Notes Introduction 1. “Katsudō o mite, hōkakyō ni natta, Teidaisei taku no bijin jochū, Fukkoku meijoyū ni kaburete” [ After watching movies, beautiful maid in Imperial University stu- dent’s home goes arson crazy, possessed by famous French actress], Tōkyō asahi shinbun, March 24, 1921, eve ning edition, 2. 2. “Meijoyū o yumemite, Kamata e oshiyoseru iede onna,” Tōkyō asahi shinbun, eve- ning edition, April 28, 1928, 2; “Naraku no dontei e, mizukara shizumu joyū shigansha no mure, sore ni shitagau hanzai no iroiro,” Nikkatsu gahō (October 1926), 52–55. 3. Matsumoto Yoshirō, “Itamashiki kana, joyū shigansha no mukuro,” Nikkatsu gahō (August 1926), 16. 4. Matsumoto, “Itamashiki kana,” 16. 5. Matsumoto, “Itamashiki kana,” 17. 6. Matsumoto, “Itamashiki kana,” 17. 7. For a discussion of Meiji modernization and the limits of liberal philosophy and demo cratic thinking in Japan, see Mackie, Creating Socialist Women, 24–30. 8. For examples, see Maeda, “Development of Popu lar Fiction”; Sato, New Japa nese Woman, especially chap. 3; and Aso, Public Properties, chap. 5. 9. See Harootunian, Overcome by Modernity, especially 11–13. Sato’s New Japa nese Woman includes extensive discussion of Hirabayashi and other intellectuals’ perceptions of female consumers and mass culture. 10. Silverberg, Erotic Grotesque Nonsense. 11. Silverberg, Erotic Grotesque Nonsense, 29. 12. For example, the decline of photochemical celluloid cinema and the rise of the digital has occasioned a resurgence of interest in cinematic realism and a reevaluation of the work of film theorists who framed realism in terms of cinema’s analog relation- ship to the profilmic. Since the digital turn, the field has witnessed a revival of interest in key concepts inherited from classical film theory, such as the notion of the photo- graphic image as an indexical sign. See, for instance, Bazin, What Is Cinema?; Andrew Diane Wei Lewis - 9781684176045 Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 05:02:10AM via free access 214 Notes to Pages 6–22 and Joubert- Laurencin, Opening Bazin; Rodowick, Virtual Life of Film; Morgan, “Re- thinking Bazin”; and Andrew, What Cinema Is! 13. See Rosen, Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology. 14. For example, Studlar, “Visual Plea sure and the Masochistic Aesthetic.” 15. See, for instance, Doane, Desire to Desire; Bruno, Streetwalking on a Ruined Map; or Hansen, Babel and Babylon. For a general consideration of the importance of theo- ries of spectatorship and subjectification for “New Film History,” see Parikka, “Media Archaeology of the Senses: Audiovisual, Affective, Algorithmic,” chapter 2 in What Is Media Archaeology? 16. See Bao, Fiery Cinema, as an example. 17. Berlant, Female Complaint, x. 18. Although I sometimes use the word affect to distinguish general states of arousal and inchoate feeling from “emotions,” which are more easily identified with par tic u lar psychological states and concepts, I use these terms interchangeably unless indicated other wise. Impor tant touchstones for my approach to affect and emotion include De- leuze, Francis Bacon; Massumi, Parables for the Virtual; and the work of Silvan Tomkins and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick in Tomkins, Shame and Its Sisters , as well as Sedgwick, Touching Feeling. 19. Ahmed, Cultural Politics of Emotion, 45. 20. Metz, Imaginary Signifier, 66–67. 21. Hansen, “Fallen Women, Rising Stars,” 13, 12, 12. 22. Bao, Fiery Cinema, 16. 23. See Gunning, D. W. Griffith, and Gerow, Visions of Japa nese Modernity, 153. 24. Ahmed, Cultural Politics of Emotion. 1. Great Kanto Earthquake Documentary Films and the State 1. Hansen, “Mass Production of the Senses,” 60. 2. On the use of conventional narrative patterns to create moral clarity in melo- dramas about the Great Kanto Earthquake, see Bates, Culture of the Quake, chap. 4. Weisenfeld’s Imaging Disaster provides extended analy sis of how Japa nese and Western image- making traditions shaped repre sen ta tions of the Great Kanto Earthquake. 3. See Schencking, Great Kantō Earthquake, chap. 3. For an analy sis of postearth- quake issues of mass- circulated women’s magazines and their emotive address, see Ki- tahara, “ ‘Kanjō’ no media.” 4. Ōsawa, “Kantō Daishinsai kiroku eigagun,” 48. 5. Schencking, Great Kantō Earthquake, 86. 6. See, for instance, the discussion in Weisenfeld, Imaging Disaster, 60–61. 7. In “Kantō Daishinsai kiroku eigagun,” Ōsawa offers the most comprehensive study of existing film prints, accompanied by thoughtful discussion of issues pertaining to the identification of earthquake documentary films. Ōsawa examines the percentage of overlapping footage among eight extant earthquake documentary films in the National Film Archive of Japan collection. The percentage is taken as the number of shots out of the total number of shots in the existing print that match footage found in one or more Diane Wei Lewis - 9781684176045 Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 05:02:10AM via free access Notes to Pages 22–24 215 films. Only one surviving print, which is unidentified and may be incomplete, does not contain any overlapping footage. Three prints contain between 86 and 88 percent over- lapping shots, including the footage shot by Kōsaka Toshimitsu and Isayama Saburō for Nikkatsu Mukōjima studio, believed to be the source for the most widely reproduced footage (54). 8. The film I focus on in the last section of this chapter is the Ministry of Education and Tokyo Shinema Shōkai film Actuality of the Great Kanto Earthquake and Conflagra- tion (Kanto Daishin taika jikkyō, 1923). Although it does not survive in its entirety, the extant film likely reflects the carefully constructed documentary. Only 3 percent of the shots in the existing film print overlap with other surviving earthquake documentary films, suggesting that this documentary does not contain the most commonly included footage, but it was one of the most widely screened and best known earthquake films. 9. Noda, Nihon dokyumentarī eiga zenshi, 11. For more on Japa nese documentary film, see Nornes, Japa nese Documentary Film. 10. Kamiya, “ ‘Kōtaishi toōeiga’ to Onoe Matsunosuke,” 35. 11. See Kamiya, “ ‘Kōtaishi toōeiga’ to Onoe Matsunosuke,” 42. 12. Kamiya, “ ‘Kōtaishi toōeiga’ to Onoe Matsunosuke,” 36 and 52. 13. For a list of known screenings of fifteen films related to Hirohito’s travels that were screened from June to December in Japan, see Kamiya, “ ‘Kōtaishi toōeiga’ to Onoe Matsunosuke,” 40. It is not known how many unique films were made. Announcements of these screenings did not always list the manufacturer, and it is pos si ble that the same footage was screened under diff er ent titles. It also appears that in some cases Japa nese film companies exhibited footage they had purchased from foreign film companies (39). 14. Kamiya, “ ‘Kōtaishi toōeiga’ to Onoe Matsunosuke,” 38. 15. In “ ‘Kōtaishi toōeiga’ to Onoe Matsunosuke,” Kamiya describes a softening of filming restrictions after Hirohito’s trip. For instance, after his return it became per- missible to film the prince walking, which had previously been forbidden. She notes that non- Japanese cameramen in England were seemingly less inhibited than Japa nese cam- eramen, encouraging the prince to smile and take off his glasses. Still, she notes, the location and number of cameras filming his “welcome” event was specified by the government— seven cameras on the wharf, seven cameras in front of Numazu Station, and three cameras on the water— indicating an ongoing desire to control filming con- ditions, including the angles from which the prince regent was seen (38). 16. In the Edo period, Yushima was an impor tant site for bussankai, or academic ex- hibitions where scholars and collectors displayed their specimens. The site was absorbed by the Ministry of Education when the ministry was founded in 1871. The establish- ment of the central state museum can be traced to the ministry’s first exhibition, the Ministry of Education Exposition (Monbushō Hakurankai), at Yushima in 1872. Items from this exposition remained on display for viewing on a limited basis after the exposi- tion had officially closed. In 1900, the museum was renamed the Tokyo Imperial House- hold Museum and came under the control of the Imperial House hold Ministry, where it remained until its transfer during the US Occupation in 1952. As Aso notes in Public Properties, this change of hands from the Ministry of Education to the Imperial House- hold Ministry was accompanied by “a series of structural as well as surface changes that promoted the interests of the imperial family as a distinct entity” and public institution Diane Wei Lewis - 9781684176045 Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 05:02:10AM via free access 216 Notes to Pages 24–27 (73). In fact, she writes, “It would be more precise to say that the national museum sys- tem was honed and repurposed beginning in the late 1880s to serve a diff er ent set of state goals, which required promoting the prestige of the imperial family and its role as public benefactor” (83). These goals clearly drive the state’s incursions into film pro- duction in the early 1920s, when much of this activity involves both the Ministry of Education and the Imperial House hold Ministry and pertains to the prince regent. 17. These films were usually shown together, and their footage may have been com- bined and screened as a single film. For more on these films, see Itakura, “Shigeki Nankō ketsubetsu.” 18. In “ ‘Kōtaishi toōeiga’ to Onoe Matsunosuke,” Kamiya observes that this could also be considered a reenactment of the Matsunosuke film Shigeki Nankō ichidaiki, re- leased by Nikkatsu on June 19, 1921 (45). However, it should be noted that even though Nikkatsu cameramen were dispatched to Tokyo for the Motion Picture Exhibit, Tai- katsu was given sole permission to film this portion of the prince regent’s inspection. See Itakura, “Shigeki Nankō ketsubetsu,” 47. 19. For analy sis of the significance of Hirohito’s copresence with Matsunosuke in this film, see Itakura, “Shigeki Nankō ketsubetsu”; Kamiya, “ ‘Kōtaishi toōeiga’ to Onoe Mat- sunosuke,” 44–46; and Fujiki, Making Personas, 81–86.