Issue of Seijun Suzuki joint struggle meeting
"Issue of Seijun Suzuki joint struggle meeting" (すずきせいじゅんもんだいきょうとうかいぎ) is a Japanese group. I discharged movie director, Seijun Suzuki that movie company, Nikkatsu signed on exclusive belonging with the company in 1968 one-sidedly, and, triggered by a case (Seijun Suzuki discharge, blockade case) that I refused for the film rental demand of the private four-walling group cinema club meeting for the study, a cineaste played a key role, and the establishment was active. It is a group for the purpose of the plaintiff support of the civil trial that Seijun Suzuki presented Nikkatsu to mainly.
Summary
The case that discharged Seijun Suzuki that Nikkatsu just concluded one-year contracted supervision contract extension on April 25, 1968 is an opportunity. In addition, the cinema club society for the study performed film rental negotiations for all Seijun Suzuki work screening society with Nikkatsu from March of the year, but the Nikkatsu side gave notice of interruption one-sidedly and expressed this when I blockaded the film of all Seijun Suzuki works. Kyusaku Hori Nikkatsu's president had flown into a rage with difficulty in understanding of movie "brand (1967) of Seijun Suzuki of the homicide", and most of the discharge and the blockades were pushed forward in the background by the dogmatism of the moat (the moat is said to be it when they told, "one 60 million yen does not let all Suzuki does such a movie for a deficit, and Suzuki never take a movie in Japan and stops supervision, and it should be even in the noodle shop").
In contrast, Suzuki asked Japanese association of movie director and Nikkatsu studio supervision society for the control of the situation, and oneself demanded withdrawal of the discharge from Nikkatsu in contents-certified mail, too, but took it off for accusation on June 7, the same year because it ended in a stalemate sometime soon. On the other hand, Nikkatsu shows "physical gate" (1964) in the second-run movie theater of the system while giving notice of a blockade, rental refusal. Furthermore, because the "Kanto drifter" thing that I held by 3 bookends performance by the Nikkatsu sponsorship of (1965) (1963) in Shinjuku international theater in "a tattoo lifetime" became clear (1963) "the youth of the wild beast" labelled as "the supervision Seijun Suzuki anthology of the topic" on June 29, a demonstration of the angry cinema club meeting for the study sponsorship was performed in Tokyo, Ginza on June 15 by this. This demonstration was the small thing which I did led by the cineaste of the person concerned at first, but I was on the way, and the group of student movements that were interested in the demonstration that a celebrity movie director and an actor participated in was lost, and it became large-scale, and even media were reported, and it was a topic. An issue of Seijun Suzuki joint struggle meeting was formed based on this demonstration on July 13 (chairperson = Kimori, Saza, Masao Matsuda, Haru Kobayashi person) and started trial support.
In a joint struggle meeting, strong cineastes of the political interest gathered Nagisa Oshima, Masahiro Shinoda, Fumio Watanabe, Masao Adachi, Takeshi Tamura, Koji Wakamatsu other than Shigeru Fujita arrow (later Toshiya Fujita), Atsushi Yamatoya, Chusei Sone, a cineaste related to Seijun Suzuki including Hideaki Nitani, and the great master of the Heinosuke Gosho and Tomu Uchida and others who were a chairperson expressed support at the time of with Japan movie director association connection. When a trial began, Katsumi Nishikawa, Buichi Saito, Yoshitaro Nomura, Tadao Sato, Shigechika Sato, Yasushi Kawarabata, many cineastes, film critics including Tsubasa Fukuoka would be concerned with this case and joint struggle meeting as a plaintiff witness more, and the case became a big disturbance to shake the Japan movie world.
In addition, because there was cinema club meeting for the study to the person concerned of this disturbance, a joint struggle meeting and the trial pose big problem submission about the situation of the audience in the movie and the meaning and will greatly contribute to cinema club and four-walling activity, the way of the, besides, next cinematic review established at each site in the after 1970s.
A settlement is establishment by the trial needing two and a half years only in the witness investigation, and having presented an aspect of the prolongation, but a trial coming to hold a sense of impending crisis not to be established because I am driven into the production cancellation because Nikkatsu of the defendant failed in improvement of business operations in the meantime and was weakened if the plaintiff does not accept a settlement, and the Nikkatsu side paying settlement 1 million yen to Suzuki on December 24, 1971, and apologizing. The joint struggle meeting was dissolved at the same time, too. In addition, it was included in a settlement matter that "けんかえれじい" (1966) and "a brand of the homicide" were donated to the Tokyo National Museum of Modern Arts film center as a suit external affairs clause, and a motion picture was not the possession only for movie companies, and even the point where it was recognized that it was public property became epoch-making.
However, a joint struggle meeting was established, and as, as a result, a moat expected it because the movie company companies were afraid and did not use it, and there was not the intention that I stood, and Suzuki gave an independence production to again, Suzuki "could not take a movie literally in Japan" for ten years before coming back in "a grief story" in 1977 afterward, and it was, and Seijun Suzuki whom I raised until a trial and a demonstration was cornered in the unemployment state that only handled a TV drama and work of CM sporadically.
References
- It is ISBN 9784651780207 Koshi Ueno, 編 "all Seijun Suzuki movies" (立風書房)
Allied item
This article is taken from the Japanese Wikipedia Issue of Seijun Suzuki joint struggle meeting
This article is distributed by cc-by-sa or GFDL license in accordance with the provisions of Wikipedia.
In addition, Tranpedia is simply not responsible for any show is only by translating the writings of foreign licenses that are compatible with CC-BY-SA license information.
0 개의 댓글:
댓글 쓰기