Critics seem to be divided with one camp hailing Mizoguchi as a proto feminist who highlighted the oppression and unfair treatment of women, while the other camp say the message is about the triumph of family/tradition over individual/women’s value (which certainly made the 1940s Japanese censors happy). What do you think was Mizoguchi’s intent?

If any of you own the Criterion release and have read the essay in the booklet by Yale professor Dudley Andrew, you probably noticed he takes the copout route by steering straight up the middle and saying basically Mizoguchi had no point; he was just saying ‘it is what it is.’ But I think that’s BS. All artists have strong opinions in their hearts, one way or the other, that’s what makes them artists. If Mizoguchi didn’t care either way he would be a historian.

My gut tells me Mizoguchi was a proto feminist. His own personal story involved the sacrifices of his mother & sister who suffered in poverty so that he could succeed. This theme is consistent through so many of his films, with Chrysanthemum being the most literal depiction. Shouldn’t it be obvious that Mizoguchi sympathizes with the heroine in this story? He’s highlighting the plight of his own mother & sister who were trampled by Japan’s restrictive society.

But this is where he was a genius. He knew he couldn’t outright say “Yo, Japan sucks for women” because that would anger the patriarchal government censors. So he encased this tale in a deceptive veneer of nationalist pride (Go Japan! Sacrifice the individual for the sake of social order!) and that’s how he slipped this social critique right under their noses.

I’m just surprised that nobody (at least not Yale professors) would see this clever trick, nearly 100 years later.