The film

The art-house film documents the intense emotions around Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, where Japan's war time dead, including war criminals are enshrined. Visits to the shrine by high-ranking politicians, have long been a sore point with Japan's neighboring countries, who see it as a relict of Japanese war-time aggression. The documentary's narrative, insofar as it can be said to have one, revolves around sword maker Kariya Naoji (90) who has dedicated his life to making "Yasukuni swords" for the shrine.

"Yasukuni" has been screened at Sundance, Pusan and Berlin Film Festivals, and won first prize for documentary at Hong Kong Film Festival.

Trailer: jp.youtube.com/watch
Excerpts: jp.youtube.com/watch
Official Site: www.yasukuni-movie.com/

Threats and Cancellations
Throughout the production, the crew faced threats and interference with their work by right-wing groups and the shrine administration among others. The threats intensified as the Japanese release date approached. Of the mostly small independent movie theaters who had been scheduled to show the film from April, a number cancelled as a result of threatening calls and other intimidation by ultra-nationalist groups. Some cancelled out of consideration for their neighbors, who would likely be disturbed by protest speaker wagons during the screenings. But new cinemas signed up to screen the film which has generated so much interest, bringing it back to just over 20 again.

Politicans 'investigating' and/or 'interfering', Confusing Reporting
The film became a major 'jiken' (media event) earlier this month when a weekly paper claimed an "anti-Japanese" film had received funding from a foundation afiliated with the Ministry of Culture. A group of Diet members, lead by Inada Tomomi, demanded to see the film in a private screening ahead of its release in theaters. The group is the "Tradition and Imagination Section" of the LDP "Young Diet Members Group", which is known to have connections to ultra-nationalist groups, and of which former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo was also a part. (Its members, including Abe were implicated in another controversial case of lawmakers' interference in political documentary. An NHK Education TV program on the Women's International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan's Military Sexual Slavery which found the Showa emperor guilty of war crimes was changed after NHK received threats by right-wing groups and 'advice' from Abe and other politicians.)

Responding to this highly unusual request, the Ministry of Culture contacted the distributor, ARGO Pictures. ARGO first refused, eventually convincing the ministry to hold an open screening for all Diet members. After the screening, Inada said she thought the film violated funding guidelines because it was "not Japanese" and "was not objective."

She then took it upon herself to contact sword-maker Kariya by phone. Afterwards she claimed that he had asked her to tell Li that he wanted the scenes removed.

A flurry of conflicting media reports ensued, including a video by the net paper "Sakura" which showed Kariya reading a statement that he wanted his scenes removed. This came as a surprise to many who had seen the film and found it rather complimentary of him and his work as sword maker. "Sakura" also produced a number of videos bashing the left-leaning daily Asahi Shimbun (a favorite target of right-wing media) for criticizing Inada, claiming "it's the Asahi that's trying to censor her."

Kariya never contacted the producers or distributors directly, according to the ARGO official who attended the symposium. In a recent interview with the magazine "Aera", Kariya said he has no objections. Still, the distributor decided to cancel screenings in Kariya's native Koichi out of consideration for him.

Complaints from Yasukuni

Talking to journalists after the symposium, Yoshikawa said ARGO Pictures also received a complaint from Yasukuni Shrine requesting correction of some small factual errors in the pamphlet and the removal of footage of certain ceremonies. Yoshikawa says ARGO will respond to such requests within reason, as it has no interest in "treating the shrine as an enemy." However, he says they have no intention of complying with every single request they could receive from each person appearing in the film. "If this were to become common practice, no-one could make documentaries anymore." Diet member Inada at one point had also complained that she had not consented to footage of her being used in the film.

Prime Minister Fukuda said recently he "regretted" the cancellations by cinemas if they were in fact due to coercion. He himself has made a point of not visiting the shrine. In contrast, a number of Diet members attended ceremonies this week to honor "those who died for their country."

BAR Association: Condemnation and Concern

The BAR (national lawyer's) association symposium panelists were unanimous in their condemnation of lawmakers' interference (while acknowledging their right to look into matters of public concern) and in their concern for the future of free speech.

Film meets funding guidelines

Panelists pointed out that the Diet members concerns were unfounded and in fact misrepresented the situation. The funding guidelines were by no means violated. First, regarding the charge that it is "not Japanese": The director Li Ying though a Chinese national, is known internationally as working in Japan and on Japanese topics. In fact, director moved to Japan 19 years ago partly because he felt he could work more freely than in his native China and started his own production company here. Second, they guidelines do no not call for 'objectivity', but merely require that the funded work not be political or religious propaganda. It meets this standard easily, being extremely vague in its 'message' using montage and discontinuous editing, and showing different opinions and actions of people around the shrine. One panelist, Takahashi of Tokyo University said he felt uneasy about one passage where the film shows materials from war-time newspapers gloating about the numbers of Chinese killed, which he feels the film presents as 'proof', failing to contextualize them as part of war-time propaganda. However, he also pointed out hat it is very reverent of Kariya and the Shrine in several passages, which makes him uneasy also. "I wondered at points whether this was not perhaps a PR film for Yasukuni" he said jokingly. The fact that both emotions are present shows its ambiguity he noted. The charge that this film is anti-Japanese he called "just plain weird," and the other panelists concurred that it is artistic, designed to provoke debate, just what a good film should do.

Public Funding not tied to 'objectivity'

Takahashi on the more basic question raised by the Diet group and some mass media, "should this kind of film get governmental funding?" The answer must of course be yes. Most research at universities is funded by tax money. If Diet members took it upon themselves to check and pass judgement on each piece of research as to its 'objectivity', surely human rights and academic freedoms would be at an end.

Context of Free Speech Abridgement Cases

Panelists pointed out that this case should not be seen in isolation, but in the context of other recent cases of free speech infringement, such as the NHK ETV program case, the flyer distribution case (in which 3 anti-war activists were arrested, held for over 70 days and later charged a fine for trespassing as they put flyers into a military housing facility's mailboxes), the Prince Hotel case, and others. Especially the ETV program case shows striking parallels to the current case, with pressure coming from the same group of "Young Diet Members" and grassroots ultra-nationalists. The parallel to the flyer distribution lies in the argument that free speech can be abridged if it causes inconvenience for others, said Uchida, another panelist. But opinions that do not cause any trouble for anyone are protected naturally: Nobody would try to suppress them. The fact that freedom of speech is written into the constitution means that inconvenient opinions are to be protected, he said.

Cancellations are self-censorship
That some cinemas canceled out of concern for their neighbors and their own safety is understandable, he added, but it also constitutes a concession of one's right to free speech, and an infringement on other's right to know. This is a slippery slope. "Rights are not given, they have to be fought for and maintained on a daily basis."

The bottom line is that in a democratic society, all kinds of opinions should be heard and widely discussed. If one disagrees, one can argue against it. But suppression of inconvenient opinions is un-democratic. The problem with the lawmakers and the threatening right-wing groups is not that they hold a different opinion, but that they attempt to deny other people the right to form their own, panelists said.

Send Messages of Support to Cinemas

The film will be screened in two cinemas in Tokyo in May, and then go out to other locations, including Osaka, Kyoto and Okinawa. The symposium coordinator Taba encouraged people to send messages of support to cinemas who have decided not to bow to the pressure. There are no plans yet for distribution abroad, but ARGO representative Yoshikawa said to journalists after the symposium that they would gladly consider it "if there is interest."

Related Articles on Indymedia jp
japan.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4373/index.php
japan.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4325/index.php
japan.indymedia.org/mod/otherpress/display/471/index.php
japan.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4333/index.php