A beautiful film and highly creative visually, and I liked some of things it was doing in exploring the link between the sexual awakening of the 1960's and the 'free love' espoused by anarchist Osugi Sakae in the 1920's. Both challenged the status quo, and director Yoshishige Yoshida challenges the viewer with his unconventional framing, perspective, focusing, and white saturation, often putting astonishing images on the screen. The style seems to fit the subject very well.
As for the narrative, it was rough going. The story of this man and the three women in his life - his wife, first mistress, and second mistress - is pretty straightforward, but be forewarned, the film may be a little confusing if you don't do a little reading beforehand. Yoshida seems to assume a certain amount of background understanding, but even after doing that, I found what he showed me rather lacking, especially for 216 minutes (perhaps masochistically I opted for the director's cut, and would definitely recommend the shorter version to first-time viewers).
It doesn't help that Osugi (Toshiyuki Hosokawa) is not very likeable, spouting his radical views while sponging off his lover's money. It was a great moment when one of his friends called him on that, saying that he's bourgeoisie, but there's not enough of this. There's also not enough (or really any) of the context of Japan in the 1910's/20's, or an exploration into Osugi's theories. There's this fantastic bit:
"What does revolution mean to us? It's a way to open up a land of absolute freedom. Our most valuable method of ending man's exploitation of man. But the existence of private property sustains this exploitation. And what is private property? It's the system through which the state renders the morals of matrimony absolute, so wealth is something that's inherited. Worse, it's our deepest desire! That's the problem. Revolution is a way to blow the system to pieces!"
... but unfortunately little else. The film instead spends most of its time on the polyamorous relationship issues. We see the second mistress Noe Ito (Marika Okada) struggle with her own husband's infidelity even though she's already got a foot out the door to their marriage, and we see her leave Osugi several times, only to be back with him later. We also see several reenactments of first mistress Itsuko Masaoka (Yuko Kusunoki) stabbing him in 1916, each of them done as a stylized variation, not as realism. The point may have been to show the difficulty we have in understanding history only 53 years later, but to me this part seemed pretentious and got quite tedious.
Overall the film shows Osugi in a positive light - professing fundamental changes to society and free love, messages that perhaps resonated in the 1960's. What's kind of odd is that this seems to come at the expense of its female characters, whose jealousy and frustration with how he acts spoils the "utopia" of his personal life. There is some feminism in Noe's character, who goes to work at a magazine whose boss says "...there are women like you who are slaves to the family system, ancient traditions, and poverty, all over Japan" while looking directly into the camera - but the film doesn't really follow through on this. It also shows very little of her demise with Osugi in 1923 in the Amakasu Incident, or its larger context, the Kanto massacre, despite the title.
Meanwhile, in the present, much of the storyline seems focused on showing us the body of the young woman researching the past, Eiko (the beautiful Toshiko Ii). She cavorts about playfully with lovers and her pyromaniac friend (Daijiro Harada), scenes that are not without charm, but they're a bit shallow. The surreal scenes of the soccer players kicking Osugi's remains around in a giant field were offset by silly ones, like the cars meeting over the railroad overpass followed by a banal exchange between drivers. It's a mixed bag, though I liked the elements when Eiko was directly questioning the past, and the symbolism of the ending scenes.
To be more balanced in this review I should probably give more credit to the visuals and cite examples, but I feel many others have done that and have gone on too long already. I have a feeling I would rate the theatrical cut a half tick higher just because of an hour shorter would help what is an exhausting watch, but regardless it's not one I would recommend without reservations, or want to see again.
As for the narrative, it was rough going. The story of this man and the three women in his life - his wife, first mistress, and second mistress - is pretty straightforward, but be forewarned, the film may be a little confusing if you don't do a little reading beforehand. Yoshida seems to assume a certain amount of background understanding, but even after doing that, I found what he showed me rather lacking, especially for 216 minutes (perhaps masochistically I opted for the director's cut, and would definitely recommend the shorter version to first-time viewers).
It doesn't help that Osugi (Toshiyuki Hosokawa) is not very likeable, spouting his radical views while sponging off his lover's money. It was a great moment when one of his friends called him on that, saying that he's bourgeoisie, but there's not enough of this. There's also not enough (or really any) of the context of Japan in the 1910's/20's, or an exploration into Osugi's theories. There's this fantastic bit:
"What does revolution mean to us? It's a way to open up a land of absolute freedom. Our most valuable method of ending man's exploitation of man. But the existence of private property sustains this exploitation. And what is private property? It's the system through which the state renders the morals of matrimony absolute, so wealth is something that's inherited. Worse, it's our deepest desire! That's the problem. Revolution is a way to blow the system to pieces!"
... but unfortunately little else. The film instead spends most of its time on the polyamorous relationship issues. We see the second mistress Noe Ito (Marika Okada) struggle with her own husband's infidelity even though she's already got a foot out the door to their marriage, and we see her leave Osugi several times, only to be back with him later. We also see several reenactments of first mistress Itsuko Masaoka (Yuko Kusunoki) stabbing him in 1916, each of them done as a stylized variation, not as realism. The point may have been to show the difficulty we have in understanding history only 53 years later, but to me this part seemed pretentious and got quite tedious.
Overall the film shows Osugi in a positive light - professing fundamental changes to society and free love, messages that perhaps resonated in the 1960's. What's kind of odd is that this seems to come at the expense of its female characters, whose jealousy and frustration with how he acts spoils the "utopia" of his personal life. There is some feminism in Noe's character, who goes to work at a magazine whose boss says "...there are women like you who are slaves to the family system, ancient traditions, and poverty, all over Japan" while looking directly into the camera - but the film doesn't really follow through on this. It also shows very little of her demise with Osugi in 1923 in the Amakasu Incident, or its larger context, the Kanto massacre, despite the title.
Meanwhile, in the present, much of the storyline seems focused on showing us the body of the young woman researching the past, Eiko (the beautiful Toshiko Ii). She cavorts about playfully with lovers and her pyromaniac friend (Daijiro Harada), scenes that are not without charm, but they're a bit shallow. The surreal scenes of the soccer players kicking Osugi's remains around in a giant field were offset by silly ones, like the cars meeting over the railroad overpass followed by a banal exchange between drivers. It's a mixed bag, though I liked the elements when Eiko was directly questioning the past, and the symbolism of the ending scenes.
To be more balanced in this review I should probably give more credit to the visuals and cite examples, but I feel many others have done that and have gone on too long already. I have a feeling I would rate the theatrical cut a half tick higher just because of an hour shorter would help what is an exhausting watch, but regardless it's not one I would recommend without reservations, or want to see again.