200 Movies, 1 Woman, 1 Blog

The Last Days, 1998, USA

I signed up for Netflix solely to watch this film, which is pretty significant. I’ve long wanted to watch this documentary about the Holocaust, because Steven Spielberg produced it.

The documentary looks at the experiences of several Hungarian Holocaust survivors. Hungarian Jews weren’t taken to the concentration camps until the last year of the war when it became clear that the Nazis were going to lose the war. Instead of focusing their resources on fighting the war, the Nazis attacked the Hungarian Jews and murdered them or sent them to the concentration camps.

The interviews with the survivors were so interesting. They spoke candidly about their lives before the Holocaust, and about how they survived in the concentration camps. Many of the subjects journeyed back to Europe in order to find some sort of closure. One visited the town she grew up in and discovered her childhood home. These journeys added another layer to the film. The horrific atrocities of the Holocaust are fairly well known, but we often forget about what the survivors experienced after they were liberated. Many never returned home, and many lost their entire families.

It was not an easy documentary to watch. There are photos and video from the concentration camps, and it was just awful to watch. But this footage was necessary, because it shows what the Holocaust was. Humanity needs to see this footage. As I was watching it, I thought about the fact that these people were someone’s son or daughter. These people were loved, and they were treated as if they were vermin. It was very difficult to think about. We must never forget that this happened, and we can never let this happen again.

I did have one minor beef: the film was in a letterbox format. I’m assuming it was in letterbox format because it’s an older film and it isn’t one that necessarily needs to be converted back to a widescreen format. Or, it’s possible that it was filmed in that format. It was just a bit odd to watch a letterbox film on my widescreen TV.

Watch this documentary. Hearing the stories of these survivors was such a privilege. It saddens me to think that, in a few years, there won’t be any more Holocaust survivors left. It’s important to hear these stories; to get them on film or paper, before it’s too late.

Last month, I recorded an episode of Love, Hate & Propaganda off the Documentary Channel, thinking it was a short standalone documentary and not a miniseries. Imagine my surprise when I watched it today! Luckily, CBC has put the entire series online, so I will be able to watch the rest of it.

An American propaganda poster.

The miniseries is hosted and narrated by George Stroumboulopoulos, and consists of archive footage and photographs. As somebody who doesn’t particularly like reenactments in documentaries, I really appreciated this. The episode I watched looked at the propaganda produced by both the Allied forces and the Third Reich. Canadian’s response to the disaster at Dieppe was examined in great detail. The journalists covering the battle (who were essentially soldiers in the army and were given ranks) were told specifically what to write. The battle was a complete disaster for Canada, but it was framed as a success in the media. The German propaganda machine, of course, had a field day with the battle.

The film also looked at how Hollywood contributed to war time propaganda during World War II. One of their more famous efforts was a film called Mission to Moscow. The film was made in an attempt to rebrand Joseph Stalin. He was not trusted in America, and Americans were uneasy about the alliance between Russia and the rest of the Allied forces. I really want to get my hands on a copy of this film, because it sounds very interesting.

During the second half of the episode, propaganda from Europe is examined. The implementation of the “Final Solution” in France is looked at in detail. It was unbearably tragic; I’m very familiar with what happened in France and the rest of Europe, but it doesn’t get any easier hearing about it again and again. It’s still shocking to think of all of the people who were murdered because of racism, hate, and propaganda. In the opening lines of the episode, Stroumboulopoulos asks whether you (the audience) would have the courage to stand up to a government intent on murdering people, and whether you would be able to tell them they were wrong. It’s an impossible question to answer unless you’ve experienced it, but those words weighed heavily on my mind as he solemnly narrated the fates of the French children who were separated from their parents at a labour camp.

The final section of the documentary looked at the propaganda of the Eastern Front. Russia fought hard against the Germans, and the propaganda machine was working hard on both sides. The Germans wanted to capture Stalingrad because it was both an industrial centre and because it was named after Stalin. Losing Stalingrad would have been a major loss for Russia – from an industrial standpoint and a moral standpoint. I actually wrote a paper about Russian propaganda during the Battle of Stalingrad during my second year of university. The Russian propaganda was covered very well in this documentary.

I was so impressed with this documentary. I’m definitely going to watch the rest of the mini series. It was very understated, respectful of the subject matter, and endlessly fascinating.

Last night, my friend, Tiffany raved about a miniseries she had watched called D-Day to Victory. I recorded all six episodes and I’ve watched three of them today. I’ll be watching the rest of them over the coming days.

The miniseries is a mixture of historical reenactments, original video footage, photographs and interviews with veterans. Each episode covers a particular battle during World War II and actual participants tell their stories. The stories are amazing. These men were generally under the age of 20 when they fought. They weren’t men; they were boys. Often their stories were so compelling and horrifying that I found myself at the edge of my seat. I had to remind myself that they were telling their own stories, and that they had obviously survived the war.

Many of the interviews made me think of an assignment I did during my first year in CreComm. I interviewed a World War II veteran, and him and I spoke for quite awhile about his experiences. I wrote a story using the interview. It was a very moving experience. I think it’s really important to know the stories of World War II veterans – from both sides of the conflict. This war is part of our history and unfortunately we won’t have much longer to hear these stories in person.

Both of my grandfathers and my grandmother served in World War II. My grandfathers went overseas, while my grandmother worked in a munitions factory. Unfortunately I never heard any of their stories first hand. I wish I could have had the opportunity to talk to them about their experiences.

The miniseries is well produced. I loved seeing the old footage from World War II and the photographs in addition to the interviews. The reenactments were well done, but I wasn’t as interested in them. They did offer insight into the conditions the men were fighting in, though. I couldn’t imagine living in a fox hole, for example, and a fox hole was built to show viewers how big the hole would be.

I’m filled with such admiration for the men who fought during World War II. They went through such hardship, but they did it because it just needed to be done. I can’t imagine going a week without food or living in a hole through the dead of winter. But they did it, and they deserve our respect and appreciation. The sacrifices those men made mean a lot to me. We’re lucky to live in a free country, where we have access to food and shelter. The men who fight and die for our country fight so that we can be free.

D-Day to Victory is airing on History Television. I highly recommend watching it. I’m watching it out of order and it hasn’t impacted my viewing as each episode is standalone. Please check it out and hear the stories of some extraordinary people.

Sarah’s Key, 2010, France

I’m really glad I had the opportunity to watch this film. I had looked for it on Apple TV about a week ago, and saw that it was playing here at the local theatre yesterday. So I decided to go and see it.

The film is based on a French novel by Tatiana De Rosnay. I read the book a year or two ago and it was very bleak and difficult to read. It was so overwhelmingly sad and it really stuck with me. The film manages to capture the tone of the book perfectly. During the climax of the film, I felt very overwhelmed and sad – but I didn’t cry. It was almost as if I was beyond tears.

The film works because the actors are fantastic. Kristin Scott Thomas plays Julia, an American journalist living in Paris with her French husband (Frédéric Pierrot). She becomes obsessed with the apartment they’re moving into when she discovers that her husband’s father moved into it following the Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup.

Half the film takes place in 1942, just following the roundup.  Sarah (Mélusine Mayance) is six years old and locks her younger brother (Paul Mercier) in a closet just before vacating their apartment. When it becomes clear the family will not be returning home anytime soon, Sarah becomes obsessed with returning home to free her little brother.

Mayance is a fantastic young actress. I was very impressed by how she handled the heavy subject matter. The flashback scenes were far better than the modern day scenes. I felt the same way about the book. I felt that De Rosnay (and the screenwriters of the film) tried too hard to make Julia’s story interesting. I found myself feeling detached from her story, and longing to know more about Sarah. Julia’s story does bring up some interesting issues about what a journalist does with information they find, but it’s ultimately not that compelling.

Despite the weaker modern day scenes (which I was expecting), this film is fantastic. See it for the flashback scenes alone. They are extraordinary and really carry the film. I’m not sure how long it will be playing here, but if you can, see it this week.

7 Days of Remembrance and Hope, Canada

This 63-minute documentary follows six young people as they travel to Europe to remember the atrocities of the Second World War. Each of them have their own history and culture – some were immigrants who were forced to leave their countries of origin because of war and persecution. Others were history students wanting to see European history first hand.

Every year, thousands of people visit the German concentration camps in Poland to remember those who were murdered by the Nazis. It’s a trip I’ve wanted to make, myself. It was an emotional trip for all of them, and the six students (as part of a group of 60) bonded over the experience. They spoke of being united, despite their cultural differences, and that this union was everything the Nazis fought against.

The most interesting individual in this film was Ola. She was a University student, and a Palestinian rights activist. In an interview, she stated that she would always fight whenever she saw human rights being violated. I wanted to hear more from her. In fact, I wanted to hear more from everyone in the documentary. I felt like it was a bit short and rushed. Seven days were covered in only 63 minutes. The movie may be on the shorter side for budgetary reasons or because that’s how long the film was required to be, but I think another 20 minutes would have been very beneficial.

The students were able to listen to many different speakers who survived the Holocaust. The documentary had footage of pieces of their talks, but I would have liked to have seen more of what they had to say. The speakers were so moving and fascinating to listen to, and when the documentary returned to the subjects being followed, it felt very sudden. They were very lucky to have been able to meet such amazing speakers and listen to the stories they had to tell.

The documentary may have been a little short, but it’s still worth a watch if you can catch it on TV. I think that everyone should learn about the Holocaust and other terrible war crimes, so that history does not repeat itself.

Once a Nazi, 2006, Canada

This documentary follows Adalbert Lallier, a former Waffen-SS member as he returns to Germany to testify against one of his colleagues.  55 years ago, Lallier witnessed his superior officer murder seven Jewish individuals at the Theresienstadt concentration camp.

Lallier had kept his past as an SS member secret from almost everyone.  He had become an economics professor at Concordia University, and one of his closest friends was a Holocaust survivor.  Lallier had not murdered anybody in the camps, and was not under suspicion for any crimes.  He voluntarily admitted his past to his friend, and then to a private investigator, who arranged for him to return to Germany to testify at the trial.  Testifying at the trial was done voluntarily – something that hasn’t happened very much.  The documentary stated that SS members were sworn to secrecy, and generally won’t testify in court because there’s a general consensus among members that God should judge them.  Most former members claim that they cannot remember what happened, or are vague about who was present when crimes were committed.

The documentary brought up the question of whether somebody who once wore an SS uniform is always a member of the SS.  Publicly, the generally consensus is “yes”.  I’ve been fascinated by World War II history for many years, and I’ve taken a few University courses covering that time period, and I know how brutal and horrific members of the SS could be.  So as I watched the film, I wasn’t inclined to give Lallier a “free pass” for being a member of the SS.  After all, he was at the camp and fully aware of what was going on within the camp.  A historian interviewed within the documentary stated that had he spoken up and defended the Jewish people, he would have been killed himself.  I understand that argument, but why did Lallier wait 55 years?  Why not speak up right after the war?

Lallier is obviously very remorseful and built a shrine at the spot where these seven murders occurred.  Viewers could tell that their deaths impacted his life very heavily.  In many ways, Lallier himself was a victim.  He was a victim of Nazi indoctrination, and experienced racism in the SS himself, because he had dark skin and didn’t speak German “properly”.  But I’m torn as to how much sympathy he should receive.  Testifying at the trial and speaking up about what he witnessed is very admirable, but he still enabled the deaths of many innocent people.

But then again, should a person be condemned forever over the dumb choices they made in their youth?  This was a very thought provoking documentary, and I’m still torn about how I feel about Lallier.  The filmmakers showed him in a very sympathetic light, but I’m not sure if he should necessarily be seen as entirely sympathetic.

I encourage everyone to check out this documentary.  You can purchase a copy of the DVD on the film’s website.

Control Room, 2004, USA

Recommended by: Kenton

This was a fascinating documentary about the Arab news channel Al Jazeera an its coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

First off, I’d like to recommend this movie to my fellow CreCommers, regardless of your intended (or chosen) major. It’s a movie about the media, therefore, you should watch it. It’s also a movie about a very difficult issue. It is not easy to cover a war. As stated by an Al Jazeera producer in the documentary, it is impossible for any journalist to remain objective. American journalists are going to report more positively towards the Iraq war than the Arab journalists. An Arab journalist will have a very different perspective on the war than an American journalist and the American military. Does that mean that the perspective of the Al Jazeera journalists is wrong? No. As pointed out in the documentary, both sides leave out important facts; neither tells the “whole” story.

War propaganda has existed forever. Each side of a conflict wants supporters, so the media on each side is obviously biased. During World War II, America used propaganda very heavily. Germany and Japan also used propaganda, as did Russia.

Now that television (especially satellite television) is commonplace, the nature of propaganda has changed. Now these ideas are shown on television instead of on posters or in newsreels before films. Instead of giving the “full story”, news networks will pick and choose the side of the story that shows their country in the best possible light. Many oppose the opposite side outright, instead of taking the time to understand where the other side comes from. This is where public relations comes in. Lieutenant Josh Rushing was a Press Officer for the US Marine Corps and was featured heavily in the documentary. He speaks to the Al Jazeera journalists, and takes the time to understand their differing perspective, while educating them on his perspective. In fact, Hastings now works for Al Jazeera English.

The clash between the American military and the journalists was fascinating to watch. There was one scene where journalists from various parts of the world were arguing with a female member of the US military. She was in charge of a press conference, during which, the speaker promised to show members of the media a deck of cards showing the faces of wanted members of the Iraq regime. When he reneged on that promise, the journalists were understandably angry, and this poor woman had to deal with a scrum of very angry journalists. It reminded me of a very important PR rule: keep your promises. Don’t promise something to a journalist and go back on it five minutes later. The American military looked unprepared, unprofessional, and unfriendly in that sequence.

I welcome and respect movies that make me think and even question my beliefs. Control Room was one of them. It is a must-see for all CreComm students.

Saving Private Ryan, 1998, USA

Recommended by: Amanda

Let me start off an entry about a tragic and sad movie with a funny little story. When I was eight, for some bizarre reason, I really wanted to see this movie. I don’t know what it was about it. Maybe it was the title – the fact that it alludes to saving someone. My dad told me what the movie was about, and it sounded like the most amazing thing on the planet. I begged him to let me see it. Obviously he said no. He told me I wouldn’t like it, because it was long and I’d find it boring. I’m pretty sure I badgered him about it for a few years, before giving up on it.

Then, by the time I was 16 or so, the fact that I hadn’t seen it was embarrassing. People were asking me why I never watched it. I think I even sat down once to watch it on Remembrance Day, when it was on television, only to change my mind and do something else. Then, this past summer, Amanda wanted me to come over and watch it one week, but I was working full time and we were unable to find a time that worked for both of us. So, after my instructor, Melanie was kind enough to loan me her copy of the movie, I decided that enough was enough: I was going to watch it…today. So I did.

Was it worth the 12 year wait? I think it was. I’d heard about how amazing the first half hour was, and it really blew me away. I actually found it to be very difficult to watch. The brutality and dangers of war are accurately depicted in that sequence, and in every other sequence in the film. War is not fun. The blood and gore are all realistic looking, and as a squeamish person, I had to look away more than a few times. The movie was so realistic, that many former soldiers were traumatized upon seeing the movie, according to IMDB trivia.

The movie (as the title states) is about the rescue of Private James Ryan (Matt Damon). After his three brothers are killed in the war, he is ordered home, and Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks) leads a team of men ordered to find him. The men on the team include a sniper (Barry Pepper), a medic (Giovanni Ribisi) and a young translator (Jeremy Davies), a naive man who has never seen combat. The cast is huge, however, and I recognized so many actors – many of whom only appear in bit parts. I’m not going to reveal all of them, so that anyone who hasn’t seen the movie will have the same little surprises I had.

I loved the chemistry between the actors. They really looked and felt like soldiers fighting in World War II. Tom Hanks is a huge star, and very recognizable, but he really got into the role. His role in this movie is very different from most of his that I’ve seen. He tends to play very friendly, warm characters, and in this movie he was very gruff and strict. He was amazing, though. I was impressed with all of the actors, but I also want to draw attention to Davies. He appeared on Lost and I enjoyed his work on the show, so I was already very familiar with him. He played a complex and very different character, and I really appreciated his performance. At first, he seems more like comic relief, but gradually we see that he’s simply a young man who is unfamiliar with warfare, and terribly naive about the horrors of it. He was a joy to watch.

At almost three hours in length, I’m not sure if this would be a movie I’d necessarily watch again, but it was a rewarding experience and I highly recommend it. And, yes, it absolutely deserved the Best Picture Oscar over Shakespeare in Love.