Uncharted Territory


RSS     Archives



予告編の最初に出てくるWe shall go on to the endとか、we shall never surrenderとかいう兵士の言葉を聞いてピンとくる人は歴史に詳しい教養のある方なのでしょう。チャーチルの演説の言葉みたいです。ダンケルク救出作戦後のこの演説は以下のように世界の名演説に選ばれるほどのようです。

世界を動かした21の演説 ― あなたにとって「正しいこと」とは何か

When Napoleon lay at Boulogne for a year with his flat-bottomed boats and his Grand Army, he was told by someone. "There are bitter weeds in England." There are certainly a great many more of them since the British Expeditionary Force returned. I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.

We shall go on to the end,
we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air,
we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

中学生向けの資料なのでしょうか。なんでこんなにwe shall fightを連呼しているのか説明せよというものがありました。

Why does Churchill repeat the phrase “we shall fight” over and over? How does it support the main purpose of this speech?

Actual answers will vary. Example of correct answer:
Churchill uses the repetition of the phrase “we shall fight” to add emphasis and to show conviction. At a dark time of World War II, Churchill must state clearly that the British government is determined to win the war, no matter the cost. By making the commitment to fight in every possible place, he is making it clear that Britain will never surrender.


So drunk. So very, very drunk. What a leader.
I can barely understand what he said
The finest drunk-prime minister of the U.K. 


New Dunkirk film won't feature Churchill so it doesn't get 'bogged down' with politics
•  Hannah Furness, arts correspondent 

7 JULY 2017 • 8:00PM

Writing for the Telegraph's Saturday Magazine, he said he wanted to create “virtual reality without the headset”, bringing the reality of Dunkirk home without touching its politics.

“I knew I didn’t want to make a film that could be dismissed as old-fashioned, something that wasn’t relevant to today’s audiences,” he said.
“What that ruled out for me immediately was getting bogged down in the politics of the situation.
“We don’t have generals in rooms pushing things around on maps. We don’t see Churchill. We barely glimpse the enemy.
“It’s a survival story. I wanted to go through the experience with the characters.”





6年も頑張ったのよ  It’s been six years.
私には才能がない Maybe I’m not good enough.
ある Yes, you are.

あんな音楽が好き? Do you like the music you’re playing?
ジャズをあきらめる I have a steady job. This is what I’m doing.
本当にいいの? Why aren't you starting your club?


Maybe I’m not good enough. -Yes, you are.というさりげないやり取りですが、こういうのに馴染んでおくと否定疑問文とその回答方法もクリアしやすくなりますね。下記が実際の場面でのやり取りです。

EMMA STONE: (As Mia) Because maybe I'm not good enough.
RYAN GOSLING: (As Sebastian) Yes, you are.
STONE: (As Mia) No. No, maybe I'm not.
GOSLING: (As Sebastian) Yes, you are.
STONE: (As Mia) Maybe I'm not.
GOSLING: (As Sebastian) You are.
STONE: (As Mia) Maybe I'm not.
GOSLING: (As Sebastian) You are.
STONE: (As Mia) Maybe I'm one of those people that has always wanted to do it but it's like a pipe dream for me, you know? And then you - you said it. You change your dreams and then you grow up.


あんな音楽が好き? Do you like the music you’re playing?
ジャズをあきらめる I have a steady job. This is what I’m doing.
本当にいいの? Why aren't you starting your club?


Mia: Why aren't you starting your club? 
Sebastian: You said yourself no one wants to go that club. No one wants to go to a club called 'Chicken on a Stick.' 
Mia: So change the name! 
Sebastian: Well, no one likes jazz, not even you! 
Mia: I do like jazz now because of you!







信仰心の薄いYutaのような人間は沈黙に描かれた背教した宣教師を受け入れますが、宗教関係者だとそうはいかない人もいるようです。例えば下記の動画。どうして沈黙はキリスト教の映画ではないのかと説明しています。どんなに苦しむとしても背教はeternal salvationを求めた生き方ではないと戒めるのです。


Christus Apostata: Scorsese’s “Silence”
Brad Miner


Endō was a Catholic convert, and it’s fair to wonder how complete his conversion was. Martin Scorsese is a cradle Catholic who, despite meeting with Pope Francis during promotion of his movie (which premiered on December 23rd), shows no signs of being a faithful Catholic.
Scorsese’s Silence is not a Christian film by a Catholic filmmaker, but a justification of faithlessness: apostasy becomes an act of Christian charity when it saves lives, just as martyrdom becomes almost satanic when it increases persecution. “Christ would have apostatized for the sake of love,” Ferreira tells Rodrigues, and, obviously, Scorsese agrees.


by Bishop Robert BarronDecember 27, 2016

My worry is that all of the stress on complexity and multivalence and ambiguity is in service of the cultural elite today, which is not that different from the Japanese cultural elite depicted in the film. What I mean is that the secular establishment always prefers Christians who are vacillating, unsure, divided, and altogether eager to privatize their religion. And it is all too willing to dismiss passionately religious people as dangerous, violent, and let’s face it, not that bright. Revisit Ferreira’s speech to Rodrigues about the supposedly simplistic Christianity of the Japanese laity if you doubt me on this score. I wonder whether Shusaku Endo (and perhaps Scorsese) was actually inviting us to look away from the priests and toward that wonderful group of courageous, pious, dedicated, long-suffering lay people who kept the Christian faith alive under the most inhospitable conditions imaginable and who, at the decisive moment, witnessed to Christ with their lives. Whereas the specially trained Ferreira and Rodrigues became paid lackeys of a tyrannical government, those simple folk remained a thorn in the side of the tyranny. 

I know, I know, Scorsese shows the corpse of Rodrigues inside his coffin clutching a small crucifix, which proves, I suppose, that the priest remained in some sense Christian. But again, that’s just the kind of Christianity the regnant culture likes: utterly privatized, hidden away, harmless.  So okay, perhaps a half-cheer for Rodrigues, but a full-throated three cheers for the martyrs, crucified by the seaside.


Here's to the fools who dream



This is a film for dreamers. And I think that hope and creativity are two of the most important things in the world. And that's what this movie is about. So to any creative person who has had a door slammed in their face, either metaphorically or physically, or actors who have had their auditions cut off, or waited for a callback that didn't come, or anybody, anywhere really, that feels like giving up sometimes, but finds it in themselves to get up and keep moving forward, I share this with you. Thank you so much for this. Thank you."







How Ray Kroc Became an American Villain
Considered a 20th-century hero by his contemporaries, the story of the McDonald’s mogul gets a 21st-century spin in The Founder.


Simmering grievances against the fast-food industry don’t entirely explain why the story of Ray Kroc merits relevance in 2017. The Founder also bears some strong resemblances to recent industry-themed movies—Steve Jobs, The Social Network—that have not only sought to chronicle the histories of hugely influential companies and gesture at their far-reaching impacts, but also gawk doubtfully at the manias of their creators. As a title, The Founder is a provocation: After all, the McDonald brothers created McDonald’s and, like the Winklevii of an earlier era, their roles have been mostly written out of the history.

Another potential and potent reason for its newsworthiness has to do with an additional theme that connects Kroc to the present day: the arrival of a hectoring, fast-food-loving salesman into the highest seat of power. “However decent the director’s original intentions, The Founder emerges as the first Trumpist film of the new era,” wrote The New Yorker’s Anthony Lane in his review. Another entry from Flavorpill is entitled “I Dare You to Watch ‘The Founder’ Without Thinking About Trump.” That The Founder’s release date switched twice before it was finally slated for wide release on Inauguration Day only fuels this theory.