Pigs Eels and Insects: Reassessing Imamura Shohei

If there was any unified conclusion to draw from Pigs Eels and Insects, a symposium examining the legacy of Japanese director Imamura Shohei, it was that there are many difficulties in positioning such a unique and at times contradictory oeuvre within a broader analytical framework. For starters, as Jasper Sharp explained in his outline of the industrial and cultural backdrop to Imamura’s film-making, the group of Japanese directors of the 1960s commonly grouped together under the umbrella term Nuberu Bagu (New Wave) could hardly be considered to be part of a homogenous thematic, aesthetic or political movement.

Nor is Imamura’s output thoroughly consistent, despite in many respects and for a large part clearly suggesting his status as a genuine auteur; Patrick Crogan’s appraisal of the later work Black Rain (1989) found thematic and stylistic kinships with the great Ozu Yasujiro, under whom Imamura worked as an assistant and whose subject matter of quietly-suffering members of the lower-middle-classes is ubiquitously viewed as the younger director’s anti-inspiration for choosing to focus on the Japanese underclasses ignored by ‘quality’ cinema. But Black Rain, with its elegaic tone and focus on familial disintegration shows that perhaps the older master’s influence was not entirely negative.

Mark Bould also cast doubts over received critical opinion, in this case that suggesting Imamura to be a pro-female director, a tag which perhaps owes much to the frequent comparisons to his similarly-labelled compatriots Naruse Mikio and Mizoguchi Kenji. Rightly questioning whether the strong-willed protagonists such as those in The Insect Woman (1963) and Intentions of Murder (1964) could be considered in any way female role models, at least according to Western models of feminism; all-too-frequently Imamura’s heroines achieve some form of triumph and economic independence only through some form of submission, usually reduced to their biological sexual and maternal fuctions. Bould payed special attention to the difference between the English word feminist and the similar-sounding word used in Japanese criticism feminisuto, whose definition is more connoting of a woman’s sexual availability.

Where then to place the director’s work? Isolde Standish argued that the focus of his films was placed on marginalised characters largely removed from modern Japanese history in order to overcome not only the Westernisation process being imposed on the country since the Allied Occupation, but so too that of the Meiji State, instead going back to what the director considered a more essential ‘Japaneseness’ found in the folkloric studies of Yanagita Kunio, and thus free the national cinema both from the channels of ‘official’ history, and also the imported neo-Confucianism of the Samurai rulers. As a unified theory it holds much water, offering an insight into his choices of subject matters: the early films with their emphasis on the underbelly of society, the mid-period documentaries looking at the subjective nature of truth, and films such as The Ballad of Narayama (1983) and The Profound Desire of the Gods (1968) which focused on the agrarian peasantry.

Taking an aesthetic approach, Alastair Phillips focused mainly on early scenes from Vengeance Is Mine (1979) looking at how Imamura visual style in what is one of his less typical films still manages to emphasise some of his recurring themes. Despite being a film with a much higher shooting ratio, appearing to counter the director’s favouring of ‘messy’ cinema, the use of odd, fractured framing and a careful manipulation of looking relations within the cinematic frame combine to create a feeling of temporal and spatial instability. ‘Inside’ and ‘outside’ are prominently defined, and part of a larger aesthetic strategy with undertones of voyeurism and spying – here once again surfaces the often blurred distinction in Imamura’s films between documentary and fiction, and parallel ideas about the relationship between society and the individual recur.

One final note: Sharp commented that while the starting point for Japanese ‘Pink’ Cinema is often taken as being the notorious Flesh Market (1962), some critics in fact consider Imamura’s own The Insect Woman as the first example of such a film; another reason along with those others discussed as to why the work of this uniquely distinctive director is ripe for reappraisal.

10 Years of Frightfest

Having outgrown the bijou surroundings of the Prince Charles Cinema as well as the larger Odeon West End, Frightfest, London’s annual celebration of contemporary horror films this year moves to the more spacious surroundings of The Empire, Leicester Square. The main screen this features a line-up of premieres of both major domestic and international genre films, and for the first time this year there will be a second smaller screen entitled the ‘Discovery Screen’ will be used to show a variety of lesser-scale delights. The festival’s continued expansion is illustrative of not only an increasing appetite in the UK for cinematic thrills and spills but so too the rude health that the genre continues to be in internationally.

Among the highlights this year include world premieres of Christopher Smith’s Triangle, The Descent Part 2, Philip Ridley’s Heartless, Aussie thriller Coffin Rock, the highly-tipped Italian thriller Shadow and the bizarre-sounding Human Centipede, as well as first UK showings of Swedish Euro-sensation Millenium, Michael Dougherty’s already-classic Trick R Treat, and cult Norwegian Nazi Zombie flick Dead Snow. All in all, more than thirty different films from twelve different countries, and the extra promise of special guest appearances and introductions by cast and crew members.

Frightfest runs from this evening through to Monday 31st August. Festival passes have long since sold out, but tickets for single films will still be available for many films. See the official Frightfest website for details: http://www.frightfest.co.uk/

And be sure to follow my (hopefully) live coverage on Twitter (see sidebar link) or my post-festival roundup here early next week.

Looking beyond the canon

One of the great difficulties when writing about film history, as with doing any other type of history, is the need to strike a balance between on the one hand positioning the film(s) in question within the broader framework of a coherent historical narrative, whilst on the other hand making sure one is not falling into the trap of applying too reductionist a view of the context in which one is placing said texts. The most difficult aspect of this to overcome is the idea that there exists such a thing as ‘the canon’, that unspecified number of films which are considered as both artistically significant in isolation, and as important to the development of film as an art-form worthy of serious consideration.

As an illustration, consider the recent poll of the ‘Greatest Films’ undertaken by Iain Stott over at The One-Line Review blog. Unlike the decennial Sight and Sound poll which asks for contributors’ top ten films, this poll expanded the number to fifty in the hope of spreading the net wider to include personal favourites alongside the usual canonical suspects. As the S&S poll has done since 1961, the survey was inevitably topped by Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane, that perennial favourite perceived as only being enjoyed by the critical elite rather than the wider public. Elsewhere, the rest of the top fifty predictably consists of recognizably canonical films, and only one made after 1990 (Pulp Fiction), another symptom of the tenedency for older films to domniate such lists, a phenomenol which Adrian Martin refers to as ‘the Citizen Kane canon’.

Yet beneath this apparent tacit agreement with traditional view of film history, the real devil is in the details: of the 3037 films suggested, over half of them were suggested by only one of the 187 participants. Whilst weight of numbers favours the ‘great’ films, there is an underlying diversity of opinion which is under-represented in the collation, but can be seen to exist outside of traditional top ten polls. Stott’s next project is entitled ‘Beyond the Canon’, and seeks aims to look beyond the paradigmatic view of the story of cinema and highlight these less well known but important films. After all, regardless of their critical stature, are not the most important films those which we have the greatest personal connection to?

For more information, and details on how to submit suggestions, see here: http://beyondthecanon.blogspot.com/

Happy 50th Birthday Antoine…

…and by extension, a happy 50th birthday to the French New Wave, not necessarily initiated with the release on May 4th 1959 of Truffaut’s The 400 Blows, but that film marked the first major artistic achievement of a movement which, regardless of one’s opinion of individual films and directors, unarguably changed cinema forever. Quite how has been and will be a matter for film historians to debate and revise, probably for as long as film remains a serious art form.

Cannes unveils its lineup…

..and while most commentators are noting the presence in competition of such heavyweight auteurs as Tarantino, Loach, Almodovar, Von Trier and Ang Lee, is not also of significance that the jury is this year headed by the bonkers duo of Isabelle Huppert and Asia Argento? Sounds like the recipe for an ‘interesting’ winner of the Palme D’Or….

The full lineup is here