Paper #4

                                                The Counterfeiters Movie Review

Even though disappointed to be tricked into watching this movie because the title, it was actually one of the rare foreign films that can be watched by people all over the world.  The movie is not about a bank robbery or any robbery for that matter, but about the Nazis? Also, on top of all that, it is foreign?  As boring as one might think this movie will turn out to be, it is not.  It is not like the history movies that are being watched in middle or high school, but one heck of a way to show the Nazis’ plan to try and flood England’s economy.  Yes, it had to do with money and not, not entirely at least, the holocaust. This movie asks the questions of whether it is morally wrong to exchange services that help the Nazis in return for a less cruel life or not.  

The Counterfeiters is a 2007 film written and directed by Stefan Ruzowitzky.  It tells the true story of the greatest counterfeiting operation in history, Operation Bernhard.  Operation Bernhard was a secret operation by the Nazis during World War II to try and flood the British and American economies with fake cash.  The film was based on the memoirs of a Jewish concentration camp survivor Adolf Burger.  The Counterfeiters received high praise from film critics, winning an Academy Award for best foreign language film and the 2007 Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. The major theme of the film that will be focused on throughout this review is the notion that the value of Salomon’s labor to the Nazi’s is the sole reason for his survival.

Salomon Sorowitsch, the counterfeiter, is caught by the police and first imprisoned in a hard labor camp and then in a concentration camp near Linz. In an effort to secure himself protection and some comforts at the camp, he turns his forging skills to painting portraits, which then attracts the attention of the guards, who make him paint them and their families in exchange for extra food. 

His talents bring him to wider attention, and he is transferred out of the concentration camp and brought in front of the police officer who arrested him in Berlin.   He finds himself put together with other prisoners with artistic or printing talents, and begins working in a special section of the concentration camp which is devoted to forgery. The counterfeiters are kept in relatively humane conditions, with comfortable bunks, a washroom and adequate food, although they are subjected to brutality and insults at the hands of the prison guards. 

While some of the prisoners are content to work for the Nazis to avoid the extermination camps, others see their efforts as supporting the German war effort.  The reward for their labors is clean bed linen, running water, decent food and, most importantly, the privilege of not being exposed to life "out there". Should they fail in their task, however, the gas chambers await. Sorowitsch tries to blank out the sounds coming from the other side of the wall – the everyday routines of shooting and torture – and most of the time succeeds. "One adapts or dies," he tells a fellow prisoner.  Yet even Sorowitsch cannot remain blind forever to the devil's pact the counterfeiters have entered: he knows by their skills they are helping to prop up the Reich's bankrupt economy and prolong the Nazi war effort. And what if Germany is victorious? It is all too likely that the counterfeiters will be killed like other Jews once their usefulness is at an end.

While watching this movie and writing this paper, the only thing that kept popping in my head is the time the prophets and messengers were sent to their people to preach to them about God and people would not listen.  After a while the people told them that if it is wealth and power that they are seeking then they will give it to them.  Knowing what waited them after their death is a far greater reward than what the leaders of the town are offering, they kept on preaching to believe in God alone and not associate partners with him.

This is what every prophet and messenger was sent with and had to deal with. Yet believing that there is only one God who revealed to them the message, they knew that nothing that the leaders will offer them will change their mind. They were harmed and mistreated throughout the whole time they were preaching and yet they did not stop because they were offered a better life.  That is what I thought about while watching the movie. No matter what the Nazis were offering, is it really worth selling your soul for?

The major objection of the film for me is how the Jewish prisoners were able to feel at peace with themselves for working with the Nazis to help them win the war.  It is understandable as to why they did it, but it still feels like it is the wrong thing to do.  When you see your family and friends being tortured and killed and to go and give your enemy a hand in that torture and killing, metaphorically speaking, is something that I cannot understand.

Knowing that if the Nazis win, they will probably be killed as well, since there is no use for them anymore, and still willing to go through helping them for a little time of comfort is unacceptable.  Being able to be okay hearing others being killed while you believe what you are doing is right is definitely wrong.

Toward the end of the movie Salomon intentionally gambles away all of money and explains to the female that he could always make more money. This scene represents the fictitious nature of money in the most overt sense. Salomon can literally create money through counterfeit, but I cannot help but see a parallel to the invented and socially accepted tale of money.  This takes me back to the first day of class where you mentioned that the money is just paper and has no value, but just the value that we give it. 

He was able to counterfeit money like it had no meaning and that is the value he gave it.  Money to him did not matter because he did never needed to work for it.  He needed to work to make it but did not do the work to deserve it.  This really shows that money at some point can have no value. If a person is no working for the money, then it has no value to him or her because he can always either steal money or make it.

The movie’s theme gives both sides as to whether one would sell his soul to devil or die in order to maintain faithful.  Those who worked with the Nazis for comfort had their reason, which was the comfort they received and not being killed, and those who opposed had theirs, which was to not help the Nazis win the war.  From both point of views, it is an understandable decision by either side.  Stefan Ruzowitzky is an Academy Award-winning Austrian film director and screenwriter.  Adolf Burger is a Jewish Slovak typographer, memoir writer, and Holocaust survivor involved in Operation Bernhard. The film The Counterfeiters, based largely on his memoirs, won the 2007 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film.

Paper #3

The Money Changer and His Wife

                         The Moneychanger and his Wife is a Flemish painting from the early 16^th century, widely used to illustrate economic activity. There are two different versions: one by Quentin Massys, 1514, and another by Marinus van Reymerswaele, 1539. The one that will be used for this writing is the one by Quentin Massys. 

                        The Moneychanger and his Wife depicts a man counting his money (coins) while his wife is looking on.  In this painting, Massys shows rich and reflective colors and light and well-balanced shadowing to model his figures.  He is working the colors and shadows with great dexterity. His figures are individualized in detail; slender and long fingers and noses, wide set eyes, rather youthful faces. The costumes are contemporary and understated and the fabric folds are expertly rendered. While the room and its decorative objects reflect the status of the subjects.  The husband and wife in the painting are showing now emotions whatsoever to what they are doing.  The husband is counting his coins with not expression while the wife is simply observing, with no emotion and no expression, her husband’s activities. Both are dressed neatly and modestly, with no ostentatious flair; other than the use of grey fabric and fur on the husband’s clothes and the red fabric on the wife’s clothes (only wealthy Dutch could afford such colors).  Massys has used light to gently illuminate the daylight scene. No one person or object is under the spotlight.  This painting is considered a commentary on Dutch values and mores as they reflect the secular; in this case, financial means, which often times distracted Christians from their religious duties. Here we see his wife by his side, with an open bible before her, but, she seems more interested in the money counting and changing than in reading and devoting herself to her bible; thusly her religious studies. Massys further represents the North’s apparent departure from extreme piety by including in the background, seen through an door ajar, several people are either in a conversation, maybe making a trade of some sort, or it could be one robbing the other of his or her money. The circular mirror on the money counting table at the bottom of the painting, we can see the tiny figure of a man wearing a turban reading a book while looking out the window. This could show that despite having, what could seem like, a bible in his hands, he is more intrigued by what this world has to offer than what God has to offer.  There are many allusions to the need for piety and religiosity and despite the paintings more secular composition, religious symbols are present all over the painting.

                        During the era in which this painting was made, the Netherlands was considered the Florence of Europe. It had become a major commercial center and was amongst the most advanced and prosperous European countries. It was also close to the center of the Reformation movement. Those Dutch citizens who converted to Protestantism affected the arts resulting in a corresponding decrease in large-scale altarpieces and religious works. Much of the work completed during this era reflected the everyday lives of the various members of society, from the rich to the poor, capturing their daily activities, environments, and values. In the Money Changer, we see a reconciliation of daily life with a hint of religion.

                         This painting is the perfect painting to depict the concerns that is facing money today. In the 1500s, Netherland got greedy and choose money over God.  The same thing is happening now, people are getting greedy and do not care what the outcome will be.  We already saw what happened during the subprime mortgage crisis and that was the outcome of greed.   People are not looking to God for help, but are focusing on making as much money as they could. We see the same thing happen during the National Football League, NFL, lockout where you had two successful and well-paid sides fighting over more money that they cannot really handle. People call themselves believers yet do not believe that God can get them out of any mess or any situation that they can get themselves into; rather they believe that money can solve those problems.  Greed is name of the game in this society and people will never learn from their mistakes.  

Paper #2

According to the survey given, there is some unique information that can be taken from it.  First off, it shows that people are still aware of the faces on the currency they are using. This could also mean that people are using a somewhat large cash amount at once while shopping or getting money from an ATM.  This survey also shows that people are aware that the money they are using is just an illusion or a figment of their imagination.  They are aware that it is just a number that they see while shopping, depositing, or taking out money.  They are also somewhat aware that money will go away; whether it is when they die, when people are talking plastic rather than paper money, or when a new illusion is put in everyone’s head.  The ironic thing is that even though people are aware that money is an illusion, they believe that it will be hard to survive without it.  They know that the value of money is far from our imagination and is a reality.  Whether we want to believe it as an illusion or not, money will have its value until we as a society agree not to look at it that way. From the last two questions, we can see that people are willing to transition from paper money to credit card, but are not willing to change to coins, which has been an issue facing this country for quite some time.   Having a number on our account is worth more to us than the actual paper or coin itself.  We gave money the power that it has and if we decide to, we can take that power away.

My sister in law’s answers:

1.       Whose picture is on a twenty? 


a.       Jackson

2.       Why they ‘believe’ in money? 


a.       I believe money is in some sense an illusion and it will continue to grow as an illusion until cash currency is obsolete. To me, money is a number I see on the computer screen when checking my online or a swipe of a card.  I believe in the aspect of money because that is what we live off.

3.       
Do they imagine a time in which people might not believe in money?

a.       Yes, they will believe in a piece of plastic (credit cards) instead.

4.       Why is money important? 


a.       Money is what American strives off. We eat and live off it and for the truly unfortunate base our life status off of it. Once we understand the aspect of the dollar most spend the rest of our lives trying to obtain.

5.       
Do you prefer plastic (credit cards) or paper (paper money)?

a.       Credit card

6.       
Are you for changing dollar bills to dollar coins?

a.       No, coins are heavy to carry

My sister’s answers:

1.       Whose picture is on a twenty?

a.       Andrew Jackson

2.       Why do they ‘believe’ in money?

a.       I believe money cant get you everywhere in life

3.       Do they imagine a time in which people might not believe in money? 

a.       People will always believe in money until they die

4.       Why is money important?

a.       Money is important because it pays off for my courses, and the books I need it for my courses to acquire knowledge. It also pays off for rent, Internet, and phone bills. Without money you wont have a house, computer, phone, etc.

5.       Do you prefer plastic (credit cards) or paper (paper money)?

a.       I prefer paper money; because I feel with credit you cant control yourself with buying what you want. Whereas with paper money you could keep in a safe, and not take it with you everywhere you go.

6.       Are you for changing dollar bills to dollar coins?

a.       No, I prefer dollar bills, much lighter to carry around

Paper #1

The late 2000s mortgage crises, also known as the subprime mortgage crises, brought the global financial system down.  In September 2009, 14.4% of all outstanding U.S. mortgages were delinquent or in foreclosure.  

The global pool of money, which is sum total of all of the world’s savings, had about roughly $36 trillion by the year 2000 and by 2006, that money increased to $70 trillion.  Since the number of good investment did not have enough time to keep up with the increased savings.  Since the global pool of money could not invest its money in treasury bonds, which how it usually invested its money, due to the low interest rate, they turned to mortgages. 

A system that developed that would start with a person needing mortgage and ending in the global pool of money.  The way it worked was that a person would go to a mortgage broker with all of his or her proper tax documentation and credit checks and take out a mortgage.  The mortgage broker would then sell the mortgage to a bank, which would then sell it to an investment firm on Wall Street, such as Bear Stern. The investment firm, Bear Stern, would then sell the mortgages it received from the bank and sell shares of them to the global pool of money. 

This was great for the global pool of money until the mortgage brokers started running out of people to give a mortgage to.  So mortgage brokers started luring in buyers with poor credit into accepting housing mortgages with little or no down payment and without proper tax documentation and credit checks, due to the amount of commission they were promised.   Since the mortgage brokers were not the ones who were loaning out the money, they did not care as to what type of buyers they were giving housing mortgages to.  These loans, usually adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs), which are a type of mortgage in which the interest rate paid on the outstanding balance varies according to a specific benchmark, were known as subprime mortgages.

                The new homeowners saw a rising value of their previously foreclosed homes during the initial year or so of their mortgages, and frequently took out home equity loans for extra cash.  In addition, banks and financial institutions often repackaged these debts with other high-risk debts and sold them to worldwide investors creating financial instruments called CDOs or collateralized debt obligations. What banks basically did was buy the mortgages and put them in a box.  Now, every month the banks get payments from homeowners.  Then the mortgages are split into three separate stacks, which are safe, okay, and risky.  They then pack the three stacks back in the box and call it CDOs.  A CDO works like three cascading trays; as money comes in, the top tray, safe, gets filled first, then the second try, okay, and finally, the third tray, risky.  The money comes from homeowners who are paying off their mortgages and if some owners do not pay their mortgages or default, less money comes in.  This makes the top tray safer and bottom tray a riskier.  To compensate for the higher risk, the bottom tray receives a higher rate of return, while the top receives a lower rate.  To make the top tray even safer, banks will ensure it for a small fee called a credit default swap (CDS).  Then credit rating agency then rates the top tray with AAA and the okay tray with BBB, but they do not bother rating the risky tray.  The banks would then sell the safe tray to investors, the okay tray to other bankers, and the risky tray to hedge funds and other risk takers. 

                Since mortgage brokers started given out subprime mortgages, more people stopped paying their mortgages.  Now the banks’ monthly payments started turning into houses instead of money.  Now there are many more houses for sale on the market creating more supply then there is demand that housing prices start to plummet.  Now homeowners who are still paying their mortgage find out that the price of their house is plummeting and that their mortgage is worth more than house, they walk away from the house.  Now the bank has all these worthless CDOs and no one wants to buy them. Now everyone is going bankrupt, including the investors, the brokers, and the lenders.

Losses on mortgage-backed securities and other assets purchased with borrowed money have dramatically reduced the capital base of financial institutions, rendering many either insolvent or less capable of lending. Governments have provided funds to banks. Some banks have taken significant steps to acquire additional capital from private sources.

The U.S. government passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA or TARP) during October 2008. This law included $700 billion in funding for the "Troubled Assets Relief Program" (TARP), which was used to lend funds to banks in exchange for dividend-paying preferred stock.