Stella Dallas P.S.

Scorsese scorsese at
Thu Nov 9 00:43:53 EST 2000

pls stop e-mailing me
u've got the wrong person

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernardi-Buralli" <dburall1 at>
To: <KineJapan at>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: Stella Dallas P.S.

> The (Tokyo) National Film Center program I mentioned in earlier message is
> no. 86, pp. 47-49, they should have this in their library but I can send
> a copy of the "kaisetsu" and "arasuji" etc. if you can't locate it--
> Joanne B.
> ----------
> >From: "kiseko minaguchi" <kiko at>
> >To: <KineJapan at>
> >Subject: RE: Colorado Conference---catharsis/divorce/sex
> >Date: Mon, Nov 6, 2000, 10:57 PM
> >
> > Could any member give me an info about Stella Dallas (1925)? Which film
> > center has the film? I could at most appreciate getting the outline of
> > narrative. I only saw 1937 version of it and need to figure out the
> > of the original.
> > Minaguchi, Teikyo U.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > ·ol : Aaron Gerow <gerow at>
> > ^¶æ : KineJapan <KineJapan at>
> > "úZz : 2000"N11OZ6"ú 16:43
> > O-¼ : Re: Colorado Conference---catharsis/divorce/sex
> >
> >
> >>Markus asked,
> >>
> >>>My question, and this would be an interesting thing to discuss on
> > KineJapan,
> >>>has to do with the way that discussions of the wonders of Nikkatsu
> >>>Porno and pink eiga never---a word I take seriously---consider the
> >>>filmmaking in tandem with the reception context. When people point out
> > how,
> >>>with the disintegration of the studio system, the pink film becomes the
> >>>training ground for moves into the mainstream (and the survival of
> > countless
> >>>directors, technicians and cameramen who otherwise wouldn't be able to
> > work
> >>>in film), it makes sense to me. However, when discussions turn to the
> >>>progressive politics of the films, or their worthiness as art, what
> > it
> >>>mean to ignore what's going on on ground level, in the theaters? How is
> > this
> >>>not a looping between the production and reception contexts, one big
> >>>self-love fest?
> >>
> >>Much of the problem is in an impressionist based film criticism dominant
> >>in Japan that only looks at one point of reception: the critic.
> >>
> >>Markus's question deserves more of a pursuit, but let me just add
> >>issue to the problem: industry.  Even those who praise Roman Poruno or
> >>pink film as a valuable training ground rarely sit down and consider the
> >>industrial conditions for all this (beyond, as with regard to Nikkatsu,
> >>expressing a nostalgia about it being the last bastion of a program
> >>picture studio system).
> >>
> >>But when Zeze Takahisa came to my Meigaku class to talk, some of these
> >>issues did come up in relation to Hamano in our discussion afterwards.
> >>First, it should be pointed out that pink films are essentially produced
> >>on a subcontractor basis.  Essentially, the company gives the director
> >>about 3 million yen and expects him or her to deliver the film with that
> >>(I don't know the specifics about developing and other peripheral
> >> Thus this is not a studio system where the studio makes up budget and
> >>then produces it in house (this is a major difference with Roman Poruno
> >>and again reminds us Roman Poruno and contemporary pink films are not
> >>same); and there is no real producer system (it is almost an ironic
> >>epitome of the director system: I'm reminded of Shochiku's contract with
> >>Kinugasa Teinosuke in the 1920s for something similar in Japanese film
> >>history).  If the director ends up spending less than 3 million in
> >>the film, he or she pockets that amount.  Zeze noted this in relation to
> >>a shift in his films from more group to more individual oriented
> >>narratives: the former were just too costly and it was he, not the
> >>studio, who was bearing the loss; the latter were just cheaper and thus
> >>the shift was partially a measure of financial necessity.
> >>
> >>Given this situation, one would imagine that pink directors would
> >>incorporate themselves, or create their own production companies, for
> >>various reasons (tax reasons, debt indemnity, etc.). But many like Zeze,
> >>who himself confesses a lack of business acumen, do not do that.
> >>however, has done that and thus reflects a different attitude towards
> >>production as well as different industrial conditions.  I don't think we
> >>need to buy into the stereotype of artists unconcerned with business,
> >>at least in Zeze's mind, Hamano is a shewd business player who makes
> >>she is on good financial standing.  On the one hand, this can ensure the
> >>kind of industrial "freedom" she spoke of, but on the other, it clearly
> >>ties her in with the financial interests of the industry--i.e., to make
> >>films for mostly rural men to "jack off" to.  Perhaps her incorporated
> >>status can allow for a power to express her own vision, but do remember
> >>she is still only a subcontractor, not the contractor.  Her willingness
> >>to use different names for herself depending on the company (so that the
> >>same name does not emblazon the releases of competing pink film
> >>companies) was also cited by Zeze to exemplify her willingness to work
> >>with the companies.
> >>
> >>More research is needed before we can judge Hamano's industrial status,
> >>but I think it is also worth noting in terms of reception that Hamano
> >>not been subject to resistance on the level of reception that I know of.
> >>Zeze and the Shitenno, however, were, as many rural theaters and their
> >>customers complained about their films--perhaps because they were not
> >>easy to "jack off" to.
> >>
> >>I think we need to think about these issues some more before accepting
> >>Hamano's self-depiction as a feminist filmmaker.
> >>
> >>Aaron Gerow
> >>Associate Professor
> >>International Student Center
> >>Yokohama National University
> >>79-1 Tokiwadai
> >>Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 240-8501
> >>E-mail: gerow at
> >>Phone: 81-45-339-3170
> >>Fax: 81-45-339-3171
> >>
> >>
> >

More information about the KineJapan mailing list