Bad Movies: The Debt.

So, apparently Helen Mirren will be the star of the remake. That she will outdo Gila Almagor is not a given – the problem with the original version of “The Debt“ lies less with the acting, but very much with the writing. The idea is compelling: An Eichmann-style abduction gone wrong, the failure hidden to save face. But when the failure threatens to come to light, some 30 years later, it is time to kill the Nazi again. That is an interesting, if somewhat farfetched premise. It doesn‘t hold.
The dialogues, if an informed judgement can be based on subtitles, sound like clichés, there is never any sense of the contradictory nature of the fight at the heart of this movie.

This is a trashy movie. And why wouldn‘t it be? Tarantino currently makes a lot of hoop-la with a trashy movie on Nazis. The trash-factor isn‘t what makes this movie annoying, it is its alleged seriousness. Gila Almagor does a good job of representing a woman ashamed of her fame, but the final act of “The Debt“ is pure farce. What‘s worse is that it is farce that takes itself seriously.The most devastating (self-)revelation of (about) the movie comes with Edgar Selge‘s admission that he agreed to do this movie as an act of reconciliation, ultimately asking for forgiveness – not for his acting, but for German history. In German there is a saying: The opposite of good is well-meant. Edgar Selge‘s acting is not so much a cause for embarrasment as it is for pity – to consider a contribution to this movie a contribution to the reconciliation between Jews and Germans is to overestimate a well-meaning movie that has very little to say.

The confrontation between the descendants of victims and perpetrators is reduced to a staring contest between evil and discomfort.It turns ugly when evil takes to action and the Israeli agents fail to be evil enough to respond in kind. Instead, they turn to storytelling that saves their reputation and the Nazi‘s life. So they turn themselves into heroes, but the heroic act never took place. It could have been an interesting exposition, exploring heroism and its content, but instead the movie sends its actors, 30 years older and in fear of their reputation, on what looks like a wild goose chase and plays out as a farce in an old people‘s home. They all die in the end.

The Trivialisation of War Crimes Trials.

Is it a scene from the next Tomb Raider-installment? No, it‘s news! Popstars, if you want them: Angelina Jolie and Luis Moreno Ocampo looking seriously serious on the occasion of Ms Jolie‘s visit to the ICC. The photo comes via Melbourne‘s The Age‘s Lifestyle section, which is already somewhat worrying: War Crimes prosecution as a lifestyle-choice.

Of course, commitment to justice is open to celebrities and campaigns such as the one to stop the situation in Darfur, fruitless as they might be despite raising awareness, rely on celebrities. But everything is wrong about this picture. You can almost hear Moreno Ocampo saying “Yes, yes, serious matter, these war crimes“ to which Angelina Jolie nods her head and puts on exactly the expression she has here. And they’re both thinking, “Image, it‘s all about image, how do we look? Is my expression concerned enough? Do I look cool next to this modern icon? Don‘t I look cool next to this modern icon?“ And just who is the icon here? Moreno Ocampo quite possibly sees himself as one – and would be delighted to find out that (if) Angelina Jolie agrees.

But the attraction of War Crimes Trials as a means to achieve justice remains, as of now, just a promise. Some reports have Jolie down as a witness in the trial against Lubanga, and it would be indeed interesting to hear how she would qualify. Expert witness? Well, if moral outrage at abhorrent behaviour alone would be enough to qualify to serve justice, we‘d all be not only witnesses, but judges! It is way too early to make much of Moreno Ocampo‘s track record, but he certainly knows how to put himself in the spotlight. He‘s far out-Del Ponte-ing Carla Del Ponte, yet the merits of this approach seem questionable. As it is, there is hardly any public understanding of the limits and limitations of international criminal prosecutions – and the self-serving popularisation hardly contributes to furthering this understanding. This, then, is probably what‘s so seriously wrong with this picture: The image appears so familiar, so easy to understand that we can easily believe that not only do we understand the crimes under investigation under international criminal law, but also how to bring them to justice and thus bring justice to the places in which those crimes occurred. Of this we should be very sceptical.

Die Fussnote.

Wer jemals einen längeren wissenschaftlichen Text mit Fussnoten verfasst hat, weiss, dass auch im Endprodukt vermutlich noch einzelne Fehler lauern werden. Die Realität des Wissenschaftsbetriebs bringt es auch mit sich, dass man sich nicht immer darauf verlassen kann, dass es den gut bezahlten Lektor gibt, der noch das letzte fehlende Komma nachträgt.
Natürlich wird die Qualität einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit denn auch nicht durch den Fußnotenapparat allein bestimmt: Das Argument selbst soll schließlich für sich allein (be-)stehen. Andererseits ist jedenfalls in der Rechts-“Wissenschaft” die Entwicklung eines Arguments wesentlich der Dialog mit anderen Argumenten. Und da wiederum ist die Sorgfalt dann doch ein Zeichen von Qualität. Auch die Sorgfalt erlaubt Fehler, aber es gibt Dinge, bei denen man sich nicht erwischen lassen sollte: So zum Beispiel dabei, nicht zu wissen, ob man einen Autor oder eine Autorin zitiert. Dass man bei der Lektüre einer völkerrechtlichen Dissertation den Eindruck gewinnen muss, dass ein Dr. iur. nicht weiss, dass Rosalyn Higgins eine Frau ist (S. 112, Fn 373), lässt an der Qualität des Promotionsverfahrens zweifeln. Und dass letztlich gerade weil der fragliche Autor es vermutlich sogar weiss: Rosalyn Higgins ist schließlich nicht Evelyn Waugh.