User reviews

Possibly one of the most ambitious works in the entire Japanese New Wave, and certainly Kiju Yoshida's most experimental film (to date). As Yoshida and lead actress Mariko Okada said when they gave their rather extensive introduction to the film, what they wanted to achieve with it was to not just portray the protagonist's history as an event of the past but rather place both his story and struggle and the audience on a same temporal plain. The results might have been a lot more successful for its time of release, but it's still a fascinating effort all along.

Essentially, the film treats the work and death of anarchist Sakae Osugi as seen through the eyes of two characters in different timelines, being his long-time lover Noe Ito (Mariko Osada) and a teenage couple living out his "free love" revolution, going over his biography, who discuss and propose different scenarios that may have happened during his life, such as a notorious event when he was stabbed by his wife which is replayed and deconstructed in an almost Rashomon-like fashion.

Yoshida mentioned in his introduction that he wanted to structure the film like a dream, in a place where we could flow freely from past to present and back again but in a manner that seemed to make a narrative/structural sense, like how we forget of these lapses while we dream even though they were there. I found it interesting how he made reference to these two timelines as almost separate events joined through a mere montage trick, however, when the actual way he solves this temporal obfuscation is by blending both timelines within the same mise-en-scene, like these characters and stories are merely a panel away from each other. The modern-day characters are surrounded by the locations that Osugi once inhabited, whereas the love triangle developed between Noe, Itsumi (a former lover of Osugi) and the revolutionary occur in locations that are highly artificial and clearly modern, but which also reflect Osugi's ever-growing disdain towards the world he lives in and his conceptions of "free love". It's this quality of juxtaposing temporalities is what gives it a more oneiric feeling to me than the mere disjointed structure with which this story fledges out.

Another point of interest which struck me as odd considering the way Yoshida introduced his film is that, whereas he appeared to act very reverently towards the anarchist and how he seemingly was interested in conserving his ideology and not reducing the man to yet another historical figure of whom to make another biopic from, there seemed to be a pretty critical, even satirical tone held throughout to his ideology. There are some sequences within where he freely speaks of his notions of love and government, but these come as firstly apparently shallow, and secondly as little more than a lot of charlatanry. He speaks and writes a lot about these ideals but later says he's unable to defend them publicly because he's constantly surveilled, while on other sequences he seems to completely alter or even outright reject his ideals just to make an argument to defend his love (or lack thereof) to a woman or another. On the other hand, the students doing the investigation are also living in a time where much of Osugi's conceptions of love are coming to fruition, but they do so from the hands of people who seem to do that as a means to clash against the past and little more, and whose musings sound a lot like the classic college lefty monologues which just repeat vapid speeches and ideals against the "system" while drinking a can of Coca-Cola and wearing Levi's jeans and Nike trainers. In a sense, I feel the film is a deliberate case study on the vanity and frivolity in revolution, all the while not taking away merits from the essence of these movements' essential ideals.

There is, I believe, one problem that defines just why this film was not the masterpiece that so many of Imamura's films were, and that's a problem with the aesthetic. The visuals in this film, the very complex narrative structure, they're all fascinating elements on their own accord, and it's likely that the film would have never been this wonderful without them, but unlike the work of the aforementioned filmmaker, all of this aesthetic innovation appears as a forced, individual element in the film. You never feel like it is something that blossoms naturally from the development of the themes and ideas, or from the position of the characters themselves. Often you're drawn into just how amazing the form is, to the point that you occasionally forget what is going on. It's like both what is being told and how it's being told exist in two very different through equally mesmerizing plains. Also, the way in which the present is depicted in the film is something that refers a lot back tot he time it was made, and nowadays one can't help but feel like the film is a product of its time as opposed to the timeless products of Imamura, Teshigahara, Shinoda, Kobayashi and the likes.

Either way, it's an excellent film all around, certainly the best, the most complex and enlightening work I've seen of Yoshida, a definitive milestone for anyone interested in the 60's Japanese scene.

The Japanese New Wave is one of my favorite cinematic movements, and this film comes recommended as one of the best of its era. Very unfortunately, it didn't do much for me at all. The one thing about it that I'll say right off the bat really impressed me was the cinematography. No time and place ever produced such gorgeous black and white movies, and this is up there with the best.

The film itself, though, is very slow-moving, kind of pretentious, and uninvolving. The story involves two timelines, one set in the Taisho period (starting in 1916) and the other in the present. It's about free love and the sexual revolution. In 1916, the philosopher Sakae Osugi practices and writes about free love. I'm pretty sure the Japanese word for philosopher translates literally in English to "aloof jerk," because this guy's version of free love is to screw around with different women and then say "Why can't you be chill about this?" when they confront him. In particular, Itsuko Masaoka becomes wildly jealous when he starts seeing Noe Ito on the side. She begins brandishing a knife, always threatening to get stabby with it. Late in the movie, there are like three consecutive sequences that take up a good quarter of the movie where she fulfills her promise.

The 1960s stuff involves two students who are studying Osugi. They have their own problems, but want to subscribe to the free love idea, which seems to be expanding around the world. At least in the director's cut, these segments take up only about a quarter of the film.

Look, I don't generally do well with long films, and perhaps this one's 3 hours and 36 minutes were just too daunting for me. The fact is, though, from the very beginning I was pretty bored with this one. 90% of the scenes just involve two or three people sitting around in a room bickering. I give Yoshida much credit for keeping it visually interesting throughout. The guy definitely has talent, but I wonder if this independently produced art film gave him too much freedom. Maybe he'd be better reigned in.

Whatever the case, I'm still perfectly happy to have this new Arrow Academy box set. Outside of Criterion, they're the best home video production company today. I hope I like the other two films better, and I hope one day I get to take a look at Yoshida's earlier, studio-produced films.

This one, plus Oshima's Koshikei (Death by Hanging, 1968), Matsumoto's Bara no Soretsu (Funeral Parade of Roses, 1969), Shinoda's Shinjû: Ten no amijima (Double Suicide, 1969) and Terayama's Den'en ni shisu (Pastoral : to Die in the Country, 1974), are maybe the great accomplishments of the Japanese New Wave. Here, Yoshida starts the last political trilogy about Japanese Past and Present (Eros plus Massacre, Heroic Purgatory and Coup D'etat) using a distinctive aesthetics proving that his Cinema contains some sort of a Metamorfosical ethic.

In fact, the movie builds an omnipresent dialectic between spectator and characters. History and Symbolic Representation. According to Pascal BONITZER, the "plus" of the tittle is a metonymy for the movie relation and revelation: "You must play too, because you can't dominate it. You must attach, dis-attach, and transform one and another: «Eros» and «Massacre». The spectator is the local of application. The spectator is the plus (+)."

Two interwoven stories. The first is a biography of anarchist Sakae Osugi (1885-1923) which follows his relationship with three women in the 1920s. The second centers around two 1960s' students researching Osugi's theories.

This film is epic, even in its cut form. Yoshishige Yoshida uses a variety of clever, yet subtle, techniques including the idea of reflection to show the split time frames. Unfortunately, the film's shades of gray are not as stark as they could be.

The film is generally considered to be one of the finest film to come out of the Japanese New Wave movement, and sometimes one of the best Japanese films in general. Although relatively unknown in the West, it has gained a small cult following. Thanks to Arrow Video, it can now be seen uncut on Blu-ray. Personally, it is not my cup of tea, but not everything can be.

The opening sequence is framed an cut in such a modern way that you would think that you are in a movie of the present. It totally graps your attention and doesn't let go till the end.

If you have any chance to see this movie in the original 202min. cut - use it !!

Just about any film that exceeds 3.5 hours in length is going to be a challenging watch, but this one even more so. Eros + Massacre loosely follows a real-life free-thinking radical (who talks big but doesn't actually do much, at least in the movie) whose life is complicated by the fact that he's in a relationship with three different women. Other scenes follow two young people in the 1960s, who talk about this historical figure, have an obsession with fire, and similarly have lofty ideas but lack the know-how or resources to rebel their way they want to. The characters from the past and (then) present also collide at points, in strange and surreal ways.

It's hard to read into exactly what the movie's going for. I'd want to assume it's being critical of its characters for the most part, or maybe satirical about revolutionaries/radicals who say they want change but stay stuck in their ways? Honestly, this film's so overwhelming I could be way off.

It makes for an interesting watch, though. I've never seen anything else quite like it. Without a doubt, it's also beautiful to look at. There's very little going on visually that looks ordinary or traditional, and some very ambitious camerawork and bizarre yet compellingly framed shots throughout.

As sacrilegious as it sounds, if I revisit this one day, I might watch the 160-minute version, even if the 3.5-hour one is the director's cut. At about the 165-minute mark was where I felt my attention start to wane a little bit, in all honesty.

(Also RIP to the film's director, Yoshishige Yoshida. Just so happened to watch this the day it was announced he passed away, at age 89).

In the 20's, the anarchist revolutionary Sakae Osugi (Toshiyuki Hosokawa) is financially supported by his wife, the journalist Itsuko Masaoka (Yûko Kusunoki) and spends his time doing nothing but philosophizing about political systems and free love and shagging his lovers Yasuko (Masako Yagi) and the earlier feminist Noe Ito (Mariko Okada). He conveniently defends three principles for a relationship between a man and a woman: they should be financially independent (despite he is not); they should live in different places; and they should be free to have intercourse with other partners.

In the present days (1969), the slut twenty year-old student Eiko Sokuta has an active sexual life having sex with different men. She has a freak friend named Wada (Daijiro Harada) that is obsessed for fire and they usually play weird games using a camera while they read about Osugi and Ito.

"Erosu Purasu Gyakusatsu" a.k.a. "Eros Plus Massacre" has just been released in Brazil and I immediately bought this DVD for my collection. Unfortunately I can not understand the hype surrounding this film, and I was absolutely disappointed after watching it. The cinematography and framing are wonderful; the angles of the camera are unconventional; the acting is great; however the messy and prolix screenplay ruin the good aspects of this feature.

The cult director Yoshishige Yoshida is unable to use an adequate narrative for entwining two parallel stories, one of them based on a true story of a man and three women ahead of the time living a free love among them in times of repression, and an empty couple in the late 60's when the movement of free love is worldwide. Yoshida does not develop the background of the Japanese society in the 20's and limits to the repetitive situations of jealousy and despair of the women in love. After 210 minutes running time (the DVD has intermission), the boring and never-ending story is not totally clear for the viewer. This feature should have been edited and reduced of at least 120 minutes since the situations are very repetitive. Last but not the least, the actress that performs Eiko is very sexy and beautiful, but her name is not listed in IMDb. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Eros + Massacre"

Baffling and skillfully shot Eros + Massacre is far from easy to digest. A complex story with ton to explore and interpret. I feel frustrated that I have to see this film ones more to give it a faire rating, my concern though, is that it displays' more intelligent that it really is.

A beautiful film and highly creative visually, and I liked some of things it was doing in exploring the link between the sexual awakening of the 1960's and the 'free love' espoused by anarchist Osugi Sakae in the 1920's. Both challenged the status quo, and director Yoshishige Yoshida challenges the viewer with his unconventional framing, perspective, focusing, and white saturation, often putting astonishing images on the screen. The style seems to fit the subject very well.

As for the narrative, it was rough going. The story of this man and the three women in his life - his wife, first mistress, and second mistress - is pretty straightforward, but be forewarned, the film may be a little confusing if you don't do a little reading beforehand. Yoshida seems to assume a certain amount of background understanding, but even after doing that, I found what he showed me rather lacking, especially for 216 minutes (perhaps masochistically I opted for the director's cut, and would definitely recommend the shorter version to first-time viewers).

It doesn't help that Osugi (Toshiyuki Hosokawa) is not very likeable, spouting his radical views while sponging off his lover's money. It was a great moment when one of his friends called him on that, saying that he's bourgeoisie, but there's not enough of this. There's also not enough (or really any) of the context of Japan in the 1910's/20's, or an exploration into Osugi's theories. There's this fantastic bit:

"What does revolution mean to us? It's a way to open up a land of absolute freedom. Our most valuable method of ending man's exploitation of man. But the existence of private property sustains this exploitation. And what is private property? It's the system through which the state renders the morals of matrimony absolute, so wealth is something that's inherited. Worse, it's our deepest desire! That's the problem. Revolution is a way to blow the system to pieces!"

... but unfortunately little else. The film instead spends most of its time on the polyamorous relationship issues. We see the second mistress Noe Ito (Marika Okada) struggle with her own husband's infidelity even though she's already got a foot out the door to their marriage, and we see her leave Osugi several times, only to be back with him later. We also see several reenactments of first mistress Itsuko Masaoka (Yuko Kusunoki) stabbing him in 1916, each of them done as a stylized variation, not as realism. The point may have been to show the difficulty we have in understanding history only 53 years later, but to me this part seemed pretentious and got quite tedious.

Overall the film shows Osugi in a positive light - professing fundamental changes to society and free love, messages that perhaps resonated in the 1960's. What's kind of odd is that this seems to come at the expense of its female characters, whose jealousy and frustration with how he acts spoils the "utopia" of his personal life. There is some feminism in Noe's character, who goes to work at a magazine whose boss says "...there are women like you who are slaves to the family system, ancient traditions, and poverty, all over Japan" while looking directly into the camera - but the film doesn't really follow through on this. It also shows very little of her demise with Osugi in 1923 in the Amakasu Incident, or its larger context, the Kanto massacre, despite the title.

Meanwhile, in the present, much of the storyline seems focused on showing us the body of the young woman researching the past, Eiko (the beautiful Toshiko Ii). She cavorts about playfully with lovers and her pyromaniac friend (Daijiro Harada), scenes that are not without charm, but they're a bit shallow. The surreal scenes of the soccer players kicking Osugi's remains around in a giant field were offset by silly ones, like the cars meeting over the railroad overpass followed by a banal exchange between drivers. It's a mixed bag, though I liked the elements when Eiko was directly questioning the past, and the symbolism of the ending scenes.

To be more balanced in this review I should probably give more credit to the visuals and cite examples, but I feel many others have done that and have gone on too long already. I have a feeling I would rate the theatrical cut a half tick higher just because of an hour shorter would help what is an exhausting watch, but regardless it's not one I would recommend without reservations, or want to see again.

I was told I'd love this film. Instead I hated it. The only thing I liked was the creative cinematography but even that was overdone. There is two stories, one in the past and one in the present (1969 when this film was made) and most of the time when it switches from one to the other, it made little sense. In fact, most of this movie didn't make sense.

There was about ten minutes of story. A lot a time is spent on surreal photography. To much time. There is one scene or plotline they did like 7 or 8 different versions of. After the second or third time I really didn't care. The acting was good but I didn't care about the characters. The ending was an even larger disappointment. It didn't really tie things up.

After 3 and a half hours of this, was there a point to this movie? This was part of a trilogy and I'll skip the other two. You should skip all three.

No, I'm just kidding. But you will be reminded of "Blow-Up" -- as well as his Zabriskie Point" (and "The Baader Meinhof Complex," and other recent films -- "Après Mai," for example). People living differently, finding new ways to shoot each other, and cutting up the footage.

But the thing with "free love" is somebody can break up, get dumped, every day.

(I'd also recommend Iaon Couliano's "Eros and Magic in the Renaissance," 1984.)