shutai vs. shutaisei ?

[Yuriko Furuhata]

Dear Markus,

I'm little shy to jump in the public discussion, but I don't think the 
connection between Hanada and Matsumoto is tenuous, as explicitly 
indicated by his 1958 essay, "Zen'ei kiroku eigaron." (I believe that 
someone else already mentioned this piece? Hirasawa Go-san has published 
an insightful introduction to the re-publication of Eizo no hakken, 
which I cannot recall where at this moment).

Personally, I believe Hanada's theory of the dialectical synthesis of 
avant-garde and documentary was more influential on Matsumoto's early 
theoretical writings than Okamoto Tar?'s "taikyokushugi." But of course, 
Hanada and Okamoto were very close throughout the 1940s and 50s. I'd say 
that we have to put them all in the shared intellectual or epistemic 
milieu, to which both the work of Matsumoto, Noda, and others writing in 
_Kiroku eiga_ as well as the works generated by groups such as "Kiroku 
geijutsu no kai" (which included figures such as Abe K?b?, Masaki 
Ky?suke, Sasaki Kiichi, Okada Susumu, etc) belonged. Again, the question 
of "mono" is a shared problematic to these circles of filmmakers, 
writers, and thinkers.

Would this answer your question?

Best,
Yuri

Nornes, Markus wrote:
> Oh, come on Yuriko!  Chip in!  Mathieu and Justin will go get your 
> dissertation, but I don?t know about the other 698 people following 
> this fascinating discussion. They?ll probably wait (anxiously!) for 
> the book.
>
> Perhaps I could cajole you into a response with this. It has to do 
> with something Mathieu wrote:
>
>           > Now that you mention it _is_ strange how thoroughly Matsumoto
>
>     > evacuates these parallel discussions from his own writing. I
>     > also see "mono" and "taikyokushugi" as deeply informing his
>     > writing, but you would never know that just by reading the
>
>          > essays.
>
> This was my impression from reading Matsumoto as well. One could see 
> all sorts of writers he was engaging, but the points of contact were 
> vague to say the least. When I was working on Ogawa, I chalked this up 
> to differing standards of argumentation. Whereas we (in North American 
> academia at least) admire writing that takes on previous scholarship, 
> dismisses it or pushes the line of thinking in new directions, 
> Matsumoto was working in a more DIY or riffing mode. This means our 
> compulsive footnoting is beside the point for him, much to our 
> consternation. I had ?better? things to do when writing Forest of 
> Pressure, so I basically threw up my hands and stuck to the main task 
> at hand....waiting for you guys to do all the work!  
>
> Yuriko, is this a fair explanation for Mathieu?s observation? Or are 
> the connections actually quite tenuous? Or what?
>
> Markus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   
>
>
>
> On 12/12/09 9:38 AM, "Yuriko Furuhata" <yuriko.furuhata at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>     Dear Jestin and Mathieu,
>
>     I'm sorry to reply this late. But I just noticed your
>     correspondence. In
>     my dissertation I have worked on the intellectual and theoretical
>     connections among figures, such as Matsumoto Toshio, Hanada Kiyoteru,
>     and Abe Kobo. I especially focused on the idea of
>     neo-documentarism. If
>     you'd like, please feel free to consult my dissertation which
>     should be
>     available electronically through Brown University's library.
>
>     Yuriko Furuhata
>     Assistant Professor of Film
>     Department of East Asian Studies
>     McGill University
>
>
>     jesty at uchicago.edu wrote:
>     > Dear Mathieu,
>     >
>     > Now that you mention it _is_ strange how thoroughly Matsumoto
>     > evacuates these parallel discussions from his own writing. I
>     > also see "mono" and "taikyokushugi" as deeply informing his
>     > writing, but you would never know that just by reading the
>     > essays. The primacy of the intentional relationship, and the
>     > attitude of starting from within a specifically located
>     > existence definitely sounds like existentialism, but who knows
>     > who or what exactly.
>     >
>     > I think spelling out the relationship between Matsumoto's
>     > ideas and neo-documentarism is important work that has yet to
>     > be done. (As for my paper it's just an "unpublished paper" and
>     > doesn't go very deeply into the issues.)
>     >
>     > Take care
>     > Justin
>     >
>     >
>     > ---- Original message ----
>     >  
>     >> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:12:09 +0100
>     >> From: Mathieu Capel <mathieucapel at gmail.com>
>     >> Subject: Re: shutai vs. shutaisei ?
>     >> To: KineJapan at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
>     >>
>     >>   Dear all,
>     >>
>     >>   Thank you so much for your answers, which are of
>     >>   great interest to me. Justin, could you give me the
>     >>   refererences of your quotations, so that I can
>     >>   mention it in my PhD thesis and quote your work ? It
>     >>   does seem really fascinating, as for the Matsumoto
>     >>   interview Y?-san refers to. I will try to read as
>     >>   soon as I can, but being stuck in Paris is something
>     >>   really unconvenient for scholars sometines... As for
>     >>   Markus' work, what, believe it or not, I did not
>     >>   know (sorry ! but I shall redeem myself as soon as I
>     >>   can : I saw it is available on the internet... )
>     >>   By the way, I do agree with Markus, and I wouldn't
>     >>   mind reading some japanese when it is about
>     >>   questions as important as the "shutaisei/shutai"
>     >>   debate, and the changes of policy in JCP...
>     >>
>     >>   Actually, I know that Matsumoto's theories did not
>     >>   come out of the blue, and relied on many other
>     >>   works. But I was surprised when reading Eiz? no
>     >>   hakken not to find references to Okamoto and Hanada
>     >>   for instance (especially his writings about italian
>     >>   realim), and their attempt to merge/go beyond
>     >>   abstraction and surrealism, their taikyoku shugi and
>     >>   other "mono" considerations (especially when you
>     >>   know how important "mono" is for
>     >>   "neo-documentarism")...
>     >>   That's why I said that (i forgot to add an important
>     >>   "perhaps") those theories "pretended" to be
>     >>   idiosyncratic in the realm of japanese thinkers : it
>     >>   seemed to me that he only quoted former Japanese
>     >>   thinker, writer or cinematographer in order to
>     >>   criticize them, or prefered to deal with categories
>     >>   like marxism, surrealism, etc. instead of naming
>     >>   people... It seemed obvious when drawing a
>     >>   comparison with Sartre, but I may be wrong (and I'd
>     >>   be very pleased to be wrong, as a matter of fact)...
>     >>
>     >>   Thanks again
>     >>   Mathieu
>     >>    
>