To the Dreaming Observer: Response to Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell
Author(s): PETER LEHMAN
Source: Journal of Film and Video , Winter 1988, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Winter 1988), pp. 67-71
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the University Film & Video
Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20687811
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Illinois Press and University Film & Video Association are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Film and Video
This content downloaded from
37.188.172.92 on Mon, 02 May 2022 07:09:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
To the Dreaming Observer: Response to Kristin
Thompson and David Bordwell
PETER LEHMAN
Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell's
response to my criticism of their work on
Japanese cinema obscures all the major
points of my critique. I do, however, stand
corrected on the absence of reference to
Said's Orientalism in their work, though it
remains useful to consider their claims
with reference to that book.
It is important here to recall the argument
and purpose of my essay. Contrary to
Bordwell and Thompson's assertions, it
was not written by someone who "wants
to intervene in this controversy," nor was
it written to "constitute the initial stage of
a new research program." It was, rather,
written to be presented at the beginning of
a 1984 conference organized specifically
around the idea of Western perceptions of
Japanese film. The piece was intended as a
polemic which would provoke response
and discussion. In fact, I strongly recom
mended to the conference organizers that
Bordwell, Thompson, Anderson, and
Burch be guests of the conference. As I
recall, Bord well and Thompson were out
of the country at the time. My contribu
tion was in no way presented as that of a
Japanese film scholar. It was indeed writ
ten from the point of view of a "disen
gaged" outsider. My only involvement
had been as an editor, since several of the
articles in the controversy were published
in Wide Angle. My article is much more
modest in its scope and intentions than
Bord well and Thompson imply. My at
tempt was to trace arguments, indicate
areas that had been unsatisfactorily ad
dressed, and reveal (in an admittedly po
lemical fashion) underlying assumptions.
Several scholars currently engaged in Jap
anese film research praised the presenta
tion as a useful survey of pertinent issues
in the field and several readers of the essay
have responded similarly. As for Bordwell
and Thompson's conclusion, I am happy
to let others decide how "outdated" or
"inaccurate" my article is.
Thompson and Bordwell claim that my
method "simply juxtaposes other people's
opinions with our conclusions" and that
"Lehman's chief strategy should be ap
parent: citation of authority. Said, Ander
son, Willemen, Oshima, Sato?all are sim
ply juggled together to raise the
possibilities of other readings." Both
claims are wrong. My article traces key
debates in the field, and when I cite schol
ars like Anderson and Willemen it is not
their "opinions" to which I am referring.
Nor are they being used as "authority"
figures. They have offered specific argu
ments and challenges which have not been
adequately addressed by Bordwell and/or
Thompson.
Thompson and Bordwell also attribute po
sitions to me that I do not hold and mis
represent my use of sources. For instance,
"Lehman reproduces Joseph Anderson's
claim (originally made in an interview with
Lehman) that Ozu's style is not unique
and that indeed other Shochiku directors,
such as Shimazu, employ it." I manifestly
do not "reproduce" that claim. It is clear
that I am simply surveying Anderson's
argument and Bordwell's response to it.
This is prefatory to identifying the aspects
of Bordwell's response which I feel are
inadequate. I am, in fact, in full agreement
with Bordwell and Thompson on this
JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 40.1 (Winter 1988) 67
This content downloaded from
37.188.172.92 on Mon, 02 May 2022 07:09:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
point. The responsibility lies with Ander
son (or anyone who defends that position)
to cite specific examples which contradict
Thompson and Bordwell's reading. As far
as I know, Ozu's style is unique.1
Nowhere in the article do I argue that
"Western cinema is not pertinent to
Ozu." I am fully convinced by Thompson
and Bordwell's argument that Ozu was
well versed in Western cinema's stylistic
devices and that he "deliberately swerved
from them." It does not simply follow
from that fact, however, that Willemen's
challenge (which incorporates some of
Anderson's points) is fully answered. It is
true that Bordwell acknowledges prob
lems with his formulation of modernism
and classicism but specifically argues of
Willemen's discussion of African tribal art
and cubism that "The analogy reveals the
weakness of Willemen's case. African
sculptors never saw Cubist work, but Jap
anese filmmakers knew Western cinema
very well" (54). My point was and remains
that that difference does not invalidate
important parts of Willemen's argument.
The mere fact that Ozu knew Western film
style and did not employ it does not sig
nificantly alter Willemen's point that
Bordwell and Thompson are reading
Ozu's films from their Western perspec
tive. Ozu's knowledge of and departure
from Western style does not mean that his
films are in any way a critique of that
style, nor does it tell us anything about
how his style might be read within the
Japanese context. The same is true of the
much cherished point of individuality. To
argue that no one in Japan or even the
world made films like Ozu tells us nothing
about how those films are shaped by and
read within Japanese cultural traditions.
Thompson and Bordwell claim that I link
them with Stephen Heath and Edward
Branigan and "chide" them for disregard
ing Japanese culture. But the only refer
ence to Branigan's work in my article is
made in a discussion of Willemen's posi
tion. As with the earlier cited example of
Anderson's work, Thompson and Bord
well collapse a position I am surveying
with one they attribute to me. They then
say I am simply citing authorities. But, in
fact, Willemen (the supposed authority) is
the target of my criticism, not Branigan!
The point (which was obscured by several
dropped lines) was that Willemen accused
Branigan of wrenching The Man Who Left
His Will on Film out of context by com
paring it with 8 1/2. Yet Heath, whose
previous work on Oshima is favorably
invoked in that essay, does virtually the
same thing when he discusses In the
Realm of the Senses in comparison with
Letter From an Unknown Woman.
The main point of my essay was that the
work of all these Western scholars on
Japanese film can only be understood
within the ideological spaces into which
they pull these films. It is for this reason
that I stressed the way in which Thomp
son and Bordwell's work on Ozu fits in
with their work on directors like Tati. Nor
is it true that I am simply "chiding" any
one for ignoring Japanese culture. On the
contrary, I conclude, "We should respect
what we learn from our perspectives as
witnessed in such excellent works as
Bordwell and Thompson's, Branigan's,
and Heath's." In fact, I call for a contin
uation of such work. It is only in regard to
certain kinds of claims (such as those that
Bordwell makes in his survey of the
"dream cinema" or the conclusions that
Thompson and Bordwell make in their
Ozu article) that the Japanese cultural
context is critical.
I even encourage further work on Ozu
which incorporates Thompson's and
Bordwell's work within the current West
ern work on space and eroticism in cin
ema. As for my work on Oshima, it is also
clearly linked to other work of mine which
reformulates certain current notions of the
avant-garde.2 In a forthcoming article, "In
the Realm of the Senses: Desire, Power,
and the Representation of the Male
Body," I do, in fact, place that film within
68 JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 40.1 (Winter 1988)
This content downloaded from
37.188.172.92 on Mon, 02 May 2022 07:09:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
the historical context in which it was made
and relate it to Japanese erotic woodblock
prints. I do not, however, think that all
discussions of Japanese films must always
employ the Japanese cultural context. But
if one is going to claim, as Bordwell does,
that other people are misreading Japanese
film by virtue of how they think of Japan,
then one had better do so.
In Bond and Beyond: The Political Career
of a Popular Hero, Tony Bennett and
Janet Woollacott argue that "texts be con
ceived as having no existence prior to or
independent of the varying 'reading for
mations' in which they have been consti
tuted as objects-to-be-read . . . their read
ing is always-already cued in specific
directions that are not given by those
'texts themselves' as entities separable
from such relations" (64, emphasis
added). They maintain that although texts
have determinate properties "such prop
erties cannot, in themselves, validate cer
tain received meanings above others; they
do not provide a point of 'truth' in relation
to which readings may be normatively and
hierarchically ranked or discounted" (65).
It is precisely these points that I was
striving at in my critique.
We can only understand Thompson and
Bordwell's analysis within the reading for
mation of what has been variously dubbed
"neo-formalism" or "the University of
Wisconsin project." Their reading is
based on a dazzlingly intricate analysis of
determinate properties of the Ozu texts.
When I referred to those as "easily ob
servable," I did not mean that in the
derogatory sense that Thompson and
Bord well took it. They are correct that
they were the first to make these observa
tions; before their pioneering work seeing
these things would hardly have been easy
for anyone. I meant easily observable in
the sense of verifiable. Nor did I mean that
these patterns are "simple." Of course I
did not take the time to show a "detailed
grasp" of all the elements of style they
analyze. I gave a few simple examples. In
several seminars, I have analyzed these
stylistic features in detail, using the same
films and examples which Thompson and
Bord well employ. This did not seem to me
the place to redo what they have already
done, especially since I was not contesting
their analysis of these determinate textual
features. They have done a sophisticated
job and their examples are well chosen
and accurately described. The key point,
however, is that these objectively analyz
able textual features are not evidence for
the conclusions that Thompson and Bord
well draw, nor is their reading a "true"
reading which warrants the nearly con
temptuous dismissal of other readings as
being in error?the dreaded thematization.
In "The Story Continues, or the Wiscon
sin Project Part II," Barry King hits the
nail on the head when he observes that
Bordwell "counterposes an 'expert' read
ing to a lay reading in a manner which
conceives of the latter commonsense or
thematic reading as an error. ... Is there
not a certain positivist fervor in an ac
count that offers a theoretical apparatus
for a 'correct' reading and merely casts
the reader in its own image?" (75)
The main aspects of my critique of
Thompson and Bordwell's work were that
"they consider the systems they analyze
to be solely properties of the films which
they can uncover through detailed, minute
analysis," that they employ no cultural
reference, and that although Bordwell
condemns others for viewing Japanese
cinema as a "dream-cinema," he and
Thompson are guilty of the same thing in
their work on Ozu: they read Ozu as their
formalist dream (12). I cannot, of course,
assess how successfully Thompson and
Bordwell will address these issues in their
forthcoming books, nor how Bordwell will
incorporate Sato's criticism.3 Considering
Bordwell's recent discussion of Ozu in
Narration in the Fiction Film, however, I
am not optimistic that these problems will
be resolved.
JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 40.1 (Winter 1988) 69
This content downloaded from
37.188.172.92 on Mon, 02 May 2022 07:09:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Thompson and Bordwell emphasize that
Ozu's films are "complex and daring be
cause . . . they play with narrative and
other formal patterns simultaneously." In
this "expert" reading, one has to teach
oneself (preferably with the help of a
flatbed) to separate the formal patterns
and then view them as "playing" with the
narrative. This account, however, does
not make sense to actual viewers who are
deeply involved in the films through com
plex patterns of identification with charac
ters as well as evolving plot events and
themes. Although they are not themati
cally developed in the style of the classical
cinema, Ozu's films are rich with meaning.
Clearly, Thompson and Bordwell's 1976
article on Ozu is part of the "al way s
already" of a neo-formalist reading. Not
surprisingly, Ozu ends up with Tati and
Bresson as a "parametric" filmmaker in
Narration in the Fiction Film, a formal
confirmation of my point that Thompson
and Bordwell read Ozu within their West
ern ideological space. Even more remark
ably, Bord well characterizes parametric
films as having "strikingly obvious
themes."
Not much acumen is needed to iden
tify Play Time as treating the imper
sonality of modern life, Tokyo Story
as examining the decline of the "in
herently" Japanese family, or Vivre
sa vie as dealing with contemporary
alienation and female desire. It is as if
stylistic organization becomes promi
nent only if the themes are so banal as
to leave criticism little to interpret
(282).
The argument here is somewhat circular;
since Bordwell declares the themes obvi
ous and banal, he treats them that way.4
But Ozu's films deal with such "banal"
matters as the crisis young boys feel when
they discover that their father is not what
they had thought, the disappointment that
aged parents feel in their children, and the
intense loneliness that a widowed father
feels when his daughter has married and
he is the only member of the family left in
the house. The poignancy with which Ozu
treats these situations should not be char
acterized as "banal." Nor is it clear how
these banal, obvious themes differ from
those of the classical cinema. One could
accurately characterize The Man Who
Shot Liberty Valance as dealing with the
theme of the passing of the old West.
Certainly there is no more obvious or
banal theme in Westerns, but it does not
necessarily follow that the theme is of
limited importance to the film.
Although Bordweirs later work avoids
claims of modernism about the parametric
style, he notes that "possessed of a horror
vacui, the interpretative critic clings to
theme in order to avoid falling into the
abyss of 'arbitrary' style and structure"
(282). This virtually repeats Thompson
and Bordwell's earlier conclusions that
their reading of Ozu involves a "dan
gerous freedom; the old Ozu is far more
comforting." "Falling into the abyss"
simply becomes a dramatic metaphor for
"dangerous freedom." But, I repeat, per
ceiving style and structure as arbitrary and
separate from theme is not the grand,
risky business that Thompson and Bord
well make it out to be. And it is, to say the
least, condescendingly inadequate to char
acterize thematic critics as virtual cow
ards. Contrary to Thompson and Bord
well's claim that my critique is
"outdated," I fear that three years after it
was written, it is still pertinent. Far from
resolving the problems in the 1976 Ozu
article, the later work intensifies them.
The neo-formalist Ozu is just as much of a
dream as all the other dreams that Bord
well strongly criticizes in his 1979 article.
It is a dream I do not share.
Notes
1 The reference to my interview with Ander
son is also misleading. It is true that Anderson's
article grew out of a taped discussion with
70 JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 40.1 (Winter 1988)
This content downloaded from
37.188.172.92 on Mon, 02 May 2022 07:09:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
several Wide Angle editors, myself included.
This was done at Anderson's request and in no
way linked me or anyone else to his views.
Precisely for this reason, I did not feel it appro
priate to take any credit for the finished article.
Loren Hoekzema, the Assistant Editor who not
only participated in the interview but also saw
the article through to its final form, was right
fully acknowledged.
2 See Peter Lehman, "For Whom Does the
Light Shine?: Thoughts on the Avant-Garde,"
Wide Angle 7.1&2 (1985): 68-73; "The Avant
Garde: Power, Change, and the Power to
Change," Cinema Histories, Cinema Practices,
ed. Patricia Mellencamp and Philip Rosen (Los
Angeles: American Film Institute, 1984)
120-131; and "Style, Function, and Ideology: A
Problem in Film History," Film Reader 4
(1979): 72-80.
3 A translation of Sato's writings on Ozu
appeared in the same 1977 issue of Wide Angle
in which Anderson's article appeared, but
Bordwell makes no mention of it in his 1979
article. At that time, he apparently felt no need
to qualify the 1976 analysis of Ozu based upon
Sato's observations.
4 It is symptomatic of the general lack of
attention to sexual ideology in Bordwell's work
thai female desire is simply included in a list of
obvious and banal themes.
Works Cited
Bennett, Tony and Janet Woollacott.
Bond and Beyond: The Political Career
of a Popular Hero. New York: Me
thuen, 1987.
Bordwell, David. Narration in the Fiction
Film. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1985.
King, Barry. 'The Story Continues, or
the Wisconsin Project Part II." Screen
28.3 (1987): 56-82.
Lehman, Peter. "In the Realm of the
Senses'. Desire, Power, and the Repre
sentation of the Male Body." Genders
1.2 (forthcoming 1988).
Sato, Tadao. "The Art of Yasujiro Ozu."
Trans. Goro Iiri. Wide Angle 1.4 (1977):
44-8.
Eisenstein at 90
July 20-23, Keble College, Oxford
The British Film Institute and the Museum of Modern Art, Oxford, announce
an international conference to mark the opening of their major exhibition
devoted to the life and career of Sergei Eisenstein. In this ninetieth
anniversary year of Eisenstein's birth, the exhibition will include the largest
selection of his drawings and designs so far publicly exhibited; and it is
accompanied by BFI Publishing/Indiana University Press's important new
edition of Eisenstein's writings.
It is the wealth of newly available material by and on Eisenstein that provides
the impetus for a gathering of scholars and students from many countries,
including the Soviet Union. The conference will include contributions from
leading experts, screenings of rare film material and a private view of the
Eisenstein exhibition at Oxford's Museum of Modern Art, as well as a round
table discussion of future directions in Eisenstein studies.
Since accommodation at Keble College is limited, early booking is recom
mended and all inquiries should be addressed to Ian Christie, Distribution
Division, British Film Institute, 21 Stephen Street, London W1 1 PL (tele
phone 01-255 1444; telex 27624 BFILDNG; fax 01-436 7950).
JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 40.1 (Winter 1988) 71
This content downloaded from
37.188.172.92 on Mon, 02 May 2022 07:09:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms