culturally clueless film based off a culturally clueless book.
yea i said it
shareAnd you're basing this instrinsic argument on...? Let's try some actual reasons.
sharehave you read the book and watched the movie?
are you japanese?
i'm guessing you are not.
this is a meant-for-hollywood-book with meant-for-hollywood plot.
No, I am not Japanese. Yes, I have seen the movie and read the book.
And no, you did not answer my question. What are your reasons aside from the utterly trite, "You're obviously not Japanese so you don't understand" notion?
I am not Japanese, and I haven't read the book. However the first reaction of both myself and my (Japanese) wife was.. "wtf is with the blue contact lenses?".
The "story" and to some extent the whole premise of the book and the movie is the "Geisha" culture. To ignore that completely by going with Chinese actors/actresses for the main parts seriously discredits this and is 100% Hollywood.
Personally I believe this could have be made much better if it was a joint Hollywood/Japanese cinema venture.
And sorry to repeat here but...
wtf "is" with the blue contact lenses? Japanese don't normally have blue eye colour...
"I am not Japanese, and I haven't read the book. However the first reaction of both myself and my (Japanese) wife was.. "wtf is with the blue contact lenses?".
Yeah, that was some BS on part of the movie. In the novel, she's noticed by the Mother and Auntie in the Okiya because her eyes are an unnatural color. NOT, in fact, blue, but rather a lighter shade of gray. I guess the movie makers didn't feel the color was "special" or obvious enough for us, so they amped it up to blue.
actually in the book they were said to be grey, and then it is later suggested they were a slight pale blue. not quite as blue as in the movie but still...
the idea is because her eyes are blue its unusual, so to everyone here saying japanese dont usually have blue eyes...thats is the point.
the idea is because her eyes are blue its unusual, so to everyone here saying japanese dont usually have blue eyes...thats is the point.Yes, and that is the point about this film being culturally clueless. Throughout the long history of REAL JAPANESE literature and film there have been many great Japanese beauties, and none of them needed to be written with blue eyes. Only a western writer, writing for a western audience, would require that... share
so youre saying its a book written by a western writer for a western audience...and your point is what exactly? 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"...
this doesnt reflect negatively on the culture presented in the book, merely that it was written for an audience by some guy.
your argument is redundant, are you arguing that the culture in the book is flawed or that it isnt written to appeal to a certain culture? either way im still gonna just say youre a moron, and to be so caught up on such minor details is quite honestly pathetic. rather than saying 'hey, thats an interesting new story, not the usual thing youd see from a western writer' you opt for 'oh but its not AUTHENTIC'. gimme a *beep* break.
so youre saying its a book written by a western writer for a western audience...and your point is what exactly?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.
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.
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 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. 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. 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!
this doesnt reflect negatively on the culture presented in the book, merely that it was written for an audience by some guy.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.
your argument is redundant,How so? Do you know the meaning of the word 'redundant'?
are you arguing that the culture in the book is flawedWhat do you mean, 'the culture in the book'? The book is an inaccurate and offensive view of Japanese culture, that's what I mean.
merely that it was written for an audience by some guy?I have no problem with the ethnicity of the writer or the intended audience. My problem is with the content of the book and film. It is culturally inaccurate and insensitive to the Japanese.
to be so caught up on such minor details is quite honestly pathetic.The blue eyes is just one detail, but the film is flawed in many ways. It's really just one big exotic fairy tale--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. 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. Both Golden and Marshall obviously didn't care about offending an entire nation.
'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...
2) The problem, again, isn't 'authenticity', per se, but the offensive representation of Japan and geisha. I don't care if it's a work of fiction; I don't care that it's written by a westerner, or that the film was made by Hollywood. I just wish that they would have been careful not to OFFEND Japanese. 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. share
youve now completely changed your story.
your original point claimed the fact that she had blue eyes and this being unusual is what made it culturally clueless. now youre making claims that this is one of many greater flaws. well thats not your original point now was it? i cannot argue against your future points, and could only go on what i was given. as far as there being other greater inaccuracies i wouldnt know, ive never lived in japan, and wasnt born in that era. for the sake of looking stupid ill certainly hope you were.
the one thing you were right about was my use of the word redundant. to be honest i didnt know what it meant. how embarrassing. for all this time i thought it defined something that was unnecessary and unneeded. only to find it defines something that is in EXCESS and unneeded. oh well.
Ok, so I'm definitely not defending either side. I really enjoyed the book and the movie as entertainment and I won't pretend I know how accurate they are or are not. However, I don't really see in what way they are "offensive" or "insulting". Perhaps an explanation?
shareWhere to begin?! You know, there are so many things that are just not Japanese at all about this movie, and they are important points to Japanese people, but to mention them here Americans call it nitpicking. I'm talking about things like how real geisha wear the most elegant kimono in the world, but in this movie the geisha wear silk bathrobes. Things like how EVERY Japanese old enough to dress themselves know to place the left fold of a kimono OVER the right (to do otherwise is to dress like a dead body in a Buddhist funeral), yet the geisha in this movie just dress however they please, apparently. Things like you can live in Japan for years EVEN TODAY and never see a couple kiss in public, but in this movie GEISHA(!!!) kiss in the street and *beep* in storehouses! Things like how Japan is noted for it's EXTREME dislike of 'unclean' things, so much so that even 3 year-olds won't eat something if another person has touched it. But in this movie a GEIKO (geisha in training) picks food off the street (!) and eats it right in front of everyone (!!!). Things like not even knowing how Japanese people enter a house, or how they pray before eating, or how they bow, or how they greet a teacher before entering a classroom, or how they say hello to someone of higher class, or how even geiko don't need to prostrate themselves before anyone (except possibly the Emperor, if they ever met him). Japanese don't do this as a regular thing, regardless of status. It is done to show great remorse, to atone for sins, and there is a correct way to do it, and a wrong way to do it. Care to guess which way it's done in the movie?
But like I said, all that stuff is really just nitpicking.
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?
I've lived half of my adult life in Japan and I just don't see my home here. 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! Of course Sayuri leaves Japan and chooses to live in America! Who in their right mind would live in such a filthy land if they didn't have to?! Is that what geisha culture is really about?
Let me just mention a couple of items that might show what I mean. Last year, there was a case in Japan of an old man who died of starvation in his home. He kept a diary, and in the last days he talked about how wonderful it would be to have a ball of rice. He was rather poor, but he had children and relatives who could have helped him. Japanese bureaucracy is a pain, but Japan is no 3rd world country. When this story came out there was outrage toward the social services of the city for allowing a situation like this. But it went without saying that, of course, it's quite natural for a person to feel so much shame about asking for a handout that they might rather starve to death. Nobody faulted the man for refusing to ask for help. Does that sound like the kind of people represented in this film?
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.
Rent a real Japanese movie, like Kuroi Ame (Black Rain; the JAPANESE movie about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, NOT the Michael Douglass action movie), or better yet if your into classic movies, Tokyo Monogatari (Tokyo Story) or Banshun (Late Spring). Different generes, different stories, of course. But after watching any one of those films ask yourself if MOAG reflects ANYTHING that looks truly Japanese.
Thank you, that was an excellent explanation.
share"Where to begin?!"
How about first learning what FICTION is?
"I'm talking about things like how real geisha wear the most elegant kimono in the world, but in this movie the geisha wear silk bathrobes. Things like how EVERY Japanese old enough to dress themselves know to place the left fold of a kimono OVER the right"
That is how it's done in the film.
". . . yet the geisha in this movie just dress however they please, apparently."
That's exaplained by the director, and others, in the "extras" DVD.
"Things like you can live in Japan for years EVEN TODAY and never see a couple kiss in public, but in this movie GEISHA(!!!) kiss in the street and *beep* in storehouses!"
None of that happened in the film.
"Things like how Japan is noted for it's EXTREME dislike of 'unclean' things, . . . But in this movie a GEIKO (geisha in training) picks food off the street (!) and eats it right in front of everyone (!!!)."
That was a means to communicate that the children IN THE FICTION FILM weren't fed sufficiently.
"Things like not even knowing how Japanese people enter a house, or how they pray before eating, or how they bow, or how they greet a teacher before entering a classroom, . . . ."
In a film which must be within a length the audience can handle in one sitting much is omitted. I doubt the audience needs to see all the "extranea" you consider necessary. This is, after all, F-I-C-T-I-O-N.
". . . or how they say hello to someone of higher class, . . . ."
You're beginning to get honest about your ACTUAL objections to the film.
"or how even geiko don't need to prostrate themselves before anyone (except possibly the Emperor, if they ever met him). Japanese don't do this as a regular thing, regardless of status. It is done to show great remorse, to atone for sins, and there is a correct way to do it, and a wrong way to do it."
And yet there is in reality a great deal of bowing and scraping, for any number of reasons. Correct? That that is the reality is communicated.
"But like I said, all that stuff is really just nitpicking."
Then why are you carrying on and on and on with your nitpicking?
"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?
"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?
"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.
"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?
"Is that what geisha culture is really about?"
In some respects, yes.
"Last year, there was a case in Japan of an old man who died of starvation in his home. He kept a diary, and in the last days he talked about how wonderful it would be to have a ball of rice. He was rather poor, but he had children and relatives who could have helped him. Japanese bureaucracy is a pain, but Japan is no 3rd world country. When this story came out there was outrage toward the social services of the city for allowing a situation like this. But it went without saying that, of course, it's quite natural for a person to feel so much shame about asking for a handout that they might rather starve to death. Nobody faulted the man for refusing to ask for help. 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 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?
My objection to this film is that it's culturally insensitive, not that it's factually untrue. I don't see how it being fiction absolves it from it's culturally insensitive points. If I make a movie (not a comedy or farce) in which blacks are shown as recent descendants from apes, am I off the hook by saying, 'heck, it's just fiction'? It would still be racist, even though it was fiction.Where to begin?!How about first learning what FICTION is?
Is Birth of a Nation not a racist film because it's just 'fiction'? Is The Turner Diaries OK because it's fiction? I sure hope you agree with me that it's not ok, that these works are still racist.
I'm not putting MOAG in the same class of racist works, like these. But the fact that it's fiction doesn't absolve the film of being culturally insensitive. share
"My objection to this film is that it's culturally insensitive, not that it's factually untrue."
Exactly: it is "culturally insensitive" to tell the truth about Japan. Especially it's racism and racial supremacism. We don't want it know, as example, that IN FACT Japan sold children into slavery and prostitution becaue that's "culturally insensitive". It doubtless would be even more "culturally insensitive" if they were still doing it. Which means we are to SHUT UP about the FACTS so they can CONTINUE to be the cultural norms UNMOLESTED by FACT.
Well, while we're on the subject of RACISM, it's you who is painting an entire race as barbaric because of the acts of an extreme few...
Telling the truth about sad events from a country's past is not 'culturally insensitive.' It's just being honest. Like I said before, numerous JAPANESE films deal with issues like children being sold into prostitution, and other dark issues from Japan's past. So I don't see how this film bringing it up is supposed to somehow be 'telling the truth that Japan would never admit to,' or something like that. Japan is at least as honest about it's past misdeeds as the US is.
But as I keep repeating, I NEVER RAISED ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS BEING SHOWN IN MOAG! So, it obviously has nothing to do with what I meant by MOAG being 'culturally insensitive.'
Oh, and by the way, cut the crap with the 'cultural norms' BS. Selling of children was far LESS frequent in Japan than in ANY other Asian nation. It was never a 'cultural norm' for ANY Asian nation, and most certainly not Japan. Saying BS like this just shows how very little you really know about it.
"Well, while we're on the subject of RACISM, it's you who is painting an entire race as barbaric because of the acts of an extreme few..."
That "extreme few" only happened to include the Japanese emperor (he, being "divine," meant the Japanese KNEW they couldn't lose the war), and thus the entire Japanese gov't, and the Japanese military.
In short: the Rape of Nanjing was gov't ordered, authorized, and approved.
What has become abundantly clear is that, either you don't know what you're talking about as concerns the realities of geisha, and the accuracies of "Memoirs of a Geisha," or you make up lies in effort to avoid historical fact, such as the Rape of Nanjing.
Why do you keep bringing up the rape of Nanking? How many times do I have to tell you that I AGREE with you that it was a horrific crime against humanity? Where have I even once tried to 'avoid historical facts, such as the rape of Nanjing'?
Like I said before, the more you write, the more of racist you yourself seem to be.
I wonder if you'll recognize this time that I AGREE with you on the rape of Nanking, or if you'll just keep raising the issue. That would be a pretty sure sign that your motives are ulterior. I can't put it any clearer that I AGREE with you about the rape of Nanking. So why won't you just acknowledge that I agree with you (on this issue)?
children being sold into prostitution happens in right here in the USA too :/
shareLook again more closely. There are several shots in the film where the right fold of someone's kimono is over the left. It's done correctly in most shots, but apparently none of the 'expert' advisers on this film chose to emphasize that this is VERY important for properly wearing kimono. Actually, some of the experts probably did point this out, but the director, wardrobe people and actors (since they weren't Japanese to begin with) apparently didn't care.I'm talking about things like how real geisha wear the most elegant kimono in the world, but in this movie the geisha wear silk bathrobes. Things like how EVERY Japanese old enough to dress themselves know to place the left fold of a kimono OVER the rightThat is how it's done in the film.
Also, aside from being worn incorrectly in parts, the kimono themselves are clearly not real Japanese kimono. They are thin and cheap looking, more like bathrobes. It's perplexing, really, since they simply could have bought real kimono from Kyoto. Heck, you can order them from reputable shops over the internet! But no, it just didn't matter to the people working on this, since THEY wouldn't know the difference between a kimono and a bathrobe.
I don't have the DVD, so feel free to tell me how they try to talk their way out of this blunder. share. . . yet the geisha in this movie just dress however they please, apparently.That's exaplained by the director, and others, in the "extras" DVD.
"I don't have the DVD, so feel free to tell me how they try to talk their way out of this blunder."
And haven't seen the film either, which is why you've made assertions about it that swimply aren't true. But that doesn't surprise, because you can read minds as to intents and motives of director, costume designers, and actresses.
What is explained in the DVD extras makes clear that it was not a "blunder". But I'm not going to do your homework FOR you: get the DVD, watch the film for the FIRST time, and watch the extras.
And while you're at it, see the DVD titled "The Secret Life of Geisha". In that are ACTUAL interviews with ACTUAL maiko and geisha -- you being neither of those. And one discovers that the film is a great deal more accurate than its detractors claim.
As for the nonsense that the film protrays geisha as prostitutes: that issue is confronted both in the extras, and the above DVD. But tell us how selling a girls virginity, for cash-nomey, isn't what prostitutes do: sell sex for money.
The reality is more complex than you present it -- than, in fact, you seem to be aware. But I'm not going to do your homework FOR you: get the DVD, watch the extras -- and also see the above DVD, which IS -- unlike "Memoirs" -- a documentary.
'... do my research for me'? Whatever...
I'm sure as hell not paying any more money to watch this again, so if you can't support what you say in this board, whatever...
I guess that's the end of that...
Are we talking about the same film? Just exactly what do you think was happening when Sayuri caught Hatsumomo with her boyfriend in the storehouse? They were playing backgammon? Jeesh...Things like you can live in Japan for years EVEN TODAY and never see a couple kiss in public, but in this movie GEISHA(!!!) kiss in the street and *beep* in storehouses!None of that happened in the film.
And the very first time we see Hatsumomo making out with her boyfriend, they are doing it right on the street as Sayuri watches from the window. Kind of hard to miss, I thought...
Have YOU seen this film? share
"Are we talking about the same film? Just exactly what do you think was happening when Sayuri caught Hatsumomo with her boyfriend in the storehouse? They were playing backgammon? Jeesh..."
Are you suggesting that geisha, being human and perfect, NEVER had sex outside the bounds? NEVER had sex with their clients? NEVER had clandestine relationships? If so, you'rre wrong: see the DOCUMENTARY DVD I cite.
"And the very first time we see Hatsumomo making out with her boyfriend, they are doing it right on the street as Sayuri watches from the window. Kind of hard to miss, I thought..."
On the street? Or in the yard? And we're to believe NO geisha EVER "slipped"?
"Have YOU seen this film?"
Numerous times. And I've looked beyond it and found that the slams against it for its "inaccuracies" are mostly FALSE. Indeed, you ADMIT your problem with the film is that it's ""culturally insensitve," even where factual. What you demand is lying so the realities -- such as Japanese racism -- cultural insensity -- aren't "insulted".
See the documentary cited: YOU will learn FACTS about geisha you clearly DON'T know, beginning with the fact that the realities are more complex than you realize.
Again, if you can't support what you claim on this board, well, whatever...
Indeed, you ADMIT your problem with the film is that it's ""culturally insensitve," even where factual.Please feel free to cite exactly where I did this. I'm rather sure I didn't.
As I have to keep repeating, I have no problem with the 'factual' stuff (e.g. that children were sold into servitude and even prostitution in Japan in the past). I have no problem with that at all. Again, feel free to cite me directly where I ever did this.
And I don't consider it 'culturally insensitive' to show this in MOAG.
So at least try to address my actual arguments, instead of just blathering on about things I never complained about... share
Well, duh...Things like how Japan is noted for it's EXTREME dislike of 'unclean' things, . . . But in this movie a GEIKO (geisha in training) picks food off the street (!) and eats it right in front of everyone (!!!).That was a means to communicate that the children IN THE FICTION FILM weren't fed sufficiently.
I understand what they meant to show. Apparently you don't understand just how absurd this would be for a GEIKO in KYOTO to be doing. It's hard enough to imagine ANY Japanese child doing this, but GEIKO in training to be GEISHA!? This is just absurd.
But Rob Marshall's message is perfectly clear. Geiko and geisha are nothing more than human pigs... share
"I understand what they meant to show. Apparently you don't understand just how absurd this would be for a GEIKO in KYOTO to be doing. It's hard enough to imagine ANY Japanese child doing this, but GEIKO in training to be GEISHA!? This is just absurd."
Get your head out of the clouds. Under US occupation -- exactly as shown in the film -- many Japanese prostitutes called themselves "geisha" because it was easily understood by US servicemen. And they dressed as such, and wore kimono, etc.
And as people were starving, women from ALL levels of society were trading sex for a meal. They weren't too choosy about "manners" and "cultural sensitivities".
And Marshall's "message" is a great deal more complicated than you realize. Then again, you've not seen the film, and not seen the extras on the DVD, so haven't a clue what his "message" was actually inteded BY HIM to be. Instead, you delude yourself that you can read minds. You don't have half the information available, much of which explains approaches, and answers questions you haven't the sense to cognate, let alone ask.
The bottom line is that tthe film is a great deal more accurate than EVEN YOU realize. All because you object to TRUTH which "insults" "cultural sensitivities" which aren't praiseworthy to begin with.
The film is FACTUAL about the selling of children into slavery and prostitution. But saying so offends those who want to pretend otherwise. The film is FACTUAL about the auctioning off of a girl's virginity. But saying so offends those who want to pretend otherwise.
So, in interest of those who want to avoid the facts, and the accuracies in the film, let's instead talk about how civilized the Japanese Rape of Najing was. Agreed?
Oh, right: that would "insult" the "cultural sensitivities" that masquerade as manners -- and "class" -- in order to hide the truth.
Actually, some still do so today. I don't need to get my head out of the clouds on this one.I understand what they meant to show. Apparently you don't understand just how absurd this would be for a GEIKO in KYOTO to be doing. It's hard enough to imagine ANY Japanese child doing this, but GEIKO in training to be GEISHA!? This is just absurd.Get your head out of the clouds. Under US occupation -- exactly as shown in the film -- many Japanese prostitutes called themselves "geisha" because it was easily understood by US servicemen. And they dressed as such, and wore kimono, etc.
So, in other words, the okiya where Sayuri and Pumpkin were brought up WAS meant to be nothing but a brothel, and Sayuri and Pumpkin really WERE meant to be just whores? Is that what you're saying?
I thought this was supposed to be a film about the REAL geisha, not whores calling themselves geisha. But now it's clear; Pumpkin and Sayuri never really were geiko, so they can be as crude as they like...
It still doesn't seem like Japanese behavior even for common folk in the years BEFORE the war, but thanks for at least clearing up the fact that they never really were geiko... share
"So, in other words, the okiya where Sayuri and Pumpkin were brought up WAS meant to be nothing but a brothel, and Sayuri and Pumpkin really WERE meant to be just whores? Is that what you're saying?"
What I say is what I'm saying. You effort is to "guess" what I think in order to avoid what I do in fact SAY. Your effort is to attempt to put words in my mouth in effort to avoid what I AM saying.
I'll end this with a fact which conclusively shows that you either don't know what you're talking about, or are simply lying, or BOTH.
You've said several times that a person with blue eyes in Japan would be relegated to the lowest strata of society, based upon the unproven assumption that one of its parents was caucasion, therefore racially inferior.
And that is such a "principle"-based attitude that it blames the person with the blue eyes for having blue eyes, even thought that person did not CHOOSE to have blue eyes, and thereffore is NOT AT FAULT for having blue eyes.
Talk about being found guilty not only without a trial, but without any reference whatsoever to fact and reason.
On top of which you several times said -- because of those "reasons" -- a person with blue eyes could never become a geisha -- would not be ALLOWED to become a geisha -- because of the blue eyes, and because that person would not be of sufficient social status to become a geisha.
I've told you to do your homework, and cited a documentary -- "The Secret Life of Geisha" -- with which to do that; but, as you know it all, therefore have nothing to learn, even though you distort, avoid facts, and it is doubtful you know much at all about the topic, and the realities of the specific world of geisha, you also avoid that opportunity.
I have, also, several times cited Liza Dalby, the only Westerner to ever become a geisha.
So why did -- and do -- I recommend that documentary so you can inform yourself about the REALITIES of geisha life? Because, beyond the fact that it includes interviews with actual maiko and geisha, and beyond the fact that both Arthur Golden and Liza Dalby are interviewed, the fact is that Liza Dalby had and has--
BLUE EYES.
And NONE of the geisha had ANY problem with the fact that she was a geisha, OR that she had BLUE EYES. In fact, they didn't tell their clients that she had BLUE EYES because they preferred to see their clients' double-take on seeing that she did have BLUE EYES -- at which point they would break out in laughter, as they viewed their clients' reactions as being hilarious.
So you don't know what you're talking about; and when you want to do something different than simply not knowing what you're talking about, you avoid, change your story, and make stuff up -- LIE.
Others who read this thread will see all of that: that you falsely pose as an expert, distort, avoid, and make stuff up. All while your story changes, when one or another point is refuted, into something else.
Simply put: you are not credible, and you yourself have provided the evidence that that is the fact.
Well, it's hard to figure out exactly what it is you're saying.So, in other words, the okiya where Sayuri and Pumpkin were brought up WAS meant to be nothing but a brothel, and Sayuri and Pumpkin really WERE meant to be just whores? Is that what you're saying?What I say is what I'm saying. You effort is to "guess" what I think in order to avoid what I do in fact SAY. Your effort is to attempt to put words in my mouth in effort to avoid what I AM saying.
I said that it was ridiculous to show girls who belong to a REAL okiya, and who are in training to be REAL geisha, to be picking up food off a street and eating it like pigs.
Then you said,
many Japanese prostitutes called themselves "geisha" because it was easily understood by US servicemen. And they dressed as such, and wore kimono, etc.Well, these are your exact words, are they not? These are the words YOU USED to answer my point. Since this scene in the film happens well before the war, if what YOU SAID has any relevance to my point, then clearly you are defending the scene on the basis that Chiyo and Pumpkin are 'prostitutes' who 'call themselves geisha.' Tell me how that's NOT what you said. I'm reading your post right now!
Look, if that's not what you meant, then why did you say that in response to my post? I'm not 'putting words in your mouth' or 'guessing.' I'm reading exactly what YOU wrote. share
I'll end this with a fact which conclusively shows that you either don't know what you're talking about, or are simply lying, or BOTH.Come off it! I was talking about a JAPANESE person with blue eyes, at the time represented in the film (1920s), not today. Grow up and learn to argue like an adult...
(snip)
the fact is that Liza Dalby had and has--
BLUE EYES.
Anyways, Liza Dalby is not, nor ever was, a geisha.
From Wikipeida:
"Liza Dalby has been referred to as the only non-Japanese woman to ever be a geisha. However, such reports are inaccurate. Although she accompanied geiko on some of their engagements from 1975-76, she never went through the formal processes of becoming a geiko herself, nor was she formally associated with any of the okiya or ochaya in Kyoto. Her attendance at such parties for research purposes was at the invitation of her friends only, and clients were not billed for her attendance."
In other words, NOT A GEISHA.
Nevertheless, I don't doubt she knows more about it than me.
But then again, Mineko Iwasaki WAS A REAL GEISHA. In fact, she is the MAIN source (not the only, alright, but the main one) for Golden's supposed 'research.' Ms. Iwasaki would certainly know better than Ms. Dalby, wouldn't you agree? And Iwasaki said the book was complete TRASH. She went so far as to sue Golden for defamation, and Golden and his publisher settled out of court (i.e. they knew there was a chance Iwaski would WIN, so they settled).
Seeing as how the film was based on the book, I would assume Iwasaki would also consider it trash. But I doubt she even saw it, knowing how offensive it would be in it's misrepresentation of geisha culture.
As someone else here mentioned, there were other Japanese consultants who actually left during filming because their advice was not being taken. One of the other American consultants who is more of an expert on geisha culture than Dalby also said the film got it wrong in many places, despite his efforts to explain what geisha culture was really like.
So you don't have to take my word for it, even though I have lived in Japan for 15 years, living quite near Kyoto, in fact, am fluent in Japanese and have a genuine interest in this sort of stuff (as opposed to you, who saw a Hollywood movie, once...), it's ok. Don't believe me. But when real geisha come out and say it's CRAP, please don't tell me how you know oh so much better! share
I applaud to you, sir! With this post and your long-living patience you have brought down the cyclops. I have followed this one way argument for some time, and must say I find it quite amusing. Also, I agree with you, or better said: I approve of the truth. ;)
shareIf a geisha ever would have blue eyes she would in modern day wear contacts.
In Tokyo there is a australian woman working as a geisha, Sayuki or Fiona Graham and her natural eye color is not brown but she does wear dark contacta to make her eyes the dark shade that the japanese people have.
Kyoto would never accept a blue or grey eyed girl, I believe Tokyo had once upon a time ( late 1800 early 1900) a few shikomi who were ainu but because of they were not popular umong customers they sent them back home.
A unfortunate fact about the kimono used in the movie is that they bought beautiful vintage kimono from collectors and shops and then cut them and re-formed them that afterward when they gave them back to the shops they could no longer be used as normal kimono.
The fact is that those who are "Japanese" or claiming to be, as excuses to hate that about which they know next to nothing, these are actual JAPANESE reviews of the film:
___
From The Daily Yomiyuri, "The life of a geisha well translated." A quote
Casting non-Japanese stars as geisha, including Zhang Ziyi as the lead character, seemed to run the risk of disappointing Japanese audiences. However, it turns out that the Asian stars fit well in the geisha world. And the world director Rob Marshall creates is reasonably believable. The movie is a standard success story, only set in a world unfamiliar to many: the Gion entertainment district in Kyoto in the 1920s to 1940s. The story is mostly true to the book, cutting some developments and focusing on memorable scenes. As a result, it successfully translates the book's atmosphere.... Marshall, the director of Chicago, has once again brought a well-known story to life on the screen. In this sense, he lives up to expectations. As a whole, Memoirs of a Geisha is a good blend of Japan, Asia and Hollywood.
Asahi has a review titled "Casting choices leave fond memories."
In the end, the issue turned out to be nonissue. Director Rob Marshall's decision to have non-Japanese actresses play some very Japanese parts in his film adaptation of Arthur Golden's best-selling "Memoirs of a Geisha" was bound to generate controversy, and it did. But now that the film is opening in Japan, the howls of indignation that greeted Marshall's move are fading to a whisper. Considering the performances, it's hard to figure out what all the fuss was about. Ziyi Zhang, Gong Li and Michelle Yeoh, all of Chinese ethnicity, handle their English-speaking geisha roles with aplomb...
Though its evocation of prewar Japan is not entirely grounded in reality, this visually sumptuous Cinderella story will win over skeptics... While it's a shame that no Japanese actress could meet Marshall's requirements, his choice of Zhang does not disappoint. The 26-year-old Chinese actress, who wowed audiences as a blind dancer in Zhang Yimou's "House of Flying Daggers," deftly conveys Chiyo's metamorphosis from ragged housemaid to radiant geisha.
The fact is that those who are "Japanese" or claiming to be, as excuses to hate that about which they know next to nothing, these are actual JAPANESE reviews of the film:These are NOT Japanese reviews of the film. Both Yomiuri and Asahi newspapers use Westerners to write their movie reviews for their English editions. These can and do differ from what the Japanese reviewers write for the Japanese edition.
The film got some good reviews in the Japanese press, but it got a lot of bad ones, too. Some Japanese people liked the movie, but a lot didn't. Compared to it's profits in the US, the film did poorly here in Japan. That really says it all. Japanese people weren't screaming for blood (like some in China), but the film got middling reviews and a lot of snickers here in Japan. share
"mononoke hime" is either lying, ignorant, or hasn't read the facts I've posted on the following point:
"If a geisha ever would have blue eyes she would in modern day wear contacts.
In Tokyo there is a australian woman working as a geisha, Sayuki or Fiona Graham and her natural eye color is not brown but she does wear dark contacta to make her eyes the dark shade that the japanese people have.
"Kyoto would never accept a blue or grey eyed girl, I believe Tokyo had once upon a time ( late 1800 early 1900) a few shikomi who were ainu but because of they were not popular umong customers they sent them back home."
AGAIN: Liza Dalby, who consulted on both Arthur Golden's novel, and the film, was:
1. The only WESTERNER to become a geisha.
2. She had BLUE EYES -- and the other geisha had great fun with that fact -- but NOT at her expense. Rather, they loved waiting until a client noticed, and did a double-take, at which point they would burst out laughing.
"A unfortunate fact about the kimono used in the movie is that they bought beautiful vintage kimono from collectors and shops and then cut them and re-formed them that afterward when they gave them back to the shops they could no longer be used as normal kimono."
They did nothing of the kind. The kimono used in the film were MADE BY THE FILM COSTUMING STAFF -- ALL of which is shown and discussed in the extras on the second of the two DVDs.
"mononoke hime" would KNOW ALL of those facts had s/he ACTUALLY seen the film -- and ACTUALLY read my prior posts on these points.
But don't take my word for it, ignoramous: see ALSO the DOCUMENTARY* "The Secret Life of Geisha," in which Liza Dalby (and Arthur Golden) is interviewed, and shown as a geisha, and visiting her geisha mother in Japan.
_____
*Several persons involved with making "Memoirs of a Geisha" -- some of them JAPANESE -- POINTEDLY said that the film is NOT A DOCUMENTARY. It is a FICTION based upon a FICTION.
_____
Everyone objective who has read this thread knows who is stating the facts -- and providing sources to substantiate same -- and, by contrast, who are simply spewing hate, with NO regard for the actual history, facts, or film, and the intents of those who made the film.
The facts, and those sources, have been sufficiently often cited, and identified with sufficient detail for such hateful bigots to find and educate themselves to them. If is, of course, doubtful that the haters can overcome their bigotries in order to actually deal objectively and honestly with not only the film, and the intents of those who made it, but also the non-fiction sources which provide the actual history and facts.
No more repetition of the facts, and the clearly identified sources which substantiate them, is necessary. Everyone who reads this thread will know who are -- and aren't -- dealing with reality.
Liza Dalby is not, nor ever was, a geisha.
From Wikipeida:
"Liza Dalby has been referred to as the only non-Japanese woman to ever be a geisha. However, such reports are inaccurate. Although she accompanied geiko on some of their engagements from 1975-76, she never went through the formal processes of becoming a geiko herself, nor was she formally associated with any of the okiya or ochaya in Kyoto. Her attendance at such parties for research purposes was at the invitation of her friends only, and clients were not billed for her attendance."
In other words, NOT A GEISHA.
Yes, anyone who takes the time to read this ridiculous thread will see how we continually point out certain things to you (like the fact that Liza Dalby is not a geisha) and how you just ignore this and go happily about reposting the same failed arguments. That's the reality.
Actually some kimono were bought from shops as well from ebay, Colleen Atwood discussed that in some interviews, and one of the consultants in the film was the creator of the immortalgeisha.com website (Naomi Graham)also Peter MacIntosh who lives and works with geiko in Kyoto was a consultant.
Liza Dalby did have quite dark eyes not blue and as she has even said herself, SHE WAS NOT A REGISTERED GEISHA but merely went to parties that the guests were always informed of a american researcher spending time as a "geisha" for her research.
http://www.lizadalby.com/LD/Geisha_pics.html#8
I started reading up on the film already when it was in production because I am a true geisha admirer and have spent time with Kyoto geiko and maiko.
Also I read every bit of research there is about the geisha world and as well as about the licensed pleasure quarters.
I'm also a kimono collector.
Also I have read the book and seen the movie many times.
Maybe you should spent some more timw yourself researching the geisha worls and facts before you make accusations about people.
I have seen the documentary you speak of(I have it myself)it's one of the better documentaries out there(Yuiko is still a active geiko^^)
Liza Dalby and Peter MacIntosh both appear in it and are more credible experts then Arthur golden.
You must have heard that the main source of Golden's book even sued him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngSWyBn5Jq8&feature=PlayList&p=19D30E43CE5DEC0B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=21
And as people were starving, women from ALL levels of society were trading sex for a meal. They weren't too choosy about "manners" and "cultural sensitivities".You know, I've never heard of this happening. What is your source? But even if there was some case, you make it sound like EVERY woman in Japan did this. Since a great number of my friends and relatives would fall under your false assumption, I'm starting to get personally offended by you.
The more you talk, the more you sound like an out-and-out racist.
Japan was poor at the end of the war, but not that poor. Japanese women didn't trade sex for a meal then anymore than US women trade sex for crack cocaine today; it may happen (and may have happened in Japan, but honestly I've never heard of such a thing) in extremely dire cases, but not as a general trend. If you claim otherwise because a Hollywood film gave you the impression that it was common, that just shows how shallow (and ignorant) you really are. share
And Marshall's "message" is a great deal more complicated than you realize.Truly pathetic...
This is just a friggin movie to you, but it's an actual part of my life. Yet you understand these issues about Japan and the war better than me? Truly laughable.
You have one perspective, the one you picked up from a Hollywood film. I have at least the advantage of seeing this from both an American perspective (being a US citizen and being raised in the US) and a Japanese perspective. Maybe you have a relative who fought in the Pacific, and maybe that gives you more of a perspective on issues. I, too, have relatives who fought on the US side in the Pacific AND Japanese in-laws who fought on the Japanese side! I know people who witnessed the mushroom cloud over Nagasaki WITH THEIR OWN EYES, and I know numerous people who lost a parent or grand-parent in that bombing. The occupation and the various proclamations and directives that underpinned it are just facts in a book (or film) to you, but I live in the country where these things happened and know personally many people who were directly influenced by it. Indeed, I can still see the after-effects of all these issues even today, all around me. I'm rather sure my perspective on these issues is broader than yours, and my knowledge deeper.
Just cut the crap talking down to me on things like what life was like in Japan before, during and after the war. I have a pretty good picture of it, given to me by FIRST hand accounts, rather than a silly movie... share
I didn't say it needed to be explained with lengthy dialogue. But all of these things I mentioned were shown in the film anyway, they were just shown being done the WRONG WAY! All I'm saying is if they had had the slightest inclination to get things culturally right, they would have had JAPANESE experts on hand (apparently they did, but the director ignored them time and time again) to show the actors the correct way to do these things. It would not have made the film any longer, any more complex, or any more tedious for the viewer. It would, however, have made the film more culturally correct, and even more accurate--which I'm sure even fans of the film would not have minded seeing.Things like not even knowing how Japanese people enter a house, or how they pray before eating, or how they bow, or how they greet a teacher before entering a classroom, . . . .In a film which must be within a length the audience can handle in one sitting much is omitted. I doubt the audience needs to see all the "extranea" you consider necessary. This is, after all, F-I-C-T-I-O-N.
It wouldn't have been that D-I-F-F-I-C-U-L-T. But they just didn't care. And the Chinese actresses didn't know.
For contrast, see The Last Samurai. There are some issues with that film too, but I do give them credit for getting the little stuff right. Of course, since they chose to use actual JAPANESE actors and actresses for JAPANESE parts (pretty much destroys the notion that there was no choice but to use Chinese actresses in MOAG), they naturally got these small points right. The scenes in the home in LS very accurately show what Japanese houses looked like at that time, and very accurately show proper Japanese etiquette and manners (I think there were a couple of faux paus when it came to how one addresses the Emperor, but for everyday stuff the film was good). share
"I didn't say it needed to be explained with lengthy dialogue. But all of these things I mentioned were shown in the film anyway, they were just shown being done the WRONG WAY! All I'm saying is if they had had the slightest inclination to get things culturally right, they would have had JAPANESE experts on hand (apparently they did, but the director ignored them time and time again) to show the actors the correct way to do these things."
You're talking out of your behind. And you DON'T KNOW what the director, et al., intended, because YOU HAVEN'T BOTHERED TO FIND OUT by WATCHING them explain their approaches in the "extras".
Until then you'll continue to make accusations which have no foundation in fact.
Huh? Lost me there, dude.. . . or how they say hello to someone of higher class, . . . .You're beginning to get honest about your ACTUAL objections to the film.
But there is a right way and a wrong way to do this. It's BASIC Japanese etiquette. Why couldn't they get it right? They make the geiko out to be WAY too servile. Class, status and rank definitely do play a role in Japanese society, so if you're going to make a film about Japan it would be a good idea to RESEARCH the issue a bit, and make at least a minimal effort to get it right. share...or how even geiko don't need to prostrate themselves before anyone (except possibly the Emperor, if they ever met him). Japanese don't do this as a regular thing, regardless of status. It is done to show great remorse, to atone for sins, and there is a correct way to do it, and a wrong way to do it.And yet there is in reality a great deal of bowing and scraping, for any number of reasons. Correct? That that is the reality is communicated.
"But there is a right way and a wrong way to do this. It's BASIC Japanese etiquette. Why couldn't they get it right? They make the geiko out to be WAY too servile. Class, status and rank definitely do play a role in Japanese society, so if you're going to make a film about Japan it would be a good idea to RESEARCH the issue a bit, and make at least a minimal effort to get it right."
When will YOU be doing the necessary RESEARCH to KNOW what the director, et al., intended, instead of making it up because you DON'T KNOW. It's all right there in the "extras". And you needn't do anything but WATCH and LISTEN.
It is a FICTION; it is, as the director said (among many other things), a FAIRY TALE. And as the driector and his "life partner" were trained in dance, they gave that some emphasis. The solo dance by Sauri -- with the parasol -- was an adaptation from Kabuki. But I guess that doesn't "insult" "cultural sensitivities" or something.
GET the DVD and WATCH the "extras" -- ONLY thereafter pop off about what the director, et al., intended. Until you do that you'll be talking unfounded imaginings out your behind.
[deleted]
The dance was suppose to be a version of the famous play Sagimusume or white egret maiden that is popular both in Kabuki and nihon byuo.
But Sayuri's dance had nothing to do with Kabyki at all.
I've seen Sagi musume performed by Bando Tamasaburo, they should jys have him do all the dances because he was more feminine then any of the actresses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q1MPwD7zCI
"The dance was suppose to be a version of the famous play Sagimusume or white egret maiden that is popular both in Kabuki and nihon byuo.
But Sayuri's dance had nothing to do with Kabyki at all."
I didn't say it was Kabuki. Neither did anyone associated with the film. Which shows yet again the insistence upon substituing excuses to hate for actually knowing the intentions of those who MADE the film.
And without actually responding to what IS said.
How many times must you be TOLD by THOSE WHO MADE the film that they WEREN'T making a documentary before you GET that fact?
Mononoke hime didn't say you said 'it was Kabuki.' So much for your harsh retort...The dance was suppose to be a version of the famous play Sagimusume or white egret maiden that is popular both in Kabuki and nihon byuo.I didn't say it was Kabuki. Neither did anyone associated with the film. Which shows yet again the insistence upon substituing excuses to hate for actually knowing the intentions of those who MADE the film.
But Sayuri's dance had nothing to do with Kabyki at all.
What you did say was that Sayuri's dance was an 'adaptation from Kabuki'. Yes, indeed, that is exactly what you said. An 'adaptation from Kabuki.' Let me check again, just to be sure... yes, an 'adaptation from Kabuki.'
Now, call me crazy, but if it is an 'adaptation from Kabuki' that means it has SOMETHING to do with Kabuki (I understand you said 'adaptation', but that still means there's some connection). Mononoke hime responded that the dance 'had nothing to do at all with Kabuki.' And your response? 'I didn't say it was Kabuki.' And...? Mononoke hime didn't say you did!
This is typical of you. You don't actually answer ANYTHING anyone says, you just accuse them (wrongly) of misstating what you said. She responded directly to what you said, but YOU didn't respond to what SHE said.
You're such a hypocrite! share
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.But like I said, all that stuff is really just nitpicking.Then why are you carrying on and on and on with your nitpicking?
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. share
"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.
OK, well, if we're going to keep harping on atrocities of the past...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.
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. share
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!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?
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... share
"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.
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.
Weak...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?
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. share
"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.
Well, I'm starting to get YOU. YOU think Japan really is a land of nothing but savages.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.
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. share
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.
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.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?
Whatever, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, since I can't surely remember it's in the film. share
I think you missed the point, and rather badly....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.
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. share
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.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?
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. share
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...
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.
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.
[deleted]
[deleted]
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.
"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.
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
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.
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. share
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.
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.
share
[deleted]
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".
Get over the fact that this ISN'T A DOCUMENTARY.
Get with the program: it is F-I-C-T-I-O-N.
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!
shareWhat, 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.
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.
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...
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.
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. share
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.
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.
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.
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.
shareIn 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. share
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.
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.' share
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. share
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 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...
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.
Why wouldn't they what? Stare at you with a blank face? My point exactly! That's just what they would do!...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?
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.
share
". . . . 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.
"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.
I'm starting to enjoy this!
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.You're an expert on the culture of India as well?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."
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.
Wow, you're too good for me! I should just give up now...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.
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...
share
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.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.
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: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.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.
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. share
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? share
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?
share
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.
"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."
Ignorance and racism rule. And let's keep it that way.
Genetics shows that blue eye-color can occur anywhere. But the Japanese racism -- probably the worst in the world -- presumes that it means one parent was caucasian, therefore the mother was a whore, therefore the child with the blue eyes -- even though the child didn't choose to have blue eyes -- is victimized by being relegated to the lowest strata of society.
And the racism is so intense that it cannot be pentrated by reason or fact: thus the person with the blue eyes is victimized in order NOT to LEARN the facts of genetics; and in order NOT to change the cultural RACISM.
In Japan, racial "purity" is paramount -- even when that means Japanese troops raping Chinese in Nanjing, and Shanghai, and Beijing, etc.
actually the indegenious AINU people in Japan had light eyes and light hair....not very common in the japanese population...it is very rare but light eyes can appear anywhere
shareIt is the wont of culture snobs to overlook the fact that fiction is fiction, and not fact, in order to bash the fact it is fiction and therefore not fact.
As for, "Japanese don't normally have blue eye colour": there are blonde blue-eyed Italians in Italy. All humans have the same DNA; eye-color is not determined by race -- or by culture.
It is the wont of culture snobs to overlook the fact that fiction is fiction, and not fact, in order to bash the fact it is fiction and therefore not fact.Uh...
What?
As for, "Japanese don't normally have blue eye colour": there are blonde blue-eyed Italians in Italy. All humans have the same DNA; eye-color is not determined by race -- or by culture.OK, great argument, I buy it 100%
Now just find me a blue-eyed Japanese... share
In the book, Sayuri had a different eye color than most people in her society. This is what made her stand out.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
i didn't mean that you wouldn't understand because you're not japanese, i was implying rather that you would disagree that this movie was cultural nonsense based on your ignorance of the japanese cultural mindset.
the movie was obviously worse, so let me just stick to the literary source.
a lot of issues & themes that are in the book (love, sex, commitment, loyalty, subordination, neglect/abuse, etc) are presented with such a western sensibility and style that if you took out the words geisha, japan, and all the japanese names in the book, you'd basically have a hollywood story.
(and of course, a happy ending could not be complete without moving to the United States of course)
now, i have nothing against american/hollywood version of love. Most of my favorite love stories are hollywood style.
And I don't doubt the author's knowledge of the culture or history. The book offers many interesting tidbits of japanese culture, but fails in a major way when it cannot present protagonists who think, emote, or act in believable ways in the context of early 20th century japan.
i'm afraid the movie just tries to capitalize on the western world's love of anything/everything japanese by giving us a watered down, culturally void, american story of love sensationalized in a japanese setting.
I have not seen the film but I cannot understand why you think this is a culturally clueless book? Arthur Golden spent some time interviewing Mineko Iwasaki and the book felt quite authentic to me. Could you please explain how 1930's Japan was culturally different from the book? We're you in Japan to experience its culture yourself at this time?
shareBasically Mineki became a geisha after WW II already that made her life very different, she was adopted as a child to become the next heir and had a very privileged life as the Iwsaki heir.
Arthur Golden interviewed only Mineko Iwasaki (it seems he did not get in touch with any geishas who had been active before the war)
There are many books in japanese written by scolars and geisha that had worked before the war.
And we all know how it enden, Mineko suing Arthur Golden and paying a amount of money to compensate for destroying her reputation.
We're you in Japan to experience its culture yourself at this time?Were you?!
I won't argue with you about what it was like in pre-war Japan, since you won't listen to me anyway. But Ms. Iwasaki HERSELF has nothing but contempt for Golden's book. Case closed, I'd say. share
MIND closed. You make no mention of Liza Dalby -- who unlike you was a geisha, and who consulted on both novel and film.
MIND closed. You make no mention of Liza Dalby -- who unlike you was a geisha, and who consulted on both novel and film.From Wikipeida:
"Liza Dalby has been referred to as the only non-Japanese woman to ever be a geisha. However, such reports are inaccurate. Although she accompanied geiko on some of their engagements from 1975-76, she never went through the formal processes of becoming a geiko herself, nor was she formally associated with any of the okiya or ochaya in Kyoto. Her attendance at such parties for research purposes was at the invitation of her friends only, and clients were not billed for her attendance."
In other words, NOT A GEISHA.
Nevertheless, I don't doubt she knows more about it than me.
But then again, Mineko Iwasaki WAS A REAL GEISHA. In fact, she is the MAIN source (not the only, alright, but the main one) for Golden's supposed 'research.' Ms. Iwasaki would certainly know better than Ms. Dalby, wouldn't you agree? And Iwasaki said the book was complete TRASH. She went so far as to sue Golden for defamation, and Golden and his publisher settled out of court (i.e. they knew there was a chance Iwaski would WIN, so they settled).
Seeing as how the film was based on the book, I would assume Iwasaki would also consider it trash. But I doubt she even saw it, knowing how offensive it would be in it's misrepresentation of geisha culture.
As someone else here mentioned, there were other Japanese consultants who actually left during filming because their advice was not being taken. One of the other American consultants who is more of an expert on geisha culture than Dalby also said the film got it wrong in many places, despite his efforts to explain what geisha culture was really like.
So you don't have to take my word for it, even though I have lived in Japan for 15 years, living quite near Kyoto, in fact, am fluent in Japanese and have a genuine interest in this sort of stuff (as opposed to you, who saw a Hollywood movie, once...), it's ok. Don't believe me. But when real geisha come out and say it's CRAP, please don't tell me how you know oh so much better! share
In other words, you weren't in pre-war Japan either, and don't know first hand that the novel and film are wrong about that period, which you didn't witness.
Is Japan's culture the same today as then? In many respects, no -- so your "argument" by imposing inapplicable present reality onto the past is fatally flawed.
And in some glaring respects, yes: racist bigotry so intense it is confused for "culture" and rationalized as superior, either in culture or class.
Sorry I'm not sorry that you, and other Japanese, are embarrassed by accurate depictions of dirty laundry you want to keep hidden. Selling children in slavery and prostitution -- which was the actual reality, even if not the same today -- remains savage, not civilized. Regardless the obsessive cultural concern with "cleanliness".
Were you?
As for Iwasaki having "nothing but contempt" for Golden's book: in a shame-based culture such as Japan, where they eat their own if not loyal to racial "purity," I would not be surprised if she were lying in effort to defend herself against Japan's own mendacious/self-cannibalizing culture.
I'm very sorry if you can't just enjoy such a beautiful film.
shareYou obviously haven't seen the film: Sayuri does not move to the United States.
Which is rather typical in accordance with the "Japanese mindset" of intense racism against even other peoples of the same race. We see that in the offhand admission that in Japan, Korean and Chinese women -- along with children not responsible for having the "wrong" color eyes -- were/are relegated to the lowest strata of society as something to be despised, abused, and exploited.
Noe of which typicality is seen as savage, but rather is rationalized as superiority of culture.
Actually yes she did move to the United states in both the book and the movie.
In the book the chairman's daughters husband had important position and it would have become a problem if he found out that the chairman had a son with Sayuri.
So she moved to the united states to prevent that from happening.
That was clearly inspired by Tokyo geisha Kiharu Nakamura who moved to the United states after the war.
--------------"Actually yes she did move to the United states in both the book and the movie.
In the book the chairman's daughters husband had important position and it would have become a problem if he found out that the chairman had a son with Sayuri.
So she moved to the united states to prevent that from happening.
That was clearly inspired by Tokyo geisha Kiharu Nakamura who moved to the United states after the war."--------------
She DOES move to America in the book (I believe she mentions a New York penthouse?) - however, it is absolutely not and NEVER mentioned in the movie - movies are different entities from the books of origin entirely. It might be "assumed" she did if you read the book, but as she didn't mention it in the movie, you can't just try to make it FACT that she did...
It's like saying, okay in "The Lord of the Rings", certain things happened in the trilogy of books that did NOT happen in the films. There's no one to say they DIDN'T happen (for all we know they did meet Tom Bombadil), but you can't just make it FACT and say these things actually happened if the viewers of the movie never saw OR heard it from the characters. You can't ARGUE points without visual or audible proof.
There's a reason why this book/film is considered a Fiction.... It's not a biography.... or an autobiography....
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Much of the trappings in the film are accurate Japanese -- Kimono, as example. But there were liberties taken with such as hairdos.
I read the first several pages of the novel, and was immediately struck by the use of phrases from 1990s US vernacular, even though the period to be represented was 1920s Japan. That lingustic problem was immediately off-putting.
As for the blue eyes: you'll note the theme of "water" associated with Chiyo/Sayuri: that's a reason for the blue eyes: when Mother first looks at Chiyo's eyes, she says, "Too much water."
It was, also, a way to make her distinctive -- and something of a novelty. I don't doubt there are Japanese men who would make a big deal of having a geisha with blue eyes.
All in all, though, there is far too much made of such details when they are intended to be part of that which is FICTION.
I don't know why people watch a film that is FICTION but expect it to be a DOCUMENTARY.
Better question: Are you Japanese? Or just somebody trying to stir the pot? As said elsewhere, that "You wouldn't understand because you're not Japanese" stuff is a cop-out. One of the most unfortunate things about the Japanese people is this myth that they are just so "special" and "unique" that nobody else can understand them. I lived in Japan for 2 1/2 years, and the Japanese people are just as human as the rest of us. The laugh and they cry; they live and they die. I detected no evidence that the people of Japan are direct descendants of a Sun Goddess, or any thing else out of the self-limiting Japanese national mythology. Once again: Are you Japanese, or just a crew member of a Japanese-flagged fishing boat, "trolling" these waters?
share