A Blog on Hunt for Justice
“While civilization was firmly tied to the West, Eastern Europe shifted to an imaginary location somewhere in between civilization and barbarism.” Anikó Imre.
The Europe in Eastern Europe should not fool us. It is still “the other” to Europe, Western Europe, says Aniko Imre. Here, in the tragic story of Yugoslavia, we exactly see this. The movie Hunt for Justice is the story of Canadian prosecutor Lousie Arbour who overcame the impossibility of intertwined relations within UN and between the UN and NATO which made UN reluctant to intervene in the war in Milosevic’s Yugoslavia. The main fear to start arresting war criminals was the possibility of Serbia to start the war again, with the help of Russia -called “big brother” of Serbia by the French general in the movie. He actually becomes almost a spokesperson for the UN and says “...peace here and that is our priority. Putting a few men in jail won’t bring back their dead but it might bring back some war. It’s too risky.” Throughout the movie we see how “liberal, Anglo-saxon+French nature of Canada” can bring justice and overcome the tangled “old world politics” of Europe.
It is not the opening scene but the plot of the movie starts with a scene where two UN officers discuss the appointment of Louise Arbour and one of them, Keller is not happy about it because he thinks an academic can not handle a real tribunal, especially as such, since it requires more experience to understand UN politics. However, later, when Arbour achieved the first criminals got arrested, he actually came and apologized for doubting her. This was made happen with her idea on closing other cases and focusing only three most documented events, the massacre in Bosnia, Dubredova prison camps and hospital massacre in Croatia, of course with the considerable help of British captain John Tenner. This is an important point to touch upon for two reasons. First, she received help two times and both came from British army, namely the captain and the general, when the French general continuously tried to make her step back. We know that France always wanted Yugoslavia in one piece and this joke-like behavioral distinction between three top generals of the UN army in this war zone simply exemplifies it. The motivation behind Brits looks like they are in the favor of justice -although Britain’s attitude was very much parallel with France. Captain Tenner is very sensitive about the distinction between a criminal and a soldier as we see how much it annoys him to see letting pass the group of suspected and unrespectful young men. After the suicide and dead of two “criminals” before the end of their trials, Arbour got stucked into almost a hopeless situation but the discovery of another mass grave in Kosovo and the delivery of “all British intelegence on Yugoslavia” brought the beginning of the “happy” end, the trial of the Milošević. For sure, these would not be possible if Arbour was any less determinant.
The French title of the movie is “Louise Arbour : combat pour la justice” and it is fair enough when we think that movie was made by Canadian tv. The narrative of the movie goes around her and this is actually unpleasant at first glance because it makes you think that there is something wrong. I believe any audience would expect to see the people of ex-Yugoslavia and what happened there more centrally placed. However, I found this choice reasonable because it literally made the movie easier to watch for the general public. On the other hand, the role given to the second most important character of the movie, Pasha Odzak tries to balance this emphasis. He makes the necessary connection with the humanitarian, individual experience - with what actually happened. The movie actually starts with his dream and ends with his visit to Arbour. We only see little glimpses of “what-would-have-been-the-Yugoslavian-experience” and more relatable dynamics of ethnic conflict through his presence. The scene where he is the translator, the arrested, Serbian ex-mayor asks his name in order to detect his “ethnicity.” I find it as the most striking truth about this geography that in order to know the ethnicity, people actually do have to ask their names, basically a determinant of their religio-cultural heritage. This is the perfect summary of centuries old but still irrational hatred which is beyond being only the ethnic conflict.
I think it is a successful movie because despite its heavy political content, it does not leave you with a bold claim and that is why it is not easy to determine its aim. -If this is what is actually aimed. I feel like to say “you can achieve as long as you try hard” would be naive in this example even though there is obviously a touch of self-marketing on behalf of Canada. If Arbour is the personification of Canada, her success story can legitimately be Canada’s too. What I can come up with is the sense of a crush between old and new worlds, the change in mentalité. As a key character, Tenner’s multinationality is also highlighted and as a half American and half English, he serves in the British army. It is remarkable how Pasho corrects the ex-mayor when he refers to Arbour as American while he was being insulted by the ex-mayor. Hunt for Justice addresses -it looks like it tries to address- the change in the thought of nationality from the age of nation state to the age of “liberal” state by representing coexistence as what is aimed.
PS: Ridiculously, the second most important character of the movie, Pasha Odzak was not given place on the movie poster. Instead, we see the UN generals who did almost nothing both in movie and history.
PS2: It is such a cinematographically poor movie.
1.) Anikó Imre, “The Socialist Historical Film,” in Postcolonial Cinema Studies
2.) Charles Binamé, Hunt for Justice (2005, Canada: Galafilm Productions Inc., Tatfilm)
