|
WSWS
: Arts Review
: Film
Festivals
The 49th Berlin Film Festival: Part 1
By Stefan Steinberg and Bernd Reinhardt
3 March 1999
Two correspondents from the World Socialist Web Site
attended the recent 49th Berlin Film Festival, viewing some 40
of the 350 films on offer there from all over the world. The winner
of the main prize, the Golden Bear, was the fine American anti-war
film The Thin Red Line, which has already been reviewed
on the WSWS. In our selection of films to review we paid
less attention to Hollywood and European blockbusters that will
shortly be appearing on general release, but sought out less well-known
international productions, as well as examples of new German cinema.
There was a marked absence at this year's festival of new works
from many of the countries of the Far East (in particular Taiwan
and South Korea), which in past years have provided many of the
most interesting contributions. According to the official programme
notes, the ongoing financial crisis in Asia has severely hit film
production in these countries. Economic pressures were also responsible
for the limited number of films from South America and eastern
Europe.
This first article will give an overview of a number of new,
interesting international films and briefly review a number of
the features and documentaries addressing fascism and German history.
This point will be further developed in two subsequent pieces
dealing with trends in new German film, including a review of
one of the best German contributions to the festival, Jewboy
Levi. Another article will review French director Bernard
Tavernier's new film It All Starts Today, and a new film
from Turkey dealing with the relationship between two young men,
one Turkish and one Kurdish: Journey to the Sun.
The opening film of the festival was the third documentary
and first cinema production of Steven Spielberg's Shoah foundation,
The Last Days. Using archive material--some of which is
shown publicly for the first time--and interviews with survivors,
their relatives and US troops who liberated the camps, the film
deals in a workman-like manner with the experiences of five Hungarians
Jews who were victims of the effort by the Nazis in the closing
stages of the war to implement a Final Solution. Hungary at that
time possessed the largest Jewish community in all of Europe and
despite--or perhaps because of--the clear signs that the war was
being lost by Hitler's forces, an intensified campaign was organised
by the Nazis to wipe out all remaining Jews in the country.
A second documentary film dealing with the same subject was
The Specialist by Israeli-born director Eyal Silvan who
used new digital technologies to edit and rework in documentary
form 350 hours of original videotape shot at the trial of Adolf
Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961. Eichmann was a lieutenant colonel
in the SS with special responsibilities for the deportation and
liquidation of the Jews. Escaping capture at the end of the war,
Eichmann was eventually kidnapped by Israeli secret police from
his hiding place in South America and put on trial. Following
sentencing he was put to death for his part in the organisation
of the extermination of millions. A controversial aspect of the
new film is Eichmann's repeated reference in his testimony to
his close collaboration in the extermination project with leading
members of the Judenrat (Jewish Council), an influential body
of the Jewish community of that time.
This aspect of the trial was reported at the time in the dispatches
of the German philosopher and sociologist Hannah Arendt, who personally
covered the trial proceedings in 1961. Her book, Eichmann in
Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, was an important
source material for the makers of The Specialist. Arendt
was subsequently treated as a pariah by many of her professional
colleagues because of the issues raised in her reportage of the
trial.
A third film on the theme of fascism takes a very different
approach. La Nina de tus Ojos/The Girl of our Dreams by
one of Spain's most renowned directors, Fernando Trueba, has won
many prizes in Spain and tells the story of a group of Spanish
filmmakers and actors who travel to the celebrated German Ufa
(Universum Film AG) studios in 1933 to make a propaganda film
for the Nazis. Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels personally
supervises the making of the film, during the course of which
he is smitten by the beautiful Spanish lead actress.
Within the space of two hours the film, which has many elements
of a bedroom farce set against the background of Auschwitz and
the elimination of the Jews, manages to rake over a whole range
of national clichés. Germans are blue-eyed, blond, strong
and handsome (but also potential homosexuals and basically rotten
inside) who eat cabbage. Spaniards on the other hand are ugly
and eat paella (but basically virile and honourable). The only
prominent Jewish character is a handsome Russian trapeze artist
and body contortionist who eventually wins the heart of the leading
Spanish actress.
The film evidently attempts to exploit the recent success of
Life is Beautiful, but has none of the limited charm of
Benigni's own flawed film. Interestingly, Benigni's film was turned
down for last years Berlinale because of its "controversial
subject matter." Now it appears that the success of Life
is Beautiful has opened the door for a new hybrid genre: fascism
and slapstick comedy.
Eastern European film
Three films from Russia and Eastern Europe demonstrate some
of the strengths and weaknesses of cinema in that region following
the collapse of the Stalinist regimes. The Story of a Cinema
from a Village of Popielawy by the Polish director Jan Jakub
Kolski is a delightful story centring on a blacksmith from a small
village in Poland who at the end of the nineteenth century undertakes
to invent the movie camera. His closest collaborator is a holy
statue named St. Rock who provides the blacksmith with important
pieces of advice on how to proceed with his project. The film
switches from the past to the trials and tribulations of the descendants
of the blacksmith in the present day. The director has described
his work as a film about "a frail thing called remembrance"
and his film is at the same time a tribute to the power and magic
of cinema--truly a medium in which dreams can become reality.
The Russian film Outskirts also involves journeying
through time and space--this time from the Soviet Union of the
1920s to the present day. Philip Safronov is an elderly farmer
working his land who is suddenly confronted by a mysterious group
who seize his land in order to exploit its oil resources. He forms
his own troop of four who set off across the snow on their own
odyssey to recapture their land. World-weariness but also utter
resolution are carved into the faces of the two older peasants
leading the group. Shot in black and white, the film borrows directly
from early Soviet cinema in a number of scenes. In the course
of their journey across the snow and ice of the steppes in the
1920s, the small band encounter various bureaucrats who stand
in their way. The latter are summarily and violently dealt with
until finally the farmers reach their goal--the skyscraper headquarters
of a modern oil multinational in present-day Moscow.
Confronted with a mafia-type boss, surrounded by bodyguards
in his luxurious office, the small group move into action. Once
again they violently dispose of their opponents, recapture the
document depriving them of their land and return home against
a backdrop of Moscow and the Kremlin in disorder and flames. The
final scene once again leans on the Soviet cinema of the past
and pictures all four main protagonists at the wheel of modern
tractors ploughing their re-conquered fields on a bright sunny
day.
The film argues that the peasants and landed population in
Russia have always faced oppression in different forms throughout
their history. Equally these layers have also always found their
own, invariably violent, solutions to such oppression. Outskirts
wags a finger in the direction of the present government and system
in Russia and declares that they can only go so far with their
present policies before unleashing an enormous wave of opposition.
Perhaps not surprisingly the film does not yet have a distributor
in the former Soviet Union.
The weakest of the trio of east European films is the first
joint Rumanian/Hungarian cinema collaboration, Chinese Defence.
The story deals with a man from Transylvania who returns home
after 22 years in captivity. The year is 1962. Peter Gyorgy was
held captive in a Soviet gulag liberated by the Chinese in the
course of their cross-border interventions and conflicts with
the USSR in the early sixties. Gyorgy--gulag occupant no. 14026--is
tattooed with messages from his fellow prisoners and regards himself
as living testimony to the deprivations of the camp. His story
and that of his fellow prisoners must be told to the outside world.
But for the Communist Party bureaucrats and officials in Rumania,
trying to balance between China and Moscow, his appearance is
an embarrassment.
The prisoner is interviewed by the local Communist Party secretary,
an alcoholic who drinks eight glasses of vodka one after the other.
The secretary then embarks on a manic hunt for flies in his office,
assigning his assistant the job of recording how many have been
killed that day. After a number of tribulations the prisoner appears
before a party panel who proceed to strip him of his identity.
He is informed he no longer exists. Dropped by car in the middle
of the countryside, Gyorgy proceeds to seek out his native village.
Upon finding his birthplace in a valley under water he strips
off his clothes and, in a pale reflection of the messianism one
associates with the Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky, he plunges
into the water declaring that he has at last found liberty.
This is not the first film to appear since the fall of the
Soviet Union that is content to portray the omnipresent agents
of the Stalinist secret police as sinister men in dark suits with
sunglasses directed by Communist Party secretaries who are complete
idiots and/or alcoholics. Even if it were true that all or many
party bureaucrats shared such characteristics, a question remains:
how was it possible for such figures to exercise decades-long
control over a combined population of hundreds of millions?
In a discussion after the film, its director made a number
of references to Franz Kafka and the Kafkaesque elements that
he sees in his own work. Kafka wrote The Trial during the
First World War and his book remains a fascinating general anticipation
of social tendencies that were shortly to become reality under
fascism and Stalinism, as well as many psychological characteristics
of contemporary urban populations. Eighty years later, however,
a film such as Chinese Defence indicates that artists in
the former eastern bloc still have enormous difficulty in saying
anything concrete or revealing about the past under Stalinist
domination.
Iranian and documentary film
The festival featured two Iranian films of considerable merit.
Banu is the new film from Iranian director Dariush Mehrjui,
director of The Cow. The film deals with the developing
tensions between a rich middle class woman leading a solitary
life and the poor, desolate gardener and his family whom she pities
and allows to live in her house. Surrounded by luxury, Banu, in
line with her religious beliefs, declares her indifference to
property and wealth. From their own point of view, the members
of the gardeners' family reckon that someone so wealthy is unlikely
to notice the absence of the odd carpet or vase which could be
sold at the market. The seeds are sown for a conflict which makes
clear that the barrier between classes cannot merely be wished
away by good intentions.
Ebrahim Hatamikia's The Glass Agency is the story of
a veteran of the Iran/Iraq war who seeks medical treatment for
his friend and fellow soldier suffering from long-standing shrapnel
wounds. In his desperation to secure treatment Haj Kazem is forced
to take hostages in a travel bureau. In the hothouse of the occupied
bureau, surrounded by police, an intense exchange develops between
reluctant captor and reluctant captives. In discussion the director
admitted that he had seen an American film with a similar theme,
Sidney Lumet's Dog Day Afternoon, some 15 years ago. The
strength of Hatamikia's film is its depiction of the inevitable
tensions arising out of such a hostage situation. At the heart
of the film's drama lies the difficulty former fighters such as
Kazem have coming to terms with the changes and growing secularism
of modern Iranian society.
Amongst the selection of documentaries on view at the festival,
A, a Japanese film dealing with the political and social
repercussions following the arrest of the leaders of the Aum movement
in Japan, stood out. The Aum movement is the religious group which
was hounded in Japan recently following the planting of gas bombs
in public places by a section of the movement's leadership. Without
expressing any sympathy for the aims of the group, the film provides
a glimpse into the fierce regimentation and alienation dominating
present-day Japanese society that drove many young, intelligent
university students into the arms of Aum.
And the new film from the Austrian director Nicholas Geyhalter,
Pripyat, deals with conditions in the highly radioactive
30-mile zone surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. Although
humans are officially barred from living in the immediate vicinity
of the reactor, numbers of families have returned to their homes.
A by-product of the devastation of the region is the growth of
religious faith. The local church is brimming over at its weekly
service. Production Block 3 at Chernobyl was ripped apart by an
enormous explosion in 1986 and has been encased in a concrete
shell. In the meantime, Block 4 is up and running and supplying
electricity to a large area of the Ukraine.
We are taken on a tour of Block 4 by the friendly young Russian
who is responsible for reactor security. The team ask him what
guarantee he can give that there will be no further explosion.
He replies that he himself is the best guarantee. Through his
own work and application he will do his best to ensure there is
no repeat of the tragedy. Over lunch (to compensate for the high
levels of radioactivity for those who work directly in the plant,
especially fresh and healthy food is on offer), the crew ask the
same man if he is happy with his work. He replies, "Yes,
on the whole. The only problem is the pay." In fact, this
man on whom the safety of a great many people apparently depends
does not earn enough to support himself and his family.
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |