Oct 25 Cinema and Transgression
–Michael Raine, Ishihara Yujiro: Youth, Celebrity, and the Male Body in Late 1950s Japan (Jared Wolting)
–Isolde Standish, Cinema and Transgression (Nadia L, Oli K)
7 Responses to “Oct 25 Cinema and Transgression”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 21st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Can Oli K please email me about our presentation on the Isolde Standish article Thursday? You can try nadia_litz@hotmail.com or litz@yorku.ca
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Here are a couple of questions to consider for the Michael Raine reading “Youth, Celebrity and the Male Body in Late 1950s Japan”
1) Raine claims that many believed the youth culture in films like those Ishihara Yujiro starred in represented an Amercanization of Japanese culture. Is this true? If so, was the turn from more traditional Japanese culture and adoption of another country’s culture a way for Japanese people to avoid confronting the atrocities that they committed and/or were the victims of in the war?
2) Yujiro originally starred in films based on his brother Shintaro’s stories, but was quick to reformulate his image after a great deal of controversy due to his wild and violent image. The Nikkatsu studio spent the end of 1956 and all of 1957 trying to dissociate him from the excesses of the taiyozoku. Besides being a movie star he also recorded numerous albums and was a fashion icon. Due to the careful construction of his identity by a publicity machine and other handlers and his immersion into various forms of media, was Yujiro a precursor to the modern kind of star we have today, such as Jennifer Lopez or Paris Hilton, or was his rebellious and controversial persona more like that of other rebellious icons in the 50s such as James Dean or Marlon Brando?
October 24th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I want to post some questions for consideration for my and Oli’s presentation tomorrow of the second article Cinema and Transgression, but first I want to relpy to the questions above.
For question number 1) I think that the “Americanization” of culture has a lot to do with Western culturural imperalism that has been been a part of a ‘promotion’ of American ideals since the inception of Hollywood. Many theorists and scholars believe that America is part of a neo-colonial effort to indoctrinate other cultures into thinking the ‘American way’. The promise of success and glamour, for example, that American movies in the 1950’s (and onward) insipidly promote becomes a kind of allure for other nations, who are developing or rebuiliding themselves after war or economic harships. After the WW2, Japan had arguabely wanted to rebuild their country to be economically and politically strong. The youth cultures depicted in the films satrring Yujiro offered a kind of hope to young working class men (in particular) living in Japan- the same way that James Dean and Marlon Brando film’s offered hope for the young disenfranchised youth in America, post war. Part of the adoption of another, more ‘dominant’ country’s ideals, could also have something to with trying to win the ‘bully’ over. Know the enemy. Be like them.
As far as question 2 goes- how are Jennifer Lopez and Paris Hilton different from James Dean and Marlon Brando? The question seems a little ‘gendered’ to me. Aren’t they all ‘personas’ that represent an ‘ideal’ for the audience of time?
For my questions for the presentation on “Cinema and Transgression”…I would pose this thought. Roland Barthes says in his essay “Myth Today” to be weary of “avant-garde” (cinema) that merley objects to dominant ideology- stylistically- rather than through its subject matter. The “Cinema and Transgrssion” article suggests that despite the ’sun tribe’ or taiyozuko films’ attempt to be be politically radical, by opposing the ideals of the pre-modern film- they ended up being ‘phallocentric’ and ‘mysoginistic’. Can you think of any films that are truly polical in form and content? Or for budding screenwriters and filmmakers, describe your own idea of a film that would be opposed to dominant ideology. What would it look like and what would it be about?
October 29th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Making a film that subverts dominant ideology is a topic that has been on my mind a great deal lately. I’ve been wondering how one sets about accomplishing such a thing. I feel it is difficult to determine what would sufficiently disrupt norms and actually present a challenge to established ideology. If we look at gender representation, is it sufficient to reverse gender rolls, to align female with active and male with passive? If the woman chases the man, if she carries the action forward, does the film present a break from dominant structures in film making? Or, perhaps a film can question the construction of what we call gender. Is gender natural, or is it cultural? Is one in opposition simply because one points to the myth?
I find the act of thinking about this topic and utilising it in the practice of film making two very different challenges. I can wrap my head around how a film bows to dominant culture, how it presents prevailing ideology that compels an audience to nod in agreement. I know how to identify this process as it functions in media. I also know how to identify films and scenes that do present a break. However, when the time comes to create a film, I don’t know where to start. I can begin with an idea, such as “disrupt the audience’s notion of sexual representation and gender roles”, yet I do not know how to accomplish that through my own work. The idea seems clear enough, yet the practice is difficult.
Perhaps then, despite a film makers best intentions, it is difficult to produce something that can successfully function as opposition to the norm. Moreover, it is difficult to do so in a way that properly conveys that message to an audience.
I wish to make films that begin with theoretical concepts, which attempt to challenge dominant film stereotypes and clichés. My idea begins with that which I wish to accomplish, to create cinema of subversion. Is this a poor way to devise a film and to go about starting a project? Does anyone think this could work: to say “I want to make a film that denaturalises gender” before having any other inkling of what the film would be about? I would love to hear what others have to say about it. Can we make oppositional films by setting out to do that very thing? Or is it futile to begin with an academic idea rather than an emotion, a gut feeling, or a bit of poetry as inspiration?
October 29th, 2007 at 10:17 am
I think that is an interesting question- is it an odd way to begin making a film- to start with a theoretical concept….Maybe an attempt to deanaturalize gender roles shouldn’t be limited to being deemed a ‘theoretical concept’. I think when we look at how insipid dominant ‘ideology’ is- the brilliance of the Western patriarchal system- is that that it is seamless. It is insipid. It is deemed ‘natural’. A film that counters this paradigm, in its beliefs should maybe adopt a similar tactic. The Mulvey generation made films that countered the system so openly (and for time, rightly so) that it unfortunatley marginalized the cause, not just the films produced. Those films wanted to be marginalzed, in a sense…but how do we really dismantle that which dominates. If the Western patriachal capitalist system has been ‘tricking’ us for so long, can’t we trick right back? Aren’t we as subverters capable of being as clever? In a sense, I guess what I am saying is that instead of denaturalizing gender roles- maybe we should attmept as filmmakers (and scholars- because I think the way we study film alnd culture also contributes to the problem, actually) should be to naturalize notions of ‘other’ in positions of viable strength (power is such an ugly word). In a way, I think I am thinking about what Japan actually did as a country after the war- which was to adopt some of the traits of the country that dominated them- in order to actually strengthen their own country. Politically this may lead to questions of ethics- but in terms if filmmaking- I think it might be an interesting consideration.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Yes, I agree but this is potentially a difficult task. It is one thing to be a mythologist, to point to the seems and to identify how the operate in naturalising ideology. It is a very different thing to take on the role of the myth maker, to construct seems that act to naturalise. This is especially true for students such as our selves at a stage where we are being introduced to the concept of seeing how meaning is constructed rather than accepting it as truth. We are so focused on breaking meaning down it becomes difficult to see how it can be built back up.
Furthermore, is it productive to naturalise a different set of meanings, even if we feel that set is more progressive or true? We cannot forget that if everything in culture (meaning, truth, ideology) is a construct then our idea that one set of meanings is better or “truer” is suspect. If we naturalise a new set of gender roles we simply state that something new is given and absolute. By taking it apart, pointing to the construction we are acknowledging that there is more history behind the idea of gender and that acknowledgement itself may be more powerful than convincing a culture of a new version of the truth. It implies that the individual is thinking about what gender is, rather than accepting blindly a culturally constructed point of view. Should we replace one set of ideologies that we perceive as “wrong” with those that we feel are “correct” (which are completely arbitrary) because we feel the population is not able to see the seems as we do, or should we encourage the development of a mythologist-type mind whereby everyone is trained to do so themselves? If it is the latter, would a body of films that constantly reflect on themselves and reveal that meaning is indeed a construct of culture not be more productive and useful than films that use dominant techniques to naturalise new ideas, even if those ideas are seen to be radically progressive? Thoughts?
November 5th, 2007 at 10:45 am
I see your point, but we are not talking about an arbitrary set of counter ideologies, we are talking (here anyway) about a feminist perspective in film. Of coure, within the loaded term “feminist perspective” there are many differing viewpoints. There is a type of feminist perspective that my ideals do not fit into and in addition there is a kind of feminist perspective that I believe in, that many others would be opposed to. For example, I strongly believe that Sofia Coppola films are feminist films- but I know a lot of women and men who think she is totally unworthy of that label.
However, what I worry about is that overanalysis of these issues will discourage people (women and men) from attempting to make feminist film and popular feminist film at that.
I have to admit that I believe in bringing the margins to the masses. I am not of the school that the margins need to stay in the margins in order to fight the system. I understand that position, but I am profoundly opposed to it.
The masses are not bad, popular is not bad, power is not even bad- it is what you do with that. I think the world could use more ‘others’ in positions of power. Yet, I also agree with you that when you are starting off, in school for example, uncovering the seams is powerful. I just think we can go beyond that.
I agree with you that to replace ideology with ideology is problematic, however in this case all that I am saying is that it could be our goal as filmmakers (and scholars) to make the information that we put out there, at least balanced. If we “naturalise” the notion that woman (gay, black, aboriginal, asian, etc.) can be assertive, in a position to drive a narrative in a film (just as we can drive the narrative in real life) and that leads to people not thinking twice about it and not worrying if that film will be financially successful, for example, then I am all for it. I do not worry about that kind of naturalisation- at all.
If the margins end up taking over the world and being totalitarian in their belief system, and leave white American men out of the equation in the process- well then we always have pedagogical institutions to uncover the seams ‘the margins’ have covered up….
If only.