The Japan Times: can’t see the forest for the trees?
Posted on Thursday, 7 June 2007 at 4:30 pm
It’s not often the English-language press in Japan devotes space to news or discussion about locally-made films, which probably says more about their core readership’s interests and language abilities than media apathy toward the subject. Even so, apart from Mark Schilling’s reviews every Friday in the Japan Times and Aaron Gerow’s occasional write-ups for the Daily Yomiuri’s Art Weekend section, you’re far more likely to find information about Japanese movies in English online at sites like Twitch or blogs like this one. Which made The Japan Times’ Sunday editorial on the current state of Japanese film a rare and welcome sight.
That being said, it wasn’t quite the kind of bang-on analysis that I would have hoped for and might even be a bit misleading in places, prompting me to challenge some of its assertions from my utterly inconsequential and inauthoritative perspective. Feel free to call bullpuckey on any of my observations below.
It begins with the topical hook of Kawase Naomi’s Cannes Grand Prix win for “The Mourning Forest”:
Kawase’s honor is another in a series of reminders about how rich and rewarding Japanese films can be. But at the same time, it is a reminder of how little known the film culture of Japan remains and how endangered the industry has become.
The second sentence is typical of the piece, in that’s it’s never quite clear whether it’s referring to attitudes to Japanese film at home or overseas. I’m sure most cinemaphiles who’ve visited or lived in Japan have discovered that most people here just aren’t interested, let alone knowledgable, about their own country’s cinema. That’s hardly a phenomenon particular to Japan - many New Zealanders’ idea of a Kiwi movie probably doesn’t stretch much further than “Lord of the Rings” - but it’s often difficult for foreigners drawn here by its cinema to figure out how a nation with such an enviable and internationally venerated film history can be so negligent toward it at home.
If the author had gone on to support their initial statement with examples such as the lack of reference to classic Japanese cinema in education or its general absence from free-to-air television, they would have made a virtually unassailable argument. Instead they addressed a perceived lack of economic, or rather governmental support for filmmakers and the industry itself but in doing so chose to omit certain realities that contradict its statements, thus disappointingly weakening the thrust of an otherwise well-intentioned article.
No one expects samurai and sword fights anymore, but the situations, acting and unique style of Japanese films have influenced the image of Japan abroad perhaps more than any other single factor. Nowadays, Japan is in danger of disappearing from world screens.
The hell it is. I don’t sense that’s any more the case than it was say, five years ago. As only one of the four filmmakers mentioned in the editorial (Kawase) is still breathing, the author seems a little too caught up in the past glories of Japanese cinema. You could even make the case that Japanese actors and filmmakers are enjoying a higher profile overseas than ever before, largely thanks to internet and DVD proliferation, but also thanks to the vital proselytizing role played by film festivals around the world, especially those with a strong Japanese or Asian focus such as Nippon Connection in Germany, the Far East Film Festival in Udine, Italy and the New York Asian Film Festival. Regardless of their actual quality, interest in Japanese films is at least running higher than at any time I can remember in my (relatively brief) lifetime.
These days Miike Takashi has such a rabid foreign fan base that even his lesser video works have been released on DVD in the U.S. and Europe, while Tsukamoto Shinya and Kitamura Ryuhei similarly enjoy loyal cult followings. On the acting front, Watanabe Ken and Sanada Hiroyuki have both pulled off mid-career renaissances by appearing in mainstream foreign productions, while Asano Tadanobu’s diverse filmography has gained him widespread popularity with foreign festivals and filmmakers alike, and consequently lead roles in Sergei Bodrov’s “Mongol” and Pen-Ek Ratanaruang’s “Invisible Waves”. Not to mention Kikuchi Rinko’s Oscar nod, or even director Harada Masato, who displayed a hitherto hidden talent for playing Machiavellian scumbags in “The Last Samurai” and “Fearless”.
But that’s moving away from the editorial’s main point, which is the threat to Japanese film posed by the lack of governmental backing for filmmakers and the industry as a whole.
In this regard, France might offer one of the best models. There, the government is unafraid to put its money where its pride is. Grants, schools and promotion have long encouraged and advanced the French film industry, while protecting it in a competitive world market.
I’m not familiar with the ins and outs of the French system so I can’t really refute or agree with that, but surely it would be easier for Japan to emulate a success story much closer to home - South Korea.
Alright, so the so-called Korean Wave has ebbed dramatically at the Japanese box office, but I’m fairly certain that has more to do with public fickleness and poor marketing (look at how badly a surefire hit like “The Host” did for proof of that) than diminishing quality. Other blogs have already dissected the phenomenon much better than I ever could. Besides, the South Korean government eventually caved in to the MPAA and sadly did away with their brilliant quota system, so the jury’s still out on whether their industry will able to maintain its popularity in an open market.
But all of that is really pretty irrelevant when you look at the remarkable track record of South Korean film in the international marketplace, emerging from relative obscurity and developing into an international film powerhouse in little more than a decade. Part of the credit for that must go to the South Korean government’s extensive efforts to bolster the film industry as well as to promote itself outside its own borders. Just compare the homepage of KOFIC, the Korean Film Council, with its extensive news section and database, to its Japanese counterpart UniJapan’s homely effort. And let’s not forget that the majority of South Korean films released on DVD in South Korea come ready with English subtitles - why can’t this be done in Japan? Even the domestic disc for “The Host” had them, despite being scheduled for subsequent theatrical release in numerous other countries. These are just two particularly conspicuous examples of the chasm that exists between Japan and South Korea in terms of awareness and consideration of the international market.
One idea might be to set up a fund for subtitling Japanese films and putting them on DVD releases, much in the same way that the Bunkacho (The Agency for Cultural Affairs) earmarks a portion of its expenditure for the translation of Japanese literature. For that to happen though, cinematic artistry would have to become as highly valued as the written word, which remains extremely unlikely. Even Amari Akira, the current Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, recently admitted that the fact Kawase’s Cannes winner will be screened in more cinemas in France than in its country of origin is proof of Japan’s cultural inadequacy in terms of the significance given to film. And this is coming from the guy who is spearheading the move to turn the Tokyo International Film Festival into a “contents marketplace”.
Japanese film schools could be improved, or rather, initiated, since almost none operate in Japan.
Bollocks. Admittedly they are few in number and could definitely do with some hefty cash injections, but it’s ridiculous to ignore the achievements of institutions such as The Film School of Tokyo, the Japan Academy of Moving Images, the Osaka University of Arts. The places I’ve visited seem to get by only on the smell of an oily rag and a formidable passion for film, and despite the negligible career prospects for the majority of film industry hopefuls, they still manage to attract prominent filmmakers for teaching positions and even uncover the odd diamond in the rough. Would we have Shimizu Takashi, Miike Takashi or Yamashita Nobuhiro without schools like these?
Besides, with the diversification of image-based media and the increasing affordability of digital equipment, there are far more routes available to becoming a filmmaker these days. Rather than setting up more schools, more funding should be made available for those that already exist as well as showcases for new talent such as the Pia Film Festival.
Japanese directors must go abroad to learn even the basics or apprentice themselves to non-artistic companies. Creative films offer a vision of a beautiful country and national pride, to mention two of the government’s priorities, as strongly as any high school class in history.
But without creative and financial support, the offerings are all too often a mishmash of bland, uninspiring and overtly commercial products.
The way I see it, the ‘quality’ issue isn’t so much the result of a lack of support, but rather where that support is coming from and where it’s being focused. I put the blame squarely on television companies and talent agencies, who are increasingly supplanting the waning studios. There is probably more money being poured into films than ever before because of them, but with the caveat that the finished product is tailored more to small-screen sensibilities and commercial imperatives. The studios once groomed actors, but in their absence that task falls to a limited number of disproportionately powerful talent agencies, who are more interested in creating cross-platform ‘multi-talents’ to maximise their income streams. From their perspective, television offers greater regularity and exposure, and TV companies are far more savvy about cross-platform promotion of their stars and products, and film’s more limited relegates it to an ancillary role. As Japanese television aesthetics (oriented more towards accessibility rather than realism) leach into film, the ability to pull off a convincing performance becomes less of a sought-after quality. Real actors still emerge, but they have a much harder time breaking through because of the quid-pro-quo relationship between the talent agency-television axis. And with the growing number of projects based on existing properties and/or originated by TV companies themselves, there’s also less need for directors to express their own voice.
Consequently, one area where there is undoubtedly a dearth of support is development of scripts and screenwriters. Most of the major studios have been upfront about shying away from original screenplays in favor of properties, such as book and manga adaptations or remakes of older films with name recognition. In this sense at least, Japan is no slouch compared to Hollywood. It’s another reason why many critically successful Japanese films are independent productions that few people get a chance to see.
Practically speaking, film students and young directors need grants to get started.
Which is exactly what the Bunkacho has been doing, stumping up cash for films like Omori Tatsushi’s heretical “The Whispering of the Gods” and John Williams’ labyrinthine “Starfish Hotel”. In fact it’s quite common these days to see the Bunkacho logo as the credits roll, so credit where credit’s due. There’s a lot more to be done: the government has at least been loosening its purse strings, and the potential’s there for significant improvement of the present support and promotional framework with the introduction of some foreign expertise. But expectations should be tempered by awareness of the existing commercial structures that dominate the film industry, which the Japan Times editorial didn’t really take into account.
The film industry itself isn’t in any danger of going under for a wee while yet, but genuinely talented actors and filmmakers, and great films, might well be classified as scarce commodities. But hasn’t that always been the case in Japan? Or anywhere for that matter?
comment by logboy
posted on Thursday, June 7 2007 at 4:30 pm
i want to add something… as if i haven’t said enough already about these issues.
as far as subtitling a broader variety of material from japan is concerned - let’s say, a government funded project to put english subtitles (or all the major languages) on every japanese dvd release, this isn’t for the sake of the relative few that do purchase things in this fashion - what i have in mind is how each new small aspect of a countries cinema being subbed and each little increase in the quantity of stuff with subs seems to allow more diverse and open audience interaction with what’s on offer, further food for those with a taste to remain interested, in both cases.
i don’t really think the korean wave is a few thousand buying subbed discs from japan as much as i think a subbed market place acts as a broader conduit from which the people with the cash that make decisions can traverse around the range of stuff, from which previewing and choosing can be done more freely, how there’s an increase in companies perception that there’s a potential market to be had if a larger group of people were given more direct / easy access to the stuff.
the small import market can act as a relatively specialist field that already has an appetite for these things, and through this increase in the amount of poeple seeing the stuff (particularly a non-professional or domestic audience) there’s also a slight increase in discussion, from which responses can be gained and decisions for licenses can be made. think about is as though there were suddenly 30 times more people viewing stuff at a sales market, as though 10 times more people were talking about the things than could otherwise do so…
as things stand, we’re either risking narrowing perceptions and even subsequently talking ourselves out of maintaining an interest (be it customer or licensee) because of our inability to manage to freely navigate the potential choices. we persuade ourselves there’s only so much value because we’re treading the same ground intentionally, yet wondering why it all starts to feel the same. when korea opened the floodgates by including english subs, it didn’t just provide food for some importers, it allowed navigation between more invidual choices, diversified and increased the interest, altered perceptions of what was on offer… almost as though it went from selling minor morsels to those looking for a snack, to opening up a buffet and inviting everyone to come in and take their pick, sick it and see.
comment by kevin
posted on Thursday, June 7 2007 at 4:30 pm
that’s an interesting take.. funding the film industry specifically to better a country’s image with foreigners. how’s that working out for the french?
there are plenty of film schools in the US and you’d still think lindsay lohan was a national hero. image is a difficult thing to control.. and if you could, it probably wouldn’t be very realistic.
comment by GoldenRock
posted on Thursday, June 7 2007 at 4:30 pm
Apparently, most Japanese commercial filmmakers get their starts from TV dramas, while the more art-oriented filmmakers (such as the ones you mentioned) came from film schools. So how would film schools exactly help Japanese cinema? Major commercial films are produced by TV stations, and that’s obviously where they’ll get the directors for their tentpole films.
Then again, American film schools still managed to churn out crappy directors like Brett Ratner and Tim Story (Ratner went to NYU, while Story went to USC). Is that what Japan wants? A hack who makes bad Jackie Chan movies and a mediocre director who managed to jump from a bad remake to what is known as the most underwhelming ongoing comic book franchise?
pingback by ryuganji: film news from japan » You’ve read the film, now see the book
posted on Thursday, June 7 2007 at 4:30 pm
[...] The Japan Times: can’t see the forest for the trees? [...]
comment by Aceface
posted on Thursday, June 7 2007 at 4:30 pm
Can’t agree more.
I think those floating around film production in Japan are all pretty much aware that South Korea can be a good role model for Japan’s future.
Just finished reading two book relating the subject.One is 朝日新書,韓国映画ベスト１００ 寺脇研Ken Terawaki、and the other is岩波書店、パッチギ的！世界は映画で変えられる李鳳宇Lee bong Ou.Terawaki is ex-Monbusho,Bunkacho bureaucrat and film critic.He was in charge of exchange of film festivals in cooperation with KOFIC.And Lee is the president of Cine Quanon who started all the cinematic Korean wave in Japan by distributing “Shuri”in ‘99.Both books consider Korean film industry is the benchmark for the future of the industry.
One thing differs the two nations’ film industry is Korean film has one big oversea market which is Japan,but Japanese industry can’t find the equivalent in overseas.I think this year,Japanese films are doing quite well in Korean market,almost as good as(or as bad as)Korean films are in Japan.But cosidering the cost performance Korean market cannot be our”Japan”.
That,added with insularity of the industry is not forward with cultivating oversea markets.
I was also very dissapointed with the sappy box office record of “The Host” in Japan.I’ve interviewed Bong and talked to the distributors,hoping to help the commercial success of my beloving director of “Memory of Murder”.But the Japanese side were pretty worried about the timing of rhe release(which was September,not exactly a box office season here)and Korean side were worried about declining of the wave in Japan may effect the film.So there were rather
pessimistic atomosphere from the beginning.Personally I think the Korean wave in Japan revolve around TV dramas and not so much in the movies.Not to say that is so in the future.
comment by don
posted on Thursday, June 7 2007 at 4:30 pm
Aceface! I’m honored to be graced by your presence. Thanks for the book mentions, especially the Lee Bong Ou one. I’ll have to grab a copy.
I was equally distraught that “The Host” fared so badly in Japan, but at least its similar fate in the U.S. and other key markets has since proved it wasn’t an isolated phenomenon. It certainly rams home the point that films without built-in brand recognition and/or major marketing muscle behind them will seldom make much of a splash at the Japanese box office, regardless of quality. If only people knew what they were missing (”Memories of Murder” is one of my faves too).
South Korean genre films (especially action) are currently far superior to their Japanese counterparts, which only serves to underline the dearth of money and talent over here. Why are Korean filmmakers succeeding where their Japanese counterparts aren’t? Is it merely the difference in the level of governmental support for the film industry? Or are South Korean audiences more open-minded? I don’t want to believe that what Japanese audiences mostly want from their national cinema are tearjerking terminal illness dramas and big-screen TV dramas, but lately it’s very easy to gain that impression.
You make an excellent point about the importance of the Japanese market to South Korea, and more importantly about cost performance. I imagine that all these perceived problems with the Japanese film industry’s output boil down to this. Films are too expensive to make here, and even when money is thrown at a project, it seldom seems to end up on screen. Actors and filmmakers have to whore themselves out to advertisers and television companies to pay the bills. The TIFF is being diluted even further, and a truly world-class festival like Filmex struggles to pay their bills.
Meanwhile, KOFIC has just touched down in LA. Are you reading this, Unijapan?
comment by Aceface
posted on Thursday, June 7 2007 at 4:30 pm
Oh,Please.All these praise are overworthy…
I’m amazed with the quality of English blog on Japanese cinema,here,JasonGray’s and MidnightEye…
There are few good Japanese blog on Japanese cinema
but they either become too pedantized or soaked in nostalgia.But then again that is the accurate reflection of film criticism in this country…..
About “The Host”:
Because of it’s outfit as the genre film,it couldn’t appeal to the core fandom of Korean cinema here,which is the housewives and the young couples.
Summer vacation’s over and kid’s won’t go to the theater.So the success was up to whether they could attract the geeks or not.And they screwed here.
you may already know about some spread negative image on internet regarding the resemblance with Japanese anime “Patlabor 3″in both plot and design of the Host.(was that you posted on this at Twitch?)
That might distracted some geeks from going to the theater.There are pretty strong anti-Koreanism among the geekdom in this country (you may also know this by surfing over 2ch).I called BANDAI just to make sure if they would file a law suit and publicity woman told me instantly they’ve got many anonymous calls asking the same for all day and keep repeating BANDAI has no interested in this what’s so ever…
Perhaps this factor may not mean much since geeky EIGA HI-HO magazine chosed “The Host” as the bast film of 2006 in their critics poll.But what can I say,there were all the wrong moves in selling of “The Host”.
“Why are Korean filmmakers succeeding where their Japanese counterparts aren’t? Is it merely the difference in the level of governmental support for the film industry? Or are South Korean audiences more open-minded?”
You know,YOU are the expert on these,not me.
I’m just posting my irresponsible opinion.
I’ve been thinking about this,and I’ve come to conclude that government factor has nothing to do with making program picture.
France and Italy had some good program pictures in the past but they are now mostly gone.The current rise of East Asian film fandom in the west is mostly to due to the fact that East Asia has now become the only region in the world where genre movies are still constantly made apart of Hollywood(and Bollywood,perhaps)
Why the west is down and the East is up?
I must say the government fund (and the tendency of taking cinema as a form of art instead of entertainment) had allow the cinematographer to seek the auterism instead of making entertainment for the masses.Thus brought the decline of the craftmanship in making movies.Here, East Asia has superiority to Western Europe.Around here,the prime motivation to make film is to make money.
Now about the difference between Japan and Korea,these two countries has much in common partly due to the fact that Japan’s culture is heavily influenced by Korean’s and Korea’s modernity is pretty much the product of colonialization by Japan.
But I tend to think there are marked difference in the management style between the two countries film productions.
Korea likes Tycoon style(even though tycoon comes from a Japanese word) producers.The buck always stop at the desk of CEO/Producer.
If the movie gets hit,you’ll be the player,if not ,you go run to the flight to L.A,and hide away from your investor.
While Japan,producers are like mandarins.Everybody have strings in their hands and they pull it in the backstage.They prefer 製作委員会production commitee system which diversifies the burden of responsibilities.
If the movie gets hit,that’s OK.If not, it’s still OK,afterall It’s bank’s/TV station’s/Dentsu’s money.Committee is disbanded and thay all go back to their previous post and continue to live happily ever after…
But movie making is a gambling and those who win big are gamblers and gamblers are always independent.
Japanese production committee may hit the jackpot occasionally ,but certainly in no match with tycoon-like Korean producers in film making who would bet all they’ve got.
Same with directors.Aesop’s fables had two archetypes.The clever fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows only one thing important.
The following selection is highly intentional,but I say
Aoyama Shinji and Kurosawa Kiyoshi and Kitano Takeshi are all foxes.Bong Jonn Ho, Kang Woo Sok and Park Chan Wook are all hedgehogs.
Foxes may make critically acclaimed films,
but the movie goers rush to the silverscreen for hedgehog films..(Needless to say that Tycoons too prefer hedgehogs over foxes..)
This will lead to the conclusion why the Korean movies are more audience centered thus more connected with popular sentiment than Japanese films.
Rather rough argument but that’s pretty much summs up what I think about J/K movies.
comment by don
posted on Thursday, June 7 2007 at 4:30 pm
I’ve said something along these lines before elsewhere, but it’s posts like this that make me wonder why you don’t bite the bullet and start your own blog. Your 東京流れ者 act is a lot cooler though.
If you can recommend any worthwhile blogs on Japanese cinema, please post them here. I’ve been having the same trouble finding them myself…
I didn’t post the Patlabor news at Twitch, and as I’m not a major anime buff I didn’t really think it was that big a deal. Good on Bandai for not picking a fight - speaking of pakuri (I should probably be mentioning this at Neomarxisme), someone really needs to call the Jim Henson Company and tell them that TBS is ripping off Kermit the Frog for their ぴったんこカン・カン show.
I’m skeptical that release timing, the 2ch 嫌韓流 or the Patlabor pakuri played a significant role in the failure of “The Host”. Like you say, it was sold all wrong, but I have my doubts as to whether there was anything that could have been done. It was probably more that the idea of a “South Korean monster film” conjured images of some cheapo “Pulgasari”-esque kaiju knock-off in the minds of most. There’s an especially pronounced awareness gap between informed film fans and ‘average’ audiences in this country (especially going on my own experience), and I just don’t think local audiences (and the core Korean cinema fans, as you say) were ready to welcome such an exotic species. The irony is, it was ostensibly more “Hollywood” than the majority of successful commercial Japanese films, and a hell of a lot more well-made. I know I’m sounding very pessimistic and anti-commercial Japanese film here, but let’s call a scoppu a scoppu. The South Koreans just do it better.
Your point about government subsidies contributing to art films that nobody sees rather than commercial cinema is definitely a salient one, especially looking at some of the films that have the Bunkacho logo on them (I had to stifle a gut-laugh when it appeared in the credits for Omori Tatsuya’s ridiculously depraved “The Whispering of the Gods). That said, without such backing you can kiss goodbye to any chance of winning another Palme D’Or. With multiplexes, major distributors and the TV-talent agency industrial complex boosting the number of screens but limiting the selection on offer, government support is an increasingly necessary evil.
On the other hand, the few producers I’ve had a chance to talk to don’t say much positive about Unijapan and their efforts, the most frequent argument being that it’s not required to make a profit and thus largely ignorant of commercial realities. All credit to them for at least doing something, but as there don’t seem to be a lot of conspicuous outcomes so far, you’ve got to wonder whether they’ll ever be as effective as KOFIC. I would have thought that the situation in South Korea wasn’t too different, what with chaebols and all that, but the production committee/maverick producer comparison you raise makes a lot of sense. Mandarins vs. Tycoons - sounds like a future superbowl matchup.
I understand what you were getting at with your choice of filmmakers for your example, but none of the Japanese directors you mentioned could really be put in the same commercial bracket as Park Chan-Wook et al. Certainly, none of them have experienced comparable box office success. Who has? People like Tsutsumi Yukihiko, Motohiro Katsuyuki, Hasumi Eiichiro… all TV directors, all directors of TV drama adaptations. Sadly, it’s looking increasingly as if the best way to build overseas markets for Japanese movies is to export more TV dramas. That way, you can lower people’s expectations and make them more accepting of shitty acting and pandering contrivance. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, television poisons everything.
comment by Aceface
posted on Thursday, June 7 2007 at 4:30 pm
映画をめぐる怠惰な日常ブログ
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/molmot/20070310/p2
probably the blogger is working film production related
job,ubiquitous attendance in various cinephile event.
モンローグ
http://monzo77.spaces.live.com/
Blog by Meiji Gakuin Univ.vice prof.Monma Takashi門間貴志,on East Asia culture(film,food,politics,etc) His links are also useful.
アトリエ・マニュークAtelier manuke
http://users.ejnet.ne.jp/~manuke/
Blog by Okada Hidenori,film archivist at MOMA/NFC.
On film,haiku,Japanese chess,and Belgian Beer.
革命の日の朝の屑拾い日記
http://mgccinema.exblog.jp/
These are pretty much what I look into everyday for most of them get updated on daily basis,and write about cinephile events around Tokyo which is convenient for me.
comment by logboy
posted on Thursday, June 7 2007 at 4:30 pm
i don’t know if i can take all that in…
couple of things spring to mind.
one, is that if you consider the complexity of any given issue which relates to the current and future states of japanese cinema, and the varying aspects, you’ll be hard pushed to find one who knows enough about everything to get a grasp and convey it in english; hard to know if it’s as necessary as what i’ll put down there in another slice….
perhaps, also, there’s something to be said for how we’re in a tangle with regards if we’re impacting upon japans desire to globalise from limited aspects of what we’ve experienced - that is, if japan is going to be balanced about what level of influence it should allow outsiders on what should remain produced for the domestic audience and made available for non-domestic audiences to experience in a broader fashion. i don’t want japan to think everything needs to go large budget, generic and model itself on anyone else, because it’s charms and benefits are for its own output and for its own people, the individuality and how it reflects its culture rather than how it appeals to others. the appeal should be the reflection of that culture in its broadest possible range of representations… although american cinema is often said to dominate by sheer force and finance, there’s something to be said for how most people experience it on a familiar-but-exotic basis. influences should and often do run across borders, but there’s something to be said for a certain amount of isolation to maintain individuality too.
is japans taste for the korean wave supported, diversified and self-publicised by the regular inclusion of japanese subs on korean releases? i think so. has dvd - a light, comparatively cheap, small, easy to post, and high quality format (well, by VHS or laserdisc standards) - brought foreign film to more peoples eyes than festivals? i think so. there’s a history of festivals being something we observe from afar, from which journalists react and from which companies license. now we’re all a little more in the center of things, we can all watch films that are much newer, from a broader range, and in a less stereotypically world cinema perspective - yes, every country turns out the turds as much as the gems it would seem, and now that illusion of a narrow field of production styles (or isolated groups of dedicated fans for genres and styles) can see a bit more of the bigger picture. thing is, we’re being tempted in bit by bit, but we’re still peeping through the keyhole compared to speaking japanese and living there.
oh, and i’m still frustrated by how american companies licensing often gives a false impression (in order to give an impression of a specialist field of interest) of the breadth of what’s available - it’s sometimes possible to completely forget how japan goes from programs that would be seem to be nothing but product placement to things which look like they’ll find the obscurest of interest and target it so successfully and directly…