Directed by Martin Koolhoven / Written by Martin Koolhoven, Mieke de Jong and Paul Jan Nelissen / based on a novel by Jan Terlouw
What happens in war that results with
children ending up killing? What is it that makes a person lose his
innocence, even though his original intentions were good? What
happens to humanity in war?
Michiel, a 14-year-old Dutch boy
observes the political motions within and inbetween his adult family
members during the German invasion in the second world war. He is
suddenly drawn into the scheming as he tries to keep a promise he
made to another – not because he has an agenda or understands that
of the other, but because he values the promise he gave.
He ends up finding and deciding to take
care of an injured British soldier hiding in the woods. He
understands that this person too is of value and that his life is
worth saving – albeit he might also be doing this because he also
wants to take part in some action, as school is closed, the Germans
are scary and something needs to be done. He is frustrated with his
father who is forced to please the Nazis, and doing things behind his
back probably serves as an act of rebellion.
As Michiel follows his instinct to do
good and save everyone, he ends up losing his father, horse and most
other family members because of this one British soldier. It's like
the world is punishing him for trying to be humane in the lap of war.
In the end he has a choice over allowing someone who betrayed him to
live – yet he chooses to shoot him down. A child of 14 is shown to
choose revenge when his losses seemed too much to bear.
So I think about the concept of fair
and unfair once again. It is a fact that in the end Michiel had a
choice – allowing a man to walk free or to kill him – and this
choice he made without anyone forcing him. So what could he have done
differently to avoid such a situation to ever take place? Is war a
situation where humanity will always lead to such moments of choice;
does “to respect all life” always mean loss at war?
The law of war is to always consider
your own benefit, and to ensure your losses are at minimum while your
gain is maximised. The concept of war never looks for actual
solutions. So is it any wonder that within these circumstances single
human fates do not find a resolve? When the entire construct around a
situation does not support happy endings, how could there ever be
any?
The ending of the movie shows others
rejoicing and Michiel carrying the burden of his experience alone –
like the responsibility of war lies on the shoulders of one instead
of everyone. It is also reminded that he is still a child and shown
that innocence can be rekindled. I think this is a most important
reminder, especially within the context of war. It is very easy to
drown in one's bitterness about all the abuse, violence and despair
going on on both personal and a global scale, and in this many often
start to believe it is impossible to return to that innocence we were
born with. I do not agree. Beneath all the experiences we accumulate
on top ourselves there still lies that uncorrupted core, although
sometimes it might take an extended hand from another to find one's
way back again. Even then it all comes back to self to be there to
reach out to that aid and pull oneself to the surface once again.
A notion I made: it was refreshing to
see a war movie made from an unpolitical point of view, as the
narrator was a child. A cool way to present the politics as just that
which they are: irrelevant bickering, word play and plotting around
when there's actual life to be concerned of underneath all the
scheming.
