 回复[1]: 等着看盗版好了 陈某 (2008-04-02 15:53) |  |
| 回复[2]: 好！ 我是局长 (2008-04-02 16:08) |
|
| 回复[3]: 下个月看《靖国》 黑白子 (2008-04-02 16:26) | 今天的《读卖新闻》的“社说”中，就《靖国》上映中止发表看法，提到东京和大阪的五家电影院“上映中止”，但是，还指出：预定下个月将在北海道至冲绳的全国13家电影院上映。
《读卖新闻》的“社说”题为“维护表现的自由”，内容就是强调，尽管有不同的看法，但是，必须维护言论和表现的自由。
无独有偶，《产经新闻》也在今天第二版“主张”的栏目里，就《靖国》上映中止发表了看法——从其标题“因为有争议，所有更要看”就可以看出，“中止”是错误的。
|
| 回复[4]: 黑白子是好同志 杜海玲 (2008-04-02 16:55) | | 各位继续。截至明天上午。 |
| 回复[5]: 高沐 (2008-04-02 17:00) | 上个月福田来电话，问咱去不去看这个电影。嘿，咱也不是国会议员，不能沐猴以冠哪。
不用说《靖国》这个片子，就是《地雷战》《地道战》也能放出来，还怕看不着？  |
| 回复[6]: 张三 (2008-04-02 22:18) | 沙发说出了人民的心声
我还以为东京还有几家上映的呢，原来一家都没有了吗？上映与否本来是影院作为商业机构的自由，他人无权置喙，但是该片获得多个奖项，而且是开始决定上映后来中止而且大家一起来，就耐人寻味了。到底哪些团体进行了游说？中止理由到底为何？今年透明国际的各国新闻自由度排名，一定会考虑这件事的  |
| 回复[7]: 我是部长 (2008-04-02 23:12) | | ＜靖国＞和＜南京＞的导演同时（先后也行）获诺贝尔和平奖那才叫好呢，现在有啥好可叫的。 |
| 回复[8]: 中止理由是反日.同时.... 大象 (2008-04-03 03:23) | 据3月31日晚东京FM短波电台报道:该片被认定为反日(はんにち）,所以被中止了.原话是:"反日と認定され、中止されました"
日本雅虎报道是:
http://dailynews.yahoo.co.jp/fc/domestic/yasukuni/
＜福田首相＞映画「靖国」上映中止、「誠に遺憾」
4月2日21時56分配信 毎日新聞
福田康夫首相は２日夜、靖国神社を舞台としたドキュメンタリー映画「靖国 ＹＡＳＵＫＵＮＩ」の上映中止が相次いだことに「もし、嫌がらせなどが原因で上映が中止になるというのであれば、誠に遺憾なことだ」と記者団に述べた。
チベット暴動の鎮圧で強硬姿勢を貫く中国政府への批判が国際的に高まっていることには「人権にかかわるようなことがあるならば、懸念を表明せざるを得ない」と述べた。ただ、北京五輪開会式への対応は「中国が努力している最中に、参加するとかしないとか言うべきではない」と述べ、中国政府の対応を見守る姿勢を強調した。【塙和也】
映画「靖国」上映中止 文科相「非常に残念」
4月2日8時1分配信 産経新聞
靖国神社を題材にしたドキュメンタリー映画「靖国 ＹＡＳＵＫＵＮＩ」（李纓監督）をめぐり、東京と大阪の映画館計４館が１２日から予定していた上映を中止した。すでに１館が中止を決めており、４月中はすべて上映されないことになった。
上映中止について渡海紀三朗文部科学相は１日、会見で「あってはならないこと。作品発表の機会が嫌がらせや圧力でなくなるのは非常に残念。再発しないよう（文科省として）何かやっていかなければならない」と述べた。
公的助成金を疑問視した自民党一部議員が求めた試写会を、文化庁が映画会社に斡旋（あっせん）し、国会議員向け試写会が開かれたことについては「最終的には映画会社の判断。それを斡旋というか判断が難しい」として文化庁の責任への言及は避けた。
上映自粛「不適切」＝表現の自由尊重を－町村官房長官
4月1日19時1分配信 時事通信
町村信孝官房長官は1日午後の記者会見で、靖国神社をめぐるドキュメンタリー映画「靖国」の上映中止について「嫌がらせや圧力で表現の自由が左右されることが不適切であることは言うまでもない」と述べた。
この映画をめぐっては、自民党の稲田朋美衆院議員らが政府から助成金が出ていることを問題視し、国会議員を対象に特別試写会を開いた。これに関し、町村長官は「稲田さんは『言論の自由はしっかり守られるべきだ』とも述べているわけだから、そのことが上映自粛につながったとは考えていない」と語った。
記事本文 ４月に公開されるドキュメント映画「靖国 ＹＡＳＵＫ
同时,日本雅虎又转报了<每日新闻>3月31日的报道:中国制餃子毒性超过基准值6万倍.
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20080331-00000125-mai-soci
＜中国製ギョーザ＞基準値の６万倍のメタミドホス検出 千葉
3月31日20時51分配信 毎日新聞
|
| 回复[9]: cocoa (2008-04-05 22:08) | | 据新闻报道，大阪的一个电影院说如期上映。 |
| 回复[10]: Li Ying,导演 kalichen (2008-04-08 23:15) | "Yasukuni" director Li on his tough-love letter to Japan
"Yasukuni" director Li Ying shares his thoughts with John Junkerman and David McNeill on the contentious Tokyo shrine, the motivation behind the movie, and his reaction to the furor in Japan over the documentary's release.
Li Ying
On the reaction to his movie in Japan:
Before the movie was released I visited each theater and talked to the managers. Some magazines had already started discussing the movie so we knew that there would be some protests. There was a very strong sense among everyone then of wanting to put this movie out and challenge the protesters. So why have they all suddenly changed their minds? I can only conclude that pressure was exerted behind the scenes.
How the idea for "Yasukuni" was born:
I had wanted to make a film about Nanking (the Nanjing Massacre). In speaking with Japanese, of course there is always a gap in the perception of history. And the gap surrounding Nanking is the widest. So I was interested in Nanking and in 1997 I attended a symposium at Kudan Kaikan (in Tokyo) on the 60th anniversary of Nanking.
RELATED LINKS
Dancing with the devil over 'Yasukuni' The first event of the symposium was the screening of a documentary about Nanking. It was a propaganda film produced by the Japanese military, and of course it didn't touch on the massacre at all. There was a scene of the formal ceremony of the Japanese military entering the city. And something happened that I couldn't believe. The audience applauded, very loudly. It was a shock. It left me shaking. I couldn't believe it. I felt like I was standing on a battlefield. It was a shock to experience such a scene, here in Japan so many years after the war. That people still feel a sense of honor and pride toward such a scene, it's unthinkable.
This is not simply a typical rightwing problem. This far surpassed what I understood to be the right wing. It's a fancy venue, more than a thousand people, all wearing suits and ties, University of Tokyo professors, members of the "Atarashii Kyokasho o Tsukuru Kai" (the Japanese Society for Textbook Reform). There are those who have researched the massacre, and there are those who deny it. There were deniers participating in the symposium. And what do they emphasize? They deny the testimony of those who were in Nanking, and argue that the massacre never happened. There's no possibility of discussing it with them.
At the symposium, the daughter of one of the officers who engaged in the "100 head-cutting" contest appealed for the restoration of her father's honor, that he be treated not as a war criminal but as a heroic soul in Yasukuni. So that made me wonder what Yasukuni symbolized, this sacred space that granted heroic status. This was an issue that had more of a sense of reality. Nanking is a historical problem, but to take up an issue that carries reality, you need to film in Japan, and that meant filming Yasukuni, to bring the issue into present reality. Yasukuni feels very real to me.
So I began filming then and continued for 10 years. I didn't know what kind of film it would turn out to be. I decided I would just film every time I went to Yasukuni. As I filmed I would study and learn more, and figure it out. That's very time-consuming, not knowing what kind of film it will turn out to be. But I had a sense that it raised very real issues.
Did people try to prevent you from filming?
My camera was taken away, videotape was taken, I was told to erase the tapes. These were rightwingers. You could never make this film shooting the ordinary way. I think that's why no Japanese has ever made a film like this. They would follow the ordinary process of applying for press passes and permission, but that's impossible. All you can do is shoot a bit at a time. When it was possible, I applied for permission. But there are places that wouldn't be permitted, and you either have to go ahead and film there, or give up.
This is one of the issues that's being raised in criticism of the film.
I did get permission to film on Aug. 15 (the anniversary of Japan's surrender). I gave my name card to the people in charge at Yasukuni. So I had permission to film on Aug. 15. In the beginning, I had no idea of what kind of film I would make, so I shot like a tourist. There are a lot of tourists who shoot video at Yasukuni. But when I understood there were things I needed to shoot, I got permission. The people in charge know who I am. I never shot with a concealed camera. I didn't use a long lens.
Was making a film about Yasukuni something of a provocation?
It was more a conditioned response, not a provocation. It was a biological response. I was provoked, and I responded.
I often say, this is a sequela, the aftereffect of the war. Not just World War II, not just the war with China, but it's the aftereffect of all the wars Japan has fought since the Meiji period. Yasukuni Shrine is intricately tied to Japan's modern history. It was built by the Meiji Emperor, it's the Emperor's shrine. So it is these contradictions, these aftereffects of war that can be seen on the stage of Yasukuni. So, when I go inside there, I feel like I too am suffering from a disease. I contracted the disease at the Nanking symposium, and I've been suffering from it ever since. I'm not a doctor, who can take a look at someone's disease. I'm suffering from the disease as well. So it's not a provocation, but a conditioned response. I'm responding by instinct.
I had a dialogue once with Shunya Ito, the director of "Pride." We're both members of the Directors Guild of Japan, and Ito has always been very cordial and friendly toward me. A Japanese gentleman. But around that same time, 1997, he made the film called "Pride." That was a shock as well.
When it comes to history, there's a gap that's so large. It's a film about the "pride" of Hideki Tojo, his defiance of the Tokyo war crimes trial, arguing that the war was fought in Japan's self-defense. We had a special meeting of the international committee of the guild and I engaged in a three-hour discussion with Ito. And I thought at the time that it was pointless to debate, that what I needed to do was respond with a film of my own. So, it's matter of conditioned response. The other side is provocative, I'm just responding by instinct.
So you don't consider this film to be anti-Japanese?
Of course not. What's wrong with curing an illness, the aftereffects of war? The point is to live together in a healthy atmosphere, and that would work in Japan's favor as well. People don't want to recognize their illness, they don't want to think about it, look at it. "Japan is beautiful. How can you say it is sick?" But if you watch the film, you'll see that diseased cells are living within the space of Yasukuni. And that's dangerous. It could lead to heart disease, or to brain disease. But what's really serious about this disease is that it comes not from internal organs but from the soul. So it is a psychological disorder, a disease of the spirit.
That I haven't been able to leave this issue alone for the last 10 years means that I too am suffering from psychological disease. I don't really want to make such a difficult film, it's only going to cause problems, so I must be sick to do it. The point is to look directly at the disease.
I've been observing for 10 years, and this is the result. The film asks the question: What is the meaning of the spirit of Yasukuni? That's all. Each viewer can come up with his or her own answer. This has to be good for Japan. It's an opportunity, an opportunity to get well. That's good for Japan, not anti-Japanese.
To suggest that the film is anti-Japanese suggests that Yasukuni symbolizes all of Japan. That's a mistake to begin with. It's one face of Japan, the face of Japan when it's suffering from disease. That's not all of Japan. Japan has many beautiful faces. But this face must not be ignored. It must be confronted. Many Japanese don't know about Yasukuni, they feel it has nothing to do with them. But that's wrong. It needs to be recognized, looked at and thought about, and the film provides that opportunity. So it's not anti-Japanese. It's my love letter to Japan, in that sense. I live in Japan. How could something that is anti-Japanese be good for me, personally? This love letter may be hard to watch, but that's the form my love takes. There are many forms of love. There's one that declares that everything is wonderful, but that's not my way. This is my expression of love.
But there are those who consider it a taboo to address this.
That's because it is questioning the spirit, and so the spiritual pain comes out, and there is resistance. I'm not stating a conclusion, we don't use any narration. The space itself raises the questions, the atmosphere of the place. My theme is the space that is Yasukuni. The space and the spirit. It's the spirit of Yasukuni that I'm trying to capture. So you need a variety of perspectives to see the space. It's not one-sided. But no one has looked at that space, so seeing it may be a shock, it may be unpleasant, but it's reality.
What is the spirit of Yasukuni?
In the shrine's own doctrine, the spirit is the sword. It is the object of worship. All of the spirits of the dead are embodied in that sword. So that's the symbol of Yasukuni. The film depicts symbolic meaning. Everyone who appears in the film, every scene, and the sword itself, all are symbols. I am using the doctrine of Yasukuni to make a film: the world of symbols. The sword is the spirit, but what meaning does that spirit have? That's the question the film raises. Is it the samurai spirit? The Yamoto spirit? An entirely beautiful spirit?
But it is a spirit that doesn't allow for reflection.
They are all tools. The sword is a tool. Yasukuni itself is no more than a building. It's a tool. What meaning do people invest in those tools? How they are used changes their effect entirely. So it always returns to people. How do people use these tools, how do they see them? How do they interact with the tools? People are weak, so the government uses the tools to manipulate people.
There are many war memorials in the world, and everyone who visits them brings their own meaning to them. But Yasukuni does not allow that freedom. The compulsory nature of Yasukuni is the key problem, it seems to me.
It began as a symbol of the state. Under the Emperor, it was part of a political religion. It was a military facility, the head priest was a general in the army, for example. It was run by the military. During the war, it had a status that surpassed all religion, it represented the morality of the Japanese people. That was the nature of state Shinto. State Shinto had the compulsory power of the state as the image of the nation.
The problem comes after the war, when state Shinto was disestablished, and separation of religion and the state was adopted. Yasukuni became an independent religious institution. But is it really independent? Is it really simply a religious shrine? There are many contradictions there.
For example, in the film, there's the story of the Buddhist priest, Sugawara Ryuken. The question he asks is: If Yasukuni is an independent religious institution, how did it obtain that information needed to enshrine his father? He was enshrined, as a heroic spirit, after the war. How could they accomplish that? His father was a Buddhist. Why does a Buddhist have to be enshrined in a Shinto shrine? That's a contradiction. Even after the war, there is no separation between Yasukuni and the government. The enshrinement rolls are all prepared on the basis of information that comes from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. That's true of the Class-A war criminals too. All of that information came from the government. So the government is still using Yasukuni.
The Japanese government employs a double standard. With regard to international society, it recognizes the verdicts of the war crimes trials, it acknowledges the existence of war criminals. But domestically, it uses Yasukuni to honor them, and give them the status of heroic souls, to express gratitude and respect. This is very Japanese, a different face at home and abroad. And this double standard has created the contradictory nature of Yasukuni over these decades. So there are people with different stances and the confrontations among them are repeated.
It also makes Yasukuni very indefinite. To young people, it's perplexing, and they don't want to have anything to do with it. And this connects, of course, to the larger question of the Japanese war responsibility throughout the postwar period. It is the matter of collective memory, and that's where the coercion comes into play. In the film, everyone is part of a collective, it has nothing to do with the individual. They have collective memory, they are in a collective context, collective currents and relationships. Yasukuni is a powerful collective symbol, a powerful symbol of collective memory. It is a symbol of Japan as a "kyodotai," a communal society. To live collectively, with gratitude to the dead. It's that kind of symbol. Yasukuni is not a simple symbol of militarism, it's not simply a matter of whether the prime minister will worship there or not. It is connected to the collective memories that stretch back to the beginning of Meiji, when Japan began to walk the path of a modern state, with pride and honor.
How do you think the film will be seen in China?
This film is a Japanese-Chinese coproduction, with producers from the Beijing Film Academy and a Chinese film company. So it will be released in China. And that's important, because it depicts sides of Yasukuni that have never been shown before.
But there is a chance it will lead to increased anti-Japanese sentiment.
That's possible, but until now Yasukuni has been used for political purposes, with a nationalist spirit on both sides. But this film shows many aspects of Yasukuni, so it may have the effect of diminishing the nationalist response. It provides the opportunity to engage the subject calmly, to watch, feel, study, and relate to it. An opportunity to communicate not in a political, nationalistic way, but in a cultural way.
There are many appealing characters in the film, starting with Kariya-san, the swordsmith, and some of the ordinary people who worship at the shrine.
The spirit of the artisan is a central aspect of the Japanese character. There's a concentration on the work in front of one. But there is also a tendency to not think about what is done with the product of one's labor, and that's problematic. That can be used by the state again, as it was during the war. Soldiers went to war doing a job, they didn't go to war as "devils." They were all ordinary people, and it was their job. Then they were changed. They may have engaged in atrocities, but it was war, so it's forgivable. Is that kind of thinking acceptable? The film poses that question to the Japanese people.
The desire to remember the war dead is the same throughout the world. When I showed the film at the Berlin Film Festival, the response was interesting. There are many war dead in Germany, and they had families who have their grief and want to commemorate the dead. But the Germans first built a memorial to the Jews. There is no facility in Germany commemorating the German war dead. Why is that?
The founder of the International Forum of New Cinema at the Berlin festival, Ulrich Gregor, has an interesting take on this. He argues that the difference between Germany and Japan is that Germany was lucky to have gotten rid of its emperor after World War I. For Japan, the symbol of the state has remained the same, before, during and after the war. The emperor has lost his authority, he's made a declaration of his humanity, but he remains the symbol of the state. That's the source of the difficulty and complexity of the problem. Yasukuni Shrine is the Emperor's shrine. The film calls that into question. And that's the reason it has generated an intense response.
|
|
首页 >> 论坛 >> 其它
我要发新帖子！
