Ah, still censorship in Japan

[Ono Seiko and Aaron Gerow]

Hey folks,

I'm finally recovering from working at the Yamagata International 
Documentary Film Festival (festivals are hard work), so I thought I'd 
give a short report on what happened.  Since much of the big news focused 
on the issue of censorship, I will discuss that in this post and 
summarize the festival in another.  I should say up front that the views 
expressed herein are my personal opinion and do not represent the 
official position of the YIDFF.

Well, for those of you, getting your fill of "hair" in today's mens 
magazines, who think censorship is relaxing in Japan, it only takes 
incidents like this to remind one that it is still as arbitrary, 
bureaucratic, and ridiculous as ever.

Since this was well-reported in Japan, some of you might have heard the 
story, but here it is for the rest of you.  One of the special invitation 
films at the YIDFF '97 was Victor Monnikendam's _Mother Dao the 
Turtlelike_, a compilation film on Dutch colonialism in Indonesia that is 
basically a collage of images taken from 1920s Dutch films (mostly 
anthropological work) and music.  Quite artistically made, it has shown 
at over 50 festivals, won numerous prizes and has never run into 
censorship problems.

Well, the day before it was to screen at the YIDFF, the Tokyo Customs 
told the festival it would not let the film into the country unless a 
scene featuring Chinese laborers in a shower--yes, with their naughty 
bits showing--was cut.  It offered the YIDFF the opportunity to lodge an 
appeal, but with only 24 hours until the screening (this is not 
unusual--many festivals do get prints only days before screenings), the 
YIDFF and Monnikendam were basically forced to accept the censorship and 
waive their right for appeal (appeals take months).  (This last minute 
"blackmail" is common practice at Customs.  It allows them to claim that 
their decisions are "peacefully" accepted by the parties involved without 
protest.)  Thus the film was shown in its censored version at the YIDFF.

For those of you unfamiliar with the situation, there are technically 
three film censoring authorities in Japan.  First, Customs checks all 
film prints shipped into Japan.  Films that are deemed to injure public 
morals are either cut or refused entry into the country.  (There are many 
ways around this, by the way, such has carrying in prints by hand.  
Customs rarely checks films in hand luggage.)  Second, there is the local 
police, which can also cite films for obscenity (unlike Customs, which 
exercises pre-exhibition censorship, the police usually act after 
release).  Third, and final, there is the film industry's own board of 
self-censorship, Eirin.  One of the problems with this system, beyond the 
often absurd definitions of obscenity used (no pubic hair, no genitals, 
etc.), is the fact that these three organizations cannot even agree on 
those definitions.  There have been several occasions where Eirin 
approved films have been cited by the police, for instance.

The YIDFF affair only had to do with Customs (Eirin, for instance, does 
not check most films shown at domestic festivals since it deals only with 
films commericallly released by member organizations).  But it was a 
disturbing and often ridiculous affair.  

First, the scene in question was from a 1926 anthropological film.  It 
had nothing to do with sex; it just happened to show the rather cruel 
conditions under which Chinese laborers were placed at the time.  
Remember, folks, that penises also appeared in _Schindler's List_ in 
similar kinds of scenes which were NOT cut in Japan.  Apparently, if you 
have major money backing, Customs won't pick on you.  (This, of course, 
belies Customs' reaction to the whole affair: that it doesn't want to 
make exceptions just for festival films--that it must apply standards 
equally.)

Second, there were other scenes in the film with penises clearly in view 
which were NOT cut.  These, however, showed Indonesian aborigines.  Why 
were these not cut?  Either Customs is stupid (not an impossibility), or 
blind (maybe they slept through half the film), or there is a racial 
issue here.  Note that the penises of animals are not censored from films 
in Japan.  Perhaps to Customs, Indonesian aborigines are close to animals 
and thus their nudity is OK?  Chinese, however, are too close to Japanese 
for comfort and thus must be cut?

The decision was, of course, arbitary and illogical.  But that's often 
the point of film censorship in the history of film in Japan.  The 
arbitrariness gives the censors supreme authority (they can less execute 
the law than their own whims) and also keeps the film people quessing.  
The refusal to explain decisions or definitions prompts filmmakers and 
exhibitors to censor themselves in order to avoid any kind of trouble.  
(This strategy of not making clear definitions has been in place since 
the 1910s, as I have found in my research on censorship at the time.)

There is also the fear that this decision was meant to send a signal to 
film festivals in Japan to clean up their act and start censoring 
themselves.  (Many, I must admit, use various means of getting 
problematic prints into the country.) 

It was nice to see that Customs did get a black eye from all this.  The 
press coverage of the incident was good and overwhelmingly critical of 
what was obviously a stupid decision.

The problem is that it has occured just at a time when censorship is 
rearing its ugly head in not only Japan but also Korea.  The Tokyo Film 
Festival was scheduled to do a retro of some of Robert Kramer's films (he 
was the head of the jury at YIDFF this year), but Customs stopped his 
film _Ghosts of Electricity_ over a particular scene.  Since the scene in 
question (showing a clip from a porn film) is intended to show the 
relationship between sex and violence, Kramer refused the suggested cuts. 
 When he suggested to the TIFF that they put in the cut scene's place a 
title saying, "This scene has been cut because Customs censors sex but 
does nothing about violence" or even "Censored by Tokyo Customs," the 
weak-kneed TIFF people, who value "peace" with Customs, refused.  Customs 
is apparently going to show the film to "six intellectuals" who will make 
the final judgement on it.

In another bit of news, Korean authorities interfered in two film 
festivals just a few weeks ago.  First, they banned the 1st Seoul 
International Queer Film and Video Festival because, under Korean law, 
homosexuality itself is deemed obscene.  Then they tried to block the 
Human Rights Film Festival (in its second year) and even arrested two of 
its organizers when they tried to show the films on a university campus. 
Given the success of the Pusan Film Festival, it's a shame to see that 
censors even prevented the screening of Won Kar-wai's _Happy Together_ 
from showing there.  (For more information on the Queer Film Festival or 
to help in their protest movement, write to "queer21 at interpia.net").

Maybe you can say that Japan's better off than Korea, but I would 
consider it only a matter of degree, not kind.  Censorship is still a big 
issue in Japan no matter how much "hair" Kanno Miho shows.  As usual, 
it's not simply an issue of obscenity, but of power, sexuality, and 
representation. 

Aaron Gerow