Covert dissent in wartime cinema?
Samuel Alanson Turner
samuelt
Mon Nov 7 10:08:42 EST 2005
I just wanted to thank everyone for their input. I'm currently
pursuing research more along the lines that Markus and Aaron suggested.
Several of your names may appear on the bibliography..
-Sam Turner
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Aaron Gerow wrote:
> As someone else who has published on wartime film and censorship, I too have
> been reading the discussion with fascination and notebook in hand. I in
> particular want to thank Peter for taking so much time to write what are
> probably the longest posts to KineJapan in years! (That's a compliment, not a
> complaint!)
>
> Clearly it is a desire in liberal minded scholars to find something
> politically positive in aesthetically pleasing cinema. We admire some of the
> wartime works of Ozu, Mizoguchi, Shimizu, Toyoda, Kamei and others, and we
> hope that our admiration is not purely aesthetic, but based on the perception
> of some humanistic or otherwise political values we admire. It would be hard
> to like Japanese cinema during the 15 Years War if we couldn't find such
> elements. Certainly the search for subversive meanings is justified by many
> historical examples of cinemas in totalitarian or authoritarian regimes,
> especially those of the former USSR and Eastern Europe. We often in those
> cases have the testimonies of filmmakers explaining how they did try to
> circumvent regulations. Scholars of Japanese cinema often hope we can find
> similar phenomena in Japan, but the fact is that there was in general far
> less resistance to wartime militarism than to communism in Eastern Europe.
> That makes the search a lot harder.
>
> I think Markus is right, though, that we do have to readjust our lenses and
> not just look for cases of pro-war or anti-war. Responses were varied,
> complex, contradictory and rarely monolithic. Peter's argumentation is
> effectively supported by facts, but I sometimes think that there is too often
> an effort to find consistency in a situation where consistency was difficult.
> To argue against the political subversiveness of one film because the same
> filmmaker made a pro-war film is an important point against those who wish to
> write a hagiography of that filmmaker (as many of the JCP critics wanted to
> do with Imai and Yamamoto), but I do not think that prevents us from seeing
> complexities in the first film (or the second!). We don't have to assume
> consistent, unified creative subjects here. I think one of the great points
> in Peter's books is underlying how many conflicts did exist in official
> policy--a point he reiterated here--and I think we should consider such
> confusion on the level of the individual subject as well. I think Itami
> Mansaku is a case in point. On the one hand, he made a film with a fascist
> filmmaker and wrote essays during the war praising Goebbel's propaganda
> policy. But he also wrote a profoundly moving and complex script in Muhomatsu
> no issho that was torn up by both wartime and occupation censors. And, unlike
> many on the left, he came out of the war not saying "I was clean" or "I was
> duped" but that "We are all responsible and we better start considering why."
> I think this is an image of an intelligent individual who was for the
> war--but for reasons that did not always fit the official model, and thus
> sometimes deviated from the pro-war track. I don't think this is simply an
> issue of Limbaugh delusionism versus Scowcroft realism, where something
> anti-war is just the reality revealing its ugly head--but off a multitude of
> positions. I think we should remember that artists' responses were varied to
> the war, and could include even non-producing works.
>
> Markus's point about multiple responses also should remind us that the issue
> here is not solely one of textuality. I think much of the discussion here has
> focused a bit too much on finding IN texts some meaning or other, either pro-
> or anti-war. But as my research has shown, what many censors and even
> filmmakers were conscious of is that even the most seemingly pro-war film
> could be "misread" or "misinterpreted" by spectators, especially as the
> empire expanded and different people were watching Japanese films. Citing
> comments that the end of Kinoshita's Rikugun showed a truly militarist
> mother--not the questioning mother that some critics, both during and after
> the war--as evidence that the film's conclusion is not unambiguously anti-war
> is important, but the very fact that BOTH interpretations existed shows how
> signification, even during a time of highly controlled censorship and film
> policy, was never stable or unambiguous. I think this fact scared some in
> policy positions--and led to calls like Fuwa's for "training spectators"--and
> highlights how even the control bureaucrats were never fully in control.
> Texts were never able to force single readings and spectators never read
> films all in the same way. The question in many ways is not whether a certain
> film gave us a pro- or anti-war message, but how the entire situation
> frequently evinced a complex struggle over signification and reception, over
> trying to make films mean, and what spectators role was in that.
>
> I thus would not discourage Sam from doing his research, but rather ask him
> to redirect it. I think it will be less productive to look for anti-war
> intentions in filmmakers as reflected in films than to look for textual
> instabilities and contradictions--which could then reveal the variations of
> position that criss-crossed through particular filmmakers. These
> complications should be extended into the realm of reception, where responses
> could be--but perhaps were not always--varied. Don't just look at the films,
> but how they were seen and shown, and what was said about them in a variety
> of places. Combining this close textual analysis with historically grounded
> in reception is not easy--especially with the reception side--but I think
> there is still a lot of productive research to be done out there. My work has
> tended to focus on the macro struggles over reception, but I would love to
> see more micro-analyses of specific texts and situations.
>
>
> Aaron Gerow
> Director of Undergraduate Studies, Film Studies Program
> Assistant Professor
> Film Studies Program/East Asian Languages and Literatures
> Yale University
> 53 Wall Street, Room 316
> PO Box 208363
> New Haven, CT 06520-8363
> USA
> Phone: 1-203-432-7082
> Fax: 1-203-432-6764
> e-mail: aaron.gerow at yale.edu
>
>
>
>
More information about the KineJapan
mailing list