JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEARTSof IMAGE ARTS and SCIENCES

The Banning ofJapanese Peried Filrns 1es

THE BANNING OF JAPANESE PERIOD FILMS BY THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION

Kyoko HIRANO

introduction From September 1945 through April 1952, Japanese cinema was under the cornplete control of the American Occupation. The Occupa- tion's policies with respect to film were carried out by .means of propa- ganda and censorship, based on plans made while America and Japan were still at war, Propaganda was the responsibility of CIE (Civil Infor- mation and Education) Sectien,i whose rnain goal was to teach Ameri- can values to the eccupied nation, through the Japanese media, by en- couraging some values and goals and discouraging others. The second task was given to CCD (Civil Censorship Detachment), whose purpose was to prohibit any informatien conveyed by the media which rnight be unsuit- able or dangerous to the Occupation. Although CCD technically had the final authority over whether or not a film, either Japanese or foreign, could be shown to the Japa'nese au-

dience, the Motion Picture Unit of the Motion Picture and Theatrica] Branch (MPTB) of CIEwas given the role of prior-production and post- production censorship. This unit demanded that each film company subrnit filrn projects and scripts, in both Japanese and Engli'sh, for its "`suggest" consideration. Its role was to changes at the stages of synopsis, "any- screenplay, and completed film, if it found that a film contained

thing detrimental to the obiectives of the Occupation." After CIE's censorship, the Press, Pictorial and Broadcasting (PPB) Division Df CCD conducted its ewn, independent post-pro duction censorship. This double censorship of all fi1rns shown in Japan2 continued until June 1949, when the Eiga Rinri Kitei Kanri Iinkai or Eirin [Committee on Film Ethics Regulation Control] was established. CIE's prior- production censorship and CCD's censorship were discontinued at this time; however, CIE clearance for completed films was required until the end of the Oecupation (April 28, 1952), in connection with the Civil Intelligence Division (CID) which in July 1949 took over the functions

HIRANO is completing her Ph.D. degree in cinema at New York Uniyersity, She is Film ftogam Coordinator at Japan Society, New York.

NII-Electronic Library Service JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEARTSof IMAGE ARTS andandSCIENCES SCIENCES

1su Kyoko HIRANO

ofCCD.3 The doubleedged sword ef the Occupation film policy, consisting of propaganda and censorship, took the forms of recommendatjons and pTohibitions. The Americans tried to re-educate the Japanese mind by "demecratic" suggesting that the Japanese film industry concentrate on subjects and themes, such as premeting civil rights, equal rights and those `fmilita- who fought against fascism, On the other hand, they prohibited "feudalistic" ristic" and subjects, along with criticism of the Occupation, anti-social behavior, anti-foreignisrn and degradation of religion, which the Americans believed were not only anti-democratic, but also has been the philosophical values ultimately responsible for the war., The banning of period films by American censors was one of the most serious blows to the Japanes,e film industry, which had traditionally relied on and specialized in this genre. [Ihis paper will examine how the occupiers becarne convinced of the negative yalues of Japanese peried films, what aspects they considered particularly offensive, and how Japa- nese film-makers responded. The research materials consist of primary soutces including American documents, films, and interviews with Japanese fiim-makers; arrd secondary sources including American and Japanese writings on the policies and their impact.

Banned Films "Memo- On November 16 1945, the GHQ (General Headquarters)'s randum Concerning the Elimination of Undemocratic Motion Pictures" "bunka banned 236 feature films and many eiga" [Cultural Documen- `filji tary Films] and eiga" [Current Newsreel Films] which had been made after the 1931 Manchurian Incident. The list included those which had just been completed and were waiting for clearance. [[his directive condemned past Japanese films for having been utilized to propagate "nationalistic, mihtaristic and feudalistic concepts; i.e., confbrmity to "Warrior a feudal code, contempt for life, creation of the Spirit,' the `Yamato' `special uniqueness and superiority of the [Japanese racej,the role ofJapan in Asia; etc." The list is said to have been originally prepared by the Psychological Warfare Branch (PWB) of the Office of War Information (OWI),4 whose staff included Don BRowN,5 Arthur BEHRsTocK6 and David CoNDE,7

As the chief of the Motion Hcture Unit, Conde was directly responsible for film policy. Ihese officials had been questioning Japanese prisoners' of war, including those who were in the film business. The latter became

their source of information concerning the situation of the Japanese fi1rn industry. The PWB used this information in planning the Occupa- tion film policy.B In October 1945, CIE had demanded that Eiga Kosha (Film Corpora-

NII-Electronic Library Service JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEARTSof IMAGE ARTS and SCIENCES

The Banning of Japanese Period Films ;95

tion) submit a list of al1 feature films made after 1931. Eiga Kosha made up such a list, complete with English titles and plot summaries, including 455 films in all. CIE then demanded that Eiga Kosha decide which among these had helped propagate the war and should thus be banned. Eiga Kosha hurriedly chose 227 films, prebtibly based on their titles and the information at Naimu-sho [Ministry of Interior Affairs] and Joho- thathe didnot add any kyoku [Information Bureau] .9 Conde insisted to this list, merely approving the list prepared by Eiga Kosha, although somehow, the nurnber had increased froin 227 to 236 by the November 16 directive, (Still, many sources have listed the final number ofbanned. films as 227.iO) Many people have criticized the excessive application of "self-censorship" this directive; however Conde blamed it on the of the Ia,,P,","e,ge,`le]fi2',\lg.',W,?8,M.'dg.:P.ih.e,/ISg,i:,g,h.Ut12fg.a",d.p.'o,b.??iyde' All negatives and prints of the films on the list were confiscated after a through search on a prefecture-by-prefecture basis.i2 After the prints and negatives were collected at Nairnu-sho, it was decided that four prints and a negative of each film weuld be sent to GHQ, some of which would later be submitted to the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., and others would be turned over under the custedy of Monbu-sho S)]:llgis,t,i,y,o,f,2d,".ca;.`?k],i'3..O.",x,nS.EattV9,,",ld,::1,;,l,pttS.O,,',Za,C:,#,'Ill, at were burned by the US Eighth Army at the Yomiuri Airfield, located the bahk of Tokye's Tama River, on April 23, May 2 and 4, 1946,i5 Pic- In the press release concerning the directive on Banned Motion tures, Conde acknowledged that although he had no intention to destroy "films of cultural or literary value to the people," the films on the list "have been so distorted in their use for propaganda purposes that they cannot now be shown without continuing to foster anti-democratic attitudes." Thus, Conde contended that these films must be banned and "might to rnisuse" should the surplus prints in Japan which be subjected be destroyed.i6 the films,itwas highly In additien to the political risks of keeping dangerous to keep a great number of inflammable prints for an indefinite largely as a safety period, and the burning of these films was justified the unpre- measure, However, this sensitivity of CIE, which resulted in cedented action of burning film, gave the Occupation Forces an authori- tarian irnage in the Japanese mind.

Prohibitions themes which would On November 22, 1945, CIE announced thirteen the Henceforth for- be prohibited infilmsproduced under Occupation. with militarisrn;2) show- bidden were any filmsdeemed to be l)infused

NII-Electronic Library Service JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEARTSof IMAGE ARTS andandSCIENCES SCIENCES

196 Kyoko HIRANO

ing revenge as a legitimate motive; 3) nationalistic; 4) chauvinistic and anti-foreign; 5) distorting historical facts; 6) favoring racial or religious discrimination; 7) portraying feudal loyalty or contempt of life as desira- ble and henorable; 8) approving suicide either directly or indirectly; 9)

dealing with or approving the subjugation or degradation ofwomen; 1O) depicting brutality, violence or evi1 as triumphant; 11) anti-democratic; 12) condoning the exploitation of children, or 13) at variance with the spirit or letter ef the Potsdam Declaration or any SCAP (Supreme 7 Commander for Allied Powers) directive.i This directive was the fbrmalization of what CIE had told the repre- sentatives of the Japanese film industry on September 22, 1946, at which time the CIE officers described the problem which they believed was common to Japanese.film and theater: Kabuki theater is based on feudalistic loyalty and sees faith in revenge. The present world does not accept this morality any more. The Japanese will never be able to understand the principles of internationa! society as far as things such as

fraud, murders and betrayals are justified by the principle of rev.enge, regardless of law. Of course, serious crimes also occur in Western countries; however, Western moraljty is COncepts of good and evil, not on feudalloyalty. ?.7.le)(d, ,O)n The CIE oencials felt a strong antipathy toward Kabuki theater and the traditional values of loyalty and revenge, which they considered of a ･ piece with militarism and fascisrn, and should thus be banjshed from the movie screen. Not only did the prewar period films on the banning list inaccessible became for the Japanese audience but it also became ex- tremely difficult to make any period films in light of such restrictions. As a result of the strict prehibition of feudalistic topics, both the Kabuki theater and cinerna found their repertoires severely limited, asit was impossible to show adaptations of certain classic works such as CV!ushingura and Kdnjincho, because of their emphasis on loyalty to "cruelty lords, or Tlerakaya for its depiction of to children." After the CIE directive of November 22, 1945 effectively banished many classic works of Kabuki from the stage, Fabion BowERs,a serious Kabuki fan who had become General MAcARTHuR's personal aide, de- cided to try to save Kabuki. He resignedhis job in early February 1946 to become a CCD official in charge of theater censorship. Thanks to his personal effqrts on behalf of this traditional art form, once-prohibited programs were gradually cleared once again for stage production, Al- though in cinema, KuRosAwA's TonT no o ofuma otokotaehiITheMen PV7to 77ead on the IVgerls 71iiij (1945) was prohibited from being shown throughout most of the Occupation period,'9 the Kabuki play Kkenjincho on which the film was based was revived on the stage as early as June

NII-Electronic Library Service JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEARTSof IMAGE ARTS and SCIENCES

The Banning of Japanese Period Films 191

1946. Kumagai7'inya arid 11grakoya were performed again by May 1947.2O Many prewar film version of Otushingura were banned from the Japanese screen until the end of the Occupation,2i although stage pro- ductions of the story reappeared in November 1947. BowERs's funda-

"Kabuki mental idea was that is a traditional cultural property which the contemporary Japanese audience appreciates as a stage art of stylized beauty, therefore they are not influenced by ideas ofKabuki any longeT, on realisrn . e.g, revenge suicide, etc,"22 Film, which depends its inherent "stylized rather than beauty'' fbr much of its impact, could not be simi- larly claimed as having no influence on the actions of its audience.

- American Fears Japanese film people deduced that stories like C7!ushingura had been banned because of the revenge theme, because the Americans were afraid of provoking the Japanese people to avenge their defeat in the war. John ALLyN believes that a wartirne Ltfe magazine article on thuskingziru did much to tarnish the image of this story in American eyes, because of the "glorificatien article's criticism of the film's of ]oyalty, self-sacrifice and bloody revenge."23 When swordplay scenes were also prohibited, Japanese film-makers protested that there was no difference between swerdplay and the gun-fighting in American Westerns. CIE clairned that Japanese swordsrnen used their weapons as instruments of personal re- venge or to defend the lords to whorn they were loyal, and thus were "feudalistic" motivated by values, while the gunmen and sheriffs of the Wild West resorted to their weapons only to defend justice and to restore safety to their communities.24 The American authorities regarded swords as inherently more cruel 5 than guns.2 The War Departrnent orientation film, Know YOur Enemy: Jdpan (1944),26 begins with a close-up of a newspaper photo showing a Japanese soldier swinging his sword over an Allied P.O.W. The carnera "civilized" then zooms even closer into the photo, to shock the Western mind even more powerfu11y with the barbarity of this action. The Ameri- can fear of the sword is evident in the subsequent scenes in which a close-up of an ominously shining blade of a sword in darkness is accom- panied by a veice-over, spoken in a rough, Oriental-accented voice, saying that "the sword is our steel bible," a quotation from a wartime Japanese general. The film proceed3 to a fu11-size shot of a uniformed man slashing straw cylinders. The long shot which follows shows that this man is practicing in front of a Shinto shrine; thus, the connection between swordplay and its spiritual origin in Shintoism is established. inthis The American suspicion of swordsmanship is a constant theme fi1rn. We are shown excerpts from manyJapanese period films, while the narratien explains that the samurai are a privileged, idle class, whichhas

NII-Electronic Library Service JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEARTSof IMAGE ARTS andandSCIENCES SCIENCES

198 Kyoko HIRANO

C`rip the exclusive right carry swords, which they use to off heads and

"for arms of commoners," sometimes practice or amusement," and that "captured short swords were used fbr cemmitting harakiri when in disgrace," Bushido, the code of samurzTi rules, is defined as absolute loyalty to lords, While we see swordplay scenes on the screen, we are told by the narrator that this code encourages double-crossing and treachery,

ambushes and attacks from behind the back. Then, seeing scenes of samurai attacking Japanese Christians during the sixteenth and seven- "blood-thirsty teenth centuries, we are told that the Japanese are a peo- "peace" "equality." ple," in contrast to the Christians' quest for and Juxtaposed with these images of martyrdom are representations of the "advances" concurrent rnade in the West by great men such as VoLTAIRE, WAsHINGToN, JEFFERsoN, FRANKLIN and PAsTEuR, and "the selfglorifying phrases such as Americans fought for revolution, and the French for equality." It is easy tg see how the image of swords are manipuiated to suggest that the Japanese were cruel, arrogant, untrustworthy and backward. If

Americans were willing to accept this connection, it is easy to understand how many could also come to believe that swords were inherently evil. Screenplay writer Keinosuke UEKusA recalls an episode demonstrat- ing how the sight of swords put the Americans into a frenzy during the early period of the Occupation. At the end of August 1945, the Occupa- tion Forces' trucks and jeeps came to the Toho Studio in Tokyo. The Americans collected from the storage rooms all swords, spears and mahine･guns used as props. When they noticed that an actor was using a large sword in the shooting ofKuRosAwA]s 7}}nx no o o fitmu otoko- tachi, they took it away despite the director's protest.27

Arnerican Censorship Under such conditions, only fbur period films were allowed to be made during 1946.28 The restrictions on their making were gradually relaxed, but until 1949, censorship was tight. CIE cornmented on "the Kbbanzame f77ie Suekeij (1949) that scenario is loaded with swordplay, intrigues and other objectionable elements,"29 and it re-

"em-. cornmended that Senthime goten IP?incess Sen's Rxlacef (1948) phasize the common peoplei', rather than glorify the ruling samurai class with swordplay scenes.3e The subjeet of 7lateshi Dampei ISworciplay C7iorqgrapher Iinnpeij (1950, directed by Masahiro MAKiNo and written by KuRosAwA) was without doubt problematic.3i The censorship did not ignore the violations in film posters, either. After CIE approved the design for the poster advertising a period film, Ylihkz},ou no mure I77ie Hbni of Gambiersl (1948, directed by Tatsuo OHsoNE), CCD decided that tying one's sleeves with a string, which was

NII-Electronic Library Service JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEARTSof IMAGE ARTS and SCIENCES

The Banning of Japanese Period Films 199

portrayed in the poster, syrnbolized revenge among the yakuza [tradi- tional gangsters] and thus was not pemissible. Shochiku Studio had to redesign and reprint its posters and postpone the release of the film, in addition to bringing the enm's star Kazuo HAsEGAwA to CCD for a cour-

tesy call.3i In another case, CCD was concerned with the catch-phrases glorifying feudal ideals used in the posters ofperied films. CCD was also concerned with the possible inconsistencies between the censored films and the posters advertising them.33 Silent films, many of which were period films, were still narrated by benshi or katsuben outside of the big cities. Because they improvised

dialogue accompanying the images on the screen, the American censors were concerned that they rnight violate the Occupation's guidelines. In this case CCD took an uncharacteristically permissive attitude, judging that the popularity of silent films would be temporary, and in any case the old silent prints would not last long, so a few infringements would not cause any rnajor problem.34 Excessive swordplay was forbidden in foreign films as well. After CIE in early 1948 cleared the American film 7ZIieMbrk ofZorro after deleting "containing the scene of sword training,35 CCD found this filrn scenes ef furious sword fighting" and disapproved of CIE's having passed it. CCD censor Walter MiHATA further complained that CIE allowed the use of firearms in Japanese films with conternporaTy backgrounds and gunplay

and swordplay in foreign films, w.hile objecting to sworclplay only in Japanese films. This censor perceived iatent feudalisrn in apparently innocuous scenes, but objected to categorically censoring swordplay

scenes, citing a tenet of the sarnurai code that the best samurai neveruse their swords against unworthy oppenents.36 On the'other hand, CIE complained in 1951 that CCD had early on approved the French film

72inis Boulba, which had been imported before the war. CIE found that this film glorifies the martial spirit by showing the leading character using his sword excessively, and advised that it not be released.37 CIE wanted Japanese period' films to criticize feudalistic ideas and customs from a contemperary (i.e. American-influenced) viewpoint. For this reason, the synopsis of Osan to Ybhei/Osan and Ybheij was not

approved in 1948;3S although the script of Zenigtzta Heiji torimono hikoe: Heij`i sen ryo koban IHeiji Zenigatels Detective IVbte: ileijils Golden Cbinsl (1949, directed by Kiyoshi SAEKi) was approyed, CIE made clear that it had hoped that the film would be rnore construc- tive.39 The script of Daibosatsu-touge IGreat Boddhisattva Ilessl was twice ordered to be rewritten in 1949,not only to eliminate suicide "basic scenes, violent and nihilistic ideas, and the idea of ℃hushingura' [presumably revenge and loyalty], but also because it was thought in- sufficiently critical of feudalism.`O The film was not made until 1953.

NII-Electronic Library Service JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEARTSof IMAGE ARTS andandSCIENCES SCIENCES

2oo Kyoko HIRANO

The Reception of Japanese Film-Makers Most severely affected by the prohibition of swordplay films weTe Daiei Studio, which had been specializing in this genre, and its stable of actors. This studio began to make films in contemperary setting using the same starts, for example, Chiezo KATAoKA'si popular llannai 7lrizTo de- tective film series. Under the prewar Japanese government censorship, it had been easy to include social and political criticism in period fiims, because the film-makers could claim that their films had no relationship to curTent events,4i The dmerican censors would not accept such claims. Another strategem was to bring out different themes in the traditional stories. For instance, Daisuke ITo was permitted to use the commonly adapted story of Ten-ichibou to liganosuke fTkin-ichibou and 1gtzno- sukq142 as the subject of his fi]m Surounin makari touru fHbemble Attkesteriess "/kerrior Dares to fusst (1946), by focusing on the relation- ships and personal problems of its two protagonists, rather than on action scenes. Tliis fi1rn was the first in which the popular swordplay star Tsumasaburo BANDo acted outslde of the tachimawari [sword- play] context. Kozaburo YosHiMuRA presented a new interpretation of the legendary Edo Period yakuza character in his Mbri no tshimatsu flshimatsu of nfoul (1949), which denounced in a satirical comedy style the useless vanity ofyakuza loyalty.43 wnen Daiei Studioproposed filming an Edo Period yakuza story, Kitnisada thwfi IC7iuii Kunisa[lal (1946), it feared that CIE might not pass it. However, it was found acceptable, because KuNisADA was considered a here of the masses and a fighteT for justice.44 Kenji MizoGucHr had to claim that the main character ofutamano o megunt gonin no onna tUlramaro and Five Women7 (1946) was a "democratic" painter who worked for the people and resisted the early nineteenth century feudal government. This dismayed the writer of the original story, Kanji KuNIEDA, who had emphasized hurnan freedom through the pursuit of eroticism. Screenplay writer Yoshikata YoDA did his best to reconcile the different visions. YoDA later realized that the film was well-intentioned but confusing, its ideas not aesthetically inte- grated,45 Sometimes, CIE censors were persuaded by the arguments ef Japanese film-makers. When the idea for the period Mm Onatsu Sleijuro IOnatsu and Seijmotof (1946, directed by Keigo KiMuRA) was submitted, censor David CoNDE did not pass it because it was based on Monzaemon "feudalistic". CiKAMATsu's seventeenth gentury story and thus CoNDE suggested that the story be given a contemporary setting. Daiei Studio's executives were fed up with this kind of argument and ready to give up the preject, but screenplay writer Fuji YAHiRo wrote a protest letter to

NII-Electronic Library Service JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEARTSof IMAGE ARTS and SCIENCES

The Banning of Japanese Period Films 201

CONDE, insisting that CHIKAMATsu was not amilitarist and Cinatsu Sei- iuro is purely a love story. He argued that if no one complained that SHAKEspEARE was feudalistic in CoNDE's country, what was wrong with this Mm. After summoning YAHiRo and hearing the same argument in person, CoNDE allowed it to be filmed, as a period film, in 1946.46 [[here are examples of CIE criteria which Japanese film-makers found arbitrary, bureaucratic and misleading. For example, UEKusA recalled that when he wrote a satire modeled on Nikolai GoGoL's 7Pre Govern- ment kispector for Toho Studio, soon after the war, he usedaJapanese historical and popular character KoumQn MiTo, which CIE did not ap- prove of. Although the film's producer explained that the script was an attempt to mock traditional feudal authority, the censors were not moved, simply because the film dealt with Kouman MiTo, who was a 7 symb ol of feudalism to the censors at CIE. Ihe project was never filmed .4 In June 1949, Eirin was established as an autonomous Japanese cen- sorship apparatus assuming the censorship functions of CCD and CIE.48

Subsequently, the board of directors of the Motion Picture Associatio･n of Japan established a limit en the number of period film productions in November 1949, Each of the five distribution chains (Shochiku, Toho, Daiei, Shin-Toho and Toei) was allowed to exhibit up to twelve films annually, However, no moTe than two filrns could be shown in each month, If two films were shown in one month, none could be shown during the next. The number of period films allowed represented roughly one-fourth of the total number of films produced. During 1950, this standard was adhered to by every company,4'9 Eirin's ban on portraying feudalism, militarism and nationalism was based on its desire to eradicate the ideology which has led to the waT, while its regulations governing morality were closely rnedeled on the U.S. Production Code of Ethics, This code attempted to encourage showing proper families and decent life-styles, despite the difficulty ofmaintain- ing such in the rnidst of Japan's difficult postwar economic and social situation Such unrealistic idealism notwithstanding, many Japanese appreciated the Americans' help in establishing Eirin. Released frern the yoke of governmental controls, the Japanese film industry could begin to police from the in- itself, through a cornmittee consisting of representatives dustry, scholars and other film professionals, The spirit of'autonomy was rather alien to the Japanese filrn industry, but Japanese film-makers realised the importance of developing and pursuing an independent Path.Se In general, Japanese film-makers felt constrained by the prohibitions that there imposed by the Occupation's film policy, and simply assurned was no way to oppose the censors' decisions. However, almost all of

NII-Electronic Library Service JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEARTSof IMAGE ARTS andandSCIENCES SCIENCES

am Kyoko HIRANO

them agreed that the wartime Japanese governrnent censorship was much worse. In his autobiography, KuRosAwA was unsparing in his harsh cri- "no ticism of the wartime censors who not only had respect for crea- "suffer(ed) tion" but also from sexual manias." He contrasted them with an understanding American censor, of whom he had a very positive impression:

Conclusion

The banning of Japanese period films, particularly those which used swordplay, was based on the strong suspicion among the Americans, who perceived in them treachery, sneakiness, barbarism and iajustice, value opposed to the demecratic ones the Occupation was trying to promote. Ihe absolute and blind obedience demanded by Iords according to the feudal code was considered to be source of the Japanese militarism and fascism, The CIE officials in charge of film policy at the beginning of the Occupation were fu11 of idealism and energy for radical reforrns, Their enthusiasm resurted in such extreme actions as the banning of period films and burning their prints. The prohibition ofperiod films was a great blow to the Japanese film industry, which tried to solve the problem by developing new kinds of narratives and by emphasizing new values within the period film genre to met CIE's expectations, Period film stars and writers began to work in other centemporary genres. Sometimes, the Japanese protests of film-makers proved to be effective, although many Japanese found CIE's criteria for prohibitjon arbitrary and bureaucratic. The restriction of CIE and CCD covered not only Japanese films but also fbreign fiIms with swordplay scenes and film posters. As the Occupation continued, the highly suspicious and tense moed on both the American and Japanese sides began to relax, Particularly after the Japanese film industry's autonomous governing institution, Eirin, was established in 1949, the restriction against the period films became looser. Towards the end of the Occupation, the American cen- sors reconsidered the release of some films on the banned list. Itisnot clear whether these prohibited period films were actually as dangerousas the Americans thought. It is also questionable to what extent these Japanese film-makers actually began to think in "democra- tic" terms, even after CIE tried to re-educate them, when they made films period with new values and points of view. Nonetheless, despite some resistance, Japanese film-makers generally tried to cooperate with and obey new the postwar authorities, as they had with the authorities of the wartime Japanese government. 'I Of course, am not saying that all the American censors were likehirn. But they all behaved toward us in a gentle-

NII-Electronic Library Service JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEARTSof IMAGE ARTS and SCIENCES

The Banning of Japanese Period Films 2os

manly fashion. Not a single one among them treated us as i animals, the way the Japanese censors had.5

However, this impression is not shared by the rnajority of Japanese film directors and producers, who point out bureaucratic, arbitrary and sometimes ridiculous application of the directives, as well as the lack of

cultural understanding. This situation seems to have been worst at the

very beginning of the Occupation, when both sides were highly suspi- cious and fearfu1 of each other, As for the release of the banned films, the Japanese film industry rnade efforts to be allowed to release some films on the list. In April,

1951, Toho and Daiei Studios wrote letters to CIE requesting a re- examination of seven films on the list, inclgding 7lora no oo famu otokotachi and Siigata Sanshiro (directed by Alcira KuRosAwA, 1943.) "originally They claimed that these fi1rns were produced solely fer the purpose of entertainment, from well-known Japanese folk tales and, in our. considerat.ion, are no more militaristic or ultranationalistic than such well-known Western stories of chivalry as Robin HooD and the Three Musketeers and other tales of love and rornance." The Toho company requested that particular attention and consideration be given to 7bra no o o otokochi because together with another Daiei film, Kojiki .fumu '`are taisho (Beggar Generaij these two the only films in custody which 2 have never been released for public exhibition."S The fo11owing November, the Motion Picture Association of Japan requested that GHQ reconsider thirty-seven films (eight from Toho, eleven from Daiei, seven from Shochiku, and eleven from Nikkatsu).53 Finally, only three months before the end of the occupation, CIE gave permission to release eight films from this list, including the 7bra no o o jumu otokotachi and Kojiki taisho,54 These fi1rns were released in a few months.

Acknowledgement: The research for this article was partially funded by the Toyeta Foun- dation Humanities Grant and Department of Cinema Studies Chair's

Fund of New York University.

NII-Electronic Library Service JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEARTSof IMAGE ARTS andandSCIENCES SCIENCES

204 Kyoko HIRANO

Notes1. CIE took over IDS (Information Dissemination Section) of AFPAC (Army Forces in the Pacific) on September 22, 1945. IDS had been created on Au- gust 27, 1945, when the first American Occupation Forces landed in Japan, succeedingGeneTalDouglasMACARTHUR'sownPsychologicalWarfareBranch (PWB) for all pructical purposes, As Washington's wartime planning oiganiza- tien foi the Occupation of Japan had envisioned, IDS was designed te be in charge of information policy, whose goal was the re-education of the Japanese people through the media. As for the wartime planning, see Marlene J. MAYO, C"Psychological Disarmament: American warfare Planning for the Educatien and Re-education of Defeated Japan, 1943-1945" in TZie Occupation of Jlrpan: Education and Social Rojbrm (Proceedings ofa Sym.posium spensored by the MACARTHVR Memorial, Old Dominion University and the MAC- ARTHUR Memorial Foundation, October 16-18, 1980, Norfolk, Va,), PP.21-128, "Memorandum 2. It officially began with the Concerning Motion Pieture Cen- sorship" issued on January 28, 1946, although CIE began its own censorship sometime in early October. As for CCD, PPB was set up in late September, 1945. The precise date upon which CIE and CCD began censorship is not clear. 3. Elji TAKEMAE, GHO (Tokyo: Iwanami Shinsho, 1983), pp.104-105. How- ever, Jay RUBIN writes that CCD cornpletely halted its censorship opera- tions in October 1949, citing Eizaburo OKUIZUMI, ed., Sbnryo-gun ken letsu zasshi mokuroku; kaidai fTlze List of the Oceupationls Cl?nsorship ofMdgu- "FTom zines: RetitlecU. pp.10-14. RUBIN, Wholesomeness to Decadence: 1[he Cemsorship of Literature under the Allied Occupation" in 7ke Journat of Jlabanese Studies (vol.II, no.1, Winter 1985), p,85, 4, Toru WATANABE, who was working for the wartime Eiga Kosha [Film cor- poiatienl, remernbers that in early SepternbeT, 1945, when several American soldiers visited Eiga Kosha to ask the whereabouts of the war collaberation "prepared films, they already had a list in English by the Psychological War- fare Branch." ("Eiga-kai kyutenkai no GHQ seisaku" [The Drastic Change of GHQ Policy Toward the F{lm Industry] in }'bmiuri Shimbun [September 2e, 1982.] 5, BROWN had lived in prewar Japan as a reporter for the lapan Adyertiser. was fluent in Japanese, collaborated with the GHQ from the beginning, and while continuing on the payfoli of the State Department's Office of Internatienal Informatien and CulturalAffairs(OIC),became the chief ef the Information`[Psycho- Division when it was created within CIE in June, 1946. (MAYO, logicaldisarmament,"pp.82-83) 6. At OWI, BEHRSTOCK was under BROWN, and CONDE was undeT BEHR- STOCK, Reputedly a New Dealer, BEHRSTOCK was active in the labor, agricultural and women's movements. (Soon after the author interviewed BEHRSTOCK over the telephone, en JanuaTy 9, 1985, he passed away, in April, 1985.) 7. Born in Canadq, he took US citizenship in California, After leaving CIE in July 1946, CONDE became a reporter for Reuters, and then was expelled from Japan in the Spring of 1947, supposedly because of his anti-GHQ re- "Nippon ports. (David CONDE, eiga no senryo-shi" EThe Occupation History of Japanese Cinema] in Sekai[August1965], p253) He visited japan in 1964 and stayed there for a while, publishing two books. He died in the United States in 1981, Although his post at CIE lasted less than one year, CONDE impressed Japanese film people as an earnest New Dealer arid reformer. As he was particularly eager for radical reforms many Japanese consideTed him either a Communist or a strong Communist sympathizer. (Fer example, Kajiro "Katsudo-ya YAMAMOTO, bifunifoku" [Slight Indignation of A Movie makerj in Bungei shuniu [June 19521, pp.191-192; Shiro KIDO, IVippon

NII-Electronic Library Service JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEARTSandof IMAGE ARTS and SCIENCES

The Banning of Japanese Period Films am

ofJapanese sha, EZga-den[1[heStory Cinemal [Tokyo:Bungei Shuiiju 1956] , pp.21O-211. p.213; Matsuo KISHL Jirnbutsu Aiippon Ergu-shi t71he E{istoo, of Jbpanese rvlm Personalitiest ITokyo: Dabiddo sha, 1970], p,290; and an interview with director Kaneto SHINDO conducted by the author on June 25, 1984 in Tokyo,) "Senryo-ka 8. Anonymous studio liaisons, no eiga gyosei no uchimaku" [1[he Inside Story of Film Administration under the Occuption] in Eiga Jiho (Noyember 1953), p.16. "Senryo 9. Yeshinobu IKEDA, sejsaku no nisan" [A Few Things abeut the Occupation Policyl in Eigu Jtho (November 1953), p.22. LL20.9.22 10. For example, IKEDA, Ibid., p,22; Akira SHIMIZU, kara 23,8.19 made: Senryeka ne eiga-kai no kiroku" [From September 22, 1945 to August 19, 1848: The Record of the Film Industry under the Occupation] in FVIm denter on the retrospective of the Japanese cinema under the Occupation "Eiga-kai (Tokyo; National Film Center, 1973), p.10; and kyutenkai no GHQ "Eiga-kai seisaku" in Yomiuri shimbun. kyutenkai no GHQ sei$aku" lists 15 "countless newsteels and animated films, while SHIMIZU writes that news- `bunka reels and eiga' were added to the list." (SHIMIZU, Ibid., p.1O.) "Nippon 11, David CONDE, eiga no semyo-shi," p.252, 12. `'Elimination of Undemocratic Motion Pictures," memorandum frorn the Central Liaison Office of the Japanese Government to the GHQISCAP on Noveniber 26 and December 15, 1945, ``Memorandum 13, Concerning Destruction of Seized Japanese Feature Films" `Memoran- from CIF, MPT division to GeneTal DYKE on January 19, 1946; dum Concerning the Disposition of Banned Japanese Motion ?ictures" from '`Memo- CIE to Commanding General, Eighth Army on February 14, 1946; randum Concerning Action Regarding Banned Japanese Motion Pictures" from CIE to Imperial Japanese Governrnent on January 28 and February 17, 1946. The piints of the 176 films on the list were returned by Menbu-sho to the film companies fouT months after the terrnination of the Occupation in August 1952. Further, the 483 prints, including those seized duTing the war and dur- ing the Occupation by CCD, were returned by the Library ofCongress to the Natienal Film Center in Tokye in December 1967. "Memorandum 14. Concerning the Disposition of Banned Pictures" from the Chief of the PPB (Press, Pictorial and Broadcasting) Diyision, through CCD to CIE on May 7, 1946. "Memorandum 15. on the Disposition of Banned Japanese Motion Pictures" from CIE to Commanding General, Eighth Army of February 14, 1946; and the Ministry of Interior Affairs report of May 8, 1946. 16. Press Release of GHQIUSAFPAC, CIE Section, of November 19, 1945, 17. SHIMIZU, "20.9.22, kara 23.8,19 made," p.!O; Tbho Eiga 30 nen-shi tThe 30 Vear Mstot:y of the Tbho filml (Tokyo: Toho hinting Co., 1963), pp,171- 174. "2e.9.22, 18. SHIMIZU, kara 23.8.19 made," pp.9-10; lbho Eiga 30 nen-shi, pp.170-174. 19. KUROSAWA attiibuted the banning of this film by GHQ to the Japanese cen- sor at the Ministry of Interior Affairs with whom he had argued, This censor deliberatedly omitted this title frorn a Teport subrnitted to GHQ on Japanese films produced since the beginning of the war, KUROSAWA contended that a GHQ censor saw this film three years later, liked it, and lifted the ban. by Audie (KUROSAWA, Something Like An Autobiography [translated Boek], (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982], pp,143-144J However, it is geneially belieyed that the film wns banned because it was a period film' April depicting feudal loyaity. The film was actuany not released until Z4, 1952, shertly before the end of the Occupation. (Kurosawrx: A Retrospective 1981] [New York: Japan Society, , p.34) 20. Masahiro MAKINO made docurnentary fims ofKumagaiv'inya and Tlerakoya

NII-Electronic Library Service JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEARTSof IMAGE ARTS andandSCIENCES SCIENCES

206 Kyoko HIRANO

in 1950, The latter was the first Japanese film made in color, (Masahiro MAKINO, EZga tosei IFilm L(fe1 (Tokyp: Heibon-sha, 1977), vol. II, pp.260- 261. 21. The story of C7iushingura has been one of the mest popular, and profit- able, in the history of Japanese cinema. Between 1926 and l962, 24 versions were made, including Teinosuke KINUGASA's 1932 version and Kenji MIZO- GUCHI's Genroku Cliushingura tCkushingura ofthe Genroku lleriocij (1941- 1942). (Sekoi eigzx saku,hin daip'ten tDictionary of -lorfd Mbtion Picturesl [Tokyo: Kineina Jumpo sha, 1970, pp.134-135.) It is alleged that whenever a film studio fell into financial distress, it would produce a filrn based on this story fer guaranteed success, "A 22, Toshio KAWATAKE, Crisis of Kabuki and Its Reyival Right After World Watll'i in Plasedu journat ofAsian Studies (1983, vol.5), p.41, See also John ALLYN, "Motion Picture and Theatrical Censorship in Japan" in PVtisedu Joumal of Asian Studies (1985, vol.7). BOWERS commented that he had hoped to save Kabuki through General MACARTHUR as first. After learning that MACARTHUR had no interest in this traditional art, BOWERS decided to become a censor himself. (BOWERS interviewed by Beate GORDON for the Oral History Research Center of Columbia University on the Occupation ofJapap, on October 23, 1960 in New York,) "Motion 23. John ALLYN, Hcture and Theatrical Censorship in Japan," p24, "Shidoushita 24, David CONDE, Akira IWASAKI and Naozane FUJIMOTO, KONDE Nippon eiga to no saikai: GHQ shodai eiga engeki hancho Debiddo shi to kataru" [The Reunion with Japanese Cinema: Discussion with Mr, CONDE, the flTst chief of Motion Picture and Theatrical Branch ofGHQ]. in Kinema Jumpo (November-III, 1964), pp.28-29; Kyushiro KUSAKABE, "Jitsuroku: Sengo Nippon eiga-shi hito to jiken to" [Docurnent: People and

Events of the Postwar Japanese Cinema History] inHOseki(1982)#1 , p.194. 25. Sheila JOHNSON poi.nts out that swords as a symbol of aggressive Japanese culture were used in the cover illustrations of the three recent best-selling American books, Shogun, IVinjo and Miko, She believes that this is not coinci- dental, and feels that this kind of stereQtype may once again result in a danger- ous relationship (between American and Japan). (Sheila JOHNSON inter- viewed in Asahi SIi imbun [August 19, 1986] ,) 26. Accorcting to one of the script writers and editors of the film, Joris IVENS, the film was completed in 1944 and was not distributed. IVENS insists that this film was abandoned because of its depiction of the Emperor as a.war criminal, (Erik BARNOUW, Doeumentat:y: A Histoo, of the IVbn-liVction F}lm INew York: Oxford UniveTsity Press, 1974], p.i61,) Documenldo, Film aassics Produced by the Vhited States Government (Washington, D.C.: Na- tional Audio Visual Center, date unknown) innplied that this film was briefiy "(...,.) released: the abrupt cessation of the war in the Pacific resulted in the hasty withdrawul of Know }'bur Enenry: J?ipan and it was never widely seen." (p.28) 27, Keinosuke UEKuSA, PVaga seish"n no lkrurosawa Akira I21kinT Kurosawa of AC), Ybuth1 (TDkyo: Bungei Shuniu sha, 1985), pp.93-94, KURosAWA him- seif downplayed this incident, as we see in the following exeept from his SbmethingLikeAnAutobiqgraphy,(p.142): It came to pass that from time to time American soldiers visited the set where I was shooting. One day a whole landing party of them converged on my set. Maybe the customs being shown in rny production struck them as quaint, I don't know, At any iate, they clicked away with their still cameras or buzzed away with 8-mm. cameras, and seme even wanted to be photographed while being slashed at withaJapanese sword. Things got so out ofhandIhad to call a halt te the day's shooting, "Jitsuroku," 28. KUSAKABE, #1,p,195.

NII-Electronic Library Service JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEARTSof IMAGE ARTS andandSCIENCES SCIENCES

The Banning of Japanese Period Films 201

29. CIE'si cornment on the scTipt 6f the film on July 12, 1948, CIE's Section of the GHQISCAP collection at the National Diet Library of Tokyo (here- after; NDL-T). 30, CIE's comment on the synopsis of the film en July 13, 1948, NDL-T. 31. CIE's fiIe on the film (the first script examined on May 26, 1949, and the second one on June 3, 1949), Box t331-5297, Nationul Record Center at Suitland, Maryland (hereafter: NRC-SM), "Sengo 32. Hideo KOMATSV's interview on May 28, 1984 in Tokyo; KOMATSU, eiga shirlizu" [TIhe Postwar Cinema Series] in 7bdyo-eki (Tokye sha, data unknown) #1, p.21. `CExhibition 33. CCD's Memorandum on of Qbjectionable rnovie advertising posters" en June 27, 1947, CCD's file on Movie Films (Censorship) of 1947, Box#331-8579,NRC-SM, '`Silent 34, CCD:s memerandurn on Picture Shows Gaining Popularity" on April 5, 1948, CCD's file on Foreign Films, Box t331-8579, NRC-SM. 35, CIE's comment' on the film on February 12, 1948, NDL-T. " 36. CCD's Memorandum for Record en Motien Picture Section of CI&E policy on sword fighting scenes in pictures" by W.Y.M. CWalter Mihata} on March 2, 1948; Memo from JJC (John COSTELLO) of PPB Division to CCO on March 9, 1948 and its Teturn merno from BJW on March 11, 1948, CCD's file on Relation with CIE and on Movie Films Censorship of 1948, Bex 331- 8579, NRC-SM, This film apparently was net released. 'ilm 37, CIE's cemrnent on the ± on May l1, 1951, NDL-T. 38, CIE's comment on the synopsis of the film on July 6, 1948, NDL-T, 39.40. CIE's cemment on the film on September 17, 1949, NDL-T. CIE's file on the film (the first script examined on July 18, 1949, the' Box second on August 20, 1949 and the third on September 12, 1949), #331-5276,NRC-SM. "Jidai 41 For instance, Fuji YAHIRO, eiga no 43-nen" [43 Years of Period has been Film] #14 in Kinetna Jumpo (March-I, 1964), p.40. This strategern used by film-makers all over the world. For example, when asked how he could criticize the Polish political system so sharply in his rvodzire [Tbp Dogl is (Polish, 1977), director Feliks FALK answered that it was because its story set in the period immediately before that of the present regime. (FALK at Bleecker StreetCinema, New York City, on June 14, 1982.) 42. In 1728, a yeung priest named Ten-ichibo claimed that he was the shogun's illegitimate son, and with Iganosuke YAMANOUCHI, brought to- gether a band of masteiless warxiors, They were executed by the government, Soon, this story became a popular legend and its subject began to be used in Kabuki and other entertainment forms, It had already been filmed several times since 1925. 43. Although this film was well received critically (ranking ninth among Kinema Jumpo magazine's ten best films of the year), Shochiku studie head Shiroh KIDO was not happywith this new trend. He wrote that those directors who intreduced new interpretations disregarded mass taste and distoTted the traditional values of classic stories, in the face of common sense. (KIDO, Nihon eigo-dlen: Eiga seisakusha no kiroku tStoe, ofJbpanese ernema: A Record of A Film Rroducecl [Tokyo: Bungei Shurlju sha, 1956l, pp,240-242,) 44. Masao TAKEDA, then working for Daiei's planning section, cited in KUSA- "Jitsuroku",

KABE, #1 , p.193,ScaP IVbntlllilitaryActivitiesSummation (no. "a 12, Septernbe: 1946) deseribes the film as follows: contume play in which a gambling boss reforms and supports the cause of the peasants against the lord who enslaves thern." (p.221) 45. Yoshikata YODA, Mtzogttchi Kenji no hito to geijutsu l]Personality and Art of Kenii j4ixoguehij (Tokyo: Tabata shoten, 1970), pp. 136-140. Joseph L. ANDERSON and Donald RICHIE stated that MIZOGUCHI called on GHQ

NII-Electronic Library Service JAPANJAPANSOCIETY SOCIETY ofImaGEof IMAGE ARTS andandSCIENCES SCIENCES

2os Kyoko HIRANO

L`any and gave number of cogent reasons for making the filrn. TTie common man loved Utamaro, he was a great cultural object, Teally soTt of a pre-Occupa- tion democrat," and that Mizoguchi could make this period film if he agreed "a to make in coajunction with it modern film about female emancipation."

(ANDERSON and RICHIE, .lapanese FVIm; i4rt and industl:y rexpanded edition] {Princeton: ltinceton University Press, 1982],p.162) "Jidai 46. YAHIRO, eiga no,'7 p,40-41.'PPBD of CCD's Memorandum on the "Trends in Japanese Motion Pictures" on November 20, 1946, describes the "Story enm as follows: of girl whomarries man of her own choice rather than man of her parents' choice: (Theme) FREEDOM OF MARRIAGE." It was '`democratic". thus allewed on the pretext that it was (CCD's file on Movie films, Box # 331-8579, NRC-SM). 47, UEKUSA's interview en August 7, 1984, in Tokyo. However, there is a film entitled ?Vdgurareta otonosama I7Zie Beaten Lorcij produced by Daiei-Kyoto studio and released on March 13, 1946, directed and written by Santaro MARUNE,'the story of which is extremely similar to UEKUSA's, using the Koumon MITO characteT. See Kinetna Jlimpo (June-I, 1946), pp.45-46; Joseph L. ANDERSON and Donald RICHIE, 77ie lapanese fiVlm, p,175. UEKUSA's book, Ulagzz seishun no Kurosawn Akira. states that the film was prohibited because of its strong satire. See p.95. According to the Memoran- 'tSummary dum for Recofd on of Japanese Pictures on List Suppressed by SCAP Directive of 16 Noy. 1945" on Noyember 13, 1946, CCD felt in highly desirable to re-release three prewar Koumon MITO films, to promulgate the "demDcratic protagonist's ideas" arnong the Japanese people, (Lord MITO, the "in Vice-Shogun, travelled disguised as a commoner order to personally inspect and remedy conditions in society." CCD file on the relationship with CIE, Box t331-8579, NRC-SM.) wnether or not these three films were actually re-released is not known, 48. There are examples ot' CIE's intervention at the prcrproduction stage of synopsis and script writing, even after Eirin was established, They were biought to CIE's attelltion by Eirin, CCD's activites continued until the end of 1949. 49. CIE's rnemorandum concerning old Japanese costume films on June 1, 1951, NDL-T; Current Topics celumn in Kinema Jiimpo (December-III, 19Sl), p.24. The number of newly produced peTiod films in 1950 were as follows:

CompanyXMonth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total ' Shochiku 2 0 1 1 1 oo1111OOOO 11121 741081114o11 TohoDaieiShin-Toho1 0 0 0 1 OIOOO 20000 11121 -- 1OO Oll11

Toei O I 1 2 e 11111 * Rerelease of prewar period films

"Katsudo-ya," "SenryQka 50, YAMAMOTO, p,193; Anonymous studio liaisons, "Senryo no," p,21; and Yoshinobu IKEDA, seisaku no nisan," p.23, 51. KuRosAWA, Something Like An･ Autobiography. pp,111-112; 117-120; 143-144. "Memorandum 52. Concerning Application for Release of Japanese Feature Films" t'rom the Toho Motion Pictures Co. Ltd. and Daiei Motion PictuTes Co. Ltd, to GHQISCAP on ApTil 19, !951. NDL-T. 53. Letter frem the Motion Picture Association of Japan to GHQISCAP, CIE Section on November 13, 1951. NDL-T. "Memorandurn" 54, from CIE to the Director of the Social Education Bureau, Mmistry ef Education, February 29, I952. NDL-T,

NII-Electronic Library Service