Memoirs of a Geisha : culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.



But like I said, all that stuff is really just nitpicking.
Then why are you carrying on and on and on with your nitpicking?
Well, I should have been more careful and repeated my earlier statement verbatim that it is AMERICANS who would call this stuff nitpicking. Japanese felt the complete lack of attention to detail in this film spoke volumes about Hollywood's opinion about Japan. I tend to agree.

By calling these individual points 'nitpicking' (again, meaning that Americans would tend to overlook any one of them, on it's own) I meant to emphasize that it's the totality of ALL these small mistakes that ends up making Japanese out to be nothing but savages, and geisha to be nothing but trumped up whores.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

"By calling these individual points 'nitpicking' (again, meaning that Americans would tend to overlook any one of them, on it's own) I meant to emphasize that it's the totality of ALL these small mistakes that ends up making Japanese out to be nothing but savages, . . . ."

Selling children into slavery and prostitution is S-A-V-A-G-E. And those who do it are, therefore, S-A-V-A-G-E-S.

But let's change the subject and talk about the civilized class act that was the Japanese Rape of Nanjing during the very same period.

". . . and geisha to be nothing but trumped up whores."

Except that the point is made at the outset, by "Mother" to little Chiyo, and by Mameha at several points to the 15-year-old Chiyo, that geisha -- unlike Hatsumomo -- do not sell their bodies, they sell their skills. (That isn't the whole truth, of course, because the reality is more complex: there are geisha who do give sex in exchange for cash. Only you don't want to call them geisha.)

See the film for the FIRST time. And see the "extras" for the intentions of the director, et al.

And see the DOCUMENTARY "The Secret Life of Geisha" so YOU are informed about the facts -- as they come directly from ACTUAL maiko and geisha.

As fdor Japan's AUTHORITARIAN society: that is NOT something to be praised, or defended against "insult". Any more than their extreme racism, including the unfounded, is to be defended -- or of which made no mention -- because the racists will be "offended". Racists NEED to be not only "offended" but also EXPOSED for what they are.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.



By calling these individual points 'nitpicking' (again, meaning that Americans would tend to overlook any one of them, on it's own) I meant to emphasize that it's the totality of ALL these small mistakes that ends up making Japanese out to be nothing but savages, . . . .
Selling children into slavery and prostitution is S-A-V-A-G-E. And those who do it are, therefore, S-A-V-A-G-E-S.
OK, well, if we're going to keep harping on atrocities of the past...

What about US enslavement of blacks? What about the genocide of Native Americans? Not that this has anything to do with the film, but the example you keep giving has NOTHING to do with my criticisms of the film either, so what the heck.

You apparently feel that not only WAS Japan a completely savage country, but that IT STILL IS a completely savage country. Your attitude is unmistakable, and to put it bluntly, reeks of racism. Your evidence for hating all things Japanese is that long ago, children (RARELY) were at times sold for nefarious purposes in Japan. You seem to have some delusion that Japanese don't admit of this history (when in fact, as I have said numerous times, it's an issue that JAPANESE filmmakers THEMSELVES have addressed). Well, ok, what do you have to say about slavery and genocide in US history? Do you think it wasn't as bad as anything the Japanese ever did? Should I feel justified in hating all Americans because slavery existed there?

Racists NEED to be not only "offended" but also EXPOSED for what they are.
Yes, indeed, it's time to start calling you the racist that you are.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.



The real problem is that the people shown in this film are all savages, geisha culture is shown as really just trumped up prostitution, the people have no manners, and there is little or nothing redeeming about the culture shown in this movie. Is that Japan?
Selling children into slavery and prostitution isn't savagery?
Ah, now the truth comes out! You defend this film because you DO believe Japan is a country of savages, and that geisha really are just prostitutes!

That's the only explanation I can come up with from your comment, as I NEVER said anything about having a problem with the depiction of selling children into slavery and prostitution. I know that DID happen (albeit RARELY) in Japan, so the film showing it is perfectly fine with me. But I guess you think that is Japan at its core, therefore the nation and people DESERVE to be depicted as savages, as an ENTIRE RACE, rather than just in some instances.

Again, I never objected to this being shown in the film, so why is it that you raised the issue? Curious, curious...

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

"Selling children into slavery and prostitution isn't savagery?"

"Ah, now the truth comes out!"

Nope: your self-justifying imaginings are coming out.

"You defend this film . . . ."

No, I don't "defend" the film; rather, I attack your uninformed bashings of it.

"because you DO believe Japan is a country of savages, and that geisha really are just prostitutes!"

I've said nothing of what I believe, and nothing of the kind. I have, though, pointed directly at SPECIFIC FACTUAL events which ARE the actions of savages. The above is one. Another is the Japanese Rape of Nanjing.

"That's the only explanation I can come up with from your comment,"

That's your problem: you don't listen; rather, you EXPLAIN what you IMAGINE OTHERS "think" and "intend" -- wholly ignoring the fact that you DON'T KNOW any of those things.

"as I NEVER said anything about having a problem with the depiction of selling children into slavery and prostitution. I know that DID happen (albeit RARELY) in Japan, so the film showing it is perfectly fine with me."

It wasn't rare at its peak during the 1930s. See the DOCUMENTARY I cite.

"But I guess you think that is Japan at its core, therefore the nation and people DESERVE to be depicted as savages, as an ENTIRE RACE, rather than just in some instances."

You GUESS I think -- and that is SUFFICIENT for you to make unevidenced ACCUSATIONS. That is PRECISELY the behavior of the BIGOT.

What you assert is a red herring, a straw man "argument" intended to distract and obscure. Tell me: what WASN'T SAVAGE about the Japanese Rape of Nanjing?

And what WASN'T RACIST about the revelations during the 1980s of the intense and extreme Japanese racism -- "cultural insensitivity" -- concering blacks?
Well, you made that much clear: the Japanese view those -- so long as Japanese -- with lighter skin as a "better class of people". Other peoples, of the SAME race, are looked down upon as "other" races, even though that is factually false. Your examples of the latter are Chinese and Korean women.

And then there's the SAVAGERY of relegating a blue-eyed Japanese child to the lowest level of society -- EVEN THOUGH THE CHILD DIDN'T CHOOSE ITS EYE COLOR. And that's IN ADDITON to the racism.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

Lookit, you clearly have a lot of racist attitudes toward Japan. You can say you don't, but you seem to be foaming at the mouth when you talk about their 'savagery.'

All I did was come on this board and say that the film misrepresents geisha culture, and generally misrepresents Japan itself. I at no point defended any atrocities ever committed by Japanese against children, by Japanese against any other ethnic group, by Japanese (hypothetically) against blue-eyed girls, or by Japan against the people of Nanking. As I said yesterday, I'll be the first to condemn any acts of racism or atrocities committed by the Japanese. In fact, I DID CONDEMN THE RAPE OF NANKING! So why do you keep raising the issue? I AGREE with you on this! JEEZ!

But that's not good enough for you. Apparently to point out that the film unfairly represents Japanese as NOTHING BUT SAVAGES, is to defend savagery. Apparently to say that there are also good people in Japan, and that there are good things about Japanese culture makes me an apologist for every crime ever committed by a Japanese person or by the Japanese government. That only makes sense if you believe that the Japanese really ARE ALL savages, even to this day. And if you believe that, then you are a racist.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.



I've lived half of my adult life in Japan and I just don't see my home here.
The film begins in 1929, and ends somewhere in the early-mid-1950s. Is that the period in which you currently live?
Weak...

So I guess if a Japanese film was made which showed the US in the 1930s as a land of barbaric savages you would have no business refuting that, since you weren't alive at the time? Please...

Culture doesn't change that quickly. My grand-mother-in-law was alive and an adult during this time period. I have talked with her about life in Japan in those days, and while the country has certainly advanced technologically, according to her, manners and etiquette were much BETTER in those days.

Anyways, I don't see any savagery in her, and she is just of the age depicted in this film.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

"The film begins in 1929, and ends somewhere in the early-mid-1950s. Is that the period in which you currently live?"

"Weak..."

That's not a refutation.

"So I guess . . . ."

That's about all you do: SPECULATE, rather than do your homework.

"if a Japanese film was made which showed the US in the 1930s as a land of barbaric savages you would have no business refuting that, since you weren't alive at the time? Please..."

Are you paid to miss the point, or do you do it for free? I said nothing of the kind -- but, right: you're GUESSING again, which is akin to accusing.

In fact, the depiction of Americans in "Geisha" was both accurate and unflattering -- the latter the least of it. In fact, they are accurately described (in the DOCUMENTARY I cited), too mildly, as being "crude".

I would certainly not defend any of that -- in fact my sympathies lie with the Japanese to some degree (I don't forget who attacked who in getting the ball rolling which led to that result). But I don't, at the same time, pretend that that absolves the Japanese of THEIR "crudities" and -- yes -- SAVAGRIES, such as their Rape of Nanjing.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.



It's embarrassing to watch this, how crude the people are, how filthy everything is, how despicable this world they portray is. It's just so disgusting!
Agreed; and you're finally getting it: selling children into slavery and prostitution isn't only disgusting, it's despicable. SAVAGE.
Well, I'm starting to get YOU. YOU think Japan really is a land of nothing but savages.

But, you see, I live here and know that's not true. I was not alive at the time about which this film was made, but I know (and have known) many people who were, and there is nothing savage about them. Furthermore, I am fluent in Japanese language and culture, so I have seen Japanese films from that time, seen documentaries, read history books and TALKED TO PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WERE THERE, and clearly Japan is not, nor ever was, the savage land shown in this movie.

That's not to say some people didn't do despicable things, like buy and sell children. But watching this film you'd think that was typical (it never was typical, only the most extremely poor would ever consider such a thing; furthermore it was VERY RARE for an okiya to buy girls to become geisha). That's not Japan shown in this film, not today or ever. That's not geisha culture shown in this film, not today or ever.

I wouldn't question your basic understanding of what life was like in the US in the 1930s. You might not know everything about it, but looking at history books or watching old films, you can see it's not really that much different from today, except for technology and fashion. People don't change that quickly. Same is true of Japan.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

Interesting: the film DOESN'T make so much as a mention of the Japanese savagery that was their Rape of Nanjing, which occurred during the same period.

And we both know that TRUTH is not particularly represented in Japanese history and textbooks. Gee: it's even "culturally insensitive" to MENTION it -- and the intense and extreme RACSIM behind it.

"it was VERY RARE for an okiya to buy girls to become geisha)."

Agreed: they were mostly bought as SLAVES, which are not qualified to be geisha because not of sufficient "class".

No, you don't know what I THINK of Japan. But you DO know I don't overlook FACTS in order to politely not offend the DEPLORABLE and worse.

See the film for the frist time. And watch the "extras" -- you're way off base in your "guessing" as substitute for LEARNING. And watch the DOCUMENTARY I cite.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.



Of course Sayuri leaves Japan and chooses to live in America!
That didn't happen in the film. When, again, will you actually SEE the film?
Don't really feel like renting this again just to check, but I could have sworn there was something in the film alluding to this. It's definitely in the book.

Whatever, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, since I can't surely remember it's in the film.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.



...Does that sound like the kind of people represented in this film?
Nope. And you call that civilized? Letting people die, who need not die, rather than "violate" an unacceptable cultural tradition? It's about as <i>insensitive</i> as selling children into slavery and prostitution.
I think you missed the point, and rather badly.

It WASN'T a case of LETTING a person die. If the man had let anyone know that he was in dire need of help there were MANY people (and government services) that would have helped him. HE didn't ask for help. HE apparently felt that it was unacceptable to ask for a handout.

As already stated, this was an EXTREME case. Most Japanese would rather ask for assistance than starve to death. Furthermore, the controversy was that social services had not done enough to FIND people in such dire straights, NOT that they had known and let him die!

On the other hand, wasn't there a case in Michigan recently where the city actually TURNED OFF a man's heat and the man froze to death? I know they didn't intend to murder the guy, but that was far more egregious than the case in Japan, where the city didn't know the man needed help. If I were to talk about 'savagery' in a modern country, I don't know, but maybe the US might fit the bill a little more than Japan? Not saying I'd go that far, but...

The point of relating the story about the man in Japan was to contrast this extreme humility and humbleness with the thieving, backstabbing, groveling-for-food-in-the-street image of Japanese shown in the film. Japanese, in general, have more class and better manners than even Americans, and that's coming from an American...

Again, your comment about selling children says more about your TRUE perception of Japanese as SAVAGES than anything about my criticisms of the film, as I never protested this being shown in the film.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.



I recently read a great book called Confessions of a Yakuza, the memoirs of an old retired Yakuza leader. He talks about coming up during the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. You want to know about a 'dirty' life in Japan at a time when Japan was still poor, read this book. And yet, even a real life YAKUZA (!!!) has more class, manners and emotional restraint than the GEISHA (!!!) in this movie.
When will you actually be SEEING this FICTION movie, instead of bashing it for containing things it doesn't contain?
Other than, maybe, the thing about Sayuri living in New York (which I thought was mentioned somewhere in the film, but I'm not sure, so maybe I'm just remembering the book), everything I've mentioned is in this film. Again, the fact that it is fiction does not absolve it for being culturally insensitive anymore than it absolves other racist films just because they were fiction.

Again, comparing a TRUE story about a YAKUZA (which I have read) and a FICTIVE story about a GEISHA (which, trust me, I have seen), it still blows my mind that Hollywood would treat GEISHA, the epitome of Japanese taste, manners, etiquette and culture, as lower than a Japanese criminal who openly admits he is scum!

To Rob Marshall, and Hollywood, in general, obviously, geisha are no more than whores. Except that actual whores in Japan probably have better morals and sense than the geisha shown in this movie.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

Since I don't and have never lived in Japan, I assume you are the expert, but when you say that to this day you have still never seen people kiss in public there, is this the same Japan where they recently (in Tokyo I believe) started running women-only trains/cars because men groping women on trains was such a rampant problem? Is public sexual assault more accepted than public consensual kissing?

And I think they actually went out of their way several times to point out that Geishas weren't prostitutes, that the profession was much more an artform to be studied and respected.

It was rather strange though that they used so many Chinese actors, especially given history. I chalk that up to the incredible talent and stunning physical beauty of Michelle Yeoh, Yiyi Zhang, and Gong Li.

My point is, unless any of us lived in Kyoto during that time period, none of us are really qualified to say what was going on then. I'm sure you're 100% correct about all the protocol errors, but in the end this was just a great love story, fantastical or not...

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

Actually I didn't say I had never seen Japanese kissing in public; I have seen it rarely. I said that one could live in Japan for many years and not see it (if you live outside of Tokyo or Osaka, for example). In smaller towns or cities you might not ever see it, even after many years.

The characters say being a geisha is not being a prostitute, but judging from their actions in the film, sex is really what it's all about. Sure, dance a little, play the shamisen, pour a few drinks. But judging from this movie, the allure of sex is what drives the whole thing. And that is NOT what real geisha do. Maybe you saw the film differently than me, but it seemed clear to me that the makers of this film basically DO think geisha are prostitutes, even though they say they don't.

About the Chinese actresses, I don't fault them at all. They are actresses, hired to play roles, and they did so quite well. The problem is the rationale behind hiring them in the first place. They are not anymore 'beautiful' or 'talented' than hundreds of Japanese actresses who could have played those roles (and with much more accuracy regarding Japanese culture and mannerisms). Rob Marshall has given many different, and contradictory, reasons for his decision, but it seems that he had Ziyi in mind for the lead all along and NEVER considered using any Japanese actresses for the role. If this was driven by a need for 'star power' then it makes sense; Ziyi is a worldwide superstar. But at the same time it seems Marshall SPECIFICALLY DIDN'T WANT Japanese actresses, and that seems odd. He is extremely proud of his 'pan-Asian' cast, and has denigrated Japanese actresses on occasion, lying that he couldn't find any capable of playing the role! The only way that is possible is if he didn't look at all. We are, after all, talking about Japanese GEISHA, for Christ's sake!

About 'not really knowing' what went on in Kyoto in the 1920s to 1940s, well, guess what, but there are actually still people ALIVE TODAY who were really there! Imagine, if you will, a Japanese film company making a movie about 1930s America, and getting a lot of stuff very wrong. Don't you think most Americans, even if they weren't that old, would get that the stuff was wrong? Well, why is it inconceivable to you that Japanese people (and bi-cultural people, like me) can spot the inaccuracies? American audiences just say, 'wow, what a beautiful film, showing the mystery of Japan,' but Japanese people who saw the film just snickered and thought, 'typical Hollywood trash. They didn't understand anything about geisha or Japan.'

Still, it is a perfectly fine 'love story' as you say. That doesn't excuse it from it's culturally inaccurate and insensitive parts.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

So *beep* what. If you don't like how Marshall chooses to make HIS films, then boycott his films.

Better yet: put your money where you bigotry is: make YOUR OWN film in which the blue-eyed geisha-wannabe is put in her place by the noble Japanese racism you espouse and defend.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

Liza Dalby wrote a fictive book about the life of Murasaki shikibu the author of The tale of genji but she did not try to make it into a western view of heian time Japan but based her book on facts.
Moag is very much a typical cinderella story set in very much his own fantasy Japan where a girl has to have western features and perhaps more attractive to the readers.
Real geisha in Kyoto have had very much problem because of the book, clients asking about have they had their mizuage etc.
i've read other fictive novels about geisha, to example Kafu Nagai's geisha in rivalry (highly recommended).
The book and the movie were flops in Japan, it got a lot of criticism for how they portrayed geisha and their arts.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

"Excell99" rants at length against fiction and in favor of bigotry:

"so youre saying its a book written by a western writer for a western audience...and your point is what exactly?"

<i>1) That it is a deeply flawed reflection of Japan. Japan is a real place. Geisha culture is real. Yet you will learn NOTHING about real Japanese culture from this film.>/i>

For one, the director, and others associated with the film, state explidcitly, several times, that they weren't making a DOCUMENTARY. And, that it is a fairy tale. However, this is glib nonsense:

<i>2) That it is culturally insensitive. It is set in Japan, about Japanese, yet it completely disregards the Japanese people and culture. Worse than disregards, it actually insults the Japanese.</i>

Actually it is not and does none of that. Liza Dalby, who, unlike you was an actual geisha, consulted on both novel and film. It is in fact much more factual and accurate than you realize.

"am i now meant to be shocked, gasp audibly and say "no, it cant be, but it says geisha on it and its set in japan, how can it be a western writer! golly no"..."

<i>I have no problem with it being by a western writer. I have no problem with it being for a western audience. But if it is going to be about a specific culture it should at least make a minimal effort to accurately reflect SOMETHING about that culture.</i>

What offends you is that some of what it accurately reflects is NEGATIVE. Selling children into slavery? That being the actual histry, what is inaccurate about it?

"The writer, Golden, actually knows a lot about Japan, apparently. He spent a long time interviewing an actual geisha for this book. But once it came out, she said it was trash, that it had nothing to do with what she had told him."

Golden didn't rely upon any one source; he spent ten years researching for the novel, before writing it. One geisha he not only interviewed but also consulted with was Liza Dalby; she also consulted on the film. SHE didn't say it was trash.

"Furthermore, she said that it gave people the wrong idea about geisha culture, and that it was demeaning to geisha. This isn't MY opinion, it's the opinion of an ACTUAL GEISHA! The woman the book was supposedly BASED ON!"

Liza Dalby (unlike you) was an actual geisha. She didn't make any of the assertions you are making. In fact, it was her involvement in both novel and film that gave it accuracy.

<i>this doesnt reflect negatively on the culture presented in the book, merely that it was written for an audience by some guy.</i>

Well, selling children into slavery, as example, is an accurate depiction of Japanese culture of the period. Methinks "Excell99"'s actual objection is to the fact that it includes accurate depiction of NEGATIVE realities about Japan. "Excell99" wants CENSORSHIP.

"But it does reflect badly on that culture. Again, it's not the fact that it was written by a westerner, but the CONTENT of what was written that is offensive. There have been plenty of good, factually correct books about Japan written by westerners for western audiences. This just isn't one of them."

If it were as you say, it would reflect bbadly on the writer and itself. That it "reflects" "badly" on the culture only means that it accurately depicts unsavory aspects of that culture that you would suppress.

<i>your argument is redundant,</i>

The "argument" is worse than that. It is a demand for lying by omission; for censorship.

<i>are you arguing that the culture in the book is flawed</i>

"What do you mean, 'the culture in the book'? The book is an inaccurate and offensive view of Japanese culture, that's what I mean."

You avoid the question. The fact is that the book accurately reflects aspects of Japanese culture that you don't want revealed. Selling children into slavery is an accurate depiction of Japanese culture of the period. It is the ACCRUACY that bothers you.

"I have no problem with the ethnicity of the writer or the intended audience."

Actually your entire concern is racist.

"My problem is with the content of the book and film."

You've said nothing specific except the nonsense about blue eyes. . .

"It is culturally inaccurate and insensitive to the Japanese."

Selling children into slavery is accurate about the culture -- however "insensitive" -- embarrassing -- it is to the Japanese that that is revealed.

<i>to be so caught up on such minor details is quite honestly pathetic.</i>

It's worse than pathetic; it's racist, as I'll show.

"The blue eyes is just one detail, but the film is flawed in many ways."

I'm waiting for some specific "flaw," other than the blue eyes nonsense.

"It's really just one big exotic fairy tale--"

That's what the director said of it.

". . . which would be fine if it was set in a 'magic kingdom.' But it's set in a real country, Japan, in a real time period, the 1920s to 1940s."

And yet selling children into slavery was the fact; it isn't that it's innaccurately depicted, but rather that it is depicted at all.

"If you're going to set your story in a real country you should try to be somewhat accurate."

Selling children into slaverly is the fact, and is accurately depicted.

"If you can't be accurate, you should at least be careful not to offend."

Three cheers for the First Amendment, and the right to write FICTION.

"Both Golden and Marshall obviously didn't care about offending an entire nation."

They did more consultation for both novel and film than you've done on any of this.

"'hey, thats an interesting new story, not the usual thing youd see from a western writer' you opt for 'oh but its not AUTHENTIC'."

"1) It is not something 'new' from a western writer. It is, sadly, the same old BS; Japan shown, not as it actually is, but as some exotic fairtale land meant to express western fantasies rather than reality. A Hollywood film about Japan that WASN'T offensive, now THAT would be something new..."

Accurately depicting, as example, the selling of children into slavery is what boths you.

"2) The problem, again, isn't 'authenticity', per se, but the offensive representation of Japan and geisha."

But isn't that your original claim -- that it isn't "authentic"?

"I don't care if it's a work of fiction; . . . ."

Right: you want to pretend it's something else in effort to suppress the embarrassing accuracies. Let's talk instead about the Rape of Nanking, okay?

"I just wish that they would have been careful not to OFFEND Japanese."

Japanese have neer had any objection to offending others with their racism. Weren't bothered during the time depicted with selling children into slavery and prostitution. What "offends" is telling the truth about those facts.

"The fact that YOU are not offended doesn't mean the book and film are unoffensive; it just means that either you don't really know much about the culture represented in the film, or you just don't care. Either way, the fault still lies with Golden and the makers of this film."

The fault lies with those for whom the truth hurts.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

Liza Dalby was not a real geisha in the sense.
She never was registered to the kenban. All the ozashikin she went to were especially arranged and the guests were informed that she is studying geisha culture.
Even if Dalby was one of the experts another one was Peter MacIntosh who lives in Kyoto and organisers geisha tours both said that no one listened to their expertise and some on the experts decided because of that reason to quit.
Arthur Golden really has very little knowledge about geisha, he studied art and when interviewing many geisha they had complications communicating because his japanese was very poor.
I really can't understand the whole geisha were fashionistas thing because in the early 1900 geisha had to make a choice.they had been fashionistas sometime in the Edo perid outshining the courtesans.
Completely change which meant start wearing western clothes only learn to play piano or to become artist who preserve traditional japanese songs and culture.
they took the latter choice.
The whole making the hanamachi more razzle dazzle failed, Sakuran modernised a lot of elements music etc. but succeeded much better in it.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ff20070223a1.html

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

All this about selling children into slavery and prostitution says more about YOU than me. I never objected to this being shown in the film. I know that it did happen. I have no problem with it being shown in this film. But apparently since it did happen, Hollywood has every right to portray Japanese as NOTHING BUT savages? Whatever, if that seems logical to you...

Me, wanting censorship? Pleeeaaazzzz.....

Oh, and OK, let's talk about the Rape of Nanking. It was a genocidal atrocity committed by the Japanese Imperial Army. It was a terrible war crime, and Japanese who deny it happened, or make excuses for it, are in the wrong, in my opinion.

Not what you thought I'd say?

I love it, I'm the 'racist' because I point out quasi-racist elements in this Hollywood movie. That's rich!

I guess your noble, because you defend the quasi-racism of this movie and excuse it by saying 'after all, it's just fiction.'

Dude, argue till your blue in the face. It's clear you have a very warped sense of what Japan is really like, and not much knowledge at all about its customs and culture.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.



If you're going to set your story in a real country you should try to be somewhat accurate. If you can't be accurate, you should at least be careful not to offend.


I guess we'd better get rid of at least half of the movies set in America.

Or maybe people that want reality in cinema can watch documentaries.


There are 2 kinds of people in this world: those who like me, and those who can go to hell.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

Sayuri choosing to live in the United States was for the sake of being with the Chairman and putting less strain on his wife than leaving "dirty old Japan for the better America." In fact, I do believe that she reflects in the book that she missed Japan, but could never return because of the choice she had made.

Good gosh. And most of the actors in this movie were Japanese. Gong Li and Zhang Zyi were not.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.


so youre saying its a book written by a western writer for a western audience...


That's how I feel too. I enjoyed the novel immensely. Maybe the movie's blue eyes were an unnecessary departure from the book, but what's the big deal? Chio's grey eyes might have just been what distinguished her from other peasant girls offered to the Nitta okiya.



Don's going to fix it. He knows what that nut means to Utz and what Utz means to us.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

Actually quite the opposite of "culturally clueless": did novel and film consultant Liza Dolby not know what she was talking about? (Unlike you, she was actually a geisha.)

Otherwise, eye-color is a human attribute, not an attribute of "culture": for a person to be seen as distinct in a people with eyes almost-exclusively NOT blue would be to give the person that immediate trait. It is that which makes others in the story take a second look at Chiyo/Sayuri.

Otherwise, and to underscore the fact: the book and film are <b>FICTION</b>, not documentary. And no one said there haven't been "many great Japanese beauties"; that interjection is known as a "red herring," or "straw man argument".

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

Get over the fact that this ISN'T A DOCUMENTARY.

Get with the program: it is F-I-C-T-I-O-N.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

IMHO the blue/grey eyes symbolise her affinity to water and all the qualities that implies - it goes into a little more about that in the book, but even in the film it's a recurring theme. I don't think it's supposed to make her more attractive - in the book it mentions that her grey-eyed mother was very odd-looking. It does make her unusual though, which in her line of work can only be a good thing!

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

What, exactly, does water symbolize? Are we talking in Western countries, or what water symbolizes in Japan, ya know, the country where this story supposedly takes place?

I'll help you out on this one...

In Japan, 'water' in this context symbolizes 'prostitution'. 'Mizu shobai' (literally 'selling water') is a euphemism for prostitution. This is a term ANY Japanese would understand, yet MOAG, with it's very UN-Japanese take on things, supposes that water means 'mystery,' or 'purity,' or 'beauty,' or some other Western idea about what it should mean.

This silly Western fairytale so completely misses the mark on what Geisha are about, or what Japanese people would think, it's ludicrous, actually.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

THIS.

Mizu shoubai has been the term since the Tokugawa shogunate around the 1600s and has been used up to this day.

Kudos for your research excel99. It has been a long debate and as far as I know (and have learned previously) you've got the facts right. I've discussed this with my Japanese Sociology teacher friend and we both have been disappointed with both the book and the movie. At least they've got the scenery right. Other than that, I weep for the Karyukai.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

But it is a film, if people are that ignorant to take a fictional film as fact then what can you do? I love the film/book but i do understand that it is not correct in most of it's ways. Again it's a book and Arthur Goldman can do what he wants. If it was a non-fiction book then I'd get the anger a little bit more.


There are many films/books that have done to this to many different culture/societies. It isn't new. I just think the anger needs to be placed somewhere worth while. The whole blue eye thing also, come on its FICTION. Things can be exaggerated. It's not a documentary...

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

I think it was supposed to be a metaphor. In the beginning of the book and movie I believe it was Mother who commented on Chiyo's unusual eyes, stating that she had a lot of water in her and that water can wear away at even steel. Throughout the movie Sayuri wears away Nobu's rough exterior- at least towards Sayuri, Mother's dislike and doubt towards her- even if it was mostly because of the money she brought in, and so on. What's more, her new life wears away at her old life as Chiyo.

As for the film and book being culturally clueless, the author of the book, Arthur Golden, got the information and such for the book from a retired geisha. He also lived in Tokyo. He probably has a good idea of Japanese culture. Even so, just because he didn't get every detail correct and perhaps he went along with a few stereotypes it's a pretty damn good representation.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.


I think it was supposed to be a metaphor.
Yeah, I get that. And yes, I understand what the writer and filmmakers wanted that symbolism to be about. But the point of this thread is about how culturally clueless the film is, and this is a prime example. IN JAPAN, water is a symbol for PROSTITUTION! Mizu shobai--selling water--is a euphemism for prostitution. This is a common well-known phrase to any adult Japanese person, yet the writer of the book and the makers of this film apparently didn't feel the need to consider what their precious symbolism would actually mean in the country they were representing! As the thread states, culturally clueless!

As for the film and book being culturally clueless, the author of the book, Arthur Golden, got the information and such for the book from a retired geisha. He also lived in Tokyo. He probably has a good idea of Japanese culture.
This has been gone over before, but to catch you up on it; First, I've never been able to figure out exactly how long Golden lived in Tokyo, but judging from his bio available on-line, it seems he was there for a short time, maybe one year. Next, he did interview real geisha, namely Mineko Iwasaki. But when the book came she sued him for defamation (he had promised not to reveal that she was a source, and then went and dedicated the book to her; idiot!) and said everything she had told him about REAL geisha culture had been sensationalized and distorted, and that the book had NOTHING to do with what a geisha's life is like. So either you trust him when he says he's an 'expert' on geisha, or you believe an ACTUAL GEISHA who says the book is trash.

Golden is no expert on Japan. He has B.A. degree in Japanese studies, or something like that, and he spent a few months in Tokyo. That's not much. And then once Hollywood got hold of the story the level of cultural cluelessness went to a whole new level!

Look, I agree it's a pretty movie, decent acting, nice fairy-tale like story. I've no problem with that. But to say this represents Japan, in general, and geisha, in particular, is just ludicrous. As someone who has lived in Japan for 18 years myself, I'm rather sure I'm more of an 'expert' than Golden. And Mineko Iwasaki is beyond being an 'expert', she's Japanese and an actual geisha, to boot! If she says it's trash, I think you can believe her.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

So because a Japanese person hasn't done it first (of which you're aware) it's suddenly an issue? That is very illogical.
Your point would make sense if they were trying to illustrate something that is common or normal in Japanese culture, but to complain because the thing that is unusual isn't something that has been written by a Japanese person in the past is ludicrous.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

Are you replying to me? because I can't follow your point if you are. I DIDN'T complain that ANYTHING was ludicrous just because it hadn't been written by a Japanese first.

I was complaining that the symbolism used in the movie has a very SPECIFIC and VULGAR meaning in the country being represented. That is culturally insensitive.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

Yeah I'm inclined to just not care.
So I noticed I've disagreed with you in the past on this point, didn't even realise it...oh well, guess nothing has changed.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

The reason that they gave her the blue/grey eyes was because this would make her stand out, and be different from the typical brown hair/brown eyes that is the norm in Japan. In the Japanese culture, along with other cultures, like those in India, typically people with light skin, light hair, and light eyes are thought to be more beautiful, most likely because it is unusual. Sadly, if you think about it, it's like that all around the world. For example, in the U.S. tanning is extremely popular because tan skin is thought to be more beautiful than the pale skin that most caucasian people tend to have. Basically, beauty is defined around the world by something that should be achieved by all, but is natural to only a few. It's sad, but true.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.


In the Japanese culture, along with other cultures, like those in India, typically people with light skin, light hair, and light eyes are thought to be more beautiful,
Wrong.

The concept of classic beauty in Japan has changed over the years, as it does in all countries and cultures. But regarding these points the Japanese always have considered fair skin, jet black hair and deep, dark brown eyes the most beautiful. And regarding the skin, it has nothing to do with looking Caucasian, which until about 100 years ago VERY few Japanese would have known anything about. No, it's simply that royalty, who do not need to work in the rice fields, would have fairer skin than peasants. That's why fair skin is considered more desirable.

The notion of a blue-eyed Japanese beauty is completely ludicrous. Beside the fact that it NEVER HAPPENS in Japan, IF it were to happen the girl in question would be ostracized as a 'gaijin' (the only rational explanation for having blue eyes) and would never be able to rise in the geisha world. She would be relegated to the lowest class of prostitute, which in fact is where many Korean and Chinese immigrant women were forced over the centuries.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

I thought that the blue eyes were representative of the element of Water (further made obvious in the movie when Mameha says "I see water in you" when looking at Chiyo). It would make more sense since the element of Water is associated with adaptability and the ability to change with one's environment (something that Chiyo/Sayuri did throughout the movie). I don't remember it having anything to do with that particular trait being indicative of her beauty.

By the way, you never answered the question I posed to you in the "Asians with blue eyes? Yes. Japanese? No" thread. I was looking forward to your response.

The mark of my Deity shall scar thy DNA.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.


I thought that the blue eyes were representative of the element of Water... I don't remember it having anything to do with that particular trait being indicative of her beauty.
I was responding to someone who said that even in Japanese culture people with light hair, skin and eyes are considered 'more beautiful' than others, which is ridiculous. Japanese have always found women with the DARKEST hair and DARKEST eyes to be the most beautiful.

As to whether this character was considered more beautiful because of her eyes, or whether that was completely coincidental, whatever...

But as to all this 'I am made of water, my sister, of wood,' 'too much water,' 'she is year of the rooster,' etc., it's all, again, silly WESTERN ideas about Japan and has NOTHING to do with the way Japanese think or speak. Now, I don't know, maybe in CHINA people really do think this way (although I doubt even that) but they certainly don't in Japan. In my 15 years in Japan I have never once heard someone describe another person using natural elements to describe their nature (although, again, there is a history of doing this in WESTERN countries). And although Japan does recognize the Chinese zodiac, again, in a decade and a half of living here, I have never once heard someone described as having been born in the 'year of ____' as a way to give their age. Most Japanese know what the zodiac animal was for their birth year and what the zodiac animal is right now, but beyond that they would look at you with blank stares if you said your daughter was born in 'the year of the rooster.' Such baloney! Yet I suppose 90% of Americans who watched this film now think this is an accurate reflection of Japanese culture. It is only a reflection of Western ignorance of Japanese culture.

By the way, you never answered the question I posed to you in the "Asians with blue eyes? Yes. Japanese? No" thread. I was looking forward to your response.
I have nothing to really say on the matter, and it wouldn't change my basic stance, anyway, since the point was that you will NEVER find a Japanese person (full-blooded, 1/32, 1/16) who would consider themselves full-blooded with blue eyes. So what if there are more interracial 'Japanese' than we would expect? Except for the clear cases of intermarriage (mother is Japanese, father is Norwegian), 'Japanese' all have brown eyes. So how does your comment have any bearing on the issue? Ok, there is more interbreeding; you still never find blue-eyed 'Japanese.'

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.


In my 15 years in Japan I have never once heard someone describe another person using natural elements to describe their nature (although, again, there is a history of doing this in WESTERN countries).


Since when? Last I checked, most westerners were Christian and NO Christian I know believes in the classical elements (except for possibly Esoteric Christians, but that's a different thing altogether). Granted, you might find people who describe other people using their Zodiac sign, but rarely a natural element (unless said person is aware that the Zodiac does have ties to the classical elements e.g. Scorpio being a Water sign, Sagittarius being a Fire sign, etc.)


And although Japan does recognize the Chinese zodiac, again, in a decade and a half of living here, I have never once heard someone described as having been born in the 'year of ____' as a way to give their age. Most Japanese know what the zodiac animal was for their birth year and what the zodiac animal is right now, but beyond that they would look at you with blank stares if you said your daughter was born in 'the year of the rooster.'


And why wouldn't they? The Chinese zodiac is directly tied to the 5 classical Chinese elements (Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal, and Water), which have a completely different origin than the godai (which were a direct import from India along with Buddhism).

The godai, from the research I've done, aren't usually referenced/represented outside of martial arts and works of fiction (anime, for instance). Outside of that, the concept is pretty much relegated to its symbolic ties to Buddhism. You can see their influence in Buddhist architecture, specifically pagodas and the fact that many of them have five tiers (representing, in ascending order, Earth, Water, Fire, Wind, and Sky/Void). The gorinto' is another common representation of the five elements. I thought maybe this is where the whole "blue eyes representing water" thing came from, and it wouldn't be too much of a stretch since said element is a part of Buddhism, and an overwhelming majority of the Japanese population is Shinto, Buddhist, or both.

And I don't know how we got to talking about the Chinese zodiac, but it does bring up the question of WHY the Japanese would adopt/recognize something that they don't even use.


Yet I suppose 90% of Americans who watched this film now think this is an accurate reflection of Japanese culture. It is only a reflection of Western ignorance of Japanese culture.


Americans may be ignorant about a lot of things, but most of us know that the Chinese zodiac is called so for a reason. And for the record, Japan isn't exactly a mecca of cultural understanding.

And did you have to get so snippy in regards to my other question? I was simply asking for my own clarification.

And on a more personal note: where are you originally from and how did you come to live in Japan?

The mark of my Deity shall scar thy DNA.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.



In my 15 years in Japan I have never once heard someone describe another person using natural elements to describe their nature (although, again, there is a history of doing this in WESTERN countries).
Since when? Last I checked, most westerners were Christian and NO Christian I know believes in the classical elements...
Did I say that people do this on a daily basis? Did I even say that people do it today? No, I said there is a history of doing it in the west. It's called 'humourism,' and it was a pervasive theory in the West.

In fairness, there are similar ideas even in Japan. But the point of my criticism was that no one speaks this way in Japan, yet from watching this film many people will think this is typical 'Japanese' thinking. It is not. It is a Westerner's fantasy about how Japanese think.


...Most Japanese know what the zodiac animal was for their birth year and what the zodiac animal is right now, but beyond that they would look at you with blank stares if you said your daughter was born in 'the year of the rooster.'
And why wouldn't they?
Why wouldn't they what? Stare at you with a blank face? My point exactly! That's just what they would do!

Actually, they'd more likely stare at you with a look that said, 'stop being a jerk and just answer the friggin question!' They would understand what you were getting at, and they would be annoyed that you didn't answer them directly. More importantly, most Japanese people wouldn't be able to figure out what the actual age was. Japanese people DO NOT use this system for referring to one's age. It would be like me giving my birth year in Roman numerals! Some people could probably figure it out, but most couldn't. Likewise, in Japan, you'd just piss people off if you said, 'she was born in the year of the rooster.'

Japanese would just say, 'she is 8.' If asked what year she was born, they would most likely use the Emperor Year system (I was born in Showa 41, the 41st year of the reign of the Showa Emperor (which happens to be 1966). THIS is the system that Japanese use MOST when talking amongst themselves. Otherwise they would just use the western calendar year, which again, everyone knows.

And I don't know how we got to talking about the Chinese zodiac, but it does bring up the question of WHY the Japanese would adopt/recognize something that they don't even use.
A) We got on the subject because when asked for the girl's age, that woman says 'she was born in the year of the rooster.' She is referring to the Chinese zodiac. And that's silly, because no Japanese would ever answer such a question this way.

B) You're wrong, the Japanese DO use this system. Right now, we are in the year of the Ox, and any Japanese person would know this. Likewise, I was born in the year of the Horse, and again, any Japanese person would know the zodiac animal of their birth year. Furthermore, all Japanese know that there are 12 zodiac animals which recur in regular order, so it is POSSIBLE to determine someone's age (as long as they are not too old) based simply on knowing their animal sign. I'm not arguing that it's not possible, just that Japanese DON'T DO THIS! It's possible, but most Japanese couldn't figure out your birthyear just by knowing the zodiac animal.

And on a more personal note: where are you originally from and how did you come to live in Japan?
OK, no more animosity;-) I'm American, and I just decided to come here many years ago. I liked it so I stayed. That's all.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

". . . . no one speaks this way in Japan, yet from watching this film many people will think this is typical 'Japanese' thinking. It is not. It is a Westerner's fantasy about how Japanese think."

They'll think it's "typical 'Japanese' thinking" as of today? Or as of 1929, as is the timeframe of the film?

Otherwise: I doubt you can read minds, therefore can baldly declare without qualification what "Westerner's" think or fantasy. But I do appreciate how much you inadvertently revealed of <i>typical</i> -- both ancient and current -- Japanese bigotries which are rationalizaed as civilized rather than what they are in fact: savage.

Was there a period during the timeframe of novel and film -- and actual Japanese history -- that children were sold into slavery and prostitution? Yes: that is fact, not fiction. And that, regardless the lie that depicting that truth is "offensive," is savage, even as persisted in as cultural attitude by those of the "better" classes.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

"excel99" finally admits to her/his bigotry -- and the "inauthenticity" of the film because it tells embarrassing truths --

<i>In the Japanese culture, along with other cultures, like those in India, typically people with light skin, light hair, and light eyes are thought to be more beautiful,</i>

"Wrong."

You're an expert on the culture of India as well?

"The concept of classic beauty in Japan has changed over the years, as it does in all countries and cultures. But regarding these points the Japanese always have considered fair skin, jet black hair and deep, dark brown eyes the most beautiful. And regarding the skin, it has nothing to do with looking Caucasian, which until about 100 years ago VERY few Japanese would have known anything about. No, it's simply that royalty, who do not need to work in the rice fields, would have fairer skin than peasants. That's why fair skin is considered more desirable."

Then you agree: light skin is seen as being preferable.

"The notion of a blue-eyed Japanese beauty is completely ludicrous. Beside the fact that it NEVER HAPPENS in Japan, . . . ."

Every member of the human race has the same DNA. There are blonde blue-eyed Italians in Italy. Regardless percentage, nothing prevents blue eyes in any race. But let's look closely at this admission, and the embarrasing facts it reveals:

"IF it were to happen the girl in question would be ostracized as a 'gaijin' (the only rational explanation for having blue eyes) and would never be able to rise in the geisha world. She would be relegated to the lowest class of prostitute, which in fact is where many Korean and Chinese immigrant women were forced over the centuries."

Exactly: even though the child would not be at fault for being the offspring of a Japanese who had the dirty audacity to have sex with an inferior Caucasian, the child would nonetheless be blamed, and relegated to the lowest strata of society. Such bigotry is not only ignorant but savage.

And exactly: the Japanese view Asian peoples who happen not to be Japanese as "inferior races" -- even though they are actually of the same race -- Asian -- as the Japanese. Such bigotry is not only ignorant but savage.

And we see why you're offended by the novel and film: they accurately reveal enmbarrassing truths you rail against as "offensive" because they do not accurately depict the actual "respectable" bigotries of the Japanese culture.

Thank you for finally making yourself clear on those points.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

I'm starting to enjoy this!



In the Japanese culture, along with other cultures, like those in India, typically people with light skin, light hair, and light eyes are thought to be more beautiful,
"Wrong."
You're an expert on the culture of India as well?
If you ever get to college, please take a course in logic. If you want to get technical about it, the OP was WRONG because one of the statements in a compound assertion was wrong, so I am logically correct to call him wrong even if his statement concerning India were correct. He was wrong about Japan, and that makes his statement wrong.

Of course, any normal person would have surmised from my further comments that I was talking ONLY about Japan. I don't know about India, but I don't see what that has to do with this film, anyway.


The concept of classic beauty in Japan has changed over the years, as it does in all countries and cultures. But regarding these points the Japanese always have considered fair skin, jet black hair and deep, dark brown eyes the most beautiful. And regarding the skin, it has nothing to do with looking Caucasian, which until about 100 years ago VERY few Japanese would have known anything about. No, it's simply that royalty, who do not need to work in the rice fields, would have fairer skin than peasants. That's why fair skin is considered more desirable.
Then you agree: light skin is seen as being preferable.
Wow, you're too good for me! I should just give up now...

OK, sure I 'agree' that Japanese traditionally have viewed 'fair' skin as more beautiful. I also still state they have always viewed DARK hair and DARK eyes as more beautiful, contrary to what the OP said.

Ok, got it now?

Silly, really, for you to argue what I mean is different from what 'I mean.' You're not going to get far that way...

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.



The notion of a blue-eyed Japanese beauty is completely ludicrous. Beside the fact that it NEVER HAPPENS in Japan, . . . .
Every member of the human race has the same DNA. There are blonde blue-eyed Italians in Italy. Regardless percentage, nothing prevents blue eyes in any race.
We've beaten this to death in another thread. I'm not saying it's impossible. But let's just see you find ONE (just ONE!) reference to a blue-eyed Japanese who is not Ainu or known to be of mixed heritage. Do that and you win the argument.

Until then, maybe it's possible, I don't know, but it NEVER HAPPENS.

But let's look closely at this admission, and the embarrasing facts it reveals:

IF it were to happen the girl in question would be ostracized as a 'gaijin' (the only rational explanation for having blue eyes) and would never be able to rise in the geisha world. She would be relegated to the lowest class of prostitute, which in fact is where many Korean and Chinese immigrant women were forced over the centuries.
Exactly: even though the child would not be at fault for being the offspring of a Japanese who had the dirty audacity to have sex with an inferior Caucasian, the child would nonetheless be blamed, and relegated to the lowest strata of society. Such bigotry is not only ignorant but savage.
I completely agree! Did you think I would say otherwise? I didn't say it was 'right.' I didn't say it was 'fair.' I just said that is what would have happened.

But in this movie, the thing which would have stigmatized Sayuri (unfairly, I agree with you there) is nevertheless the thing which singles her out for greatness, in a way. Ironic that the 'thing' in question is blue eyes, something which indeed is considered beautiful IN THE WEST! It's not merely ironic, it's pathetic. It shows that the people involved with this project only view the issue from their own cultural perspective. Considering that it is Japanese culture which is being represented, I wish they would have been a little more broad minded.

You know, I don't think Japan is Nirvana, or something. I know, probably far better than you, Japan's shortcomings in the past and even in the present. That doesn't mean Rob Marshall is justified to paint the entire nation as savages.

In the 1930s whites were lynching blacks in the US south. Does that mean that I am justified in painting the US in its entirety as being as wicked as I want to? Is it even fair to say that all whites in the south were savage? I sure hope you say no.

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.


And we see why you're offended by the novel and film: they accurately reveal embarrassing truths you rail against as "offensive" because they do not accurately depict the actual "respectable" bigotries of the Japanese culture.
You kind of lost me, there...

You're claiming the film 'accurately' reveals embarrassing truths? Well, some, such as selling children into prostitution. But we've been over this already. I have no problem with the film showing that. In fact even JAPANESE films deal with this sad part of Japanese history. Nobody is condoning it. I do not mind that MOAG shows this.

OK, but you also seem to be saying the film 'accurately' depicts something to do with the blue eyes, because that's where this quote of yours came from. I said that a girl in Sayuri's situation would face harsh discrimination rather than adulation for having blue eyes (although I never said I AGREED with such attitudes, simply that this is how it would have been). But the film does NOT accurately portray this, as Sayuri rises in the geisha world.

Then you go on and talk about me kind of defending 'actual ''respectable'' bigotries'. Hmmm. I'm lost. I don't see where I have defended ANY bigotries, actual, respectable or otherwise. I know there are bigotries in Japan, and I've tried to point out some of them. When these issues show up in the film I have tried to critique the film as accurate or inaccurate, but, please, where have I ONCE said that I agree with any such bigotries?

It's ironic, really. I'm a Caucasian living in Japan. I, from time to time, face REAL discrimination in Japan. I'm the last person in the world who is going to excuse Japanese wrongdoing, but you're convinced that I am as racist as the worst Japanese! It's kind of funny, actually. And why do you think so? Because I point out quasi-racist attitudes in a Hollywood film! This is the stuff of comedy, really!

I guess you thought I was Japanese, or something, and then just naturally assumed I would be a bigot and a racist. Hmm, I wonder what that makes you?

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.


OK, but you also seem to be saying the film 'accurately' depicts something to do with the blue eyes, because that's where this quote of yours came from. I said that a girl in Sayuri's situation would face harsh discrimination rather than adulation for having blue eyes (although I never said I AGREED with such attitudes, simply that this is how it would have been). But the film does NOT accurately portray this, as Sayuri rises in the geisha world.


So it was culturally insensitive to attribute the Japanese with better behavior than they would have demonstrated in reality?

Really?

Re: culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.

jnagarya-1, is that you in disguise?

Actually, no, that's not what I said. The issue of cultural insensitivity and the issue of inaccuracy are separate, but that got quite conflated in this ancient thread.

The overall portrayal of Japan and geisha culture in MOAG was culturally insensitive (and inaccurate, to boot).

The point of a geisha (or really any Japanese) having blue eyes was merely inaccurate.

Hope that clears it up.
Top