While visiting our class, Kamanaka Hitomi refused to define herself as activist. Activisism in Japan, she argued, tends to turn people away, for upon hearing that an event such as a film is an activist project, they assume they will be bombarded with ideologically motivated falsehoods. In order to prevent such a knee jerk reaction to her own film, Kamanaka claimed that she produced her film objectively, giving equal attention to supporters and opponents of the plutonium processing plant in northern Japan. She desired to erase her own prejudices, thus facilitating individualized reactions to the film
The goal of artistic objectivity is, without doubt, a noble one, though I would question its efficacy in communicating important messages. Thus, before viewing “Rokkashomura Rhapsody,” I was prepared to be critical of its objective, apolitical treatment of a pressing issue. However, after watching the film it became clear that it was not free of activism. Indeed, despite Kamanaka’s claims of objectivity, I found that it undoubtedly pushed a message, namely that Plutonium processing was a bad move for Japan.
The question I am left with, then, is how to square Kamanaka’s claims of objectivity with the film’s biased (and I mean that in the best possible way, since I believe it is a subject that needs a biased/passionate treatment) portrayal of the plant. Is objectivity a tactic, a ruse for convincing those who run at the slightest mention of activism to watch the film? If so, is this a viable tactic? That is, is it valid to remove overt political/activist statements only to reinsert them covertly? The tactic, if indeed it can be called that, seems to have worked. Thousands of “average” Japanese have watched the film, and become passionate opponents of the plant.
In conclusion, I loved the film, and I feel that it makes an important contribution to our awareness of the negative effects of plutonium processing. However, I’m still on the fence about Kamanaka’s objectivity.
