Tomato Kecchappu Kôtei

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.

I had read this was an experimental, controversial and interesting movie so I decided to watch it. What I found was a sick movie probably made by and for sick people. It's literally a torture. I don't mind about the nude children, but this was a bunch of stupid and random sequences put together. No writing, no direction... At some point I chose to put the x2 fast forward. At least I could get some laughs that way. Do film makers know movies are made for entertainment? And I don't mean comedy, I mean entertainment! And don't give me that "you didn't get the depth message" crap. I am sure even children in YouTube make better films.

Don't waste your time. If you want a good experimental surrealist film go and watch Eraserhead.

And I quote... "Do film makers know movies are made for entertainment? And I don't mean comedy, I mean entertainment!"

That is THE most ignorant, most INSULTING comment one could ever write about the possibilities of the "septieme art"! I'm baffled! Literally BAFFLED by your post! *sigh*

I personally haven't seen this film and it could very well be garbage, but it won't be because it's not "entertaining". What is it with people and "entertainment"? The very word has taken on a negative connotation in my book because of all you people who have become accustomed to "fast food films". As if it were a requirement for good cinema. PLEASE!

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.

"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.