Pride audiences

[Ono Seiko and Aaron Gerow]

Some of you may have seen the box office results, but the controversial 
Tojo film, _Pride_, is officially a hit.  It has been in the top five for 
most of the weeks since it has been out and it projected to earn at least 
100 million yen, enough to make it one of the top Japanese films of the 
year. 

There have been many reports, however, that theaters are not all that 
full: that the box office results are the product of Higashi Nippon Hausu 
buying lots the maeuriken which are not being used.  (I do have one 
question, however: clearly maeuriken that are not used are figured into 
the film's final BO figures, but are they included in the weekly figures? 
 Does anyone know?)Some theaters are fuller than others, however.

This week's _Kinejun_ (No. 1260) has a couple articles on the audience 
reactions to _Pride_.  Takeiri Eitaro reports from Toei's own survey of 
audiences in Shinjuku, Marunouchi, and Shibuya on the second day after 
release, that 28.3% of the audience was over 60 and 26.3 in the 50-59 
range--a very old audience even for a Japanese movie (only 18% was under 
29).  45.7% said they went to see it because they were interested in the 
Tokyo Trials, 27.7 because they were interested in Tojo.  When asked if 
they were pleased with the film, 43% said "very much," and 25.3 said 
"somewhat pleased."  This may sound good, but Takeiri notes these are not 
really high figures compared to other Toei films.

In another article, Otaka Hiroo reports about his experience of seeing 
the film.  At the theater he went to, about 70% of the seats were filled. 
 What surprised him, however, is that halfway through, many people began 
walking out, so much so that the theater was largely empty by the end.  
Commenting that Japanese in general do not walk out of films in the 
middle, this phenomenon struck him as significant.  Given that some 
people saw the film only because of the fuss being made about it, Otaka 
argues that the film was simply "boring" to such people since its basic 
narrative conflict--Tojo vs. the US prosecutors--was presented so 
one-sidedly it was uninteresting.

Aaron Gerow
YNU

P.S. There was also an article in the same issue by Yamane Sadao 
criticizing Yamada Kazuo and Sato Tadao for criticizing the film.  His 
main complaint was that they, by blaming the film for misrepresenting 
history, are forgetting the fact that a film is only a film and that this 
one is an often fictional film at that.  I understand Yamane's point, but 
for me it stunk too much of the Hasumi line that film should only be 
judged as film, and thus should be divorced from all social, ideological, 
and often historical considerations (a gross simplification of that line, 
but that is the gist).  The issue is more complex that Sato or Yamada 
make it, but I was rather disappointed in Yamane's argument.