After watching the film and hearing her discuss her intentions in making it, I have to disagree, respectfully, with Kamanaka-san’s insistence that Rokkashomura Rhapsody is not an activist film. The various implications of the nuclear reprocessing plant’s presence in the rural town are clear. There is no doubt that Rokkashomura faces grave employment and economic problems without the plant providing opportunities and revenue. In addition, without a reprocessing plant, Japan’s nuclear waste problem and energy crisis call for alternative solutions. Rokkashomura’s dilemma is not the locals’ alone. These impending challenges to both the townspeople and Japanese society at large offer sound grounds for pro-reprocessing camps to argue for Rokkashomura and Japan’s need for the plant. The film manages to convey the frighteningly negative aspects of nuclear power and reprocessing as well as the necessity for both of these services in present day Japanese society and Rokkashomura. It is up to the individual audience member to decide which side’s needs are more pressing and arguments are more convincing (although, I still find it difficult to believe that one could view this film as not anti-reprocessing…). So, is this an activist film?
Perhaps Kamanaka-san does not view her film as activist, due to a rigid definition of “activism” in Japan. She mentioned in class that the word “activist” carries certain connotations in Japan, which make agreeing with or joining activists unpalatable for many Japanese. Due to this prevalent preconception of activism, Kamanaka-san intentionally avoided creating an activist film in order to appeal to a wider audience. And by an activist film, I assume she means one that explicitly states a position on a controversial issue and promotes that stance. Her film, which does not come out an encourage audience members to rally against nuclear power and Rokkashomura’s reprocessing plant, would not be an activist film by this narrow standard. However, I would like to suggest to Kamanaka-san that her engagement in this film is already activism. She wants her viewers to understand what is going on in Rokkashomura and what the local people, scientists, and plant workers (there are overlaps in these categories) are thinking. She also suggested in class that the film acts like a “mirror” in which viewers should see themselves and their own actions. Whichever side an audience member takes on the issue of nuclear power and reprocessing at the end of the film is still an outcome at the end of viewing the players involved, considering the consequences, and deciding what is best for the town, Japan, and him or herself. Kamanaka-san might not consider this an anti-reprocessing activist film, but I think Rokkashomura Rhapsody is definitely an activist film calling for activism.
I definitely agree about the activism piece, but it also sort of begs the question: what piece of documentary film is not activism? or rather, what good piece of documentary film is not activism? it’s an easy question to ask, but the answer, i feel, isn’t so straight forward.
Sure, we can talk about historical or “factual” documentaries as neutral, but the truth is most documentaries push an epistemology, whether it’s clearly stated or not. What I like about Kamanaka’s film is that she lets the footage speak for itself in many ways; the voice-over is non-intrusive and the interviews are very reasonable and seem to take place without much pressure. In this way, I think she avoids the label of activist in that she doesn’t go looking for an answer, but lets one find her instead.
But, there are some things in this world, I feel, that are unequivocally not-good, and I think she does a good job of presenting one of those things with sensitivity towards why it continues to be propagated.
Comment by naesung — April 24, 2007 @ 6:41 am |
Andrew raises a good question.
Well I think the way you value a film depends on your personal biases.
For instance, if I were to make a film that is pro-war, someone might call it propaganda. My opposition would probably not call me an activist, but something very negative.
I think when we talk about activism, we’re going to have to think about shades of value jugements that are being made or implied–by the filmmaker, the critic, or the audience.
Is it activism, or propaganda, or history or journalism (whose neutrality or objectivity might be questioned).
Comment by memorygongs — April 24, 2007 @ 11:50 am |
I think you both raise good points that reveal a possible disconnect between the filmmaker, film, and audience. There could be a motive pushing the filmmaker, but depending on how that motive and the filmmaker’s own values manifest in the film, its reception could vary greatly. Likewise, depending on the biases inherent in each audience member, the film would appear very differently. This all points to the art aspect of filmmaking, I think. I was really confused at the distinctions activist filmmakers kept making between filmmaking and activism. I think I was ignoring the subtleness of these filmmakers’ skills. Even if all films carried an agenda (or didn’t carry one), depending on its presentation, its label could easily change.
And Andrew, I like the way you worded that last point, and I think that is what appealed to me most about Rokkashomura Rhapsody.
Comment by makiko — April 26, 2007 @ 1:52 am |