Thanks to Michael for his comments:

>Aaron, you wrote about how we must pay attention to modes of viewing; I certainly watch NHK morning dramas differently than I would an evening drama or a movie, and suspect a lot of other longtime viewers do too (and so am curious as to how it was received by your wife). I have long imagined that inside NHK was a check list of requirements that any story considered for the morning drama series must have (e.g. young female hero, either she or her parents work in a "traditional" Japanese field, despite continual obstacles and adversity success is found through working hard and never giving up, and in the end realizing that the traditional Japanese ways are the best). So one has to look past these obligatory inclusions to see what the story is really about; I see here a story that often questions tradition and satirizes Japanese society in a gentle way (something also done in _Otona no Otoko_, the other Oishi Shizuka written drama on the air here now). From one perspective one certainly could bemoan the cliches, from mine I am impressed at how many it avoided.

You are very right. In fact, we watched _Futarikko_ precisely because it avoided many of the cliches which usually make us give up on the asaren. Well, not quite. We first caught on simply because of Mana-chan and Kana-chan, and then got hooked by the oldest of narrative cliches: the underdog who succeeds against expectations story. What clinched things was that it was a woman trying to succeed in the all-male world of shogi. But while that part was progressive in terms of gender, we were totally turned off by the story of the other sister: her character was sloppily written, the acting bad, and her capitulation to patriarchy at the end totally unbelievable (if not annoying). Frankly, we watched mostly for elaboration of characters, but found a few too many of them lacking motivation for their actions. Maybe we did not watch it the way it was supposed to be watched, but that's because we expected something different: _Futarikko_ delivered in some ways, but missed out in a lot of others.

By the way, I watched Sakamoto Junji's _Ote_ again the other day for the first time after seeing _Futarikko_ and was amazed at how much _Futarikko_ owes to that movie. Some of the same situations, some of the same locations, some of the same actors, etc. Frankly, it made me look down on Oishi some more. (Sakamoto's Osaka films are all worth second viewings.)

>One of the funniest shows that I have ever seen, and one of the few Japanese shows that might be classed as a sit com, was the Furuhata spinoff/takeoff _Imaizumi Shintarou_ starring Nishimura Masahiko and written by Mitani Koki. It is available on video if you have never seen it.

>The comedy dramas written by Mitani that I have seen (_Furuhata Ninzaburou_ and _Ousama no Resutoran_) were quite good as well.

I should have mentioned Mitani in my original comment: his comedies are definitely the best scripted around. But I do have a problem with the direction: everything seems to be overdone and, while that works for the first few episodes (the parodic element), it begins to grate halfway through. I wish there was a more subtle director who could handle Mitani's scripts.

Bringing up Mitani also should remind us that the "auteur" in Japanese TV is often still considered the scriptwriter. Stars of course are important for ratings, but one of the best ways to select shows is to focus on scriptwriters you like. It would be interesting to find out how this came about.

Aaron Gerow

YNU

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998
From: "S.A. Thornton" 
Subject: Re: TV in Japan

I have been paying attention, if only a little, to the discussion on TV and I would like to point out what I consider to be a problem: the disparaging and excuse me ethnocentric condemnation of Japanese cliches in Japanese TV shows.

I'd like to make two points. Cliches are the core of the narrative strategies and attention has to be paid to them: what do they mean? how are they used? what is their value in terms of performance and production as well as reception?

Just because these narrative strategies are not American does not mean that they have no value in their own culture. I thought that the prupose of studying Japanese film/TV was to figure out what the Japanese were doing? The American model has to be addressed and then dropped. Japanese cultures and traditions get ignored by American specialists/scholars of Film/tv and we all lose by it.

SAT

Date: 28 Aug 98
From: "Michael Badzik" 
Subject: Re: TV in Japan

S. A. Thornton wrote:

>... I would like to point out what I consider to be a problem: the disparaging and excuse me ethnocentric condemnation of Japanese cliches in Japanese TV shows. >I'd like to make two points. Cliches are the core of the narrative strategies and attention has to be paid to them: what do they mean? how are they used? what is their value in terms of performance and production as well as reception? >Just because these narrative strategies are not American does not mean that they have no value in their own culture. I thought that the prupose of studying Japanese film/TV was to figure out what the Japanese were doing? The American model has to be addressed and then dropped. Japanese cultures and traditions get ignored by American specialists/scholars of Film/tv and we all lose by it.

It's not often I get called ethnocentric (well, actually never). I have been watching Japanese television for almost thirty years now, and as I have said here before, I do enjoy it. I watch for my own enjoyment, no one pays me for my opinions on television or film (I earn my living as an engineer), and I have no scholarly reputation to uphold. Over these nearly thirty years I have watched how Japanese television has evolved, watched trends come and go, seen what has been well received and what has failed.

Now, if by cliches being the core of narrative strategies you are referring to what I would call the native symbolic language of the medium (or the shared nonverbal language of a culture, if you prefer), then we may just have a definition problem here. I am a fan of the _Otoko wa Tsurai Yo_ movie series and have never viewed it as cliched; although it does use a lot of the same elements in every story they work to strengthen the meaning of the story as a whole (or the series, actually).

But when "cliches" are used to avoid having to write good dialog, or to attract attention in the way a game show might hire a young woman to just stand there and be beautiful, or so that the writer or viewer doesn't have to do a lot of thinking, than I think that there are legitimate grounds for complaint. My remarks on cliches were in regards to the NHK morning dramas; for a perspective from a Japanese writer on the subject consider the following by Sata Masunori (from "A History of Japanese Television Drama", edited by Masunori Sata & Hideo Hirahara; Tokyo, Japan Association of Broadcasting Art, 1991):

The decline, however, can also be attributed to the changes in the quality of television drama itself. NHK's morning Television Novel still has a high rating. Although the stories are different for each novel in the series, there is a tendency to follow the same formula, and it cannot be denied that the program does seem to exist as a convenient "clock for telling the time" in the morning with audiences watching the series from force of habit. The same may also be said of the Television Saga series, in order to make the tale interesting to and provide suspense, the plot tends to fall into cliches that rely upon technique only.

Further evidence that the Japanese don't like cliches any more than anyone else can be found in the morning drama ratings at www.videor.co.jp/tst/tbr/sb2.html (in Japanese only), where you can see a year-by-year decline in ratings until the big jump up when _Futarikko_ was shown.

I am in complete agreement that Japanese television has to be judged as a distinct medium - and have said so here before. And yes, its meanings are tightly bound with the culture, which is part of why I also see television as a real anthropologist's playground.

Michael Badzik

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998
From: "S.A. Thornton" 
Subject: Re: TV in Japan

I certainly appreciate your considered remarks.

If I might respond:

>Now, if by cliches being the core of narrative strategies you are referring >to what I would call the native symbolic language of the medium (or the shared nonverbal language of a culture, if you prefer), then we may just have a definition problem here. I am a fan of the _Otoko wa Tsurai Yo_ movie series and have never viewed it as cliched; although it does use a lot of the same elements in every story they work to strengthen the meaning of the story as a whole (or the series, actually).

Technically speaking, and I do mean technically speaking, the "cliches" in Yamada Yoji's films and those in the TV shows and dramas are all formulas. Somebody like Yamada makes a reputation specializing in a specific repertoire of or even creating formulas. Both are determined by the need to perform (or produce) and some are under heavier demands than others. The question is neither of degree or kind. The question is whether or where the culture (or market) will support it.

>But when "cliches" are used to avoid having to write good dialog, or to attract attention in the way a game show might hire a young woman to just stand there and be beautiful, or so that the writer or viewer doesn't have to >do a lot of thinking, than I think that there are legitimate grounds for complaint.

Again the issue is pressure to produce. We see the same problem here that we see in all private, mass market, consumer oriented production: the lowest quality for the greatest number. The question has been haunting us for years: where does quality fit in? Not only that, but how do we determine what quality is? I assure you that most of the stuff on American and European TV is just as bad.

>My remarks on cliches were in regards to the NHK morning ddramas; for a perspective from a Japanese writer on the subject consider the following by Sata Masunori (from "A History of Japanese Television Drama", edited by Masunori Sata & Hideo Hirahara; Tokyo, Japan Association of Broadcasting Art, 1991):

>The decline, however, can also be attributed to the changes in the quality >of television drama itself. NHK's morning Television Novel still has a high >rating. Although the stories are different for each novel in the series,

>there is a tendency to follow the same formula, and it cannot be denied that the program does seem to exist as a convenient "clock for telling the >time" in the morning with audiences watching the series from force of habit. The same may also be said of the Television Saga series, in order to >make the tale interesting to and provide suspense, the plot tends to fall >into cliches that rely upon technique only.

>Further evidence that the Japanese don't like cliches any more than anyone else can be found in the morning drama ratings at www.videor.co.jp/tst/tbr/sb2.html (in Japanese only), where you can see a year-by-year decline in ratings until the big jump up when _Futarikko_ was shown.

>I am in complete agreement that Japanese television has to be judged as a distinct medium - and have said so here before. And yes, its meanings are tightly bound with the culture, which is part of why I also see television as a real anthropologist's playground.

Oh, I do sincerely agree. And I think that the cliche of the fast talking male "presenter" and his purely decorative and adoring female sidekick has a long history in Japanese folk and folk religious performing arts, not to mention monologue conversation patterns. These cliches, as the path of least resistance in production, are Japanese culture. If the Japanese themselves don't like it anymore, then that means that something is happening to change the tastes of the Japanese. What I find disturbing, more in the scholarly literature, which I have been looking at recently and not just amongst ourselves, is that the choice of what and how to discuss Japanese film and TV seems to be circumscribed by Euro-American assumptions of what quality, film, TV --and yes, even scholarly methodologies--ought to be, and less by an interest in what makes the production and reception of media in Japan work. If reception of Japanese TV (ratings) is on the decline, why isn't this getting back to the producers? Is there a buffer between the two that makes production independent of the real/perceived audience? To what do we attribute the decline in ratings? The rejection of the audience or the availability of other forms of amusement ?(music, for example, has really suffered here in the US due to the rise of the computer).

I've seen Japanese TV productions I've adored and lots I've hated. When push comes to shove, there just isn't the production power to produce the amount needed to feed the available hours of broadcast time. But that was more than apparent 13 years ago when I was last in Japan. I really am glad I am not a professional anthropologist: as interesting as I might be in TV, I couldn't stand watching it all day every day. I can't say I've seen more than a couple of Japanese films in the last ten years. I am a medievalist. Do you want to talk formulas in epic in the sixteenth century? It's pretty awful then, too. If you think formulas awful. Maybe it's Zen: formulas as a way to perform without thinking.

S.A.T.

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998
From: Chalfen 
Subject: TV Discussion

To add to the interesting TV discussion, I want to endorse and restate some of the very important points made by S.A. Thorton in a recent post.

In part some of those statements refer to what I meant previously by being careful about ethnocentric judgments. And this speaks to alternative models of criticism, of approaching any product seen in the context of cultural representation. Only in limited cases is it significant to ask if one can name any decent Japanese TV show. "Decent" or "really good" according to whom and in which schema of evaluation? Or are we dealing with a universally recognized and accepted set of criteria? How might a scheme of aesthetic judgments be connected to a kind of technological determinism?

More to the point, I feel, is to ask which Japanese shows/programs are favored and disfavored in the context of Japanese production and reception. As stated by SAT: >> I thought that the purpose of studying Japanese film/TV was to figure out what the Japanese were doing? <<

For instance, jumping to film for a moment, if we are interested in a Top Ten List in a particular time frame, can we get lists from several Japanese film critics? Can we get a list of the most "popular" films in terms of attendance figures in Japan?

Another example might be to ask how a favored model of narrative style is connected to other narrative structures, to other modes of communication found in the culture.

Admittedly there is nothing very special about these directions and questions -- and they should not be imposed as the only kinds of questions to be asked. I just happen to think they are interesting and worth pursuing.

Dick Chalfen

P.S. I have just received a post from Michael Badzik that seems to agree with some of these assertions, namely: >> I am in complete agreement that Japanese television has to be judged as a distinct medium - and have said so here before. And yes, its meanings are tightly bound with the culture, which is part of why I also see television as a real anthropologist's playground. << While an anthropology of mass media is much less well developed than other components of the discipline, things are changing -- and television becomes less a playground and more a serious field of work. Who knows -- attention to home media might be next!

P.P.S. And another post in from S.A. Thornton which seems to resonate nicely with a point above, namely >> And I think that the cliche of the fast talking male "presenter" and his purely decorative and adoring female sidekick has a long history in Japanese folk and folk religious performing arts, not to mention monologue conversation patterns. These cliches, as the path of least resistance in production, are Japanese culture. << I think that when one starts looking for these cross-media connections, the stated awfulness is transformed into something else, something "better." Try looking at 400 hours of home movies...

____________________________________________________

* R i c h a r d C h a l f e n

* Professor of Anthropology

* Temple University - Harbour Campus

____________________________________________________

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998
From: lc
Subject: RE: TV Discussion

Excuse me for jumping in here, I confess I haven't been following this thread very closely at all (not for lack of interest but lack of time) and this may well be utterly irrelevant (or redundant?) but can't help recalling and reporting my single most shocking experience watching television in Japan. The setting was the kotatsu / living room of an extended family in rural Japan (my inlaws at the time), four generations, all eyes glued to the screen (around 1986?). The program was (my recollection was that Takeshi was involved but could well be wrong) replays of excerpts from Gekko~ Kamen series of 20 (30?) years back. No commentary, No funny subtitling or other tampering. Just the excerpts straight. And the effect was totally ludicrous (and exacerbated by the absence of commentary), uncanny in fact. There was a strange nervous silence in the room because (so I assumed) at least two of the generations present had once watched these programs with a kind of awe or at least in all seriousness and now, just 2 (3?) decades later the sheer act of putting them on the tube was enough to achieve a sublime degree of humor (or ridicule?) Is there I wonder a word for this form of irony?

I'd assume that the easiest criterion for measuring the worth of a TV program is can you imagine enjoying watching it twice? But I guess that goes without saying.

LC

Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98
From: Ono Seiko and Aaron Gerow 
Subject: Re: TV in Japan

Wow! Suddenly a lot of discussion on TV! While most of it is not approaching specific shows or genres, it is bringing up the basic issue of how to discuss Japanese TV that I brought up a long time ago.

But since the discussion of "cliches" in part refers to my posts, I guess I should make myself clearer.

>I'd like to make two points. Cliches are the core of the narrative strategies and attention has to be paid to them: what do they mean? how are they used? what is their value in terms of performance and production as well as reception?

I'm afraid SAT, as Michael seems to emphasize, is confusing terms here (or at least is using a very different definition from mine) and I think we need to clarify the difference between such terms as "cliche," "formula" "strategies," and "convention" before we proceed any further.

Cliche is, by most usage (including my own), an overused device, one that is so recognizable it stands out as such and in some ways has lost its semiotic power. The use of the term can be academic (referring to a certain historical moment in the use of a narrative style), but it is most often evaluative.

A cliche is not a formula, though it may be what a formula turns into. A formula is a set of strategies which work, either to ensure narrative or box office success. Usually, the conception is that if a formula becomes cliched, it no longer works. Formulaic is often an evaluative term, but formula usually is not.

Technically, formulae and conventions are different. The latter refers to a contract between the sender and receiver of a message in which they agree on what signs or sign structures are to denote/connote what meaning. The implication, as with the notion of a conventional language, is that conventions establish artificial sign-meaning relationships. A formula is less a question of semiosis than effect: a combination which produces a bang. Cliches are definitely conventions, but one could argue that they are ones that have lost a substantial amount of "receiver" agreement as to their operation. Not all conventions are cliches. When we discuss any form of semiotic production that involves conventions (and all do) we are in general NOT talking about cliches. These are very different issues.

Michael uses the term "language" which in use is often close to that of convention. However, given the definitions often used of language (for instance, Metz in his consideration of whether film is a language), it might be better to distinguish between the terms convention and language.

That, however, is a LONG argument which I don't want to get into here.

I hope my understanding is clear (though please correct me if it's not).

Thus I would disagree with SAT's statement that cliches are at the core of narrative strategies. I would agree that conventions are, but that is an entirely different issue. Perhaps it would be best to argue that cliches appear when narrative strategies are beginning to break down. SAT's call for us to consider how these strategies are used is right on the mark. I would just never use the word cliche in that context without clarifying its meaning.

>Just because these narrative strategies are not American does not mean that they have no value in their own culture. I thought that the prupose of studying Japanese film/TV was to figure out what the Japanese were doing? The American model has to be addressed and then dropped. Japanese cultures and traditions get ignored by American specialists/scholars of Film/tv and we all lose by it.

I wholly agree with this, and I hope my previous messages have shown this. I don't think, however, I have ever once argued that these narrative strategies have no value because they are not American. I have argued the opposite. However, the citing of cliches brings up issues which can be completely different than the issue of ethnocentrism which SAT is right to be concerned about. Again there are problems with her use of the word cliche, but I do want to consider what it would mean to have a Japanese term Japanese TV cliched. Certainly this could not be reduced to an East-West issue. It would rather indicate that there exist evaluative strategies that are in oppostion to certain narrative strategies dominant in a genre. Dare I say that it means that one is witnessing competing Japanese cultures? That is why I have a problem with another of SAT's comments:

>These cliches, as the path of least resistance in production, are Japanese culture. If the Japanese themselves don't like it anymore, then that means that something is happening to change the tastes of the Japanese.

Apart from the repeated problem with the term cliche, I always get the feeling it is not very useful talking about Japanese culture. There are Japanese cultureS. "The Japanese" is also a problematic concept which, with the critiques of nihonjinron, etc., should also be used with care. I think the issue of the cliche is crucial because it shows how narrative strategies are both historical and particular, that they change over time and rarely have hold over an entire "culture." When someone calls something cliched, they are asserting their culture against another. I just want to emphasis that this occurs between Japanese as much as it does between Japanese and Westerners and we should never lose sight of this.

SAT is right to point to the issue of change, but we should start thinking about our model of culture and the nation. Are we talking about a single entity that metamorphized like a caterpillar, or are we talking about multiple cultures within a national sphere that are competing for hegemony?

This relates to one of Dick's points:

>P.P.S. And another post in from S.A. Thornton which seems to resonate nicely with a point above, namely >> And I think that the cliche of the fast talking male "presenter" and his purely decorative and adoring female sidekick has a long history in Japanese folk and folk religious performing arts, not to mention monologue conversation patterns. These cliches, as the path of least resistance in production, are Japanese culture. << I think that when one starts looking for these cross-media connections, the stated awfulness is transformed into something else, something "better." Try looking at 400 hours of home movies...

I like Dick's emphasis on cross-media connections. They certainly are worth investigating and, if not helping make something look "better," can at least help us understand the intertexts that many readers are using to understand or appropriate works. SAT's example is one, but we should again be aware of the complex and varied nature of reading through intertexts. Some viewers may read the newscaster structure in terms of the traditions SAT cites, but many who are unfamiliar with those traditions do not. Even those, like feminist critics, who know such traditions, look at that structure in relation to other cultures which make it seem "cliched."

What then does it mean when I use the term "cliche"? Certainly I must beware of an ethnocentric attitude and I thank SAT for warning me about it. I do defend any non-evaluative use I was making of the term: I think it is important to point out the fact that some television conventions are "tired" because underlines the existence of other strategies. Noel Burch may argue that Japanese art valorized repetition over originality, but even if that it was valid for the pre-Meiji, it certainly was not the case for Japanese film criticism after 1920, which has laid a heavy emphasis on originality. Thus the citation of "cliches" has been an important part of the struggle over taste and culture in the 20th century. Filmmakers themselves, by polemically opposing their styles to others, are often also complaining about the cliched nature of other directors (e.g. Masumura or Oshima critiquing Ozu and Kinoshita) in order to found a "new" style. If we follow Juri Lotman, the history of cinema is defined by the conflicts.

However, I was also using the term in an evaluate sense. There certainly is a problem if I am solely using Western standards of evaluation (though, I must stress, those are also plural and in conflict), but, as Michael said himself, I think I have been studying Japan long enough to say that my reference points are more complex. I am also in the peculiar position of being a critic who writes in both English and Japanese for a varied audience. I have to evaluate, and so I try to do it from multiple angles while still emphasizing the polemics I value. It's a very difficult position and clearly full of pitfalls (which I have fallen into more than once), but having committed myself to being an academic and critic in Japan, I see no reason why I should abandon a polemical stance.

Still, I encourage warnings and criticisms.

This relates to Dick's warning that there are only limited times we should talk about whether there are any decent Japanese shows. I wholly agree (and I hope my post reiterated that I find arguments about taste unproductive), but I do want to add a comment to the following:

>More to the point, I feel, is to ask which Japanese shows/programs are favored and disfavored in the context of Japanese production and reception. As stated by SAT: >> I thought that the purpose of studying Japanese film/TV was to figure out what the Japanese were doing? <<

If one is confining one's study to Japanese reception, I would agree, but I want to stress here that the study of Japanese TV is not restricted to the study of Japanese reception (I would thus hesitate to say "the purpose of studying Japanese film/TV was to figure out what the Japanese were doing"). First, there are many non-Japanese who watch TV in Japan. Second, "the Japanese" is a problematic concept: what about women, men, the young, the old, regional differences, etc.? Third, there are many non-Japanese who watch Japanese TV outside of Japan, either off of satellite or through sold programming (remember _Oshin_ has been seen in dozens of nations). We can try to separate these points of reception, but they do remind us that Japanese TV is an international phenomenon operating within global capitalism. Think of this: would anyone ever try to restrict the study of Super Mario to Japan just because Nintendo made it? One can study Super Mario's reception in Japan, but that has to include a discussion of the internationalization of Japanese culture. Frankly, Michael, David, and I are all examples of this internationalization. While it may sound conceited, to completely ignore us in the pursuit of some "pure Japanese" reception is problematic.

In the end, however, I prefer arguments about how and why over what's good and bad. That's the sense I think I get from others, so maybe we can start moving the discussion there.

Aaron Gerow

YNU

P.S. Sorry for the rambling comments. While I have a deadline tomorrow, I thought I should say something soon.

Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998
From: "S.A. Thornton" 
Subject: Re: TV in Japan

Aaron, thanks for your comments. I would like to respond to a few:

>I'm afraid SAT, as Michael seems to emphasize, is confusing terms here (or at least is using a very different definition from mine) and I think we need to clarify the difference between such terms as "cliche," "formula" "strategies," and "convention" before we proceed any further.

>Cliche is, by most usage (including my own), an overused device, one that is so recognizable it stands out as such and in some ways has lost its semiotic power. The use of the term can be academic (referring to a certain historical moment in the use of a narrative style), but it is most often evaluative.

>A cliche is not a formula, though it may be what a formula turns into. A formula is a set of strategies which work, either to ensure narrative or box office success. Usually, the conception is that if a formula becomes cliched, it no longer works. Formulaic is often an evaluative term, but formula usually is not.

>Technically, formulae and conventions are different. The latter refers to a contract between the sender and receiver of a message in which they agree on what signs or sign structures are to denote/connote what meaning. The implication, as with the notion of a conventional language, is that conventions establish artificial sign-meaning relationships. A formula is less a question of semiosis than effect: a combination which produces a bang. Cliches are definitely conventions, but one could argue that they are ones that have lost a substantial amount of "receiver" agreement as to their operation. Not all conventions are cliches. When we discuss any form of semiotic production that involves conventions (and all do) we are in general NOT talking about cliches. These are very different issues.

This is a semiotic interpretation. In oral tradition studies (Parry/Lord/Foley) cliche is a perjorative word for formula that comes out of Victorian criticism and the favoring of "originality" over other, traditional forms of narrative. The question is not whether one likes it but whether it works in constructing and performing the narrative. "Formula" and "formulaic" are both technical terms without evaluative connotations.

The question is when and why and for whom the formula "no longer works." It obviously works for the producer as performer of the particular TV broadcast. It doesn't work for certain segments of the actual if not perceived or intended viewing audience, including westerners and critics heavily influenced by western narratives/narrative theory and convinced of their superiority. I think we are both agreed that changes have occurred in the Japanese audience as demographic group--whether the producers of TV shows want to acknowledge that is a different matter. Perhaps the developments in media reflect not a change in the audience but a resistance to it.

>Thus I would disagree with SAT's statement that cliches are at the core of narrative strategies. I would agree that conventions are, but that is an entirely different issue. Perhaps it would be best to argue that cliches appear when narrative strategies are beginning to break down. SAT's call for us to consider how these strategies are used is right on the mark. I would just never use the word cliche in that context without clarifying its meaning.

Again, I would say that "cliche" is evaluative; it indicates a resistance to the culturally determined tradition of narrative and performance. I am not saying that I like them any more than you do: but I recognize that my inability to like Japanese TV is the based on the same fact as that for my inability to like American TV: I am not part of the projected audience, the market. I understand the narrative strategy; I just don't like it. Again, however, since I regard "cliche" as a pejorative for those units of performing, transmitting, and storing narrative, formulas, they are the core of narrative strategy, technically speaking, in oral tradition studies.

>>Just because these narrative strategies are not American does not mean that they have no value in their own culture. I thought that the prupose of studying Japanese film/TV was to figure out what the Japanese were doing? The American model has to be addressed and then dropped. Japanese cultures and traditions get ignored by American specialists/scholars of Film/tv and we all lose by it.

>I wholly agree with this, and I hope my previous messages have shown this. I don't think, however, I have ever once argued that these narrative strategies have no value because they are not American. I have argued the opposite. However, the citing of cliches brings up issues which can be completely different than the issue of ethnocentrism which SAT is right to be concerned about. Again there are problems with her use of the word cliche, but I do want to consider what it would mean to have a Japanese term Japanese TV cliched. Certainly this could not be reduced to an East-West issue. It would rather indicate that there exist evaluative strategies that are in oppostion to certain narrative strategies dominant in a genre. Dare I say that it means that one is witnessing competing Japanese cultures? That is why I have a problem with another of SAT's comments:

>>These cliches, as the path of least resistance in production, are Japanese culture. If the Japanese themselves don't like it anymore, then that means that something is happening to change the tastes of the Japanese.

>Apart from the repeated problem with the term cliche, I always get the feeling it is not very useful talking about Japanese culture. There are Japanese cultureS. "The Japanese" is also a problematic concept which, with the critiques of nihonjinron, etc., should also be used with care. I think the issue of the cliche is crucial because it shows how narrative strategies are both historical and particular, that they change over time and rarely have hold over an entire "culture." When someone calls something cliched, they are asserting their culture against another. I just want to emphasis that this occurs between Japanese as much as it does between Japanese and Westerners and we should never lose sight of this.

I am in perfect agreement. I think it important to trace more precisely and correlate resistance to certain media with demographic, social, economic, and especially educational background. I wouldn't depend entirely on the critics to represent "the Japanese audience."

>SAT is right to point to the issue of change, but we should start thinking about our model of culture and the nation. Are we talking about a single entity that metamorphized like a caterpillar, or are we talking about multiple cultures within a national sphere that are competing for hegemony?

>This relates to one of Dick's points:

>>P.P.S. And another post in from S.A. Thornton which seems to resonate nicely with a point above, namely >> And I think that the cliche of the fast talking male "presenter" and his purely decorative and adoring female sidekick has a long history in Japanese folk and folk religious performing arts, not to mention monologue conversation patterns. These cliches, as the path of least resistance in production, are Japanese culture. << I think that when one starts looking for these cross-media connections, the stated awfulness is transformed into something else, something "better." Try looking at 400 hours of home movies...

>I like Dick's emphasis on cross-media connections. They certainly are worth investigating and, if not helping make something look "better," can at least help us understand the intertexts that many readers are using to understand or appropriate works. SAT's example is one, but we should again be aware of the complex and varied nature of reading through intertexts. Some viewers may read the newscaster structure in terms of the traditions SAT cites, but many who are unfamiliar with those traditions do not. Even those, like feminist critics, who know such traditions, look at that structure in relation to other cultures which make it seem "cliched."

Here I would make the same point. It doesn't matter whether one knows the history of Japanese performing arts to understand the function of "the formula." One has only to see it often enough to understand how it works. And there are repetitions and replications enough to learn and to understand the formula in one medium. One doesn't have to go far to find the "extended text."

>What then does it mean when I use the term "cliche"? Certainly I must beware of an ethnocentric attitude and I thank SAT for warning me about it. I do defend any non-evaluative use I was making of the term: I think it is important to point out the fact that some television conventions are "tired" because underlines the existence of other strategies. Noel Burch may argue that Japanese art valorized repetition over originality, but even if that it was valid for the pre-Meiji, it certainly was not the case for Japanese film criticism after 1920, which has laid a heavy emphasis on originality. Thus the citation of "cliches" has been an important part of the struggle over taste and culture in the 20th century. Filmmakers themselves, by polemically opposing their styles to others, are often also complaining about the cliched nature of other directors (e.g. Masumura or Oshima critiquing Ozu and Kinoshita) in order to found a "new" style. If we follow Juri Lotman, the history of cinema is defined by the conflicts.

But film criticism is not "the audience." There has always been a tension--or disconnect-- between what the mass audience expected and what directors wanted to produce. Before proceeding with any discussion of "the audience," I want to see not only the film criticism, which is primarily western-derived, but the box-office receipts, the fan letters, etc.

I fully agree that there are many audiences--both the fragmented Japanese audience and the non-Japanese. The question is whether the producers know or care.

>In the end, however, I prefer arguments about how and why over what's good and bad. That's the sense I think I get from others, so maybe we can start moving the discussion there.

One thing I should like to add. Pleasure is present in an experience in which one's skills are in direct correspondence with the demands of the task at hand. . We're just plain overqualified for the task at hand.

And one last question. Just how do we determine which films/TV shows are worth watching, i.e., good?

This has been fun. Haven't had much time to join in the conversations before. Hope some of this is comprehensible.

SAT

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998
From: David Hopkins 
Subject: TV one more time

Well, that was a lot of fun to read on my return from a few weeks away! Don't want to gloat about "winning" my challenge, but do appreciate comments that quality does matter. After all, we don't have to make excuses for studying great movies (art, books, music, etc.), only for the weaker ones.

I'm more of a generalist than many on this list (and I also don't give a tinker's dam about my academic reputation) and I wanted to comment on the interesting fact that the lack of quality on TV due to commercial facters is anomalous in mass/commercial culture because there is no "minor league" for TV. Major record companies can and do make small quantities of interesting, high quality music, major publishers can put out books that are great but won't sell, magazines can search for niches, etc. Even late night TV doesn't offer this chance.

In the early '90's I was part of a series of music video magazines (Oh! Moro) that we made with one camera, one editing deck, no scripts, and a staff of three. (no pay, of course) A fan at KTV Osaka wanted to do a similar thing for a late night documentary. This was with no sponsor, but still KTV provided a staff of about ten! Including a writer, two 3-man camera crews, makeup, all sorts of stuff. Incredible waste of money and manpower, for a late-night show with no sponsor. We all got paid. (This can be seen in a bootlegged version at some alternative video shops in the US.) The felt need to script the damn thing was a big hindrance to content. I think this shows the skewed values of the TV world in Japan. They really didn't have a clue how to make a simple documentary about underground music, even after watching one. Overstaffing and underconceiving.

"Good" means well-conceived and well-executed (and well-finished). Professional staff execution isn't necessarily good execution, but poor conception is the kiss of death. Unfortunately, the business is run by making proposals to a committee of businessmen for approval of allocation of budgets. Music business is only like this at the bestseller/big-promo-push level.

Pretty rambling, sorry. I'm just having coffee now.

I thought about TV more. Hotch Potch Station is a good TV show in Japan. Inai Inai Ba is also quite good. And, as everyone said, there are good parts here and there.

David

PS You got to be brave to admit in front of all these intellectuals that you watch Mecha Ike! I'm far too conservative culturally (not politically, though) to be able to stand the lowjinks.