Wednesday, September 12, 2012

TIFF 2012: Argo

Affleck as Mendez
Argo (U.S., 2012) directed by Ben Affleck, 120 minutes
Wednesday, September 12, 2012, Scotiabank 1, 9.30am

I was completely taken in by Argo much to my surprise. Perhaps I shouldn’t have been as I thoroughly enjoyed Affleck’s last offering, the Oscar nominated The Town, from two years ago. The Iranian hostage situation in the late 1970s and early 1980s was but a dim memory for me and I had no knowledge of the true backstory behind the escape of the six American Embassy workers trapped in the Canadian embassy with the permission of Ambassador Ken Taylor (Victor Garber). The story was officially declassified by President Clinton in 1997.

Some background on the events leading up to the crisis here. The film does a great job of providing a very short synopsis of Iranian history up until the crisis.

CIA agent and "exfiltration" expert Tony Mendez (a bearded and oddly attractive Ben Affleck) was sent in to find a method to get the six out of Iran. Rejecting a hare-brained government scheme that suggested six bicycles be smuggled into the embassy to have the four men and two women ride 300 miles to the next border, he came up with a possibly equally bizarre plan. It was an elaborate ruse to suggest that a Canadian film crew was shooting a sci-fi film entitled Argo in Iran and that the six were members of that film crew who had flown in for two days to scout the location and were flying back out. 

This involved the cooperation of an established Hollywood film producer Lester Siegel (the excellent Allan Arkin) and a master make up artist (John Goodman) to establish the credibility of the film: optioning an existing script, hiring actors, creating ads for industry publications in Hollywood, organizing a public reading of the script, securing the permission of the Iranian government and various officials. Affleck has a good time skewering the labyrinthine nature of Hollywood in the process. 

The tension of the ordeal is unbearable throughout the film and even when we know the outcome (the good guys win of course), the audience remains in a constant state of terror that the ruse will be discovered.

Affleck wisely shifts the story away from Mendez (himself) and focuses a great deal of attention on the six Embassy workers (named here) – their anxieties, fears and despair between accepting the plan and trying to remain in the embassy that will soon be overrun. But Ken Taylor has a sense that a household staff member has become suspicious about the presence of the Americans (he has told her that the six are Canadian friends from abroad). 


The filmed scenes are effectively interspersed with news footage from that time. The Iranians are portrayed in an evenhanded way without shrinking from the violence and terror of that time: the public beatings and hangings in the street, the spontaneous crowds of rioting citizens, the enormous hostility towards America for harboring the Shah of Iran, the daily betrayals of those suspected of not supporting the Ayatollah Khomeini. Ambassador Taylor is seen as compassionate and brave – taking in the Americans when several embassies turned them away at the door. 

There is a harrowing last scene at the airport with the group and Mendez barely escaping the wrath of the duped Iranians. As political thrillers go, they don’t get much better than this.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

TIFF 2012: Passion


McAdams in a typical ooh-la-la shot
Brian DePalma’s birthday was today … TIFF CEO Piers Handling asked us to sing happy birthday to him at the Winter Garden before he came onstage to talk about his newest film Passion, a remake of the Alain Corneau thriller Crime d’amour about office politics and revenge. He seems a sweet enough man but even Handling seemed to struggle with the right adjectives to describe his work: I believe he used the words idiosyncratic and individual. I agree with that summation but that doesn’t always mean good.

The plot is too convoluted to describe so I will leave you with this very brief synopsis from imdb.com: "A young businesswoman (Rapace as Isabel) plots a murderous revenge after her boss and mentor (McAdams as Christine) steals her idea." Isabel is initially seduced by Christine's charm and generosity but balks at Christine's stealing of an advertising idea that is a hit with the higher ups.

DePalma has done wonderful work over a forty year career (Carrie, Blow Out, Casualties of War, The Untouchables) and then there’s ... Scarface. Some people love Scarface (and not in an ironic way) but for me it typifies the worst of DePalma’s excesses.

Passion is described as a "baroque" thriller that wastes the energy of two immensely talented actresses Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace. It’s hard to imagine the awesome Girl Who Kicked Everyone’s Butt in the Stieg Larsson inspired trilogy of movies cowering before the slender McAdams. But cower she does before McAdams’ evil manipulation and lies.

Rachel McAdams claimed afterwards that she thought she was reading for the role of the underling (that would make more sense in terms of physical type) but no … she was not.

As usual, with DePalma, there is too much of everything in this film: too much sex, too much violence, too much camp, too much emphasis on the rival women as potential lovers, too much lipstick (and gosh I love lipstick!).

The ending never comes too soon for me and we are fooled a number of times brought on by a Hitchockian crescendo of suspenseful music. Some might find this engaging. I wanted to pluck out my eyes about mid way through.

Personally my theory is that DePalma wanted to see two hot women make out. Yeah … and who could blame him I guess. 

TIFF 2012: To the Wonder


Kurylenko and Affleck

To the Wonder (U.S., 2012) by Terence Mallick, 112 minutes
Tuesday, September 11, 2012, Princess of Wales, 3p.m.

This will be a challenge. A very big challenge to review but here goes. I saw this film at the same time as two other friends saw it. Both disliked it. A great deal I believe.
 
I think Mallick approaches his work almost as a poet does (thanks dear friend C who also saw the film for the analogy). Here is one definition of poetry:
“A piece of writing that partakes of the nature of both speech and song that is nearly always rhythmical, usually metaphorical … Something that arouses strong emotions because of its beauty.”

Mallick creates beautiful images … obscure images with elliptical meanings. He doesn’t seem to care if you don’t “get it” (like many poets). He creates for himself and like-minded people. He creates gorgeous images. His images of nature often have a metaphorical meaning such as the natural occurrences in Tree of Life that symbolized the beginning or the end of life.

The plot of To the Wonder? Most of the film is a long monologue from the female perspective in French. The male protagonist is near silent. I think it’s about the dissipation of love, mostly from her perspective.

Boy (Ben Affleck as Neil) meets girl (Olga Kurylenko as Marina) in France. She is gorgeous with beautiful clothes and poetic gestures (she also has a precocious daughter). She’s like a child herself: she dances in the street, runs through meadows and forests like a nymph. She seduces him, entrances him. In short, she is a beautiful fantasy – part girl-child, part love goddess. She is clothed in rich reds and gray-blues and deep purples in sumptuous fabrics. She is part of nature, primal, richly hued, moody in temperament.

They fall in love. France is beautiful, magical, mystical. It’s certainly shot that way. Gorgeous, sensuous colours, close-ups of intricate architectural detail and landscapes. The camera work is sometimes frenzied as if the lovers cannot contain themselves and their excitement.

He decides to bring her to America (which I thought was Texas based on the number of oil rigs we see but it is Oklahoma). The boy’s world is cold, sterile and likely even poisonous (does this mean that their relationship has become poisoned too by the change in locale?). They live in a treeless suburban tract surrounded by possibly unsympathetic elements in the populace. The house is barren, virtually empty, forbidding to the viewer. His job seems to be to test the soil surrounding oil rigs that largely appears to be contaminated in very poor regions. The scenario is depressing. The people appear wounded and disfigured by difficult lives.

In America, which Marina was anxious to go to, she seems to change or perhaps he sees her more clearly, as a human being, not a goddess. He sees that her feet are made of clay. She is not divine but a deeply unhappy woman who is unable to adjust to this forbidding new world. What seems enchanting in their fantasy world in France is merely annoying and childish in his old world. He appears reluctant to marry and she returns to France with her daughter.

Jane (Rachel McAdams), a past lover, enters the picture. She seems more substantial. Still beautiful, still desirable, but somehow more real, more of Neil’s world - who could be more straight forward than a person named Jane? And yet they can’t seem to connect. Perhaps too much has transpired.

Marina and Neil reunite … perhaps they both think that she will be happier if they marry but she is not. Almost in a hypnotic state, she drifts into an unlikely act of infidelity that even puzzles the viewer as it seems so illogical, so wantonly stupid.

On the periphery is a priest in crisis (a handsomely pensive Javier Bardem) who fears that he lacks the true dedication, the sincerity, to perform his work. All three characters appear to have a crisis of confidence. The young couple believe in love as does the priest ... but love of a different order.

Affleck was chosen I think for a certain quality of stoic manliness. He speaks little (which is good, he is at his best with few words), presents an iconic image of masculinity, very much in the tradition of the highly principled American loner. He is stoic, strong but gentle.

Kurylenko is beautiful, fragile, easily hurt. I think the filmmaker acknowledges that she is a paper thin construction born of fantasy and lust. She can’t withstand too much scrutiny or strife or she crumples like a paper doll.

Not every piece of art requires that it be immediately understood or liked. I think Mr. Mallick would agree. On second thought, I don’t think he cares what I or anyone else think about his film. And that’s fine too.

Monday, September 10, 2012

TIFF 2012: Free Angela Davis

Free Angela Davis and all Political Prisoners (U.S., 2012) directed by Shola Lynch, 101 minutes
Monday, September 10, 2012, Scotiabank 1, 2.00p

Who is Angela Davis? What was she before she became this beautiful icon on a poster or a button? My memories/knowledge of Davis are reduced to these visual images … I knew she supported the Black Panthers. I knew that she went into hiding and then was arrested by the FBI but I didn’t know or had forgotten the details. This doc serves to rectify that for those of us who were too young to remember or have forgotten this important historical period.

Throughout the film, we have the advantage of Davis, now 68, narrating the events of her own life with additional commentary from both supporters and some involved in apprehending her. She is still passionate, elegant, articulate - the viewer can easily see how people were drawn to her, even those who did not espouse Communism or might have had serious reservations about the goals of the Black Panthers (amusingly, watch the white people in crowds doing the Black Panther power salute).

Davis was an acting assistant professor in the philosophy department at the University of California, Los Angeles. Originally from Alabama in the south, she studied at Brandeis University and German philosophy at Frankfurt University and eventually moved back to the U.S. to assume this academic position at UCLA.

She was a radical who supported withdrawal from the Vietnam War, gay rights, prison reform, the Black Panthers … your basic right-wing conservative nightmare in Ronald Reagan's California.

The filmmaker lets the images of that time speak for themselves: photos and film of black people being beaten the streets by cops, fire hoses turned on women and children, an older lady who looks like your aunt Ginny being dragged down the street by a burly cop. It certainly must have felt like black people were under siege.

A vocal member of the Communist party and an advocate for the Soledad Brothers - three black prison inmates charged with the murder of white prison guard (which included prison advocate George Jackson) - she soon became the target of racist invective and death threats herelf. She bought a gun; actually, she bought four guns. Some of those were used in a hostage taking by a trio of Black Panthers in a courthouse in California that ended with the killing of a judge.

On August 7, 1970, George Jackson's seventeen-year-old brother Jonathan held up a courtroom at the Marin County Civic Center and took Superior Court Judge Harold Haley, Deputy District Attorney Gary Thomas, and three female jurors hostage in a bid to secure the freedom of the "Soledad Brothers". It ended spectacularly - horribly and bloodily.

Davis was charged with murder, kidnapping and conspiracy and imprisoned. A massive worldwide campaign ensued to “free” her. The film documents the events leading to the hostage taking, the political fall out, the push to remove Davis from her academic position with California governor Ronald Reagan leading the charge and urging the regents to remove Davis. The film also documents the Angela "mania" effectively - the rallies in foreign countries in support of Davis, the T-shirts, the buttons, the music written in homage.

She was eventually acquitted in 1972 but continued to work as an activist and lecturer - a portion of her life that the doc does not explore - but disavowed her membership in the Communist party.

And she continues to persevere … the charisma, the magic is still there. She continues to inspire even if her thoughts appear more measured and voiced in less strident tones. And, happily for me, she's still got a very cool Afro do happening. 


Angela now ...

TIFF 2012: The Iceman



The Iceman (U.S., 2012) directed by Ariel Vromen, 103 minutes
Monday, September 10, 2012, 11.15am, Scotiabank 3

This film is a fictional re-enactment of the life of Richard Kuklinski, a hired killer for the Gambino family. As a Polish-American, Kuklinski (Michael Shannon) could not be initiated into the crime family as he was not of Italian descent but he served as a dutiful "soldier" nonetheless and carried out some 100 hits (some say that the number is closer to 250). 

Either due to his stone cold demeanor during hits or his method of freezing the bodies he kills to disguise the time of death, he soon acquires his nickname. The film convincingly traces a long history of violence stretching from the 1950s (murdering a man in a pool hall who insults his fiancee) to proving himself worthy enough to be a hitman (shooting a homeless man to death) in the 1960s to numerous hits in the 70s.

Early in Kuklinski’s career, Roy DeMeo (Ray Liotta), mob boss, taps into Kuklinki’s sociopathic tendencies that we later learn was part of a long string of violent and deadly altercations including torturing animals and schoolmates.

Perhaps what piqued the interest of the filmmaker was the seemingly normal life that Kuklinski led away from the mob. He and his wife Deborah (Winona Ryder) live with their two beautiful daughters in an ideal suburban environment. The girls attend Catholic school; their dad takes them roller blading and to cozy family dinners. Kuklinksi is a loving father and husband and, to their minds, is an excellent provider and protector.

Shannon is of course immensely talented (roles as the mentally ill, truth telling John Givings in Revolutionary Road or the controlling, sleazy band manager Kim Fowley in The Runaways come to mind) and he is utterly convincing as the killer. There are also intriguing, surprising choices for supporting roles: James Franco as a sleazy mob underling with a penchant for filming underage girls; David Schwimmer sporting a Fu Manchu mustache who is a largely inept hitman and notorious blabbermouth connected to DeMeo; the usually jovial heartthrob Chris Evans as "Freezie" a particularly psychotic henchman who drives an ice cream truck; or, Stephen Dorff, as Joseph, Richie’s brother who is serving a long sentence for killing a child suggesting a Kuklinski family history of abuse and dysfunction.

When Kuklinski unravels, as he inevitably does, the family has no inkling of what this other life is. At his sentencing in the 1980s it’s the last time he sees his family (he died in prison in 2006 under somewhat suspect circumstances).

I hesitate to embrace this film somewhat … not because it isn’t good (it’s very well done for this genre) but haven’t we seen enough of this trope: the psychotic killer who has a tender side (exhibit #1: Tony Soprano and company)? Who loves his children and wants a quiet life when he’s not assassinating or torturing people? Of course, even killers have a line they won’t cross. For our “hero” it’s sparing the life of a seventeen year old girl who witnesses a murder.

I presume that I am troubled that I come to “like” or sympathize with Kuklinski despite the horrific murders. Is that enough ... to like him? We have no sense of why he is what he is. There are explicit hints of a brutal father but that doesn’t suffice (take a look at the family history - it's horrifying), a great many people have those and rarely kill. I wish time had been spent in exploring the sources of this icy resolve to kill on command at least as much time as was spent on the meticulously designed clothes and beautiful set.

Sunday, September 9, 2012

TIFF 2012: Ginger and Rosa

Annette Benning (Bella) and Elle Fanning (Ginger)

Ginger and Rosa (UK/Denmark, 2012) directed by Sally Potter, 89 minutes
Sunday, September 9th, 12p, Cineplex Yonge & Dundas 6

Day 3 for me and my pal C (day 4 for the festival). No rain today … a gorgeous September day!

Ginger and Rosa is a visually beautiful film tackling difficult coming of age issues. Set in the early 1960s of pre-Swinging England, Ginger (Elle Fanning) is the daughter of the charismatic pacifist Roland (the dishy American actor Alessandro Nivola with a very convincing accent) who went to jail rather than serve in WWII, and, Natalie, a frustrated, lonely mother who was once an aspiring painter (Mad Men’s Christina Hendricks).

The film opens like a delicious joy ride for the two girls Ginger and Rosa … experimenting with cigarettes, hitchhiking, boys, clothing, music, attitudes. The film editing captures the excitement of and joy of youth in gorgeous colours and exhilarating edits. They are inseparable. Ginger is a poet, passionate about politics and thoughts of the imminent destruction of the planet during the Cuban Missile Crisis. She is best friends with Rosa (Alice Englert, daughter of director Jane Campion we learn after the screening), fatherless, superstitiously Catholic and emotionally alienated from her own mother Anushka. We begin to see two opposite philosophical strains: a belief in social justice versus dogmatic belief in religion.

Ginger (whose birth name is “Africa” – a name chosen by her activist father) is ardently political and believes in “direct action”, reads T.S. Eliot, seems uninterested in boys. Rosa believes in God’s will and is nonchalantly unpolitical. She also seems more mature in terms of her interest in the opposite sex.

Potter spoke about Natalie representing her mother’s generation (for whom this film is dedicated) as she stood for a lost generation of women after the war. Unschooled, untrained for anything but marriage and motherhood, Natalie is bitter and angry – she’s lost control of Roland due to his infidelities; she’s losing control of Ginger who becomes progressively more involved in the anti-bomb movement. Hendrick’s beautiful face seems drained and fraught with worry throughout while the handsome Nivola oozes good cheer, charm and health.

Immediately we see that something is askew. Rosa is drawn to Roland who has an eye for pretty young things like his students – likely this is how he became enmeshed with Ginger’s mother Natalie who was a teenager when they met.

When they are caught out at the end Roland delivers what I imagine he thinks is a noble speech about how he has never bowed to the prejudices and narrow-mindedness of other men and has always gone his own way … and we see how blind adherence to one’s individual rights can be as destructive and warp one’s vision of right and wrong as intensely as unswerving adherence to religion or politics.

Sally Potter was there for the Q&A as well as Alessandro Nivola and Annette Benning who has a small role as a sympathetic American activist involved in the anti-bomb movement. Potter was lovely and articulate, speaking movingly about her mother and defending her film against the comment by an audience member that the film was a melodrama. It’s dramatic which is not the same. It’s emotional, less cerebral than the dream-like Orlando (1992) say, but in no way a melodrama. I was surprised at the question, usually TIFF audiences are embarrassingly effusive. In this case, we should have been.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

TIFF 2012: Frances Ha

-->
Les girls, Brooklyn style ...
Frances Ha (U.S., 2012) directed by Noah Baumbach, 2hrs, 
Saturday September 8th, 2012, 12p., Winter Garden Theatre

Co-written by actress Greta Gerwig and director Noah Baumbach - director of The Squid and the Whale (2005), Margot at the Wedding (2007), Greenberg (2010) - this film goes to interesting places - part Woody Allen comedy, part New Wave homage as was duly noted at the screening. 

I liked the energy of the film and its very conscious effort to emulate the French New Wave in the cutting of the scenes – filmed in a richly toned b&w and set in Brooklyn it has rapid, quick cuts featuring scenes that don’t always follow chronologically. They have energy and spirit as if mimicking the intensity of the youth and the activity it depicts. It reminded me of Godard’s Breathless (1959), a film that I just recently re-watched with a new sometimes surprised perspective (gist for another blog I'm afraid).

TIFF's Cameron Bailey described this film as being about two female friends Frances and Sophie (Greta Gerwig and Mickey Sumner) who are part of an “over-educated, underemployed generation more intimate with their friends than their lovers”. That has a sort of resonance for me.

Frances is a struggling dancer in Brooklyn who teaches a little, dances a little and tries to make due in Brooklyn, trying to make her relationship work, trying to pay rent, trying to be a professional dancer. She’s not particularly good at any of those things it seems. But she is good at being Sophie’s friend and roommate with whom she has an oddly intense relationship so when Sophie (Mickey Sumner) wants to move out and move on with her soon to be fiancé Patch, Frances flounders like a left behind lover suffering from unrequited love.

I can’t say that I quite buy into Frances’ obsession - Sophie is a sour-faced, acid tongued and pictured here (but certainly not in person as we could see after the screening) not particularly attractive sidekick to the more ebullient and pretty Frances but Frances can’t seem to let go. Questions posed to Gerwig after the screening shed a bit more light on this … it seems it was more Frances’ youth that she can’t seem to let go of – the college years, the years of having a roommate to share one’s money woes and complain about boyfriends, the nights of staying up late, drinking too much, waiting for the future to happen.

And this leads me to my perennial distress (and critique) about young adults in the 21st c. - this horror of growing up and doing adult things, this unfounded thinking that suggests that being a serious person will make you old or boring or a sell out.

I think the screenwriters are with me on this because even at the presumed nadir of her young life once Frances accepts Sophie’s relationship and her desire to move on, she begins to behave like more of an adult herself. She accepts a low paying job but much needed job with the dance troupe after she is dismissed from the company; she focuses on choreography young students which is her strength; she finds her own apartment instead of cadging off more prosperous friends. She is happier, more satisfied, because she is making her way in the world on her own terms.   

The writing does have a bit of that talky, too cerebral patter going on that sometimes grates (as does the quirkiness of the girls at times). Who talks like that - all witty asides and artsy, intellectual references? Or maybe I just don't run in the right circles? But hot, smart and self-aware (Baumbach) is very appealing ...

Baumbach, Gerwig and Sumner were present after the screening and the best line was the director’s after someone commented that they were dissatisfied with the happy ending – they were anticipating something else. That sent a titter through the audience for anyone who has seen The Squid and the Whale, Margot at the Wedding or Greenberg. To this he wryly commented, “Well, then I recommend anyone of my other films.” And thus ended the Q&A. 
(L-R) Baumbach, Sumner and Gerwig from 
our vantage point (courtesy of Katie Franklin)

Friday, September 7, 2012

TIFF 2012: Io e Te

The fearsome Falco as Olivia 

Io e Te (Me and You) (Italy, 2012) directed by Bernardo Bertolucci, 103 minutes
Friday, September 7th, 9.45p, Scotiabank Theatre 3

This is my first film at TIFF with the lovely Ms. C. We will see about ten films together over the next ten days. So happy to start with the Italian film director Bernardo Bertolucci, a hero of mine.

Last Tango in Paris. The Conformist. The Sheltering Sky. Stealing Beauty … he is a true master. So with reluctance I am somewhat sad to report that Io e Te fails to kindle that sense of intense pleasure or discomfort or unease that Bertolucci’s films often elicit.

Lorenzo (Jacopo Olmo Antinori) is a troubled fourteen year old teenager from an affluent background who seems to have rage issues and a strange fixation on his mother likely because they are often alone together. He appears to both loathe and covet her and that makes for some strange dinner conversations. He is trying to resolve these issues with a therapist paid for at great expense by his frequently absent rich father.

Perversely, rather than go on a ski trip with his school, he decides to hide in the basement of his apartment for a week and pretends to go on the trip. Stocked with food, drink, blankets and his favourite music all appears to go as planned until his half-sister Olivia (Tea Falco) appears searching for a gold bracelet that she can pawn to get more drugs to feed her habit. A heroine addict (probably the most voluptuous and gorgeous addict you might ever see on film), Olivia enters Lorenzo’s sacred space like a hurricane, belittling him, threatening and accusing, and heaping scorn on Lorenzo, who is the son of their father’s second wife whom Olivia once tried to kill buy bashing her over the head with a rock.

The film initially hints at a possible entanglement between son and mother and then brother and sister but that fades away with the calming of the emotional storm within Lorenzo. At the end, we have a sense that Lorenzo has worked something out of his system and Olivia will try and give up drugs. The director even ends on a freeze frame of Lorenzo’s smiling face as if to emphasize the somewhat happy ending.

The acting by all three principals is proficient. Antinori is convincingly alienated and confused – replete with bad skin, tousled mop and a hostile manner. Falco is by turns petulant, rage-filled then penitent and cowed by her attempt to go cold turkey in front of her bewildered half brother. But the ending disappoints. Has Bertolucci gone sentimental in his old age? Now 72 and confined to a wheelchair he is no longer able to travel and was not at the screening although his producer was.

Where is the threat of danger and violence that suffused Tango? The paranoia and tension in Fascist Italy as depicted in The Conformist? Or the beauty of The Sheltering Sky and The Last Emperor? It feels as if Bertolucci’s energy is depleted … the anger and passion flushed away. I felt the same disappointment in seeing Coppola’s last offering, Twixt, at last year’s TIFF. As if he had softened and mellowed. 

This was how Last Tango in Paris was once described:
"Obscene content offensive to public decency... presented with obsessive self-indulgence, catering to the lowest instincts of the libido, dominated by the idea of stirring unchecked appetites for sexual pleasure, permeated by scurrilous language ... accompanied off screen by sounds, sighs and shrieks of climax pleasure." 

It saddens me that old lions don’t leave us with a roar … more like a comforting purr.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

When the Czar Knew


In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin by Erik Larson (Broadway Books, division of Random House Inc., 2011) 448 pages

Before the Russian Revolution when the serfs experienced the terror of Russia's police forces, the people would often exclaim, "If only the Czar knew ..." In Nazi Germany, not only does the Czar (President von Hindenburg) and many of the principals know, including the democratic countries that were soon to be named the Allies and wage a war against the Nazis in WWII, but many were content in the knowledge that Hitler and his men would quash the Communists and other "disruptive" elements in German society. Honorable men and women who opposed the Nazis were quickly silenced and/or destroyed.

William Dodd, Ambassador to Germany in the mid 1930s, was a lonely and largely futile voice in the woods who protested what he saw during his tenure there.

How apt a title for the depiction of this era -"Garden of Beasts". It is a literal translation of the word Tiergarten in central Berlin, an enormous urban park. William Dodd and his family resided along the perimeter of the Tiergarten in the mid 1930s. The title represents the juxtaposition of the beauty and culture of Germany (the image of the cultivated garden) and the horror and monstrosity of the Nazi regime (a menagerie of beasts) with the Dodd family thrust in the midst of it.

William Dodd was asked to serve in Germany in 1933 by Roosevelt in a period where it became increasingly obvious that the country was rearming for war. Jews (and others suspected of hostility towards the Nazis) were being singled out, stripped of their civil rights, beaten in the streets, deprived of their livelihoods, driven out of their professions, and, taken to secret cells to be tortured. Purity laws were being refined and acted upon in some regions. Violence was rampant and despite vociferous disavowals from the German government that these were isolated instances, the violence was spreading.

Germany was on the cusp of tremendous change. Hitler had just been appointed Chancellor. He was seen by some as powerful and charismatic with legitimate grievances against the Jews. Germany had an "image problem" internationally and part of Dodd's responsibility as an Ambassador was controlling the negative impact of this image.

This, initially, was not what most concerned the Americans even when Americans themselves were being beaten as well sometimes just for failing to salute in the Nazi manner in the street. ("Give men a chance to try their schemes." Dodd was told when he protested about the treatment of Jews and Americans in Germany.) The American government was concerned that Dodd do nothing to upset the payment of reparations for the damages of the First World War under the Treaty of Versailles - perceived by some to be excessive and unsustainable. Some fifteen years after the war, the Germans were still expected to pay.

Dodd, a history professor who was once a student in Germany and fluent in the language, had moved to Germany with his wife, son Bill Jr. and daughter Martha. Martha was, shall we say, a ... coquette? Let's use that word rather than a more obvious one. She had relations with a number of Nazi officials. She was not particularly partial to Nazis or their ideology - after all, she also had an intense love affair with Boris Vinogradov, a Communist and diplomatic official representing the newly formed Soviet Union - but initially she was largely indifferent to the violence even that which she had witnessed herself such as the public beating and humiliation of a German woman named Anna Rath (a horrifying incident you made read about here) who was being punished for the unpardonable crime of being engaged to a Jew.

On a more personal level, Martha, at one point, was being urged to throw herself in the path of Hitler as a possible consort by one of her own admirers Ernst Hanfstaengl, nicknamed "Putzi", who was one of Hitler's confidants. She was told, "Hitler needs a woman. Hitler should have an American woman - a lovely woman would change the whole destiny of Europe. Martha, you are the woman!"

The Dodds arriving in Berlin
Martha was "convinced that Hitler was a glamorous and brilliant personality who must have great power and charm.” But she was perhaps not sufficiently enthusiastic to enchant der Fuhrer. The encounter came to nothing.

Dodd, largely liberal, humane and educated, was alarmed by Hitler and his cohorts but disconcertingly anxious to preserve relations between the two countries. When he became aware of these disturbing instances he protested quietly to the appropriate persons. But the casual racism of the diplomatic circles appall. He freely uses the phrase "Jewish problem", citing America's own issue with the "growth" of Jews in powerful positions.

Dodd is not blameless. He spends an inordinate amount of time complaining about bureaucratic waste - for instance the length and cost of telegrams sent by embassy staff rather than being alarmed by more pressing concerns. More disturbing is his concern that the number of Jewish staff at the embassy will distress German officials and his desire to reduce that number. The casual racism of the Dodds often infuriates although is likely very representative of their class and the time.

But, within a year, daughter Martha's own admiration slowly recedes despite her attraction to the handsome, blonde youths of the movement. The Dodds begin to have paranoid sentiments that their home is likely bugged and that they might be being followed and observed. Martha lies in bed dreading the thought and imagining the worst. Politically the winds are shifting ominously with President von Hindenburg's death in 1934 and Hitler's consolidation of absolute power as President.

Eventually Dodd is removed despite (or perhaps because of) his dire warnings. The family does not fare much better in America. Mattie Dodd soon dies after moving back. Bill Jr. ends up working for Federal Express and the senior Bill's health soon falters and he eventually declines. Only Martha appears to land on her feet. Martha's relationship with Boris fizzles when he delays in divorcing his wife and marrying her. Perhaps this is a lucky escape as he as trying to recruit her for the NKVD (precursor of the KGB). But she marries well and lives a long and prosperous life.

If only the fate of the Germans and those persecuted by the Nazis had been as fortunate.