Primary (1960)

Everyone is voting for Jack

During the 1950s, the President of the United States was General Dwight Eisenhower. The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in 1951. This amendment has set out a term limit for election and overall time of service to the office of President of the United States (eight years, whether consecutive or not).

In 1960, the Republican presumptive presidential nominee was quickly established – Vice President Richard Nixon. On the other hand, the Democrats didn’t have a strong candidate. The Democratic primaries got such candidates as Minnesota senator Hubert Humphrey, ex-Illinois governor Adlai Stephenson, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson and young Massachusetts senator John Kennedy.

This film depicts the 1960 Wisconsin primary election between John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. In 2016, we remember John Kennedy as a young and charismatic President, but we don’t take into the account the prejudices of the 1950s America. We cannot understand how America could doubt the candidacy of John Kennedy. But in 1960, John Kennedy was a candidate with lots of flaws. John Kennedy was Irish and Catholic and those groups were ostracized by WASPs as second class citizens and by protestant clergies as not so loyal to the Constitution as to the papal decrees.

All of the pundits thought that the 1960 Wisconsin primary election is closed behind Hubert Humphrey. Wisconsin shared the same border with Minnesota, Hubert Humphrey was a reputed force in the Senate and a lot of local figures have endorsed the Minnesotan. Hubert Humphrey was also the civil rights champion and active proponent of farming subsidies.

In comparison to Hubert Humphrey, John Kennedy got a reputation as a playboy and rich kid, whose daddy has bought him a place in the Congress. Also John Kennedy has missed a lot of the legislative sessions and was not too active in the bill drafting business. Along with above mentioned Catholicism, John Kennedy was criticized for inactivity during the censure hearing of Joseph McCarthy.

As always, the experts forgot something important. This time they forgot that during the campaign, the political views are not so important. Kentucky’s senator Mitch McConnell said that «issues, unfortunately, usually are kind of peripheral to winning a campaign». The same senator said to the students what built a political party. He’d written on the blackboard three words: «Money, money, money»[1].

According with the McConnell words, the form takes precedence over the substance (most of the times). Hubert Humphrey comes to a farming community, visits the high school and talks about the farm subsidies legislation (which he had cosponsored). John Kennedy visits the grand ballroom of some fancy hotel and after the fanfares talks about some bill (probably nonexistent), which deals with the export of wheat to the socialistic countries.

The film also illustrates the birth of TV as a crucial tool for the campaigning. The fourth book of Robert Caro’s anthology on LBJ has a special chapter on JFK called «The Rich Man’s Son». This chapter also points out the tactics of JFK. Very early, John Kennedy understood that the Senate is not the best starting ground for the presidential campaign. This assumption was based on a fact, that every Aey or Nay for any bill would make new political opponents.

Instead of legislating, John Kennedy starts building his media image. The 1950s America is charmed by young senator, everybody talks about his beautiful wife, John Kennedy becomes a popular guest on famous TV shows. The electorate of Wisconsin also charmed by the TV image of John Kennedy; Hubert Humphrey’s real struggle on their behalf leave them cold.

The 1960 Wisconsin primary election as the 2016 general election campaign shows a clash between different styles of political campaign. Of course, compared with Trump, JFK was a progressive visionary. Nevertheless, a time bomb, which allowed Trump’s victory was armed in 1960.

If you miss the civilized political campaigning process, then watch this film. After watching, I recommend you to read «The Years of Lyndon Johnson» (Robert A. Caro).

---

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/mitch-mcconnell-profile_n_3550173.html

Man of Marble, Man of Iron (1976, 1981)

The new Poland is born here

If Andrzej Wajda was born in the USSR, his fate would not be so good. I think that, if Andrzej Wajda was a Soviet film director, his films would be banned by the Soviet authorities until the 1980s. Andrzej Wajda was always interested in the history of his homeland, and his vision almost always was not too ideologically correct.

Even in 1958, in Ashes and Diamonds Andrzej Wajda showed a Home Army soldier Maciek as a positive hero. In 1976, Andrzej Wajda showed it’s past to the forgetful Polish audience and authorities. Finally, in 1981, Andrzej Wajda showed the birth of post-socialistic world. I think that it would be suitable to analyze «Man of Marble» and «Man of Iron» together.

«Man of Marble» depicts the relatively free Poland of the 1970s. A young cinema school graduate Agnieszka chooses an unusual subject for her graduation project – a documentary film about a bricklayer Mateusz Birkut, who was once a hero. The film school authorities are rather skeptical, but anyway they give the green light to Agnieszka. Agnieszka starts her research, but this proves to be a tough task, because Mateusz Birkut is almost completely cut from the history.

As I have written before, «Man of Marble» was shot in 1976. Back then, the official history portrayed the 1950s repressions as a result of actions of the authorities and certain apparatchiks. Besides that, that period of history was officially forgotten. Of course, a lot of repressed people were freed. But no one couldn’t bring back to them the health and heal the soul pain.

While Agnieszka researches the material, she dugs deeper and deeper in the Polish history of the 1940-1950s. During the first postwar years, Mateusz Birkut is just one of the illiterate young workers, who were sent to the great building sites of the new Poland.

When an ambitious young film director and authorities decided to make Mateusz a hero for their own advancement, the life of Mateusz Birkut suddenly changes. Mateusz Birkut becomes a hero, his portrait hangs with other record-breaking workers, he is received by the highest authorities and he marries a beautiful young athlete.

Mateusz Birkut symbolizes the working class of Poland – hardworking and honest people, who are willing to work hard for their homeland. Despite the declaration that the power was passed to the working class; in reality the power was passed from the bourgeois exploiters to the apparatchiks. As bourgeois, apparatchiks view Mateusz Birkut and others as merely an instrument to advance their goals.

Mateusz Birkut sincerely believes in a new ideology and is willing to help his comrades. When he tries to help his arrested friend and cross the path with apparatchiks his fate suddenly changes. Mateusz Birkut is arrested and declared an enemy of state. In the mid-1950s, he is released and rehabilitated. Mateusz Birkut is drawn back in the politics as a symbol of post-totalitarian Poland, but he just merely wants to gain back his life. It is impossible, because Mateusz’s wife has left him and he is cut out from the history.

Agnieszka was brought up in a different Poland (quoting Jean-Luc Godard: «The Children of Marx and Coca-Cola»), but she encounters the prevailing double think. Even the coworkers of Mateusz Birkut have cut out the memory about him. And when Agnieszka almost touches the truth about Mateusz Birkut, the state intervenes – the film is cancelled and Agnieszka is dismissed on the spot.

In «Man of Iron» Andrzej Wajda depicts the events of 1980 – the famous Gdańsk Shipyard strike. Almost everyone thinks that the strike is doomed for a bloody reprisal as previous strikes. Editor Winkel is ordered by the deputy chairman of Radio Committee to achieve coverage compromising the activists…

The activists of the Red May (Paris 1968) were described by the communists as a petit bourgeoisie, who would drop their radical thinking, when it would be their turn to run a family firm and exploit the workers. But in 1980, in Poland, the workers were the main string force – the people who had neither the money, neither the protection from the possible ruthless official actions.

Andrzej Wajda makes the son of  Mateusz Birkut -  Maciej Tomczyk as one of the main heroes. As father, Maciej Tomczyk is brave, honest, incorruptible and decisive. Along with real Lech Wałęsa and Anna Walentynowicz, Maciej Tomczyk starts the strike.

If in «Man of Marble» Andrzej Wajda depicts the relatively free Poland of the 1970s, in «Man of Iron» Poland is depicted as a lost and torn country. Tonight Poland is rioting, but tomorrow its streets could be painted with blood. The society is frightened, but it slowly starts transformation. The transformation is not limited to the workers, but touches even the relatively high class – the mass media.

Andrzej Wajda shows though Winkel the transformation of intelligentsia. Winkel is a drunken loser, who has not got anything in common with rioting bydlo. He eagerly starts to write a compromising coverage. But as he starts digging deeper into the roots of the strike, he begins to feel the common with strikers.

The director portrays the ruthless struggle between workers, who got nothing to lose, and elite, who are desperately clinging to their power and privileges. Solidarność has got only two options – to win or die. The government has army and police, the workers has slogans and moral authority.

Another link between «Man of Marble» and «Man of Iron» is Agnieszka. Andrzej Wajda portrays her spiritual transformation – in the first film she is a hysterical film student, who just want to piss off the authorities; the second film shows her as a devoted reformist and loyal wife of Maciej Tomczyk.

There a lot of anecdotes and stories about near-sightedness, cowardice, stupidity and divisions of the Poles. You could just remember the XVIII century partition of Poland, the war between Home Army and Armia Ludowa. Andrzej Wajda knew those stories, but he thought that there were some Poles who could lead the people to the brighter future.

Maciej Tomczyk is shown as one of those Poles. Because of him and others, the striking people achieved the impossible – the recognition from the Party officials. Despite that, the director is not optimistic – today’s victory could be followed by bloody tomorrow.

This victory is without parades, hymns and fireworks. But a bunch of people have changed the world. Tomorrow they could be executed, but tonight they have drawn the attention of the world and have written their names in History. They showed that no state is all-powerful. The state wanted Men of Marble in order to break them easier, but finally they got Men of Iron, who couldn’t be broken too easily.

In his dilogy, Andrzej Wajda gave the mirror to the Poles and made them watch. Andrzej Wajda thought that you shouldn’t lie or forget about the past or ignore the present. Instead of that, let’s watch this films together.

The Childhood of a Leader

It's sort of about the birth of a megalomaniac

The Childhood of a Leader is a loose adaptation of Jean-Paul Sartre's short story The Childhood of a Leader and John Fowles's novel The Magus (plagiarizing Wikipedia). Sadly, I have read the Sartre’s story long time ago and I haven’t read the Fowles’s novel. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the film draws inspiration from another famous book.

In 1931, an Italian journalist and writer Curzio Malaparte wrote Coup D'etat: The Technique of revolution. Near the end of the book, the author wrote about dark, psychic and sexual nature of dictatorship. The author also noted the main traits of dictators – envy. Curzio Malaparte stated that dictatorship is not merely the form of rule, but also the most complete intellectual, political and moral manifestation of the envy.

The Childhood of a Leader portrays the formation of a dictator. You should also note, that Malaparte has written that dictators have a strong feminine side. This thesis is illustrated by distortion of Prescott’s gender identification – he wears a dress and has long hairs. Also, Prescott suffers from enuresis, which is the part of the Macdonald triad.

The psychoanalysis claims that the person is formed by interaction with parents. First of all, the film drops hints about illegitimacy of Prescott. The parents of Prescott are portrayed as cold and indifferent persons, who are more interested in themselves, than in their son. Even the first minutes portrays Prescott as a «strange child» (to put it mildly).

The director narrates the storyline as three caprices. If the first caprice (throwing of stones in the church) looks as an innocent childish prank, the second and third caprice vividly portrays the dark inner world of Prescott. The picture of the film is also very gloomy – the devastated French village, poor houses and old maids.

The not-so-good reviews and synopsizes claims that formation of Prescott was dictated by witnessing his father in drafting the Versailles accord. But I think that it is a product of not-so-attentive watching. In my opinion, the director used a classical trick – contrast. The director portrays how at the seemingly triumphant time for the democracy grows a beast, who will demolish democracy once and for all.

Watch this film and maybe you will not laugh, when you will read that «1 in 5 CEOs are psychopaths».

Panna Nikt

Panna Nikt

In 1996, Andrzej Zulawski shot his «film without mask» - Szamanka. The same year, Andrzej Wajda shot his own film on the post-socialist Poland – Panna Nikt. The critic consensus always was that Andrzej Wajda was a master of the political, historical and societal films. But it is not entirely true, even judging by my limited acquaintance with the Wajda’s films. Not counting Panna Nikt, I have seen six films of Andrzej Wajda. Among them, there is a sarcastic comedy about a loser (Polowanie na muchy) and his own «8 ½» (Wszystko na sprzedaz).

Of course, the choice of a seventy-year old (back than) director is rather surprising – a teenage drama. This genre has known failures by young filmmakers, what can seventy-year old man shoot about the youth?

The early post-socialist history of Poland and Russia knows many similarities. You could merely name the nouveau riche culture, the economic shock therapy and the fast breaking of the old societal norms and customs. During the Socialism the major advantage was power, during the Capitalism the advantage shifted from power to money. Of course, the cities were the most affected by this and the villages were more conservative.

Andrzej Wajda showed this shift in the history of a 15-year girl called Marysia, who moved with her family from the village to the city. In the beginning of the film, Marysia symbolizes the Catholic and Conservative Poland. After moving to the city, Marysia starts associating herself with new Poland. The first act of her transformation deals with her haircut. If in the beginning she has traditional long hairs, in the city she changes it to a short haircut.

Any revolutionary changes are characterized not by merely economic and political changes, but also by conformity of old-timers. Andrej Wajda portrays this change in a teenage group. Marysia wants to morph in the new society and even abandons her name and adopts her new nicknames – Minka and Maika.

The new era is symbolized by new morals (or in some cases – the lack of it) and imaginary mixing of different classes. Marysia is fascinated by financial independence of her new girlfriends; she becomes an ardent pupil in permissiveness. She even thinks that she is truly accepted by the nouveau riche circles. Nevertheless, she forgets an old lessons – the rich could temporarily embrace the poor, but they will treat the late as an equal.

The 1990s got a profound impact on the Eastern European cinema. After getting the freedom, a majority of directors began shooting films about crime and sex. But there are some exceptions. Andrzej Wajda was no longer obliged to shoot film with hidden messages (quoting Andrzej Zulawski: «the films with masks») and he made a portrait of new Poland. He showed the teenagers, because one day they will become rulers.

The seventy year old filmmaker did something, which is not possible for some twenty year old man. Andrzej Wajda portrayed the real teenage relationship, without exaggerating or softening. Everyone would see themselves or some friends in Marysia, Kasia and Ewa. I recommend to watch this film to anyone, who was born in the 1980-1990s.

Sadly, the thought of Wajda that «no, the ashes does not hold the glory of a starlike diamond» is still quite truthful.