Quick Overview: A 16-year-old Lebanese girl is married off to her cousin Sami, who lives in an area annexed by Israel. Once she passes through the fence to join her husband, she may never see her family again.Review:The Kite is a unique film which blends contemporary history with magical realism -- I've never seen anything like it.
Review:
This Lebanese movie, directed by Randa Chahal Sabagh, portrays a Druze village near the border between Lebanon and Israel. The Druze faith, as I understand it, is closely related to Islam. However there are some important differences. For example, the Druze faith includes a belief in reincarnation.We are drawn into the lives of Lamia, a beautiful 16-year-old girl, her mother, her aunts, and her beloved little brother. The men are on the periphery, making decisions that dictate women's lives but seldom in the picture.
Lamia's hand in marriage has been promised to her cousin Sami, who lives on the other side of the Lebanese-Israeli border.Their community was divided when land was annexed by Israel. Lamia's portion of the community is separated from Sami's by barbed wire fences, guarded by an Israeli military checkpoint which they are not allowed to cross. This boundary separates brothers, sisters and cousins. We see women gathered along the fence line, armed with megaphones, shouting to their estranged loved ones on the other side while Israeli soldiers listen and take notes. The conversations between women, broadcast over megaphones, is often off-color and hilarious and sometimes made me cringe. For example, a woman advertised her son's sexual prowess to his intended bride's family, making reference to his affinity for nanny goats. Ahem ... :-)
Watching this, we realize Lamia will have to cross this border to join her new husband, whom she's never met. She will do it alone, as only new brides and the dead are allowed across, and she is unlikely to see her family again.
We alternate between her story and the lives of the Israeli soldiers who guard the checkpoint. One of them is Youssef, a young Druze physicist trying to fit in with his Jewish comrades at arms. He watches Lamia, and hears her mother and aunts discussing her future over megaphones, and he comes to feel he "knows everything about her." A spark of passion is kindled between the two teens. Then the movie becomes increasingly dream-like as it delves into the possibility of forbidden love in the midst of occupation.
This is a partly a movie about war and political oppression. It is clearly told from the Lebanese/Arab perspective; the Israeli side of the story isn't explored. Nevertheless it is an eye-opening story about lives reshaped by shifting political boundaries and military intervention. It also explores the ways women assert themselves and exert control over their lives in a patriarchal society that gives them a narrow range of choices.
The film is full of vibrant imagery, much of which has a symbolic quality. As it reaches its climax, it becomes increasingly dream-like, so the images seem more real than the plot. When I think about this movie, images are what stick with me most clearly. I see the pure white of Lamia's billowing wedding dress, as she makes her solitary trek across the border, and of the children's white kites floating around the barbed wire fence. I see men's boots filling the screen, bringing authority and emphasizing the divisions between people. And of course the ubiquitous guns and barbed wire. This is a story about innocence and love in a world carved up by ever-changing political boundaries, war and violence.
The History:
This film opens a door to exploring Lebanese history. With the end of World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, world powers carved up the Middle East, and the five provinces that comprise modern Lebanon were put under French control. Lebanon won independence from France in 1943, while France was occupied by Germany. The Vichy government, which managed France under Nazi domination, played an important role in their liberation. The newly independent country established a form of government known as confessionalism. Under this system, the various religious groups -- mainly Druze, Maronite Catholics, and Muslims -- are represented in government according to their relative demographic composition. A Maronite Christian became president, a Shiite Muslim became speaker of the parliament, a Sunni Muslim became prime minister, and a Greek Orthodox became deputy speaker of Parliament.
After World War II, the creation of the state of Israel radically changed the Middle East. In 1948, Lebanon supported Palestine in the Arab war against Israel and became home to many Palestinian refugees. Over the years, Lebanon also became the base for PLO military actions against Israel, bringing the weight of the Israeli military against them.
After the 1940s, Lebanon thrived, enjoying relative peace and prosperity, until the country was thrown into civil war, which lasted from 1975 to 1990. After the civil war ended, Lebanon enjoyed peace and stability again, and reconstruction of the country, after 15 years of war, was underway. In 2006, war broke out between Israel and Hezbollah, a powerful Lebanese Muslim faction. This month long war claimed the lives of a tremendous number of Lebanese civilians and left much of the country in shambles again.Timeline of Lebanese History 1920-2009
This movie could be a springboard for discussion about the Middle East's troubled history, the Israeli-Arab conflict, and the role of women in Middle Eastern society.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Lebanon (2009)
Quick Overview: This film looks at a single day in the First Lebanon War in June, 1982. An Israeli tank and a platoon of paratroopers are dispatched to search a Lebanese town bombed by Israel the night before. Soldiers struggle to hold onto their humanity as they quickly descend into a nightmare. This painfully realistic movie was based on writer and director Samuel Maoz's experiences in the Israeli army.
MPAA Rating: R for graphic combat violence.
Review:
On the first day of the First Lebanon War, June 6, 1982, a small group of Israeli soldiers man a tank. Introductions are exchanged, and they roll into Lebanon. Their instructions are simple and grim: "Our air force just bombed a village and wiped it off the map ... make sure there's nothing left."
Most of the movie takes place inside the tank. It is a claustrophobic experience, highlighted by odd, close-up camera angles. It has been compared to Das Boot, which I haven't seen yet, a movie that takes place inside a German U-boat in World War II. In Lebanon, We only see the world through this crosshairs of a gun -- this, in itself, speaks volumes.
The four young men inside the tank are not yet hardened to battle, and the tank commander, Assi, is a bit awkward in his position of authority. Tensions flare, and we know these men only through their tense interactions -- and occasional moments of humaity and compassion -- during their foray into the bombed village. We also meet the tank commander's superior officer, a Syrian prisoner of war, and a phalangist, a Lebanese Christian allied with Israel.
This is a painful movie to watch; and that's as it should be. I sometimes divide war movies into two categories: action-oriented war flicks, that glorify the heroism of people in battle, and movies that deliberately deliver the message: "war is hell." Lebanon appears to be neither. It tells the story, unflinchingly and without embellishment, literally through the eyes of a tank gunner. We see Israeli soldiers committing atrocities, and at the same time we see how not committing these ruthless acts sometimes costs lives. The result is a powerful film with innovative cinematography and many unforgettable moments, sometimes revealed without a single word being spoken.
The History: This film looks at a the First Lebanon War in June, 1982. While we don't really see the wider context of the Arab-Israeli conflicts, it gives us an unusually realistic glimpse into a day in a soldier's life. When learning about wars, it's important to understand what that really means from the perspective of the men and women who fight.
MPAA Rating: R for graphic combat violence.
Review:
On the first day of the First Lebanon War, June 6, 1982, a small group of Israeli soldiers man a tank. Introductions are exchanged, and they roll into Lebanon. Their instructions are simple and grim: "Our air force just bombed a village and wiped it off the map ... make sure there's nothing left."
Most of the movie takes place inside the tank. It is a claustrophobic experience, highlighted by odd, close-up camera angles. It has been compared to Das Boot, which I haven't seen yet, a movie that takes place inside a German U-boat in World War II. In Lebanon, We only see the world through this crosshairs of a gun -- this, in itself, speaks volumes.
The four young men inside the tank are not yet hardened to battle, and the tank commander, Assi, is a bit awkward in his position of authority. Tensions flare, and we know these men only through their tense interactions -- and occasional moments of humaity and compassion -- during their foray into the bombed village. We also meet the tank commander's superior officer, a Syrian prisoner of war, and a phalangist, a Lebanese Christian allied with Israel.
This is a painful movie to watch; and that's as it should be. I sometimes divide war movies into two categories: action-oriented war flicks, that glorify the heroism of people in battle, and movies that deliberately deliver the message: "war is hell." Lebanon appears to be neither. It tells the story, unflinchingly and without embellishment, literally through the eyes of a tank gunner. We see Israeli soldiers committing atrocities, and at the same time we see how not committing these ruthless acts sometimes costs lives. The result is a powerful film with innovative cinematography and many unforgettable moments, sometimes revealed without a single word being spoken.
The History: This film looks at a the First Lebanon War in June, 1982. While we don't really see the wider context of the Arab-Israeli conflicts, it gives us an unusually realistic glimpse into a day in a soldier's life. When learning about wars, it's important to understand what that really means from the perspective of the men and women who fight.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The Last Station (2009)
Quick Overview: This entertaining period piece explores the end of Leo Tolstoy's life, highlighting the Tolstoyan movement and Tolstoy's struggle with his wife over his will and rights to his intellectual property, including his great novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina.
MPAA Rating: R for some sex and nudity.
Review: This film illuminates a bit of the life of Count Leo Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer), philosopher, political activist, and one of the greatest writers of all time. It focuses on the tumultuous relationhip between him and his wife Sofya (Helen Mirren).
It opens in 1910, the last year of Tolstoy's life. The Tolstoyan movement, which repudiates private property and advocates passive resistance to the government, has taken hold, with Tolstoyan communes blossoming throughout Russia. In Moscow, Tolstoy's disciple, Vladimir Chertkov (Paul Giamatti) hires Valentin Bulgakov (James McAvoy) to be Tolstoy's secretary. Valentin is 23 years old, naive, and idealistic, and he's already embraced the aesthetic life dictated by the Tolstoyans, which includes strict celibacy and vegetarianism. Chertkov warns him that the Tolstoyans face a difficult battle against the czar, the church, and above all, Countess Sofya, who refuses to relinquish her attachment to private property.
Valentin soon finds himself caught in the middle of the struggle between Chertkov and Sofya. Each of them manipulates Valentin, instructing him to keep a journal, gathering information that can be used against each other. When he meets Sofya, she expresses opinions he must find appalling, belitting the peasants and showing indifference to their plight. Nevertheless she inspires his sympathy. Having spent her life bearing Tolstoy thirteen children and collaborating with him on his writing, she is powerless as she faces the prospect of his relinquishing all their property for the good of mankind. Furthermore, she's surrounded by her husband's acolytes, who invade their lives and treat her as the enemy. "These so called disciples of my husband," she laments. "They don't understand a word he's ever written. What do they know of love?"
At the same time, Valentin is conflicted over prudish adherence to Tolstoy's ideals, especially celibacy, which the great man himself has never practiced. Valentin sees people clinging fantatically to the rules of Tolstoyism, forgetting the heart of the philosophy, which is love for one's fellow man. This is ironic, considering this is a group of people who have mindfully rejected organized religion to focus on their own ideology, focused tightly on Christ's actual teachings.
Meanwhile, we watch Leo's relationship with Sofya, which fluctuates between tenderness and passion and intense rage. Christopher Plummer and Helen Mirren create complex characters. Leo is a great thinker and a very flawed man. He is a fascinating character, with arrogance and insensitivity tangled with wisdom, compassion and humility. Sofya is often histrionic and manipulative, yet at moments, she shows deep love and a kind of quiet dignity. The acting in this film was extraordinary, in my opinion, and I found the film very entertaining. And while I wished it had delved a bit more deeply into the political and historical events of the time, it was rich with interesting historical details.
We see the technology of the era, including the telegraph and phonograph, settings and costumes fitting the period, and as one reviewer pointed out, small details like the Russian habit of sucking on a spoonful of jelly to sweeten tea.There is also a wealth of terrific dialogue here, including Tolstoy's line: "My manifesto against the government is hard work. The government commits idiotic abuses faster than I can catalogue them." This movie illuminates the line between idealism and fanaticism, as when one of Tolstoy's followers is shocked that his hero killed an annoying mosquito. Isn't that a violation of your commitment to nonviolence and vegetarianism? In a moment of humor and humility, Tolstoy responds, "You're a much better Tolstoyan than I am."
It explores the conflict between care for one's spouse and family and dedication to the good of mankind. Few great men and women have managed to successfully engineer this balance. This film also looks at the nature of marriage. As one reviewer stated, it's: "a vivid, moving picture about the difficulty of living with love and the impossibility of living without it. It’s not a film about Tolstoy. It’s a film about the challenges of love.” It ponders the tremendous amount of commitment and work a marriage requires: "Why should it it be easy?" Sofya asks. "I am the work of your life and you're the work of mine. That's what love is."
The History: This film offers a glimpse of one of the world's most renowned authors, and his times, and of Russia in the years leading up to the revolution. There is plenty of fodder for discussion of Russian history and the feudal-type system under which they lived until the revolution, which occured during World War I.
The movie can also be a springboard for discussions about Utopian movements. For example, Tolstoyism reminds me of the Transcendental Movement in the United States.I enjoyed this movie tremendously, largely because I went into it knowing little about Tolstoy aside from having read War and Peace and Anna Karenina. I didn't know of his anarchist philosophy or Tolstoyism. So this movie fascinated me and inspired me to do a little further research.
Tolstoy
We all know Tolstoy was a Russian count who managed an estate populated with serfs. Were it not for their labor, he would never have had the time to educate himself and to write his masterpieces. However, there is much more to the story.
During his youth, he led a dissolute life, drinking, gambling, and womanizing. He also fought in the Crimean War; in 1854 he went to Wallachia to fight the French, British and Ottoman Empire. Later he struggled to chart a course for his life and responsibly manage his estate. I saw fragments of all these parts of his life in the characters in War and Peace. He also felt deep remorse over the sins of his early life and his role as a landowner, exploiting peasants.
His wartime experiences, along with several trips to Europe, molded him into a philosopher and political activist. During a 1857 visit to Paris, Tolstoy saw a public execution. This experience marked him for the rest of his life.
Writing in a letter to his friend V. P. Botkin:
The Tolstoyan movement blossomed. Its followers, mostly peasants, set up hundreds of voluntary anarchist pacifist communes, like the one seen in The Last Station, throughout Russia. They followed a strict vegetarian diet. They refused to recognize the authority of the Tsarist government, so many of them were arrested and killed or sent to Siberia. After the Bolshevik Revolution, they were targeted again because they refused to recognize the authority of the new socialist state. Most of them were killed in the purges under Lenin and Stalin.
Sofya Tolstoy
Tolstoy fell in love with Sofya, who was 16 years younger than he, and proposed to her in a strange way, similar to Konstantin Levin's proposal to Kitty in War and Peace. Instead of asking for her hand outright, he wrote a string of letters which she had to decipher. This is described in The Last Station.
Though this was a love match, Tolstoy was far from an ideal husband. On the eve of their wedding, he presented Sofya with his diaries, making her read about all his sexual affairs, including the fact that he had fathered a child with a serf and contracted gonorrhea several times. Not a very good wedding gift. Again, this is reflected in War and Peace when Levin confesses his premarital indiscretions to Kitty, right before their marriage, devastating her.
Sofya was eighteen when she married Tolstoy, and she was a remarkable person in her own right. She was his partner in all his endeavors, including farming and assisting him with his writing. This was in addition to the responsibilities of nursing and educating their thirteen children, running a large household, and managing all financial and business affairs. During the Russian famine of 1890s, they participated in a relief effort. Sofya organized fundraising, writing a passionate appeal that was carried by newspapers across the world. She personally collected donations, bought supplies, and enlisted volunteers.
Since no doctor was available near their country estate, Sofya practiced medicine, using skills learned from her father, a court physician. She even served as midwife to peasants.Tolstoy's disciple Vladimir Chertkov, whose power struggle with Sofya is dramatized in The Last Station, wrote a book, after the Tolstoys had died, titled In The Last Days of Tolstoy. He demonized Sofya, comparing the way she treated her husband to tortures inflicted during the Spanish inquisition. He portrayed her long suffering husband as a martyr. This highly biased account has colored the way history has viewed the countess.
So the truth of their lives, and their relationship, is hard to determine. The Last Station, which is fictionalized but includes many authentic details, looks at it from a different angle, giving us a window into these people and inspiring us to learn more.
Sources:
MPAA Rating: R for some sex and nudity.
Review: This film illuminates a bit of the life of Count Leo Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer), philosopher, political activist, and one of the greatest writers of all time. It focuses on the tumultuous relationhip between him and his wife Sofya (Helen Mirren).
It opens in 1910, the last year of Tolstoy's life. The Tolstoyan movement, which repudiates private property and advocates passive resistance to the government, has taken hold, with Tolstoyan communes blossoming throughout Russia. In Moscow, Tolstoy's disciple, Vladimir Chertkov (Paul Giamatti) hires Valentin Bulgakov (James McAvoy) to be Tolstoy's secretary. Valentin is 23 years old, naive, and idealistic, and he's already embraced the aesthetic life dictated by the Tolstoyans, which includes strict celibacy and vegetarianism. Chertkov warns him that the Tolstoyans face a difficult battle against the czar, the church, and above all, Countess Sofya, who refuses to relinquish her attachment to private property.
Valentin soon finds himself caught in the middle of the struggle between Chertkov and Sofya. Each of them manipulates Valentin, instructing him to keep a journal, gathering information that can be used against each other. When he meets Sofya, she expresses opinions he must find appalling, belitting the peasants and showing indifference to their plight. Nevertheless she inspires his sympathy. Having spent her life bearing Tolstoy thirteen children and collaborating with him on his writing, she is powerless as she faces the prospect of his relinquishing all their property for the good of mankind. Furthermore, she's surrounded by her husband's acolytes, who invade their lives and treat her as the enemy. "These so called disciples of my husband," she laments. "They don't understand a word he's ever written. What do they know of love?"
At the same time, Valentin is conflicted over prudish adherence to Tolstoy's ideals, especially celibacy, which the great man himself has never practiced. Valentin sees people clinging fantatically to the rules of Tolstoyism, forgetting the heart of the philosophy, which is love for one's fellow man. This is ironic, considering this is a group of people who have mindfully rejected organized religion to focus on their own ideology, focused tightly on Christ's actual teachings.
Meanwhile, we watch Leo's relationship with Sofya, which fluctuates between tenderness and passion and intense rage. Christopher Plummer and Helen Mirren create complex characters. Leo is a great thinker and a very flawed man. He is a fascinating character, with arrogance and insensitivity tangled with wisdom, compassion and humility. Sofya is often histrionic and manipulative, yet at moments, she shows deep love and a kind of quiet dignity. The acting in this film was extraordinary, in my opinion, and I found the film very entertaining. And while I wished it had delved a bit more deeply into the political and historical events of the time, it was rich with interesting historical details.
We see the technology of the era, including the telegraph and phonograph, settings and costumes fitting the period, and as one reviewer pointed out, small details like the Russian habit of sucking on a spoonful of jelly to sweeten tea.There is also a wealth of terrific dialogue here, including Tolstoy's line: "My manifesto against the government is hard work. The government commits idiotic abuses faster than I can catalogue them." This movie illuminates the line between idealism and fanaticism, as when one of Tolstoy's followers is shocked that his hero killed an annoying mosquito. Isn't that a violation of your commitment to nonviolence and vegetarianism? In a moment of humor and humility, Tolstoy responds, "You're a much better Tolstoyan than I am."
It explores the conflict between care for one's spouse and family and dedication to the good of mankind. Few great men and women have managed to successfully engineer this balance. This film also looks at the nature of marriage. As one reviewer stated, it's: "a vivid, moving picture about the difficulty of living with love and the impossibility of living without it. It’s not a film about Tolstoy. It’s a film about the challenges of love.” It ponders the tremendous amount of commitment and work a marriage requires: "Why should it it be easy?" Sofya asks. "I am the work of your life and you're the work of mine. That's what love is."
The History: This film offers a glimpse of one of the world's most renowned authors, and his times, and of Russia in the years leading up to the revolution. There is plenty of fodder for discussion of Russian history and the feudal-type system under which they lived until the revolution, which occured during World War I.
The movie can also be a springboard for discussions about Utopian movements. For example, Tolstoyism reminds me of the Transcendental Movement in the United States.I enjoyed this movie tremendously, largely because I went into it knowing little about Tolstoy aside from having read War and Peace and Anna Karenina. I didn't know of his anarchist philosophy or Tolstoyism. So this movie fascinated me and inspired me to do a little further research.
Tolstoy
We all know Tolstoy was a Russian count who managed an estate populated with serfs. Were it not for their labor, he would never have had the time to educate himself and to write his masterpieces. However, there is much more to the story.
During his youth, he led a dissolute life, drinking, gambling, and womanizing. He also fought in the Crimean War; in 1854 he went to Wallachia to fight the French, British and Ottoman Empire. Later he struggled to chart a course for his life and responsibly manage his estate. I saw fragments of all these parts of his life in the characters in War and Peace. He also felt deep remorse over the sins of his early life and his role as a landowner, exploiting peasants.
I put men to death in war, I fought duels to slay others. I lost at cards, wasted the substance wrung from the sweat of peasants, punished the latter cruelly, rioted with loose women, and deceived men. Lying, robbery, adultery of all kinds, drunkenness, violence, and murder, all were committed by me, not one crime omitted, and yet I was not the less considered by my equals to be a comparatively moral man. Such was my life for ten years.The Tolstoyan Movement
His wartime experiences, along with several trips to Europe, molded him into a philosopher and political activist. During a 1857 visit to Paris, Tolstoy saw a public execution. This experience marked him for the rest of his life.
Writing in a letter to his friend V. P. Botkin:
The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens ... Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.He became a leader in what came to be known as "Christian anarchism," though he never used the term. This philosophy, partly inspired by his treatise The Kingdom of God is Within You, rejects violence. Tolstoy sought to separate Russian Orthodox Christianity, which was closely tied to the government, to the true message of Jesus, reflected in the Gospels, especially the Sermon on the Mount. He argued that all governments who wage war, and churches supporting those governments, violate the Christian principles of nonviolence and nonresistance.
The Tolstoyan movement blossomed. Its followers, mostly peasants, set up hundreds of voluntary anarchist pacifist communes, like the one seen in The Last Station, throughout Russia. They followed a strict vegetarian diet. They refused to recognize the authority of the Tsarist government, so many of them were arrested and killed or sent to Siberia. After the Bolshevik Revolution, they were targeted again because they refused to recognize the authority of the new socialist state. Most of them were killed in the purges under Lenin and Stalin.
Sofya Tolstoy
Tolstoy fell in love with Sofya, who was 16 years younger than he, and proposed to her in a strange way, similar to Konstantin Levin's proposal to Kitty in War and Peace. Instead of asking for her hand outright, he wrote a string of letters which she had to decipher. This is described in The Last Station.
Though this was a love match, Tolstoy was far from an ideal husband. On the eve of their wedding, he presented Sofya with his diaries, making her read about all his sexual affairs, including the fact that he had fathered a child with a serf and contracted gonorrhea several times. Not a very good wedding gift. Again, this is reflected in War and Peace when Levin confesses his premarital indiscretions to Kitty, right before their marriage, devastating her.
Sofya was eighteen when she married Tolstoy, and she was a remarkable person in her own right. She was his partner in all his endeavors, including farming and assisting him with his writing. This was in addition to the responsibilities of nursing and educating their thirteen children, running a large household, and managing all financial and business affairs. During the Russian famine of 1890s, they participated in a relief effort. Sofya organized fundraising, writing a passionate appeal that was carried by newspapers across the world. She personally collected donations, bought supplies, and enlisted volunteers.
Since no doctor was available near their country estate, Sofya practiced medicine, using skills learned from her father, a court physician. She even served as midwife to peasants.Tolstoy's disciple Vladimir Chertkov, whose power struggle with Sofya is dramatized in The Last Station, wrote a book, after the Tolstoys had died, titled In The Last Days of Tolstoy. He demonized Sofya, comparing the way she treated her husband to tortures inflicted during the Spanish inquisition. He portrayed her long suffering husband as a martyr. This highly biased account has colored the way history has viewed the countess.
So the truth of their lives, and their relationship, is hard to determine. The Last Station, which is fictionalized but includes many authentic details, looks at it from a different angle, giving us a window into these people and inspiring us to learn more.
Sources:
- Online Literature Network: Leo Tolstoy
- Sophia Tolstoy: A Biography, Website by Biographer Alexandra Popoff
- The Last Station: Not a Film About Tolstoy, on the World Socialist Website
- Wikipedia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)