncho’s father is a tailor, and felt so much friendship towards Don Gregario after Don Gregario saved Moncho from an asthma attack that he made Don Gregario a brand new suit to show his friendly gratitude. As Don Gregario is being pulled out of the building containing the prisoners, he is seen wearing this suit, and this same suit is the suit that Moncho’s mother told him his father did not make. If his father was found tied with any of these republicans, then he would be lost as well. Moncho’s father hates this, and is barely able to keep the tears in his eyes as his fellow political activists are dragged out of the building onto the truck while being yelled at. He attempts some half hearted yells, but is unable to create any true impact upon those being taken away. Other than this last scene, I did not find the war conflicts to be very important in this movie. It almost seemed as though it was put into the movie to be yet another rock that Moncho must climb in order to grow up in Spain at that time. The emphasis placed upon the other events in his life showed that the revolution was second to his social development. 


In the film, Fresa y Chocolate, directors Tomas Gutierrez Alea and Juan Carlos Tabio, touch upon the controversial subject of homosexuality, and it implications in relation to social and political views. The setting is the city of Havana, Cuba. The time period in which the film takes places is during the reign of Fidel Castro. The intolerance and cruelty he is known for set the stage for a dramatic plot, and do not foreshadow a happy ending. Tomas Gutierrez Alea, the man whose story comes to live in this film and co-founder of ICAIC (El Instituto Cubano de Arte e Industria Cinematográficos), rapidly became the premier Cuban filmmaker. Among his features,” Memories of Underdevelopment" (1968) was about an uneasy intellectual who would not commit to the Revolution. Something along those lines resurfaces in "Strawberry and Chocolate." Film reviewer Liberito sums up the film as: "Gay, independent intellectual and straight conformist become friends." However, the cinematic experience and the underlying themes it conveys are much more complex than such a succinct description could afford. In 1979 Havana, the gay character, Diego (Jorge Perugorria), a photographer and all-around esthete, picks up somewhat younger University student David (Vladimir Cruz) at an ice-cream cafe where, symbolically, the two men choose different flavors. Diego with much humorous persistence, persuades the student to follow him to his apartment and look at photographs that include David. Diego's cramped place is overflowing with books, records, paintings and sculptures. Out of sync with revolutionary political correctness, Diego is only committed to art and culture. Resolutely heterosexual David (still a virgin), is a true believer in the regime and calls himself a dialectic materialist. He is, for good reason, most suspicious of Diego who comes on with blatancy and flamboyance. But these mannerisms gradually get toned down as he dazzles his reluctant guest with, the forbidden fruit of non-conformist thinking and the rare fruit of hard-to-find works by Cuban and foreign authors, arias by Maria Callas and other such attractions. In poverty stricken Cuba, strapped for the luxuries of the senses, Diego has a bottle of real Scotch. He serves tea to David. "Look, Indian tea in French porcelain!" With those hedonistic goodies come references to famous gays "Wilde, Lorca, Gide, Achilles and Patroclus. Sexual enticements fall on David's deaf ears --but not on a closed mind. He continues seeing Diego so as to monitor him as a "counterrevolutionary." As for Diego, he rapidly realizes the futility of any sexual rapport and settles for friendship, a decision which serves as a key point in the film. He becomes a kind of irresistibly charming Pygmalion for David whose heart is in literature although he studies Political Science. It is inevitable and natural that, whatever their original motives, the two will become fast friends. However, the story gets complicated by Diego's desire to mount an unorthodox art show. When the authorities reject the project, Diego's furious protest letters do not exactly endear him to the regime. If we agree that in the film Diego is not just a gay man but a Cuban nationalist and, in the end, a future exile, and further, that David is not just a straight man but a reformed or newly-enlightened young Communist, then it is clear that under the banner of a strong nationalism the film proposes the eventual reconciliation of the two political halves of the Cuban nation, torn asunder for almost four decades by the Communist regime. In one of the film's final scenes, when the two friends are taking a view of Havana harbor, Diego laments that he is enjoying that view for the last time, to which David responds by questioning whether in fact it would be his last. Barring the possibility that here David is referring ironically to Diego's future reconversion to revolutionary zeal, his question suggests that Diego will indeed return to Havana after the disappearance of the regime's historic intolerance, perhaps even the disappearance of the regime itself. Few countries in Latin America have been as swamped as Cuba by so many chronicles of the island, both for those who still live in it, as well as those who are part of the rest of the world. Sociologists, economists, political scientists, tourists, filmmakers, critics, and historians, have all contributed to the library of accounts that comprise most of the knowledge and opinions that encircle the communist nation. Today, travel brochures read out to tourists: “Come to Cuba, come to see what we have done,” as speculation and reflection upon its sensational revolution abound in the minds of natives, visitors, and exiles alike. However, this invitation also signals an underlying network of desires. The desires of the Cuban people that existed only in the minds of silent dreamers and solo revolutionaries were growing long before the revolution in 1959. When the dictatorial government was finally overthrown, it led to the birth of the first socialist republic in Latin America. Ironically, this government was located on an island only 90 miles away from the nation which arose from rebellion and became known as “The greatest nation in the world.” Since its rebellion, Cuba has served as a golden destination for wealth Americans seeking relaxation and pleasure upon its golden shores, taking upon itself a much wider representation- one of freedom from imperial devices that lack any form of ideology. “While the nation of Cuba has always been linked to the outside world through threads of desire, in most recent years one issue that has placed it at the center of cultural, social, and political discourse is the controversial relationship between homosexuality and the revolutionary culture.” (Sex and Sexuality in Latin America.133) One has only to observe the Cuban literature that has emerged since 1960 to see that homosexuality has been at the center of the social process. This process has articulated a series of critiques of the Cuban culture in terms of class, politics, and gender, but maintains a strict opposition to homosexuality. The film, Fresa y Chocolate, serves as a portal that zeroes in on one of the more controversial aspects of the revolution. It shows how the Cuban government has sought to present openly a situation that, on the one hand, plays on the affective subversion of the forbidden, while on the other hand, falls behind the social realities of the moment. While the revolution changed the way of life for many Cubans, and while the resulting growth of culture persisted, there was never really a change in terms of the perception of the word “homosexual.” This is evident when observing the Cuban Penal Code enacted in 1938, which was in force until 1979. The 1938 Law penalized "habitual homosexual acts, homosexual molestation, scandalous, indecent behavior, [and] ostentatious displays of homosexuality in public". Before 1959 there was no manifest difference between the situation of homosexuals in Cuba and the rest of Latin America, or in relation to Latin cultures in Europe, such as Spain and Portugal. The Cuban Penal Code enacted in 1938, which in turn originated from Spanish laws, was in force until 1979. The 1938 Law penalized "habitual homosexual acts, homosexual molestation, scandalous, indecent behavior, [and] ostentatious displays of homosexuality in public". Maybe because the liberation struggle traditionally associated male bravery and revolutionary virtues, maybe due to influence from homophobic Soviet laws (a "decadent bourgeois phenomenon"), combined with Cuba's own Latin, Catholic and African homophobia, homosexual men, whose manners were mostly effeminate according to Cuban tradition, could be branded as anti-social in the mid-1960s. In 1965 the so-called UMAP camps (Military Units to Help Production) were created. In practice they were military labor camps for young men considered unfit for military service, e.g., homosexuals or objectors. They were intended for men who neither worked nor studied, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh-Day Adventists, who refused to do military service, and the like. The camps were closed down after two years after vast internal criticism in Cuba, and the internees released. Most internees were heterosexual but the main subject of criticism was the internment of homosexuals and believers, which also persisted as an image of repression in Cuba. Since those days, however, a lot has happened, but for many reasons, particularly the anti- Cuban and counterrevolutionary propaganda that dominates Western mass media, the image of repression both against believers and homosexuals still prevails. The 1938 Law, still in force in the 1970s, was not enforced against "habitual homosexual acts", but in some cases, it was applied to "homosexual molestation, scandalous, indecent behavior, and ostentatious displays of homosexuality in public". During the second half of the 1970s, however, the attitude towards homosexuality was questioned in various ways. In 1977, the Centro Nacional de Educacion Sexual (CNES) was founded on the initiative of the Cuban Women's Federation (FMC), and their seminars and publications encouraged a more enlightened outlook on homosexuality and started to undermine traditional sexual prejudices and taboos. The work done by this center has contributed to changes in attitudes and laws, and the credit for the fact that the AIDS problem has not been handled with a homophobic outlook is largely attributed to this endeavor. In 1979, homosexual acts were removed from the Penal Code as a criminal offense, and it became formally legal for consenting adults. However, "ostentatious displays of homosexuality" were still against the law, as were "homosexual acts in public places". And male homosexual acts with minors were more severely penalized than heterosexual acts of the same kind. In recent years, Cuba has been more tolerant to homosexuals, but only in political terms. The social barriers caused by fear and hatred of the unknown and the misunderstood still plague Cubans of all sexual orientations. While it is unlikely that such strong feelings will subside in Cuba (or any other country for that matter), those with the power to reform will be urged to do so, not merely with words, but through the mediums of artisans in the fields of music, art, and perhaps most powerfully of all, world cinema.

Bibliography

  • Bjorklund, Eva. "Homosexuality Is Not Illegal In Cuba." Swedish Cuba Magazine: 36-39.
  • "Fine Film, But Some Versions Edited." IMDB. 25 Apr. 2005. 20 Apr. 2009 .
  • Sex and Sexuality in Latin America. New York: New York UP, 1999.

Revolution Shifting the Frontlines from the Battlefield to the Home




Jonathan Roberts

Dr. Manuel A. Pérez Tejada

English 1102

21 April 2009

Revolution Shifting the Frontlines from the Battlefield to the Home

There have been many films made about revolution throughout the history of cinema. These films have covered many historical revolutions and even some fictitious revolutions, such as in Star Wars. Almost all of these films have one thing in common. The main character is a hero of the revolution. He conquers the oppressive power and rights all the wrongs in the world. The Russian movie, Burnt by the Sun, takes a different approach. It deals with all of the negative aspects of a revolution. It also deals with the effects of revolution on the common man rather than the soldier. Soldiers do exist in the story, but the film concentrates on their home lives rather than their lives in the battlefields. While the result of a revolution can be a more just government or a more oppressive one, one thing remains the same. Before order is reestablished, people will suffer. Burnt by the Sun shows this suffering that is not caused by artillery fire or assault rifles. It shows the lives torn apart by corruption and political unrest in a nation. Burnt by the Sun is not only dedicated to all of those burnt by the sun of revolution, it also represents anyone whose lives were ruined by it.

Burnt by the Sun is a Russian film made in 1994 and released in the United States in 1995. It is based on a book written by Nikita Mikhalkov. He also directed and starred in the film as the main character, Col. Sergei Petrovich Kotov. It is set during Stalin’s rule over the Soviet Union between the two World Wars. In this time period, the government took many steps to repress the people. The Motherland was the utmost priority for the Russian people, and duty towards the Motherland was the utmost ideal. The people of Russia are said by the main character, Kotov, to act out of two extremes, duty or fear. Sergei Petrovich Kotov mentions that all of his actions are done due to the former of these two, duty. However, in this time of transition, “Kotov will come to face “that his glorious achievements of the past mean little in the new political climate” (Howe). Mitya, the man who makes his reappearance in the movie is said to act out of the latter, fear. These concepts run deep into the minds of any involved in a revolution. Soldiers often act out of duty whereas civilians act out of fear. This is applicable in any revolution and Burnt by the Sun brings these choices to light.

One of the themes mentioned early in the movie is that of the fireball. A radio reports an increasing number of sightings of the fireball throughout the countryside. This fireball is the harbinger of suffering and death. It is “the fiery yellow sun that occasionally flashes across the sky, hinting at a world about to explode” burning all those in its path (James). When the fireball makes its first appearance in the movie, it comes with the arrival of Mitya who comes to arrest Col. Kotov. This fireball cracks a picture frame containing a picture of Kotov’s family. This foreshadows the breaking of his family and the suffering that is sure to come. Later, the fireball appears again. This time, it signifies Mitya’s internal suffering after he turns Kotov in to the military police who execute him without any trial and decides to commit suicide. This also signals that the suffering for the family in the Kotov’s house is just beginning. The writing that appears on the screen at the end of the film shows that the suffering continues long after the movie ends. All of the family members are arrested and eventually are forgiven. All but Kotov’s daughter, Nadya, are forgiven posthumously. This shows that most of Kotov’s family died in prison under persecution. The fact that the fireball has been sighted many times across the Russian countryside shows that this suffering is not contained to Kotov’s family, but pervades all of those touched by revolution. The family is what is what is most affected by revolution.

The next thing to distinguish between is soldier and civilian. Soldiers know the risks when they sign up to be involved in military actions. The suffering that they feel is to be expected, especially during revolution. The civilian is not so lucky. Civilians are unwillingly forced to suffer during revolution. They do not feel the same sense of duty that soldiers feel towards the Motherland, yet they are affected just as much. This suffering is made apparent and foreshadowed by the early scene in the movie involving the tanks trying to crush the wheat field. The soldiers are acting on orders, motivated by a sense of duty towards their superiors. The citizens, motivated by fear, flood the field in a panic begging the tanks to refrain from crushing the crop. It is this panic that forces the villagers to call Col. Kotov so that he may dissuade the soldiers from crushing the fields. This is the first time that Kotov is shown to have to suffer as both a civilian and a soldier. He uses his military influence to contradict the duty of the soldiers and alleviate the fear of the civilians by turning the tanks back. This scene also points out the initial “tension between Kotov's dreams and the reality of the Stalinist apparatus” (Gaydos). This also foreshadows that he will have to make a choice between his life as a soldier and that of a civilian and the interests that each wishes to preserve later in the movie. This choice is made increasingly difficult as “the love Kotov feels for his daughter [and family] and for his motherland is exquisitely continuous” (Gleiberman).

In a revolution, civilians must adopt a somewhat military mentality. This is forced upon them by the soldiers and their interests. This is shown at two instances of the movie. The first is at the swimming hole when the gas mask drill is performed. The civilians are forced into a military mentality. They must comply with the soldiers and put on the gas masks so that the soldiers can perform their drill. This also shows that the civilians have to be prepared at any time to be thrust into the depths of the revolution and be prepared for the death and suffering that may take place should the fighting ever reach their home turf. Another instance of the military mindset being forced upon civilians is the regiment of pioneers. These are children who are drilling and marching as if they were in an army. In a time of revolution, the children know nothing but the fighting that has consumed their entire lives. The fact that these children are being trained in such a way that they will be familiar with military protocol shows how deeply the influence of the revolution runs. It does not stop at parents who must worry about their families, but it permeates into the lives of the children as they prepare to live the life of a soldier should the fighting continue.

The fine line drawn between civilian and soldier is blurred as the film continues. Mitya, the long lost friend and, as revealed in the film, the former lover of Kotov’s wife, slowly reveals that his return is no normal homecoming. He has been working for the Russian government and is responsible for the disposal of Russian generals who do not completely comply with any of the government’s recent decisions. He is responsible for the arrest and execution of these officials quietly with not trial. Slowly, the viewer learns that his next target is Kotov, possibly for “having frustrated army movements that threatened a neighbor’s wheat fields” (Ebert). Honoring his sense of duty to the Motherland, Kotov goes quietly with Mitya, after a brief goodbye to his loved ones, leaving no sign of his impending doom. He is then taken into the same wheat fields he fought to save where he is beaten and executed along with an innocent bystander witnessing the action. All of this is done as an image of Stalin is raised by balloon leaving no doubt as to who is ultimately to blame for the tragedy of all of the lives destroyed in the wake of revolution.

The image of Stalin shows that this is only a small example of all of the lives destroyed during revolution. The day was meant to be a celebration of Stalin’s accomplishments, but his image raised in the field has a dual meaning. As Stalin glorifies himself throughout the Russian countryside, similar scenes are doubtlessly playing out under each of his images. Families are being torn apart and lives destroyed regardless of whether or not they are involved in military or political organizations. In another scene in the movie, Kotov comments that Mitya volunteered to be on the frontlines of World War I. His return to Kotov’s home shows that the frontlines have shifted to the homes of anyone affected by the revolution. The motif of the fireball returns after Kotov’s death, floating through the now broken home and coming to rest on the scene of Mitya committing suicide. Even his immoral actions do not come without consequence. Soldier and civilian; these distinctions mean nothing in a time of political unrest and revolution. Ultimately all will suffer before order is returned.

Works Cited

Ebert, Roger. “Burnt by the Sun.” The Sun Times. May 19, 1995. Apr. 19, 2009. .

Gaydos, Steven. “Burnt by the Sun.” Variety. May 23, 1994. Apr. 19, 2009. .

Gleiberman, Owen. “Burnt by the Sun.” Entertainment Weekly. May 5, 1995. Apr. 19, 2009. .

Howe, Desson. “Burnt by the Sun.” The Washington Post. May 19, 1995. Apr. 19, 2009. .

James, Caryn. “Burnt by the Sun: Film Review; Charm on the Surface, and Stalinist Realities.” The New York Times. Apr. 21, 1995. Apr. 19, 2009. .

Monday, April 20, 2009

Essay 3 - Derek Roberts - War Really Does Destroy All Things

War Really Does Destroy All Things

When one thinks of World War II, some things they may think of include Germany, the Nazi Party, the Holocaust, Pearl Harbor, Japan, the atom bomb, and poverty. After World War II, Nazi Germany was pushed back, and a more sedated Germany took it's place. The 1991 German hit “Europa” helped address some of the difficulties facing post-war Germany immediately after World War II. In this movie, an American named Leopold Kessler moves to Germany after World War II to work as a night train conductor. His uncle is German by descent and helped him get this job. Throughout the movie, his uncle plays the mentor figure to Kessler, since his uncle is also a conductor. Through the main character's travels, Kessler finds out about post-war Germany's struggles and the insanity that takes place almost every day through the misinterpretation of culture and the negligence of politics.

This movie is a bilingual film, where both English and German are used to communicate important plot events. However, there was no “English subtitled” version available to watch. It is safe to say that about 5/6 of all dialogue in the film is in German, which makes it very frustrating to watch, since both languages are used to communicate events. In order to understand parts of the film which could not be interpreted, further background research had to be done. This left a large part of the not understood. Despite this difficulty, though, it was still possible to understand the gist of the dialogue.

The film helps show many things about post-war Germany. The most obvious change and frustration to the German people is the constant presence of UN police and other country's generals and colonels. This people are supposed to watch over German and help eliminate any neo-Nazi movements. At one point in the movie, an American colonel pulls Kessler aside and tells Kessler that if he spots any Nazis, to let the colonel know. This dual-allegiance plays an important part in the story, as every character has some sort of dual-allegiance, whether it's to actual people or objects (such as alcohol or money). At one point in the film, Kessler comes across a woman named Katharina Hartmann (aka Kate). Kate has a dual-allegiance to her father and an uprising terrorist group called Werwolves. The symbolism behind “werwolves” is similar to the mythical creature. A member is a normal everyday person during the day, and at night, they act as members of the organization. At a pivotal point in the movie, Kessler is confronted with the decision to bomb the train upon which he works by his now-wife, Kate. This is yet another dual-allegiance that must be decided upon. Eventually, Kessler picks the side of the werwolves (for the wrong reasons). This new uprising threat of dual-allegiance stems from the destruction of Germany, which resulted from the outcome of World War II. Because of World War II, Germany lost its nationalistic pride, and the rise of the Nazi party attempted to eliminate any cultural diversity from Germany. The point here is not how culture affects political decisions, but how the politics affected culture in Germany.

After World War II, Germany was ravaged and turned into a destitute nation, split by the Berlin Wall. The display of poverty throughout the movie is incredibly obvious, from the passengers climbing aboard the train (and hanging off the sides) just to use it to the complete destruction of building in any offered shots of the city. In order to add to the poverty effect, elements of mis-en-scen were used, mainly black and white lighting, and often times, low key lighting. Dark shots with ruined furniture portrayed a country full of destruction. In some occasions, the use of Dutch Angle and bird's eye shots helped show either horrific damage and loss or crowded plazas (to emphasize the amount of poverty-striken families). All of these poverty-related traits are directly linked to the political situation. Obviously, Germany just underwent a gigantic reform. With this reform, Germany lost a lot of it's economic drive, thus pummeling the entire nation into poverty. Its very clear that Germany's poverty and the political state of the nation is directly related.

Since its been established that Germany's economy was in peril, it is now possible to show the loss of cultural identity in Germany using “Europa” as a guide to Germany (or how it is represented). Besides the trademark use of black-and-white and other elements of mis-en-scen to show poverty, other elements were used to show distance and new, unwanted change. Black-and-white color schemes already tend to feel distant, old, and unemotional. There was also a scene in the movie used to show the abolition of the old culture, and how this old culture is being replaced by a new, more violent culture. In the scene, a little boy somehow accumulates a gun and shoots and old man who is trying to offer the boy chocolate. This is exemplified by the mis-en-scene used, particularly lens tricks. When the boy is shooting the old man, the boy is enlarged, and seems to be dominant, while the old man is crippled, pushed against a wall, and trembling. Then, when the police step in and find the boy, the effect is reversed. There is a low angle shot from behind the boy up towards the police, and the boy is shrunken, making the boy appear incredibly small. This violent apparition makes it apparent that Germany is changing after World War II. It can also be said that because such a young image is destroying the older, more traditional, and more established image that the older culture is being lost because of this new political change.

However, political issues addressed in this movie do not simply end at the change of Germany's government. Earlier, it was mentioned that the entire world seemed to by imposing themselves into Germany's development, trying to stop another atrocious political regime. However, the almost overbearing monitoring becomes apparent when a US colonel goes to every German citizen making them complete a questionnaire, which hopes to identify possible Nazi allies and Nazi sympathizers. If a citizen is identified as one, they are arrested and taken into custody for further questioning. This process directly affects the main character, Kessler, when Kate's father (who practically owns the entire transportation industry in post-war Germany) is asked to take this test. Although Kate's father is completely innocent, the American paid a Jewish man to sign a paper stating that Kate's father was seen wearing a Nazi uniform, effectively framing him. Kate's father, completely torn to pieces by this horrible act, commits suicide (seemingly randomly). The further effort to control Germany is shown when Kate tries to bury her father somewhere. The entire ceremony is broken up by yet another international police force when the force starts shooting guns to make people leave. Apparently, ceremonies are no longer allowed. The body was confiscated and the almost militaristic rule made people crawl, dash, and limp to safety. Another issue that again comes up is the issue of dual-allegiance, as seen and shown by Kessler. The international policing issue is further extended by promotion and encouragement of committing yourself to more than one country. Kessler was both American, yet German. He knew German, and worked a German job, and even married a German woman. However, he was still born an American, and was imposed upon duties that made him an American spy, almost. In the end, Kate was arrested, and the one to thank was Kessler, although not by his own will. The American colonel chose Kessler to “lure” out Kate, a famous terrorist from the Werwolf organization. In the end, it turns out Kate was exposed for writing threatening letters to her father in order to make him kill himself. She did this for her organization. This exemplifies an almost contradictory pledge of duality, which is another issue in itself. After finding out this event (and several others), Kessler is also driven over the edge and seizes a gun from an international police officer. He then proceeds to run up and down the train threatening to shoot passengers who have previously irritated him and caused him problems. He solves his problems by detonating a bomb on the train (previously given to him by Kate for the very same purpose). In the end, this train explosion kills him by drowning him after the train falls into a river due to the bomb. This ironic end almost tells a hidden moral about allegiances: “To be unaligned is to die.”

It appears that culture can be lost due to political confusion (and reform). Clearly, if the entire country changes, it is incredibly simple to get lost. Political decisions have the strongest impact on culture in a country. Yet, some would argue for the opposite side of the argument, saying that politics is controlled by a cultural gesture. However, this movie shows that for post-war Germany, political upset can literally change the lives and pasts of the citizens. In the end, the war destroyed the German people, the continuation of important culture and tradition, and the entire German cityscape. In the end, war really did destroy everything. War tends to do that.

Our Blog

This is our blog for ENGL1102.

More to be updated soon.