Kagi (键):A comparative analysis

Junichiro Tanizaki was one of the major writers of modern Japanese literature after Natsume Soseki (夏目漱石). Born to a rice merchant family in Tokyo in 1886, Junichiro ended his study in university of Tokyo in 1910 and published in the same yar his first short story, the tatooer, in which the influence of western culture, notably Edgar Allen Poe, is obvious. In 1923 he moved to Kyoto where he started to immense himself with traditional Japanese literature, particularly the regional culture of the Kansai region comprising Osaka, Kobe and Kyoto. His famous masterpiece Sasameyuki ("A Light Snowfall", also called The Makioka Sisters), is considered a rewriting of the eleventh-century classic The Tale of Genji. After World War II Tanizaki emerged into literary prominence. He was first nominated Nobel literature prize in 1964, four years ahead of Yasunari Kawabata(川端康成) and one year ahead Yukio Mishima(三島由紀夫)[1] .

Most of Junichiro’s works are of a subtle sensuality which mount to eroticism. KAGI (1956, The Key) was such a story where the protagonist, Kenji Kenmochi, an old professor and ‘authority of classical objects’ is using diary to both fight senility and to liberate the sexual desire of his wife, Ikuko. Apart from writing in the diary stimulating phrases which is meant to be discovered later by his wife, he also willingly exposed the body of his wife in front of his young protégé, Kimura, in order to provoke the necessary emotional response of jalousie to help him accomplish sexual acts. This obsessive erotic desire is soon proved to be dangerous as he is finally paralysed out of cerebral apoplexy. Many of these elements reappeared in another novel, Diary of a Mad Old Man (1962), which depicts an aged diarist who is struck down by a stroke caused by an excess of sexual excitement. He records both his past desires and his current efforts to bribe his daughter-in-law to provide sexual favors in return for Western baubles.

Kagi was first adaptated in 1959 by the renowned japanese director Kon Ichikawa (市川昆), who is recognized for depicting japanese traditional life and explorering the depth of human nature[2]. The film won the jury prize in Cannes film festival, tied with L’aventura of Antonioni. The following passage is only a brief analysis of how the narrative is reconstructed in the filmic medium. Lack of space forbids further treatment of the topic here.

Major differences of the novel and film narration

Sexuality at Junichiro is foremostly and fondamentally a psychological matter. It is only depicted when it serves to reveal the hidden interrelationships of characters. Like other psychological motives, it is a subject to be discovered, not directly in our view. This approach is illustrated by the fact that the novel bear the title of ‘key’ which leads to the actual central object, the diary. And the diary itself is figuratively speaking a key to the sexual interaction between the diary keepers, the protagonist and his wife, Ikuko. Diary is choosen probably because of its immediate connotative intimacy – it is the key to a private and personal world – yet it is explicitly written for the other party, no longer for oneself. This literary device generates an unusual ‘textual’ relationship where the description of daily events are read and commented reciprocally. These textual actions, carried not on their conventional level in the real world but parrelle to them, created on purpose a rejuvenating energy source.

In the film, however, the importance of diary is almost totally eliminated. The narrative does not rely on such an object and adopts on the other hand the usual omnipresent mode. while this arrangement is not necessarilly problematic, it makes the key useless.

The film also made substantial modification on the character themselves. The role of Kimura, in particular, is considerablly strenthenged. He is no longer the passive props used by the two diary keepers but becomes an explicit opportunist. The point is made clear several of his added appearances. The first is the opening passage, when Kimura is seen addressing to the spectator (to Kenji), lecturing about the issue of senilty. Second, we notice that Kimura is an active seducer who sucessfully made the daughter, Toshiku, agreed to come to that hotel room in Osaka. Thirdly, near the end of film, by means of internal monologue, he actually confessed that he is now thinking of how to get rid of this – this means both the marriage and the relationship with Ikuko.

Another signification structual change is the murder. In the end of the film, both Ikuko, Toshiko and Kimura are poisoned by the old maid, Baya, whose confession is then refused by the investigating police. Obviously, this sense of tragical trivialness or black humour can be found nowhere in the original novel. As if suddenly, the whole structure of sexual perversity is covered with a black veil. This moral condemnation is definitely strange(Baya confessed that she killed them because they are ‘wicked’).

Pehaps in order to give more reasons to Kimura’s unfaithfullness, the film modified the financial situation of the Kenmochi family so that when Kenji died, the family is literally ruined – everything was taken by antique dealers who have already purchased them but agreed to leave them as long as Kenji lives.

Apart from these significant narrative reconstructions, the film differs from the novel in various visual elements. One shoot, the bamboo forest at night, is repeated several times. A buddha statue is also emphasized by making Kenji carried it from his study to bedroom. However, in terms of visual expressiveness, the sensuality typical of Junichiro is almost completely ignored. In this respect the film is insufficient, adhering to an almost natualist view. Although it is a color film, it gives me the impression of lacking anying noticable color. In the most recent adaption of this novel by Toshiharu Ikeda, this insufficiency is largely compensated (or even consider the Tinto Brass version, with its characteristic depicting of female flesh). For example, when Kimura is developing the film, he sees that the image of Ikuko emerge from the negative. But as they are black and white photos, the effect is totally unconvincing. Toshiharu Ikeda made this emergence visually annexed to the real body rising from the hot water, which is highly effective and fidel to Junichiro’s general line. A stern moral judgement, such as the one found in Ichikawa’s version, is not compatible with Junichiro’s aestheticism and is a most grave error.

A brief overview of the influence of Junichiro on Japanese Pornos

One of the unique phenomenon of Japanese cinema is its affinity with pornography. Many active and important figures of contemporary Japanese cinema, before they ‘officially’ started their career, had almost always already made some Pinkeiga or Pinkfilm[3]. Due to an explicit sensualism and controversial moral stance, Junichiro has always been a favorable object for filmic adaptation, especially Pinkfilm. The following list of japanese directors are all directly connected to Junichiro:

Tetsuji Takechi (武智鉄二), whose The daydream (Hakujitsumu, 1964), adapted from the homonymous novel of Junichiro, was regarded as the first important Pinkfilm. This film was also remade in 1981.

Two of the four internationally acclaimed great porno makers[4] have made their tribune to Junichiro: Tatsumi Kumashiro (神代辰巳) did the second adaptation of Kagi (1974) and Koji Wakamatsu (若松孝二) did the third (1983). The most recent fimic adaptation (1997) of this novel came from Toshiharu Ikeda (池田敏春).

Yasuzo Masumura (増村保造), the representative Japanese Nouvelle Vague figure and the ultimate admirer of Junichiro made Manji (1964, remade in 1983), Irezumi (1966) and Love for an Idiot (痴人之爱, 1967) from Junichiro.

Kaneto Shindô (新藤兼人) is another prominent figure of japanese new cinema. He made Acuto (1965) and Sanka (1972) from Junichiro.

Katsumi Nishikawa (西河克己), who did the famous Izu no odoriko[5] (the dancer of Izu, 1974), adapted from Yasunari Kawabata, did Junichiro’s Shunkinsho (1976).

Junichiro’s themes are of course not only of domestic interest: the notable foreign adaptation are La chiave(1983), the loosely adaptation of Kagi by Tinto Brass (well known softcore) and The Berlin affair (1985) of Liliana Cavani.

Conclusion

We have seen that extensive modifications are made to accomendate the specificities of film medium. In the case of Kagi it is even more challenging due to its original form of diary. This mode of narration is completely literary and need to be rebuilt into the film. But this same need of reconstruction gives an extra degree of freedom on the part of the film maker. That is one of the reasons that this kind of novel is always adapted more than once and every new generation sees new potentiality in it[6].

As Ruth Bennedict pointed out, the Chrysanthemum and the Sword coexist in a japanese society. Junichiro is an important symbol because he manifest one of these two polarities of japanese culture. Along with Yasunari Kawabata, he represents the ‘good’, peaceful way of aestheticism, which is constantly contradicted, subverted by the ‘bad’, perversity and agressiveness.



[1] Yukio Mishima got another nomination at 1967. But like Junichiro he did not win.

[2] The homage of Kon Ichikawa to Junichiro is better illustrated by his version of The fine snow (1983), arguably Junichiro’s chef d’oeuvre.

[3] Strange enough, Nikkatsus Corporation, one of the most important base of such activities, refered to these people ‘Roman’ and today their DVD release are categorized under the title of ‘Roman Porno series’.

[4] The other two are Nagisha Oshima (大岛渚), favored by French producer, who supported his In the Realm of the Senses (1977) and Shuji Terayama (寺山修司) known by Fruits of Passion(1981).

[5] Played by two extremely popular stars and dominant figures of early 80s TV show in China, Momoe Yamaguchi(山口百惠) and Tomokazu(三浦友和).

[6] Consider Les liasons dangereuses, it is also adapted by Roger Vadim and Stephen Frears, with totally different focuses.

Augustine的几个句子,觉得翻译的不够准确,在此提出


Quid mihi es? Miserere ut loquar.
Quid tibi sum ipse, ut amari te iubeas a me?
你对我算什么?求你怜悯我使我能够说出。我对你算什么,而你竟命我爱你?(现行中译)
你对我意味着什么?怜悯我使我能够说出。我对你又意味着什么,你竟命自己被我所爱?(拙译)
What art thou to me? Have mercy that I may speak. What am I to thee that thou shouldst command me to love theeoutler version

Dic animae mea, ‘salus tua ego sum’.
Sic dic ut audiam.
请告诉我的灵魂说:“我是你的救援。”请你说,让我听到。(现行中译)
告知我的灵魂,我是你的救赎。如是说以便我懂得倾听。(拙译)
“Say to my soul, I am your salvation.” So speak that I may hear.

Quid enim est quod volo dicere, domine, nisi quia nescio unde venerim huc, inistam dico vitam mortalem au mortem vitalem?
主,我的天主,我想说什么呢?我只能说我不知道从那里来到此世,我要说,来到这死亡的生活中,或是生活的死亡中。(现行中译)
我还有什么可说,我的天主,除了,我不知自己从何处来到这速朽的生机或勃发的毁灭中。
For what do I wish to say, O Lord my God, but that I know not whence I came hither into this life-in-death. Or should I call it death-in-life?

临摹者

诗的语言要有新意,意象也是如此,这两个手段都是为了达到同一目的,这个目的不是别的,就是所谓的诗意。可是某些译者往往忘了这种诗意才是真正的目的,却费尽心机试图同时保留原诗之韵格及意象,就好像临摹者高价购得大师当年作画时所用的同一种笔,同一种纸,以力求某种“表面的真实”和权威。这样做出来的东西可以很像,但是不会有同样的神韵,这个神韵是什么?就是创作动机,因为你不是在同样的创作动机下拿起画笔的,你也就不可能画出同样的一笔,况且,临摹者根本没有创作动机,就好像译诗者不是在写诗一样。人家一辈子才出一本诗集,每首诗后面都有一种感情境况,也就是所谓的动机,这个看不见的东西,译者没有,也就当做不存在了,于是一两个月就把别人一辈子的工作“翻译”了过来,这可能吗?译诗,绝对是个重新创造的过程。正因为原始的意象和韵之间的配合需要在目标语言中重新建立,舍弃某些韵,或者舍弃意象,都应该是合理的。这就要求译者把自己摆到和原作者同样的高度,而不仅仅是两种语言都只识皮毛的“译者”。

L'albatros

Souvent, pour s'amuser, les hommes d'équipage
Prennent des albatros, vastes oiseaux des mers,
Qui suivent, indolents compagnons de voyage,
Le navire glissant sur les gouffres amers.

A peine les ont-ils déposés sur les planches,
Que ces rois de l'azur, maladroits et honteux,
Laissent piteusement leurs grandes ailes blanches
Comme des avirons traîner à côté d'eux.

Ce voyageur ailé, comme il est gauche et veule!
Lui, naguère si beau, qu'il est comique et laid!
L'un agace son bec avec un brûle-gueule,
L'autre mime, en boitant, l'infirme qui volait!

Le Poète est semblable au prince des nuées
Qui hante la tempête et se rit de l'archer;
Exilé sur le sol au milieu des huées,
Ses ailes de géant l'empêchent de marcher.

信天翁(郭宏安 )

水手们常常是为了开心取乐,

捉住信天翁,这些海上的飞禽,

它们懒懒地追寻陪伴着旅客,

而船是在苦涩的深渊上滑进。

一当水手们将其放在甲板上,

这些青天之王,既笨拙又差惭,

就可怜地垂下了雪白的翅膀,

仿佛两只桨拖在它们的身边。

这有翼的旅行者多么地靡萎!

往日何其健美,而今丑陋可笑!

有的水手用烟斗戏弄它的嘴,

有的又跛着脚学这残废的鸟!

诗人啊就好像这位云中之君,

出没于暴风雨,敢把弓手笑看;

一旦落地,就被嘘声围得紧紧,

长羽大翼,反而使它步履艰难。

(拙译如下

常常,为了取乐,水手们

捕来信天翁,这海上的巨鸟

这懒洋洋的旅伴

追随在苦涩深渊上滑行的夜船

一朝置身甲板之上

这青天之王,笨拙而又羞惭

只能将雪白的大翼

拖在身旁仿似无用的双桨

往昔鲲鹏之态而今安在?

而今蹒跚学步

饱受宵小戏弄

将其郁郁之色饱览

诗人啊!你也曾是云中翱翔

傲视风雨,笑看弓手

落入平川不也是为嘘声所困

鸿鹄之志徒增烦恼!

一种沉痛

清晨,面包被深深埋在雪下
不能呼吸
人们匆匆走进地铁站
跺着脚 喳喳 隆隆
我的梦颤抖着
你奔向我的面孔因而变得模糊
伸开的双臂一再落空
而我已不能感受到这种沉痛
也许这雪竟是真的 而我
只不过是冬天的一个梦
2005.1 Posted by Picasa

罗伯格里耶 vs. Houellebecq

罗伯格里耶,我素来尊敬的老前辈(但没想到他都已经老到如此地步!83岁!),最近当选为法兰西学院院士。因为他前几天在本市参加一个被称为FESTIVAL LITTÉRAIRE INTERNATIONAL METROPOLIS BLEU的活动,本地报道中的一段引起了我的注意:

«En réalité, ce qu'un lecteur aime, c'est la littérature informe. Par exemple, Michel Houellebecq, qui n'est pas un très grand écrivain, aborde des thèmes qui sont censément dérangeants, mais qui en réalité ne dérangent personne. En revanche, pour ce qui est de la forme de ses récits, ce n'est pas par hasard qu'il a intitulé son dernier roman Plateforme. C'est la forme littéraire la plus plate possible. Lui-même le reconnaît sans ambages. Je pense que ce qui caractérise la vraie littérature, ce n'est pas son contenu ni les histoires relatées, c'est la forme, dit-il. Madame Bovary, tu racontes l'histoire différemment, tu changes les mots, le rythme des phrases... et le roman disparaît entièrement.»

Houellebecq的小说确实谈不上形式,但是,这个人从来就没有说自己对形式感兴趣。自从上世纪八十年代以来,对小说形式的探索真的有告一段落的趋势,老格里耶对此想必是耿耿于怀的。新的一代提倡的是,形式不形式,首先是要有话可说,这个我真是举双手赞成。而且他们真的证明了,文学,在这个如此媒体泛滥的年代,居然还是可以影响社会!你可以不赞同这种创作观念,但你能不赞同这种对自己创作观念的坚持吗?因为自己已经功成名就,就大肆攻击年轻一代作家,这不是重演自己年青时候被主流所攻击所忽视的历史吗?
凭什么就是他来定义什么是《真正的文学》呢?


Photo André Tremblay, La Presse

关于 « 独自成俑 »

小时候上生物课有这么一个试验:拘束在曲折通道里的植物巧妙地向着光线的方向生长,目标是如此始终如一,可打开盒子一看,他的形体已经扭曲的不成样子。
一个成天干体力活的诗人好多年都出不了什么作品,这里面可以归纳出非常玄妙而新颖的道理,也可以用最简单,最老套的看法来解释。
怎么解释无关紧要,关键是结果都一样。
《向着阳光生长!》
这实在是很辉煌的道理,但请允许我补充一点:《在自由的土壤里生长》。
实在是被不小心放在盒子里怎么办呢?依我看还有几个选择:
一, 自己顶破盒子(毕竟盒子不过是纸做的),或者,请人在盒子上钻个洞,从里面露出头来。
二, 暂时停止生长,等待时机,种子长存。
三, 毅然死去,就拿这个盒子做棺木。
一种看待世界的眼光之所以可以被共享,绝对是因为境遇的相似。因此,与其说某种看法具有普遍性,还不如说某种境遇有普遍性。
拒绝妥协而被摧毁就是一种常见的遭遇。
反过来说,拒绝妥协而又取得胜利的遭遇对我而言如同看见猪在天上飞一样难以理解。
掩饰惊奇的唯一办法就是指着天上说:“看,飞机!”

l’expertise littérale proustienne

La capacité, l’expertise littérale proustienne n’est pas celle d’un romancier du tout. Il ne s’agit pas à fictionner, à construire de la structure romanesque, à créer des personnages valables. Il s’agit chez lui d’un talent unique à saisir le déroulement temporel de l’abstrait, et à les décrire d’une manière infinie.

Inutile d’examiner d’où viennent les personnages dans « à la recherche du temps perdu », car ils ne viennent de nulle part. Ils sont des « observations » qui nous inondent, qui nous étouffent. Il ne faut pas en parler. Il faut le lire toi-même. Et tu vas y trouver que, comparés avec le narrateur, nous sommes les barbares. Malgré la confiance que nous nous croyons d’être sensibles, nous ne le sommes point.

日记三则:

我试图置于屏幕之上的,不是任何物体,甚至是已经经过我自己感官所过滤的那些,而是我的记忆,生活态度,我的个人状况,我对某些事情的理解,或者困惑,这才是我电影中的主体。
我必须以我的经历和我对艺术的理解来回答生活。
这样一来,在我的生活中,这些经历和理解才不会陷入无名。(塔科夫斯基)

如何将个人生活变成素材?这是个基本的命题。
读懂他人艺术的能力完全不能等同于自己也具备将生活转化为艺术的能力。
因为基本的区别在于前者面对迷宫,后者面对虚无。
需要克服恐惧。
其次,在虚无的沙场上,理性不能发光。

你不知道自己所缺乏的是力量,如果不存在那些启示,你甚至不知道自己是软弱的。
因为软弱就是希望软弱,是被动等待解答,是沉溺而不知为什么,是缺乏面对虚无所需的目光。
生活正变得无趣,不为别的,正因为你已经挤干其中的水分,你服的是为自己定下的刑期,替镜中人承担你不曾犯过的罪,日夜修补这业已千疮百孔的骗局。
你梦想着成为镜中的那个人,可现在的你,只不过是镜中人的一个恶梦。

Popular Posts

Blog Archive