Yasujiro Ozu

There were plenty of little moments as you say in Once Upon a Time in the West, as much of the movie was facial. I just don't think the story of Late Spring is as "complete." And again, it's too familiar and typical of a story in the long run. It's well-made for its story, but it's still a simple one. Like how Dua Lipa makes really catchy songs, but they're still layered and structured like typical pop songs that have been done before for the last 20 years.

And the thing is, it's fine if Ozu isn't for everyone. Of course, he can't be. No one artist can appeal to every type of viewer.


Me and MKS will frequently have clashes over essentially philosophical ideas of what a film is. Technical craft to him, in isolation from anything else, can still have enormous value to him. Where to me, that particular ability always feels empty and almost pointless if it isn't tethered to some other deeper element, or if it doesn't offer me a glimpse of any kind of personality. Neither of us are right in our attitudes. But I can at least acknowledge the technical ability I dont care about, and he can acknowledge the personality even if he thinks it is a technical embarrassment.


And for some Ozu is never going to offer what they are looking for. He's too quiet. The emotions are buried too deeply. And thats all good. As long as we arent in a situation when someone keeps claiming that these things that all of these people are explaining and are claiming to love, aren't actually there. That somehow Ozu is trying to mask these flaws by making things pretty.


That is the kind of conversation that makes me want to tear my hair out.

I'm not sure I could name another 5 films about the relationship between an adult daughter and her shifting relationship with her father, with dual focus on the internal struggles of both characters.

And even if the story itself wasn't unique, I don't think that a story being simple is a negative. An apple is simple, but that doesn't mean it can't be just as rewarding as a 38-ingredient meal. In fact, the reward is partly in the simplicity, because it forces a higher degree of sensitivity, observation, and attention to nuance.

Obviously it's all subjective, but against the metric of "did this person accomplish what they set out to do?", I think Ozu comes out pretty well.

But technically the apple and a 48 ingredient meal are two different artforms. A simple apple is made through gardening, not cooking. And a 38 ingredient meal can easily be screwed up. I'd know since I'm not a very good cook, and I watch lots of Hell's Kitchen. The qualities of something depends on the care. Capturing realism in itself can be a skill, but if it's still an everyday-man's story, it's an everyday-man's story. Both DIRECTED their stories well, but the a writer who captures more and nails it is more impressive to me than a writer who captures one thing well. Hence the difference between Creed and Beatles. :P

I would argue the opposite.

I think that someone who can keep me glued to the screen just watching expressions change over what could be considered minute experiences has achieved just as much, if not more, than someone who keeps me captivated with a car chase.

Stop assuming this about about "action." Yi YI didn't have action, it was all about humanity from a plethora of angles, the same as Late Spring but with more to say. Same with all the other movies I listed. It expanded on the commentary with more information. I've seen plenty of empty car chases by this point. If this is a movie about the human condition, then the complexity of it should be addressed. And while it's possible to address a massive chunk of that with one angle, it's also very hard. And movies like Yi Yi prove that Late Spring didn't capture the biggest chunk it could've.

I think that taking a more focused look is not a weakness. It forces you more into the moment and into the minutiae of what they are experiencing.

Nothing against Yi Yi, but consider all the stuff that happens in it. All the things that are a "big deal":

Maybe a better comparison for me is when I do a puzzle. When the puzzle has lots of different colors, it is easy to sort the pieces. But when it's basically variations on black, my eyes start to adjust to the difference in tones.

Again, it's not about one being better than the other, but about how it creates a different experience as a viewer. Could Ozu have put more into Late Spring? I guess. But I don't think the movie would be as powerful if he had.

Yi Yi was a movie about how all the family's decisions affected each other, and it did so perfectly and realistically. This isn't about the level of the stakes, it's about the strength of the commentary. Even Before Sunrise could produce an incredible amount of commentary on romance while making plenty of room for realism, and without being preachy. If Ozu put more into Late Spring, then it would have to be about how her friends and family are affected by her decisions, and preferably in ways we can't guess on our own or ways and even minor struggles we could more easily relate to.


So yes, Ozu directed it well, and there was great acting, maybe even perfect dialogue. But any angle that one can dissect Late Spring's story, be it commentary, facial or thematic expression, realism, etc., was beaten out by several other movies focusing on those same things.

But adding these things would totally change the twin-sun dynamic of the film. Who cares how their friends and family are impacted? The heart of the film is the relationship between the father and the daughter and the way that each of them making choices impacts the other.

To me this is like saying that School of Athens is a better painting than the Mona Lisa because it shows more characters. I would argue that the frame around each painting (one of which is much more zoomed in) perfectly suits its subject matter. More is not always more.

Do these other characters have meaning, though? You're still missing the point. There is more thematic meaning in a movie with a whole family' struggles rather than just two people, or at least that is the case when one aspect is done just as well as any one of the multiple aspects of the other movie. One is a look at a whole family's life, which anyone can relate to in a plethora of ways because most people HAVE whole families and friends. A twin-sun dynamic can be created with other meaningful characters on the sidelines, which is often incorporated in buddy films. Take The Fisher King, for example.

I'm not missing the point. I just strongly disagree with this:

More themes/characters =/= more meaning, yes even if all of those themes/characters are done really well. There is power in not splitting the viewer's attention between different dynamics, but keeping you honed in on one dynamic.

This isn't a zero sum argument.

A great movie can interweave multiple characters and storylines.

A great movie can keep you dialed in to two or even just one character.

There is beauty and interest to be found in both and I would argue that you can find equal engagement and poingnance in both, even if one movie technically has "more".

The story between these two is no different than any other father daughter story. That sounds like a movie that needs a couple other characters to relate to them. So the dynamic they have is only directed well, and not written well enough to stand out. People who relate to this are relating to a story that gets by on a director's skill, when a very similar story could still be directed by Fred Olen Ray and have the same ending and dialogue. The family relationship theme is too complex for two characters, even if the family only has two members. Or at least expand on their relationship even more, like what happened with Before Sunrise.

Different artists have different philosophies on how they hope to affect their audience. The more of these different approaches we understand, or at least empathize with the rational behind, the better chance one has to appreciate more varied forms of expression.


But to do so, it is necessary to sometimes let go of what we are used to a piece of art doing, or what we simply legitimately prefer. This is the key to finding our way through unfamiliar waters. Try to figure out their intent, and then just let them guide you.


And so just like some people are always going to be resistant to a painting by Rothko (anyone can do that), or a composition by Harold Budd (nothing is happening), Ozu can be equally dismissed if we make assumptions that what he is attempting is ordinary filmmaking. The complaint about him almost always being, but everyone is just so ordinary, and his camera doesn't even move, how can this be so special??


I think in the particular case of Ozu, his work can sometimes slip between the cracks of what is considered a completely traditional movie, and what can almost be thought of as a muted kind of avantgardism, meaning he frequently doesn't get the benefit from either camp. He's too lackluster and samey and monotone for those who are looking for a movie with a bit of clearly defined punch (more angles!), and those who sway towards more experimental film, see little more than simple storytelling, and a very conservative approach to cinematic style.


But Ozu's greatness is born from how he can bridge these two camps. How he can tell extremely ordinary stories, with fairly standard narrative Beats, yet does so in a way the was revolutionary in regards to film theory.


He's kind of a difficult director. But one that everyone owes themself a chance to fall under the spell of. But this obviously will never happen when some people choose to discard every point that has been made towards trying to find a way into appreciating Ozu, and instead just keep battling from their one philosophical corner of what a movie is supposed to be in order to be considered great.


Humility is a requirement, especially in the case of this most humble of cinematic giants.

And yet it's a story that sticks with me more than any other father-daughter film I can think of. And it's not just because of the pretty angles.

Again, I'm fine with someone saying that they prefer a wider-scope story. What I'm taking exception to is the idea that Ozu messed up somehow by not bringing more characters into the spotlight in the story. That he missed a trick by not showing us how Noriko's BFF feels about everything that happens. I think that to have done that would be to unravel the very heart of the film. We have to sit with these characters, their decisions, and the impacts that those decisions have on each other, knowing or unknowing. Because in life, we have to sit with our choices. That core relationship is the whole universe of the movie, and that focus makes the final few minutes a powerful hit.

But these decisions are ones that everyone makes everyday. It's literally a story you could here from next door that doesn't even require "writing."

And that's nothing? Peoples' lives are not nothing, and I greatly appreciate an artist who is willing to explore the enormity of those little moments that aren't "worthy" of cinematic treatment.

Also, I'd argue that writing a movie that feels both real and like a movie at the same time takes a really deft hand.

Although I don’t have an issue with it, It’s so much more than His writing. It’s how he captures Noriko’s feelings. Without saying a word. The look in her face says it all. The way her father subtly convinced her to move on with her life. Her best friends look of quiet respect for the father.
Who cares if it’s a simple story? It’s the portrayal that matters.

That was a typo left from a mostly deleted sentence, so I'm gonna let you reread the edit.




That is a good aspect, but that doesn't mean the movie's perfect. A good thing is a good thing, and a flaw is a flaw. And yes, a good thing can potentially make up for a flaw, but simple writing is a hard thing to overcome.

It’s fine if you think it’s a flaw, but it’s so not one to many of us.

Eehhh, can you fix your grammar too, please?


Thing is, when I want a perfect movie, I want most things to be perfect, and am willing to allow something or a couple things that are minor not to be perfect. But not the writing. Simplicity and complexity might be able to be screwed up, but in the context of writing a good story it's a lot harder to write something complex and good than it is to make something simple good. A simple idea can only be pushed so far before you have to spruce it up, and sprucing it up with good direction and acting does help, but it doesn't distract from the fact that it is simple. For a simple idea to continue, it has to mutate, like The Turin Horse did, or even William Basinski's Disintegration Loops.