Naomi Kawase - impressions

[Joseph Murphy]

>  i am impressed by her extraordinay self-confidence on camera,even though
>often her responses are rather weak.But she doesn't have to be a 
>theorist,does she?

That's kind of what I'm getting at.  I have been following the 
discussion, and am familiar with Kawase's limitations on theory, 
critical concern about the status of the authentic rural home, the 
genuine emotion, etc. in her work.  I meant more generally, what is 
the status of a verbal discourse about visual images, and why are we 
so pleased when Aoyama, et. al., demonstrate fluency in the lingua 
franca of theory.  I think it's a legitimate stance for an artist to 
refuse to enter the critical discourse and find all the protestations 
that "she's improving!" to be a little patronizing.   I think there 
has to be a commitment to something like a visual vocabulary, that 
extends the possibilities of thought, or there's no serious reason to 
incorporate visual texts into literary studies.  It's just more 
fodder for the theory mill, or alternately, a lot of people (mostly 
guys evidently) setting up an intellectual field for mock contests of 
strength.
J. Murphy


>Joe,i wrote very hastily.There has been an ongoing discussion on Kawase which
>had some critical comments on her work.I really like her work,but some of the
>short films (Kono sekai,mangekyou)seem to me seriously flawed.Also her early
>films are still very immature,though they do show a real talent.My point was
>about the NHK interviwes and documentaries in which she appeared(Kawase naomi
>no riaru wo sagashite)etc,in which she talked all the time about the
>relationship between people,and that all that counts to her is the
>kankeisei,the atmosphere,the communication she can establish with her
>subjects.She said clearly,in a conversation with Hara Kazuo and others,that
>history,the social condition,the experiences of the ^people she films,dou demo
>ii,it,s all unimportant.The same point in raised in Aaron,s Documentary Box
>interview and elsewhere.Kawase does indeed say that she doesn't care 
>much about
>about history,gender,politics,but much more about the kanjou,the feeling,the
>relationship she can establish with people.Also she was before rather
>inarticulate in her statements about her films,but has changed recently.I do
>think she has a wonderful potential,but would hate to see her go into selling
>Japanese autenticity,tradition or whatever.Kyakarabaa also looks really
>moving. i am impressed by her extraordinay self-confidence on 
>camera,even though
>often her responses are rather weak.But she doesn't have to be a theorist,does
>she?L En réponse à Joseph Murphy <urj7 at nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu>:
>
>>  Livia Monnet wrote Re Naomi Kawase:
>>
>>  >Her interviews and TV appearances may indeed be less
>>  >illuminating than the films themselves.
>>
>>  That seems an unanswerable point to me, and one that keeps me up at
>>  night.  What are we talking about?
>  > J. Murphy