Through today’s study, I couldn’t help but think of a great Marxist literary artist, Tokuji Kobayashi. I believe many in the association are already familiar with him, while others have yet to learn about him. Today, I want to share a documentary that specifically tells about his life, giving a general introduction to Kobayashi’s fighting life and his works, hoping to assist everyone in studying his artistic creations. I also want to share a touching and inspiring excerpt from his works, from “A Person Living for the Party”:
“In my body, not a trace of personal life remains. Now even the seasons have become part of my life for the Party. The flowers, scenery, blue sky, and rain—none of these are isolated in my view. When it rains, I am happy because I can go out with an umbrella, and others won’t easily see my face. I hope summer passes quickly, not because I dislike summer, but because when summer comes, I wear fewer clothes, and my distinctive figure (let the dogs eat this feature!) will be recognized immediately. When winter arrives, I think: ‘Great! I’ve lived another year! I can work again!’ However, Tokyo’s winter is too bright for work. Since adopting this lifestyle, I am not indifferent to the seasons but have become very sensitive to them, so sensitive that I almost never imagined before. But this is different from the special sensitivity I felt during the prison days two years ago when the seasons changed.
All of this has formed unconsciously, a life I was forced to live without realizing it. Before I was pursued by the police, even though I had already dedicated myself to the cause of proletarian liberation, I still had many ‘personal’ aspects of life. Sometimes I would walk and chat with comrades from the same union in the factory (this union was a reactionary union under the Social Democratic Party system, and I was working as an opposition within it) in places like Shinjuku or during funerals; despite strict political restrictions from the factory branch, normal social activities like going to the movies (recently I have completely forgotten whether movies still exist) and eating out still occupied a significant part of my life. Sometimes these personal activities delayed branch work by a day or two; and my sense of personal honor would unconsciously act up, so when work that could enhance my honor conflicted with branch work, I would often start with my own work first. Of course, these flaws were corrected in later work. But as a Party member, I cannot say I am living a ‘24-hour political life.’ But this is not just my personal fault. Without a certain living environment, subjective efforts are always limited. When all my personal contacts were cut off, and I was immersed in a life outside Party work, I realized how difficult it was to do things I had previously struggled with, but now they became surprisingly natural and easy. Tasks that once took a year or two to accomplish could now be done in two or three months. When I first started this new life, it was like a childhood game of competing to see who could stay underwater the longest, and I once felt an unbearable, indescribable suffocation. Of course, I cannot say I have faced real hardships yet. S, who likes quoting classics (but his references are different from Mustyama), when I talk about living a ‘24-hour political life,’ he says: I must train myself to be ‘a person who works twenty-eight hours a day and doesn’t get tired.’
At first, I didn’t quite understand the phrase ‘twenty-eight hours of work a day,’ but when I had to make twelve or thirteen contacts in a single day, I finally understood its meaning— a person’s life, and also a class’s life. At least from my core, I am willing to approach such a life.”
This is a revisionist film, made by the revised Japanese Communist Party.
3 Likes
Yes, during the Cultural Revolution there were also translations of articles by the Japanese Communist Party’s left wing criticizing it.
3 Likes
You can check out the Japanese left-wing critique article on this:
https://www.bilibili.com/opus/916524009271590912
Article title: Attempting to distort the image of revolutionary writers with petty bourgeois humanism theory
— Critique of the film script “Kobayashi Daisuke” by Shōsuke Katsuyama
Author: K
Published in the Japanese Communist Party (Leftist) organ “People’s Star” on December 7, 1973
Miyamoto Revisionist Group is planning to produce the film “Kobayashi Daisuke.” It is said that Masahiro Imai will direct, and Ke Yamamoto will play Daisuke. Shōsuke Katsuyama’s film script “Kobayashi Daisuke” has already been published in the November issue of “Cultural Review.” The film is scheduled to start filming within the year and to be released on February 20 next year. After the Miyamoto group distorted Daisuke’s image through the play “Spring Prelude,” they are still unwilling to stop and want to continue such counterrevolutionary activities. We cannot take this lightly. How does the Miyamoto group depict Daisuke in the film? We need to expose and criticize their malicious conspiracy based on the screenplay.
Shōsuke Katsuyama’s screenplay “Kobayashi Daisuke” begins with scenes of Daisuke being arrested while meeting on the street, tortured by secret agents, and brutally killed.
The final scene is as follows:
"Red flowers expand, filling the entire frame, with superimposed photography showing the Kobayashi Daisuke Literary Memorial Monument on Asahi Observation Deck in Otaru City.
Gathered on the hilltop are young men and women, presenting bouquets of flowers at the monument.
Carnation, tulip, red rose, azalea, and other red flowers of various colors are harmoniously arranged, brightly shining.
Surrounded by red flowers and the modern youth’s relief of Kobayashi Daisuke’s bronze statue, radiating youthful brilliance forever, overlooking the hometown Otaru’s streets, and the blue ocean—.
The setting sun reflects on the monument surrounded by red flowers."
The film consists of 179 scenes, unfolding through the “narrator’s” narration. This male narrator is described as “an important character throughout the film,” “not just a singer or guitarist, but also a narrator related to Daisuke’s deeds,” “and he is not only telling the story to the audience but can also be considered a dialogue partner of the audience” — the script states this explicitly.
Shōsuke Katsuyama said that when writing this script, he referred to various works of Daisuke, Takashi Tezuka’s biography “Kobayashi Daisuke,” and other materials.
Indeed, what he wrote are real stories, not fictional. This film is not a feature film but a biography. However, when describing real stories, the selection of facts and how to organize them—this reveals the author’s worldview and stance, which play a decisive role. Therefore, even though it is based on facts, not fiction, different images of Daisuke can be shaped. In this sense, the narrator is undoubtedly an “important figure” for the Miyamoto group, serving as their spokesperson. The role of this “narrator” is to “explain” and distort Daisuke’s image.
Facts and Reality
About sixty scenes in the first half of the script are based on Daisuke’s works and biography, describing his growth, interactions with friends, dedication to literature, etc.
Daisuke working at his uncle’s bakery while attending commercial school.
Scene 25: Small Bakery
The long-handled bamboo paddle of the foreman flies over and falls on the cement ground.
Foreman: “You lazy good-for-nothing!”
Young Daisuke: “What are you trying to do?”
Foreman: “Nothing! You lazy good-for-nothing! Be more sensible! Why are you only coming to work now?”
Scene 26:
Thirteen-year-old Kobayashi Daisuke walks up a slope, with the streets of Otaru in the distance.
At this point, the narration adds: “This kind of environment makes our Daisuke’s mood somewhat oppressed, but he does not succumb to adversity.”
There are also scenes where Daisuke reads newspapers and makes marks in the bank where he works; two female clerks help him cut out articles and paste them into clipping books.
At this point, another narration segment states: “Later, when Daisuke began writing the famous ‘Crab Fisherman’s Ship,’ it was these women who cut out the necessary materials from the newspapers ordered from the bank to supply him.”
Scene 46:
Oda (lowering his voice): “Mr. Kobayashi, the branch manager is here. Be careful…”
Daisuke: “…” (expresses thanks with his eyes… quickly puts the bank’s ledger aside and flips through his notes)
The branch manager walks past them.
Oda (after the manager passes): “I’ll help you transcribe it tonight.”
Daisuke: “I’m really sorry.”
Daisuke takes a notebook from the drawer of his writing desk and hands it to Oda. When Oda reaches out to take the notebook, their hands accidentally touch.
Oda blushes involuntarily.
Scene 50:
Entering “Yamaki Restaurant,” they see 17-year-old beautiful girl Taguchi Takako sitting among several waitresses. Daisuke follows his friends inside, and Takako looks up and gazes at Daisuke.
The narration states: “Young Kobayashi Daisuke met his lifelong love in this way.”
Before becoming a Marxist, Daisuke was roughly depicted like this. The emphasis on his romance with Takako Takako, calling her his “lifelong love,” echoes the tone of “Spring Prelude”: Daisuke is also a person, especially a young person, prone to falling in love. In their descriptions, this flavor is evident—Daisuke is just a passionate and sensitive literary youth. Of course, I do not oppose depicting Daisuke’s love affairs.
What I mean is, when we fully shape the image of an excellent Communist Party member and revolutionary writer Daisuke Kobayashi, where should we focus, what should we emphasize?
Shōsuke Katsuyama, starting from the “human nature” perspective, intertwined with love issues, depicts Daisuke before he became a Marxist. The same applies to Daisuke after he became a Marxist. The soft tone of petty bourgeois humanism runs throughout the entire film.
Negation of Leap
In the script, only Daisuke’s quantitative changes are visible (such as phrases like “became a proletarian writer” or “joined the Party”), but vivid, specific qualitative leaps and transformations are absent.
The issue of Daisuke’s world view transformation and stance change is completely avoided by the author.
However, the most important and moving part of Daisuke’s depiction is precisely this. The transformation of world view is a fundamental issue. Daisuke personally engaged in the workers’ movement and revolutionary activities, learned and mastered Marxism, and went through a process of thorough self-transformation, from a petty bourgeois humanitarian to a revolutionary and revolutionary writer—this is extremely moving.
To depict Daisuke, one must describe this leap and the Daisuke after the leap. As for the image of Daisuke before this, it is enough to use it to contrast with the image after the leap.
But Katsuyama’s script only describes Daisuke’s simple quantitative change. This is a common trait of revisionists.
When talking about Marx, they say “return to early Marx,” emphasizing the Marx before establishing Marxism. When mentioning Lenin, they say “return to Marx,” denying the stage of Leninism. When mentioning Mao Zedong, they invoke Marx and Lenin but want to deny Mao Zedong. When discussing Daisuke, they emphasize his period as a petty bourgeois humanitarian.
Every adult has photos from childhood, like crawling babies, and similarly, every outstanding revolutionary and revolutionary writer has an appearance before reaching that height—that is not shameful. However, if one pulls out a crawling baby photo to emphasize “this is Daisuke,” then we must oppose it. Yet the Miyamoto group is precisely a habitual offender in using such tactics.
In the past, Daisuke, who thought he didn’t need to study Marxism when writing novels, by 1927, started studying “Capital” and learning Marxism.
Daisuke began studying Marxism, and the narrator states: “With his unique enthusiasm and effort, he began studying social sciences,” secretly replacing “Marxism” with the term “social sciences.”
The narration only quotes a segment from Daisuke’s diary on January 1, 1928: “A new year has finally come. What did I do last year? Like Katusha in ‘Resurrection,’ I left it behind. Mentally, I am progressing towards Marxism…” but does not elaborate on the core issue of “resolutely progressing towards Marxism.”
From scene 73 to 77, based on Daisuke’s “Higashikutsuki An no Yukō,” the script ignores the most critical relationship between Old Man Mizusawa and “I” (Daisuke), completely neglecting it. The script only shows “I” putting five-yen coins into the old man’s pocket as a sign of sympathy.
If we look at Daisuke’s self-transformation process from “Higashikutsuki An no Yukō,” the following paragraph is the key:
“Someone as clever as me (I won’t hide it, honestly, in front of this old man, how can I lie?) whether I have the same sincere feelings as this old man—engaged in a movement that might not show results for generations, and perhaps no one will give high praise to, risking such great sacrifices to continue?”
“Do you think, like Lenin, ‘be revered by others’?”
“Are you just desperately trying to be a ‘big figure’ in the proletarian movement?”
(middle part omitted)
Don’t say, “It’s not like that.” Deep inside, you are pursuing this point.
I’ll be honest—this is indeed how I feel.
Here, Daisuke exposes his petty bourgeois intellectual kingdom within his soul, destroys it, and then “resolutely progresses towards Marxism.” But the script endlessly narrates Daisuke’s love affairs and completely ignores this crucial point. How can a vivid image of Daisuke be created this way?
Regarding this, the “narrator” only says that storms temper trees. The experience of election struggles and the “March 15” incident made Daisuke stronger. This means, in their view, Daisuke did not become a Marxist through a leap but just “became stronger.”
The tendency to observe Daisuke through petty bourgeois humanism also appears in the description of his relations with Ito Seiji, Shiga Naoya, Akutagawa Ryunosuke, and Daisuke himself.
Despicable Intentions
The script belittles revolutionary writer Daisuke and elevates Kanbara Iwao and Miyamoto Akiji, painstakingly trying to compare them. To do this, it fabricates scenes of Daisuke visiting Kanbara’s home, “happily,” “seriously,” and “gladly” listening to Kanbara’s speeches. It also claims that “March 15, 1928,” was written under Kanbara’s guidance. There are also scenes of Daisuke visiting Miyamoto Akiji and his wife.
The narration explains the relationship among the three: “Losing Kanbara was a big loss, but his struggle in prison inspired everyone.” “Miyamoto Akiji holds important responsibilities in the Central Committee, highly praises the ability of the writer Kobayashi Daisuke, and helps him continue his literary activities.”
Probably, the Miyamoto group wants to say: “Daisuke was nurtured by Kanbara Iwao and Miyamoto Akiji!”
Although they fought side by side in life, Miyamoto and Kanbara’s betrayal after the struggle has shattered Daisuke’s will. Now, apart from their shared struggle, there is nothing in common, and they are opposed in every matter.
The Miyamoto group exploits this opportunity to let people like Eguchi Watan, Murayama Tomoyoshi, Kamei Shigeji, Aoyagi Morio, and Takuzō Tezuka appear alongside Daisuke in the film. They probably think that just by appearing next to Daisuke, they can elevate the status of each Miyamoto member. To achieve this, they are willing to even mention “counter-revolutionary elements” like Nakano Jūji, Sato Inako, and even include Haruka Motoharu. They plan to pretend to be objective and respectful of history.
I believe this is a film by the Miyamoto group aimed at “killing” Daisuke; a film that uses Daisuke’s fame to raise their own profile.
Just as you cannot treat a soft-shelled turtle and the moon as the same, you cannot compare them to Daisuke.
No matter how hard the “narrator” tries, it is impossible to merge Daisuke with the Miyamoto group. The script itself repeatedly confirms this. If the script faithfully reflected Daisuke’s works, there would be no problem. But as soon as the “narrator” starts to ramble, contradictions emerge. This is because the “narrator” has ulterior motives, considering the interests of the Miyamoto group far more than fidelity to Daisuke. How despicable!
On the anniversary of Daisuke’s 70th birthday and the 40th anniversary of his death, the Miyamoto group performs plays and films, using the occasion of remembrance to once again attempt to bury the true Daisuke. The film “Kobayashi Daisuke” tries to shape a false image of Daisuke, confusing revolutionary people, especially youth.
We must popularize Daisuke’s literature, create revolutionary literature, and crush the counterrevolutionary conspiracy of the Miyamoto group.
6 Likes
Is that so? Then indeed, I had a misunderstanding about this documentary.
I feel that, just like what I said today, I only paid attention to the artistry of this documentary and hardly considered its political nature, as if it were merely an “objective” documentary narrating Kobayashi Tokiji’s life, which is a “trans-class” error. This is also related to my impulsive petty-bourgeois enthusiasm—I just watched it before (without critique), thought it was good (abstractly good), and released it without serious scrutiny. It shows that I am still eager to show off and not serious or careful enough about the revolutionary cause.
1 Like
Moreover, after being pointed out their own mistakes, the first reaction was to blush, feel deeply ashamed, want to immediately delete the article, and hide away. Upon careful reflection, this attitude is also problematic. Of course, it is not good to have an indifferent attitude when mistakes are pointed out, but at the same time, one should not think along the lines of “being pointed out for mistakes means damage to one’s reputation.” From such a mindset, learning and sharing are not for revolution but for opportunism within the revolutionary ranks. Looking back, when first involved in the leftist circle, there was similar behavior—receiving materials and hastily publishing without careful and detailed study, as if acting like a bourgeois journalist. This was driven by a desire for attention and also reflected a lack of seriousness in theoretical and ideological struggle.
2 Likes
Actually, the passage you quoted from Kobayashi Takiji is quite classic. This passage also deeply moved me before because I once desperately wanted to be a “big shot,” and I am still in the process of overcoming this issue. But we should engage in ideological struggle, constantly fighting against the opportunistic mindset of participating in activities just to stand out personally, and transform into people who can “persist in places where results may not be seen, and where no one may give you high ‘praise,’ willing to make such great sacrifices to carry on.”
3 Likes
Add something like 【Later identified as toxic grass】 to the title of this post to avoid misleading others.
I watched the beginning and the very end of this movie. It meticulously depicts how Kobayashi Takiji suffered inhumane torture and was ultimately killed. In terms of filming methods, movies that portray protagonists usually do not detail the process of their suffering even if they show the character’s death. For example, in “The Life of Thälmann,” the scene of Thälmann’s execution only serves to intimidate the revolutionary people.
5 Likes
It is like this: Talman was tortured in prison, but the film does not show him with a bruised and battered appearance; instead, it portrays him as a tall and defiant figure. The description and portrayal in this film actually tarnish the image of the revolutionaries.
1 Like