Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM " — 1 1 Translations: Prokino --- Essay Rethinking the Emergence of the Proletarian Film League of Japan (Prokino) Makino Mamoru Translated by Abe Mark Nornes Introduction Through the efforts of the Prokino Documentation Group, the Battle Flag Reprint Publication Society published the Showa shoki sayoku eiga zasshi ("Early Showa Left-Wing Film Journals") in six volumes plus an extra edition in November 1981. This reprint was the tenth proletarian culture and art movement journal from the 1920s and 1930s that the Battle Flag Reprint Publication Society undertook since their first effort, Senki ("Battle Flag"). The Prokino Documentation Group, which performed the compilation, was formed during discussions at the Memorial Service for Deceased Prokino Members. In May 1978, this was the first of such meetings since the war for former members of the Proletarian Film League of Japan (Nihon Puroretaria Eiga Domei), or Prokino for short. Their first president was the former chair of Prokino, Iwasaki Akira. Their goal was to summarize Prokino's movement, investigate, research and present film and literature from those days, and support the mutual interchange between members. Basically, the film journal reprint compiled by Prokino members contained the periodicals published by the Prokino movement. More specifically, it records and reprints four journals-Shinko eiga ("Emerging Cinema"), Puroretaria eiga ("Proletarian Film"), Purokino 1 ("Prokino I") and Purokino II-along with a fifth, the newspaper Eiga kurabu ("Film Club"). Because of this questions emerged regarding the accuracy of the title, Early Showa Left-Wing Film Journals, that it should be more precisely The Periodicals of the Proletarian Film — ^ a AR ii I

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM -- 2 ~) y In Praise of Film Studies;R I J~i League of Japan. What became a problem was, as expected, whether this kind of left-wing film journal was accomplished outside of the publishing activities of Prokino itself. Actually, while they are no longer visible today, having been hidden in the shadow of Prokino's activities, there were several periodicals with this kind of tendency, although they were few in number. For example, a journal called Puroretaria eiga ("Proletarian Film") was published before the establishment of Prokino. As one might expect, the role of this journal from the prehistory of Prokino has a deep connection to the movement's own establishment. There were other left-wing film journals from about that time, such as Eiga no eiga ("Film Essence"), Eiga kojo ("Film Factory"), and Eiga kaiho ("Film Liberation"). Furthermore, there were self-published magazines and film theory research journals like Eicho ("The Cinema Current"), Eiga zen'ei ("Film Vanguard"), Eiga zuihitsu ("Film Essays"), Eiga chishiki ("Film Knowledge"), Eiga geijutsu ("Film Art"), and Eiga kagaku kenkyu ("Film Science Research"). One does not have to include all of these, but Puroretaria eiga cannot be ignored. This journal was published by the Proletarian Film Union (Puroretaria Eiga Renmei), an organization formed before the establishment of Prokino. Thus, the title Early Showa Left-Wing Film Journals was probably inviting misunderstanding. However, even if it were thought more accurate to name the reprint The Journals of the Proletarian Film League of Japan, there is actually a problem with this as well. To be precise, among the Prokino journals listed above the latter four are clearly the League's periodicals, but the first one published, Shinko eiga, cannot accurately be considered an official organ of the League. Shinko eiga's premiere issue was published in September 1929, seven months after the February founding of Prokino. Running to June 1930, ten issues were released. However, there were, naturally, many authors buried in its space and the publishers, Nishimura Masami and Tapa Kazuo, were not League members. So strictly speaking it is impossible to define it as an organ of Prokino. The much later Puroretaria eiga was published as a successor to the earlier Shinko eiga, even in volume number. So the two became recognized as a series. Thus positioned as a Prokino publication, it is likely to cause misunderstandings regarding its formation and character. From this perspective, we must settle for Early Showa Left-Wing Film

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM -- -. 3 Translations: Prokino Journals. This matter does not simply end with the naming of the reprint. It raises essential problems with the Japanese film movements and the theoretical work of the 1920s and 1930s. If the conditions of those days had been investigated and researched for their evidentiary qualities for cinema history, this would already be clear. However, the literary materials from those days cannot be easily acquired and inspected in the present conditions we have arrived at, and no one has done the work. At the same time, even from a historical perspective, we must not simply stop with the point of view of the left-wing film movement. Instead, coupling the movement with everything from the misemono to comedies and finally to the artistic qualities of this prosperous period in Japanese film we may deepen our understanding of the multifaceted conditions of that era's cinema. It was hoped that various pre-war film journals would be reprinted, including Kinema junpo, but this has not yet been actualized.' Early Showa Left-Wing Film Journals became the pioneer effort. I am a lone film researcher, neither a member of Prokino nor of the Prokino Documentation Group. However, on the occasion of the reprint's production, I provided original issues, and through this involvement was in charge of the extra volume's commentary and bibliographic essay. In the first draft of that essay, I included a section on the background of the film situation prior to the establishment of Prokino. However, this was, in the end, cut due to limited page space. This year, in January, I had the opportunity to remark on the theme of "Prokino's Prehistory," including the material I was unable to touch on in the reprint commentary, when the Japan Society of Image Arts and Sciences' Film History Research Section (Eizo Gakkai Eigashi Kenkyukai) met at the Audiovisual Seminar Room of Waseda University's Graduate School of Literature and took the theme of Prokino's film movement to coincide with the publication of the reprint. After my own research based on the material I was unable to mention in the reprint, I attempted to make my primary subject the trends of the left-wing film movement before the establishment of Prokino, as well as the transition to the later activities of Prokino and their relevance to and influence on the left-wing of the film world. a IR j:1 it~i r --— Kz

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM V- p 4 4 In Praise of Film Studies Three Issues Regarding the Prehistory of Prokino On 2 February 1929, the Proletarian Film League of Japan (Prokino) started out as part of the All Japan Federation of t Proletarian Arts (Zen Nihon Musansha Geijutsu Kyogikai, or NAPF), J along with literature, painting, and four other arts groups. One can^ not deny the enormous influence it had on the contemporary film A world in the five years before it was destroyed under systematic oppression in 1934. Around that time, some people argued that "it was a special intellectual movement by left-wing film people and had little to do with the fundamentals of cinema. However, this would not be an entirely accurate grasp of Prokino's work" (Hazumi Tsuneo, Eiga gojunenshi ["50 years of Film History"], 1942). Undoubtedly, there was no strongly visible participation of film people involved in production at the film companies and studios, and membership was construed almost entirely of people from unrelated fields. Thus, at first glance it can be seen as an entirely separate existence from the film industry, but this is not so. Rather, they had a deep involvement in the film conditions of the time, and at one point their remarkable activism displayed such passion that they nearly took over the world of film criticism. Prokino's activities themselves can be known first through Fujita Motohiko's Gendai eiga no genten ("Starting Point of Modern Cinema," Kinokuniya Shinsho), as well as Iwasaki Akira's Nihon eiga shishi ("Personal History of Japanese Film") and the writings of Kitagawa Tetsuo. At the same time, various subjective tendencies circulating around the formation of Prokino, as well as connections to other movements, are not well known. In this sense, the real conditions of any number of basic factors that constitute the foundation of Prokino's activities have not been elucidated. By way of an analysis in the form of a prehistory of Prokino, these problems can to some degree be approached, and this may be thought of as useful for corroborative evidence for the activities following their establishment. When we attempt to analyze the issues of the main question with this in mind, they may be summed up in three points: First, in the existing press for film reviews, criticism and theoretical research established by film journalism, the publication of film criticism and foreign film theory was energized by the conspicuous appearance of a new group of intellectuals. Most notably, the avantgarde films and theories of the post-revolutionary Soviet Union were

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM -— 5 5 Translations: Prokino- 5 introduced, and this proletarian art theory had a deep connection to the promotion of social consciousness raising. Second, we can point to the sudden popularization of narrow a gauge film (9.5mm and 16mm) about this time, and its intimate relationship to the new generation forming the amateur film world. Third, there is the connection to labor movements. In the midst of a this prosperous period for the labor movement, the film world also * generated disputes over improving labor conditions and workers' rights. Specifically, the employees at theaters and workers at the studios inherited the old customs of the Japanese entertainment industry and the unilateral bad conditions under the managerial capitalists and producers, who based treatment on feudal human relationships. Furthermore, this situation coincided with a revolutionary period in projection modes, thanks to the rise of the power of the talkie and the end of the silent film. This provoked a situation of unemployment for the film musicians, known as jinta, and the benshi, or film narrators called katsuben. Coupled with their struggles against dismissal, the labor movement in the film world became intense. Against this backdrop, the kind of relationship Prokino had to the film world's labor movement has not been made clear. Substantiating those relationships is fairly difficult. Making the three points above our main concern, we will ask what kinds of trends appeared before the founding of Prokino. And within this, what kind of relationships were developed to Prokino? Further, what roles did the individual activities recognized here play in the formation of Prokino? And within Prokino's activities, which mounted the track of a organized movement, and what kinds of issues and contradictions emerged? If we move just a little closer to the facts, we will provisionally propose problems concerning this topic and pave the way for future research. On Sasa's Essay and the Formation of Prokino Sasa Genju (Sasaki Takanari) performed an important role in the main tide leading to the formation of Prokino. At the time, Sasa Genju was a student in the French Literature Department of Tokyo University, and belonged to the Proletarian Theater troupe of the Proletarian Art Federation of Japan (Nihon Puroletaria Geijutsu Renmei, or Progei), which had been undertaking left-wing theater activism. This theater troupe's specialization was going straight to the factories, making use of the break times, and performing dramat-.

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM ^ — 6 ( 6 6 In Praise of Film Studies Pt *x I ic sketches and chanting with the intent of provoking political agitation. They were named Trunk Theater (Toranku Gekijo) because they could pack up a trunk and go anywhere, performing theater with this kind of content wherever they went. They created enormous excitement in Japan's theatrical world by overcoming the framework of shingeki, which took as its object the intelligentsia class of the day. Participating in this movement, Sasa Genju published his translation of Henri Barbusse's short works in Progei's periodical ("Naki jogo no Jan, warahi jogo no Jan," Puroretaria geijutsu, April 1928). In the midst of these activities with Trunk Theater, Sasa wondered if he couldn't start the same kind of movement, making cinema a weapon, and he established a film unit within the Proletarian Theater. Of course, it was an organization consisting of only Sasa himself. Taking the viewpoint of the small gauge cinema, which had started to become popular in those days, he shot the 8th Tokyo May Day in 1928 using a hand-wound small gauge camera (the French 9.5mm Path6 Baby). With this film as a beginning, he produced Teidai nyusu ('Tokyo University News," 16mm), Sutoraiku ("Strike," 16mm), Gaito ("On the Street," 16mm) and later 1928 Noda sogi ("The Noda Strike," 9.5mm). Today, we would call these documentary shorts or newsreels, but they were works entirely photographed and edited by Sasa Genju as a one-man crew. Through this kind of experience, Sasa Genju reached a single conclusion. Put simply, liberate the camera from the artificial dream factory of the studio and take it to the streets. Make the most of cinema as a weapon of struggle. To that end, Sasa pointed out the usefulness of the handy small gauge cinema. Using this motif, Sasa Genju published an article in NAPF's first official journal entitled, "Camera -- Toy/Weapon" (Senki, June 1928). This essay holds historical value for the role it played as the infant's first cries at Prokino's birth. The content of this essay is structured in three parts starting with "The Role and Actuality of Cineastes," followed by "Concerning Film Actions Once Again," and 'The Camera and 'Entering Daily Lives.'" In the last section, he wraps up by introducing the films he had already completed, Noda sogi, Teidai nyusu and Gaito, and appealing for money for the movement. Even though it is called an essay, upon a thorough read-through it appears to be different from theoretical approaches such as organizational and social movement writings. The text impressively expresses a poetic way of thinking and may feel a little bewildering.

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM —. 7 ( Translations: Prokino However, as an advancement of problems, he covers the essential parts clearly. In the first section, 'The Role and Reality of Cineastes," he criticized film critics (who he calls cineastes) as poisoned by industrialism, along with newly appearing, pedantic aesthetes and avantgardists indulging in ideological games. He evaluates the "new advance" of "class cineastes who make movies the vanguard of tomorrow's art movement." However, asking what exactly these class cineastes are fighting against, Sasa proposes the following kind of problematic. Actually, we have heard any number of correct critiques and theories from these so-called cindastes. However, what I find very regrettable is that among them are people who are persistently academic, they are such cineastes. It is an abstract vicious circle - it will be nothing but "thought for thought's sake." After all, their critique never leaves its own sphere following left-wing thought. They are drafters of "waste paper" and "nonsense" in their own camp. You true critics of class! Your pens must be razor sharp weapons from end to end. Without this struggle, you who simply, uselessly, list up pretty "leftwing" words, you are nothing but despicable clowns who feed on the proletariat. You are nothing but big, ugly traitors. Above and beyond his criticism of the established film critics, why this vigorous attack on "class cineastes"? We must take notice of the brilliant appearance of critics in the film world who pitched left-wing arguments in the trends of those times. These critics also introduced the pioneering films and theories of a number of foreign countries, starting with Soviet Russia and Germany's Weimar Republic, and lent assistance to the tendency films produced by the domestic studios. It is not difficult to imagine that this kind of enlightenment activity seemed to align with the latest trends. At the same time, a number of things became visible under these conditions: the attempt to make art/culture a weapon for real art/culture social reform and revolution for farmers and workers in the midst of ideological oppositions within the proletarian culture movement, as well as the germination of a practical movement toward that end. Since I will touch on the concrete content of this below, suffice to say that against this background Sasa's essay vigorously criticized leftist, academic film critics through the practi a IR im /

Page  [unnumbered] Purokinorevised 1/18/01 9:34 AM 1 ^- - 8 {8 In Praise of Film Studies cal activism of the Trunk Theater. Then, in "Concerning Film Actions Once Again," he analyzes important movements within these film conditions. According to this section, he points out that there had m already been organized movement in this period preceding the fory mation of Prokino. I listed two or three present plans limited to the film actions from above, namely, participation in the Association for the Promotion of Reform of the Censorship System (Ken'etsu Seido Kaisei Kisei Domei), the popularization of proletarian film criticism, the formation of the Film Narrators Federation (Eiga Setsumeisha Renmei), and the establishment of the Film Research Institute (Eiga Kenkyujo). By the way, we must now add two or three more to our imminent delight. There is the foundation of the Film Workers Union (Eiga Jugyoin Kumiai), the Proletarian Film Federation of Japan's (Nihon Puroretaria Eiga Renmei) publication of an official journal, and the establishment of the Left-Wing Theater Film Unit (Sayoku Gekijo Eigabu). As for the pre-Prokino left-wing activities that have been raised here, the one that was truly an organization was the Association for the Promotion of Reform of the Censorship System. A key to understanding this movement is a 30 October 1929 pamphlet entitled, "Critique of the Censorship System." This pamphlet was put out by Asahi Newspaper Company, and is the Asahi Public Lecture No. 13. According to the "Preface," it collects the stenographic records of a symposium on the censorship problem held at Asahi Hall on 27 January 1929. According to the table of contents it covered: - Newspaper censorship problem: Sekiguchi Yasushi (Tokyo Asahi editorialist) - Nowhere to Complain: Yamamoto Yuzo (author) - On the Censorship of Theater: Takada Tamotsu (author) - The Censorship of Theater and Film: Murayama Tomoyoshi (director) - The Censorship System as Local Politics: Oya Soichi (critic) Then, it records the regulations concerning censorship as an appendix. Among these articles, Murayama covers the cinema. However, Murayama spends his time chiefly on the problem of theater and doesn't give a very penetrating discussion about film. At the same time, even the little content he does touch on, as precious priI I

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM ' —9 ( 9 Translations: Prokinomary material, presents a handhold for our present day research, so I want to excerpt and introduce it here. I am under orders to talk about film censorship, but since I have almost no experience regarding the censorship of cinema, I want to switch to theater along the way. In actuality, there is nothing significant to talk about film in comparison to the theater. This is because, presently, of the films being produced in Japan there is nothing outside of the industry of capitalists. We have the burning desire to make film, this most effective of propaganda methods, our own. Unfortunately, we have reached that point. In the present situation, film is monopolized by capitalists. Since the greatest aim of the capitalists is to sell product, there is no need to create things that needlessly get caught up in censorship. At the same time, we have entered an era when you will not make money if you do not make a few dangerous things. Even if one takes a bit of a loss because of censorship, that kind of loss is too small to talk about. Therefore, it is not a matter of bravery and the necessity of opposing the government, the home of the censors. Furthermore, this film, the kind one really wants to pass censorship, is unlikely to emerge from the companies of capitalists. Recently, a few films with a certain tendency have appeared, but this is also a matter of degree (but even these only go so far). Our only hope is the so-called small gauge film movement. When the small gauge film movement happening on our side progresses further, a full frontal attack on the censorship system will occur with it. There is a lot of raw material that will appeal to all of you. But in the present situation we are still just an instant away. There was no need at all for the censorship of small gauge films at the beginning. However, exactly like puppet theater, those from our side are particularly compelled to undergo censorship, and even with things like toys, such as the Pathd Baby, it has become very sensitive (they are extremely nervous). If a film is projected before censorship at a place with more than two people, fines are immediately imposed. Among our comrades there have been those fined for this, and there have even been those detained. However, compared to theater and publishing, there is hardly a fight. What is really unfortunate is the fact that not a single film from the world's only true cinema, that of Soviet Russia, can be viewed by us under any circumstances. In terms of the censorship of the cinema, we must seek to abolish the censorship of small gauge films, abolish the censorship by customs, and seek the... a

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM --- 10. oI — n Praise of Film Studies participation of public representatives in the censorship apparatus. At this point, I will turn to the theater. This symposium was held roughly a year after the publication of * Sasa's article. Since Prokino was formed in February of that year, we can see the kind of advancement in his touching on the small gauge; film problem. However, the conditions under which this lecture was given can be understood as the general situation. He suggests the slowness in the rising of the cinema as compared to other fields, and the factors underlying that. In the introduction of this speech, Murayama Tomoyoshi also states that the activities of the Association for the Promotion of Reform of the Censorship System "Continues until now to cry against the tyranny of the censorship system under a variety of conditions and in a variety of places. At long last, through the support of these kinds of major newspapers, at this kind of place, it has become possible to raise a cry against the censorship system. For this I am thrilled." While Murayama wrote this kind of climax, for the most part each speaker styled his own argument against censorship, and the staging of this kind of symposium was probably a form of continuing the appeal. Participating in these movements, cinema gradually acquired a space for speech. Now, within this contemporary situation the subsequent pages of Sasa's essay discuss the strong relevance of certain activities or, as Sasa puts it, The two or three actualities that should delight us. Naturally, the film worker's union is something that should be created. Even now, we are to a great extent under feudal institutions bequeathed from the past. In other words, it is important that workers under the pressure of a contract labor system, an oyabun kanbun system, acquire their own unification against that economic opposition, so "for our nation's film world" is very meaningful. The formation and development of this is actually the most difficult thing. We must endeavor to support this directly and indirectly at the proper time. The Film Narrator's Federation has grown steadily, but now is in the midst of a deep current. Through the self-negation of both Eiga kaiho and Eiga kojo, the Proletarian Film Federation of Japan has become highly developed. We stubbornly look forward to its correct growth. I X

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM, —1 11. Translations: Prokino The Left-Wing Theater Film Unit should soon become independent under the Tokyo branch of NAPF. Call for the spread of a united front with other so-called class film groups, and continue to actualize c the present "bringing into the daily lives" (nishijoteki mochikomi). gR Beyond this, we are fighting all possible film actions. We will continue to ask for all of your strong support. After analyzing the current conditions in this manner, Sasa makes an epochal proposal with the "Bringing into daily lives" activism tackled by the Left-Wing Theater Film Unit. I will talk about this later. The important point here is the evaluation of the Proletarian Film Federation of Japan. Furthermore, I want to discuss the birth of the Film Workers Union in relation to the film workers movement in the last section, the last of my three pillars. The Establishment of the Proletarian Film Federation of Japan and the Trends Underlying It Please pardon the complexity of quoting texts in a dispersed form, along the lines of the argumentative style and content of Sasa's essay, rather than neatly summing up his article. The difference between the Proletarian Film Federation of Japan that Sasa was talking about and the Proletarian Film League of Japan (Prokino) is a single Chinese character (Renmei vs. Domei). Therefore, unless we clearly establish their positions, the activist members, and the periods of their establishment, it will be easy to foster misunderstandings. Above and beyond this, if we suggest that the meaning and role achieved by the Federation's system had a complicated influence on the problems occurring within the activities of Prokino, then we cannot ignore the prehistory of Prokino. The Proletarian Film Federation of Japan was formed in June 1928, a year before the establishment of Prokino. The Federation, taking the stage with its slogan "Under the Flag of a Left-Wing Film Front," was formed subjectively out of two groups. The first were the members who used the leftist film journal Eiga no eiga as a stage. Collaborators like Nitta Toru, Natsuki Sanshiro, Kawashige Kino, Asai Tokuo, Kishi Matsuo, and Shinoki Keihachi, produced a special issue on Chaplin and then another on American film for their second issue in January of the following year. While we can call them leftist, they showed strong tendencies towards a vanity press style magazine on film art. -^ I

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM, --- 12 ~r 1. - In Praise of Film Studies j~~ Nit A In the first issue, there was Murayama Hisao's translation of an essay by Samuel Goldwyn, followed by translations by Okada Shinkichi and Natsuki Sanshiro, along with Kataki uchibayari ("Raid of Vengeance"), a scenario by Kisaragi Bin. Outside of the regular members, there were contributions by Koyama Mitsugu, Hazumi Tsuneo, Izumi Kyotei, and others. The editor and publisher is listed as Aji Shuichiro, but this was the real name of Kishi Matsuo, who played a central role in this group. Incidentally, after Eiga no eiga produced its second issue, it was renamed Eiga kaiho (Eiga kaiho - [Eiga no eiga: kai dai kakushingo], February/March 1928) and the cover art was completely revised. In the opening essay entitled, "Toward a Liberation of Cinema," they advocated a plan to establish the Proletarian Film Federation of Japan. We can presume this anonymously written essay was drafted by Kishi Matsuo in his leadership role. 1928-Through the organization of our members we plan the establishment of the "All-Japan Proletarian Film Federation" (see enclosure). We execute a special duty to establish a true proletarian film art, and liberate the proletarian masses who continue to be exploited by bourgeois cinema, while merging with the all-proletarian art movement. Furthermore, we will do this; we must do this. Our journal, Eiga no eiga, was one opportunity for activism to this end, and through the radicalization of petit bourgeois elements, we changed the name to Eiga kaiho. Both in name and in reality, we declare here that we will not disgrace our mission as a militant film journal of the proletariat. The enclosure about the formation, "On the Plan to Establish the Proletarian Film Federation of Japan," was at the end of this issue. After commenting on the tyrannical pressure of and struggle against the Tanaka military cabinet's film censorship, it offers the following plan: Here we leftist cineastes organized. Where? Under the roof of the "Proletarian Film Federation of Japan." What do we plan to accomplish through this federation? 1) The liberation of the masses suffering exploitation through today's cinema, which is an exploitative apparatus of the bourgeoisie, and every possible struggle for the fight towards a left-wing front. 2) The establishment of a left-wing film front (to that end, we oppose.X

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM, --- 13 Translations: Prokino all the middle of the road, compromising left-wing film camps). Concerning the repercussions of this course of affairs, it continues, Even we are surprised at the extreme expectations and vocal support R since reporting our plan to form the Proletarian Film Federation of Japan. Finally, the like-minded members of the group publishing the o scenario magazine Eiga kojo expressed their approval of this plan and provided their ready consent to participate. On this occasion, we will not announce their names, but two or three of our country's most prominent young film critics have promised to work actively with us. When you think about it, we should call this a sign of our good fortune and future prospects. We are presently drafting the declaration of a general plan, so in the next issue of this magazine we should be able to report in detail. In this issue, Kishi Matsuo publishes an essay entitled, "An Introduction to Proletarian Film Criticism," and the plan it explains can be regarded as the main theoretical pillar of the movement. Its subtitle is "Preceding a Sense of Consciousness Theory of Film Art," and is structured as follows: Introduction; 1: From Where Does Chaos Originate?; 2: The Emergence of the "Fifth" Class; 3: Naturally Occurring Cinema; 4: Izumi Kyotei's Will to Purpose Theory. Summarizing these points of argument, what exactly a "proletarian cinema" constitutes becomes problematized. Kishi ends up asking where film criticism should set standards for films with this kind of tendency. How should they think about the standards of evaluation? This means assuming a role determining the influence leftist proclamations would have in the world of film criticism. In this issue, outside of the aforementioned line-up, we can see the names of Takeda Chuya, Nogawa Shigeru, Fukuro Ippei, Ishimaki Yoshio, as well as Tani Noriichi and Gunji Jiro for scenarios. Incidentally, the group called Eiga kojo, which was mentioned in the Federation's establishment plan, existed as one more current. This magazine was called a scenario research journal, and was first issued in December 1927. Contributors included Takahashi Kunitaro and Uchida Kimio, and group members were Hashiba Sadayori, Hayashi Susumu, Hayashi Iwao, Kanbara Shu, Yoshioka Toshisaburo, Takahashi Nobuo, Arita Sumao, Sasaki Keizo, Kimura Seishiro, Morizaki Hideo, Mori Katsumi, and Suzuki Takeo. In the preface, Kimura Seishiro wrote, of

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM —. 14 ) 14In Praise of Film Studies The scenario is also a weapon. We must take all our arms - with the struggle of theory, with reviewing, with criticism - and start a bold struggle against the established film world, the bourgeois film world, for the recovery of our cinema, for the production of our cinema. Now the order for general mobilization has finally been issued. The scenario is also a weapon. The pages of the magazine were filled with seven scenarios. Outside of these members, there were the names of Fukumori Ei'ichi and Shiba Tetsuo. While they were called scenarios, they were actually short works of experimental film form known in those days as cine-poems (eigashi), with themes such as strikes, soldiers and the death of ship workers. In the beginning of the second issue there was a declaration. It is lengthy, but can be summed up as the proposal for a proletarian film art movement. At the end of the declaration, under a different heading, was the following postscript explaining recent developments: By chance, after finishing this declaration, there was a call for a proletarian film art federation by Mr. Kishi. Its motives, duties and actions are, indeed, one and the same as our demands and intentions. A much larger proletarian film art movement is our earnest demand at the present stage. Here we joined this federation wholeheartedly. By joining I do not mean we participated in a federation which formed with no relation to us, or that we are fighting a cooperative front. It means the establishment of a proletarian film art federation for which we are the subject, along with Kishi, Harada and others. Of course, this federation must publish one official journal. Nevertheless, outside of a journal, the continuation of Kishi's Eiga kaiho or our Eiga kojo must naturally be rejected on both practical and theoretical grounds. Thus, this second issue will bring the publication of Eiga kojo to a close, and next month we will unite with Eiga kaiho with the decision to continue our activities anew under the journal name Puroretaria eiga ("Proletarian Film") as the official journal of the Federation. Therefore, in June of that year, the Proletarian Film Federation of Japan was borne out of these two groups as the parent bodies, and they started publishing the journal Puroretaria eiga. According to the general plan published in its forward,

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM ^' —. 15 ( Translations: Prokino 15 In order to accomplish the true fighting proletarian film movement as one wing of the all-proletarian liberation movement, the general plan of action setting the standards of our Proletarian Film Federation of Japan, organized here under the flag of left-wing militant Marxism, is as follows: * Thoroughly critique, denounce, and subjugate the entirety of bourgeois, lower-middle class, or "pseudo-proletarian" films and criticism; * The establishment of proletarian film art theory, as well as the release of films; * Struggle against the despotic, tyrannical pressure cinema contributes to, as well as collaboratively battle against the same kind of tyrannical pressure in other kinds of art; * Full participation in anti-imperial movements and other so-called proletarian movements; * Work for the national and global unification of the proletarian film front. -The Proletarian Film Federation of Japan. El AR As for the Federation's organization, pursuant to the rules the highest decision making body was the general assembly, which was held once a month by a call from the central committee. Their structure was A) Executive Committee, B) Accounting Committee, and C) Editorial Committee, and for each committee a single chair and a secretary were selected by mutual election. Furthermore, a central committee was created to control all the other committees. The Central Committee was organized out of the Central Committee chair, the Central Committee secretary, and the chairs and secretaries of each committee. The Central Committee chair was selected through mutual election by the entire Federation membership, and the Central Committee secretary was selected by the Central Committee chair. A Kansai Branch (later Kobe Branch), Kanazawa Branch, Mito Branch, and other regional branch organizations were established, and gradually it took the shape of a movement. However, the goals of that movement were the publication of the journal, participation in the Association for the Promotion of Reform of the Censorship System, the opening of reading groups (research groups), and cooperation in organizing film industry employees. It also determined to maintain a loose collaboration with Sasa Genju's Film Unit in NAPF. Meanwhile, according to a long declaration released in the newly.X

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM,~ — 6 16, I- n Praise of Film Studies combined journal,,/;A... the goal of the struggle we are facing should first be placed primarily at the intelligentsia of the film world and the general, property-less masses. Such a struggle is necessarily a distance we must cover for the actual realization of a proletarian cinema. In that case, with what methods, with what weapons, should we execute such a struggle? In the general object of the struggle, what we should apply before everything else is probably film theory and the scenario itself. Recently, we have seen the appearance of proletarian film theories and scenarios with proletarian tendencies, although they have been extremely few in individual numbers. However, these are individual efforts in the end and do not make a movement. Therefore, their effectiveness was also feeble. In order to produce a larger effort we must combine these individual things in the same front, form one movement, and open an all-out, concrete struggle. Thus, only in this way will our film movement, occurring at the historical stage of class struggle, have significance, deepen, strengthen, and effect the brave accomplishment of the class mission put on our shoulders (written by "Ono" and "Oka"). In other words, through this declaration, we can clearly see that it was an organization whose principle became the struggle against bourgeois ideology through the creative activities of film theory and scenario writing. Next, the foreword of the second issue of Puroretaria eiga published in July contained the following kind of fierce agitation: All you masses of readers and film magazines across Japan! We, the Proletarian Film Federation, advance a proposal. With the opportunity of the publication of the July Eiga hyoron special issue on the research into hard critique of the film censorship system, let us give rise to the combined struggle of the nation's film magazines! Open anti-censorship seminars and petition days! Make July our anti-film censorship system month! Allow me to repeat. You masses of readers and film magazines across Japan, absolutely oppose the suppression of publications! Destroy the film censorship system! There is no inoculation against rabid dogs other than the power of the masses! Their intent was to offer a bold battle of words calling for freedom of Ah

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM 9 — 17 ( Translations: Prokino --- speech and the abolition of censorship. The third issue of Puroretaria eiga was published as an August/September double issue on August 8 of the same year. In issue No. 1, they had a round table on the magazine Eigai jidai ("Film Era"). In No. 3, as a critical discussion of "so-called 'non-partisan' magazines," they raised the examples of Eiga orai ("Film Roundabout"), Eiga hyoron, and Eiga zuihitsu, making these journals' cliquish character, bourgeois aesthetics, and industrialist tendencies the butt of their attack. In No. 3, Fukuro Ippei's "Record of the AllRussia Communist Party Cinema Congress" was published, and in addition the dojin,2 Takeda Chuya, Oka Hideo, Takida Izuru, and Iwasaki wrote essays. It has the tenor of a lively discussion of leftwing film critics having a conversation all under one roof. However, there is a remark in the foreword of the third issue which should be noted. The introduction of this foreword contains self-criticism concerning the weakness of their connections to the subjective organization of the all-proletarian art movement: We have discovered this defect in the experience of our daily struggle. And we must make every effort towards its subjugation. Thus, several theoretical debates have come to pile up - the support of the All Japan Federation of Proletarian Arts (NAPF) as a subjective group of an all-proletarian art movement; or whether NAPF's Left-Wing Theater Film Unit should go independent as a movement, bringing out the problem of uniting our Federation with them; the combined roundtable discussion among both organizations; and the joint promotion committee and repeated negotiations by committee members. Now for the time being, the most urgent, magnet-like problem demanding cautious discussion is that of the unification problem of NAPF's Film Unit and our Proletarian Film Federation of Japan, along with the strong development of a proletarian film movement. And to this end, both our organizations must toss away our separate interests and feelings and hasten towards a solution from a class position only. Presently, this is where we are heading. Amidst the period's powerful surge and each organization's activist developments, the tendency towards unification suddenly accelerated. Problem Points in the Subjective Trends in Prokino's Prehistory IR a * El dt

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM 4"-) 18 X 8 I ---- n Praise of Film Studies and the Process of Unification a Im A Now I would like to simply touch on and follow the historical process of the connections between film and the proletarian arts movement, as seen in extreme close-up in the previous section. The inaugural issue of Tane maku hito ("The Sowers") in October 1921 was the germination of the proletarian art movement in Japan. This magazine was ruined by the Great Kanto Earthquake, and the same dojin's hands brought it out anew with the inaugural issue of Bungei sensen ("Literary Battlefront," 1924). The foundation for this organization of dojin was the birth of the Japan Proletarian Literary Arts League (Nihon Proletarian Bungei Renmei, or Proren) as a national organization for Japan's first proletarian art movement in 1925. Then in November 1926, at their second congress, Proren changed its name to the Proletarian Art Federation (Puroretaria Geijutsu Renmei, or Progei). The Society for the Study of Marxist Art (Marukusushugi Geijutsu Kenkyukai) of the Tokyo branch of the New Man Society (Shinjinkai) folded, and all its members participated in Progei. This formed the foundation for a culture and art movement based on Marxism, however, they fell into a situation of multiple breakups: in 1927 Progei and the Worker-Farmer Artists League (Rono Geijutsuka Renmei, or Rogei) split on the basis of theoretical differences, and then in November Rogei and the Japan Proletarian Arts League (Zen'ei Geijutsuka Renmei, or Zengei) split once again. After that June's breakup, the remaining members of Progei published the inaugural issue of the magazine Puroretaria geijutsu ("Proletarian Art"), along with the organization of the theatrical troupe Proletarian Theater. This was the Trunk Theater, and it was here that Sasa Genju formed his Film Unit. About this time Iwasaki Akira met Sasa Genju. That occasion was in the summer of 1927 with Sasa visiting Iwasaki, who was living next to the big Buddha in Kamakura's Hase area. At that time Iwasaki was publishing a running series of articles on "Eiga Geijutsushi" ("The History of Film Art") in a magazine called Shinseinen ("New Youth," which was published by the museum in Kamakura). Sasa, who sympathized with this essay, visited Iwasaki intent on welcoming him as a comrade. Iwasaki was born in Kyobashi, Tokyo in 1903, the same year as Sasa. After high school, he graduated from Tokyo Imperial University in the German Literature Department in 1926. He worked at Taguchi Trading Company, which imported German films. However, enjoying the favor of film critic Mori Iwao, r --— K_

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM, —S9 19 Translations: Prokino 19 Iwasaki became one of the dojin for Kinema junpo, and had a hand in the editing of Eiga orai. On the side, he wrote film reviews and introductions to (mostly German) foreign films and film theory under the penname Iwasaki Akira (using different Chinese characters), garnering attention as a promising new talent. He shortly returned to his real name, Iwasaki Akira, and the "Eiga Geijutsushi" series in Shinseinen was published in book form by Geibunshoin in February 1930 under his real name. This was the first work that led to his innumerable other books. It was this encounter between Sasa and Iwasaki that would be the soil from which Prokino would be raised. With the crackdown of the March 15 Incident, Progei and Zengei quickly proceeded with an organizational merger, forming the All Japan Federation of Proletarian Arts (NAPF) in March 1928, and publishing the inaugural issue of Senki. Taking advantage of this, the Proletarian Theater merged with Zengei's sub-group the Vanguard Theater (Zen'ei Gekijo) and created the Left-Wing Theater. There, Sasa's one-man Proletarian Theater Film Unit also changed its name to the Left-Wing Theater Film Unit, and it was this Film Unit which Iwasaki Akira and Nakajima Shin joined. Nakajima Shin was born in Nihonbashi, Tokyo in 1907. While studying at Waseda University, he joined Tsuboi Shigeji and Miyoshi Juro's Left-Wing Art League (Sayoku Geijutsu Domei), which merged with NAPF upon its formation. By way of this participation in NAPF, Nakajima came to know Sasa Genju. As this career profile suggests, Nakajima indulged in poetry composition before becoming involved with Prokino. He participated in the dojinshi Shishin ("God of Poetry"), where he published left-leaning poems like "Let's Put Red Stars on Our Hats" (November 1928) and "Now, We're Waiting" (April 1928). Also, in the 1925 inaugural issue of the film research dojinshi Eicho, one may find the names of a number of people who would later become Prokino members, such as Nakajima Shin, Sasa Genju, Kobayashi Masaru, Hata Ippei, Fujigake Ichiro, Hozumi Juntaro, Kishi Matsuo, Kisaragi Bin, and others. It may be inferred that the organization of Prokino was proceeding through collaboration at this kind of site. In this way, the film section under the umbrella of the Left-Wing Theater went independent as the NAPF film section in July 1928. Three months later in October, Kishi Matsuo's Proletarian Film Federation of Japan was dismantled, combined with this film section, and here the left-wing film movement was born as a single JR a1 r

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM - 2-S$ 20 In Praise of Film Studies / 31 organization. From the end of that year through February 1929, NAPF was reorganized under the same initials, but a new name (Zen Nihon Musansha Geijutsu Dantai Kyogikai) and finally the Proletarian Film League of Japan (Prokino) was established as an independent organization. On the foundation of this kind of organizational process, they attempted to form a massive unity. However, the evaluation and criticism of the former Federation did not completely allow for internal accord. This would have various kinds of impact on their activism after the establishment of Prokino. Kamimura Shukichi was well-known in the activities of those days for his "Nihon puroretaria eiga hattatsushi" ("History of the Development of Japanese Proletarian Film") in Puroretaria eiga no chishiki ("Proletarian Film Knowledge," Naigaisha, January 1932), which summarizes the history of Prokino. He wrote, The year of the dawn of Japan's proletarian film movement was 1927. This year, before March 15, was the period when our proletariat finally advanced with the fairly substantial power of their total economic and political struggle-after correcting their many practical and theoretical mistakes of the past... The birth of the proletarian film movement amidst these kinds of conditions must be called extremely meaningful. In the first half of 1927, a Film Unit was initially created in the Proletarian Theater, which belonged to the Proletarian Art Federation. Then in May, the Proletarian Theater's Film Unit photographed the May Day parade with a 9.5mm camera (a small amateur camera called the Pathd Baby, which was in those days nothing but a toy of the bourgeoisie). We must make special mention of this film (photographed by Sasa Genju) as the first practical effort in the proletarian film movement's future work-"Film Production/Exhibition"-even if the film itself was poor. Finally, in those days, groups paid lip service to the call for a proletarian film movement in two or three petit bourgeois film magazines of the intelligentsia. They constantly raised a white flag to capital and the highspeed, mechanical nature of cinema's specificity. They critiqued bourgeois cinema from their desks, and went on and on about the essence of proletarian cinema as arm chair critics. In comparison, while there was much hardship, we may question how this advanced a correct starting point. In particular, they gave up all hope for "proletarian film" production and exhibition in the face of the severe censorship ff

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM ^' — 21 Translations: Prokinosystem of those days. This betrays their total ignorance of the way this censorship system dominates through power relations between the classes, and at the same time seems to evidence their non-proletarian, petit-bourgeois existence.... However, what we must not forget is that the foundation for the emergence of the proletarian film movement was the persistent advance of those day's proletariat, as well as the movement of the Proletarian Theater's Film Unit as a wing of the r _'.:;r- proletarian art movement, with its tight ties with that advance. Why, one might ask, must we constantly harp on such rudimentary points? It is because one or two writers (for example, Kishi Matsuo in "Puroretaria eiga undo no jissai" ('The Reality of the Proletarian Film Movement") mistakenly view the emergence of our nation's proletarian film movement as the previously mentioned petit bourgeois groups and their magazines-to be specific, the scenario journal Eiga kojo and the film criticism journal Eiga kaiho. Why is this a mistaken point of view? It is because these magazine groups do not make the proletariat their foundation, a position in diametrical opposition to the Film Unit. Continuing, Kamimura critiqued the Federation's declarations in line with their general plan as decidedly petit bourgeois, opportunistic, and defeatist. He argued that the Proletarian Theater's Film Unit followed a sincere path while forcefully struggling against this kind of fraudulent petit bourgeois existence. When we look at this single proletarian film movement group, we find two currents of a differing nature united, yet they were not completely reconciled. With this in mind, the issue of the publication of Shinko eiga as what should be called a quasi-official organ accompanying the establishment of Prokino, the issue of the historical change of course occurring at the following year's 2nd Congress, or the issues accompanying the short birth and collapse of the Film Critics Society (Eiga Hihyo Kyokai) under Prokino's direction-These may have a strong link to the internal, oppositional tendencies coming from the gap between the former Domei and the former Renmei. On the Filmmaking Activities Using Amateur Film as a Weapon Today, when we evaluate Prokino and the historic meaning held by the 2nd Congress, the use of small gauge film for the establishment of an independent production system was decisive, what should be called a Copernican Revolution in terms of policy. I would like to: X IR a El

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM, --- 22 r.. In Praise of Film Studies * A touch on this relationship to amateur film as a second theme. Where and how were Prokino and amateur film linked? In particular, from what point of view did they make practical use of this thing which had been called a toy of the bourgeoisie? Further issues include the manner in which they learned how to operate the equipment to start shooting with amateur cameras, as well as their technical knowledge. In the November 1928 issue of Bebii shinema ("Baby Cinema"), a specialized magazine for small gauge film, Mori Iwao wrote an essay entitled, "Kogata eiga" ("Small Gauge Film"). Among some proletarian film movement activists, I hear there are those making small gauge films for their own self-satisfaction. Their usual argument is simply majestic, but what they actually do is a little too cute. There is a sense of the comedy film genre's "comedy of contrasts." However, at any rate, they shot films like May Day Parade with small gauge film, and several people's Toshi ("Fighter") was shown around. But when you picture the scene where they are somehow immersed in self-intoxicated emotion, I feel a delightful smile, as when reading the first page of a romantic, revolutionary novel. This teasing is so like the liberalist Mori Iwao, but this also gives the impression of a friendly tone. However, unlike Mori Iwao the film world as a whole was critical of the use of small gauge film and there were far more examples of negative opinions. For example, there is the leader of the Japanese film world, a particular presence in the pioneering of film technique, Kaeriyama Norimasa. The relationship of proletarian film and 16mm is constantly debated, but those prone to such arguments stop at 16mm's external appearance, and because they do not master that fact it is possible they miss the point. When those debaters consider the use of 16mm film they must be thinking about the projection effect problem, and not production or photography. Sixteen millimeter projection. This is an extremely interesting problem for the future, with many places for proletarian groups to profit. However, at the present time the 16mm camera has little practical value, outside of being a hobby for the bourgeoisie. This is to say nothing of its value for a film movement. Even with 35mm we are thinking that it is too small for people, so how can anyone accomplish satisfactory photography with small

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM ', --- 23 Translations: Prokino ( 23 gauge, film that must be handled by human hands?... The narrowminded ideas about 16mm cameras in the work of the proletarian groups' activists is a big mistake. They are giving significant thought only to the projection problem. #R ("Juroku miri eiga no chishiki ni tsuite-tsuki: puro eigajin no tame ni" ["On 16mm Film Knowledge-Attachment: For Proletarian a Filmmakers"], Eiga orai, May 1929). 4 When this kind of undervaluation of small gauge film was generally accepted, why did Sasa Genju turn his attention to the use of small gauge film? In the earlier essay by Sasa ("CameraToy/Weapon"), he proposes his main point-"bringing the camera into daily lives"-in the following manner: As explained above [note: the tendencies of film employee unions, the Proletarian Film Federation raised by film actions in the preceding section] there are various aspects of film actions in our nation's present stage, but these are generally not adequately acknowledged outside of class film criticism. It is nascent and rudimentary. Our Left-Wing Theater Film Unit is presently a continuing attempt at a nascent plan. It is the W..,.kr, f1 style entry into daily lives of photography through amateur cameras. Examples of the amateur camera are the Filmo, Cine-Kodak, and the Pathd Baby. The snide smiles about amateur cameras evidence that he is a so-called cineaste, thinking only of the dream of the cinema palace. If they are not, then they are either feeble-minded children with some foolish perspective on their own present stage, or they are petit bourgeois cowards. Even with literary activism using the mimeograph, this happens with the pen and paper. Movable type-in the end, the possibility of bringing magazines and the like to the widest masses makes it meaningful. For that reason, photography with amateur cameras is under the oppression of modem absolutism, and furthermore, regarding "newness of birth" and "high degree economic weakness"-in the impossible case of rigorous use of the bourgeois media, it is the single road to film production allowed by us." Here, having explained the rigorous use of bourgeois media, as well as amateur film's economy and mobility, he continues, Thus, in the Left-Wing Theater Film Unit we are finally starting to produce films and take them into daily lives. And we, together with I X I I p

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM - -24 4 24 - In Praise of Film Studies other class cneastes, work for the critical subjugation of all bourgeois film art and oppose the despotic, tyrannical pressure included in cinema. In concert with our cooperation, and in regard to bringing into t daily lives, we anticipate collaboration in the organized production and unified release of films for the liberation of the proletariat... More than anything, our films at our present stage should be ones that T, awaken class consciousness, expose the elements of present-day society, and thoroughly gouge out all the various social contradictions. The unorganized masses will become conscious participants; the organized masses will understand that will to struggle; and the films themselves must be produced through our ceaseless efforts. Now, the road to film production permitted by our economic and objective conditions is nothing other than an extreme documentary realism. It is a Sur-realism (sic). Then all materials must be arranged and transferred according to the desires of the working class. Consequently, the "editing" of documentary film (jissha eiga) means the gravest settlement of that mission's accomplishment. After this, Sasa gives short synopses of Noda sogi, Teidai nyusu, and Gaito, the films he had already shot and completed. In conclusion, he appeals to his readers: There are-documentary films. However, our Left-Wing Theater Film Unit does not have the means to buy projectors, silver screens and the like. We invited donations, and presently have received half of that amount. Support our film activism! Join our entry into daily lives! The Left-Wing Theater Film Unit is at 86 Kakuhazu, SotoYodobashi, Tokyo. In this way, Sasa tackled the problem of independent film production with small gauge film, taking his films to sites of struggle like factories and farms, and literally making "film a weapon." However, we should probably get a hold on this field of amateur film in this early period, as even today little is known about it. In 1923, 27 years after the importation of cinema to Japan in 1896, Charles Path6's Path6 Baby and George Eastman's Kodascope were imported. This heralded the arrival of Japanese amateur film. For this small gauge cinema there were two kinds of film based on the width of the film strip, 9.5mm and 16mm. The first producer of 16mm film for amateur use was the American company Eastman Kodak. This became a standard for amateur film use in the U.S. in I X

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM -- 25 2 ( Translations: Prokino — 1924. At the same time in France, Path6 was making 9.5mm film for amateur use starting in 1920. It was well received and imported to Japan by Banno Company in June 1924, gradually expanding the market for amateur use as a medium for home movies. However, the price was fairly high. Since a camera cost 170 yen and the projector was 150 yen, it was not the kind of thing anyone could purchase. Of course, within five years the price fell by nearly half as compared to the early period (October 1929-camera: 72 yen; projector: 90 yen). However, even then common people had little chance of buying this equipment and it became a bourgeois hobby. Before long, it became possible to develop and copy film domestically, and after the success of amateur reversal development the demand for home movies gradually expanded. In 1926, fans in the Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe area gathered, created the Baby Kinema Club (Bebii Kinema Kurabu), and published the inaugural issue of Bebii kinema ("Baby Cinema"). In Tokyo as well, a Baby Kinema Club was started, publishing the journal Bebii shinema ("Baby Cinema") in November. The Kyoto Baby Cinema Association (Bebii Shinema Kyokai) was also started. Among the dojin of the Kyoto group were the names of a few members who would have a cose relationship to Prokino in the coming year, including Tanaka Yoshiji, Tamura Kiyoshi, Nakano Koji, and Ueda Kan. As the Path6 Baby became popularized, 16mm cameras were imported and sold, along with standard size cameras and projectors (35mm for studio use), by Okamoto Yoko (DeVray), Ozawa Trading Company (Filmo), De Doelle Trading Company (Ruby Cine), and Banno Trading Company (Victor Cine). The spread of 16mm was convenient for the Kodascope Library with its 16mm films. Starting with natural science subjects, their programs included travelogues, scenery, customs, sports, comedy, animation, and theater. They were shorts from 100 to 400 feet long, and included popular science and biological films of particularly high quality. The representative handling this library was Fukada Trading Company, which eventually went independent and opened the Tokyo Home Movies Library in the Marunouchi Building. Their initial publication of Amachua mubii ("Amateur Movies," August 1928) was not long after that. This was Japan's first serious amateur film magazine. With the editing of the Amateur Cinema League of Japan (Nihon Amachua Shinema Riigu), it was actually being led by the r% /R +=

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM a — 226 h 26 - In Praise of Film Studies members of the film research dojinshi Eicho. This included Nishimura Masami, Nakajima Shin, Kawamoto Masao, Sasa Genju, and Oi Hidekazu. While these key members cooperated with New York's N Amateur Cine League, they continued to research technique and y began lively activities such as Japan's first amateur cinema contest. Through this kind of collaboration, their main members came to parz ticipate in the Prokino movement. What is interesting is the way the publication of specialized magazines accompanied the prosperity of the small gauge film. Bebii kinema changed its name to Nihon Pate shine ("Path6 Cine Japan") and in May 1929 Firumu amachua ("Film Amateur") started publishing, followed by Kogata eiga ("Small Gauge Film") in October. In the trends of this kind of small gauge film world, the Motion Picture Journalist Club (Moshon Pikuchua Jarisuto Kurabu) was formed out of all these magazine people in 1930. The representatives of the groups that joined were as follows: Film Amateur Society (Firumu Amachua Sosaeti, Hayashi Sadaaki), Kinema junpo Small Gauge Film Column (Kinema junpo Kogata Eigaran, Kawamoto Masao), YMCA Cinetopic (YMCA Shinetopikku, Kasuga Setsuo), Kogata Eiga (Nishimura Masami), Amachua mubiizu ("Amateur Movies," Shimazaki Kiyohiko), Shinko eiga (Takida Izuru), and Bebii shinema (Tsukada Kakuji). That Prokino sent a representative to this society, as well as the fact that three of the seven are Prokino members, evidences their strong ties to the small gauge film world. Around 1930, out of the main members of Kyoto Baby Cinema Society, the dojin were people like Tanaka Yoshiji, Nakano Takao, Funaki Toshikazu, Nomura Toshio, and others. They produced primarily silhouette animation. Their first work was Aribaba monogatari ("The Story of Alibaba"), the second Issunboshi ("Tom Thumb"), and the third was Entotsuya Pero ("Perot the Chimney Sweep"), all of which were 500 feet on 16mm film. Of these, Entotsuya Pero was screened at the first Prokino Film Night (May 1930, Yomiuri Hall) along with the Prokino films Sumidagawa ("Sumida River"), Kodomo ("Children"), and Me De ("May Day"). Furthermore, the participation of these members made possible Yamasenso ("The Funeral of Yamamoto Senji"), a film by the Kyoto Branch of Prokino that photographed the historic funeral procession of Yamamoto Senji from Kyoto Station to his home in Hanayashiki. Even after the establishment of Prokino the relationship to the small gauge film world was deep. Thus, Amachua mubii published reports I A

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM,N — 27 Translations: Prokino --- on Prokino activities as well as their scenarios, and they supported fundraising drives for the organization. Thanks to this, it probably became possible to fight with film as a weapon. Consequently, Prokino's activists did not simply point their cameras; they built a developing lab, developing film on their own, and produced line drawing animation and other cartoons through their own efforts. They did their best with the technology that they had. Film Workers Movement and the First Chair, Kon Toko Prokino's relationship to the 3rd workers movement points us to ties to the League's first chair, Kon Toko. In Iwasaki Akira's Nihon eiga shishi, one part of a trilogy of books from the year of his death, he offers the following recollection of Kon Toko. In those days, Kon Toko had something of a reputation as an author. If I were to be asked why Kon became chair, I'd say it was because he was persuaded by Sasa Genju. Kon's wife was an A or B list actor from the old Imperial Theater called Kusama Kinshi. Her brother was an actor with Kansai's Toa Kinema by the name of Kusama Minoru. With those kinds of connections Kon went to Kansai to write scenarios at some point. Around then, he was an up and coming novelist, but in this manner he also came to the cinema. Toa Kinema folded, and he returned to Tokyo. No one could deny that he was a celebrity. And since he was a member of NAPF's Writers League ("Sakka Domei"), Sasa probably went out and said, "Kon, please become our chair." Kon Toko was also chair of the Film Workers Union. What were labor issues like in the film world around this time? The late Taisho Era was, in the film world as well a period welcoming a rising class consciousness among workers. In 1926, all the social groups that had organized to that point turned into the All Japan Film Employees League (Zenkoku Eiga Jugyoin Domei, or Zen'ei). About the same time, a film branch also opened up in the Kanto General Salaried Workers Union (Kanto Ippan Hokyusha Kumiai). Under the influence of the Workers-Farmers Party (Nominto), Kanto General received direction from the Labor Union Council (Rodo Kumiai Hyogikai); Kon Toko was involved with the latter as the executive of its film section. Both unions amalgamated in May 1928, with Zen'ei's Kuroda Toshio serving as chair of the executive comI X a j y

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM V-> 28 8 28 In Praise of Film Studies mittee and Kanto General's Kon Toko as chief secretary. The union had 250 members, with few from the studios. Most were employees of the theaters. In his "Waga Zenkoku Eiga Jugyoin Domei" ("Our All Japan Film / Employees League") from the February issue of Eiga orai, Kon Toko X offered the following remarks on the merging of both organizations. As is generally known, the structure of the film workers can be roughly divided into two parts from the very beginning. One is the photography side, namely the class of direct film producers; the other is the permanent film theater side, namely, the working class involved in the general film industry. The film workers of the theaters had the All Japan Film Employees League, and the other co-existed as the Film Employees Branch of the Tokyo General Salaried Workers Union (sic). While the amalgamation of these two unions was often advocated, it was not easily accomplished. Just as the Proletariat Political Party (Musan Seito) was emphasizing a united front, a clique of sly schemers did not make this easily attainable. Generally, we must formally consider how unification preparatory committees repeatedly ended in failure because of divisionist conspirators. Around this time, I still had a working relationship with Bantsuma Productions, and the sense that a situation where said production company would have to have a mass dismissal was hardly out of the ordinary. The two unions holding that unification preparatory committee met with no preconceived ideas. Happily, the merger succeeded after several meetings. What we must not forget here is that before we attended said unification preparatory committee, the preparatory committee we had often held discussed nothing except March 26. This was when many of the attendees were detained, and two fighters were held at an unknown jail for around a month. This is a very typical situation for a union member, and we cannot liberate the working class without this kind of sacrifice. Now, in order to approve the merger, we held a congress under the name of the preparatory committee at Sanwa Hall in Yotsuya on 21 May 1928. In the end, not a single newspaper reported this congress. On the contrary, there was nothing published except a foolish article in Nihon shinbun about the evil force of communization sneaking into the film world. However, I am convinced this congress-in the sense of forming a film proletarian front-is one of the most ~~

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM ^'-~ 29 ( Translations: Prokino 29 ~ remarkable events in the film history of modem Japan. What did the film employees debate there? 1) The matter of the deliberation of rules; 2) The matter of the movement's direction; 3) The matter of the destruction of the five company federation; 4) The matter of the enactment of regular vacations; 5) The matter of the rigorous development of collaborative struggle; 6) The reform of the license and control regulations for set - sumeisha (bensht); 7) The absolute opposition to forced taxation; 8) A resolution on the establishment of financial affairs; 9) The matter of support for the relief association for victims of the liberation movement; 10) A resolution on retirement and severance pay; These were the ten measures. It opened at 10:00 am. There were initial addresses by the Tokyo General Salaried Employees Union (sic), the Print Workers Union (Shuppan Rodosha Kumiai), The All Japan Proletarian Art Federation (Zen Nihon Musansha Geijutsu Renmei), the Proletarian Film Federation of Japan, the Kanto Metal Working Union (Kanto Kinzoku Ko Kumiai). Among these, the congratulatory address of the representative of the Kanto Metal Working Union was suddenly ordered to stop by the police. Because of this, we were forced to learn about the suppression of the masses' profit by means of suppressing the masses' words. U E3j j I:I However, a month after this inaugural congress, they split once again because of rivalry over the direction of the movement as it became entangled in support of political parties. The members of the former All Japan Film Employees League withdrew and formed the Tokyo Film Employees Union (Tokyo Eiga Jugyoin Kumiai, or Toeigumi). In October, when the All Industrial Worker Union National Meeting (Zen Sangyo Rodo Kumiai Zenkoku Kaigi) was created under the leadership of the Proletarian Masses Party (Musan Taishuto), Toeigumi dismantled that organization and joined the Kanto Salaried Employees Union, forming its film division. The remaining organization of Kon Toko and company left the National Film Salaried Employees Union (Zenkoku Eiga Jugyoin Kumiai) and formed the All Japan Salaried Film Employees Union -- 9

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM V- 30 ) 30 - In Praise of Film Studies (Zen Nihon Eiga Jugyoin Kumiai). Then, in February of this year, Prokino was established, and within strengthening ties to Prokino we see the presence of Kon Toko in dclose-up. In any case, Kon Toko v was also linked to the old Federation faction. Starting in this period y labor activities gradually went into decline, and before long the expulsion of Kon Toko occurred. In connection with this incident,; Kon Toko was expulsed from Prokino as well for right wing tendencies. In the end, it was decided to sever all relations between Prokino and Kon Toko. However, at the same time, Prokino protected its regular relationship with film workers through the union, opposing layoffs, promoting better treatment, encouraging and leading labor disputes at studios and theaters, and other activities. Postscript The creative activities in film of the 1920s and 1930s, including the activism of Prokino, are still not fully understood. It is no exaggeration to say that investigation into the rise of film researching and theoretical activities, as well as the conditions and tendencies of the prewar dojinshi, has been left in an unsatisfactory state. However, we can see countless factors that infer that it was through this fascinating period that the subsequent Japanese film world was formed. I have searched for the foundation of Prokino's activism within its prehistory. So is it really possible to arrive at this kind of understanding? I have attempted this from an empirical point of view in this essay. However, as this essay could not adequately achieve this plan, I must again recognize the themes I have left for future research topics. Ladies and gentlemen, I look forward to your future study in this field.

Page  [unnumbered] Purokino revised 1/18/01 9:34 AM ^ — 31 (3 Translations: ProkinoNotes 1. As this volume's bibliography of Makino Mamoru's career bears out, the reprint of Kinema junpo was accomplished between 1993 and 1996. The multiple colors of issues after no. 248 made further reprints economically impractical. 2. Translator's Note: I have chosen not to translate the word dojin, which refers to the like-minded people that collaborated to self-publish a journal (dojinshi). These were the prewar equivalent of the "zine," except that most of the nation's intellectuals participated or led such groups, and many of the dojinshi were quite ambitious publications. 3. Translator's Note: A peculiar aspect of the prewar censorship system was its textual visibility. XX's called "fuseji" were inserted in place of problematic words which would trip up a publication. As long as the word was gone, the text would pass censorship. While the presence of these XX's displayed the state's power over speech, they are far more complex as signs because they are often legible. Readers could infer their meanings from the context, thus I have included a probable translation under erasure. -X Il J *1