Talk:Cinema of Japan/Archives/2012

No subject

history needs to be fleshed out; needs treatment of endemic genres (samurai, yakuza, pinkku); lots of links' targets are stubs. Nateji77 07:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is there a term in Asia for the method of using kanji or hanja or hanzi as templates in the montage and mise en scene? This is a rather difficult question, it seems to me. I went to film school in America and it is difficult to broach this topic with non-kanjified Westerners. It is a rather deep idea and this article needs to be somehow fleshed out with data on the big movies and auteurs. Ozu and Kurosawa were emphasized in my program's Japanese Film class, which I took in 1982. Whether this more or less standard film discussion should be done in conjunction with the template issue or not is something I leave to you all. The mise en scene and montage question as it pertains to kanji et al is something that is not actually a visible part of the mainstream of discussion in cinema. There are always personalities and various power and attitude issues in approaching the offices of the most obvious candidates for such a serious discussion eg the Scorceses, Eastwoods, and Jackie Chans. I suppose until this is a more obvious talking point the template issue is just a thought for the future. In case non-kanjified people are reasoning this issue out, let me say that the word that the screen looks like is always the very first consideration in Hanzi, Kanji and Hanja-literate film making. It is like every screen has a word. Asian film makers have a difficult task at times creating crossover works because the word story has to flow as well as the story that the Westerner sees, and the template issue itself is always near #1 on the list of issues that the serious film maker takes under consideration. Not to mention the endless actual politics involved. I don't even know of a text to refer to here; I just know that I can read Asian and Asian movies very well, and as a graduate of a serious Eastern Seaboard film school I know full well that this is the most salient issue in Pacific entertainment. It is as though it deserves some kind of page in and of itself; as a complete newcomer to editing at Wiki, I don't know where to begin with this, but it doesn't really matter as it is too obvious a branch of thought not to be very fully developed in the future by any one working on any Asian countries cinema, and then eventually the other non-Asian cinema pages. As just one example of the template theory, any kanjified viewer can simply pop in 7 Samurai to see a probably very simple exposition of a screen action story that unfolds with the 'words as screen image template' story. I suspect that the easy well developed quality of Kurosawa's crossover efforts are why he is the most highly regarded director of Japan's Golden Age, and also why he was able to make any movie he wanted dating back to the days of the war when creativity was a most difficult project, to say the least. McDogm April 28 2005 0241 est usa

hi. 'words as screen image template' not sure what you mean by "template?" do mean the inclusion of kanji within the mis-en-scene, or do you mean a mis-en-scene without kanji that's composed to resemble kanji? Nateji77 05:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

tokyo story vs citizen kane

"Many argued, Tokyo Story is indeed the greatest film ever made, instead of Citizen Kane."

would be nice to have a source/attribution on that. Nateji77 16:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, it was listed as number 1 in "Halliwell’s Top 1000 films" (see [1]), althought "Time Out" and "Sight And Sound" both went the other way, putting Kane at number 1 and Tokyo Story at 9 and 5 respectively...

Gram 11:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

East Asian cinema

Hi. I created the East Asian cinema template and the associated article and would like to request some input on that article from the people who've worked on the various cinema articles for countries in the Far East / East Asia, including the "Cinema of Japan" article. I think it would be worthwhile to expand the East Asian cinema article cos it's quite perfunctory at present, but I don't have the time to research each country's output as thoroughly as I'd like and I don't want to simply rewrite what you already have here. I tried putting up a request for expansion but little has happened.

My intention was to focus on the Western experience of East Asian cinema - particularly focussing on the impact and influence of the movies, directors, stars and film styles from the Far East on European and American audiences. This would include the increasing popularity of Eastern films in the West, especially box office, video & DVD market successes, but also cult figures and genres. It should also include information about collaborations and crossovers by Eastern and Western film makers.

Because of its wider focus, the East Asian cinema article should ideally have synopses of the film industries of each East Asian country, but not just simple reiterations of what already exists in a more substantial form here.

I'm sure some users may disagree with my some of my ideas here, or have a better structural approach as to how the article should be expanded and evolve. That's cool - all I want is to make the article encompass as much scope as possible and to be a worthy place to group these diverse film cultures together. Each country should be represented, so I realise that using my intended focus may skew the article in favour of the larger industries of Hong Kong, China and Japan, which may be unwise. Anyway, any help on the East Asian cinema article would be appreciated. Cheers, Gram 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

First film?

It says: "The first film produced in Japan was the short documentary Geisha no teodori (芸者の手踊り) in June of 1899" but the entry for Ichikawa Danjūrō IX says: "Along with Onoe Kikugorō V, he was very likely the first kabuki actor to appear in a film; Momijigari (Maple Leaf Viewing) was filmed in 1897." This article [2] has an interesting reference which would be worth chasing down.

These early films are public domain and it sounds like Momijigari may have survived (as has Matsunosuke Onoe's Chushin-gura) - does anyone know if they are available online? (Emperor 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Literature

Would it be worthwhile adding Hibakusha Cinema by Mick Broderick?

Image copyright problem with Image:Battle royale pochette.jpg

The image Image:Battle royale pochette.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:My Neighbor Totoro - Tonari no Totoro (Movie Poster).jpg
• Image:HanaBi poster.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

First colour movie?

This might be worth chasing up: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%83%E4%BA%BA%E9%87%9D_%28%E6%98%A0%E7%94%BB%29 - Snori (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the scope of this page?

I don't get what this page is about. Is it simply a list of important Japanese movies? That exists somewhere else. Does it present important genres? Then each genre should be introduced in detail. For the moment, it looks like a bunch of trivia sorted by date. Were there really only 6 relevant events in the cinema of Japan in the 80s?

It is even impossible to know what should or should not be added. The section on the 50s seems to list every single movie made. On the other hand, there is no mention anywhere of Osamu Tezuka, who arguably started the animation movies in Japan. Is this page relevant? Is it needed? Ratfox (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Language

Poor grammar is the least part of the linguistic inadequacies of this page. It needs to be completely rewritten in competent English. 212.159.59.5 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Needs overhaul

I agree that the grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation in this article are in bad shape. This article is full of errors and in need of a complete overhaul. It should be rewritten using some kind of sensible categorizing, and by contributors with command of the English language and knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines for keeping it "encyclopedic." nycdi (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it needs a complete overhaul. It's poorly written, has tons of errors, is centered on unsourced trivia (especially just lists of films people just thought they should include), with no sense of historical narrative or background. I've started cleaning up some of the prewar sections, but I doubt I have time to do the whole thing. Perhaps this immense task should be divided up. --Michitaro (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's the size of the project that has kept me from attempting any work on it also... The Cinema of Korea is in better shape, but that one has issues too. Actually each decade in Japanese cinema could probably support a separate article once this article is in good shape. But it's probably best to get good, sourced, outlines of each decade at this article first. Maybe we could mention this at the Japanese cinema task force, and each of us pick out one decade to improve. I'd be willing to take any decade from the '70s and before. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I could continue my corrections of the silent era and 1930s sections, though I can't guarantee getting those done any time soon.--Michitaro (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Original research and not well done

the statement "Gō Takamine making films in Okinawa using the Okinawan language," Okinawan is still an aspect of Japan the nation (hence the title CINEMA OF JAPAN) so him using this language does not conflict with the concept of Japaneses cinema. So why is it posed as a possible "exception"?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not write this section (I only cleaned up the bad prose), but the point is legitimate and is not original research. Scholars such as Yomota, Ko and Gerow have published research on Takamine emphasizing how his use of the Okinawan language, especially in stories that feature Okinawans resisting American and Japanese imperialism, reflects alternative or oppositional identities versus a Japan that, as part of what seems to be official ideology, presents itself as homogeneous and ethnically singular. Yomota in particular has written books using examples such as Takamine to complicate a homogeneous definition of Japanese cinema (my impression is that a student of Yomota's probably wrote this "Definition"). Ideally, these works should be footnoted in this section, but as I have said above, the whole Cinema of Japan article is a mess and needs considerable re-writing, including adding proper sources.--Michitaro (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree to some extent but I think such a politically unique and fine point cannot be used as a good example esp without references. Especially when the criterion for being Cinema of Japan (a nation which is not in dispute). has not even been properly defined. Its like saying Japanese cinema is "X and Y" however so-and-so is not Japanese because of condition "G" and "P". --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I myself sensed what seems to be your point: the article suddenly talks about exceptions to the definition of Japanese cinema without first discussing the conventional definitions adequately. That does give it a somewhat polemical edge which, even if we add proper footnotes, is a little bit too much for a neutral encyclopedia article. That said, I am not sure what you mean by "a nation which is not in dispute." The point of scholars ranging from Yomota to Tessa Morris-Suzuki is that the concept of the Japanese nation is very much in dispute--and Takamine is a filmmaker who shows people disputing it. Such disputes, I think, should definitely remain in the article somewhere.--Michitaro (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I never knew this stuff, I assumed Japan was Japan. So I agree.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well... I don't disagree with what you say, Michitaro, but I suspect putting it right in the lead of an article on Japanese cinema is giving undue weight. Japanese cinema, by-and-large, is cinema made in Japanese, in Japan by Japanese people. Yes, there are details that can be discussed in the article, but I think making it the main point of the article is a bit much. Open to other opinions though, of course. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

100% because it is not a majority opinion. esp within the focus or ambit of the topic "Cinema of the nation of Japan". But it is given undue weight which made me a noive think that it was a heavy opinion which is talked about everyday with cinema of Japan. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

...Right. I would have no objection to a section on "Outsider cinema" or whatever it's called in relation to Japan-- as pointed out, Okinawan, Ainu, Burakumin, zainichi, homosexual, feminist, radical (pink film might even fit in here), etc. etc. etc.-- whoever makes films Sure, Japan is more varied than it often presents itself, and even mainstream directors like Imamura and Oshima have focused on some of these aspects of Japan. But still, that's a detail in relation to the larger Japanese cinema... and as pointed out many times, the article is a mess, and needs to be rewritten completely... Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we all agree that putting this issue up front is inappropriate if not confusing. The question first is whether there should be a "Definition" section up front at all. Most of the "cinema of" entries begin with some kind of definition, but most are rather cursory and don't have their own section. I think there should be a quick definition in the lead section, but declaring it is "cinema made in Japanese, in Japan, by Japanese people" is problematic: what of films shot abroad, what of the non-Japanese filmmakers working in Japan (John Williams, Michael Arias, zainichi directors, etc.), what of films in other languages? Getting into these exceptions up front is problematic, we have agreed, but the leader should note there are possible exceptions without detailing them, or use vaguer terms such as "is generally considered." Having a section later on detailing films specifically challenging the definition of "Japanese" cinema is an idea, but we should be careful about how to present it. Calling something "outsider" can emphasize its radical nature, but also sometimes can function to separate it out as "external" when one of the points is that the challenge is very "internal."--Michitaro (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Michitaro. No, I wasn't proposing any of my writing above as a definition to be used in the article-- I was just talking off-the-cuff. What I suggest we do though is check a few standard texts on Japanese cinema, and see how they define it-- or even if a definition is considered necessary right up front, rather than just explaining further on that it's not as cut-&-dried as one might assume... I'll check Anderson/Richie and a few other books tomorrow and report back then. I'm off to work in my pink film alias for the rest of this evening. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to just mention the different types and styles of cinema in Japan without trying to indicate that one or the other is somehow an exception to cinema in Japan? It doesn't really matter if the language is Japanese or Ainu or whatever, since it's still Japanese cinema. To me, it would be better to just have a section about it without trying to make it be an exception. It's just one or more directors' artistic vision, and one which has been noticed by various media outlets. It's still "cinema of Japan". I hope that made sense. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can agree that separating it out as an exception can cause problems and that we also don't want to turn the article into a specific argument about what Japanese cinema is. So perhaps just including such mentions inside the article would be fine. That said, I just want to reiterate that to some filmmakers and groups it does really matter if it is in Japanese or Ainu or Okinawan. Takamine, for instance, shows people taking up guns to fight for Okinawan independence from Japan (although he can criticize aspects of that from another angle). Zainichi directors can use Korean to emphasize that Japan does not equal the Japanese language, or to criticize the tendency to reduce everything in Japan to "Japanese". It's not just an artistic vision, it is a political stance about nations and nationalism. Film studies as a discipline has also devoted a lot of attention recently to what is problematic about the assumptions regarding national cinema everywhere. Again, for reasons of expediency, we have to do all this under a title "Cinema of Japan" (unless we want to create separate entries about Okinawan or zainichi cinema, which would not be easy). I just think some appreciation of the real political and cultural debates about this is necessary, if only because that's what's really going on in some of the films, from Oshima to Sai.

I think Joe's on the right track. There's no reason-- in this article-- to separate or identify these specific areas of Japanese cinema. Personally, I'd love to see stand-alone articles on Okinawan and zainichi cinema, though I know such articles would have to fight the anti-encyclopedic zeitgeist, unfortunately... Really, I think all the concerns you mention in this last post are fodder for an article on minority groups in Japan, not for this general overview of Japanese cinema... These are political/ethnic identity issues, not cinematic ones... I'm not looking right now, but does the article on U.S. start with an explanation of the English language cinema? I remember a minor controversy when a film in a native American language was nominated for "Best Foreign Film"-- though it was in a native language. Though very interesting, and I'd want to make sure such a thing was mentioned in some article at WP, is this sort of thing necessary to bring up in the general article on U.S. cinema? I wouldn't think so... Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we are about at the end of this discussion. I believe we all agree that the Definition section should be cut out and a basic definition should be placed in the lead. The issues we all notice can be mentioned in the article somewhere if properly sourced and they avoid making an argument. Is it OK if I start the editing and you folks can check it? But just to correct something Otis said: I think these are not just polticial/ethnic issues, but also cinematic ones. That is why there are dozens of books on African American or black cinema: the idea that these just don't contain different stories about African Americans, but also different conceptions of filmmaking. Isn't that one reason we like Japanese films? Because there is something about Japanese culture (whatever it is) that produces a different kind of cinema? That's what I'm saying about some groups within Japan: their ethnic or cultural outlook can produce a different cinema that is not the same as the mainstream "Japanese" cinema. Scholars like Yomota have made this argument as well. Again, how this can fit in WP is problem (there is no entry on black cinema, though I think there should be one given the number of books out there). But we can leave that for later.--Michitaro (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I think we're all pretty much on the same page, we're just working out the details. Agree with what you say about the different cinemas too-- I just think any more than a brief mention of the ethnic variants within Japanese cinema are (probably) too much detail for a brief over-view of the national cinema, though I'm all in favor of covering these variants somewhere on WP. I glanced at the Cinema of the United States article just now and see no such discussion there, though something like this would probably would be much more appropriate in that article. (Though that article too is a mess-- largely unsourced, biased towards the recent, and too large a section on "Hollywood and politics")... Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's mostly a matter of balance and to know when the details get too much on the different "alternative" cinema, but also of genres and movements in general. I think that, unless they are just a theory of a very small group of film critics, they should be mention, even if in just a sentence. But I was thinking that genres/movements that have their own articles or are significant, and a staple of Japanese cinema, even if they may not be considered mainstream, should have a sort of overview of them in this article, like mentioning the main developments in that area in each decade in just a paragraph or just a few sentences. I think the article can handle that if it's done in a balanced and contextualized way.–Cattus ^talk 16:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that "Definition" section is totally unnecessary. The lead should summarize the article, and the article should just cover Japanese cinema chronologically. When "alternative" filmmaking is prominent enough to mention, mention it. No need to pre-emptively prescribe it and then try to shoe-horn in a subject of lesser import to the national cinema... I just glanced at my first large project here (under another user name)-- history in Cinema of Korea up to "Recovery (1980-1996)". Though I'm embarrassed at its poorly-done sourcing now, I remember how I did it: Just worked through a couple standard texts on Korean cinema summarizing what the authors said, era by era, and then summarized the whole thing in the lead. If I'd started out with a "Definition", I might have had to exclude mention of Japanese filmmakers during the occupation... So, I say, take out the "Definition", and let's put the article together totally chronologically, mentioning major movements as the come up, and as writers on the subject consider them important enough for a brief overview of 100 years of cinema... Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why "genres" and Japanese at top?

I don't see the need for a separate section on "genres", especially not a bullet list with some rather silly entries like "ninja films" (there are few) or "shomingeki" (the article it points to is about two lines long). I also don't understand the need for the Japanese words 日本映画, as if the English name of the article is a translation of a Japanese notion. Any objections to deleting these? JoshuSasori (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never liked the list of genres myself: they are questionable (what is the difference between J-Horror and Cult Horror?), incomplete (where are kaidan films?; home dramas?; matatabi eiga?; hahamono?; etc.), arbitrary (too many are just what some foreign viewers have decided are genres, without any real basis in Japanese filmmaking), and out of place. I can't find another "Cinema of..." article on Wikipedia that opens with a half-hearted list of genres--most start with the history. I don't think it should be eliminated, but revised and moved down (Cinema of India has a section on genres after the history section). As for the nihongo, I think it is fine as it is. It does, after all, link to 日本映画 on the Japanese Wikipedia. Michitaro (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the "genres" down and removed the three fake genres like "ninja films" which don't even have their own article. I don't know why the Japanese is necessary here but there are so many odd bits of Japanese in Wikipedia that I am not sure where to start in removing them. JoshuSasori (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of cinema; leading sentence of paragraph as second sentence

Here,

Among intellectuals, critiques of Japanese cinema grew in the 1910s. Criticism, beginning with early film magazines such as Katsudō shashinkai (begun in 1909) and a full-length book written by Yasunosuke Gonda in 1914, developed as ...

the first sentence doesn't seem to add any meaning which isn't in the second sentence, and the first sentence sounds awkward, because the second sentence is a leading sentence of a paragraph about criticism. If there is some content which needs to be kept in the awkward first sentence, can we discuss what it is and then this paragraph can be rewritten so that whatever it is that the first sentence is trying to say can come after the paragraph's leading sentence? JoshuSasori (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the entire meaning of the paragraph. It is not a paragraph about film criticism. The whole point is that intellectuals began criticizing JAPANESE cinema in the 1910s for being theatrical, etc. This was intimately tied in with the development of film journalism and criticism but the vector is that all this grew into the Pure Film Movement. If you find it confusing, you are welcome to tweak it, but the edits you have been making change the entire meaning of the lead sentence and therefore make the paragraph confusing. If you are unfamiliar with early Japanese film history, you can read books by Gerow or Bernardi before you try to edit this section. Michitaro (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can't see why this paragraph is confusing, I'm not really sure what I can say to you to explain it. JoshuSasori (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

While reading this article I was able to see the progression of the film industry in Japan. The author used good references. They stayed factual and their statements flowed well together. The author’s point through this article is to reveal the changes the film industry in Japan went through in the new era of technology. They inform us of how new inventions such as the kinetoscope and the vitascope were used. Although the author doesn’t directly explain what either of these devices are, he provides links to both which give background info on who invented them and what they were used for. Continuing from the here he is able to make the transition to famous actors, actresses, and directors who did work in Japan or where a native of Japan. Most of the people and films had links to learn more about each of them if they sounded interesting. This helps strengthen the article because everything is organized and easy to find. Although the article has many good points to it, I feel that some subjects needed more explanation. I felt that the mention of the kinetoscope and the vitascope could have used a brief description of what they were followed by a link to each for anybody who wanted to learn more about them. I also believe that there were too many names of actors and directors in red showing that there were no links to them. If there is any way possible I think it would be beneficial to get links to show who they were and what they did to become such a contributor to the development of Japanese film making. I didn’t see anything else that I felt needed reassessing. The article references were organized at the end of the article and reference links to learn more about them were helpful. I would suggest trying to add in the few bits of info about the new technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allleague1 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)