OT: Japanese Neonationalists Seek to Silence Yasukuni Film

[-]

http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2712

Freedom Next Time.
Japanese Neonationalists Seek to Silence Yasukuni Film
David McNeill

John Junkerman interviews Li Ying

Neo-nationalists have shut down a Chinese-directed movie about Japan’s
controversial war memorial Yasukuni, the latest in a string of incidents
threatening freedom of expression in Japan.

Its name translates as “peaceful country,” millions have silently prayed there
for an end to wars, and for much of the year the loudest sound is the buzzing
of insects and the shuffle of old footsteps to the hushed main hall. Yet
Yasukuni Shrine, which occupies a single square kilometer of central Tokyo, is
one of the most controversial pieces of real estate in Asia, resented by
millions who consider it a monument to war, empire, and Japan’s unrepentant
and undigested militarism.

http://japanfocus.org/images/UserFiles/Image/2712.mcneill.yasukunifilm/shrine.night.jpg
Yasukuni shrine at night. All photographs courtesy of Argo Pictures

A decade ago when Chinese director Li Ying began filming there he didn’t know
what to make of his mysterious subject either. Today, as he watches the
official Tokyo launch of his two-hour movie “Yasukuni” go down in flames amid
death threats and cancelled screenings, he says the shrine symbolizes a
“disease of the spirit” in Japan. “That I haven’t been able to leave this
issue alone for the last ten years means that I too am suffering,” explained
the 44-year-old Guangdong native.

“I didn’t really want to make such a difficult film…so I must be sick to do
it. The point is to look directly at the disease.”

Li’s point appears to have been lost by Japanese conservatives, who have
branded the movie “Chinese propaganda,” and condemned a decision by the Agency
for Cultural Affairs of Japan to award Li a 7.5 million yen (approx. $75,000)
grant. In March, the film’s distributors were forced to give a private preview
to 80 lawmakers after weekly tabloids launched a campaign against the decision
to fund it. With criticism growing along with the threat of ultra-right-wing
violence, four Tokyo cinemas have pulled out of an official launch on April
12. Will the documentary ever flicker on Japan's movie screens? As of April 6,
in the wake of the cancellations, several cinemas have announced that they
intend to screen the documentary.

http://japanfocus.org/images/UserFiles/Image/2712.mcneill.yasukunifilm/poster.jpg

The campaign against the movie is led by powerful Liberal Democrat (LDP)
lawmaker Inada Tomomi, who says it is guilty of “political propaganda.” “I
felt the movie’s ideological message was that “Yasukuni was a device to drive
people into an aggressive war,” she told the Asahi newspaper after the
screening, but denied she wanted it banned. “I have no interest in limiting
freedom of expression or restricting the showing of the movie. My doubt is
about the movie’s political intentions.” Inada can be seen in Li's documentary
speaking at the shrine on the 60th anniversary of Japan's surrender, Aug. 15,
2005. “We are committed to rebuilding a proud Japan, where the prime minister
can openly worship at Yasukuni,” she tells the crowd. “We will devote
ourselves to speeding the day when the Emperor too can worship here.”

Inada is a leading historical revisionist. Right-wing webcaster Sakura Channel
lists her as a supporter of its movie “The Truth of Nanjing”, which argues
that the 1937 rape of the old Chinese capital by Japanese Imperial troops is a
lie. She helped lead a lawsuit against novelist Oe Kenzaburo , who angered
neo-nationalists by writing about the military’s role in forcing civilians to
kill themselves during the 1945 Battle of Okinawa. In this instance, however,
the court has just exonerated Oe. She is a signatory to a now famous 2007
Washington Post advertisement arguing that the sexual enslavement of thousands
of Asian women had no basis in fact, and a member of a parliamentary group
fighting against what it sees as “masochistic” teaching of history in the
nation’s high schools.

?In a now familiar pattern, ultra-nationalists who follow in the shadow of
establishment politicians, threatened retribution against anyone who handled
the movie. Anonymous bloggers posted contact details for the distribution
company, the Japan Arts Council and every theatre showing it. Anonymous death
threats have been issued against Dragon Films, the company that produced
"Yasukuni."

http://japanfocus.org/images/UserFiles/Image/2712.mcneill.yasukunifilm/8.15.flag.jpg
Former soldiers at Yasukuni on August 15, the anniversary
of Japan's surrender in 1945.

The burying of Li’s film follows a string of similar incidents. In February,
Tokyo’s Grand Prince Hotel New Takanawa cancelled a conference by the Japan
Teacher’s Union – a popular ultra-right target -- after learning that 100
right-wing sound trucks turned up to last year’s conference venue. The hotel’s
decision has been bitterly attacked by union officials. Fear of intimidation
ensures that there are still no Japan screenings planned for any of the dozen
or so foreign movies made to commemorate the anniversary of the 1937 Nanjing
Massacre by the Imperial Japanese Army.

Scholars have also lined up to criticize a government decision that they say
effectively refused to allow the Italian scholar Antonio Negri to enter the
country last month. Mr. Negri, an anti-globalization activist and philosopher
who served a prison sentence in Italy on controversial charges of
“insurrection against the state,” had been scheduled to give a series of
lectures at the Universities of Tokyo and Kyoto. He was forced to abruptly
cancel his trip after being told he would need a permit to entry the country.

“My sense is that we have entered a very dangerous period for freedom of
expression and press freedom in this country,” says Tajima Yasuhiko, a
professor of journalism in Tokyo’s Sophia University. “That is the background
to these cases. The idea that people are entitled to express different
opinions and views is withering. That should be common sense, whether one is
on the left or the right.”

Why was the movie canned? The cinemas say they were disturbed by right-wing
threats and the possibility of “trouble,” particularly during the first days
of screening. “We very much regret canceling the documentary but we felt we
had no choice after considering the safety of our customers,” explains
Murayama Yaseyuki, a spokesman for Q-AX Cinema in Shibuya. But Director Li
rejects these claims and says only political pressure explains the sudden
decision by all four Tokyo cinemas to pull the plug.

“Before the movie was released I visited the theatres and talked to the
managers,” he says on the phone from China. “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
mind? I can only conclude that pressure was exerted behind the scenes.”

Japan has been here many times before. Few Japanese have seen Matsui Minoru's
2001 movie "Japanese Devils" because of right-wing protests. How many Japanese
viewers will ever see the dozen or so movies made to commemorate the 1937
Nanjing Massacre over the last two years in Europe, North America and China?
The pattern is often the same: the movies pick at the scabs of Japan’s war
history, conservative politicians express “concern” and the ultra-right goes
into battle because, well, that’s what they do.

“Politicians know that when they make pronouncements about these issues that
we will take action,” says Takahashi Yoshisada, who heads a Tokyo-based
ultra-nationalist group. Like most other ultra-nationalists, including the
group that first spooked the Ginza Cinepathos movie theatre with a visit in
March, Takahashi has not seen “Yasukuni,” only heard about it from people like
Inada. “They talk, we protest. They know this because it has happened many
times in the past. In that sense, I think the politicians are using us.”

In a recent press conference to foreign reporters in Tokyo, Councilor Inada
defended her criticism of Li’s movie. “Wouldn’t China have a problem if a
Japanese company [funded by tax money] in China created a film conveying the
message of the Dalai Lama?” But the comparison is rejected by Professor
Tajima. “Liberal democratic nations are not afraid of some criticism.
Expecting everyone to just cheer on the country and cooperate with the
government is more like North Korea or the situation in Tibet.”

Speaking at the Foreign Press Club, veteran Japan commentator and Keizai
University professor Andrew Horvat said the debate about Li’s movie worried
Japan’s friends as much as its enemies. “I’m afraid that Japan’s reputation as
a democratic country will come under scrutiny.” But conservatives have cheered
the cancellation of the screenings. “Our tax money should be not spent to
support a film that expresses an anti-Japan ideology,” wrote one right-wing
blogger. “This is just common sense.”

The controversy over Yasukuni is not difficult to understand. Among the 2.46
million war dead enshrined there are over 1,000 war criminals, including the
men who led Japan’s brutal pillage of Asia. A museum on the shrine’s grounds
audaciously rewrites history: teenage suicide bombers (Kamikaze) are heroes,
America is the enemy and the Emperor, supposedly reduced to mortal status
after Second World War, is still a deity. The Shinto officials who run the
shrine believe they are protecting the “soul of Japan.”

Li’s cinematic gaze is unflinching, and sometimes disturbing. In one scene,
filmed on the 60th anniversary of Japan’s World War 2 surrender, August 15,
2005, two young anti-Yasukuni protestors are beaten and chased from the
shrine’s grounds by right-wingers who yell at them to “go back to China.” The
protestors, who are Japanese, are later hauled off by the police. Archive
shots show Japanese soldiers using Yasukuni swords, forged in the grounds from
1933-1945, to decapitate Chinese victims.

http://japanfocus.org/images/UserFiles/Image/2712.mcneill.yasukunifilm/wounded%20demonstrator.jpg
Protester beaten and taken by the police.

But much of the movie, which is narration free, unobtrusively explores the
conflicting sentiments provoked by the memorial among ordinary Japanese: from
the two older women who recall the battlefield deaths of relatives and who
want the prime minister to pay his respects, to the Buddhist priest who
resents the fact that his father’s soul has been enshrined there against his
will. The movie is hinged around the work of the shrine’s last remaining
sword-maker, Kariya Naoji, a gentle craftsman who offers few insights into how
he helped forge the 8,100 swords that ended up on the battlefield.

Li, who moved to Tokyo in 1989 and speaks fluent Japanese, rejects claims that
he is anti-Japanese and describes his movie as a “love-letter” to the Japanese
people. “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.” He says he was motivated to start making the movie a decade
ago by the shock of listening to Japanese revisionists at a conference on the
Nanjing Massacre. “When it comes to history, there’s a gap that’s so large.”

John Junkerman interviews Li Ying

[Note: This interview was conducted on March 10, several weeks before the
theaters in Tokyo decided to cancel their screening of the film.]

Li Ying
http://japanfocus.org/images/UserFiles/Image/2712.mcneill.yasukunifilm/Li%20Ying(1).jpg

Q: Who is the diet member who has raised objections to the film?

Li: Inada Tomomi is a very famous lawyer. She was involved in the court case
over the “Hyakunin-giri” affair [the 1937 contest between two Japanese
officers to be the first to behead 100 Chinese] and in the suit against Oe
Kenzaburo, regarding mass suicides in Okinawa. She’s got very powerful
backers. An ordinary diet member would not be able to get the Agency for
Cultural Affairs to take action. So it’s intimidating. And now she’s
influencing people around her. It’s a month until the film opens, and she can
make things difficult for us. We don’t really care if she threatens us
personally, we’re prepared for that, but it’s the theaters we’re worried
about. The theaters are taking out insurance, increasing security. And the
other concern is that people who appear in the film might be threatened. The
other day I met with Kariya Naoji [the Yasukuni swordsmith featured in the
film] and he mentioned that he’d seen reports that it was an anti-Japanese
film. He doesn’t think so himself, but it could be a problem if he hears that
from other people.

Q: What motivated you to breach the taboo and make a film about Yasukuni?

Yasukuni and the Nanjing Massacre

Li: It was Nanking. Some years ago, I was thinking about making a film on
Nanking. 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. 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.
It’s unthinkable, that people still feel a sense of honor and pride toward
such a scene. This is not simply a typical right-wing problem. It far
surpassed what I understood to be the right wing. Kudan Kaikan is a fancy
venue, and there were more than a thousand people, all wearing suits and ties.
University of Tokyo professors, members of the Atarashii Kyokasho o Tsukuru
Kai [Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform]. There are those in Japan
who have documented the massacre, and there are those who deny it. It was the
deniers who were participating in this symposium. And what is their position?
They dismiss the testimony of those who were in Nanking, and argue instead
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
beheading 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 a greater 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 ten 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 a very time-consuming
process, to start filming without knowing what kind of film it will turn out
to be. But I had a sense that it raised very real issues.

Q: Did people try to prevent you from filming?

Preventing the Filming of Yasukuni

Li: My camera was taken away, videotape was taken, I was told to erase the
tapes. It was right-wingers who did this. You could never make this film,
shooting in the standard 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 it doesn’t work to take that approach. All you can
do is shoot a bit at a time. When it was possible, I applied for permission.
But there are places where permission wouldn’t be granted, and you either have
to go ahead and film there, or give up.

Q: This is one of the issues that is being raised in criticism of the film.

Li: I did get permission to film on August 15th. I gave my name card to the
people in charge at Yasukuni, and I had permission to film then. 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 knew who I was. I never shot with a concealed camera. I didn’t use a
long lens.

Q: Was making a film about Yasukuni something of a provocation?

Li: It was more like a conditioned response than a provocation. I was
provoked, and I responded. I often say, this is a sequela, the psychological
aftereffect of the war. Not just World War II, not just the war with China,
but it’s a disorder caused by all the wars Japan 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, this disorder caused by war that can be seen on the stage of
Yasukuni. 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 diagnose 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.

Tojo Hideki and "Pride"

I had a dialogue once with Ito Shunya, 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 too was a shock. When it comes to
history, there’s a gap that’s so large. It’s a film about the “pride” of Tojo
Hideki, 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.

Q: So you don’t consider this film to be anti-Japanese.

Curing the disorder caused by war

Li: Of course not. What’s wrong with curing an illness, the disorder caused by
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. They say, “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 ten years means that
I too am suffering from this psychological disorder. I didn’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.

What is the meaning of Yasukuni?

I’ve been observing for ten 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.

Q: But there are those who consider it a taboo to address this.

Li: 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.

Q: What is the spirit of Yasukuni?

The spirit of Yasukuni: the sword

Li: 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 Yamato spirit? An entirely
beautiful spirit?

The sword
http://japanfocus.org/images/UserFiles/Image/2712.mcneill.yasukunifilm/sword.jpg

Q: But it is a spirit that doesn’t allow for reflection.

Li: 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.

Q: 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.

Yasukuni and State Shinto

Li: 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 religions, it represented the morality of the
Japanese people. That was the nature of state Shinto. State Shinto conveyed
the 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 this: if Yasukuni is
an independent religious institution, how did it obtain the 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 Japanese war responsibility throughout the postwar period. It is the matter
of collective memory, and that’s where 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 kyôdôtai, 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 the
Meiji period, when Japan began to walk the path of a modern state, with pride
and honor.

Q; How do you think the film will be seen in China?

Li: 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.

Q: But there is a chance it will lead to increased anti-Japanese sentiment.

Li: 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 dampening 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.

Q: 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.

Swordsmith Kariya
http://japanfocus.org/images/UserFiles/Image/2712.mcneill.yasukunifilm/swordmaker.jpg

Li: 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.

Germany, Japan and the war dead

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 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.

David McNeill writes regularly for a number of publications including the
Irish Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education. He is a Japan Focus
coordinator.

John Junkerman is an American documentary filmmaker, based in Tokyo, and a
Japan Focus associate. His recent film, “Japan’s Peace Constitution,” has been
screened widely in Japan by groups dedicated to defending Article 9.
Information on his films can be found at www.cine.co.jp. “Japan’s Peace
Constitution” is distributed in North American by First Run Icarus Films.

Article and interview were prepared for Japan Focus. Posted on April 1, 2008
and updated April 6, 2008. This is a substantially expanded and updated
version of an article that was published in the South China Morning Post.
[Diplomacy and Security] [ The Military and Security] [ War and Peace]
[History] [ Politics and Ideology] [ Economics] [ Social Issues] [ Culture] [
Education] [ The Atomic Bomb] [ Hiroshima and Nagasaki] [Recent Articles]
[Most read articles]

2004-2007 JapanFocus.org
ISSN 1557-4660
Website by Data Momentum, Inc.

[-]

http://www.japanfocus.org/products/details/2728

Yasukuni Film and NHK’s Declaration to Promote National Interests. Government
Funding, Free Expression and Propaganda in Japan

Philip Brasor

The big media-related news story on April 1 was the ongoing controversy over
the documentary feature "Yasukuni," screenings of which had been canceled by a
number of movie theaters in Tokyo and Osaka out of fear of rightwing protests.
That night, NHK's regular 7 p.m. news bulletin did not mention the film, but
it did feature a report on the public broadcaster's reply to the Ministry of
Internal Affairs and Communications that it would "accept" the government's
request for NHK to promote Japan's "national interests" in its overseas
broadcasts.

Though the two stories aren't related, much of their newsworthiness is based
on the connection between government funding and the right of free expression.
In the case of "Yasukuni," which is directed by Chinese filmmaker Li Ying, a
20-year resident of Japan, at least part of the controversy centers on a ¥7.5
million grant that the production received in 2006 from the Agency for
Cultural Affairs. Some politicians believe that the film, which examines the
embattled Shinto shrine dedicated to Japan's war dead, has an anti-Japan bias.
Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker Inada Tomomi, who is also a lawyer, has
questioned whether or not the movie deserved such a grant, saying that it
shouldn't be given to projects with a political agenda.

http://www.japanfocus.org/images/UserFiles/Image/2728.brasor.yasukuni.nhk/li%20ying.jpg
Li Ying

NHK is supported by viewer fees, so technically it isn't funded by the
government. Nevertheless, its budget must be approved by the Diet and its
international broadcasting service does receive subsidies. It's impossible to
say if this fiscal relationship influenced NHK's decision to accept the
government's request, but it can't be discounted.

However, the funding aspects in both stories are less central to the free
expression issue than the perceived political angle. In the one story, you
have politicians complaining that an independent documentary film is biased,
while in the other you have a public broadcaster essentially promising to
follow the government slant on whatever news it conveys overseas.

In the official statement released April 1, NHK tied itself in knots trying to
justify its decision to accept the government's request without sacrificing
its "reliability and objectivity" as a "news organization." It mainly did this
by citing a specific example. Since one of the government's requests was to
"pay special attention to the issue of Japanese abducted by North Korea" and
NHK has so far covered this issue "properly" and in a way that doesn't
contradict the government's position, it presumes that NHK will still be able
to "ensure its rights as an independent broadcaster." In other words, it's OK
to accept the government's request because we've been doing it all along.

In Japan, journalistic neutrality is usually manifested as giving voice to
every view on a given issue, an idea that can be taken to extremes. During
last year's Upper House election, Komori Shigetaka, the chairman of NHK's
management committee, was reported to have suggested that historical dramas be
suspended during the campaign since they might be seen as favoring particular
regions over others. However, when it comes to international broadcasts, every
country in the world advances its own national interest. "It isn't the same as
domestic broadcasting," Komori said at a recent management meeting, "where all
the different opinions are presented." Here, he clearly equates "international
broadcasting" with state-controlled media. He even told an Asahi Shimbun
reporter that Japanese broadcasters must "clarify Japan's position" in the
face of North Korea's and China's media reports. Fight fire with fire, as it
were.

As far as "Yasukuni" goes, some politicians have complained that the movie is
not neutral, and their primary impulse is the same as Komori's, which is to
ensure that Japan and its policies are presented in a favorable light.
"Yasukuni" is viewed by both the media and the authorities as a foreign
production — the director's nationality is the most prominent consideration in
any report on the controversy. To them, the movie automatically assumes a
certain bias since it is a film about a Japanese issue that was not made by a
Japanese person.

In an April 3 editorial in the Asahi, documentary filmmaker Mori Tatsuya
pointed this out, saying that any Japanese "reaction" to the film quickly
jumps to the fact that its director is Chinese, and such a reaction "colors"
the way that person views the film. But there is nothing necessarily wrong
with that, he says. "Documentaries vary in the way they frame the 360-degree
world," Mori writes. There is no such thing as a completely objective
documentary. Anyone who insists that it be 100 percent neutral doesn't know
how to watch one.

Mori's idea is what connects Komori Shigetaka to Inada Tomomi. Neither of
these authority figures trusts viewers to make up their own minds about the
information they receive. Komori believes that overseas viewers of NHK World
broadcasts will not form a correct idea of Japan's interests unless those
interests are conveyed exclusively; while Inada thinks that anyone who sees
"Yasukuni" will come away from it hating Japan.

Both of these positions are inherently patronizing, which brings to mind a
comment a Japanese friend made after seeing "Yasukuni." She said that all the
local reports about the movie stress that it has no narration. Japanese people
have been raised on NHK-produced documentaries, which could be described as
over-narrated: the visuals and dialogue are reinforced with redundant
voiceover that, in some cases, is added for the visually impaired but whose
content and tone nevertheless implicitly tell viewers how to process what
they're taking in. A 74-year-old man who attended a public preview of
"Yasukuni" in Tokyo told the Japan Times that he was bothered by the film
because its "message...is not clear." The trouble many Japanese will have with
the documentary is not that it brings up difficult issues, but that it doesn't
tell them how they're supposed to feel about them.

Philip Brasor is a Japan-based journalist.

This article was published in The Japan Times on Sunday, April 13, 2008 and is
published at Japan Focus on April 24, 2008.

For additional writing on the Yasukuni film controversy see

Freedom Next Time. Japanese Neonationalists Seek to Silence Yasukuni Film

http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2712

David McNeill
John Junkerman interviews Li Ying