What the fuck was his problem?

l2 history of the japanese people

> It still baffles me how he could write from that perspective--to have that kind of contrary insight against the very nationalist edgelords that he was, and still end up doing what he did at the end of his life.

Shows what a bourgeois cuck you are for supporting Honda against Isao. Mishima was an intellectual but his suicide wasn't a matter of being intellectual. Isao is not Mishima. Isao is naive, and displayed as naive (remember when Isao struggles with his narrow worldview of purity (not sure if it's called this in the english version) because he can not contain a laughter when seeing some cat with boots on the street or something. Isao, like Kiyoaki is Mishimas object of desire, and not of identification. Isao is based on Mishimas (supposed lover but first and foremost) "apprentice", who commited suicide with him on the day of the coup.

The point about Mishima is the following: His ideal was that of beauty. And the beauty that he thought was innately japanese was their obsession with death. The idea in Japan being (surprisingly Rilke hints at something similiar in the notebooks of malte...) that death is like a "test of the soul", that it is part of life and not a separation. The way you die influences the image of how you lived your life, how truthful you were to yourself. This ideal suffered with the Meiji-Restauration and the Westernization that occured during it but even more so after it. Look at the Sailor who fell from Grace with the sea. The boys do the sailor the favour of killing him, after he fell from grace with the sea (a representation of traditional japanese ideals) in favour of a women that ran a store of western goods. It's not a matter of being a nationalist edgelord. Mishima, influenced by his grandmother who raised him and who was still immersed in the traditional japanese life, "swam back against the currents of his time to the era of the samurais" (Yourcenar) to proof that his words were not mere words. His dream of a beautiful death, which he felt was integral to a good life (and i subscribe here) could only be realized, according to his nature, through suicide. Beauty and Action reunited, freeing himself from the passivity and cowardice that he found himself trapped in for the most time of his life (see confessions of a mask).

I find his bravery and commitment to his ideals admirable.

You mean he's going to hell?

he was a medieval LARP'er that took his games too seriously

he the type of nigga to max out all his stats on Runescape and only chat to other players in a lore-friendly way

Good post

>admirable

He was spooked by history, that's pretty pathetic

His value has history like any other value

Stirner dont know shit

Kurosawa was an insecure autistic manlet cuck who takes little yellow dicks up the ass. Should've stepped up his game to Big Nubian Cocks.

Damn makes me wanna rescue my heritage, imma save up for a suit of armour, a lance and a mighty steed, and parade around the streets calling my fellow countrymen mount up the same! We were Knights!

he was committed to beauty, and his death was the consummation of his marriage

>And the beauty that he thought was innately japanese was their obsession with death.
So, he was like an emo pussy? Also, beauty, even Plato's conception of beauty, is subjective and vain.

>The way you die influences the image of how you lived your life
Who needs image when you're not even of this world anymore.

>swam back against the currents of his time to the era of the samurais
Too much kurosawa flicks?

>beautiful death, which he felt was integral to a good life
There's no difference between suicide and AIDS if you're a faggot.

>freeing himself from the passivity and cowardice that he found himself trapped in for the most time of his life
He died like a pussy.

>pussy
*punani

Kurosawa was bested by Mishima himself at directing.

this is one of the best short films i've ever seen

He was a google.

Sounds like a pile of shit.

youtube.com/watch?v=bO-w-cn-pJM

Yeah, it's bland. The set piece is bland. The characters and story are bland. The composition is bland. Everything about the mise en scene of this movie is bland. It's just a bland drama with sex scene in the middle and slasher flick tier gore in the end. It's nothing compared to Kurosawa.

>rambling with copypastas from essays and not his own thoughts and calling someone a "cuck" for good measure

>Good post

Wew lad.

Looks nice with no real substance after the title card

Basically every film students first short

Kurosawa is pretty tall for a jap

The difference is that this spirit was alive still in World War 2. His cowardice in the face of the war was one of the formative moments in Mishimas life.

No shit. He was like 6'4.

You do realize you say all this about a man who killed himself long ago as someone who bitterly posts on Veeky Forums as a respite from his daily life, right?
His life was meaningful up until his very last breath, yours so far clearly isn't.

Keking at this ignorant pseud.

>being this much of a Mishima fanboy

You could have only made your post worse by saying "The pacing is bland. It suffers from style over substance". With ignorance i refer to your apparent ignorance on the Noh theatre when you say "The set is bland"

Your insistence on Kurosawa throughout this thread (assuming it's all you) is also embarrassing

well said and I agree on every point. great post.

>Who needs image when you're not even of this world anymore.

so just because you die you stop being a part of the world? you're a feeble mind.

>Too much kurosawa flicks?

you'd be surprised how deeply engrained samurai still are in japanese culture, especially in rural villages.

my girlfriends grandpa has five generations of swords hanging around his home that he has to present every time family visits him.

he's completely different from a normal civilian.. often gets food for free in restaurants, everyone feels obliged to greet him in the street, people show more respect..

tokyo and kyoto are not all of japan.

>There's no difference between suicide and AIDS if you're a faggot.

edgy

>He died like a pussy.

he died possibly the most impressive death anyone ever did.

what's wrong with citing thinkers that are greater than yourself?

This To Be Honest Familia

Also no offense to Japs, but Chinese and Greek theatre is the best

Not an argument, Mishima fanboy.

Stephen pls

It's not the same guy, casual observer.

If you are actually saying that Patriotism is a better directorial effort than what Kurosawa did you are laughably idiotic, or else uninformed.

I thought Patriotism was cool--everything worked for what it was, but if you think Mishima's little cosplay suicide practice can compete with this shit
youtube.com/watch?v=doaQC-S8de8

You are bonkers.

He literally killed himself over spooks- the very definition of an idiot.

>he watches le bald single mothers spanking meme man

There are two things borrowed in this post. One is the test of the soul which is a quote from a japanese sociologist who examined the phenomenon of seppuku in japan. The other is the quote from Yourcenar. I've read her book on Mishima and it contained many insightful thoughts though i generally do not sign up to her image of Mishima. The rest can be extracted from Mishimas own writings and has been formulated, rather erratically, through my own thoughts. No copypasta here.

It's not a great post though, i don't expand on anything i mention but i don't think Veeky Forums is the right place for such a thing. If i wished to back up any statement with citations and so on it would be a bit too much.

*least

I never compared Mishima to Kurosawa, nor do i think they can be compared. Kurosawa is a master of cinema, but that doesn't discredit Mishima. Mishima's film is an adaption of a short story onto a cinematic version of a noh-play. He does very unique things in his own right, Kurosawa doesn't relate to this whatsoever.

First of don't you think it's quite silly to try to create a hierarchy of quality between directors, when their works are extremely different in style and content?

>little cosplay suicide practice
That already discredits you but
>Every frame a painting
I literally laughed my ass off, so this is your power level? I encourage you to jerk of to Kurosawa on reddit. This is an absolute pseud-channel. Come back if you've read some hard theory on cinema, and not some students popular education vids.

Maybe you're new to this whole art thing and just feel extremely excited for all the stuff Kurosawa did in his films, but your attitude is extremely immature. Building up your argument in a comparative way tells us nothing but that you think that A is better than B.

We have become unironic in our spookposting

>killing yourself over a spook is idiotic
spooked

Is this the best you can do? Why is killing oneself over something insignificant worse than killing yourself over something significant?

Why is any of this relevant when he achieved his goal, which was a true death? Whether you consider it a spook or not does not change the fact at all that he was "successful" in his undertaking fwiw.

>using spooked
what a spook

>It suffers from style over substance
Mise en scene is all about style, or aesthetics. Mishima has no style.

>I never compared Mishima to Kurosawa
Not that guy this post is replying to, but I did.

>Mishima's film is an adaption of a short story onto a cinematic version of a noh-play
Well the story sucks and the film is too much like a play rather than real cinema.

>when their works are extremely different in style and content?
There's the thing called production value.

>Come back if you've read some hard theory on cinema
Well you should too, a film that isn't much different from a play can't really pass as a good film.

>a film that isn't much different from a play can't really pass as a good film.

Really academic stuff here, what a differentiated perspective on cinema.

Comparing Kurosawa's films to Mishima's Yukoku is like comparing Kubrick's to Cocteau's Orpheus or Truffaut's to Genet's Un chant d'amour.

You're a pleb kid. The cinematic language and cinematography used by Mishima in his short would be impossible to recreate in theatre alone. I don't know how you can say it has no style, when it's one of the most stylistic things I've seen put to camera. It's erotic aesthetics are tantalizing to the senses.

Cinema has more potential than a play. By not maximizing it's potential, a film can't pass as a good film.

>Mishima vs. Kurosawa

Wait, fucking really? Alright, senpai, I'm out. Peace.

He used the cinematic medium to do things he couldn't do in a stage play. How can you say he didn't "maximise its potential" when for all you know he achieved what he set out to do.

Do you really think watching the same physical actions shown in the movie take place as a member of a live audience with one constant visual perspective and no cuts or intertitles would be an experience similar enough to make the film obsolete?

>The cinematic language and cinematography used by Mishima in his short would be impossible to recreate in theatre alone.
What differs Mishima's film from theater play? Just a few montage sequences and IMT. No, it would be pretty easy to translate it to a play without losing much of it's artistic values.

>he achieved what he set out to do
The point of mise en scene is not just to tell the point of a scene. There should be more depth, a pushing of aesthetic boundaries.

Do you really think watching the same physical actions shown in the movie take place as a member of a live audience with one constant visual perspective and no cuts or intertitles would be an experience similar enough to make the film obsolete?
There is much more to cinematography than cuts and visual perspective. Composition, lighting, set, and so on. Mishima was abysmal at this.

And how exactly do you quantify what is good mise and scene and what not? Can you express yourself in less vague terms than "more depth" or "aesthetic boundaries"?

You are imposing arbitrary standards on what good mise en scene must be and then just claim out of nowhere that composition, lighting and set was abysmal in yukoku. based on what? Why is the set abysmal? because it's minimalistic?

>There should be more depth, a pushing of aesthetic boundaries.
spooky
A film's mise en scene doesn't have to do anything except service the director's intentions. In this case, I believe Mishima captured just the aesthetic he wanted to. He isn't under any obligation to "push aesthetic boundaries" unless doing so will result in a more complete experience of his artistic vision.

I don't mean to excuse legitimately bad mise en scene, but minimalism intended to reflect the Noh play is not technically bad. Remember that Mishima's film is entirely focused on melding Japanese history and tradition with violence, eroticism and romance in a very visceral way. These are not arbitrary design choices made out of laziness.

>And how exactly do you quantify what is good mise and scene and what not?
The details on the key aspects, and the film's effectiveness in setting the mood. It's easy to distinguish well thought lighting and half assed lighting, for example.

>based on what?
See above.

>Why is the set abysmal? because it's minimalistic?
Well, yes. It doesn't look like a real house, as you can see. A decent director can solve this problem easily.

> a film that isn't much different from a play can't really pass as a good film.

you're a dunce and a smallminded fool

>It doesn't look like a real house

>Well, yes. It doesn't look like a real house, as you can see. A decent director can solve this problem easily.

>realistic equals good

just kill me

That was still fucked up, don't worry.

>Mishima captured just the aesthetic he wanted to
Well, then he wasn't a visionary director.

>minimalism intended to reflect the Noh play
Can't he play noh somewhere else then? A film must be critiqued as a film.

>Remember that Mishima's film is entirely focused on melding Japanese history and tradition with violence, eroticism and romance in a very visceral way.
The aesthetics of art must transcend tradition.

Prove me wrong.

Authenticity doesn't require full blown realism, but there must be an organic link between the subjective impressions of the author and his objective representation of reality.

>The aesthetics of art must transcend tradition.
If this is true, then why must Mishima conform to traditional film structures?

10/10 trolling

Tradition as in society's tradition, you dip.

>why must Mishima conform to traditional film structures?
No he doesn't, No one does. If you can deliver successful aesthetics without clinging to traditional film making techniques, well good for you. Art requires vision and creativity after all. I'm just judging him according to the fundamentals of film making.

>Prove me wrong.

gladly I will.

imdb.com/name/nm0000425/

Peter Greenaway has many works that are closer to being a play than they are to being a movie. He is also one of the most gifted filmmakers of the last century and, without a doubt, a visionary.

Even Fellini, one could argue, has movies that are closer to being plays than they are to being movies. They are actually my favorites of his work. Movies like Satyricon and Casanova have many scenes that could be straight out of a play, but that does not take away from them, quite the opposite.

>Tradition as in society's tradition, you dip.
Yes, that was my original use of the word. But I don't see what that has to do with film aesthetics or why it must be "overcome", instead of utilized.

> there must be an organic link between the subjective impressions of the author and his objective representation of reality

>The aesthetics of art must transcend tradition.

>There should be more depth, a pushing of aesthetic boundaries.

ALL THESE FUCKING OUGHTS. FUCK OFF WITH YA BLOODY OUGHTS MATE.

Fundamentals of film making? According to Every Picture A Painting? What is your position based on?

I for example subscribe to Alain Badious notion of cinema and cinematic culture, in which a film does justice to the medium when it renders human presence tangible. Technique from his point of view is merely a tool for the artists subjective vision. Film is here an explanation and seeking for an explanation at the same time.

I only mention it because you imply that there are The fundamentals of film making. Your fundamentals are an ignorant copy of formalistic film theory. Boiled down to reddit-tier bullshit in which these things must be there to create a "good" film

>The aesthetics of art must transcend tradition.

>Mishima captured just the aesthetic he wanted to
Well, then he wasn't a visionary director.
(What did he mean b this, what aesthetics would a visionary director realize in his art? How can a film "trascend" tradition if it's not subjectivized? Is he supposed to conform to some collective transcendental aesthetic that the artist extracts from the unconscious of the masses or what? Why is he not visionary because he realized his own, subjective aesthetic visions?)

Why is the set abysmal? because it's minimalistic?
Well, yes. It doesn't look like a real house, as you can see.

> It's easy to distinguish well thought lighting and half assed lighting, for example.

You say for example but you don't provide an example. You don't explain any of the claims you make. The only time you got concrete in your criticism was your house-critic and that says enough.

>And how exactly do you quantify what is good mise and scene and what not?
>The details on the key aspects, and the film's effectiveness in setting the mood

Good mise en scene is quantified by it's details on the key aspects? huh? And also "effectiveness in setting the mood"? Vague as fuck.

My god, you sure know how to make us waste our time. you have scrambled together a completely inconsistent perspective on cinema, probably funded by youtube channels, wikipedia articles and /tv/ and have constantly embarrassed yourself with ridiculous statements.

I congratule you for baiting us so effectively.

>Cinema has more potential than a play. By not maximizing it's potential, a film can't pass as a good film.

Ayy lmao

Ozu > Kurosawa

Mizoguchi > Kurosawa

Mizoguchi is a miserabilist tryhard. The only film of his I've unequivocally enjoyed is Street of Shame

>Peter Greenaway
Overrated porn director.

>Fellini
Even the greats aren't flawless.

>why it must be "overcome"
That's not what transcend means.

>What is your position based on?
Film theories. There are many, but I like Tarkovsky's the best. And a bit of Deleuze.

>Technique from his point of view is merely a tool for the artists subjective vision.
I'm not criticizing techniques, I'm criticizing the quality of the film as it is presented to the audience. As he said, filmmakers shouldn't be very bound to formal techniques, but that doesn't mean they can be half assed.

>there are The fundamentals of film making
Mise en scene is the fundamental of all film making.

>what aesthetics would a visionary director realize in his art?
It is art. It could be anything, as long as it is emotionally evoking and psychologically truthful. I personally like authenticity, logic of poetry, and lack of romanticism in art.

>Is he supposed to conform to some collective transcendental aesthetic that the artist extracts from the unconscious of the masses or what?
He doesn't have to conform to anything, he just needs to make an aesthetically pleasing film.

>Why is he not visionary because he realized his own, subjective aesthetic visions
His vision isn't good enough, alright? Shakespeare knew a lot of vocabulary and created wonderfully articulated poems out of it. Dostoevsky understood human nature. They were visionary in their own ways.

>You say for example but you don't provide an example.
Pic related is an example. It's a well thought composition. The cracks on the walls, water dripping from the ceiling, and sun rays falling through the windows and ceilings, give the scene of the house a powerful mood and beauty.

>Vague as fuck.
Try to watch Kurosawa. The lighting and composition techniques are really complex compared to Mishima. That alone tells that the director put a lot of thought into the mise en scene.

>My god, you sure know how to make us waste our time. you have scrambled together a completely inconsistent perspective on cinema, probably funded by youtube channels, wikipedia articles and /tv/ and have constantly embarrassed yourself with ridiculous statements.
Or maybe you're ignorant.

>Tarkovsky plabby professes to be an expert on cinema

figures

Good post, Mishima was basically an extension of Yasuda Yojuro's Romantic School which embraced irony. Mishima was under no illusions when he went out that day to die, he said that Japan was due to become a modern souless economic giant. That just made his action ever more poignant, it was his terms

How am I an expert, I'm not even a director.

How could someone possibly dislike The Belly of the Architect?

It has music from Glenn Branca you fag.

Also saying Satyricon is flawed is just ridiculous. Yeah, maybe it isn't your definition of perfect, but it's still one of the greatest movies ever made.

Don't fucking deny it bitch. I'm not user. Just admit that theatre in a film can perfectly work without taking away from it.

I know you're fighting against your own instinct calling Satyricon and Casanova bad movies. I'm pretty sure you saw them, almost certain actually. And you enjoyed them. Why keep up this charade?

I don't give a shit about the Mishima short, I don't have a definite opinion on it. But I know you're in denial when it comes to Fellini.

I don't know man, I've met some people who really, really dislike Fellini for some reason

I just can't understand why/how

it's called "bein a plob" my dear friend

I'm just happy that I have friends who I can watch this shit with..

>calling Satyricon and Casanova bad movies
I consider Satyricon and Casanova bad in the same way I would consider The Seventh Seal bad or Andrei Rublev inferior to Stalker. These are great movies, but they haven't embraced the full potential of cinema as authentic audiovisual poetry. Cinema needs to be less "rigid", the visuals must be similar to how we perceive the world in real life, the dialogue needs a bit more aesthetic value rather than just being a plot or story advancing device, and the music must not play on it's own harmony, it needs to be an organic part of the film. Like the distorted train sound effects in Stalker, it is an example of organic music.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying a play, but cinema has more potential than a simply a recorded play.

Small dick

Good.

Holy fuck take the moviefagging to /tv/ Jesus.

>Natsu did not allow Mishima to venture into the sunlight, to engage in any kind of sport or to play with other boys; he spent much of his time alone or with female cousins and their dolls.[7]

>Mishima returned to his immediate family when he was 12. His father, a man with a taste for military discipline, employed parenting tactics such as holding the young boy up to the side of a speeding train. He also raided Mishima's room for evidence of an "effeminate" interest in literature and often ripped apart the boy's manuscripts.

...

A combination of literal daddy issues, childhood illness resulting in a desperate attempt to die beautifully and tragically whilst fearing and fleeing death, love for the japanese ideal of beauty found in rugged young men whom he could only 'love' if he didn't actually love them and didn't connect with intellectually, resulting in overwhelming fantasies blurring with his reality, all the while loathing himself until finally striving to juxtapose 'sun and steel' and culminating in his absolute follow through of his shallow childhood ideals in the most tragic death: suicide at the prime of his life, forgotten and ridiculed.

Manlet among manlets.

>it's a /tv/ pollutes Veeky Forums episode

He was a massively repressed gay who idolized a period of his nation's history that was also massively repressed and gay.

he's mad cause he has a sideways vagina

>forgotten and ridiculed
>most accomplished japanese author of his generation
>would have gotten the nobel prize if swedes weren't cucks

>implying that Kawabata wasn't the most accomplished author of that generation
confirmed いっぱい pleb

Has anyone here ever read Mishima in the original Japanese? I'm curious how it differs from the English translation.

>Homosexuality
>repressed in Historical Japan
???

The fuck are you saying user.