Kenji Mizoguchi

[lubitsch]

Folks let's not turn this thread into a Dreyer thread ... even if some comparison and contextualization isn't wrong.
I mainly want to point out in response to some points made here that
first I indeed oppose any propaganada intention or single mindedness, no matter which precious advantages the films may have to offer. To put it harshly, Eisenstein and colleagues never rise above the level of state propagandists, Tarkovsky dangerously extols the Russian soul against European soullessness, Rossellini preaches too much about holy fools and a cruel world which doesn't recognize true values, Tati is too conservative in his French idylls vs. the modern environment and Antonioni hits you with a sledgehammer to get modern alienation across. Every of these directors nevertheless managed to create complex structures and stunning visual ideas, but there is this fundamentally one-sided core to their work (please let's not start to discuss each of these filmmakers here, consider me a fool, but let's not turn the thread into a big metadiscussion). I do not see such grave limitations with filmmakers like e.g. most of Wyler, Hawks, Scola, Lumet, Preminger, most of Tavernier, Ozu, the late silent Pabst and so on because these directors tend to observe and analyze the topics they investigate. Mizoguchi obviously rather falls into the first category and while his mission is noble (as is e.g. Costa-Gavras'), one gets the point rather early.
second while I see that some posters here try to point out that indeed there's a special interest on the side of the directors like Dreyer and Mizoguchi and one misses the point or is too narrow-minded in ignoring that. However I doubt that it is possible to chose a certain perspective in some cases because the decision for a lack of context already undermines the value of the artist's work. A film that extols the virtues of an unbroken spirit fighting against hunderds of enemys can describe Hitler as well as Sophie Scholl, Jeanne d'Arc and Korczak and so on. Without any context it's a rather pointless affair to make a film about strong convictions as is the case in Jeanne d'arc and 47 Ronin, one has to contextualize. The same goes for the legendery anti-war films which always point out how senseless war is, but leave out how exactly one would have to deal with Hitler and allies. Herr Schreck savagely criticized my post because I semm to suggest that the French should have remained passive, but I merely wanted to point out that it's not possible to deal with the execution of a military leader with religious visions and to focus only on the spiritual part of it. One could tell us a bit more precisely who is fighting against whom, for what reasons and how Jeanne's position is in all that.

Tommaso already pointed out that our admiration of Oishi, the sage and wise leader can be paralleled roughly those of Hitler in Triumph of the Will. I'm not quite sure about the drunken scene in Ronin because I thought that was merely play-acting on Oishi's part in order to get across the impression to is enemies that he has weakened and dismissed revenge scheemes. Usually propaganda films avoid tarnishing the leader too much. I can not confirm that in the Third Reich cinema the leader figures are led astray, they are very straight from the beginning, be it Carl Peters or Ohm Krüger. It's only in the youth period like in Steinhoffs Der junge und der alte König where the character has first to develop or in a split of the leader as in the Russian Chapayev where the leader is supported by a Polit commissioner who counterbalances the weaknesses of the leader. Oishi strikes me as the classical leader figure without any mistakes and is comparable to e.g. the brother in Ozu's The Brothers and Sisters of the Toda family who is a follower of the imperialist japanese invaders in China and invites his mother and younger sister there after scolding all the other old-fashioned family members. However I admit I was a bit at a loss when he admitted that he had made a mistake in handling the shogunate as Sloper correctly points out. The subs on the Korean DVD didn't seem that great and I lack the familiarity with the play and the multiple screen versions. Michael Kerpan might enlighten us on this point. Nevertheless I doubt that the film encourages us to doubt the leader figure, in fact it shows that you should trust the leader how bizzarely he may behave, he will have his reasons, a very helpful argumentation for dictators. And I would very much emphasize Slopers point in his recent post, the complexity of 47 Ronin compared to a really stupid movie like e.g. Stukas makes it even more dangerous. It's easy to shrug of Stukas bur we're debating 47 Ronin feverishly because the leader is not so 100% infallible and his followers not 100% loyal which however doesn't subvert the main tendency.

[Michael Kerpan]

Oishi and his comrades had an almost impossible task to perform. They not only wanted to get revenge, they wanted both their dead leader and themselves to be vindicated ultimately. In fact, their behavior caused a change in the law -- and they succeeded.

Oishi told his men his general plan -- and the reasons for it -- but asked them to trust him on how long to wait. They were not "blind followers" at all.

On another topic -- I would say Mizoguchi isquite like Puccini (overall). He is a sensualist -- and a sensationalist -- who exhibits exquisite artistry (visual for M, musical for Puccini). He exhibits a mix of somewhat unsophisticated story telling (and "philosophy") with an extremely high level of stylistic sophistication.

[Tommaso]

Guys, it's past midnight here, so I'll try to be brief for now. Not sure whether I'll manage though.

Sloper, I must admit that I remember the details of "Ronin" far worse than you. So, your words about the significance of the drunk scene sound correct to me. Perhaps my comparison to the mislead-hero-tale was not quite to the point, then. I haven't seen "Zulu" and thus cannot comment on it, either.

But didn’t he picture himself, even if dishonestly, as reforming a corrupt system – the failures of the Weimar Republic, the supposed effects of ‘international jewry’ and so on?

Sure he did, and apparently he really believed in what he said (and wrote in his infamous "Mein Kampf"). There just wasn't any sort of reality check on his part.

I was reacting to lubitsch’s statement that the ronin should have fought against the shogunate if they thought it was corrupt, and that this would have been preferable to their willing submission and suicide. It seems like an odd point, and I was suggesting that rebellion against a ‘corrupt’ system can in certain contexts be just as objectionable as the self-immolating acquiescence lubitsch takes issue with.

Yes, point understood. For me it's just very hard to picture Hitler as someone justly rebelling against an oppressive system. There certainly were shortcomings in Weimar society and politics, and the economic situation must have been even far more terrible than we can imagine today; still, there were reasons for this, and the main reason was that Germany lost WW1, a war that was started by the German country itself. Arguing this should certainly not make us forget the misery of the people, who, as Schreck argues, were probably just the victims of the machinations of those in power, but it should help to keep things in perspective. If Hitler really had had a sort of political understanding, he wouldn't have blamed the Jews or the allies, but those in power: the militarists, the capitalists, the monarchists and imperialists (not in the Marxist sense, as Germany indeed had some colonies until the end of WW1).

"Triumph" and Hitler as a god-like figure:

Hmmm... That’s a very subtle reading of the way this kind of demagoguery works, and a persuasive one. I’d never really thought of it like that, but it makes sense. But in that case, we identify with the crowd’s identification of Hitler, don’t we – rather than the direct identification with Oishi we are encouraged to feel in 47 Ronin? I don’t mean to split hairs about this, it’s just that – again – I feel lubitsch’s connection between the rows of samurai hanging on Oishi’s words and a Nazi rally is a bit off the mark, partly because the ronin don’t resemble blissed-out disciples, but mainly because Oishi is not made out to be godlike in the way you describe – he’s a humble and flawed leader, asking his followers to co-operate with him in trying to do the right thing.

Yes, I think that's the main difference indeed; there's still this distance between the ideal that Hitler wants/seems to embody and which remains unreachable – just as in Christian lore we can only come to God THROUGH Christ, but not become LIKE Christ; if we disregard some more mystic interpretations for the moment. Oishi is far, far more human and 'reachable'.

I’m just preparing to teach (or maybe just talk to) another round of students about the great Middle English poem, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight – another story about a hero who has to triumph through submission, and in which violence and prowess are negated in favour of the stoic acceptance of death. It always divides students: some don’t see the point of it all, and find it silly and annoying (it doesn’t quite open itself to the term ‘offensive’); others find that it really says something profound about the human condition. I’m in the latter camp, but I admit that it takes a certain kind of mentality (perhaps the remoteness from the real world I occasionally get flak for) to enjoy stories like this.

Oh great that you mention "Sir Gawain". My much venerated English professor, who has helped me in more ways than I can enumerate, is probably the foremost authority on the book here in Germany. He has a very particular take on it (he believes it's basically a Gnosticist text), a view that I don't necessarily share, but he has made me absolutely admire that text for its sheer poetic depth and intensity. For me, it's foremost an expression of the way fate and natural cycles work on our perception and life, and it's deeply steeped in natural/pagan religiosity; it's more in this sense that I also see that text as an expression of a necessary submission, or rather succumbing to forces greater/beyond our own.

For the 47 ronin, the equivalent to this great love is the fulfilment of honour – a more problematic concept, obviously, but the process is similar, and the film moves me in just the same way as Dreyer’s does.

And here, while we're talking literature, I'm equally reminded of Mishima's "Runaway Horses". A problematic, dangerously affecting, but perfect text which manages to combine the ideas of love (for Japan, the Emperor) with the notion of honour and which is exuding a wild, irritating, often very sensual emotionality that is sometimes hard to resist.

To put it harshly, Eisenstein and colleagues never rise above the level of state propagandists, Tarkovsky dangerously extols the Russian soul against European soullessness, Rossellini preaches too much about holy fools and a cruel world which doesn't recognize true values, Tati is too conservative in his French idylls vs. the modern environment and Antonioni hits you with a sledgehammer to get modern alienation across. Every of these directors nevertheless managed to create complex structures and stunning visual ideas, but there is this fundamentally one-sided core to their work (please let's not start to discuss each of these filmmakers here, consider me a fool, but let's not turn the thread into a big metadiscussion) . I do not see such grave limitations with filmmakers like e.g. most of Wyler, Hawks, Scola, Lumet, Preminger, most of Tavernier, Ozu, the late silent Pabst and so on because these directors tend to observe and analyze the topics they investigate

I'm very tempted to turn this into such a metadiscussion, as this would probably avoid considering you a fool because one could differentiate things a little more, but I'm backing out on this for the moment. Apart from Tarkovsky: really, Tarkovsky talks about THE soul, not a particular Russian embodiment of it. The questions raised in "Solaris" have absolutely nothing to do with a specific cultural background, they are universal to mankind and pretty timeless on top of it. While "Solaris" is my favourite Tarkovsky film, I guess the same observations go for all his other works, too. The topics Tarkovsky deals with are often beyond 'observing' and 'analysing', that's the whole point of his films. He shows us those areas where we fear to tread because we can't handle them in any rational way, areas which we can only glimpse at thanks to such outstanding works of art that rare individuals like Tarkovsky were able to make.

Without any context it's a rather pointless affair to make a film about strong convictions as is the case in Jeanne d'arc and 47 Ronin, one has to contextualize.

I think you seriously underestimate the capacity of viewers to apply those 'lessons learned' to any given or chosen context. The determination and belief of Jeanne could easily be transferred or seen as a model for a specific context concerning the individual viewer's actual life situation. This even works in Rivette's version.

Tommaso already pointed out that our admiration of Oishi, the sage and wise leader can be paralleled roughly those of Hitler in Triumph of the Will.

No, I didn't say that, and I hope my further explanations above have made my point a little clearer. Hitler in "Triumph" appears as flawless, god-like, whereas Oishi might be sage, but is still human. And for me, that makes all the difference. Quite apart from the fact that "Ronin" is far less visually manipulative than "Triumph".

I can not confirm that in the Third Reich cinema the leader figures are led astray, they are very straight from the beginning, be it Carl Peters or Ohm Krüger. It's only in the youth period like in Steinhoffs Der junge und der alte König where the character has first to develop or in a split of the leader as in the Russian Chapayev where the leader is supported by a Polit commissioner who counterbalances the weaknesses of the leader.

Okay, I take your word on it. I was vaguely thinking of what I read about the Horst-Wessel-film, for instance, but may have confused this anyhow. Perhaps I was also thinking of the general 'trials and tribulations' that a charismatic figure must undergo in order to follow his 'fated' task; think of Maisch's "Schiller", for instance.

. And its formal beuty is a far cry form the stylistic hollowness of someone like Leni in Triumph, in which the endless travellings through empty collonades past unpopulated vistas of architectural ennuie, eventually climax in mass grouping of automatons worshipping a media created deity with a mustache.

Absolutely true, but I'm not just fully sure whether Leni is to blame entirely for that. People often think it was her who created these vistas and mass processions; in fact it was Speer, of course. That's not meant as an excuse, but I suppose even an anti-Nazi director would have basically come up with similar images if he/she had had to film that event. The problem with "Triumph" is rather its lack of a commentary – which might have put things into perspective – and, even more, Leni's highlighting of those elements which would have been objectionable even without her willing 'assistance'.

And now, seeing that I didn't manage to be brief, I bid you all Goodnight for now....

[Sanjuro]

Germany lost WW1, a war that was started by the German country itself

Tremendously simplified and quoting from aged memory, but I think it was 1)Austria declares war on Serbia (provoked by assassination) - 2)Russia declares war on Austria - 3)Germany declares war on Russia & Serbia 4)Everyone else jumps in. Wasn't it?

Sorry - back to Mizoguchi.

[Michael Kerpan]

David --

I think I have a different notion of sentimentality than you do, I guess -- as I find Puccini and Mizoguchi quite similar in this respect -- and I love them about equally. However, I would say I love Verdi (at his best) considerably more than either.

(note: the complexity of Puccini's women comes almost entirely from their music -- not the words they speak).

Did you know one of Mizoguchi's lost films involved the same real story source as Belasco (and later Puccini's) Madame Butterfly?

[Sloper]

For me it's just very hard to picture Hitler as someone justly rebelling against an oppressive system.

Oh absolutely, I was just torturing lubitsch's argument into a place it didn't want to be. Not the best example.

Thanks for the thoughtful (as usual) responses - I should be in bed or eating a book or something so I really will keep this short. But I'm glad to hear you like Gawain, I remember my first reading of it kept me up all night, and when I put it down I thought it was the best thing I'd ever read. Better than Shakespeare. I still think so, I think. Anyway I'll bear in mind your (and your tutor's - what's his name?) comments on it as I go through it again.

Lubitsch: in some ways I admire your moral certainty about these things, and I have to guiltily admit that you may be right to insist on contextualising things in a lot of instances. This is just something I tend not to do, more out of laziness and ignorance than anything else. But (and I'm surely not the first person to have said this to you) you might also want to consider that 'getting the point rather early' with the film-makers you mention could be a sign that you've actually been too impatient and judgemental to get the point at all. This obsession with apportioning moral responsibility to artists' work seems to blind you to the aesthetic qualities David and Michael have referred to - after all, these are artists we're talking about, and unless you're only interested in films as historical artefacts (are you?) you've got to acknowledge the importance of these artworks beyond their context. Well, you haven't got to, but I don't think you stand much of a chance of understanding what these films are about if you don't.

Kazuo Ishiguro's novel, An Artist of the Floating World, deals beautifully with this exact moral issue, specifically in relation to a Japanese artist who works as a successful propagandist during the war, and then is vilified for doing so afterwards. The title refers to something the painter's teacher tells him - that the job of the artist is to capture something of the world's transient beauty, the geisha bars, the unimportant things that no one else notices. Ostensibly, the painter rejects this advice in order to make pictures with a political intent, but when the wheel turns and he falls out of favour, it becomes clear that he is an 'artist of the floating world' despite himself, because the values of the society he had tried to engage with have moved on. There's a lot more to it than that, but I'm already spoiling it - anyway I recommend the book. It's heavily influenced by Ozu in some very obvious ways.

[Michael Kerpan]

Speaking of war propaganda -- I just watched an incredible documentary film about the Japanese invasion of China -- made by Fumio Kamei in 1939. After a somewhat pompous opening (with Japanese ships in a harbor under the credits), he cuts to someone prostrating himself before a grave. then to burning houses, then to an old man, then to the burning buildings, then to three little children, then to more burning houses, then to several scenes of families fleeing/evacuating -- and then to Japanese tanks (and this is all in just the first 3 or so minutes).

This was never shown in Japan (until the sixties). A friendly pre-censor convinced Toho (and the director) NOT to submit this formally. Then the film disappeared for 25 years or so. Alas Kamei (who dodged a bullet in this case) eventually spent a year in jail for some later (far less incendiary films). One would like to report a happy ending -- but no such luck. After the war, he made a film examining the Emperor's responsibility for the war. Despite formal final approval, someone high up in MacArthur's staff got wind of the film -- and it was totally suppressed. He made some minor films, thereafter, but his career was pretty much finished off by the Occupation authorities. (The banning of this film led to imposition of far more stringent "anti-leftist" censorship -- and to the prompt taming of briefly "liberated" film makers.

Mizoguchi was not, shall we see, nearly so sensitive to the situation of either the Chinese people (or the rank and file soldiers fighting them).

[knives]

To put it harshly, Eisenstein and colleagues never rise above the level of state propagandists, Tarkovsky dangerously extols the Russian soul against European soullessness, Rossellini preaches too much about holy fools and a cruel world which doesn't recognize true values, Tati is too conservative in his French idylls vs. the modern environment and Antonioni hits you with a sledgehammer to get modern alienation across. Every of these directors nevertheless managed to create complex structures and stunning visual ideas, but there is this fundamentally one-sided core to their work (please let's not start to discuss each of these filmmakers here, consider me a fool, but let's not turn the thread into a big metadiscussion) . I do not see such grave limitations with filmmakers like e.g. most of Wyler, Hawks, Scola, Lumet, Preminger, most of Tavernier, Ozu, the late silent Pabst and so on because these directors tend to observe and analyze the topics they investigate

I'm very tempted to turn this into such a metadiscussion, as this would probably avoid considering you a fool because one could differentiate things a little more, but I'm backing out on this for the moment. Apart from Tarkovsky: really, Tarkovsky talks about THE soul, not a particular Russian embodiment of it. The questions raised in "Solaris" have absolutely nothing to do with a specific cultural background, they are universal to mankind and pretty timeless on top of it. While "Solaris" is my favourite Tarkovsky film, I guess the same observations go for all his other works, too. The topics Tarkovsky deals with are often beyond 'observing' and 'analysing', that's the whole point of his films. He shows us those areas where we fear to tread because we can't handle them in any rational way, areas which we can only glimpse at thanks to such outstanding works of art that rare individuals like Tarkovsky were able to make.

Sorry for extending this, but I am curious Lubitsch, if you take into consideration that many of these people, especially the Soviets, could only perform their art if they were a little propagandistic, essentially forcing them to that means. Often times too they tried to subvert the propaganda also. I can't imagine anyone viewing Ivan the Terrible or Andrei Rublev and thinking anything positive of Russia or Stalin. Is it wrong to forgive people if that was the only form they were allowed to tell in. Also is Mizoguchi's Ronin any worse than Olivier's Henry V? If not, what is the difference? By your logic nearly every filmmaker from Ford to Hitchcock to Lang and so on could be damned. Hell even your shinning example Ozu while not making projects solely for propaganda has many films that could be interpreted as such by your Tarkovsky definition.

[lubitsch]

Tommaso already pointed out that our admiration of Oishi, the sage and wise leader can be paralleled roughly those of Hitler in Triumph of the Will.

No, I didn't say that, and I hope my further explanations above have made my point a little clearer. Hitler in "Triumph" appears as flawless, god-like, whereas Oishi might be sage, but is still human. And for me, that makes all the difference. Quite apart from the fact that "Ronin" is far less visually manipulative than "Triumph".

I think that this is only a differnce in grade and shade but not in substance. If you see an older, sage figure spouting wisdom on the screen you tend to support this character if it is shown with sympathy like e.g. Star Wars or any role by Morgan Freeman. It's maybe a cleverer way to manipulate the viewer if you add some flaws but that's it.

Lubitsch: in some ways I admire your moral certainty about these things, and I have to guiltily admit that you may be right to insist on contextualising things in a lot of instances. This is just something I tend not to do, more out of laziness and ignorance than anything else. But (and I'm surely not the first person to have said this to you) you might also want to consider that 'getting the point rather early' with the film-makers you mention could be a sign that you've actually been too impatient and judgemental to get the point at all. This obsession with apportioning moral responsibility to artists' work seems to blind you to the aesthetic qualities David and Michael have referred to - after all, these are artists we're talking about, and unless you're only interested in films as historical artefacts (are you?) you've got to acknowledge the importance of these artworks beyond their context. Well, you haven't got to, but I don't think you stand much of a chance of understanding what these films are about if you don't.

I absolutely see your point, how ever I have certain reservations if I get reprimanded for not apreciating aesthetic qualities and overvaluing political/sociological ones. After all the films itself are not only pure art like an abstract film by Fischinger or Ruttmann, they deal with life. And if they deal with life, then they should do so honestly and I don't think you can back out of unpleasent questions by simply pointing out that the film is beautifully shot or well structured and so on, because that's only part of the game. I have at home a film history by Gregor/Patalas from the late 60s which does a politival analysis by the numbers, slaughtering everything that isn't left and politically correct. Horrible. But the opposite attitude pretending that films are only aesthetic objects is no less dubious.

To put it harshly, Eisenstein and colleagues never rise above the level of state propagandists, Tarkovsky dangerously extols the Russian soul against European soullessness, Rossellini preaches too much about holy fools and a cruel world which doesn't recognize true values, Tati is too conservative in his French idylls vs. the modern environment and Antonioni hits you with a sledgehammer to get modern alienation across. Every of these directors nevertheless managed to create complex structures and stunning visual ideas, but there is this fundamentally one-sided core to their work (please let's not start to discuss each of these filmmakers here, consider me a fool, but let's not turn the thread into a big metadiscussion) . I do not see such grave limitations with filmmakers like e.g. most of Wyler, Hawks, Scola, Lumet, Preminger, most of Tavernier, Ozu, the late silent Pabst and so on because these directors tend to observe and analyze the topics they investigate

Sorry for extending this, but I am curious Lubitsch, if you take into consideration that many of these people, especially the Soviets, could only perform their art if they were a little propagandistic, essentially forcing them to that means. Often times too they tried to subvert the propaganda also. I can't imagine anyone viewing Ivan the Terrible or Andrei Rublev and thinking anything positive of Russia or Stalin. Is it wrong to forgive people if that was the only form they were allowed to tell in. Also is Mizoguchi's Ronin any worse than Olivier's Henry V? If not, what is the difference? By your logic nearly every filmmaker from Ford to Hitchcock to Lang and so on could be damned. Hell even your shinning example Ozu while not making projects solely for propaganda has many films that could be interpreted as such by your Tarkovsky definition.

Let me put it this way: First it's obviously and simply bad luck if you live in a dictatorship and are constrained in the expression. However you have even in this case still the opportunity to maneuver along different lines. Even in the Third Reich, certainly no lenient system of state, there were directors who managed to stay out of the propaganda system by fulfilling the demand for entertainment films and injecting their personal style in them. Willi Forst managed to avoid all propaganda stuff by remaining in the realms of his Viennese films while Helmut Käutner managed an intimate cinema among bombs and rubble, subverting the one script with propaganda tendencies he got. Even if you are forced to do something questionable, you can at least try and to do your job in a not too inspired way. I'm sure nobody told Werner Krauß to play multiple Jewish roles in Jud Süß and to play them with such gusto. And Harlan needn't to have done his job that well, why not limit yourself to a hack job like e.g. Die Rothschilds by Waschneck, a vile film, but too pedestrian and rather unsuccessful.
Michael's example of Kamei's fate illustrates rather well that you may pay a heave price for being a honest man, Käutner had luck and continued his career after 45, Werner Hochbaum a colleague similarly suffering under the opression died 1946 before he could make films in the free Germany. But it leaves an extremely bad taste if somebody like Mizoguchi acts in a rather questionable way, survives and blossoms after the war, taking sides for the poor and opressed women in his films, but fails in reality. This should at least lead you to doubt the sincerity of his intentions and check if the films really deliver what they are supposed to be about. The most dubious example is the Christian Rossellini singing the praise of saintlike folls in a cruel world, after himself serving as a ruthless propagandist for Mussolini's war effort. Or Antonioni, the poet of modern alienation, praising Jud Süß in a review.
This doesn't mean that there's any positive connection between personal integrity and artistic ability, but the shading of art by heavy propaganda intentions lessens the quality heavily. To take your example of Olivier's Henry V, I thought the film mostly forgettable while I#m deeply impressed by his Hamlet.

[Michael Kerpan]

I am afraid, lubitsch, that you demand an ideological purity (and honesty) level that few film makers (who work in a socio-political context that contrains them in a significant fashion) have achieved (or can achieve).

Lots of individuals who created (justifiably) admirable art were not especially admirable as people. I don't like Mizoguchi as a person (based on what I've read -- which is mostly laudatory or at least exculpatory), ditto Puccini, ditto (ten times over) Wagner. While personal flaws may leave some mark on the nature of works a person creates, valuing art (in large part) based on the (assumed) human "worthiness" of the arts creator seems rather perverse.

Mizoguchi was, to my mind, very much a Vicar of Bray (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar_of_Bray" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) -- but so what. I would say that one should not value the quality of the artistry differently based on whether or not one knows of discreditable behavior on their part. "Mizoguchi the opportunist" is not the totality of this genuinely creative individual -- and this facet does not explain what is most important about the art works he created.

[lubitsch]

You're right, my post shifts to much towards a "only good people can make good films" attitude. I merely want to point out that less admirable character traits of artists leave traces and deficiencies in their works which should not be regarded as minor points compared to stylistic brillance.
Perversely I felt that Mizoguchi's detached style was very appropriate for 47 Ronin. I had some problems to see what exactly he is after in his supremely long and distant takes in his 30s films which are so discreet that they tend to lessen the impact of some scenes and to diffuse the sufferings of his protagonists into some aesthetic vision. However the tapestry of 47 ronin is very suited to this pageant or rules and honor codes.
I'm still anxious to see Mizoguchi's further way and have already copies from every film from 1946 on available. But if I could chose I'd rather watch a post-war oeuvre from Yamanaka or all the Shimizu's one can't see.

[Tommaso]

I wanted to write something similar to Michael, but he put it so nicely that I have only little to add. EDIT: And in the meantime I see that your next post has come in, Lubitsch, which puts things a little more into perspective, but I leave what I wrote originally before I did read your post.

One point:

This should at least lead you to doubt the sincerity of his intentions and check if the films really deliver what they are supposed to be about. The most dubious example is the Christian Rossellini singing the praise of saintlike folls in a cruel world, after himself serving as a ruthless propagandist for Mussolini's war effort. Or Antonioni, the poet of modern alienation, praising Jud Süß in a review.

If you were right, you would certainly deny any individual the right and the chance to learn from life and 'reform' their opinions. Please don't forget that at least Antonioni was still a relatively young man when he wrote that review. I wouldn't want to be blamed for the rest of my life for what I may have written at age 28, at least not if I don't share these views any longer (and I'm pretty sure that Antonioni wouldn't have praised "Jud Süß" when he was 50 or so, or at least he would have had a much more differentiated point-of-view). People change, that's all, and the man who wrote that review most likely was different from the man who directed "L'Eclisse".

I somehow think that your point-of-view is even more auteurist than that of a most die-hard auteurist. Would you dismiss "Flowers of St. Francis" or "L'Eclisse" if you didn't know who made these films? And would a bad film be defensible if you knew that the director had only good and philanthropic intentions? The 'message' and the aesthetic quality of a film is in the film itself, not in its maker. If the film or the work of art in itself contains things that are objectionable, then that is another thing and must be talked about (as in the case of "Jud Süss", "Triumph" and if you must, "47 Ronin").

ADDITION:

I merely want to point out that less admirable character traits of artists leave traces and deficiencies in their works which should not be regarded as minor points compared to stylistic brillance.

I'd simply like to know where you see these traces or deficiencies in "L'Eclisse" or other films by Antonioni, and whether you'd think you could spot them without knowing about Antonioni's life. I'm tempted to quote Riefenstahl who said before the premiere of her last film, "Impressionen unter Wasser", that she was sure that the critics would spot "brown fishes" in the film.

[Michael Kerpan]

I'm still anxious to see Mizoguchi's further way and have already copies from every film from 1946 on available. But if I could chose I'd rather watch a post-war oeuvre from Yamanaka or all the Shimizu's one can't see.

I have only one more Mizoguchi left to see (that I know survives) -- Fujiwara Yoshie no furusato (1930). So no new revelations are likely...

I much prefer Yamanaka (despite his truncated career -- and mere 3 surviving fims) and Shimizu (20 or so seen, but who's counting) -- but find plenthy to treasure in Mizoguchi's catalog (starting with Crucified Lovers).

[lubitsch]

Point taken Tommaso, as already explained I've definitively overstated my argument here because in fact I think that even a complete swine can make good films while a saint could remain at Ed Wood level and I think the biographical approach not overly valuable especially since it neglects the collaborative nature of film to an unacceptable degree and tends to idolize single creators with a worldview. However in cases where the directors are such extreme strong personalities and where we know about the persons, I am at least tempted to say that you'll find some of these traits in the films. Antonioni always struck me as a not partilularily bright person, his interviews show him trying to deal with the modern experience and being very profound about it, but e.g. his treatment of the nature vs. industrialization including the little story of the birds and the deadly smoke or his film about China show a very confused mind.
In Mizoguchi's case I begin to wonder what he exactly wants. I think we all agree that he is a powerful and significant stylist challenging the well established narrative style and if I'm correctly informed he was criticized in Japan for his seemingly old-fashioned style before he got world-wide recognition. I wonder if the topic of the suffering woman isn't merely a convention from the shinpa melodrama and therefore merely the material for his visual tapestries. With Stroheim I can see why an obsesive realist would want to include location shooting, deep focus and a lesser reliance on cutting. With Wyler I can see why he chooses to stage his characters like the figures on a chess board and watches them in long takes change their positions, he is interested in social structures and the power play between the different levels. With Mizoguchi I wonder why he films the world the way he does it.

[HerrSchreck]

Many of these questions are particularly irksome to me, because it's through an artists heavy psychological frieght-- of his own flaws, of his own hypocricy, his failures, his religious conflicts, his guilts-- that his finer work often springs. Certainly not in all cases, but quite a large percentile.

Can't one appreciate the beauty of a rose but for the shoveled heaps of shit and dirt and muck of squashed bugs and worms from which it sprung? Admire the power and majesty of an eagle or a lion without raging for the glut of murder of helpless grazing innocents that these predators are forever shoveling their snouts through to survive?

The fact remains that very little that is beautiful and meaningful comes out of a purified and sterile wellspring of positivity, consistency, and kindness. Many of our finest artists are/were reclusive, bitter, socially inept, offensive, egotistical, ranting assholes. Some of them are filled with unique insights which they themselves cannot put into practice, and thus are vulnerable to the charge of rampant hypocricy. And this problem of personal hypocricy is very common, as artists tend to--sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously-- work out issues which plague their own self-awareness, and they expatiate guilts, hangups, attempt to cleanse the effect of their own personal failures by working them out in a constructive work. Thus if you seek a consistency between the man and the work you'll be left a large lot of sterile individuals with rosy cheeks who live in the hinterlands and in suburbia who've spent their lives in the kitchen baking Pillsbury biscuits and decorating fucking cakes. Have fun.

I recall meeting a man-- a very good writer-- who said "I just can't get into Bill Burroughs because of the way he abandoned his son." I said "What about the fact that he blew his wife away? The fact that he left a shambles of a life behind him prior to the publishing of Naked Lunch?" I can never understand this need to like the author of an artwork, in order for the artworks to stand a chance of hanging on the walls of the museum of one's inner mind. Good god, if one requires an artist to be a positive personal exemplar-- a (urgh) 'role model'-- then god forbid you get into the realm of rock & roll and jazz music. You'll be left with 45rpm recitations of childrens books. Maybe.

And who passes the test in the end? Look behind the walls of the public veneer of many of the Great Men of Yore -- it's like watching sausage be made. Do it at your own peril!

And it's this fear of this kind of shit-shoveling and finger-pointing, this need and expectation that those promoted for greatness-- either in politics or in the arts-- be able to withstand the most intense of personal/background scrutiny by a scandal-hungry hypocritical press and public, this 'role model' nonsense, it's because of this that we live in the vastly, qualitatively different art culture of today, especially versus that which came to a close towards the end of the 20th Century. Welcome to your Icon-Free world.

[Michael Kerpan]

I have to confess that I have some bias towards artists I like (as people) -- Haydn, Brahms, Shostakovitch, Pissarro, Ozu. Still and all, there are limits. when I found myself becoming disenchanted over Beethoven the man, I vowed to never read another word about him. And I have had to struggle with my dislike for Mizoguchi the man -- now and then.

In any event, it's not like Mizoguchi was a multiple murderer -- like Gesualdo. ;~

[HerrSchreck]

;~

Did Gesualdo have at your little winking Signature Man? His head is cut off below the nose!!!

But seriously--and as we were saying-- I can understand the impulse for some, especially the young who are in the fire of their formative youth and trying on various aspects of personality for size, to find, in an artwork which registers so profoundly in the soul that it's well-nigh life-affirming, further self-affirmation in the biography of the man. It's exhilarating, especially when young-- I know it was for me-- to find a real idol.. someone who has produced brilliant works of art which speak directly to the issues that most concern you as a young man or woman, and on top of that has lived their life unwaveringly, and according to the salutary principles found in their work. They seem to have walked the earth like demigods, paradigms par excellence. They inspire and set an example. They're like armor for a growing, vulnerable youth posessed by dreams for the future, perhaps a future that the pragmatists around them are trying to talk them out of.

But my overarching point is that disappointment over the personal failures in the life of an artist not one whit negates his achievements on the screen, or on the printed page, in musical compositions or on canvass. A masterpiece is a masterpiece, regardless of the gossip from which it arose. Because now that the mortal body is in the ground-- of Beethoven, of Mizoguchi, or Burroughs, etc-- what remains, and what was intended by the artist to remain, is his work... the rest is now just gossip. You don't go to a restaurant and judge the personal life of your chef-- you eat his food, which is that which he wants you to taste. If it turns out that he's a bastard to his wife, or that he even served time for murder, his food is still luscious; and perhaps his learning to please others with his cuisine is part of his expiation of sins, perhaps he is learning to establish positive contact with the human race, a way of getting his mistakes behind him, experience the pleasure of healthy contact, etc. This is my point.

-- and yet still, that's his (the chef's) personal business. Regardless whether he's a cherubic happy Swede from Minnesota who's the sweetest most inocuous guy on earth, or he's a blackhearted urbanite with a closet full of sins, his cooking is still a religious experience that cannot be replicated by another. The gossip about his life outside the restaurant doesn't-- cannot should not-- re-season his food and alter the recipes and thus the heavenly experience. Absent an extreme circumstance (the chef turns out to be someone who in the past wronged you terribly and directly.. whereby you spit the food on the floor and send him your seconds), anyway.

[Tommaso]

Now don't say anything against Ed Wood, Lubitsch.

Seriously, I'm not sure how profound Antonioni the person really was, and I haven't seen his China film (c'mon MoC!!), but you may have a point there. I do like "Zabriskie Point", but I can understand the criticisms which blame the film for its superficiality (not to speak of "Identification of a Woman" or "Beyond the Clouds"...). Nevertheless, whatever the reasons, the four Vitti films, and also some of his works from the 50s, strike me as profoundly thought-provoking, and as close to perfect in their style and execution as films could possibly be.

In Mizoguchi's case I begin to wonder what he exactly wants. I think we all agree that he is a powerful and significant stylist challenging the well established narrative style and if I'm correctly informed he was criticized in Japan for his seemingly old-fashioned style before he got world-wide recognition. I wonder if the topic of the suffering woman isn't merely a convention from the shinpa melodrama and therefore merely the material for his visual tapestries.

That's a good point, I think. Perhaps Mizoguchi's films are less a representation of an individual auteur's psyche, but must be seen far more as working in and on a tradition, more like the product of a great craftsman. I never regarded Mizoguchi's films as following so determinedly a personal agenda as Ozu's or Kurosawa's; but by saying this I wouldn't want to belittle his work at all; but there were so many changes, surprising ruptures and changes in style and perspective in his career that it's hard for me to define what is the essence of Mizoguchi. It would be far easier for me to do something like that with Ozu, Kuro, perhaps even Naruse (as far as I've seen Naruse).

But seriously--and as we were saying-- I can understand the impulse for some, especially the young who are in the fire of their formative youth and trying on various aspects of personality for size, to find, in an artwork which registers so profoundly in the soul that it's well-nigh life-affirming, further self-affirmation in the biography of the man. It's exhilarating, especially when young-- I know it was for me-- to find a real idol.. someone who has produced brilliant works of art which speak directly to the issues that most concern you as a young man or woman, and on top of that has lived their life unwaveringly, and according to the salutary principles found in their work. They seem to have walked the earth like demigods, paradigms par excellence. They inspire and set an example. They're like armor for a growing, vulnerable youth posessed by dreams for the future, perhaps a future that the pragmatists around them are trying to talk them out of.

Schrecko, very wonderfully said indeed. I know that experience very well from my youth and early twens; following an artist, a 'maverick' scientist, even some amazing person you were lucky enough to meet in your real life. I could name more than one or two examples here. And indeed such people are and remain an inspiration, even if you later find out about their personal flaws or about the flaws in their scientific theories: they remain an inspiration because of their determination and good-will. So, a better and more educated understanding only slightly diminishes the admiration; but it changes it and puts it into perspective. You admire these people for other reasons perhaps. Seeing that your idols are only human, you have two possibilities: you can either reject them, or you can broaden your understanding of what is really human (i.e., the flaws), accept things as they are, and still retain some admiration for these special people, even though you don't see them as demi-gods or some sort of spiritual masters any more. Sometimes I opted for the first, sometimes for the second alternative. And while I didn't/don't always manage to choose the second one, I still think that all in all it's the better choice.

[Michael Kerpan]

I find Utamaro one of Mizoguchi's most interesting films -- because it is a virtual self-portrait -- as well as the story of a famed artist of the past. I think Mizoguchi doesn't flinch at revealing Utamaro's (and his own -- by proxy).

[knives]

Perfect sum up Shreck. Appreciating an artist's work and admiring the artist are two very different things. Rosselini may be an adulterer and putz, but his films say, to me at least, a very different thing. An even more extreme example is Wagner who's person was near evil and the way his work was subsequently used was evil, but the work itself can be very beautiful. Really this whole argument reminds me of that one Curb Your Enthusiasm episode.

[colinr0380]

Many of our finest artists are/were reclusive, bitter, socially inept, offensive, egotistical, ranting assholes.

That's inspirational in its own way. It means that there is hope for me yet!

I’ve never really had any real life heroes that I felt could have done no wrong as such but at the same time have no particular overwhelming interest in meeting famous people who I may admire or respect in real life for fear of the way that may impact on my appreciation of the material I admire or respect them for, or more correctly, through. I like to keep my illusions intact to a certain extent but at the same time I’m aware that they are just illusions based on a staged performance or polished final product released to the world at large rather than individually directed at me personally.

However I don’t actively work to cut myself off from behind the scenes features or various articles on the films I’m interested in. If I did I wouldn’t be here! Being aware of issues such as Polanski’s troubles or a particular songster's drug habits etc does feed into the way I would perceive both the person themselves and their work. It always modifies perspective and occasionally enlightens to know about the life of an artist and the things that (may have) motivated or inspired them, or issues that (may have) affected the course of their career or the work they produced, for better or worse. However I think that the work also has to be judged on its own merits too, for whether it succeeds or fails on its own internal terms as well as in the context of an entire body of work of a director, screenwriter, cinematographer, actor etc. Examining a piece of work from all perspectives in isolation can provide a different perspective but put together they can form a more wholistic view of the perception of a work’s success or failure.

I liked Tomasso's point on Antonioni and perceived profoundity. I find the best films are where the filmmaker has provided the space for the audience member to bring their own selves to the material, and that is probably what leads to various reactions from feeling that either nothing is happening and the film is boring through to feeling that the film is incredibly thought provoking because the space has been provided for contemplation. Is it less important in certain circumstances to understand and be supportive of the intentions of the filmmaker than to feel instead that the film is a success or failure because of the things we are inspired to think and feel in response to the film, feelings that may be unintended or even actively contrary to the original intent of the filmmakers themselves? Maybe it should be both – understanding the context of the film is important but also that individual responses to a piece of work can be just as valid a reason for feeling positive or negative towards a particular film.

[HerrSchreck]

[I find the best films are where the filmmaker has provided the space for the audience member to bring their own selves to the material, and that is probably what leads to various reactions from feeling that either nothing is happening and the film is boring through to feeling that the film is incredibly thought provoking because the space has been provided for contemplation. Is it less important in certain circumstances to understand and be supportive of the intentions of the filmmaker than to feel instead that the film is a success or failure because of the things we are inspired to think and feel in response to the film, feelings that may be unintended or even actively contrary to the original intent of the filmmakers themselves? Maybe it should be both – understanding the context of the film is important but also that individual responses to a piece of work can be just as valid a reason for feeling positive or negative towards a particular film.

This is key-- and particularly goes back to the issue of Lubitsch's desire for a perceptible pointing out and "working through" for an audience those human characteristics and situations he deems offensive or unacceptable in the present day, characteristics and situations he'd rather not seen celebrated and-- I guess this is the worry-- propagated in present day society.

An artist can and should allow space for the viewer to bring his-herself to the piece and inhabit it, make it his her own, and this can occur in just about all aspects of the narrative... from moral themes to examinations of human conflict to something as simple as the rendering of horror and suspense-- i e allowing a violent physical attack to take place offscreen and thus in the veiwer's imagination rather than in a brightly lit bath of shredding prosthetic flesh soaked with Karo corn syrup soaked with Red #1.

The same way onscreen narration can be seen as a shortcut and a cop-out for a lazy director, as can the excessive use of music to tell you what to feel when, as well as manipulative tools that are employed that exaggerate the good guy and the bad guy into unreal and highly unimaginative archtypes, so is the imposing of contemporary judgement on tales of historical figures going to result in plain old Manipulative Cinema... Spielberg Style. If one must "break up" and examine what one director perceives to be the mindlessness of the servitude of bushido at its most loyal, or the dedicated religious belief and sincerity of Joan the maid, then a new, contemporary element is introduced into the narrative which corrupts the historical fidelity of the piece, and which also-- by loss of subtlety and the ambiguity of human variegation-- neutralizes the litmus-test like quality of these kinds of films when dealing with unique and perhaps controversial characters and situations. Rather than a variegated response you get a-- which ironically turns the piece into a piece of propaganda just as manipulative as anything that is alleged to be in Mizoguchi's film, which Lubitsch is seeking to neutralize-- more homogenous audience response... as they are being told by the filmmaker What To Think.

[zedz]

Nice discussion, and I think Schreck's right in pinpointing that need to admire the artist as an individual along with his or her work as a folly of youth. Experience teaches us that almost nobody can live up to such high moral expectations, and you have to take what you can get. Plus, presuming to know somebody you've never met is extremely hazardous. The shittiness of your moral hero might just have been well concealed, or an apparent bastard might have kept his redeeming good works out of the public eye.

When it turns out that an artist whose work you admire actually is a decent person (and the first thing that sprung to mind in this context was Schreck's series of virtual toasts to Jules Dassin), you have to accept it as a lagniappe. By this late stage, the memberships of my own personal moral and artistic canons are quite different, with only one or two overlaps.

[BB]

Mizoguchi 6/19- 6/24 at VIZ Cinema in Japantown San Francisco.

Sisters of the Gion
Ugetsu
Streets of Shame
Utamaro and his Five Women

vizcinema.com
Saw High and Low there yesterday, and the audience of 40 or so was the most quiet bunch I've ever had the pleasure of sitting in a theatre with. Probably just a fluke though...

[Michael Kerpan]

I am indeed not saying that. In fact I couldn't in Mizoguchi's case since I find him to be a no talent.

Seems rather an extreme assessment. While my feelings about Mizoguchi's films are somewhat mixed, I can't imagine dismissing his entire body of work. Would you care to elaborate?