Comments on: Activism behind “Rokkashomura Rhapsody”

By: makiko

makiko — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:52:36 +0000

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.

By: memorygongs

memorygongs — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:50:09 +0000

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).

By: naesung

naesung — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:41:08 +0000

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.