In 1960, the “Natori-Tomatsu dispute” took place in the Asahi Camera magazine between Natori Yonosuke (1910-62) and Tomatsu Shomei (1930-). This dispute began with the essay “New Tendency in Photographic Expression” by Watanabe Tsutomu (1908-78), in which he evaluated the photography of Tomatsu from the viewpoint of eizo (image). In response, Natori wrote an essay entitled “The Birth of a New Photography”, in which he focused upon a series of photographs by Tomatsu, Occupation, as having discarded photojournalism’s respect for specific reality. Tomatsu responded to Natori with the essay “I Refute Mr. Natori”. In this essay, he explained that he had never been a photojournalist in the way Natori used the term and had not discarded respect for specific reality. In this way, the dispute ended abruptly

Though this dispute is mentioned frequently, their actual dissonance has not been thoroughly examined. The aim of this paper is to re-examine this dispute and the photographs discussed from the viewpoint of their editing methods. Natori’s way of editing, called “kumi-shashin”, arranged photographs linearly like a “constellation” to narrate specific reality. Tomatsu’s method, called “gunn-shashin”, grouped photographs in a mass like a “nebulosity” to abstractly construct specific reality. In this attempt, it is concluded that their actual dissonance is derived from the difference that Natori’s concept about realism is of conviction, while Tomatsu’s is of provocation.

Early films produced in 1906-07 are reported to have caused ophthalmologic disease in some spectators. After watching these films, some spectators temporarily lost their visual ability or their eyes watered uncontrollably. Doctors of the time referred to this symptom as “cinématophtalmies.” According to their analysis, cinématophtalmies was caused by the retina being continuously subjected to large number of on-screen stimuli or vibrations, such as unstable images and exposure to light for long durations with high intensity and irregular rhythm. For this reason, physicians considered early films to have a negative influence on the human body. However, many people in those times gathered to watch films and, hence, were prone to the above effects. Why did the people continue to do so despite the adverse effects? Indeed, physicians in the early 20^th century presented cinematic images as negatively influencing the body of the spectator. But it seems that there might have been another relationship among early cinema, its image vibrations, and the human body. In this essay, I attempt to reveal this relationship by analyzing the inter-linkages between early cinema and medicine at the turn of the century.

This paper examines the peculiar character and the cultural background of social educational films in 1920s Japan. My analysis will place emphasis on Takamatsu Toyojiro, known as a political activist and unique producer-director in the early years of Japanese Cinema. The films by Takamatsu were based on the policy and in the cultural context of minshu-goraku-ron (discourse on popular entertainment) which arose from the increase of the urban population and the promotion of agricultural reform in the late 19 lOs.

The film Seikatsu Antei No Maki (For A Stable Life, 1920), produced by Takamatsu, took the subject of thrift and saving in life (Kinken-Chochiku), describing a libertine son who returns to a farming village at the end of the film. The image of the village is good-natured in contrast to urban living. It is similar to other films about return to the home-village (Kokyo-Kaiki-Eiga) of those days. Other Takamatsu films, such as Syukaku (Harvest,1921), Meishi (A Prominent Man,1926) share a similar theme. Takamatsu’s social educational films embodied the image of independent people (minshu) forwarded in minshu-goraku-ron.