Daily Archives: Friday, March 4, 2016

  • Hannah Arendt

    Margarethe von Trotta (2012)

    The film’s certificate warns of ‘scenes of smoking’.  This got a well-deserved derisive laugh in the Renoir but in fact smoking is a very significant element of Hannah Arendt.  As she listens in the press room to evidence at Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem in 1961, Hannah Arendt (Barbara Sukowa) inhales pensively (whenever the defendant’s words make a particular impression, the camera closes in on her intent face).  Back in America, as she digests her thoughts before turning them into the New Yorker articles she’s been commissioned to write, Arendt smokes some more.  After the firestorm that the articles cause, she gives a public defence of what she’s written – answering charges of being sympathetic towards Eichmann and of accusing the Jews (Arendt herself was Jewish) of being complicit in their own destruction:  unusually, she craves the indulgence of the students in the packed lecture theatre to smoke throughout.  (Arendt was teaching at the time at the New School for Social Research in New York:  when she’s giving a two-hour lecture she normally allows herself a single cigarette, halfway through.) The smoking is significant less because of its frequency than because it’s one of the very few things that Margarethe von Trotta gives Barbara Sukowa to do.  Hannah Arendt might have worked on stage, where dialectic is an easily accepted form and where the artificiality of placing it in real-world settings wouldn’t grate so much, but it’s an exasperating film.  On the one hand, von Trotta has the arguments around Eichmann articulated plainly, not to say crudely – this on the spurious pretext that lofty debate is what occurs whenever two or three academics are gathered together.  On the other hand, the director deprives her lead actress of opportunities to express or voice her private thoughts.  When she’s chewing over the material she’s gathered in Jerusalem, it’s not clear whether Arendt is wrestling with the nature of evil – a closing legend indicates this preoccupied her until her death in 1975 – or with the potential controversy her New Yorker pieces is going to cause.

    The film may have remarkable subject matter but there’s stale cake under von Trotta’s intellectual icing:  Hannah Arendt is a conventional and highly unimaginative melodrama about a moral dilemma.  Arendt’s opponents on campus are shifty, nasty pieces of work, fuming impotently whenever she or her pal Mary McCarthy (Janet McTeer) delivers a put down – needless to say, they have most of the good lines.  There are laughable flashbacks to the young Hannah (Friederike Becht) being screwed, mentally and we assume physically, by Martin Heidegger (Klaus Pohl) when she was a student at the University of Marburg.  With the New Yorker scandal at its height, the janitor in her Manhattan apartment block delivers a note to Arendt from ‘that nice old man upstairs’ – ‘Nazi whore’, the note reads.  At the end of her climactic self-defence, Arendt receives unanimous acclaim from the fresh-faced students:  it’s only her envious contemporaries who scowl and slink off, tails between their legs – except one, who remains to deliver a verbal coup de grâce in the deserted lecture theatre.   In other words, one cliché after another.  Margarethe von Trotta and Pam Katz, with whom she wrote the screenplay, are under the misapprehension that the intellectual substance of the issues under discussion automatically lends substance to Hannah Arendt as a piece of cinema.  The New Yorker editorial conferences are appallingly written – and badly played, at least by the two of the three actors concerned, neither of whom I remember seeing before.   The third actor is Nicholas Woodeson, the screen’s latest William Shawn (after Bob Balaban and Frank G Curcio in the two Capote films), whom I know to be capable of much more than he shows here.  Janet McTeer is entertaining as Mary McCarthy – her size and stylish wit dominate every scene she’s in – but she’s too emphatic, perhaps through anxiety about the thinness of what she has to work with.

    The only bits of the film that are compelling are when Hannah’s husband Heinrich Blücher (Axel Milberg), in a startlingly realistic sequence, suffers an aneurysm and, of course, the footage of the actual Eichmann trial.  I had no idea that so much footage existed (there are many hours of the trial available on YouTube).  As so often happens when dramatic filmmakers make use of newsreel, it obliterates the fictional drama before and after.  Eichmann is mesmerising – not, I found, because he comes over as an unthinking bureaucrat but because he defends his only-obeying-orders position with something approaching passion.  The way that he moves his face suggests impatient dissatisfaction with, almost contempt for, the proceedings.   One of the criticisms levelled at Arendt in the course of the movie is that she’s wedded herself to German intellectualism at the expense of moral values.   Margarethe von Trotta’s admiration for the life of the mind is equally clear but a film doesn’t become a work of art by asserting respect for something important or by holding a view which you happen to share.  Hannah Arendt rather illustrates the banality of biopic.

    1 October 2013

  • The Railway Man

    Jonathan Teplitzky (2013)

    Its delayed release was a sign that something had gone wrong with this screen adaptation of Eric Lomax’s autobiography.  Lomax was a British prisoner of war in Japan:  captured in Singapore, he was forced to work on the Thai-Burma Railway and tortured by the Japanese military police (the ‘Kempeitai’).  The Railway Man had already been the subject, on its publication in 1995, of a documentary by Mike Finlason (Enemy, My Friend?) and a BBC television drama (Prisoners in Time, with John Hurt as Lomax).  Even so, this is a story of psychological trauma, deep-seated and long-suppressed, which is eventually resolved and dispelled in forgiveness.  In other words, it’s a kind of movie story – especially a kind of true story – that tends to win prizes, or at least nominations for prizes.  The film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in September 2013 but there seems to have been no rush to get it into American cinemas to qualify for this year’s awards season.  It arrived in Britain earlier this month – soon enough to get BAFTA nods, though none materialised.  The critical reception has been lukewarm.

    Jonathan Teplitzky and the screenwriters, Frank Cottrell Boyce and Andy Paterson, turn something that really happened into something largely incredible.  The film is set in the early 1980s with flashbacks, of course, to World War II.  The recently retired Eric Lomax is presented as a fixture at an army veterans’ club in North East England but he’s a solitary fellow even in the company of the other ex-soldiers there.  A railway enthusiast, Eric finds his life turned upside down when, on a train journey, he meets and falls instantly in love with a younger woman.  Within a few screen minutes, they’re man and wife.   Eric Lomax died at the age of ninety-three in October 2012, when the making of The Railway Man was well underway; his widow Patti, seventeen years his junior, survives him.  It may have been out of respect to the Lomaxes that the script omits any mention of the actual circumstances of their marriage.  The Eric of the film comes across not only as emotionally isolated but as a confirmed bachelor.  The real Lomax, in 1982, left Nan, his wife of thirty-seven years, for Patti, whom he married the following year.   Eric and Nan had three children:  one, the only boy, died in childbirth.  Did Eric’s ending of the marriage mean he was estranged from his two daughters?   Had his relationship with Nan broken down because he couldn’t come to terms with what had happened to him during the war?   Whatever the answers to these questions, the basis of the Lomaxes’ screen marriage is incomprehensible.  You learn soon enough that Eric can’t tell Patti about his experiences as a POW but it’s not evident she knows anything about his past at all – that she troubled to ask, before they tied the knot, what he’d been doing for the first sixty years of his life.

    It’s one thing to rewrite real people for the purposes of dramatising their story, another to make changes without thinking through their implications.  That’s what looks to have happened here – and in more ways than the above.  Eric Lomax, born in Edinburgh in 1919 and who left school at sixteen, has turned into the unarguably English, rather posh Colin Firth.  Patti Wallace, a Canadian, is played by Nicole Kidman with an RP English accent that’s effortfully though successfully maintained.  Stellan Skarsgård, as Lomax’s fellow POW, another habitué of the veterans’ club, makes no attempt to conceal the fact he’s Scandinavian – so why still call him Finlay?   The trio are an awkward combination but Jonathan Teplitzky’s arrhythmic direction is a bigger problem.  Eric’s decision, in the light of Finlay’s suicide, to return to the scene of his torture and confront one of his captors, Nagase Takashi, is realised instantly.  You don’t know if Patti is aware of what her husband has decided to do, or, if she does, what she thinks about it.  Eric is so traumatised that he imagines, even on British Rail, Japanese soldiers popping up in the English countryside:  his travelling to Asia is so abrupt that, for several minutes, I wondered if this too was a fantasy.  Perhaps Eric Lomax really did walk into the war museum where Nagase Takashi worked as a guide, after it had closed for the day, and hold his former tormentor captive, but this episode is staged and written in a way that makes it ridiculous.  (Takashi: ‘The museum will open again tomorrow, sir’, Lomax:  ‘I’m afraid this won’t wait until tomorrow’, etc.)  The flashbacks to Lomax’s POW ordeal aren’t so badly directed but, since the audience already knows what Eric’s problem is, the extended description of what he went through as a prisoner begins to verge on the tasteless.

    In the brief sequences that describe Eric’s first meetings with Patti, Colin Firth is nuanced and engaging – but engaging as a reticent bachelor who suddenly finds himself in love:  there’s no suggestion of Eric’s colossal backstory.  Over the course of the film, Firth’s acting is highly variable.  I can’t help thinking that his trademark suppression of deep emotion, which several reviewers have praised again in writing about The Railway Man, says something about the actor’s  lack of expressiveness – whenever he relies, as he does here, on trying to show what’s going on inside.  It’s no coincidence that his greatest successes have come in A Single Man and The King’s Speech, where he wears his heart on his face[1]. There are a few moments in The Railway Man when something is going on behind Firth’s eyes but I didn’t think he brought off the crucial meetings with Takashi, who’s well played by Hiroyuki Sanada.  Jeremy Irvine, as the POW Eric, is almost uninterruptedly in extremis but he’s good at anticipating Firth’s Lomax.  Tanrosh Ishida, as the young Takashi, is effective too.  Nicole Kidman can’t be blamed for seeming uneasy with a role as thinly written as Patti Lomax; as often happens in these circumstances, rather a lot of acting yields very little characterisation.  Still, Kidman gives an intelligent, modulated performance, in spite of the fundamental implausibility of Patti’s situation, as presented here.  The music by David Hirschfelder almost always seems unnecessary.   It’s frustrating, given what really happened, that The Railway Man isn’t better:  legends on the screen at the end of the film summarise the friendship that developed between Lomax and Takashi, and which lasted until the latter’s death.

    14 January 2014

    [1] See note on The King’s Speech for a suggestion of why Firth’s salient misery is more persuasive in that film than in A Single Man.

Posts navigation