Imamura

[J. M. Hall]

Anne McKnight's query and David Desser's response made me bring out my own
copy of the Ruoff's highly descriptive booklet on Hara's work.

Can we exactly call the work a collaboration?  And what value is there in
underlining the Imamura connection?  The Ruoffs are keen to set up the link
between Imamura and Hara.  Referring to Extreme Private Eros, Love Song
1974, they write "Like Imamura's Buta to gunkan, Hara's film paints a
savage portrait of a Japanese port town corrupted by the American naval
presence."  (p. 6) And again, "Like the director Imamura Shohei in Nippon
Sengoshi: Madamu Onboro no Seikatsu and Karayuki-san, hara portrays
contemporarya Japanese society and history through the lives of radicals,
outcasts, and marginals." (p. 3)  These comments are not developed, and
make me wonder what is the Ruoffs agenda is establishing Hara alongside /
beneath Imamura.  Certainly, they do refer to Hara consulting Imamura when
Okuzaki asks Hara to film a murder he is planning--to which Imamura
predictably says no.   That said, is there a thematic, stylistic, or
cinematic reason to insist on the Imamura connection?

I am only rudimentarily familiar with the two directors--not having read
what they've written.  Does anyone know what Imamura said about the
prize-winning final product?  He must have said smething... To borrow from
Aaron, "Any comments?"

Jonathan M. Hall

At  9:01 8/19/99 -0600, David Desser wrote:
>At 10:15 AM 8/19/99, anne mcknight wrote:
> >I have a slightly different Imamura question, which is that I've seen both
>>the original idea & the production of Hara Kazuo's *Yukiyukite shingun*.
>>Does anybody know any more about the background of this, or how the
>>collaboration proceeded?  I am guessing
>>the south seas battles (New Guinea in this case) may have been an object
>>of inquiry due to Imamura's consistent interest in south seas/nan'yo
>>"primitivism"  as well as his interest in fictional histories, historical
>>fiction.
>>
>>Thanks for any leading leads.
>>anne mcknight
>
>Coincidentally, I've just finished reading a monograph on the film, written
>by Jeffrey Ruoff and Kenneth Ruoff in the Flicks Books series. (These books
>seem to be somewhat hard to come by, though our own Aaron Gerow did one of
>the books in the series.)  The Ruoffs wrtie that Okuzaki Kenzo, the
>protagonist of the film, approached Imamura in the late 70s with the idea
>of making a film about his (Okuzaki's) anti-war, anti-Emperor activities.
>Imamura, worried about the film's commercial possibilities, turned over the
>project to an assistant of his, Hara Kazuo, who produced the film along
>with his wife, Kobayashi Sachiko.  Imamura, Hara, even Okuzaki himself
>provided the rather minimal funding to shoot the film over its five-year
>production process.
>
>I'm sure Okuzaki approached Imamura for the very reasons you outline,
>except that the New Guinea aspects are minimal to the film.  The Ruoffs
>write that Hara and Okuzaki did return to New Guinea with an eye toward
>Okuzaki making some sort of ritual apology for Japan's actions, but the
>footage could not be used in the final film.
>
>David Desser