Emperor Tomato Ketchup

First there are two versions of this film, one which was shown in 1970 and is 76 minutes long in sepia, and another which was produced in Germany for European audiences in 1971 and was 28 minutes long in black and white. If possible it is better to see the 76 minute version, the 28 minute is a chopped up "just the highlights" version that is not very true to terayama's original intentions. Unfortunately the 28 minute version is much more widely available outside Japan, and is what most people have seen.

Second: The film is not pornographic in the least bit. Terayama was not interested in pornography, which he saw as a tool of state oppression, but in creating a vision of erotic utopia. So it has naked children raping adults, BIG deal. The film was made in answer to Nazi Holocaust camps, the atomic bomb, the rape of Nanking, the Vietnam war etc. Terayama had lived through the firebombs that destroyed his town, leaving charred bodies of women and children littered about him when he was but 9 years old. A few naked children, especially in 1970, is no big deal, so grow up. If you can't handle it, then I guess yes, keep your eyes closed to the worlds horror and don't watch the film.

Third: It is not a feel good film, and is primarily about revolution and failed utopian dreams. It is a rejection of any meta-narrative progression, by which I mean there is no promise implied or given. No promise of good, or god or justice, as terayama sought to express a "vanished thought" Not that the film couldn't be better, but it got my back up to see the other review where they dismiss it so easily and without thought.

cheers

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!

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.

I recently saw the short b&w version of the movie, the accusation of child pornography is irrelevant. It is obvious it's not Terayama's intention: the nude scenes aren't so much erotic than somehow grotesque and touching. The children appear helpless and clumsy with their power. I saw something of a fable about this vanity: the children unable to understand why they should even HAVE the power, yet wanting it... I didn't know there was a long version of the movie so i imagined Terayama chose an elliptic, poetic, surrealist way of expressing things. He uses images for the power that is inherent to their nature, and not as mere substitute to words. Now i would like to see it in its full length to be sure about all this. Nevertheless, another of his movies, the 1977 20 min. long "Film de l'ombre" ("Movie of the shadow" (?)) definitely demonstrates that his cinematographic language may well be non-direct and poetic. I definitely recommend it to those who like poetry in the cinema (somewhat difficult to stumble upon though). Cheers, Boyan

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.