Cinevue

Lisette, the responses from audiences and media have been spectacular. CAMPAIGN is opening in theaters in about twenty cities across Japan, and the box office is going strong, having many sold-out screenings. It was our intention to open it right before a big national election in July, and our strategy seems to be working out. I’m writing this response from a bullet train because I had to move back and forth between Tokyo and Oakayama today (it takes 3.5 hours one way!) to accommodate interviews. I’ve been so busy that I didn’t know our films played at Sydney Film Festival together! Amazing.

What’s a bit surprising is that the length of the movie (two hours) is not so much of an issue here. In America, a lot of people told me that it’s too long. But in Europe and in Japan, people seem to be more patient! Also, the Japanese audience seems to have a bit of mixed feelings because CAMPAIGN shows the reality in Japan they might not be so proud of. Some people told me that the movie is funny, but they cannot really laugh. I’m shooting my next documentary on mental illness in Okayama in the same observational style as CAMPAIGN, without writing any materials before the shoot. I think it’s going pretty well, although I have no idea when it’s going to be finished!

LMF: Both of our films follow characters that had uncertain outcomes leading up to a big event. In my film, NA KAMALEI: THE MEN OF HULA, I follow Robert and the men to the “Super Bowl” of hula competitions in Hawai’i and in your film, you follow Kazuhiko leading up to the election. Many people have asked me what I would have done if the guys DIDN’T win anything and if it would have changed the film. For me, it was much more about the journey getting to the competition (or in your case the election) than the outcome. Did you ever worry that a victory or loss would change your film for better or worse?

I didn’t really worry about the outcome because my intention was to observe the election without any preconceived ideas. If the outcome of the election was different, the movie would have been very different, but that’s that. It’s also something I cannot control! But I do like the film ended the way it ended, personally.

I thought it was really interesting that you decided to self-finance this film and basically were a one-man show from beginning to end. Hats off to you, man! Personally, after paying off credit card debts from short films I made in film school, I vowed to never again just use my own money to fund my work. I would be broke, otherwise! How do you think not having to seek funding affected your experience as a director of this documentary? And will you do the same thing for the next project? Please tell me your secret…

Yes, my next project about mental illness is also totally self-funded. Because of the (modest) success of CAMPAIGN, there are some people who showed interest to fund this project, but I don’t know if I want to take them. I loved the creative freedom I had too much while making CAMPAIGN. And I can recoup my investment by selling rights to distributors and broadcasters. Also, it’s kind of unrealistic for somebody to give me money when I have nothing to show on paper! As I explained before, I do not like writing anything before I shoot because I tend to be locked up by my own ideas if I write. I like jumping in to the locations with a camera, shooting spontaneously whatever I feel interesting. The challenge is to minimize the cost to be able to keep going without funding. But so far, I’m debt-free and alive.

You said that you believed CAMPAIGN was a subjective documentary. In what ways do you think your views influenced the film? You also said that you felt strongly that CAMPAIGN was an observational film, which suggests a rather ‘detached’ approach to your subject. How did you strike a balance between the observational and the subjective???

Yes, CAMPAIGN is a subjective movie in spite of the fact that it has no narration, no talking heads, no super-imposed titles, and no music. When shooting, I subjectively choose what to shoot in which angles and what not to shoot. In the editing room, I picked and chose 120 minutes worth of footage to include in the final cut, throwing away 58 hours of footage. It’s very subjective! And the subjective does not contradict with the observational because observation only occurs when there is someone who observes. In other words, different observers can have different observations while “objective truth” is supposed to be only one. (I don’t really believe there is “objective truth” though—I think it’s a fiction!)

I met you over ten years ago now, when you were studying film at SVA (School of Visual Arts) and I was studying film at NYU (New York University). How we met is slightly a haze in my head, but I remember you were such a great help to me on my thesis film. Yeah, the one that I needed translated into Japanese because I don’t speak Japanese. (Thanks again!) I also associate you with a strange art exhibit of honey bears. Does that ring a bell? I’m just curious what the heck you remember from that shoot…I can’t even watch that film now! Oh, and the rest of the question: What have you been up to for the ten years we lost touch, between KILL KIMONO and when we bumped into each other again at the IFP (Independent Feature Project) Market last September?

Of course, KILL KIMONO and honey bears ring my bell. I remember that you acted in your own film wearing a T-shirt with the Japanese word “me” or “eye.” I also remember we shot some scenes on the rooftop of your friend’s apartment and I felt like it was a picnic. For the ten years we lost touch, I graduated from SVA, got married, joined this production company that produced documentaries for Japanese TV stations, and I directed about 50 documentaries. While I enjoyed directing docs for TV, I started to feel that I wanted more creative freedom, and decided to self-produce a feature documentary (CAMPAIGN), which hooked me up with you again at the IFP Market last September!