Gandhi (1982) - All students need to see this

I was looking for movies that may be good to share for our current unit on intercultural communication and issues of race and ethnicity and picked up Gandhi as one of them.

I think I watched this biography back in high school, and remembered it as a powerful story, but I think it is much, much more powerful now watching it twenty years later.

This definitely has to be on a list of "must watch" movies for students all over the world. If you haven't seen it, get it this weekend.

Most importantly, the film challenges all of us to grapple with the principle of standing up and standing firm against injustice using active but peaceful resistance, and to pursue peace and forgiveness over revenge and destruction. The movie includes a dialogue between a LIFE magazine reporter and Gandhi about whether Hitler could be stopped with non-violence. That would be an interesting class discussion to develop.

Some Gandhi quotes from the movie and elsewhere:

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always."

and my favorite, which I wrote in the ICU yearbook last year, and which is always a heavy yet important thought to bear:

You must be the change you want to see in the world.

Mahatma Gandhi
Indian political and spiritual leader (1869 - 1948) 

Since 2007, his birthday, October 2nd, is the International Day of Non-Violence. I didn't know that until today. But I wonder if anything is ever done in Japan or the US in relation to that?

Also, I had heard this before, but reading the Wikipedia article on Gandhi reminded me:

"At his middle school in Porbandar and high school in Rajkot, Gandhi remained a mediocre student. He shone neither in the classroom nor on the playing field. One of the terminal reports rated him as "good at English, fair in Arithmetic and weak in Geography; conduct very good, bad handwriting."

So, if you don't shine in school, that does not mean you will not make a big contribution or difference.

Finally, quoting from Roger Ebert's review in 1982:

"What is important about this film is not that it serves as a history lesson (although it does) but that, at a time when the threat of nuclear holocaust hangs ominously in the air, it reminds us that we are, after all, human, and thus capable of the most extraordinary and wonderful achievements, simply through the use of our imagination, our will, and our sense of right."

The Whistleblower (2010) - A wake up call on human trafficking

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0896872/

トゥルース 闇の告発/The Whistleblower

 

One of my students is writing an essay about human trafficking with a focus on female victims and I remembered that I had seen this film a while ago but had not blogged on it. As this article in the Guardian writes, this film needs to act as a wake up call to how members of the UN or other international organizations or corporations can be promoting human trafficking by taking advantage of the services offered, whether they are maids for housekeeping or bar girls enslaved for prostitution.

映画「孔子の教え」と老子の「上善如水」

「孔子の教え」最近DVDで見ました。

大学で中国語を習っていたり中国に住んでいたことがあったので、昔からZhang Yimou監督の作品などの中国映画ファンで、中国語の練習として時々借りてきて観てます。中国の大学で教えていた時住んでいたのは山東省だったので、曲阜にも２〜３度観光で行っているのですが、孔子の生涯についての知識はかなり低く見てみたいなと思いました。

印象としてはまあまあ良かったというところでしょうか。物語も制作も見応えあります。主演のChou Yun Fat、相変わらず貫禄あります。

歴史的にどのぐらい正確かは詳しくないのでなんとも言えませんが、中国、日本、韓国の文化の基礎の一つとなった儒教思想のルーツに興味を持ためには有効な映画ではないのでしょうか。

映画では2500年前の春秋時代に「仁」の思想を広め乱暴な弱肉強食の軍事独裁政治を平和で安定した民衆思いの政治に変えようとした、という物語が展開されます。しかし、結局軍事による権力闘争となり、孔子の教えは反映されず、隠居生活に入って弟子ととても五経を残すことに力をいれる、という感じです。いい話です。

大学時代、現代中国語の授業は実用的でとても好きだったのですが、古典の授業は教授の教え方もひどく退屈なもので、嫌いでした。アレルギー的な気持ちが湧いたのを覚えてます。こういう映画を見ることから始めていればもう少し興味が持てたかな？

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius

それから、恥ずかしながら、この映画を観るまでは「上善如水」の意味を知りませんでした。日本酒の名前としか。この映画に老子が幻想として出てきて水の如しに柔軟で謙虚で強くあるように孔子を励まします。いい言葉です。

以下のブログにいい解説が掲載されていました。
http://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/isparenopainsto/diary/201202260000/

Very powerful. I enjoyed this 1) as an inspiring film based on a true story in the history of American civil rights that needs to be told, and1 2) as a teacher of "argument" in my college writing and presentation classes. My Japanese university freshmen are going over the basics of argument structure and persuasion this week, and I hope I can introduce this film to inspire them to use their ideas and words as weapons for making a difference in our world.

"5 Days of War" (2011) -- Practice Your Critical Thinking

I try to watch war movies that purport to be based on true stories, and many that I have seen have been both educational and moving. Some stories must truly be told, and film is an effective channel for helping people know more about the truth and human nature.

But a good dose of critical thinking is always needed, and this movie is an excellent platform for practicing critical thinking and the separation of emotion and biased thoughts from actual fact or an effort to present a situation in a balanced, objective way.

You should watch it for that purpose only, and probably NOT to learn about the 5-Day Russia/South Ossetia-Georgia war of 2008, seeing how it is funded by the Georgian government.

The movie starts with the line "The first casualty when war comes is truth." (1918 quote attributed to Hiram Johnson, a US senator) Very good line. After watching the movie and researching the content, the use of that line actually seems to be quite ironic.

Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1486193/
Japanese DVD title = 5  デイズ

Here's my recommendation:

1. First, watch the movie without reading too much about it and note your reactions.

2. Second, go read about the 2008 5 Day War in a number of sources. Starting with Wikipedia is fine, but make sure you go to the External Links at the bottom of the also try to read reports by the EU or UN Investigation Commission or Human Rights Watch.

3. Third, read about how the movie was funded and why it was created. Think about the 3Bs:
Background (where did it come from),
Biography (who financed and/or created it and why),
Bias (what part of the story are they ignoring or misrepresenting).

Never Let Me Go (2010) Directed by Original by K. Ishiguro

Just saw this, in connection with the beginning of the bioethics unit that I am going to be teaching from tomorrow in my ICU class.

The bioethics connection is that the characters in this movie are humans who have been raised as organ donors. They will be used for organ harvesting.

This is similar to the concept of the 2005 movie, The Island.

However, the movie Never Let Me Go, which is based on the acclaimed 2005 novel of the same title by Kazuo Ishiguro, is more than a bioethics SF film.

If fact, I would argue that it does not fit the genre of SF. It is much more. The file is not really about the ethics of using humans as organ donation machines. That is the main characteristic of the lives that the characters are living, but this is just a background theme that Ishiguro uses to explore other themes of human existence and relationships.

I thought the main theme is how we accept and deal with the time limit of our own existence. As Kathy, the protagonist, ponders at the end, there isn't so much difference between us (non-donor humans), and them, who were created to live, give, and die when they have completed giving. We live, have freedom to some extent, and give ourselves to others, sometimes voluntarily, sometimes with no choice, and them we are "completed," as the donors called it when they die from their final donation operation.

What has Ishiguro said about this novel? Why did he write it? I am curious and want to read the original.

Inside Job (2010) A "must see" documentary

I'm not an expert on financial regulation, but I felt "Inside Job" was a very skillfully produced documentary on an immensely important issue. I had some general knowledge about the Subprime Loan crisis and how it happened, but this documentary seems to explain the weaknesses in our current regulatory system more clearly than anything I have seen so far.

The issue here is how financial greed (and, I would argue, a disregard of their responsibility toward society) among a wealthy elite is allowed to be protected by a web of arrangements between financial institutions, the government that is supposed to regulate them, and academic institutions that are supposed to analyze and point out the dangers for society.

The documentary implicates the investment bankers such as Goldman Sachs, the government regulators such as the Federal Reserve's Greenspan/Bernanke, and academics such as the economics professors at Harvard and Columbia who advise the government. It seems clear that those involved knew what was happening, and did not take steps to stop the greedy risk taking which the documentary calls the Heist, an inside bank robbery job.

After watching this, you just wonder, how could a group of immensely wealthy people (owning millions of dollars in assets) who knew that these careless risks could end up affecting the lives of millions of people who will have trouble eating, living, and getting basic medical care and education from day to day, just gamble with the high risks, lose billions of dollars of people's money, crash their companies and cause economic difficulties around the world, and yet get billions of dollars of taxes (from us) to save their money, and walk away still being millionaires.

The documentary producer Charles Ferguson in his interview at the end of the film states that he believes many of these con men running a gigantic legal Ponzi scheme should spend several decades in prison. Maybe so.

I would say that they should at least have to start over from zero. They should forfeit their personal assets to pay back their debts, become one of the jobless persons (like the millions they affected), and be banned from ever having a job in financial services again.

Of course, there is a very small chance of that type of regulation or penalization ever happening because the government bodies that are supposed to create such penalties are run by advisers and academics who they used to work with (or who they will hire and work with in the future). In principle, I am sure that Obama is for punishing the greedy industry more, but he has been unable to pass legislation with teeth. Obviously, it is very difficult to penalize rich powerful cliques of people. They protect each other. Money talks in democratic politics. People will shut their mouths of if given a bonus of a million dollars to keep working in the greedy system.

So, what can break the system and cycle? Politicians who are not afraid to oppose money, academics who are not afraid to criticize the system even if their universities (like Harvard, for example) are run by people who created and maintain the system, and do I dare dream...members of the financial industry who believe that they should only earn a honest wage for their work, and see a million dollars as money that is completely unnecessary to have a personal income...I mean how much do you really need?

I hope the education that I provide to my students helps them realize the social responsibility that talented, privileged people like them have toward creating a fair, caring world where members of powerful institutions avoid pursuing wealth beyond need.

A tragedy of religious intolerance: Agora (2009)...inaccurate in places, but worth watching

Agora is a movie based in 5th century AD Alexandria and the life and death of a female philosopher and mathematician in the city named Hypatia.

Here is a Smithsonian feature of the life of Hypatia and how she was killed by a Christian mob in 415AD.

As a fan of history based movies, I watched this this weekend and felt it was worth watching because it brought up many interesting historical questions about the process of the expansion of the early Christian church--how it interacted with the politics of the Roman Empire, with local pagan beliefs, with Jews in the communities, with female leaders in the those communities, and with scientific pursuits such as the heliocentric theory.

In Agora, the Christians take over Alexandria as their numbers grow among the lower classes and slave. This process includes a number of bouts of religious violence and the gradual increase of political power connected with the Christianization of the Roman Empire. Pagans massacre Christians first, followed by a violent riot led by the Christians that leads to a marginalization of the pagans. Christians harrass Jews, followed by a Jewish attack on a group of Christians, followed by a massacre of Jews and their banishment from the city. Finally, the Christian bishop of Alexandria denounces Hypatia as being a bad influence because she is a woman who speaks her mind and believes in nothing (only philosophy and science) and a group of zealots catch and kill her.

I watched the movie first, and then read the historical accounts available on the Internet. Apparently the movie spins a lot of fictional threads for dramatic effect and there are inaccuracies in terms of how the library of Alexandria of sacked by a Christian mob or how she was killed. In the film, she dies quietly in the arms of a man who used to be her slave (and in love with her) but now is part of a group of violent Christian zealots. He kills her mercifully by choking just before the mob gets to her and the events after that are not shown. It seems that the real way she was killed and paraded through the streets was a lot worse.

Despite the historical inaccuracies and dramatic license taken by the director, the film makes you want to know more about how Christianity grew in influence around the Mediterranean and in Europe in the early centuries of its existence. Hopefully the reality of the expansion was not as brutal and un-Christian as shown in the movie, but at the same time it is probably true that violence accompanied the conversion process when intolerant zealots forgot that they were trying to spread faith in peace, forgiveness, and love, a tragedy that should never occur.

The Rite (2011) with Anthony Hopkins, Directed by Mikael Håfström

IMDB Link

You will either find it "OK" for one of two reasons or hate it.

Those who hate it would be those who can't stomach scenes of demonic possession to begin with or those believers who abhor any attempt to portray exorcisms in a semi-secular, semi-fictional film like this that many people will simply watch for thrills and entertainment and not really take as a message to become a believer.

If you are not in the group above, you will find the film interesting whether you believe in demons and exorcisms or are basically skeptical.

First, those who believe in the God vs. Satan conflict and demonic possession will probably approve of the approach of this film to allegedly base it on a true events that happened to a practicing Catholic exorcist Father Gary Thomas. However, apparently Father Gary Thomas feels that "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" (2005) is more accurate. I haven't seen that one, so I assume what Anthony Hopkins does in this film is basically what happens in actual exorcisms. Taken seriously, the message of the film is that the Devil is real, and those who do not believe in the Bible and pray to Jesus are in danger of being possessed. I can see this fairly serious message working for many people who are already believers and want to affirm what they believe or try to convince others.

Another group who will find the film interesting in a different way are those who basically don't believe or are not sure what to make of all this (like myself) but are fascinated by the concept and the idea that rites and rituals to cast out "demons" may go down like this. The film succeeds in terms of being real enough (no spinning heads or pea soup, for example, like The Exorcist) like making you wonder about many things. Does this really happen? How does this all work? What happens in non-Christian cultures and how does that relate to what happens in the Christian ones?

So...my main burning question ends up being that, if all this does really happen (very frequently, all over the world, ostensibly), why wouldn't the Vatican or other church groups show it publicly a bit more often on an official basis to people to stoke more fear of the devil? As the doubting, skeptical priest in training Michael, realizes in the end, the devil and demons are the strongest evidence of God, especially if those demons confirm they are scared of God/Jesus/Holy Water etc. and can be successfully fought with faith, prayer, symbols and rituals. From my high school days, for example, when I was attending a evangelical Christian organization for missionary kids in Japan, the only spiritual talk that got me close to really overcoming my skeptical stance was the stories of a guest speaker of a pastor called Greg Speck who told us in length how he cast a demon out of a girl he met in a summer Bible camp. Freaky stuff, just like this movie. If the churches have evidence on video, or can stand up to skeptical inquiry on this, it seems logical to release it a bit more, no? Why withhold it?

In the film, Michael (who is based on the real priest Gary Thomas) becomes a believer after becoming unable to explain away the phenomena he witnesses in the exorcisms in terms of psychosis or ESP any more--there is just no explanation any more for how the possessed know know so much about him or how the possessed react to holy rites conducted by the eccentric, half crazy Father Lucas (Anthony Hopkins). In this film, it is actually really weird how, in fact, the demon itself works so hard to make Michael believe in the Devil and therefore God...It is strange because, if I were the demon and hoping to lead Michael away from God and remain a skeptic and quit the priesthood and all, I would just stay quiet or try to act like it is a psychosis. The bumbling demon, however, has to show his supernatural devilish powers again and again and push Michael over the edge into faith. Uh-Oh. The consequence? Now the devil and his legions have to fight against an active Father Gary Thomas who is a very famous exorcist. Damn. I would bet that demon's superiors gave him a good tongue lashing on that blunder in the war against the forces of good. Or maybe that is part of a greater long-term strategy?

That inexplicable part aside, I recommend the film because it makes you ask some fascinating, and possibly unanswerable? questions about the nature of our world and the possible existence of supernatural phenomenon. I consider myself a faithful believer in many Christian ideas such as humility, forgiveness, and self-sacrifice, and do my best to practice them, but still feel the "jury is out" as the main character Michael put it, on this spiritual battle stuff. I am keeping an open mind and am willing to go where the evidence leads.

In real life, maybe this is related to why we never see possession or exorcisms on real video; the demons probably are coached to shut up and never get filmed in a way that would convince people they are real because a series of convincing, scientist and journalist observed YouTube videos that show demons are really possessing people and can only be fought with rites would get more faithful Christian believers than a century of sermons. It is mind-boggling to consider how this all works, if it actually does happen. So far, I haven't seen anything convincing.

Further Reading:

1. http://www.skepdic.com/exorcism.html

2. An Interview of Father Gary Thomas on his exorcism work - apparently he only has one possessed person he is working with as of January this year. He admits most people who ask for help need a doctor or psychologist, not an exorcist, and that most exorcisms are low key affairs that are done several times on the same person. But at the same time he claims to have witnessed dramatic, violent events like those in the film that made him find his faith. Curious.

3. Ebert on the film. "eerie...evocative...grant its assumptions and it has something to say"

4. The book by Matt Baglio that the movie is based on seems to have gotten good reviews on Amazon.

To Be And To Have...a peaceful, reflection-prompting teaching film

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318202/

I would recommend this for teacher training seminars and any other groups to discuss what it means to be a teacher.

From a review on IMDb "Those are right who've called this film a meditation on the mysteries of childhood. It's a meditation all right. Its slow microscopic observation makes it that. It makes you ponder a lot of things: childhood, teaching, retirement; the nature of the documentary process. You realize there are no rules about how minute or how comprehensive a documentary must be; that the best ones – and this is one of the best – are certainly both.
The ability of a teacher to listen to students as well as direct them becomes very clear in many situations."

Another key point is the connection between students performance in school and their home environment, and how parental support of learning is important for helping students do well.

BlackBoards...a very different world brought into our living room by film

I got this on Amazon after seeing it featured in a list of movies about education.

It is about education...sort of, but not really. There is a man who carries a blackboard on his back and walks in the mountains looking for pupils...but he does very little teaching because most of the children he meets are not interested in learning.

Blackboards -Trailer from Fabrica on Vimeo.

Here is the director, a young female Iranian director named Samira_Makhmalbaf

It is a film that gives you a glimpse into life in the mountains of Kurdistan and the realities of being a minority group caught between Iran and Iraq with...it seems...no place to settle.

It is hard to watch. I'm not sure whether to recommend it or not. You should watch it if you want to experience a lifestyle and a culture that is very hard to related to and understand.

The fact that this movie was made is amazing in itself. How else would we learn about how the Kurds live?

I watched it to the end, but frankly, I need someone to help me understand it. From beginning to end, the movie is full of things I cannot related to or understand the rationale for. There may be good reasons for why the actors do what they do, and say what they say, but it is very hard to follow.

The director is quoted as saying

Makhmalbaf describes it as "something between reality and fiction. Smuggling, being homeless, and people’s efforts to survive are all part of reality... the film, as a whole, is a metaphor."[2]

So...why do those teachers carry those massive blackboards on his backs and roam the mountains looking for pupils? Why does he marry a girl along way suddenly and divorce her shortly after?

The metaphors of the film fill you with ???????

My children were watching it along with me, and they were full of questions. It was a good chance to show them that many children around the world have to work hard to live, and do not have the luxuries that kids in Japan take for granted.

Family Movie Night - Recent and Upcoming Selections

On Friday or Saturday nights, I try to choose a film for everyone in our family to enjoy. Here are some titles we've watched over the past few months:

Toy Story 3

How to Train a Dragon

Up

Despicable Me

Hotaru no Haka

Stuart Little I, II

Madagascar

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

So...what is next? What are some must-see movies for kids almost 4 and 8 years old?

Here's a link for Best Movies for 6-10 year olds.

Next might be the Narnia series, Shrek, the Incredibles

Another Top 50 list includes some good ones:

Ratatouille (2007)
Finding Nemo (2003)
The Lion King (1994)
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

Of course, most Disney movies and Hayao Miyazaki movies can be good. Animal flicks can be good too...So many good movies, the problem is choosing which one for this Friday.

On Watching "Crossing" (Korean 2008)

Tonight I watched "Crossing", a Korean film about escaping from North Korea based on the true story of a defector named Yoo Sang-joon. Very painful to watch. Assuming it is true, it is gut-wrenching reminder of how inhumane the dictatorship of N. Korea is to its own people, and how fortunate we are to live in a country with basic needs and liberties.

As tragic as the story is, I highly recommend watching it. I plan to show it to my kids when they are ready for a story like this.

http://www.crossing-movie.jp/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyYilOhGw40

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_(2008_film)



The Wikipedia article mentioned that this was submitted as the S. Korea piece for the foreign language film category of the 2009 Academy Awards, but it did not get a nomination to the short list. That was the year the Japanese film Departures (Okuribito), one of my all time favorites for Japanese films, won.

Apparently one reason this film did not get on the short list was a controversy of plagiarism and "story-stealing" from one director. It is unfortunate that such as valuable story would be marred by such allegations.

Despite that, the film is a must-see. Everyone not only in East Asia but around the world should be aware of the inhumane conditions that the people of N. Korea are being forced to suffer in as we speak.

My personal view, amateur view, is that the only way to help conditions improve is to end (not strengthen) various types of embargos and open up trade and exchange with the country on a civilian level in every way possible. The leadership and military of N. Korea are going to fund themselves well regardless of any embargo, but trade will allow the development of civilian ties and wealth even if on a small scale after the military takes its cut. As the country gets more information, opportunity to travel and meet, and channels to communicate with the outside, and as it becomes aware of the freedoms and wealth of other countries, pressure to change will grow from within the military elite itself...N. Korea's isolation has to be ended and the people have to be freed from this oppression. I want to support the groups that are helping defectors escape and tell their stories.

The world needs to know and take action.

The Cove - An interesting study in intercultural (mis)communication

The above video is just the trailer.

You can see the whole film in a limited number of theaters in Japan, but since there have been threats of disturbance (See Japan Times) against theaters that show it, it is being shown for free on documentary websites online. I assume this is being done legally with the support of the producers.

See the whole film online here. There is some interruption during the film to ask for becoming a member of the online movie site, but you can see it to the end if you wait an hour. Also, there seems to be a workaround to see the whole film straight through.



この映画に関しては日本語で書きましょう。

確かにCoveは衝撃のドキュメンタリーです。イルカや鯨好きな文化圏で歓迎される理由が分かります。

内容は短く言えば、イルカ好きの人が気持ち悪くなるようなイルカ猟の映像を巧みに盗撮するストーリーです。映画の大半は撮影に反対する太地町の漁業組合の人の目を盗んで隠しカメラなどを設置し、その映像をどう手に入れたかの「英雄伝」が殆どです。イルカ猟のシーンはかなり短いですし、他の動物愛護団体の強烈な牛や豚の映像に比べ、それほど強烈ではありません。しかし、イルカが好きな人にはとても残酷に見えることは間違えないです。

見終わると複雑な気持ちになります。私も日本育ちだからでしょうか。

私は「隠された真実」が表に出ることは賛成なので、批判的思考が可能な大人なら誰もがCOVEを見るべきだと思います。しかし、「この映画のメッセージを受け止めろ！イルカ猟を今やめろ！」という意味では支持できません。そういう説得力はありません。あまりにも一方的で感情的な論が映像で展開され、イルカ猟に携わる方々を残酷な悪人扱いしている点が好きになれません。もう少し文化の違いについての理解があってもいいと思ってしまいました。問題を客観的に考えようというドキュメンタリーは好きですが、価値観を感情的な映像で押し付けようとするドキュメンタリーは質が低いとしか言えないと思います。

もし学生とこの映画を話し合う機会があれば、異文化で自分が感情的に反対する行為がある場合にどうるするか？反対されたらどう反応するか？という視点から話し合うと思います。

もちろん、かわいいイルカがモリで刺されて死ぬシーンは嫌なものです。必用ないのではないか？と思う部分もあります。しかし、肉食な人間としては、牛、馬、ウサギなど、殺さずには食べれないわけで、反対の最大の根拠である「イルカが知能的に特別」という論は感情的には「そうかも～」と思っても、理性的には厳しいものがあります。知能レベルはどこから「特別」になるのか。馬？犬？狐？豚？まぐろ？

では、イルカ追い込み猟はやめるべきか？道徳に反するか？

これを理性的に話し合うことはできないと思います。宗教を議論するようなものです。あくまで文化や個人の経験に形成されたな感情で「やめるべき」とか「自由である」となるでしょう。そういう意味で、和歌山県太地町の方にとっては迷惑で残念な一方的なドキュメンタリーです。ドキュメンタリーが様々な人の感情を掻き立てたら、彼らは普通だと思っている伝統の猟が妨害されたり、反対されたりするわけですから。

しかし、同時に思うのは事実は事実ですから、撮影には反対しなくても、「必用」な猟なのであれば誇りをもって世界に見せ、説明したらどうなんでしょうか。以下の和歌山県の説明は英語にして世界に発信すべきなのではないでしょうか。

和歌山県の資源管理課の見解ページにはある程度納得の行く説明があります。
http://www.pref.wakayama.lg.jp/prefg/071500/iruka.html

最後に、人間の生活に「必用」であるならば、猟を続けることは決して道徳に反していると思いません。ただ、もしイルカ猟に関して太地町の漁師の人たちに何か改善点を求めるとすれば、やはり必用以上にイルカが「苦しむ」猟の方法はやめて欲しいなと思います。Coveの中でもっとも強烈なのはもがき苦しむイルカたちです。哺乳類の中でも知性はあるようですから、魚とは違う扱いをしてもよいのかなと思います。豚や牛や馬を殺す時は瞬時に死ぬようにしているわけですから、イルカや鯨もその配慮があるべきではないでしょうか。

Invictus (2010) - Highly recommend

Invictus

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

W. E. Henley 1875

In 1990, my high school English teacher did a special unit on Mandela and the ANC. Since then I have always respected Nelson Mandela for his leadership to create a national consciousness of reconciliation and forgiveness in post-apartheid South Africa. This movie illustrates the skillful leadership and vision of Mandela as he uses the national rugby team of South Africa, a predominantly white sport hated by the majority black population, as a symbolic front for teaching both black and white that the new South Africa will not pursue hate and revenge, but will work together to create a new country that respects all colors. Clint Eastwood builds the story well, and despite my fears that the sports would take over and ruin the drama and philosophical side of the movie, it works.

My only criticism of the movie is the use of well-known Hollywood actors. Why not use South African actors? As an American, I'm OK because I can't tell the the difference with the pseudo accents put on by Matt Damon and Morgan Freedman--and I like both of them as actors, but I would guess it would annoy speakers of African English just like when Chinese actresses like Gong Li attempt to play Japanese geisha.


Themes:

• What is the value of forgiveness? What does it take to become a person who can forgive those who have hurt and humiliated you?
• "I am the master of my fate. The captain of my soul" What does that mean to you?
• What is the function of international sports (like the World Cup) in creating political or social unity and harmony domestically and internationally?
  

日本国内で見るにはこちらをクリック。

Film: MILK (2009) - Strongly Recommend

Sean Penn's acting is masterful, but it is the true story of the gay rights activism of Harvey Milk that makes this a meaningful film to watch. What is documented is the fight in 1970 and 80s San Fransisco for gay rights to be respected within a culture where the sexual bias of the heterosexual majority has the possibility of being formulated into religious and cultural laws of what is "normal" or "acceptable." The highlight of the film is Milk's campaign victory to vote down a "bigot" bill in California that would allow all schools to fire teachers for being homosexuals.

In the 2010s in the USA, it is hard to think of such a bill being passed in a referendum, so that shows how far gay rights activists have come since the 1970s. Personally, I have never been directly part of the gay rights movement, but have always supported protection of rights for sexual minorities. As activists in the film argue, if society cannot respect freedom of personal choice in one case (provided it has no harm to others), how can we expect to keep freedoms in other cases?

I will admit that gay kissing or sex scenes such as the few that appear in this film feel strange to me as a heterosexual, but I have no reason to oppose it and don't think religions should either. I think societies of the world (including all religious groups) have much more important things to worry about. Also, it has taken the world a long time to admit this (and some people still deny it), but based on what gay people testify, and what scientific evidence seems to show, a homosexual orientation is not a psychological or physical abnormality that needs to be fixed or suppressed. See this statement by the American Association of Pediatrics, which includes the quote: "the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual...current studies conclude that somewhere between 3% and 10% of the adult population is gay or lesbian, and perhaps a larger percentage is bisexual..

I strongly recommend this film. If nothing else, we should to deepen our understanding about the fragility of justice in democratic societies where a biased majority can use the voting system make laws to reject the rights of a minority. If we don't accept sexual minorities, what minority group is next?

Films related to Bioethics or "Visions of the Future" Issues

I just started up a content-based unit on bioethics (especially cloning, but not limited to that) and hope to introduce (or possibly show) some good films to my students. In January, we will move onto a until called Visions of the Future that deals with issues of progress and human development. So, here are some ideas:

Bioethics:
Some are taken from the summary of this book, Bioethics in the Movies.

My Sister's Keeper (2009, one sibling used to keep the other alive, rights to one's own body)

The Island (clones used for medical purposes)

Blade Runner (clones, engineered humans)

Gattaca (genetically engineered humans)

Million Dollar Baby (euthanasia)

The Sea Inside (euthanasia- never seen this yet)

Dirty Pretty Things (illegal sale of organs, never seen this one yet)

Dead Man Walking (death penalty)

Sicko (health insurance issues)

Supersize Me (fast food industry)

The Brave New World (1980, freely downloadable, cloning)

The Boys from Brazil (1978, cloning)


Visions of the Future:

Minority Report (Orwellian government)

Surrogates (2008, Humans use mentally remote controlled androids to their work outside of the house)

Brazil (Recommended here. Even more Orwellian? But I haven't seen this yet)

An Inconvenient Truth (Global Warming)

Other ideas? Please let me know by leaving a comment!

More links for movies:

Top 10 Bioethics Movies: http://www.wellsphere.com/bioethics-article/the-top-10-medical-bioethical-movies-you-ve-probably-never-seen/521400

Ethics Movies: http://faculty.deanza.edu/burkelarry/stories/storyReader$163

Recommend "Red Dust" a film on Truth and Reconciliation in SA

This just came out in Japan, but it seems to be a 2004 production.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388364/

First, I have to admit strong disappointment with the casting. Hillary Swanks's less than stellar acting as a South African born and raised character (working in NY) with with a pure American accent and her New York lawyer fashion strutting through the dusty poor ghettos are disappointing because this could have been a much more authentic production. Why didn't they cast a S.African actress?

The male lead, Chiwetel Ejiofor apparently is Nigerian. I thought his acting was compelling. But why not cast a S. African actor? I can't tell the difference, but I'm sure persons familiar with African variations of English could.

That put aside, this is a valuable film to watch if only for thinking about the meaning of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for certain politically motivated crimes perpetrated during Apartheid times in South Africa. In this case, a police officer is being tried for torture and murder of a black detainee, and he asks for amnesty through the commission.

Apparently, only about 800 accused persons out of over 7000 were actually granted amnesty as a result of the trials by coming clean with their confessions. The conflict between the need to forgive and forget, and the need to do justice to perpetrators must have been immense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Africa)


I think I had heard of the commission, but to see in a film how that actually plays out makes me respect the courage of the ANC leaders such as Mandela and Archbishop Tutu. It is not easy to overturn a system of human rights abuse, and then for the victors to forgive those who abused them rather than punish. For a country to move on, that seems to be the high road.

I'd like to share the powerful quote from Tutu that comes at the end of the movie:

Having looked the beast in the eye,
having asked and received forgiveness...

Let us shut the door on the past,
not to forget it,
but to allow it not to imprison us.

Archbishop Tutu

Review of "The Constant Gardener" (2005) 邦題「ナイロビの蜂」

I picked this up at Tsutaya in the Academy Awards corner that always gets set up this time of year. Rachel Weisz won best supporting actress for this in 2005 and somehow I had missed seeing it until now. The bland title (in both English and Japanese) may be to blame, or the cover photo with Ralph Fiennes who has never quite been a compelling must-see draw for me.

Not knowing what to expect, I stayed engaged watching the story unfold and appreciated the realistic no-winner ending.

The best part was the acting by Weisz, who plays Tess, a save-the-world activist who is murdered after uncovering a conspiracy by a major drug firm to use Kenyans to illegally trial a risky TB cure and trusting the British embassy to act on it. Awareness that free drug provisions to African countries by big pharmaceutical companies could be abused seemed to be a valuable message to send as well. The directing of the film by Fernando Meirelles seemed smooth enough to keep the drug company conspiracy and the romance of Tess and her diplomat husband played by Fiennes engaging to the end.

Regrettable was the lack of African actors/characters developed in major roles and a lopsided white-centric scenario of white heros (especially Fiennes the gardener diplomat, who is less than compelling) solving problems in Africa caused by white corporate and government greed with the African locals only shown in a peripheral, helpless assistant-to-the-whites sort of way. The D+ review by Schager on Filmcritic.com gave a good critique of that weakness of the film, an insightful balance against the overwhelmingly good reviews given by Ebert and many others.

John Adams Mini-Series - The Unromatic side of the revolution

Borrowed this 3 Dvd series from a colleague and was immediately sucked into the complex and not-so-romantic-after-all reality of the American revolution.

Highlights =

-John Adams played by Paul Giamatti of "Sideways" is superb in conveying the initial reluctance-and then fiery passion- of a colonial barrister to join other Bostonians and members of the Continental Congress in the armed revolt against England.

-Laura Linny as Abigail Adams is also very convincing as the no-nonsense partner of John, keeping him humble and sane as he climbs to top leadership in the US government and eventually the 2nd president.

-The dynamics of the Adams family, with neglected second son Charles dying from alcohol and drugs while first son Quincy rises to success as a diplomat and eventually President. Makes you wonder what you'll be like when you're a busy professional with a large family -- Will you be able to spend enough time with each child and give enough love? How do you avoid being too overbearing while still providing enough guidance?

-Other characters of the revolution Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton etc. exhibiting the practical difficulties of throwing together a new government on the American continent in an age with very limited travel and communication infrastructure.

-The ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- Seemingly too idealistic at the time, but great credit to Jefferson and others for putting ideals into writing and systems. What would we do today if we had a chance to create a government out of the blue with complete freedom to redesign it the way we like?