Kameari and the end of meigaza

[Aaron Gerow]

It's nice to see some discussion of the thorny issue of film vs. video.  
I actually had that as the topic of my last day of my reception history 
class at Meigaku and had given it as one of the the topics for the final 
paper.  Especially with the papers, it was significant to see the number 
of students who consider video to be a god-send: they don't have to pay 
high admission prices, they don't have to all the way downtown, they can 
watch it when they want to in the way they want to, etc.  Given that I 
asked them to consider the topic from the viewpoint of reception, some 
argued that the crowd in the theater acts as a form of repression of 
reading, and that video, being more individual in mode of viewing, 
allowed for more freedom in constructing meaning (something aided by the 
technology of fast-forward, etc.).  Those who defended film in the 
theater did not do so from the angle of image quality, etc., but from the 
public-nature of the experience, the communal meaning production that is 
going on.  One student, who was caught up in the current boom in Indian 
popular cinema (Indian films were some of the top box-office hits in 
Tokyo last year in the single theater market), related a pertinent story 
where she confessed that watching Indian popular films with an Indian 
audience is one of the best film experiences she has had, but when she 
watched the same film on video, it was about as boring as could be.  

In class, I basically tried to tell them that I don't care about the 
"film is better than video" argument.  From the reception angle, I just 
wanted them to understand that watching a text on film and on video is 
different, so different that we shouldn't really speak about the same 
text.  Properly, when we are asked, "Have you seen the film X?", we 
should answer, "No, but I have seen the video."  The fact our current 
discourse does not make this distinction is a representation of the fact 
that the text and not reception has ideologically been structured in film 
history to be the center of the film experience (no one in the 1910s, I 
would think, would have equated a film seen with a benshi in the theater 
with a video without that live benshi).

My original query, however, was focused on the issue of availability and 
not just film vs. video.  The end of meigaza is forcing not only the 
shift from film to video, but also a reshaping of the films that can be 
seen.  This relates to the issues of distribution and canonization Markus 
raised.  Especially in the heyday of meigaza, one could see most anything 
at one time or another (conditions that, one could argue, prompted a 
strong self-referentiality and intertextuality to film production).  But 
can you say the same with video?  My students who favored video felt the 
could "see anything," but those with experience in the matter (who read 
up on the issue or who have worked in video stores) told the sorry fact 
of restrictive practices and market limitations.  Mark may be able to get 
Imamura Shohei in Tsutaya, but what about Uchida Tomu?  Kawashima Yuzo?  
Kinugasa Teinosuke?  Not likely, because most of their films are not yet 
out on video, and those that are are not always available for rental.  
Not only the market, but canonization and business practices restrict 
what is available on video.  

Mark is right to point out the possibilities of satellite (or cable TV): 
they do show titles that are not out on video, and some can actually do 
interesting programming.  But this still raises the issue of availablity. 
 My main concern in raising these questions was not what will happen to 
us dedicated film scholars, but what will happen to our students and to 
less-dedicated film scholars.  Frankly, my students cannot afford to buy 
the videos only availble for sale and not rental; getting satellite or 
cable TV is also beyond their reach.  Students coming to Japan are also 
not likely to fork out the 60,000 yen or so you need just to set up 
satellite here.  I don't like the fact my students think they can see 
anything on video, because they clearly have no conception there is 
something else out there that is not on video.  I worry that the next 
generation of film scholars will have just seen far fewer films and know 
less about the historical contexts of the films they do study.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that archives are not helpful at 
all.  While some university libraries have video collections available to 
students, none of the public film institutions do.  We all know the Film 
Center is basically an institution dedicated to preservation and not to 
aiding research.  The Kawasaki Shimin Museum has a video collection, but 
not one you can stop, replay, and do basic analysis with.  Meigaza were 
one of the few places you could actually see old films, but now they are 
disappearing.  I worry about this not because of the film vs. video 
issue, but because I think we are seeing a restriction in what we can see.

Aaron Gerow
YNU