Talk:Eijanaika (film)

Title translation
I've heard the title translated various ways; here as "Why not" and "ain't it great?", otherwise in my experience as "What the hell!" I suspect it's a somewhat-untranslatable saying (like "so desu ka"), but could someone with good knowledge in Japanese give a shot at capturing the meaning? --BlackAndy 02:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have little knowledge in Japanese, but as far as I can see, "ee" is "yes", "janai" is a short form of "ja arimasen", which means "is not", and "ka" marks the sentence as a question, so literally it means "yes, isn't it?", I think. Janquark (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Word-for-word:
 * Ee is a variant of いい (ii) meaning "good".
 * Ja is a contraction of では (de wa), a particle combination used to introduce a negative statement.
 * Nai is plain old ない (nai) meaning "not, it isn't".
 * The ka on the end is か (ka), the explicit question marker.
 * As a construction pattern, ～じゃないか (~ ja nai ka) is similar to English phrasing like "isn't it XYZ?", used both as a question and as a rhetorical device meaning "it is XYZ". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eijanaika (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930220409/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/1770/year/1981.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/1770/year/1981.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Historicity
From Ee ja nai ka:
 * In 1981, Japanese director Shohei Imamura produced his film Eijanaika, which gives a deliberately historically incorrect interpretation of the events but nevertheless catches the unstable and tense atmosphere of the age.

I was expecting this article to discuss the historicity of the film. --Error (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)