Kenji Mizoguchi

[mikeohhh]

Those are the same seven we got in DC. Did any other cities get different films? I'm wondering what happened to former CC laserdisc Osaka Elegy.

[TheRanchHand]

I haven't seen several of these so will be there for a few showings. They are having a great western fest right now but missed Junior Bonner

[ltfontaine]

The print of Osaka Elegy used for the LD is pretty ragged! The movie is great and essential Mizo but I certainly saw a far better 35mm print of it back in the 80s.

The ten-year-old VHS edition, on Home Vision, is likewise dark and murky, almost unwatchable. Let's hope that better print still exists somewhere.

[Michael Kerpan]

Some prior discussions start around here.

While I think Sansho is a "must see", I think HerrSchreck is rather overselling it. It is NOT a sacred text, just a fine film. It is not perfect -- at least one major role is rather poorly handled -- but is wonderful despite this.

Mizoguchi, whatever his virtues, was not a modernist -- in technique or in themes (except, perhaps, for a short period in the 1920s). And whatever his genius as a film maker, Mizoguchi is not prospect for canonization because -- as a human being -- he was rather rotten in many respects.

Mike, I can see that your rebound ponged out a clip of replies, and before I get to those (I haven't been on here since I posted what prompted your above response), lemme just keep a grip here on what it is you're getting at and what it was I was getting at.

I think the force of your belief in your reply-- "what up with the singsong rhapsody viz schreck on this film which though fine is flawed etc?"-- sorta clouded your comprehension of what it was I was trying to say on at least one count.

I said Mizo employed modern techniques-- not that he was a "Modernist" complete with quotation marks and capital M. I meant that he employed the most up to date techniques in the service of producing art of a very timeless and ancient style. The opposite would be to take the blocks of a Giza pyramid to contruct a totally modern home. Mizo's films were lushly produced, beautifully photographed, studio-bound, extras-stuffed products of a filmic golden age, using all the resources available at the time, to produce a timeless string of virtual ancient Buddhist wisdom tales of deepest sincerity and antique beauty. This is such an old-hat take on Mizo (though with my usual verbal puffery) that I can't see how this could possibly be construed as "Schreck thinks Mizo is a modernist gulp wow".

I'm perfectly entitled to see Mizo's art in general as approaching sacred. It gets in there and ricochets around with my emotional DNA and echoes in my head all the livelong day-- and I cannot possibly be wrong, Mike, because I'm simply talking about me.

Now there's one thing that you said which I personally see as a huge flaw in your outlook and have to respond to, since it's one of those things that sets me off on the tracts that I'm perhaps notorious for: your critique of my love for Mizoguchi's art because you find the man personally reprehensible because he was a creep in his personal life.

First of all, take half of what you think you know not only about Mizo but every other artist and filmmaker and throw it out, because it's just fucking gossip. You didn't know him, I didn't know him, he operated in a business that is full of salacious gossip, warring egos, and survival desperation-- the flood of folks who get in front of a camera for an interview and invent, embellish, etch in stone forever what may have been true for just one moment in one time and one place, etc.. thereby embodying as a lifelong attribute some transitory response, loss of temper, etc.

But even that's not the point. The point is I don't care about what a prick the man may or may not have been. Fritz Lang was a notorious fucking prick. At his best Bill Freidkin was a raging total asshole. Erich von Stroheim's self indulgence and blindness to his appearance to others in the big picture was breathtakingly idiotic. Josef von Sternberg, Carl Dreyer on JOAN, Robert Bresson... men who earned such hatred from their own employees that ideas of murder crept into the terrain-- people hated these directors that much. Fritz Lang was apparently so loathed on his first American picture FURY by all (Spence not least of them) that a "crane accident" was seriously in the works. Or so the legend goes.

Look at the SCARLET EMPRESS or DEVIL IS A WOMAN, or UGETSU, or the epics of Stroheim or Lang... you see men who have an ongoing connection to infinite timeless beauty and muscular artistic power, and they know that they know how to get that on screen and completely floor artists everywhere... but they know that they are spending other peoples money and if they fail they will not even have a so-so picture in the end: they'll look like complete imbeciles in the end... they have got to find a way to get the mundane, the brainless and the ordinary, who do not see what they see, who cannot possibly be made to understand what the end product is going to be, actors & crew who start whispering campaigns-- a gent like Mizo has got to find a way to transform all these folks into something they generally are not in their personal life or in the vast majority of the other films they make: manufacturers of the sublime.

If Mizo was stabbed in the back by a whore, or he was a creep to the chicks in his life, I could care fucking less-- I'm innarested in his films, not his personal life, which I assume I know nothing about, regrdless of the (very limited) information out there about him and what it says. Oftentimes it's the rottenest souls who produce the most sublime art. Creeps often have the heaviest loads to spool out. I speak with a wink and say I wanta canonize Mizo because the man was so meticulous, so deeply soulful in his work, he exhibited such care and attention to the best of his works that it makes me love him for it. There are so very very very few individuals like that in any age, Mike, that you've got to appreciate them in whatever form they come, baggage and all. There is all this richness and pictorial/compositional/musical depth, such flawlessness in miraculously long takes that their length becomes nearly invisible, such heavy expression of genuine Buddhist wisdom and understanding-- that's the Mizoguchi I see in SANSHO, despite the screechy performance by the elder version of Zushio (who I assume you mean as the flawed performance) and the meanness of the man in getting his results. You see the screechy boy and a mean director.

I find it strange that I guy like you Mike would let a delirious singsong love from one person honked into the sky about a filmmaker get you riled. Being the aggressive shooter-downer of another person's love is rumpled fuckin attribute, Mike. We all sit still for the ongoing outpouring of your general love affair with Japanese films, many of which are extrapolated at length here simply because they're 1) unsubbed, and 2) they're so obscure that with the exception of Stephen, you're probably the only guy around here who's seen them... many of which, let's face it, are run of the mill domestic melodramas or formulaic genre pieces ground out at a quick clip by Ozu & Naruse, etc, and are only of moderate historical interest owing to the name of their creators. Far be it from me to call out your name to hose down one of your posts owing to "invalid excess love".

I don't think this nasty diatribe (totally misconstruing what I actually wrote) is worthy of a point-by-point response. It is mostly a string of vicious insults.

One comment. In all your ecstasy-induced lashing out, you seem to have ignored the fact that I find Mizoguchi a fascinating director -- so much so that I have sought out virtually everything he made that survives. You also seem to have ignored the fact that none of my (rather mild) criticism of Sansho had anything to do with my opinion of "Mizoguchi the man".

No director is beyond criticism -- even my beloved Ozu and Naruse. But your dismissal of much of their work as "formulaic genre pieces" shows you are as lacking in perspective as to their work as you are as to Mizoguchi's.

Be an over-the-top fanboy all you want -- but until you are made dictator of this forum, I don't see you have any right to foreclose discussion on any director or film -- or to insult people who wish to carry on discussions.

[HerrSchreck]

I don't see how your reply finds a more appropriate home here. You didn't talk about Mizoguchi in either the big picture or viz one specific work. It's a pure naked attack on me personally and belongs in another place.

I put the time into my reply Mike because I happen to truly respect you and you puzzled me with your shootdown. I talked about Mizoguchi, clarified my use of the word modern (versus your critique of my assertion), clarified my love for the film (versus your critique of my love for the film), clarified my love for the man himself (versus your critique of my love for the man.

You said:

I don't think this nasty diatribe (totally misconstruing what I actually wrote) is worthy of a reasoned response. It is mostly a string of vicious insults..

I may have explained myself a lot, but I don't think it was nasty, and it certainly was not a string of vicious insults. I stuck to the topics that you raised and explained myself fully out of respect for you. What was vicious about it (aside from the use of "rumpled fuckin attribute", maybe a bit Bronxish... but is "rumpled" really all that vicious?)??

No director is beyond criticism -- even my beloved Ozu and Naruse.

When did I say any was?

But your dismissal of most of their work as "formulaic genre pieces" shows you are as lacking in perspective as to their work as you are as to Mizoguchi's.

I never dismissed "most of their work" as formulaic. I said many of the films of theirs that YOU rhapsodize daily over are genre pieces or domestic melodramas ground out at a quick clip. These are men who made dozens & dozens & dozens of films. The subject at hand is neither a Directorial Perspective Competition, or who has a more complete picture of the golden era in Japan (which you'd win without question); the subject is that to me, your personal loves and obsessions go should go uncontested because you're entitled to love and obsess over every single Japanese film ever made if that's your desire. As I should be able to fall all over myself over Sansho or the person of Mizoguchi without having you "correct me" about what you see as my erroneous or excessive love. Definitely, if you step forward to call attention to me, then certainly you'd expect me to be entitled to explain myself, and certainly, if I desire, to call attention to the non-masterpieces you go gaga for daily on this and other pages every day of the year for years.

Be an over-the-top fanboy all you want --

again with the lack of respect for my tastes... this from one of the most excessive and wellknown completists on the globe..

but until you are made dictator of this forum, I don't see you have any right to foreclose discussion on any director or film

When in gods name did I try to do anything but sustain a positive discussion about Mizoguchi??

-- or to insult people who wish to carry on discussions.

I'll grant you that my lingo may be a little overcolored, but I never addressed you in the tones that you're addressing me Mike, nor was I anywhere near as directly nasty, rude, or totally insulting. You opened a line of discusssion with me on a couple of subjects, I answered them thoroughly and with sincerity because of quite a bit of respect I always had for you, and now that you can't finish what you started, you're tumbling into a meltdown. You've lost the respect I once had for you, and I daresay, probably a bunch others.

[Michael Kerpan]

All I said -- to provoke your fury -- was that you were overselling Sansho just a bit -- and that Mizoguchi was not a candidate for canonization. If one can't say something as mild as that -- then I would submit that you feel no discussion whatsoever is allowed -- only a general unrestrained love fest.

I made no "attack" on you -- until you attacked me. You came out slugging -- and I see no reason to put up with this kind of rubbish. It may have seemed like a mild attack to you -- but that is not how it felt to me. And I think you totally misrepresented what I said -- others can judge for themselves by reading what was written (if they want to waste their time)..

You have a right to rhapsodize over Mizoguchi -- but I also have a right to think that such profuse praise can actually cause people to have unrealistic expectations -- and to harm appreciation. People see a darn good film -- and say "but it wasn't THAT special" -- and brush it off. (I spend lots of time reminding people that "Tokyo Story" -- MY favorite film --is, after all "just a movie").

If the general feeling here is that I am wasting everyone's time by posting about obscure, unsubbed, humdrum films, I will stop doing so. But I have always felt that at least one or two people might actually be interested in the cinematic fruit lying outside their current grasp.

As to "modern" vs. "modernism" in Mizoguchi -- I have seen modernism attributed to Mizoguchi a number of times in the past -- thus my reading of your remark. My response was NOT a criticism of you -- but a lead in to a warning that people to be prepared for Mizoguchi's very considerable "old-fashioned-ness" (NOT a characteristic I consider a flaw -- simply an objective description). I was trying to help ensure that people's enjoyment NOT be diminished by expecting something they weren't going to be getting.

You don't seem to realize -- I WANT people to enjoy "Sansho". Not everyone who watches this film for the first time is going to have your sort of response. I want people to realize that there is very significant value to be found -- even if one doesn't feel an extreme emotional response.

[Michael Kerpan]

As I said above, what I want Mizoguchi newcomers to realize is that there is more than one way to respond to (and appreciate -- and even love) Mizoguchi's films. One needn't feel deficient somehow, simply because one enjoys the film a lot but is not moved to rhapsodies. This does NOT mean that I think one has no right to rhapsodize.

I referred to HerrSchreck simply because he was the one who happened to be voicing a certain sort of response here. But I have seen the same sort of thing written all over the place. And I see this sort of rhetoric as placing a rather high bar for (at least some) first time viewers,

The one substantive problem I have with "over-reaction" to Mizoguchi is that it has so long been associated with a tendency to deprecate (or in some cases) even demean his perceived "competition" (whether Ozu or -- even more -- Kurosawa). When Mizoguchism rises to that level, I fee a strong urge to fight back. (NOT attributing any such overall tendency to HerrSchreck).

[Michael]

I admit to preferring Mizo entirely over Ozu (with perhaps one exception) or Naruse, perhaps for the reason I've seen more of him (although Ive seen and own a lot of Ozu).

David, which Ozu exception? I definitely prefer Mizoguchi over Ozu even though I love Tokyo Story, Late Spring and Early Summer. All profoundly moving but not as moving as Ugetsu and Sansho in my opinion. I really can't wait to see Oharu. I find Mizoguchi films, flaws and all, completely successful on repeated viewings more than Ozu. I tried watching Floating Weeds (third viewing) the other night but gave up halfway through. There is something about Mizoguchi that cut right through to the very core of my soul and release it. A very spiritual journey every time.

But he always moves me more (and Im reminded of two felicitous appreciations of him which are more than fulsome - Robin Wood's superb essay on Ugetsu in Personal Views which is one of the most exemplary and deepest felt pieces of film writing Ive ever read; and David Thompson of all people who nails his mise en scene perfectly as one which physically and visually illustrates profound emotions intelligently through the camera.

Where can I locate those essays?

[Michael Kerpan]

I find Mizoguchi films, flaws and all, completely successful on repeated viewings more than Ozu. I tried watching Floating Weeds (third viewing) the other night but gave up halfway through. There is something about Mizoguchi that cut right through to the very core of my soul and release it. A very spiritual journey every time.

I suspect it's all a matter of basic disposition and aesthetic sensibilities.

I find all the better Ozu and Naruse films almost infinitely re-watchable -- while I feel that way about only a few Mizoguchi films. Perhaps I am allergic to spirituality in film -- as I much prefer Mizoguchi's NON-spiritual work,

[Steven H]

We all sit still for the ongoing outpouring of your general love affair with Japanese films, many of which are extrapolated at length here simply because they're 1) unsubbed, and 2) they're so obscure that with the exception of Stephen, you're probably the only guy around here who's seen them... many of which, let's face it, are run of the mill domestic melodramas or formulaic genre pieces ground out at a quick clip by Ozu & Naruse, etc, and are only of moderate historical interest owing to the name of their creators. Far be it from me to call out your name to hose down one of your posts owing to "invalid excess love".

Actually, I've been so busy with work lately I've been falling asleep before I hit the bed, nevertheless watching obscure, run of the mill, domestic melodramas (invalid or not). I'm sure both of your hearts are in the right place. Dove, olive branch, etc.

What I really want is a discussion of whether or not Mizoguchi was "modern". That seems really interesting to me, especially after reading some of Catherine Russell's very interesting takes on modernity in early Japanese films (the films themselves being a representation and engine of modernity). You have Ozu and Naruse (as early as 1935) showing women in suits, choosing their own suitors, showing varying personalities, whereas Mizoguchi seems drenched in Meiji shimpa style melodrama, even when discussing prostitutes in a contemporary setting. He seems far more interested in society treating women better (paternal, conservative), than women demanding better treatment (suffrage, progressive).

In his formal style, it's a little harder to ascribe. I don't believe modernity can be discounted or ascribed in Mizoguchi since film was a modern invention to begin with, which makes it a moot point. If you say that Mizoguchi is modern, as in "modern art", or an "emphasis on representing emotions, themes, and various abstractions" (as wikipedia defines it), then I would say he definitely *was* modern, though he probably wouldn't say it himself. A person who lived in the past while being ahead of his time, maybe (what other directors can we say this about?).

[ltfontaine]

If a viewer prefers one film to another, or the work of one director to that of another, this forum would ideally accommodate expression of such preference, and even strongly worded disagreement about it from others, without personal rancor ever entering into the exchange. There are few places on the web hosting the substantive, productive discussions that sometimes surface here, and it's discouraging when inevitable disagreement is either mistaken for, or devolves into, disparagement. I would regret it if Michael stopped posting about unsubbed Asian films just as much as if HerrSchreck ever clammed up about silents.

That said, the older I get, the more convinced I am that that invidious comparisons among artists of a certain rarified status are of no use whatsoever, other than to air one's personal tastes. By what objective criteria can one weigh the value of Tokyo Story against that of Story of the Late Chrysanthemums? And more to the point, what is to be gained by doing so?

[the dancing kid]

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Katie's writing, but I think she tends to flatten out modernity theory in her recent writings on Naruse. She seems interested exclusively in social modernity, which is fine for her project, but I think the disparity between technological modernization and social modernity in wartime and early postwar Japan is worth considering. Yoshimoto's essay on postwar melodrama has a lot to say about this (it appears in the 'Melodrama and Asian Cinema' book).

As far as Mizoguchi goes, I think we can actually see something that is both modern and spiritual/sacred. Darrell William Davis' book 'Picturing Japanesesness' touches on this notion, and is well worth reading despite the title, which suggest an essentialist study (far from it). Davis' interest in Mizoguchi is that his films cultivate a sense of worship towards Japanese culture and history through creating a "monumental style" that tries to blend traditional Japanese aesthetics with the modern invention of the cinema. We can see this in things like the shot-sequence and his use of sound, which use the technology of cinema to produce narratives that essentially condemn modernity. Mizoguchi is often quoted as saying he developed this style from Japanese picture scrolls, but that was really a response to wartime nationalism; he had earlier claimed he got the idea from an Austrian filmmaker, whose name I unfortnately can't remember right now. To be honest, I'm not sure how inclined I am to believe either story.

I think the point that I'm trying to get to is that Mizoguchi's filmmaking can be seen to embodying the disjunction between the novelty of cinema as a device of modernization and the social modernity that normally accompanies it. We can see this in many other wartime films, which are perhaps more aggressive in trying to substitute technological modernization for social modernity, but I think Mizoguchi really captures the cognitive dissonance of wartime culture in a unique way. I'm hesitant to say how much of what goes into his films is him asserting himself as the author and how much of it is just him playing along with film policy and social trends, but I think starting with the sound period his films get really contradictory in terms of representing modernity through modern technology.

[Michael Kerpan]

Ironically, I had already stopped posting here about most of the Asian (subbed or unsubbed) films that I watch.

I would never contend that one can weigh the comparative worth of Tokyo Story and Story of Late Chrysanthemums. Both are incomparably and uniquely valuable.

What I would like to know more about -- in terms of Mizoguchi's influences -- is just how extensive was his knowledge of western opera. I have read things that indicate he was indeed interested in opera -- and liked it. And I know that European opera had made its way to Japan by the 30s (if not earlier). Indeed, Shimazu's 1937 Lights of Asakusa even depicted a Japanese troupe performing western opera. However, as of yet, I haven't run across much in the way of specifics. Still, I think one can see (or imagine) as much operatic influence as influence of ancient scroll painting. Story of Late Chrysanthemums is especially pertinent in this respect -- as there are elements that are very reminiscent of Italian opera (especially the ending -- which evokes the ending of Verdi's La traviata.

[Steven H]

Yoshimoto's essay on postwar melodrama has a lot to say about this (it appears in the 'Melodrama and Asian Cinema' book).

I had a difficult time following most of that article, so I'll go back and reread it. What Yoshimoto was saying, basically I believe, is that modernity the way most of the world understands it (as a colonial force) didn't take hold in the way Japanese and the rest of the world believe. But that seems to be taking for granted there's an essential difference between west and non-west countries that I'm not sure really exists (if you looked, you can find powerful remnants of every pre-modern culture within the modern culture). I think modernity to have a thousand faces, from specialization to globalization, and situating it into a certain mold (especially in regard to colonialism, which seems to disregard how the colonial powers modernized themselves) contorts it. Russell does this as well, but I find her writing on the subject enlightening rather than confusing, as I found some of Yoshimoto's (this surely owes to my own defects in judgement.)

I think the point that I'm trying to get to is that Mizoguchi's filmmaking can be seen to embodying the disjunction between the novelty of cinema as a device of modernization and the social modernity that normally accompanies it. We can see this in many other wartime films, which are perhaps more aggressive in trying to substitute technological modernization for social modernity, but I think Mizoguchi really captures the cognitive dissonance of wartime culture in a unique way. I'm hesitant to say how much of what goes into his films is him asserting himself as the author and how much of it is just him playing along with film policy and social trends, but I think starting with the sound period his films get really contradictory in terms of representing modernity through modern technology.

But if you understand modern warfare as a major part of social modernization, then he falls right into play. I would agree that his films are contradictory, but I still see them as a player within modernity (perhaps struggling against it) not outside of it. When all is said and done, I am very fond of Mizoguchi, but find myself more drawn to directors, imperfect by all menas, struggling for modernity instead of against it (Oshima, Okamoto, Ichikawa, Hani, Kobayashi) or those at least accepting of it (Ozu, Naruse, Kurosawa.)

[the dancing kid]

I had a difficult time following most of that article, so I'll go back and reread it.

You're right, it is an incredibly difficult essay. I think I've read it so many times that I've come to know my interpretation of it more than what he actually wrote. I tend to ignore what he says about postmodernism (which seems to literally mean "after modernism") and boil down his colonialist argument to Japan substituting technological modernization for the experience of modernity, which I'm sure he wouldn't approve of. Still, I think that's more interesting (and perhaps more accurate) than what he actually says. But his long-standing project seems to be to remove Japanese film studies from the discourse of ethnographic subject (the west) looking down at the ethnographic object (Japan), which I think is valid, and presented far more clearly in his book on Kurosawa.

But if you understand modern warfare as a major part of social modernization, then he falls right into play. I would agree that his films are contradictory, but I still see them as a player within modernity (perhaps struggling against it) not outside of it.

I definitely agree that Mizoguchi is still involved in that discourse. I think one of the ideological projects of wartime cinema in Japan was to create an alternative form of modernity, so at the very least there's always a dialectical relationship between what they were doing (repression of the subject) and what we typically think of as western modernity (emergence of the modern subject).

[Michael]

I find all the better Ozu and Naruse films almost infinitely re-watchable -- while I feel that way about only a few Mizoguchi films. Perhaps I am allergic to spirituality in film -- as I much prefer Mizoguchi's NON-spiritual work,

Oh yes Tokyo Story, Early Summer and Late Spring are rewatchable. Those three I love to watch at least once every year but I can't say the same for the rest of Ozu. Naruse is the director waiting for me to discover.

I was sort of uncomfortable writing the word "spiritual" but I can't think of the perfect word. It means differently to each person. Tokyo Story can be seen as being spiritual.. it's the story about understanding, forgiving and healing. In fact the first thing I did after seeing the film was calling my mom. Three years prior, mom and I had a very ugly fight that unfortunately caused me to make the most selfish decision by not speaking to her again. What she said to me was horrible and almost impossible for me to forgive but the parent and children relationships beautifully rendered in Tokyo Story moved me so much that I dialed mom's phone numbers the morning after. And wept and wept for days. Ozu films are universal as much as Mizoguchi. I just think Mizoguchi's style is a bit more flourishing and carries this "overwhelming classic" feeling to it and that doesn't mean he's the better director. Just different but just as universal and powerful and timeless.

[Michael Kerpan]

Tokyo Story is also one of the most important films I've ever experienced -- in terms of causing me to see family matters in a radically different way. But for all that, I'm not certain that I'd describe the impact as "spiritual" (at least not in my case).

I would agree that the three Ozu films you mention are the three most re-watchable for me as well. Though a number of others follow close behind.

I think Mizoguchi's style is more "histrionic" than Ozu's (using "histrionic" purely descriptively). Ironically, prior to my discovery of Ozu, I was much more dedicated to opera (and more appreciative of this sort of style). However, as it turned out, I first encountered Mizoguchi only after my discovery of Ozu has already overturned my long-term aesthetic priorities. ;~}

[ltfontaine]

But his long-standing project seems to be to remove Japanese film studies from the discourse of ethnographic subject (the west) looking down at the ethnographic object (Japan), which I think is valid, and presented far more clearly in his book on Kurosawa.

Based solely on my reading of Yoshimoto's excellent Kurosawa book, I would agree that he intends to reclaim interpretation of the Japanese cinema for Japanese commentators, a most welcome effort. In that book, Yoshimoto is especially critical of dominant analytical models that construe Japanese modernism (and by extension, cinema) as an inverted reflection of that in the West, and do so without ever acknowledging that Japan contains multiple dimensions of modernism shaped by history, geography, culture, international relations and other indigenous factors. Yoshimoto states his orientation according to the question, “How does a person coming from the Japanese tradition see a Japanese film for what it is?â€

[Steven H]

But his long-standing project seems to be to remove Japanese film studies from the discourse of ethnographic subject (the west) looking down at the ethnographic object (Japan), which I think is valid, and presented far more clearly in his book on Kurosawa.

I can certainly agree with that. His book on Kurosawa is extremely enlightening, though I've only read it sporadically (after watching specific films).

But if you understand modern warfare as a major part of social modernization, then he falls right into play. I would agree that his films are contradictory, but I still see them as a player within modernity (perhaps struggling against it) not outside of it.

I definitely agree that Mizoguchi is still involved in that discourse. I think one of the ideological projects of wartime cinema in Japan was to create an alternative form of modernity, so at the very least there's always a dialectical relationship between what they were doing (repression of the subject) and what we typically think of as western modernity (emergence of the modern subject).

This reminds me of the chapters on wartime film contained in both Isolde Standish's books. Very interesting time period, but an attempt to control modernity (the non-colonial sort) is still an advancing modernity. I think every government at that point was trying very hard to control social discourse in as many ways possible, to retain power (which the horizontal rather than vertical modern world would siphon.) Maybe Japan stands out the most because of their spectacular loss (in almost every way, after WWII) and then equally spectacular rejuvenation, economically. That neo-confucian ideals survived isn't odd, and I'm actually surprised those thoughts didn't become more entrenched. The power of modern propaganda is intensely powerful, but it's still modern.

[ltfontaine]

I think every government at that point was trying very hard to control social discourse in as many ways possible, to retain power (which the horizontal rather than vertical modern world would siphon.) Maybe Japan stands out the most because of their spectacular loss (in almost every way, after WWII) and then equally spectacular rejuvenation, economically. That neo-confucian ideals survived isn't odd, and I'm actually surprised those thoughts didn't become more entrenched. The power of modern propaganda is intensely powerful, but it's still modern.

Yoshimoto, in the Kurosawa book, proposes that modernization theory, as fashioned by Cold War Westerners intent on fast-tracking post-war Japan into the capitalist mainstream, found the Japanese system of traditional values a convenient means of accounting for, codifying and conflating a vast array of Japanese social, economic and political problems. He suggests that, as a result, Westerners have overestimated what he calls “the ideal of a Japanese consensus society.â€

[the dancing kid]

Based solely on my reading of Yoshimoto's excellent Kurosawa book, I would agree that he intends to reclaim interpretation of the Japanese cinema for Japanese commentators, a most welcome effort.

I don't have a copy handy, but is he really arguing for Japanese commentators, or just non-essentialist/Orientalist analysis? I don't think a Japanese scholar necessarily has any more insight than a non-Japanese one by simple virtue of his or her nationality.

From what I recall, he takes people like Stephen Prince to task for reducing pretty much everything to "warrior codes" and things like that.

This reminds me of the chapters on wartime film contained in both Isolde Standish's books.

I really enjoy her "New History" book, which I think is the best general survey out there (aside from possibly Masumura's, which is sadly unavailable in English). Her next book is apparently all about wartime cinema, which should be interesting. There seem to be a few people working in that area right now, which I think is great.

Very interesting time period, but an attempt to control modernity (the non-colonial sort) is still an advancing modernity.

I'm not sure. In a general sense, I think modernity is defined by the expansion of social horizons through the leveling of class, gender, etc. Those things were made possible by new technologies and capitalism*, which allowed for the individual subject to function as the basic unit of society rather than the family. Wartime Japan is clearly interested in preserving the family as the foundation of society, and went to great length to repress the individual subject (or at least represent that in the cinema).

Although we often discuss modernity in terms of a historical time period, it doesn't unfold everywhere at the same time and in the same manner, which complicates things. This is part of what Yoshimoto and Russell at looking into.

*to clarify this, I think that we can also say that capitalism gives the illusion of autonomy by removing the individual from a system of dependencies organized around the family and placing him or her in a larger, invisible network of capital, which creates another set of dependencies that are essentially hidden.

Maybe Japan stands out the most because of their spectacular loss (in almost every way, after WWII) and then equally spectacular rejuvenation, economically.

I think Germany is just as significant. Walter Benjamin all but predicted the concentration camp as the "end game" of modernization, in which physical life became an extension of political life; the human body was in the domain of the state, and the camp was the realization of the biopolitical system of management. Giorgio Agamben also has some interesting thoughts on that in his book 'Homo Sacer'.

Also, Masumura called Mizoguchi a "caricaturist" which I think is accurate. He doesn't mean it as an insult or as a way of dismissing Mizoguchi's work, but rather as a way of trying to explain his mode of representation (particularly acting I think), which tends to drift toward exaggeration.

[Steven H]

Very interesting time period, but an attempt to control modernity (the non-colonial sort) is still an advancing modernity.

I'm not sure. In a general sense, I think modernity is defined by the expansion of social horizons through the leveling of class, gender, etc. Those things were made possible by new technologies and capitalism*, which allowed for the individual subject to function as the basic unit of society rather than the family. Wartime Japan is clearly interested in preserving the family as the foundation of society, and went to great length to repress the individual subject (or at least represent that in the cinema).

To me, the ideas of equality were relatively new, but as you said the real engines of modernity were industrialization and technological innovations which altered our mobility and communications (car/train, phone, it's funny I just bought the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" today, which seems to follow this type of reasoning) and saying modernity only levels out society ignores it's downside. I see modern warfare as an extension of this, and any repression of the individual also seemed an *appeal to* the individual, therefore reflecting modern ideals, whereas in the past fighting spirit kokutai (I believe) was the overbearing reality itself, with a feudal connotation that might seem unfathomable to a modern, early 20th century, Japanese. Even someone like Ikki Kita, who conspired to overthrow the government out of "filial piety", was acting on modern impulses, that his individual acts could change the world for the better. As for the father/emperor link, how many governments adopted a similar paternal ethos (Uncle Sam or Mother Russia... I'm half kidding)? Maybe we've deluded ourselves that good vs. evil is all that different from giri vs. ninjo?

In my eyes, modernity has more to do with trade than internal politics. Perhaps the militarists (or the feudal lords during the isolation period) saw this as an immediate threat when they banned foreign films, and placed an emphasis on a half understood past, and paternal repression. All of these activities were struggling against modernity, in my eyes, while feuling its tanks (which Mizoguchi seemed to have proudly helped drive). I hope I'm not contradicting myself too much, I'm still learning my way around a lot of these ideas which I'm sure many learned people here find old hat.

I think Germany is just as significant. Walter Benjamin all but predicted the concentration camp as the "end game" of modernization, in which physical life became an extension of political life; the human body was in the domain of the state, and the camp was the realization of the biopolitical system of management. Giorgio Agamben also has some interesting thoughts on that in his book 'Homo Sacer'.

That sounds fascinating. Thanks for the recommendation.

Also, Masumura called Mizoguchi a "caricaturist" which I think is accurate. He doesn't mean it as an insult or as a way of dismissing Mizoguchi's work, but rather as a way of trying to explain his mode of representation (particularly acting I think), which tends to drift toward exaggeration.

Maybe this is one of the better (worst?) functions of the culture gap, that we're deprived of contempt through familiarity with such things and just plain ignorant of exaggerated uses of language.

[ltfontaine]

I don't have a copy handy, but is he really arguing for Japanese commentators, or just non-essentialist/Orientalist analysis? I don't think a Japanese scholar necessarily has any more insight than a non-Japanese one by simple virtue of his or her nationality.

Yoshimoto's argument suggests that cross-cultural critique of Japanese cinema is most often implicitly, or even explicitly (Burch, Richie, etc.), articulated from the point of view of a blinkered "outsider." If he exempts any Western commentators from this judgment, he does not name them. Given his bottom line--“How does a person coming from the Japanese tradition see a Japanese film for what it is?â€

[HerrSchreck]

Actually, I've been so busy with work lately I've been falling asleep before I hit the bed, nevertheless watching obscure, run of the mill, domestic melodramas (invalid or not). I'm sure both of your hearts are in the right place. Dove, olive branch, etc.

What I really want is a discussion of whether or not Mizoguchi was "modern". That seems really interesting to me, especially after reading some of Catherine Russell's very interesting takes on modernity in early Japanese films (the films themselves being a representation and engine of modernity). You have Ozu and Naruse (as early as 1935) showing women in suits, choosing their own suitors, showing varying personalities, whereas Mizoguchi seems drenched in Meiji shimpa style melodrama, even when discussing prostitutes in a contemporary setting. He seems far more interested in society treating women better (paternal, conservative), than women demanding better treatment (suffrage, progressive).

In his formal style, it's a little harder to ascribe. I don't believe modernity can be discounted or ascribed in Mizoguchi since film was a modern invention to begin with, which makes it a moot point. If you say that Mizoguchi is modern, as in "modern art", or an "emphasis on representing emotions, themes, and various abstractions" (as wikipedia defines it), then I would say he definitely *was* modern, though he probably wouldn't say it himself. A person who lived in the past while being ahead of his time, maybe (what other directors can we say this about?).

Steve, I'm glad you got the thrust of my point which was not a negative one by any means: your's and Mike's passion for Japanese films is such that much of it simply goes right by me and all I can do is sit and listen and hope to leap onto whiffs I get concerning consensus, and the right kind of language about a film which-- if I havent seen it already-- might prompt me to go out and grab something obscure that I may not have seen. Absorbing the mundane along with the sublime is the hallmark of any investigation, be it aesthetic or otherwise. Men sit for years in a lab performing research waiting for the occasional breakthrough or epiphany.

It's the same with film--- treasure hunting. You walk around with your metal detector on the beach waiting for the right kind of beep, you dig in the dirt and come up with something other than a bottlecap. I have so many DVDs & vhs's of pre-1960's film that my room is a complete disaster. I have so many silent films on video that (it really is ridiculous) I fucking SLEEP with them (when my girlfriend isn't over prompting me to clean off my mattress... the only problem is when SADIE THOMPSON yawns while under me and honks "Is it in?"-- cant tell you how many times my feelings have been hurt by the callous bitch). But the serious point is much of the material I have-- or have seen-- via my investigations are extremely mundane, complete w melodramatic gesticulating etc (in the zone of silents)... you have to weed through the crap to get to those unexpected surprises.

Michael-- there is no need to worry about buildups or bringdowns in cases of newbies coming to these films. Nothing I could say could build them up any higher than the fact than Janus has decided to slip SANSHO (which I don't rate as Mizo's best, though definitely instructive as to the magic that is his style and the relentless depth of his fabric) into the CCollection. Or same with MoC. This is going to raise their expectations higher than anything you or I or anyone else here on this forum possibly could-- not to say that we are without influence. I know folks on this forum have bought films they would have blooped over were it not for a rave by me.

And so the fact remains-- that's the point here on this forum. People have their own visions of what they like. They listen to the times your opinion has steered them into something that was a revelation to them. Folks who share your tastes will say "Well if Kerpan is jumping up & down in his dry goods for this then its probably going to be my barrell of moonshine." There may be others out there who have learned that their tastes are closer to mine, and might even say "If Schreck is creaming in his polyester for this artwork, there's a good shot I'll do the same... and if Schreck is getting all dewey eyed for this AND Kerpan hates it well then there's a good chance that this film is going to be one of those epiphanies that change my life." And vice versa for those who may say "If H.S. hates it-- well it's got to be good!"

It's one thing to stick up for a film if someone's tearing it down and defaming it... and it's something that means so much to you that you want to come out and say something positive. God knows I've done that around here from anything from directors, to films, to film distributors/labels. But to come out doing the reverse-- trying to isolate another person's profound love for a film or director as "incorrect"--it's a negative behavior, and guaranteed to get a rresponse. And it almost begs for reversal, like-- "Okay.. so let's take a look at what you've been watching." Mike, you've clearly stated in response to Dave & Michael that you have a bit of an agenda with Mizo, that there are responses to his work which bother you, and which you feel obliged to "handle".

There is no proper emotional reponse to Mizo. There should be no consensus label. These are artworks, and responses will be as varied and infinite as one human being for another.

And I still don't know what it was in my first (long) response to you where I talked about The Personal Lives of Filmmakers, that was so nasty, or a long personal "vicious attack" on you. But it's not important anymore.

[Steven H]

It seems that with silents and Japanese films (and more) where you have a massive amount of output and relatively little exposure. I greatly enjoy reading about a silent film I haven't seen, and then going after it, and hopefully later this year a few Mizoguchi's silents will be available through Digital Meme with english subs, so the rest of the world can make up their minds about that era of his work.