in article 4219FF48.EE0A1193@yahoo.co.jp, Eric Takabayashi at
etakajp@yahoo.co.jp wrote on 2/22/05 12:33 AM:

> Ernest Schaal wrote:
> 
>> To you "all or nothing" approach, one should not bother studying films in
>> any language in which you are not fluent. Such an approach would mean that
>> one would need to know Italian to see Fellini or Russian to see Renoir. That
>> would be a pity, because there is so much interesting cinema out there that
>> is in neither English or Japanese.
> 
> How many times do I need to tell you that language ability has nothing to do
> with it? It is you and you only, making an issue of language ability and being
> entitled to judge a film. I am talking about following DIALOGUE ONLY. Not
> "understanding" a film. Yes, I know that people who rely on dubs or subtitles
> can study foreign film and become authorities. Even professional critics must
> do so.
> 
> And you are still not getting it, but I was complimenting you on your language
> ability, believing you must be overly modest.
> 
> Are you really sure you do not have some sort of hang up about language?

Okay, I will accept that you didn't mean your comments the way they
originally sounded.

I assume then that you agree that, while knowledge of the language is
preferable it is not essential.

>>> There is nothing I said about anyone's language ability and their "right" to
>>> comment on movies. I said most Japanese do not have the language ability to
>>> understand or talk about English language films [in English].
>> 
>> I sure see a lot of Japanese magazines on the stands about English language
>> films in Japanese. Does that mean they don't understand English language
>> films and have no right to comment on them?  Does that mean that all those
> 
>> middle-aged women can't fixate on the Korean stars of "Fuyu no Sonata"?
> 
> Are you yanking my chain on purpose when you are not getting it? That is not
> what I am talking about. How many times to I have to say it? Language ability
> would allow them to understand the DIALOGUE itself. The DIALOGUE. If it is
> dubbed or subbed, or they read entertainment magazines featuring interviews,
> non speakers can get it, too. And all of them can say any damned thing about
> it, as to each other, if they speak some mutual language. But for Japanese, it
> likely won't be English.
> 
> Why do you keep seeing arguments where there are none?

Okay, I will accept that you didn't mean your comments the way they
originally sounded.

>>> And again, when I say "understand", I am referring to dialogue, not ability
>>> to get the director's intended message, if any. And my reference to language
>>> and culture was culture in general (such as how it applies to social
>>> heirarchy, age or gender), not the culture of, or contained in the movie
>>> itself.
>> 
>> Considering that you have stated that you don't bother studying Japanese
>> history, Japanese literature, or Japanese arts, wouldn't that sort of
>> disqualify you to comment on Japanese culture, using your own standards?
> 
> No, because as I explained, the language has a culture of its own. One can
> understand some of the hierarchy that used to exist in society, for example.
> One can see how it still operates in practice.
> 
> Ability or understanding of language itself, does not necessarily grant
> knowledge of another aspect of culture in which they have no study or
> experience such as wood block printing, and I don't know where you get this
> from, because I meant nothing of the kind otherwise.

Okay, I will accept that you didn't mean your comments the way they
originally sounded.
 
>> Our understanding of all things will always be incomplete, but that does not
>> mean we should not try to understand.
> 
> Do you study or spend time on that which you are not interested in? When you
> have something you are already interested in such as Japanese or French film
> and are not yet done exploring it (locally there has been at least one video
> shop which claimed a stock of 100,000 videos), will you seek out still more
> film such as Taiwanese, Korean, or Indian, to look for something good there?
> 
> And you still have time for work and family, other pastimes, and to post here?
> You manage your time well.

No one is forcing you to look at cinema of the recognized masters, but it is
more than a tad annoying when you slam others that do like looking at that
type of cinema.
 
>>>> Apparently, your knowledge of cinema is almost non-existence, as is,
>>>> according to your own comments, your knowledge of Japanese art, history, or
>>>> literature. And yet you seem to imply that knowing the language is more
>>>> important in film critique than actually seeing the film.
>>> 
>>> I didn't say that, that is what you persist in thinking I meant.
>> 
>> Okay, so you agree that actually seeing the film might not be a bad idea
>> before commenting on it?
> 
> No, nor is it what you mean when you generalize anime having seen only "some".
> Have you really made yourself watch that much alien plant porn? I don't need
> to watch more adult anime to avoid it or be critical of it, and again BTW,
> adult anime is not that large a genre of the whole. But the standard serves
> you perfectly well when you talk about the right to judge Japanese cinema.

Adult anime constitutes a large share of the anime market. To argue
otherwise is ridiculous.

>> Good, then there is something we agree on.
> 
> It's not what you really believe, unless it serves your purposes: you don't
> need to see more anime to judge the entire genre, and the kind of people who
> would watch it, yet claim others including myself must get as much Japanese
> cinema as possible over a long period of time, before we can talk. Then you go
> off on French cinema. Right. You are free to judge anime and anybody who
> watches it or actually likes it as you will. I'm telling you about what you
> haven't been willing or able to see. You haven't told me about Japanese cinema
> yet.

I raised the issue of French cinema in answer to your question of how much
of Japanese cinema is "good," as if cinema clearly is either "good" or
"bad," with no shades of gray.
 
>> I had made my comment about you implying that knowing the language is more
>> important in film critique than actually seeing the film based upon your
>> remarks about your lack of seeing the films in question has no bearing on
>> your right to comment on the "fact" that they are good or bad.
> 
> I didn't mean any of that, though you keep bringing it up.

I am glad that you are dissociating yourself from your previous comment.

>> All this goes to the lack of agreement as to the standard of "goodness" in
>> film. You appear to arguing that the intrinsic "goodness" of a film can be
>> objectively determined and you fixated on wanting to know exactly what
>> percent of films I thought were "good" and what percent of films I thought
>> were "bad."
>> 
>> I don't agree with the basic premise of a clearly objective standard for
>> films. If that were the case, then the critics would be in universal
>> agreement on all films. They aren't.
> 
> Then why do you keep bringing up your handful of directors if they are not
> actually "good", as in your meaning of "great"? I was asking your opinion.

You are the one fixating on the "handful of directors."
> 
>>> I do not hold anime to a different standard. It is you who hold anime to a
>>> different standard when you look down upon it as a rule. Your view of anime
>>> or the people who could possibly appreciate it is quite clear, and so far,
>>> not favorable. You are persistent, yet doubt when I must then respond.
>> 
>> You have been using language like "So how do you account for its continued
>> success, or how Japanese animation has become an international phenomenon
>> worth billions of dollars per year?" That sure sounds like you are equating
>> "goodness" with "commercial success."
> 
> Not all of it. And I'm still not saying anime is better than live action.

But you are saying it is as good.
 
>> Porn is commercially successful. Does that make it good cinema?
> 
> It's cinema? In Japan, you may have noticed it is how some noteworthy
> directors made their start, though I don't remember any names.

Porn and anime could be a good learning experience, as can television
commercials, but that does not mean that porn, anime, and commercials are
are as good as conventional cinema.

>> This is where we disagree. You say that porn and kiddy stuff does not
>> reflect on the nature of anime, and I say that since the great majority of
>> anime is either porn (soft or hard) or kiddy stuff, it helps define the
>> genre of anime.
>> 
>> True, there are exceptions, but exceptions are by their nature exceptions to
>> the general rule.
> 
> Like chikan is the rule for men, o viewer of "some" anime?

Not all, or most, men do chikan, but they permit and environment where the
incidents of chikan are the rule.
> 
>>> How wide is the appeal of other genres are you referring to, to compare it
>>> to the appeal of animation internationally? How wide is the appeal of
>>> Japanese cinema in their own country, to the appeal of animation or foreign
>>> film? While mere appeal or financial success do not mean quality, if
>>> animated features are the largest grossing films ever in Japan (I have not
>>> seen it adjusted to inflation, as may be done in US rankings), what does
>>> that say about the state of modern cinema, or the Japanese? [Insert your
>>> comment about lack of culture or childishness of viewers here.] What do you
>>> say to professional film critics' years long lament about the state of
>>> recent Japanese cinema (other than those few notable works and directors)
>>> and its financial decline?
>> 
>> No one is arguing that anime is popular in Japan, or even to a lesser degree
>> in other countries. So is porn.
>> 
>> Again, you are trying to make a connection between popularity and artistic
>> worth. Morning Musume is popular, so popular that it regularly appears in
>> Kohaku Uta Gassen, but that doesn't mean their music is good.
> 
> No, but when Kurosawa and your handful of directors are popular, what does
> that mean to you?

I am not the one arguing an equivalency between popularity and goodness.

>> Modern Japanese cinema suffers from the same problems that cinema in most
>> countries face, being overshadowed by the mammoth production of English
>> language motion pictures. Getting financing for films is becoming more and
>> more of a problem, as the costs skyrocket in a flat market.
> 
> And quality?

Some is good, some is not. That part of the equation has not changed.

>> As for the professional critics, they tend not to criticize anime films
>> because not much is expected of them. Rarely do anime films get included in
>> even the "comprehensive" movie and video guides.
> 
>> What do I believe about Japanese cinema in general? It is hurt by the poor
>> economy, the high costs of production, and the relatively high prices of
>> theater tickets.
>> 
>> Much of the Japanese cinema is anime or action adventures (either SF or
>> police dramas or horror), but there are still some good independent films
>> being made and some directors (like "Beat" Takeshi") are sufficiently
>> bankable as to be able to continue making some really good films.
> 
> Good recent Japanese films do not include those genre you mention?

Some of the SF or police dramas or horror is good, some is not.
> 
>> I would agree that it is economically viable to make anime, but that isn't
>> the question is it? Weren't we talking about how such films stand the test
>> of critical review?
> 
> You and critical review again. But you do not accept when they are critical of
> recent Japanese cinema in general, like it when they recognize the directors
> you respect like Kitano, and dismiss when anime are recognized.

The recognized directors of anime are VERY limited in number.
> 
>> It might be less expensive to make anime but that does not mean that the
>> final product is any good.
>> 
>>> Level of knowledge is irrelevant to the facts, as you have shown regarding
>>> Japanese animation. Even hypothetically seeing every anime available to you
>>> in California has not better informed you, nor can I believe even over
>>> decades of viewing, that you could have seen most Japanese movies on the
>>> shelf, if you demand only informed comment. At best, you have seen all that
>>> is subtitled, all that has been released in the US, or what you can
>>> understand in Japanese (not the hero shows or porn), correct? Is that a
>>> better general representation of Japanese cinema, than is representative of
>>> anime for English speaking viewers in the US, which is indeed heavy on the
>>> porn, science fiction, or questionable portrayals of women?
>> 
>> This statement really points out our differences. Notice you state that
>> "Level of knowledge is irrelevant to the facts, as you have shown regarding
>> Japanese animation."
>> 
>> What are the "facts" that you talk about?
> 
> What is.

That is not a very good, or very clear, is it?
> 
>> Is it the "fact" that anime is really popular in Japan? Agreed, but then so
>> is Morning Musume.
> 
> No, the range of anime, which you ignore.

The normal range is from really bad to somewhat amusing, with an
exceptionally small number being critically acclaimed.
> 
>> Is it the "fact" that anime produces an artistically good product? That is
>> not agreed, except to the degree that we agree that there is the exception
>> to the rule and some good product does squeak through the system.
>> 
>>>> So the test of "goodness" is commerciality? Does that mean Morning Musume
>>>> is today's divas?
>>> 
>>> No. I said that in a recent post before Rashomon or anime came up when I
>>> brought up LOTR and Titanic. Nor is a mere large audience indicative of
>>> quality.
>>> 
>>> But a sizable segment of the population should be able to recognize quality,
>>> as in the way Japanese consumer products have been internationally
>>> recognized and successful over time, even if the local population continues
>>> to harbor resentment over WWII, or how more South Korean or Chinese consumer
>>> products such as electronics are becoming more successful, despite not being
>>> well known before; and should be able to appreciate quality, even if they
>>> are not as cultured as you might demand them to be.
>> 
>> In one paragraph you state that mere large audience is not indicative of
>> quality in live action film, and in the next paragraph you equate the large
>> audience for anime as indicative of quality. That sure sounds to me like a
>> case of using double standard, a very clear case.
> 
> It's not only popularity or commercial success.

Your arguments seem to be limited to popularity or commercial success. If
there is more, tell me what it is.
> 
>>>> Or is the test "recognition value"? Colonel Sanders seems to have
>>>> exceptional recognition value, as does the girl in front of Fujiya
>>>> restaurants. Does that mean, they deserve Oscars?
>>> 
>>> BTW, I do not believe animation should receive awards simply because they
>>> are animation. But IF and when animation (or CG) is capable of beating out
>>> live action film for awards such as best photography, best actor, best
>>> director, best film, or best foreign film, because critics actually believe
>>> so, that says something.
>> 
>> The fact that it happens so rarely, despite the massive output of anime says
>> quite a lot, doesn't it?
> 
> That most anime is not for theatrical release like Miyazaki, the way most
> Japanese videos in the store are not, even if they do happen to be movie
> length.

That is because most of it was made for television, the equivalent of
children programming in the States.

>> Why is it negative to apply to anime the same standard applied to other
>> film? Why should I expect less from one genre than another?
> 
> So which genre of Japanese film are worthy, if not, for example, SF, police
> drama, or horror? Or is it simply live vs. anime to you?
> 
> You asked "What is so wrong about liking the good that occasionally happens in
> Japanese cinema?" The answer naturally, is nothing. Or is there only nothing
> wrong with liking something good, recalling good to you, means "great"?

Eric, again you are the one confusing "good" with "great."
> 
>> Why don't I make suggestions for you wife? Because I don't know your wife or
>> what type of things that would interest her.
> 
> You would not like to introduce her to quality, as long it avoids those
> cliches or genre I mention?

I have no indication that she would appreciate quality.
 
>> Why am I "so offended" by your figure of 15-20%. I am not offended by the
>> particular figure, but by the standards that you apply. On one hand you
>> comment that the "Lord of the Rings" isn't necessarily "good" because of its
>> large popularity, but then on the other hand you argue that amine must be
>> "good" because of its large popularity.
> 
> "Not necessarily good" is a disclaimer. It is true, as it is true of anime and
> other business.

Okay, so we agree that it is ridiculous to argue that a certain genre is
good merely because of its popularity or the obsessive love of its fans?
 
>>> It is 12:53 am, and Seven Samurai just now ended. I still say it is too
>>> long, the way Lord of the Rings is too long, particularly Return of the King
>>> (I bought the US extended version). Yes, it offends fans or purists, but I
>>> can see why a professional would choose to edit. My wife went to bed at
>>> about 9:30 without even a glance at the TV beyond the three minute opening
>>> credits. I doubt she is going to watch Yojimbo or Ring, either.
>> 
>> You don't like "Seven Samurai"? Why am I not surprised? That does not mean
>> it is not a great film.
> 
> Who said I do not like Seven Samurai? Just because I would dare say it was
> long? Long even for Kurosawa?
> 
> Do you think it was perfect then and is now? I can't wait for this.

No, I am not saying it is perfect, merely very, very good.

I said I wasn't surprised when you complained about Kurosawa, because based
on your previous comments you do not seem to have the inclination to enjoy
anything that would be considered art.