Eclipse Series 3: Late Ozu

Discuss releases in the Janus Contemporaries, Eclipse, and Essential Art House lines and the films on them.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Kenji
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:23 pm

#151 Post by Kenji » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:04 pm

She is unforgettable in Kwaidan as Snow Woman- or perhaps the West has forgotten?.

ToKem
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: The Netherlands

#152 Post by ToKem » Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:25 pm

Kenji wrote: Much as i admire the carefully crafted handling of colour on Ozu's late films, and i'm not convinced many really add much to his overall achivement; most of his greatest masterpieces are in B+W.

I can follow you, but I tend to disagree. The color films, though they continue the course set out long before, do seem to reach a higher level of perfection. Maybe not in a psychological or emotional sense, but in terms of mise-en-scene, story arrangement and style. It is well known that camera movement, non-straight angles and effects like racking focus are all eliminated in the late films. This gives them much more of an intrinsic coherence. Also music and sound seem better integrated. There are instances in many of the color films, in which sound and image even coincide perfectly (for instance in Late Autumn, when the shadow of moving water is cast on a wooden pillar, with the sound of a resonating gong accompanying it). Maybe the late films aren't as outspoken as the classics from the fifties, but I would argue that the finesse they showcase is of a more sophisticated kind.
Michael Kerpan wrote: I often feel like I KNOW the people in Ozu's later films.

Maybe because you are given the opportunity to GET TO know them.

User avatar
My Man Godfrey
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:47 pm
Location: Austin

#153 Post by My Man Godfrey » Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:19 pm

First rule. Don't try to push yourself into liking anything (no matter what I or anyone else may say).

It took me at least 18 months to _begin_ to understand Naruse (from first exposure). Trying to rush the process would only have had negative consequences. And it took almost as long to come to grips with "Equinox Flower".
Quick point: doesn't that second paragraph contradict what you've been telling Sheldrake -- that he's made a mistake in buying the Ozu set, since his sensibilities are so different from Ozu's?

Also, while I'm lobbing a few ideas back at you, Kerpan, I'm not sure that I agree with the advice not to "push yourself into liking" a film. Maybe our disagreement is rhetorical -- I'm sure you'd agree that it's a good thing to "be open-minded" -- but, for me, "open-mindedness" has something to do with the kind of "pushing" you're talking about.

I usually try to like a film until I'm sure I don't; sometimes, it takes me longer to be sure. (It seems unimaginable to me that I've now seen five Kevin Smith movies . . . but people kept telling me that they liked him.) On the other hand, I agree that you've got to be intellectually honest.

Anyway: I've enjoyed reading these posts. I'll admit that, a few days after watching the last of the movies in the set, my memory of the Ozu films is different from my memory of most other directors' movies. Perhaps because of the way the characters in these movies directly address the camera -- and maybe, too because of all of that boring time the viewer spends with them at dinner-tables and sushi-counters -- I do feel almost as though, instead of watching a movie, I was "invited into a Japanese home," as an essay I read yesterday put it. And when I finished the set, I did have a strange hunger for more, even though I can't say I enjoyed most of what I watched. It's as though the Ozu movies slowed my brain down in a pleasant way . . .

I'm into this idea that a filmmaker's movies can be worthwhile (or "great") despite their tendency to put even their admirers to sleep. I'm not being facetious (although I was kidding in my earlier post when I speculated about the "symbolism" of the teakettle; I'm not really so naive as to think that movies can be decoded in this way*); if we can agree, as a starting point, that watching these movies sometimes feels like watching paint dry, then perhaps I'll eventually agree that they're masterpieces. What frustrates me is hearing people defend a movie I didn't see. (E.g., the reviews that say things like "Ozu's films, while carefully paced, are never boring." Oh, piss off. Bergman and Fassbinder are probably my favorite directors, and I wouldn't say that their films "are never boring.")

* (Funny side-note: I recall an over-eager student in a film studies seminar asking the professor a deadly-serious question about "the symbolic power of water in the films of Charlie Chaplin." Uh . . .)

I think, Ornette, that you may have misread one part of my post. I wasn't using "revelation" in the sense of a plot twist; I meant "revelatory" in a broader way. Fassbinder, for instance (I know I'm starting to sound like a pathetic fanboy), often creates revelatory moments simply by slowing a scene down, or lingering on an image or an idea longer than another director would. (I also like Terence Malick -- and in his movies, the really important revelations aren't driven by the plot.)

Also, when I referred to Ozu's "conservatism," I wasn't referring to his politics or cultural worldview.

Oy -- I'll have to come back to this thread tomorrow (something for you all to look forward to -- right?); I think my computer [and/or brain] may be about to die. I do have some more questions about Ozu's attitude towards "drama." (I put drama in quotes because I'm not completely sure that he used the term in the way that I think of it.)

Thanks!

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#154 Post by Michael Kerpan » Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:42 pm

My Man Godfrey wrote:
First rule. Don't try to push yourself into liking anything (no matter what I or anyone else may say).

It took me at least 18 months to _begin_ to understand Naruse (from first exposure). Trying to rush the process would only have had negative consequences. And it took almost as long to come to grips with "Equinox Flower".
Quick point: doesn't that second paragraph contradict what you've been telling Sheldrake -- that he's made a mistake in buying the Ozu set, since his sensibilities are so different from Ozu's?
Perhaps. ;~} But I didn't react _negatively_ to the first Naruse films I saw, I just wasn't ready to two-time Ozu yet. I found my first Naruse films interesting -- and I more or less enjoy seeing them. It's just that I later realized, when I DID begin to actually fall in love with his films, that I really hadn't understood those first films very well when I first encountered them.
Also, while I'm lobbing a few ideas back at you, Kerpan, I'm not sure that I agree with the advice not to "push yourself into liking" a film. Maybe our disagreement is rhetorical -- I'm sure you'd agree that it's a good thing to "be open-minded" -- but, for me, "open-mindedness" has something to do with the kind of "pushing" you're talking about..
Everybody works differently. My response on being told I _must_ like something is to look for reasons not to like it. ;~}

I am probably NOT terribly open-minded -- when it comes to trying to appreciate the entire realm of world cinema. I know what I like -- and I know what I dislike -- and I know what I am indifferent to. My goal is to find (and watch) as much of category one as I can -- and avoid as much as I can of films in the other two groups.
Anyway: I've enjoyed reading these posts. I'll admit that, a few days after watching the last of the movies in the set, my memory of the Ozu films is different from my memory of most other directors' movies. Perhaps because of the way the characters in these movies directly address the camera -- and maybe, too because of all of that boring time the viewer spends with them at dinner-tables and sushi-counters -- I do feel almost as though, instead of watching a movie, I was "invited into a Japanese home," as an essay I read yesterday put it. And when I finished the set, I did have a strange hunger for more, even though I can't say I enjoyed most of what I watched. It's as though the Ozu movies slowed my brain down in a pleasant way . . .
Paradoxically, I find my brain works harder when watching Ozu than when watching most other films (except those of Hou). The seeming slowness of pace actually allows a much deeper engagement (and thus more mental work).
I'm into this idea that a filmmaker's movies can be worthwhile (or "great") despite their tendency to put even their admirers to sleep. I'm not being facetious (although I was kidding in my earlier post when I speculated about the "symbolism" of the teakettle; I'm not really so naive as to think that movies can be decoded in this way*); if we can agree, as a starting point, that watching these movies sometimes feels like watching paint dry, then perhaps I'll eventually agree that they're masterpieces. What frustrates me is hearing people defend a movie I didn't see. (E.g., the reviews that say things like "Ozu's films, while carefully paced, are never boring." Oh, piss off. Bergman and Fassbinder are probably my favorite directors, and I wouldn't say that their films "are never boring.")
I would never say Ozu's films ARE never boring -- I will only say I rarely am bored during them (and never at all during my many favorites). Nothing like watching paint dry for me -- though that WOULD describe my subjective experience during the one Tsai film I saw
Also, when I referred to Ozu's "conservatism," I wasn't referring to his politics or cultural worldview.
Ozu's political and social conservatism has been taken as a given (in the West) for decades -- largely due to the influential writings of Donald Richie. I think that Richie totally mis-reads Ozu on this issue.

Technically, his films are definitely not conservative -- his methods were pretty radically formalist -- nothing like that of more "typical" Japanese film makers.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#155 Post by zedz » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:17 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote: Nothing like watching paint dry for me -- though that WOULD describe my subjective experience during the one Tsai film I saw.
Darting off-topic: I don't disagree with your assessment (and I'd watch Tsai's paint dry anytime), but I'm curious about which film it was?

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#156 Post by Michael Kerpan » Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:44 pm

zedz wrote:
Michael Kerpan wrote: Nothing like watching paint dry for me -- though that WOULD describe my subjective experience during the one Tsai film I saw.
Darting off-topic: I don't disagree with your assessment (and I'd watch Tsai's paint dry anytime), but I'm curious about which film it was?
"What Time Is It There" -- which was the only film of Tsai that I thought I might want to see.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#157 Post by zedz » Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:19 am

Michael Kerpan wrote:"What Time Is It There" -- which was the only film of Tsai that I thought I might want to see.
You're probably right. It's one of his less difficult works (and I adore it!) However, if you ever want to have another go, the even more extreme (in terms of paint-drying inactivity or, if you prefer, hypnotic transcendence) Goodbye, Dragon Inn might be worth a look. He sort of pushes that aesthetic as far as it can go, so formally, at least, it's very interesting.

In terms of Ozu - since this is an Ozu thread - I didn't really know what to contribute to the discussion above, which I thought was extremely valuable: we shouldn't simply assume the greatness of designated auteurs. It's only by challenging and probing their works (and their reputations) that we can get a more profound understanding of them.

With Ozu's films, what I prize above all is his brilliant observation of human behaviour. I find more recognisable behaviour in these old films from a foreign culture than in any contemporary English-language films. And the characters and relationships in the films become more subtle and engaging with subsequent viewings. Even his lesser films offer moments of beautiful character insight; when he's working at the height of his powers (as in Early Summer) marginal characters can spring to vivid life in seconds.

He's also got a fascinating, idiosyncratic visual style. The more you explore it, the more idiosyncratic you realise it is, and the more gradated. Contrary to some critics, he didn't adopt a style and stick with it: it's ever-evolving. The miracle of it is that it offers no barrier whatsoever to audience engagement, and you can appreciate his films simultaneously as radical structuralist visual exercises or as absorbing melodramas. Even in his final film, he's devising new, spectacular effects that emerge specifically from his established style (i.e. effects that no other filmmaker could deliver in the same way), such as the sublime sequence of misdirected 'pillow shots' that almost, but don't quite, take us out to the ball game. Equinox Flower is nowhere near my favourite of his films, but it must surely be one of the most impressive first colour films ever shot. How many other directors began work in this redeveloped medium with a complete, coherent, personal philosophy of colour film?

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#158 Post by Michael Kerpan » Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:43 am

Ozu didn't refuse to use color out before Equinox Flower because of either willfulness or conservatism -- but because he thought the color film stock available in Japan in the early 50s was inadequate for what he would want to accomplish. And because the films he wanted to make in the middle of the decade were definitely not suited to color (Early Spring and Tokyo Twilight were clearly black and white-type films).

I agree Equinox flower shows Ozu was able to master color from the start. Ozu credited Kazuo Miyagawa for showing him how to use color -- but he clearly was no amateur in color use prior to his work with Miyagawa on Floating Weeds.

I think Ozu actually reached the height of his powers by the mid-30s -- and never really declined (alas, he died to early for this to happen). (Which is not to say that every film over the course of almost 30 years was equally successful).

User avatar
ltfontaine
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:34 pm

#159 Post by ltfontaine » Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:32 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:Ozu's political and social conservatism has been taken as a given (in the West) for decades -- largely due to the influential writings of Donald Richie. I think that Richie totally mis-reads Ozu on this issue.
Ozu's political and social conservatism is overstated—or perhaps just insufficiently investigated—in the West, but I'm not sure that Richie can be blamed for supporting this notion. In his bio of the director, Richie chides young Japanese for adopting a “reactionaryâ€

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#160 Post by Michael Kerpan » Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:05 pm

I think it is safe to say that Ozu was a liberal humanist in the 20s and 30s -- and that he never changed his overall perspective. Nonetheless, by the 50s and 60s, his sort of liberalism was at least superficially old-fashioned. But old-fashioned liberals are not necessarily conservatives.

Ozu was reticent about explicit political views (starting in the mid to late 30s at least), so his political and sociological views during his later years can only be guessed at. Nonetheless, how can one fail to see the clear-cut anti-patriarchal theme that runs through virtually every Ozu film from "Tokyo Twilight" through "Autumn Afternoon"? And how can such anti-patriarchalism be reconciled with "conservatism" (especially in the Japanese context).

Even though Ozu is (I think) adamantly anti-patriarchal, he is sympathetic to his wrong-headed patriarchs. He does not make them demons (even in "Tokyo Twilight" -- where the father is probably the worst one by far in all of Ozu's films), but rather portrays them as real people (who mostly believe, however erroneously, that they are behaving well). And he does not portray the children as blameless.

The anti-patriarchalism of the last films reflects a broader theme. One that starts no later than "Tenement Gentleman" -- and possibly as early as "Toda Family" (albeit only tenuously there) -- namely, the notion that Japan's "grown ups" had let down the people who depended on them. In Todas, an elderly mother and youngest sister; in "There Was a Father"; in "Tenement Gentleman", children in general; in "Hen in the Wind", wives and infant children. this thread was briefly interrupted (possible due to the post-war audience's resistance to the theme). It reared its head again, however -- with "Early Spring" diffusely (corporations crushing the lives of young working men and their wives) and "Tokyo Twilight", which was the most explicit of all.

Audience rejection of "Tokyo Twilight" did not cause Ozu to retreat -- but merely to attack from a different direction, using methods more like those used in the successful "Early summer" and "Tokyo Story" -- plus glorious color. Almost every subsequent film is a re-iteration of "Father (and/or his cronies) does NOT know best" -- but filled with warm and largely generous humor.

The most extreme case is probably "End of Summer". While it is impossible to dislike the roguish patriarch played by Ganjiro Nakamura, it should be equally impossible to miss the fact that he is a blighting force on the personal (and/or business) lives of almost everyone under his authority (most especially the women folk). At the end of the film, the sense of relief on the part of Setsuko Hara and Yoko Tsukasa is palpable.

If Ozu was less kind and even-handed to his fictional characters, perhaps the themes of his films (such as they are) would be easier to perceive. But then, presumably, Ozu wouldn't have been the Ozu we know and love.
ltfontaine wrote:I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying again with Tsai, but I tend to think that his work is stylistically consistent enough that, if one has seen one or two of his movies, and doesn't like them, it is unlikely that any of the others are going to catch one's fancy. I haven't yet seen The Wayward Cloud, though, so who knows?
I can confidently say that I wouldn't watch "Wayward Cloud" even if paid to do so. "Dragon Inn" I might watch -- if I could see it for free. ;~}

On the other hand, I can imagine that people who are not overly enthusiastic about late Ozu might nonetheless love some of his earlier work (especially the silents).
Last edited by Michael Kerpan on Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ltfontaine
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:34 pm

#161 Post by ltfontaine » Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:45 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:Nonetheless, how can one fail to see the clear-cut anti-patriarchal theme that runs through virtually every Ozu film from "Tokyo Twilight" through "Autumn Afternoon"? And how can such anti-patriarchalism be reconciled with "conservatism" (especially in the Japanese context).
Patriarchalism and its discontents certainly represent one of the “violentâ€

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#162 Post by Michael Kerpan » Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:18 pm

ltfontaine wrote:This theme is already evident even in silent films such as I Was Born But . . . and Passing Fancy, especially in the latter, in which Ozu's attitude toward (this edition of) Kihachi is much more tolerant than mine!
For some reason, these early films feel very different to me. "I Was Born But" doesn't really criticize the father -- but rather the socio-economic system that makes act the way he does. "Passing Fancy" portrays a rather irresponsible father -- but Kihachi here stands as a proto-Tora-san-like individual -- not as an embodiment of patriarchy.

The concept that social failure might be due (in part) to the collective failure of individuals to take responsibility seems to be a later development. "There Is a Father" is an especially interesting transitional work -- in that Chishu Ryu as the father assumes lots and lots of responsibilities -- but we are left wondering: were the responsibilities he chose to honor really the right ones after all?

My sense is that post-war Ozu films had a deeply unsettling core. A core so disconcerting that whenever Ozu's intent came too close to the surface, audiences ran away and critics complained. This happened three times -- with "Record of a Tenement Gentleman", "Hen in the Wind" and "Tokyo Twilight". The first two presented a somewhat more directly political approach than the last -- but all seem to ask the audience (especially the males) to consider their own personal responsibility regarding the disastrous war, its aftermath and the social malaise of the recovery period. Most of the color films also tended to deal with adult male irresponsibility -- but in a more comic fashion that may have been less "threatening", but still remained fairly pointed (IF taken to heart).

User avatar
Mr Sheldrake
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:09 pm
Location: Jersey burbs exit 4

#163 Post by Mr Sheldrake » Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:25 pm

I'm still not grasping Ozu's anti-patriarichal agenda in Tokyo Twilight after a second viewing. I suppose it emanates from the angry "your no daughter of mine" statement the father makes to his youngest daughter after she refuses to explain to him why she was picked up by the police. As someone who grew up in the 50s, my older sister would have been in for far worse than that by my father in a similiar situation. He certainly would have required her to explain herself. And my father was no patriarch. The daughter seemed old enough to be able to distinguish between things said in anger and true feelings. There is another scene where the father tells the older daughter he worried that she would become jealous because he doted on the younger daughter so much. There is no indication that he is being untruthful or that he hasn't been a loving father, bringing up two daughters on his own.

It seems to me within the overall context of the film, the mother is more to blame, for leaving her children when they were young. The point is reiterated that a child needs the love of both parents. Within the specific scenes of the film, the insensitive boyfriend from hell would get the most blame for the daughter's doom. She spends most of her time searching for him, he avoiding her, and when they do bump into each other, he gives her absolutely nothing but self-centered attitude.

The daughter, played with great intensity by the actress, is one of those Ozu characters so reticent they become hard for me to believe. Not confiding in the father I can grasp, but not confiding in her older sister seemed strange given her dire situation. She seems to exist solely as an illustration of the clear message of the film- the aforementioned "kids need the love of both parents", see what terrible things can happen when they don't have it. Ozu has the film close with Hara's solemn declaration that she is returning to her husband (in a couple of sketchy scenes he is portrayed as another self-centered male, and the marraige as loveless) , so that her 2yo daughter will not have to experience what her younger sister did.

I haven't been able to view Ozu as an agenda driven director. He strikes me as more a describer of life and human nature as he sees it, with sympathy for all. Ozu portrays the long lost mother with such sympathy, both daughters total rejection of her seems cruel. That father-doesn't-always-know-best theme is a pervasive theme of literature, its hardly radical. Artists are often critical of their society, even conservative ones.

Ozu's conservatism rests in his obsession with family, and the marrying off of children. The outside world is not to be trusted. Family trumps all, its only competition being life-long friendships. Who one marries is the most important decision we make in life, whether by arrangement or choice. Kind of ironic since Ozu never married himself, that bit of personal information always adds a layer of mystery to his films for me given those thematic obsessions.

Edit: I feel a need to add to my previous post that I think Tokyo Twilight is the most estimable film in this set. It is beautifully directed, each composition is absolute perfection, the story moves along at a perfectly modulated pace. It is a case of style triumphing over some problematic substance.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#164 Post by Michael Kerpan » Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:33 pm

The father in "Tokyo Twilight" is very much a failure. He is an object of derision to the secretaries at work. He forced his older daughter into a dreadful, loveless marriage (and seemingly blocked her from a marriage she wished). He has little interest in his younger daughter -- having seemingly left her to be raised mostly by her sister. One suspects that his wife may have had a reason for abandoning him -- and he lied to his children about what happened to their mother. He is distressed at having to be bothered by the problems of his daughters (prefering to do things like play pachinko instead) -- and is show as happy only when (at the end) he has rid himself of both. (A point Ozu underlines by showing us the first truly nice weather in the film). Chishu Ryu's smile at the end of this is positively chilling to me. (Contrast his attitude here to the heart-broken sadness of his character in Late Spring, where he had done his best to do right by his daughter).

Next time you watch this, note Hara's reaction to her father's clam that he had done so much to take care of his daughter(s). My reading of her reaction is that is one of shocked disbelief -- though she is constitutionally unable to contradict him. Is the father here wicked? No -- but he is massively selfish -- in a quiet passively-aggressive fashion. He may well sincerely believe he was an exemplary father -- but Ozu takes care to give us clues that he was a fairly disastrous one.

In the literature, Ozu's "conservatism" is linked with his supposed approval of patriarchal values. My point is that, whatever his politics in the 50s and 60s, his films are far more anti-patriarchal than pro-patriarchal.

I agree that "Tokyo Twilight" is the best film in the set -- but would rank "Equinox Flower" as a not too distant second. It really has to be seen as part of a matched set with "Tokyo Twilight" -- a point Ozu surely wanted us to notice -- given his selection of Ineko Arima as the rebellious daughter once again (albeit as one who has a happier fate).

User avatar
My Man Godfrey
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:47 pm
Location: Austin

#165 Post by My Man Godfrey » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:15 pm

Wow -- you guys are awesome. Really interesting stuff in this thread. (And I do feel my Ozu-resistance softening.)

Kerpan, I agree that nothing spoils a movie faster than being told you're not allowed to dislike it. (M*A*S*H and Nashville are two of the most infuriating examples of movies that nobody's allowed to "play rough with" these days -- ironic, since those movies were so iconoclastic and purposefully coarse. I love a lot of Altman -- Three Women and McCabe and Mrs. Miller are two of my all-time faves -- but I must have watched Nashville five times before I finally accepted that my first reaction -- vastly overrated, dated, confused, pretentious mess -- was essentially correct, and the rest of the world was crazy.)

One of my problems with these Ozu films is their reluctance to dramatize so many of the key events. Maybe I've heard the mantra "show, don't tell" too many times . . . but in my experience, showing usually IS a lot more interesting than telling. In so many of these Ozu films, ideas that could be eloquently expressed with a wordless shot or two, or a gesture, are instead expressed in lengthy dialogue.

At times, these Ozu movies remind me of Attic (or even Victorian) drama . . . where a soldier or random manservant will rush onto the stage and say, e.g., "Good lord! The King just committed suicide, and the Queen, after leaping from the tower into the spears of the advancing army, presented her daughter-in-law with a crown that had been cursed by a witch, causing the daughter-in-law to burst into flame! And now the girl's father, who's just cut out his eyes, is headed this way!" Of course, these scenes were presented obliquely largely because of technical limitations -- there were certain scenes that couldn't be staged convincingly. Film has eliminated a lot of those limitations; when a director chooses not to show something, it's presumably because the movie is stronger, in some way, without it. (To continue with my abject fanboyism, I love the total omission of the lottery win in Fox and His Friends.)

In Ozu's films, though, we often get, in monologue, these "character moments" that I'd prefer to see for myself. I have to say that, at this point, I do regard this as a flaw -- something that takes more from the movies than it adds.

Another of the hurdles I'm facing with these movies is the fact that, in most cases, I don't particularly care whether the two "romantic leads" (for lack of a better word) get together. Mr. Goto in -- is it Late Autumn?(apologies if I'm mixing the movies up; it's been a week) -- and the fiancee in Equinox Flower are two examples . . . I get that these are, in fact, desirable guys in the world of these movies -- that it would be best for the female protagonists if they ended up with these guys . . . but damn! The boyfriends are so frickin' dull! That scene in (again, sorry if I'm mixing up the movies) Equinox Flower, where the girl is at the home of the guy she wants to marry -- there's absolutely no intimacy there. Not even repressed intimacy, or a palpable desire for intimacy. I don't feel any warmth or attraction between the two. They seem embalmed!

In Early Spring, meanwhile, I did sense a charge between the co-workers who end up having an affair -- and my heart ached for the brushed-off lover in particular. In Early Spring, I got a powerful sense of people desperate to be fully alive in a way that their circumstances will never permit. I felt it, also, in the scene with the two young salarymen wistfully watching the college rowers.

Those scenes (the men watching the rowers -- or, to give another example, that exhilarating scene in Early Spring where the other hikers shrink away into the distance, leaving the soon-to-be lovers alone in the truckbed) gave me a taste of something I was thirsting for the rest of the time: more insight into the subjective experience of these characters. In a way, Ozu's films are like the stories of John Cheever, in which we glean almost everything about the characters by observing their "public selves." (In many of Cheever's stories, the omniscient narrator will refer to the protagonist as, e.g., "Mrs. Wilson" -- keeping the characters so much at arms-length that we aren't even put on a first-name basis.) With the Ozu films, I wanted, as I sometimes want when I'm reading Cheever, to know more about the private selves of these characters.

Anyway, thanks again to everyone for the insightful responses to my first post. (And as always, I reserve the right to change my mind about anything and everything. Except Kevin Smith.)

EDIT: Right, Kerpan -- Early Spring. My bad. (That was my Jackie Harvey moment.)
Last edited by My Man Godfrey on Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
King of Kong
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:32 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#166 Post by King of Kong » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:57 pm

Saw Early Spring last night. I haven't seen an Ozu film in a while and I almost forgot how great he was. While probably not up to the very high standard of Early Summer or Tokyo Story, this was a haunting and harrowing expose of the soul-destroying effects of white-collar life. Also the camaraderie scenes are some of the best I've seen in an Ozu film.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#167 Post by Michael Kerpan » Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:31 pm

My Man Godfrey --

You must mean Early Spring instead of Late...

I have to disagree on the notion that Ozu's films tell rather than show. There is remarkably little telling in the conventional sense -- much of the dialog is "inconsequential" in terms of surface content. Ozu shows everything -- but your emotional sensors have to be calibrated to Ozu's version of Japanese expressivity (which is far more reserved and taciturn than Western norms).

For whatever reason, I had almost no problem adjusting to Ozu's characters' mode of conveying emotions -- possibly because I have always found the over-expressivity that is almost inescapable in American cinema (and life) irksome. ;~}

Kong

I don't know that "Early Spring" is a lesser film that "Early summer" and "Tokyo Story". It certainly is a different sort of film -- and one which I don't _love_ as much. But the best parts of it (and there are many) are certainly extraordinary. The film certianly makes clear that the older Ozu was no Johnny-One-Note.

Jack Phillips
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:33 am

#168 Post by Jack Phillips » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:15 pm

I have been following this thread and enjoying the exchange of views. There are some very learned viewers here, and I doubt I have much to add. Still, when a discussion regarding Ozu starts relying of too many abstractions, I feel the need to speak up. What follows is my highly personal, idiosyncratic take on Ozu's late films (although I acknowledge a debt to Richie's book).

Famously, Ozu's gravestone is inscribed with the kanji for mu, a term meaning not “nothingness,â€

BB
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:58 pm
Location: Monster Island

#169 Post by BB » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:42 pm

To me, Ozu's depiction of human beings is some of the most honest, beautiful, and mysterious that has ever appeared on film.
Like other people on this board, I have related to Ozu's films on a profound level. Even though I'm an American who wasn't even born when Ozu was making his films I understand these people, more than I understand the characters in Western films.

If your looking to get hooked on the drama or laugh at the comedy I think your inevitably (or pretty quickly!) gonna be dissapointed. The films aren't about that. They're about... I don't know what... "real life"? I don't know...

Ozu's style is a paradox because it is at once both obvious and mysterious. For this reason I think Ozu is one of the most difficult film directors to talk about, because his method and even appeal is so hard to pin down.

Like a lot of people, I too was bored out of my mind the first time I watched an Ozu film. (Tokyo Story) But, being as I felt like I'd seen something that I've never seen in a movie before, I tried again. Even now, though I revere him as one of the truly great filmmakers, I am still underwhelmed whenever I see a "new" film of his for the first time. Only to come back to it a year or so later, and discover how much there is to be seen. Once your on his wavelength, his films are the gift that keeps on giving.

To me, Ozu's methods are such that he creates an artificial world that is nevertheless completely "real" and yet surreal at the exact same time. Good stuff.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#170 Post by Michael Kerpan » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:14 pm

Ozu understood, better than most, that it often takes a lot of artifice to make characters seem "real". ;~}

I think that one can, in fact, appreciate (and enjoy) both the comedy and drama in Ozu's films. These were, after all, made for ordinary movie goers -- who went to the theater to be entertained. One can certainly look at the films from other perspectives -- but one should not forget that these films (Tokyo Twilight excepted) were popular ones.

BB
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:58 pm
Location: Monster Island

#171 Post by BB » Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:15 am

Michael Kerpan wrote:I think that one can, in fact, appreciate (and enjoy) both the comedy and drama in Ozu's films. These were, after all, made for ordinary movie goers -- who went to the theater to be entertained. One can certainly look at the films from other perspectives -- but one should not forget that these films (Tokyo Twilight excepted) were popular ones.
Absolutely. I think the scene between the father and his co/worker underling at the Luna bar in Equinox Flower is hilarious! It's truthfulness makes it so.

User avatar
King of Kong
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:32 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#172 Post by King of Kong » Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:49 am

Michael Kerpan wrote:I think that one can, in fact, appreciate (and enjoy) both the comedy and drama in Ozu's films.
This is one of the characteristics that puts Ozu head and shoulders above many other film-makers - his seamless blending of comedy and drama. During our Ozu retrospective some years back, I discovered what a great experience it was seeing Ozu films with an audience - who were moved and entertained in equal measure.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#173 Post by Michael Kerpan » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:18 pm

My wife and I felt it really made a huge difference to see Ozu on the big screen -- with an audience (which contained a fair number of Japanese members). I was a bit surprised -- as I would have thought Ozu would scale equally well to television viewing.

It might be noted, however, that many of the Ozu premieres at our home had an audience of five. On some films we watched at home, we needed to stop the video until laughter could subside (e.g. the bar scene in Autumn Afternoon -- with Chishu Ryu, Daisuke Kato and Kyoko Kishida).

User avatar
Ornette
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:41 am

#174 Post by Ornette » Sun Jul 01, 2007 11:28 pm

My Man Godfrey wrote:I think, Ornette, that you may have misread one part of my post. I wasn't using "revelation" in the sense of a plot twist; I meant "revelatory" in a broader way.
Never mind about the "revelation" part in my post -- if plot twists were really your 'thang', you wouldn't even have found this forum in the first place (and needless to say, even bought the Ozu box set) -- it was just me accidentally trying to simplify things. Sorry about that -- will probably happen again.

ToKem
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: The Netherlands

#175 Post by ToKem » Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:56 am

My Man Godfrey wrote: In a way, Ozu's films are like the stories of John Cheever, in which we glean almost everything about the characters by observing their "public selves." (In many of Cheever's stories, the omniscient narrator will refer to the protagonist as, e.g., "Mrs. Wilson" -- keeping the characters so much at arms-length that we aren't even put on a first-name basis.) With the Ozu films, I wanted, as I sometimes want when I'm reading Cheever, to know more about the private selves of these characters.

I like the observation, it seems very adequate (although I don't know Cheever). Even though Ozu's films are about personal experiences, they way these films express and communicate them has a form which could be considered ‘objective'. In stead of a direct focus on inner feelings and thoughts, Ozu presents us another picture: the general and dynamic context in which these ‘subjective' instances have their place (and eventually everything individual or particular is housed). What you get to see as a viewer, is a world that is ordered according to its own 'logic', a world in which objects and people coexist naturally. A shot of a tea kettle in stead of a point of view shot, a shot of a woman pondering in stead of a 'rosebud'.

Post Reply