Suzuki V. Nikkatsu
On April 25, 1968, Suzuki received a telephone call from a Nikkatsu secretary informing him that he would not be receiving his salary for that month. Two friends of Suzuki met with Hori the next day and were informed that "Suzuki's films were incomprehensible, that they did not make any money and that Suzuki might as well give up his career as a director as he would not be making films for any other companies." At that time the student-run film society Cine Club, headed by Kazuko Kawakita, was sponsoring a major retrospective of Suzuki's films; meant to be the first in Japan to honour a Japanese director. It was scheduled to begin on May 10, but Hori withdrew all of his films from distribution and refused to release them to the Cine Club. The students were told that "Nikkatsu could not afford to cultivate a reputation for making films understood only by an exclusive audience and that showing incomprehensible and thus bad films would disgrace the company," adding that, "Suzuki's films would not be shown for some time in theaters or by the Cine Club."
Suzuki reported the illegal termination of his contract and the removal of his films from distribution to the Japanese Film Directors Association. Association Chairman Heinosuke Gosho met with Hori on May 2, but was unable to resolve the matter. Gosho then issued a public declaration condemning Nikkatsu for breach of contract and violation of Suzuki's right to freedom of speech. On the day of the intended retrospective, the Cine Club met to discuss the situation. Two hundred people attended, much exceeding their expectations. A three-hour debate ensued as to whether they should negotiate the release of the films, or confront Nikkatsu directly. The former was agreed upon and it was decided that efforts had to be made to keep the public informed.
On June 7, after repeated attempts to reason with Nikkatsu, Suzuki took the studio to court, suing for breach of contract and personal damages amounting to ¥7 380 000. He also demanded that Hori send letters of apology to the three major newspapers on account that Hori's statements gave the impression that all of his films were bad. He then called a press conference with representatives of the Directors Guild of Japan, the Actors Guild, the Scriptwriters Guild, ATG and the Cine Club. Among the participates were directors Nagisa Oshima, Masahiro Shinoda and Kei Kumai. The only group not represented was the Nikkatsu Directors Association.
The Cine Club held a public demonstration on June 12, which resulted in the formation of a joint committee supporting Suzuki against Nikkatsu. The committee was composed mostly of directors, actors, large student film groups and independent filmmakers. This also marked the first time the public became involved in a type of dispute normally confined to the industry. The Cine Club, and other similar groups, mobilized the public, holding panel discussions and leading mass demonstrations against the studio. The public support, garnered at the height of student movement, was based on a wide appreciation of Suzuki's films and the idea that audiences should be able to see the types of films they wanted to see. This shook the film industry by the fact that the public was making demands rather than passively accepting their product.
Throughout the lawsuit, 19 witnesses were heard over a two and a half year process including directors, newspaper reporters, film critics and two members of the film-going public. Kohshi Ueno writes of Suzuki's own testimony on the making of Branded to Kill, "A film scheduled for production was suddenly deemed inappropriate and Suzuki was called in at very short notice to fill the gap. The release date had already been set when Suzuki was asked to write the script. He suggested dropping the script when the head of the studio told him he had to read it twice before he understood it, but the company directed him to make the film. According to Suzuki, Nikkatsu was in no position to criticize him for a film that he made to help them out in an emergency." Suzuki had never before disclosed this information or discussed any internal company affairs and his testimony exposed the fact that the major studios assigned films to directors at random, improperly publicized them and expected directors to carry any blame.
It also came to light that, with the industry in decline since the early 1960s, by 1968 Nikkatsu was in the midst of a financial crisis. The studio had accumulated a ¥1 845 000 000 debt due to irresponsible management and was to undergo a massive restructuring. Film crew sizes were to be reduced, time cards introduced and advanced approval was required for all overtime. Hori, known as a totalitarian figure, unaccustomed to retracting statements or granting requests, had made an example of Suzuki apparently on the basis of his dislike of the film. In a New Year's speech to the company he repeatedly emphasized that he wanted to make films that were "easily understandable".
On February 12, 1971 testimony was completed and a verdict expected. However, in March the court advised a settlement, explaining appeals were extremely time consuming. Negotiations began on March 22 and concluded on December 24, three and a half years after the case had begun. Nikkatsu paid Suzuki ¥1 000 000, a fraction of his original claim, and Hori was forced to apologize for comments he made while serving as president. In a separate agreement Nikkatsu donated Fighting Elegy and Branded to Kill to the Tokyo National Museum of Modern Art's Film Centre. At the time of settlement Suzuki expressed fears that if he had continued to fight he might not even be able to get an apology from the failing company. During the course of the litigation Nikkatsu was being slowly dismantled. Hori's plans to restructure the company were unsuccessful and Nikkatsu was forced to liquidate studios and headquarter buildings. It released two final films in August 1971 and by November began producing roman porno, softcore romantic pornography. Despite Suzuki's victory with wide support from the public and film world he was blacklisted by all major production companies and unable to make another film for 10 years.
Read more about this topic: Seijun Suzuki