From matteo.boscarol at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 01:48:02 2025 From: matteo.boscarol at gmail.com (matteoB) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 15:48:02 +0900 Subject: [KineJapan] Kinema Junpo Best Ten of 2024 Message-ID: Dear All, Kinema Junpo has announced its best ten of 2024: 1 All the Long Nights 2 Desert of Namibia 3 Evil Does Not Exist 4 My Sunshine 4 Cloud 6 Living in Two Worlds 7 Look Back 8 Hijacked Youth: Dare to Stop Us 2 9 LAST MILE 10 A Girl Named Ann Best bunka eiga: ????? Best foreign film: Oppenheimer Regards Matteo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaron.gerow at yale.edu Sun Feb 9 22:30:56 2025 From: aaron.gerow at yale.edu (Aaron Gerow) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 22:30:56 -0500 Subject: [KineJapan] Kinema Junpo Best Ten 2024 Message-ID: This is a few days late, but here are some of the results of the Kinema Junpo Best Ten: 1) Yoake no subete/All the Long Nights (Miyake Sho) 2) Namibia no sabaku/Desert of Namibia (Yamanaka Yoko) 3) Aku wa sonzai shinai/Evil Does Not Exist (Hamaguchi Ryusuke) 4) Tied: Boku no ohisama/My Sunshine (Okuyama Hiroshi); Cloud (Kurosawa Kiyoshi) Best director: Miyake Sho Best screenplay: Nogi Akiko Best actress: Kawaii Yumi Best actor: Matsumura Hokuto Best documentary: Seigi no yukue Having won other awards, it looks like All the Long Nights is the most celebrated Japanese film of 2024. Aaron Gerow Alfred W. Griswold Professor of East Asian Languages and Literatures and Film and Media Studies Chair, East Asian Languages and Literatures Director of Graduate Studies, EALL (Spring 2025) Yale University 320 York Street, Room 108 PO Box 208201 New Haven, CT 06520-8201 USA Phone: 1-203-432-7082 Fax: 1-203-432-6729 e-mail: aaron.gerow at yale.edu website: www.aarongerow.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wct1 at columbia.edu Tue Feb 11 19:09:11 2025 From: wct1 at columbia.edu (William C. Thompson) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 19:09:11 -0500 Subject: [KineJapan] Kinema Junpo Best Ten 2024 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For those in the New York area who are interested, Namibia no Sabaku (#2 on the KJ list) will play in Queens as part of the Museum of the Moving Image's First Look 2025 series on Thursday, March 13th, at 8:15 PM. I believe it will be on MoMI's smaller screen. Bill Thompson wct1 at columbia.edu On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 10:31?PM Aaron Gerow via KineJapan < kinejapan at mailman.yale.edu> wrote: > This is a few days late, but here are some of the results of the Kinema > Junpo Best Ten: > > 1) Yoake no subete/All the Long Nights (Miyake Sho) > 2) Namibia no sabaku/Desert of Namibia (Yamanaka Yoko) > 3) Aku wa sonzai shinai/Evil Does Not Exist (Hamaguchi Ryusuke) > 4) Tied: Boku no ohisama/My Sunshine (Okuyama Hiroshi); Cloud (Kurosawa > Kiyoshi) > > Best director: Miyake Sho > Best screenplay: Nogi Akiko > Best actress: Kawaii Yumi > Best actor: Matsumura Hokuto > Best documentary: Seigi no yukue > > Having won other awards, it looks like All the Long Nights is the most > celebrated Japanese film of 2024. > > > Aaron Gerow > Alfred W. Griswold Professor of East Asian Languages and Literatures > and Film and Media Studies > Chair, East Asian Languages and Literatures > Director of Graduate Studies, EALL (Spring 2025) > Yale University > 320 York Street, Room 108 > PO Box 208201 > New Haven, CT 06520-8201 > USA > Phone: 1-203-432-7082 > Fax: 1-203-432-6729 > e-mail: aaron.gerow at yale.edu > website: www.aarongerow.com > > _______________________________________________ > KineJapan mailing list > KineJapan at mailman.yale.edu > https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/kinejapan > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From echoi at movingimage.org Tue Feb 11 19:19:56 2025 From: echoi at movingimage.org (Edo Choi) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:19:56 +0000 Subject: [KineJapan] Kinema Junpo Best Ten 2024 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, and I'm pleased to note that the director Yoko Yamanaka will be in attendance. Edo ________________________________ From: KineJapan on behalf of William C. Thompson via KineJapan Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:09 PM To: Japanese Cinema Discussion Forum Cc: William C. Thompson Subject: Re: [KineJapan] Kinema Junpo Best Ten 2024 For those in the New York area who are interested, Namibia no Sabaku (#2 on the KJ list) will play in Queens as part of the Museum of the Moving Image's First Look 2025 series on Thursday, March 13th, at 8:15 PM. I believe it will be on MoMI's smaller screen. Bill Thompson wct1 at columbia.edu On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 10:31?PM Aaron Gerow via KineJapan > wrote: This is a few days late, but here are some of the results of the Kinema Junpo Best Ten: 1) Yoake no subete/All the Long Nights (Miyake Sho) 2) Namibia no sabaku/Desert of Namibia (Yamanaka Yoko) 3) Aku wa sonzai shinai/Evil Does Not Exist (Hamaguchi Ryusuke) 4) Tied: Boku no ohisama/My Sunshine (Okuyama Hiroshi); Cloud (Kurosawa Kiyoshi) Best director: Miyake Sho Best screenplay: Nogi Akiko Best actress: Kawaii Yumi Best actor: Matsumura Hokuto Best documentary: Seigi no yukue Having won other awards, it looks like All the Long Nights is the most celebrated Japanese film of 2024. Aaron Gerow Alfred W. Griswold Professor of East Asian Languages and Literatures and Film and Media Studies Chair, East Asian Languages and Literatures Director of Graduate Studies, EALL (Spring 2025) Yale University 320 York Street, Room 108 PO Box 208201 New Haven, CT 06520-8201 USA Phone: 1-203-432-7082 Fax: 1-203-432-6729 e-mail: aaron.gerow at yale.edu website: www.aarongerow.com _______________________________________________ KineJapan mailing list KineJapan at mailman.yale.edu https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/kinejapan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaron.gerow at yale.edu Thu Feb 13 23:23:42 2025 From: aaron.gerow at yale.edu (Aaron Gerow) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:23:42 -0500 Subject: [KineJapan] Mainichi Film Awards 2024 Message-ID: A final Japan awards post (again late): The Mainichi Film Awards were announced a couple of weeks ago, and here are the results: Best film: Yoake no subete/All the Long Nights (Miyake Sho) Best actors: Kawaii Yumi, Yokohama Ryusei Best director: Miyake Sho Best screenplay: Hamaguchi Ryusuke Best cinematography: Ikeda Naoya Best art direction: Hayashida Yuji Best musical score: Ishibashi Eiko Best documentary: Eiga 0gatsu 0nichi, kucho ni naru onna Ofuji Noburo Award: Watashi ga, watashi to, watashi wa, watashi o The Ofuji Award honors a significant work of animation. This year's winner was Ito Rina's animated short that she made as her graduation work. https://hollywoodreporter.jp/japan/88471/ Aaron Gerow Alfred W. Griswold Professor of East Asian Languages and Literatures and Film and Media Studies Chair, East Asian Languages and Literatures Director of Graduate Studies, EALL (Spring 2025) Yale University 320 York Street, Room 108 PO Box 208201 New Haven, CT 06520-8201 USA Phone: 1-203-432-7082 Fax: 1-203-432-6729 e-mail: aaron.gerow at yale.edu website: www.aarongerow.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daisyyandu at uwalumni.com Sun Feb 16 08:06:31 2025 From: daisyyandu at uwalumni.com (Daisy Yan Du) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 21:06:31 +0800 Subject: [KineJapan] publication of the first edited book about Chinese animation studies Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The first edited book about Chinese animation studies just came out. It has a chapter about Japanese animation studies (by Alex Zahlten), so I took the liberty to share the information here. Thank you so much for your community support along the way. Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Animation-Multiplicities-Harvard-Contemporary/dp/0674297539 Chapter Abstracts: https://acas.world/2025/01/01/new-book-publication-chinese-animation-multiplicities-in-motion-feb-2025/ Best, Daisy Daisy Yan Du Associate Professor Division of Humanities Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Clear Water Bay, Kowloon Hong Kong -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nornes at umich.edu Tue Feb 18 21:41:50 2025 From: nornes at umich.edu (Markus Nornes) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:41:50 -0500 Subject: [KineJapan] Ito Shiori Marches On Message-ID: <95E8DE09-DF1A-48BA-8AAA-7FB98EBE8589@umich.edu> As I?m writing a book on post-Ogawa ethics in Japanese documentary, I?ve followed the comings and goings of Ito Shiori with some interest. Coming and going because she bounces between two curiously disconnected controversies. One is mainly restricted to Japan and the other is global. Both are of her own making, though in completely opposite ways. Tomorrow there will be competing press conferences in Japan from Ito on the one hand, and her lawyers on the other. It promises to be interesting. I thought I?d jot down some notes. They are admittedly messy, but I thought I?d share them since it will undoubtedly hit the news tomorrow. Black Box Diaries is streaming on Paramount+ and so I finally got a chance to watch the film the other day and consider for myself the claims regarding her ethical shortcomings. Make no mistake, the film is a real achievement. It?s extremely compelling, a righteous condemnation of sexual violence. Ito shows remarkable strength in the face of (mostly anonymous) powerful men, while revealing the wages the rape took upon her psyche. While she?s clearly damaged and delicate, her inner resources and determination and resilience is incredibly moving. The film is extraordinary and precious in many ways. It will go down as an historically important documentary for being a MeToo film from the point of view of a victim who refuses to remain silent. Notably, while Weinstein was brought down through the efforts of journalists who carefully protected their sources, Ito is herself a journalist and telling her own story. One wonders if this?that she is taking many risks in revealing her own story?leads her to careless treatment of her own sources. This brings me to the two controversies. The foreign one is stoked by Ito?s representation of her difficulty to find distribution in Japan. She attributes this to misogyny baked into the institutions, powerful men keeping the film down, and things like that. She explains her strategy of showing the film abroad first, to put pressure on distributors?a kind of gaiatsu. But this is the strategy for all filmmakers. Just as Oda Kaori is in Berlin right now, one starts at the major festivals and then works on domestic distribution. Ito attributes her difficulties to the distributors, and there?s now a round of Japan bashing focused on them. Even a petition with over 4,000 names. Her US distributor has a tweet claiming the film has been banned in Japan. This is so disingenuous. It?s annoying because there are many brave distributors who have not flinched in distributing even more controversial films. The film would be easy to distribute in Japan had she not had this set of ethical problems that open both she and her distributor to expensive litigation (one wonders what she wrote about this in her E and O forms for the foreign distribution?.). The short version of the domestic controversy goes like this. Ito records and deploys without consent various video and phone conversations with the taxi driver that took she and Yamaguchi to the hotel, the hotel employee that greeted them, a whistleblower she calls ?A,? her own lawyer, and attendees of an event on sexual violence. She also used surveillance footage of her arrival at the hotel with Yamaguchi, where she is visibly incapacitated, despite an agreement with the court and her lawyers that it was for her own reference, not for public exhibition. The film premiered at Sundance in 2024, but the consent issues didn?t really come out until her own lawyer raised objections in an extraordinary October press conference. If you want to learn more, there is a full rundown and excellent reporting out of the situation by Rina Hasumi in Medium . As far as I can see lawyer Nishihiro has focussed on the use of the hotel surveillance footage. She argues that it is incredibly difficult to secure the cooperation of individuals and institutions in gathering evidence for rape cases. Thanks to Ito blowing past her promises for confidentiality, it will make it all the more difficult to collect evidence for future cases. If the basic red line in documentary ethics is ?Do no harm,? the film?argues Nishihiro?fails here. At the same time, she understandably resents the very existence of secret lawyer-client recordings, let alone their inclusion in the film without consent. Actually, I differ with Nishihiro on the hotel footage. Her claim of harm is fairly speculative and ultimately hard to judge. It is significant that they are dark long shots, too distant and grainy to identify other people. And the identify of the hotel is well-known. As victim in these images, Ito Shiori possesses or ?owns" them in a special way. Whether what she did broke laws or not I do not know. She definitely broke a promise, but this is strong, visible evidence of the crime at the heart of the matter. It is cold surveillance footage. It is obvious she has been drugged. Their usage harms only Yamaguchi, and he deserves it. The footage basically proves the case. Yamaguchi deserves the entire film, and the broadcast of his crime across the planet. I?m more interested in the scenes and practices that are dubious, especially for someone who proudly reminds every interviewer and audience that she is a journalist. As I watched Black Box Diaries, I could not help thinking of Hara Kazuo?s Emperor?s Naked Army Marches On. Both Hara and Ito embark on a quest to provoke, record, and preserve testimony of atrocious wrongdoing. Both weaponize image and sound technologies that possess that special ontological status that captures the stuff of reality, which makes visual and aural evidence palpable, immediate, powerful and believable. But actually, when you get right down to it, Ito is less like Hara and more like Okuzaki. Both are relentless. Okuzaki is, not surprisingly, the more brutal of the two. But both brazenly pursue their recordings with a fervor that drives their respective films. But the differences are instructive. First, Okuzaki is on an insane mission from God; his mission has a metaphysical dimension, as he is doing this not just for the correction of historical record but to sooth the souls of the dead. Ito is on a righteous quest for justice, both for herself as victim and for social justice in the broadest sense, even geographically since her story has spread the world over. And now. More importantly, Okuzaki?s strategy is completely open and transparent. Not only does he command Hara to record his encounters, but when his victims call for help he calls the police. And when they arrive, he is completely honest in describing his deeds. What?s more, he ultimately went to prison for them. In contrast, Ito is completely surreptitious and opaque. Her unethical lack of transparency is inscribed in the photography; when she starts non-consensual encounters, the aim of the camera is haphazard and random. In one scene, a friend who now takes on the burden of her dubious filmmaking practice, photographs Ito and Whistleblower A with a hidden camera. The graininess from the darkness and the distance from the subjects mark the shot as deeply problematic. The final substantive difference is that Okuzaki is recording his confrontations with the perpetrators of the crime; Ito is secretly recording her mikata. Black Box has a scene at the end where Ito had her opportunity for her Okuzaki moment. She attends a press conference by Yamaguchi, but doesn?t ask a question. A common point between the two films is lack of informed consent. Hara and Okuzaki barge into private spaces and conduct their violent interviews before a 16mm camera crew; they are visible, but do not announce or explain their intentions or plans. Ito?s relationship to informed consent is more complicated, but also instructive. Her friendly taxi driver has no idea he?s being shot, and it seems he didn?t know until after Sundance. Interactions with her lawyer are split into two modes: sometimes Ito has permission to shoot and uses a locked down, well-composed camera records meetings; other times Ito is shown secretly recording their conversations on speaker phone. She only learned about this when she saw the finished film. Ito did find one government official to speak to her on camera; but the same scene shows a nearby staff member hiding from the camera behind a screen?in other words, refusing consent. The camera pans away from the speaker and aggressively zooms up on her, as if condemning her refusal to be photographed (even though she was merely standing to the side). The two most disconcerting problems around consent are for Mr. Chikuba the hotel worker that greeted them in the lobby. The other is Whistleblower A. In one of the most powerful scenes in the film, Ito records a phone conversation where Chikuba graciously gives his consent to her use of his private testimony and even his name in court, knowing full well that it could draw unwanted attention and perhaps the punishment of his employer. ?I will do anything for you,? he says. He is the hero of the film. Unfortunately, the scene is tainted by her lack of transparency. The entire conversation is in the film. She does not inform him that she?s recording their call, so obviously she also fails to ask for permission to use their conversation in the film. In the face of Chikuba?s courageous assent to go public, Ito?s hidden camera seems to capture something quite opposite. A cowardly fear that they will say ?no?? Embarrassment knowing she was doing something wrong?especially for a journalist? Or was it an anything-goes-for-the-film indifference to the thoughts and feelings of her heroic supporter? There is nothing in the film that suggests she merely forgot to ask. It is something else. What? The other revealing example of the complexity of informed consent comes with Whistleblower A, the cop in charge of her case who was feeding her behind the scenes information?taking great risks of his own to help her. In her surreptitiously obtained recordings with him, Whistleblower A repeatedly reminds her how exposure of his meetings would damage his career. Before the hidden camera coffeeshop meeting, Ito speculates, ?Maybe he wants to come out and tell the truth and be a part of it?? But at the coffee shop he once again explicitly refuses to give her consent to speak publicly. And asks for complete secrecy. She and her defenders assert his identity was concealed because they call him Detective A. This is nonsense, as he is identified as the officer in charge of her case, his reassignment is mentioned in the film, and it?s his employer who he fears. (And his physical appearance is hardly concealed in the coffee shop scene.) Being a journalist, Ito surely understands that it?s up to the whistleblower to decide whether or not, and when, to reveal their secret collaboration. Afterwards, she walks down the street she gives her cameraperson a debrief: ?I don?t know what?s the good thing to do. If you?re a journalist that would go really into the politician?s ?house?they have to know you?re a journalist, and they have to know this can get out. And our job is to tell the truth. But he is a good guy. So....ack! (sic)? Here she reveals that she knows it?s wrong to shoot him without consent. But she also reveals a warped sense of journalism: as a whistleblower he is depending on his journalist to protect him. Indeed, the most impressive thing about the books about the Weinstein reportage was the remarkable care reporters afforded their sources. We only learned Deep Throat?s identity on his terms, in 2005; Woodward and Bernstein protected him for over 30 years, and we knew only that there was an informant in the government. In Black Box Diaries, Ito and her defenders assert his identity was concealed. This is nonsense, as he is identified as the officer in charge of her case, his reassignment is mentioned in the film, and it?s his employer who he fears. Furthermore, his physical appearance is hardly concealed in the coffee shop scene. Being a journalist, Ito surely understands that it?s up to the whistleblower to decide whether or not, and when, to reveal their secret collaboration. This is less like journalism and more like Okuzaki?s mission from God. Ito does ask Whistleblower A for consent. Sort of. (And, rather ironically, she makes this request while he admits he?s intoxicated.) She reveals that she?s writing a book. He tells her it?s a good idea, but that she can?t use his name (clearly he implies this would embargo his subterfuge as well, but she does not confirm this). He continues, ?Is there anything I can do?? ?To be honest, I?d like you to speak out.? ?If you marry me, I will.? (She laughs for him, and silently gives a disturbed look to her cameraperson.) ??but we are headed in the same direction. But as long as I work for the police, I can?t take a stand in your civil case.? A minute later, he suggests going out for ramen. This is positioned as a moment of quasi-consent in the film; he affirmed her need to write a book. But, first, this was not informed consent, as she did not tell him she was recording him or that she planned to use the recordings in her film. And second, this fellow is helping her, feeding her inside information about her investigation, and yet she includes that yucky joke about marriage. In one sense, it is yet another Metoo moment and her reaction suggests that?s how she took it; it needs to be in the film. In another sense, it?s not terribly kind. Also, it has been reported that he, too, learned of the recordings only when the film was shown publicly. Black Box Diaries is a very good film. If she had shown the care for her Mikata it would have been a great film. She needs to watch the films of her senpai, like Tsuchimoto, Ogawa and Soda. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonathanlwroot at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 03:59:00 2025 From: jonathanlwroot at gmail.com (Jonathan Wroot) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:59:00 +0000 Subject: [KineJapan] Ito Shiori Marches On In-Reply-To: <95E8DE09-DF1A-48BA-8AAA-7FB98EBE8589@umich.edu> References: <95E8DE09-DF1A-48BA-8AAA-7FB98EBE8589@umich.edu> Message-ID: Dear Markus. Thanks for this fascinating insight. I have not had chance to watch Black Box Diaries yet, but hope to do so soon. I had only heard of some festival screenings of this film in the UK. I am not sure if it received a limited UK theatrical release. Perhaps some other UK scholars are aware. But I have now found out it can be rented on Apple TV in the UK, and also purchased on Amazon Prime Video. And in a suprise to me - it seems to have been broadcast on UK TV, on BBC, via its Storyville series (I suspect this was on channel BBC 2). The date of 4th February 2025 is noted as this broadcast on BBC iPlayer. And it has been made available to watch 'for over a year' (another quote from BBC iPlayer). As I'm sure you're aware, the BBC is a public broadcaster of similar size to NHK (though the two services are not exactly the same), and the BBC is funded by payment of a licence fee. This is the only information I can provide before catching up with the film myself. But if you are writing about it at the moment, I thought you might like to know at it's wide availability, at the moment, in the UK. Good luck with your latest book project. Jonathan *Dr Jonathan Wroot* *Senior Lecturer in Film Studies* Link Tutor for BA Film Studies at New York College, Athens, Greece School of Stage and Screen, FLAS University of Greenwich j.wroot at greenwich.ac.uk On Wednesday, 19 February 2025, Markus Nornes via KineJapan < kinejapan at mailman.yale.edu> wrote: > As I?m writing a book on post-Ogawa ethics in Japanese documentary, I?ve > followed the comings and goings of Ito Shiori with some interest. Coming > and going because she bounces between two curiously disconnected > controversies. One is mainly restricted to Japan and the other is global. > Both are of her own making, though in completely opposite ways. Tomorrow > there will be competing press conferences in Japan from Ito on the one > hand, and her lawyers on the other. It promises to be interesting. I > thought I?d jot down some notes. They are admittedly messy, but I thought > I?d share them since it will undoubtedly hit the news tomorrow. > > *Black Box Diaries* is streaming on Paramount+ and so I finally got a > chance to watch the film the other day and consider for myself the claims > regarding her ethical shortcomings. > > Make no mistake, the film is a real achievement. It?s extremely > compelling, a righteous condemnation of sexual violence. Ito shows > remarkable strength in the face of (mostly anonymous) powerful men, while > revealing the wages the rape took upon her psyche. While she?s clearly > damaged and delicate, her inner resources and determination and resilience > is incredibly moving. > > The film is extraordinary and precious in many ways. It will go down as an > historically important documentary for being a MeToo film from the point of > view of a victim who refuses to remain silent. Notably, while Weinstein was > brought down through the efforts of journalists who carefully protected > their sources, Ito is herself a journalist and telling her own story. One > wonders if this?that she is taking many risks in revealing her own > story?leads her to careless treatment of her own sources. > > This brings me to the two controversies. The foreign one is stoked by > Ito?s representation of her difficulty to find distribution in Japan. She > attributes this to misogyny baked into the institutions, powerful men > keeping the film down, and things like that. She explains her strategy of > showing the film abroad first, to put pressure on distributors?a kind of > gaiatsu. But this is the strategy for all filmmakers. Just as Oda Kaori is > in Berlin right now, one starts at the major festivals and then works on > domestic distribution. > > Ito attributes her difficulties to the distributors, and there?s now a > round of Japan bashing focused on them. Even a petition with over 4,000 > names. Her US distributor has a tweet claiming the film has been banned in > Japan. This is so disingenuous. It?s annoying because there are many brave > distributors who have not flinched in distributing even more controversial > films. The film would be easy to distribute in Japan had she not had this > set of ethical problems that open both she and her distributor to expensive > litigation (one wonders what she wrote about this in her E and O forms for > the foreign distribution?.). > > The short version of the domestic controversy goes like this. Ito records > and deploys without consent various video and phone conversations with the > taxi driver that took she and Yamaguchi to the hotel, the hotel employee > that greeted them, a whistleblower she calls ?A,? her own lawyer, and > attendees of an event on sexual violence. She also used surveillance > footage of her arrival at the hotel with Yamaguchi, where she is visibly > incapacitated, despite an agreement with the court and her lawyers that it > was for her own reference, not for public exhibition. > > The film premiered at Sundance in 2024, but the consent issues didn?t > really come out until her own lawyer raised objections in an extraordinary > October press conference. If you want to learn more, there is a full > rundown and excellent reporting out of the situation by Rina Hasumi in > *Medium* > > . > > As far as I can see lawyer Nishihiro has focussed on the use of the hotel > surveillance footage. She argues that it is incredibly difficult to secure > the cooperation of individuals and institutions in gathering evidence for > rape cases. Thanks to Ito blowing past her promises for confidentiality, it > will make it all the more difficult to collect evidence for future cases. > If the basic red line in documentary ethics is ?Do no harm,? the > film?argues Nishihiro?fails here. At the same time, she understandably > resents the very existence of secret lawyer-client recordings, let alone > their inclusion in the film without consent. > > Actually, I differ with Nishihiro on the hotel footage. Her claim of harm > is fairly speculative and ultimately hard to judge. It is significant that > they are dark long shots, too distant and grainy to identify other people. > And the identify of the hotel is well-known. As victim in these images, Ito > Shiori possesses or ?owns" them in a special way. Whether what she did > broke laws or not I do not know. She definitely broke a promise, but this > is strong, visible evidence of the crime at the heart of the matter. It is > cold surveillance footage. It is obvious she has been drugged. Their usage > harms only Yamaguchi, and he deserves it. The footage basically proves the > case. Yamaguchi deserves the entire film, and the broadcast of his crime > across the planet. > > I?m more interested in the scenes and practices that are dubious, > especially for someone who proudly reminds every interviewer and audience > that she is a journalist. > > As I watched *Black Box Diaries, *I could not help thinking of Hara > Kazuo?s *Emperor?s Naked Army Marches On.* Both Hara and Ito embark on a > quest to provoke, record, and preserve testimony of atrocious wrongdoing. > Both weaponize image and sound technologies that possess that special > ontological status that captures the stuff of reality, which makes visual > and aural evidence palpable, immediate, powerful and believable. > > But actually, when you get right down to it, Ito is less like Hara and > more like Okuzaki. Both are relentless. Okuzaki is, not surprisingly, the > more brutal of the two. But both brazenly pursue their recordings with a > fervor that drives their respective films. > > But the differences are instructive. > > First, Okuzaki is on an insane mission from God; his mission has a > metaphysical dimension, as he is doing this not just for the correction of > historical record but to sooth the souls of the dead. Ito is on a righteous > quest for justice, both for herself as victim and for social justice in the > broadest sense, even geographically since her story has spread the world > over. And *now.* > > More importantly, Okuzaki?s strategy is completely open and transparent. > Not only does he command Hara to record his encounters, but when his > victims call for help *he* calls the police. And when they arrive, he is > completely honest in describing his deeds. What?s more, he ultimately went > to prison for them. > > In contrast, Ito is completely surreptitious and opaque. Her unethical > lack of transparency is inscribed in the photography; when she starts > non-consensual encounters, the aim of the camera is haphazard and random. > In one scene, a friend who now takes on the burden of her dubious > filmmaking practice, photographs Ito and Whistleblower A with a hidden > camera. The graininess from the darkness and the distance from the subjects > mark the shot as deeply problematic. > > The final substantive difference is that Okuzaki is recording his > confrontations with the perpetrators of the crime; Ito is secretly > recording her *mikata*. *Black Box *has a scene at the end where Ito had > her opportunity for her Okuzaki moment. She attends a press conference by > Yamaguchi, but doesn?t ask a question. > > A common point between the two films is lack of informed consent. Hara and > Okuzaki barge into private spaces and conduct their violent interviews > before a 16mm camera crew; they are visible, but do not announce or explain > their intentions or plans. > > Ito?s relationship to informed consent is more complicated, but also > instructive. Her friendly taxi driver has no idea he?s being shot, and it > seems he didn?t know until after Sundance. Interactions with her lawyer are > split into two modes: sometimes Ito has permission to shoot and uses a > locked down, well-composed camera records meetings; other times Ito is > shown secretly recording their conversations on speaker phone. She only > learned about this when she saw the finished film. > > Ito did find one government official to speak to her on camera; but the > same scene shows a nearby staff member hiding from the camera behind a > screen?in other words, refusing consent. The camera pans away from the > speaker and aggressively zooms up on her, as if condemning her refusal to > be photographed (even though she was merely standing to the side). > > The two most disconcerting problems around consent are for Mr. Chikuba the > hotel worker that greeted them in the lobby. The other is Whistleblower A. > > In one of the most powerful scenes in the film, Ito records a phone > conversation where Chikuba graciously gives his consent to her use of his > private testimony and even his name in court, knowing full well that it > could draw unwanted attention and perhaps the punishment of his employer. > ?I will do anything for you,? he says. He is the hero of the film. > Unfortunately, the scene is tainted by her lack of transparency. The entire > conversation is in the film. She does not inform him that she?s recording > their call, so obviously she also fails to ask for permission to use their > conversation in the film. In the face of Chikuba?s courageous assent to go > public, Ito?s hidden camera seems to capture something quite opposite. A > cowardly fear that they will say ?no?? Embarrassment knowing she was doing > something wrong?especially for a journalist? Or was it an > anything-goes-for-the-film indifference to the thoughts and feelings of her > heroic supporter? There is nothing in the film that suggests she merely > forgot to ask. It is something else. What? > > The other revealing example of the complexity of informed consent comes > with Whistleblower A, the cop in charge of her case who was feeding her > behind the scenes information?taking great risks of his own to help her. In > her surreptitiously obtained recordings with him, Whistleblower > A repeatedly reminds her how exposure of his meetings would damage his > career. Before the hidden camera coffeeshop meeting, Ito speculates, ?Maybe > he wants to come out and tell the truth and be a part of it?? But at the > coffee shop he once again explicitly refuses to give her consent to speak > publicly. And asks for complete secrecy. > > She and her defenders assert his identity was concealed because they call > him Detective A. This is nonsense, as he is identified as the officer in > charge of her case, his reassignment is mentioned in the film, and it?s his > employer who he fears. (And his physical appearance is hardly concealed in > the coffee shop scene.) Being a journalist, Ito surely understands that > it?s up to the whistleblower to decide whether or not, and when, to reveal > their secret collaboration. > > Afterwards, she walks down the street she gives her cameraperson a > debrief: > > ?I don?t know what?s the good thing to do. If you?re a journalist that > would go really into the politician?s ?house?they have to know you?re a > journalist, and they have to know this can get out. And our job is to tell > the truth. But he is a good guy. So....ack! (sic)? > > Here she reveals that she knows it?s wrong to shoot him without consent. > But she also reveals a warped sense of journalism: as a whistleblower he is > depending on his journalist to protect him. Indeed, the most impressive > thing about the books about the Weinstein reportage was the remarkable care > reporters afforded their sources. We only learned Deep Throat?s identity on > his terms, in 2005; Woodward and Bernstein protected him for over 30 years, > and we knew only that there was an informant in the government. > > In *Black Box Diaries,* Ito and her defenders assert his identity was > concealed. This is nonsense, as he is identified as the officer in charge > of her case, his reassignment is mentioned in the film, and it?s his > employer who he fears. Furthermore, his physical appearance is hardly > concealed in the coffee shop scene. Being a journalist, Ito surely > understands that it?s up to the whistleblower to decide whether or not, and > when, to reveal their secret collaboration. This is less like journalism > and more like Okuzaki?s mission from God. > > Ito does ask Whistleblower A for consent. *Sort of. (*And, rather > ironically, she makes this request while he admits he?s intoxicated.) She > reveals that she?s writing a book. He tells her it?s a good idea, but that > she can?t use his name (clearly he implies this would embargo his > subterfuge as well, but she does not confirm this). He continues, > > ?Is there anything I can do?? > ?To be honest, I?d like you to speak out.? > ?If you marry me, I will.? > (She laughs for him, and silently gives a disturbed look to her > cameraperson.) > ??but we are headed in the same direction. But as long as I work for the > police, I can?t take a stand in your civil case.? > A minute later, he suggests going out for ramen. > > This is positioned as a moment of quasi-consent in the film; he affirmed > her need to write a book. But, first, this was not informed consent, as she > did not tell him she was recording him or that she planned to use the > recordings in her film. And second, this fellow is helping her, feeding her > inside information about her investigation, and yet she includes that yucky > joke about marriage. In one sense, it is yet another Metoo moment and her > reaction suggests that?s how she took it; it needs to be in the film. In > another sense, it?s not terribly kind. Also, it has been reported that he, > too, learned of the recordings only when the film was shown publicly. > > *Black Box Diaries *is a very good film. If she had shown the care for > her Mikata it would have been a great film. She needs to watch the films of > her *senpai,* like Tsuchimoto, Ogawa and Soda. > > > -- Dr Jonathan Wroot Senior Lecturer in Film Studies University of Greenwich. PhD, MA and BA (Hons) Fellow of the Higher Education Academy Email: jlwroot at googlemail.com https://gre.academia.edu/JonathanWroot -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From etsai at gapps.ntnu.edu.tw Wed Feb 19 04:52:50 2025 From: etsai at gapps.ntnu.edu.tw (=?UTF-8?B?5Y+w5bir5aSnRXZh6JSh5aaC6Z+z?=) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 17:52:50 +0800 Subject: [KineJapan] Ito Shiori Marches On In-Reply-To: <95E8DE09-DF1A-48BA-8AAA-7FB98EBE8589@umich.edu> References: <95E8DE09-DF1A-48BA-8AAA-7FB98EBE8589@umich.edu> Message-ID: In Taiwan, *Black Box Diary* is streaming on GILOO, an independent OTT service specializing in documentary and festival films. I just finished watching it, not just because its newly curated, but also because it?s relevant to the ongoing #MeToo movement in Taiwan, which as in #MeToo movements in other parts of the world, struggles to navigate the complexities in each unique situation. I appreciate the note and references by Markus. I worked with my students last year to produce a 4-part audio series on #MeToo movement in the media and entertainment academia and industries. We know firsthand that informed consent definitely affects the form of the final work and the production/adaptation strategy. I don?t know if these issues were weighed in by all involved in the production of Black Box Diary (apparently not so according Rina Hasumi?s reporting) and whether informed consent could be an ongoing process?like seeking it after the roughcut has been done. Probably not so practical. Ito Shiori might have been aware of the risks, the potential effects, and the consequences. By the way, this book came out late last year and it may be relevant to those covering/storytelling #MeToo in all kinds of media forms in Asia: Reporting Sexual Violence and #MeToo in Asia: The View from Hong Kong, Mainland China, and Taiwan. https://www.routledge.com/Reporting-Sexual-Violence-and-MeToo-in-Asia-The-View-from-Hong-Kong-Mainland-China-and-Taiwan/Luqiu/p/book/9781032755663 It?s likely journalists, documentary filmmakers, and new media content creators could have some similar and new ethical issues to negotiate and talk about. I have learned so much from Ito Shiori?s struggles and documentary. Sincerely, Eva Tsai - -??? ? ?? ? ??????????? ? ?? ? ???- ???????????? Eva Tsai, Ph.D. Professor Graduate Institute of Mass Communication National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) ??????? ; ?? Podcasts: ???????? ?MIT???? ??????Shida Stories On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:42?AM Markus Nornes via KineJapan < kinejapan at mailman.yale.edu> wrote: > As I?m writing a book on post-Ogawa ethics in Japanese documentary, I?ve > followed the comings and goings of Ito Shiori with some interest. Coming > and going because she bounces between two curiously disconnected > controversies. One is mainly restricted to Japan and the other is global. > Both are of her own making, though in completely opposite ways. Tomorrow > there will be competing press conferences in Japan from Ito on the one > hand, and her lawyers on the other. It promises to be interesting. I > thought I?d jot down some notes. They are admittedly messy, but I thought > I?d share them since it will undoubtedly hit the news tomorrow. > > *Black Box Diaries* is streaming on Paramount+ and so I finally got a > chance to watch the film the other day and consider for myself the claims > regarding her ethical shortcomings. > > Make no mistake, the film is a real achievement. It?s extremely > compelling, a righteous condemnation of sexual violence. Ito shows > remarkable strength in the face of (mostly anonymous) powerful men, while > revealing the wages the rape took upon her psyche. While she?s clearly > damaged and delicate, her inner resources and determination and resilience > is incredibly moving. > > The film is extraordinary and precious in many ways. It will go down as an > historically important documentary for being a MeToo film from the point of > view of a victim who refuses to remain silent. Notably, while Weinstein was > brought down through the efforts of journalists who carefully protected > their sources, Ito is herself a journalist and telling her own story. One > wonders if this?that she is taking many risks in revealing her own > story?leads her to careless treatment of her own sources. > > This brings me to the two controversies. The foreign one is stoked by > Ito?s representation of her difficulty to find distribution in Japan. She > attributes this to misogyny baked into the institutions, powerful men > keeping the film down, and things like that. She explains her strategy of > showing the film abroad first, to put pressure on distributors?a kind of > gaiatsu. But this is the strategy for all filmmakers. Just as Oda Kaori is > in Berlin right now, one starts at the major festivals and then works on > domestic distribution. > > Ito attributes her difficulties to the distributors, and there?s now a > round of Japan bashing focused on them. Even a petition with over 4,000 > names. Her US distributor has a tweet claiming the film has been banned in > Japan. This is so disingenuous. It?s annoying because there are many brave > distributors who have not flinched in distributing even more controversial > films. The film would be easy to distribute in Japan had she not had this > set of ethical problems that open both she and her distributor to expensive > litigation (one wonders what she wrote about this in her E and O forms for > the foreign distribution?.). > > The short version of the domestic controversy goes like this. Ito records > and deploys without consent various video and phone conversations with the > taxi driver that took she and Yamaguchi to the hotel, the hotel employee > that greeted them, a whistleblower she calls ?A,? her own lawyer, and > attendees of an event on sexual violence. She also used surveillance > footage of her arrival at the hotel with Yamaguchi, where she is visibly > incapacitated, despite an agreement with the court and her lawyers that it > was for her own reference, not for public exhibition. > > The film premiered at Sundance in 2024, but the consent issues didn?t > really come out until her own lawyer raised objections in an extraordinary > October press conference. If you want to learn more, there is a full > rundown and excellent reporting out of the situation by Rina Hasumi in > *Medium* > > . > > As far as I can see lawyer Nishihiro has focussed on the use of the hotel > surveillance footage. She argues that it is incredibly difficult to secure > the cooperation of individuals and institutions in gathering evidence for > rape cases. Thanks to Ito blowing past her promises for confidentiality, it > will make it all the more difficult to collect evidence for future cases. > If the basic red line in documentary ethics is ?Do no harm,? the > film?argues Nishihiro?fails here. At the same time, she understandably > resents the very existence of secret lawyer-client recordings, let alone > their inclusion in the film without consent. > > Actually, I differ with Nishihiro on the hotel footage. Her claim of harm > is fairly speculative and ultimately hard to judge. It is significant that > they are dark long shots, too distant and grainy to identify other people. > And the identify of the hotel is well-known. As victim in these images, Ito > Shiori possesses or ?owns" them in a special way. Whether what she did > broke laws or not I do not know. She definitely broke a promise, but this > is strong, visible evidence of the crime at the heart of the matter. It is > cold surveillance footage. It is obvious she has been drugged. Their usage > harms only Yamaguchi, and he deserves it. The footage basically proves the > case. Yamaguchi deserves the entire film, and the broadcast of his crime > across the planet. > > I?m more interested in the scenes and practices that are dubious, > especially for someone who proudly reminds every interviewer and audience > that she is a journalist. > > As I watched *Black Box Diaries, *I could not help thinking of Hara > Kazuo?s *Emperor?s Naked Army Marches On.* Both Hara and Ito embark on a > quest to provoke, record, and preserve testimony of atrocious wrongdoing. > Both weaponize image and sound technologies that possess that special > ontological status that captures the stuff of reality, which makes visual > and aural evidence palpable, immediate, powerful and believable. > > But actually, when you get right down to it, Ito is less like Hara and > more like Okuzaki. Both are relentless. Okuzaki is, not surprisingly, the > more brutal of the two. But both brazenly pursue their recordings with a > fervor that drives their respective films. > > But the differences are instructive. > > First, Okuzaki is on an insane mission from God; his mission has a > metaphysical dimension, as he is doing this not just for the correction of > historical record but to sooth the souls of the dead. Ito is on a righteous > quest for justice, both for herself as victim and for social justice in the > broadest sense, even geographically since her story has spread the world > over. And *now.* > > More importantly, Okuzaki?s strategy is completely open and transparent. > Not only does he command Hara to record his encounters, but when his > victims call for help *he* calls the police. And when they arrive, he is > completely honest in describing his deeds. What?s more, he ultimately went > to prison for them. > > In contrast, Ito is completely surreptitious and opaque. Her unethical > lack of transparency is inscribed in the photography; when she starts > non-consensual encounters, the aim of the camera is haphazard and random. > In one scene, a friend who now takes on the burden of her dubious > filmmaking practice, photographs Ito and Whistleblower A with a hidden > camera. The graininess from the darkness and the distance from the subjects > mark the shot as deeply problematic. > > The final substantive difference is that Okuzaki is recording his > confrontations with the perpetrators of the crime; Ito is secretly > recording her *mikata*. *Black Box *has a scene at the end where Ito had > her opportunity for her Okuzaki moment. She attends a press conference by > Yamaguchi, but doesn?t ask a question. > > A common point between the two films is lack of informed consent. Hara and > Okuzaki barge into private spaces and conduct their violent interviews > before a 16mm camera crew; they are visible, but do not announce or explain > their intentions or plans. > > Ito?s relationship to informed consent is more complicated, but also > instructive. Her friendly taxi driver has no idea he?s being shot, and it > seems he didn?t know until after Sundance. Interactions with her lawyer are > split into two modes: sometimes Ito has permission to shoot and uses a > locked down, well-composed camera records meetings; other times Ito is > shown secretly recording their conversations on speaker phone. She only > learned about this when she saw the finished film. > > Ito did find one government official to speak to her on camera; but the > same scene shows a nearby staff member hiding from the camera behind a > screen?in other words, refusing consent. The camera pans away from the > speaker and aggressively zooms up on her, as if condemning her refusal to > be photographed (even though she was merely standing to the side). > > The two most disconcerting problems around consent are for Mr. Chikuba the > hotel worker that greeted them in the lobby. The other is Whistleblower A. > > In one of the most powerful scenes in the film, Ito records a phone > conversation where Chikuba graciously gives his consent to her use of his > private testimony and even his name in court, knowing full well that it > could draw unwanted attention and perhaps the punishment of his employer. > ?I will do anything for you,? he says. He is the hero of the film. > Unfortunately, the scene is tainted by her lack of transparency. The entire > conversation is in the film. She does not inform him that she?s recording > their call, so obviously she also fails to ask for permission to use their > conversation in the film. In the face of Chikuba?s courageous assent to go > public, Ito?s hidden camera seems to capture something quite opposite. A > cowardly fear that they will say ?no?? Embarrassment knowing she was doing > something wrong?especially for a journalist? Or was it an > anything-goes-for-the-film indifference to the thoughts and feelings of her > heroic supporter? There is nothing in the film that suggests she merely > forgot to ask. It is something else. What? > > The other revealing example of the complexity of informed consent comes > with Whistleblower A, the cop in charge of her case who was feeding her > behind the scenes information?taking great risks of his own to help her. In > her surreptitiously obtained recordings with him, Whistleblower > A repeatedly reminds her how exposure of his meetings would damage his > career. Before the hidden camera coffeeshop meeting, Ito speculates, ?Maybe > he wants to come out and tell the truth and be a part of it?? But at the > coffee shop he once again explicitly refuses to give her consent to speak > publicly. And asks for complete secrecy. > > She and her defenders assert his identity was concealed because they call > him Detective A. This is nonsense, as he is identified as the officer in > charge of her case, his reassignment is mentioned in the film, and it?s his > employer who he fears. (And his physical appearance is hardly concealed in > the coffee shop scene.) Being a journalist, Ito surely understands that > it?s up to the whistleblower to decide whether or not, and when, to reveal > their secret collaboration. > > Afterwards, she walks down the street she gives her cameraperson a > debrief: > > ?I don?t know what?s the good thing to do. If you?re a journalist that > would go really into the politician?s ?house?they have to know you?re a > journalist, and they have to know this can get out. And our job is to tell > the truth. But he is a good guy. So....ack! (sic)? > > Here she reveals that she knows it?s wrong to shoot him without consent. > But she also reveals a warped sense of journalism: as a whistleblower he is > depending on his journalist to protect him. Indeed, the most impressive > thing about the books about the Weinstein reportage was the remarkable care > reporters afforded their sources. We only learned Deep Throat?s identity on > his terms, in 2005; Woodward and Bernstein protected him for over 30 years, > and we knew only that there was an informant in the government. > > In *Black Box Diaries,* Ito and her defenders assert his identity was > concealed. This is nonsense, as he is identified as the officer in charge > of her case, his reassignment is mentioned in the film, and it?s his > employer who he fears. Furthermore, his physical appearance is hardly > concealed in the coffee shop scene. Being a journalist, Ito surely > understands that it?s up to the whistleblower to decide whether or not, and > when, to reveal their secret collaboration. This is less like journalism > and more like Okuzaki?s mission from God. > > Ito does ask Whistleblower A for consent. *Sort of. (*And, rather > ironically, she makes this request while he admits he?s intoxicated.) She > reveals that she?s writing a book. He tells her it?s a good idea, but that > she can?t use his name (clearly he implies this would embargo his > subterfuge as well, but she does not confirm this). He continues, > > ?Is there anything I can do?? > ?To be honest, I?d like you to speak out.? > ?If you marry me, I will.? > (She laughs for him, and silently gives a disturbed look to her > cameraperson.) > ??but we are headed in the same direction. But as long as I work for the > police, I can?t take a stand in your civil case.? > A minute later, he suggests going out for ramen. > > This is positioned as a moment of quasi-consent in the film; he affirmed > her need to write a book. But, first, this was not informed consent, as she > did not tell him she was recording him or that she planned to use the > recordings in her film. And second, this fellow is helping her, feeding her > inside information about her investigation, and yet she includes that yucky > joke about marriage. In one sense, it is yet another Metoo moment and her > reaction suggests that?s how she took it; it needs to be in the film. In > another sense, it?s not terribly kind. Also, it has been reported that he, > too, learned of the recordings only when the film was shown publicly. > > *Black Box Diaries *is a very good film. If she had shown the care for > her Mikata it would have been a great film. She needs to watch the films of > her *senpai,* like Tsuchimoto, Ogawa and Soda. > > > _______________________________________________ > KineJapan mailing list > KineJapan at mailman.yale.edu > https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/kinejapan > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From reavolution at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 09:21:35 2025 From: reavolution at gmail.com (Rea Amit) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:21:35 -0600 Subject: [KineJapan] Ito Shiori Marches On In-Reply-To: <95E8DE09-DF1A-48BA-8AAA-7FB98EBE8589@umich.edu> References: <95E8DE09-DF1A-48BA-8AAA-7FB98EBE8589@umich.edu> Message-ID: Thank you, Markus, for this detailed discussion of Ito?s important work. I watched it some time ago and also recommended it to my students. I must admit that some of her strategies for eliciting input about her case in the film made me feel a bit uneasy. However, given the extreme risks she is taking, I find these ethical gray areas not only justified but also integral to what makes the film so powerful. While I?m not sure I would go so far as to compare her to Okuzaki, she occupies a unique position as journalist, filmmaker, and the film?s main subject, making a personal intervention that is both courageous while at the same time also quite intimate. One point I would add, though, is that the film seems to be catering from the outset to a Western viewership. At least in the version I watched in the U.S., a significant portion?maybe about half??was in English. Ito often speaks directly to the camera in English, which gave me the impression that her entire approach was that of gaiatsu from the beginning. This is not a critique of the film or its significance, but it may be another factor to consider when thinking about its local distribution. I don?t recall watching Japanese documentaries that make such extensive use of English, especially from some of the filmmakers mentioned above. This makes me wonder whether this might be a new factor in post-Ogawa aesthetics?beyond just ethical considerations. It raises interesting questions about how contemporary Japanese documentary filmmakers position their work within a global viewership and whether this shift reflects broader changes in distribution (including streaming), funding, or the intended scope of their interventions. On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 8:42?PM Markus Nornes via KineJapan < kinejapan at mailman.yale.edu> wrote: > As I?m writing a book on post-Ogawa ethics in Japanese documentary, I?ve > followed the comings and goings of Ito Shiori with some interest. Coming > and going because she bounces between two curiously disconnected > controversies. One is mainly restricted to Japan and the other is global. > Both are of her own making, though in completely opposite ways. Tomorrow > there will be competing press conferences in Japan from Ito on the one > hand, and her lawyers on the other. It promises to be interesting. I > thought I?d jot down some notes. They are admittedly messy, but I thought > I?d share them since it will undoubtedly hit the news tomorrow. > > *Black Box Diaries* is streaming on Paramount+ and so I finally got a > chance to watch the film the other day and consider for myself the claims > regarding her ethical shortcomings. > > Make no mistake, the film is a real achievement. It?s extremely > compelling, a righteous condemnation of sexual violence. Ito shows > remarkable strength in the face of (mostly anonymous) powerful men, while > revealing the wages the rape took upon her psyche. While she?s clearly > damaged and delicate, her inner resources and determination and resilience > is incredibly moving. > > The film is extraordinary and precious in many ways. It will go down as an > historically important documentary for being a MeToo film from the point of > view of a victim who refuses to remain silent. Notably, while Weinstein was > brought down through the efforts of journalists who carefully protected > their sources, Ito is herself a journalist and telling her own story. One > wonders if this?that she is taking many risks in revealing her own > story?leads her to careless treatment of her own sources. > > This brings me to the two controversies. The foreign one is stoked by > Ito?s representation of her difficulty to find distribution in Japan. She > attributes this to misogyny baked into the institutions, powerful men > keeping the film down, and things like that. She explains her strategy of > showing the film abroad first, to put pressure on distributors?a kind of > gaiatsu. But this is the strategy for all filmmakers. Just as Oda Kaori is > in Berlin right now, one starts at the major festivals and then works on > domestic distribution. > > Ito attributes her difficulties to the distributors, and there?s now a > round of Japan bashing focused on them. Even a petition with over 4,000 > names. Her US distributor has a tweet claiming the film has been banned in > Japan. This is so disingenuous. It?s annoying because there are many brave > distributors who have not flinched in distributing even more controversial > films. The film would be easy to distribute in Japan had she not had this > set of ethical problems that open both she and her distributor to expensive > litigation (one wonders what she wrote about this in her E and O forms for > the foreign distribution?.). > > The short version of the domestic controversy goes like this. Ito records > and deploys without consent various video and phone conversations with the > taxi driver that took she and Yamaguchi to the hotel, the hotel employee > that greeted them, a whistleblower she calls ?A,? her own lawyer, and > attendees of an event on sexual violence. She also used surveillance > footage of her arrival at the hotel with Yamaguchi, where she is visibly > incapacitated, despite an agreement with the court and her lawyers that it > was for her own reference, not for public exhibition. > > The film premiered at Sundance in 2024, but the consent issues didn?t > really come out until her own lawyer raised objections in an extraordinary > October press conference. If you want to learn more, there is a full > rundown and excellent reporting out of the situation by Rina Hasumi in > *Medium* > > . > > As far as I can see lawyer Nishihiro has focussed on the use of the hotel > surveillance footage. She argues that it is incredibly difficult to secure > the cooperation of individuals and institutions in gathering evidence for > rape cases. Thanks to Ito blowing past her promises for confidentiality, it > will make it all the more difficult to collect evidence for future cases. > If the basic red line in documentary ethics is ?Do no harm,? the > film?argues Nishihiro?fails here. At the same time, she understandably > resents the very existence of secret lawyer-client recordings, let alone > their inclusion in the film without consent. > > Actually, I differ with Nishihiro on the hotel footage. Her claim of harm > is fairly speculative and ultimately hard to judge. It is significant that > they are dark long shots, too distant and grainy to identify other people. > And the identify of the hotel is well-known. As victim in these images, Ito > Shiori possesses or ?owns" them in a special way. Whether what she did > broke laws or not I do not know. She definitely broke a promise, but this > is strong, visible evidence of the crime at the heart of the matter. It is > cold surveillance footage. It is obvious she has been drugged. Their usage > harms only Yamaguchi, and he deserves it. The footage basically proves the > case. Yamaguchi deserves the entire film, and the broadcast of his crime > across the planet. > > I?m more interested in the scenes and practices that are dubious, > especially for someone who proudly reminds every interviewer and audience > that she is a journalist. > > As I watched *Black Box Diaries, *I could not help thinking of Hara > Kazuo?s *Emperor?s Naked Army Marches On.* Both Hara and Ito embark on a > quest to provoke, record, and preserve testimony of atrocious wrongdoing. > Both weaponize image and sound technologies that possess that special > ontological status that captures the stuff of reality, which makes visual > and aural evidence palpable, immediate, powerful and believable. > > But actually, when you get right down to it, Ito is less like Hara and > more like Okuzaki. Both are relentless. Okuzaki is, not surprisingly, the > more brutal of the two. But both brazenly pursue their recordings with a > fervor that drives their respective films. > > But the differences are instructive. > > First, Okuzaki is on an insane mission from God; his mission has a > metaphysical dimension, as he is doing this not just for the correction of > historical record but to sooth the souls of the dead. Ito is on a righteous > quest for justice, both for herself as victim and for social justice in the > broadest sense, even geographically since her story has spread the world > over. And *now.* > > More importantly, Okuzaki?s strategy is completely open and transparent. > Not only does he command Hara to record his encounters, but when his > victims call for help *he* calls the police. And when they arrive, he is > completely honest in describing his deeds. What?s more, he ultimately went > to prison for them. > > In contrast, Ito is completely surreptitious and opaque. Her unethical > lack of transparency is inscribed in the photography; when she starts > non-consensual encounters, the aim of the camera is haphazard and random. > In one scene, a friend who now takes on the burden of her dubious > filmmaking practice, photographs Ito and Whistleblower A with a hidden > camera. The graininess from the darkness and the distance from the subjects > mark the shot as deeply problematic. > > The final substantive difference is that Okuzaki is recording his > confrontations with the perpetrators of the crime; Ito is secretly > recording her *mikata*. *Black Box *has a scene at the end where Ito had > her opportunity for her Okuzaki moment. She attends a press conference by > Yamaguchi, but doesn?t ask a question. > > A common point between the two films is lack of informed consent. Hara and > Okuzaki barge into private spaces and conduct their violent interviews > before a 16mm camera crew; they are visible, but do not announce or explain > their intentions or plans. > > Ito?s relationship to informed consent is more complicated, but also > instructive. Her friendly taxi driver has no idea he?s being shot, and it > seems he didn?t know until after Sundance. Interactions with her lawyer are > split into two modes: sometimes Ito has permission to shoot and uses a > locked down, well-composed camera records meetings; other times Ito is > shown secretly recording their conversations on speaker phone. She only > learned about this when she saw the finished film. > > Ito did find one government official to speak to her on camera; but the > same scene shows a nearby staff member hiding from the camera behind a > screen?in other words, refusing consent. The camera pans away from the > speaker and aggressively zooms up on her, as if condemning her refusal to > be photographed (even though she was merely standing to the side). > > The two most disconcerting problems around consent are for Mr. Chikuba the > hotel worker that greeted them in the lobby. The other is Whistleblower A. > > In one of the most powerful scenes in the film, Ito records a phone > conversation where Chikuba graciously gives his consent to her use of his > private testimony and even his name in court, knowing full well that it > could draw unwanted attention and perhaps the punishment of his employer. > ?I will do anything for you,? he says. He is the hero of the film. > Unfortunately, the scene is tainted by her lack of transparency. The entire > conversation is in the film. She does not inform him that she?s recording > their call, so obviously she also fails to ask for permission to use their > conversation in the film. In the face of Chikuba?s courageous assent to go > public, Ito?s hidden camera seems to capture something quite opposite. A > cowardly fear that they will say ?no?? Embarrassment knowing she was doing > something wrong?especially for a journalist? Or was it an > anything-goes-for-the-film indifference to the thoughts and feelings of her > heroic supporter? There is nothing in the film that suggests she merely > forgot to ask. It is something else. What? > > The other revealing example of the complexity of informed consent comes > with Whistleblower A, the cop in charge of her case who was feeding her > behind the scenes information?taking great risks of his own to help her. In > her surreptitiously obtained recordings with him, Whistleblower > A repeatedly reminds her how exposure of his meetings would damage his > career. Before the hidden camera coffeeshop meeting, Ito speculates, ?Maybe > he wants to come out and tell the truth and be a part of it?? But at the > coffee shop he once again explicitly refuses to give her consent to speak > publicly. And asks for complete secrecy. > > She and her defenders assert his identity was concealed because they call > him Detective A. This is nonsense, as he is identified as the officer in > charge of her case, his reassignment is mentioned in the film, and it?s his > employer who he fears. (And his physical appearance is hardly concealed in > the coffee shop scene.) Being a journalist, Ito surely understands that > it?s up to the whistleblower to decide whether or not, and when, to reveal > their secret collaboration. > > Afterwards, she walks down the street she gives her cameraperson a > debrief: > > ?I don?t know what?s the good thing to do. If you?re a journalist that > would go really into the politician?s ?house?they have to know you?re a > journalist, and they have to know this can get out. And our job is to tell > the truth. But he is a good guy. So....ack! (sic)? > > Here she reveals that she knows it?s wrong to shoot him without consent. > But she also reveals a warped sense of journalism: as a whistleblower he is > depending on his journalist to protect him. Indeed, the most impressive > thing about the books about the Weinstein reportage was the remarkable care > reporters afforded their sources. We only learned Deep Throat?s identity on > his terms, in 2005; Woodward and Bernstein protected him for over 30 years, > and we knew only that there was an informant in the government. > > In *Black Box Diaries,* Ito and her defenders assert his identity was > concealed. This is nonsense, as he is identified as the officer in charge > of her case, his reassignment is mentioned in the film, and it?s his > employer who he fears. Furthermore, his physical appearance is hardly > concealed in the coffee shop scene. Being a journalist, Ito surely > understands that it?s up to the whistleblower to decide whether or not, and > when, to reveal their secret collaboration. This is less like journalism > and more like Okuzaki?s mission from God. > > Ito does ask Whistleblower A for consent. *Sort of. (*And, rather > ironically, she makes this request while he admits he?s intoxicated.) She > reveals that she?s writing a book. He tells her it?s a good idea, but that > she can?t use his name (clearly he implies this would embargo his > subterfuge as well, but she does not confirm this). He continues, > > ?Is there anything I can do?? > ?To be honest, I?d like you to speak out.? > ?If you marry me, I will.? > (She laughs for him, and silently gives a disturbed look to her > cameraperson.) > ??but we are headed in the same direction. But as long as I work for the > police, I can?t take a stand in your civil case.? > A minute later, he suggests going out for ramen. > > This is positioned as a moment of quasi-consent in the film; he affirmed > her need to write a book. But, first, this was not informed consent, as she > did not tell him she was recording him or that she planned to use the > recordings in her film. And second, this fellow is helping her, feeding her > inside information about her investigation, and yet she includes that yucky > joke about marriage. In one sense, it is yet another Metoo moment and her > reaction suggests that?s how she took it; it needs to be in the film. In > another sense, it?s not terribly kind. Also, it has been reported that he, > too, learned of the recordings only when the film was shown publicly. > > *Black Box Diaries *is a very good film. If she had shown the care for > her Mikata it would have been a great film. She needs to watch the films of > her *senpai,* like Tsuchimoto, Ogawa and Soda. > > > _______________________________________________ > KineJapan mailing list > KineJapan at mailman.yale.edu > https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/kinejapan > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seuffedit at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 09:52:30 2025 From: seuffedit at gmail.com (Kirsten Seuffert) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:52:30 -0500 Subject: [KineJapan] Ito Shiori Marches On Message-ID: Thank you Markus and everyone, for the dialogue. Just a few thoughts, although I too am very impressed and touched by It?'s commitment and bravery yet conflicted over the ethical ambiguity in terms of sources. But on that note I think it's valuable to look outside of the Japanese context and think about the tone that HBO's *Phoenix Rising* series recently set -- in which Evan Rachel Wood and her co-producers hit back first and focused on documenting the process, knowing that they would probably be countersued. Not that this is the same as using footage without consent, but it hints at a sense of a Hollywood-centered safe space where there might be a certain level of protection for those who speak out -- or the illusion of such. (Probably the latter, but it is appealing to imagine.) I attended a screening in LA over the winter break with It? present, and her response to someone asking why the film wasn't screening in Japan was "I wish I knew." And she also mentioned that she was shopping for a new country, and might be interested in LA. So take that as you will. Has anyone read the book? Was there any sort of shift in It?'s approach to handling interview material between the two media? Best, Kirsten Kirsten Seuffert Postdoctoral Research Fellow University of Michigan Center for Japanese Studies -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nornes at umich.edu Wed Feb 19 12:13:50 2025 From: nornes at umich.edu (Markus Nornes) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:13:50 -0500 Subject: [KineJapan] Ito Shiori Marches On In-Reply-To: References: <95E8DE09-DF1A-48BA-8AAA-7FB98EBE8589@umich.edu> Message-ID: <44D84128-9DFB-4FB3-90F6-66A07A6C359D@umich.edu> > However, given the extreme risks she is taking, I find these ethical gray areas not only justified but also integral to what makes the film so powerful. Isn?t it more accurate to say that she is making careless decisions regarding other people?s risk? My point was that the surveillance footage is in a grey area and her use of it felt justified. But hidden camera and lack of informed consent and exposing the ID of whistleblowers is not grey for me. Funahashi-san just published a piece that takes your position. I disagree pretty strongly. But I have been deeply influenced by Brian Winston?s writings on documentary ethics, and the stances of Tsuchimoto and Ogawa. The latter used hidden camera once, in Forest of Oppression; but while watching rushes they came to really regret it. Ogawa and other members often, often talked about that. Otsu too, having shot films for both of those directors. >Risk. There?s no question she is taking on risk. She includes just a glimpse of the horrifying blowback in the film itself. The other day she posted on social media that she feels she cannot safely live in her own country anymore, which is truly terrible. I think it?s possible to sympathize with her struggles, admire her remarkable courage, and praise her accomplishments here?and also question her treatment of the very people who are supporting her. There is a century of documentary filmmaking that has forged creative and uncompromising ways to treat difficult subjects without harming collaborators. Maybe she needs to watch more films. > One point I would add, though, is that the film seems to be catering from the outset to a Western viewership. > Excellent observation. I think you?re right. She was definitely aiming at a global audience from the get go. It?s a good thing. I wish more Japanese documentary filmmakers were doing that. Almost no one is. But I think it?s hard for all sorts of reasons. Markus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nornes at umich.edu Wed Feb 19 12:41:45 2025 From: nornes at umich.edu (Markus Nornes) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:41:45 -0500 Subject: [KineJapan] Ito Shiori Marches On In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CCAC6A1-5561-4B7D-ADC1-3C5661D284B2@umich.edu> > But on that note I think it's valuable to look outside of the Japanese context and think about the tone that HBO's Phoenix Rising series recently set -- in which Evan Rachel Wood and her co-producers hit back first and focused on documenting the process, knowing that they would probably be countersued. In this case, Ito is literally suing people who supported her, not the perp. I didn?t write about that, but that?s what?s going on now. Here is an article about her suit against, of all people, journalist Mochizuki Isoku (who appears in Black Box, and was the center of Mori Tatsuya?s film). https://www.sankei.com/article/20250214-NGLQRLOBG5GGNOBJA54U3ERY7E/? ?????????????????????????????????????????? sankei.com Here is a quote from a statement by Nishihiro about watching the film the first time. Ito had promised to show her the film for vetting, but she didn?t; Nishihiro learned second-hand that it had been submitted to Sundance. And she saw it through a private university screening. It seems she had not been invited, so she just went. In her statement, she writes that at the screening... I also learned that for several years, my phone conversations with Ms. Ito had been secretly recorded and filmed without my consent. Already reeling from the shock of hearing the recorded voices and seeing the images of the taxi driver and the investigators, this discovery was the final blow. At that moment, I felt utterly devastated. When the screening ended and the credits rolled in the darkness, I found myself unable to remain in the venue any longer and left hastily. As I waited for the elevator, Ms. Ito happened to pass by and said, "Sensei, let?s talk again soon," before hugging me. I stood frozen, allowing her to embrace me, and as soon as the elevator arrived, I exchanged a few meaningless words before leaving. At that moment, I didn?t even have the strength to reject her hug?I never could have imagined that the future would turn out this way. For eight and a half years, I devoted my time and energy, fighting desperately to protect her...But even more than that, the pain of having to now point out the wrongdoings of someone I had fought alongside and trusted for so many years is overwhelming...I ask that my recorded conversations not be used. I never consented to being recorded. Furthermore, the way the film presents our conversations creates a misleading impression that is inconsistent with my role in the legal proceedings. Above all, the selective editing distorts the process that I hold dear?"prioritizing the intentions of my clients." That, I find truly infuriating. I quote this because it?s not often that the subject of non-consensual, hidden camera treatment has a voice. Notably, neither the cop nor the taxi driver is responding to journalists now. > Not that this is the same as using footage without consent, but it hints at a sense of a Hollywood-centered safe space where there might be a certain level of protection for those who speak out -- or the illusion of such. I wonder. I?ve read the books about the Weinstein reportage, Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey?s She Said and Ronan Farrow?s Catch and Kill. I have also seen all of them speak here at Michigan. I didn?t sense any space was safe?even personal homes. More importantly, a huge proportion of those books is about the incredibly lengths the journalists went to protect their sources and secure unquestionably informed consent. Ito?s case is significantly different because she is both victim and journalist; however, does that mean the proprieties around protecting sources fall away? > I attended a screening in LA over the winter break with It? present, and her response to someone asking why the film wasn't screening in Japan was "I wish I knew.? Sorry, I don?t believe this for a minute. I can immediately of three Japanese distributors who would LOVE to distribute this film, even if it had not been celebrated abroad or Oscar nominated. I?ve talked to one of them, who confirmed this. The problem is the recklessness about consent, but that would be hard to admit in a festival Q and A?especially if you believe you?ve done nothing wrong. Markus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TLRZMKPAXVEU5F5PXXMXCNUMRI.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 121492 bytes Desc: not available URL: From annekmcknight at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 13:33:03 2025 From: annekmcknight at gmail.com (Anne McKnight) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:33:03 -0800 Subject: [KineJapan] Ito Shiori Marches On In-Reply-To: <8CCAC6A1-5561-4B7D-ADC1-3C5661D284B2@umich.edu> References: <8CCAC6A1-5561-4B7D-ADC1-3C5661D284B2@umich.edu> Message-ID: <1C567DF9-0C21-4816-AD3B-FB0342A8F3B6@gmail.com> Thanks for this interesting discussion? As I filter things in this debate, I was reminded as I prepped for a class on the Hara film that Yukiyukite shingun actually has 2 scenes of wiretapping/recorded conversations. Both involving Okuzaki. 1 is right after the credits (about 4:08 on this Internet Archive version), when Okuzaki calls the police to haggle about his trip to Tokyo. A second is at about 1:09:08, when Okuzaki speaks with Kojima. (Ruoff?s list of scenes describes it as "Okuzaki discusses the executions on the phone with Kojima Shichir?.?) In both cases, we hear the voice of the person Okuzaki is in conversation with; in the second, we see a shot framing the recorder itself, so there?s pretty much no doubt it was (at the time) somehow preserved. I remember the T?ch?h? (???) wiretapping law being very controversial before and when it was promulgated in 1999, in the wake of the AUM sarin incident/s. The opposition, if I recall, was to potential overreach by law enforcement. Of course Okuzaki is now dead, and maybe his interlocutors are, as well. I wonder, does anyone know how the changing legislation/opposition to wiretapping post-AUM (also, post Mori Tatsuya films about AUM, like A) affects the landscape of recording, if at all? What the track record of the ??? is, what has the opposition called into question, how that has been reported and/or litigated? I saw the film with a friend/colleague in Los Feliz, during a run of Oscar-nominated docs. There was a long line of people waiting to talk to It? afterward, who was clearly friendly with other doc filmmakers. I would say the vibe, when the curtain went up, was catharsis: somewhere between ?not a dry eye in the house? and ?get those motherfuckers.? Thanks... Anne > On Feb 19, 2025, at 9:41?AM, Markus Nornes via KineJapan wrote: > >> But on that note I think it's valuable to look outside of the Japanese context and think about the tone that HBO's Phoenix Rising series recently set -- in which Evan Rachel Wood and her co-producers hit back first and focused on documenting the process, knowing that they would probably be countersued. > > In this case, Ito is literally suing people who supported her, not the perp. I didn?t write about that, but that?s what?s going on now. Here is an article about her suit against, of all people, journalist Mochizuki Isoku (who appears in Black Box, and was the center of Mori Tatsuya?s film). > > https://www.sankei.com/article/20250214-NGLQRLOBG5GGNOBJA54U3ERY7E/ > > Here is a quote from a statement by Nishihiro about watching the film the first time. Ito had promised to show her the film for vetting, but she didn?t; Nishihiro learned second-hand that it had been submitted to Sundance. And she saw it through a private university screening. It seems she had not been invited, so she just went. In her statement, she writes that at the screening... > I also learned that for several years, my phone conversations with Ms. Ito had been secretly recorded and filmed without my consent. Already reeling from the shock of hearing the recorded voices and seeing the images of the taxi driver and the investigators, this discovery was the final blow. At that moment, I felt utterly devastated. When the screening ended and the credits rolled in the darkness, I found myself unable to remain in the venue any longer and left hastily. As I waited for the elevator, Ms. Ito happened to pass by and said, "Sensei, let?s talk again soon," before hugging me. I stood frozen, allowing her to embrace me, and as soon as the elevator arrived, I exchanged a few meaningless words before leaving. At that moment, I didn?t even have the strength to reject her hug?I never could have imagined that the future would turn out this way. For eight and a half years, I devoted my time and energy, fighting desperately to protect her...But even more than that, the pain of having to now point out the wrongdoings of someone I had fought alongside and trusted for so many years is overwhelming...I ask that my recorded conversations not be used. I never consented to being recorded. Furthermore, the way the film presents our conversations creates a misleading impression that is inconsistent with my role in the legal proceedings. Above all, the selective editing distorts the process that I hold dear?"prioritizing the intentions of my clients." That, I find truly infuriating. > > I quote this because it?s not often that the subject of non-consensual, hidden camera treatment has a voice. Notably, neither the cop nor the taxi driver is responding to journalists now. > >> Not that this is the same as using footage without consent, but it hints at a sense of a Hollywood-centered safe space where there might be a certain level of protection for those who speak out -- or the illusion of such. > > I wonder. I?ve read the books about the Weinstein reportage, Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey?s She Said and Ronan Farrow?s Catch and Kill. I have also seen all of them speak here at Michigan. I didn?t sense any space was safe?even personal homes. More importantly, a huge proportion of those books is about the incredibly lengths the journalists went to protect their sources and secure unquestionably informed consent. > > Ito?s case is significantly different because she is both victim and journalist; however, does that mean the proprieties around protecting sources fall away? > >> I attended a screening in LA over the winter break with It? present, and her response to someone asking why the film wasn't screening in Japan was "I wish I knew.? > > Sorry, I don?t believe this for a minute. I can immediately of three Japanese distributors who would LOVE to distribute this film, even if it had not been celebrated abroad or Oscar nominated. I?ve talked to one of them, who confirmed this. The problem is the recklessness about consent, but that would be hard to admit in a festival Q and A?especially if you believe you?ve done nothing wrong. > > Markus > > > > > _______________________________________________ > KineJapan mailing list > KineJapan at mailman.yale.edu > https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/kinejapan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nornes at umich.edu Wed Feb 19 14:44:42 2025 From: nornes at umich.edu (Markus Nornes) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:44:42 -0500 Subject: [KineJapan] Ito Shiori Marches On In-Reply-To: <1C567DF9-0C21-4816-AD3B-FB0342A8F3B6@gmail.com> References: <8CCAC6A1-5561-4B7D-ADC1-3C5661D284B2@umich.edu> <1C567DF9-0C21-4816-AD3B-FB0342A8F3B6@gmail.com> Message-ID: > As I filter things in this debate, I was reminded as I prepped for a class on the Yukiyukite shingun actually has 2 scenes of wiretapping/recorded conversations. Yes, I thought about that, but the post was already long and both instances are on the side of power. Also unnecessary in the end. > (???) wiretapping law I?m very curious about this. A Jake Adelson post on FB mentions that consent of both sides is not necessary for recording phone conversations. > I would say the vibe, when the curtain went up, was catharsis: somewhere between ?not a dry eye in the house? and ?get those motherfuckers.? I felt the same way all at once. It?s a powerful film. I think Emma Ryan Yamazaki deserves a big shout out for the editing. There was a lot of footage and all of it very disparate and bilingual to boot. I?m sure a different cut would not be as powerful. Markus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nornes at umich.edu Wed Feb 19 14:46:38 2025 From: nornes at umich.edu (Markus Nornes) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:46:38 -0500 Subject: [KineJapan] Ito Shiori Marches On In-Reply-To: <1C567DF9-0C21-4816-AD3B-FB0342A8F3B6@gmail.com> References: <8CCAC6A1-5561-4B7D-ADC1-3C5661D284B2@umich.edu> <1C567DF9-0C21-4816-AD3B-FB0342A8F3B6@gmail.com> Message-ID: I just read a powerful FB post by Mikami Chie, one of the best documentary filmmakers in Japan. I?ll paste it below. She also deals with controversial subject matter, and came out of journalism. Hearing her speak about her work, she retains a journalistic identity while making her independent films. M ?? ???????? ???????????????? ?????? ?????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????? ????????????? ???????? ????????????????? ???????? ??????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????? ???????????? ??????? ??????????? ???????? ???????????????? ?????????????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? ?????????????? ??????? ???????????????? ????????????? ?????????????? ????? ?????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ????????????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????? ????????????????????? ???????????? ??????????? ????? ????????????? ????????? ???? ??????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ????????????? ??????? ??????????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ???????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????? ??? ????VS????? ????????????? ?????????? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ??2??????????? ???????? ??????????? ???????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ????????? ???????? ????????????? ???????????? ????????????????? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????? ???????? ????????????????? ???????????? ??????? 20??????????? ?????????????? ?????? ???????????? ??????????????? ???????????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ????? ?????????????? ????????????? ????????? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ?????????? TBS??????????? ???????? ????????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ????????????? ?????? ??? ????????????? ??????????????? ?????????????? ???????????? From adrian.ransom at outlook.com Wed Feb 19 20:38:55 2025 From: adrian.ransom at outlook.com (Adrian Ransom) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 01:38:55 +0000 Subject: [KineJapan] Can you please remove me from this list Message-ID: Cheers Adrian Ransom +65 8424 0740 Singapore -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tkarsavina at yahoo.com Thu Feb 20 00:02:42 2025 From: tkarsavina at yahoo.com (Maria Jose Gonzalez) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 05:02:42 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [KineJapan] Ito Shiori Marches On In-Reply-To: References: <8CCAC6A1-5561-4B7D-ADC1-3C5661D284B2@umich.edu> <1C567DF9-0C21-4816-AD3B-FB0342A8F3B6@gmail.com> Message-ID: <127075426.2340579.1740027762269@mail.yahoo.com> Or this... Not good at all....Shiori Ito's claim that she obtained the hotel footage for $4,000, completely denied by?her former legal team? "Ito explained in interviews with foreign media and elsewhere that she paid the hotel $4,000 to obtain footage from the hotel's security cameras and used it in his film, and that she had the faces of the people in the footage blurred out. Questions asked: ?Is it possible to buy the footage from the hotel with money? Where does the footage belong after the judgment is finalised? There seems to be a notion that it is public material?. https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/4a792d57723be88b3f27f5d75577bc71b1e672dc On Thursday, 20 February 2025 at 04:47:21 AM GMT+9, Markus Nornes via KineJapan wrote: I just read a powerful FB post by Mikami Chie, one of the best documentary filmmakers in Japan. I?ll paste it below. She also deals with controversial subject matter, and came out of journalism. Hearing her speak about her work, she retains a journalistic identity while making her independent films. M ?? ???????? ???????????????? ?????? ?????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????? ????????????? ???????? ????????????????? ???????? ??????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????? ???????????? ??????? ??????????? ???????? ???????????????? ?????????????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? ?????????????? ??????? ???????????????? ????????????? ?????????????? ????? ?????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ????????????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????? ????????????????????? ???????????? ??????????? ????? ????????????? ????????? ???? ??????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ????????????? ??????? ??????????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ???????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????? ??? ????VS????? ????????????? ?????????? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ??2??????????? ???????? ??????????? ???????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ????????? ???????? ????????????? ???????????? ????????????????? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????? ???????? ????????????????? ???????????? ??????? 20??????????? ?????????????? ?????? ???????????? ??????????????? ???????????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ????? ?????????????? ????????????? ????????? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ?????????? TBS??????????? ???????? ????????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ????????????? ?????? ??? ????????????? ??????????????? ?????????????? ???????????? _______________________________________________ KineJapan mailing list KineJapan at mailman.yale.edu https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/kinejapan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adrian.ransom at outlook.com Thu Feb 20 01:00:13 2025 From: adrian.ransom at outlook.com (Adrian Ransom) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 06:00:13 +0000 Subject: [KineJapan] Please take me off your mailing list Message-ID: Please take me off your mailing list. Cheers Adrian Ransom +65 8424 0740 Singapore -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From macyroger at yahoo.co.uk Thu Feb 20 15:50:39 2025 From: macyroger at yahoo.co.uk (Roger Macy) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:50:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [KineJapan] Ito Shiori Marches On In-Reply-To: <127075426.2340579.1740027762269@mail.yahoo.com> References: <8CCAC6A1-5561-4B7D-ADC1-3C5661D284B2@umich.edu> <1C567DF9-0C21-4816-AD3B-FB0342A8F3B6@gmail.com> <127075426.2340579.1740027762269@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1798010255.29131.1740084639110@mail.yahoo.com> and reported here Japan release of Shiori Ito's documentary in limbo | | | | | | | | | | | Japan release of Shiori Ito's documentary in limbo Yukana Inoue Lawyers including an attorney who fought alongside the journalist in a civil suit against her attacker have rais... | | | On Thursday, 20 February 2025 at 05:02:56 GMT, Maria Jose Gonzalez via KineJapan wrote: Or this... Not good at all....Shiori Ito's claim that she obtained the hotel footage for $4,000, completely denied by?her former legal team? "Ito explained in interviews with foreign media and elsewhere that she paid the hotel $4,000 to obtain footage from the hotel's security cameras and used it in his film, and that she had the faces of the people in the footage blurred out. Questions asked: ?Is it possible to buy the footage from the hotel with money? Where does the footage belong after the judgment is finalised? There seems to be a notion that it is public material?. https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/4a792d57723be88b3f27f5d75577bc71b1e672dc On Thursday, 20 February 2025 at 04:47:21 AM GMT+9, Markus Nornes via KineJapan wrote: I just read a powerful FB post by Mikami Chie, one of the best documentary filmmakers in Japan. I?ll paste it below. She also deals with controversial subject matter, and came out of journalism. Hearing her speak about her work, she retains a journalistic identity while making her independent films. M ?? ???????? ???????????????? ?????? ?????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????? ????????????? ???????? ????????????????? ???????? ??????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????? ???????????? ??????? ??????????? ???????? ???????????????? ?????????????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? ?????????????? ??????? ???????????????? ????????????? ?????????????? ????? ?????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ????????????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????? ????????????????????? ???????????? ??????????? ????? ????????????? ????????? ???? ??????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ????????????? ??????? ??????????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ???????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????? ??? ????VS????? ????????????? ?????????? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ??2??????????? ???????? ??????????? ???????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ????????? ???????? ????????????? ???????????? ????????????????? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????? ???????? ????????????????? ???????????? ??????? 20??????????? ?????????????? ?????? ???????????? ??????????????? ???????????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ????? ?????????????? ????????????? ????????? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ?????????? TBS??????????? ???????? ????????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ????????????? ?????? ??? ????????????? ??????????????? ?????????????? ???????????? _______________________________________________ KineJapan mailing list KineJapan at mailman.yale.edu https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/kinejapan _______________________________________________ KineJapan mailing list KineJapan at mailman.yale.edu https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/kinejapan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jennifer.coates at sheffield.ac.uk Fri Feb 21 12:08:22 2025 From: jennifer.coates at sheffield.ac.uk (Jennifer Coates) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 17:08:22 +0000 Subject: [KineJapan] Japanese Cinema Interview in Jacobin Message-ID: Hi Everyone, I hope you're all doing well and looking forward to the weekend! I'm posting to share some weekend reading - this great interview with Julia Alekseyeva about her new book Antifascism and the Avant-Garde: Radical Documentary in the 1960s.The interview gives a great overview of the book, but also locates its arguments in close relationship to our contemporary political moment, which I think will be really useful for those of us planning to teach from it. I'm planning to assign the interview along with an excerpt from the book so that students can have a bit of a 'meet the author' experience, and we can discuss not only the scholarship within the book but also the production of scholarship more broadly. Here's the interview: https://jacobin.com/2025/02/film-anti-fascism-documentary-1960s Congratulations Julia! -- Professor Jennifer Coates Professor of Japanese Studies Departmental Director of Research & Innovation (DDRI) School of East Asian Studies (SEAS) University of Sheffield Office 4.21, Floor 4, Jessop West, 1 Upper Hanover St, Broomhall, Sheffield S3 7RA Recent articles: Coates, J. 2024. ?Aging, Personhood, and Care in Chie Hayakawa?s Plan 75 (2022)? Screen Volume 65 (3): 352-372. Coates, J. 2023. "Voices from an Unusual Archive: University Film Circle Writings, 1945-1960," The Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Volume 21: Issue 6: Number 3, Article ID 5777. Recent books: Buchheim, E. and Coates, J. 2023. *War Memory and East Asian Conflicts, 1930?1945. *Palgrave Macmillan. Coates, J. 2022. *Film Viewing in Postwar Japan, 1945-1968: An Ethnographic Study.* Edinburgh University Press. ORCID: 0000-0003-4326-1481 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eija.niskanen at gmail.com Sat Feb 22 15:15:29 2025 From: eija.niskanen at gmail.com (Eija Niskanen/HCA) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:15:29 +0200 Subject: [KineJapan] Osaka World Exp Message-ID: Hi! Just curious: is there any involvement by people working in the audiovisual field at the soon opening Osaka World Expo? -- Eija Niskanen +358-50-355 3189 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nornes at umich.edu Sun Feb 23 11:06:14 2025 From: nornes at umich.edu (Markus Nornes) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:06:14 -0500 Subject: [KineJapan] R21 aka Restoring Solidarity (2022) streaming Message-ID: <53860DEB-0DC7-4937-9A6A-C8BDFF87C32C@umich.edu> The Palestine Film Institute is streaming R21, the film at the heart of Tokyo Reels at Documenta. Until Feb. 26. Markus https://mailchi.mp/palestinefilminstitute/palestine-film-platform-returns-for-season-14182609?e=e65ab889af? R21 AKA Restoring Solidarity | Dir. Mohanad Yaqubi mailchi.mp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dce42d4d-3a33-9a82-6abf-12b9f5b567b8.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 80248 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lucie.rydzek at univ-lorraine.fr Thu Feb 27 04:04:02 2025 From: lucie.rydzek at univ-lorraine.fr (Lucie Rydzek) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 10:04:02 +0100 (CET) Subject: [KineJapan] (Reminder) CfP - Young Researchers Colloquium "From Japan to Brazil and Vice-Versa" - Deadline March 10, 2025 In-Reply-To: <95e2c261-304a-409c-bd51-bb43deed6ae9@univ-lorraine.fr> References: <95e2c261-304a-409c-bd51-bb43deed6ae9@univ-lorraine.fr> Message-ID: <41708847.510108.1740647042955.JavaMail.zimbra@univ-lorraine.fr> Dear All, Here is a reminder of our Call for Papers for the international young researchers colloquium "From Japan to Brazil and Vice-versa: Historical and Aesthetic Perspectives of a Diasporic Cinema" , to be held online and at ENS Lyon (France) on June 24th and 25th, 2025. Submission deadline : March 10th, 2025. Feel free to write us any questions about this colloquium, Best regards, Lucie, Romane and Emmanuel -- CfP - Young Researchers Colloquium >From Japan to Brazil and Vice-versa: Historical and Aesthetic Perspectives of a Diasporic Cinema ENS Lyon (France) & online, June 24th and 25th, 2025 In 2024, the 77th Festival of Cannes' short film competition selected Amarela (2024), a film by Japanese-Brazilian director Andr? Hayato Saito, which focuses on the experiences of Japanese-Brazilians. This event reflects a growing interest in a diverse, transnational, and multilingual filmography on the subject of the Japanese diaspora, particularly the Japanese-Brazilians, who are the largest group affected by return migration (or ?detour migration? (Perroud, 2007)) to Japan. This Young Researchers Colloquium aims at visualizing and iscussing that film corpus and its aesthetic, socio-historical and methodological issues. The first massive immigration of Japanese populations to Brazil occurred in 1908, to replace European laborers at the coffee plantations of S?o Paulo (Nishida, 2017). Aboard the Kasato Maru, 781 migrants left Kobe?s harbor in direction of Santos, located in the state of S?o Paulo, following previous migrations to Hawaii (1868), the United States (1880), and Peru (1899) (Han, 2017). Despite restrictions by the Brazilian government in the 1930s, these ?nikkeis? (in Brazilian) or ?nikkeijin? (in Japanese), meaning Japanese descendants born and living abroad, formed a significant community of around 2 million people by the 2020s. Today, this is the largest community of Japanese descent in the world. In the 1980s, a reverse form of migration of Japanese-Brazilians to Japan began as Brazil faced an economic crisis. The Japanese authorities encouraged the return of nikkeis/nikkeijin by preferentially giving them ?long-term resident? visas (teij?sha) (Cherrier, 2024), to meet the country's demand for low-cost labor (De Carvalho, 2003). Initially, migrants planned to stay only for a short time in Japan, which is why the Japanese term dekasegi?meaning short-term migrant workers?was used to describe them. However, their difficult reintegration upon returning to Brazil and economic issues led many of them to extend their stays in Japan, in a ?vicious migration cycle? (Yamanaka, 2000). Most of them eventually settled permanently in Japan (Tsuda, 1999). If Japanese-Brazilians were the third-largest foreign community in Japan by the 2000s, they now form the fifth-largest foreign community in Japan at 204,879 people, after Chinese people (716,606), Vietnamese (432,934), Koreans (409,855) and Filipinos (276,615) (Cherrier, 2024). Japanese-Brazilians are also one of the country's main ethnic minorities, alongside Japanese-Koreans, Burakumin, Ainu, and Okinawans (Tsuda, 1999). The Japanese diasporas, including those from Brazil, and associated issues (immigration, the making of diasporas, the affirmation of a cultural identity, and social integration) have been widely studied in social sciences since the 1990s, mainly in English, Japanese, Portuguese and French (see for example works from Jeffrey Lesser, Takeyuki Tsuda, Daniela de Carvalho and Pauline Cherrier). The history of Japanese immigration is deeply intertwined with cinema. Indeed, the arrival of the first Japanese migrants coincided with the emergence of filmmaking in Brazil. In 1908, just a few months after the Kasato Maru docked, the State of S?o Paulo commissioned the production of a silent short film titled Japoneses apanhando caf? nas fazendas paulistas. Unfortunately, no copies of this film have been found. From the 1920s onward, non-fiction short films documenting the experiences of nikkeis/nikkeijin in Brazil became increasingly common. Hikoma Udihara, an amateur filmmaker, stands out as one of the most notable figures of this movement, having created nearly 85 short films between 1927 and 1959. As the practice of filmmaking became more established, the diffusion of films ?mainly Japanese productions?increased within the Japanese-Brazilian community. In this context, traveling cinemas played a significant role, particularly in rural areas, by allowing Japanese immigrants to watch films. Alexandre Kishimoto (2013) highlighted the key role played by four movie theaters in the Liberdade district of S?o Paulo during the 1950s and 1960s. These theaters not only facilitated the dissemination of Japanese cinema within the Japanese-Brazilian community but also attracted Brazilian audiences with no Japanese heritage. Afterwards, two major university-trained Japanese-Brazilian filmmakers constituted the historical foundation of Japanese-Brazilian diasporic cinema: Olga Futemma, former director of the Cinemateca Brazileira, short film director, and producer of several films, and Tizuka Yamasaki, director and screenwriter. Among other films, Yamasaki directed Gaijin ? Caminhos da Liberdade in 1980, a commercial and critical success (winning awards at Cannes and Gramado), which is considered the first fiction film focused on the Japanese-Brazilian community and which helped popularize the history of Japanese migration in Brazil. Concerning animated films, the Japanese-Brazilian community also played a pioneer role in Brazil: Piconz? (1972), one of the first Brazilian animated feature films in color, was directed by Yp? Nakashima, a Japanese artist who immigrated to S?o Paulo in 1956 and surrounded himself with around 30 animators from the Japanese community to make the film. Today, several contemporary filmmakers from Japan, Brazil, and the Japanese-Brazilian community have explored diasporic issues. Their films have been appraised at festivals: from the fiction Saudade (2011) by Tomita Katsuya to the documentary Okinawa Santos (2020) by Y?ju Matsubayashi, along with films by Paulo Pastorelo (Tokiori - Dobras do Tempo, 2011), Marcos Yoshi (Bem-vindos de Novo, 2021), Vicente Amorim (Cora??es Sujos, 2011), Nanako Kurihara (A Grandpa from Brazil, 2008), Tsumura Kimihiro and Mayu Nakamura (Lonely Swallows, 2012). Moreover, in 2008, for the centenary of the arrival of the first Japanese immigrants, a major retrospective of Japanese-Brazilian films was held in Brazil, followed by an international symposium at the Universities of S?o Paulo and Osaka. This event led to the identification and establishment of a nikkei Brazilian film archive, although the collection remains incomplete due to difficulties in getting hold of part of the films and their poor preservation. Over the past 15 years, several studies on films addressing Japanese-Brazilian diaspora issues have been published in Portuguese (since the centenary) and Japanese (since the 2010s). However, these films remain under-explored by English- and French-speaking scholars. Two recent publications in English are worth noting: Ignacio L?pez-Calvo's book on Japanese-Brazilian literature and films (L?pez-Calvo, 2019) and Emy Takada's thesis on Tizuka Yamasaki (Takada, 2021). As these films are gradually gaining attention from curators and researchers, it seemed important to us to invite international scholars to share their expertise and to engage in bilingual (English-French) discussions during this colloquium. Proposals are expected to be diverse in terms of methodologies and objects of study. They are expected to discuss, through cinema and its ethical and sociopolitical stakes, these diasporic phenomena and their place in societies and national histories. Topics of interest may include (but are not limited to): ? The aesthetics of films addressing Japanese-Brazilian diasporic issues, particularly in relation to discourses on identity, memory, and intimacy (one might also question the aesthetic difference between fictions and documentaries); ? The circulation of film aesthetics between Japan and Brazil through the diasporic network; ? The contexts and challenges of production and distribution of these films, as well as the role of Japanese-Brazilian filmmakers and technicians within cinematic production and distribution networks; ? Japanese-Brazilian diaspora issues in audiovisual media and museum installations. Scientific committee: Pauline CHERRIER (University of Aix-Marseille, IrAsia/CEJ-INALCO) Kevin J. MCKIERNAN (University of Minnesota Twin Cities) Alberto DA SILVA (Sorbonne Universit?, CRIMIC) ?lise DOMENACH (Ecole Nationale Sup?rieure Louis Lumi?re, IAO) Regiane ISHII (Universidade de S?o Paulo, ECA) L?cia RAMOS MONTEIRO (Universidade Federal Fluminense, PPG-Cine) Organizing committee: Romane CARRI?RE (ENS Lyon, CERCC) Lucie RYDZEK (University of Lorraine, CREAT/IAO) Emmanuel DAYRE (ENS Lyon, IAO) Submission details: Individual paper proposals, in English or in French, are to be sent to [ mailto:lucie.rydzek at univ-lorraine.fr | lucie.rydzek at univ-lorraine.fr ] , [ mailto:romane.carriere at ens-lyon.fr | romane.carriere at ens-lyon.fr ] and [ mailto:emmanuel.dayre at ens.fr | emmanuel.dayre at ens.fr ] . They must comprise: ? Name, firstname, affiliation, email address, presentation on-site or online ? Title ? Abstract (up to 3000 characters including spaces) ? Bio-bibliography (up to 500 characters including spaces) Presenters will have 20 minutes to present their paper in English or in French, followed by 10 minutes of questions. All visuals need to be in English. The colloquium will be hosted at the Ecole Normale Sup?rieure Lyon, France. Online presentations will be possible for those who can not join in-site, although we encourage on-site presentations. The colloquium may lead to the publication of a shared book. Calendar: ? Submission deadline: March 10th, 2025 (23:59, UTC+1) ? Committee decision: by April 2025 ? Colloquium dates: June 24th and 25th, 2025 The colloquium is supported by the Lyon Institute of East Asian Studies (IAO, Lyon), the Comparative Studies and Research Center on Creative Arts (CERCC, Lyon) and the Research Center on Expertise, Arts and Transitions (CREAT, Metz). -- Lucie RYDZEK PhD Student Lorraine University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call for Papers-From Japan to Brazil.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 319487 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Lucie Rydzek.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aaron.gerow at yale.edu Thu Feb 27 23:39:50 2025 From: aaron.gerow at yale.edu (Aaron Gerow) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 23:39:50 -0500 Subject: [KineJapan] NFAJ additions Message-ID: <4B83756A-053B-4051-B392-653BE44D522B@yale.edu> The National Film Archive of Japan is slowly but surely building up their collection of resources accessible online. Here are two recent additions: The NFAJ has just uploaded onto their site 29 of the films that Lumiere cameramen shot in Japan in the last years of the 1800s. Most are about one minute long and feature street scenes, actors, Ainu, dancers, and other subjects. https://meiji.filmarchives.jp/lumiere-works/ In addition, they have added 873 flyers and programs to their Non-Film Collection Portal, which includes examples from 1905 to 1936. https://nfajfilmheritage.jp/ Happy viewing! Aaron Gerow KineJapan owner Professor Film and Media Studies Program/East Asian Languages and Literatures Yale University KineJapan: https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/kinejapan Kinema Club: http://kinemaclub.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Claire-Akiko.Brisset at unige.ch Fri Feb 28 01:22:20 2025 From: Claire-Akiko.Brisset at unige.ch (Claire-Akiko Brisset) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 06:22:20 +0000 Subject: [KineJapan] [EXTERNAL] NFAJ additions In-Reply-To: <4B83756A-053B-4051-B392-653BE44D522B@yale.edu> References: <4B83756A-053B-4051-B392-653BE44D522B@yale.edu> Message-ID: <414F34DB-C249-44CD-912E-01F50ED41ED2@unige.ch> Dear Prof. Gerow, Thank you very much for this wonderful news, since it is not possible to screen online the Lumi?re films through the official website of the Institute. I am nevertheless puzzled by the presentation of 3 films on the NFAJ site, that is the films attributed to an ?unknown cameraman? (n?981, 982 and 985 of the Lumi?re catalogue): - https://meiji.filmarchives.jp/lumiere-works/ML19-981.html - https://meiji.filmarchives.jp/lumiere-works/ML20-982.html - https://meiji.filmarchives.jp/lumiere-works/ML21-985.html According to the database to the Lumi?re Institute, those films were made by Shibata Tsunekichi (with 2 others): Tsunekichi Shibata catalogue-lumiere.com [favicon.ico] How is it possible to explain this discrepancy? Best wishes, Claire-Akiko Brisset professeure ordinaire en histoire culturelle du Japon directrice du D?partement d'?tudes est-asiatiques Facult? des lettres Universit? de Gen?ve Derni?re parution : https://www.cnrseditions.fr/catalogue/sciences-politiques-et-sociologie/l-enfer-du-regard/ Le 28 f?vr. 2025 ? 05:39, Aaron Gerow via KineJapan a ?crit : The National Film Archive of Japan is slowly but surely building up their collection of resources accessible online. Here are two recent additions: The NFAJ has just uploaded onto their site 29 of the films that Lumiere cameramen shot in Japan in the last years of the 1800s. Most are about one minute long and feature street scenes, actors, Ainu, dancers, and other subjects. https://meiji.filmarchives.jp/lumiere-works/ In addition, they have added 873 flyers and programs to their Non-Film Collection Portal, which includes examples from 1905 to 1936. https://nfajfilmheritage.jp/ Happy viewing! Aaron Gerow KineJapan owner Professor Film and Media Studies Program/East Asian Languages and Literatures Yale University KineJapan: https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/kinejapan Kinema Club: http://kinemaclub.org/ _______________________________________________ KineJapan mailing list KineJapan at mailman.yale.edu https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/kinejapan Ce message est envoy? depuis une adresse ext?rieure ? l?UNIGE, soyez vigilant-es (exp?diteur, pi?ces jointes). This message is sent from an address outside UNIGE, be careful (sender, content). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: favicon.ico Type: image/vnd.microsoft.icon Size: 4119 bytes Desc: favicon.ico URL: From dmiyao at ucsd.edu Fri Feb 28 11:18:57 2025 From: dmiyao at ucsd.edu (Miyao, Daisuke) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 16:18:57 +0000 Subject: [KineJapan] NFAJ additions In-Reply-To: <4B83756A-053B-4051-B392-653BE44D522B@yale.edu> References: <4B83756A-053B-4051-B392-653BE44D522B@yale.edu> Message-ID: Dear all, Thank you, Aaron, for this valuable information. If any of you are interested in an accompanying reading, let me shamelessly publicize my book, Japonisme and the Birth of Cinema (Duke UP, 2020). Chapter 2 & 3 discuss the films that Lumiere cinematographers shot in Japan. https://www.dukeupress.edu/japonisme-and-the-birth-of-cinema Best, Daisuke Daisuke Miyao Professor and Hajime Mori Chair in Japanese Language and Literature Chair, Department of Literature University of California, San Diego **I respectfully acknowledge that UCSD is located on the unceded territory of the Kumeyaay Nation.** ________________________________ From: KineJapan on behalf of Aaron Gerow via KineJapan Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 8:39 PM To: Japanese Cinema Discussion Forum Cc: Aaron Gerow Subject: [KineJapan] NFAJ additions The National Film Archive of Japan is slowly but surely building up their collection of resources accessible online. Here are two recent additions: The NFAJ has just uploaded onto their site 29 of the films that Lumiere cameramen shot in Japan in the last years of the 1800s. Most are about one minute long and feature street scenes, actors, Ainu, dancers, and other subjects. https://meiji.filmarchives.jp/lumiere-works/ In addition, they have added 873 flyers and programs to their Non-Film Collection Portal, which includes examples from 1905 to 1936. https://nfajfilmheritage.jp/ Happy viewing! Aaron Gerow KineJapan owner Professor Film and Media Studies Program/East Asian Languages and Literatures Yale University KineJapan: https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/kinejapan Kinema Club: http://kinemaclub.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: