I wonder if I care, or if people who feel deeply about Mizoguchi should.
The three movies of him that I have seen were deeply moving, one an out-of-this-world masterpiece (Oharu). But if others don’t share this feeling, what can one do?
Theories are dimensionality reduction exercises, useful, but finally limiting. It succeeds more with certain types of auteur compared to others, and that is what it is. That is not to say that Ozu is “low dimensional” just that it appears that an certain approach to his films has been constructed, which is (perhaps?) harder is the case of Mizoguchi.
I also wouldn’t worry about the influence of Mizoguchi, Renoir or Ray. If we consider them the masters of the ineffable, isn’t it fitting that their influence (which I am sure exists) should work similarly — without pretense, un-packageable, hardly seen? The art (and the influence) that hides itself, no?
That’s right, few people are nowerdays interested in the aesthetics or essential tragedies a director like Mizoguchi displays, and it’s their loss that they prefer to consume superficial mass entertainment. But even though the relevance of directors like him becomes less in a world that celebrates the non-relevant, there’s no need to give up hope. I would describe their films as a refuge that contradicts everything modern day media represents, and those of us who discover them will feel the more relieved and appreciate the rare beauty and humanity which Mizoguchi and also Ray and Renoir distinguishes from impostors like Tarantino who fit much better into the hypocrisy of modern day society.
Ah, Pradipta, where i see a negative, you make a positive! Actually it did occur to me, as Apursansar says too, that it may be more an indictment of the shallow modern world, but it’s also frustrating
he he ;)
Mizoguchi and Mizoguchi appreciation is great because his movies are intelligent, well-crafted dramas with points without being so particularly outrageous or idiosyncratic at form that the craft of the movies themselves supercedes their thematic importance. In other word, he is an artisan, as opposed to a craftsman or an artist. In a way that’s one of the best types of auteurs you can learn from.
—PolarisDiB
I would say he is definitely underrated. I had watched numerous films by Kurosawa & Ozu before finally seeing Ugetzu, which to me is the Japanese film of quality par excellence. On a purely technical level he is jaw-dropping. He has the calm assurance that Ozu has, but also a flair for epic, spectacular filmmaking, albet in a restrained patient manner. His knack for stunning compositions and fluid camera techniques quite impressed me. Like I said, I think Ugetzu is one of the best looking films I’ve ever seen. Nonetheless, I do find Ozu and especially Kurosawa more interesting thematically. I still have loads to watch tho.
Artisan and craftsman can be synonyms.
He is an artisan vs. an artist, which is to say he is literal, or definitive. “Longing” is called for by the story – we see it, we get it, and it is indeed ineffable. There is a lack of gestalt in that – which is a style of filmmaking that interests me most.
In the Mizoguchi/Miyagawa Sansho the Bailiff the lighting of the last scene would be an example of content over form. I seem to remember it was shot perhaps at mid-day, the harshest light of the day. That type of lighting drains the emotion requiring one to rely on the story for the emotion.
I don’t see that type of omission in Ray’s work. I think he brings all the elements together completely.
I would appreciate if you can further elaborate the lack of gestalt in Mizoguchi’s films, Robert. I’m not yet sure if I can agree with you.
Further than give an example from Sansho?
Perhaps you could counter with an example of the way-in-which the elements come together to produce a gestalt.
We are talking about a style of filmmaking that some people really like. If it lacks gestalt properties, it is what it is.
Don’t think that a gestalt awareness is a sophisticated type of thought process.
It is probably a vestige of pre-humanness. Animals probably primarily see the totality of the world versus a self at the center.
Of course in the perceptive artist, this thought process is lauded.
I wasn’t sure if content over form is your main concern in regards to Mizoguchi, but I think this post makes it clearer what you’re getting at, it’s rather related to perception of a whole. I would’t regard it as an omission, since the perception of a film like Sansho the Bailiff will be more complete to a Japanese viewer who carries the cultural background needed to fill the empty spots, but one could say that Ray’s films in general appeal more to a viewer in its form even though his background might differ from the culture the film belongs to. These are no flaws of the film in my opinion, but it defines the relation between the work of art and the one who perceives it.
Now we get nearer to a possible answer to Kenji’s question.
The answer is partly the film itself rather than external to the film – but it is ultimately unanswerable.
Funny thing Marc, didn’t Dane’s post raise your curiosity?
Kenji Mizoguchi is Les Cahiers du Cinema‘s favorite Japanese auteur.In USEK (University of the Holy Spirit-Kaslik, Lebanon), they give specific courses of Mizoguchi and Paradjanov’s specific use of traditional myths for the account of modern ideology etc.
Back in the 50’s when Ozu was barely known at all stateside, Mizoguchi was the Japanese director held in highest regard, next to Kurosawa. This is largely because of “Ugetsu.” it’s a shame he’s drifted into relative obscurity. “Sansho the Bailiff,” “The Taira Clan Saga,” Chikamatzu Monogatari" and his Chinses film “Yang Kwai Fei” are all splendid. His works boast the kind of classical mastery of the best filmmakers of his generation world-wide. They aren’t obscure or “difficult” in any way. I especially love his last film “Street of Shame,” which opened in the U.S. at the “Grind” houses because its subject — prostitution — kept it out of the "Art’ Houses. The last shot — a close-up of a woman ‘s hand waving a handkerchief from a doorway to signal a customer because she’s too old to show herself in full light — is indelible.
Can someone rec one of those listed on Netflix – many mentioned here are not on Netflix
Street of Shame (1956)
Akasen chitai
Au / Tales of a Pale and Mysterious Moon After the Rain
Women of the Night (1948)
Yoru no onnatachi
Sisters of the Gion (1936)
Gion no shimai
Osaka Elegy (1936)
Naniwa ereji
Kenji already mentioned it but a lot of people overlook the subtle mastery of his complex staging, which has always been an underappreciated art, dismissed by many as theatre-like and therefor uncinematic. I remember seeing Gion no Shimai for the first time and it had some of the most wonderful mise en-scene I’d ever witnessed in a film. For me Mizoguchi’s long takes and mise en -scene is what made him one of my all time favourite directors. As for his depiction of women, I prefer Naruse’s more modern and stronger women.
Here is an insightful article on “Osaka Elegy” which Mizoguchi himself regarded as the first manifestation of his style he had been developing up to that point, alongside the more widely screened “Sisters of the Gion” which was made the same year. Both films are outstanding works, and even though they don’t quite compare to his later 30s masterpiece “The Story of Late Chrysanthemums”, they serve as good introductions for those who want to become familiar with his main concerns. His last film “Streets of Shame” on top of the list sums up those concerns, it seems like a continuation of “Sisters of the Gion” and other films he made, and can be regarded as an extraordinary final statement on the tragic destiny of women. “Tales of a Pale and Mysterious Moon After the Rain” is actually a more lyrical translation of “Ugetsu monogatari”. I haven’t seen “Women of the Night” yet.
Kenji, I don’t understand the premise of your thread. I watched Ugetsu in my world cinema 101 as an undergraduate and I imagine that his status has only improved since then with his Criterioned status et all. You are quite correct that his style is far more restrained than many other canonical filmmakers but I think the subtlety of his craft lends his films their timeless quality.
Well it’s true that his films are more accessible to cinephiles than they were, but that is the case with so many directors, some lesser ones still better served on dvd. His reputation in the canon however doesn’t seem as lofty as it was in the 70s when Ugetsu made the top 10 overall in the Sight and Sound poll. Mizogudchi has dropped on the They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They site, based on a large number of polls and selections from about #14 to #25 in the last few years, and i hear far more of Bresson, Ozu and Tarkovsky as influences on modern directors. Ugetsu may well be shown on some courses, but overall i find Mizoguchi is less well known than most of the major directors, certainly i doubt there’s one in the TSPDT list above him who’s less famous. Among US directors especially he’s fared poorly over the years- there it seems Bergman, Fellini and Kurosawa are still kings of world cinema. Of course among very informed critics who are familiar with a wide range of films worldwide he may fare better, but i’ve noticed that there are many auteurs users who’ve seen lots of films by other international directors but are far less familiar with Mizoguchi.
I’d be interested to hear of countries where his reputation is very high. I remember on another site a few years back a programmer in Moscow told me Mizoguchi was hardly known among his cinephile acquaintances who had just been pleasantly surprised at screenings of some films. Only 3 of his films have been shown on TV in Britain to my knowledge in the last 20 years- Sansho on C4 in 94, Oharu on BBC1 in 95, Taira Clan on Film Four (i think) several years ago and none since.
Further; i had to keep pressing Sight and Sound to do any article on Mizoguchi, and after subscribing for 20 years they finally agreed to do one on him (by Alex Jacoby) to coincide with the Masters of Cinema releases. They ignored his centenary, even though there was a very successful run of several films at the NFT in London. The latest edition has a far bigger spread on Kurosawa with AK on the front page. In Empire’s list of 100 “Foreign Films” Mizoguchi is missing. Ok so their mag is more a Hollywood lad mag but it still felt a telling omission.
Thanks Marc – Osaka Elegy it is !
Frank, i think it’s quite common for people nowadays to prefer Naruse’s women. He deals more in practicalities, understated reality (marvellously acted), but i find there’s more often a pessimistic acceptance, Naruse seemed more resigned by temperament, while Mizo has a passionate take on what’s wrong with society that needs to be changed, as well as being more insistent in his dealings with the studios. I think that was one reason he didn’t hold Naruse in high regard, far from it. Also there are many tough, resilient, defiant and strong women within his more melodramatic style of presentation, (as well as women who retain their dignity, spirit, decency or integrity in spite of misfortune in a patriarchal society). Kyo Machiko magnificently pulling her father’s hypocrisy to shreds in Street of Shame, the final unrepentant, unbowed shot of Osaka Elegy, the self-sufficient Sumako the actress, even oppressed characters like Lady of Musashino still want to make a stand, while the terribly unfortunate Oharu hisses like a cat. In Taira Clan we even have a selfish mother who’s more interested in status than family. And i understand My Love has been Burning has a more modern feminism
i think also there’s currently a preference generally for restraint in acting, and Naruse is marvellously nuanced
On the basis of the one Naruse film I saw in the world cup, he’s a brilliant filmmaker. I don’t have enough data to compare him to Mizuguchi, but I am (happily) resigning to the conviction that Japanese filmmakers are the best.
“Women of the Night” is highlighted by a truly amazing scen of a pack of starving prostitutes crawling over a giant mount of garbage searching for food.
I prefer Naruse, since we’re discussing him, but haven’t adequately explored either.
Is Mizoguchi relevant?
I think what he says in The Loyal 47 Ronin is completely relevant. A film that accepts control even as it hopes to change it. A film about revenge where the actual revenge is skipped over. The humans surrounding large events are the important part of them. A samurai film without a single unsheathed sword.
The Loyal 47 Ronin is a film as universal as any ever made. If that doesn’t make an artist relevant than nothing does. And the film is something he explores in every film he’s made (with varying degrees of success, in my opinion).
Yes i don’t want a competitive element in camparing one great Japanese master with another. They all deserve attention.
@David, i’m glad you like the last shot of Street of Shame. With Mizoguchi, there’s quite a bit of peeping and it’s an extraordinary end to his whole career- not that he expected to soon be dead when he made it, as far as i’m aware (he was planning the next)
Ozu has certainly come on strongly in the last few decades, after Tokyo Story got proper attention and respect i think; he was certainly a later arrival as a name in the US. Mizo had already been championed by Cahiers in the 50s. Godard and Rivette revered him, as did Bazin. In France recently i was pleased to find Mizo among the elite master directors in a Cahiers series of books, but there still haven’t been many books on him in English
@Robert: Ugetsu Monogatari is probably the one to go for from your list
@Edwin; Lebanon is obviously an enlightened place. One of my childhood heroes the Welsh footballer Terry Yorath became Lebanon’s manager.
That’s a good explanation why Streets of Shame and Osaka Elegy are some of my favourite Mizoguchi films, Kenji :)
I realise Mizoguchi had a lot of dealing with the studios (its the only thing Tony Rayns talks about on his dvd introductions) but even in some of Naruse’s more ’’melodramatic’’ films his female characters often seem more nuanced than the women in Mizoguchi’s (period) films. I haven’t seen Lady of Musashino and Taira Clan yet though.
Even if Mizoguchi seems to be less appreciated there has been more english written books on him. (even translations like Sato Tadao’s book) In French there always seems to have been written much more on him, so maybe the english speaking world still has to discover Mizoguchi and he just needs some more english written works and good dvd releases for people to discover his work
As for Mizoguchi in Holland, I hardly know anybody who has seen his films, hardly any teachers at my filmschool know them, at filmhistory he was only mentioned briefly (Naruse not mentioned at all) and there’s been no retrospectives on his work as far as I know. Japanese New Wave and contemporary Japanese cinema get a lot of attention here (with a recent Yoshida retrospective) but definitely no Mizoguchi. (or Naruse for that matter)
@David, yes, Women of the Night has women in less refined and "ladylike"roles! Mizo was influenced by Rossellini for it. In fact following on from the extreme refinement and beauty of Sansho, Oharu and Ugetsu, i was initially disappointed with Street of Shame as it seemed rough round the edges, but that of course, as with the behaviour in Women of the Night, is fine given the subject.
@Frank, there’s Mark le Fanu’s book on Mizoguchi but i think he could have gone further in exploring Mizo’s faults, the book would have been more suited to chronological order and i expected more on Japanese culture given the title
@I surrender dear: Loyal 47 Ronin is quite a demanding film, given the pacing and lack of action, a film about patience that tests the patience of people with short attention spans. As spatial exploration and a study of codes of honour it takes some beating, it’s a prime example for Darrell Davis of Japanese monumental style, the camerawork is exceptional, from one beautiful composition to another. It ahs something of a bad name for its militaristic propaganda intention but really Mizo managed to make it his own as best he could, even avoiding the crucial action as he had other fish to fry
His reputation is still intact here, in Spain. The reason is very simple: French critics love Mizoguchi, and they have a big influence here.
However, when we talk about new generations (more with filmmakers than critics) I think there is a tendency to praise second generation filmmakers over the pioneers who began his career with silent films. I call second generation to Fellini, Bergman, Kurosawa, Kubrick, Godard, Tarkovsky… On the other hand the prestige of Ford, Renoir, Chaplin, Lang, Ozu or Mizoguchi seems to decrease over time, and frankly these are the ones I prefer.
Oh i think Ozu is riding pretty high still, having come to worldwide attention later, and as his style fits auteurism more easily, but certainly most of the others could do with more favourable re-appraisal. Even Renoir- rated so highly by both Chaplin and Welles- seems to be suffering. Fellini has had ups and downs and tends to split opinion, but Bresson has come on strong recently i think., not among filmgoers with a passing interest in “foreign films” so much as with current taste and fashion in informed circles.
Kenji
I ask this cos there are many people interested in world cinema who are unfamiliar or barely familiar with his films. He doesn’t seem exactly central to lots of film courses and studies. His work may not have the necessary psychological sexiness of say Hitchcock, nor such a clearly defined auteurist style as say Ozu and Bresson. In an age of Hollywood excess and a fashion for minimalism in arthouse cinema (no doubt an antithetical response), like Satyajit Ray and Renoir he may be falling between two stools. Although many of his films have a timeless quality is it the case that his recurring theme of the plight of oppressed women and its presentation is less relevant in the modern age? His female characters, quite wrongly in my opinion, as there is clearly a mix, are sometimes dismissed with a generalisation as too self-sacrificing and hardly feminist ideals. He has long been admired in France and mentioned among the “holy trinity” of Japanese cinema along with Kurosawa and Ozu, but remains less known than either of the others. It could also be that his interest in melodrama with heightened emotions and at times hysteria is out of fashion, compared with the restraint of Ozu, Naruse and others. His incomparable refined skill with staging often goes unappreciated as it is a subtle mastery, and there is also suspicion in some quarters of beauty as opposed to grittiness. Of course he also has less appeal than Kurosawa to the huge number of fans of action and muscularity. In the US, like Ray, he hardly appears in directors’ top 10s and his influence has been limited.. Is auteurism, along with the bulk of film studies, failing the less ostentatious masters of story-telling?