JF Waste?

[Mark Roberts]

Dear Aaron,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I'm guessing that this  
is the article to which you are referring:

http://www.asahi.com/national/update/1031/TKY200910310187.html

I have a few thoughts and questions.

Concerning the "waste" of fees for films that are never screened, you  
ask: "Why not just contract to pay for the times the film is actually  
screened? How much does this have to do with the general secrecy the  
JF has about the films it handles?"

Indeed, why not? I would like to add that while the secrecy of the JF  
holdings is certainly a problem (and I am one of many with first-hand  
experience of this), it strikes me that the terms of these contracts  
may also be a key issue. My understanding is that the JF has many of  
these prints in their archive. Are they are simply paying for the  
rights to exhibit prints that they already possess? When I screened  
films at their office, I was told that the catalog is not public  
because their contracts with the rights holders expressly forbid it.

I agree that in pointing the finger at the JF, the Asahi article  
distracts its readers from more primary issues. The JF is doing what  
they can to promote Japanese cinema -- quite a lot -- evidently to the  
extent that they are paying a very large sum of money for films that  
are never screened. The question is: to what extent is the JF bound by  
external factors? If, for example, they were to ask to renegotiate  
with the rights holders, to pay only for films screened, what would  
happen? Would the rights holders say "okay, let's talk", or would they  
take their ball and go home, even if it meant their films would not be  
screened by the JF in 2010, 2011, etc.?

Actually, this seems like an opportunity to air out this relationship  
and, if necessary, publicly interrogate the constraints imposed by the  
rights holders and the government stance that tacitly supports them.  
Isn't it equally possible -- and actually rather likely -- that the  
rights holders have all the cards, and that taxpayers are being asked,  
in effect, to subsidize their exclusive ownership of Japanese film  
heritage? And where is the Japanese government in all of this?  
Standing on the sidelines?

I would think that these relationships are an important matter to  
establish and publicize (i.e., who is really beholden to whom? etc.),  
if only because this is an occasion to address an impasse in the  
promotion of Japanese cinema, both internationally and domestically.  
Others more knowledgeable than I may know the details, but it feels  
like there is still more speculation than fact, more opacity than  
transparency concerning these policies.

Next, there is Asahi's insinuation that the films screened abroad are  
typically inappropriate (pinku eiga, yakuza eiga, -- even kaidan), and  
its invocation of some state-approved version of Japanese culture via  
a new (formal? informal?) policy that embassy and JF officials should  
have more say when contracting for films. I agree with your reading of  
this, that the Asahi article seems to give a misleading spin on it,  
and that the larger issue is really the lack of meaningful cultural  
policies for Japanese film heritage, e.g. that would include  
initiatives for education and research.

Here, my question to you would be: aside from us discussing this on a  
specialist forum like KineJapan, what should be done? What if, for  
example, a rebuttal to this article were published in a Japanese daily  
paper or journal? What if it not only questioned the bias of the Asahi  
article, but also foregrounded more probing questions about the  
relationship between the rights holders, the JF, and the global  
audience for Japanese cinema? And what if this article called out the  
various Japanese ministries for their acquiescence to private  
interests and lack of a comprehensive policy for film heritage in  
Japan? What if it named names or even, gasp, called for resignations?  
That is, what if it dumped rhetorical kerosene on this issue? The  
Asahi article has already done this, in its own way, and I wonder if  
it doesn't make sense to simply fight fire with fire.

Best regards,

M. Roberts