映画「杉原千畝」FILM, "CHIUNE SUGIHARA"

　映画「杉原千畝」

 

 

 



全然面白くなかった。感動というものがない。

１．千畝が如何にしてビザを発行する決心に至ったかが明確に伝わってこない。女友達の夫が必要だから、とかいう間接的な理由らしいが、きちんと描写していない。ドキュメンタリー番組で見たのだが、実際は、リトアニアを去る汽車が発車する寸前まで書き続け、手が痛くなっても書き続けていたのに、映画では昼中はビザを書いて、夜は教会へ行って女と会っている。そんな余裕はなかったはずだ。映画は千畝が必死でビザを書き続けた有様が描かれていない。救われた人の感動も伝わってこない。

２．映画では千畝の赴任先のエピソードが描かれている。満州からリトアニア、リトアニアからルーマニア、ルーマニアから東プロイセンと言うように。しかし千畝の赴任先のことを描くあまり、焦点がぼやけてしまっている。リトアニアでのビザ発行をもっと詳しくドラマチックに描き、満州やルーマニアのことは最小限にすべきだ。

３．脚本がいただけない。千畝は何度も「世界を変えていくつもりだ」と言うが大げさすぎないか。台詞が独り歩きしている。妻との会話も本当の会話になっていない。素人でも思いつくような当たり障りない、当たり前の台詞になっている。「元気？」だとか、場違いの「愛している」だとか、お茶を出して「冷めてしまうから、召し上がって」とか夫婦の会話が臭いのだ。その場その場で誰でも言いそうな台詞しか言わない。もっとそれを超えたいい台詞があるはずだ。名優唐沢さんにとっても、深みのない上辺だけの台詞を言わなくてはならなくて当惑したのではないかと思う。

４．子供をダシにして（難民の子に千畝の子がパンを与えるとか、ウラジオストックの船長が「これ以上乗船させることはできない」と言いながら、「私の娘と同じぐらいの子がいてかわいそう」だから乗船を許可するとか、出国を拒否された実業家が幼い息子の目の前で殺されたりする）、観衆の同情を引こうとする魂胆が見え見え。中途半端な女を出しているし、「立て！」「伏せろ！」の恐怖シーンが長すぎる。これもドイツ人の残虐さをみせんがためだが、うんざりした。

５．映写がまずい。人物の顔を巨大スクリーンいっぱいに映す。多分高さ５メートルぐらいの顔だ）なぜあんなに大きく映す必要があるのか。何度も何度も登場人物を大写しにする。気持ちが悪くなるぐらいでかい顔が映る。監督は悪趣味だ。

杉原千畝と言う名前につられて、また唐沢と小雪と言う俳優につられて映画を見に行った人は一杯食わされたと思うだろう。本当に食わせ物の映画だ。

FILM “CHIUNE SUGIHARA”

　　Chiune Sugihara (1900-1986) is a Japanese diplomat who served as a consul in Lithuania just before World War II. In 1940, he wrote travel visas that facilitated the escape of more than 6,000 Jewish refugees to Japan, risking his career and his family's lives. In 1985, Israel added him to the Righteous Among the Nations for his actions.
I went to see the movie “Chiune Sugihara.” The following is my impression of the film:

　　I was disappointed at the film. It was not moving at all for the following reasons:

1. The film does not show why he decided to issue visas against the Japanese government’s order. At first he does not intend to write the visas, but his friend asks him to do so for her “husband.” After he issues a visa for him, he begins to issue them to other refugees, too. The film should show his struggle whether to issue visas or to obey the government’s order. I had watched a TV documentary about him in which he continuously wrote visas. He wrote so many visas that his fingers ached. When he had to leave Lithuania, he wrote visas till the last moment when the train began to start, leaving many Jewish people on the platform. In the film, however, he does not write visas continuously. He writes visas during the day and he goes to a church to see a woman in the evening. He seems to write visas as pastime. The film fails to depict his devotion.

2. The film shows his life as a diplomat in Manchuria, Lithuania, Romania, and East Prussia. The film spends too much time on his life in the countries other than Lithuania. It should focus on his life in Lithuania where he devoted his life to save the Jewish refugees.

3. The scenario was not good. Sugihara often says, “I want to change the world,” but the words are too vague and too beautiful that they do not convey anything to the audience. The dialogues between Sugihara and his wife sound unnatural in several situations. For example, she says to him during a ball, “Do you love me?” He responds, “Yes, I want to change the world.” It is an irrelevant response. The script must be well thought-out. I am sure Toshiaki Karasawa, who played the role of Sugihara, was also disappointed at the childish scenario.

4. The film tries to rouse the audience’s sympathy by using children. Sugihara’s daughter, for example, gives a piece of bread to a hungry Jewish girl through the fence of the consulate; the captain of the Japanese ship says, “I am afraid I can’t let the refugees embark the ship,” but later he changes his mind and says, “but I saw a poor girl as old as my daughter,” and allows them to get on board; and a businessman and his family including children are prevented from leaving Lithuania by the German soldiers. There should be other ways that naturally rouse the audience’s sympathy.

5. Screening is bad, too. The characters’ faces are often projected on the full screen. So the faces are as large as the screen. They are so large that they look weird. The director has poor taste

A much-ballyhooed movie is not necessarily good. And a movie starring famed actors are not always good. That is the lesson I have learned from the movie.