Emperor Tomato Ketchup

In the post-war period Japan there was a new constitution which guaranteed new rights in terms of freedom of expression similar to those in the US, even arguably more "free". As a result experimental cinema blossomed and decreasing financial boundaries for entry into film-making allowed a renaissance in artistic and experimental cinema. Far from offensive, Emperor Tomato Ketchup uses the canvas of the moving image to explore political (anarchist movements), social issues, and sexual issues but at no point are the scenes intended for sexual stimulation. In fact the scenes which contain nudity do include a mature woman and young teenage boy, but what take place is not actual sex but more a nudist/naturalist depiction of humanity and playfulness. This film is not a depiction of reality but rather, befitting an avant garde film, the creation of another world where extremes and strangeness exist to point out issues in own own reality. Without experimental film there is no new film.

First there are two versions of this film, one which was shown in 1970 and is 76 minutes long in sepia, and another which was produced in Germany for European audiences in 1971 and was 28 minutes long in black and white. If possible it is better to see the 76 minute version, the 28 minute is a chopped up "just the highlights" version that is not very true to terayama's original intentions. Unfortunately the 28 minute version is much more widely available outside Japan, and is what most people have seen.

Second: The film is not pornographic in the least bit. Terayama was not interested in pornography, which he saw as a tool of state oppression, but in creating a vision of erotic utopia. So it has naked children raping adults, BIG deal. The film was made in answer to Nazi Holocaust camps, the atomic bomb, the rape of Nanking, the Vietnam war etc. Terayama had lived through the firebombs that destroyed his town, leaving charred bodies of women and children littered about him when he was but 9 years old. A few naked children, especially in 1970, is no big deal, so grow up. If you can't handle it, then I guess yes, keep your eyes closed to the worlds horror and don't watch the film.

Third: It is not a feel good film, and is primarily about revolution and failed utopian dreams. It is a rejection of any meta-narrative progression, by which I mean there is no promise implied or given. No promise of good, or god or justice, as terayama sought to express a "vanished thought" Not that the film couldn't be better, but it got my back up to see the other review where they dismiss it so easily and without thought.

cheers

I recently saw the short b&w version of the movie, the accusation of child pornography is irrelevant. It is obvious it's not Terayama's intention: the nude scenes aren't so much erotic than somehow grotesque and touching. The children appear helpless and clumsy with their power. I saw something of a fable about this vanity: the children unable to understand why they should even HAVE the power, yet wanting it... I didn't know there was a long version of the movie so i imagined Terayama chose an elliptic, poetic, surrealist way of expressing things. He uses images for the power that is inherent to their nature, and not as mere substitute to words. Now i would like to see it in its full length to be sure about all this. Nevertheless, another of his movies, the 1977 20 min. long "Film de l'ombre" ("Movie of the shadow" (?)) definitely demonstrates that his cinematographic language may well be non-direct and poetic. I definitely recommend it to those who like poetry in the cinema (somewhat difficult to stumble upon though). Cheers, Boyan

"Emperor Tomato Ketchup" is pretty typical for an experimental and/or underground film made in the time it was made. Of course it's in black and white, on grainy film stock, and many of the scenes are lit so poorly you can barely see anything, nor tell what's going on.

There's also no dialogue, but a bit of voice-over, and this supposed exposition only makes the movie more confusing. A little seems to allude to the movie's premise, ie. A world in which children have overthrown adults. Most of it, however, tells you nothing. It's just a voice making bizarre, nonsensical statements. You're already trying to work out what it is you're seeing, and then the voice-over only adds more to puzzle you.

If this movie is remembered by anyone, it will probably be for two things: one, the premise, which still seems like it could make an interesting movie if its handling could be less bizarre, and two, the scene in which a young boy is stripped naked by a group of three women, and then we see him rolling around on the bed with one of the women, who is also naked.

It never ceases to amaze me what you can get away with in the world of cinema. If this footage was separated from the movie, it would be called child pornography. And the scene goes on for so long, I kept expecting the FBI to kick my door in.

You could argue it's not porn because it's probably not intended to arouse (though what is it intended for if not that?). How is what that woman did, and the filmmakers by extension, not molestation? I wonder how the kid felt about being made to do that. I remember Mario van Peebles said he was probably traumatised after the sexual scene he had to perform in as a child, with an adult woman, in "Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song". This was far more full on than that. I wonder how the kid felt about it.

I have seen both versions of this film and I would have to say that the primary feeling I get afterwards is ambivalence. Now maybe the director was trying to say something and then again maybe he wasn't; ambiguity is often a sign of an artist trying to force the viewer to think, but it is even more often a sign of a lazy and pretentious CON-artist with nothing particularly cohesive to say and no particular idea on how to say it.

Not all that is Ambiguous is art; in just the same way that not everything that is yellow is cheese.

And then there's the whole child porn / not child porn argument, now whether you get turned on or not by watching badly acted scenes of children having sex with adults remains to be seen, and it doesn't alter the fact that there's a hell of a lot of people out there who do.

Now whether the director is trying to say something with full frontal child nudity and sex is up to others to argue about at length rather than me, but nothing makes a cult movie better that questionable content and there is nothing to say that the director wasn't simply being shocking to gain attention.

But I would also point out that we've only got the directors word for it that child porn wasn't his intent.

And for me that is just another reason to be turned off by this movie.