Mizoguchi was an expert at making use of the abuse of females to make great art (just like Puccini in opera). On a personal level, he was a male chauvinist pig. And his movies can only rarely be even loosely characterized as "feminist".Le Samouraï wrote:Mizoguchi is a feminist
The films Mizoguchi directed can be feminist, in my view, without Mizoguchi himself having been a feminist personally. And, to risk stating the obvious, what was feminist in Japan in Mizoguchi's time is a lot different from what we might consider feminist now. As for which of his films contain feminist elements, this is not cut-and-dried; it's open to interpretation. I'm not even familiar with all of his work, and among those with which I am, quite a few come to mind: Downfall of Osen, Osaka Elegy, Sisters of the Gion, Story of the Last Chrysanthemums, among others from this mid-to-late '30s period; and later Victory of Women, The Love of Sumako the Actress, Women of the Night, My Love Has Been Burning, Life of Oharu, The Woman of Rumor, and Street of Shame. If we're talking about loose characterizations of his films, we could add any of his films with women in central roles along side male leads or women with strong, assertive characters, which wasn't always common in that era. That might appear too loose but it's less so within the context of his body of work, particularly in certain phases. Of course, it's impossible to analyze all these films here, so I'm just trying to establish a different position on the issue, for whatever that's worth.Michael Kerpan wrote:On a personal level, he was a male chauvinist pig. And his movies can only rarely be even loosely characterized as "feminist".
davidhare wrote:Kurosawa is like a flea bite on the nose of Mizo!
Obviously. ;~}Gregory wrote:The films Mizoguchi directed can be feminist, in my view, without Mizoguchi himself having been a feminist personally.
True -- but only to a point. But Mizoguchi was not really a feminist in any meaningful sense. Sure, he often presented females in trouble -- but so did Puccini -- and no one claims Puccini was a feminist. (Very little difference between Madama Butterfly and a typical Mizoguchi film).And, to risk stating the obvious, what was feminist in Japan in Mizoguchi's time is a lot different from what we might consider feminist now.
Very few of these really present independent assertive women. Most of the lead women are knocked about -- and their abuse is intended to evoke pathos -- but there is rarely much political import. And, insofar as women are presented as self-assertive, Mizoguchi typically seems ambiguous (or negative). Viz . Ayako Wakao's greedy character in Street of Shame (which is as close to a politically-charged feminist film as Mizoguchi made).As for which of his films contain feminist elements, this is not cut-and-dried; it's open to interpretation. I'm not even familiar with all of his work, and among those with which I am, quite a few come to mind: Downfall of Osen, Osaka Elegy, Sisters of the Gion, Story of the Last Chrysanthemums, among others from this mid-to-late '30s period; and later Victory of Women, The Love of Sumako the Actress, Women of the Night, My Love Has Been Burning, Life of Oharu, The Woman of Rumor, and Street of Shame.
Women were central characters in virtualy all home dramas. And (somewhat) self-assetive women weren't all that rare either. while Mizoguchi has plenty to offer aesthetically speaking -- he is credited with lots of other things that simply aren't correct. ;~}If we're talking about loose characterizations of his films, we could add any of his films with women in central roles along side male leads or women with strong, assertive characters, which wasn't always common in that era. That might appear too loose but it's less so within the context of his body of work, particularly in certain phases. Of course, it's impossible to analyze all these films here, so I'm just trying to establish a different position on the issue, for whatever that's worth.
I am not a particular fan of either of these other directors. Much too florid and melodramatic for my taste. (Not a criticism -- just a matter of temperament). I prefer the more subdued Japanese sort of melodrama. ;~}ellipsis7 wrote:Michael, would it be correct to say that Naruse is a feminist in the same way say Sirk and Fassbinder could be classed feminists?...
I was saying not that he was a feminist but that the films are feminist texts above and beyond the basic level of Mizoguchi's conscious intentions, thus my earlier distinction. I do think he went through phases of what could be termed feminism (again in the context of the time). His treatment of women in his private life doesn't really change this, because people's contradictions and hypocrisies often don't completely erase their convictions. But again this is different from the point I'm trying to make, which is about the films themselves and not necessarily their director.Michael Kerpan wrote:But Mizoguchi was not really a feminist in any meaningful sense.
I am not much of an opera fan and don't have much of a feel for Puccini, so I can't speak to that comparison, but I would certainly argue that the women in Mizoguchi's films were much more than mere victims or objects of sympathy or pathos -- not to say you were necessarily asserting that Mizoguchi's women are merely (or primarily) this, but it's an all-too-common position. There is a great emotional depth and agency in the female characters of his mid-late 1930s and late 1940s work. To me, what makes a feminist film, however, is not necessarily one with strong-willed, assertive films (though that can certainly be an ingredient) but rather an analysis or exploration of the structures that facilitate oppression of women. I find great political import along these lines, albeit intermittent, throughout these films.Sure, he often presented females in trouble -- but so did Puccini -- and no one claims Puccini was a feminist. (Very little difference between Madama Butterfly and a typical Mizoguchi film). ... Very few of these really present independent assertive women. Most of the lead women are knocked about -- and their abuse is intended to evoke pathos -- but there is rarely much political import.
Because I don't think the assertiveness is the point of the films' feminism, I don't think the strong women usually need to be portrayed in a positive light. An ambiguity maybe, but I don't see a general negativity (though I do need to see some of these again). To respond to the example you gave, though, I definitely did not see Yasumi as simply greedy.And, insofar as women are presented as self-assertive, Mizoguchi typically seems ambiguous (or negative). Viz . Ayako Wakao's greedy character in Street of Shame (which is as close to a politically-charged feminist film as Mizoguchi made).
True, but Mizoguchi's films seemed to often take it to an unprecedented level. Were there lots of other films at the time with characters like Sasae in The Famous Sword Bijomaru?Women were central characters in virtualy all home dramas. And (somewhat) self-assetive women weren't all that rare either.
Political message of "Sansho" -- slavery is a bad thing. Not really very controversial. Again -- political significance has almost nothing to do with aesthetic beauty.Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:I was hoping that there'd be political significance in Sansho! (I guess I'll save that hope for the Melville.) Thanks for the help anyway. Pretty soon my ignorance of Mizoguchi will be dispelled. I still love Kurosawa, though!
Spoken like true gentleman! (I would add that a perfect example of this is The Life of Oharu)Mizoguchi was an expert at making use of the abuse of females to make great art (just like Puccini in opera). ... And his movies can only rarely be even loosely characterized as "feminist".
Naruse's films are feminist.
All this talk of Kurosawa being too Western and people wanting to knock him off his perch etc is one all mighty smokescreen. Judge these two by their films and their films alone!I guess that we really begin to face the problem that the Japanese obviously had with Kurosawa, namely, that he appears too 'western' stylewise. ... perhaps to really appreciate Kuro's greatness, it would be better to compare his work with John Ford rather than with Mizoguchi or Naruse.
A perfect example -- in that Mizoguchi took a literary source that basically found the vicissitudes (and decline) of the heroine funny -- and turned her story into one that evokes sympathy and pity.Don Lope de Aguirre wrote:I would add that a perfect example of this is The Life of Oharu
Being a Criterion laserdisc commentary collector, I too am baffled by this. What's the reasoning, I wonder. Is it the lack of rights, or were they just not good enough? As for the need for any commentary, "great" films like this should have as many as the disc can take, and leave it up to the viewer to decide if they want to listen. I obviously can't get enough of them, when they're well done and informative, of course...Narshty wrote:Interesting (and a shame) that they've junked both the laserdisc commentaries for their Mizoguchi releases so far (Sansho had a track by Thomas Gunning, Ugetsu a group track that included Donald Richie).
Well among the films I was thinking of, Victory of Women and My Love is Burning are the clearest examples, but I do not think it ends with those. I don't expect I'll ever fully understand what would motivate your hasty dismissal of these works, so there is probably not much point in discussing them. Another reason for this is that your choice of words ("one finds," what is or is not "to be found," etc.) seems to communicate that there is one and only one correct way of interpreting these films and that you have exhausted all the important meanings they contain.Michael Kerpan wrote:Contrary to your assertion, I don't think one finds much in the way of "analysis or exploration of the structures that facilitate oppression of women" in Mizoguchi's films -- except in the very politically (and artistically) naive post-war films like "Women of the Night", :"Victory of Women" and "My Love Is Burning".
The great pre-war films "Osaka Elegy" and "Sisters of Gion" both explore oppression of particular females -- but there is very little socio-political insight to be found -- this is all very particularistic. (Mind you -- not a criticism -- just a description).
Both of these points are right on the money. It's a common phenom of a region of international film which up until a decade or so ago was for the most part ignored by the vast bulk of a domestic audience leading to a couple of voices-- i e Don Richie and a few others-- seeing their opinions become bible truths for the mass market which is now discovering the work for the first time. So in the case of Kuro & Ozu, a few English speaking critical icons have the capability of laying down paradigms for the simple reason that their notes hit western culture amidst what was at the time a critical black hole. So it will take a while of generational digestion for us to culturally shit out this idea of Ozu being the most "oriental" or Japanese of directors... whereas the guy's style was entirely unique and iconic and lay at the end of a long road of initially extravagant stylistic developments.GringoTex wrote:Is this really a problem that "the Japanese" had, or have the comments of one or two Japanese critics been attributed to the collective body? I know several Western film critics have made this claim (most influentially, Noel Burch), but I don't know anything about Japanese criticism.
I've also never understood the attribution to Ozu of a Japanese style at the expense of Kurosawa. If Ozu is so "Japanese," then why do no other Japanese films look like his? I see Kurosawa's influence all over Japanese cinema, but to my knowledge, Ozu remains a singular visionary.
Possibly true, but it is worth noting that the father is banished for expressing the idea that everyone has an equal right to justice and happiness, an opinion that would have been incredibly unlikely in feudal Japan but which conformed to the official state ideology in the wake of the American occupation. So it's an attempt to read Japan's new democracy back into the mythical past.it says almost nothing of political significance
This is an aspect of the film that bothers me. The ideal expressed is fine, but (politically speaking) the presentation is primitive and naive. It is very like the lesser films of the latter 40s in this respect. But in terms of visual intelligence and beauty, this stands far above those earlier films -- and the weakness of the "theme" almost doesn't matter..jonah.77 wrote:it is worth noting that Sansho's father is banished for expressing the idea that everyone has an equal right to justice and happiness, an opinion that would have been incredibly unlikely in feudal Japan but which conformed to the official state ideology in the wake of the American occupation. So it's an attempt to read Japan's new democracy back into the mythical past. (I don't recall this aspect of the story being present in any of the earlier literary versions.)
Here I simply have to differ. As far as I can see, 95+ % of what matters in late Mizoguchi is "beauty" (it may be "terrible" beauty, but still....). And I think this is true even in the anguish-inducing final sequence of "Street of Shame".Mizoguchi is definitely attracted to suffering but I'm sure that what he finds there--in the famous final shot of this film, for instance--can be reduced to a concept of "beauty." The endings of this film and of "Ugetsu" seem too agonized for that.
